When Was JBC Hit?

[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.

[Andrew Mason]

My plotting says JFK arrived opposite the lamppost at Z190. This is way closer to the Cutler and Roberdeau placements than Z186. I used the line-of-travel at the center of the street. If more to the south, he would arrive later than Z190.

As explained to you countless times, you're using a dissolved-foreground frame capture that allows the lightness of the white car to bleed through. It's a camera effect that I wonder if the human eye could duplicate. I don't think the SS intentionally wanted the foreground to dissolve; it just happened. From the SN window, Kennedy was dark-on-dark in his limousine and pictures of the foliage taken through the still cameras on Nov. 22 and during the SS reenactment show the foliage obscured the car in the Z190s.

A properly-focused camera and scientific placement of the automobile shows the President obscured in the Z190s. He becomes distinguishable by the mid-Z200s. Bear in mind that the Queen Mary's bright horizontal features (the cream-colored partition, jump-seats and folded canopy) that aid in sighting were not present during the assassination.

Are you saying that Oswald would not have been able to distinguish the oak leaves (green or brown colour) from the dark blue limousine and the red haired, blue suited JFK?  Are you suggesting that Oswald could not have seen JFK while passing beneath the oak tree branches? 

In the final analysis, all that really matters is whether JFK could have been hit by the time he reached the Thornton Freeway sign.  I still put him there at z200 at the latest.  If the car was moving 1 foot per frame, that fits with your view that he was opposite the lamp post at z190.  I just view the evidence as putting it a bit earlier, particularly the appearance that he is reacting by z198, Ready removing his right hand from the front handhold to turn to the right/rear at z199, Phil Willis saying that his z202 photo was taken an instant AFTER the first shot, Betzner saying that the first shot occurred a moment after his z186 photo, Linda Willis saying that the first shot occurred when JFK was between her and the Stemmons sign (which appears to be from z196 to about z205 (by aligning Linda, JFK and a few feet below the bottom of the sign):

I have adjusted the position of the Limo and the followup QM to show the positions of JFK and Clint Hill at the time Betzner took his z186 photo, showing the limo width at 1/2 the width of a lane (brown line) and the left side of the limo just inside the left lane marker and with JFK's midline 1/5th of the width of the car (15 inches) inboard from the right edge of the car.


It looks to me like JFK at z186 is no more than 2 feet from being even the lamp post at z186 ie. he was even with the lamp post at z188.  You say z190.  We are not differing by much. Again, that fits quite well with a first shot by z200.

[Andrew Mason]

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.

Sorry about that.Your theory is that the third shot was after z313 and disappeared without a trace, despite dozens of witnesses saying that the headshot was the last. Have you ever thought that that shooter might be actually looking at his target as he was shooting? 

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.

You think 3 shots, 3 hits, which was the FBI’s working scenario for several months, is demented? Do you think JBC and Nellie were demented too?  That was their theory. It is also Clint Hill’s, apparently.

[Jack Nessan]

Sorry about that.Your theory is that the third shot was after z313 and disappeared without a trace, despite dozens of witnesses saying that the headshot was the last. Have you ever thought that that shooter might be actually looking at his target as he was shooting? 

You think 3 shots, 3 hits, which was the FBI’s working scenario for several months, is demented? Do you think JBC and Nellie were demented too?  That was their theory. It is also Clint Hill’s, apparently.

“You think 3 shots, 3 hits..... It is also Clint Hill’s, apparently.”

You can even butcher Clint Hill’s statement? Clint Hill can now be added to the long list of witnesses you obviously know little to nothing about. Seriously Andrew, give up this goofy theory. You seem to have no limits as to how far you will go or how tortured your interpretations will become to try and support this nonsense.

[Andrew Mason]

“You think 3 shots, 3 hits..... It is also Clint Hill’s, apparently.”

You can even butcher Clint Hill’s statement? Clint Hill can now be added to the long list of witnesses you obviously know little to nothing about. Seriously Andrew, give up this goofy theory. You seem to have no limits as to how far you will go or how tortured your interpretations will become to try and support this nonsense.

Not based on his WC statement. It is based on this (beginning at 30:20 through to 35:00):

[Jack Nessan]

Not based on his WC statement. It is based on this (beginning at 30:20 through to 35:00):

“Not based on his WC statement.”

Not based on anything would be more to the truth.

You know what his statements concerning the number of shots were all along and you see fit to post this tripe? This isn’t even desperate; it is just outright throwing in the towel.

Give it up Andrew. This theory, as has been shown repeatedly over many years, is not even theoretically possible let alone a possibility. When you have to resort to claiming this kind of proof it is time to re-examine it all.