When Was JBC Hit?

[Jerry Organ]

Your source would be helpful.

Re: 40' width is the roadway for traffic. Really, Andrew. This is 101 stuff. "The width of each concrete roadway through the Plaza is 40 feet." (CE 877) Houston Street (and Elm and Main where they begin eastward of Houston) are wider, at 60' width per Google Apps.

 
I was using the actual measurements found in the 6 HSCA 50:


which shows the width to be 76.8 inches:

Sounds like a typo. The Hum-3D model has a width of 78.6". Without a 1961 Continental in front of me, I can't tell you what that 76.8" (if accurate) measurement refers to (the width of the rear bumper only?). If someone could, please let me know.

Ok. So tell us how far the right edge of the car is left or right of the centre of the centre lane and how far JFK is to the left of that.

I can't travel back in time and set up laser scanners to give you a figure in inches. Would you agree that JFK's line-of-travel was not in the center of the middle lane, as you tried to con people into believing?

I would be happy to, if you can find one.Your aerial view does not show Dealey Plaza as it was in 1963. For one thing, in 1963 the lamp posts were on the curb edge of the sidewalk.  They are moved back to the grass side in your photo.

I wasn't referring to the lampposts. What do you make of how far removed the rounded curb and north end of the reflecting pool are relative to the Itek Map? Are you going to continue to use that map?

Trump convicted on 34 felony counts. Not a good day for defense attorneys and their porkies.

[Andrew Mason]

Re: 40' width is the roadway for traffic. Really, Andrew. This is 101 stuff. "The width of each concrete roadway through the Plaza is 40 feet." (CE 877) Houston Street (and Elm and Main where they begin eastward of Houston) are wider, at 60' width per Google Apps.

That is a document prepared by the FBI and it is not clear where the FBI person who wrote that got their information. They look like asphalt roadways.  I note that BBN in its HSCA report stated that Elm St. was “about 40 feet wide” which sounds like they didn’t measure it. .

Sounds like a typo. The Hum-3D model has a width of 78.6". Without a 1961 Continental in front of me, I can't tell you what that 76.8" (if accurate) measurement refers to (the width of the rear bumper only?). If someone could, please let me know.

I can't travel back in time and set up laser scanners to give you a figure in inches. Would you agree that JFK's line-of-travel was not in the center of the middle lane, as you tried to con people into believing?

 
So let’s assume you are right and the lanes are 13’4” or 160 inches wide.  If the lane makers are 4 inches wide then the middle is 78 inches right of the right edge of the left lane marker.

If the left edge of the car is 10 inches right of the right edge of the lane markers, then the right side of the car is 76.8” farther right or 86.8” left of the right edge of the left lane marker or 8.8 inches right of the centre of the lane.

So the question is: how far is JFK’s midline left of the car right side?  I would suggest that JFK’s ribs were four inches left of the inside wall of the car and that the right edge of the car was a further 6 inches from that wall. If you add 8 inches from his ribs to his spine, this puts his midline 18 inches from the right edge of the car or 86.8-18=68.8” right of the lane marker and 9.2” left of the centre of the lane.

If the lanes are 12’ wide, the middle is 70 inches right of the right edge of the left lane marker, JFK would be 1.2 inches left of the centre.

So, yes, I admit that JFK is left of the centre line by 1.2 to 9.2 inches depending on the lane width. If the car is actually 78.6” wide as you suggest, then JFK’s midline would be between .6 inches right and 7.4 inches left of the midline.

I wasn't referring to the lampposts. What do you make of how far removed the rounded curb and north end of the reflecting pool are relative to the Itek Map? Are you going to continue to use that map?

All I need is a surveyed map with an accurate scale.  I could agree to google maps if you can establish that there was no change in road width since 1963. According to Google maps the measured width is 11.8 m (38.7 feet).

[Zeon Mason]

Ok I can see the argument by Mr.Elliott that the Willis girl probably did not stop EXACTLY at the moment she heard a loud shot, so the abrupt halt at Z195 approx may be reaction to some shot about 3 secs earlier at Z160ish.

But  that would be a shot that was not heard by Betzner photo 186 and Willis photo Z205 and it doesn’t fit so many witness hearing the last 2 shots back to back or only about sec apart (like Lee Bowers).

And Altgens only heard one shot prior to Z255 and the SS agents are not looking back to TSBD along that whole Z133-Z207 segment of the Z film.

Yet The Willis girl turns her head back to TSBD by about Z200

What if a 1st shot at Z160 was made by a smaller caliber rifle ( or suppressed ) fired by a 2nd gunman in the Daltex building? Could that explain why Willis girl who was closer to Daltex heard a Z160 shot but Betzner, Willis father , SS agents , and Altgens who were all farther from Daltex, missed hearing a Z160 shot?

[Dan O'meara]

Do you agree that JFK was clear of the tree branches when he was between the lamp post and the Thornton Freeway sign?

If yes, what zframe does that correspond to? If it is not between z186 and z200, tell us what is wrong with the Itek analysis.

If no, what is wrong with the Secret Service December 1963 reenactment?

Simple questions.

Simple questions indeed.
It would have been a pleasure to take your  apart myself but Jerry has done that far better than I ever could.
As he points out, the position of the limo is way off in the Itek analysis which blows your reliance on it, to bolster your demented theory, out of the water.



Jerry also reveals your suspect use of a dodgy pic to make some kind of weak point. His correction to that picture (shown above) yet again destroys your demented theory.
It is also important to highlight how devious you are willing to be to as you cling on to your nonsense. You ask this question:

"If it is not between z186 and z200, tell us what is wrong with the Itek analysis"

Yet in your very next Reply you post this:

"I agree with you that the placement of Betzner is wrong. (Itek has Betzner where Willis was.  But they have Willis on the grass off the pavement where Croft was. It appears to me that they mistook Willis for Betzner and Croft for Willis). "

You knew all along there were fundamental problems with the Itek analysis but were willing to pretend there wasn't.
Typical you.

The bottom line is that your idea that the shooter shot through the oak tree is as preposterous as the rest of your demented theory. Your weak attempts to show JFK was clear of the oak tree by the time of your first proposed shot have been revealed as exactly that - pathetically weak.

[Andrew Mason]

Simple questions indeed.
It would have been a pleasure to take your  apart myself but Jerry has done that far better than I ever could.
As he points out, the position of the limo is way off in the Itek analysis which blows your reliance on it, to bolster your demented theory, out of the water.

The limo in the Itek plot may have been between 1 and 9 inches too far right. Not exactly “way off”

Jerry also reveals your suspect use of a dodgy pic to make some kind of weak point. His correction to that picture (shown above) yet again destroys your demented theory.

Actually, the “dodgy pic” was taken by the Secret Service and is one of the frames from the video posted on YouTube.  The dodgy pics are the ones provided by Jerry and superimposed over the car in the Secret Service film.  He doesn’t reveal their source.

It is also important to highlight how devious you are willing to be to as you cling on to your nonsense. You ask this question:

"If it is not between z186 and z200, tell us what is wrong with the Itek analysis"

Yet in your very next Reply you post this:

"I agree with you that the placement of Betzner is wrong. (Itek has Betzner where Willis was.  But they have Willis on the grass off the pavement where Croft was. It appears to me that they mistook Willis for Betzner and Croft for Willis). "

You knew all along there were fundamental problems with the Itek analysis but were willing to pretend there wasn't.
Typical you.

You seem to be completely unaware that the correct placement of Betzner puts JFK farther back on Elm St. at the time of Betzner’s photo than was shown by Itek. So you need to get a better grasp of what you are criticizing.

The bottom line is that your idea that the shooter shot through the oak tree is as preposterous as the rest of your demented theory. Your weak attempts to show JFK was clear of the oak tree by the time of your first proposed shot have been revealed as exactly that - pathetically weak.

You obviously haven’t read or understood my posts.  The  “demented theory” is that Oswald waited for almost two seconds to fire after his target came into clear view.

[Dan O'meara]

The limo in the Itek plot may have been between 1 and 9 inches too far right. Not exactly “way off”

   You really are unbelievable.
You ask what's wrong with the Itek analysis and when it's pointed out that the limo is in the wrong position in Itek you agree!
You then quibble over how wrong you are.
By the way, where are you getting "1 and 9 inches too far right" from?
Where on earth are you getting a lower parameter of 1 inch from?

Actually, the “dodgy pic” was taken by the Secret Service and is one of the frames from the video posted on YouTube.  The dodgy pics are the ones provided by Jerry and superimposed over the car in the Secret Service film.  He doesn’t reveal their source.

As you well know, when I used the word "dodgy" I wasn't referring to the source of the image.
As you well know, it was a reference to your dishonest use of a blurred image to disguise the full coverage of the foliage. Jerry's graphic reveals the depth of your dishonesty.

You seem to be completely unaware that the correct placement of Betzner puts JFK farther back on Elm St. at the time of Betzner’s photo than was shown by Itek. So you need to get a better grasp of what you are criticizing.

I'm criticising you and, after dealing with you and your demented theory on "The First Shot" thread, I have a full grasp of what I am criticising.
You dishonestly tried to assert that the Itek analysis was correct while all along you knew there was fundamental problems with it that you dishonestly decided to ignore in order to prop up your demented theory.

You obviously haven’t read or understood my posts.  The  “demented theory” is that Oswald waited for almost two seconds to fire after his target came into clear view.

I fully understand your posts.
That's how I can easily point out the dishonesty and deviousness in them.
Speaking of which - what is this new lie about waiting for almost two seconds about?
Who is saying the shooter waited for almost two seconds after JFK came into clear view before shooting?
Is it me?
Is that the new lie?

[Andrew Mason]

  You really are unbelievable.[
You ask what's wrong with the Itek analysis and when it's pointed out that the limo is in the wrong position in Itek you agree!
You then quibble over how wrong you are.
By the way, where are you getting "1 and 9 inches too far right" from?
Where on earth are you getting a lower parameter of 1 inch from?

As you well know, when I used the word "dodgy" I wasn't referring to the source of the image.
As you well know, it was a reference to your dishonest use of a blurred image to disguise the full coverage of the foliage. Jerry's graphic reveals the depth of your dishonesty.

I'm criticising you and, after dealing with you and your demented theory on "The First Shot" thread, I have a full grasp of what I am criticising.
You dishonestly tried to assert that the Itek analysis was correct while all along you knew there was fundamental problems with it that you dishonestly decided to ignore in order to prop up your demented theory.

I fully understand your posts.
That's how I can easily point out the dishonesty and deviousness in them.
Speaking of which - what is this new lie about waiting for almost two seconds about?
Who is saying the shooter waited for almost two seconds after JFK came into clear view before shooting?
Is it me?
Is that the new lie?

Your problem, Dan is that you think that everyone who disagrees with your theory that there were only two shots is demented or dishonest.  I don't understand why you think that is a constructive way to carry on  a discussion.

Just because you fail to understand the subtleties of an argument you want to lash out with vitriol. Since you do it all the time, we are used to it and some of us find your use of language to describe your obvious difficulty in understanding points somewhat entertaining.

[Dan O'meara]

Your problem, Dan is that you think that everyone who disagrees with your theory that there were only two shots is demented or dishonest.  I don't understand why you think that is a constructive way to carry on  a discussion.

Just because you fail to understand the subtleties of an argument you want to lash out with vitriol. Since you do it all the time, we are used to it and some of us find your use of language to describe your obvious difficulty in understanding points somewhat entertaining.

Never, at any point, have I proposed the theory that there were only two shots.
You're thinking of Jack Nessan.
Clearly, one of your many problems is that you pay no attention to what other members are posting.

Just because you fail to understand the subtleties of an argument you want to lash out with vitriol.

There is nothing subtle about the underhand tactics you constantly use to defend a theory that is truly demented.
Almost every single element of it is ridiculous and is more than worthy of the scorn poured upon it.
You use the evidence like a plaything and have no interest in reasoned debate - if it doesn't agree with your demented theory then it's wrong.
Your dishonesty over the Itek analysis is nothing new and it is little wonder you feel so uncomfortable having it held up in front of the rest of the forum.