The First Shot

[John Iacoletti]

The evidence I've put forward, and the arguments that have emanated from that evidence, reveal there are no alternatives to the identification in question. Once we have no other alternatives we have certainty.

Unadulterated 

Westbrook could literally be any of the backs that we see in Zapruder.

In Reply#1303 I demonstrate, beyond question, that I've not assumed Simmons was stood with Holt and Jacob, that in her CE 1381 Simmons specifically states she was standing with Holt and Jacob.

Unadulterated  BS.

Nowhere in Simmons’ statement does she say who she stood with. Or next to.

As for your other example of where I've stated an assumption as fact you come up with this - "nor do you know she wore a headscarf at the time of the Z film".
Nowhere have I made this so-called assumption and ask you to provide where I have, knowing you can't. Instead you come up with this devious response, citing one of my earlier posts:

"If I've been so disingenuous then maybe you can point out a single physical difference between the two images.
One wearing a headscarf, two not."

There’s nothing “devious” about it. By specifically looking in Zapruder for three people, one wearing a headscarf and two not, you are assuming that Simmons must be wearing a headscarf and standing in a line with two people who are not, hence your “identification”. You’re also equating your perception of “light” and “dark” to specific colors in Zapruder, and just declaring that they “match”.

As stated, this comparison was made solely to support a more general argument based on witness statements and the photographic/film record. I have provided photographic evidence that the woman Westbrook identifies as Calvery, is clearly in error. The two women have completely different hair colours and, more importantly, that Gloria Calvery is far taller and a bigger build that the Carol Reed identified by Westbrook in the Z-film.

You’re looking at two images, taken at different times and places, both identified by Westbrook as Gloria Calvery, and just declaring her to be “correct” about one and “wrong” about the other, merely on the basis of which one you prefer to believe.

This last point is undeniable and when confronted with it you side-step the issue with this sly observation:

Even if that isn't Reed (or Calvery), it doesn't just follow that it's not Westbrook.

It’s not a “sidestep” at all. The entire debate is over whether Westbrook correctly identified herself in the Z film. Not where Carol Reed might be.

You have based your own identification of Westbrook in the Z-film on her recollection of a headscarf she once owned.

Unadulterated  BS. You are the one claiming to have identified her to a “certainty”, not me. All I said was that Westbrook is more of an authority on who she is than your “logic”.

[Jack Nessan]

Whe I wrote this I didn't think I could be any more specific:

As you say, "the subsequent addition of a shot that makes no sense to the narrative", but I'm still not really sure if you're saying the three shot scenario that is espoused as the official narrative is the result of a misunderstanding or the result of a deliberate attempt to give the impression three shots were fired.
Which is it?

The "official narrative" is that three shots were fired.
Your theory is that two shots were fired.
This is a discrepancy.
Two shots versus three shots.
I am simply asking - how do you think this discrepancy has arisen?

The idea there were three shots having been fired and the wounding of JBC by a separate shot, in a rapid time frame, which is beyond the capabilities of the Carcano and is the whole basis for the belief there was a conspiracy.

It certainly doesn't form the basis of why I think there is a conspiracy.
I am absolutely convinced both JFK and JBC were shot through by the same bullet but that this bullet was not CE 399.
I strongly suspect CE 399 was introduced into the chain of custody for the bullet found on the stretcher in Parkland and, as such, plays no part in the actual shooting.
I am aware that, without CE 399, there is a disturbing lack of ballistic evidence regarding the assassination.

There is neither a misunderstanding nor a deliberate attempt to give the impression three shots had been fired. This is how the official narrative arrived at the conclusion. It was an opinion not a fact. Three shells having been found is the preponderance of evidence. The WC also leaves open the possibility of an ejected shell casing and only two shots having been fired as an answer

The physical and other evidence examined by the Commission compels the conclusion that at least two shots were fired. As discussed previously, the nearly whole bullet discovered at Parkland Hospital and the two larger fragments found in the Presidential automobile, which were identified as coming from the assassination rifle, came from at least two separate bullets and possibly from three.336 The most convincing evidence relating to the number of shots was provided by the presence on the sixth floor of three spent cartridges which were demonstrated to have been fired by the same rifle that fired the bullets which caused the wounds. It is possible that the assassin carried an empty shell in the rifle and fired only two shots, with the witnesses hearing multiple noises made by the same shot. Soon after the three empty cartridges were found, officials at the scene decided that three shots were fired, and that conclusion was widely circulated by the press. The eyewitness testimony may be subconsciously colored by the extensive publicity given the conclusion that three shots were fired. Nevertheless, the preponderance of the evidence, in particular the three spent cartridges, led the Commission to conclude that there were three shots fired.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

To be able to wound JFK and JBC with a different bullet from a different gun, a separate shot by a separate shooter would require a person to be shoulder to shoulder with LHO shooting out of the same window at the same time. 

CE 399 is deformed not pristine and was matched to LHO’s rifle to the exclusion of all others. I have no problem believing it is the bullet that wounded them.

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

The Ball Belin Report was an early roadmap as to how the WC would investigate the Assassination and what they thought was important in the early part of the investigation. Basically, they appear to be focused on the Snipers Nest not by the car. The thing noted by them was that half the witnesses they were looking at were two shot witnesses.

Ball-Belin Report.pdf (jfkassassinationforum.com)

[Dan O'meara]

Unadulterated 

Westbrook could literally be any of the backs that we see in Zapruder.

Oh dear.
A last little flurry of lies and misinterpretation?
Good for you John.

In this first example you have sneakily left out the sentence before which reveals the "identification" in question isn't about Westbrook at all. It's about the identification of Simmons, Holt and Jacob in the Z-film:

"The constant dishonesty and devious misrepresentation that have made any kind of reasonable debate impossible are on full display in this post. I am more than comfortable to allow the reader to judge the case I've put forward over the past few pages regarding the identification of the three women in the Z-film. The evidence I've put forward, and the arguments that have emanated from that evidence, reveal there are no alternatives to the identification in question. Once we have no other alternatives we have certainty."

You have simply chosen the last sentence and tried to make it about Westbrook.
It's really pathetic.
It's also amusing that you now seem happy to abandon your beloved identification of Westbrook as wearing her famous blue headscarf. Now it could be "any of the backs that we see in Zapruder."
Even Ernest Brandt's?

Unadulterated  BS.

Nowhere in Simmons’ statement does she say who she stood with. Or next to.

More devious misrepresentation.
You accused me of 'assuming as fact' that Simmons was stood with Holt and Jacob. It's not like you found an example of some fundamental error I was making. All you could find was this tiny detail.
And even that was wrong.
In her CE 1381 Simmons states she was standing on the sidewalk on Elm Street and that she was with Holt and Jacob.
She was standing with Holt and Jacob at the time of the assassination.
These are Simmons' words.
Because you lack the character to retract this false accusation you are now trying to turn it into an argument about whether Simmons used the exact words "stood with".
It it just so pathetic.

There’s nothing “devious” about it. By specifically looking in Zapruder for three people, one wearing a headscarf and two not, you are assuming that Simmons must be wearing a headscarf and standing in a line with two people who are not, hence your “identification”.

Of course it's devious.
How could it be anything else.
An extremely lazy approach to research cannot be replaced by snide, unprovoked insults and accusations.
You falsely accuse me of stating assumptions as facts and the examples you provide have demonstrated I do nothing of the sort.
I have fully explained how this accusation is false in my last post but a lack of character doesn't allow for a retraction of these accusations.
As I have explained, the comparison between the two images "only supports the identification of the three women in the Z-film as Simmons, Holt and Jacob". So nothing is being stated as a fact.
So now the accusation becomes that I am making assumptions.
You think this devious little shift in emphasis will go unnoticed but, as with nearly everything you've posted over the last few pages, you're wrong.
Of course I've made assumptions. That was never the issue.

You’re also equating your perception of “light” and “dark” to specific colors in Zapruder, and just declaring that they “match”.

This is just a good, old-fashioned lie.

You’re looking at two images, taken at different times and places, both identified by Westbrook as Gloria Calvery, and just declaring her to be “correct” about one and “wrong” about the other, merely on the basis of which one you prefer to believe.

And again, more lies.
You can't even be bothered with misrepresentation anymore.

It’s not a “sidestep” at all. The entire debate is over whether Westbrook correctly identified herself in the Z film. Not where Carol Reed might be.

Back to a bit of misrepresntation.
One aspect of the debate concerns Westbrook's identification of the colleagues she states she is stood with,
Her clearly faulty identification of her work colleagues, proven by the photographic record, brings into question her identification of herself as she relates her own location to that of her work colleagues.
This has been explained to you on a number of occasions but you continue to misrepresent.

Unadulterated  BS. You are the one claiming to have identified her to a “certainty”, not me.

Lie.
I've never said this.

All I said was that Westbrook is more of an authority on who she is than your “logic”.

Lie.
You've never said this.

Don't bother to respond John as you clearly have nothing to offer this debate other than devious misrepresentation and constant dishonesty.
The challenge to you, laid out in my last post, remains.
Do some research.
Do some work.
Make some kind of valid contribution.

The identification of Simmons, Holt and Jacob in the Z-film is sound.
There are no other alternatives.
The question of Westbrook's actual position in the Z-film is another debate for another time.
As always, it's been a complete pleasure schooling you in front of the forum.

[John Iacoletti]

Please. The only thing you have “schooled” the forum on is your propensity for projection.

In this first example you have sneakily left out the sentence before which reveals the "identification" in question isn't about Westbrook at all.

Of course it’s about Westbrook. This whole pissing contest arose because you categorically stated that Westbrook was “wrong” in her identification of herself.

It's also amusing that you now seem happy to abandon your beloved identification of Westbrook as wearing her famous blue headscarf.

Another dishonest strawman. I never claimed to identify anybody, you did.

Now it could be "any of the backs that we see in Zapruder."
Even Ernest Brandt's?

Interesting hypocrisy here. What is your basis for this identification? Oh yeah, he identified himself in the Z film. Just like Westbrook.

In her CE 1381 Simmons states she was standing on the sidewalk on Elm Street and that she was with Holt and Jacob.
She was standing with Holt and Jacob at the time of the assassination.

No, as I keep pointing out, “was with” does not necessarily mean standing next to. You keep trying to blur the distinction to make your assumption a fact. It’s not about exact words, it’s about you mischaracterizing what she said to try to bolster your opinion.

As I have explained, the comparison between the two images "only supports the identification of the three women in the Z-film as Simmons, Holt and Jacob". So nothing is being stated as a fact.

You either have a memory impairment or this is more dishonesty. You said your “identification” was a certainty. Now look who’s using an “exact words” defense.

Lie.
I've never said this.

Exact quote, Dan:

“We know from the photo/film record that they can only be the three women in the Z-frame crop at the top. This identification is certain.”

You most definitely claimed certainty, whether you remember it or not. Not that your “they look the same to me”, and “prove me wrong” arguments constitute certainty in any regard.

[Andrew Mason]

Please. The only thing you have “schooled” the forum on is your propensity for projection.

Of course it’s about Westbrook. This whole pissing contest arose because you categorically stated that Westbrook was “wrong” in her identification of herself.

To be fair, Dan did not just arbitrarily conclude that she was wrong.  He gave the evidence and reasons in detail.  After examining all the evidence, I have to conclude that Westbrook was wrong and that the three women nearest he Stemmons sign are not Westbrook's group.  The only people who fit Stella Jacob, Jeanne Holt and Sharon Simmons anywhere along both sides of Elm St. are the three women nearest the Stemmons sign.  Not only that, the only person who fits the description of Gloria Calvery is the woman with the large build in the dark blue scarf, 9th person from the Stemmons sign. 

We aren't trying to establish every fact beyond a reasonable doubt, by the way.  While it is possible that Westbrook correctly identified herself, it is very unlikely that she did based on a review of all the evidence.

[John Iacoletti]

I disagree that there is anything distinctive about anybody’s “build”. We’re looking at the backs of coats and overlapping people for the most part. This is especially weak because the basis for rejecting Westbrook’s identification of Calvery is another Westbrook identification of Calvery.

You’re entitled to believe whatever you like, but at least you’re not feigning “certainty” like Dan is. Certain means no doubt.

[Dan O'meara]

Please. The only thing you have “schooled” the forum on is your propensity for projection.

Of course it’s about Westbrook. This whole pissing contest arose because you categorically stated that Westbrook was “wrong” in her identification of herself.

Another dishonest strawman. I never claimed to identify anybody, you did.

Interesting hypocrisy here. What is your basis for this identification? Oh yeah, he identified himself in the Z film. Just like Westbrook.

No, as I keep pointing out, “was with” does not necessarily mean standing next to. You keep trying to blur the distinction to make your assumption a fact. It’s not about exact words, it’s about you mischaracterizing what she said to try to bolster your opinion.

You either have a memory impairment or this is more dishonesty. You said your “identification” was a certainty. Now look who’s using an “exact words” defense.

Exact quote, Dan:

“We know from the photo/film record that they can only be the three women in the Z-frame crop at the top. This identification is certain.”

You most definitely claimed certainty, whether you remember it or not. Not that your “they look the same to me”, and “prove me wrong” arguments constitute certainty in any regard.

No point in getting bogged down in this tripe.

Just to clarify some of your more blatant misrepresentations.
This "pissing contest", as you put it, arose because of my positive identification of Sharon Simmons as the woman in the blue headscarf.
This identification wasn't pulled out of thin air, for a laugh. It was the product of a personal examination of any evidence available concerning the identification of the three women in the Darnell clip with the three women in the Z-film.
It wasn't me who came up with this identification, but rather than just accept the word of other researchers I examined the evidence myself and came to the same conclusion.
As a result of this examination I am certain the identification of the Darnell 'trio' as the Z-film 'trio' is correct.
I present, in full, the evidence and the reasons for this certainty in REPLY#1296 [page 163]
There are no other alternatives regarding this identification.
To me, when there is only one possible alternative there is certainty.

From the certainty that Simmons, Holt and Jacob are correctly identified in the Z-film arises the certainty that Westbrook is wrong in her identification of herself as the woman in the blue headscarf in the Z-film. It is a consequence of the certainty that Simmons, Holt and Jacob are correctly identified.

I am engaged in a genuine attempt to correctly identify the witnesses we see lining Elm Street, you are, apparently, engaged in a "pissing contest". This is reflected in the constant dishonesty and misrepresentation that has permeated your participation in this debate. Anything to score a point, no matter how devious.
And if, as you say, this is a pissing contest, then someone needs to throw you a life preserver as you are drowning in piss.

[Charles Collins]

No life preserver needed, he loves it….