Andric Perez

I don't think all pixels are the same size.

Hindsight bias is real and it gives me the opportunity to say that given all this hindsight, anyone who believes Oswald did it ( alone if you will ) is the real idiot. In another example, JFK himself wonder (after the fact) why he had been so stupid not to know what the CIA (and top military leaders) were up before the Bay of Pigs fiasco, as remembered by Ted Sorensen, his Special Counsel: http://www.gwu.edu/~.../sorensen1.html

Oswald's IQ was just one point lower than John F. Kennedy's. 118 vs. 119. http://www.kids-iq-t...ous-people.html This is also a case of "hindsight bias," It is very easy for the author of this thread to say that Oswald should have known he was being framed, 49 years later. Hindsight bias: The term hindsight bias refers to the tendency people have to view events as more predictable than they really are. After an event, people often believe that they knew the outcome of the event before it actually happened. The phenomenon has been demonstrated in a number of different situations, including politics and sporting events. In experiments, people often recall their predictions before the event as much stronger than they actually were. http://psychology.ab...dsight-bias.htm

Allow me to add that according to more than one scientist, the third largest movement of Zapruder's camera, surpassed only by the fatal shot and the 190-frame shot, occurred during the following frames: Alvarez: 220-228; Hartmann, 227; Scott, 226-228 All these camera-blurs occur almost immediately after the lapel event, and in the case of Alvarez' analysis, in a very small range where frames 223-224 are included. The evidence in favor of a shot at this point is robust. The data above can be seen here: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/infojfk/jfk6/blur.htm

Can you explain why we see his shoulder driven down and cheeks puff up around Z Frame 233-234 I would have to see the scientific opinion as of how many hundredths of a second are required for a person's cheeks to puff up following a hit to the lung. Is half a second unlikely?

Connally was hit when the lapel of his coat flipped, as a result of the bullet passing through that area. The frame is approximately 223 or 224. This shot came shortly after JFK had been wounded at approximately frame 190. In fact, researchers inifintely at odds with each other, (Pat Speer and McAdams) both agree that a shot caused the flipping of the lapel, with the caveat that Speer believes that this bullet hit both JFK and Connally. See the following link: http://www.patspeer....le-bullet"fact" Other Conspiracy Theories dismiss the lapel-flip-as-shot view, but I'm with Speer on that one.

CBS' obituary failed to mention the single-bullet theory. http://www.cbsnews.c...n-specter-dies/ New York Times calls it a "theory" instead of fact. Good. http://www.nytimes.c...s-at-82.html?hp

That sounds like Operation Northwoods. Or perhaps an attempt by people such as false-flag-loving Brigadier William H. Craig to incorporate Northwoods-like operations into Mongoose. Discussing such proposals (which may result in approval or rejection) is not equivalent to extending Operation Mongoose.

This new article is relevant to the JFK assassination in that the techniques used as post-humous evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald are said to be essentially unscientific, even decades after the fact. Hair and Fiber analysis is crap, and the worst part is that the FBI knew it and did nothing about it. I highlisted the bolded portion because it reads like a definition of Paul Stombaugh's work (he's the guy who pretended that the fibers (allegedly) found in the rifle matched the shirt that Oswald (allegedly) wore on 11/22/63. One thing I don't understand is why the FBI and Justice Department are reviewing their own work. Some things don't change. The article is worth reading. Check it out: http://www.washingto...ry.html?hpid=z1

Thanks for that video. Here Altgens again mentions two shots.

After saying he heard 2 shots as quoted in Lifton's first comment, Altgents told the WC in July 1964 that he wasn't sure of how many shots he heard. The 8-month old misinformation in the media made Altgents and many more witnesses less confident about their own memories. Misinformation works, and Governments know this. The website History Matters, which in my opinion has done a terrible job keeping track of witness' accounts of the shots, claims Altgens heard 3 shots. History Matters itself quotes Altgents as vouching for two shots only in his WC commission, although again he said he wasn't sure. Where did History Matters get "3"? http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/index.htm James Altgens OCCUPATION : AP Photographer LOCATION : South Side of Elm Front Of Limousine SOURCE OF SHOTS : Knoll NUMBER OF SHOTS : 3 AP DISPATCH: November 22, 1963. At first I though the shots came from the opposite side of the street. I ran over there to see if I could get some pictures. But it turned out to be just more confusion. . . I did not know until later where the shots came from. DEPOSITION: July 22, 1964. 7H517 Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have any idea where the sound came from . . . ? Mr. ALTGENS. Well, it sounded like it was coming up from behind the car from my position—I mean the first shot, and being fireworks—who counts fireworks explosions? I wasn’t keeping track of the number of pops that took place, but I could vouch for No. 1, and I can vouch for the last shot, but I cannot tell you how many shots were in between. There was not another shot fired after the President was struck in the head. That was the lst shot—that much I will say with a great degree of certainty. Mr. LIEBELER. What makes you so certain of that, Mr. Altgens? Mr. ALTGENS. . . . What made me almost certain that the shot came from behind was because at the time I was looking at the President, just as he was struck, it caused him to move a bit forward. . . . It knocked him just enough forward that he came right on down.

I believe you can read kindle material in your PC if you download certain software. Amazon has a download page for Kindle for PC: http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html/ref=kcp_pc_mkt_lnd?docId=1000426311

Robert F. Kennedy named his son "Matthew Maxwell Taylor Kennedy," after the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1963. Should we infer from this close friendship that Maxwell Taylor was not working with Lemay (another member of the JCS) in the assassination, if Lemay was involved? How willing and capable of conspiring were the other two Chiefs?

LeBlanc's testimony is relevant to this discussion. Thanks for finding it, Mr. Kelly. If Oswald had that habit, his gesture (if he made it that day) loses the significance that Norman seemed to attribute to it in the late 70's. I disagree with Mr. Parker in his optimistic view of the reliability of HSCA testimony based on the lack of pressure. Let's not forget, however, that witnesses such as George De Mohrenschildt were under pressure as late as 1977, when he claimed to be scared and committed "suicide." Let's also not ignore the fact that memory deteriorates with the passage of time. Could it be that Norman was a victim of "source monitoring error," whereby someone remembers something (i.e. the gesture) but misremembers the source (i.e. when and where it happened). It may be that Norman remembered Oswald doing the gun thing at various times, but associated it with the killing 14 years later. I counted 7 or 8 interviews prior to 1977 (per Pat Speer) where Norman said nothing about it. "A decision is made about a source when relevant information is of a certain significance and the memory occurring at a certain time or place makes sense logically" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-monitoring_error#Heuristic_judgements It's also noteworthy that Norman was not alone when he allegedly saw this gesture. He said Oswald "asked us" what everyone was excited about. Then he turned around and did the finger-gun thing. Has anyone else testified to seeing this gesture at that moment? It's also difficult, IMO, to imagine that someone would threaten Norman not to incriminate Oswald in or around 1963, as you hypothesized earlier. Why would anyone do that?

TSBD worker Harold Norman told HSCA that while on the first floor during the morning of the assassination, Oswald made a weird gesture: Since any psychologist would tell you that memory does not improve with the passage of time (it actually gets worse), and considering that Norman never mentioned this episode to anyone prior to this point, it seems obvious to me that he was (1) mentally challenged, (2) being paid to make this up, or (3) scared about something. Has this ever been discussed in the forum? Link to transcript of Norman interview: http://www.reopenkennedycase.net/richard-gilbride-hsca-collection.html link to the "pew" page: http://www.reopenkennedycase.net/uploads/2/5/1/4/2514550/6782343_orig.jpg

I don't know; but it is well known that the Soviet military leadership did not like Khrushchev. They thought he was weak. In fact, he had to step down in 1964.

I think we should never say, "X" or "Y" entity did it. We can't even say "The CIA" did it, because only certain individuals within these groups were involved. In fact, the top CIA guy on Nov. 22, 1963 (John McCone) is rarely mentioned by CT as a conspirator. Did the Mafia work without help from government agents? Hihgly unlikely. It's like saying the Mafia tried to kill Castro, or the CIA tried to kill Castro, while ignoring the joint effort. Can we deny the participation of some Cuban exiles such as Sergio Arcacha in the murder plot? Unlikely. Different people from different groups had common interests to eliminate JFK. If LBJ had a hand in it, we can't say "LBJ did it" because one person cannot pull it off alone; etc. The argument that the Mafia (and the Mafia alone) did it makes it necessary to believe that Ruth Paine did not help frame Oswald, because I've never read about Paine being a mobster. She was an intelligence agent.

This should be top news in the New York Times, Washington Post, etc., even if we do not agree with McClelland. He was a surgeon in that room and he believes in a CT and that's huge news; but it's the MSM we're talking about.

Those are great files, Mr. Krusch. Thanks.

Hi Andric... I believe you must read Kellerman's testimony with an understanding of the extremempressures he may have been under to tow the company line.... 3 shots and only 3 shots... and while he does eventually come around to that, he is very careful to speak of "opinions" Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Kellerman, you said earlier that there were at least two additional shots. Is there any area in your mind or possibility, as you recollect that situation, that there could have been more than two shots, or are you able to say with any certainty? Mr. KELLERMAN. I am going to say that I have, from the firecracker report and the two other shots that I know, those were three shots. But, Mr. Specter, if President Kennedy had from all reports four wounds, Governor Connally three, there have got to be more than three shots, gentlemen. Please notice here how all of a sudden they wake up and go on the offensive. Yes, his testimony does ultimately state he HEARD 3 shots... Does it also suggest that he believed there were more than 3 shots? maybe check out his comments in RED.... He goes as far as he can imo... as do many of the witnesses within the government/military... That's the great thing about this case... there is more to read between the lines than what was ever actually said... for these witnesses... for the non-governmental witnesses... the WC simply ignored, changed etc.... to suit the purpose.... Senator COOPER. What is that answer? What did he say? Mr. SPECTER. Will you repeat that, Mr. Kellerman? Mr. KELLERMAN. President Kennedy had four wounds, two in the head and shoulder and the neck. Governor Connally, from our reports, had three. There have got to be more than three shots. Representative FORD. Is that why you have described-- Mr. KELLERMAN. The flurry. Representative FORD. The noise as a flurry? Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right, sir. Mr. SPECTER. Excuse me, do you have any independent recollection, Mr. Kellerman, of the number of shots, aside from the inference that you make as to how many points of wounds there were? Mr. KELLERMAN. Could you rephrase that, please? Mr. SPECTER. Yes. You have drawn a conclusion, in effect, by saying that there were four wounds for the President and three wounds for the Governor; and from that, you say there must have been more than three shots in your opinion or your view. But my question is: Do you have any current recollection of having heard more than three shots? Mr. KELLERMAN. No. I don't. I will have to say "No." Senator COOPER. Has that been your recollection from the very time of the shooting? Mr. KELLERMAN. No, sir; it has been my opinion. Senator COOPER. Not your opinion, but from the time of the shooting you think then that you heard only three shots, or did you-- Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes. Senator COOPER. Or did you ever think that you heard more than three? Mr. KELLERMAN. No, sir; I can't say that, sir. Mr. SPECTER. Now, you referred to four wounds, Mr. Kellerman, realizing, of course, your characterization is only lay opinion. Mr. KELLERMAN. Very true. Your point is valid. Specter was the master of the leading question.

Anyone talking about Kellerman's "flurry" should specify that this flurry meant two shots. When I see the word "flurry," I interpret it as many instances. I bet that every member here thought Kellerman meant more than 2 shots the first time they heard of this "flurry." but the fact is that Kellerman's flurry= 2: "Mr. SPECTER. Are you able to say how many you heard? Mr. KELLERMAN. I am going to say two, and it was like a double bang--bang, bang. Mr. SPECTER. You mean now two shots in addition to the first noise? Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir; yes, sir; at least." If Kellerman had been confident about hearing a three-shot flurry or larger, he would have said "at least three," but he said at least two (after the first shot). Instead of "double bang, bang," he would have said, "triple bang, bang." Kellerman's testimony is consistent with what Pat Speer found to be the most frequent shot sequence heard by witnesses: three audible shots, the last two being closely spaced and the first two being not so close (bang...........bang bang). The use of a silencer is plausible in Speer's analysis since there seem to have been shots at both frame 190 and 223 or so; but people only heard one of these (Kellerman is an example).

Ok I am no longer a CT in the JFK case because a HuffPo guy reminded me who shot Reagan.

If Dougherty had been part of the conspiracy, he probably would have claimed to have seen Oswald carrying a long bag; but Dougherty said he didn't see Oswald carry anything at all. This statement is inconsistent with someone trying to frame Oswald.

I don't see how it's not a left hand.

What about John Kerry? Kathy C Kerry is one of the least likely people in the world to have been involved in the assassination. Kerry said in 1965, "It is the spectre of Western imperialism that causes more fear among Africans and Asians than communism and thus, it is self-defeating." http://web.archive.org/web/20051118173130re_/www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=21803 He was attending college as of 1963 (1962-1966, Bachelor of Arts, Yale). According to the Boston Globe, "Kerry's friends became fascinated with the striking parallels between John Forbes Kerry and the American president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Aside from the identical initials, both lived at least part of their childhood in Massachusetts and shared a similar political philosophy. Kerry even sounded eerily like Kennedy, with the same deep Boston accent, even though Kerry had spent much of his life outside the Bay State. ``[John] Kennedy was certainly a model for him,'' said Daniel Barbiero, Kerry's roommate at St. Paul's and Yale. ``He admired the man greatly, admired the man's ability to speak and write.''