The lapel flip -- what did i miss?

[John Mytton]

"Are you agreeing with me that his hand/arm were moving across the front of his jacket from right to left when the "lapel flip" occurred? (ie between z223 and z224)."

  Quality



Look closely at JBC's arm movement and tell me what you really see.
 

A lot of SBF critics had already made up there minds up decades ago when they only had poor copies of Zapruder's hand held film footage to analyse and when really clear stabilized footage of the same event comes along where the precise movements of all the Limo occupants can be closely studied, well, the critics don't want to admit wasting so much time endorsing their long held beliefs and essentially force themselves stay the course. Personally I can't imagine how anyone looking at the stabilized Zapruder footage can't see Connally's violent simultaneous reaction and can come to any other conclusion other than both men being hit at the same time?



JohnM

[Dan O'meara]

A lot of SBF critics had already made up there minds up decades ago when they only had poor copies of Zapruder's hand held film footage to analyse and when really clear stabilized footage of the same event comes along where the precise movements of all the Limo occupants can be closely studied, well, the critics don't want to admit wasting so much time endorsing their long held beliefs and essentially force themselves stay the course. Personally I can't imagine how anyone looking at the stabilized Zapruder footage can't see Connally's violent simultaneous reaction and can come to any other conclusion other than both men being hit at the same time?



JohnM

"Personally I can't imagine how anyone looking at the stabilized Zapruder footage can't see Connally's violent simultaneous reaction and can come to any other conclusion other than both men being hit at the same time?"

Same here John.
When I first came to this subject (just over a year ago) and started to study the Z-Film, the simultaneous reactions of both men were so obvious I was shocked to find out how many people questioned it.
It took me quite a while to realise what you're pointing out - if somebody has already made up their mind they refuse to see what's right in front of them. The 'debate' I'm having with Andrew is a classic example of it. On the plus side, the interaction with Andrew (particularly on "The First Shot" thread) has forced me to question every detail about this aspect of the assassination and test any theory I'm putting forward.
 

[John Mytton]

"Personally I can't imagine how anyone looking at the stabilized Zapruder footage can't see Connally's violent simultaneous reaction and can come to any other conclusion other than both men being hit at the same time?"

Same here John.
When I first came to this subject (just over a year ago) and started to study the Z-Film, the simultaneous reactions of both men were so obvious I was shocked to find out how many people questioned it.
It took me quite a while to realise what you're pointing out - if somebody has already made up their mind they refuse to see what's right in front of them. The 'debate' I'm having with Andrew is a classic example of it. On the plus side, the interaction with Andrew (particularly on "The First Shot" thread) has forced me to question every detail about this aspect of the assassination and test any theory I'm putting forward.

I believe Mason is an actual Lawyer but even after debating him many times re the SBF he never let on and I only found out about his legal background much later, in other words he didn't force down my throat that he's a Lawyer and he's knows better yada yada yada and let his presentation stand on it's own, so for that alone he deserves much kudos. In the past I have debated a few "Lawyers" and when backed into a corner out comes the classic "Get out of Jail free card" but their lack of knowledge about all things legal is a dead giveaway. Thankfully we haven't seen one for a while but Roger Collins does come to mind, what a goose.

JohnM

[Dan O'meara]

I believe Mason is an actual Lawyer but even after debating him many times re the SBF he never let on and I only found out about his legal background much later, in other words he didn't force down my throat that he's a Lawyer and he's knows better yada yada yada and let his presentation stand on it's own, so for that alone he deserves much kudos. In the past I have debated a few "Lawyers" and when backed into a corner out comes the classic "Get out of Jail free card" but their lack of knowledge about all things legal is a dead giveaway. Thankfully we haven't seen one for a while but Roger Collins does come to mind, what a goose.

JohnM

Jerry had mentioned it and it is apparent in some of the tactics he uses in debate.
But he's in a position I hope never to be in, where you invest so much time in a particular theory that you can't let it go.
I've had complete 180 degree turns on a couple of the big issues involving this case because the arguments/evidence left me no choice. It's something I believe I will always be prepared to do.

I've mentioned the importance of a narrative in recent posts and as a CTer by default I'm satisfied with my understanding of the basics but now I've got to come up with "the big picture", the big Conspiracy. It's the only way I can construct my own narrative concerning this case.
I feel at this point, it would be easier to be an LNer.

[John Mytton]

Jerry had mentioned it and it is apparent in some of the tactics he uses in debate.
But he's in a position I hope never to be in, where you invest so much time in a particular theory that you can't let it go.
I've had complete 180 degree turns on a couple of the big issues involving this case because the arguments/evidence left me no choice. It's something I believe I will always be prepared to do.

I've mentioned the importance of a narrative in recent posts and as a CTer by default I'm satisfied with my understanding of the basics but now I've got to come up with "the big picture", the big Conspiracy. It's the only way I can construct my own narrative concerning this case.
I feel at this point, it would be easier to be an LNer.

Like many other LNers who initially only knew the basics, I started out as a CT, and one example I can remember is furiously arguing the back and to the Left motion but as I did more research and started applying real world scientific principles I eventually changed my original emotional response and stuck with more considered forensic analysis.

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

I believe Mason is an actual Lawyer but even after debating him many times re the SBF he never let on and I only found out about his legal background much later, in other words he didn't force down my throat that he's a Lawyer and he's knows better yada yada yada and let his presentation stand on it's own, so for that alone he deserves much kudos. In the past I have debated a few "Lawyers" and when backed into a corner out comes the classic "Get out of Jail free card" but their lack of knowledge about all things legal is a dead giveaway. Thankfully we haven't seen one for a while but Roger Collins does come to mind, what a goose.

JohnM

In the past I have debated a few "Lawyers" and when backed into a corner out comes the classic "Get out of Jail free card" but their lack of knowledge about all things legal is a dead giveaway.

You've made many bogus claims in the past (one being that you are capable to have a normal debate), but never that you are a lawyer, so how would a layman like you be able to determine if somebody has a "lack of knowledge about all things legal"?

[Dan O'meara]

Like many other LNers who initially only knew the basics, I started out as a CT, and one example I can remember is furiously arguing the back and to the Left motion but as I did more research and started applying real world scientific principles I eventually changed my original emotional response and stuck with more considered forensic analysis.

JohnM

When I first came to this forum the only certainty I had was that the back and to the left motion proved JFK was shot from the grassy knoll. This is one of the fundamental concepts I've had overturned during my learning process - that, as counter-intuitive as it may seem, a shot from behind can cause the back and to the left motion ("Unseeing the Headshot" thread)
But even this has failed to put the rifle in Oswald's hand for me.
However, seeing the headshot so differently was just a matter of prespective, the same may be true about Oswald.

[Andrew Mason]

"Are you agreeing with me that his hand/arm were moving across the front of his jacket from right to left when the "lapel flip" occurred? (ie between z223 and z224)."

  Quality



Look closely at JBC's arm movement and tell me what you really see.
 

Can you not answer a simple question? Why are you avoiding answering?

What we see is not the issue. We can't see the arm between z223 and z225.

The issue is whether the jacket movement has no other explanation than a bullet strike. (I am not convinced the a bullet strike is even a possible explanation, but that is a separate matter. I don't want to argue Lattimer's theory). . We seem to agree that arm movement could cause jacket movement.  So I am not sure why you think it can be eliminated as a possibility. And you just avoid answering and accuse me of putting words in your mouth.