JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[HSienzant]

This is quite salient because we already have the problem of the transverse shot. From the TSBD, Kennedy's car was traveling away, along the line of sight, and down an incline. In contrast, from the fence at the top of the grassy knoll the target is moving rapidly across the line of sight. That's already a difficult shot. The road signs and trees limit the time in which the shot can be taken. When you add the obstructions caused by using the fence as cover, making the fatal head shot from there, with a suppressed weapon, strains credulity.

And when you add in the fact that twelve men were on the overpass directly over Elm Street about fifty feet from this supposed shooter, it strains credulity to the breaking point. He would have had to crawl into this sewer opening in full view of numerous railroad workers, at least one police officer stationed on the overpass, two parking lot attendants, and Lee Bowers.

http://i74.servimg.com/u/f74/18/50/79/06/thomps21.jpg

 

[JayUtah]

Clicking the shutter button as a reaction to hearing a loud gunshot in the most important assassination ever is the kind of thing that would make a distinct impression on a witnesses mind. I'm sure you think he was somehow mistaken?

Are you aware of any science that has been done regarding the effects of unexpected or startling events on the ability of the surprised witness to recall the events correctly? Phrases like "loud gunshot" and "most important assassination ever" smack of post-justified analysis that wouldn't be known or appreciated at the time the events were unfolding. Do you know of any science that has been done regarding the effects of later attributions of significance upon a witness's ability to recall events correctly?

Your line of reasoning seems to presuppose a notion of events "seared into the minds of the witnesses" in a way that gives their testimony added credibility and weight. That seems to me to be a testable premise. Do you know if it has been tested?

 

[JayUtah]

...it strains credulity to the breaking point.

That's essentially my argument. When one visits this public space and walks around it to investigate the various hypotheses, one comes away distinctly believing either that those authors have never been to the plaza or that they intend their theories for people who have never been there. Nearly all these alternate hypotheses require people to act in secret in circumstances where they would be easily detected.

 

[BStrong]

Are you aware of any science that has been done regarding the effects of unexpected or startling events on the ability of the surprised witness to recall the events correctly? Phrases like "loud gunshot" and "most important assassination ever" smack of post-justified analysis that wouldn't be known or appreciated at the time the events were unfolding. Do you know of any science that has been done regarding the effects of later attributions of significance upon a witness's ability to recall events correctly?

Your line of reasoning seems to presuppose a notion of events "seared into the minds of the witnesses" in a way that gives their testimony added credibility and weight. That seems to me to be a testable premise. Do you know if it has been tested?

I've posted it before, but the fact is that untrained individuals rarely recognize gunfire when they hear it, and if we're talking about a suppressed firearm very few individuals will recognize the sound of a projectile passing their location - the best sales demonstration of suppressors that anyone ever came up with was the guy who would take folks on a tour through various locations in NOLA and demonstrate his designs by shooting a firearm w/ one of his cans in public - on safe backstops - and his prospective buyers could observe how joe blow reacted to having a suppressed weapon fired in their presence.

The dealer made many sales, but never came to the attention of the public or the authorities.

 

[HSienzant]

The bullet mark on the curb was paved over intentionally and I can see you have a hard time accepting that.

You seem to be assuming *patch* means to cover with something.

It doesn't only mean that. It also means a specific spot, like in "this barren patch of earth where my dog constantly urinates". Are you arguing the "patch" above is covered with something to conceal it's bereft of grass?

But you seem to think every reference to *patch* means it was covered with something in an attempt to conceal.

You haven't established that. In fact, you appear to be assuming exactly what you need to prove.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

[qimg]http://www.rifleman.org.uk/Images/SOEi%20manual%20page.gif[/qimg]

The Winchester 74 sniper rifle with silencer pre-dates the assassination, and was used by the CIA. It is also automatic.

Great. Now you post the names of the Dealey Plaza witnesses who came forward on 11/22/63 to say they say a sniper rifle near the sewer location you identified.

You have none.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Oh honey, the dark-colored part of the curb that your circled is the filled-in area. The bullet mark began as a white chip on the curb, and the chip was paved over with concrete paste filler.

Remember?

When Henry Hurt, a roving editor for Reader's Digest, was working on his book, Reasonable Doubt, I helped him all I could, mainly with its first half, a recap of known facts about the JFK assassination. I asked him, for his purposes and mine, the Digest having resources I lacked and lack, to have an expert on concrete examine that curbstone. They engaged Construction Environment, Inc., of Alexandrea, Virginia. It's chief engineer, Jose T. Fernandez, made an examination on March 10, 1983. He reported it March 17. He found the "dark gray spot" readily, "at the center of the concrete section, on the vertical face, just below the curbed transition between the horizontal ad vertical surfaces... The dark spot had fairly well-defined boundaries, as it stood out visually from the surrounding concrete surface... elliptical in shape approximately 1/2 in. by 3/4 in. in principle dimension. He found no other such areas on the curbstone and regarded that as "significant."

The spot also had different characteristics. He attributed the "difference in color" to "the cement paste" that was used. He found a difference in the sand grains because, unlike the rest, the "dark spot" contained only semi-translucent light gray sand grains. He found a flaw on the upper edge of the patch "consistent with the relatively weaker zones that normally occurs in the thin, or feathered edges of surface patch." His summary is: that it was a surface patch.

(source)

It just breaks my dear old heart you can't acknowledge a cover-up when there is one, even when you are provided with the clearest example. It was literally a cover-up. Literally.

EDIT: also, James Tague himself examined the curbstone in evidence and said that the bullet mark was filled over.

It was a surface patch. Just not in the sense you're using it.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/patch

And this was your best example of a coverup? Your failure to understand that 'patch' has more than one meaning? And all other examples of coverup are admittedly weaker than this?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Gee, I wonder why you're so quick to dismiss the combined statements of about 300 witnesses.

Edit: Oddly enough, I can't even see any reason why the sequence of loud shots I'm arguing couldn't fit with the OS. Step 1: Shot at Z224, SBT happens. Step 2: Head shot at 313. Step 3: In Oswald's haste as the limo beings accelerating, he rapidly cycles his MC, shoots without aiming, and misses far-off at the curb.

Because you're not citing 300 witnesses. You're telling us what you think.

We looked at 2 witnesses and found discrepancies between your version and theirs. Remember?

And what happened to those silenced shots you were conjecturing previously? They are not in this scenario. Neither is the storm drain shooter.

The scenario you offer above was covered in the Warren Report.

Hank

 

[Border Reiver]

Oh honey, the dark-colored part of the curb that your circled is the filled-in area. The bullet mark began as a white chip on the curb, and the chip was paved over with concrete paste filler.

Remember?

When Henry Hurt, a roving editor for Reader's Digest, was working on his book, Reasonable Doubt, I helped him all I could, mainly with its first half, a recap of known facts about the JFK assassination. I asked him, for his purposes and mine, the Digest having resources I lacked and lack, to have an expert on concrete examine that curbstone. They engaged Construction Environment, Inc., of Alexandrea, Virginia. It's chief engineer, Jose T. Fernandez, made an examination on March 10, 1983. He reported it March 17. He found the "dark gray spot" readily, "at the center of the concrete section, on the vertical face, just below the curbed transition between the horizontal ad vertical surfaces... The dark spot had fairly well-defined boundaries, as it stood out visually from the surrounding concrete surface... elliptical in shape approximately 1/2 in. by 3/4 in. in principle dimension. He found no other such areas on the curbstone and regarded that as "significant."

The spot also had different characteristics. He attributed the "difference in color" to "the cement paste" that was used. He found a difference in the sand grains because, unlike the rest, the "dark spot" contained only semi-translucent light gray sand grains. He found a flaw on the upper edge of the patch "consistent with the relatively weaker zones that normally occurs in the thin, or feathered edges of surface patch." His summary is: that it was a surface patch.

(source)

It just breaks my dear old heart you can't acknowledge a cover-up when there is one, even when you are provided with the clearest example. It was literally a cover-up. Literally.

EDIT: also, James Tague himself examined the curbstone in evidence and said that the bullet mark was filled over.

Given that the patch was looked at 20 years after the incident, how is that indicative of anything?

Curbs get replaced and repaired all the time. Not fixing the chip by 1983 would be indicative of poor repair practices in the Dallas Civic works department, not a criminal desire to cover up evidence.

 

[HSienzant]

Well, it is important to look at when there's a consensus among the majority of witnesses, or at least when there seems to be.

Then there are some very strong examples of eyewitness statements, like Phillip Willis who snapped a photograph at the equivalent of Zapruder frame 202, and swore that the picture was snapped because of a startle reaction to the first shot he heard (causing him to involuntarily click the shutter button). Of course, a shot at 202 had to happen a moment before the photographic evidence of Connolly being hit at Z224.

Willis slide 5

Clicking the shutter button as a reaction to hearing a loud gunshot in the most important assassination ever is the kind of thing that would make a distinct impression on a witnesses mind. I'm sure you think he was somehow mistaken?

Okay, that's the Logical fallacy known as a red herring.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

Try to avoid those.

How quickly after the shot did he click the shutter?

One second, two seconds? Give objective evidence for your answer, if you have it. Tell us how you know.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

We all know about the classic tactics here. I just speculated that some kind of silenced shot could come from the grassy knoll, near the storm drain by the overpass, and that the loud noise and puff of smoke behind the fence near the pergola could be a firecracker. Trying to reconstruct the situation in Dealey Plaza using basic facts is different.

We know that the Willis photograph was taken at the equivalent of Z202 (I've seen somebody saying that it was actually taken in the Z10's, but most sources say Z202).

We know that Phillip Willis always swore that the photograph was snapped as a result of him clicking the shutter button in response to the first loud noise he heard.

Considering the photographic evidence of Conolly being struck at Z224, the Willis photograph can not live in harmony with the official story.

One early shot before the one that struck Connally was one of the scenarios advanced by the Warren Commission.

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-3.html#missed

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Given that the patch was looked at 20 years after the incident, how is that indicative of anything?

Curbs get replaced and repaired all the time. Not fixing the chip by 1983 would be indicative of poor repair practices in the Dallas Civic works department, not a criminal desire to cover up evidence.

That section of curb was cut out and taken to the National Archives in 1964. He is assuming the word patch is used solely to mean repair, but it also means the spot in question.

patch
A small area that is different in some way from the area that surrounds it:

Our dog has a black patch on his back.
The hotel walls were covered in damp patches.
There were lots of icy patches on the road this morning.
This story is good in patches (= some parts are good), but I wouldn't really recommend it.
The curb had a patch where the bullet appeared to have struck.

 

[abaddon]

We all know about the classic tactics here. I just speculated that some kind of silenced shot could come from the grassy knoll, near the storm drain by the overpass, and that the loud noise and puff of smoke behind the fence near the pergola could be a firecracker. Trying to reconstruct the situation in Dealey Plaza using basic facts is different.

We know that the Willis photograph was taken at the equivalent of Z202 (I've seen somebody saying that it was actually taken in the Z10's, but most sources say Z202).

We know that Phillip Willis always swore that the photograph was snapped as a result of him clicking the shutter button in response to the first loud noise he heard.

Considering the photographic evidence of Conolly being struck at Z224, the Willis photograph can not live in harmony with the official story.

And there is the actual issue. You simply stated that you have nothing but wild speculation. You might have thought that this was missed, or that you have obviously have nothing but speculation, but you just stated that you have nothing bar your own baseless speculation. What is one to make of that?

 

[turingtest]

And there is the actual issue. You simply stated that you have nothing but wild speculation. You might have thought that this was missed, or that you have obviously have nothing but speculation, but you just stated that you have nothing bar your own baseless speculation. What is one to make of that?

MJ earlier referred to "the theory I [MJ] subscribe to"; he (or she) has been asked a few times what that theory is. Evidently, storm-drain-guy isn't it, since he's now been relegated to "speculation"; so, the question remains- what is the theory MJ subscribes to? I think it's a fair question, since he knows ours, and has, in common with other CTists, been nitpicking strenuously for fifty years at the isolated details without regard to the overall consilience; surely he doesn't think his own theory is exempt from his own standard? I predict, though, that it's a question that won't be answered (or at least not without a good bit of waffling), since MJ knows that that would mean it would be subject to the same sort of scrutiny that they've applied to the "official narrative"- and that it would never stand up.

Prove me wrong, MJ. You don't owe me or anyone on this board anything, of course; but surely if you think that the wrong guy was blamed for the crime of the century, you owe it to history and justice to say what actually happened that day. Unless, of course...this is all really just a hobby? Because I've found that, for all the strutting CTists do about how they're the ones standing up for justice, when it comes right down to it, all they're really doing is passing the time with a plaything.

 

[HSienzant]

We all know about the classic tactics here.

You mean the classic tactics like asking for your evidence, rather than your suppositions, conjectures, and suspicions?

I just speculated that some kind of silenced shot could come from the grassy knoll, near the storm drain by the overpass, and that the loud noise and puff of smoke behind the fence near the pergola could be a firecracker.

So to be clear, you're conjecturing TWO conspirators behind the fence, one to shoot from an exposed location standing halfway in a storm drain, and a second one to set off some firecrackers to distract from the shooter with the silenced weapon? And the shooter not only has to stow the weapon, but pull a heavy storm grate over his head and drop it into place without attracting the attention of any of the people known to be on that PATCH of earth? And basically isolate himself there with no possibility of escape if somebody did see him duck into the storm drain?

Can we consider this one off the table?

Hank

 

[turingtest]

You mean the classic tactics like asking for your evidence, rather than your suppositions, conjectures, and suspicions?




So to be clear, you're conjecturing TWO conspirators behind the fence, one to shoot from an exposed location standing halfway in a storm drain, and a second one to set off some firecrackers to distract from the shooter with the silenced weapon? And the shooter not only has to stow the weapon, but pull a heavy storm grate over his head and drop it into place without attracting the attention of any of the people known to be on that PATCH of earth? And basically isolate himself there with no possibility of escape if somebody did see him duck into the storm drain?

Can we consider this one off the table?

Hank

The whole thing has the same two-faceted defect most conspiracy "theories" (or even just speculations) suffer from- it not only needs to be possible, it needs to be something an actual conspiracy would consider doing. The scenarios on offer are just the usual reverse engineering so badly done that no real-life set of bad guys would even think of forward-engineering it like that. And this is in contrast with the simplicity of putting one guy in a high place with a high-powered rifle. But the CTists can't really keep it that simple, since, after all... that's what the "official narrative" says, but without any add-ons. They'd be admitting that all it would take would be all it took.

 

[HSienzant]

Could you tell us what that theory consists of? How many shots, from where, based on what evidence?

Still waiting.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

You are mistaking the photograph for a story about the taking of the photograph.

The photograph itself fits quite nicely with the "official story". What does not fit is the story told of the taking.

You also seem to be straying away from actually supporting your previous claims. Is this going to be a Gish Gallop, or do you ever intend to provide any evidence to support your claims of silenced rifles being in the plaza?

Okay, I'll repeat myself. If you accidentally take a picture on the camera you're holding as a startle response to a loud gunshot, that's the kind of thing that would make a distinct impression on a person's mind. It would be unlikely for someone to fabricate such a memory. So Willis Slide 5 is good evidence for a loud shot before Z224.

 

[MicahJava]

And when you add in the fact that twelve men were on the overpass directly over Elm Street about fifty feet from this supposed shooter, it strains credulity to the breaking point. He would have had to crawl into this sewer opening in full view of numerous railroad workers, at least one police officer stationed on the overpass, two parking lot attendants, and Lee Bowers.

http://i74.servimg.com/u/f74/18/50/79/06/thomps21.jpg

I see what you mean, it would be pretty close, however there were trees and parked cars which may have clocked the view of anyone standing there.

 

[MicahJava]

You seem to be assuming *patch* means to cover with something.

It doesn't only mean that. It also means a specific spot, like in "this barren patch of earth where my dog constantly urinates". Are you arguing the "patch" above is covered with something to conceal it's bereft of grass?

But you seem to think every reference to *patch* means it was covered with something in an attempt to conceal.

You haven't established that. In fact, you appear to be assuming exactly what you need to prove.

Hank

What?