Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: The Fundamental Problem  (Read 45986 times)

Offline Oscar Navarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 463
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #136 on: January 28, 2019, 12:19:35 AM »
Advertisement
OK...  I thought that you truly believed that I believe in multiple "Oswalds" ...  There's no doubt in my mind that the outfit who Lee was working for ( or thought he was working for)  used other young men as decoys for the real Lee Oswald.   Those decoys signed in as "Lee Oswald" ( Museum registrar) or identified themselves as "Lee Oswald" ( Odio)     

Silvia Odio never said Lee, she  said "Leon Oswald". That was probably the war name used by the third guy. She remembers one of the guys used Leopoldo but doesn't remember the name used by the other guy, or if he even used a name. These guys supposedly came from New Orleans and the Lee Oswald story was not a secret. The most probable scenario is that the guy who used, or was referred to as Leon Oswald by Leopoldo was using Leon Oswald as a cover. Another interesting case of a coincidence being turned into conspiracy involving anti-Castro Cubans.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #136 on: January 28, 2019, 12:19:35 AM »


Offline Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7322
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #137 on: January 28, 2019, 01:12:34 AM »
Silvia Odio never said Lee, she  said "Leon Oswald". That was probably the war name used by the third guy. She remembers one of the guys used Leopoldo but doesn't remember the name used by the other guy, or if he even used a name. These guys supposedly came from New Orleans and the Lee Oswald story was not a secret. The most probable scenario is that the guy who used, or was referred to as Leon Oswald by Leopoldo was using Leon Oswald as a cover. Another interesting case of a coincidence being turned into conspiracy involving anti-Castro Cubans.


What a dishonest cretin you are Navarro.....

Offline Oscar Navarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 463
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #138 on: January 28, 2019, 12:12:07 PM »
Here's my theory. Now I'm getting myself into the mix....LOL. The Warren Commisssion ASSUMED that there were 3 shots fired from the TSBD in about 6 seconds. ( Give or take a second or two). No where in the WC reports is there any reference to the change of trajectory, the 'load" of the bullet. the difference in distance of the shots, the realigning of the sights, the fact that the " alleged shooter" had to account for an obstruction in his sights, and most importantly....that the gun he "allegedly fired" was capable of producing " 3 consecutive" shots with the same velocity and the same accuracy  as the previous ones, period. We  are asked to assume that the shooter from this sight could be an expert marksman with incredible skills who could outshoot any reasonable person with basic shooting skills and then, walk away and calmly hide his weapon and escape undetected. I DON
T BUY IT FOR ONE SECOND. Sorry. It makes no sense to me.


You're really starting off on the wrong foot, Dale. For starters The WC didn't assume anything of the sort you're claiming but based their conclusion that three shots were fired based on the overwhelming earwitness testimony that three shots were fired, that three empty hulls were found on the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD (the SN) and that there was no credible evidence found that shots were fired from any other spot. That 6second timeline was based on the Z film were it was calculated that 3 shots could have been fired between zframes 210-25 and 313, so divide that by 18.3fps (as calculated by FBI experts) and you get a range of 4.8 seconds to 5.6 seconds if, and this is very important, the second shot missed. If either the first, or much less probably, the third shot missed then the time span of the shots would be expanded by at least 2.3 seconds (the time calculated for the bolt to be operated). This would increase the time span for three shots to 7.1 to 7.9 seconds. But the WC also indicated that the time span could have been greater for the three shots if it took longer for the shooter to work the bolt and aquire it's target. This is all in the WRpages 110 - 117.

The trajectory and distance were covered in the WR between pages 96 and 110. The load of the bullet was determined to be on average about 160 to 161 grains and the obstruction of the Oak tree was covered when it was found that branches began to obstruct the shooter by zframe 160.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #138 on: January 28, 2019, 12:12:07 PM »


Online Royell Storing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2774
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #139 on: January 28, 2019, 05:36:05 PM »

You're really starting off on the wrong foot, Dale. For starters The WC didn't assume anything of the sort you're claiming but based their conclusion that three shots were fired based on the overwhelming earwitness testimony that three shots were fired, that three empty hulls were found on the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD (the SN) and that there was no credible evidence found that shots were fired from any other spot. That 6second timeline was based on the Z film were it was calculated that 3 shots could have been fired between zframes 210-25 and 313, so divide that by 18.3fps (as calculated by FBI experts) and you get a range of 4.8 seconds to 5.6 seconds if, and this is very important, the second shot missed. If either the first, or much less probably, the third shot missed then the time span of the shots would be expanded by at least 2.3 seconds (the time calculated for the bolt to be operated). This would increase the time span for three shots to 7.1 to 7.9 seconds. But the WC also indicated that the time span could have been greater for the three shots if it took longer for the shooter to work the bolt and aquire it's target. This is all in the WRpages 110 - 117.

The trajectory and distance were covered in the WR between pages 96 and 110. The load of the bullet was determined to be on average about 160 to 161 grains and the obstruction of the Oak tree was covered when it was found that branches began to obstruct the shooter by zframe 160.

    What you are basically saying is the WC Guessed as to the time span of shots being fired. Of course this Guess Work was tied to an unrestricted sight line from their alleged LN Sniper's Nest. Wham-Bam Got You Man. You forgot to mention this entire fairy tale was Altered at least one time upon Tague popping up with his corroborated facial wound.

Offline Oscar Navarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 463
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #140 on: January 29, 2019, 11:30:05 AM »

What a dishonest cretin you are Navarro.....

You're upset because I corrected your claim in quotes that Silvia Odio said "Lee Oswald" when in fact she said "Leon Oswald".

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #140 on: January 29, 2019, 11:30:05 AM »


Offline Oscar Navarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 463
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #141 on: January 29, 2019, 12:00:08 PM »
    What you are basically saying is the WC Guessed as to the time span of shots being fired. Of course this Guess Work was tied to an unrestricted sight line from their alleged LN Sniper's Nest. Wham-Bam Got You Man. You forgot to mention this entire fairy tale was Altered at least one time upon Tague popping up with his corroborated facial wound.


The WC associate members came up with the timeline by working backwards from the obvious head shot at z313 to the Z frame that shows JFK reacting to being shot through the neck, which corresponded to z225 to the Z frame that shows the sniper had a clear LOF beginning at Z frame z210. That's 88 to 103 frames divided by 18.3fps = 4.8 to 5.3 seconds. The reason the SN was used was due to the overwhelming evidence that pointed to the SN as to were the shots came from. The addition of 2.3 seconds was added due to test performed which showed that was how long it took to operate the bolt. Tague threw a monkey wrench into the original FBI conclusion that three shots had hit their mark with the first hitting JFK, the second JBC, and the third and last hitting JFK. IIRC, the SBT was already formulated before the Tague wounding became known to WC associate counsel investigators so it would not have affected the timeline of the shots because it  was already known they couldn't account for where the bullet that first hit JFK went. So it still would have gone first shot hit both JFK and JBC, second shot missed, third shot hit JFK thus the 4.8 to 5.6 second timeline became moot from the outset of the WR becoming public. Years of experiments trying to prove that three shots could have been fired to duplicate the alleged Oswald marksman feat were a waste of time and served only to mislead the public to the real circumstances that affected the correct timeline of the three shot sequence from the SN.

Online Royell Storing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2774
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #142 on: January 29, 2019, 03:30:57 PM »

The WC associate members came up with the timeline by working backwards from the obvious head shot at z313 to the Z frame that shows JFK reacting to being shot through the neck, which corresponded to z225 to the Z frame that shows the sniper had a clear LOF beginning at Z frame z210. That's 88 to 103 frames divided by 18.3fps = 4.8 to 5.3 seconds. The reason the SN was used was due to the overwhelming evidence that pointed to the SN as to were the shots came from. The addition of 2.3 seconds was added due to test performed which showed that was how long it took to operate the bolt. Tague threw a monkey wrench into the original FBI conclusion that three shots had hit their mark with the first hitting JFK, the second JBC, and the third and last hitting JFK. IIRC, the SBT was already formulated before the Tague wounding became known to WC associate counsel investigators so it would not have affected the timeline of the shots because it  was already known they couldn't account for where the bullet that first hit JFK went. So it still would have gone first shot hit both JFK and JBC, second shot missed, third shot hit JFK thus the 4.8 to 5.6 second timeline became moot from the outset of the WR becoming public. Years of experiments trying to prove that three shots could have been fired to duplicate the alleged Oswald marksman feat were a waste of time and served only to mislead the public to the real circumstances that affected the correct timeline of the three shot sequence from the SN.

     Well, let's STOP the bus at the get-go with the selection of, " a frame that shows JFK reacting to being shot through the neck....".  This is once again Guess Work.  I could get into that Visual Black Hole where the Limo is out of sight behind the Stemmons Sign, but you already DQ'd yourself right out of the box. GUESS WORK don't cut it.  This is why this case remains Unsolved after 55+ years. People cavalierly accepting as fact that which has been spoon fed to them = Uncertainty amidst Confusion.   
« Last Edit: January 29, 2019, 03:31:48 PM by Royell Storing »

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1824
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #143 on: January 29, 2019, 08:24:03 PM »
    What you are basically saying is the WC Guessed as to the time span of shots being fired. Of course this Guess Work was tied to an unrestricted sight line from their alleged LN Sniper's Nest. Wham-Bam Got You Man. You forgot to mention this entire fairy tale was Altered at least one time upon Tague popping up with his corroborated facial wound.

The WC never guessed. They didn't come to a conclusion as to the time span of the shots. They presented some possible scenarios for the shots. Two of those scenarios dealt with one of the three shots missing. If it was the second shot that missed, then the time span for the three shots was 5.6 seconds. If it was the first shot that missed, then the time span was 7 seconds or longer.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #143 on: January 29, 2019, 08:24:03 PM »