Where do you get this BS from?
It is evidence of one shooter. Did you make this up, or copy it from some fictional account.
Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III
- Thread starter HSienzant
- Start date
- Status
It is evidence of one shooter. Did you make this up, or copy it from some fictional account.
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
My question to the Jangos who say this is "what else you got?" Surely the evidence for a second shooter somewhere else should be comparable in extent to the evidence for only one from Oswald's position? There's a question of weight of evidence here; the conclusion of Oswald's guilt doesn't rest solely on the Zapruder film- there are shell casings and bullets traceable to his MC (in its turn traceable to him) found in the Depository, there's trajectory evidence, there are competent and confirmatory autopsy findings...where are the equivalents for a second shooter?
mikegriffith1
Muse
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2012
- Messages
- 804
Have you read nothing on this issue except stuff that agrees with your lone-gunman mythology? The HSCA photographic experts identified at least 4 reactions to gunfire in the Zapruder film, and other experts have identified additional reactions besides the ones that the HSCA was willing to acknowledge. See:
Reactions to Six Shots in the Zapruder Film
http://miketgriffith.com/files/6shots.htm
Last edited:
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Jango runs like a rabbit from the question so maybe you'll have what it takes to answer:
Where did the other shots come from?
Fellow Traveler
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2013
- Messages
- 3,566
Can anyone name a single impact on 2015 events that would be affected by any conspiracy to kill Kennedy?
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
Uh-huh. What else you got? (See post that is, fercryinoutloud, immediately above yours)
Are the claims in this link supposed to be more or less believable than the hilarious ones made by Craig Roberts in one of your earlier posts? http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10436219#post10436219
Ranb
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Please address the questions on the table when you were last here. Do you still maintain Craig Roberts is an expert? Do you still stand by the claims you made that were essentially copied straight from his work?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
There's nothing inherently wrong with looking at the Zapruder film to see if you can determine based on the motions of people when shots might have been fired. But as the examination shows, it's far too inexact and subjective a process to produce useful data. And it's not nearly the same as Jango's naive, "Back and to the left."
It's rather disingenuous to quote HSCA research on this point while ignoring their ultimate findings that the shots that hit Kennedy and Connally came from Oswald's rifle -- from behind.
And of course we've read more. Most of us have read quite a bit of the literature that can't agree on the broad and most important question -- who killed Kennedy. And then goes on not to agree on practically any of the details. Which is likely why bobtaftfan and all the other wannabe Kennedy detectives these days strictly decline to make any sort of actual argument.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
From your link:
Little needs to be said about these frames.
* At frame 312, Kennedy's head is jolted forward for a split second, but as the head is in the process of moving forward, it and his upper body are rocketed violently to the rear and to the left beginning at frame 313.
* This violent backward motion defies scientific explanation.
Underlined - I don't know what type of "science" you're referring to, but it isn't the "science" I'm familiar with.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Keep in mind that any proposition supported by the statement, "Science cannot explain this," can be equally (and sometimes much better) supported by the satement, "My understanding of science cannot explain this." And we know where bobtaftfan's science comes from on the subject of rifle shots.
When your stated goal is to do nothing except find holes in a story, you'll ignore whatever you have to in order to create a new hole.
HSienzant
Philosopher
At the link below
http://www.6911norfolk.com/d0lbln/105f06/105f06-wohl-alvarez.pdf
You can see the graph of the movement of the President's head on page 10 of the paper. This comes from Josiah Thompson's work, SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS published 48 years ago, in 1967.
The *assumption* by conspiracy theorists everywhere is that this motion MUST be caused by a second bullet - but that just a logical fallacy known as a false dilemma. They have not considered, nor eliminated, any other cause. And of course, the autopsy eliminates their favorite theory from consideration (the autopsy shows only one bullet strike on the head, from behind), so their failure isn't just on one level, but on several. They are therefore stuck claiming the autopsy (and the body) were false.
Ultimately, it comes down to an attempt to shift the burden of proof (another logical fallacy), where they simply utter the claim of a second bullet (using the backward motion of the President from the Z-film only) and ask for the disproof of their assumption of a second bullet (such as seen above, "This violent backward motion defies scientific explanation").
But we also see in that graph another change of direction starting at frame 322 - to my knowledge no one on either side of the aisle has argued that this change of direction is the reaction to yet another shot. The conspiracy theorist ignoring of this OTHER change of direction (which is obviously caused by the President rebounding off the seat back) is a tacit admission by conspiracy theorists that other explanations besides a bullet strike for a change of direction IS possible.
There are several scientific alternatives beyond a bullet strike that have been proposed over the years for the change of direction, none of which have been eliminated by conspiracy advocates:
1. The jet effect as discussed in the link above.
2. A neuromuscular reaction to the President's brain being blasted out.
3. The rebound effect - the President's head is pushed forward as far as it can go, and the chin gets compressed against the chest, and then the head rebounds backward, taking the body with it.
If conspiracy theorists want to argue for a shot causing the head to move backward, they must eliminate all possible alternatives. This they have not done.
Hank
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Or some claim the Zapruder film is a forgery. Or both. You can honestly never get a straight answer from that community about what evidence they accept from time to time. Again, I suppose that's why none of the conspiracy theorists can make an actual case. They have to rely simultaneously on all those myriad books and videos that all tell a different story. If they make a case, then suddenly they have to deal with the obvious and intractable fragmentation among conspiracy authors.
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
Taftfan himself, on his website, says this:
So we see here two aspects of CT methodology-
1) In order for the theory to work, the conspiracy itself must be made more complicated. It wasn't enough to have more (un-evidenced) shooters, and someone (un-evidenced) monkeying around with the body at autopsy- now the film has to be faked by another (un-evidenced) someone. Layers piled upon layers, not because there's any evidence for them, but strictly out of necessity- they're needed to sustain the theory, not because they were ever realistic in a working conspiracy.
2) Eating their cake and having it too- if the film can be used to support the CT, it's perfectly reliable. If not- if any little bit of it contradicts the CT- then it's a fake. Of course, if CTists were faithful to a principle of consistency, they wouldn't be CTists.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Of course. The only way you can build a story out of marginalia is to dismiss the main body.
Axxman300
Philosopher
See, even when I was a JFK CT-loon I never understood how altering the Zapruder film would even be an option. Why not just destroy it? If it was a CIA conspiracy then why not have a fire in the evidence room, or blame the loss or destruction on the new guy or something like that?
An altered film stock from 1963 WOULD BE AS OBVIOUS AS AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER IN A DUCK POND to even cursory inspection.
Then there's the fact that he was allowed to film right next to the picket fence. He could have easily swung his camera around and filmed them, why not flash one of those phony Secret Service badges that CTers tell your were all over the Plaza and get him to move?
So much breaks down when you apply basic logic, but even using the CT rules the "film is fake" theory just runs counter to the magic powers involved.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Or in the larger sense, why would powerful and clever conspirators plan to assassinate the President in a large, uncontrolled public setting where there would be ample opportunity for private recordings of it to be created? A very, very stupid thing to do, especially if you plan on not getting caught but instead framing some other guy. Even if the real or fake Secret Service shooed Zapruder away from the Knoll, you'd still have the Nix and Muchmore films, as well as unknown other films and photographs. The Muchmore film could have languished forever unknown if she hadn't opened her mouth about it.
Keep in mind only a few people saw the film until 1969. The public had seen only stills, and there had been a moratorium on publishing frame 313. The claim, then, is that this delay offered plenty of time for the Powers That Be, not to alter the film, but to recreate it and present that recreation as the Zapruder film. The public wouldn't know any different, and the film stock wouldn't be visibly altered. Even more fortuitous, the original rarely makes an appearance; what most people only ever saw were 16mm and 35mm copies.
Many years ago I was asked in a professional capacity by a colleague to evaluate a few specific points of the fake-film claim, namely an alleged photogrammetric evaluation supposedly proving it had been taken on a different day. I recall the different-day claim was being made by Fetzer, Costella, and White, so you can imagine how scientifically rigorous it was.
Again, most people are surprised at how small Dealey Plaza really is. While I was standing on the pergola pedestal where Abraham Zapruder stood, I could clearly hear the conspiracy theorist at his card table on the canonical Grassy Knoll conversing with a tourist couple. And I sent my friend Patrick over to where Badge Man allegedly stood -- he would have been easily seen.
I used to wonder why these authors would write such patent nonsense. Hadn't they been to Dealey Plaza? Then I realized the books were written for readers who hadn't been there and likely would never be able to go and see for themselves just how farfetched the shooting-gallery claims were.
As an alteration, surely. Even as a reconstruction, it's quite farfetched -- but that's how they get around the obvious problem that any alterations to what Zapruder filmed would be almost impossible to conceal.
The "fake film" claim is, of course, not a deduction based on facts but rather an inference based on necessity. It's evidence that doesn't fit their scenario, therefore it "must" be fake. I just think it's hilarious that none of the conspiracy fans today own up to having moved the goalposts -- and not just a little, but entirely to the other end of the field. We've gone from, "The Zapruder film is the best evidence of a conspiracy," to "The Zapruder film is propaganda to convince us there was no conspiracy."
And they wonder why no one takes them seriously.
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
[CTist] But what if Zapruder was In On It? Huh? Huh??? Didn't think of that, didja? [/CTist]
I actually saw this idea seriously advanced on some CT discussion board somewhere. "Do you think it's just a coincidence that Zapruder was there with his camera that day?" and other such nonsense, following CT Rule #1, the only one that really matters- "whatever scenario can be imagined or is needed to advance the theory that there was a conspiracy is probably true."
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
The one thing I notice that they are consistent at is running away from discussion.
In the amazing, highly improbable event that some piece of solid-gold, smoking-gun evidence were to emerge, such that everyone from Oliver Stone to Gerald Posner rose as one and said "Yes! It's solved, once and for all! Now we can go one with our lives!" there would still be those who would look askance and say "I knew it! This solves nothing! Stone and Posner are in on it too! Those sellout bastards!"
Because in fact nobody really wants to know who killed JFK. The assassination industry is making too many people too much money, writing books and giving lectures and making movies about the thing. And Americans love a good mystery, especially if it can be shrouded in conspiracies involving such dark forces as the CIA, the FBI and the mafia, just to scratch the surface.
To me, the die was cast when the Secret Service burst out of Parkland Hospital with that casket and raced to the airport. If they'd left the body at Parkland, a thorough autopsy would've rendered moot most of the subsequent CT catechism.
- Status