Perception of Reality

[Mark A. Oblazney]

Exactly the same claim that is made for any conspiracy theory.

Those who claim Biden stole the 2020 election claim the evidence is overwhelming. Yes, it would seem unlikely that thousands of computer programmers, volunteer election workers, even Republican government officials like governors and secretary of states, would conspire together to do this, and successfully keep this secret. But, the evidence is overwhelming.

I do because they all claim that the evidence for their favored conspiracy theory is overwhelming. That, yes, on the surface, a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy seems unlikely. How could so many people keep such a secret? But, ‘When the evidence is overwhelming’, one must conclude that ‘The Moon Landing was fake’, or ‘The government covered up the truth about 9/11’, or ‘The government covered up the truth about the Kennedy assassination’, etc.

One fine day our neighbours from Zeta Reticuli shall show us THEIR holograms of that fateful day in DP, oui?

[Andrew Mason]

The point is that Adams and Woodward can be explained and fit with each other and the zfilm

Like I said earlier, JFK’s actions that Adams describes are near the end of the Towner film segment. This is a few seconds before the zfilm segment even begins. So how the heck do you even think that the zfilm even applies to her description?

Again, this is your confirmation bias.  You are concluding that Adams is describing JFK's actions near the end of the Towner film segment and trying to fit Adams to that.  Why?  How was the oak tree obscuring her view of JFK then?  Adams describes exactly what Woodward described:  a shout, a turn of JFK and a wave.  They were describing the same thing.   The only difference is you are trying to fit Adams to a pre-determined conclusion you have made.

[Charles Collins]

Again, this is your confirmation bias.  You are concluding that Adams is describing JFK's actions near the end of the Towner film segment and trying to fit Adams to that.  Why?  How was the oak tree obscuring her view of JFK then?  Adams describes exactly what Woodward described:  a shout, a turn of JFK and a wave.  They were describing the same thing.   The only difference is you are trying to fit Adams to a pre-determined conclusion you have made.

The oak tree began obscuring Adams’ view of JFK very close to the point of time at end of Towner’s film segment and the beginning of the Zapruder film segment. Adams states that he waved and then went behind the tree. Therefore what she describes happened before the Zapruder film segment began. And therefore is not related to what you are designating that Woodward describes. Thus the benefit of using a stationary object to help interpret and confirm what the witnesses are describing. The photographic record doesn’t lie, but it is subject to misinterpretation.

[Andrew Mason]

The oak tree began obscuring Adams’ view of JFK very close to the point of time at end of Towner’s film segment and the beginning of the Zapruder film segment.

On what basis can you conclude that?  Adams' view was identical to Dorman's.   We can easily see the other side of Elm St. past the end of the sidewalk where Rosemary Willis is running.  Croft was standing there.  JFK was opposite Croft at z162.  We don't see the tree until the camera pans past the concrete pillar on the south side of the stairs. That corresponds to where JFK was at about z175.  After that, the oak tree begins to obscure the view of the street.  How can that be under the tree at z133? :

Adams states that he waved and then went behind the tree. Therefore what she describes happened before the Zapruder film segment began. And therefore is not related to what you are designating that Woodward describes. Thus the benefit of using a stationary object to help interpret and confirm what the witnesses are describing. The photographic record doesn’t lie, but it is subject to misinterpretation.

But there are two waves, one that JFK was doing when the Zfilm begins at frame 133 and the second beginning at z171 as he is approaching Mary Woodward's group.  Mary Woodward said that she shouted and JFK responded by acknowledging them with a smile and wave as he passed by JUST BEFORE the first shot .  He passed by Woodward at z192.  A that point, the oak tree obscured Adams' view.  Why can this wave not be what Adams was referring to? There is no way you can fit your interpretation of Adams' "wave" and first shot with Mary Woodward's observation or with the dozens of others who put the first shot after z186.

[Charles Collins]

On what basis can you conclude that?  Adams' view was identical to Dorman's.   We can easily see the other side of Elm St. past the end of the sidewalk where Rosemary Willis is running.  Croft was standing there.  JFK was opposite Croft at z162.  We don't see the tree until the camera pans past the concrete pillar on the south side of the stairs. That corresponds to where JFK was at about z175.  After that, the oak tree begins to obscure the view of the street.  How can that be under the tree at z133? :


But there are two waves, one that JFK was doing when the Zfilm begins at frame 133 and the second beginning at z171 as he is approaching Mary Woodward's group.  Mary Woodward said that she shouted and JFK responded by acknowledging them with a smile and wave as he passed by JUST BEFORE the first shot .  He passed by Woodward at z192.  A that point, the oak tree obscured Adams' view.  Why can this wave not be what Adams was referring to? There is no way you can fit your interpretation of Adams' "wave" and first shot with Mary Woodward's observation or with the dozens of others who put the first shot after z186.

We don't see the tree until the camera pans past the concrete pillar on the south side of the stairs. That corresponds to where JFK was at about z175.  After that, the oak tree begins to obscure the view of the street.  How can that be under the tree at z133? :


It is obscured by the tree about z133 but not indicated by the Dorman film because Dorman had her camera pointed well above the limo and JFK. You really need to understand that the window was two floors below the sniper's nest window and several windows west of the sniper's nest window. What that means is that (from Dorman's position) the tree obscured JFK earlier than it obscured the line of sight from the sniper's nest window. It is easy to visualize this just by using a straightedge with Roberdeau's map. And verifiable with a 3-D model. I believe that it was James Hackerott that has verified this with his 3-D model also. The view from the sniper's nest became obscured in the neighborhood of z160. There is no possible way that Dorman's view wasn't obscured well before that. And your suggestion that it wasn't obscured until z192 is absurd.

[Andrew Mason]

We don't see the tree until the camera pans past the concrete pillar on the south side of the stairs. That corresponds to where JFK was at about z175.  After that, the oak tree begins to obscure the view of the street.  How can that be under the tree at z133? :


It is obscured by the tree about z133 but not indicated by the Dorman film because Dorman had her camera pointed well above the limo and JFK. You really need to understand that the window was two floors below the sniper's nest window and several windows west of the sniper's nest window. What that means is that (from Dorman's position) the tree obscured JFK earlier than it obscured the line of sight from the sniper's nest window. It is easy to visualize this just by using a straightedge with Roberdeau's map. And verifiable with a 3-D model. I believe that it was James Hackeroot that has verified this with his 3-D model also. The view from the sniper's nest became obscured in the neighborhood of z160.

Charles, you are providing a perfect example of confirmation bias!!  You are using a third-hand account of someone who claims to have interviewed Adams long after the events and, instead of trying to corroborate that statement with bodies of consistent, independent evidence, you are taking what she is purported to have said as absolute gospel and are trying to fit it to the conclusion that you have already made. 

Not only that, you are not looking critically at the physical evidence.  The tree is does not begin to block Adams' view of the street until after z160 and she said that the first shot was after that.  That puts the President down around the lamppost next to which Woodward was standing:



There is zero evidence of a shot at z133. None.  But more to the point, there are large independent bodies of witness evidence that conflict with it.  You just dismiss that evidence by saying that you treat witness evidence as the least reliable form of evidence.  But you ignore the fact that YOU are using the evidence of ONE WITNESS to  support the z133 phantom missed shot!

[Andrew Mason]

Woodward was talking about the first hand wave ("The car proceeded down Elm, and when it was about 40 yards from us, we heard the first noise." Note: Woodward may have meant feet, not yards). The car must still be approaching her group and not be out from her group or pass, as in the Z190s.

Jerry, she was talking about the last wave he made:  "As it turned out, we were almost certainly the last faces he noticed in the crowd."

Woodward's account (and the subsequent head-turn reactions of the Kennedys and Connallys) is compatible with hearing the first shot in the Z150s.

Talk about confirmation bias!!  Jerry, Woodward's account makes no sense if JFK had waved and smiled after the first shot, which is what you are saying.  Why is it that no one noticed that JFK smiled and waved for 3 seconds after the first shot (4 seconds according to Charles)?   Why is that?  Is it because witnesses were all mysteriously afflicted by the same inability to see and all were implanted with the same false memory that he didn't wave at all but slumped as if he was hit by it? 

[Charles Collins]

Charles, you are providing a perfect example of confirmation bias!!  You are using a third-hand account of someone who claims to have interviewed Adams long after the events and, instead of trying to corroborate that statement with bodies of consistent, independent evidence, you are taking what she is purported to have said as absolute gospel and are trying to fit it to the conclusion that you have already made. 

Not only that, you are not looking critically at the physical evidence.  The tree is does not begin to block Adams' view of the street until after z160 and she said that the first shot was after that.  That puts the President down around the lamppost next to which Woodward was standing:



There is zero evidence of a shot at z133. None.  But more to the point, there are large independent bodies of witness evidence that conflict with it.  You just dismiss that evidence by saying that you treat witness evidence as the least reliable form of evidence.  But you ignore the fact that YOU are using the evidence of ONE WITNESS to  support the z133 phantom missed shot!

  The tree is does not begin to block Adams' view of the street until after z160…

Use an accurate map that shows the layout from directly overhead. The Don Roberdeau map is one of these. That photo is not directly overhead, therefore the blue line doesn’t show the true angle.  Compare the angle from the sniper’s nest window to the tree to the angle from the Dorman window to the tree. Simple geometry shows that the difference in the angles means that Dorman would loose sight of JFK behind the tree well before the sniper does. Wake up, you are dreaming if you think otherwise.