• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

JFK Second Shooter Theory Debunked by Discovery Channel

I'll admit that I'm not big into looking at the JFK incident as it seems pretty clear-cut to me. Even as a teenager the first time I saw the Zapruder film I didn't think that he was shot from the side.

Anyway...any of their points have merit? Or at least point to murkiness in the Commission report?
 
It is my own little theory (no need to have you believe it or not) that Oswald reacted badly on leaning down and looking at Tippit in the squad car. Tippit was nicknamed "Jack" because he had a rather strong resemblance to the President. It must have been quite a nasty shock for Oswald to suddenly be looking into JFK's face again on a cop who'd just called him over.

And the conversation wouldn't have gone well after that.
 
After getting interested in this crap in the early '90s, and gathering a lot of the published information from official sources and unofficial. it became obvious that although the Warren Commission Report had problems, they did finger out who dun what to whom with what.
The overwhelming majority of the published literature is purely crap.
Ravings by deluded people, or those that know their audience is incapable of rational thinking.
Exactly like the same ol' same ol' of the 9/11 CTwinkies.
Loonies feeding the delusions of other loonies, and the crafty making hay of the deluded's fear of everything!
 
The photo's are fake and that is a HUGE problem. Almost any photoshop novice can see the screw ups on the photo's. The question is WHY? and Who?

It had to have been done before the shooting. His wife could NOT have stood still enough to take exactly the same photo ... No one can! It's not possible. Her story has changed more than once for whatever reasons.

There were a minimum of three shooters. On the Knoll, in the depository, on the roof of the building directly behind the car and possibly in the storm drain. The idea that the driver was a backup might show why the Presidents wife tried to get AWAY from the Driver. You would think that she would naturally hide below if someone were shooting from above.
 
The Professor said:
The photo's are fake and that is a HUGE problem. Almost any photoshop novice can see the screw ups on the photo's. The question is WHY? and Who?
Click to expand...

A "Photoshop novice"=/= qualified questioned documents examiner. What are your qualifications in the field of image analysis and photogrammetry? This is an area where amateurs constantly make monkeys of themselves, as demonstrated by virtually everything Jack White has ever claimed about JFK and Apollo.

It had to have been done before the shooting. His wife could NOT have stood still enough to take exactly the same photo ... No one can! It's not possible.
Click to expand...

In point of fact, the photos were not exactly the same. Her position varied enough between taking successive pictures to permit them to be viewed as stereo pairs in order to detect signs of forgery.

As for her tesstimony about exactly when the pictures were taken goes, the pictures themselves contain enough internal evidence, e.g., the newspaper Oswald is holding, to constrain the range of possible dates pretty tightly. That sort of evidence always trumps fallible human memories.

This may be of interest. It explains in good detail the measures the House Select Committee on Assassinations took to test the authenticity of the photos- measures which led them to the conclusion:

The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials.
Click to expand...
 
The Professor said:
The photo's are fake and that is a HUGE problem. Almost any photoshop novice can see the screw ups on the photo's. The question is WHY? and Who?

It had to have been done before the shooting. His wife could NOT have stood still enough to take exactly the same photo ... No one can! It's not possible. Her story has changed more than once for whatever reasons.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you have been reading too much Jack White. The guy has no clue and was shredded by the House Committee. Heck the guy doesn't even know one side of the LM from the other.

There were a minimum of three shooters. On the Knoll, in the depository, on the roof of the building directly behind the car and possibly in the storm drain. The idea that the driver was a backup might show why the Presidents wife tried to get AWAY from the Driver. You would think that she would naturally hide below if someone were shooting from above.
Click to expand...

I suggest you stop watching the X-Files, I mean come on, the storm drain? Apart from the fact that anyone in the strom drain wouldn't have had a line of sight, they would have had to have been a 2 foot tall contortionist to get there. As for the Knoll. If Kennedy had been shot from there the bullet would have done damage to the left side of his head, there wasn't any, and likely have hit Jackie, it didn't. And before you start waving the "Badgeman" photo about cliaming it's the shooter, again, the guy that populised that is an idiot with ZERO photo analysis expertise, his name is Jack White.
 
Jack White was active on the Compuserve "Conspiracy forum" 15 years ago.
One of his funniest was "analyzing" this frame of the Zapruder film, using ALL his photogrammetric skills.
He lives in Dallas, and took a photo from where Zapruder was standing, and compared it to Z-frame 304, looking at the size of the woman walking across the infield behind Mary Moorman.
He concluded she had to be 8 feet tall!
Doing a little real photogrammetry on the image, I fingered she was just about 5 feet tall.
Deany Richards of JFK Lancer confirmed this, as she had spoken -to- that woman, who was 4'11".
Jack was certainly a prolific PITA in the "conspiracy" world.
His "analysis" of the Backyard photos was equally odd!
Some time later that same day....
I found my image from 1999... Gary Mack (also on CIS at the time) who was running the 6th Depository Museum at the time gave me some of the information...
 

Attachments

  • jrWhite3.jpg
    jrWhite3.jpg
    52.2 KB · Views: 16
  • jrZ-Frame304.jpg
    jrZ-Frame304.jpg
    127.8 KB · Views: 13
Last edited:
How does one go about faking a photo in 1963 in such a way that it wouldn't be noticed except for geniuses like Jack White?
 
EventHorizon said:
The problem with them is it's hard to argue with the "all the evidence is faked....except the stuff that helps our theories" argument.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if the DC programme did get one thing wrong it was that no one disputes the authenticity of the Zeburder Film. A lot of CT's claim it is fake, or has been altered. I guess it was done by the same MiBs that managed to sneak fake planes into the handycam footage of innocent NYer's on 9/11.
 
JoeyDonuts said:
Check this out:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13688

Not sure what to make of this.
Click to expand...
I know what to make of it. JFK conspiracy theorists have forum posters as incredibly stupid as stundie too.

Bill, might I suggest a possible reason why the Sixth Floor Museum and thus Mr. Mack would seem to have a vested interest in the "Oswald-did-it" scenario. There are tourist dollars at stake here. If the TSBD was NOT the source of the shots that killed Kennedy and wounded Connally, then the value of the building as a tourist attraction is considerably less.

Mack didn't support the official version of events until he was hired by the Sixth Floor Museum.

In my book, that says it all.
Click to expand...
 
PhantomWolf said:
Yeah, if the DC programme did get one thing wrong it was that no one disputes the authenticity of the Zeburder Film. A lot of CT's claim it is fake, or has been altered.
Click to expand...

As far as I'm aware, there's only one, and his name is... (drum roll please)... Jim Fetzer. Yes, the same guy who buys the craziest of the crazy 9/11 conspiracy theories.
 
CurtC said:
As far as I'm aware, there's only one, and his name is... (drum roll please)... Jim Fetzer. Yes, the same guy who buys the craziest of the crazy 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

Jim might have started it, but others have run with it. I have a feeling Jake White claims it was altered, but I could be wrong so don't quite me on it unless you spot a more secure quote from him.
 
tyr_13 said:
I've always wondered about the people who say that Oswald wasn't a good enough shot to pull this off, always citing his only obtaining a basic marksman certification. The shot wasn't that hard.

He also missed once. Three shots, one miss. That is an accuracy rating of 66%. This is far lower than his test scores. Obviously an off day.
Click to expand...

This always gets me confused, especially if I happen to hear someone talk about it here in Dallas (where I live). I've gone to Dealy Plaza and looked at the location-- even I could have done that, and I'm not a fan of guns (though I'm not a bad shot and I'm not afraid of them). There's a bit of difficulty in the positioning, but of the three shots the last one was the lethal one, which took two adjustments by the shooter in previous shots. Because of the location of the second shot there may have been a possible death before they got him to a hospital, but it was clear from the footage that the shooter could have mistaken the second shot for a total miss instead of the hit he got. I've seen the footage over and over, and even though there was a time when I believed the conspiracy theory on the subject I was always curious as to how someone gets the impression that there are shots coming from multiple trajectories when it's pretty obvious the shots were coming from behind and to the right.

I had family down to visit last week and my mom wanted to visit Dealy Plaza. While down there I encountered a few CT folk and had a brief exchange with them. Two gems from the encounter:
  • One fellow wanted to show me the obvious escape path of the guy who was supposedly shooting from the gutter where there's a manhole next to the road. He walked me to the south end of the grassy knoll and showed me a grated stormdrain that he claimed the hidden shooter used to escape undetected. I pointed out that the drain was too heavy for one man to lift, to which he replied with the bait-and-switch of "obviously it's been rebuilt since that date to cover it up." When pressed for proof of schematics or city blueprints (or some verifiable documentation) to show how the drain was different, I was dismissed and told I should buy one of the CT "newpapers" that the homeless/vagrant/other people at the location were selling for $5 a pop.
  • The previous fellow's mother told me that I should be more open minded about things I observe in the world very early on in the conversation. After some disagreement on a few data points she exasperatedly told me, point blank, that there was nothing I or anyone could say that would ever convince her that Oswald acted alone or that there was not a conspiracy. When I asked her whether she realized that she'd expressed contradictory philosophies to me-- to keep an open mind, yet unwilling to consider even the probability that she could be wrong-- there was some hemming and hawing and appeals to pseudo-authorities (there was supposedly a CT "expert" there that day who regularly visited the site and "taught" people about the conspiracy). My only regret is that I couldn't get those quotes recorded either with audio or video to display the cognitive dissonance of the thinking behind such conspiracy theories.

Conspiracy theorists should normally find me a pretty easy sell compared to most skeptical thinkers. I have a fairly deep-seated distrust of authority and I don't trust government authorities by default. In the past I've entertained both the JFK and the 9/11 conspiracies as very likely possibilities, and only have the contradicting opinions I have today because I've critically examined not only the data involved in the cases but also my own instances of cognitive dissonance impeding my ability to assess things as objectively as possible (though I don't feel that all cognitive dissonance does so, nor is it always a negative thing). Yet conspiracy theory advocates usually tend to get annoyed or frustrated with me when asked to defend their arguments with critical analysis. Almost always the conversations come down to the assumed conspiracy theorist assuming that they're smarter than me for being able to understand-- which I have to admit is somewhat deceiving because I don't claim to be smarter than most people, not because I don't think I have a high aptitude (my IQ is in the upper 140's or lower 150's, but that's not meaningful to me) but because I prefer to try to recognize the intellectual strengths of everyone I talk to in some degree or fashion. What they see as naive inquisitiveness from me is usually me trying my best to offer as much benefit of the doubt as possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom