JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[MicahJava]

So far I am right on.

Hank

"

Where's the low-velocity bullet that you *conjecture*?

Why wasn't this bullet found in Connally's body?

Or on Connally's stretcher?

If the majority of concerned citizens believe that portions of the official forensic evidence shouldn't be taken seriously, why that evidence allegedly found in the limousine be taken seriously? If that wasn't done, you could always conjecture that one fell out of Connally's clothing and was lost while being transported unconscious.

Doesn't this testimony [Larry Sturdivan's, as quoted by you] mean that at least two bullets would have to have hit Connally, both of which vanished into thin air and were never recovered, along with the gunman firing these bullets likewise vanishing?

What's the minumum velocity required to for bullet to duplicate the wrist wounds?

And I love how the idea of a gunman picking up his shell casings and hiding his gun properly has become foreign to you.

And by tracing back Connally's wounds, where do you think this supposed second shooter was located?

Behind. What, are you going to cite the Dale Myers animation again? Was his work "peer-reviewed" by the geniuses at the Z-Axis animation company, who only specialize in creating 3D cartoons and models of how things are supposed to work as explinative props in court cases? Or maybe you'll cite all the times he ranted online about other people daring to ask questions, with the comments disabled, instead of citing the actual computer data that Myers refuses to provide to the public?

Where's the evidence for either the shooter or the bullets?

We're talking about it.

Doesn't your argument mean 90% of the witnesses are wrong, as that's about how many heard three shots?

The very answer to that in ingrained within the issues that I bring up.

Doesn't this call into question witnesses like John Connally, who heard only two shots and felt a third (between the two he heard)?

He also supposedly never learned his wrist was wounded until he discovered it after becoming unconscious.

Does your argument about Connally's injuries call into question the viability of using eyewitness testimony (and recollections from decades later) as the centerpiece of earlier your arguments, as it points to eyewitnesses being wrong?

Hold the phone. We've already talked about how the evidence widely indicates the first loud report coming at z190-224, and even you have conjectured that is the case. Yet we know that Connolly always said that he perceived being hit a brief moment after hearing the first shot. We know Nellie Connally's statements, which admittedly seem to be something of a combination of her and her husband's recollections of the event. She said Connally was hit a moment after the first loud report, and even said she thought the third shot his the wrist?

How come no witness out of the 500 or so in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination came forward to say this saw this second shooter?

We're talking about a guy who might've felt a second shooter.

 

[MicahJava]

You could play cornerback in the NFL with that back-pedal.


What evidence can you muster for a bullet other than CE399 hitting Connally? Where is this other bullet? What's the evidence it was a low-velocity round? (and all the other questions about your theory you're avoiding).

Hank

We've seen how you get when presented with problems that indicate a problem with the official narrative.

 

[Joey McGee]

Or you misunderstood mine. Or tried to debate something you know little about.

It sure sounded like you were arguing Oswald didn't do it.

You argued:

"He would clearly take a gun that he hadn't sighted in to kill the President, that's believable."

I don't know a better example of sarcasm than what you just quoted. A marine sharpshooter would take a disused gun to kill the president only if he was mentally incapacitated I mean how simple is this? I don't even care really...

"To me, the first thing that happens when an expert marksman buys a guy [gun] is that he sights it in and then takes care of it after that."

Since anyone familiar with the case knows Oswald left his rifle for months stored in the Paine garage in a disassembled state, your arguments above certainly appear to be arguing that Oswald didn't shoot JFK.

As long as you clean a gun and then store it to protect it from the worst of the elements you can clean it again a long time later and it will be as as good as new. And you can test it to make sure it has aged well, it is a nonense non fact. End of story.

I'm not sure how you could misconstrue my arguments, however. I've been here on this thread (and its predecessor threads) for over five years arguing that Oswald was the lone assassin.

Yeah like everyone here reads your threads man lol

If there was any question about what I was stating or what point I was making, all you had to do was ask.

It didn't really matter to me whether or not you were pro or anti, the argument you were making about the significance of the evidence about the gun is merely academic to me, or even just lawyerly. It is you who is coloring this discussion, but isn't that what they all say?

For example, what did you think I was arguing when I responded to you with:

Again, it's his only weapon. So if he found out about the motorcade going past his place of work on Wednesday evening (11/20/1963) for instance, he didn't have much of an opportunity to sight in the rifle, did he?

You can't know that he didn't sight it in based on some flimsy made up timeline and when supposedly he had time to do it based on documents that often amount to hearsay, It's academic mate.

So it was either use the unsighted rifle or none at all. Or if he found out on Sunday morning (11/17/63), then he could have taken that opportunity to take the weapon to a gun range, where some people affirm they saw him.

Does that read like I was arguing for anyone but Oswald?

Right but at this point we're already so deep in the disagreement that I just shrug that off as you giving a temporary qualifier.

You started out here by invoking exaggeration and falsehood and graduated to logical fallacies (as I showed in my last post) and your arguments went downhill from there, invoking speculation and more false statements to attempt to make your case.

Hank

I'm more right thank you Hank, but, I'm also less wrong. Thanks for the laughs, pretty funny, and fun, stay well.

 

[Axxman300]

If the majority of concerned citizens believe that portions of the official forensic evidence shouldn't be taken seriously...

Wow, just because a bunch of people believe something is true doesn't make that thing a fact (see: Santa Clause, ghosts, UFOs, etc). "The Majority of concerned citizens" aren't qualified to question any aspect of this case, so who cares what they think?

What's the minumum velocity required to for bullet to duplicate the wrist wounds?

Moot point.

Behind. What, are you going to cite the Dale Myers animation again? Was his work "peer-reviewed" by the geniuses at the Z-Axis animation company, who only specialize in creating 3D cartoons and models of how things are supposed to work as explinative props in court cases? Or maybe you'll cite all the times he ranted online about other people daring to ask questions, with the comments disabled, instead of citing the actual computer data that Myers refuses to provide to the public?

You know they have lasers now right?

In fact they've had them for a while, and they have used them in Dealey Plaza a couple of times to line up the shots. So unless you are prepared to spend another day Googling something you have no knowledge of you have accept that this one has been put to bed.

We're talking about it.

Talking isn't evidence. Kinda sad that a ghost hunter has to point this out.

He also supposedly never learned his wrist was wounded until he discovered it after becoming unconscious.

Getting shot is what the kids call a "Traumatic Experience".

Hold the phone. We've already talked about how the evidence widely indicates the first loud report coming at z190-224, and even you have conjectured that is the case. Yet we know that Connolly always said that he perceived being hit a brief...

What, you just said the guy didn't know he'd been shot in the wrist (pretty sure that hurts), so why would you put any weight into anything he says? The poor man suffered a serious GWS for crying out loud, I'm surprised he doesn't tell stories about Captain Kangaroo driving the limo.

We know Nellie Connally's statements, which admittedly seem to be something of a combination of her and her husband's recollections of the event. She said Connally was hit a moment after the first loud report, and even said she thought the third shot his the wrist?

Said the lady whose husband was shot while sitting next to her, and had JFK's brain matter on her, and had Jackie screaming in her ear. Yeah, she's a star witness.

We're talking about a guy who might've felt a second shooter.

We're talking about a guy who was lucky to be alive. We're talking about a politician whose name would be forever attached to one of the worst days in American History, and instantly placed a ceiling on how far he could ever advance.

 

[MicahJava]

Axxman300, what do you mean when you say anything was proven by a laser demonstration? Sure, the trajectory would work if you have them in a specific position, but you can only extract evidence that those positions were the reality by proving so with the Zapruder film and all of the other photographic evidence from then. Otherwise it just looks like Connally's right shoulder could've been peeking out in several other instances.

I know of that the National Geographic's TV special JFK: The Lost Bullet shows a completely faked version of a laser trajectory. Not only did they deceptively move the limousine farther down Elm St, farther than the white X, they very likely used a surveying transit to project the laser beam from ground level. Today, the tree in front of the Depository has grown so much that the foliage would block any attempt to beam a laser at the location of z190-224.

And Jim Dieugenio relayed that he had knowledge of a completely different attempt at doing the laser trajectory by another filmmaking group doing a TV special. He said that unless the models for Kennedy and Connally contorted their bodies in a position obviously not seen on the Zapruder film, the laser demonstration would not work, so they canceled the project because their big climax was supposed to be this laser demonstration.

A TV special called The Secret KGB JFK Assassination Files used dummies in a limousine to demonstrate a trajectory, but, again, it has no basis regarding the photographic evidence (and they also show the Kennedy dummy leaning over quite a bit, and the Connally dummy has the laser going to the left of the right shoulder instead of by the armpit).

 

[Axxman300]

Axxman300, what do you mean when you say anything was proven by a laser demonstration? Sure, the trajectory would work if you have them in a specific position, but you can only extract evidence that those positions were the reality by proving so with the Zapruder film and all of the other photographic evidence from then. Otherwise it just looks like Connally's right shoulder could've been peeking out in several other instances.

See, the lasers would just reinforce the work the FBI did in the days after the assassination at the crime scene.

And they do.

I know of that the National Geographic's TV special JFK: The Lost Bullet shows a completely faked version of a laser trajectory. Not only did they deceptively move the limousine farther down Elm St, farther than the white X, they very likely used a surveying transit to project the laser beam from ground level. Today, the tree in front of the Depository has grown so much that the foliage would block any attempt to beam a laser at the location of z190-224.

You don't know anything. This is just regurgitated CT junk and nothing more. Of all evidence in the assassination the headshot is the easiest to chart using simple geometry, and maybe a little physics, but it is the one thing which can be recreated in a sterile environment, and has been multiple times.

And Jim Dieugenio...

Dieugenio is a JFK-CT advocate, hardly impartial. Likely delusional.

A TV special called The Secret KGB JFK Assassination Files used dummies in a *blah, blah, blah*

The assassination was a fluid, one-time event. It can NEVER be recreated accurately 100% To expect so is borderline insanity.

These are the facts:

The bullet and bullet fragements found int the limo and the bodies came from one weapon.

The bullets are 6.5x52mm.

The bullets match the Carcano found on the 6th Floor owned by Lee Oswald.

The problem with your thesis is that if there was as a second weapon it would have also had to be a Carcano.

 

[MicahJava]

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Where's the low-velocity bullet that you *conjecture*? Why wasn't this bullet found in Connally's body? Or on Connally's stretcher?

If the majority of concerned citizens believe that portions of the official forensic evidence shouldn't be taken seriously, why that evidence allegedly found in the limousine be taken seriously?

Ok, starting off with a LOGICAL FALLACY is not the best approach by you.

This one is called an APPEAL TO POPULARITY. The popular notion is not always the correct one.

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

Please educate yourself and try to avoid LOGICAL FALLACIES in the future.

In the meantime, you've presented no evidence to support your hypothesis of a second shooter firing low-velocity ammo.

If that wasn't done, you could always conjecture that one fell out of Connally's clothing and was lost while being transported unconscious.

This is why conspiracy theorists get no traction. Covering up the gap in one conjecture with another conjecture does not amount to evidence. Piling conjecture on conjecture amounts to a more rickety hypothesis. I asked for the evidence. You just admitted you have none you can cite.

Would this low-velocity bullet emerge undamaged from Connally, and fall out of his wound onto his stretcher?

Doesn't this testimony [Larry Sturdivan's, as quoted by you] mean that at least two bullets would have to have hit Connally, both of which vanished into thin air and were never recovered, along with the gunman firing these bullets likewise vanishing?

Would a low-velocity bullet penetrate Connally's back, his wrist, and end up wounding his thigh?

What's the minumum velocity required to for bullet to duplicate the wrist wounds?

This is YOUR theory. You need to close the gaps in it. I don't. You need to tell us what a low-velocity bullet would do, and whether it would have enough energy to penetrate Connally's body, Connally's wrist, and damage his thigh. Once you determine that, then you can meaningfully answer the questions about whether we are dealing with one bullet or two (or three).

But you don't close the gap in your hypothesis by invoking yet another LOGICAL FALLACY, and trying to SHIFT THE BURDEN OF PROOF. These questions are for you to answer. It appears you don't know the answers, and further, didn't even consider these ramifications in constructing your hypothesis.

And answering a question with a question is not evidence. I am asking for your evidence in support of your conjecture of a low-velocity round hitting Connally.

If your answer to the above is no, where's the other bullet(s) that would have caused the other wound(s) this low velocity bullet didn't cause?

And I love how the idea of a gunman picking up his shell casings and hiding his gun properly has become foreign to you.

Sorry, do you have *evidence* "of a gunman picking up his shell casings and hiding his gun"? If not, this is just another *conjecture* you are piling on top of the other conjectures. Zero plus Zero plus Zero still equals Zero.

Furthermore, I asked about the shells not at all. I asked about the bullet(s) that supposedly struck Connally. Where is it (or them)? Did the gunman somehow pick it (or them) up too? How did the supposed low-velocity bullet(s) vanish?

And by tracing back Connally's wounds, where do you think this supposed second shooter was located?

Behind.

I am asking for the specific location of this second shooter. "Behind" is inadequate. You need to do the work to complete your hypothesis. As it stands, it is woefully inadequate.

What, are you going to cite the Dale Myers animation again? Was his work "peer-reviewed" by the geniuses at the Z-Axis animation company, who only specialize in creating 3D cartoons and models of how things are supposed to work as explinative props in court cases? Or maybe you'll cite all the times he ranted online about other people daring to ask questions, with the comments disabled, instead of citing the actual computer data that Myers refuses to provide to the public?

I am citing nothing, and I am not asking you to critique others' work about the single-bullet theory. I am asking you for your work showing where the second shooter you conjecture was located. Asking me what I'll cite is again invoking the LOGICAL FALLACY of trying to SHIFT THE BURDEN OF PROOF. I need not cite anything to disprove your hypothesis. The burden is on you to cite the evidence to support your hypothesis, and thus far you have cited nothing.

Where's the evidence for either the shooter or the bullets?

We're talking about it.

No, you have introduced no evidence into this conversation about the supposed 'low-velocity' bullet to date. Your original post on this subject was a conjecture based on, as you admitted, "a day's worth of Googling", and all you've brought to the table subsequent to that is logical fallacies and more conjectures. Not one item of evidence.

Doesn't your argument mean 90% of the witnesses are wrong, as that's about how many heard three shots?

The very answer to that in ingrained within the issues that I bring up.

So that's a "YES"? As in, "Yes, my argument means that 90% of the witnesses (those who affirmed they heard three shots) are wrong". Good of you to admit that. So witnesses are unreliable? How confident then can you be with a hypothesis that contradicts so many witnesses, especially since your earlier arguments about the head invoked the recollections of many witnesses from 33 years after the fact?

Doesn't this call into question witnesses like John Connally, who heard only two shots and felt a third (between the two he heard)?

He also supposedly never learned his wrist was wounded until he discovered it after becoming unconscious.

So your answer is "Yes, John Connally's recollections are unreliable". Why did you invoke John Connally's supposed recollection about when the first shot was fired earlier in this thread, if he is unreliable, and his recollections cannot be trusted.

Does your argument about Connally's injuries call into question the viability of using eyewitness testimony (and recollections from decades later) as the centerpiece of earlier your arguments, as it points to eyewitnesses being wrong?

Hold the phone. We've already talked about how the evidence widely indicates the first loud report coming at z190-224, and even you have conjectured that is the case.

You have talked about that first loud report coming in the range of Z190-224, and I argued against it. Claiming I "have conjectured that is the case" is false.

See these posts:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11561377&postcount=1906
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11560902&postcount=1895
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11532395&highlight=190-224#post11532395
There are more for anyone who searches for "190-224".

Pretending I agreed with any part of your argument there is just that, pretense.

Yet we know that Connolly always said that he perceived being hit a brief moment after hearing the first shot. We know Nellie Connally's statements, which admittedly seem to be something of a combination of her and her husband's recollections of the event. She said Connally was hit a moment after the first loud report, and even said she thought the third shot his the wrist?

You are now changing the subject back to that argument about when the first shot was. And we don't know what you claim we know. This is your interpretation based on the testimony of a man you just called unreliable.

This is not what I'm asking about. I'm asking you for your evidence of a low-velocity bullet striking Connally. You still haven't posted any.

How come no witness out of the 500 or so in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination came forward to say this saw this second shooter?

We're talking about a guy who might've felt a second shooter.

So a further admission that none of the 500 or so witnesses in Dealey Plaza came forward with a statement saying they saw this *conjectured* second shooter? You could just admit that (in fact, I think you just did). And you could admit is all you have is the original conjecture, which you're trying now to support with assumptions that Connally felt the second shooter, whose location you've thus far been unable to locate using Connally's wounds, and whose very existence you've been unable to establish with hard evidence or eyewitness testimony.

All you are doing in your response above is invoking the logical fallacy of Begging the Question, where you assume what you need to prove.

Do you want to continue to beat your dead horse hoping he gets up and walks, or are you content to change the subject now (another logical fallacy, by the way).

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

A gif of a woman is not evidence of anything. And certainly doesn't do much anything to further your argument about Connally being hit with a low-velocity bullet.

So let's review those questions I asked and where we stand with the request for evidence, shall we?

Where's the low-velocity bullet that you *conjecture*?
- You could provide no evidence of this.

Why wasn't this bullet found in Connally's body?
- You could provide no evidence of this.

Or on Connally's stretcher?
- You could provide no evidence of this. You conjectured it might have been lost.

Would this low-velocity bullet emerge undamaged from Connally, and fall out of his wound onto his stretcher?
- You didn't answer, asking me for the information.

Doesn't this testimony [Larry Sturdivan's, as quoted by you] mean that at least two bullets would have to have hit Connally, both of which vanished into thin air and were never recovered, along with the gunman firing these bullets likewise vanishing?
- You didn't answer.

Would a low-velocity bullet penetrate Connally's back, his wrist, and end up wounding his thigh?
- You didn't answer. You asked me for the information regarding the speed necessary.

If your answer to the above is no, where's the other bullet(s) that would have caused the other wound(s) this low velocity bullet didn't cause?
- You conjectured a shooter, and conjectured he would pick up his shells, but provided no evidence regarding the bullet(s) I asked about.

And by tracing back Connally's wounds, where do you think this supposed second shooter was located?
- You provided no location. The woefully inadequate "Behind" was the best you could do.

Where's the evidence for either the shooter or the bullets?
- You never provided any.

Doesn't your argument mean 90% of the witnesses are wrong, as that's about how many heard three shots?
- You admitted it does.

Doesn't this call into question witnesses like John Connally, who heard only two shots and felt a third (between the two he heard)?
- You admitted he was unreliable, despite citing his recollections earlier in the thread.

Does your argument about Connally's injuries call into question the viability of using eyewitness testimony (and recollections from decades later) as the centerpiece of earlier your arguments, as it points to eyewitnesses being wrong?
- You then tried to salvage your earlier use of Connally's recollections by claiming I agreed with your argument about a first shot in the range of Z190-224. I in fact argued AGAINST your claim.

How come no witness out of the 500 or so in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination came forward to say this saw this second shooter?
- You avoided answering, arguing that Connally might've felt this second shooter, which simply invokes the logical fallacy of Begging the Question.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I know of that the National Geographic's TV special JFK: The Lost Bullet shows a completely faked version of a laser trajectory. Not only did they deceptively move the limousine farther down Elm St, farther than the white X, they very likely used a surveying transit to project the laser beam from ground level. Today, the tree in front of the Depository has grown so much that the foliage would block any attempt to beam a laser at the location of z190-224.

Citation to the evidence of this?

Where's your more accurate recreation?

Got one?

And Jim Dieugenio relayed that he had knowledge of a completely different attempt at doing the laser trajectory by another filmmaking group doing a TV special. He said that unless the models for Kennedy and Connally contorted their bodies in a position obviously not seen on the Zapruder film, the laser demonstration would not work, so they canceled the project because their big climax was supposed to be this laser demonstration.

Citation to the evidence of this?

Where's DeEuegenio's more accurate recreation?

A TV special called The Secret KGB JFK Assassination Files used dummies in a limousine to demonstrate a trajectory, but, again, it has no basis regarding the photographic evidence (and they also show the Kennedy dummy leaning over quite a bit, and the Connally dummy has the laser going to the left of the right shoulder instead of by the armpit).

Citation to the evidence of this?

Where's your more accurate recreation?

 

[HSienzant]

We've seen how you get when presented with problems that indicate a problem with the official narrative.

Yes, I present evidence (quoting from eyewitnesses, expert witnesses, or both) and present a coherent narrative supporting my argument.

You? Not so much. No evidence and no coherent narrative.

You're all over the place with hypothesis, that you 'support' with logical fallacies and conjecture.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The problem with your thesis is that if there was as a second weapon it would have also had to be a Carcano.

As you undoubtedly know, it bears pointing out that the second shooter using a Carcano would reveal the conspiracy as well as a second shooter using any other weapon.

First, of course, is that there were 500 witnesses spread over Dealey Plaza. The conspirators could not guarantee some of the witnesses wouldn't see a second shooter and point him out to the police.

Secondly, of course, is that shots from a second Carcano, if the bullets managed to survive the impact on the victims (as they are designed to), would leave bullet evidence behind that would not match to Oswald's weapon. These Carcano bullets from a second shooter would reveal the evidence of a second shooter, not conceal that second shooter.

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

So, let me get this right...
Two TV shows, both with flaws, both with interesting attempts to test theories with a recreation.

The one that keeps the hypothesis within the realms of the possible (where did a third bullet go) is apparently junk.
The one that stretches the wriggle room to allow for a conspiracy is great.

One can only assume that the important detail is if Roger Moore was the host or not...

 

[bknight]

Why people more than 50 years after an event, similar to Apollo hoax, still believe in a conspiracy. I won't submit any links to evidence pro or con a conspiracy. What I will do is to relate human survival behavior tendencies. From the Nix film, after the shots have been fired/heard, many people on the "south" side of Elm street run "north" towards the grassy knoll area. Survival behaviors preclude ANY shooter in that direction, as they would be running toward a shooter.
Their behavior indicates seeking cover from a shooter in the "east", behind the retaining wall viewed from this film.
I have used the quotes around the directions because I don't know the compass heading of Elm Street, but from diagrams I have seen it seems to generally run "east" to "west" with a "north/south" component.

 

[HSienzant]

Why people more than 50 years after an event, similar to Apollo hoax, still believe in a conspiracy. I won't submit any links to evidence pro or con a conspiracy.

No worries. I can do enough of that for both of us.

What I will do is to relate human survival behavior tendencies. From the Nix film, after the shots have been fired/heard, many people on the "south" side of Elm street run "north" towards the grassy knoll area. Survival behaviors preclude ANY shooter in that direction, as they would be running toward a shooter.
Their behavior indicates seeking cover from a shooter in the "east", behind the retaining wall viewed from this film.

You mean the wall that runs parallel to Houston Street, it appears. Yes?

The problem with that assessment is the witnesses gave a contrary account. None said they were running from a shooter. Many said they ran towards the limo to see what had happened. Others said they ran towards where they saw others running, assuming those others were chasing a shooter.

It's correct to say, however, that very few people said they ran toward a perceived shooter, or from one.

For example,

Arnold Rowland testified to this:
Mr. ROWLAND - We were standing here at position "B." At the sound of the second report, I proceeded across the street. My wife was very anxious to find out what was going on. I proceeded to cross the street like this.
Mr. SPECTER - Indicating you were--she was pulling you ahead?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes. She was very anxious to find out what was going on.
Mr. SPECTER - That was at the sound of the second report?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes, it was.
Mr. SPECTER - And will you mark with this black pencil, with the letter "D," where you went to, as she pulled you across the street?
Mr. ROWLAND - We crossed the street in this area, proceeded down the sidewalk, around here, there was quite a bit of crowd, people were running.

And his wife stated:
Mr. BELIN. Did you particularly watch the sixth floor because of the fact that you had seen or your husband had seen a person on the sixth floor?
Mrs. ROWLAND. We looked at it for a few minutes, but we didn't look back, and when we heard the shots, we didn't look back up there. I grabbed his hand and started running toward the car.

Hank

 

[traxy]

I know of that the National Geographic's TV special JFK: The Lost Bullet shows a completely faked version of a laser trajectory. Not only did they deceptively move the limousine farther down Elm St, farther than the white X, they very likely used a surveying transit to project the laser beam from ground level.

What does it matter where the white X was? That marking is not claimed to be 100% accurate.

They matched the position of the limo from Zapruder's position using reference points from frame 223 of the Z film. Surely you'll agree that's a much more accurate way to do it. You can watch it starting here:

https://youtu.be/oyECKcK0uCw?t=2033

Today, the tree in front of the Depository has grown so much that the foliage would block any attempt to beam a laser at the location of z190-224.

Check the tape. That's just not true.

And Jim Dieugenio relayed that he had knowledge of a completely different attempt at doing the laser trajectory by another filmmaking group doing a TV special. He said that unless the models for Kennedy and Connally contorted their bodies in a position obviously not seen on the Zapruder film, the laser demonstration would not work, so they canceled the project because their big climax was supposed to be this laser demonstration.

That's a lovely anecdote, but I don't imagine it has much basis in reality.

The National Geographic recreation was faithfully done and confirms the single bullet theory, just as Dale Myers forensic animation did 20 years prior to that. Every time science steps up to the plate, conspiracy dogma is disproven once again.

 

[Axxman300]

Alert: Tonight on the History Channel, 10/9 Central, Tracking Oswald

http://www.history.com/shows/jfk-de...de-1/jfk-declassified-tracking-oswald-preview

I'll keep an open mind, but they had to have known that the National Archive would be dumping the rest of the JFK files this summer, so the show will be working with limited information...not that this ever stopped anyone.

I enjoyed this crew's previous effort, Finding Hitler, where they didn't find Hitler, but managed to detail the massive S.S. escape routes out of Europe into South America.

The show looks like they're taking the more productive route leaving LHO as the lone shooter, and looking into the possibility of others behind him (which is where a real conspiracy would be found if there ever was one).

 

[Axxman300]

As you undoubtedly know, it bears pointing out that the second shooter using a Carcano would reveal the conspiracy as well as a second shooter using any other weapon.

First, of course, is that there were 500 witnesses spread over Dealey Plaza. The conspirators could not guarantee some of the witnesses wouldn't see a second shooter and point him out to the police.

Secondly, of course, is that shots from a second Carcano, if the bullets managed to survive the impact on the victims (as they are designed to), would leave bullet evidence behind that would not match to Oswald's weapon. These Carcano bullets from a second shooter would reveal the evidence of a second shooter, not conceal that second shooter.

Hank

Which is why there wasn't a second shooter.

We've both been to Dealey Plaza, there's no place for a second gunman. Hell, people even saw Oswald setting up in his window to take the shot. You'd think if there was another gunman he would have been seen too.

I actually have some hope for this History Channel show if it goes into Oswald's background, and looks at some of the other shadowy elements present in the South Texas, Louisiana, and Florida areas where Mongoose, and others were undergoing training.

This 51 year-old circus of multiple gunmen in Dealey Plaza has wasted so much time because so many people are stupid, and don't understand guns, or what constitutes a conspiracy. The fact is there was one shooter in Dallas, and there's a 99% certainty it was Oswald, but even if one other person knew what he was up to then, by definition, there was a conspiracy. The problem is that it's not a CIA/LBJ/Mafia/Castro/Anti-Castro/Girl Scouts/Rotary Club uber conspiracy, and that's just not sexy enough for JFK Cters.

 

[bknight]

No worries. I can do enough of that for both of us.

You mean the wall that runs parallel to Houston Street, it appears. Yes?

The problem with that assessment is the witnesses gave a contrary account. None said they were running from a shooter. Many said they ran towards the limo to see what had happened. Others said they ran towards where they saw others running, assuming those others were chasing a shooter.

It's correct to say, however, that very few people said they ran toward a perceived shooter, or from one.

For example,

Arnold Rowland testified to this:
Mr. ROWLAND - We were standing here at position "B." At the sound of the second report, I proceeded across the street. My wife was very anxious to find out what was going on. I proceeded to cross the street like this.
Mr. SPECTER - Indicating you were--she was pulling you ahead?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes. She was very anxious to find out what was going on.
Mr. SPECTER - That was at the sound of the second report?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes, it was.
Mr. SPECTER - And will you mark with this black pencil, with the letter "D," where you went to, as she pulled you across the street?
Mr. ROWLAND - We crossed the street in this area, proceeded down the sidewalk, around here, there was quite a bit of crowd, people were running.

And his wife stated:
Mr. BELIN. Did you particularly watch the sixth floor because of the fact that you had seen or your husband had seen a person on the sixth floor?
Mrs. ROWLAND. We looked at it for a few minutes, but we didn't look back, and when we heard the shots, we didn't look back up there. I grabbed his hand and started running toward the car.

Hank

The nix film evidence is in direct contradiction to that testimony. From this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNIXfiii_vo
The limousine has already accelerated toward the Parkland, prior to anyone moving toward the street. Now it may have been that some ran as others were running, like lemmings. I haven't delved into the record testimony as you seem to have, but I wouldn't put that much credibility on them especially in a case like this. They may have embellished their participation for posterities sake.
We do agree on one aspect, KISS, one man, one rifle, one dead President and one wounded Governor.

 

[HSienzant]

The nix film evidence is in direct contradiction to that testimony. From this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNIXfiii_vo
The limousine has already accelerated toward the Parkland, prior to anyone moving toward the street. Now it may have been that some ran as others were running, like lemmings. I haven't delved into the record testimony as you seem to have, but I wouldn't put that much credibility on them especially in a case like this. They may have embellished their participation for posterities sake.
We do agree on one aspect, KISS, one man, one rifle, one dead President and one wounded Governor.

The Rowlands were on Houston Street and not shown in the Nix film. Granted, they may have moved their reaction times up, but the bottom line is they testified to their reason for moving in the direction they did, and Mrs. Rowland said she ran toward the limo (pulling her husband with her), not toward the supposed grassy knoll shooter, or away from any shooter elsewhere.

Bonnie Ray Williams (one of three men on the fifth floor of the Depository, one floor directly under Oswald) testified to his movements being influenced by the others running:
Mr. BALL. You ran down to the west side of the building?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Representative FORD.Ran down to the west side? You mean you were still on the fifth floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes; we were on the fifth floor, the east side of the building. We saw the policemen and people running, scared, running--there are some tracks on the west side of the building, railroad tracks. They were running towards that way. And we thought maybe--well, to ourself, we know the shots practically came from over our head. But since everybody was running, you know, to the west side of the building, towards the railroad tracks, we assumed maybe somebody was down there. And so we all ran that way, the way that the people was running, and we was looking out the window.

James Jarman, also on the fifth floor, said his motivation for running to the west side of the building was different, he wanted to see what happened in the motorcade:
Mr. BALL - Now you ran down to the west side of the building, did you?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - And when you were up there you showed me the window to which you ran, didn't you?
...
Mr. JARMAN - The window on the west side of the building.
Mr. BALL - Is that the one to which you ran after you heard the shots?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - And you looked out that window?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - How did you happen to run to that window?
Mr. JARMAN - Well, I wanted to see what was going on mostly, because that was after the motorcade car had took off, and I thought they had stopped under the underpass, but they hadn't. So they went on around the bend, and after I couldn't see from there I ran to another, the second window.

The witness testimony is replete with comments like this, running toward the limo to get a better look at what happened, or being influenced by the general movement of others in that direction and simply following the crowd. Clearly, most of the people who reacted quickly were moving toward the limo, while those who reacted later - I think it's safe to say - were influenced by the crowd movement.

It's one of the great ironies of the assassination that the motorcycle policeman who ran first to the top of the knoll from Elm Street said he didn't think the shots came from the knoll. He said he thought the shots came from directly in front of him, the overpass; or directly behind him, the Depository. And he only ran up the incline to get a better of what was happening on the overpass.
Mr. STERN - Just a minute. Do you recall your impression at the time regarding the source of the shots?
Mr. HARGIS - Well, at the time it sounded like the shots were right next to me. There wasn't any way in the world I could tell where they were coming from, but at the time there was something in my head that said that they probably could have been coming from the railroad overpass, because I thought since I had got splattered, with blood--I was Just a little back and left of--Just a little bit back and left of Mrs. Kennedy, but I didn't know. I had a feeling that it might have been from the Texas Book Depository, and these two places was the primary place that could have been shot from.
...
Mr. STERN - And did you run up the incline on your side of Elm Street?
Mr. HARGIS - Yes, sir; I ran to the light post, and I ran up to this kind of a little wall, brick wall up there to see if I could get a better look on the bridge, and, of course. I was looking all around that place by that time. I knew it couldn't have come from the county courthouse because that place was swarming with deputy sheriffs over there.
Mr. STERN - Did you get behind the picket fence that runs from the overpass to the concrete wall?
Mr. HARGIS - No.
Mr. STERN - On the north side of Elm Street?
Mr. HARGIS - No, no; I don't remember any picket fence.
Mr. STERN - Did you observe anything then on the overpass, Or on the incline, or around the Depository? Anything out of the ordinary besides people running?
Mr. HARGIS - No; I didn't That is what got me.

Hargis' complete testimony: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/hscaharg.htm

Hank