Jump to content
The Education Forum

Multiple Ejecta or Single Piece?


Recommended Posts

Mr. Lamson

You seem quick to make assumptions. This is a character flaw I would work on.

You seem to be under the impression that I, pesonally, believe the shot exited the left side of JFK's head, when, in reality, I have never stated that belief. I am merely attempting to clarify that Mr. Altgens clearly believed the shot exited the left side of JFK's head and stated so in his testimony to the Warren Commission.

In light of Mr. Altgens' clear inability to make good observations, perhaps you would care to explain your statement to Mr. Davidson (seen below) and how you can be so sure that Mr. Altgens' observations can prove that the fatal head shot occurred at the location of z313 and not further down Elm St.

"One small problem Chris, according to Altgens testimony, the shot had to happen up near 313 for him to see the damage he says he saw to JFK...."

Bob does the backstroke....

I take witness testimony with a big shaker of salt Bob, and this is a prefect reason why. Chris and others who do the "Altgens" headshot like to quote his saying it was 15 feet from him. And we know for a fact he screwed up his 30 guess on the shot he took prior to the headshot. Earth to Bob. They can't have it both ways.

Please learn to read Bob, and then get back to us when you do. Just don't trip in those big shoes.

Mr. Lamson

You seem to contradict yourself on a regular basis. One might almost say your actions border on being hypocritical. This is another serious character flaw that seems to be prevalent in Lone Nuts.

On the one hand, you rely on Mr. Altgens' eyewitness testimony to admonish Mr. Davidson in this statement from you,

"One small problem Chris, according to Altgens testimony, the shot had to happen up near 313 for him to see the damage he says he saw to JFK...."

And yet, when pressed about the reliability of Mr. Altgens' testimony, you take the position "I take witness testimony with a big shaker of salt Bob".

You then go on to say that "Chris and others" (referring, I assume, to Mr. Davidson and a goodly number of other researchers on this forum) want to have it both ways when it comes to Mr. Altgens' testimony.

Do you not see how you contradict yourself here? Mr. Altgens' testimony is good enough when you wish to refute Mr. Davidson, but, outside of that, you " take witness testimony with a big shaker of salt".

It is clearly you who wants it both ways. The pot is definitely calling the kettle black here.

Big nose make it hard for your to read?

See the words..."ACCORDING to ALTGENS"

I'm not taking it either way. Just pointing out the problem with using witness testimony

And then YOU blew your horn around the bigtop with your left side of the head routine.

Further proving how poorly you read witness testimony.

Bob, don't try and fit too many of your friends inside a VW Beetle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Mr. Lamson

There is no point in trying to back out of what you have said.

"One small problem Chris, according to Altgens testimony, the shot had to happen up near 313 for him to see the damage he says he saw to JFK...."

You are clearly relying totally on Mr. Altgens' testimony to place the head shot at z313. You then proceed to contradict yourself by claiming "I take witness testimony with a big shaker of salt Bob".

Which will it be, Mr. Lamson? You cannot have it both ways, you know.

Inferring that a person is a clown does not help or change your argument. This behavior only ends up making you look foolish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Lamson

There is no point in trying to back out of what you have said.

"One small problem Chris, according to Altgens testimony, the shot had to happen up near 313 for him to see the damage he says he saw to JFK...."

You are clearly relying totally on Mr. Altgens' testimony to place the head shot at z313. You then proceed to contradict yourself by claiming "I take witness testimony with a big shaker of salt Bob".

Which will it be, Mr. Lamson? You cannot have it both ways, you know.

Inferring that a person is a clown does not help or change your argument. This behavior only ends up making you look foolish.

I can see that big red nose is blocking you eyesight again Bob.

Now waddle away in those big old shoes....

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Lamson

There is no point in trying to back out of what you have said.

"One small problem Chris, according to Altgens testimony, the shot had to happen up near 313 for him to see the damage he says he saw to JFK...."

You are clearly relying totally on Mr. Altgens' testimony to place the head shot at z313. You then proceed to contradict yourself by claiming "I take witness testimony with a big shaker of salt Bob".

Which will it be, Mr. Lamson? You cannot have it both ways, you know.

Inferring that a person is a clown does not help or change your argument. This behavior only ends up making you look foolish.

I can see that big red nose is blocking you eyesight again Bob.

Mr. Lamson

I have finished with you. Good day, sir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Lamson

There is no point in trying to back out of what you have said.

"One small problem Chris, according to Altgens testimony, the shot had to happen up near 313 for him to see the damage he says he saw to JFK...."

You are clearly relying totally on Mr. Altgens' testimony to place the head shot at z313. You then proceed to contradict yourself by claiming "I take witness testimony with a big shaker of salt Bob".

Which will it be, Mr. Lamson? You cannot have it both ways, you know.

Inferring that a person is a clown does not help or change your argument. This behavior only ends up making you look foolish.

I can see that big red nose is blocking you eyesight again Bob.

Mr. Lamson

I have finished with you. Good day, sir.

Wow, that took long enough, besides your goody two shoes act is wearing thin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig,

CE875, Harper fragment location and Hudson's testimony.

chris

Pretty opened ended. "DIRECTLY" where? Was he looking and sitting LEFT? CENTERED? RIGHT?

Gets you nowhere ... fast.

And it gets even worse. IF you take him literally, it puts the head shot in the 370's

Craig,

CE875, Harper fragment location and Hudson's testimony.

chris

Pretty opened ended. "DIRECTLY" where? Was he looking and sitting LEFT? CENTERED? RIGHT?

Gets you nowhere ... fast.

And it gets even worse. IF you take him literally, it puts the head shot in the 370's

Unless the powers that be were using Hudson's affidavit to place a shot past 313, there are alternatives to testimony/affidavits when locating a shot farther down Elm St.

chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig,

CE875, Harper fragment location and Hudson's testimony.

chris

Pretty opened ended. "DIRECTLY" where? Was he looking and sitting LEFT? CENTERED? RIGHT?

Gets you nowhere ... fast.

And it gets even worse. IF you take him literally, it puts the head shot in the 370's

Craig,

CE875, Harper fragment location and Hudson's testimony.

chris

Pretty opened ended. "DIRECTLY" where? Was he looking and sitting LEFT? CENTERED? RIGHT?

Gets you nowhere ... fast.

And it gets even worse. IF you take him literally, it puts the head shot in the 370's

Unless the powers that be were using Hudson's affidavit to place a shot past 313, there are alternatives to testimony/affidavits when locating a shot farther down Elm St.

chris

Mr. Davidson

Fascinating model, was it part of the Warren Commission's presentation of evidence? I've never seen this before. It certainly places the last two shots much further down the street than is officially accepted now, and lends credence to James Altgens testimony about the limousine being directly in front of him at the time of the fatal head shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Davidson

Fascinating model, was it part of the Warren Commission's presentation of evidence? I've never seen this before. It certainly places the last two shots much further down the street than is officially accepted now, and lends credence to James Altgens testimony about the limousine being directly in front of him at the time of the fatal head shot.

So now Altgens gets it right? ROFLMAO! You bump your head while trying to walk in those big shoes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to get more specific about the actual location, the SS/FBI plat from DEC63/Feb64 gives the elevation for you.

If you refer back to CE884, use the elevation entry from Z313 (421.75), subtract JFK's "head height above the ground" from that, then you can figure out exactly where the "powers that be" determined the shot down near Altgens was.

Still no testimony!!!

chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to get more specific about the actual location, the SS/FBI plat from DEC63/Feb64 gives the elevation for you.

If you refer back to CE884, use the elevation entry from Z313 (421.75), subtract JFK's "head height above the ground" from that, then you can figure out exactly where the "powers that be" determined the shot down near Altgens was.

Still no testimony!!!

chris

Roflmao.

RECREATION=FLAWED

REALITY TO CHRIS....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig,

CE875, Harper fragment location and Hudson's testimony.

chris

Pretty opened ended. "DIRECTLY" where? Was he looking and sitting LEFT? CENTERED? RIGHT?

Gets you nowhere ... fast.

And it gets even worse. IF you take him literally, it puts the head shot in the 370's

Craig,

CE875, Harper fragment location and Hudson's testimony.

chris

Pretty opened ended. "DIRECTLY" where? Was he looking and sitting LEFT? CENTERED? RIGHT?

Gets you nowhere ... fast.

And it gets even worse. IF you take him literally, it puts the head shot in the 370's

Unless the powers that be were using Hudson's affidavit to place a shot past 313, there are alternatives to testimony/affidavits when locating a shot farther down Elm St.

chris

I discuss the early FBI and SS re-enactments in chapter 2 and 2b of my website. The exhibit you posted was provided the Warren Commission by the FBI, and was supposedly created after studying the Nix and Zapruder films. It, of course, bears scant resemblance to what is shown in the film.

While some might think this proves the films later made available were fakes, this is pretty silly when one considers that frames from the Zapruder film were published BEFORE the FBI created this exhibit--and match the frames currently available.

The logical conclusion, then, is that the FBI and SS were either incompetent or liars--trying to space out the shots and make the single-assassin conclusion more viable.

Some, (most prominently Tom Purvis), however, have it in their heads that the FBI and SS were telling the truth when they pushed that the head shot took place down by the steps, and that they only started lying when Arlen Specter came onto the scene.

That's incredibly naive, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These photos from pages 505 and 507 of ‘Commission Document 87 - Secret Service report of 08 Jan 1964 re: Oswald’ show the point of impact of the first, second and third shot as determined by Secret Service, probably from viewing their copy of Zapruder’s authentical film (not the Zapruder film).

First and second shot: http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/a/a0/Photo_wcd87_0505.jpg

Third shot: http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/1/1a/Photo_wcd87_0507.jpg

Bjørn Gjerde

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...