Post by John CorbettPost by Anthony MarshPost by John CorbettPost by Anthony MarshPost by John CorbettPost by John CorbettI stumbled across this clip from the TV movie Killing Kennedy based on the
book by Bill O'Reilly. This clip has subtitles which I am guessing are in
a Scandanavian language.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=zapruder+film&&view=detail&mid=96057DF0ABBD0E328BC396057DF0ABBD0E328BC3&rvsmid=04376E227A9D07EC620E04376E227A9D07EC620E&FORM=VDQVAP
I didn't even know about this movie until just a few years ago. It seems
to adhere to the lone assassin scenario. The clip shows Oswald missing
with the second shot which I think most lone gunman proponents do not
believe. The weight of the evidence is that the first shot missed. There
are a number of other errors that jump out. For starters, when Oswald
first zeros in with the crosshairs, he is looking at the limo from the
front. It shows him standing at the window with no boxes for a rifle rest.
Don Willis should love this. The window is WIDE OPEN.
Gad! I saw this show, but I don't remember that. The writers must have
listened to the witnesses, like Brennan, Fischer, and Edwards. I swear I
had no input....
But I bet that the open window is on the 6th floor, not the 5th, though if
this is from Oswald's pov, we wouldn't know, since as you say there's no
rifle rest. And if he's standing, then I believe the rifle would have to
Originally, Bob Jackson wrote that he thought the rifle was resting on a
sill. I'll just add to that: a fifth-floor sill, or at least not the 6th,
since there was a box in the way there!
It's clear the TSBD was not used in any of these scenes. The fact Oswald
was standing and firing out the window clearly shows it was not. The
stairway was wrong.. As I pointed out, the encounter didn't even take
place in a lunchroom. Clearly the producers didn't place a premium on
getting the details correct.
\\I don't think they could get permission to use the TSBD. They had a lot of continuity problems.
I was thinking about why they would have shown Oswald zeroing in on Oswald
from the front. Then it hit me that apparently they were indicating he
first took aim while the limo was still on Houston. The problem with that
is the Nix film shows that when the limo turned the corner, Oswald had not
The acoustical evidence proved that no rifle was stuck out of any
window. In fact it suggests that the shots we taken from about a foot
and a half back from the window.
Post by John Corbettyet stuck his rifle out the window. We can see a blurry figure in the
window but no rifle. Oswald apparently didn't want to show the rifle until
the protection detail had their backs to him.
No, we can't. We can see dancing pixels.
Something was moving.
Your acoustical "evidence" proves nothing because it had nothing to do
with the shooting. You can keep spinning that yarn for a few more decades
You say that because you know nothing about science. Explain the
impulses on the tape.
I don't need to explain the static impulses on the tape. I know what they
are not. They are not a recording of the shots in Dealey Plaza because
they weren't recorded during the shooting or by a microphone in Dealey
Plaza.
Post by Anthony MarshPost by John Corbettand it still won't be true. James Worrell was standing in front of the
TSBD. When he looked up he saw the barrel and the stock of the rifle
So what?
So what? So you don't think it matters that James Worrell saw a rifle that
he could not possibly have seen unless it was protruding from the window.
Post by Anthony MarshThe acoustical eveidence proves that 3 shots were fired from that
window, so why do you want to disput that?
Asked and answered. For the umpteenth time.
Post by Anthony MarshPost by John Corbettprotruding from the window. From his vantage point he couldn't possibly
have seen the rifle if it was a foot and a half back from the window.
You don't know that. SHow me the tests you have done to prove that.
A basic understanding of geometry and a dose of common sense would tell
you that what you are claiming is not even possible. Anybody who thinks
James Worrell standing in front of the TSBD could have seen a rifle that
was a foot and a half inside of the window isn't trying to convince others
that he is right. He is trying to convince himself that he is right. I
doubt you are succeeding. You know what you are claiming is not possible
yet you refuse to admit it.
Post by Anthony MarshNever rely on witnesses. From his vantage point maybe it only looked that
way.
Oh, it only looked that way. It only looked like there was a rifle
protruding from a window. He didn't really see that. He made it up.
There are so many flaws in your claim that the muzzle of the rifle was a
foot and a half inside the window it is hard to know where to begin. For
starters, one glance at the sniper's nest would tell you there wasn't room
to fire the rifle from a foot and a half inside the window.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-aX4T7bKj_tY/UqPT8CCydLI/AAAAAAAAxW4/wHENtxHrB-g/s800/Overhead-View-Of-TSBD-Snipers-Nest.jpg
You would have us believe the shooter could have fired a 40 inch rifle
with the muzzle foot and half inside the window and still had his shoulder
behind the butt of the rifle. Where do you suppose he put the rest of his
body? You couldn't possible shoe horn a shooter into that space and have
him fire with his muzzle a foot and a half inside the window. On top of
that it would mean he wouldn't have used those small boxes that he
carefully stacked by the window as a rifle rest.
These facts lone should be enough to prove to any sensible person that the
findings of the acoustics team were flawed.
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: Killing Kennedy
Date: 5 Jan 2021 04:58:50 -0000
From: John Corbett <***@yahoo.com>
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Post by John CorbettPost by Anthony MarshPost by John CorbettPost by Anthony MarshPost by John CorbettI stumbled across this clip from the TV movie Killing Kennedy based on the
book by Bill O'Reilly. This clip has subtitles which I am guessing are in
a Scandanavian language.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=zapruder+film&&view=detail&mid=96057DF0ABBD0E328BC396057DF0ABBD0E328BC3&rvsmid=04376E227A9D07EC620E04376E227A9D07EC620E&FORM=VDQVAP
Post by John CorbettPost by Anthony MarshPost by John CorbettPost by Anthony MarshPost by John CorbettI didn't even know about this movie until just a few years ago. It seems
to adhere to the lone assassin scenario. The clip shows Oswald missing
with the second shot which I think most lone gunman proponents do not
believe. The weight of the evidence is that the first shot missed. There
are a number of other errors that jump out. For starters, when Oswald
first zeros in with the crosshairs, he is looking at the limo from the
front. It shows him standing at the window with no boxes for a rifle rest.
Don Willis should love this. The window is WIDE OPEN.
Gad! I saw this show, but I don't remember that. The writers must have
listened to the witnesses, like Brennan, Fischer, and Edwards. I swear I
had no input....
But I bet that the open window is on the 6th floor, not the 5th, though if
this is from Oswald's pov, we wouldn't know, since as you say there's no
rifle rest. And if he's standing, then I believe the rifle would have to
Originally, Bob Jackson wrote that he thought the rifle was resting on a
sill. I'll just add to that: a fifth-floor sill, or at least not the 6th,
since there was a box in the way there!
It's clear the TSBD was not used in any of these scenes. The fact Oswald
was standing and firing out the window clearly shows it was not. The
stairway was wrong.. As I pointed out, the encounter didn't even take
place in a lunchroom. Clearly the producers didn't place a
premium on
Post by John CorbettPost by Anthony MarshPost by John CorbettPost by Anthony Marshgetting the details correct.
\\I don't think they could get permission to use the TSBD. They
had a lot of continuity problems.
Post by John CorbettPost by Anthony MarshPost by John CorbettPost by Anthony MarshI was thinking about why they would have shown Oswald zeroing in on Oswald
from the front. Then it hit me that apparently they were
indicating he
Post by John CorbettPost by Anthony MarshPost by John CorbettPost by Anthony Marshfirst took aim while the limo was still on Houston. The problem with that
is the Nix film shows that when the limo turned the corner, Oswald had not
The acoustical evidence proved that no rifle was stuck out of any
window. In fact it suggests that the shots we taken from about a foot
and a half back from the window.
Post by Anthony Marshyet stuck his rifle out the window. We can see a blurry figure in the
window but no rifle. Oswald apparently didn't want to show the rifle until
the protection detail had their backs to him.
No, we can't. We can see dancing pixels.
Something was moving.
Your acoustical "evidence" proves nothing because it had nothing to do
with the shooting. You can keep spinning that yarn for a few more decades
You say that because you know nothing about science. Explain the
impulses on the tape.
I don't need to explain the static impulses on the tape. I know what
they are not. They are not a recording of the shots in Dealey Plaza
because they weren't recorded during the shooting or by a microphone in
Dealey Plaza.
Post by John CorbettPost by Anthony Marshand it still won't be true. James Worrell was standing in front of the
TSBD. When he looked up he saw the barrel and the stock of the rifle
So what?
So what? So you don't think it matters that James Worrell saw a rifle
that he could not possibly have seen unless it was protruding from the
window.
That is not ytue.
When the HSCA did the shooting tests in Dealey Plaza, spectators could
see the Carcano without it having to be stuck out the qindow.
Loading Image...
Post by John CorbettThe acoustical eveidence proves that 3 shots were fired from that
window, so why do you want to disput that?
I don't dispute that 3 shots were fired from that window.
We don't hsve to rely on witnessses to prove that.
Asked and answered. For the umpteenth time.
Someimes the answer is flawed.
Post by John CorbettPost by Anthony Marshprotruding from the window. From his vantage point he couldn't possibly
have seen the rifle if it was a foot and a half back from the window.
You don't know that. SHow me the tests you have done to prove that.
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/abn764bsf.jpg
A basic understanding of geometry and a dose of common sense would tell
you that what you are claiming is not even possible. Anybody who thinks
Silly.
James Worrell standing in front of the TSBD could have seen a rifle that
was a foot and a half inside of the window isn't trying to convince
others that he is right. He is trying to convince himself that he is
\
All I can say is whar is possible.
right. I doubt you are succeeding. You know what you are claiming is not
possible yet you refuse to admit it.
Silly. I showed you the photo.
Post by John CorbettNever rely on witnesses. From his vantage point maybe it only looked that
way.
Oh, it only looked that way. It only looked like there was a rifle
protruding from a window. He didn't really see that. He made it up.
I did't say he made anythinng up.
There are so many flaws in your claim that the muzzle of the rifle was a
foot and a half inside the window it is hard to know where to begin. For
Not exactly what I said. I said the acoustics match was better for the
test shots with the rifle fartgher back from the window.
Maybe a new test would sho eaxactly how far back.
starters, one glance at the sniper's nest would tell you there wasn't
room to fire the rifle from a foot and a half inside the window.
Well, the boxes would prevwnt the whooter from sticking the rifle out
the window.
Try it some time.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-aX4T7bKj_tY/UqPT8CCydLI/AAAAAAAAxW4/wHENtxHrB-g/s800/Overhead-View-Of-TSBD-Snipers-Nest.jpg
You would have us believe the shooter could have fired a 40 inch rifle
with the muzzle foot and half inside the window and still had his
Not exactly a foot and a half. But imposible to put it out the widnow by
a foot and a half.
Have you ever owned a Carcno?
Have you ever tesyed shooting positions?
OMG, that would almost be like research!
oshoulder behind the butt of the rifle. Where do you suppose he put the
rest of his body? You couldn't possible shoe horn a shooter into that
space and have him fire with his muzzle a foot and a half inside the
No, that is only your inagination.
window. On top of that it would mean he wouldn't have used those small
boxes that he carefully stacked by the window as a rifle rest.
Try it somw time. The cops moved those boxes 4 times.
These facts lone should be enough to prove to any sensible person that
the findings of the acoustics team were flawed.
No, It was a scientific test. That's what scares you. SCIENCE.
