Paul Bacon
-
Posts
374 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Paul Bacon
-
-
9 hours ago, David Von Pein said:
Since we know Oswald left Dealey Plaza within minutes of the shooting (indicating an obvious desire on his part to get away from the scene of the assassination very quickly after President Kennedy was shot), why would LHO have wanted to delay his departure (i.e., "getaway") for even a few seconds by going back into a building that he likely thought could be sealed off by police at any moment?
Using this logic, the fact that he did go back into the building is indicative of (relative) innocence.
-
Just so you know Greg, your arguments throughout this thread have been completely persuasive--I would think many on this forum, feel as I do. For all of the reasons you have argued in the thread, and the rationale for it, it is most likely that Oswald is PrayerMan.
I think Pat and DVP's rebuttals cannot hold water. They are stretching, and, I think, are lacking in common sense.
-
5 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:
Mr. FRAZIER - To be frank with you, I say, shadow from the roof there knocked the sun from out our eyes, you wouldn't have any glare in the eyes standing there.
This, right here, adds to the many reasons why Oswald was not noticed by people on the landing. How hard is it to see into shadow after having been looking at an extremely bright scene? We've all experienced that.
-
7 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:
If JFK was shot from the right-front, or from the GK on 11/22...where is the exit wound?
The medical crew in Parkland seems on board with the right rear lower occipital area as the site of a large wound.
How would gore exiting such a wound then be spread towards the motorcycle cops to JFK left? But not backwards much?
If JFK was shot from the GK, should we expect to see an exit wound on the left side of JFK's head?
The exit wound was where the Parkland doctors said it was--exactly where the black patch in the Zapruder film is located!
If a forhead shot (the one over the right eye) came from the grassy knoll, JFK's head had to have been turned toward the knoll. If it had been, that would have allowed a shot to the forehead to exit out the back and cover Hargis with brain matter. At no point in the Z-film, is Kennedy's head turned toward the grassy knoll.
(This assumes Z frames haven't been removed.)
JFK's head was turned, more or less, toward the south knoll at the time of the head shots. So what did happen?
First, a shot to the low back of JFK's head from behind, moving it forward. Then, immediately, basically overlapping, two shots from the front.
The first of these two, came from the south knoll and entered the forehead over the right eye, where we see the fragment trail in one of the x-rays.
The second of these two, came from the grassy knoll, where it entered the right side of the head, blew out the occiput, and covered Hargis with brains. It was a tangential wound, as speculated by Parkland Dr. McClelland.
I've read that Horne and Mantik think there were three shots to the head. I, separately, came to this conclusion.
-
9 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:
Presumably (and understandably) Litwin likely does not want a summary of his work posted here since he is selling a book.
And yet he brought it here, to sell. What do you think he thought would happen?
-
The Muchmore gif is interesting. A lot to see at the moment of bullet impact.
-
17 hours ago, Robin Unger said:
Yes, and not only were the films taken from two different filming positions.
They were taken from two vastly different height positions, Nix was at ground level looking across the limo.
While Zapruder was standing on top the pedestal filming from above the limo.
Robin, I'm not so sure the films were taken at "vastly" different heights. In the Nix film, I'm looking down on the limo trunk. I'm also looking down on the knoll steps--it's not until I look at the pedestal Z was standing on, that I can no longer look down on it. In other words, it seems to me Nix's camera lens was about the same height as the pedestal Z was standing on--what's that, maybe 5-8" difference in height?
It still looks to me like, in the Nix film, Jackie's body is more flat against the trunk at the moment of the fullest extent of her reach, which is not seen in the Z-film.
-
When Jackie, in the Nix film, gets to the farthest extent of her reach (to the end of the trunk), her body is almost flat against the trunk. We don't see that in the Z-film. Camara angles are not the issue here. There have been frames removed from the Z-film. The question is, why?
-
It's really very simple.
In the Nix film, Jackie's hand goes over the back of the trunk. In the Z-film, she only gets about 2/3 down the trunk. Ergo, frame removal in the Z-film.
I'm not even sure it's worth pointing it out in this thread--denial is afoot...
-
Joseph, what you've said here is completely true and is something I never noticed before. You are correct and it's very obvious. I certainly don't need any angle measurements or calculations to see the obvious!
-
Jean, JFK had a very large Adams Apple. When I was a kid, I thought it was weird.
-
9 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:
I find it hard to believe you actually said that about blond Nordic types. Did I misunderstand?
Personally, I would prefer the Black Irish types...
There's nothing to see here...
-
Great analysis Andrej!! I agree with all of what you've pointed out. You (and Sandy) have hit the nail on the head--another useless piece of film at the Six Floor Museum. Well, maybe not completely useless, because it does demonstrate further effort at coverup.
-
On 9/10/2024 at 9:04 AM, W. Niederhut said:
Paul,
I've never been very interested in race horse politics-- as opposed to policy issues-- but I have heard that Trump is not very popular in conservative New Hampshire lately.
And yet, incredibly, Sununu still intends to vote for the Orange Felon?
Just seeing this now W...
I heard the same thing recently, that NH is now a blue state, but it's hard to tell from the circles in which I travel. I've been seeing Trump signs for months, but since about a week ago, I'm seeing lots of Harris/Walz signs! Could be that Democrats are just not as loudmouthed as Trumplicans.
I don't know what Sununu is up to. He went from quite anti-Trump to being a supporter. What could he be thinking? I just don't think people in NH are rabid Trump supporters generally. Maybe he's thinking that, nationally, that would be a better position to take for his future goals.
And Kelly Ayotte, who is running in his place for govenor, also endorses Trump. We've got a very good candidate-Joyce Craig, Mayor of Manchester-running against her and I'll be very interested to see what any polling in the next couple of months suggests. I am very hopeful, and I don't think that's misplaced.
Short answer, I don't effing know... :>)
-
Thanks for the polling info you guys! ...very helpful. Now, it's off to my State's primary this morning.
-
4 hours ago, Matt Allison said:
A lot of people online today blowing a gasket over this weekend's NYT poll that showed Trump leading Harris by a point.
About all I can suggest with polls is to get into the weeds and read about their methods and their polling sample. This info is usually call "crosstabs" and is often contained in the fine print.
It can be time-consuming, but it can also calm the nerves when a poll like that comes out, as you see quite clearly why they got the results they did lol
I saw that Matt and it left me feeling depressed. At the time, I thought of you and your calm, reassuring demeanor. I thought "what would Matt Allison say"... ;>)
-
1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:
Yes, he's a polarizing figure but the hatred he draws from people seems to only have been since 2016.
Jesus, Gil!! Many of us have hated him since the mid to late 70's. He was a moron then and he's even worse now.
And, regarding your statement earlier about voting based on policy, I used to think like that until I realized policy can change direction on a dime. Now, my number one criterion for a candidate is character...
-
4 hours ago, Bill Fite said:
This explained why I would eat Fritos corn chips even though I don't like the taste.
It's six am. here, and you've just given me a craving for Fritos corn chips. Thanks a lot...
-
Analasis of shot trajectories, and, indeed, all our speculations in recent weeks are frought with problems.
Example: A shot from the grassy knoll that entered the forehead above the right eye (or slightly above and in front of the right ear) and blew out the back, right side of JFK's head, would, nessessarily, mean his head was facing the grassy knoll. In the "Z-film" it was not.
I've gone back and fourth, but, recently, I've been leaning toward a shot from the south knoll. This too has issues. If it were the case, how would Bobby Hargis be so forcefully hit with debris riding on the left side of the car? How would JFK have been slammed back and to the left of the car?
Okay, maybe two bullets hit at virtually the same time--one from the south knoll and one from the north knoll. Only one large exit wound?--maybe they both exited the same hole.
Maybe the original Z-film, before frame removal, showed Kennedy with his head turned toward the north knoll, making a shot from that location make more sense.
What about the three head shot scenario? Remember, most of us speculate there's a bullet entry hole low, in the back of the head, and I think that the movement between Z-312 and Z-313 indicate that as a possibility (as well as Dan Rather's contention).
Which of those three potential bullets, hit first? Hit second? Hit third? Was Kennedy's head whipped around like a ballon in heavy wind?
My point is that we just don't know and perhaps we'll never know. It's quite frustrating.
-
Nice Alan. Simple, straight to the point. Thanks.
-
Brugioni said he was shocked at the size of the explosion, indeed, they all were. They were looking for evidence of how many shots and from which direction, but what they saw at that moment, was a huge explosion from JFK's head. I would certainly be shocked by it, and I'd remember it--seeing a huge white cloud shoot up out of the top of Kennedy's head!? Four feet in the air!? None of which we see in the extant film.
I sincerely doubt that, that night, they were getting up close and personal like we do, these days, parsing the number of hairs on his head, which direction he was facing, which bullet hit where, and which one hit first, etc. That would come later--with a real analysis. That was done at Hawkeye Works--and they realized they had a big problem.
Notice, too, Brugioni pointing out to Doug that strange, ultra-black paint job on the back of K's head--like he's seeing it for the first time! Bullseye, Dino, strange phenomena indeed!--yes, that was a former hole, out of which Kennedy's brains blasted hard against the motorcycle cops to the left of the back of the limo!
-
Beautiful job Keven. The bottom line here is, did Dino Brugioni "mis-remember" what he says he saw. He said that he was shocked and everyone gasped at the head shot(s). You don't mis-remember what you've been shocked by.
The film was altered.
-
5 hours ago, Karl Kinaski said:
Something stinks.
YouTube comments.
5 hours ago, Karl Kinaski said:Did you notice in the full body cam video they counted only 5 shell casings to the right of the shooter and then 20 minutes later 3 more casings to the left side of the shooter. Casings only eject to the right. Guess where the ones on the left came from?In another segment they said there were 5 shells. The audio sure sounds like there were different shooters.Why did the body cam footage from 20 minutes prior to the "Grassley" release count only 5 casings? When and by whom did the the additional three casings appear? Exactly where were the three additional casings found in relation to the original five and the body of Crooks?Why would that gun eject in two different directions.?Well, if he moved right after the first three shots, that would put the 3 shell casings to his left (or even under his body).
Obviously he did move, because his dead body is too far below the roof ridge to have been able to shoot over the ridge.
I look forward to more information. 🤔 The video is a pain in the a** because it's blurred out exactly where we could be getting more details.
-
1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:
I’m still curious about the audio and why the first three shots sound so different.
I know. Could it be the wind changed, or he moved his position, or the position of the rifle?
Taking seriously Oswald's front steps alibi claim
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by Paul Bacon
add italics for clarity
Perhaps it wasn't a "decision" but a "no-brainer". I imagine, with all the caos and confusion and the fact that there was an assassination attempt, many people would have realized the same thing at roughly the same time.
I do belive, though, that Oswald did have something more to do--at the theatre--and that's why he left.