Jump to content
The Education Forum

Was JFK really waving?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 195
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Using Don's plat.

Altgen's 6

Right to left

A.J Millican (Hard hat man) Alonzo, Woodward, Donaldson, Brown

It's interesting that in the Altgens photo, taken at the equivalent of 255, after at least two shots have been fired Woodward is still grinning from ear-to-ear, obviously oblivious to JFK being wounded with his arms high in the air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, you are a Warren Commission diehard supporter through and through....well well well, it's all coming to the surface now. :)

Duncan, Harris seems to be what ever he needs to be to try and keep his unfounded allegations alive. He seems to be preaching to those ignorant of the facts. For instance he surely knows that the Warren Commission did not speak to all the witnesses in Dealey Plaza ... that some researchers believe that the WC was selective on who they chose to interview. This means that any data by the WC pertaining to who heard what and from where does not represent the totality of the witnesses in Dealey Plaza.

Harris also conveniently ignores the fact that it has long since been known that depending on where witnesses were standing in reference to the location of the total shots fired that day would have an influence on anything they said as to the timing issues involving those shots because some shots would not be heard. In my view it is an all or nothing thing with Harris as if its a contest ... others see this site as an 'education forum' which means to allow people to share the evidence as they see it and readers/students of the assassination can draw from what post seem logical to them so to offer the best explanation as to what happened on 11/22/63 in Dallas.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting that in the Altgens photo, taken at the equivalent of 255, after at least two shots have been fired Woodward is still grinning from ear-to-ear, obviously oblivious to JFK being wounded with his arms high in the air.

Can someone post an enlargement of Woodward from Altgens?

On a side note .... Woodward could just appear to be smiling as she is looking into the sun in A6. But if she was still smiling ... it could be that like so many other witnesses it may have taken her a few moments to realize what was happening. In hindsight ... people like Charles Brehm have said they witnessed the President first being shot and were still clapping, so how could that be? The answer may lie in reaction time in realizing what had just happened. Two seconds is not a long time to have to take in information, process it, and then draw a conclusion from it in my view.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Pat, although I'm sure that we have all read those cites before. BTW, you are aware, are you not that Woodward said the second and third were closely bunched and that it was the third that caused the explosion, aren't you??

When do you suppose that second shot was fired :ice

"I heard the second one, and this time I knew what had happened, because I saw the president's motion, and then the third shot came very, very quickly, on top of the second one. And that time, I saw his head blow open.."

Pat???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a crock :D

The Warren Commission concluded:

" ..a substantial majority of the witnesses stated that the shots were not evenly spaced. Most witnesses recalled that the second and third shots were bunched together."

At one point during the hearings, Warren Commissioner Allen Dulles noted the overwhelming consistency of these witnesses, when he described the ratio of those confirming that shooting scenario in comparison with others,

"There has been a certain amount of testimony indicating there was a longer pause between the report of the first shot... and the second and third shots, that is not absolutely unanimous but I would say it is something like 5 to 1 or something of that kind.."

So, you are a Warren Commission diehard supporter through and through....well well well, it's all coming to the surface now. :)

That has got to be the stupidest argument in this thread.

Anyone who is 100% believing or 100% disbelieving of the WC or any other organization is a blithering idiot. The Warren Commission was certainly capable of reporting what their own witnesses said and after reading the testimony of every one of them who commented on the shooting, I have personally confirmed that they were right, although Dulles's statement was a slight exaggeration.

This was one of the most important crimes in modern history. You need to stop playing adolescent games, Duncan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting that in the Altgens photo, taken at the equivalent of 255, after at least two shots have been fired Woodward is still grinning from ear-to-ear, obviously oblivious to JFK being wounded with his arms high in the air.

Can someone post an enlargement of Woodward from Altgens?

On a side note .... Woodward could just appear to be smiling as she is looking into the sun in A6. But if she was still smiling ... it could be that like so many other witnesses it may have taken her a few moments to realize what was happening. In hindsight ... people like Charles Brehm have said they witnessed the President first being shot and were still clapping, so how could that be? The answer may lie in reaction time in realizing what had just happened. Two seconds is not a long time to have to take in information, process it, and then draw a conclusion from it in my view.

Bill Miller

When are you going to provide a straight answer to my question?

Woodward's recollection of the spacing of the shots was a perfect match with shots at 285 and 312. She also said that the last of those shots was the one that caused the explosion. And your pretense that the witnesses were all over the place on this issue was pure BS. The huge majority of witnesses said the final shots were closely bunched - just as Woodward said they were, and just as the WC confirmed.

If you had even a shred of integrity, you would just come out and admit that you think she was full of crap. But you're afraid to do that because you need her right now, saying that JFK was smiling and waving :ice

The problem is that you couldn't care less about finding out what really happened. The ONLY value Woodward has for you is to cherry pick a single sentence that you think will help you "win" the current debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That has got to be the stupidest argument in this thread.

Anyone who is 100% believing or 100% disbelieving of the WC or any other organization is a blithering idiot. The Warren Commission was certainly capable of reporting what their own witnesses said and after reading the testimony of every one of them who commented on the shooting, I have personally confirmed that they were right, although Dulles's statement was a slight exaggeration.

This was one of the most important crimes in modern history. You need to stop playing adolescent games, Duncan.

It does seem that what you (Harris) called 'stupidest argument(s)' always have your name attached to them.

Now about the WC witnesses ... let us take 20 witnesses who half say one thing and the other half say just the opposite. We choose only ten of those witnesses and 8 out of the 10 we chose supported one claim over the other. That would be 80% saying one thing while 20% said another. Is that a true accounting of the total witnesses who were there - absolutely not!

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you had even a shred of integrity, you would just come out and admit that you think she was full of crap.

I am not going to argue with a disgruntled loud mouth, Robert. It's not a debate to win or lose, but rather an Education Forum.

I explained that Woodward was probably as honest as she could be just as those witnesses who heard the shooting sequence differently were also being as honest as possible.

Also, it isn't just Woodward saying that JFK was smiling and waving when he was first shot .... I can see it on the Zapruder film, as well. Now get over it!

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a crock :D

The Warren Commission concluded:

" ..a substantial majority of the witnesses stated that the shots were not evenly spaced. Most witnesses recalled that the second and third shots were bunched together."

At one point during the hearings, Warren Commissioner Allen Dulles noted the overwhelming consistency of these witnesses, when he described the ratio of those confirming that shooting scenario in comparison with others,

"There has been a certain amount of testimony indicating there was a longer pause between the report of the first shot... and the second and third shots, that is not absolutely unanimous but I would say it is something like 5 to 1 or something of that kind.."

So, you are a Warren Commission diehard supporter through and through....well well well, it's all coming to the surface now. :)

That has got to be the stupidest argument in this thread.

Anyone who is 100% believing or 100% disbelieving of the WC or any other organization is a blithering idiot. The Warren Commission was certainly capable of reporting what their own witnesses said and after reading the testimony of every one of them who commented on the shooting, I have personally confirmed that they were right, although Dulles's statement was a slight exaggeration.

This was one of the most important crimes in modern history. You need to stop playing adolescent games, Duncan.

You have personally confirmed that they were right???

Now, that has to be the most idiotic and false statement in this thread, beyond any doubt.

The only thing that is not in doubt in this thread, is the fact that Bill has meticulously demolished your loony analysis in a dignified yet executionary manner.

Yes, I have personally confirmed that the Warren Commission was correct that most witnesses who stated an opinion about the spacing of the shots said they heard a single report, a delay and then closely bunched shots at the end.

The technique I used is called, "reading" Duncan. Why don't you try it sometime?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you had even a shred of integrity, you would just come out and admit that you think she was full of crap.

I am not going to argue with a disgruntled loud mouth, Robert. It's not a debate to win or lose, but rather an Education Forum.

I explained that Woodward was probably as honest as she could be just as those witnesses who heard the shooting sequence differently were also being as honest as possible.

Also, it isn't just Woodward saying that JFK was smiling and waving when he was first shot .... I can see it on the Zapruder film, as well. Now get over it!

Bill Miller

I didn't ask you if Woodward was honest, Bill. I asked (for the fifth time) if you agreed with her about the spacing of the shots, which matched what most other witnesses heard that day.

A simple yes or no will do nicely, Bill.

And yes there are other witnesses who thought JFK was smiling. We all know that. But we know better because we can see his reaction begin simultaneously with Jackie's and he was certainly not waving and smiling. He was reacting to a shot at 160, which was very much like the first one.

Tell me Bill. Where do you place the shots? How many and when do you think they were fired?

And please don't run from this question too, Bill. Man up and just post a simple, straightforward answer :ice

And BTW Bill, have you considered growing up a bit and stop stop engaging in childish insults and name calling? "disgruntled loud mouth" is just pathetic, since I neither speak loudly or am disgruntled. At least find something real to insult me about :D

Edited by Robert Harris
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't ask you if Woodward was honest, Bill. I asked (for the fifth time) if you agreed with her about the spacing of the shots, which matched what most other witnesses heard that day.

A simple yes or no will do nicely, Bill.

The question you ask is a fools question for I believe there were more than three shots fired during the assassination. So with that being said and Woodward only hearing some of the shots in my view, I cannot agree with her conclusion while at the same time I can agree with her spacing of the only shots she had heard. You are once again spitting into the wind and what you are hoping to accomplish is meaningless ... much like your past allegations.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I have personally confirmed that the Warren Commission was correct that most witnesses who stated an opinion about the spacing of the shots said they heard a single report, a delay and then closely bunched shots at the end.

The technique I used is called, "reading" Duncan. Why don't you try it sometime?

So Robert, when it suits your case, you rely on your beloved bedside companion book, The Warren Commision Report.

Unfortunately Robert, your use of your beloved Warren Commission in this instance leaves you with a problem.

You can't have it both ways.

Tell me Robert, how did your beloved Warren Commission report the witness evidence contributors to the spacing of the other 2 shots ( Daltex and Z285 ) which you believe were fired in order to support Daltex shooter ashphalt blasting shot where debris hit JFK's head and hair, which no one heard, and the shot at Z285 which no one heard?

Oh, they didn't...What a surprise.

Holy crap!

Are you drunk when you write this stuff??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't ask you if Woodward was honest, Bill. I asked (for the fifth time) if you agreed with her about the spacing of the shots, which matched what most other witnesses heard that day.

A simple yes or no will do nicely, Bill.

The question you ask is a fools question for I believe there were more than three shots fired during the assassination. So with that being said and Woodward only hearing some of the shots in my view, I cannot agree with her conclusion while at the same time I can agree with her spacing of the only shots she had heard. You are once again spitting into the wind and what you are hoping to accomplish is meaningless ... much like your past allegations.

Bill Miller

You may finally be right about something. I am indeed, spitting into the wind trying to get a straight answer from you.

"I cannot agree with her conclusion while at the same time I can agree with her spacing of the only shots she had heard."

Yes Bill, you can indeed agree with her about the spacing of the shots. My question is, do you?

This is my sixth try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...