Ron Ecker Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 "There were negative reactions on both hands and on the cheek of the FBI agent who fired the assassination weapon. Thus, we had the other side of the coin: A negative reaction from the paraffin test did not prove that a person had not fired a rifle." -- David Belin; Page 18 of "November 22, 1963: You Are The Jury" Well, anything that David Belin and the FBI says is good enough for me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted May 13, 2015 Author Share Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) That's what I figured, Ron. That's why I quoted Belin. I know he's every CTer's favorite. Edited May 13, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 That's what I figured, Ron. That's why I quoted Belin. I know he's every CTer's favorite. Forget Belin. Give me one good reason why I should believe anything from the FBI. Whether in the 1960s or today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted May 13, 2015 Author Share Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) The FBI isn't even needed to prove Oswald's guilt. The DPD, all by itself, proved LHO's (double) guilt on Day 1. Or don't you trust anything the DPD did (or said) either, Ron? Plus, Oswald's own actions serve as practically a confession, even without factoring in any of the physical evidence examined by either the DPD or FBI. Edited May 13, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 The FBI isn't even needed to prove Oswald's guilt. The DPD, all by itself, proved his guilt on Day 1 on November 22. Or don't you trust anything the DPD said either, Ron? I trust some of what the DPD said, such as its reports that JFK had been shot. I think that the officer's statement that he couldn't see the shooting because of a passing train was, to borrow a term from you, a crock. But the bottom line is, I don't believe that Oswald shot JFK, certainly not all by himself. Everything else stems from that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted May 13, 2015 Author Share Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) Yes, Ron, you're right about the policeman (J.C. White) who made the really strange comment about how a train on the overpass blocked his view of the rest of the Plaza to the east. One of the Altgens pictures proves that story to be a "crock" indeed. But that's a minor issue. You aren't willing to toss ALL of the DPD under the bus because of Officer White's weirdness, are you Ron? Edited May 13, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 You aren't willing to toss ALL of the DPD under the bus because of Officer White's weirdness, are you Ron? Why do you ask stupid questions? That's not meant as an insult. I'm curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Ron, it's a distraction. Magicians use similar distractions to make you believe they can do wonders. They change the direction of your attention, so you won't see what they're actually doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted May 13, 2015 Author Share Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) You aren't willing to toss ALL of the DPD under the bus because of Officer White's weirdness, are you Ron? Why do you ask stupid questions? That's not meant as an insult. I'm curious. It's not a stupid question. Esp. after you had just got through writing this sarcastic comment.... "I trust some of what the DPD said, such as its reports that JFK had been shot." Ergo, my follow-up question is far from stupid. Edited May 13, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 You aren't willing to toss ALL of the DPD under the bus because of Officer White's weirdness, are you Ron? Why do you ask stupid questions? That's not meant as an insult. I'm curious. It's not a stupid question. Esp. after you wtrote this comment (which was obviously meant as a sarcastic jab at the DPD).... "I trust some of what the DPD said, such as its reports that JFK had been shot." Ergo, my follow-up question is far from stupid. I see that you live in Indiana. See if there isn't some place there where you can buy a sense of humor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted May 13, 2015 Author Share Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) Ron, Your previous comment sprinkled with sarcasm implied that you don't trust anything the DPD did. How could I possibly interpret this comment any other way?.... "I trust some of what the DPD said, such as its reports that JFK had been shot." Edited May 13, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 This has gone far enough. I have a rule against arguing with LNers, just like I have a rule against arguing with YECs (young-Earth creationists). It's a waste of time. The only reason I break this rule occasionally is a lack of will power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted May 13, 2015 Author Share Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) Fair enough, Ron. Bye. Edited May 13, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 David, I have spent today looking at the film image you posted on reply 68 with the ever so helpful comment "(And don't tell me you can't see it here, James. It's quite visible.)" What you do appear not to have done, is to have analysed the imagery you present as proof of your position. I see you have yet to respond why the Z224 frame in your original gif has a white out half way through the frame. There is your answer as to why you see an anomaly that suggests you you that Connally has been struck. But back to the film image you posted on reply 68. Frame 224 is a reasonably clear frame. Frame 225 is also a reasonably clear frame. That said - and I will return to this point - when 225 is run after 224 there is a clear suggestion that Connally's left shoulder rises. Frame 226 is a reasonably blurred frame. Frame 227 is a very blurred frame Frame 228 is a reasonably blurred frame. There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these frames - especially from 225 to 228 - demonstrate that Connally has been struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is going on - but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is doing. Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair I did wonder if indeed we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224 and 225 Connally turns around 20º to his left. That is what you are seeing. The change in the left shoulder - is not a reaction to the bullet - it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is turning his body left. As I pointed out to you in an earlier post - and you did agree with me - between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left. What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames is:- a) that 20º turn between 224 and 225 the total blurred distortion in frames 226 - 228 That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when actually Connally is turning to his left. I hope tomorrow to demonstrate this with the imagery. James. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 David, I have spent today looking at the film image you posted on reply 68 with the ever so helpful comment "(And don't tell me you can't see it here, James. It's quite visible.)" What you do appear not to have done, is to have analysed the imagery you present as proof of your position. I see you have yet to respond why the Z224 frame in your original gif has a white out half way through the frame. There is your answer as to why you see an anomaly that suggests you you that Connally has been struck. But back to the film image you posted on reply 68. Frame 224 is a reasonably clear frame. Frame 225 is also a reasonably clear frame. That said - and I will return to this point - when 225 is run after 224 there is a clear suggestion that Connally's left shoulder rises. Frame 226 is a reasonably blurred frame. Frame 227 is a very blurred frame Frame 228 is a reasonably blurred frame. There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these frames - especially from 225 to 228 - demonstrate that Connally has been struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is going on - but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is doing. Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair I did wonder if indeed we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224 and 225 Connally turns around 20º to his left. That is what you are seeing. The change in the left shoulder - is not a reaction to the bullet - it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is turning his body left. As I pointed out to you in an earlier post - and you did agree with me - between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left. What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames is:- a) that 20º turn between 224 and 225 the total blurred distortion in frames 226 - 228 That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when actually Connally is turning to his left. I hope tomorrow to demonstrate this with the imagery. James. Wow, James, good work. Something puzzles me, though. Is the human body capable of making a 20° turn in 1/18th of a second? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now