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

[HSienzant]

Decerebrate reflexes are always delayed. The head movement back in the Z-film is instant when the bullet hit the head. That said, even if not delayed, it can’t explain JFK’s movements from Z312/13 forward.

Other suggestions?

Yeah, you've reversed the movement.

The head movement is FORWARD between the two Zapruder frames Z312-Z313. That has been illustrated here and referenced here in the past. Z312 is the last frame before the bullet strikes the head... by Z313 the bullet has already exited the head and any momentum it's going to impart has already been imparted. In those two reference frames the head nods forward by about 3 inches. This was determined back in 1966 by conspiracy addict Josiah Thompson. He's backed away from that assertion in recent years, because he understands better what the implications of his measurements are, but even a comparison of the two frames will show you the movement forward.

The movement back doesn't start until the bullet has already left the head at frame 314 and at that point is is long gone. At that point it cannot impart any momentum to the head. At that point the bullet is easily a hundred or two hundred yards away... or the lead core of it anyway. Two large fragments of the copper jacket were found on the floor of the limo the evening of the assassination. Those fragments are traceable to Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

 

[HSienzant]

The ”knoll” was next to a parking lot which in turn was next to a railway yard, full of railway tracks.

The ”tripple over/underpass” was/is a railway bridge and a well known landmark in Dallas. To suggest that ”the railway tracks” is ”the tripple overpass” is therefore not reasonable. It’s an obvious incredulity with the purpose of mislead the reader.

Railway tracks = all the tracks behind the knoll and the parking lot = railway yard.

Railway tracks ≠ tripple underpass.

Ergo. 52 witness who was asked, said that the shots came from the knoll/ direction of the knoll. Stands.

Anything else?

No, we already examined some of those witnesses and found that your list was putting people on there that made no reference to the knoll. Not just in terms of the railroad tracks.

https://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/Sort216Witness.htm

Like Victoria Adams, who said the shots came from below and to her left, which includes the overpass. Your list *assumes* she meant the knoll, but that is begging the question.

Your list also includes as knoll witnesses people who named the overpass directly as the source of the shots. Like Mrs. Avery Davis, who named 'the viaduct' as the source (apparently she wasn't aware that the well-known name of the structure was 'the triple overpass' as you insist). Ochus Campbell said the shots came from the railroad tracks 'near the viaduct' so he's another witness who was unaware of the name of the triple overpass. And Campbell was the VP of the Depository.

So the name of that supposed landmark wasn't as well known as you insist.

You're insisting "the overpass" was such a well-known landmark that if people said 'the railroad tracks' without naming the overpass that meant they were excluding the overpass and naming the knoll. But at least two people referenced the overpass as "the viaduct" meaning they weren't aware of the name you insist was universally well known. And if it wasn't universally well known, then your attempt to include any witness who named 'the railroad tracks' as 'the knoll' fails.

In addition, you yourself said that the railroad tracks were not equal to the overpass in the above:

"Railway tracks ≠ tripple [sic] underpass."

But your own cited list disagrees with you, in that it's counting Mrs. Avery Davis as a knoll witness, although she named the viaduct (the overpass) and not the knoll as the source of the shots. Can't have it both ways.

Dolores Kounas is another who named "the viaduct" as the source and yet is counted as a knoll witness. Her inclusion again is further testament to the inclusion of people who specifically excluded the knoll as knoll witnesses on your cited list.

The list is inflated by including people who didn't specify the knoll as the source of the shots. The railroad yards extends to the opposite knoll bordering Commerce Street. You haven't shown how you know those who said 'the railroad yards' or 'the railroad tracks' meant the knoll only on the north side of Dealey Plaza and not the south knoll.

Please advise how you know all this in general, and regarding Avery Davis and Dolores Kounas, why these women are on your cited list and how you know they meant the knoll when they named 'the viaduct' (which you say is NOT the knoll).

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The ”Tripple underpass” was/is a well known landmark + an obvious structure to name as such if it was from there the witness heard shots.

To equate ”the railway tracks” with this landmark just because it had railway tracks on it, doesn’t stand to reason. No.

52 witnesses stands. Anyone else who you find ’problems’ with?

So by your argument above, we should exclude Mrs. Davis and Mrs. Kounas, both of whom named 'the viaduct' as the source of the shots.

'Viaduct' = "Overpass'

Because they both named that and not the knoll.

Yes?

So we're down to 50 knoll witnesses, according to your own arguments, not 52.

Right?

Hank

 

[manifesto]

Yeah, you've reversed the movement.

The head movement is FORWARD between the two Zapruder frames Z312-Z313. That has been illustrated here and referenced here in the past. Z312 is the last frame before the bullet strikes the head... by Z313 the bullet has already exited the head. In those two reference frames the head nods forward by about 3 inches.

Slightly more than two inches.

This was determined back in 1966 by conspiracy addict Josiah Thompson.

And by Feynman.

He's backed away from that assertion in recent years,

Backed away from the slightly two inches head movement forward? If so, I do not agree with him in this instance. The head is moving aproximately two inches between Z312 and Z313.

because he understands better what the implications of his measurements are, but even a comparison of the two frames will show you the movement forward.

The movement back doesn't start until the bullet has already left the head at frame 314

There is no visible sign of JFK’s head being hit in Z312, no.

and at that point is is long gone. At that point it cannot impart any momentum to the head. At that point the bullet is easily a hundred or two hundred yards away...

It begins moving backward at the instant moment there is visible signs of it being hit by a bullet. In frame Z313.

or the lead core of it anyone. Two large fragments of the copper jacket were found on the floor of the limo the evening of the assassination.

IF true, it could as well have been from the bullet that hit Connally in the back exiting in front of him.

Your hero Luis Alvarez claims that the limo began to decelerate a split second before the headshot.

Do you agree with him in this instance?

 

[manifesto]

So by your argument above, we should exclude Mrs. Davis and Mrs. Kounas, both of whom named 'the viaduct' as the source of the shots.

'Viaduct' = "Overpass'

Because they both named that and not the knoll.

Yes?

So we're down to 50 knoll witnesses, according to your own arguments, not 52.

Right?

Hank

Technically, yes. However, they are testifying of shot/s being fired from in front of JFK. Since both of them were positioned way up in the vicinity of the Houston-Elm intersection, that is good enough for me.

My argument still is that the witness support of shot/s from the knoll/from in front is as strong or stronger than the witness support from the TSBD/from behind.

To disregard all these witnesses because the police did not find a rifle or spent cartridges anywhere else than in the TSBD is at best, stupid.

Add to that all the rest of the clear evidence of shot/s from the front and we are way down the looney bin.

Or worse.

 

[Wolrab]

There is zero evidence of a shot from the front. Should say zero evidence other than notoriously unreliable eyewitness statements.

 

[Disbelief]

Technically, yes. However, they are testifying of shot/s being fired from in front of JFK. Since both of them were positioned way up in the vicinity of the Houston-Elm intersection, that is good enough for me.

Good enough for you because it supports your theory. What was that theory by the way? The one that covers the events of the day?

 

[manifesto]

There is zero evidence of a shot from the front. Should say zero evidence other than notoriously unreliable eyewitness statements.

As I said, if witness testimony are evidence of shot/s from behind/TSBD, the same have to be the case with shot/s from the front/knoll.

In fact, the strength of witness tesitimony from in front/knoll is even stronger than that from behind/TSBD.

 

[manifesto]

Good enough for you because it supports your theory. What was that theory by the way? The one that covers the events of the day?

Good enough since both of them were positioned so far away from the general area in front of the limo = shot/s from in front = conspiracy.

 

[HSienzant]

Technically, yes. However, they are testifying of shot/s being fired from in front of JFK. Since both of them were positioned way up in the vicinity of the Houston-Elm intersection, that is good enough for me.

Wait, what?

The overpass is not the knoll and the railroad tracks is not the overpass except when the witnesses named the overpass, then it is???

You're begging the very question under debate. You argue that when people said 'the railroad tracks' they didn't mean the overpass, until you are presented with overpass witnesses, then "it's good enough".

We've also seen testimony from witnesses that said the area was a echo chamber and sounds from the depository could sound like they are emanating from the knoll.

We've also established the only weapon seen that day was seen in the depository, and the only rifle, bullets, fragments or shells recovered that day are all traceable to the weapon traceable to Oswald.

None of that is good enough for you. But witnesses saying 'the railroad tracks' are excluding the overpass (and meant the knoll), while witnesses saying 'the overpass' are not excluding the knoll.

You are obviously intent on inflating the number of knoll witnesses.

My argument still is that the witness support of shot/s from the knoll/from in front is as strong or stronger than the witness support from the TSBD/from behind.

No, you're wrong. Less biased sources than the one you cite arrive at much lower counts for the number of knoll witnesses. And other conspiracy sources arrive at other totals than 52 knoll witnesses, showing the number is 'flexible' (open to interpretation).

To disregard all these witnesses because the police did not find a rifle or spent cartridges anywhere else than in the TSBD is at best, stupid.

Yeah, we should chase echoes instead of hard evidence. Good plan.

Add to that all the rest of the clear evidence of shot/s from the front and we are way down the looney bin.

There is no clear evidence of shots from anywhere but the TSBD.

Or worse.

I think the phrase you're searching for is 'lunatic fringe'?

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

So by your argument above, we should exclude Mrs. Davis and Mrs. Kounas, both of whom named 'the viaduct' as the source of the shots.

'Viaduct' = "Overpass'

Because they both named that and not the knoll.

Yes?

So we're down to 50 knoll witnesses, according to your own arguments, not 52.

Right?

Hank

The argument falls before even that.
“The knoll” was a well known name for a known landmark.
One can assume “car park” and “goods yard” were also as universal as “triple underpass”.
By the logic displayed, I would have to ask why “railway” was used at all.

Unfortunately most of us are restricted by discussing what people might have meant based on the words they did use. I don’t imagine the majority of people in this thread would claim with authority to know what words others would have used in things they, apparently, didn’t say...

 

[Tomtomkent]

As I said, if witness testimony are evidence of shot/s from behind/TSBD, the same have to be the case with shot/s from the front/knoll.

In fact, the strength of witness tesitimony from in front/knoll is even stronger than that from behind/TSBD.

The point being missed is that there is evidence available to validate shots from behind.

 

[Steve]

Good enough for you because it supports your theory. What was that theory by the way? The one that covers the events of the day?

Does not have one.

 

[bknight]

1. Does the head move forward anything before Z312/13?

No it looks like he is frozen.

2. Does anyone else in the limo move forward during the same time sequence?

No movement

3. Could he have been hit with two bullets, one from behind and one from in front, almost instantaneously?

That would have been miraculous, but no bullet was found in the limo or in the grass beyond the limo. No forensics to justify any bullet from the front.

4. Could the forward nick be explained by a well known effect of an initial movement against the direction of an incoming bullet caused by over pressure initially having nowhere else to go?

You have been shown that the first motion is in the direction of bullet trajectory. You even posted a video where gel targets are hit and tried to convince the rest of us that the first movement was back. You failed miserably as the first motion is along the same path of the bullet, NOT against it. Against would violate the laws of physics, you see what you want to believe, but you are incorrect.

The answer to all these questions is, yes.

No all the answers are negative, you fail again.

No, it couldn’t. All known decerebrate reflexes are way too delayed. JFK’s head snaps violently backwards as if hit by a baseball bat. Instantaneously.

As I asked before list your qualifications of a gunshot forensic expertise.

 

[jeffas69]

As I said, if witness testimony are evidence of shot/s from behind/TSBD, the same have to be the case with shot/s from the front/knoll.

In fact, the strength of witness tesitimony from in front/knoll is even stronger than that from behind/TSBD.

No. As has been pointed out to you already all of the earwitnesses on your list are classified as knoll shots only. Even though your "theory" according to the acoustic "evidence" supposedly says that at least four shots came from behind and only one from the front. Since your blindfold tests say that no one would be fooled by echoes then either the blindfold tests were administered wrong because none of them heard shots from only one direction or all of the "52" knoll witnesses are wrong or both.

 

[HSienzant]

No. As has been pointed out to you already all of the earwitnesses on your list are classified as knoll shots only. Even though your "theory" according to the acoustic "evidence" supposedly says that at least four shots came from behind and only one from the front. Since your blindfold tests say that no one would be fooled by echoes then either the blindfold tests were administered wrong because none of them heard shots from only one direction or all of the "52" knoll witnesses are wrong or both.

Yes, as you note, and has been pointed out to Manifesto previously, since the conspiracy argument advanced here is for multiple shooters in multiple locations, then by definition those naming only one location are poor witnesses, because they should have named multiple locations, not just one. Conspiracy addicts ignore 'minor' issues like the witnesses being wrong on the source of most of the shots, yet presume to tell us it can't be echoes or confusion on the part of witnesses, even when they concede the confusion on the part of witnesses about the source of the sounds.

Like we see him conceding here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12291596&postcount=3131

Hank

 

[Axxman300]

No, he wasn’t. He was a low level US Intel agent way in over his head, not knowing he was sheep dipped as a patsy for the assassination of president Kennedy.

To suggest otherwise is plain stupid or accessories after the fact.

Oh good, amateur hour part two.

Show me his CIA pay-stubs, and not on microfilm.

 

[manifesto]

The point being missed is that there is evidence available to validate shots from behind.

No. The point is that the witness testimony is as strong or stronger for shot/s from in front/knoll as for shot/s from behind/TSBD.

Corroborating evidence is the next step.

 

[HSienzant]

Slightly more than two inches.

And by Feynman.

Backed away from the slightly two inches head movement forward? If so, I do not agree with him in this instance. The head is moving aproximately two inches between Z312 and Z313.

There is no visible sign of JFK’s head being hit in Z312, no.

It begins moving backward at the instant moment there is visible signs of it being hit by a bullet. In frame Z313.

IF true, it could as well have been from the bullet that hit Connally in the back exiting in front of him.

Your hero Luis Alvarez claims that the limo began to decelerate a split second before the headshot.

Do you agree with him in this instance?

Asked and answered.More than once.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12291907&postcount=3189

Hank

 

[Elagabalus]

No. The point is that the witness testimony is as strong or stronger for shot/s from in front/knoll as for shot/s from behind/TSBD.

Corroborating evidence is the next step.

Have you found any yet?