Micah Mileto

I don't know if this is copium or not, but it really does seem unlikely that the margin of error on Connally could account for the Single Bullet Theory being possible. The trajectory shows a multiple inch difference, not just a couple centimeters.

We need more close-up views of the fade job. From the video we have now, I have a hard time differentiating between the clothing, shadows, and the interior of the car.

https://i.imgur.com/eJcykr6.mp4

14 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

But how would the gunman know which one of the entourage was JFK? Unless some kind of live communication was involved, a gunman might need to use a scope to spot which exact person was John.

How is a shooter going to tell which one was JFK by staying far back from the window?

1 hour ago, Bob Ness said:

In this particular case, the report of the shots occurring - pow...    pow-pow - seems to me to be nearly unanimous. I could be wrong as I've never inventoried the witness testimony, but most of what I have heard includes the final two shots being in such quick succession that Oswald couldn't have fired them. If true, that makes Oswald the lone shooter the actual conspiracy theory.

I have enough firearms experience to know firing the MC in such a way is nearly impossible. Recovering from the recoil and reacquiring a moving target 100 yards away is quite the feat. I believe experts have said 2.3 seconds is required to rechamber a round after firing but would severely limit the ability of the shooter to accurately aim the rifle even with a 4x scope.

Probability comes into play here even if it isn't necessarily probative. It makes sense to look at other possibilities.

patspeer.com has a comprehensive inventory showing the prevalence of these "pow powpow" statements.

1 minute ago, Lance Payette said:

 

Plan c : if multiple shooters are proven, blame it on a small conspiracy rather than a big one.

1 minute ago, Chris Barnard said:

If a rifle was seen pointing out of a window, it was because someone wanted it to be seen. 

If you’re wanting to get away with it, you position yourself at the furthest point back from the window that still allows you the shot. 

But how would the gunman know which one of the entourage was JFK? Unless some kind of live communication was involved, a gunman might need to use a scope to spot which exact person was John.

17 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

 

Here is the square logic behind multiple shooters: Maybe Plan A was to have Kennedy be killed by a single shot from behind, but that didn't work, so Plan B was to use overkill to make sure Kennedy was dead and then worry about a cover-up later.

4 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Yes, but: The physical evidence has to receive priority. Oswald's rifle was on the sixth floor. Fragments from other guns were never found. And so on and so forth. Logic and reasonable inferences likewise have to receuve priority, Oswald's actions the night before the assassination and immediately after it demand explanation. One or more gunmen at the front, when the patsy's rifle was on the sixth floor of the TSBD, is difficult to square with logic. And so on and so forth. Eyewitness and earwitness testimony, which is notoriously unreliable, has to be evaluated in this context. If the physical evidence, reasonable inferences and logic tell me Oswald was the lone assassin, then naturally I'm going to place greater reliance on the testimony that meshes with this. This is particularly true with eyewitness and earwitness testimony in the context of a sudden, traumatic event - direction of shots, sequence of shots, etc. If six eyewitnesses unequivocally testified they were standing on the steps of the TSBD chatting with Oswald when the shots were fired, that would be a different story.

It seems to me the conspiracy community in general relies on weak explanations of the physical evidence, implausible inferences and skewed logic. Nothing is what seems, everything is faked, everyone is lying. As I do, they then tend to accept the testimony of eyewitnesses and earwitnesses who fit into the framework they've constructed. You and others will obviously disagree, but I simply don't find the conspiracy framework to be anywhere near as solid as the lone assassin framework.

Fragments from other guns were never found????? There are about as many stories and theories of extra bullets/fragments/shell casings found as the RFK assassination case.

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I just finished watching the video and, as an engineer, I am surprisingly impressed by the advanced state of the technology and the great care that has been taken to get everything in the model as perfect as possible.

Pat needs to watch the video before he makes his reckless statements. If he can show that something in the model isn't quite right, I'm sure that these guys will fix it.

I hope that the finished documentary will be as well done as the modeling is, and is easy to follow. And that includes showing how the competing models, like Myers's, have been altered to make them work.

 

I can't really be sure, but from seeing the part of the video where it fades between the model and frame 225 of the Zapruder film, I can't help but think that there seems to be some pixels of discrepancy between Connally's shoulders.

5 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I would have liked to see legal action to stop the film because I don't think it is accurate or fair to Ruth Paine. I don't believe that such legal action would prevail, however. The problem with the film is that all you have are the suspicions of people who are predisposed to believe in a conspiracy (Sue Wheaton comes to mind immediately). But you think it is ok to go with these suspicions even when people like Judge Griffin, David Lifton and Joe Alesi (and presumably others) tell you otherwise. That is wrong in my opinion and it is not worth the damage it does to Ruth Paine and the factual record in the JFK case.

On the subject of censorship, there are only two positions which are honest and logically consistent: the belief in free speech extremism, or the belief that literally all opinions except for your own should be censored. The tiniest difference in political policy could kill or displace thousands of people, so if one does not expressly value liberty over security, there will ALWAYS be an important-sounding reason to justify censorship. People have a hard time understanding that no two sets of opinions are alike. For an example, imagine two people who agree on almost everything about World War 2, but person A believes that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified, while person B thinks that only the bombing of Hiroshima was justified but not Nagasaki. From person B's perspective, is person A not supporting the murder of hundreds of children? And aren't both supporting mass child murder from the perspective of somebody who thinks that neither bombing was justified? Is the violent death of hundreds of children not on the same level of importance as other kinds of speech deemed too "violent", "slanderous", or "hateful"? See, any attempt to defend a non-free-speech-extremist system falls apart.

2 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

This screed sounds like the script uttered verbatim by music pirates in the 2000s. All that did was end the ability of musicians to support themselves by selling their art.

That's not something to be proud of, guy.

Okay? Fine, it isn't worth getting jail involved anyway. How can you justify jail for taking something that is not scarce?

9 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

And let's be clear: this stuff isn't being stolen from Max Good in a heroic attempt at distributing information for the common good and history; it's a deliberate attempt to sabotage his Patreon account and impair his ability to generate income.

So? Don't try to sell ice to Inuit individuals.

6 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

Max Good did the legwork and he deserves to be paid for the work he did. And you know he's not making a mint off of this movie.

You are not entitled to access everyone's intellectual property for free all the time, just as you are not allowed to enter anyone's home or office at any time. It's his creation. Go do your own interviews and research on your own dime and time, and then give it all away if you want. When doing your research you may rely solely on the work of amateurs and hobbyists if it pleases you. Is that really how you pursue intellectual efforts, or do you just steal all your books written by professional writers? I'm going to respect the time and effort that real professionals put into creating their intellectual property and I strongly reject the notion those properties should be stolen from them.

Takes as much effort (and much more money) to cross the country and record an interview as it does to knit a sweater. If you're stealing that sweater, you're stealing. If you're stealing that interview, you're still stealing. It's the same theft of the time, energy, and money that it took to create both. If the information in that intellectual property has value to you, then it has value. You are not entitled to get it, or anyone else's intellectual property, for free.

Sorry. I just cannot stand the attitude of someone expecting professionals to work for free, as if their time, effort, and expenses incurred weren't worth anything at all. In my view, that attitude discourages any future aspiring professionals from working, especially on this particular case, which seems to be such a thankless task for so many researchers.

The product attempting to be sold can be duplicated times infinity. You are saying that those who take one of these infinite copies should experience violence in the form of jail or the threat of jail. Sorry, you're not going to convince me that's fair. Stealing is when you take something from somebody else and that person doesn't have that thing anymore - piracy is different. Your outlook on this issue seems to rely on the expectation of profit, and I am saying that nobody should have any expectation to make a profit when trying to sell something that is not scarce. Home and office space is scarce, digital files are not. The creator's profit is not worth others' negative rights against authority figures forcing their will onto them.

47 minutes ago, Max Good said:

The content about Griffin was posted on my private Patreon account with a very clear statement:

This material is provided for research purposes and cannot be published without express permission.

Greg Doudna ignored this and he has now been banned from my Patreon.  His thread posted here was also deleted by the moderators.  Fred Litwin is now carrying the torch on this.  I guess Griffin gave him permission to publish the letter, so that is now public.

You will find Fred Litwin, Burt Griffin, Greg Doudna, Paul Hoch, W. Tracy Parnell, and probably a few others all working together to attack my film.

 

Boo. Abolish intellectual property.

12 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

BTW Pat, have you ever considered the possibility of a single shooter from behind using an automatic rifle that alternated between firing high-velocity and low-velocity ammunition?

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

What frame is this supposed to be? If they're saying this is 224 or some such thing, they are full of crap. Dale Myers redux. 

225.

https://jfkfacts.substack.com/p/welcome-to-the-dealey-plaza-metaverse

This article from September 2022 is behind a paywall.

 cool find

On 12/21/2022 at 12:21 PM, Lance Payette said:

This is an excellent piece that pretty well sums up my perspective on the JFKA conspiracy community: “From Camelot to Conspiracy: Memory, Myth and the Death of JFK,” Skeptic » Reading Room » From Camelot to Conspiracy: Memory, Myth, and the Death of JFK. It’s by a Canadian historian who also teaches critical thinking.

This is a scholarly article that exemplifies the sort of serious attention conspiracy thinking has received in recent years: "Conspiracy theories as quasi-religious mentality: an integrated account from cognitive science, social representations theory, and frame theory,” https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00424/full. 

These aren’t “anti-conspiracy” pieces. They address why at least some people are prone to gravitate to “conspiracy” as an explanation for events.

I would challenge folks here to peep out of the conspiracy rabbit hole long enough to consider a few articles such as these. I believe it would be more productive than debating Prayer Man, the Magic Bullet or Oswald’s dental records ad nauseam.

As a religious believer, I’m as interested in the psychology and epistemology of belief – of my own beliefs – as in theology and apologetics. I continually examine myself as to whether I’m thinking rationally and critically, avoiding logical and emotional pitfalls, and relying on the best evidence and arguments.

It is possible through such self-examination to emerge from the conspiracy rabbit hole. Myself, Fred Litwin and many others are proof of this, not just in the JFKA community but in many others as well. This doesn’t mean abandoning an interest in the assassination. It means freeing oneself of the conspiracy mindset that clouds rational thinking. You might even remain a conspiracy theorist, but at least one who isn’t a prisoner to what I’ve called Conspiracy Logic and Conspiracy Think.

The conspiracy community isn’t about history, historical research or even the assassination per se. That’s the illusion or delusion – that it is about these things. As the above articles suggest, a whole set of underlying motivations distort the entire project.

Yes, I know – the self-important and self-serving leaders of the cult will insist this is all bunk, they are serious researchers interested only in the truth, real conspiracies do exist, the JFK conspiracy community is inherently different from all those other goofy conspiracy communities and cults, Lance is just a Lone Nutter whose only interest is in provoking us, yada yada yada.

Just peep out of the rabbit hole long enough to look in the mirror. That's my challenge. You’ll be doing yourself a favor.

My week is up.  The New Atheist community needs my attention. See you down the road.

If you believe in psychology pseudoscience, what is your opinion on the idea that psychology is just a scam designed to make people feel ashamed of themselves?

Could one argue that the law is being broken by not digging up the grave at Arlington for another autopsy?

10 hours ago, Denis Morissette said:

Someone asked me a few weeks ago how I knew both women were the same. I could not prove it. From the photos of Sharon Thuoy, they are NOT the same. Thanks for the photo you provided.

Are you sure Thuoy and Calloway can't be the same person?

8 minutes ago, Karl Kinaski said:

Dulles playing the interested fool ... LOL ... Little correction: It was a tracheostomy-tube put in at the very same point of the neck entry wound which was widened by scalpell for that reason.

Trust me, I know. I'm about to release 400 pages on the tracheostomy.

You know about the chest tube incisions right above JFK's nipples, right? And how the Parkland witnesses all insisted that the chest tubes were inserted all the way into the pleural cavity, while the Bethesda pathologists claimed the incisions were only superficial and the pleura was totally intact?

3 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

Where did you hear this? I can't find any reference to a Sixth Floor museum interview where Sharon Thuoy said there were x-rays made at Parkland. https://www.jfk.org/wp-content/uploads/TSFM_Oral-History-Full-List-alph.pdf

Is Sharon Thuoy Sharon Calloway?

https://jfk.emuseum.com/objects/21462/sharon-calloway-oral-history?ctx=f11e088c207c7ffb8ed89774e3af0625bf2b4f12&idx=0

I love the part when Allen Dulles walks into Dr. Humes' testimony late, and when Humes was describing the chest tube incisions made at Parkland, Dulles asks "Are you describing exit wounds?", to which Humes replies "Sir, these are knife wounds".