Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge

Status
Not open for further replies.
There is an other thing that occurs to me as regards the marksmanship required to make this shot. On the face of it, Oswald appears to have made the hardest of the three shots, the 88 yard kill shot, while missing the closer, seemingly easier shots... but were those closer shots really easier? I don't think so. While the elevated position is most advantageous (as explained in an earlier post) it does have one single disadvantage when shooting at a moving target, and that is, the target may have to be tracked vertically as well as horizontally.

From the corner window of the 6th floor of the TSBD, the first shot must have been taken at quite a steep angle, as shown by these photos...

TSBD-Angle1.jpg


Now, at the time of the first (steepest angled) shot, the target is moving at the highest "angular velocity", that is to say Oswald would have had to track it very quickly compared with the later two shots. Even though the range is shorter, this angular tracking could make it a more difficult shot. That the shot missed is a matter of record, but looking at that "thru-the-scope" view its hard to imagine how he missed the limo altogether. This is why I concur with the conclusions of the "JFK: Lost Bullet" documentary, that the first shot hit the traffic signal (the one you can see in the photo). We'll never know if, but for the traffic signal, he would have hit JFK with that first shot.

The next shot is delayed by the fact that the limo goes behind the trees at the corner of Elm and North Houston, but as can be seen from this photo/diagram...

TSBD-Angle3.jpg


...the second two shots were at a much shallower angle, with the last shot being at the shallowest angle, and despite the additional range, at 88 yards with a x4 scope, its the easiest shot of all three due to the low angular velocity of the target. Its likely Oswald would have realised he hit the traffic signal, and would also have seen that he was about to lose his target for a second or two behind the tree, so he quickly repositioned himself to maximise his readiness when the limo emerged from behind it. As soon as it does, he fires the second shot which hits JFK in the throat, then he takes a little longer to aim for the head-shot and makes it with the third.

This fits the established narrative on three important counts

1: Two of the cartridge cases were found closer together...Oswald had to move between the first and second to get a clear shot past the tree, then he fired the second and third shots from the same position.

2: The reports of the ear-witnesses nearest the TSBD (the ones to whose testimony we must give the greatest weight) who all reported hearing three shots, two shots in quick succession followed by a third: Bang....bang........bang

3: That Oswald missed with the first, hit with the second, and killed with the third as the shots got easier.

NOTE for micahjava... this is not "wall-of-text blah blah blah". This is what it looks like when a person posits an idea, states what they think happened, and then backs it up with a narrative and illustrations. You could learn something from this, but I doubt you will, because CTs are unteachable.
 
I have watched the Nat. Geo. program JFK: The Lost Bullet several times and I am impressed by the method that was used to demonstrate the sequence of firing, including the first shot may have hit the street sign hit the curb and injured Tague. The grouping of the shell casings fits the evidence found at the snipers nest. Definitely one of the best documentary's of the incident.
 
MicahJava said:
Comparing the earliest statements of the three witnesses on the fifth floor yields some interesting results. Here is a brief bit about Harold Norman at the 1986 mock trial from Reclaiming Parkland:

Norman Changes His Story for Elmer Moore

The prosecution’s next witness was Harold Norman, one of the witnesses on the fifth floor who said he heard something above him, like someone working a gun bolt and shell casings dropping three times. Toward the end of Bugliosi’s direct examination, he asked the witness a rather leading question: “Is the sound of those . . . ejections of the cartridge cases and the falling to the floor something you will recall the rest of your life?” To which Norman said yes. If Spence had been up to speed, he should have walked over to the witness and said in a loud, clear voice, “Mr. Norman, forget about the rest of your life. You couldn’t even remember that noise for four days!” Spence then should have read to the witness Norman’s FBI report from November 26th. In this first statement to the authorities, there is no mention at all of those three noises he just said he would never forget for the rest of his life.16 But further, there is nothing in the record that says Norman said anything like this to anyone prior to that time. In that FBI report, Norman said that after the first shot, he stuck his head out the window, looked up, and was hit with some dirt particles. That action was corroborated by five witnesses; James Jarman, who was on the same floor as Norman, plus four witnesses on the street who said they saw him look out the window.17 Norman’s new and improved story did not surface until his Secret Service interview on December 2, 1963, twelve days after the assassination and eight days after the FBI interview. This version contains no mention of him leaning out the window and looking up toward the sixth floor to get dirt particles in his eyes. And it’s hard to hear cartridge cases falling above you if your head is outside the room. One of the Secret Service agents who helped Norman alter his story was Elmer Moore, who emerged as one of the chief architects of the alleged coverup. In addition to massaging the Norman story, he was instrumental in getting Malcolm Perry to change his first day pronouncement about the direction of the shot which caused Kennedy’s throat wound.
Click to expand...

Wow... It's almost as though... human memory is imperfect and mutable.

Somebody's testimony had variations in it?

Why... that would give us reasons to doubt the accuracy of other witnesses, whose descriptions of wounds and locations years or decades after the fact did not match the WC conclusions.

Perhaps we should just ignore all your posts and rely on testable objective evidence, like the photos, or the contemporary documents instead.
 
What part of "He said he thought the shots had been fired from the floor directly above him. He further stated that at that time he stuck his head from the window and looked upward toward the roof." did you not understand from his earliest statement of 11/26/63?

https://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/witnessMap/documents/wcd_hsca/wcd_hsca_0083a.gif

Two of the black men on the fifth floor were seen craning upward with their heads out the windows after the shooting. One photographer in Dealey Plaza - Robert Jackson - testified to this.

Mr. JACKSON - Right here approximately. And as we heard the first shot, I believe it was Tom Dillard from the Dallas News who made some remark as to that sounding like a firecracker, and it could have been somebody else who said that. But someone else did speak up and make that comment and before he actually the sentence we heard the other two shots. Then we realized or we thought it was gunfire, and then we could not at that point see the President's car. We were still moving slowly, and after the third shot the second two shots seemed much closer together than the first shot, than they were to the first shot. Then after the last shot, I guess all of us were just looking all around and I just looked straight up ahead of me which would have been looking at the School Book Depository and I noticed two Negro men in a window straining to see directly above them, and my eyes followed right on up to the window above them and I saw the rifle, or what looked like a rifle approximately half of weapon, I guess I saw. and just looked at it, it was drawn fairly slowly back into the building, and I saw no one in the window with it. I didn't even see a form in the window.
Mr. SPECTER - What did you do next?
Mr. JACKSON - I said "There is the gun," or it came from that window. I tried to point it out. But by the time the other people looked up, of course, it was gone, and about that time, we were beginning to turn the corner.

Norman thought the shots came from immediately above him. He tried to look upward to see the shooter right after the shots were fired. Norman said this in his earliest statement, and his action was corroborated by the witness in the motorcade, Robert Jackson.

You and other CTs can quibble all you want about whether the debris fell on his head from inside or outside the window, but non-CTs understand it doesn't matter. The bottom line is someone was shooting from above. And the evidence indicates that someone was Oswald.

Hank

PS: You're now frantically running away from your prior false claims about Connally and introducing new false claims. How's that working out for you?
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
As soon as it does, he fires the second shot which hits JFK in the back and exits the throat, then he takes a little longer to aim for the head-shot and makes it with the third.
Click to expand...

FTFY. Otherwise MicahJava will claim your assertion is for a conspiracy with a shooter in front.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Isn't it interesting that MicahJava omits to link Norman's 26-Nov-1963 FBI statement. I wonder why that is? Well, actually, I don't. Because here it is.

The relevant part? Well...

He stated that about the time the car in which the President was riding turned onto Elm Street, he heard a shot. He said he thought the shot had been fired from the floor directly above him. He further stated at the time he stuck his head from the window and looked upward toward the roof but could see nothing because small particles of dirt were falling from above him. He stated two additional shots were fired after he pulled his head back in from the window.
Click to expand...

IOW MicahJava's contention that Norman could have not have heard cases falling because his head was out the window is bollocks since his head was not outside the window for any of the three shots.

Furthermore, the FBI statement of 26/11/63 is necessarily brief, given the circumstances.

On top of that, it is SOP to tell eyewitnesses to recall as much as they can and add/amend their statements as necessary. MicahJave seems innocent of this. I am not, having given witness statements and testimony in court.

The bottom line here is that the 26/11/63 statement to the FBI does not say what MicahJava so desperately wants it to say.

And that is why it was not linked.
 
MicahJava said:
If Spence had been up to speed...
Click to expand...

As always, we again see that conspiracy theorists think they are God's gift to intellectual thought. Here, the author (Jim DiEugenio) overrules Gerry Spence, a noted defense attorney with a background in law, and substitutes his own beliefs about what should have happened.

It matters not a whit that the author isn't a lawyer. He knows more than Spence about what should have happened in that mock trial. Spence has never lost a criminal case and is a member of the American Trial Lawyers Hall of Fame: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Spence

No matter. His actions can be safely ignored if you're a CT. CTs always know more than anyone.1
We see this same modus operandi repeatedly in this case. They always overrule the actual experts and substitute their own beliefs instead.

It doesn't matter - to them - that they have no expertise in the subject matter. It matters a great deal to the rest of us.

Hank
____________
1 At least, they tell us they do frequently enough.
 
Last edited:
I think there was a shooter in the tree. LHO accidentally hit him with the first shot losing that round. The wounded man then fired his silenced sub-sonic gun at the same time as LHO took his third shot. They both hit JFK in the head. The wounded man then climbed down the tree in all the confusion and got away.
 
Wolrab said:
I think there was a shooter in the tree. LHO accidentally hit him with the first shot losing that round. The wounded man then fired his silenced sub-sonic gun at the same time as LHO took his third shot. They both hit JFK in the head. The wounded man then climbed down the tree in all the confusion and got away. was then beamed away by the starship USS Enterprise, that just happened to be passing over Dallas in orbit, having just arrived via a time-slingshot back to 22 November 1963 on another mission.
Click to expand...

FTFY
 
Oswald's first shot hit either the traffic signal or the oak tree.

If you picture the shot, the left-to-right motion is greater right below the building whereas he had a much more stable target when he landed his last two shots.

Watching the Secret Service recreations he does not have a clear shot as the motorcade approached on Houston Street with the governor and windshield giving him a diminished sight picture.

JFK's head would have looked like a pumpkin through the scope during those last two shots.
 
Please people, that Nat Geo Lost Bullet documentary is in fact the worst JFK TV special ever made. And that's REALLY saying something, because I'm pretty sure Dale Myers does not make an appearance in this one.

The part about the Dealey Plaza videotape showing a hole in the traffic sign was proven to be incorrect literally before the special even aired. See this page for an extensive discussion about the LOST BULLET special: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter-9c-mr-holland-s-colossal-blunder

The single-bullet theory part with the laser is a proven fraud. Not only was the limousine rolled down the road farther than the location of the head shot during the part of the experiment meant to demonstrate something that occurred at frame z222-224, but the laser was also probably coming from a surveying transit set up on further back on Elm street, NOT the guy on the sixth floor window with the laser, which probably would have been blocked from the Oak tree. Both of these issues are apparent just by re-watching clips of their experiment and seeing the background and how it changes.

Did I mention that MAX HOLLAND, THE CREATOR OF THIS TV SPECIAL, HAS LITERALLY BEEN PAID BY THE CIA?
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Please people, that Nat Geo Lost Bullet documentary is in fact the worst JFK TV special ever made. And that's REALLY saying something, because I'm pretty sure Dale Myers does not make an appearance in this one.

The part about the Dealey Plaza videotape showing a hole in the traffic sign was proven to be incorrect literally before the special even aired. See this page for an extensive discussion about the LOST BULLET special: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter-9c-mr-holland-s-colossal-blunder

The single-bullet theory part with the laser is a proven fraud. Not only was the limousine rolled down the road farther than the location of the head shot during the part of the experiment meant to demonstrate something that occurred at frame z222-224, but the laser was also probably coming from a surveying transit set up on further back on Elm street, NOT the guy on the sixth floor window with the laser, which probably would have been blocked from the Oak tree. Both of these issues are apparent just by re-watching clips of their experiment and seeing the background and how it changes.

Did I mention that MAX HOLLAND, THE CREATOR OF THIS TV SPECIAL, HAS LITERALLY BEEN PAID BY THE CIA?
Click to expand...

Let us see what you have cited. None other than a CT who has been patiently debunked for his "opinions" of facts. Pat makes light of the fact that witnesses changed their narrative of the incident with years passing and memory fading. It is Speer who needs to stand in front of a mirror and do an evaluation of himself. Oh that won't happen since he has so much capital invested in his CT beliefs. MJ you really shouldn't cite a person like this.
 
MicahJava said:
Please people, that Nat Geo Lost Bullet documentary is in fact the worst JFK TV special ever made. And that's REALLY saying something, because I'm pretty sure Dale Myers does not make an appearance in this one.
Click to expand...

This is Special Pleading, another logical fallacy.

MicahJava said:
The part about the Dealey Plaza videotape showing a hole in the traffic sign was proven to be incorrect literally before the special even aired. See this page for an extensive discussion about the LOST BULLET special: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter-9c-mr-holland-s-colossal-blunder
Click to expand...

Speer's personal opinions are not proof. I have read the entire relevant section of his website. I'm not convinced he knows what he is talking about on this issue. He is accepting witnesses has having almost photographic memories 50 years after the event.

MicahJava said:
The single-bullet theory part with the laser is a proven fraud. Not only was the limousine rolled down the road farther than the location of the head shot during the part of the experiment meant to demonstrate something that occurred at frame z222-224, but the laser was also probably coming from a surveying transit set up on further back on Elm street, NOT the guy on the sixth floor window with the laser, which probably would have been blocked from the Oak tree. Both of these issues are apparent just by re-watching clips of their experiment and seeing the background and how it changes.
Click to expand...

You opinions are not evidence

Lost Bullet is a very good documentary that answers a lot of questions. That the first shot was fired before the restart of the Zapruder film is not an unreasonable idea. There is NO PROOF within the frames of the Zapruder film itself that conclusively shows the first shot was captured. I have seen some evidence that there was a camera shake at each of the second two shots, likely caused by Zapruder being startled, and a similar but lesser shake earlier that could have been the first shot, but when you view the original film (before the image stabilised versions we see most commonly now) there is so much camera shake that its hard to tell whether they were caused by reaction to the shots or not.

No, the reason YOU don’t like Lost Bullet is simply because it doesn't fit into your delusional worldview of non-existent assassins firing non-existant bullets from non-existent ventriloquist suppressed guns. We don't have to step very far back to see how batcrap crazy your unsupported assertions are.

MicahJava said:
Did I mention that MAX HOLLAND, THE CREATOR OF THIS TV SPECIAL, HAS LITERALLY BEEN PAID BY THE CIA?
Click to expand...

You will of course have documentary evidence of this? (other than lunatic ravings CT websites like Citizens for Truth about the Kennedy Assassination

No? Thought not!
 
Last edited:
Max Holland "won a Studies in Intelligence Award from the Central Intelligence Agency, the first writer working outside the U.S. government to be so recognized."

He has written extensively about the assassination:

The Kennedy Assassination Tapes: The White House Conversations of Lyndon B. Johnson Regarding the Assassination, the Warren Commission, and the Aftermath (New York: Alfred Knopf, September 2004)

"A Cold War Odyssey: The Oswald File," Cold War International History Project Bulletin, Issue 14/15, Winter 2003-Spring 2004

"The Power of Disinformation: The Lie that Linked CIA to the Kennedy Assassination," Studies in Intelligence, Number 11, Fall-Winter 2001

"After Thirty Years: Making Sense of the Assassination," Reviews in American History, Volume 22, Number 2, June 1994
Periodicals

"JFK's Death, Re-Framed," The New York Times, 22 November 2007 (with Johann Rush)

"Assassination Chronicle," The Wall Street Journal, 19–20 May 2007

"The JFK Lawyers' Conspiracy," The Nation, 20 February 2006

"The Assassination Tapes," The Atlantic Monthly, June 2004

"How Moscow Undermined the Warren Commission," The Washington Post, 22 November 2003

"Was Jim Garrison Duped by the KGB?" New Orleans, February 2002

"The Demon in Jim Garrison," Wilson Quarterly, Spring 2001

"The Docudrama That Is JFK," The Nation, 7 December 1998

"Getting Closer to the Truth About the Death of JFK: Why RFK Shunned the Inquiry Into His Brother's Assassination," The Boston Globe, 18 September 1998

"The Key to the Warren Report," American Heritage, November 1995

You can see why the CT whack-jobs hate him, he's an expert. I'd be shocked if Hank hasn't met him.

Here a link to the piece, "The Lie that Linked CIA to the Kennedy Assassination" :

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-...udies/studies/fall_winter_2001/article02.html

It's on the CIA's website. None of that suggests that Holland received money from the CIA for any reason.

This is his write-up of his work on the NatGeo special, complete with diagrams, from Newsweek:
http://www.newsweek.com/2014/11/28/truth-behind-jfks-assassination-285653.html

I apologize for not citing CT websites in my posts. Life is hard in the real world.:thumbsup:
 
Axxman300 said:
[snip]

I apologize for not citing CT websites in my posts. Life is hard in the real world.:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

It really is too bad that MJ doesn't do some critical thinking when he has his nose in the CT books/websites. I have suggested he not spend time there, but alas I feel he may be a lost cause.
 
smartcooky, The single-bullet theory demonstration was faked and the hole in the traffic sign is part of the design of the traffic sign. Max Holland is a shill. Deal with it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom