Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory

[Jerry Organ]

Jerry, no one asked you to describe yourself, but thanks for sharing. You left out that you're an anti-religious bigot.

Yeah, I don't think too much of the silly Mormon "religion", which only renounced their racist founding principals a decade ago. It's one thing being born into something so stupid but you choose to join it.

You are perhaps the biggest xxxxx and annoying propagandist ever to post on this board. I can't count how many times I've caught you posting utterly bogus graphics and showing a comical lack of knowledge, not to mention bald-faced lying, such as when you claimed that James DiEugenio resoundingly bested me on the Vietnam War in our exchanges in the Education Forum, when anyone can read our exchanges and see that I trounced DiEugenio and that he knows very little about the war.

I said you suffered beatings on the other board and posted these examples from the Vietnam topic.

    "You really do ally yourself with the LeMay camp.  You really wanted
      an all out WW2 style war in Vietnam.  In other words, if you have to
      do a Dresden type bombing of Hanoi, fine.  If you want to firebomb
      Haiphong, fine.    If you want to invade Laos and Cambodia fine."
               -- James DiEugenio

    "This is not new. Revise all you like, but it won't work. Quoting self-
     interested parties decades after the fact blaming our debacle on the
     "anti-war" crowd or Congressional Democrats is incredibly weak sauce."
               -- Paul Jolliffe

    "Don't you understand anything about Vietnam Mike?"
               -- James DiEugenio

    "This VW loss was due to left-wing media? Some newspaper headlines
     and a CBS special? This does not hold water.
               -- Benjamin Cole

    "It's just something that a tiny percentage of pretend "conservatives"
     cling to so they can delude themselves into thinking they are "real men"
     and that only "pussy Democrats" lose wars. It's total garbage, and
     indicative of the bubble some wish to hide in."
               -- Pat Speer

    "Michael's Operation Linebacker argument is straight out of Craig
     Roberts' pro-conspiracy Kill Zone book from '94. I'm assuming you've
     read that one, Michael, am I right? If so, would you say he's right about
     everything right up to when he starts pushing Rothschild conspiracies in
     chapter 19... or do you think he's onto something with that too?"
               -- James Wilkinson

    "You've lost the debate if you refuse to engage with our counterarguments
     and instead simply continue defaulting to repeating summaries of Vietnam's
     post-war human rights violations, like a chatbot with a limited script. You're also
     ignoring direct questions about whether you've read Kill Zone and subscribe to
     his Rothschild conspiracy theories."
               -- James Wilkinson

    "Michael either doesn’t understand basic critical thinking, or he does and uses
     logical fallacies knowingly. Basically it’s straw man."
               -- Paul Brancato

Can't see where I said who won the debate.

[John Mytton]

Uh, this is long after the sequence under discussion. I was referring to the sequence before Z381, but I did not make this clear. Yes, of course, starting at Z387, we see Hill grabbing Jackie's right arm as he starts to put her back in the limo. This'll have to be one of those cases of "standing by what I meant to say." Given my wording, your response is understandable.

Now you're just lying. I said I was the one who mistakenly assumed that Cranor was using Z380.

It says much that you are pouncing on a minor mistake that makes no substantive difference to my case, since Jackie and Hill's locations and positions in Z375 and Z380 are virtually identical.

You're lying again. I said, in plain English, that Nix and Zapruder filmed from opposite sides of the car. How did you miss that? And your own diagram shows that the Nix and Zapruder camera angles were not that different, just as I noted.

This is self-delusion. You can fiddle with graphics all you want, but anyone can plainly see that at no point before Z383 does Hill ever get close to Jackie. Your refusal to admit this is astounding. His right hand never gets near Jackie's right arm until Z387, and his head never comes close to Jackie's head, until perhaps in Z400. In Z380 his head is a good 3 feet from Jackie's head, but in the corresponding Nix frame their heads are so close they look like they could be touching.

Indeed, in the Nix film, Hill gets very close to Jackie before she starts to move backward, and, as I've noted previously, Jackie is much lower and closer to the trunk than she ever gets in the corresponding Z-film sequence. In fact, even in Z385, her right arm is not as parallel to the trunk and her body is not as close to the trunk as it is in the corresponding Nix sequence.

If you say that you just don't see these things, then I say that you're either lying or your eyesight is bad.

Boo-hoo. If you can't take it, don't dish it out. From your first reply to me onward, your responses have been laced with insults, insinuations, and sarcasm, accusing me of being an "amateur," giving me 0 on your delusional scorecard and giving yourself 5, etc. If you're gonna engage in such posturing, don't whine when I point out your writing errors and apparent lack of education.

If you don't want to be called out for being an anti-religious bigot, then don't act like one--don't imply that my views on the JFK case are somehow based on my religious beliefs, which you clearly did.

"Common usage"? "Many people think of capitalization as optional." Yes, and many people are poorly educated and look for excuses for their poor writing. How long did you have to search to find two websites that would say that in "common usage" capitalization is "optional"?

Again, Crybaby, if you can't take it, don't dish it out. If you don't want your poor writing skills and education called out, stop acting like a jerk and stop posturing like anyone who disagrees with you knows nothing about "science, perspective, biology and physics."

And, BTW, I'd put my knowledge of those subjects up against yours any day.

Bye, bye.

Uh, this is long after the sequence under discussion. I was referring to the sequence before Z381, but I did not make this clear. Yes, of course, starting at Z387, we see Hill grabbing Jackie's right arm as he starts to put her back in the limo. This'll have to be one of those cases of "standing by what I meant to say." Given my wording, your response is understandable.

You still haven't clarified at which point in Zapruder you mean?
You originally quoted the last part of the following response from Hill "She turned toward me and I grabbed her and put her back in the seat. . . . (2 H 139)" where Hill describes Jackie climbing on to the trunk and then he grabs her arm and puts her back in the seat, and the video I posted was after Jackie was climbing on to the back of the trunk and Hill grabs her arm and puts her back in the seat.

Representative BOGGS. This was the first shot?
Mr. HILL. This is the first sound that I heard; yes, sir. I jumped from the car, realizing that something was wrong, ran to the Presidential limousine. Just about as I reached it, there was another sound, which was different than the first sound. I think I described it in my statement as though someone was shooting a revolver into a hard object--it seemed to have some type of an echo. I put my right foot, I believe it was, on the left rear step of the automobile, and I had a hold of the handgrip with my hand, when the car lurched forward. I lost my footing and I had to run about three or four more steps before I could get back up in the car.
Between the time I originally grabbed the handhold and until I was up on the car, Mrs. Kennedy--the second noise that I heard had removed a portion of the President's head, and he had slumped noticeably to his left. Mrs. Kennedy had jumped up from the seat and was, it appeared to me, reaching for something coming off the right rear bumper of the car, the right rear tail, when she noticed that I was trying to climb on the car. She turned toward me and I grabbed her and put her back in the back seat, crawled up on top of the back seat and lay there.

You're lying again. I said, in plain English, that Nix and Zapruder filmed from opposite sides of the car. How did you miss that? And your own diagram shows that the Nix and Zapruder camera angles were not that different, just as I noted.

What? Yes it's obvious to even "Blind Freddy" that Nix and Zapruder filmed from the opposite sides of the Limo, but how do you conclude that "the Nix and Zapruder camera angles were not that different"??

My diagram which is as I said not pixel perfect but is simply illustrating that while Hill's and Jackie's heads are nearly touching in Nix the reason they are far apart in Zapruder is caused by the change in perspective. I'll admit at first, well for a second or two, these images are counter-intuitive and even had me scratching my head but after thinking it through, the answer is undeniable. Sometimes it's best just to analyse the evidence as it stands and figure out any perceived anomalies rather than knee jerking that it must be fake!

This is self-delusion. You can fiddle with graphics all you want, but anyone can plainly see that at no point before Z383 does Hill ever get close to Jackie. Your refusal to admit this is astounding. His right hand never gets near Jackie's right arm until Z387, and his head never comes close to Jackie's head, until perhaps in Z400. In Z380 his head is a good 3 feet from Jackie's head, but in the corresponding Nix frame their heads are so close they look like they could be touching.

Indeed, in the Nix film, Hill gets very close to Jackie before she starts to move backward, and, as I've noted previously, Jackie is much lower and closer to the trunk than she ever gets in the corresponding Z-film sequence. In fact, even in Z385, her right arm is not as parallel to the trunk and her body is not as close to the trunk as it is in the corresponding Nix sequence.

If you say that you just don't see these things, then I say that you're either lying or your eyesight is bad.

I didn't fiddle with anything, I just presented the appropriate frames, WYSIWYG! and Hill's testimony makes the timing clear, I don't understand why you have a problem. And as for Jackie's height and body part orientation in relation to the trunk, there is nothing unusual? Don't forget that Dealey Plaza slopes down and Nix was filming from higher position, hence why their heads are relatively touching.

Boo-hoo. If you can't take it, don't dish it out. From your first reply to me onward, your responses have been laced with insults, insinuations, and sarcasm, accusing me of being an "amateur," giving me 0 on your delusional scorecard and giving yourself 5, etc. If you're gonna engage in such posturing, don't whine when I point out your writing errors and apparent lack of education.

Oh, I see it's tit for tat, fair enough!

But anyway, in regards to my grammar, spelling, etc, I'm in good company.

6. Albert Einstein
In Einstein's defense, English was his second language. It's therefore easy to understand why spelling and grammatical errors in his works were a constant source of frustration to the physicist. "I cannot write in English," he said, "because of the treacherous spelling."
https://theweek.com/articles/462824/11-historical-figures-who-really-bad-spelling

Albert Einstein, the most influential physicist of the 20th century, was dyslexic. He loved mathematics and science, but he disliked grammar and always had problems with spelling.
https://www.commlearn.com/famous-dyslexics-who-have-impacted-the-world/#:~:text=Albert%20Einstein%2C%20the%20most%20influential,always%20had%20problems%20with%20spelling.

3. Albert hated the strict discipline of the grammar school he attended as a teenager, and left aged 15…
While at school, he excelled at maths, physics, and philosophy, but struggled with other subjects like languages.
https://www.natgeokids.com/au/discover/science/general-science/albert-einstein-facts/

Would anyone be surprised that at the age of fifty-five he did not reach the same high level in English as he did in his mother tongue, and had, another decade later, to admit that he “cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling?”
http://www.albert-einstein.org/article_handicap.html

If you don't want to be called out for being an anti-religious bigot, then don't act like one--don't imply that my views on the JFK case are somehow based on my religious beliefs, which you clearly did.

Stop being so paranoid, I didn't have a clue what your religion is and I frankly don't care which god/devil you worship, that's your own business.
But your "faith" in a so far mysterious, unknown and unexplained conspiracy is what I find to be abhorrent! No Biggie!

"Common usage"? "Many people think of capitalization as optional." Yes, and many people are poorly educated and look for excuses for their poor writing. How long did you have to search to find two websites that would say that in "common usage" capitalization is "optional"?

They were literally the first Google responses to "Btw need to be capitals"

And, BTW, I'd put my knowledge of those subjects up against yours any day.

Huh? Not any day, today, we are putting our knowledge up against each other?

JohnM

[Michael T. Griffith]

Yeah, I don't think too much of the silly Mormon "religion", which only renounced their racist founding principals a decade ago. It's one thing being born into something so stupid but you choose to join it.

Wow. Okay. I think you proved my point.

And, oh, BTW, the term is "founding principles," not "founding principals." English 101.

I said you suffered beatings on the other board and posted these examples from the Vietnam topic.

    "You really do ally yourself with the LeMay camp.  You really wanted
      an all out WW2 style war in Vietnam.  In other words, if you have to
      do a Dresden type bombing of Hanoi, fine.  If you want to firebomb
      Haiphong, fine.    If you want to invade Laos and Cambodia fine."
               -- James DiEugenio

    "This is not new. Revise all you like, but it won't work. Quoting self-
     interested parties decades after the fact blaming our debacle on the
     "anti-war" crowd or Congressional Democrats is incredibly weak sauce."
               -- Paul Jolliffe

    "Don't you understand anything about Vietnam Mike?"
               -- James DiEugenio

    "This VW loss was due to left-wing media? Some newspaper headlines
     and a CBS special? This does not hold water.
               -- Benjamin Cole

    "It's just something that a tiny percentage of pretend "conservatives"
     cling to so they can delude themselves into thinking they are "real men"
     and that only "pussy Democrats" lose wars. It's total garbage, and
     indicative of the bubble some wish to hide in."
               -- Pat Speer

    "Michael's Operation Linebacker argument is straight out of Craig
     Roberts' pro-conspiracy Kill Zone book from '94. I'm assuming you've
     read that one, Michael, am I right? If so, would you say he's right about
     everything right up to when he starts pushing Rothschild conspiracies in
     chapter 19... or do you think he's onto something with that too?"
               -- James Wilkinson

    "You've lost the debate if you refuse to engage with our counterarguments
     and instead simply continue defaulting to repeating summaries of Vietnam's
     post-war human rights violations, like a chatbot with a limited script. You're also
     ignoring direct questions about whether you've read Kill Zone and subscribe to
     his Rothschild conspiracy theories."
               -- James Wilkinson

    "Michael either doesn’t understand basic critical thinking, or he does and uses
     logical fallacies knowingly. Basically it’s straw man."
               -- Paul Brancato

Can't see where I said who won the debate.

Wow, what a liar you are. What do you think people will think about you if they go read those comments in the context of my posts that they were answering and my responses to their comments? They will see what a royal liar you are. They will see how dishonestly you selected those quotes. They will see that every person you quoted knows next to nothing about the Vietnam War, that their comments were uninformed and erroneous, and that I soundly refuted their arguments.

If anyone doubts this, here are the threads from which Jerry has so dishonestly cherry-picked his handful of comments:

Top 5 Books on JFK & Vietnam
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28983-top-5-books-on-jfk-vietnam/

Oliver Stone's New Documentary and the Vietnam War
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28074-oliver-stones-new-jfk-documentaries-and-the-vietnam-war/

The Myth that JFK Was Killed Over the Vietnam War
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29640-the-myth-that-jfk-was-killed-over-the-vietnam-war/

The Kennedy Withdrawal: The Definitive New Book on JFK and Vietnam
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28669-the-kennedy-withdrawal-the-definitive-new-book-on-jfk-and-vietnam/

[John Mytton]

Wow. Okay. I think you proved my point.

And, oh, BTW, the term is "founding principles," not "founding principals." English 101.

Wow, what a liar you are. What do you think people will think about you if they go read those comments in the context of my posts that they were answering and my responses to their comments? They will see what a royal liar you are. They will see how dishonestly you selected those quotes. They will see that every person you quoted knows next to nothing about the Vietnam War, that their comments were uninformed and erroneous, and that I soundly refuted their arguments.

If anyone doubts this, here are the threads from which Jerry has so dishonestly cherry-picked his handful of comments:

Top 5 Books on JFK & Vietnam
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28983-top-5-books-on-jfk-vietnam/

Oliver Stone's New Documentary and the Vietnam War
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28074-oliver-stones-new-jfk-documentaries-and-the-vietnam-war/

The Myth that JFK Was Killed Over the Vietnam War
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29640-the-myth-that-jfk-was-killed-over-the-vietnam-war/

Wow. Okay. I think you proved my point.
And, oh, BTW, the term is "founding principles," not "founding principals." English 101.

I learn something everyday, are you a Mormon, aren't they the guys who believe and base their religion on Joseph Smith who found the Golden Plates somewhere in America? Hmmm very interesting?!
I've met a lot of Mormon's and the ones who I didn't slam the door in their face, seemed to be committed to doing good and in my "Book of JohnM" I consider that to be an admirable trait!

Wow, what a liar you are.  ....

Jerry can respond for himself but I don't see where he took a side, he simply said you took a beating and from those examples you certainly did. He never said or implied that you won or lost the debate.
Btw, I like how DiEugenio started calling you "Mike" you must have really gotten under his skin, like how he changed "David" Von Pein to "Davey"! Hahaha! DiEugenio is such a Big Baby!

To argue America's participation in the Vietnam war and what JFK would have done, in the biased environment of the rabid Ed Forum takes some Balls, what sort of reaction did you expect?

Re: the Vietnam War, My personal layman's opinion is, we can never truly know what would have happened if JFK stayed alive, but personally I believe that JFK would have done much the same as LBJ because of Kennedy's outspoken belief in the "Domino Theory"

JohnM

[Michael T. Griffith]

Jerry can respond for himself but I don't see where he took a side, he simply said you took a beating and from those examples you certainly did. He never said or implied that you won or lost the debate. To argue America's participation in the Vietnam war and what JFK would have done, in the biased environment of the rabid Ed Forum takes some Balls, what sort of reaction did you expect?

In English, if you say someone "took a beating" in a debate, you are saying they lost the debate. I did not even remotely "take a beating" in my exchanges with DiEugenio, Brancato, Wilkinson, Jolliffe, etc. No sentient being who reads my exchanges with them could reach that conclusion. DiEugenio and the few others whom Jerry Organ quoted know very little about the Vietnam War, as anyone can see by reading our exchanges. Anyone who reads those exchanges will see that I caught DiEugenio in numerous severe gaffes about the war, gaffes that are as bad as saying that McGovern won the 1972 election.
 

Btw, I like how DiEugenio started calling you "Mike" you must have really gotten under his skin, like how he changed "David" Von Pein to "Davey"! Hahaha! DiEugenio is such a Big Baby!

That kind of stuff does not bother me. As you say, it shows immaturity. I trounced DiEugenio so badly in our Vietnam exchanges that he resorted to the high-school action of using the forum's "Ignore" function on me so that he doesn't receive notifications if I respond to him.

Re: the Vietnam War, My personal layman's opinion is, we can never truly know what would have happened if JFK stayed alive, but personally I believe that JFK would have done much the same as LBJ because of Kennedy's outspoken belief in the "Domino Theory"

Yes, and that is the position of nearly all JFK scholars. However, DiEugenio and his handful of far-left allies in the Education Forum not only argue that JFK absolutely, positively never would have escalated the war but that JFK was going to unconditionally withdraw from Vietnam after the election. Even most liberal scholars reject this Oliver Stone-Fletcher Prouty claim, as I repeatedly pointed out to DiEugenio and his allies.

BTW, DiEugenio and the others whom Organ quoted are big fans and defenders of the anti-Semitic crackpot L. Fletcher Prouty, who claimed that JFK was killed because he was going to pull out of Vietnam after the election, and that General Ed Lansdale was one of the plotters and was in Dealey Plaza on the day of the shooting. You might also be interested to know that some of the guys whom Organ quoted are also 9/11 Truthers, i.e., they believe that 9/11 was an inside job, that the WTC towers were brought down with "controlled demolitions," etc.

[Royell Storing]

  John - I know you have your reason(s) for continually posting that JFK Limo scale drawing, but you need to realize that drawing does place Gov Connally DIRECTLY in front of JFK.

[John Mytton]

  John - I know you have your reason(s) for continually posting that JFK Limo scale drawing, but you need to realize that drawing does place Gov Connally DIRECTLY in front of JFK.

Geez Louise, as usual you're absolutely right, at the chosen Zapruder frame 383, Hill has teleported from the Queen Mary onto the rear of JFK's Limo and Jackie has phased a few feet back and to the right and as you alluded to, Kennedy is lying down and his head is left of centre and Connally is also closer to lying on his left side!!!!
Maybe you can post a new graphic and rectify my glaring mistakes? I'll be eternally grateful, thanks in advance!



JohnM

[Royell Storing]

  When you post a visual aid such as above, You also should consider other issues it might call into question or Prove. Up to you, but if you want to continually shoot yourself in the foot, go right ahead.