Specific youtube video about second and third shooters

[Cory Santos]

I was watching a video by Leroy Blevins Sr.  He had what he felt was evidence of a shooter located on the County Records building and a shooter located on the Dal Tex building.

He also stated that Zapruder film shows two distinct bullets hit the cement cover on the grass directly across from the grassy knoll.

Has anyone watched his videos?  Thoughts?

I thought today I heard him suggest RFK was the surgeon general.  I must have been tired when I heard that because that would be a pretty big mistake. 

Thanks for your opinions.

[Trygve V. Jensen]

I was taught the values of politeness, courtesy, respect, - to be fair, and so forth. So I do absolutely not want to talk in a negative way about people in general, - and not either when they are not present, - when they can not defend themselves.

I managed, by mobilizing will, --  to not say anything in the last thread, - where people were endorsing his videos.

But as it is mentioned yet again, I just can not - not express my own view on this.

-----------------

He has 2.4k subscribers, - videos with nearly 100% "thumbs up",  - receiving donations, - and has comments disabled. Promoting his book multiple times.

Saying: "Other researchers don't show their research."
"I'll answer any questions."
"We are going to go in to reality now." "Not fantasy world." "Like others."
"I'm gonna show you facts, and I'm gonna show you real images."
"What I'm gonna present here is pure facts, - and pure evidence". "Matching with timeline".'

Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

-----------------

My thought, is that it is anything but fair, - to anyone wanting to find the truth; - not the people here, - people watching his videos, --- and especially not to the ones making donations to him (who at the same time are prohibited to comment) , -------- to make money on videos that contain so many errors, - that I lost count after a couple of minutes. While making erroneous and contradicting statements, - the way he does.

One example is him, in his colorized photos and films, - having two assassins inside the Pergola - shelter, - "proven" by an animated Darnell - snapshot, -- where the alleged assassins are visible,- one still aiming, - as he just have taken "the shot to Gov. Connally".

So the assassin is transfixed, in his aiming position "just having fired his shot" - in the Darnell - snapshot, - which in the real reality, was taken 30++ seconds after the shots occurred. People running by , only a few feet from two men with rifles, - (one still aiming, 30 seconds after he took his shot.....) , ---- ignoring them....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCNfPdCgDL0#t=16m45s

The assassin inside the shelter, - managed to get into this position , as he is standing on top of another person's back. A human - table.

 

-------------------------------------------

I wish this person well, - - but I myself, -  cannot understand, anyone, - including himself, - actually believing what he says.

Edited April 11, 2018 by Trygve V. Jensen

[Lawrence Schnapf]

take a look at the animation that John Orr (former DOJ prosecutor) and Peter Russo (former Fox producer) that shows second gunman on roof of county courts building. very similar to Randy Robertson analysis. The animation is from the mock trial. available on CAPA website and my JFK FB page (JFK: Hard Evidence or Junk Science). 

[Cliff Varnell]

3 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

take a look at the animation that John Orr (former DOJ prosecutor) and Peter Russo (former Fox producer) that shows second gunman on roof of county courts building. very similar to Randy Robertson analysis. The animation is from the mock trial. available on CAPA website and my JFK FB page (JFK: Hard Evidence or Junk Science). 

Not a Fakebook guy myself, Lawrence, so do you include the clothing evidence, the verified medical documents, authenticated neck x-ray, contemporaneous written notes of 5 men in position of authority?

Seems to me if you're going to discuss the Hard Evidence the whole subject of "junk science" is a nonsequitur.

 

Edited April 11, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

I'm an expert on fake debate since I indulged in it heavily for a decade and a half and this is the operative definition of "fake debate":  "(JFK: Hard Evidence or Junk Science).

I express the zealotry of the converted, true...

[Trygve V. Jensen]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Not a Fakebook guy myself, Lawrence, so do you include the clothing evidence, the verified medical documents, authenticated neck x-ray, contemporaneous written notes of 5 men in position of authority?

Seems to me if you're going to discuss the Hard Evidence the whole subject of "junk science" is a nonsequitur.

 

Out of curiosity, I found the video. Without having to share my activity to the whole world.

Here is the non-FB-link , if interested:

 

[Cliff Varnell]

The acoustics and the NAA are not junk science -- they are junk evidence.

The Medical Panel at CAPA is married to the provably fake BOH Fox 5 autopsy photo, facts be damned, which leads them to ignore the prima facie case of conspiracy in favor of "scientific" proofs which tell us nothing we didn't already know and only serve to muddy the water.

[Lawrence Schnapf]

Cliff- you seem to be conflating a number of topics/issues.

1. The "ethics panel 1" covers the research work of John Orr. He is not a CAPA member and is independent of CAPA. FWIW-His conclusions match closely to those of Dr. Randy Robertson. 

2. what do you mean by the medical panel at CAPA? are you referring to the doctors who testified at the mock trial on Day 1? There is no CAPA "medical panel" per se . Dr. Wecht is the chairmen of CAPA but there is no medical panel within the CAPA structure. Dr. Wecht's views are of his own. CAPA does not have any specific positions except to support efforts to uncover the truth. There are members of CAPA that disagree on specific intepretations of evidence. Bob Tanenbaum was responsible for the witnesses for the first day of the mock trial.

3. My FB page "Hard Evidence or Junk Science" is independent of CAPA and is a work in process. All physical evidence falls within the definition of hard evidence. I am currently focused on the ballistics and chain of evidence.  Other pieces of evidence will be discussed in the future.  

4. The term "Junk science" is a term used by courts. It can include a flawed theory or flawed evidence .   

 

[Cliff Varnell]

23 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

Cliff- you seem to be conflating a number of topics/issues.

1. The "ethics panel 1" covers the research work of John Orr. He is not a CAPA member and is independent of CAPA. FWIW-His conclusions match closely to those of Dr. Randy Robertson. 

2. what do you mean by the medical panel at CAPA? are you referring to the doctors who testified at the mock trial on Day 1? There is no CAPA "medical panel" per se . Dr. Wecht is the chairmen of CAPA but there is no medical panel within the CAPA structure. Dr. Wecht's views are of his own. CAPA does not have any specific positions except to support efforts to uncover the truth.

I see CAPA's omission of the prima facie case for JFK conspiracy as an unwitting element of the cover-up.

The night of the autopsy the doctors were not allowed to see the clothing.

At the Mock Trail the jury was not allowed to see the clothing evidence. 

Much less the verified medical documents, the authenticated neck x-ray, the contemporaneous written notes of 5 men in position of authority, or the total 16 T3 back wound witnesses.

Why?

Quote

There are members of CAPA that disagree on specific intepretations of evidence. Bob Tanenbaum was responsible for the witnesses for the first day of the mock trial.

3. My FB page "Hard Evidence or Junk Science" is independent of CAPA and is a work in process. All physical evidence falls within the definition of hard evidence. I am currently focused on the ballistics and chain of evidence.  Other pieces of evidence will be discussed in the future.  

So we can expect the "no-fly zone" over the prima facie case will continue...

Quote

4. The term "Junk science" is a term used by courts. It can include a flawed theory or flawed evidence .   

 

The acoustics, the NAA, anything to do with CE399 or the conflicted head wound/s evidence -- junk science all.

Edited April 13, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[Micah Mileto]

We would like to see the 3D animation from the John Orr presentation, especially to see how their attempt at modeling body positions of both men in the films aligns with z190-224.

[Chris Bristow]

For what it is worth I mapped out the trajectory of the supposed shot from the back of the pergola in Nix 40. (The window is actually in the walkway section next to the pergola). A shot from that window does not clear the wall behind Zapruder.
To map it out I used a height of 432.6 HASL for the shooter. 426.6 + 6' for the rifle height( Maybe a few inches too high but that makes it extra fair). For JFK I used the HASL at 313 of 418' + 3'.6" = 421.6" head height(Again to be extra fair because JFK was 10 West and  about 8 inches lower at Nix frame 40).
That is an 11' rise and a 107' foot run. for each foot the bullet travels it would drop 1.2 inches. The little wall behind Zapruder is 30 feet from the shooter position so the bullet would have dropped 36 inches by the time it reaches the wall. That wall is the same height as Zapruder's pedestal at 430.6 HASL and the shooter height is 432.6. So the bullet would drop 3 feet and strike the wall at 429.6 which is one foot below the top of that wall. The shooter in Nix frame 40 would not have had a shot.

 

Edited November 12, 2020 by Chris Bristow