JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[Tomtomkent]

Wait... Are we to assume that USMC sharp shooters, like Daleks, can be defeated by a flight of stairs?

 

[Noztradamus]

My favorite part is when the ballistics expert says that a bullet couldn't have come from the Grassy Knol because it would have exited the left side of his head and hit Jackie. Of course, ignoring the possibility that a exploding/frangible bullet was used. Some have even speculated that the Knol shooter(s) were ordered to use exploding/frangible bullets to prevent Jackie from getting hurt.

Non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate

 

[HSienzant]

Because you are trying to kill the SOB, not stop him from escaping.

A bullet through the back - if just a little lower - would have killed JFK just as effectively as a bullet through the head. In fact, the neck wound itself as JFK suffered it might have proved fatal.

Dr. John K. Lattimer, in KENNEDY AND LINCOLN (page 245), noted as much:

Close inspection of the X-rays of President Kennedy’s neck taken at the Bethesda naval hospital at the start of the autopsy showed air in the muscle planes of his neck adjacent to the back of the esophagus and trachea. A large, ragged wound of the trachea had made it impossible for the anesthesiologist to insert a larger endotracheal tube from above, and made necessary the large tracheostomy directly across the bullet wound in the throat to get a larger tube in, during the frantic but futile efforts at resuscitation in Dallas.

The contamination of the severely devitalized tissues along the bullet track by bacteria-laden- air from the wounded trachea undoubtedly would have resulted in a severe infection of the neck and mediastinum, a very vulnerable area. Any patient on long-term cortisone treatment, like the President, would have had greatly impaired resistance to infection and greatly impaired healing ability.

If such a patient also suffered even transitory trauma to the cervical portion of his spinal cord from the same bullet, his chances for survival would have been affected unfavorably by that first bullet alone. He probably would have had a period of quadriplegia, even if transitory, thus severely compromising his chances for survival.

Of course, Oswald couldn't have known that. But the point remains - Oswald was more than likely shooting for the center of mass, not the head. Either way, your point (I think it was your point) that he made only one of three where he was aiming, remains intact (if aiming for the head and hitting the trunk counts as a miss, then aiming for the trunk and hitting the head counts as a miss too).

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Except a number of people who were in Deadly Plaza that day have advocated multiple shooters

Out of all the people in Dealey Plaza during the assassination, FOUR people thought shots came from multiple directions. That's out of over one hundred who named a source. Those four are in a decided minority, and are contradicted by the rest, who named only one source of the shots.

In 1989, there was no easy access to the endless supply of JFK-related documents and eyewitness statements like is today.

Untrue. Most every large library across the nation - public and university alike - had a copy of the Warren Commission's 26 volumes of evidence. My university had a copy, and I started my research there. A large metropolitan library a few miles from where I eventually settled had a copy as well. Eventually I purchased a used set from the President's Box Bookshop (now defunct AFAIK) for $2500. There were plenty of "JFK-related documents and eyewitness statements" available for those who wanted them back in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. In fact, the original conspiracy authors like Lane, Weisberg, Meagher, Lifton, Thompson, et. al. had no problems getting access to a copy of the 26 volumes (they were originally sold through the Government Printing Office to anyone who wanted a copy for $89 for the complete set in 1964).

It looks like all of the well-known conspiracy authors have visited Dealey plaza and most JFK authors and researchers advocate conspiracy.

Because that's where the money is. And of course, citing the number of people who believe something is true is just a logical fallacy of an appeal to popularity.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

BTW, what is your favorite analysis of the foliage around the picket fence?

What's yours? Present an argument - with evidence - and we'll discuss.

An advantage of multiple shooters would be that almost everyone is looking at the President.

That advantage would hold true for ONE shooter as well, wouldn't it?

Is there evidence that the Marine Corps trains soldiers to shoot rifles at a moving target at a downward angle?

Wrong question. Is there any *evidence* such training is necessary? Once you answer that in that affirmative (citing that *evidence*), then we can proceed to discuss your claim, and your question.

Except the superhuman speed. Almost all witnesses heard the last two shots bunched together, and Robert Harris has made his case for the loud and startling gunshot at 285. Everyone trying to refute him cannot come up with a more reasonable alternative to what happened at 285.

I covered this in detail with Robert Harris in this or the prior thread. He deflected all my points, and eventually took his ball and went home. Please review the thread and tell me what about my argument you take issue with.

Luis Alferez, with his experience in filmmaking, was pretty certain of a loud and startling noise at 285 just by Zapruder's hand motions alone!

First of all, it's Alvarez. At least know who you're citing (so we don't have to figure it out). And secondly, he has no experience of filmmaking. His background is in physics (Nobel Prize, 1968). Know thy experts and their expertise. Thirdly, he inferred a series of shots based on what he supposed was involuntary muscle reactions by Zapruder to audible gunfire, based on motions detected within the Zapruder film itself. Fourthly, you cite Alvarez as an expert, but you don't cite his conclusions. He's the expert you're citing, not Harris. You cite the conclusion of Harris to the work of Alvarez. Alvarez's conclusion was the film shows three shots were fired. Right?

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/A Disk/Alvarez Luis Dr/Item 02.pdf

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The downward angle this is nonsense, especially at that short of a range

It occurs to me that from the knoll to the street is a *downward* angle as well. It's curious he doesn't see this as an impediment to a knoll shooter, only to Oswald.

Despite all the evidence pointing to Oswald, and Oswald alone.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Because the subject naturally arouse from the mention of the National Geographic documentary JFK: The Lost Bullet.

That's why you brought him up. But what point were you trying to make?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

One of the reasons you fail is that Reclaiming History is a Woo-site, dedicated to spreading skewed information about the JFK Assassination.

You're thinking of something else. RECLAIMING HISTORY is Bugliosi's 1800-page tome on the JFK assassination, as I'm sure you'll hear about from our resident conspiracist.

Echo...echo...echo...echo...

Or the sound of the shot and the sound of the impact on the head - which Clint Hill and Governor Connally each testified to. Both testified to hearing a double sound, both said they could differentiate between the shot sound and the sound of the impact on the head.

Mr. HILL. This is the first sound that I heard; yes, sir. I jumped from the car, realizing that something was wrong, ran to the Presidential limousine. Just about as I reached it, there was another sound, which was different than the first sound. I think I described it in my statement as though someone was shooting a revolver into a hard object--it seemed to have some type of an echo.


Governor CONNALLY. ... and then, of course, the third shot sounded, and I heard the shot very clearly. I heard it hit him. I heard the shot hit something, and I assumed again--it never entered my mind that it ever hit anybody but the President. I heard it hit. It was a very loud noise, just that audible, very clear.

That shot sound and that impact sound is the double-sound many others described as well.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/21/n...the-kennedy-assassination.html?pagewanted=all

It's hearsay, and it's from decades after the fact.

It's nice to believe, though.

It sounds to me like someone trying to insert themselves into the assassination in a minor way... "Hey, I was there at the beginning..." It happens a lot - usually on the conspiracy side.

And in fact, when interviewed by the FBI shortly after the assassination, Jacobs said nothing about this (as the Times story you cite mentions), and in fact, specifically disavowed any knowledge of Mrs. Oswald, saying he had no contact with the tenants.

Mrs. Keller also directed an agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to Mr. Jacobs. But the landlord again chose not to mention the BB-gun story — or any story, for that matter — about the former tenants of Apartment 3C.

The F.B.I. agent later reported this:

PHILLIP JACOBS, 1401 Carroll Street, Brooklyn, New York, advised SA INGRAM on December 10, 1963, he was the landlord of the building at 825 East 179th Street, Bronx, during 1953, but he could not personally recall Mrs. OSWALD. He said the tenants mailed in their rents and he had no contact with the tenants. He has no records and the person who might recall the OSWALD family would be Mrs. GUSSIE KELLER.

It's a nice story. I'm not about to bet the farm (or even the barn) it's true.

Hank

 

[Belz...]

You've never actually read the definition of "skeptic" then?

I have and that doesn't follow from what I said.

I am not convinced of the first shot being before or during 190-224, but Pat Speer presents a very generous sampling of eyewitnesses who seem to be saying that the first shot they heard was at 190-224. If the first shot missed, then it seems like an oddly large number of witnesses didn't hear or perceive it.

Considering the amount of evidence available, one wonders what would convince you, and what _you_ think "skeptic" means.

 

[MicahJava]

Considering the amount of evidence available, one wonders what would convince you, and what _you_ think "skeptic" means.

It seems like most of the witnesses say the first shot was the 190-224 shot. The idea of a first missed shot has been pounded into my head as a fact but I don't see the necessary evidence. Is there something I haven't seen? Either way, a whole bunch of witnesses didn't even hear the first missed shot.

 

[MicahJava]

Of course, that assumes the shooter(s) on the knoll were

(a) actually there
(b) such crack shots they couldn't miss the president's head by an inch or two and hit Jackie instead
(c) confident that they wouldn't be captured
(d) confident that a shot from a right-front would be covered up

Arguing from what "Some have even speculated..." isn't a great approach. Some have even speculated that this approach allows one to introduce all kinds of accusations into the record with no evidence, and with no need to defend said speculations.

Of course, that assumes that the entity involved in the murder conspiracy was the same entity involved in the cover-up.

Who said it was from a missed shot?

Conspiracy theorist Josiah Thompson in his 1967 book, SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS, thought he had answered this question for all time with his pointing out some of the facts:

(a) The metallic smear on the curb near Tague was found to be lead with a trace of antimony when analyzed by the FBI.
(b) Oswald's bullets were copper-jacketed, but the internal portion was comprised of lead with a trace of antimony.
(c) The bullet that struck the president in the head from behind broke apart. Two portions of the copper jacket were found in the limo after the assassination, and these fragments were traceable to Oswald's weapon, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. Most of the lead portion was not accounted for.
(d) It's nearly a straight line from Oswald's window to the President's head at Zapruder frame 313 to the curb at the spot it was struck.

All those facts - and they are facts - taken together appear to indicate that the missile that struck Tague was a lead fragment that escaped the limo. The Harper fragment (a portion of the President's brain) was found after the assassination forward of the limo as well. That would tend to show a bullet fragment could, would, and did travel in that same direction from that same hit.

I'm not certain Thompson pointed it out, but on the day of the assassination, Tague and one law enforcement officer lined up the curb mark with where Tague was standing, and determined the source of the shot had to be one of the buildings at the corner of Elm and Houston.

None of that is evidence that the FIRST shot missed. There were obviously missed shots.

Buddy Walthers testified to all that. Maybe that's part of the reason he's "a person of interest" to conspiracy theorists.



http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/walthers.htm

Hank

Yes, I know James Tague exists. He swore then and swears to this day that the fragment that hit him was the second or third shot he heard.

The early reports of a bullet found in the grass were denied by Buddy Walthers, but is it that crazy to question the statements of a man who had a bomb explode outside of his home right around the time Jim Garrison was doing his investigations?


Walthers, a deputy since Dec. 17, 1955, was the father of three. He played a prominent part in the investigation of Lee Harvey Oswald after the assassination of President Kennedy.

In June, 1968, Walthers reported a bombing outside his home in Oak Cliff. That case is still under investigation. -Dallas Morning News, January 11, 1969

 

[MicahJava]

They're wrong.

Their impressions are based on sound, and the echo in Dealey Plaza has been discussed at length in this thread. The farther away from the 6th Floor window the harder it was to determine the direction of the gunfire. Oliver Stone's sound guy complained about the echo while they were filming "JFK" on location.

Couple that with the simple lack of evidence of a second shooter and you see the problem.

Honestly, a shooter behind the fence couldn't have stood out any more had they brought a 60-piece marching band with them.

Too bad the HSCA earshot experiment observers almost always reported the correct origin of a gunshot from the TSBD and the Knol. If the echo was that bad, not as many people would have recalled hearing exactly three shots. Cue that with the witnesses who saw a puff of smoke and/or a flash of light, smelled gunpowder etc., and you have a problem.

The downward angle this is nonsense, especially at that short of a range. In the mountains of Afghanistan? Sure, but not Dealey Plaza, and not with that rifle. The down-angle is a non-factor in the shooting.

And the evidence of the quality of USMC marksmanship is the stacks of dead bodies in places like the South Pacific, Vietnam, Fallujah, Helmland Province.




One of the reasons you fail is that Reclaiming History is a Woo-site, dedicated to spreading skewed information about the JFK Assassination.

As for Google, it took me 10 seconds:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/21/n...the-kennedy-assassination.html?pagewanted=all

Even believing the grandpa's story, lol, a BB Gun? I don't mean to move the goalposts, but with the way the scope was mounted to the MC, wouldn't a shooter have to adjust his aim?

Nope. Plenty of time to cycle the bolt and reacquire the target between the throat shot and the head shot.



Echo...echo...echo...echo...

Are you advocating only two shots with no misses now? A majority of witnesses, no matter where standing, heard one shot followed by two shots closely bunched together.

This is all irrelevant.

Harris's lack of ballistic knowledge is dwarfed by his inability to appreciate human nature. He advocates that we're all inclined to preform the exact same robotic actions to the same stimuli, even though this has never been the case in 100,000 years of human evolution. Harris sees what he wants to see because he needs it to be true.

I understand him completely because I felt like an ass for a long time after my visit to Dallas. Nobody wants to admit they've been foolish and stupid, but I was.

Look, I'm happy to keep the door open to some aspects of conspiracy with this case. I suspect one other person knew what he was planning, but at the end of the day this was an act initiated by Lee Harvey Oswald.

Just more lame hand-waving of the loud and startling gunshot at 285. If you insist on three shots from the TSBD, they did it with an automatic gun. If there was a missed shot before 190-224, most people didn't hear it so it might've come from a gun with a suppressor.

 

[MicahJava]

One of the reasons you fail is that Reclaiming History is a Woo-site, dedicated to spreading skewed information about the JFK Assassination

Lol, Reclaiming History by Vincent Bugliosi is the JFK debunkers bible, not a woo-site. I agree that a lot of it is woo, but not like you're thinking. I'll PM you a link to the ebook since you seem to be interested.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Either way, a whole bunch of witnesses didn't even hear the first missed shot.

And?

We expect there to be confusion. We expect conflicting memories. And because of the acoustics of the plaza, we expect different people to have heard different things.

Which... and let's keep saying it like a mantra... is why we look to see what we can verify from witnesses with better evidence.

We have evidence for three shots being fired. From Oswalds rifle.

We have no evidence for any other bullets, from any other weapon.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Are you advocating only two shots with no misses now? A majority of witnesses, no matter where standing, heard one shot followed by two shots closely bunched together.

No. He is pointing out the realities of the timing.
When the clock starts ticking in an important factor when claiming "superhuman" speed is a factor.

 

[MicahJava]

Out of all the people in Dealey Plaza during the assassination, FOUR people thought shots came from multiple directions. That's out of over one hundred who named a source. Those four are in a decided minority, and are contradicted by the rest, who named only one source of the shots.

Wouldn't your perception of the origin of the last shot you hear skew your perception of the other shots that came before?

Untrue. Most every large library across the nation - public and university alike - had a copy of the Warren Commission's 26 volumes of evidence. My university had a copy, and I started my research there. A large metropolitan library a few miles from where I eventually settled had a copy as well. Eventually I purchased a used set from the President's Box Bookshop (now defunct AFAIK) for $2500. There were plenty of "JFK-related documents and eyewitness statements" available for those who wanted them back in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. In fact, the original conspiracy authors like Lane, Weisberg, Meagher, Lifton, Thompson, et. al. had no problems getting access to a copy of the 26 volumes (they were originally sold through the Government Printing Office to anyone who wanted a copy for $89 for the complete set in 1964).

The Warren report volumes are only the tip of the iceberg in JFK stuff. Things like FBI reports have been released periodically over the years. Are you saying the authors of the earlier JFK conspiracy literature did not read or retain the knowledge of the Warren information?

Because that's where the money is. And of course, citing the number of people who believe something is true is just a logical fallacy of an appeal to popularity.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

You are using the fallacy fallacy. Before someone wants to dismiss JFK conspiracy subjects, it is fair to point out to them that most people who research it disagree with the official story.

What's yours? Present an argument - with evidence - and we'll discuss.

I think it was you that said that a gunman behind the fence would be apparent in the Mary Moorman photo; all I see if shadows and darkness in the foliage. You are the one who swears that hiding behind the fence is impossible.

Wrong question. Is there any *evidence* such training is necessary? Once you answer that in that affirmative (citing that *evidence*), then we can proceed to discuss your claim, and your question.

You're the one claiming that a shot from someone with the experience of Oswald from the 6th floor TSBD from that window with that rifle would be easy. You brought it up, how all it took to convince you of the official story was standing around in Dealely Plaza and going to the assassination museum. I enjoy listening more than getting into literally endless online arguments.

I covered this in detail with Robert Harris in this or the prior thread. He deflected all my points, and eventually took his ball and went home. Please review the thread and tell me what about my argument you take issue with.

I don't remember reading any refutations besides the vein of "you can't PROVE it was a gunshot at 285".

First of all, it's Alvarez. At least know who you're citing (so we don't have to figure it out). And secondly, he has no experience of filmmaking. His background is in physics (Nobel Prize, 1968). Know thy experts and their expertise. Thirdly, he inferred a series of shots based on what he supposed was involuntary muscle reactions by Zapruder to audible gunfire, based on motions detected within the Zapruder film itself. Fourthly, you cite Alvarez as an expert, but you don't cite his conclusions. He's the expert you're citing, not Harris. You cite the conclusion of Harris to the work of Alvarez. Alvarez's conclusion was the film shows three shots were fired. Right?

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/A Disk/Alvarez Luis Dr/Item 02.pdf

Hank

"With my many years of experience in analysing bubble chamber film, plus some moonlighting activities in photographic detective work as a background, I soon found myself completely engrossed in the Zapruder film"

From Wikipedia:

Alvarez, an expert in optics and photoanalysis, became intrigued by the pictures and began to study what could be learned from the film.


He said in his paper that he thinks the 285 reactions were related to a siren because he found one witness who said a siren rang after 313. He didn't want it to be a gunshot. Do you have any witnesses who say they heard a siren after JFK slumped over? One day I might abandon the 285 theory, but for certain if the official story required a shot at 285 and I was here trying to argue against it, you would call me crazy.

Furthermore, I noticed that it is apparent in the Zapruder film that Babushka Lady seems to be taking a flash photograph shortly after 285. The point of light on what she's holding lasts for 7 frames.

 

[Axxman300]

I'm sorry, I thought you meant this "Reclaiming History":

http://www.reclaiminghistory.org/

The order of the gunshots are clear, we know for certain where two of the bullets struck. JFK's Secret Service detail insists that all three struck the limo, and that the "Magic Bullet" was simply one of them:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmCEx-f0dfI

The key is that the time between the neck shot and the head shot is long enough to recycle and reacquire the target, and at that range JFK's head would have looked like a pumpkin through his scope.

Until I see better evidence I subscribe to the two out of three hits that the Warren Commission advocated. What I see is Oswald firing the first round high, the second one low, and the third center mass.

The problem with the HSCA is that it was mostly a circus. Anytime you recreate a historical event you are handicapped by time, fading memories, changing landscapes, and controlled conditions. Most important factor is that nobody gets killed during the recreation, and that is the most important factor of this event. Shock does fantastic things to the brain and the body and the memory.

I remember many details of the moment I heard that the Challenger had exploded, and I have total recall of the first ten minutes 9-11, 2001 unfolded on my radio. What I don't remember is the face of the two young men who pulled out their guns and pointed them at me in Salinas in 1989. I only remember the guns. There are many similar stressful incidents in my life where I can't fully recall the events.

The idea that the HSCA's recreations hold merit must be put in perspective.

 

[HSienzant]

Wouldn't your perception of the origin of the last shot you hear skew your perception of the other shots that came before?

Now you are arguing with your witnesses, calling many of them wrong. You are admitting witnesses perceptions can be skewed by other factors. That calls your entire line of argument on this forum into question. If your argument above was valid, you'd expect all the witnesses perceptions to skew the same way - all to the knoll or all to the TSBD. But they don't. What was the source of the last shot, according to you? And doesn't that mean those witnesses that said the source of all the shots came from another place are wrong? And if that many witnesses are wrong, how confident can you be in anything any individual witness said? Or even what a minority of them said, like about the source of the shots being the knoll, or the limo slowing down?

Given that you're admitting witnesses' recollections can be wrong, why should we rely on those recollections instead of the hard evidence.

The Warren report volumes are only the tip of the iceberg in JFK stuff.

They contain ALL the sworn testimony (with a few minor excisions - like Jacqueline Kennedy's description of the wounds) of all the witnesses that testified to the Commission or Commission counsel.

Things like FBI reports have been released periodically over the years.

FBI reports are by their nature hearsay. And not sworn. Critics accept those they like, and discard everything else. And many were published within the WC volumes in any case.

Are you saying the authors of the earlier JFK conspiracy literature did not read or retain the knowledge of the Warren information?

No, I'm saying they relied on that testimony and the other reports within the WC 26 volumes to make their case, and they did so by taking extreme liberties with the case evidence and the testimony therein, quoting out of context, substituting their own interpretation of the evidence for that of the experts', relying on hearsay, logical fallacies, suppositions, and the like instead of the hard evidence. And you repeat all that here.

You are using the fallacy fallacy.

Nope. Here's what you're referencing, but don't cite.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy
"You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong."

Pointing out the logical fallacies in your argument shows your argument isn't supported. You still need to show it is true - try to support your argument instead of putting words in my mouth about what I'm presuming. Here's what I wrote: "...citing the number of people who believe something is true is just a logical fallacy of an appeal to popularity."

Before someone wants to dismiss JFK conspiracy subjects, it is fair to point out to them that most people who research it disagree with the official story.

Nope. It's still wrong. The truth is not up for vote. So forget about citing any supposed relative numbers for or against. And how did you determine which side has the most believers amongst those who research this? You can't use opinion polls, because that is the opinion of the general populace, NOT researchers -- and YOU specified that "most people who research it disagree with the official story". Tell us how you know that, and then tell us why it's pertinent.

I think it was you that said that a gunman behind the fence would be apparent in the Mary Moorman photo; all I see if shadows and darkness in the foliage. You are the one who swears that hiding behind the fence is impossible.

You're confusing me with someone else.

You're the one claiming that a shot from someone with the experience of Oswald from the 6th floor TSBD from that window with that rifle would be easy.

You're confusing me with someone else.

You brought it up, how all it took to convince you of the official story was standing around in Dealely Plaza and going to the assassination museum..

You're confusing me with someone else.

I enjoy listening more than getting into literally endless online arguments.

I honestly can't tell the difference.

I don't remember reading any refutations besides the vein of "you can't PROVE it was a gunshot at 285".

That, in itself, is sufficient. You're asking for the disproof of a claim. That's a logical fallacy of a shifting of the burden of proof. It's incumbent upon no one to disprove the contentions of Robert Harris. It's incumbent upon Harris to prove his contentions. Don't invoke logical fallacies to make your case.

"With my many years of experience in analysing bubble chamber film, plus some moonlighting activities in photographic detective work as a background, I soon found myself completely engrossed in the Zapruder film"

From Wikipedia:

Alvarez, an expert in optics and photoanalysis, became intrigued by the pictures and began to study what could be learned from the film.

You called him an expert in filmmaking, getting his name and his expertise wrong: "Luis Alferez, with his experience in filmmaking..." Correct? Nothing above says he's an expert in filmmaking.

He said in his paper that he thinks the 285 reactions were related to a siren because he found one witness who said a siren rang after 313.

Please quote that and what he concluded from that. Don't substitute your own interpretations for his. He's your expert witness, you're not an expert witness.

He didn't want it to be a gunshot.

Do tell us how you got so good at mind-reading. You are now arguing with the very expert you brought up, substituting your interpretation of the evidence for his. Do tell us why we should accept your non-expert opinion as worthy of credence.

Do you have any witnesses who say they heard a siren after JFK slumped over?

I looked to the Secret Service agents in the car first:

Representative FORD. Did you hear the President say anything after the first shot?
Mr. GREER. No, sir; I never heard him say anything; never at any time did I ever hear him say anything.
Representative BOGGS. Did Mrs. Kennedy say anything to you while you were driving to the hospital?
Mr. GREER. No, sir; she didn't.
Representative BOGGS. Did Mrs. Connally say anything to you?
Mr. GREER. No. Mrs. Connally didn't say anything, either. There is quite a little distance between the front and the back seat of that car. As you know, it is 21 feet long, and you are quite a little bit away, and there was the sirens were all going. The following car had a siren wide--the big one on the fender was wide open. There wasn't much chance for me to hear anything, and I was really occupied with getting there just as fast as I could and not seeing that anything happened, avoid an accident or anything like that.

He doesn't say when the sirens were turned on. Alvarez argues that Greer's recollection is incorrect on other points - like when he sped up the car - Greer said it was immediate with the third shot, but it actually started at frame Z334. He argues from this that Greer's recollection of when the siren started might be similarly mistaken.

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/A Disk/Alvarez Luis Dr/Item 02.pdf

One day I might abandon the 285 theory, but for certain if the official story required a shot at 285 and I was here trying to argue against it, you would call me crazy.

Do tell us how you got so good at mind-reading. I'd like to develop my skill at that.

Furthermore, I noticed that it is apparent in the Zapruder film that Babushka Lady seems to be taking a flash photograph shortly after 285. The point of light on what she's holding lasts for 7 frames.

Change of subject. What's that got to do with a siren, a shot, or anything else?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Of course, that assumes that the entity involved in the murder conspiracy was the same entity involved in the cover-up.

So we're up to five assumptions by you to make your original speculation true; the four I listed and the one you add above. I fail to see how adding additional - unproven - assumptions helps you establish a conspiracy.

None of that is evidence that the FIRST shot missed.

You appear to be changing horses in mid-stream, or attempting to. Your original argument was different. You originally argued:

James Tague got hit with a fragment of something (he also swears that it happened after he heard the second or third shots). How could he, of all people, be hit with anything from a missed shot if it was aiming at such a steep angle?

I believe that's a logical fallacy called "moving the goalposts". We went from you arguing that Tague's hit couldn't be from "a missed shot" (of which you claim several missed shots) to more specifically, arguing that doesn't prove a first shot miss. That's moving the goalposts. That's a logical fallacy.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/129/Moving_the_Goalposts

Are you accepting the evidence indicates Tague was hit by a fragment of the head shot, and that this hit to Tague's cheek therefore has nothing to do with a missed shot?

There were obviously missed shots.

And there's an unsourced, undocumented claim. Perhaps you should enumerate for everyone here the undeniable evidence for those supposed *obvious* "missed shots" (plural!)

Yes, I know James Tague exists. He swore then and swears to this day that the fragment that hit him was the second or third shot he heard.

I never said anything to the contrary of the above. I cited the evidence that links his wound to a fragment of the head shot. Perhaps you could delve into that and tell us exactly what you disagree with therein? And how his recollection you list above overturns that evidence, instead of reinforcing it?

The early reports of a bullet found in the grass were denied by Buddy Walthers

And by officer Foster. And confirmed by no one. And linked to no one. On the contrary, people only mentioned hearing *rumors* (hearsay) of that, and those rumors were reported, but *not one person ever came forward to claim they saw a bullet in the grass*. If you disagree, please name the people that actually saw a bullet. You will find there is no one.

...but is it that crazy to question the statements of a man who had a bomb explode outside of his home right around the time Jim Garrison was doing his investigations?

Can you expand on this? Back in 1964, Walthers denied ever seeing a bullet (as did Foster). Four years pass, and then supposedly Walthers reported a bombing "outside his home" (which is hearsay, indistinct and has no indication how close it was to his home or whether it was intended for him). I find that three blocks down the block from his home is still "outside his home". You appear to be assuming this supposed bombing was close by and intended for him. Please present the evidence that confirms your assumptions.

Walthers, a deputy since Dec. 17, 1955, was the father of three. He played a prominent part in the investigation of Lee Harvey Oswald after the assassination of President Kennedy.

In June, 1968, Walthers reported a bombing outside his home in Oak Cliff. That case is still under investigation. -Dallas Morning News, January 11, 1969

Okay, and outside of speculation, what evidence do you have that this is linked in any way to the Kennedy assassination? Here's what I could come up with:

(a) Nothing
(b) Nothing
(c) Nothing

Perhaps you would care to provide some evidence in support of your suspicion that this was intended to kill him or intimidate him or something or other? Here are the facts: Walthers testified in 1964 there was no bullet. Four years later, Walthers *supposedly* reported a bombing somewhere near his home (a newspaper report is hearsay). No evidence you've presented to date links those two items in any way, nor even establishes the veracity of the newspaper report. It's solely your suspicion that they should be linked, apparently.

Nor have you presented any evidence of the supposed bullet in the grass ever existing. Absent that evidence, of course, the whole bombing incident (which you haven't established either) is rendered meaningless. And indicative of nothing.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

It seems like most of the witnesses say the first shot was the 190-224 shot. The idea of a first missed shot has been pounded into my head as a fact but I don't see the necessary evidence. Is there something I haven't seen? Either way, a whole bunch of witnesses didn't even hear the first missed shot.

You just cited the evidence for only two shots, both of which hit a victim.

Thanks,

Hank