Weaver wrote:There were only the three shots from behind. Simply viewing the Zapruder film isn't enough to give you bullet trajectory -

I think that maybe it is if you take the Connally's recollections into account. It appears to me that the governor was shot in the back while he was turned to look into the back seat after Kennedy was shot in the back/throat. Different angles. Then right on top of that comes the head shot which appears to come from the front.

Another thing that I wonder about is that the first one or two bullets passed right through Kennedy and or Connally but the last one seems to have exploded on impact.

for that, you need to replicate the car, the position of the people in it, and the wound tracks. When that is done accurately, all the wound tracks line up to the book depository window.

Don't you have to ignore the Zapruder film and the governor and Mrs. Connally's recollections of the event to make this statement? The governor said that he was shot in the back while he had turned to look at the president. The Zapruder film backs him up. Different angle.

Feel free to look into it yourself - but don't be drawn in by CTists who hide evidence, who repeat long-debunked claims, and who often don't know how and why what they are saying is so wrong.

I am looking into it myself, and while I'm not accepting that it was a massive government conspiracy I also cannot accept that there was only one gunman in a single position.

Oldskeptic wrote:

Weaver wrote:There were only the three shots from behind. Simply viewing the Zapruder film isn't enough to give you bullet trajectory -

I think that maybe it is if you take the Connally's recollections into account. It appears to me that the governor was shot in the back while he was turned to look into the back seat after Kennedy was shot in the back/throat. Different angles. Then right on top of that comes the head shot which appears to come from the front.

Another thing that I wonder about is that the first one or two bullets passed right through Kennedy and or Connally but the last one seems to have exploded on impact.

Likewise be aware the 'three shots' hypothesis is only that - witness testimony varies as to how many shots were fired at the time of the assassination:

<an exhaustive discussion of all witnesses on record regarding shots heard at Dealey Plaza below>

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter9%3Apiecingittogether

Acoustical experts determined scientifically that there may well have been a fourth shot coming from the front of the motorcade (admittedly only a 95% probability):

The addition of acoustical evidence came early in the course of the House Select Committee on Assassination (HSCA) inquiry when it was discovered that a Dallas police officer kept some memorabilia in an attic trunk, including the dictabelt of police radio broadcasts of November 22, 1963. A study of that tape revealed that a police radio switch was locked on and continually broadcasted for approximately five minutes, during which time the assassination took place.

The HSCA hired an acoustics expert Dr. James Barger, to evaluate the tape to determine if the microphone with the open switch was in Dealey Plaza, and if the sounds of gunshots were on the tape. Dr. Barger, a sonar projects officer at the U.S. Navy Underwater Sound Laboratory, and chief scientist at Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Inc., had previously studied the White House Watergate tapes as well as the recordings of the shootings at Kent State.

<full article at link below>

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2010 ... echos.html

for that, you need to replicate the car, the position of the people in it, and the wound tracks. When that is done accurately, all the wound tracks line up to the book depository window.

Don't you have to ignore the Zapruder film and the governor and Mrs. Connally's recollections of the event to make this statement? The governor said that he was shot in the back while he had turned to look at the president. The Zapruder film backs him up. Different angle.

Yes, it seems the reconstructions of those determined to convict Oswald are at variance with witness testimony and other evidence.

Feel free to look into it yourself - but don't be drawn in by CTists who hide evidence, who repeat long-debunked claims, and who often don't know how and why what they are saying is so wrong.

I am looking into it myself, and while I'm not accepting that it was a massive government conspiracy I also cannot accept that there was only one gunman in a single position.

Some posters have complained that calling people 'CTists' is ad hom and poisoning the well - it might be wise to beware of people 'warning' you about 'CTists'...

proudfootz wrote:

Weaver wrote:OK, let's be clear.

There are GSR tests and there are GSR tests. They are not all equal. You cannot simply say that because today's tests are relatively accurate that therefore the paraffin tests were not pseudoscience. The paraffin tests were so poor as to be completely unreliable - and their PRIMARY PURPOSE was to intimidate subjects.

Now it doesn't matter whether the use of the test in Oswald's case was intimidation or to try to demonstrate a link - that doesn't change the fact that the primary use of the paraffin test was intimidation.

That's a pretty damning condemnation of the whole US law enforcement community.

So what you're saying is that the police, FBI, et al - all those guys using this test for decade after decade knew that GSR was worthless yet used it in court cases? How many people convicted on the basis of this 'pseudoscience'? All those convictions should be overturned, shouldn't they?

Now I'd like to know why it was necessary to actually test the cast if all it was was a magic show to attempt to intimidate suspects?

In the Oswald case, though, they did attempt to show a link using that test - and the FBI stated on record at the time that the test was unreliable. It shouldn't be counted in any way, either as evidence for or against Oswald as a shooter.

And it's completely dishonest to imply that the paraffin test was somehow OK because it was the best they had available at the time - today's tests show at least a degree of accuracy, while the paraffin tests show none.

So you claim.

You also claim the FBI was trying to intimidate a very dead Oswald - were they going to force his ghost to confess?

This is like saying that today's DNA analysis can exonerate a rape suspect, but that the old water test for witches, though now known to be complete bunk, was the best available at the time, and therefore some suspected witches might have been real ones because they floated.

No. Bad analogy. Did the test actually test for nitrates found in GSR - yes.

Was it a perfect test? No.

A presumptive test for the presence of gunshot residue (gsr), also called the paraffin test, that is no longer used. Whenever a person fires a gun, traces of residue are transferred to the hands. The dermal nitrate test was based on detecting the nitrate ion (NO3), an ingredient in propellants used in ammunition. For the test, the hands of the suspect were painted with hot wax (paraffin) that was allowed to dry. The cast was then removed and tested using the reagent diphenylamine combined with sul-furic acid (H2SO4). Locations on the cast that showed a blue color indicated the possible presence of nitrate. In addition to gunshot residue, nitrates are common in many materials that could be found on the hands, including tobacco, cosmetics, fertilizers, and urine. This large number of potential false positives led to the test being abandoned since it was not sufficiently specific to GSR.

It was not that it wasn't scientific as you falsely claim - it was because of 'false positives'.

How long before today's DNA tests are outdated, and then you'll have to say they are 'pseudoscience' and all convictions based on them should be overturned?

FRONTLINE AND PROPUBLICA EXAMINE FORENSIC SCIENCE IN THE COURTROOM

FRONTLINE Presents THE REAL CSI
Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Evidence collected at crime scenes — everything from fingerprints to bite marks — is routinely called upon in the courtroom to prosecute the most difficult crimes and put the guilty behind bars. And though glamorized on commercial television, in the real world, it’s not so cut-and-dried. A joint investigation by FRONTLINE, ProPublica and the Investigative Reporting Program at UC Berkeley examines the reliability of the science behind forensics in The Real CSI, airing Tuesday, April 17, 2012, at 10 P.M. ET on PBS (check local listings).

FRONTLINE correspondent Lowell Bergman finds serious flaws in some of the best-known tools of forensic science and wide inconsistencies in how forensic evidence is presented in the courtroom. From the sensational murder trial of Casey Anthony to the credentialing of forensic experts, Bergman documents how a field with few uniform standards and unproven science can undermine the search for justice.

The investigation follows a landmark study by the National Academy of Sciences that called into question the tenets of forensic science. For the first time, Harry T. Edwards, a senior federal appellate court judge and co-chairman of the report, sits for an interview to discuss what the report means. He tells FRONTLINE that these television dramas often exaggerate or misrepresent the reliability of forensic evidence, including one of the most called-upon of the forensic techniques, fingerprint identification.

<more at link below - fascinating program!>

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... elease-10/

I think that's the third time that you have deliberately misrepresented me - I made no such claim ever. What I said, and clarified for you, is that the test was mainly used to intimidate suspects. I never said that it was used in the Oswald case to intimidate anyone.

If you cannot carefully read and understand what I'm writing, I will not continue in discourse with you. I expect an acknowledgement of this misrepresentation and an apology before we go further.

Weaver wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

Weaver wrote:OK, let's be clear.

There are GSR tests and there are GSR tests. They are not all equal. You cannot simply say that because today's tests are relatively accurate that therefore the paraffin tests were not pseudoscience. The paraffin tests were so poor as to be completely unreliable - and their PRIMARY PURPOSE was to intimidate subjects.

Now it doesn't matter whether the use of the test in Oswald's case was intimidation or to try to demonstrate a link - that doesn't change the fact that the primary use of the paraffin test was intimidation.

That's a pretty damning condemnation of the whole US law enforcement community.

So what you're saying is that the police, FBI, et al - all those guys using this test for decade after decade knew that GSR was worthless yet used it in court cases? How many people convicted on the basis of this 'pseudoscience'? All those convictions should be overturned, shouldn't they?

Now I'd like to know why it was necessary to actually test the cast if all it was was a magic show to attempt to intimidate suspects?

In the Oswald case, though, they did attempt to show a link using that test - and the FBI stated on record at the time that the test was unreliable. It shouldn't be counted in any way, either as evidence for or against Oswald as a shooter.

And it's completely dishonest to imply that the paraffin test was somehow OK because it was the best they had available at the time - today's tests show at least a degree of accuracy, while the paraffin tests show none.

So you claim.

You also claim the FBI was trying to intimidate a very dead Oswald - were they going to force his ghost to confess?

This is like saying that today's DNA analysis can exonerate a rape suspect, but that the old water test for witches, though now known to be complete bunk, was the best available at the time, and therefore some suspected witches might have been real ones because they floated.

No. Bad analogy. Did the test actually test for nitrates found in GSR - yes.

Was it a perfect test? No.

A presumptive test for the presence of gunshot residue (gsr), also called the paraffin test, that is no longer used. Whenever a person fires a gun, traces of residue are transferred to the hands. The dermal nitrate test was based on detecting the nitrate ion (NO3), an ingredient in propellants used in ammunition. For the test, the hands of the suspect were painted with hot wax (paraffin) that was allowed to dry. The cast was then removed and tested using the reagent diphenylamine combined with sul-furic acid (H2SO4). Locations on the cast that showed a blue color indicated the possible presence of nitrate. In addition to gunshot residue, nitrates are common in many materials that could be found on the hands, including tobacco, cosmetics, fertilizers, and urine. This large number of potential false positives led to the test being abandoned since it was not sufficiently specific to GSR.

It was not that it wasn't scientific as you falsely claim - it was because of 'false positives'.

How long before today's DNA tests are outdated, and then you'll have to say they are 'pseudoscience' and all convictions based on them should be overturned?

FRONTLINE AND PROPUBLICA EXAMINE FORENSIC SCIENCE IN THE COURTROOM

FRONTLINE Presents THE REAL CSI
Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Evidence collected at crime scenes — everything from fingerprints to bite marks — is routinely called upon in the courtroom to prosecute the most difficult crimes and put the guilty behind bars. And though glamorized on commercial television, in the real world, it’s not so cut-and-dried. A joint investigation by FRONTLINE, ProPublica and the Investigative Reporting Program at UC Berkeley examines the reliability of the science behind forensics in The Real CSI, airing Tuesday, April 17, 2012, at 10 P.M. ET on PBS (check local listings).

FRONTLINE correspondent Lowell Bergman finds serious flaws in some of the best-known tools of forensic science and wide inconsistencies in how forensic evidence is presented in the courtroom. From the sensational murder trial of Casey Anthony to the credentialing of forensic experts, Bergman documents how a field with few uniform standards and unproven science can undermine the search for justice.

The investigation follows a landmark study by the National Academy of Sciences that called into question the tenets of forensic science. For the first time, Harry T. Edwards, a senior federal appellate court judge and co-chairman of the report, sits for an interview to discuss what the report means. He tells FRONTLINE that these television dramas often exaggerate or misrepresent the reliability of forensic evidence, including one of the most called-upon of the forensic techniques, fingerprint identification.

<more at link below - fascinating program!>

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... elease-10/

I think that's the third time that you have deliberately misrepresented me - I made no such claim ever. What I said, and clarified for you, is that the test was mainly used to intimidate suspects. I never said that it was used in the Oswald case to intimidate anyone.

If you cannot carefully read and understand what I'm writing, I will not continue in discourse with you. I expect an acknowledgement of this misrepresentation and an apology before we go further.

You claim the GSR test was mainly used to intimidate suspects - I'm sorry that I represented that to mean it was used in the case of Oswald. Obviously a dead man cannot be intimidated. It was a rather obvious point and I regret that your feelings were hurt by my pointing out how your 'intimidation' hypothesis was fatally flawed.

Since you have repeatedly claimed the GSR test on Oswald (or any suspect during the several decades it was in use) was a total sham, we still have no explanation for why any time at all was wasted 'going through the motions'.

In calling the GSR tests in use by law enforcement for these many decades 'pseudoscience' of no evidentiary value whatsoever you have leveled a very serious charge against the police, detectives, scientists, and legal system - what amounts to a vast multi-generation conspiracy to defraud the public and subvert justice.

This is something you should think about next time you want to come up with some ad hoc argument to try to extricate yourself from some difficulty.

No doubt your own apology and retraction will follow.

Apology for what?

I have not impugned the entirety of GSR testing - I have simply commented (and backed up with FBI expert testimony) that the paraffin tests for GSR were flawed.

Since you persist in conflating the two, in pretending that they're all deeply interrelated, and that critique of the paraffin tests must be critique of all GSR testing, you have drawn the false conclusion that my statement regarding paraffin tests can be extended to all GSR testing.

This is not honest discourse. Have fun with the topic.

Weaver wrote:Apology for what?

I have not impugned the entirety of GSR testing - I have simply commented (and backed up with FBI expert testimony) that the paraffin tests for GSR were flawed.

IIRC you claimed the paraffin test for nitrates from GSR was 'pseudoscience'.

I guess what you mean by 'pseudoscience' is not what I mean. Perhaps that's the problem we're having.

It sounded to me like you were implying that there was no scientific value in the test at all and that it was only a method of intimidating suspects.

If as you implied the paraffin test was of no evidentiary value ('pseudoscience' was your word) AND police and prosecutors knew that (hence only really useful to intimidate suspects, judges, and juries) THEN there can be only one conclusion: law enforcement was knowingly manufacturing false 'evidence' to get convictions.

That's the sort of thing one might consider apologizing for.

Eventually its use was discarded. After more than three decades and innumerable convictions using the paraffin test as evidence. The reason given was that it wasn't specific enough (too many false positives), not that is was 'pseudoscience'.

If all you meant was 'flawed' then that might have been a better word to have chosen. Because that's what I was saying all along.

Since you persist in conflating the two, in pretending that they're all deeply interrelated, and that critique of the paraffin tests must be critique of all GSR testing, you have drawn the false conclusion that my statement regarding paraffin tests can be extended to all GSR testing.

Not at all - I was merely contradicting the apparent claim (which I must have been wrong in seeing) that the whole notion of testing subjects for GSR was not a scientific concept. I readily admit the paraffin test has its flaws, and that perhaps newer techniques may be more specific. But there's nothing un-scientific about the paraffin test.

This is not honest discourse. Have fun with the topic.

Sorry I spoiled your fun of just making things up and stating them as if they were facts.