+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/Forum-Deep-Politics-Forum)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/Forum-JFK-Assassination)
+--- Thread: Nix Film (/Thread-Nix-Film)
Nix Film - Tracy Riddle - 25-06-2014
Bob Prudhomme Wrote:Tracy Riddle Wrote:Remember that eyewitnesses are generally considered the least reliable form of evidence. As Harold Weisberg said, "My book is the one that does not draw upon eyewitnesses. They are the least dependable source of information..."
The human mind is a tricky thing, and everyone processes (and remembers) events differently, especially during a traumatic event. There have been many good experiments done on this subject.
Sadly, in this case, we have to rely more on eyewitnesses than we should because the ballistic/forensic/document/photographic evidence is not kosher.
If I only had a nickel for every time I heard this from the Lone Nut crew at the JFK Assassination Forum.
Really? They say things like, "Sadly, in this case, we have to rely more on eyewitnesses than we should because the ballistic/forensic/document/photographic evidence is not kosher"?
And just because the lone-nutters say something doesn't mean it isn't true. If John McAdams insists that the world is round, do we have to take the opposite position and insist that it's flat?
Nix Film - Tracy Riddle - 25-06-2014
Bob Prudhomme Wrote:
I could easily go along with the "mistaken" witness theory if it were not for the above. This was the official story, three shots/ three hits, until James Tague made it apparent one shot missed, and it became necessary for two bullets to have done all of the damage. Note the position of the limo, down by the steps, when the last shot was fired. Where was Altgens standing again?
The model shown above was built by the FBI, and they never officially abandoned their three shots-no misses scenario. They did their very best to ignore/debunk James Tague. The single-bullet theory belonged to the Warren Commission.
Nix Film - Drew Phipps - 25-06-2014
Interesting model. It seems to be mostly based on Connally's version of events. To me, it looks like the second shot is placed far too late. The position of the model car at the second string is well past where the street lamp would appear from Zapruder's position. I'm pretty darn sure Connally shows reaction to being shot near the lamp post. I'm wondering, under that model, how many seconds the FBI is suggesting between shots 2 and three? (I'm thinking the second shot occurred at least one car length before that position.)
Ok so the bystander positions near shot 2 on the model appear to correspond with roughly z-290. That gives our shooter about a second and a half to work the bolt and fire the head shot. So the bystander positions are probably wrong too. (So if the true position of the second shot was (1 limo length) ~25 feet back at ~12 mph that gives a shooter three seconds.)
Nix Film - Bob Prudhomme - 25-06-2014
"Bang bang!" as Kellerman described the last two shots; one right on top of the other.
Nix Film - Bob Prudhomme - 25-06-2014
Tracy Riddle Wrote:Bob Prudhomme Wrote:Tracy Riddle Wrote:Remember that eyewitnesses are generally considered the least reliable form of evidence. As Harold Weisberg said, "My book is the one that does not draw upon eyewitnesses. They are the least dependable source of information..."
The human mind is a tricky thing, and everyone processes (and remembers) events differently, especially during a traumatic event. There have been many good experiments done on this subject.
Sadly, in this case, we have to rely more on eyewitnesses than we should because the ballistic/forensic/document/photographic evidence is not kosher.
If I only had a nickel for every time I heard this from the Lone Nut crew at the JFK Assassination Forum.
Really? They say things like, "Sadly, in this case, we have to rely more on eyewitnesses than we should because the ballistic/forensic/document/photographic evidence is not kosher"?
And just because the lone-nutters say something doesn't mean it isn't true. If John McAdams insists that the world is round, do we have to take the opposite position and insist that it's flat?
John McAdams wouldn't know the truth if it jumped up and bit him in the arse.
Nix Film - Chris Davidson - 25-06-2014
Bob Prudhomme Wrote:Chris Davidson Wrote:http://www.mejuba.com/albums/jfkass/112938/10622887/show/original
chris
Thanks, Chris. I know this is a subject you have looked at very closely. Could you share some more of this survey with us?
Bob,
http://www.mejuba.com/albums/jfkass/112938/10625131/show/original
Nix Film - Albert Doyle - 25-06-2014
Bob Prudhomme Wrote:Where was Altgens standing again?
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z350.jpg
Are you saying this is proof of Zapruder alteration? (Genuinely asking)
Nix Film - Tracy Riddle - 25-06-2014
Bob Prudhomme Wrote:Tracy Riddle Wrote:Bob Prudhomme Wrote:Tracy Riddle Wrote:Remember that eyewitnesses are generally considered the least reliable form of evidence. As Harold Weisberg said, "My book is the one that does not draw upon eyewitnesses. They are the least dependable source of information..."
The human mind is a tricky thing, and everyone processes (and remembers) events differently, especially during a traumatic event. There have been many good experiments done on this subject.
Sadly, in this case, we have to rely more on eyewitnesses than we should because the ballistic/forensic/document/photographic evidence is not kosher.
If I only had a nickel for every time I heard this from the Lone Nut crew at the JFK Assassination Forum.
Really? They say things like, "Sadly, in this case, we have to rely more on eyewitnesses than we should because the ballistic/forensic/document/photographic evidence is not kosher"?
And just because the lone-nutters say something doesn't mean it isn't true. If John McAdams insists that the world is round, do we have to take the opposite position and insist that it's flat?
John McAdams wouldn't know the truth if it jumped up and bit him in the arse.
Bob, my point is that you can try to reconcile all of the eyewitness/earwitness statements in DP that day and it won't work. Believe me, I've tried. And it's not because all of the photographic evidence has been faked, or because half of the witnesses are lying, but it's because people perceive and remember events in different ways.
Nix Film - Bob Prudhomme - 25-06-2014
Tracy Riddle Wrote:Bob Prudhomme Wrote:Tracy Riddle Wrote:Bob Prudhomme Wrote:If I only had a nickel for every time I heard this from the Lone Nut crew at the JFK Assassination Forum.
Really? They say things like, "Sadly, in this case, we have to rely more on eyewitnesses than we should because the ballistic/forensic/document/photographic evidence is not kosher"?
And just because the lone-nutters say something doesn't mean it isn't true. If John McAdams insists that the world is round, do we have to take the opposite position and insist that it's flat?
John McAdams wouldn't know the truth if it jumped up and bit him in the arse.
Bob, my point is that you can try to reconcile all of the eyewitness/earwitness statements in DP that day and it won't work. Believe me, I've tried. And it's not because all of the photographic evidence has been faked, or because half of the witnesses are lying, but it's because people perceive and remember events in different ways.
This may be true, Tracy, but the general pattern for witnesses perceiving and remembering things in different ways is for those witnesses to bring forth equally different accounts of the event in question.
When you have witnesses perceiving and remembering an event and producing accounts of that event that are markedly similar to each other, that is an entirely different matter. For instance, the number of witnesses standing atop the Triple Underpass that heard a shot from the Grassy Knoll and saw what appeared to be smoke from a rifle. They could all be mistaken yet, the odds of them all making identical mistakes in recollection are slim indeed.
Nix Film - Tracy Riddle - 26-06-2014
Bob Prudhomme Wrote:Tracy Riddle Wrote:Bob Prudhomme Wrote:Tracy Riddle Wrote:Really? They say things like, "Sadly, in this case, we have to rely more on eyewitnesses than we should because the ballistic/forensic/document/photographic evidence is not kosher"?
And just because the lone-nutters say something doesn't mean it isn't true. If John McAdams insists that the world is round, do we have to take the opposite position and insist that it's flat?
John McAdams wouldn't know the truth if it jumped up and bit him in the arse.
Bob, my point is that you can try to reconcile all of the eyewitness/earwitness statements in DP that day and it won't work. Believe me, I've tried. And it's not because all of the photographic evidence has been faked, or because half of the witnesses are lying, but it's because people perceive and remember events in different ways.
This may be true, Tracy, but the general pattern for witnesses perceiving and remembering things in different ways is for those witnesses to bring forth equally different accounts of the event in question.
When you have witnesses perceiving and remembering an event and producing accounts of that event that are markedly similar to each other, that is an entirely different matter. For instance, the number of witnesses standing atop the Triple Underpass that heard a shot from the Grassy Knoll and saw what appeared to be smoke from a rifle. They could all be mistaken yet, the odds of them all making identical mistakes in recollection are slim indeed.
That's true, depending on the event. For example, an overwhelming number of witnesses heard the last two shots come very close together. You can't ignore that. Unfortunately, a large majority of witnesses also only heard three shots. Yes, there were probably silencers at work. But only a small number of witnesses saw smoke.
It's when we get to the personal level of witnesses remembering where they were standing/where the car was when they heard a particular shot - stuff like that becomes impossible to sort out because of the problems I mentioned earlier.