A Look at the Single Bullet Theory..

reply to post by Rising Against


Ah, great! Thanks for that! When you get your list together I'd like to see it.

reply to post by VinnyPNY


Hey there, thanks for your post.

Hope you found the time to read through it all and I'm glad it "inspired" you to look into this case more as well. It really is a fascinating one to look into I've found and It's one of the few "obvious conspiracies" as well, in my opinion of course.

Originally posted by Rising Against
reply to post by ThreadTrekker

 

Hey there ThreadTrekker, thanks for that great, thought-out post!

I do have to say though I disagree with some of what you said. Like this for example:

One thing I note about Oswald is that over and over again people mention that he was not an expert with a rifle. I don't know what most people consider an expert to be, but in my opinion, Oswald would most defintely qualify as an expert.

Oswald was trained in the Marines yes, and he did acquire the level of "sharpshooter" but he was anything but an expert. My goodness he wasn't even close. Hell, he was often teased and called names I can't repeat here due to the terms and conditions by the other marines because of his poor skills with shooting a weapon.

In regards to reaching the level of sharpshooter, well, yes he did do this. But only by a mere 2 points. The level of sharpshooter being the second of 3 grades of marksmanship so It's not like he blitzed the test. He barely made it at all.

Sure he was trained to shoot a weapon, that's undoubtedly true. But he was certainly no expert let along particularly good. But don't take my word for it, there's plenty of sources out there citing comments from his marine buddies. One of the most well known from the beginning of the documentary Rush to judgement where Nelson Delgado is interviewed by Mark Lane.

He's also showed signs of being less than adequate with guns. He did shoot himself at one point while in the marines remember. And again, he was often teased for his relatively poor skills.

I think it is a safe assumption that he COULD have accomplished the shooting

I think it all depends on the timing of the shots really.

After all if there really was a shot at frame 285 for example, which there appears to be and this is also when Connolly says himself he was struck, then there's simply no way he could've accomplished a shot at frame 313 - the head shot.

I'm wondering if anyone else saw the documentary produced a few years ago where they recreated a 3D model of the Dealey Plaza in the computer and animated it and included the shots recorded from the motorcyle. They also created, with considerable effort, human torso models and put them in a the same arrangement as Kennedy and Connally -- then shot them. The results were very similar to what was concluded in the official report.

Ahh yes, the work of Dale Myers. Here's the video:

I'm still not convinced though. And I highlighted exactly why in my opening posts. To accept this computer animation would be to reject other parts of the case which have to be considered..

Dale Myers' work has convinced me there was only a single bullet. The 3D animation is practically irrefutable. I'm curious to know which other parts of the case you think need to be considered....

reply to post by Blarneystoner

I'm curious to know which other parts of the case you think need to be considered....

Well I discussed all of this in my opening posts but I guess I'll throw out a few points here. I think a part of the case that should be considered, for example, is the potential shot at frame 385. We can see a potential reaction from multiple people in the car at the exact same time (Roy Kellerman and JFK for example) - John Connolly's own recollection of the assassination fit's in with a shot at frame 285 perfectly and isn't something that can just be ignored really.

Here's a nice video going into this in detail:



Here's Connolly's recollection - it fit's with a later shot:



And I don't care what some say, this man was in the limousine at the time of the assassination and was one of those struck with a bullet. His opinion and recollection of when he was struck has to be considered, not ignored like some researchers have done over the years.

Let's also not forget the back wound - It's very likely to be further down than the WC state it was, the shot most likely striking Kennedy around this particular area in fact:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/jg4ee4c026.gif[/atsimg]

Not the "base of the neck." The Throat wound was originally highlighted as an entrance wound by those who saw it also, this because it was a small, neat hole, something not consistent with other exit wounds these professionals at parkland were used to seeing. The wounds in the clothing (the jacket and white bloodied top of JFK) also match the wound to the back, not the neck.

No real life investigations are capable of showing the sequence of shots take place in the same way the Warren commission claimed it occurred. One of the most well known of documentaries claiming to have achieved it on the discovery channel, but upon closer inspection they clearly did no such thing as proven here:



In regards to the animation itself, well, John Connolly was a taller and bigger man than JFK was, but if you look a little closer at the animation by Dale, you can make out a pretty clear error really (so much for an exact replica):

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/gz4efb94d2.gif[/atsimg]

This is wrong. One mistake among many. You'll also notice something else odd about the above image - they're pretty close together, aren't they? Well they're not supposed to be really as we can see from this zapruder frame, this frame zoomed in for a closer look:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/rm4efb9c78.jpg[/atsimg]

Here's the original.

Perhaps you should look at this image further showing the discrepency:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/tv4efb9f10.jpg[/atsimg]

Many more reasons to be suspicious of Myers video in 'Beyond Conspiracy' can be found in this video from Bob Harris below. I suggest if you're serous about knowing the facts you give it a watch:



Anyway in reality there's many points to bring up, but these are just a few I feel should be strongly considered. Thanks..

reply to post by Rising Against


Ok... well it only took a minute or two to find Dale Myers response to Harris' claim that Myers manipulated the geometry of two in the vehicle.

Here's an excerpt from Dale Myers own blog in response to Harris' You tube video.

Mr. Harris makes the foolish claim that he can measure a two dimensional still frame of a computer rendering of the presidential limousine and it’s occupants (as culled from the Discovery Channel program, “Beyond the Magic Bullet”) and determine the angle of a three-dimensional trajectory from the sniper’s nest. Apparently Mr. Harris never heard of (or understands) the underlying principle of photogrammetry, which in essence shows that it is impossible to project three dimensional lines in space onto two dimensional photographs without taking into account the location and angle of both known vantage points. By some wizardry unknown to human science, Mr. Harris is able to do both.

A little more...

"What Mr. Harris doesn’t know is that the two renderings (wireframe and solid form) depict THE SAME MODEL [Myers' emphasis]. "That’s right folks, the wireframe model that he claims has been “jammed together” in order to mislead the American public and perpetuate the cover-up, is the EXACT SAME MODEL [Myers' emphasis] (and in the same position) as the solid form model which Mr. Harris says depicts Kennedy and Connally correctly.

Source: JFK Files: You Tube Pied Pipers

reply to post by Blarneystoner


Should I be surprised you just completely ignored every other point I made? Not sure yet..

Anyway, I don't care what he replies with (he's obviously going to defend it even if he's wrong - he made it). He's made mistakes time and time again in his animation and It's shown in the above videos and images I provided. They're clear as day mistakes, something every researcher knows.

Here's a rebuttal from researcher Pat Speer that should also be considered:

Chapter 12c is a discussion of Myers' animation. It shows why I think it was nonsense, and includes Myers' response to my claims. It's pretty conclusive, IMO.

There are so many problems with his animation it's tough to summarize. But let's start with this one...

From chapter 12c:

Since Myers had admitted his lack of interest in accurately depicting the bullet holes on Kennedy's clothes, it occurred to me that he would deliberately ignore other aspects of the shooting as well, should they not fit in with his agenda. I decided to watch his animation in slow mo and see if it depicted Kennedy's head snap between frames 193 and 198 of the Zapruder film. Not surprisingly, it did not. The sequence of the film of which HSCA photographic panel spokesman Calvin S. McCamy had noted "At this point there is considerable blur, and by here, it appears as though his head is beginning to turn quite rapidly to the left. His head is now to the left. That is only one-eighteenth of a second from one frame to the next" was left off Myer's animated version of the shooting, and replaced by Kennedy smoothly waving to his right and calmly turning to face straight ahead just before being shot.

I re-read Myers' website to see if this omission had an explanation. Like most people, I'd assumed he'd created his animation by drawing over the frames of the Z-film, and had meticulously compared his animation to the film in order to spot any inaccuracies. In his award-winning program Beyond Conspiracy, Peter Jennings had, after all, spouted that "Myers has generated an exacting computer simulation of the Zapruder film. He began by constructing a 3-Dimensional scale model of Dealey Plaza...On top of the Zapruder film, he then animated the movements of President Kennedy and Governor Connally, frame by frame." computer Graphics World, in January 2004, had, after all, said much the same thing, reporting: "After building the models and the background, Myers worked frame by frame.." and then quoting Myers' claim that, once he determined the precise positions of Kennedy and Connally in the car, and enlarged the portion of the film showing both men in center frame, "we had a frame-for-frame digital match of the Zapruder film."

And these were not the only claims that the film was re-produced frame for frame and was exact. In March 2004, Broadcast Engineering jumped on board, informing its readers that, as early as 1995, Myers' wire-frame models "matched each frame of the only real-time visual record of the event"...the Zapruder film. The importance of this "exactness" to the popular acceptance of Myers' work, and the programs in which it's been featured, moreover, can not be overstated. To this day, Tivo summarizes the program Beyond Conspiracy as "An exact computer simulation of the famous Zapruder film offers surprising results."

Well, it turned out that this "exactness", like so much of the hype about Myers' animation, was not exactly true. On his website, Myers admits:

"The clearest frames of the Zapruder film were sought for positioning JFK and JBC in order to minimize any errors. Key frame positions were generally placed at half-second intervals throughout the recreation, although tighter keying patterns (1-5 frame intervals) were employed during Zapruder frames 220-238, and 312-330.

The resulting animation was spot checked against the original Zapruder film to insure an accurate representation. Where "drifting" was detected, additional key frames were used to nail down the action.

It took six weeks to complete the key frame process, after which a test render was produced. The resulting animation was a computer generated "hand-held" version of the Zapruder film. In essence, the key frame process had created a motion file of Zapruder's camera in 3D space. Stepping through each frame of the animation revealed how Zapruder held his camera while trying to follow the limousine as it moved down Elm Street."

Yes, you got that right. Myers' supposedly precise re-creation was only compared against the film every nine frames (or "half second") prior to frame 220! My, ain't that convenient! The HSCA photographic panel said they believed Kennedy was hit just before he went behind the sign, well before frame 220, but Myers either never saw fit to intensely study this part of the film or deliberately avoided studying it because it would destroy the illusion he'd tasked himself with creating.

It's not as if Myers was unaware of the HSCA's conclusions. As pointed out by Milicent Cranor in her excellent essay on Myers entitled Lies for the Eyes, in 1994 Myers wrote an article for a magazine called Video Toaster User, and claimed "The House Select Committee on Assassinations interpreted the blurry images between Z-189 and Z-197 as an indication that JFK had been shot... It appeared... that JFK's right hand 'froze' at this point. However, the computer re-creation reveals something else -- a sharp, abrupt continuation of JFK's turn to his right... it is clear that the president was tracking the women at curbside."

This is not only hard-to-believe, it is truly disgusting. Apparently Myers was so intent on studying individual frames of the film--Kennedy's right ear in frame 198 can indeed be confused with his nose--that he forgot to study the pictures in motion--which make it abundantly clear Kennedy suddenly turned to his left (and NOT right) at this point. That Myers attributed this non-existent turn to the right to Kennedy's womanizing is, furthermore, suggestive of a dislike for JFK, and indicative that perhaps this dislike had clouded his vision and led him to conclude the HSCA photography panel had simply been seeing things.

Speaking of seeing things... Myers' discussion of his methodology makes it clear that he picked out a frame from sometime before Kennedy went behind the sign, and then another as Kennedy emerged, and created a nice, flowing, COMPLETELY IMAGINARY depiction of what happened in between. He then convinced the media that this depiction, pulled straight from his imagination, somehow debunked the HSCA's conclusion that Kennedy was hit before he went behind the sign. Simply incredible!

(Source)

He made an interesting reply to Craig Lamson also.

1. He always claims to be an agnostic about the Kennedy assassination, and only interested in the photographic evidence. And yet, here he offers up a rare bit of info, that only those who've studied the case would know, which is unrelated to the photographic evidence. Either he's studied the case more than he'll admit, or someone tipped him off.

2. That bit of info is that there's a reason Myers' Connally appeared to be a midget in the animation used in Beyond the Magic Bullet. And the reason is that the producers of the program filmed Myers' animation off a monitor...from the side! This changed the relative proportions of Kennedy and Connally.

3. By offering up a "sigh" Craig suggests that the Connally midget is a harmless anomaly, when it is almost certainly a deliberate deception. When I first brought up the Connally midget some years ago, Myers responded in a similarly condescending manner, and suggested that only an idiot would not realize that the producers of the program--for no good reason whatsoever--would FEATURE an animated depiction of the Kennedy assassination filmed at an angle off a monitor. Fortunately, a few of Myers' biggest defenders, including David Von Pein, admitted that they too had been fooled, and that they had never suspected that the close-up views of the animation--in which the the borders of the monitor had been cropped off--had been filmed at an angle.

4. Craig also fails to admit that, by admitting the animation was filmed at an angle, he is admitting that the single-bullet shot doesn't align. You see, the producers of Beyond the Magic Bullet added a digital trajectory line over the distorted animation, and GUESS WHAT--it pointed back to the sniper's nest! Even die-hard lone-nutters should be able to see that this means that the trajectory would not align if the figures had not been distorted.

CE 399 - Podcast #549.

Peace

www.blackopradio.com...

reply to post by Rising Against


You can be surprised if you'd like. I'm only addressing the work of Meyers and ignoring eye witness testimony and recollection because most of it seems to conflict and we all know that memories cannot be relied on for accuracy.

The fact that you don't care what Meyers says is a pretty good indication that you've made up your mind and aren't willing to entertain opposing viewpoints and/or data that may conflict with your opinion. How can you remain objective with that sort of mind set?

What I find ammusing is that the points you cite to counter the Meyers animation basically amount to saying "it doesn't look right".

The Meyers animation was produced so that it would have evidential value and strictly adhered to verifiable data. "Clear as day mistakes" I don't think so, that's just your opinion. Unless you can provide accurate measurments, verifiable data, the disputed "facts" are just someone's opinion.

For anyone interested in learning more about the Meyers animation and the level of detail and accuracy invested in it's production: Secrets of a Homicide: JFK Assasination

reply to post by Blarneystoner

You can be surprised if you'd like. I'm only addressing the work of Meyers and ignoring eye witness testimony and recollection because most of it seems to conflict and we all know that memories cannot be relied on for accuracy.

So we're to ignore the opinion of the person who was actually struck inside of the limousine? That's nothing short of ridiculous. As investigators the one and only opinion we should take absolutely seriously would be Connolly's.

The fact that you don't care what Meyers says is a pretty good indication that you've made up your mind and aren't willing to entertain opposing viewpoints and/or data that may conflict with your opinion. How can you remain objective with that sort of mind set?

With all due respect but I have a sneaking suspicion you're doing pretty much the same thing, but in favour of Meyers and his animation. He's fooled a lot of people with that unfortunately.

The funny thing is I even think the single bullet theory is actually quite possible, perhaps even plausible, when I think about it. Did this shot come from the Texas school book depository 6th floor window though? No, absolutely not. In the Meyers animation Connolly had to be placed much closer to Kennedy and he was changed from the big man he was, to a man much smaller than Kennedy to make it work.

A shot from the dal-tex building second floor however would give us a perfect angle to make the theory work - Of course though that doesn't fit with the Sole assassin theory therefore it's immediately rejected. One single career criminal was arrested that day in Dealey plaza also, this was Jim Braden inside the Dal-Tex building as highlighted in this video. All of this being so I still don't buy it mainly because we can see clear reactions inside the limousine from a shot at around frame 285 of the Z-film and a shot at this time fit's perfectly with Connolly's own recollection of the assassination - a recollection he's always maintained. Nellie also. In fact here's a video on youtube that was posted literally hours go now, It's worth taking some time out to give it a watch.



To ignore Connolly's own recollection, this being a man who was inside the limousine and is at the heart of the single bullet theory, is a huge mistake. No true investigator would ignore him just because it doesn't fit with the official story.

Originally posted by Rising Against
reply to post by Blarneystoner

 

So we're to ignore the opinion of the person who was actually struck inside of the limousine? That's nothing short of ridiculous. As investigators the one and only opinion we should take absolutely seriously would be Connolly's.

Ok... then how do you account for JBC's testimony stating that: "I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder, and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd..." which occured at frame 157 of the Zapruder film.

With all due respect but I have a sneaking suspicion you're doing pretty much the same thing, but in favour of Meyers and his animation. He's fooled a lot of people with that unfortunately.

I've already said that I was convinced by the Meyer's animation, so that's no surprise. The video you've posted starts the analasys at frame 282, well after the first and second shots were fired. Everyone in the limo is already reacting to the 2nd shot which struck both JFK and JBC at Z-223-224. The video's contention is that everyone in the limo is reacting to a shot at frame 285 but I don't see it, everyone is already reacting to the first and second shots.

The funny thing is I even think the single bullet theory is actually quite possible, perhaps even plausible, when I think about it. Did this shot come from the Texas school book depository 6th floor window though? No, absolutely not. In the Meyers animation Connolly had to be placed much closer to Kennedy and he was changed from the big man he was, to a man much smaller than Kennedy to make it work.

JBC was sitting in a jump seat, not a regular full size seat, so he appears to be smaller but that's just not the case. It's an optical illusion created by the fact that he is sitting on a lower seat and the angle the film was shot from.

A shot from the dal-tex building second floor however would give us a perfect angle to make the theory work - Of course though that doesn't fit with the Sole assassin theory therefore it's immediately rejected. One single career criminal was arrested that day in Dealey plaza also, this was Jim Braden inside the Dal-Tex building as highlighted in this video. All of this being so I still don't buy it mainly because we can see clear reactions inside the limousine from a shot at around frame 285 of the Z-film and a shot at this time fit's perfectly with Connolly's own recollection of the assassination - a recollection he's always maintained. Nellie also. In fact here's a video on youtube that was posted literally hours go now, It's worth taking some time out to give it a watch.

Again, I have no idea where anyone can see a clear reaction at Z-285. It's obvious to me that they are already reacting to the shot that struck the President and JBC at Z-223-224

To ignore Connolly's own recollection, this being a man who was inside the limousine and is at the heart of the single bullet theory, is a huge mistake. No true investigator would ignore him just because it doesn't fit with the official story.

Point taken.

reply to post by BABYBULL24


That's some really good stuff right there. Especially the Mark Lane debate #527. Well worth the listen!

reply to post by Blarneystoner

Ok... then how do you account for JBC's testimony stating that: "I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder, and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd..." which occured at frame 157 of the Zapruder film.

Maybe you should post the rest of what he said instead of this small snippet. He went onto say this:

"...and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did not catch the President in the corner of my eye, and I was interested, because once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot, and I immediately--the only thought that crossed my mind was that this is an assassination attempt.

So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back." (Source of this testimony)

You obviously knew he went onto say this as you posted the beginning of the quote. There's no need to try and sway opinion with such lame tactics you know. You should have just played fair and posted the full quote, even though it debunked your own argument as Connolly himself says he couldn't fully see JFK thus he decided to turn around the other way (over his left shoulder) but didn't quite make it as he was shot before he could do it.

It's also worth pointing out that this is not frame 157. I'll assume you made a mistake and meant to type 257 which is this frame. As we can see from this frame he isn't even turned around anywhere near enough to face Connolly making me question whether you really know what you're talking about here. Here's the frame for everyone else to see:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/jf4efdf8db.jpg[/atsimg]

Again, I have no idea where anyone can see a clear reaction at Z-285. It's obvious to me that they are already reacting to the shot that struck the President and JBC at Z-223-224

I think you've misunderstood here.

Ok, there was obviously a shot at frame 223 (or around this time of the film give or take). This is something we know. And there was obviously a reaction just after as we can see here:

Frame 223:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/jw4efdec32.jpg[/atsimg]

Frame 225:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/rv4efdeca3.jpg[/atsimg]

Frame 228 (227 is too blurry to see):

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/kh4efdedb2.jpg[/atsimg]

It looks like he's in pain, but he himself claims he's turning around after being startled by a shot taking place just behind him. So that's possibly what happened - he was startled as anyone else would be with a gunshot right behind them.

A Gif from frame 222 to frame 250 can be found here also showing the clear reaction at this time. (Unfortunately It's too large a file to upload)

So you're obviously right when you say there was a reaction after frame 223. But, I'm saying, and I've posted many videos already which I assume you haven't watched taking into consideration your above quote and your apparent misunderstanding, that there was another "set of reactions" after a shot at frame 285 of the film, thus there is reactions around the 290's of the film.

Ok, we all know for a fact William Greer turned around and pressed the break slowing the car down, many witnesses reporting the car slowing right down to an almost stop in fact, well this was almost certainly by accident as he was suddenly startled by "something" inside the limousine. John Connolly at this time says he felt a "blow to the chest," this being a shot striking him as mentioned above.

Roy Kellerman also can clearly be observed in the film turning around to face the front and he also lifts up his hand to cover his left ear. We can see him lifting his hand to his ear in this gif I found. Greer can also be observed looking back at Connolly.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/ns4efdef8f.gif[/atsimg]

reply to post by Blarneystoner


Please at least take the time to watch this video I've posted quite a few times now. All of the reactions are discussed and you've yet to debunk them. You just keep saying there is no reaction over and over again which is incorrect..



We can see a very sudden head movement from William Greer - looking back at something which occurred just behind him.

According to Kellerman a flurry of shots also came into the car towards the end of the assassination. Remember the fatal shot occurred at frame 313. If there was a shot at 285 then that's around a second and a half between shots. This could be what he was referring to with the "flurry" of shots.

Other witnesses also claimed to have heard 1 very loud shot, a space and then 2 shots very close together. Again, this could be a shot at frame 285 and the known fatal headshot at frame 313. The most famous witness to claim this was most probably Lee Bowers, here's an interview of his with Mark Lane where he points out the timing of the shots.



All in all we have John Connolly claiming to have been struck after JFK, looking at the Z-film this would be around frame 285. We have clear reactions from multiple people in the car all at the same time after this - Greer's very fast head turn and accidental break press for example, Kellerman quickly turning forward and covering his ear, John Connolly falling back into the arms of his wife Nellie (both claim he was struck after JFK with a different bullet and have always maintained this), Jackie staring at Connolly and so on. We also have witnesses who reported 2 shots very close together towards the end after an initial shot fitting the full timing of a shot at frame 223, 285 and frame 313 - in other words a shot, a gap and then 2 shots closer together which is what most reported.

After all if there was a shot at frame 223 then there would be just over 3 seconds before the shot at frame 285 taking into consideration the speed of the film and then just a second and a half until the next shot - in other words a shot, a gap and then 2 shots close together.

The theory of a shot at frame 285 fit's for me perfectly. Sure it's all theory at this stage, but I really do believe it's a very plausible theory taking into consideration everything I mentioned above. It answers a lot of questions that need answered.

reply to post by Rising Against


OK... let's try to keep this civil. Accusing me of not playing fair and deliberately trying to deceive or sway opinion n using dishonorable tactics is not going to get you anywhere. I'm merely offering counter points to your assertion that Meyer's aimation is invalid. Most of those arguments come directly from Meyer's websites. I'm not a JFK assassination scholar and never claimed to be.

I'm only trying to understand both sides of the argument and since Meyers is not here to defend his research I made that attempt. If you feel you must insult anyone who offers counter viewpoints then I'll leave you to your insulated opinions....

reply to post by Blarneystoner

OK... let's try to keep this civil. Accusing me of not playing fair and deliberately trying to deceive or sway opinion n using dishonorable tactics is not going to get you anywhere. I'm merely offering counter points to your assertion that Meyer's aimation is invalid. Most of those arguments come directly from Meyer's websites.

Ah well then that's my mistake and I apologize for it.

I found the full testimony from Connolly on this website and since you only posted the very beginning of what he said it seemed as though you was purposefully trying to deceive as the rest of what he said was literally right below it.

If I've misunderstood here then I hope you accept my apology and I hope you can see why I came to what conclusion I came to.

It's also worth pointing out that if you did get that quote from meyers own website.. it would seem he's the one who's trying to deceive as, like I said, the full quote of what Connolly really said can be found right below.

IIf you feel you must insult anyone who offers counter viewpoints then I'll leave you to your insulated opinions....

I didn't insult you.. It looked like you was purposefully trying to deceive so I called you out on it as we all should.

I cannot tell you how mezmorized I am by the murder of JFK. I have read many books on the subject, including Marrs.

First of all: Bravo on your OP. It is rare to find such meticulous detail in a post anywhere on the web, so for that I want to thank you.

Returning to your request for just discussion on the "magic bullet" theory; I find it insulting to the intelligence for anyone to buy that "theory",as it were. Some of the very evidence that you have laid out in your impeccable post lays waste to the ridiculous excuse of the crime of the twentieth century. In fact I believe that the events of 9/11, were seeded in this event. But, I digress...

Furthermore, I believe your declaration of being "on the fence", is disingenuous because there is no way that you could delve into all of the material that you have so graciously laid out for all of us and remain ambivalent.

Be that as it may, I have spent a few hours here, and completely enjoyed myself. Thank you.

reply to post by Rising Against


No worries... I apologize as well. I wasn't aware that there was more to the quote because it was taken directly from Meyer's site. Happy New Year friend.

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
reply to post by Rising Against

 

No worries... I apologize as well. I wasn't aware that there was more to the quote because it was taken directly from Meyer's site. Happy New Year friend.

Oh no need to apologize as well, it was my mistake lol. I made an assumption and I was wrong.

Anyway I understand why Meyers work is accepted as fact, it is very convincing after all, but taking everything into consideration (all of which I highlighted above and still stand by) I really do feel that he is most probably wrong and Connolly was struck at a different time to JFK, something he has always maintained also. And he was of course in the best possible position to say when he was hit after all.

Whether that's what really happened or not who knows, It's up for debate still.

Anyway Happy new years Blarney, all the best for 2012!

reply to post by IScreamSundays

I cannot tell you how mezmorized I am by the murder of JFK. I have read many books on the subject, including Marrs.

Ah I assume you mean the book 'Crossfire - The Plot That Killed Kennedy,' great book and his most well known on the Kennedy assassination, I have a copy here with me too. I see you're a new member here as well so in case you wasn't aware Jim Marrs has even posted on ATS quite a bit in the past. He has his own forum which you can find here.

There's a lot of good info there, you should check it out sometime.

Furthermore, I believe your declaration of being "on the fence", is disingenuous because there is no way that you could delve into all of the material that you have so graciously laid out for all of us and remain ambivalent.

To be honest there have been many times where I have believed in the single bullet theory - Although not so much the theory given to us by Arlen Specter and the Warren Commission. I do believe the single bullet theory is possible but only if the shot fired came from the Dal-Tex building, most probably the third floor.

Bob Harris has done a lot of work on this, and he's worth searching on youtube under the username BobHarris77.

When writing this thread I did start as being more on the fence of the Single Bullet theory, but over the time posting I feel my opinion changing more towards the side of the fence which says the Single Bullet Theory is not correct. That's on the most part due to the fact that lately I've been looking into the possibility of a potential shot at frame 285 of the zapruder film.

Anyway thanks for the kind comments and I hope you enjoyed the read too! I'll see you around ATS.