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

[HSienzant]

Looks like smoke to me?

And the fact that it looks like smoke on top of the overpass means what to you?

The steam outlets were way off from where the smoke is visible in the photo or where witnesses saw it in connection to the shooting.

Back to begging the question. In other words, you're still assuming what you need to prove - that there is smoke in that grainy shot .

That said, is this another in a long row of diabolical ”coincidents” your Mighty Church demands of you to gobble up on pure faith alone? The only seconds steam was visible on that day were exactly when at least 50+ witnesses heard rifle shot/s fired from there?

Still begging the question about the 50+ witnesses.
Still begging the question about the smoke.
There is no coincidence. There are conspiracy addicts who will deliberately lie to convince people of a conspiracy here. And that includes your website with people like Weitzman named as knoll witnesses. And grainy 5th or 10th generation photos masquerading as evidence. Or as this person put it:

I’m not a mind reader AND again, it’s not my place to figure out on what ’evidence’ you are making a claim.

Only you can know that. Only you can do that.

That is your place.

Why do you expect the rest of us, non believers, to do the same?

Should we laugh or should we cry?

What’s expected of us?

No, it’s yet another example of you expecting non members in your Mighty Church to laugh hard or cry in despair.

Which one is it?

We're laughing at your conspiracy beliefs despite the evidence. And your obvious religious fervor as is apparent from your language. You think it's a coincidence I talk about the evidence and cite the actual testimony and you give us a sermon about the almighty church?

Hank

 

[manifesto]

Would you care to state how much smoke would be expected from a weapon using common forms of ammunition?
Would the amount of smoke be expected to be noticeable?



Sorry, but this is, frankly nonsense. How can the statements "support" a conclusion it may, or not be "triggered /conditioned" on? (I assume you mean 'Conditional Upon' which is the closest this would come to making any kind of sense? If not, please try again).

In short: The statements aren't evidence supporting shots, if the smoke was connected to the sound or not. The world doesn't work like that. You don't get to decide what you want to prove happened, then suggest any and all evidence might support your conclusion, even if that is not what was heard.

Given there are things more likely to cause smoke visible from any distance than guns, like, for examples, cigarettes, we can't assume that smoke we don't expect to see from a rifle, is proof that what they heard wasn't an echo.

There are different possible reasons for the witnesses reports of seeing smoke comming down from the knoll:

1. They actually saw gunsmoke comming down from the knoll in direct connection to the shot/s.

2. A diabolical coincident led to pipe steam being released exactly in connection to witnesses hearing shot/s from there. The only time during that day anyone saw pipe steam over the knoll.

3. The witnesses lied/made it up for unknown reasons.

4. The witnesses heard rifle shot/s from the knoll conditioning them to belive they also saw gunsmoke by unconscious association.

5. Other?

Take your pick and argue for it.

 

[RoboTimbo]

There are different possible reasons for the witnesses reports of seeing smoke comming down from the knoll:

5. Other?

Take your pick and argue for it.

5. Conspiracists who are stupider than the CT website you crib from who choose a civil war musket to shoot.

 

[manifesto]

You are the one claiming gunsmoke as evidence. That means your claimed grassy knoll shooter was using a musket.

No, your reading impairment fools you.

I’m claiming that a number of witnesses reported that they saw gunsmoke comming down from the knoll in connection to hearing shot/s being fired from there.

Are you able to grasp this distinction?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Are you able to grasp this distinction?

You will get your ass handed to you if you make the claim because of your utter inability to defend it? That distinction?

 

[HSienzant]

No Hank, on the contrary, it’s you and your brothers and sisters in the Mighty Church of the Lone Nut, who want it both ways.

1. A little nick forward just before the head is violently is thrown backwards is evidence of a bullet fired from behind = head is minutely moving with bullets transfered momentum.

2. JFK’s head violently thrown backwards is evidence of a bullet fired from ... behind = head is violently moving AGAINST the bullets transfered momentum.

Should all of US not members in your Mighty Church, laugh, or should we cry?

What are you expecting us to do?

Obey the laws of physics.

David Lifton went through all this with Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman hoping to win a conspiracy convert.

Feynman patiently explained to Lifton the momentum is transferred at the moment of impact, not a tenth or an eighteenth of a second later. Or two eighteenths later.

Feynmann patiently explained to Lifton that the correct comparison for the transfer of momentum is between Zapruder frames 312 and 313 - the frame immediately before the bullet impact and the frame immediately after the bullet impact.

Feynmann patiently explained to Lifton that in that eighteenth of a second (the time between the two exposures of the camera) he saw the President's head move forward. That meant, to this Nobel Prize winning physicist, that the bullet came from behind and pushed the President's head forward.

Feynmann patiently explained to Lifton that whatever happened after that, after the bullet had already left the head (which it had done by frame Z313, which shows the immediate aftermath of the bullet strike) could not be caused by the bullet that struck JFK between frames 312 and 313.

All this is covered in great detail in David Lifton's book, BEST EVIDENCE.

There are a lot of different reasons advanced for the backward movement which happens AFTER the bullet has left the head (and Z215 starts the backward movement, which is an eternity in terms of physics).
1. Jet Effect (proposed by Nobel Prize winning physicist Luis Alvarez)
2. Neuromuscular reaction (the brain being damaged causes the muscles to freeze up, and the back muscles being stronger than the stomach muscles, causes JFK to lurch backwards)
3. Back brace holds JFK upright, and he rebounds backward.
4. JFK's head is forced forward with his chin forced to his chest, and then the head rebounds and takes the body with it.
5. A second shot to the head (with a cover up concealing all evidence of it) forces JFK back.
6. A first shot to the head forces JFK backward (which ignores the laws of physics as explained by Nobel Prize winning physicist Richard Feynman AND a cover up concealing all evidence of it).

Which ones did you eliminate and why? Which one did you settle on and why?

Bonus points if you obey the laws of physics.

Hank

PS: All this is covered in detail in the thread. You would be caught up by now and not raising bogus questions if you had started reading it when you were advised to.

 

[Tomtomkent]

There are different possible reasons for the witnesses reports of seeing smoke comming down from the knoll:

1. They actually saw gunsmoke comming down from the knoll in direct connection to the shot/s.

2. A diabolical coincident led to pipe steam being released exactly in connection to witnesses hearing shot/s from there. The only time during that day anyone saw pipe steam over the knoll.

3. The witnesses lied/made it up for unknown reasons.

4. The witnesses heard rifle shot/s from the knoll conditioning them to belive they also saw gunsmoke by unconscious association.

5. Other?

Take your pick and argue for it.

All very interesting, but none of which addresses the points raised in the post you quoted.

How much smoke is expected to be visible from a gun?
How can the witness testimony support your theory, if they correctly identified gun smoke or not?

 

[HSienzant]

There are different possible reasons for the witnesses reports of seeing smoke comming down from the knoll:

1. They actually saw gunsmoke comming down from the knoll in direct connection to the shot/s.

2. A diabolical coincident led to pipe steam being released exactly in connection to witnesses hearing shot/s from there. The only time during that day anyone saw pipe steam over the knoll.

3. The witnesses lied/made it up for unknown reasons.

4. The witnesses heard rifle shot/s from the knoll conditioning them to belive they also saw gunsmoke by unconscious association.

5. Other?
5. The picture shows nothing more than the tops of the bushes illuminated by sunlight. Conspiracy addicts deliberately choose a grainy multi-generational photo because a clearer one would destroy the illusion of smoke they are trying to create.

Take your pick and argue for it.

I have already voted for five. Or two. And given the reasons why.

Show us a better copy of that image. You need to do this

Because it is YOU WHO MAKE THE CLAIM.

Hank

 

[jeffas69]

By 'witness intimidation', Manifesto means people like Jean Hill, who expanded her claims over the years to including seeing a man shooting from the top of the knoll, but originally denied seeing a shooter in her Warren Commission testimony.

When a liar lies, and is caught, what did CTs expect her to say? "I'm sorry. I was lying"?

No, she expanded her lies, and and when confronted with her earlier claims, she claimed that her Warren Commission testimony was 'a fabrication from start to finish' (you may have seen this in the Oliver Stone's movie "JFK").

But there is more evidence than her Warren Commission testimony.

She was on the radio and on television on 11/22/63 within an hour of the shooting. She said then she saw no shooter. She only heard the shots, she said.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5b0YcMYmweo
(1:05 into the interview)

Here's a neat compilation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6w63v9Y_KOk

And a later interview where she claims her Warren Commission testimony was a lie (8:48) :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCNwKnjUFz8

Hank

LOL. Obviously the videos are fabrications from start to finish as well!

 

[Tomtomkent]

No, your reading impairment fools you.

I’m claiming that a number of witnesses reported that they saw gunsmoke comming down from the knoll in connection to hearing shot/s being fired from there.

Are you able to grasp this distinction?

Perhaps you should make your position clear, as it rather seems like you are now trying to distance yourself from your previous contentions, without withdrawing them.

 

[HSienzant]

Hello Hank. You have been told that there is a bit harder to keep exact count of the exact number of shots in a tumultous situation than it is to register the general direction from where one or more shots are fired from.

So your argument is the witnesses got both the number and the direction wrong? That most thought the shots came from only one location but they actually came from several? And that there were five shots, but the witnesses heard only three?

Why exactly are you relying on what the witnesses said, when they were admittedly wrong about so much?

Show us the hard evidence of a shot from anywhere except the Depository. Or from any weapon except Oswald's rifle.

Hank

 

[manifesto]

LOL. Obviously the videos are fabrications from start to finish as well!

The x-rays are fabrications, yes. The Z-film could be manipulated with a black patch over the right back of JFK’s head from Z-313 forward.

It is the alternative to this (fabricated x-rays) that is virtually impossible.

 

[manifesto]

Perhaps you should make your position clear, as it rather seems like you are now trying to distance yourself from your previous contentions, without withdrawing them.

No. I’m trying to distance myself from of a strawman reading of my posts.

Shouldn’t I?

 

[Tomtomkent]

The x-rays are fabrications, yes. The Z-film could be manipulated with a black patch over the right back of JFK’s head from Z-313 forward.

It is the alternative to this that is virtually impossible.

How does one fabricate an x-ray?
What signs of fabrication are there on the x-rays in question?
How was the "black patch" applied to the Z film?
What evidence do you have IN THE FILM ITSELF for the "black patch" being artificially applied?

 

[jeffas69]

There are different possible reasons for the witnesses reports of seeing smoke comming down from the knoll:

2. A diabolical coincident led to pipe steam being released exactly in connection to witnesses hearing shot/s from there. The only time during that day anyone saw pipe steam over the knoll.

Why would this have to be diabolical in nature? Since when is a coincidence anything more than, umm, a coincidence.

That being said. If there are steam pipes over there I would need to know what they were for. Is there steam tracing to insulate some other pipe? Or is it a supply for something? There could be a condensate release valve that goes off every so often when so much water builds up in the system and when it is released after the water is drained a certain amount of steam will come out until the valve closes.

 

[Henri McPhee]

I still think the death of JFK is more complicated than just Oswald. Jack Ruby is a mysterious character. It's not just me who thinks that either. A lot of people with information seemed to have died mysterious or unexplained deaths or suicides over the years. There is some interesting waffle about the matter at this website:

https://www.activistpost.com/2017/11/warnings-before-jfk-murder.html

Former FBI Agent, Don Adams, even says that “thousands of national archives prove that John F. Kennedy wasn’t assassinated by Oswald,” adding that “the Warren Commission was a fraud.” Adams adds another suspect’s name who he said previously threatened to kill Kennedy; that man was Joseph Adams Milteer. Finally, the nail in the coffin that this was a sophisticated conspiracy, not just a lone wolf, was a Miami intelligence audio recording from November 9th, 1963. The recording documents Milteer talking to an informant mere weeks before the shooting occurred where he relays that there is a “threat to kill President Kennedy” by a group of men.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The x-rays are fabrications, yes. The Z-film could be manipulated with a black patch over the right back of JFK’s head from Z-313 forward.

It is the alternative to this (fabricated x-rays) that is virtually impossible.

Are you claiming the Z film and the x-rays are manipulated?

 

[Tomtomkent]

No. I’m trying to distance myself from of a strawman reading of my posts.

Shouldn’t I?

I'm sorry but it's only a straw man to suggest something that distorts your presented evidence. You stated those witnesses supported a shooter on the knoll here:

No. It means that there is always smoke, more or less, depending on rifle and ammo. The shooter could have loaded his own ammo with more gunpowder, etc.

No matter what, witnesses thought that they saw smoke comming down the knoll in connection to hearing shot/s comming from there.

If it was triggered/conditioned on them hearing shots from there, or not, it is additional witness support of the proposition that shot/s where fired from the knoll.

By all means, feel free to explain how and why smoke supports the theory of another shooter if you are not implying it is gunsmoke. State what you believe the witnesses describing smoke means, that makes it relevant, let alone supportive of, your theory.

 

[manifesto]

I have already voted for five.

Grainy photograph as explanation for witnesses reporting seeing smoke on the knoll?

Are you completely losing it?

Or two. And given the reasons why.

Another diabolical coincidence? Well, that is kind of your little specialty, isn’t it, Hank?

Show us a better copy of that image. You need to do this

​

Hank

No, I’m not particularly interested in pushing this photo in a long and tedious argument with an opponent not really sincere. At least you can’t make the photo an argument against shot/s from the knoll.

Lets leave it at that, Hank.

Hello Hank.

 

[HSienzant]

The railroad tracks are behind the picket fence on the knoll. The tripple underpass railway bridge is the trippel underpass railway bridge.

1. You admitted that Adams was a ”knoll witness”

Yes. No acrobatics.

2. You are saying that Altgens first thought that the shots came from the TSBD but changed his mind when told that the shots actually came from the, TSBD? Correct?

No. I'm saying what Altgens verifiably said: That he initially thought the head shot came from beside the car from a pistol or behind the car from a rifle but he saw nobody close enough to be firing from there. Your claim about what Altgens supposedly said is unsourced. The acrobatics is from your begging the question and presenting unsourced claims as evidence.

3. You are arguing that ”the railway tracks” is a code word Arce is using for ”the tripple underpass bridge”? Correct?

I'm saying railroad tracks that extend from behind the Depository across the overpass and all the way behind the post annex building on Commerce (and all the way to New Orleans) doesn't of necessity narrow it down to "the knoll". I'm saying it's begging the question for conspiracy addicts to assume that. I'm saying you need to establish that instead of begging the question and assuming that's what Arce meant. In other words:

You are the one making the claims above, you are the one who need to substantiate them with supporting evidence. Do it.

Looks like Hank is in good shape for his usual acrobatics, doesn’t it, Hank?

The acrobatics are all from your side of the net. I've got my feet (and my thoughts) planted firmly on the ground. I'm asking for your evidence, not your assumptions and your logic fallacies.

Hank