Example Of NutterLiteralism & Implications

[19efppp]

If I may be allowed to make this a topic... recently I made some such statement, "Fortunately for you, Marsh, Pappy is now beating up racists in heaven."

Now, I ask you, is it credible that thar be anybody out thar who does not
understand that this is intended to be a joke? Really? Is there any
literalist in all of JFK kookdom who does not recognize that this is an
attempt at humor? Of course Pappy is not beating up anybody in heaven. You
may not think it is funny, but surely you recognize that humor is the
intent. Do I really have to explain it? Of course not. Anybody who argues
against such a statement seriously must be arguing dishonestly. Right?

[19efppp]

Post by 19efppp
If I may be allowed to make this a topic... recently I made some such statement, "Fortunately for you, Marsh, Pappy is now beating up racists in heaven."
Now, I ask you, is it credible that thar be anybody out thar who does not
understand that this is intended to be a joke? Really? Is there any
literalist in all of JFK kookdom who does not recognize that this is an
attempt at humor? Of course Pappy is not beating up anybody in heaven. You
may not think it is funny, but surely you recognize that humor is the
intent. Do I really have to explain it? Of course not. Anybody who argues
against such a statement seriously must be arguing dishonestly. Right?

Now, to say that somebody is arguing dishonestly is an "ad hominem
attack," so I've been told, as if it is not relevant the issue being
discussed. But if somebody is arguing dishonestly, is that not relevant to
the discussion? Apparently, one is not allowed to name the particular
individual here, but we know who he is. He argues dishonestly. The term
applied to such a person might be "liar." It's not polite, but it is true.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Post by 19efppp

Post by 19efppp
If I may be allowed to make this a topic... recently I made some such statement, "Fortunately for you, Marsh, Pappy is now beating up racists in heaven."
Now, I ask you, is it credible that thar be anybody out thar who does not
understand that this is intended to be a joke? Really? Is there any
literalist in all of JFK kookdom who does not recognize that this is an
attempt at humor? Of course Pappy is not beating up anybody in heaven. You
may not think it is funny, but surely you recognize that humor is the
intent. Do I really have to explain it? Of course not. Anybody who argues
against such a statement seriously must be arguing dishonestly. Right?

Now, to say that somebody is arguing dishonestly is an "ad hominem
attack," so I've been told, as if it is not relevant the issue being
discussed. But if somebody is arguing dishonestly, is that not relevant to
the discussion? Apparently, one is not allowed to name the particular
individual here, but we know who he is. He argues dishonestly. The term
applied to such a person might be "liar." It's not polite, but it is true.

So you assume my intent, and based on your assumption, you label me a
liar.

Hilarious.

That is the logical fallacy of ad hominem. It seems you cannot post
without going there. Try discussing the points I made above the one you
take issue with here.

Hank

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by 19efppp
If I may be allowed to make this a topic... recently I made some such
statement, "Fortunately for you, Marsh, Pappy is now beating up racists
in heaven."
Now, I ask you, is it credible that thar be anybody out thar who does not
understand that this is intended to be a joke? Really? Is there any

I guess you sare trying to make a person insult, but it makes no sense.
Who is beating up racists?

Post by 19efppp
literalist in all of JFK kookdom who does not recognize that this is an
attempt at humor? Of course Pappy is not beating up anybody in heaven. You
may not think it is funny, but surely you recognize that humor is the\\ recognize that you makse no snse.
intent. Do I really have to explain it? Of course not. Anybody who argues
against such a statement seriously must be arguing dishonestly. Right?

[19efppp]

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by 19efppp
If I may be allowed to make this a topic... recently I made some such
statement, "Fortunately for you, Marsh, Pappy is now beating up racists
in heaven."
Now, I ask you, is it credible that thar be anybody out thar who does not
understand that this is intended to be a joke? Really? Is there any

I guess you sare trying to make a person insult, but it makes no sense.
Who is beating up racists?

Post by 19efppp
literalist in all of JFK kookdom who does not recognize that this is an
attempt at humor? Of course Pappy is not beating up anybody in heaven. You
may not think it is funny, but surely you recognize that humor is the\\ recognize that you makse no snse.
intent. Do I really have to explain it? Of course not. Anybody who argues
against such a statement seriously must be arguing dishonestly. Right?

The Marion Lykes has sailed, Marsh, and you missed it. Pappy, my man!
Pappy is beating up racists in heaven! Get with the program!

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Post by 19efppp
If I may be allowed to make this a topic... recently I made some such statement, "Fortunately for you, Marsh, Pappy is now beating up racists in heaven."
Now, I ask you, is it credible that thar be anybody out thar who does not
understand that this is intended to be a joke? Really? Is there any
literalist in all of JFK kookdom who does not recognize that this is an
attempt at humor? Of course Pappy is not beating up anybody in heaven. You
may not think it is funny, but surely you recognize that humor is the
intent. Do I really have to explain it? Of course not. Anybody who argues
against such a statement seriously must be arguing dishonestly. Right?

You're referring I believe to this post,
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/53mkHs9LoyU/m/FD6uZLlYAgAJ

Let me repeat all my points here, and point out why you're arguing
dishonestly.
== QUOTE ==

Post by 19efppp
According to the FBI, so you know it must be true,

No, that's false. The document you cite says, in part, "This document
contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI." It's not
according to the FBI. It's according to Ralph Neal. The FBI merely made a
memorandum for the record of what Neal reported.

The FBI was in a information-gathering stage when they took this report.
The document you cite is merely a report by a civilian of something he
says happened. So let's look at this report:

1. It's hearsay. Ralph Neal is making a series of claims about what he
heard 17 years prior to the assassination.
2. It's recollection. Ralph Neal is making claims about what he recalls
happened nearly two decades previous.
3. It's unverified. The FBI doesn't vouch for the veracity of the person
reporting the claims. They are merely making a note of the claims.
4. The report depends entirely on the veracity of the person reporting.

This may shock you, but people do say things at times to investigators
that aren't necessarily true. They may be making a correct report to the
best of their ability, but being human, get things wrong. They may be
mis-remembering things that occurred nearly two decades before. The
incident in question may be true, but two decades later, the person is
mis-remembering some of the details, like who the participants were. The
person making the report may bear a grudge against someone for something
that occurred between them, and they are deliberately reporting falsehoods
in an attempt to get that person they hold the grudge against in trouble.
Obviously, there is no way of knowing what is occurring with Neal's
report, and neither you nor I can vouch for the accuracy of the claims
reported therein.

So how did you eliminate all the problematic issues with this report of
recollection, and how can you say "it must be true"?


< Bill Decker threw a

Post by 19efppp
drink on a little colored boy who was only trying to make the people
smile.

According to this report of the supposed recollection of one Ralph Neal.
Any confirmation of this supposed incident from 1946? Are you swearing on
a bible that Ralph Neal recalled this supposed incident for 1946
perfectly, and wasn't in error about anything, and also wasn't making
anything up?

Post by 19efppp
And then Carl "Pappy" Dolson beat the shit out of Decker for so
doing.

According to the report of the recollection of one Ralph Neal. Obviously,
there are a number of problems with that report.
Not the least of which was Decker at the time was the "Chief Deputy
Sheriff".
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/decker.htm

== QUOTE ==
Mr. HUBERT - What is your occupation?
Mr. DECKER - I am Sheriff of Dallas County.
Mr. HUBERT - How long have you been sheriff?
Mr. DECKER - Since January 1, 1949.
Mr. HUBERT - Well, you have been reelected a number of times
Mr. DECKER - Yes,-sir.
Mr. HUBERT - How many times?
Mr. DECKER - I am serving my 16 years---I had two of those one of those
terms for a 4-year term, but we caught 2 years prior to that--that makes 4
from 16, leaves 12, 3 and I is 4 terms and I am coming for my fifth now.
Mr. HUBERT - What was your occupation prior to the time that you became
sheriff?
Mr. DECKER - I was chief deputy sheriff for Dallas County 14 years prior
to that. Prior to that I was chief deputy constable since 1924, prior to
that I was in the courthouse as a court clerk and prior to that I was
elevator operator in the courthouse. Now, that's it--that's my life.
== UNQUOTE ==


I find it amusing that you think a night club owner would take it upon
himself to refund all the patrons money and close his nightclub and beat
up a law enforcement officer and there wouldn't be repercussions.

Neal seems to understand that at a minimum, Decker could have Dolson
arrested and tried for assaulting a law enforcement officer, so he reports
"Police were not called". I also find it amusing that you think Decker
wouldn't have done anything about this supposed beating he was supposed
administered by the supposed nightclub owner, Dolson.

Post by 19efppp
Just be thankful, Marsh, that Pappy is now beating up racists in
heaven.
https://postimg.cc/YvYwR0kP

You appear to be assuming there is a heaven and that Pappy made it there.
Like all the other assumptions you make spelled out above.

Hank
== UNQUOTE ==

Now, there were a lot of points there that you're ignoring, and focusing
on the last one. But I ask you, why is you assume the above is a joke, but
the response is not intended in the same vein? I didn't see any emoticons
specifying it was a joke in the original post, and I didn't think I needed
to add any to the response. Yet you attribute ill-will to me, and none to
the original poster, because, after all, it's obviously a joke, right?

Your argument has two things against it: You're assuming what you need to
prove (ill-will and dishonesty) and the fact that, as you admit, Pappy
isn't beating anyone up in heaven, so it's also false. My argument has two
things in favor, it's still humorous, and it's factually correct, and
points out the logical fallacies imbedded within the joke.

Now try arguing the points I made.

Hank

[John Corbett]

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by 19efppp
If I may be allowed to make this a topic... recently I made some such statement, "Fortunately for you, Marsh, Pappy is now beating up racists in heaven."
Now, I ask you, is it credible that thar be anybody out thar who does not
understand that this is intended to be a joke? Really? Is there any
literalist in all of JFK kookdom who does not recognize that this is an
attempt at humor? Of course Pappy is not beating up anybody in heaven. You
may not think it is funny, but surely you recognize that humor is the
intent. Do I really have to explain it? Of course not. Anybody who argues
against such a statement seriously must be arguing dishonestly. Right?

You're referring I believe to this post,
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/53mkHs9LoyU/m/FD6uZLlYAgAJ
Let me repeat all my points here, and point out why you're arguing
dishonestly.
== QUOTE ==

Post by 19efppp
According to the FBI, so you know it must be true,

No, that's false. The document you cite says, in part, "This document
contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI." It's not
according to the FBI. It's according to Ralph Neal. The FBI merely made a
memorandum for the record of what Neal reported.
The FBI was in a information-gathering stage when they took this report.
The document you cite is merely a report by a civilian of something he
1. It's hearsay. Ralph Neal is making a series of claims about what he
heard 17 years prior to the assassination.
2. It's recollection. Ralph Neal is making claims about what he recalls
happened nearly two decades previous.
3. It's unverified. The FBI doesn't vouch for the veracity of the person
reporting the claims. They are merely making a note of the claims.
4. The report depends entirely on the veracity of the person reporting.
This may shock you, but people do say things at times to investigators
that aren't necessarily true. They may be making a correct report to the
best of their ability, but being human, get things wrong. They may be
mis-remembering things that occurred nearly two decades before. The
incident in question may be true, but two decades later, the person is
mis-remembering some of the details, like who the participants were. The
person making the report may bear a grudge against someone for something
that occurred between them, and they are deliberately reporting falsehoods
in an attempt to get that person they hold the grudge against in trouble.
Obviously, there is no way of knowing what is occurring with Neal's
report, and neither you nor I can vouch for the accuracy of the claims
reported therein.
So how did you eliminate all the problematic issues with this report of
recollection, and how can you say "it must be true"?
< Bill Decker threw a

Post by 19efppp
drink on a little colored boy who was only trying to make the people
smile.

According to this report of the supposed recollection of one Ralph Neal.
Any confirmation of this supposed incident from 1946? Are you swearing on
a bible that Ralph Neal recalled this supposed incident for 1946
perfectly, and wasn't in error about anything, and also wasn't making
anything up?

Post by 19efppp
And then Carl "Pappy" Dolson beat the shit out of Decker for so
doing.

According to the report of the recollection of one Ralph Neal. Obviously,
there are a number of problems with that report.
Not the least of which was Decker at the time was the "Chief Deputy
Sheriff".
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/decker.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. HUBERT - What is your occupation?
Mr. DECKER - I am Sheriff of Dallas County.
Mr. HUBERT - How long have you been sheriff?
Mr. DECKER - Since January 1, 1949.
Mr. HUBERT - Well, you have been reelected a number of times
Mr. DECKER - Yes,-sir.
Mr. HUBERT - How many times?
Mr. DECKER - I am serving my 16 years---I had two of those one of those
terms for a 4-year term, but we caught 2 years prior to that--that makes 4
from 16, leaves 12, 3 and I is 4 terms and I am coming for my fifth now.
Mr. HUBERT - What was your occupation prior to the time that you became
sheriff?
Mr. DECKER - I was chief deputy sheriff for Dallas County 14 years prior
to that. Prior to that I was chief deputy constable since 1924, prior to
that I was in the courthouse as a court clerk and prior to that I was
elevator operator in the courthouse. Now, that's it--that's my life.
== UNQUOTE ==
I find it amusing that you think a night club owner would take it upon
himself to refund all the patrons money and close his nightclub and beat
up a law enforcement officer and there wouldn't be repercussions.
Neal seems to understand that at a minimum, Decker could have Dolson
arrested and tried for assaulting a law enforcement officer, so he reports
"Police were not called". I also find it amusing that you think Decker
wouldn't have done anything about this supposed beating he was supposed
administered by the supposed nightclub owner, Dolson.

Post by 19efppp
Just be thankful, Marsh, that Pappy is now beating up racists in
heaven.
https://postimg.cc/YvYwR0kP

You appear to be assuming there is a heaven and that Pappy made it there.
Like all the other assumptions you make spelled out above.
Hank
== UNQUOTE ==
Now, there were a lot of points there that you're ignoring, and focusing
on the last one. But I ask you, why is you assume the above is a joke, but
the response is not intended in the same vein? I didn't see any emoticons
specifying it was a joke in the original post, and I didn't think I needed
to add any to the response. Yet you attribute ill-will to me, and none to
the original poster, because, after all, it's obviously a joke, right?
Your argument has two things against it: You're assuming what you need to
prove (ill-will and dishonesty) and the fact that, as you admit, Pappy
isn't beating anyone up in heaven, so it's also false. My argument has two
things in favor, it's still humorous, and it's factually correct, and
points out the logical fallacies imbedded within the joke.
Now try arguing the points I made.

You make excellent points and that extends to just about everything that
is contained in the WC's 26 volumes. Those volumes are nothing more than a
repository of raw data collected during the investigation. They contain no
actual findings of the WC, rather they are the raw data on which the
findings were based. Not all of the raw data collected was credible
evidence. In some cases, it was contradictory. It was the task of the WC
to sift through all that raw data and determine what pieces were probative
and which where not. In some cases, the WC was unable to resolve the
conflicts and refrained from reaching a conclusion. For example they
reached no definitive conclusion as to which of Oswald's three shots
missed. They did this because of the conflicting accounts as to how the
shooting actually happened and so they simply presented the arguments for
and against each of the possible scenarios, a missed first shot, missed
second shot, and missed third shot. They even allowed for there having
been no misses and that Oswald only fired two shots. Somehow, for many
years, the second shot miss requiring an elapsed time of 5.6 seconds for
all three shots seemed to be accepted as a conclusion of the WC even
though they reached no such conclusion. When I first began participating
in discussion groups way back in the 1990s (our Prodigy group), that
seemed to be the consensus among both CTs and LNs. A rereading of the WCR
which I had first read when it came out, told me the WC was noncommittal
about which shot missed. When I began pointing this out to people on the
CT side, some accused me of trying to rewrite the WC conclusions decades
after the fact. They had for years attacked the plausibility of the second
shot miss scenario and thought I was moving the goal posts when I began
arguing that there was a first shot miss. The reality is there never were
any goal posts to be moved because the WC had never set any goal posts on
this issue. I remember when Gerald Posner went on TV to promote his book
Case Closed, even he was falsely claiming that the WC concluded a second
shot miss and acted as if he was setting the record straight with his
book. A second shot miss conclusion was a misconception, not a reality.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by 19efppp
If I may be allowed to make this a topic... recently I made some such statement, "Fortunately for you, Marsh, Pappy is now beating up racists in heaven."
Now, I ask you, is it credible that thar be anybody out thar who does not
understand that this is intended to be a joke? Really? Is there any
literalist in all of JFK kookdom who does not recognize that this is an
attempt at humor? Of course Pappy is not beating up anybody in heaven. You
may not think it is funny, but surely you recognize that humor is the
intent. Do I really have to explain it? Of course not. Anybody who argues
against such a statement seriously must be arguing dishonestly. Right?

You're referring I believe to this post,
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/53mkHs9LoyU/m/FD6uZLlYAgAJ
Let me repeat all my points here, and point out why you're arguing
dishonestly.
== QUOTE ==

Post by 19efppp
According to the FBI, so you know it must be true,

No, that's false. The document you cite says, in part, "This document
contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI." It's not
according to the FBI. It's according to Ralph Neal. The FBI merely made a
memorandum for the record of what Neal reported.
The FBI was in a information-gathering stage when they took this report.
The document you cite is merely a report by a civilian of something he
1. It's hearsay. Ralph Neal is making a series of claims about what he
heard 17 years prior to the assassination.
2. It's recollection. Ralph Neal is making claims about what he recalls
happened nearly two decades previous.
3. It's unverified. The FBI doesn't vouch for the veracity of the person
reporting the claims. They are merely making a note of the claims.
4. The report depends entirely on the veracity of the person reporting.
This may shock you, but people do say things at times to investigators
that aren't necessarily true. They may be making a correct report to the
best of their ability, but being human, get things wrong. They may be
mis-remembering things that occurred nearly two decades before. The
incident in question may be true, but two decades later, the person is
mis-remembering some of the details, like who the participants were. The
person making the report may bear a grudge against someone for something
that occurred between them, and they are deliberately reporting falsehoods
in an attempt to get that person they hold the grudge against in trouble.
Obviously, there is no way of knowing what is occurring with Neal's
report, and neither you nor I can vouch for the accuracy of the claims
reported therein.
So how did you eliminate all the problematic issues with this report of
recollection, and how can you say "it must be true"?
< Bill Decker threw a

Post by 19efppp
drink on a little colored boy who was only trying to make the people
smile.

According to this report of the supposed recollection of one Ralph Neal.
Any confirmation of this supposed incident from 1946? Are you swearing on
a bible that Ralph Neal recalled this supposed incident for 1946
perfectly, and wasn't in error about anything, and also wasn't making
anything up?

Post by 19efppp
And then Carl "Pappy" Dolson beat the shit out of Decker for so
doing.

According to the report of the recollection of one Ralph Neal. Obviously,
there are a number of problems with that report.
Not the least of which was Decker at the time was the "Chief Deputy
Sheriff".
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/decker.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. HUBERT - What is your occupation?
Mr. DECKER - I am Sheriff of Dallas County.
Mr. HUBERT - How long have you been sheriff?
Mr. DECKER - Since January 1, 1949.
Mr. HUBERT - Well, you have been reelected a number of times
Mr. DECKER - Yes,-sir.
Mr. HUBERT - How many times?
Mr. DECKER - I am serving my 16 years---I had two of those one of those
terms for a 4-year term, but we caught 2 years prior to that--that makes 4
from 16, leaves 12, 3 and I is 4 terms and I am coming for my fifth now.
Mr. HUBERT - What was your occupation prior to the time that you became
sheriff?
Mr. DECKER - I was chief deputy sheriff for Dallas County 14 years prior
to that. Prior to that I was chief deputy constable since 1924, prior to
that I was in the courthouse as a court clerk and prior to that I was
elevator operator in the courthouse. Now, that's it--that's my life.
== UNQUOTE ==
I find it amusing that you think a night club owner would take it upon
himself to refund all the patrons money and close his nightclub and beat
up a law enforcement officer and there wouldn't be repercussions.
Neal seems to understand that at a minimum, Decker could have Dolson
arrested and tried for assaulting a law enforcement officer, so he reports
"Police were not called". I also find it amusing that you think Decker
wouldn't have done anything about this supposed beating he was supposed
administered by the supposed nightclub owner, Dolson.

Post by 19efppp
Just be thankful, Marsh, that Pappy is now beating up racists in
heaven.
https://postimg.cc/YvYwR0kP

You appear to be assuming there is a heaven and that Pappy made it there.
Like all the other assumptions you make spelled out above.
Hank
== UNQUOTE ==
Now, there were a lot of points there that you're ignoring, and focusing
on the last one. But I ask you, why is you assume the above is a joke, but
the response is not intended in the same vein? I didn't see any emoticons
specifying it was a joke in the original post, and I didn't think I needed
to add any to the response. Yet you attribute ill-will to me, and none to
the original poster, because, after all, it's obviously a joke, right?
Your argument has two things against it: You're assuming what you need to
prove (ill-will and dishonesty) and the fact that, as you admit, Pappy
isn't beating anyone up in heaven, so it's also false. My argument has two
things in favor, it's still humorous, and it's factually correct, and
points out the logical fallacies imbedded within the joke.
Now try arguing the points I made.

You make excellent points and that extends to just about everything that
is contained in the WC's 26 volumes. Those volumes are nothing more than a
repository of raw data collected during the investigation. They contain no
actual findings of the WC, rather they are the raw data on which the
findings were based. Not all of the raw data collected was credible
evidence. In some cases, it was contradictory. It was the task of the WC
to sift through all that raw data and determine what pieces were probative
and which where not. In some cases, the WC was unable to resolve the
conflicts and refrained from reaching a conclusion. For example they
reached no definitive conclusion as to which of Oswald's three shots
missed. They did this because of the conflicting accounts as to how the
shooting actually happened and so they simply presented the arguments for
and against each of the possible scenarios, a missed first shot, missed
second shot, and missed third shot. They even allowed for there having
been no misses and that Oswald only fired two shots. Somehow, for many
years, the second shot miss requiring an elapsed time of 5.6 seconds for
all three shots seemed to be accepted as a conclusion of the WC even
though they reached no such conclusion. When I first began participating
in discussion groups way back in the 1990s (our Prodigy group), that
seemed to be the consensus among both CTs and LNs. A rereading of the WCR
which I had first read when it came out, told me the WC was noncommittal
about which shot missed. When I began pointing this out to people on the
CT side, some accused me of trying to rewrite the WC conclusions decades
after the fact. They had for years attacked the plausibility of the second
shot miss scenario and thought I was moving the goal posts when I began
arguing that there was a first shot miss. The reality is there never were
any goal posts to be moved because the WC had never set any goal posts on
this issue. I remember when Gerald Posner went on TV to promote his book
Case Closed, even he was falsely claiming that the WC concluded a second
shot miss and acted as if he was setting the record straight with his
book. A second shot miss conclusion was a misconception, not a reality.

It was never a misconception, it was a lie by conspiracy authors.

It was always easier for conspiracy authors to argue against Oswald
committing the assassination in 5.6 seconds than in upwards of seven,
eight, or nine seconds, so conspiracy theorists simply ignored the
first-shot-miss scenario and the last-shot-miss scenario (both of which
allowed over eight seconds for three shots) and argued only against the
middle-shot-miss scenario, which allowed the least amount of time for
Oswald to commit the assassination. They did that by either ignoring the
other possible scenarios entirely, or excluding those scenarios based on
their own invalid reasoning.

For example. Mark Lane wrote in his RUSH TO JUDGMENT only that:

"However, the Commission concluded: The various tests showed that the
Mannlicher-Carcano was an accurate rifle and that the use of a four-power
scope was a substantial aid to rapid, accurate firing . . . Oswald had the
capability to fire three shots, with two hits, within 4.8 and 5.6
seconds."

Lane makes no mention of the more expansive times allowed by a first or
last shot miss that the Commission accepted was possible.

Josiah Thompson wrote in SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS, dismissing the possibility
of a first shot miss this way:

"The color movie taken by Robert Hughes, who stood at the corner of Main
and Houston streets, is of even greater importance, yet scant mention is
made of it in the 26 volumes. Hughes stopped taking pictures just seconds
before the first shot, but even so the Commission's lack of interest is
difficult to understand, since Hughes's camera range included the windows
on the sixth floor of the Depository —right up until the time the
limousine turned the last corner. The FBI apparently studied one it also
had), and statements made to the Commission by witnesses on the scene
prove beyond a doubt that the first shot fired was the one that hit. The
Commission, however, without bothering to piece together the available
evidence, stoutly maintained that the first shot might have missed."

After dealing separately with the first and second shots, Thompson goes
into a chapter arguing for two head shots, and never deals with a third
shot miss scenario at all that I could find.

Thompson in fact favored a four-shot, four-hit scenario from three
different riflemen. He dismissed the three-shot, one miss scenario this
way:

"If Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet, then only one other
bullet could have struck in the car. But most witnesses heard three shots
and the Commission knew that three cartridge cases had been found in the
Depository. Thus a third shot must have been fired but missed the car
entirely. Through the device of vagueness—by stating that a shot
missed but not stating which one it was—the Commission could
conceal the paucity of evidence for such a miss. By again ignoring the
great weight of testimony indicating that no shots missed, a ramshackle
case could be put together."

Sylvia Meagher in ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT, like Lane in RUSH TO
JUDGMENT, pretends the shooter had only 5.6 seconds at most to fire all
three shots. She explicitly states this on page 108 of her book, in
comparing the times of the three test shooters for the Army (Hendrix,
Staley, and Miller) with that of what she calls the "Alleged Assassin,
November 22, 1963". In that chart she prepared, she states the "Alleged
Assassin" had a "Maximum of 5.6 seconds".

A "Maximum of 5.6 seconds" is a complete falsehood by Meagher.

She needs to falsely state the maximum because she compares that time to
the six times compiled with the scope of the three test shooters: 8.25 and
7.0 seconds by Hendrix, 6.75 and 6.25 seconds by Staley, and 4.6 and 5.15
seconds by Miller.

She couldn't dismiss Oswald as the shooter by dealing with the legitimate
time the Commission allowed for the shooting by Oswald (upwards of 9
seconds) so she had to dismiss Oswald as the shooter by dealing
illegimately with what the Commission actually said and pretending the
shooter had only 5.6 seconds at most. It was a lie when she published it
and it remains a lie today.

Hank

[David Von Pein]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/five-point-six-seconds-myth.html

[John Corbett]

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by 19efppp
If I may be allowed to make this a topic... recently I made some such statement, "Fortunately for you, Marsh, Pappy is now beating up racists in heaven."
Now, I ask you, is it credible that thar be anybody out thar who does not
understand that this is intended to be a joke? Really? Is there any
literalist in all of JFK kookdom who does not recognize that this is an
attempt at humor? Of course Pappy is not beating up anybody in heaven. You
may not think it is funny, but surely you recognize that humor is the
intent. Do I really have to explain it? Of course not. Anybody who argues
against such a statement seriously must be arguing dishonestly. Right?

You're referring I believe to this post,
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/53mkHs9LoyU/m/FD6uZLlYAgAJ
Let me repeat all my points here, and point out why you're arguing
dishonestly.
== QUOTE ==

Post by 19efppp
According to the FBI, so you know it must be true,

No, that's false. The document you cite says, in part, "This document
contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI." It's not
according to the FBI. It's according to Ralph Neal. The FBI merely made a
memorandum for the record of what Neal reported.
The FBI was in a information-gathering stage when they took this report.
The document you cite is merely a report by a civilian of something he
1. It's hearsay. Ralph Neal is making a series of claims about what he
heard 17 years prior to the assassination.
2. It's recollection. Ralph Neal is making claims about what he recalls
happened nearly two decades previous.
3. It's unverified. The FBI doesn't vouch for the veracity of the person
reporting the claims. They are merely making a note of the claims.
4. The report depends entirely on the veracity of the person reporting.
This may shock you, but people do say things at times to investigators
that aren't necessarily true. They may be making a correct report to the
best of their ability, but being human, get things wrong. They may be
mis-remembering things that occurred nearly two decades before. The
incident in question may be true, but two decades later, the person is
mis-remembering some of the details, like who the participants were. The
person making the report may bear a grudge against someone for something
that occurred between them, and they are deliberately reporting falsehoods
in an attempt to get that person they hold the grudge against in trouble.
Obviously, there is no way of knowing what is occurring with Neal's
report, and neither you nor I can vouch for the accuracy of the claims
reported therein.
So how did you eliminate all the problematic issues with this report of
recollection, and how can you say "it must be true"?
< Bill Decker threw a

Post by 19efppp
drink on a little colored boy who was only trying to make the people
smile.

According to this report of the supposed recollection of one Ralph Neal.
Any confirmation of this supposed incident from 1946? Are you swearing on
a bible that Ralph Neal recalled this supposed incident for 1946
perfectly, and wasn't in error about anything, and also wasn't making
anything up?

Post by 19efppp
And then Carl "Pappy" Dolson beat the shit out of Decker for so
doing.

According to the report of the recollection of one Ralph Neal. Obviously,
there are a number of problems with that report.
Not the least of which was Decker at the time was the "Chief Deputy
Sheriff".
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/decker.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. HUBERT - What is your occupation?
Mr. DECKER - I am Sheriff of Dallas County.
Mr. HUBERT - How long have you been sheriff?
Mr. DECKER - Since January 1, 1949.
Mr. HUBERT - Well, you have been reelected a number of times
Mr. DECKER - Yes,-sir.
Mr. HUBERT - How many times?
Mr. DECKER - I am serving my 16 years---I had two of those one of those
terms for a 4-year term, but we caught 2 years prior to that--that makes 4
from 16, leaves 12, 3 and I is 4 terms and I am coming for my fifth now.
Mr. HUBERT - What was your occupation prior to the time that you became
sheriff?
Mr. DECKER - I was chief deputy sheriff for Dallas County 14 years prior
to that. Prior to that I was chief deputy constable since 1924, prior to
that I was in the courthouse as a court clerk and prior to that I was
elevator operator in the courthouse. Now, that's it--that's my life.
== UNQUOTE ==
I find it amusing that you think a night club owner would take it upon
himself to refund all the patrons money and close his nightclub and beat
up a law enforcement officer and there wouldn't be repercussions.
Neal seems to understand that at a minimum, Decker could have Dolson
arrested and tried for assaulting a law enforcement officer, so he reports
"Police were not called". I also find it amusing that you think Decker
wouldn't have done anything about this supposed beating he was supposed
administered by the supposed nightclub owner, Dolson.

Post by 19efppp
Just be thankful, Marsh, that Pappy is now beating up racists in
heaven.
https://postimg.cc/YvYwR0kP

You appear to be assuming there is a heaven and that Pappy made it there.
Like all the other assumptions you make spelled out above.
Hank
== UNQUOTE ==
Now, there were a lot of points there that you're ignoring, and focusing
on the last one. But I ask you, why is you assume the above is a joke, but
the response is not intended in the same vein? I didn't see any emoticons
specifying it was a joke in the original post, and I didn't think I needed
to add any to the response. Yet you attribute ill-will to me, and none to
the original poster, because, after all, it's obviously a joke, right?
Your argument has two things against it: You're assuming what you need to
prove (ill-will and dishonesty) and the fact that, as you admit, Pappy
isn't beating anyone up in heaven, so it's also false. My argument has two
things in favor, it's still humorous, and it's factually correct, and
points out the logical fallacies imbedded within the joke.
Now try arguing the points I made.

You make excellent points and that extends to just about everything that
is contained in the WC's 26 volumes. Those volumes are nothing more than a
repository of raw data collected during the investigation. They contain no
actual findings of the WC, rather they are the raw data on which the
findings were based. Not all of the raw data collected was credible
evidence. In some cases, it was contradictory. It was the task of the WC
to sift through all that raw data and determine what pieces were probative
and which where not. In some cases, the WC was unable to resolve the
conflicts and refrained from reaching a conclusion. For example they
reached no definitive conclusion as to which of Oswald's three shots
missed. They did this because of the conflicting accounts as to how the
shooting actually happened and so they simply presented the arguments for
and against each of the possible scenarios, a missed first shot, missed
second shot, and missed third shot. They even allowed for there having
been no misses and that Oswald only fired two shots. Somehow, for many
years, the second shot miss requiring an elapsed time of 5.6 seconds for
all three shots seemed to be accepted as a conclusion of the WC even
though they reached no such conclusion. When I first began participating
in discussion groups way back in the 1990s (our Prodigy group), that
seemed to be the consensus among both CTs and LNs. A rereading of the WCR
which I had first read when it came out, told me the WC was noncommittal
about which shot missed. When I began pointing this out to people on the
CT side, some accused me of trying to rewrite the WC conclusions decades
after the fact. They had for years attacked the plausibility of the second
shot miss scenario and thought I was moving the goal posts when I began
arguing that there was a first shot miss. The reality is there never were
any goal posts to be moved because the WC had never set any goal posts on
this issue. I remember when Gerald Posner went on TV to promote his book
Case Closed, even he was falsely claiming that the WC concluded a second
shot miss and acted as if he was setting the record straight with his
book. A second shot miss conclusion was a misconception, not a reality.

It was never a misconception, it was a lie by conspiracy authors.

Not just conspiracy authors. As I pointed out, Posner also made that false
assertion. Going back to our Prodigy group, I remember a few LNs who also
believed that was the conclusion of the WC and I think there was one who
actually defended that position although I can't give you specific names
since it was almost 30 years ago.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
It was always easier for conspiracy authors to argue against Oswald
committing the assassination in 5.6 seconds than in upwards of seven,
eight, or nine seconds, so conspiracy theorists simply ignored the
first-shot-miss scenario and the last-shot-miss scenario (both of which
allowed over eight seconds for three shots) and argued only against the
middle-shot-miss scenario, which allowed the least amount of time for
Oswald to commit the assassination. They did that by either ignoring the
other possible scenarios entirely, or excluding those scenarios based on
their own invalid reasoning.

That is the reason so many of them got pissed off at me for pointing out
that the WC did not conclude that. After arguing against the second shot
miss scenario for so many years, they thought I was attempting to save the
WCR by rewriting its conclusion on this point when in fact there was no
conclusion. They simply pointed out the various possibilities.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
"However, the Commission concluded: The various tests showed that the
Mannlicher-Carcano was an accurate rifle and that the use of a four-power
scope was a substantial aid to rapid, accurate firing . . . Oswald had the
capability to fire three shots, with two hits, within 4.8 and 5.6
seconds."
Lane makes no mention of the more expansive times allowed by a first or
last shot miss that the Commission accepted was possible.

While it was determined it was possible to do the shooting in 5.6 seconds,
it is highly improbable given that it allows almost no time for
reacquiring the target and aiming. They found that the single bullet was
fired somewhere between Z210 and Z225 based on Z210 being the first frame
JFK was in the clear and that JFK was reacting when he reappeared at Z225.
He actually did not start reacting until 226 but that is quibbling. Since
single bullet was actually fired about 90 frames before the headshot, that
reduces the total time for a second shot miss scenario to 4.9 seconds,
making it even more improbable.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Josiah Thompson wrote in SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS, dismissing the possibility
"The color movie taken by Robert Hughes, who stood at the corner of Main
and Houston streets, is of even greater importance, yet scant mention is
made of it in the 26 volumes. Hughes stopped taking pictures just seconds
before the first shot, but even so the Commission's lack of interest is
difficult to understand, since Hughes's camera range included the windows
on the sixth floor of the Depository —right up until the time the
limousine turned the last corner. The FBI apparently studied one it also
had), and statements made to the Commission by witnesses on the scene
prove beyond a doubt that the first shot fired was the one that hit. The
Commission, however, without bothering to piece together the available
evidence, stoutly maintained that the first shot might have missed."
After dealing separately with the first and second shots, Thompson goes
into a chapter arguing for two head shots, and never deals with a third
shot miss scenario at all that I could find.
Thompson in fact favored a four-shot, four-hit scenario from three
different riflemen. He dismissed the three-shot, one miss scenario this

I have never read Six Seconds in Dallas and this description alone tells
me I was wise not to waste my time on it. I wasted enough with Best
Evidence, Plausible Denial, and Mafia Kingfish. That is time I will never
get back.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
"If Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet, then only one other
bullet could have struck in the car. But most witnesses heard three shots
and the Commission knew that three cartridge cases had been found in the
Depository. Thus a third shot must have been fired but missed the car
entirely. Through the device of vagueness—by stating that a shot
missed but not stating which one it was—the Commission could
conceal the paucity of evidence for such a miss. By again ignoring the
great weight of testimony indicating that no shots missed, a ramshackle
case could be put together."
Sylvia Meagher in ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT, like Lane in RUSH TO
JUDGMENT, pretends the shooter had only 5.6 seconds at most to fire all
three shots. She explicitly states this on page 108 of her book, in
comparing the times of the three test shooters for the Army (Hendrix,
Staley, and Miller) with that of what she calls the "Alleged Assassin,
November 22, 1963". In that chart she prepared, she states the "Alleged
Assassin" had a "Maximum of 5.6 seconds".
A "Maximum of 5.6 seconds" is a complete falsehood by Meagher.

One that has been repeated countless times over the decades although I
have to say not nearly as often as it was 30 years ago when I first began
to debate the CTs. I think they have come to accept the current LN
consensus that the first shot was the miss. Few still argue that the WC
concluded a second shot miss. I guess we can call that progress.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
She needs to falsely state the maximum because she compares that time to
the six times compiled with the scope of the three test shooters: 8.25 and
7.0 seconds by Hendrix, 6.75 and 6.25 seconds by Staley, and 4.6 and 5.15
seconds by Miller.
She couldn't dismiss Oswald as the shooter by dealing with the legitimate
time the Commission allowed for the shooting by Oswald (upwards of 9
seconds) so she had to dismiss Oswald as the shooter by dealing
illegimately with what the Commission actually said and pretending the
shooter had only 5.6 seconds at most. It was a lie when she published it
and it remains a lie today.

Since we have no definitive evidence for when the first shot miss was
fired, we can never say with certainty how long the shooting took place. I
feel strongly that it was fired about Z150. With the head shot fired about
Z310, that's 160 frames or 8.74 seconds for the entire shooting. I
acknowledge by belief is an unproven hypothesis but one for which I think
the evidence is strong if not conclusive.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by 19efppp
If I may be allowed to make this a topic... recently I made some such statement, "Fortunately for you, Marsh, Pappy is now beating up racists in heaven."
Now, I ask you, is it credible that thar be anybody out thar who does not
understand that this is intended to be a joke? Really? Is there any
literalist in all of JFK kookdom who does not recognize that this is an
attempt at humor? Of course Pappy is not beating up anybody in heaven. You
may not think it is funny, but surely you recognize that humor is the
intent. Do I really have to explain it? Of course not. Anybody who argues
against such a statement seriously must be arguing dishonestly. Right?

You're referring I believe to this post,
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/53mkHs9LoyU/m/FD6uZLlYAgAJ
Let me repeat all my points here, and point out why you're arguing
dishonestly.
== QUOTE ==

Post by 19efppp
According to the FBI, so you know it must be true,

No, that's false. The document you cite says, in part, "This document
contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI." It's not
according to the FBI. It's according to Ralph Neal. The FBI merely made a
memorandum for the record of what Neal reported.
The FBI was in a information-gathering stage when they took this report.
The document you cite is merely a report by a civilian of something he
1. It's hearsay. Ralph Neal is making a series of claims about what he
heard 17 years prior to the assassination.
2. It's recollection. Ralph Neal is making claims about what he recalls
happened nearly two decades previous.
3. It's unverified. The FBI doesn't vouch for the veracity of the person
reporting the claims. They are merely making a note of the claims.
4. The report depends entirely on the veracity of the person reporting.
This may shock you, but people do say things at times to investigators
that aren't necessarily true. They may be making a correct report to the
best of their ability, but being human, get things wrong. They may be
mis-remembering things that occurred nearly two decades before. The
incident in question may be true, but two decades later, the person is
mis-remembering some of the details, like who the participants were. The
person making the report may bear a grudge against someone for something
that occurred between them, and they are deliberately reporting falsehoods
in an attempt to get that person they hold the grudge against in trouble.
Obviously, there is no way of knowing what is occurring with Neal's
report, and neither you nor I can vouch for the accuracy of the claims
reported therein.
So how did you eliminate all the problematic issues with this report of
recollection, and how can you say "it must be true"?
< Bill Decker threw a

Post by 19efppp
drink on a little colored boy who was only trying to make the people
smile.

According to this report of the supposed recollection of one Ralph Neal.
Any confirmation of this supposed incident from 1946? Are you swearing on
a bible that Ralph Neal recalled this supposed incident for 1946
perfectly, and wasn't in error about anything, and also wasn't making
anything up?

Post by 19efppp
And then Carl "Pappy" Dolson beat the shit out of Decker for so
doing.

According to the report of the recollection of one Ralph Neal. Obviously,
there are a number of problems with that report.
Not the least of which was Decker at the time was the "Chief Deputy
Sheriff".
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/decker.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. HUBERT - What is your occupation?
Mr. DECKER - I am Sheriff of Dallas County.
Mr. HUBERT - How long have you been sheriff?
Mr. DECKER - Since January 1, 1949.
Mr. HUBERT - Well, you have been reelected a number of times
Mr. DECKER - Yes,-sir.
Mr. HUBERT - How many times?
Mr. DECKER - I am serving my 16 years---I had two of those one of those
terms for a 4-year term, but we caught 2 years prior to that--that makes 4
from 16, leaves 12, 3 and I is 4 terms and I am coming for my fifth now.
Mr. HUBERT - What was your occupation prior to the time that you became
sheriff?
Mr. DECKER - I was chief deputy sheriff for Dallas County 14 years prior
to that. Prior to that I was chief deputy constable since 1924, prior to
that I was in the courthouse as a court clerk and prior to that I was
elevator operator in the courthouse. Now, that's it--that's my life.
== UNQUOTE ==
I find it amusing that you think a night club owner would take it upon
himself to refund all the patrons money and close his nightclub and beat
up a law enforcement officer and there wouldn't be repercussions.
Neal seems to understand that at a minimum, Decker could have Dolson
arrested and tried for assaulting a law enforcement officer, so he reports
"Police were not called". I also find it amusing that you think Decker
wouldn't have done anything about this supposed beating he was supposed
administered by the supposed nightclub owner, Dolson.

Post by 19efppp
Just be thankful, Marsh, that Pappy is now beating up racists in
heaven.
https://postimg.cc/YvYwR0kP

You appear to be assuming there is a heaven and that Pappy made it there.
Like all the other assumptions you make spelled out above.
Hank
== UNQUOTE ==
Now, there were a lot of points there that you're ignoring, and focusing
on the last one. But I ask you, why is you assume the above is a joke, but
the response is not intended in the same vein? I didn't see any emoticons
specifying it was a joke in the original post, and I didn't think I needed
to add any to the response. Yet you attribute ill-will to me, and none to
the original poster, because, after all, it's obviously a joke, right?
Your argument has two things against it: You're assuming what you need to
prove (ill-will and dishonesty) and the fact that, as you admit, Pappy
isn't beating anyone up in heaven, so it's also false. My argument has two
things in favor, it's still humorous, and it's factually correct, and
points out the logical fallacies imbedded within the joke.
Now try arguing the points I made.

You make excellent points and that extends to just about everything that
is contained in the WC's 26 volumes. Those volumes are nothing more than a
repository of raw data collected during the investigation. They contain no
actual findings of the WC, rather they are the raw data on which the
findings were based. Not all of the raw data collected was credible
evidence. In some cases, it was contradictory. It was the task of the WC
to sift through all that raw data and determine what pieces were probative
and which where not. In some cases, the WC was unable to resolve the
conflicts and refrained from reaching a conclusion. For example they
reached no definitive conclusion as to which of Oswald's three shots
missed. They did this because of the conflicting accounts as to how the
shooting actually happened and so they simply presented the arguments for
and against each of the possible scenarios, a missed first shot, missed
second shot, and missed third shot. They even allowed for there having
been no misses and that Oswald only fired two shots. Somehow, for many
years, the second shot miss requiring an elapsed time of 5.6 seconds for
all three shots seemed to be accepted as a conclusion of the WC even
though they reached no such conclusion. When I first began participating
in discussion groups way back in the 1990s (our Prodigy group), that
seemed to be the consensus among both CTs and LNs. A rereading of the WCR
which I had first read when it came out, told me the WC was noncommittal
about which shot missed. When I began pointing this out to people on the
CT side, some accused me of trying to rewrite the WC conclusions decades
after the fact. They had for years attacked the plausibility of the second
shot miss scenario and thought I was moving the goal posts when I began
arguing that there was a first shot miss. The reality is there never were
any goal posts to be moved because the WC had never set any goal posts on
this issue. I remember when Gerald Posner went on TV to promote his book
Case Closed, even he was falsely claiming that the WC concluded a second
shot miss and acted as if he was setting the record straight with his
book. A second shot miss conclusion was a misconception, not a reality.

It was never a misconception, it was a lie by conspiracy authors.

Not just conspiracy authors. As I pointed out, Posner also made that false
assertion.

If so, it was because Posner believed what the conspiracy authors were
arguing. You are willing to cut Lane and Meagher and other conspiracy
authors slack here. I'm not. They choose only the shortest time, and
argued against that time. Lane and Meagher made no mention that if the
first or last shot missed, Oswald had as much as ten seconds (or more) for
three shots. They misled an entire generation of readers to profit from
the assassination.

Post by John Corbett
Going back to our Prodigy group, I remember a few LNs who also
believed that was the conclusion of the WC and I think there was one who
actually defended that position although I can't give you specific names
since it was almost 30 years ago.

Again, if they believed that, it was because they were accepting the
arguments of the conspiracy authors like Lane and Meagher. The Warren
Commission was quite explicit that they did not know which of the three
shots missed, and listed pros and cons for each of the three possibilities
(first shot miss, midddle shot miss, final shot miss).

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
It was always easier for conspiracy authors to argue against Oswald
committing the assassination in 5.6 seconds than in upwards of seven,
eight, or nine seconds, so conspiracy theorists simply ignored the
first-shot-miss scenario and the last-shot-miss scenario (both of which
allowed over eight seconds for three shots) and argued only against the
middle-shot-miss scenario, which allowed the least amount of time for
Oswald to commit the assassination. They did that by either ignoring the
other possible scenarios entirely, or excluding those scenarios based on
their own invalid reasoning.

That is the reason so many of them got pissed off at me for pointing out
that the WC did not conclude that. After arguing against the second shot
miss scenario for so many years, they thought I was attempting to save the
WCR by rewriting its conclusion on this point when in fact there was no
conclusion. They simply pointed out the various possibilities.

And conspiracy authors like Lane and Meagher and others lied about what
the Commission said.

Read again how dishonestly Meagher treated the shooting trials. If she had
compared the shooting results by Miller, Hendrix, and Staley to Oswald's
maximum allowable time, not the shortest, she would have had to admit that
ALL the test shooters accomplished the shooting in less time than Oswald
had, given a first or last second miss. Instead, by pretending Oswald had
only 5.6 seconds to accomplish the feat, she could argue that most of the
tests were above Oswald's time.

And hell, Josiah Thompson baked the 5.6 seconds into the very title of his
book. It's not called NINE OR TEN SECONDS IN DALLAS. It's called SIX
SECONDS IN DALLAS for a reason.

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
"However, the Commission concluded: The various tests showed that the
Mannlicher-Carcano was an accurate rifle and that the use of a four-power
scope was a substantial aid to rapid, accurate firing . . . Oswald had the
capability to fire three shots, with two hits, within 4.8 and 5.6
seconds."
Lane makes no mention of the more expansive times allowed by a first or
last shot miss that the Commission accepted was possible.

While it was determined it was possible to do the shooting in 5.6 seconds,
it is highly improbable given that it allows almost no time for
reacquiring the target and aiming. They found that the single bullet was
fired somewhere between Z210 and Z225 based on Z210 being the first frame
JFK was in the clear and that JFK was reacting when he reappeared at Z225.
He actually did not start reacting until 226 but that is quibbling. Since
single bullet was actually fired about 90 frames before the headshot, that
reduces the total time for a second shot miss scenario to 4.9 seconds,
making it even more improbable.

Understood. And that is why Lane and Meagher, among other CT authors,
cited the middle shot miss scenario and argued exclusively against that,
rather than treat the subject honestly and discuss all three
possibilities.

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Josiah Thompson wrote in SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS, dismissing the possibility
"The color movie taken by Robert Hughes, who stood at the corner of Main
and Houston streets, is of even greater importance, yet scant mention is
made of it in the 26 volumes. Hughes stopped taking pictures just seconds
before the first shot, but even so the Commission's lack of interest is
difficult to understand, since Hughes's camera range included the windows
on the sixth floor of the Depository —right up until the time the
limousine turned the last corner. The FBI apparently studied one it also
had), and statements made to the Commission by witnesses on the scene
prove beyond a doubt that the first shot fired was the one that hit. The
Commission, however, without bothering to piece together the available
evidence, stoutly maintained that the first shot might have missed."
After dealing separately with the first and second shots, Thompson goes
into a chapter arguing for two head shots, and never deals with a third
shot miss scenario at all that I could find.
Thompson in fact favored a four-shot, four-hit scenario from three
different riflemen. He dismissed the three-shot, one miss scenario this

I have never read Six Seconds in Dallas and this description alone tells
me I was wise not to waste my time on it. I wasted enough with Best
Evidence, Plausible Denial, and Mafia Kingfish. That is time I will never
get back.

I have a wall filled with conspiracy books I have read. I believed them
until I bought the 26 WC volumes of testimony and evidence and the 12 HSCA
volumes. Then I found out had badly the conspiracy authors had abused the
truth.

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
"If Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet, then only one other
bullet could have struck in the car. But most witnesses heard three shots
and the Commission knew that three cartridge cases had been found in the
Depository. Thus a third shot must have been fired but missed the car
entirely. Through the device of vagueness—by stating that a shot
missed but not stating which one it was—the Commission could
conceal the paucity of evidence for such a miss. By again ignoring the
great weight of testimony indicating that no shots missed, a ramshackle
case could be put together."
Sylvia Meagher in ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT, like Lane in RUSH TO
JUDGMENT, pretends the shooter had only 5.6 seconds at most to fire all
three shots. She explicitly states this on page 108 of her book, in
comparing the times of the three test shooters for the Army (Hendrix,
Staley, and Miller) with that of what she calls the "Alleged Assassin,
November 22, 1963". In that chart she prepared, she states the "Alleged
Assassin" had a "Maximum of 5.6 seconds".
A "Maximum of 5.6 seconds" is a complete falsehood by Meagher.

One that has been repeated countless times over the decades although I
have to say not nearly as often as it was 30 years ago when I first began
to debate the CTs.

The fact is, however, that many people on the CT side first became CTs
because of untruths like "Oswald had only 5.6 seconds to fire all three
shots". Many of those people still harbor the belief in a conspiracy today
because their beliefs were formed so long ago. I'm thinking of long-time
noted CTs like Jim DiEugenio, Gary Aguilar, David Lifton and Martin
Schackleford. It's sometimes painfully obvious they believe a lot of
nonsense.

Post by John Corbett
I think they have come to accept the current LN
consensus that the first shot was the miss. Few still argue that the WC
concluded a second shot miss. I guess we can call that progress.

In many cases they argue against the first shot miss as well, however. And
they argue against a first shot miss and the last shot miss so as to
narrow the time to a middle shot miss.

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
She needs to falsely state the maximum because she compares that time to
the six times compiled with the scope of the three test shooters: 8.25 and
7.0 seconds by Hendrix, 6.75 and 6.25 seconds by Staley, and 4.6 and 5.15
seconds by Miller.
She couldn't dismiss Oswald as the shooter by dealing with the legitimate
time the Commission allowed for the shooting by Oswald (upwards of 9
seconds) so she had to dismiss Oswald as the shooter by dealing
illegimately with what the Commission actually said and pretending the
shooter had only 5.6 seconds at most. It was a lie when she published it
and it remains a lie today.

Since we have no definitive evidence for when the first shot miss was
fired, we can never say with certainty how long the shooting took place. I
feel strongly that it was fired about Z150. With the head shot fired about
Z310, that's 160 frames or 8.74 seconds for the entire shooting. I
acknowledge by belief is an unproven hypothesis but one for which I think
the evidence is strong if not conclusive.

Of course, many CTs argue there were more than three shots and Oswald
didn't fire any of them. They are wrong there as well.

[John Corbett]

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by 19efppp
If I may be allowed to make this a topic... recently I made some such statement, "Fortunately for you, Marsh, Pappy is now beating up racists in heaven."
Now, I ask you, is it credible that thar be anybody out thar who does not
understand that this is intended to be a joke? Really? Is there any
literalist in all of JFK kookdom who does not recognize that this is an
attempt at humor? Of course Pappy is not beating up anybody in heaven. You
may not think it is funny, but surely you recognize that humor is the
intent. Do I really have to explain it? Of course not. Anybody who argues
against such a statement seriously must be arguing dishonestly. Right?

You're referring I believe to this post,
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/53mkHs9LoyU/m/FD6uZLlYAgAJ
Let me repeat all my points here, and point out why you're arguing
dishonestly.
== QUOTE ==

Post by 19efppp
According to the FBI, so you know it must be true,

No, that's false. The document you cite says, in part, "This document
contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI." It's not
according to the FBI. It's according to Ralph Neal. The FBI merely made a
memorandum for the record of what Neal reported.
The FBI was in a information-gathering stage when they took this report.
The document you cite is merely a report by a civilian of something he
1. It's hearsay. Ralph Neal is making a series of claims about what he
heard 17 years prior to the assassination.
2. It's recollection. Ralph Neal is making claims about what he recalls
happened nearly two decades previous.
3. It's unverified. The FBI doesn't vouch for the veracity of the person
reporting the claims. They are merely making a note of the claims.
4. The report depends entirely on the veracity of the person reporting.
This may shock you, but people do say things at times to investigators
that aren't necessarily true. They may be making a correct report to the
best of their ability, but being human, get things wrong. They may be
mis-remembering things that occurred nearly two decades before. The
incident in question may be true, but two decades later, the person is
mis-remembering some of the details, like who the participants were. The
person making the report may bear a grudge against someone for something
that occurred between them, and they are deliberately reporting falsehoods
in an attempt to get that person they hold the grudge against in trouble.
Obviously, there is no way of knowing what is occurring with Neal's
report, and neither you nor I can vouch for the accuracy of the claims
reported therein.
So how did you eliminate all the problematic issues with this report of
recollection, and how can you say "it must be true"?
< Bill Decker threw a

Post by 19efppp
drink on a little colored boy who was only trying to make the people
smile.

According to this report of the supposed recollection of one Ralph Neal.
Any confirmation of this supposed incident from 1946? Are you swearing on
a bible that Ralph Neal recalled this supposed incident for 1946
perfectly, and wasn't in error about anything, and also wasn't making
anything up?

Post by 19efppp
And then Carl "Pappy" Dolson beat the shit out of Decker for so
doing.

According to the report of the recollection of one Ralph Neal. Obviously,
there are a number of problems with that report.
Not the least of which was Decker at the time was the "Chief Deputy
Sheriff".
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/decker.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. HUBERT - What is your occupation?
Mr. DECKER - I am Sheriff of Dallas County.
Mr. HUBERT - How long have you been sheriff?
Mr. DECKER - Since January 1, 1949.
Mr. HUBERT - Well, you have been reelected a number of times
Mr. DECKER - Yes,-sir.
Mr. HUBERT - How many times?
Mr. DECKER - I am serving my 16 years---I had two of those one of those
terms for a 4-year term, but we caught 2 years prior to that--that makes 4
from 16, leaves 12, 3 and I is 4 terms and I am coming for my fifth now.
Mr. HUBERT - What was your occupation prior to the time that you became
sheriff?
Mr. DECKER - I was chief deputy sheriff for Dallas County 14 years prior
to that. Prior to that I was chief deputy constable since 1924, prior to
that I was in the courthouse as a court clerk and prior to that I was
elevator operator in the courthouse. Now, that's it--that's my life.
== UNQUOTE ==
I find it amusing that you think a night club owner would take it upon
himself to refund all the patrons money and close his nightclub and beat
up a law enforcement officer and there wouldn't be repercussions.
Neal seems to understand that at a minimum, Decker could have Dolson
arrested and tried for assaulting a law enforcement officer, so he reports
"Police were not called". I also find it amusing that you think Decker
wouldn't have done anything about this supposed beating he was supposed
administered by the supposed nightclub owner, Dolson.

Post by 19efppp
Just be thankful, Marsh, that Pappy is now beating up racists in
heaven.
https://postimg.cc/YvYwR0kP

You appear to be assuming there is a heaven and that Pappy made it there.
Like all the other assumptions you make spelled out above.
Hank
== UNQUOTE ==
Now, there were a lot of points there that you're ignoring, and focusing
on the last one. But I ask you, why is you assume the above is a joke, but
the response is not intended in the same vein? I didn't see any emoticons
specifying it was a joke in the original post, and I didn't think I needed
to add any to the response. Yet you attribute ill-will to me, and none to
the original poster, because, after all, it's obviously a joke, right?
Your argument has two things against it: You're assuming what you need to
prove (ill-will and dishonesty) and the fact that, as you admit, Pappy
isn't beating anyone up in heaven, so it's also false. My argument has two
things in favor, it's still humorous, and it's factually correct, and
points out the logical fallacies imbedded within the joke.
Now try arguing the points I made.

You make excellent points and that extends to just about everything that
is contained in the WC's 26 volumes. Those volumes are nothing more than a
repository of raw data collected during the investigation. They contain no
actual findings of the WC, rather they are the raw data on which the
findings were based. Not all of the raw data collected was credible
evidence. In some cases, it was contradictory. It was the task of the WC
to sift through all that raw data and determine what pieces were probative
and which where not. In some cases, the WC was unable to resolve the
conflicts and refrained from reaching a conclusion. For example they
reached no definitive conclusion as to which of Oswald's three shots
missed. They did this because of the conflicting accounts as to how the
shooting actually happened and so they simply presented the arguments for
and against each of the possible scenarios, a missed first shot, missed
second shot, and missed third shot. They even allowed for there having
been no misses and that Oswald only fired two shots. Somehow, for many
years, the second shot miss requiring an elapsed time of 5.6 seconds for
all three shots seemed to be accepted as a conclusion of the WC even
though they reached no such conclusion. When I first began participating
in discussion groups way back in the 1990s (our Prodigy group), that
seemed to be the consensus among both CTs and LNs. A rereading of the WCR
which I had first read when it came out, told me the WC was noncommittal
about which shot missed. When I began pointing this out to people on the
CT side, some accused me of trying to rewrite the WC conclusions decades
after the fact. They had for years attacked the plausibility of the second
shot miss scenario and thought I was moving the goal posts when I began
arguing that there was a first shot miss. The reality is there never were
any goal posts to be moved because the WC had never set any goal posts on
this issue. I remember when Gerald Posner went on TV to promote his book
Case Closed, even he was falsely claiming that the WC concluded a second
shot miss and acted as if he was setting the record straight with his
book. A second shot miss conclusion was a misconception, not a reality.

It was never a misconception, it was a lie by conspiracy authors.

Not just conspiracy authors. As I pointed out, Posner also made that false
assertion.

If so, it was because Posner believed what the conspiracy authors were
arguing. You are willing to cut Lane and Meagher and other conspiracy
authors slack here. I'm not. They choose only the shortest time, and
argued against that time. Lane and Meagher made no mention that if the
first or last shot missed, Oswald had as much as ten seconds (or more) for
three shots. They misled an entire generation of readers to profit from
the assassination.

Post by John Corbett
Going back to our Prodigy group, I remember a few LNs who also
believed that was the conclusion of the WC and I think there was one who
actually defended that position although I can't give you specific names
since it was almost 30 years ago.

Again, if they believed that, it was because they were accepting the
arguments of the conspiracy authors like Lane and Meagher. The Warren
Commission was quite explicit that they did not know which of the three
shots missed, and listed pros and cons for each of the three possibilities
(first shot miss, midddle shot miss, final shot miss).

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
It was always easier for conspiracy authors to argue against Oswald
committing the assassination in 5.6 seconds than in upwards of seven,
eight, or nine seconds, so conspiracy theorists simply ignored the
first-shot-miss scenario and the last-shot-miss scenario (both of which
allowed over eight seconds for three shots) and argued only against the
middle-shot-miss scenario, which allowed the least amount of time for
Oswald to commit the assassination. They did that by either ignoring the
other possible scenarios entirely, or excluding those scenarios based on
their own invalid reasoning.

That is the reason so many of them got pissed off at me for pointing out
that the WC did not conclude that. After arguing against the second shot
miss scenario for so many years, they thought I was attempting to save the
WCR by rewriting its conclusion on this point when in fact there was no
conclusion. They simply pointed out the various possibilities.

And conspiracy authors like Lane and Meagher and others lied about what
the Commission said.
Read again how dishonestly Meagher treated the shooting trials. If she had
compared the shooting results by Miller, Hendrix, and Staley to Oswald's
maximum allowable time, not the shortest, she would have had to admit that
ALL the test shooters accomplished the shooting in less time than Oswald
had, given a first or last second miss. Instead, by pretending Oswald had
only 5.6 seconds to accomplish the feat, she could argue that most of the
tests were above Oswald's time.
And hell, Josiah Thompson baked the 5.6 seconds into the very title of his
book. It's not called NINE OR TEN SECONDS IN DALLAS. It's called SIX
SECONDS IN DALLAS for a reason.

I'd be the last to defend people like Lane and Meagher. I'm just pointing out
that it was not just conspiracy authors who accepted the second shot miss
as the conclusion of the WC. Many LNs did as well. I was one of those until
I reread the WCR's chapter on this subject. In the late 1980s, CBS and
Walter Cronkite did a reexamination of the assassination and the WCR. It
might have been in conjunction with the 25th anniversary. It was the first
time I saw the Z-film. I'm going from memory but I think they presented the
second shot miss as the WC's conclusion. We can speculate as to the reason
that became so widely accepted. Perhaps the title of Thompson's book had
something to do with that. Perhaps the most glaring example of duplicity
was committed by Oliver Stone in the scene from his movie in which
Garrison (Costner) and his assistant did a recreation of the shooting. They
combined the 5.6 second time frame with a first shot miss and presented
both as conclusions of the WC even though they are mutually exclusive.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
"However, the Commission concluded: The various tests showed that the
Mannlicher-Carcano was an accurate rifle and that the use of a four-power
scope was a substantial aid to rapid, accurate firing . . . Oswald had the
capability to fire three shots, with two hits, within 4.8 and 5.6
seconds."
Lane makes no mention of the more expansive times allowed by a first or
last shot miss that the Commission accepted was possible.

While it was determined it was possible to do the shooting in 5.6 seconds,
it is highly improbable given that it allows almost no time for
reacquiring the target and aiming. They found that the single bullet was
fired somewhere between Z210 and Z225 based on Z210 being the first frame
JFK was in the clear and that JFK was reacting when he reappeared at Z225.
He actually did not start reacting until 226 but that is quibbling. Since
single bullet was actually fired about 90 frames before the headshot, that
reduces the total time for a second shot miss scenario to 4.9 seconds,
making it even more improbable.

Understood. And that is why Lane and Meagher, among other CT authors,
cited the middle shot miss scenario and argued exclusively against that,
rather than treat the subject honestly and discuss all three
possibilities.

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Josiah Thompson wrote in SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS, dismissing the possibility
"The color movie taken by Robert Hughes, who stood at the corner of Main
and Houston streets, is of even greater importance, yet scant mention is
made of it in the 26 volumes. Hughes stopped taking pictures just seconds
before the first shot, but even so the Commission's lack of interest is
difficult to understand, since Hughes's camera range included the windows
on the sixth floor of the Depository —right up until the time the
limousine turned the last corner. The FBI apparently studied one it also
had), and statements made to the Commission by witnesses on the scene
prove beyond a doubt that the first shot fired was the one that hit. The
Commission, however, without bothering to piece together the available
evidence, stoutly maintained that the first shot might have missed."
After dealing separately with the first and second shots, Thompson goes
into a chapter arguing for two head shots, and never deals with a third
shot miss scenario at all that I could find.
Thompson in fact favored a four-shot, four-hit scenario from three
different riflemen. He dismissed the three-shot, one miss scenario this

I have never read Six Seconds in Dallas and this description alone tells
me I was wise not to waste my time on it. I wasted enough with Best
Evidence, Plausible Denial, and Mafia Kingfish. That is time I will never
get back.

I have a wall filled with conspiracy books I have read. I believed them
until I bought the 26 WC volumes of testimony and evidence and the 12 HSCA
volumes. Then I found out had badly the conspiracy authors had abused the
truth.

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
"If Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet, then only one other
bullet could have struck in the car. But most witnesses heard three shots
and the Commission knew that three cartridge cases had been found in the
Depository. Thus a third shot must have been fired but missed the car
entirely. Through the device of vagueness—by stating that a shot
missed but not stating which one it was—the Commission could
conceal the paucity of evidence for such a miss. By again ignoring the
great weight of testimony indicating that no shots missed, a ramshackle
case could be put together."
Sylvia Meagher in ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT, like Lane in RUSH TO
JUDGMENT, pretends the shooter had only 5.6 seconds at most to fire all
three shots. She explicitly states this on page 108 of her book, in
comparing the times of the three test shooters for the Army (Hendrix,
Staley, and Miller) with that of what she calls the "Alleged Assassin,
November 22, 1963". In that chart she prepared, she states the "Alleged
Assassin" had a "Maximum of 5.6 seconds".
A "Maximum of 5.6 seconds" is a complete falsehood by Meagher.

One that has been repeated countless times over the decades although I
have to say not nearly as often as it was 30 years ago when I first began
to debate the CTs.

The fact is, however, that many people on the CT side first became CTs
because of untruths like "Oswald had only 5.6 seconds to fire all three
shots". Many of those people still harbor the belief in a conspiracy today
because their beliefs were formed so long ago. I'm thinking of long-time
noted CTs like Jim DiEugenio, Gary Aguilar, David Lifton and Martin
Schackleford. It's sometimes painfully obvious they believe a lot of
nonsense.

Another possible reason 5.6 seconds became accepted is the 1967 CBS
documentary in which they had expert marksman try to duplicate the
shooting from a tower in that time limit. Why they chose to do that rather
than pointing out the other possibilities is anybody's guess. I don't think
I saw it until another CBS documentary hosted by Dan Rather following
the release of Stone's movie. CBS seems to have been touting the 5.6
second scenario all along. To their credit, ABC's 2003 documentary used
Dale Myers' animation and he pointed out that Connally had reacted to
a first shot miss at Z164.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by John Corbett
I think they have come to accept the current LN
consensus that the first shot was the miss. Few still argue that the WC
concluded a second shot miss. I guess we can call that progress.

In many cases they argue against the first shot miss as well, however. And
they argue against a first shot miss and the last shot miss so as to
narrow the time to a middle shot miss.

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
She needs to falsely state the maximum because she compares that time to
the six times compiled with the scope of the three test shooters: 8.25 and
7.0 seconds by Hendrix, 6.75 and 6.25 seconds by Staley, and 4.6 and 5.15
seconds by Miller.
She couldn't dismiss Oswald as the shooter by dealing with the legitimate
time the Commission allowed for the shooting by Oswald (upwards of 9
seconds) so she had to dismiss Oswald as the shooter by dealing
illegimately with what the Commission actually said and pretending the
shooter had only 5.6 seconds at most. It was a lie when she published it
and it remains a lie today.

Since we have no definitive evidence for when the first shot miss was
fired, we can never say with certainty how long the shooting took place. I
feel strongly that it was fired about Z150. With the head shot fired about
Z310, that's 160 frames or 8.74 seconds for the entire shooting. I
acknowledge by belief is an unproven hypothesis but one for which I think
the evidence is strong if not conclusive.

Of course, many CTs argue there were more than three shots and Oswald
didn't fire any of them. They are wrong there as well.

It is their never ending snipe hunt.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by 19efppp
If I may be allowed to make this a topic... recently I made some such statement, "Fortunately for you, Marsh, Pappy is now beating up racists in heaven."
Now, I ask you, is it credible that thar be anybody out thar who does not
understand that this is intended to be a joke? Really? Is there any
literalist in all of JFK kookdom who does not recognize that this is an
attempt at humor? Of course Pappy is not beating up anybody in heaven. You
may not think it is funny, but surely you recognize that humor is the
intent. Do I really have to explain it? Of course not. Anybody who argues
against such a statement seriously must be arguing dishonestly. Right?

You're referring I believe to this post,
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/53mkHs9LoyU/m/FD6uZLlYAgAJ
Let me repeat all my points here, and point out why you're arguing
dishonestly.
== QUOTE ==

Post by 19efppp
According to the FBI, so you know it must be true,

No, that's false. The document you cite says, in part, "This document
contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI." It's not
according to the FBI. It's according to Ralph Neal. The FBI merely made a
memorandum for the record of what Neal reported.
The FBI was in a information-gathering stage when they took this report.
The document you cite is merely a report by a civilian of something he
1. It's hearsay. Ralph Neal is making a series of claims about what he
heard 17 years prior to the assassination.
2. It's recollection. Ralph Neal is making claims about what he recalls
happened nearly two decades previous.
3. It's unverified. The FBI doesn't vouch for the veracity of the person
reporting the claims. They are merely making a note of the claims.
4. The report depends entirely on the veracity of the person reporting.
This may shock you, but people do say things at times to investigators
that aren't necessarily true. They may be making a correct report to the
best of their ability, but being human, get things wrong. They may be
mis-remembering things that occurred nearly two decades before. The
incident in question may be true, but two decades later, the person is
mis-remembering some of the details, like who the participants were. The
person making the report may bear a grudge against someone for something
that occurred between them, and they are deliberately reporting falsehoods
in an attempt to get that person they hold the grudge against in trouble.
Obviously, there is no way of knowing what is occurring with Neal's
report, and neither you nor I can vouch for the accuracy of the claims
reported therein.
So how did you eliminate all the problematic issues with this report of
recollection, and how can you say "it must be true"?
< Bill Decker threw a

Post by 19efppp
drink on a little colored boy who was only trying to make the people
smile.

According to this report of the supposed recollection of one Ralph Neal.
Any confirmation of this supposed incident from 1946? Are you swearing on
a bible that Ralph Neal recalled this supposed incident for 1946
perfectly, and wasn't in error about anything, and also wasn't making
anything up?

Post by 19efppp
And then Carl "Pappy" Dolson beat the shit out of Decker for so
doing.

According to the report of the recollection of one Ralph Neal. Obviously,
there are a number of problems with that report.
Not the least of which was Decker at the time was the "Chief Deputy
Sheriff".
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/decker.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. HUBERT - What is your occupation?
Mr. DECKER - I am Sheriff of Dallas County.
Mr. HUBERT - How long have you been sheriff?
Mr. DECKER - Since January 1, 1949.
Mr. HUBERT - Well, you have been reelected a number of times
Mr. DECKER - Yes,-sir.
Mr. HUBERT - How many times?
Mr. DECKER - I am serving my 16 years---I had two of those one of those
terms for a 4-year term, but we caught 2 years prior to that--that makes 4
from 16, leaves 12, 3 and I is 4 terms and I am coming for my fifth now.
Mr. HUBERT - What was your occupation prior to the time that you became
sheriff?
Mr. DECKER - I was chief deputy sheriff for Dallas County 14 years prior
to that. Prior to that I was chief deputy constable since 1924, prior to
that I was in the courthouse as a court clerk and prior to that I was
elevator operator in the courthouse. Now, that's it--that's my life.
== UNQUOTE ==
I find it amusing that you think a night club owner would take it upon
himself to refund all the patrons money and close his nightclub and beat
up a law enforcement officer and there wouldn't be repercussions.
Neal seems to understand that at a minimum, Decker could have Dolson
arrested and tried for assaulting a law enforcement officer, so he reports
"Police were not called". I also find it amusing that you think Decker
wouldn't have done anything about this supposed beating he was supposed
administered by the supposed nightclub owner, Dolson.

Post by 19efppp
Just be thankful, Marsh, that Pappy is now beating up racists in
heaven.
https://postimg.cc/YvYwR0kP

You appear to be assuming there is a heaven and that Pappy made it there.
Like all the other assumptions you make spelled out above.
Hank
== UNQUOTE ==
Now, there were a lot of points there that you're ignoring, and focusing
on the last one. But I ask you, why is you assume the above is a joke, but
the response is not intended in the same vein? I didn't see any emoticons
specifying it was a joke in the original post, and I didn't think I needed
to add any to the response. Yet you attribute ill-will to me, and none to
the original poster, because, after all, it's obviously a joke, right?
Your argument has two things against it: You're assuming what you need to
prove (ill-will and dishonesty) and the fact that, as you admit, Pappy
isn't beating anyone up in heaven, so it's also false. My argument has two
things in favor, it's still humorous, and it's factually correct, and
points out the logical fallacies imbedded within the joke.
Now try arguing the points I made.

You make excellent points and that extends to just about everything that
is contained in the WC's 26 volumes. Those volumes are nothing more than a
repository of raw data collected during the investigation. They contain no
actual findings of the WC, rather they are the raw data on which the
findings were based. Not all of the raw data collected was credible
evidence. In some cases, it was contradictory. It was the task of the WC
to sift through all that raw data and determine what pieces were probative
and which where not. In some cases, the WC was unable to resolve the
conflicts and refrained from reaching a conclusion. For example they
reached no definitive conclusion as to which of Oswald's three shots
missed. They did this because of the conflicting accounts as to how the
shooting actually happened and so they simply presented the arguments for
and against each of the possible scenarios, a missed first shot, missed
second shot, and missed third shot. They even allowed for there having
been no misses and that Oswald only fired two shots. Somehow, for many
years, the second shot miss requiring an elapsed time of 5.6 seconds for
all three shots seemed to be accepted as a conclusion of the WC even
though they reached no such conclusion. When I first began participating
in discussion groups way back in the 1990s (our Prodigy group), that
seemed to be the consensus among both CTs and LNs. A rereading of the WCR
which I had first read when it came out, told me the WC was noncommittal
about which shot missed. When I began pointing this out to people on the
CT side, some accused me of trying to rewrite the WC conclusions decades
after the fact. They had for years attacked the plausibility of the second
shot miss scenario and thought I was moving the goal posts when I began
arguing that there was a first shot miss. The reality is there never were
any goal posts to be moved because the WC had never set any goal posts on
this issue. I remember when Gerald Posner went on TV to promote his book
Case Closed, even he was falsely claiming that the WC concluded a second
shot miss and acted as if he was setting the record straight with his
book. A second shot miss conclusion was a misconception, not a reality.

It was never a misconception, it was a lie by conspiracy authors.

Not just conspiracy authors. As I pointed out, Posner also made that false
assertion.

If so, it was because Posner believed what the conspiracy authors were
arguing. You are willing to cut Lane and Meagher and other conspiracy
authors slack here. I'm not. They choose only the shortest time, and
argued against that time. Lane and Meagher made no mention that if the
first or last shot missed, Oswald had as much as ten seconds (or more) for
three shots. They misled an entire generation of readers to profit from
the assassination.

Post by John Corbett
Going back to our Prodigy group, I remember a few LNs who also
believed that was the conclusion of the WC and I think there was one who
actually defended that position although I can't give you specific names
since it was almost 30 years ago.

Again, if they believed that, it was because they were accepting the
arguments of the conspiracy authors like Lane and Meagher. The Warren
Commission was quite explicit that they did not know which of the three
shots missed, and listed pros and cons for each of the three possibilities
(first shot miss, midddle shot miss, final shot miss).

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
It was always easier for conspiracy authors to argue against Oswald
committing the assassination in 5.6 seconds than in upwards of seven,
eight, or nine seconds, so conspiracy theorists simply ignored the
first-shot-miss scenario and the last-shot-miss scenario (both of which
allowed over eight seconds for three shots) and argued only against the
middle-shot-miss scenario, which allowed the least amount of time for
Oswald to commit the assassination. They did that by either ignoring the
other possible scenarios entirely, or excluding those scenarios based on
their own invalid reasoning.

That is the reason so many of them got pissed off at me for pointing out
that the WC did not conclude that. After arguing against the second shot
miss scenario for so many years, they thought I was attempting to save the
WCR by rewriting its conclusion on this point when in fact there was no
conclusion. They simply pointed out the various possibilities.

And conspiracy authors like Lane and Meagher and others lied about what
the Commission said.
Read again how dishonestly Meagher treated the shooting trials. If she had
compared the shooting results by Miller, Hendrix, and Staley to Oswald's
maximum allowable time, not the shortest, she would have had to admit that
ALL the test shooters accomplished the shooting in less time than Oswald
had, given a first or last second miss. Instead, by pretending Oswald had
only 5.6 seconds to accomplish the feat, she could argue that most of the
tests were above Oswald's time.
And hell, Josiah Thompson baked the 5.6 seconds into the very title of his
book. It's not called NINE OR TEN SECONDS IN DALLAS. It's called SIX
SECONDS IN DALLAS for a reason.

I'd be the last to defend people like Lane and Meagher. I'm just pointing out
that it was not just conspiracy authors who accepted the second shot miss
as the conclusion of the WC. Many LNs did as well. I was one of those until
I reread the WCR's chapter on this subject. In the late 1980s, CBS and
Walter Cronkite did a reexamination of the assassination and the WCR. It
might have been in conjunction with the 25th anniversary. It was the first
time I saw the Z-film. I'm going from memory but I think they presented the
second shot miss as the WC's conclusion. We can speculate as to the reason
that became so widely accepted. Perhaps the title of Thompson's book had
something to do with that. Perhaps the most glaring example of duplicity
was committed by Oliver Stone in the scene from his movie in which
Garrison (Costner) and his assistant did a recreation of the shooting. They
combined the 5.6 second time frame with a first shot miss and presented
both as conclusions of the WC even though they are mutually exclusive.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
"However, the Commission concluded: The various tests showed that the
Mannlicher-Carcano was an accurate rifle and that the use of a four-power
scope was a substantial aid to rapid, accurate firing . . . Oswald had the
capability to fire three shots, with two hits, within 4.8 and 5.6
seconds."
Lane makes no mention of the more expansive times allowed by a first or
last shot miss that the Commission accepted was possible.

While it was determined it was possible to do the shooting in 5.6 seconds,
it is highly improbable given that it allows almost no time for
reacquiring the target and aiming. They found that the single bullet was
fired somewhere between Z210 and Z225 based on Z210 being the first frame
JFK was in the clear and that JFK was reacting when he reappeared at Z225.
He actually did not start reacting until 226 but that is quibbling. Since
single bullet was actually fired about 90 frames before the headshot, that
reduces the total time for a second shot miss scenario to 4.9 seconds,
making it even more improbable.

Understood. And that is why Lane and Meagher, among other CT authors,
cited the middle shot miss scenario and argued exclusively against that,
rather than treat the subject honestly and discuss all three
possibilities.

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Josiah Thompson wrote in SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS, dismissing the possibility
"The color movie taken by Robert Hughes, who stood at the corner of Main
and Houston streets, is of even greater importance, yet scant mention is
made of it in the 26 volumes. Hughes stopped taking pictures just seconds
before the first shot, but even so the Commission's lack of interest is
difficult to understand, since Hughes's camera range included the windows
on the sixth floor of the Depository —right up until the time the
limousine turned the last corner. The FBI apparently studied one it also
had), and statements made to the Commission by witnesses on the scene
prove beyond a doubt that the first shot fired was the one that hit. The
Commission, however, without bothering to piece together the available
evidence, stoutly maintained that the first shot might have missed."
After dealing separately with the first and second shots, Thompson goes
into a chapter arguing for two head shots, and never deals with a third
shot miss scenario at all that I could find.
Thompson in fact favored a four-shot, four-hit scenario from three
different riflemen. He dismissed the three-shot, one miss scenario this

I have never read Six Seconds in Dallas and this description alone tells
me I was wise not to waste my time on it. I wasted enough with Best
Evidence, Plausible Denial, and Mafia Kingfish. That is time I will never
get back.

I have a wall filled with conspiracy books I have read. I believed them
until I bought the 26 WC volumes of testimony and evidence and the 12 HSCA
volumes. Then I found out had badly the conspiracy authors had abused the
truth.

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
"If Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet, then only one other
bullet could have struck in the car. But most witnesses heard three shots
and the Commission knew that three cartridge cases had been found in the
Depository. Thus a third shot must have been fired but missed the car
entirely. Through the device of vagueness—by stating that a shot
missed but not stating which one it was—the Commission could
conceal the paucity of evidence for such a miss. By again ignoring the
great weight of testimony indicating that no shots missed, a ramshackle
case could be put together."
Sylvia Meagher in ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT, like Lane in RUSH TO
JUDGMENT, pretends the shooter had only 5.6 seconds at most to fire all
three shots. She explicitly states this on page 108 of her book, in
comparing the times of the three test shooters for the Army (Hendrix,
Staley, and Miller) with that of what she calls the "Alleged Assassin,
November 22, 1963". In that chart she prepared, she states the "Alleged
Assassin" had a "Maximum of 5.6 seconds".
A "Maximum of 5.6 seconds" is a complete falsehood by Meagher.

One that has been repeated countless times over the decades although I
have to say not nearly as often as it was 30 years ago when I first began
to debate the CTs.

The fact is, however, that many people on the CT side first became CTs
because of untruths like "Oswald had only 5.6 seconds to fire all three
shots". Many of those people still harbor the belief in a conspiracy today
because their beliefs were formed so long ago. I'm thinking of long-time
noted CTs like Jim DiEugenio, Gary Aguilar, David Lifton and Martin
Schackleford. It's sometimes painfully obvious they believe a lot of
nonsense.

Another possible reason 5.6 seconds became accepted is the 1967 CBS
documentary in which they had expert marksman try to duplicate the
shooting from a tower in that time limit. Why they chose to do that rather
than pointing out the other possibilities is anybody's guess. I don't think
I saw it until another CBS documentary hosted by Dan Rather following
the release of Stone's movie. CBS seems to have been touting the 5.6
second scenario all along. To their credit, ABC's 2003 documentary used
Dale Myers' animation and he pointed out that Connally had reacted to
a first shot miss at Z164.

I just re-watched the pertinent part of the 1967 CBS special on the
assassination (I watched it in 1967 when it was originally broadcast, and
a few times since). All four parts are available, here's the first of four
one-hour broadcasts:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?453991-2/a-cbs-news-inquiry-warren-report-part-1

At roughly the 32:00 minute mark, Dan Rather wrongly attributes to the
Warren Commission the middle-shot miss scenario, "along here [after the
President was shot between Zapruder frames 201-225], the Commission said a
second shot was fired".

That of course is incorrect. Here's what the Warren Commission actually
said:
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-3.html#missed
== QUOTE ==
From the initial findings that (a) one shot passed through the President's
neck and then most probably passed through the Governor's body, (b) a
subsequent shot penetrated the President's head, (c) no other shot struck
any part of the automobile, and (d) three shots were fired, it follows
that one shot probably missed the car and its occupants. The evidence is
inconclusive as to whether it was the first, second, or third shot which
missed.
== UNQUOTE ==

I don't know how that can be turned into what the 1967 CBS special said,
unless they were misled by the conspiracy books that argued exclusively
against the 5.6 second time and ignored any possibility of a first or
third shot miss.

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by John Corbett
I think they have come to accept the current LN
consensus that the first shot was the miss. Few still argue that the WC
concluded a second shot miss. I guess we can call that progress.

In many cases they argue against the first shot miss as well, however. And
they argue against a first shot miss and the last shot miss so as to
narrow the time to a middle shot miss.

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
She needs to falsely state the maximum because she compares that time to
the six times compiled with the scope of the three test shooters: 8.25 and
7.0 seconds by Hendrix, 6.75 and 6.25 seconds by Staley, and 4.6 and 5.15
seconds by Miller.
She couldn't dismiss Oswald as the shooter by dealing with the legitimate
time the Commission allowed for the shooting by Oswald (upwards of 9
seconds) so she had to dismiss Oswald as the shooter by dealing
illegimately with what the Commission actually said and pretending the
shooter had only 5.6 seconds at most. It was a lie when she published it
and it remains a lie today.

Since we have no definitive evidence for when the first shot miss was
fired, we can never say with certainty how long the shooting took place. I
feel strongly that it was fired about Z150. With the head shot fired about
Z310, that's 160 frames or 8.74 seconds for the entire shooting. I
acknowledge by belief is an unproven hypothesis but one for which I think
the evidence is strong if not conclusive.

Of course, many CTs argue there were more than three shots and Oswald
didn't fire any of them. They are wrong there as well.

It is their never ending snipe hunt.

[John Corbett]

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by 19efppp
If I may be allowed to make this a topic... recently I made some such statement, "Fortunately for you, Marsh, Pappy is now beating up racists in heaven."
Now, I ask you, is it credible that thar be anybody out thar who does not
understand that this is intended to be a joke? Really? Is there any
literalist in all of JFK kookdom who does not recognize that this is an
attempt at humor? Of course Pappy is not beating up anybody in heaven. You
may not think it is funny, but surely you recognize that humor is the
intent. Do I really have to explain it? Of course not. Anybody who argues
against such a statement seriously must be arguing dishonestly. Right?

You're referring I believe to this post,
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/53mkHs9LoyU/m/FD6uZLlYAgAJ
Let me repeat all my points here, and point out why you're arguing
dishonestly.
== QUOTE ==

Post by 19efppp
According to the FBI, so you know it must be true,

No, that's false. The document you cite says, in part, "This document
contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI." It's not
according to the FBI. It's according to Ralph Neal. The FBI merely made a
memorandum for the record of what Neal reported.
The FBI was in a information-gathering stage when they took this report.
The document you cite is merely a report by a civilian of something he
1. It's hearsay. Ralph Neal is making a series of claims about what he
heard 17 years prior to the assassination.
2. It's recollection. Ralph Neal is making claims about what he recalls
happened nearly two decades previous.
3. It's unverified. The FBI doesn't vouch for the veracity of the person
reporting the claims. They are merely making a note of the claims.
4. The report depends entirely on the veracity of the person reporting.
This may shock you, but people do say things at times to investigators
that aren't necessarily true. They may be making a correct report to the
best of their ability, but being human, get things wrong. They may be
mis-remembering things that occurred nearly two decades before. The
incident in question may be true, but two decades later, the person is
mis-remembering some of the details, like who the participants were. The
person making the report may bear a grudge against someone for something
that occurred between them, and they are deliberately reporting falsehoods
in an attempt to get that person they hold the grudge against in trouble.
Obviously, there is no way of knowing what is occurring with Neal's
report, and neither you nor I can vouch for the accuracy of the claims
reported therein.
So how did you eliminate all the problematic issues with this report of
recollection, and how can you say "it must be true"?
< Bill Decker threw a

Post by 19efppp
drink on a little colored boy who was only trying to make the people
smile.

According to this report of the supposed recollection of one Ralph Neal.
Any confirmation of this supposed incident from 1946? Are you swearing on
a bible that Ralph Neal recalled this supposed incident for 1946
perfectly, and wasn't in error about anything, and also wasn't making
anything up?

Post by 19efppp
And then Carl "Pappy" Dolson beat the shit out of Decker for so
doing.

According to the report of the recollection of one Ralph Neal. Obviously,
there are a number of problems with that report.
Not the least of which was Decker at the time was the "Chief Deputy
Sheriff".
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/decker.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. HUBERT - What is your occupation?
Mr. DECKER - I am Sheriff of Dallas County.
Mr. HUBERT - How long have you been sheriff?
Mr. DECKER - Since January 1, 1949.
Mr. HUBERT - Well, you have been reelected a number of times
Mr. DECKER - Yes,-sir.
Mr. HUBERT - How many times?
Mr. DECKER - I am serving my 16 years---I had two of those one of those
terms for a 4-year term, but we caught 2 years prior to that--that makes 4
from 16, leaves 12, 3 and I is 4 terms and I am coming for my fifth now.
Mr. HUBERT - What was your occupation prior to the time that you became
sheriff?
Mr. DECKER - I was chief deputy sheriff for Dallas County 14 years prior
to that. Prior to that I was chief deputy constable since 1924, prior to
that I was in the courthouse as a court clerk and prior to that I was
elevator operator in the courthouse. Now, that's it--that's my life.
== UNQUOTE ==
I find it amusing that you think a night club owner would take it upon
himself to refund all the patrons money and close his nightclub and beat
up a law enforcement officer and there wouldn't be repercussions.
Neal seems to understand that at a minimum, Decker could have Dolson
arrested and tried for assaulting a law enforcement officer, so he reports
"Police were not called". I also find it amusing that you think Decker
wouldn't have done anything about this supposed beating he was supposed
administered by the supposed nightclub owner, Dolson.

Post by 19efppp
Just be thankful, Marsh, that Pappy is now beating up racists in
heaven.
https://postimg.cc/YvYwR0kP

You appear to be assuming there is a heaven and that Pappy made it there.
Like all the other assumptions you make spelled out above.
Hank
== UNQUOTE ==
Now, there were a lot of points there that you're ignoring, and focusing
on the last one. But I ask you, why is you assume the above is a joke, but
the response is not intended in the same vein? I didn't see any emoticons
specifying it was a joke in the original post, and I didn't think I needed
to add any to the response. Yet you attribute ill-will to me, and none to
the original poster, because, after all, it's obviously a joke, right?
Your argument has two things against it: You're assuming what you need to
prove (ill-will and dishonesty) and the fact that, as you admit, Pappy
isn't beating anyone up in heaven, so it's also false. My argument has two
things in favor, it's still humorous, and it's factually correct, and
points out the logical fallacies imbedded within the joke.
Now try arguing the points I made.

You make excellent points and that extends to just about everything that
is contained in the WC's 26 volumes. Those volumes are nothing more than a
repository of raw data collected during the investigation. They contain no
actual findings of the WC, rather they are the raw data on which the
findings were based. Not all of the raw data collected was credible
evidence. In some cases, it was contradictory. It was the task of the WC
to sift through all that raw data and determine what pieces were probative
and which where not. In some cases, the WC was unable to resolve the
conflicts and refrained from reaching a conclusion. For example they
reached no definitive conclusion as to which of Oswald's three shots
missed. They did this because of the conflicting accounts as to how the
shooting actually happened and so they simply presented the arguments for
and against each of the possible scenarios, a missed first shot, missed
second shot, and missed third shot. They even allowed for there having
been no misses and that Oswald only fired two shots. Somehow, for many
years, the second shot miss requiring an elapsed time of 5.6 seconds for
all three shots seemed to be accepted as a conclusion of the WC even
though they reached no such conclusion. When I first began participating
in discussion groups way back in the 1990s (our Prodigy group), that
seemed to be the consensus among both CTs and LNs. A rereading of the WCR
which I had first read when it came out, told me the WC was noncommittal
about which shot missed. When I began pointing this out to people on the
CT side, some accused me of trying to rewrite the WC conclusions decades
after the fact. They had for years attacked the plausibility of the second
shot miss scenario and thought I was moving the goal posts when I began
arguing that there was a first shot miss. The reality is there never were
any goal posts to be moved because the WC had never set any goal posts on
this issue. I remember when Gerald Posner went on TV to promote his book
Case Closed, even he was falsely claiming that the WC concluded a second
shot miss and acted as if he was setting the record straight with his
book. A second shot miss conclusion was a misconception, not a reality.

It was never a misconception, it was a lie by conspiracy authors.

Not just conspiracy authors. As I pointed out, Posner also made that false
assertion.

If so, it was because Posner believed what the conspiracy authors were
arguing. You are willing to cut Lane and Meagher and other conspiracy
authors slack here. I'm not. They choose only the shortest time, and
argued against that time. Lane and Meagher made no mention that if the
first or last shot missed, Oswald had as much as ten seconds (or more) for
three shots. They misled an entire generation of readers to profit from
the assassination.

Post by John Corbett
Going back to our Prodigy group, I remember a few LNs who also
believed that was the conclusion of the WC and I think there was one who
actually defended that position although I can't give you specific names
since it was almost 30 years ago.

Again, if they believed that, it was because they were accepting the
arguments of the conspiracy authors like Lane and Meagher. The Warren
Commission was quite explicit that they did not know which of the three
shots missed, and listed pros and cons for each of the three possibilities
(first shot miss, midddle shot miss, final shot miss).

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
It was always easier for conspiracy authors to argue against Oswald
committing the assassination in 5.6 seconds than in upwards of seven,
eight, or nine seconds, so conspiracy theorists simply ignored the
first-shot-miss scenario and the last-shot-miss scenario (both of which
allowed over eight seconds for three shots) and argued only against the
middle-shot-miss scenario, which allowed the least amount of time for
Oswald to commit the assassination. They did that by either ignoring the
other possible scenarios entirely, or excluding those scenarios based on
their own invalid reasoning.

That is the reason so many of them got pissed off at me for pointing out
that the WC did not conclude that. After arguing against the second shot
miss scenario for so many years, they thought I was attempting to save the
WCR by rewriting its conclusion on this point when in fact there was no
conclusion. They simply pointed out the various possibilities.

And conspiracy authors like Lane and Meagher and others lied about what
the Commission said.
Read again how dishonestly Meagher treated the shooting trials. If she had
compared the shooting results by Miller, Hendrix, and Staley to Oswald's
maximum allowable time, not the shortest, she would have had to admit that
ALL the test shooters accomplished the shooting in less time than Oswald
had, given a first or last second miss. Instead, by pretending Oswald had
only 5.6 seconds to accomplish the feat, she could argue that most of the
tests were above Oswald's time.
And hell, Josiah Thompson baked the 5.6 seconds into the very title of his
book. It's not called NINE OR TEN SECONDS IN DALLAS. It's called SIX
SECONDS IN DALLAS for a reason.

I'd be the last to defend people like Lane and Meagher. I'm just pointing out
that it was not just conspiracy authors who accepted the second shot miss
as the conclusion of the WC. Many LNs did as well. I was one of those until
I reread the WCR's chapter on this subject. In the late 1980s, CBS and
Walter Cronkite did a reexamination of the assassination and the WCR. It
might have been in conjunction with the 25th anniversary. It was the first
time I saw the Z-film. I'm going from memory but I think they presented the
second shot miss as the WC's conclusion. We can speculate as to the reason
that became so widely accepted. Perhaps the title of Thompson's book had
something to do with that. Perhaps the most glaring example of duplicity
was committed by Oliver Stone in the scene from his movie in which
Garrison (Costner) and his assistant did a recreation of the shooting. They
combined the 5.6 second time frame with a first shot miss and presented
both as conclusions of the WC even though they are mutually exclusive.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
"However, the Commission concluded: The various tests showed that the
Mannlicher-Carcano was an accurate rifle and that the use of a four-power
scope was a substantial aid to rapid, accurate firing . . . Oswald had the
capability to fire three shots, with two hits, within 4.8 and 5.6
seconds."
Lane makes no mention of the more expansive times allowed by a first or
last shot miss that the Commission accepted was possible.

While it was determined it was possible to do the shooting in 5.6 seconds,
it is highly improbable given that it allows almost no time for
reacquiring the target and aiming. They found that the single bullet was
fired somewhere between Z210 and Z225 based on Z210 being the first frame
JFK was in the clear and that JFK was reacting when he reappeared at Z225.
He actually did not start reacting until 226 but that is quibbling. Since
single bullet was actually fired about 90 frames before the headshot, that
reduces the total time for a second shot miss scenario to 4.9 seconds,
making it even more improbable.

Understood. And that is why Lane and Meagher, among other CT authors,
cited the middle shot miss scenario and argued exclusively against that,
rather than treat the subject honestly and discuss all three
possibilities.

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Josiah Thompson wrote in SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS, dismissing the possibility
"The color movie taken by Robert Hughes, who stood at the corner of Main
and Houston streets, is of even greater importance, yet scant mention is
made of it in the 26 volumes. Hughes stopped taking pictures just seconds
before the first shot, but even so the Commission's lack of interest is
difficult to understand, since Hughes's camera range included the windows
on the sixth floor of the Depository —right up until the time the
limousine turned the last corner. The FBI apparently studied one it also
had), and statements made to the Commission by witnesses on the scene
prove beyond a doubt that the first shot fired was the one that hit. The
Commission, however, without bothering to piece together the available
evidence, stoutly maintained that the first shot might have missed."
After dealing separately with the first and second shots, Thompson goes
into a chapter arguing for two head shots, and never deals with a third
shot miss scenario at all that I could find.
Thompson in fact favored a four-shot, four-hit scenario from three
different riflemen. He dismissed the three-shot, one miss scenario this

I have never read Six Seconds in Dallas and this description alone tells
me I was wise not to waste my time on it. I wasted enough with Best
Evidence, Plausible Denial, and Mafia Kingfish. That is time I will never
get back.

I have a wall filled with conspiracy books I have read. I believed them
until I bought the 26 WC volumes of testimony and evidence and the 12 HSCA
volumes. Then I found out had badly the conspiracy authors had abused the
truth.

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
"If Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet, then only one other
bullet could have struck in the car. But most witnesses heard three shots
and the Commission knew that three cartridge cases had been found in the
Depository. Thus a third shot must have been fired but missed the car
entirely. Through the device of vagueness—by stating that a shot
missed but not stating which one it was—the Commission could
conceal the paucity of evidence for such a miss. By again ignoring the
great weight of testimony indicating that no shots missed, a ramshackle
case could be put together."
Sylvia Meagher in ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT, like Lane in RUSH TO
JUDGMENT, pretends the shooter had only 5.6 seconds at most to fire all
three shots. She explicitly states this on page 108 of her book, in
comparing the times of the three test shooters for the Army (Hendrix,
Staley, and Miller) with that of what she calls the "Alleged Assassin,
November 22, 1963". In that chart she prepared, she states the "Alleged
Assassin" had a "Maximum of 5.6 seconds".
A "Maximum of 5.6 seconds" is a complete falsehood by Meagher.

One that has been repeated countless times over the decades although I
have to say not nearly as often as it was 30 years ago when I first began
to debate the CTs.

The fact is, however, that many people on the CT side first became CTs
because of untruths like "Oswald had only 5.6 seconds to fire all three
shots". Many of those people still harbor the belief in a conspiracy today
because their beliefs were formed so long ago. I'm thinking of long-time
noted CTs like Jim DiEugenio, Gary Aguilar, David Lifton and Martin
Schackleford. It's sometimes painfully obvious they believe a lot of
nonsense.

Another possible reason 5.6 seconds became accepted is the 1967 CBS
documentary in which they had expert marksman try to duplicate the
shooting from a tower in that time limit. Why they chose to do that rather
than pointing out the other possibilities is anybody's guess. I don't think
I saw it until another CBS documentary hosted by Dan Rather following
the release of Stone's movie. CBS seems to have been touting the 5.6
second scenario all along. To their credit, ABC's 2003 documentary used
Dale Myers' animation and he pointed out that Connally had reacted to
a first shot miss at Z164.

I just re-watched the pertinent part of the 1967 CBS special on the
assassination (I watched it in 1967 when it was originally broadcast, and
a few times since). All four parts are available, here's the first of four
https://www.c-span.org/video/?453991-2/a-cbs-news-inquiry-warren-report-part-1
At roughly the 32:00 minute mark, Dan Rather wrongly attributes to the
Warren Commission the middle-shot miss scenario, "along here [after the
President was shot between Zapruder frames 201-225], the Commission said a
second shot was fired".
That of course is incorrect. Here's what the Warren Commission actually
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-3.html#missed
== QUOTE ==
From the initial findings that (a) one shot passed through the President's
neck and then most probably passed through the Governor's body, (b) a
subsequent shot penetrated the President's head, (c) no other shot struck
any part of the automobile, and (d) three shots were fired, it follows
that one shot probably missed the car and its occupants. The evidence is
inconclusive as to whether it was the first, second, or third shot which
missed.
== UNQUOTE ==
I don't know how that can be turned into what the 1967 CBS special said,
unless they were misled by the conspiracy books that argued exclusively
against the 5.6 second time and ignored any possibility of a first or
third shot miss.

I remember back in the Prodigy days that when I quoted that summary, the
CTs would still insist the WC favored the second shot miss. CBS and Gerald
Posner have made that same error. The WC could not have been more
noncommittal as to which shot missed so it is mind boggling how that myth
persisted for so many years.

I'm going to try to find the 1988(?) CBS documentary that Cronkite hosted.
DVP's archives is probably a good place to start. Although they've never
explicitly stated it to my knowledge, CBS has always seemed to lean to the
lone assassin scenario. Why they also embraced the second shot miss is
anyone's guess. Six Seconds in Dallas came out in January of 1967 so maybe
they were influenced by that. In any case they seemed to have held to that
for several decades.

[John Corbett]

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by 19efppp
If I may be allowed to make this a topic... recently I made some such statement, "Fortunately for you, Marsh, Pappy is now beating up racists in heaven."
Now, I ask you, is it credible that thar be anybody out thar who does not
understand that this is intended to be a joke? Really? Is there any
literalist in all of JFK kookdom who does not recognize that this is an
attempt at humor? Of course Pappy is not beating up anybody in heaven. You
may not think it is funny, but surely you recognize that humor is the
intent. Do I really have to explain it? Of course not. Anybody who argues
against such a statement seriously must be arguing dishonestly. Right?

You're referring I believe to this post,
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/53mkHs9LoyU/m/FD6uZLlYAgAJ
Let me repeat all my points here, and point out why you're arguing
dishonestly.
== QUOTE ==

Post by 19efppp
According to the FBI, so you know it must be true,

No, that's false. The document you cite says, in part, "This document
contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI." It's not
according to the FBI. It's according to Ralph Neal. The FBI merely made a
memorandum for the record of what Neal reported.
The FBI was in a information-gathering stage when they took this report.
The document you cite is merely a report by a civilian of something he
1. It's hearsay. Ralph Neal is making a series of claims about what he
heard 17 years prior to the assassination.
2. It's recollection. Ralph Neal is making claims about what he recalls
happened nearly two decades previous.
3. It's unverified. The FBI doesn't vouch for the veracity of the person
reporting the claims. They are merely making a note of the claims.
4. The report depends entirely on the veracity of the person reporting.
This may shock you, but people do say things at times to investigators
that aren't necessarily true. They may be making a correct report to the
best of their ability, but being human, get things wrong. They may be
mis-remembering things that occurred nearly two decades before. The
incident in question may be true, but two decades later, the person is
mis-remembering some of the details, like who the participants were. The
person making the report may bear a grudge against someone for something
that occurred between them, and they are deliberately reporting falsehoods
in an attempt to get that person they hold the grudge against in trouble.
Obviously, there is no way of knowing what is occurring with Neal's
report, and neither you nor I can vouch for the accuracy of the claims
reported therein.
So how did you eliminate all the problematic issues with this report of
recollection, and how can you say "it must be true"?
< Bill Decker threw a

Post by 19efppp
drink on a little colored boy who was only trying to make the people
smile.

According to this report of the supposed recollection of one Ralph Neal.
Any confirmation of this supposed incident from 1946? Are you swearing on
a bible that Ralph Neal recalled this supposed incident for 1946
perfectly, and wasn't in error about anything, and also wasn't making
anything up?

Post by 19efppp
And then Carl "Pappy" Dolson beat the shit out of Decker for so
doing.

According to the report of the recollection of one Ralph Neal. Obviously,
there are a number of problems with that report.
Not the least of which was Decker at the time was the "Chief Deputy
Sheriff".
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/decker.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. HUBERT - What is your occupation?
Mr. DECKER - I am Sheriff of Dallas County.
Mr. HUBERT - How long have you been sheriff?
Mr. DECKER - Since January 1, 1949.
Mr. HUBERT - Well, you have been reelected a number of times
Mr. DECKER - Yes,-sir.
Mr. HUBERT - How many times?
Mr. DECKER - I am serving my 16 years---I had two of those one of those
terms for a 4-year term, but we caught 2 years prior to that--that makes 4
from 16, leaves 12, 3 and I is 4 terms and I am coming for my fifth now.
Mr. HUBERT - What was your occupation prior to the time that you became
sheriff?
Mr. DECKER - I was chief deputy sheriff for Dallas County 14 years prior
to that. Prior to that I was chief deputy constable since 1924, prior to
that I was in the courthouse as a court clerk and prior to that I was
elevator operator in the courthouse. Now, that's it--that's my life.
== UNQUOTE ==
I find it amusing that you think a night club owner would take it upon
himself to refund all the patrons money and close his nightclub and beat
up a law enforcement officer and there wouldn't be repercussions.
Neal seems to understand that at a minimum, Decker could have Dolson
arrested and tried for assaulting a law enforcement officer, so he reports
"Police were not called". I also find it amusing that you think Decker
wouldn't have done anything about this supposed beating he was supposed
administered by the supposed nightclub owner, Dolson.

Post by 19efppp
Just be thankful, Marsh, that Pappy is now beating up racists in
heaven.
https://postimg.cc/YvYwR0kP

You appear to be assuming there is a heaven and that Pappy made it there.
Like all the other assumptions you make spelled out above.
Hank
== UNQUOTE ==
Now, there were a lot of points there that you're ignoring, and focusing
on the last one. But I ask you, why is you assume the above is a joke, but
the response is not intended in the same vein? I didn't see any emoticons
specifying it was a joke in the original post, and I didn't think I needed
to add any to the response. Yet you attribute ill-will to me, and none to
the original poster, because, after all, it's obviously a joke, right?
Your argument has two things against it: You're assuming what you need to
prove (ill-will and dishonesty) and the fact that, as you admit, Pappy
isn't beating anyone up in heaven, so it's also false. My argument has two
things in favor, it's still humorous, and it's factually correct, and
points out the logical fallacies imbedded within the joke.
Now try arguing the points I made.

You make excellent points and that extends to just about everything that
is contained in the WC's 26 volumes. Those volumes are nothing more than a
repository of raw data collected during the investigation. They contain no
actual findings of the WC, rather they are the raw data on which the
findings were based. Not all of the raw data collected was credible
evidence. In some cases, it was contradictory. It was the task of the WC
to sift through all that raw data and determine what pieces were probative
and which where not. In some cases, the WC was unable to resolve the
conflicts and refrained from reaching a conclusion. For example they
reached no definitive conclusion as to which of Oswald's three shots
missed. They did this because of the conflicting accounts as to how the
shooting actually happened and so they simply presented the arguments for
and against each of the possible scenarios, a missed first shot, missed
second shot, and missed third shot. They even allowed for there having
been no misses and that Oswald only fired two shots. Somehow, for many
years, the second shot miss requiring an elapsed time of 5.6 seconds for
all three shots seemed to be accepted as a conclusion of the WC even
though they reached no such conclusion. When I first began participating
in discussion groups way back in the 1990s (our Prodigy group), that
seemed to be the consensus among both CTs and LNs. A rereading of the WCR
which I had first read when it came out, told me the WC was noncommittal
about which shot missed. When I began pointing this out to people on the
CT side, some accused me of trying to rewrite the WC conclusions decades
after the fact. They had for years attacked the plausibility of the second
shot miss scenario and thought I was moving the goal posts when I began
arguing that there was a first shot miss. The reality is there never were
any goal posts to be moved because the WC had never set any goal posts on
this issue. I remember when Gerald Posner went on TV to promote his book
Case Closed, even he was falsely claiming that the WC concluded a second
shot miss and acted as if he was setting the record straight with his
book. A second shot miss conclusion was a misconception, not a reality.

It was never a misconception, it was a lie by conspiracy authors.

Not just conspiracy authors. As I pointed out, Posner also made that false
assertion.

If so, it was because Posner believed what the conspiracy authors were
arguing. You are willing to cut Lane and Meagher and other conspiracy
authors slack here. I'm not. They choose only the shortest time, and
argued against that time. Lane and Meagher made no mention that if the
first or last shot missed, Oswald had as much as ten seconds (or more) for
three shots. They misled an entire generation of readers to profit from
the assassination.

Post by John Corbett
Going back to our Prodigy group, I remember a few LNs who also
believed that was the conclusion of the WC and I think there was one who
actually defended that position although I can't give you specific names
since it was almost 30 years ago.

Again, if they believed that, it was because they were accepting the
arguments of the conspiracy authors like Lane and Meagher. The Warren
Commission was quite explicit that they did not know which of the three
shots missed, and listed pros and cons for each of the three possibilities
(first shot miss, midddle shot miss, final shot miss).

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
It was always easier for conspiracy authors to argue against Oswald
committing the assassination in 5.6 seconds than in upwards of seven,
eight, or nine seconds, so conspiracy theorists simply ignored the
first-shot-miss scenario and the last-shot-miss scenario (both of which
allowed over eight seconds for three shots) and argued only against the
middle-shot-miss scenario, which allowed the least amount of time for
Oswald to commit the assassination. They did that by either ignoring the
other possible scenarios entirely, or excluding those scenarios based on
their own invalid reasoning.

That is the reason so many of them got pissed off at me for pointing out
that the WC did not conclude that. After arguing against the second shot
miss scenario for so many years, they thought I was attempting to save the
WCR by rewriting its conclusion on this point when in fact there was no
conclusion. They simply pointed out the various possibilities.

And conspiracy authors like Lane and Meagher and others lied about what
the Commission said.
Read again how dishonestly Meagher treated the shooting trials. If she had
compared the shooting results by Miller, Hendrix, and Staley to Oswald's
maximum allowable time, not the shortest, she would have had to admit that
ALL the test shooters accomplished the shooting in less time than Oswald
had, given a first or last second miss. Instead, by pretending Oswald had
only 5.6 seconds to accomplish the feat, she could argue that most of the
tests were above Oswald's time.
And hell, Josiah Thompson baked the 5.6 seconds into the very title of his
book. It's not called NINE OR TEN SECONDS IN DALLAS. It's called SIX
SECONDS IN DALLAS for a reason.

I'd be the last to defend people like Lane and Meagher. I'm just pointing out
that it was not just conspiracy authors who accepted the second shot miss
as the conclusion of the WC. Many LNs did as well. I was one of those until
I reread the WCR's chapter on this subject. In the late 1980s, CBS and
Walter Cronkite did a reexamination of the assassination and the WCR. It
might have been in conjunction with the 25th anniversary. It was the first
time I saw the Z-film. I'm going from memory but I think they presented the
second shot miss as the WC's conclusion. We can speculate as to the reason
that became so widely accepted. Perhaps the title of Thompson's book had
something to do with that. Perhaps the most glaring example of duplicity
was committed by Oliver Stone in the scene from his movie in which
Garrison (Costner) and his assistant did a recreation of the shooting. They
combined the 5.6 second time frame with a first shot miss and presented
both as conclusions of the WC even though they are mutually exclusive.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
"However, the Commission concluded: The various tests showed that the
Mannlicher-Carcano was an accurate rifle and that the use of a four-power
scope was a substantial aid to rapid, accurate firing . . . Oswald had the
capability to fire three shots, with two hits, within 4.8 and 5.6
seconds."
Lane makes no mention of the more expansive times allowed by a first or
last shot miss that the Commission accepted was possible.

While it was determined it was possible to do the shooting in 5.6 seconds,
it is highly improbable given that it allows almost no time for
reacquiring the target and aiming. They found that the single bullet was
fired somewhere between Z210 and Z225 based on Z210 being the first frame
JFK was in the clear and that JFK was reacting when he reappeared at Z225.
He actually did not start reacting until 226 but that is quibbling. Since
single bullet was actually fired about 90 frames before the headshot, that
reduces the total time for a second shot miss scenario to 4.9 seconds,
making it even more improbable.

Understood. And that is why Lane and Meagher, among other CT authors,
cited the middle shot miss scenario and argued exclusively against that,
rather than treat the subject honestly and discuss all three
possibilities.

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Josiah Thompson wrote in SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS, dismissing the possibility
"The color movie taken by Robert Hughes, who stood at the corner of Main
and Houston streets, is of even greater importance, yet scant mention is
made of it in the 26 volumes. Hughes stopped taking pictures just seconds
before the first shot, but even so the Commission's lack of interest is
difficult to understand, since Hughes's camera range included the windows
on the sixth floor of the Depository —right up until the time the
limousine turned the last corner. The FBI apparently studied one it also
had), and statements made to the Commission by witnesses on the scene
prove beyond a doubt that the first shot fired was the one that hit. The
Commission, however, without bothering to piece together the available
evidence, stoutly maintained that the first shot might have missed."
After dealing separately with the first and second shots, Thompson goes
into a chapter arguing for two head shots, and never deals with a third
shot miss scenario at all that I could find.
Thompson in fact favored a four-shot, four-hit scenario from three
different riflemen. He dismissed the three-shot, one miss scenario this

I have never read Six Seconds in Dallas and this description alone tells
me I was wise not to waste my time on it. I wasted enough with Best
Evidence, Plausible Denial, and Mafia Kingfish. That is time I will never
get back.

I have a wall filled with conspiracy books I have read. I believed them
until I bought the 26 WC volumes of testimony and evidence and the 12 HSCA
volumes. Then I found out had badly the conspiracy authors had abused the
truth.

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
"If Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet, then only one other
bullet could have struck in the car. But most witnesses heard three shots
and the Commission knew that three cartridge cases had been found in the
Depository. Thus a third shot must have been fired but missed the car
entirely. Through the device of vagueness—by stating that a shot
missed but not stating which one it was—the Commission could
conceal the paucity of evidence for such a miss. By again ignoring the
great weight of testimony indicating that no shots missed, a ramshackle
case could be put together."
Sylvia Meagher in ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT, like Lane in RUSH TO
JUDGMENT, pretends the shooter had only 5.6 seconds at most to fire all
three shots. She explicitly states this on page 108 of her book, in
comparing the times of the three test shooters for the Army (Hendrix,
Staley, and Miller) with that of what she calls the "Alleged Assassin,
November 22, 1963". In that chart she prepared, she states the "Alleged
Assassin" had a "Maximum of 5.6 seconds".
A "Maximum of 5.6 seconds" is a complete falsehood by Meagher.

One that has been repeated countless times over the decades although I
have to say not nearly as often as it was 30 years ago when I first began
to debate the CTs.

The fact is, however, that many people on the CT side first became CTs
because of untruths like "Oswald had only 5.6 seconds to fire all three
shots". Many of those people still harbor the belief in a conspiracy today
because their beliefs were formed so long ago. I'm thinking of long-time
noted CTs like Jim DiEugenio, Gary Aguilar, David Lifton and Martin
Schackleford. It's sometimes painfully obvious they believe a lot of
nonsense.

Another possible reason 5.6 seconds became accepted is the 1967 CBS
documentary in which they had expert marksman try to duplicate the
shooting from a tower in that time limit. Why they chose to do that rather
than pointing out the other possibilities is anybody's guess. I don't think
I saw it until another CBS documentary hosted by Dan Rather following
the release of Stone's movie. CBS seems to have been touting the 5.6
second scenario all along. To their credit, ABC's 2003 documentary used
Dale Myers' animation and he pointed out that Connally had reacted to
a first shot miss at Z164.

I just re-watched the pertinent part of the 1967 CBS special on the
assassination (I watched it in 1967 when it was originally broadcast, and
a few times since). All four parts are available, here's the first of four
https://www.c-span.org/video/?453991-2/a-cbs-news-inquiry-warren-report-part-1
At roughly the 32:00 minute mark, Dan Rather wrongly attributes to the
Warren Commission the middle-shot miss scenario, "along here [after the
President was shot between Zapruder frames 201-225], the Commission said a
second shot was fired".
That of course is incorrect. Here's what the Warren Commission actually
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-3.html#missed
== QUOTE ==
From the initial findings that (a) one shot passed through the President's
neck and then most probably passed through the Governor's body, (b) a
subsequent shot penetrated the President's head, (c) no other shot struck
any part of the automobile, and (d) three shots were fired, it follows
that one shot probably missed the car and its occupants. The evidence is
inconclusive as to whether it was the first, second, or third shot which
missed.
== UNQUOTE ==
I don't know how that can be turned into what the 1967 CBS special said,
unless they were misled by the conspiracy books that argued exclusively
against the 5.6 second time and ignored any possibility of a first or
third shot miss.

I just continued the CBS video beyond the shooting test and was
flabbergasted by more BS from Cronkite. He actually said the WC concluded
the first shot was fired at Z210 and the last shot at Z313. I had to run
it back to make sure I heard it right. I did. Z210 was the earliest the WC
thought the single bullet was fired because that is when they estimated
JFK came into the clear. Even if we accept the second shot miss scenario,
the single bullet did not have to be fired at that point. The WC gave a
range of Z210-225 for when that shot was fired. That is true regardless of
which of the three shots was the miss. Now if we really want to quibble,
the headshot was not fired at Z313. It struck at Z313. It would have been
fired 2-3 frames earlier. Same for the single bullet. The latest I believe
it could have been fired was Z222 and probably a frame or two earlier.

I haven't reviewed the entire video yet but for what I have seen, I would
give Cronkite and Rather a generous D for their report. It's that bad. Did
they just read the Cliff Notes for the WCR? No wonder so many people claim
the WCR concluded 3 shots in under six seconds when they are getting such
poor information from people who should know better. I wonder how many
other blatant misstatements of fact are in the four part documentary.

[John Corbett]

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by 19efppp
If I may be allowed to make this a topic... recently I made some such statement, "Fortunately for you, Marsh, Pappy is now beating up racists in heaven."
Now, I ask you, is it credible that thar be anybody out thar who does not
understand that this is intended to be a joke? Really? Is there any
literalist in all of JFK kookdom who does not recognize that this is an
attempt at humor? Of course Pappy is not beating up anybody in heaven. You
may not think it is funny, but surely you recognize that humor is the
intent. Do I really have to explain it? Of course not. Anybody who argues
against such a statement seriously must be arguing dishonestly. Right?

You're referring I believe to this post,
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/53mkHs9LoyU/m/FD6uZLlYAgAJ
Let me repeat all my points here, and point out why you're arguing
dishonestly.
== QUOTE ==

Post by 19efppp
According to the FBI, so you know it must be true,

No, that's false. The document you cite says, in part, "This document
contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI." It's not
according to the FBI. It's according to Ralph Neal. The FBI merely made a
memorandum for the record of what Neal reported.
The FBI was in a information-gathering stage when they took this report.
The document you cite is merely a report by a civilian of something he
1. It's hearsay. Ralph Neal is making a series of claims about what he
heard 17 years prior to the assassination.
2. It's recollection. Ralph Neal is making claims about what he recalls
happened nearly two decades previous.
3. It's unverified. The FBI doesn't vouch for the veracity of the person
reporting the claims. They are merely making a note of the claims.
4. The report depends entirely on the veracity of the person reporting.
This may shock you, but people do say things at times to investigators
that aren't necessarily true. They may be making a correct report to the
best of their ability, but being human, get things wrong. They may be
mis-remembering things that occurred nearly two decades before. The
incident in question may be true, but two decades later, the person is
mis-remembering some of the details, like who the participants were. The
person making the report may bear a grudge against someone for something
that occurred between them, and they are deliberately reporting falsehoods
in an attempt to get that person they hold the grudge against in trouble.
Obviously, there is no way of knowing what is occurring with Neal's
report, and neither you nor I can vouch for the accuracy of the claims
reported therein.
So how did you eliminate all the problematic issues with this report of
recollection, and how can you say "it must be true"?
< Bill Decker threw a

Post by 19efppp
drink on a little colored boy who was only trying to make the people
smile.

According to this report of the supposed recollection of one Ralph Neal.
Any confirmation of this supposed incident from 1946? Are you swearing on
a bible that Ralph Neal recalled this supposed incident for 1946
perfectly, and wasn't in error about anything, and also wasn't making
anything up?

Post by 19efppp
And then Carl "Pappy" Dolson beat the shit out of Decker for so
doing.

According to the report of the recollection of one Ralph Neal. Obviously,
there are a number of problems with that report.
Not the least of which was Decker at the time was the "Chief Deputy
Sheriff".
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/decker.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. HUBERT - What is your occupation?
Mr. DECKER - I am Sheriff of Dallas County.
Mr. HUBERT - How long have you been sheriff?
Mr. DECKER - Since January 1, 1949.
Mr. HUBERT - Well, you have been reelected a number of times
Mr. DECKER - Yes,-sir.
Mr. HUBERT - How many times?
Mr. DECKER - I am serving my 16 years---I had two of those one of those
terms for a 4-year term, but we caught 2 years prior to that--that makes 4
from 16, leaves 12, 3 and I is 4 terms and I am coming for my fifth now.
Mr. HUBERT - What was your occupation prior to the time that you became
sheriff?
Mr. DECKER - I was chief deputy sheriff for Dallas County 14 years prior
to that. Prior to that I was chief deputy constable since 1924, prior to
that I was in the courthouse as a court clerk and prior to that I was
elevator operator in the courthouse. Now, that's it--that's my life.
== UNQUOTE ==
I find it amusing that you think a night club owner would take it upon
himself to refund all the patrons money and close his nightclub and beat
up a law enforcement officer and there wouldn't be repercussions.
Neal seems to understand that at a minimum, Decker could have Dolson
arrested and tried for assaulting a law enforcement officer, so he reports
"Police were not called". I also find it amusing that you think Decker
wouldn't have done anything about this supposed beating he was supposed
administered by the supposed nightclub owner, Dolson.

Post by 19efppp
Just be thankful, Marsh, that Pappy is now beating up racists in
heaven.
https://postimg.cc/YvYwR0kP

You appear to be assuming there is a heaven and that Pappy made it there.
Like all the other assumptions you make spelled out above.
Hank
== UNQUOTE ==
Now, there were a lot of points there that you're ignoring, and focusing
on the last one. But I ask you, why is you assume the above is a joke, but
the response is not intended in the same vein? I didn't see any emoticons
specifying it was a joke in the original post, and I didn't think I needed
to add any to the response. Yet you attribute ill-will to me, and none to
the original poster, because, after all, it's obviously a joke, right?
Your argument has two things against it: You're assuming what you need to
prove (ill-will and dishonesty) and the fact that, as you admit, Pappy
isn't beating anyone up in heaven, so it's also false. My argument has two
things in favor, it's still humorous, and it's factually correct, and
points out the logical fallacies imbedded within the joke.
Now try arguing the points I made.

You make excellent points and that extends to just about everything that
is contained in the WC's 26 volumes. Those volumes are nothing more than a
repository of raw data collected during the investigation. They contain no
actual findings of the WC, rather they are the raw data on which the
findings were based. Not all of the raw data collected was credible
evidence. In some cases, it was contradictory. It was the task of the WC
to sift through all that raw data and determine what pieces were probative
and which where not. In some cases, the WC was unable to resolve the
conflicts and refrained from reaching a conclusion. For example they
reached no definitive conclusion as to which of Oswald's three shots
missed. They did this because of the conflicting accounts as to how the
shooting actually happened and so they simply presented the arguments for
and against each of the possible scenarios, a missed first shot, missed
second shot, and missed third shot. They even allowed for there having
been no misses and that Oswald only fired two shots. Somehow, for many
years, the second shot miss requiring an elapsed time of 5.6 seconds for
all three shots seemed to be accepted as a conclusion of the WC even
though they reached no such conclusion. When I first began participating
in discussion groups way back in the 1990s (our Prodigy group), that
seemed to be the consensus among both CTs and LNs. A rereading of the WCR
which I had first read when it came out, told me the WC was noncommittal
about which shot missed. When I began pointing this out to people on the
CT side, some accused me of trying to rewrite the WC conclusions decades
after the fact. They had for years attacked the plausibility of the second
shot miss scenario and thought I was moving the goal posts when I began
arguing that there was a first shot miss. The reality is there never were
any goal posts to be moved because the WC had never set any goal posts on
this issue. I remember when Gerald Posner went on TV to promote his book
Case Closed, even he was falsely claiming that the WC concluded a second
shot miss and acted as if he was setting the record straight with his
book. A second shot miss conclusion was a misconception, not a reality.

It was never a misconception, it was a lie by conspiracy authors.

Not just conspiracy authors. As I pointed out, Posner also made that false
assertion.

If so, it was because Posner believed what the conspiracy authors were
arguing. You are willing to cut Lane and Meagher and other conspiracy
authors slack here. I'm not. They choose only the shortest time, and
argued against that time. Lane and Meagher made no mention that if the
first or last shot missed, Oswald had as much as ten seconds (or more) for
three shots. They misled an entire generation of readers to profit from
the assassination.

Post by John Corbett
Going back to our Prodigy group, I remember a few LNs who also
believed that was the conclusion of the WC and I think there was one who
actually defended that position although I can't give you specific names
since it was almost 30 years ago.

Again, if they believed that, it was because they were accepting the
arguments of the conspiracy authors like Lane and Meagher. The Warren
Commission was quite explicit that they did not know which of the three
shots missed, and listed pros and cons for each of the three possibilities
(first shot miss, midddle shot miss, final shot miss).

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
It was always easier for conspiracy authors to argue against Oswald
committing the assassination in 5.6 seconds than in upwards of seven,
eight, or nine seconds, so conspiracy theorists simply ignored the
first-shot-miss scenario and the last-shot-miss scenario (both of which
allowed over eight seconds for three shots) and argued only against the
middle-shot-miss scenario, which allowed the least amount of time for
Oswald to commit the assassination. They did that by either ignoring the
other possible scenarios entirely, or excluding those scenarios based on
their own invalid reasoning.

That is the reason so many of them got pissed off at me for pointing out
that the WC did not conclude that. After arguing against the second shot
miss scenario for so many years, they thought I was attempting to save the
WCR by rewriting its conclusion on this point when in fact there was no
conclusion. They simply pointed out the various possibilities.

And conspiracy authors like Lane and Meagher and others lied about what
the Commission said.
Read again how dishonestly Meagher treated the shooting trials. If she had
compared the shooting results by Miller, Hendrix, and Staley to Oswald's
maximum allowable time, not the shortest, she would have had to admit that
ALL the test shooters accomplished the shooting in less time than Oswald
had, given a first or last second miss. Instead, by pretending Oswald had
only 5.6 seconds to accomplish the feat, she could argue that most of the
tests were above Oswald's time.
And hell, Josiah Thompson baked the 5.6 seconds into the very title of his
book. It's not called NINE OR TEN SECONDS IN DALLAS. It's called SIX
SECONDS IN DALLAS for a reason.

I'd be the last to defend people like Lane and Meagher. I'm just pointing out
that it was not just conspiracy authors who accepted the second shot miss
as the conclusion of the WC. Many LNs did as well. I was one of those until
I reread the WCR's chapter on this subject. In the late 1980s, CBS and
Walter Cronkite did a reexamination of the assassination and the WCR. It
might have been in conjunction with the 25th anniversary. It was the first
time I saw the Z-film. I'm going from memory but I think they presented the
second shot miss as the WC's conclusion. We can speculate as to the reason
that became so widely accepted. Perhaps the title of Thompson's book had
something to do with that. Perhaps the most glaring example of duplicity
was committed by Oliver Stone in the scene from his movie in which
Garrison (Costner) and his assistant did a recreation of the shooting. They
combined the 5.6 second time frame with a first shot miss and presented
both as conclusions of the WC even though they are mutually exclusive.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
"However, the Commission concluded: The various tests showed that the
Mannlicher-Carcano was an accurate rifle and that the use of a four-power
scope was a substantial aid to rapid, accurate firing . . . Oswald had the
capability to fire three shots, with two hits, within 4.8 and 5.6
seconds."
Lane makes no mention of the more expansive times allowed by a first or
last shot miss that the Commission accepted was possible.

While it was determined it was possible to do the shooting in 5.6 seconds,
it is highly improbable given that it allows almost no time for
reacquiring the target and aiming. They found that the single bullet was
fired somewhere between Z210 and Z225 based on Z210 being the first frame
JFK was in the clear and that JFK was reacting when he reappeared at Z225.
He actually did not start reacting until 226 but that is quibbling. Since
single bullet was actually fired about 90 frames before the headshot, that
reduces the total time for a second shot miss scenario to 4.9 seconds,
making it even more improbable.

Understood. And that is why Lane and Meagher, among other CT authors,
cited the middle shot miss scenario and argued exclusively against that,
rather than treat the subject honestly and discuss all three
possibilities.

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Josiah Thompson wrote in SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS, dismissing the possibility
"The color movie taken by Robert Hughes, who stood at the corner of Main
and Houston streets, is of even greater importance, yet scant mention is
made of it in the 26 volumes. Hughes stopped taking pictures just seconds
before the first shot, but even so the Commission's lack of interest is
difficult to understand, since Hughes's camera range included the windows
on the sixth floor of the Depository —right up until the time the
limousine turned the last corner. The FBI apparently studied one it also
had), and statements made to the Commission by witnesses on the scene
prove beyond a doubt that the first shot fired was the one that hit. The
Commission, however, without bothering to piece together the available
evidence, stoutly maintained that the first shot might have missed."
After dealing separately with the first and second shots, Thompson goes
into a chapter arguing for two head shots, and never deals with a third
shot miss scenario at all that I could find.
Thompson in fact favored a four-shot, four-hit scenario from three
different riflemen. He dismissed the three-shot, one miss scenario this

I have never read Six Seconds in Dallas and this description alone tells
me I was wise not to waste my time on it. I wasted enough with Best
Evidence, Plausible Denial, and Mafia Kingfish. That is time I will never
get back.

I have a wall filled with conspiracy books I have read. I believed them
until I bought the 26 WC volumes of testimony and evidence and the 12 HSCA
volumes. Then I found out had badly the conspiracy authors had abused the
truth.

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
"If Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet, then only one other
bullet could have struck in the car. But most witnesses heard three shots
and the Commission knew that three cartridge cases had been found in the
Depository. Thus a third shot must have been fired but missed the car
entirely. Through the device of vagueness—by stating that a shot
missed but not stating which one it was—the Commission could
conceal the paucity of evidence for such a miss. By again ignoring the
great weight of testimony indicating that no shots missed, a ramshackle
case could be put together."
Sylvia Meagher in ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT, like Lane in RUSH TO
JUDGMENT, pretends the shooter had only 5.6 seconds at most to fire all
three shots. She explicitly states this on page 108 of her book, in
comparing the times of the three test shooters for the Army (Hendrix,
Staley, and Miller) with that of what she calls the "Alleged Assassin,
November 22, 1963". In that chart she prepared, she states the "Alleged
Assassin" had a "Maximum of 5.6 seconds".
A "Maximum of 5.6 seconds" is a complete falsehood by Meagher.

One that has been repeated countless times over the decades although I
have to say not nearly as often as it was 30 years ago when I first began
to debate the CTs.

The fact is, however, that many people on the CT side first became CTs
because of untruths like "Oswald had only 5.6 seconds to fire all three
shots". Many of those people still harbor the belief in a conspiracy today
because their beliefs were formed so long ago. I'm thinking of long-time
noted CTs like Jim DiEugenio, Gary Aguilar, David Lifton and Martin
Schackleford. It's sometimes painfully obvious they believe a lot of
nonsense.

Another possible reason 5.6 seconds became accepted is the 1967 CBS
documentary in which they had expert marksman try to duplicate the
shooting from a tower in that time limit. Why they chose to do that rather
than pointing out the other possibilities is anybody's guess. I don't think
I saw it until another CBS documentary hosted by Dan Rather following
the release of Stone's movie. CBS seems to have been touting the 5.6
second scenario all along. To their credit, ABC's 2003 documentary used
Dale Myers' animation and he pointed out that Connally had reacted to
a first shot miss at Z164.

I just re-watched the pertinent part of the 1967 CBS special on the
assassination (I watched it in 1967 when it was originally broadcast, and
a few times since). All four parts are available, here's the first of four
https://www.c-span.org/video/?453991-2/a-cbs-news-inquiry-warren-report-part-1
At roughly the 32:00 minute mark, Dan Rather wrongly attributes to the
Warren Commission the middle-shot miss scenario, "along here [after the
President was shot between Zapruder frames 201-225], the Commission said a
second shot was fired".
That of course is incorrect. Here's what the Warren Commission actually
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-3.html#missed
== QUOTE ==
From the initial findings that (a) one shot passed through the President's
neck and then most probably passed through the Governor's body, (b) a
subsequent shot penetrated the President's head, (c) no other shot struck
any part of the automobile, and (d) three shots were fired, it follows
that one shot probably missed the car and its occupants. The evidence is
inconclusive as to whether it was the first, second, or third shot which
missed.
== UNQUOTE ==
I don't know how that can be turned into what the 1967 CBS special said,
unless they were misled by the conspiracy books that argued exclusively
against the 5.6 second time and ignored any possibility of a first or
third shot miss.

I just continued the CBS video beyond the shooting test and was
flabbergasted by more BS from Cronkite. He actually said the WC concluded
the first shot was fired at Z210 and the last shot at Z313. I had to run
it back to make sure I heard it right. I did. Z210 was the earliest the WC
thought the single bullet was fired because that is when they estimated
JFK came into the clear. Even if we accept the second shot miss scenario,
the single bullet did not have to be fired at that point. The WC gave a
range of Z210-225 for when that shot was fired. That is true regardless of
which of the three shots was the miss. Now if we really want to quibble,
the headshot was not fired at Z313. It struck at Z313. It would have been
fired 2-3 frames earlier. Same for the single bullet. The latest I believe
it could have been fired was Z222 and probably a frame or two earlier.
I haven't reviewed the entire video yet but for what I have seen, I would
give Cronkite and Rather a generous D for their report. It's that bad. Did
they just read the Cliff Notes for the WCR? No wonder so many people claim
the WCR concluded 3 shots in under six seconds when they are getting such
poor information from people who should know better. I wonder how many
other blatant misstatements of fact are in the four part documentary.

I watched the remainder of the 1967 CBS documentary and Cronkite continued
to blather nonsensically about the shooting sequence. After consulting
with Luis Alvarez and a film analyst, they came to he conclusion that the
single bullet was not the first shot as if they had discovered something
the WC missed. Unfortunately they discovered a blurred frame at Z190 and
also determined that JFK came briefly into the clear at Z186. They never
considered the difficulty for Oswald of trying to squeeze a shot in that
brief window or the fact that such a shot was less than two seconds before
when they placed the single bullet which was at Z222, five frames before
the blurring at Z227. That last part is the only thing they seemed to get
right. I have often pointed to the blurring at Z227 as an indicator of
when the second shot was fired. Z222 is about when the bullet struck which
would require the shot to have been fired about Z220.

Had they bothered to look at the entire Z-film they would discovered there
were numerous bluffing incidents and not all of the could have been in
reaction to gunshots. The one which I believe was associated with the
first shot was the blurring at Z158. If that is due to a shot, it would
have been fired at about Z150-151.

In short, this documentary was not Cronkite's finest hour. I'm sure he
relied on a team to gather the information but as news chief, he was
ultimately responsible for the content which in this case was quite
poor.

[John Corbett]

There was one other comment I intended to make in my last post about the
1967 CBS documentary. They pointed out that Zapruder's camera was tested
by the FBI to run at 18.3 fps. They then went to the trouble of testing
five Bell and Howell cameras that were the same model as Zapruder's. They
discovered that there was a significant variation in the speed of the
cameras and questioned whether Zapruder's camera can be considered a
reliable timepiece for the shooting. While that is interesting, it is
irrelevant. What difference does it make what speed other B&H cameras ran
at. The only thing that does matter is the speed Zapruder's camera was
running at. The FBI tested it and found it ran at 18.3 fps.

I do see two possible variables that could change the timing calculation.
One would be if battery life effected the speed of the camera. I've
noticed with my cordless drills that when the battery runs down, so does
the speed of the drill so I'm guessing the same could have happened with
the camera. The other would be the speed of the camera in relation to the
projector. If the camera filmed at 18.3 seconds but the projector plays
the film back at 15 fps or 20 fps, it will be either faster or slower than
the event that was filmed. All of this is probably quibbling. I doubt
there was a significant difference between when Zapruder filmed the
shooting and when the camera was tested or a difference in the speed of
the projector and Zapruder's camera.

[Steve Schmidt]

Post by John Corbett
I do see two possible variables that could change the timing calculation.
One would be if battery life effected the speed of the camera. I've
noticed with my cordless drills that when the battery runs down, so does
the speed of the drill so I'm guessing the same could have happened with
the camera.

The camera was wound with a crank so there was no battery life variable.

"Model 414 PD Bell & Howell Zoomatic Director Series Camera with a Varamat
9-27mm F1.8 lens. ....an electric eye ..., a springwind indicator, and
speeds of 1, 16 and 48 FPS."
https://www.redsharknews.com/production/item/3090-the-camera-that-caught-the-kennedy-assassination

I imagine he had the camera set to 16 FPS which translated to ~18FPS.

[John Corbett]

Post by Steve Schmidt

Post by John Corbett
I do see two possible variables that could change the timing calculation.
One would be if battery life effected the speed of the camera. I've
noticed with my cordless drills that when the battery runs down, so does
the speed of the drill so I'm guessing the same could have happened with
the camera.

The camera was wound with a crank so there was no battery life variable.
"Model 414 PD Bell & Howell Zoomatic Director Series Camera with a Varamat
9-27mm F1.8 lens. ....an electric eye ..., a springwind indicator, and
speeds of 1, 16 and 48 FPS."
https://www.redsharknews.com/production/item/3090-the-camera-that-caught-the-kennedy-assassination
I imagine he had the camera set to 16 FPS which translated to ~18FPS.

Right. I discovered that after making the above post. I thought I sent in
a correction but it hasn't posted yet so maybe I forgot to hit the POST
key. I'd seen the crank on the same model camera but mistakenly assumed
that was used to charge the battery. I have an emergency radio which has
the same kind of crank so the battery can be recharged indefinitely even
if I lose power for an extended period of time.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by John Corbett

Post by Steve Schmidt

Post by John Corbett
I do see two possible variables that could change the timing calculation.
One would be if battery life effected the speed of the camera. I've
noticed with my cordless drills that when the battery runs down, so does
the speed of the drill so I'm guessing the same could have happened with
the camera.

The camera was wound with a crank so there was no battery life variable.
"Model 414 PD Bell & Howell Zoomatic Director Series Camera with a Varamat
9-27mm F1.8 lens. ....an electric eye ..., a springwind indicator, and
speeds of 1, 16 and 48 FPS."
https://www.redsharknews.com/production/item/3090-the-camera-that-caught-the-kennedy-assassination
I imagine he had the camera set to 16 FPS which translated to ~18FPS.

Right. I discovered that after making the above post. I thought I sent in
a correction but it hasn't posted yet so maybe I forgot to hit the POST
key. I'd seen the crank on the same model camera but mistakenly assumed
that was used to charge the battery. I have an emergency radio which has
the same kind of crank so the battery can be recharged indefinitely even
if I lose power for an extended period of time.

Alvaraz was able to buy the same model for his tests.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Post by John Corbett
There was one other comment I intended to make in my last post about the
1967 CBS documentary. They pointed out that Zapruder's camera was tested
by the FBI to run at 18.3 fps. They then went to the trouble of testing
five Bell and Howell cameras that were the same model as Zapruder's. They
discovered that there was a significant variation in the speed of the
cameras and questioned whether Zapruder's camera can be considered a
reliable timepiece for the shooting. While that is interesting, it is
irrelevant. What difference does it make what speed other B&H cameras ran
at. The only thing that does matter is the speed Zapruder's camera was
running at. The FBI tested it and found it ran at 18.3 fps.
I do see two possible variables that could change the timing calculation.
One would be if battery life effected the speed of the camera. I've
noticed with my cordless drills that when the battery runs down, so does
the speed of the drill so I'm guessing the same could have happened with
the camera. The other would be the speed of the camera in relation to the
projector. If the camera filmed at 18.3 seconds but the projector plays
the film back at 15 fps or 20 fps, it will be either faster or slower than
the event that was filmed. All of this is probably quibbling. I doubt
there was a significant difference between when Zapruder filmed the
shooting and when the camera was tested or a difference in the speed of
the projector and Zapruder's camera.

The Bell & Howell camera was a spring-wound -- not battery-operated --
camera and Zapruder testified his camera was fully-wound. The FBI timing
test was using Zapruder's fully-wound camera.

Here's Zapruder's camera:
Loading Image...

Here's an identical camera on sale at eBay:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Bell-And-Howell-Director-Series-Zoomatic-8mm-Movie-Camera-w-custom-case/193595409906?_trkparms=aid%3D1110006%26algo%3DHOMESPLICE.SIM%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20200818143230%26meid%3Dc2855ad5f67b4c5bad6ad7f37fd2703f%26pid%3D101224%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D5%26mehot%3Dnone%26sd%3D264155069872%26itm%3D193595409906%26pmt%3D1%26noa%3D1%26pg%3D2047675%26algv%3DDefaultOrganic%26brand%3DBell+and+Howell&_trksid=p2047675.c101224.m-1

You can see the winder on the right side of the camera near the top-back.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Post by John Corbett
There was one other comment I intended to make in my last post about the
1967 CBS documentary. They pointed out that Zapruder's camera was tested
by the FBI to run at 18.3 fps. They then went to the trouble of testing
five Bell and Howell cameras that were the same model as Zapruder's. They
discovered that there was a significant variation in the speed of the
cameras and questioned whether Zapruder's camera can be considered a
reliable timepiece for the shooting. While that is interesting, it is
irrelevant. What difference does it make what speed other B&H cameras ran
at. The only thing that does matter is the speed Zapruder's camera was
running at. The FBI tested it and found it ran at 18.3 fps.
I do see two possible variables that could change the timing calculation.
One would be if battery life effected the speed of the camera. I've
noticed with my cordless drills that when the battery runs down, so does
the speed of the drill so I'm guessing the same could have happened with
the camera. The other would be the speed of the camera in relation to the
projector. If the camera filmed at 18.3 seconds but the projector plays
the film back at 15 fps or 20 fps, it will be either faster or slower than
the event that was filmed. All of this is probably quibbling. I doubt
there was a significant difference between when Zapruder filmed the
shooting and when the camera was tested or a difference in the speed of
the projector and Zapruder's camera.

Here's FBI agent Lyndal Shaneyfeldt's testimony on the speed of the
camera:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf2.htm

== QUOTE ==

Mr. SHANEYFELT. We obtained from Mr. Zapruder, Mr. Nix, Mrs. Muchmore;
their cameras for examination, and in the FBI laboratory exposed film in
all three cameras, aiming, focusing the camera on a clock with a large
sweep-second hand. We then ran the camera at the speed and conditions as
described by the people who used the cameras. We ran through several tests
of film, and then after the film was developed it was studied under
magnification, and frames were counted for a period of 2 to 3 seconds or
for the full running time, and averages were taken.
Mr. Zapruder has stated that his camera was fully wound. Most of the
others have stated their cameras were fully wound, so we were able to more
or less eliminate the very slow time that occurs when the cameras are
approximately run down, and all of these things were taken into
consideration and were averaged.
The Zapruder camera was found to run at an average speed of 18.3 frames per
second.
== UNQUOTE ==

[John Corbett]

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by John Corbett
There was one other comment I intended to make in my last post about the
1967 CBS documentary. They pointed out that Zapruder's camera was tested
by the FBI to run at 18.3 fps. They then went to the trouble of testing
five Bell and Howell cameras that were the same model as Zapruder's. They
discovered that there was a significant variation in the speed of the
cameras and questioned whether Zapruder's camera can be considered a
reliable timepiece for the shooting. While that is interesting, it is
irrelevant. What difference does it make what speed other B&H cameras ran
at. The only thing that does matter is the speed Zapruder's camera was
running at. The FBI tested it and found it ran at 18.3 fps.
I do see two possible variables that could change the timing calculation.
One would be if battery life effected the speed of the camera. I've
noticed with my cordless drills that when the battery runs down, so does
the speed of the drill so I'm guessing the same could have happened with
the camera. The other would be the speed of the camera in relation to the
projector. If the camera filmed at 18.3 seconds but the projector plays
the film back at 15 fps or 20 fps, it will be either faster or slower than
the event that was filmed. All of this is probably quibbling. I doubt
there was a significant difference between when Zapruder filmed the
shooting and when the camera was tested or a difference in the speed of
the projector and Zapruder's camera.

Here's FBI agent Lyndal Shaneyfeldt's testimony on the speed of the
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf2.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. SHANEYFELT. We obtained from Mr. Zapruder, Mr. Nix, Mrs. Muchmore;
their cameras for examination, and in the FBI laboratory exposed film in
all three cameras, aiming, focusing the camera on a clock with a large
sweep-second hand. We then ran the camera at the speed and conditions as
described by the people who used the cameras. We ran through several tests
of film, and then after the film was developed it was studied under
magnification, and frames were counted for a period of 2 to 3 seconds or
for the full running time, and averages were taken.
Mr. Zapruder has stated that his camera was fully wound. Most of the
others have stated their cameras were fully wound, so we were able to more
or less eliminate the very slow time that occurs when the cameras are
approximately run down, and all of these things were taken into
consideration and were averaged.
The Zapruder camera was found to run at an average speed of 18.3 frames per
second.
== UNQUOTE ==

That would make it probable that 18.3 fps is very close to the speed on
the day of the assassination if not exactly precise. Certainly not a
difference worth quibbling over as the CBS documentary seemed to be doing.
The Zapruder camera seems a reliable timepiece for judging the elapsed
time of the shooting.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by John Corbett
There was one other comment I intended to make in my last post about the
1967 CBS documentary. They pointed out that Zapruder's camera was tested
by the FBI to run at 18.3 fps. They then went to the trouble of testing
five Bell and Howell cameras that were the same model as Zapruder's. They
discovered that there was a significant variation in the speed of the
cameras and questioned whether Zapruder's camera can be considered a
reliable timepiece for the shooting. While that is interesting, it is
irrelevant. What difference does it make what speed other B&H cameras ran
at. The only thing that does matter is the speed Zapruder's camera was
running at. The FBI tested it and found it ran at 18.3 fps.
I do see two possible variables that could change the timing calculation.
One would be if battery life effected the speed of the camera. I've
noticed with my cordless drills that when the battery runs down, so does
the speed of the drill so I'm guessing the same could have happened with
the camera. The other would be the speed of the camera in relation to the
projector. If the camera filmed at 18.3 seconds but the projector plays
the film back at 15 fps or 20 fps, it will be either faster or slower than
the event that was filmed. All of this is probably quibbling. I doubt
there was a significant difference between when Zapruder filmed the
shooting and when the camera was tested or a difference in the speed of
the projector and Zapruder's camera.

Here's FBI agent Lyndal Shaneyfeldt's testimony on the speed of the
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf2.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. SHANEYFELT. We obtained from Mr. Zapruder, Mr. Nix, Mrs. Muchmore;
their cameras for examination, and in the FBI laboratory exposed film in
all three cameras, aiming, focusing the camera on a clock with a large
sweep-second hand. We then ran the camera at the speed and conditions as
described by the people who used the cameras. We ran through several tests
of film, and then after the film was developed it was studied under
magnification, and frames were counted for a period of 2 to 3 seconds or
for the full running time, and averages were taken.
Mr. Zapruder has stated that his camera was fully wound. Most of the
others have stated their cameras were fully wound, so we were able to more
or less eliminate the very slow time that occurs when the cameras are
approximately run down, and all of these things were taken into
consideration and were averaged.
The Zapruder camera was found to run at an average speed of 18.3 frames per
second.
== UNQUOTE ==

That would make it probable that 18.3 fps is very close to the speed on
the day of the assassination if not exactly precise. Certainly not a
difference worth quibbling over as the CBS documentary seemed to be doing.
The Zapruder camera seems a reliable timepiece for judging the elapsed
time of the shooting.

When fully wound. It eill get slower as it is used.

[19efppp]

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by John Corbett
There was one other comment I intended to make in my last post about the
1967 CBS documentary. They pointed out that Zapruder's camera was tested
by the FBI to run at 18.3 fps. They then went to the trouble of testing
five Bell and Howell cameras that were the same model as Zapruder's. They
discovered that there was a significant variation in the speed of the
cameras and questioned whether Zapruder's camera can be considered a
reliable timepiece for the shooting. While that is interesting, it is
irrelevant. What difference does it make what speed other B&H cameras ran
at. The only thing that does matter is the speed Zapruder's camera was
running at. The FBI tested it and found it ran at 18.3 fps.
I do see two possible variables that could change the timing calculation.
One would be if battery life effected the speed of the camera. I've
noticed with my cordless drills that when the battery runs down, so does
the speed of the drill so I'm guessing the same could have happened with
the camera. The other would be the speed of the camera in relation to the
projector. If the camera filmed at 18.3 seconds but the projector plays
the film back at 15 fps or 20 fps, it will be either faster or slower than
the event that was filmed. All of this is probably quibbling. I doubt
there was a significant difference between when Zapruder filmed the
shooting and when the camera was tested or a difference in the speed of
the projector and Zapruder's camera.

Here's FBI agent Lyndal Shaneyfeldt's testimony on the speed of the
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf2.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. SHANEYFELT. We obtained from Mr. Zapruder, Mr. Nix, Mrs. Muchmore;
their cameras for examination, and in the FBI laboratory exposed film in
all three cameras, aiming, focusing the camera on a clock with a large
sweep-second hand. We then ran the camera at the speed and conditions as
described by the people who used the cameras. We ran through several tests
of film, and then after the film was developed it was studied under
magnification, and frames were counted for a period of 2 to 3 seconds or
for the full running time, and averages were taken.
Mr. Zapruder has stated that his camera was fully wound. Most of the
others have stated their cameras were fully wound, so we were able to more
or less eliminate the very slow time that occurs when the cameras are
approximately run down, and all of these things were taken into
consideration and were averaged.
The Zapruder camera was found to run at an average speed of 18.3 frames per
second.
== UNQUOTE ==

That would make it probable that 18.3 fps is very close to the speed on
the day of the assassination if not exactly precise. Certainly not a
difference worth quibbling over as the CBS documentary seemed to be doing.
The Zapruder camera seems a reliable timepiece for judging the elapsed
time of the shooting.

When fully wound. It eill get slower as it is used.

Same for Marsh, and it looks like he just got wound up, to judge by all
the new posts.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by 19efppp
If I may be allowed to make this a topic... recently I made some such statement, "Fortunately for you, Marsh, Pappy is now beating up racists in heaven."
Now, I ask you, is it credible that thar be anybody out thar who does not
understand that this is intended to be a joke? Really? Is there any
literalist in all of JFK kookdom who does not recognize that this is an
attempt at humor? Of course Pappy is not beating up anybody in heaven. You
may not think it is funny, but surely you recognize that humor is the
intent. Do I really have to explain it? Of course not. Anybody who argues
against such a statement seriously must be arguing dishonestly. Right?

You're referring I believe to this post,
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/53mkHs9LoyU/m/FD6uZLlYAgAJ
Let me repeat all my points here, and point out why you're arguing
dishonestly.
== QUOTE ==

Post by 19efppp
According to the FBI, so you know it must be true,

No, that's false. The document you cite says, in part, "This document
contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI." It's not
according to the FBI. It's according to Ralph Neal. The FBI merely made a
memorandum for the record of what Neal reported.
The FBI was in a information-gathering stage when they took this report.
The document you cite is merely a report by a civilian of something he
1. It's hearsay. Ralph Neal is making a series of claims about what he
heard 17 years prior to the assassination.
2. It's recollection. Ralph Neal is making claims about what he recalls
happened nearly two decades previous.
3. It's unverified. The FBI doesn't vouch for the veracity of the person
reporting the claims. They are merely making a note of the claims.
4. The report depends entirely on the veracity of the person reporting.
This may shock you, but people do say things at times to investigators
that aren't necessarily true. They may be making a correct report to the
best of their ability, but being human, get things wrong. They may be
mis-remembering things that occurred nearly two decades before. The
incident in question may be true, but two decades later, the person is
mis-remembering some of the details, like who the participants were. The
person making the report may bear a grudge against someone for something
that occurred between them, and they are deliberately reporting falsehoods
in an attempt to get that person they hold the grudge against in trouble.
Obviously, there is no way of knowing what is occurring with Neal's
report, and neither you nor I can vouch for the accuracy of the claims
reported therein.
So how did you eliminate all the problematic issues with this report of
recollection, and how can you say "it must be true"?
< Bill Decker threw a

Post by 19efppp
drink on a little colored boy who was only trying to make the people
smile.

According to this report of the supposed recollection of one Ralph Neal.
Any confirmation of this supposed incident from 1946? Are you swearing on
a bible that Ralph Neal recalled this supposed incident for 1946
perfectly, and wasn't in error about anything, and also wasn't making
anything up?

Post by 19efppp
And then Carl "Pappy" Dolson beat the shit out of Decker for so
doing.

According to the report of the recollection of one Ralph Neal. Obviously,
there are a number of problems with that report.
Not the least of which was Decker at the time was the "Chief Deputy
Sheriff".
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/decker.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. HUBERT - What is your occupation?
Mr. DECKER - I am Sheriff of Dallas County.
Mr. HUBERT - How long have you been sheriff?
Mr. DECKER - Since January 1, 1949.
Mr. HUBERT - Well, you have been reelected a number of times
Mr. DECKER - Yes,-sir.
Mr. HUBERT - How many times?
Mr. DECKER - I am serving my 16 years---I had two of those one of those
terms for a 4-year term, but we caught 2 years prior to that--that makes 4
from 16, leaves 12, 3 and I is 4 terms and I am coming for my fifth now.
Mr. HUBERT - What was your occupation prior to the time that you became
sheriff?
Mr. DECKER - I was chief deputy sheriff for Dallas County 14 years prior
to that. Prior to that I was chief deputy constable since 1924, prior to
that I was in the courthouse as a court clerk and prior to that I was
elevator operator in the courthouse. Now, that's it--that's my life.
== UNQUOTE ==
I find it amusing that you think a night club owner would take it upon
himself to refund all the patrons money and close his nightclub and beat
up a law enforcement officer and there wouldn't be repercussions.
Neal seems to understand that at a minimum, Decker could have Dolson
arrested and tried for assaulting a law enforcement officer, so he reports
"Police were not called". I also find it amusing that you think Decker
wouldn't have done anything about this supposed beating he was supposed
administered by the supposed nightclub owner, Dolson.

Post by 19efppp
Just be thankful, Marsh, that Pappy is now beating up racists in
heaven.
https://postimg.cc/YvYwR0kP

You appear to be assuming there is a heaven and that Pappy made it there.
Like all the other assumptions you make spelled out above.
Hank
== UNQUOTE ==
Now, there were a lot of points there that you're ignoring, and focusing
on the last one. But I ask you, why is you assume the above is a joke, but
the response is not intended in the same vein? I didn't see any emoticons
specifying it was a joke in the original post, and I didn't think I needed
to add any to the response. Yet you attribute ill-will to me, and none to
the original poster, because, after all, it's obviously a joke, right?
Your argument has two things against it: You're assuming what you need to
prove (ill-will and dishonesty) and the fact that, as you admit, Pappy
isn't beating anyone up in heaven, so it's also false. My argument has two
things in favor, it's still humorous, and it's factually correct, and
points out the logical fallacies imbedded within the joke.
Now try arguing the points I made.
Hank

You don't have any points.
All you have are personal insults.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by 19efppp
If I may be allowed to make this a topic... recently I made some such statement, "Fortunately for you, Marsh, Pappy is now beating up racists in heaven."
Now, I ask you, is it credible that thar be anybody out thar who does not
understand that this is intended to be a joke? Really? Is there any
literalist in all of JFK kookdom who does not recognize that this is an
attempt at humor? Of course Pappy is not beating up anybody in heaven. You
may not think it is funny, but surely you recognize that humor is the
intent. Do I really have to explain it? Of course not. Anybody who argues
against such a statement seriously must be arguing dishonestly. Right?

You're referring I believe to this post,
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/53mkHs9LoyU/m/FD6uZLlYAgAJ
Let me repeat all my points here, and point out why you're arguing
dishonestly.
== QUOTE ==

Post by 19efppp
According to the FBI, so you know it must be true,

No, that's false. The document you cite says, in part, "This document
contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI." It's not
according to the FBI. It's according to Ralph Neal. The FBI merely made a
memorandum for the record of what Neal reported.
The FBI was in a information-gathering stage when they took this report.
The document you cite is merely a report by a civilian of something he
1. It's hearsay. Ralph Neal is making a series of claims about what he
heard 17 years prior to the assassination.
2. It's recollection. Ralph Neal is making claims about what he recalls
happened nearly two decades previous.
3. It's unverified. The FBI doesn't vouch for the veracity of the person
reporting the claims. They are merely making a note of the claims.
4. The report depends entirely on the veracity of the person reporting.
This may shock you, but people do say things at times to investigators
that aren't necessarily true. They may be making a correct report to the
best of their ability, but being human, get things wrong. They may be
mis-remembering things that occurred nearly two decades before. The
incident in question may be true, but two decades later, the person is
mis-remembering some of the details, like who the participants were. The
person making the report may bear a grudge against someone for something
that occurred between them, and they are deliberately reporting falsehoods
in an attempt to get that person they hold the grudge against in trouble.
Obviously, there is no way of knowing what is occurring with Neal's
report, and neither you nor I can vouch for the accuracy of the claims
reported therein.
So how did you eliminate all the problematic issues with this report of
recollection, and how can you say "it must be true"?
< Bill Decker threw a

Post by 19efppp
drink on a little colored boy who was only trying to make the people
smile.

According to this report of the supposed recollection of one Ralph Neal.
Any confirmation of this supposed incident from 1946? Are you swearing on
a bible that Ralph Neal recalled this supposed incident for 1946
perfectly, and wasn't in error about anything, and also wasn't making
anything up?

Post by 19efppp
And then Carl "Pappy" Dolson beat the shit out of Decker for so
doing.

According to the report of the recollection of one Ralph Neal. Obviously,
there are a number of problems with that report.
Not the least of which was Decker at the time was the "Chief Deputy
Sheriff".
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/decker.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. HUBERT - What is your occupation?
Mr. DECKER - I am Sheriff of Dallas County.
Mr. HUBERT - How long have you been sheriff?
Mr. DECKER - Since January 1, 1949.
Mr. HUBERT - Well, you have been reelected a number of times
Mr. DECKER - Yes,-sir.
Mr. HUBERT - How many times?
Mr. DECKER - I am serving my 16 years---I had two of those one of those
terms for a 4-year term, but we caught 2 years prior to that--that makes 4
from 16, leaves 12, 3 and I is 4 terms and I am coming for my fifth now.
Mr. HUBERT - What was your occupation prior to the time that you became
sheriff?
Mr. DECKER - I was chief deputy sheriff for Dallas County 14 years prior
to that. Prior to that I was chief deputy constable since 1924, prior to
that I was in the courthouse as a court clerk and prior to that I was
elevator operator in the courthouse. Now, that's it--that's my life.
== UNQUOTE ==
I find it amusing that you think a night club owner would take it upon
himself to refund all the patrons money and close his nightclub and beat
up a law enforcement officer and there wouldn't be repercussions.
Neal seems to understand that at a minimum, Decker could have Dolson
arrested and tried for assaulting a law enforcement officer, so he reports
"Police were not called". I also find it amusing that you think Decker
wouldn't have done anything about this supposed beating he was supposed
administered by the supposed nightclub owner, Dolson.

Post by 19efppp
Just be thankful, Marsh, that Pappy is now beating up racists in
heaven.
https://postimg.cc/YvYwR0kP

You appear to be assuming there is a heaven and that Pappy made it there.
Like all the other assumptions you make spelled out above.
Hank
== UNQUOTE ==
Now, there were a lot of points there that you're ignoring, and focusing
on the last one. But I ask you, why is you assume the above is a joke, but
the response is not intended in the same vein? I didn't see any emoticons
specifying it was a joke in the original post, and I didn't think I needed
to add any to the response. Yet you attribute ill-will to me, and none to
the original poster, because, after all, it's obviously a joke, right?
Your argument has two things against it: You're assuming what you need to
prove (ill-will and dishonesty) and the fact that, as you admit, Pappy
isn't beating anyone up in heaven, so it's also false. My argument has two
things in favor, it's still humorous, and it's factually correct, and
points out the logical fallacies imbedded within the joke.
Now try arguing the points I made.
Hank

You don't have any points.
All you have are personal insults.

Hilarious.

According to Tony, then, this is a personal insult:
===== QUOTE =====
You're referring I believe to this post,
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/53mkHs9LoyU/m/FD6uZLlYAgAJ

Let me repeat all my points here, and point out why you're arguing
dishonestly.
-- QUOTE --

Post by Anthony Marsh
According to the FBI, so you know it must be true,

No, that's false. The document you cite says, in part, "This document
contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI." It's not
according to the FBI. It's according to Ralph Neal. The FBI merely made a
memorandum for the record of what Neal reported.

The FBI was in a information-gathering stage when they took this report.
The document you cite is merely a report by a civilian of something he
says happened. So let's look at this report:

1. It's hearsay. Ralph Neal is making a series of claims about what he
heard 17 years prior to the assassination.
2. It's recollection. Ralph Neal is making claims about what he recalls
happened nearly two decades previous.
3. It's unverified. The FBI doesn't vouch for the veracity of the person
reporting the claims. They are merely making a note of the claims.
4. The report depends entirely on the veracity of the person reporting.

This may shock you, but people do say things at times to investigators
that aren't necessarily true. They may be making a correct report to the
best of their ability, but being human, get things wrong. They may be
mis-remembering things that occurred nearly two decades before. The
incident in question may be true, but two decades later, the person is
mis-remembering some of the details, like who the participants were. The
person making the report may bear a grudge against someone for something
that occurred between them, and they are deliberately reporting falsehoods
in an attempt to get that person they hold the grudge against in trouble.
Obviously, there is no way of knowing what is occurring with Neal's
report, and neither you nor I can vouch for the accuracy of the claims
reported therein.

So how did you eliminate all the problematic issues with this report of
recollection, and how can you say "it must be true"?
===== UNQUOTE=====

Where's the personal insults in the above, Tony?

And where are the personal insults in this portion of my post, Tony?
===== QUOTE =====
< Bill Decker threw a

Post by Anthony Marsh
drink on a little colored boy who was only trying to make the people
smile.

According to this report of the supposed recollection of one Ralph Neal.
Any confirmation of this supposed incident from 1946? Are you swearing on
a bible that Ralph Neal recalled this supposed incident for 1946
perfectly, and wasn't in error about anything, and also wasn't making
anything up?

===== UNQUOTE =====

According to Tony, then, this exchange is also a "personal insult":
===== QUOTE =====

Post by Anthony Marsh
And then Carl "Pappy" Dolson beat the shit out of Decker for so
doing.

According to the report of the recollection of one Ralph Neal. Obviously,
there are a number of problems with that report.
Not the least of which was Decker at the time was the "Chief Deputy
Sheriff".
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/decker.htm

-- QUOTE --
Mr. HUBERT - What is your occupation?
Mr. DECKER - I am Sheriff of Dallas County.
Mr. HUBERT - How long have you been sheriff?
Mr. DECKER - Since January 1, 1949.
Mr. HUBERT - Well, you have been reelected a number of times
Mr. DECKER - Yes,-sir.
Mr. HUBERT - How many times?
Mr. DECKER - I am serving my 16 years---I had two of those one of those
terms for a 4-year term, but we caught 2 years prior to that--that makes 4
from 16, leaves 12, 3 and I is 4 terms and I am coming for my fifth now.
Mr. HUBERT - What was your occupation prior to the time that you became
sheriff?
Mr. DECKER - I was chief deputy sheriff for Dallas County 14 years prior
to that. Prior to that I was chief deputy constable since 1924, prior to
that I was in the courthouse as a court clerk and prior to that I was
elevator operator in the courthouse. Now, that's it--that's my life.
-- UNQUOTE --

I find it amusing that you think a night club owner would take it upon
himself to refund all the patrons money and close his nightclub and beat
up a law enforcement officer and there wouldn't be repercussions.

Neal seems to understand that at a minimum, Decker could have Dolson
arrested and tried for assaulting a law enforcement officer, so he reports
"Police were not called". I also find it amusing that you think Decker
wouldn't have done anything about this supposed beating he was supposed
administered by the supposed nightclub owner, Dolson. ===== UNQUOTE =====

And Tony must think there's ad hominem in this exchange:
===== QUOTE =====

Post by Anthony Marsh
Just be thankful, Marsh, that Pappy is now beating up racists in
heaven.
https://postimg.cc/YvYwR0kP

You appear to be assuming there is a heaven and that Pappy made it there.
Like all the other assumptions you make spelled out above.

Hank
-- UNQUOTE --

Now, there were a lot of points there that you're ignoring, and focusing
on the last one. But I ask you, why is you assume the above is a joke, but
the response is not intended in the same vein? I didn't see any emoticons
specifying it was a joke in the original post, and I didn't think I needed
to add any to the response. Yet you attribute ill-will to me, and none to
the original poster, because, after all, it's obviously a joke, right?

Your argument has two things against it: You're assuming what you need to
prove (ill-will and dishonesty) and the fact that, as you admit, Pappy
isn't beating anyone up in heaven, so it's also false. My argument has two
things in favor, it's still humorous, and it's factually correct, and
points out the logical fallacies imbedded within the joke.

Now try arguing the points I made.
===== UNQUOTE =====

As we can see, Tony makes assertions neither he nor the facts support.

Hank