The First Shot

[Robin Unger]

Zapruder frames from JFK the movie.

[Robin Unger]

Altgens 6 crop ( Z-255 )

[Andrew Mason]

I'm really surprised you've decided to adopt a strategy of misrepresenting what I'm saying in order to avoid the arguments I'm putting forward. It seems totally unreasonable but I will put the argument forward again as I believe it 's of great importance in determining when JFK was first hit.

I have clearly been talking about monitoring the position and movement of JFK's left arm/hand in order to determine when JFK first reacts to being hit. It is JFK's left arm/hand that hold the key to understanding when JFK first reacts to being hit. But you keep trying to turn it into an argument about his right arm/hand (which I will turn to shortly).

I am sorry you think that I am misrepresenting anything and/or avoiding the arguments you put forward. If I understand you correctly, you seem to think that the sudden apparent gagging action seen beginning at z226 or z227 is the beginning of any reaction. I strongly disagree and I am explaining why. I am saying that we simply cannot tell when his reaction began because when he first emerges from behind the sign he is already reacting.  I am not sure why you do not respond to this point.

It really is an extraordinary and profound reaction. There can be little argument it is a reaction to being shot. The pic below shows how extreme the reaction is:

I agree. I am just saying that he is also reacting, in a less demonstrative manner, before then. I am also saying that this gradual reaction prior to z227 is apparent when he is first seen after appearing from behind the sign so we cannot tell when that reaction began.

This incredibly rapid reaction, when we have seen his left arm is down by his side for the duration of the Z-film up to z225, is indicative of a reflex reaction to being shot.

Yes. I agree. It is just not his first reaction to being shot.  What appears to be a gag reflex is definitely a response to the injury he has sustained but it is just not his first response. He is responding by z224 to a gradual sense of his injury and then starts to gag.

[Dan O'meara]

I am sorry you think that I am misrepresenting anything and/or avoiding the arguments you put forward. If I understand you correctly, you seem to think that the sudden apparent gagging action seen beginning at z226 or z227 is the beginning of any reaction. I strongly disagree and I am explaining why. I am saying that we simply cannot tell when his reaction began because when he first emerges from behind the sign he is already reacting.  I am not sure why you do not respond to this point.

 

You're unbelievable. You start by apologising for misrepresenting and avoiding my arguments.
In the very next sentence you misrepresent and avoid my arguments - for the third time!!

"If I understand you correctly, you seem to think that the sudden apparent gagging action seen beginning at z226 or z227"

Nowhere have I mentioned an "apparent gagging action",
You have completely made this up (for the third time)
You then "strongly disagree" with this point you've just made up, avoiding the arguments I have presented (for the third time)

Earlier in the thread Jerry gave the impression you were some kind of slippery customer.
I thought it was harsh at the time but I'm starting to get it.

[Andrew Mason]

You're unbelievable. You start by apologising for misrepresenting and avoiding my arguments.
In the very next sentence you misrepresent and avoid my arguments - for the third time!!

"If I understand you correctly, you seem to think that the sudden apparent gagging action seen beginning at z226 or z227"

Nowhere have I mentioned an "apparent gagging action",
You have completely made this up (for the third time)
You then "strongly disagree" with this point you've just made up, avoiding the arguments I have presented (for the third time)

First of all, I apologized if I did not make myself clear and left you the impression that I misrepresented something.  I never intended to misrepresent anything.  I did not apologize for intending to misrepresent what you said. 

Second, I assumed that the obvious gagging action that we see JFK doing beginning at z226 or z227 which you refer to as a "reflex" means that you were referring to a gag reflex.  If I am incorrect in this, it was not because I was trying to misrepresent what you said. It was my understanding based on what you had written. 

Earlier in the thread Jerry gave the impression you were some kind of slippery customer.
I thought it was harsh at the time but I'm starting to get it.

Jerry thinks all lawyers are slippery.  I am not sure what experience he has had with lawyers, probably very little.  I think you should look at my arguments and not try to resort to ad hominem epithets.  It gives the impression of a last resort in a losing argument.

Now if you would stop avoiding the very simple point that I am making that would contradict the point you are trying to make, it would be appreciated.  "How can you determine that JFK is NOT reacting before z224 when he is obviously reacting at z225, which is very similar to z224, and we cannot see him except his left hand in z223 and do not see him at all between z207 and z223?"  Simple question.

[John Iacoletti]

Lawyer or not, an argument has to be judged on its merits, not manipulation through rhetoric.  Lawyers in general are more skilled in the latter than they are in the scientific method.  And that definitely applies to Bugliosi.

[Andrew Mason]

Most successful defense attorneys are. However, Posner, Bugliosi and the lawyers on the WC are heads and shoulders above a spatially-challenged lawyer who vainly argues a failed Theory.

When people believe slime-ball attorneys or rally to their specious arguments that waste court time and resources.

I am collecting good examples of ad hominem statements for how not to weaken an argument. Can I use these? 

I have noticed that you do not agree with the point Dan is making which is that JFK is reacting to the first shot at z225. In fact, I agree with him more than you do.  I am just saying that the evidence as to when the first shot occurred indicates that it occurred a bit earlier than z223 - closer to z200 and likely between z195 and z200.
As I have said many times, my "theory" is that the following occurred:

1.  The first shot was after z186 and struck JFK in the back/neck.
2.  The shot pattern was 1...........2......3
3.  JBC was hit in the back on the second shot.
4.  The head shot was the third and last shot.

The evidence for each is very strong and the contrary evidence either weak or non-existent. 

Now, you agree with 3 and 4 but not 1 or 2.  Dan O'meara agrees with 1 and 2 but not 3 or 4. 

So my "specious", "sleezeball", "bat-spombleprofglidnoctobuns crazy", "idiotic" etc. "theory" is simply to assert that two facts that you agree are correct and two facts that Dan agrees are correct, and on all of which there is abundant evidence, are, in fact, all correct. 

The only reason I my "spatially challenged" brain clings "vainly" to my "failed theory" that these four facts are correct is that it is the only explanation that does not require throwing out large bodies of consistent, independent evidence.  And, not surprisingly, it fits the only reasonable conclusion on all the rest of the evidence that Oswald fired all three shots. 

[Dan O'meara]

Now if you would stop avoiding the very simple point that I am making that would contradict the point you are trying to make, it would be appreciated.  "How can you determine that JFK is NOT reacting before z224 when he is obviously reacting at z225, which is very similar to z224, and we cannot see him except his left hand in z223 and do not see him at all between z207 and z223?"  Simple question.

Firstly - I'm not avoiding anything.
Secondly - you still haven't dealt with the arguments I have presented
Thirdly - the answer to your "simple question" is in the arguments I have presented.