Paul Baker

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, when Baker is on your side, you know you have problems.  This is the self proclaimed scientist who tried to confuse matters by saying NAA was a very accurate measure, leaving out the fact that, for bullet lead analysis, it have been thoroughly discredited.  So much so that the FBI will not use it anymore in court under threat of perjury.  When you lose the argument on the merits, try and save the day by obfuscating things with false rubrics.  

I don't take sides, Jim, you should know that. Mercer's account of the events she witnessed that day cannot enter into the equation. It's too ridiculous to suppose that she saw Ruby and Oswald getting ready for the assassination by parking up on Elm (illegally I would assume), and putting things in place in front of other motorists as they negotiated around their vehicle. Isn't it? Plus of course DPD records do show that a truck did break down in that location that morning. Don't they? Go on, admit that you only support her story because it helps to support any notion that there was a conspiracy. You can't sincerely believe it had anything to do with the assassination, can you?

As for NAA, it's clearly something you have minimal understanding of. Hence your statement (which I'll never forget): 'There's no real science to it'. This is established scientific procedure that has been measured and documented in precise detail, and subsequently reproduced. As a layman, you can't simply dismiss it as 'junk science' just because it disagrees with your theory.

Paul.

3 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

lol I can't believe you didn't mention the other big alien in the pic...

Watch your back. You know too much!

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

James,

Your insults weaken your case -- they don't strengthen your case.  

As for Julia Ann Mercer, that was a case of mistaken identity. 

Ah, yes. Julia Ann Mercer. Another favourite. Over an hour before the assassination, she saw Jack Ruby and Oswald setting up position on the Grassy Knoll, parking their truck on Elm and blocking traffic? I think she said or implied that DPD officers were helping in some way. She saw all of this within the few seconds that her progress was blocked by the truck. Some nonsense like that. Her story has a foot in reality, in that a truck did break down in that area on that morning, but that was about it. Still, a difficult one for the likes of DiEugenio to let go of since it somehow supports his position, regardless of its incredibility.

As for insults, that's how James usually deals with being cornered! I've witnessed that somewhat embarrassing tactic too many times to count.

15 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

I mean, obviously I'm just goofing about; clearly it's just foilage and the light and the 'quality' of the image... lol. It just amuses me that there is a 'big alien' looking over the events.

 Amazing, I've never seen that before. You may have just kicked off a whole new line of enquiry!

I see Hitler issuing orders to the alien. Crikey.

Joking aside, this does demonstrate the results you get if you look at a grainy image for long enough ...

1 hour ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Quote by PaulBaker

"

* Beverley Oliver, Jean Hill, Gordon Arnold, Ed Hoffmann et al. are not honest, reliable witnesses."

Only in your opinion, Paul. Why on earth would these people lie?

I'm sure I'm not alone in my opinion here, Ray.

Why did these people say what they did? To garner attention? To give their otherwise unnoteworthy lives a veneer of significance? I don't know. People do things like this all of the time, don't they? I'm sure that certain high-profile conspiracy theorists behave in a similar way. Certainly when something big happens, we see these people crawl out of the woodwork. Their motivation isn't important, however. What's important is that their claims can be fairly easily unpicked.

Beverley Oliver claimed she was The Babushka Lady. Clearly she was not. Look at the photographs. Also, she claimed that she filmed the assassination with a camera that didn't exist at that time. Her film has never materialised. Complete nonsense that she elaborated on with events she supposedly witnessed before the assassination.

Jean Hill didn't see a Grassy Knoll shooter in 1963. Later she did. Later she said she came up with the term 'Grassy Knoll'! She claimed attempts were made on her life, but apparently those same people that murdered JFK in broad daylight couldn't come up with a means of killing Hill, and evidently gave up after a few tries. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Listen to her interview on Black Op Radio. Anyone who believes she is credible based on that is, for want of a better word, stupid.

Gordon Arnold. I'm not sure what the politically correct word was for his condition but I'd describe him as a retard. He stopped at Dealey Plaza on a whim, to film a 'parade' (his words). He had no idea what that parade was about until he saw the President come around the corner. He decided to tell his story over a decade later when - I think - the HSCA proceedings were in the news. His experience is not supported by any evidence. He is not in any photo. His statement on that appalling documentary series The Men Who Killed Kennedy says it all: "There is no doubt in my mind I was there". And I'm sure there wasn't. 

Ed Hoffmann. A deaf mute who, according to his own family, was a fantasist and completely unreliable. It seems to me that his account has been lifted out of a James Bond film. Again, I don't think there's any evidence that he was really there (correct me if I'm wrong). Again, his story changed over the years and only first came to light several years after the assassination.

This isn't about summary dismissal of anyone's claims that support the conspiracy story. Nothing any of them have said is backed up by other witnesses, photographic or physical evidence. Only Jean Hill was there, and for whatever reason decided over the years to embellish her story. Mary Moorman, standing next to Hill at the time, can't corroborate any of her claims.

It's a no-brainer. Though of course, many conspiracy theorists like to give these people more credibility than they deserve. They don't deserve any. If there is a coherent conspiracy theory to be discovered, Oliver, Hill, Arnold or Hoffmann won't move anyone closer to it.

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

1. Back wound.
2. EOP wound
3. All of Connally's wounds.
4. Missed shot (Tague).

At least five shots by my count.

This list certainly doesn't prove that there were more than three shots. It's your (and others') interpretation of these events. The reality is that the three shot scenario is the most probable by far, based on the totality of the available evidence:

1. A single weapon was involved in the assassination. No other weapons have been recovered.
2. Bullet fragments and the almost whole bullet recovered at Parkland were determined to have come from a single source.
3. A single bullet caused wounds to JFK and Connally. An analysis of the trajectory of the missile and the positions of JFK and Connally at the moment of this shot supports this fact. They can also be seen reacting to an external stimulus simultaneously in the Zapruder film. NAA also supports the single bullet scenario.
4. All wounds sustained during the timeline of the assassination support a single, fixed source of the shooting.
5. The vast majority of witnesses reported hearing exactly three shots (If there were five shots, I'd have at least expected witness testimony to support that idea).
6. Three spent shells were recovered in the TSBD following the assassination.
7. Nobody saw another shooter*, and neither is there any unambiguous (i.e. not open to interpretation) evidence of additional shooters.

* Beverley Oliver, Jean Hill, Gordon Arnold, Ed Hoffmann et al. are not honest, reliable witnesses.

Paul.

On 2/14/2017 at 1:19 AM, Cliff Varnell said:

The physical evidence proves 4+ shots, why debate weaker evidence?

I've never come across any physical evidence that proves four or more shots. Where can I find that?

2 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

A significant number of people reported more than three shots. Likewise, many people reported 2 shots in quick succession., indicating two gunmen. Then of course, there is the impossibility of the pristine, magic bullet.

Of the testimony from 178 witnesses to the HSCA concerning the number of shots fired, 132 said they heard three (74%) and just six said they heard four (3%). Those that heard two, or two to three, number 24 (13%). So the number that heard four or more with respect to those that heard three or fewer is not significant. 

The so-called 'magic' bullet wasn't pristine.

The HSCA came to their 'conclusion' at the eleventh hour following the appraisal of the acoustic evidence. I put 'conclusion' in quotes because it's not really a conclusion, in my opinion, since it states that JFK was probably killed as the result of a conspiracy. It is my understanding that, until then, the HSCA were moving towards the invevitable conclusion that the Warren Commission (and the DPD for that matter) reached in the wake of the assasination the previous decade.

The vast majority of witnesses heard only three shots, and the only bullets found (fragmentary or otherwise) were determined to have originated from a single source. Furthermore, the acoustic evidence was comprehensively invalidated over thirty years ago. So as far as I'm aware there remains no hard evidence that supports an additional shooter or shooters either on the Grassy Knoll or anywhere else in Dealey Plaza on that day.

Of course, thanks. I didn't think to look at Muchmore (which is slightly embarrassing). Her head does appear to turn, though it's not clear whether she's tracking the limo or one of the motorbikes. In Zapruder, as she leaves stage left, so to speak, she's not directed towards the President. In any case, I'd be interested to know whether any researchers take Jean Hill seriously. There's a relatively recent interview with Mary Moorman, in which she can't substantiate any of Jean's dubious claims about what happened during the assassination timeframe. I've just remembered another of Hill's claims, that she had a Polaroid of the TSBD taken during the assassination that was returned to her with the area of interest destroyed. It has to be noted that, in spite of her claims to the contrary, the post-assassination photographic record shows no evidence of her being accosted or harassed, as far as I'm aware. So can much of what she's said over the years be relied upon?

I don't consider Jean Hill a reliable witness. After all, in the immediate wake of the assassination she didn't mention seeing a man shooting from behind the picket fence. Many years later she did. It's also interesting to note that, according to the Zapruder film, as the limousine passed her and Moorman, while the latter had her camera fixed on the President (hence that famous photo), Hill was looking elsewhere, further along the motorcade behind the limousine. While her exact line of sight isn't visible on the Zapruder film at the time of the fatal head shot, it seems unlikely that she would suddenly divert her attention towards the picket fence just prior to the shot being fired. In any case, it's quite evident that she enjoyed the attention she received as a consequence of augmenting and adding to her story over the years. In The Last Dissenting Witness she claims that attempts were made on her life, which is patently untrue (why would anyone really want to kill her after her largely fabricated story was in the public domain, and if they did, how difficult would that have been compared to murdering the President in broad daylight amongst scores of witnesses?). She also claims to have been the first to come up with the term 'Grassy Knoll' (re: interview on Black-Op Radio), which is just more nonsense. That's an interesting interview, you can find it in three parts at the bottom of this page. In it her knowledge of the events of that day extend far beyond that which she could have attained from her position in Dealey Plaza at the time of the murder. Also listen to her voice wobble as she describes seeing the shooter. Some might say that her tone suggests she's upset, but I hear a tone that tells me she's lying. That's open to interpretation, of course, but if she wasn't even looking at the President as he was shot, how could she have seen the killer who would have had to be more-or-less directly in her line of sight?

So, while establishing her position isn't that difficult if you look at the available films and photos, I'm not sure it's particularly relevant with respect to her testimony and it's subsequent evolution.

Chris,

As a mathematician myself, I'd have to say that this thesis does lack an amount of cohesion. Perhaps a single document, with its intention clearly stated, and hypothesis demonstrated within acceptable margin of error, with no pictures of dogs. I find this quite hard to read, but if it helps, you can't average averages (though I can't quite tell whether or not you're doing that as part of your calculations).

Paul.

If you plan to assassinate a sitting U.S. president, and you plan to get away with it, you simply must have a patsy ready to take the blame. If you don’t, the search for you will be RELENTLESS. Sooner or later, probably sooner, you’ll be caught and prosecuted.

Jim, the search has been relentless. Yet in 50+ years no-one has yet to come up with a more coherent and common-sense theory than that which the Dallas Police Department proposed before failing in their duty to protect Oswald. It's quite similar to the conclusion that the Warren Commission reached the following year.

I sound like a stuck record ... or someone banging his head against a wall. I do still enjoy reading these posts.

Back into hibernation ...

I'm watching the sixth instalment of the documentary series 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy'. Does this series carry any real weight amongst conspiracy theorists?

It is self-deprecating, as far as I can tell. I'd be very interested to know whether anybody thinks it adds to the debate.

The lapel is quite easy to manipulate, I assume? It's not made of Kevlar. What is so difficult to understand here? Bullet passes through Connally and imparts some of its momentum on his jacket. The physics is simple. What happens when you flick your lapel? It moves.

"Fast moving projectile hits, or glances against, some loose material? What would you expect to happen? Nothing?"

LMAO!! That's it? That's all you can come up with for an explanation?

Listen closely. Connally was turning to his left. When he got to a certain point, the wind caught the underside of Connally's lapel and flipped it upward.

There was a stiff breeze blowing through Dealey Plaza. It almost blew Jackie's hat off.

Oh dear. Same old, same old. Someone that doesn't understand things that Newton worked out centuries ago. It would take more than a stiff breeze to cause such a violent reaction. I'm also not at all surprised to learn that a police motorcycle rider almost lost his balance. He was riding a heavy motorcycle very slowly.

Are you one of those people that believe the statement that Robert Groden made, that Kennedy's movement after the headshot was 'entirely consistent with a shot from the front'? If you are, you aren't qualified to talk about basic, fundamental physical law.

Anyone who resorts to responding with acronyms like "LMAO" gets zero respect from me, I'm afraid.

Paul.

It seems obvious to me that JFK and Connally are reacting to being shot at the same time. The lapel of Connally's jacket clearly pops out. How can it be a shadow, so localised and well defined, that appears in such a short time frame? If someone can answer that without resorting to suggesting that the Zapruder film is a cartoon (an argument that is pathetic and has already been destroyed) I'd love to hear it.

Could you explain to me, in mechanical terms, how a bullet passing through a suit coat, in the vicinity of Connally's right nipple, could cause the lapel of that coat to flip outward?

Fast moving projectile hits, or glances against, some loose material? What would you expect to happen? Nothing?

When you've stopped laughing, could you provide a viable alternative 'common sense' explanation?

This is really getting weird. How about "more than one shooter"?

Weirdness prevails in this realm, Ron.

Enlighten me, where was this second shooter that caused separate wounds to Connally?

Common sense ALONE practically proves the SBT.

This could be the most amazing statement ever posted on the forum. Just wanted to acknowledge it.

I wholeheartedly agree Ron, I laughed for a whole 30 seconds reading DVP post.

Common sense and the Single Bullet Fantasy.

When you've stopped laughing, could you provide a viable alternative 'common sense' explanation?

It seems obvious to me that JFK and Connally are reacting to being shot at the same time. The lapel of Connally's jacket clearly pops out. How can it be a shadow, so localised and well defined, that appears in such a short time frame? If someone can answer that without resorting to suggesting that the Zapruder film is a cartoon (an argument that is pathetic and has already been destroyed) I'd love to hear it.

Denial is not just a river in Africa.

Prove it

There's another common thread with viewers of this alleged film. They claim that there is information attached to their viewing of said film, or the circumstances therein, that they simply cannot reveal. As if revealing info would cause the Phillipines to blow up or something.

It's the same BS we see coming from Ricky White and his ilk. They are "in the know" until it comes time to prove something. Then they demure. Lemkin does this all the time. "There are vastly important things that I cannot reveal..."

I believe this is strictly a matter of a few guys wanting to somehow elevate their experience of JFK research into the murky caverns they purport to be researching.

There is no "other" film.

Brilliant.

Photo and film alteration is a dead donkey. These clever conspirators who have managed to deceive everyone for half a century decided to kill Kennedy in a place where lots of people were watching. Some were holding cameras. No way José.

To be clear, Paul, my study of the evidence led me to accept a different shooting scenario than proposed by the most LNs, and most CTs. I could certainly be wrong. But the point of my research, IMO, is to demonstrate that it's clearly wrong to assume all the alternatives have been discussed and presented before the public, and that one must choose between the current LN consensus, three shots fired from the school book depository with a first shot miss and a third shot entering at the supposed cowlick entry, or the most common CT scenario, more than three shots fired from multiple locations with a fatal shot coming from the grassy knoll and blowing out the back of Kennedy's head.

There's just too many problems with these scenarios, IMO. It's time for less problematic scenarios to arise. You appear to be on the youngish side. Perhaps, if you look at this enough, you can come up with one that will stand the test of time.

Hi Pat,

Thanks for your reply. I haven't been around here for a while (it was becoming an obsession). I've always thought that most conspiracy ideas can be more-or-less destroyed with a bit of common sense. When I first started getting interested with this subject, many years ago (that picture of me is about 10 years old, I think. I'm 44), I assumed as most other people did that there was more to this than what the DPD ascertained, and then the Warren Commission. But over time I changed my mind.

I do still think that when you watch a zoomed-in, slow-mo version of the Z-film, that Kennedy and Connally react at the same time to being shot, and I've yet to see a convincing counterargument to the work that Dale Myers' did on this. Regardless of that, I see them getting hit at the same time. Then the wounds prove that one bullet must be responsible for all of that. It wasn't undamaged of course, although that 'fact' is still being bandied around after all of these years. I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you believe it was pristine.

In any case, I'm reading through your website so you might yet be able to convince me otherwise!

Kind Regards,

Paul.

Hi Brian,

Thanks. I've been out of the picture for a while, and haven't looked at Pat's site. I'll take a look. I do have an open mind!

Paul.

DVP has not much cred. left, like Photon, Bill brown, C.Lamson, Jean Davidson, G Posner and John M. (how the mighty have fallen....) he is successfully being countered time and time again, and almost (!) every time they bite the dust.

I wonder why these people continue, is it because of their pseudo religious fervor, or are they that stubborn and don't see the forest through the trees or are they paid disinfo 'artists'?

Answers on a postcard please.........

For what it's worth, here's my answer. Not on a postcard. None of the so-called 'mighty' have fallen. They continue to speak and write basic common sense. You can't even put a coherent sentence together. How on earth do you expect any level of respect? Tell us something useful, rather than spouting unmitigated bullxxxx.