New Approach
Gary O. Sumner
http://www.madbbs.com/~tracy/lho/gs1.htm. Also, John McAdams has kindly
quoted from it and linked to it at http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/logic4.htm.
Instead of quibbling over evidence, the essay takes what I think is a fresh
approach to the Kennedy case. I would be glad to hear anybody's thoughts on
it.
Gary Sumner
James K. Olmstead
backward from 1 to 100 without falling asleep. That is about the extent of
my math skills.
My problem with applying mathimatical equations to evaluate the
assassination/conspiracy considerations are that all such "equations" are
limited. In my opinion if you are going to break down things, assign them
a "number" and then do the math, you have to include all points into the
equation, not just a "few" to illustrate.
To me this task would be one that is beyond the ability of most to
accomplish. Each and every conflict, each and every action, each and
every point of consideration, plus all the possibles (unknown factors)
must be included into the equation. The "unknown factors" alone cause
alot of problems.
Your essay is one that is well done, but in my opinion one that does not
cover all factors that need to be included in the equation. But some
would consider it a "starting" point to illustate the complex nature of
the case, but not as a new approach to "solve" the case or resolve the
issue of if there was a conspiracy connected to the assassination.
just my opinion, nothing more
btw welcome to the newsgroup I'm sure you will find it interesting.
jko
Gary O. Sumner <guns...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:3dc5...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Clark Wilkins
A well thought out approach. Now let us look at the flaws.
You wrote:
"There is not the slightest chance on earth that a conspiracy was involved
in the assassination of President John Kennedy."
This is your first mistake. You will make others.
"While such a bold statement may shock and infuriate true believers in the
Kennedy conspiracy, I intend to support it with what I believe is a new
approach: an appeal to reason.<SNIP> Anyone acquainted with the real
evidence in the case knows that it all points to Lee Harvey Oswald as the
lone assassin. Beyond question, he shot Kennedy from the sixth floor of
the Texas School Book Depository as the presidential motorcade moved down
Elm Street below him."
Again, this is another error. It is not "beyond question" that LHO shot
JFK from the sixth floor. JKO has uncovered fingerprint evidence on the
rifle which places it in doubt that it was he who fired the rifle.
" And he was the only shooter."
Again, a mistake. Oswald's rifle scored two hits but there is evidence of
three shots fired. LN theory has not come up with a plausible explanation
for how Oswald could have fired a third shot. It also cannot trace this
third shot fired to Oswald's rifle. Therefore you cannot say with any
certainty that "he was the only shooter".
" However, I'm not going to deal with evidence in this analysis."
This is an absolute neccessity for any LNer to do since LN evidence does
not support LN theory. Therefore, LNers take the tact that the evidence
does not support CT theory - which I predict you will try and do.
" The evidence is there, it is overwhelming, and it has already been
massively written up."
And disputed - usually successfully.
" That hasn't prevented unscrupulous (or misguided) writers and at least
one movie maker from trying to convince people that Kennedy's death was
the result of a mysterious conspiracy. Probably more nonsense has been
written about the Kennedy assassination in the past 40 years than on any
other subject."
This is true. It is also the first undisputable point you have made. If
CTer's posit 100 different theories then simple math tells us that at
least 99, if not all, of these CT theories must be wrong. However, when an
LNer demonstrates a CTer's theory to be wrong that is not he same thing as
demonstrating their own LN Theory to be right. LNer's have never proven
their theory to be right or even remotely believable.
"There is something as important as evidence-as long as it is not
contradicted by it-"
And herein lies the problem with LN theory - It is contradicted by its own
evidence.
"and that is reason. Was there a group of men who planned and carried out
the murder? "<SNIP>At the outset let's be clear that there is a large
difference between a lone assassin and a group of conspirators. The lone
killer will generally have an irrational motive that appeals only to him.
John W. Hinckley Jr. shot President Reagan in 1981 with the bizarre notion
that actress Jody Foster would admire him and even fall in love with him
because of it.(1) Arthur Bremer shot presidential candidate George
Wallace in 1972 to make a name for himself and also because he thought it
would be a riotously fun thing to do.(2) (Wallace was permanently
paralyzed from the waist down.) Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian immigrant,
fatally shot Sen. Robert Kennedy in 1968 in a Los Angeles hotel because of
the senator's backing of Israel in its conflicts with its Arab
neighbors.(3) Oswald, who was himself shot to death two days after the
Kennedy assassination, never explained his motive, but it's known that he
was a communist"
Another mistake.
Oswald was an anti-communist (He was opposed to Marxist-Leninism). You
have also left out the assassins of Lincoln, Admiral Darlan, Trotsky,
Ghandi, Rabin, Malcom X, Aquilo, and others. Why is that?
" who was filled with hatred of the United States and who had defected
temporarily to the Soviet Union. He was also an antisocial -"
What social invitations did Oswald refuse?
"loner in a bad marriage and a dead-end job who had nothing to lose."
Since there were 59 others who shared those same "dead end" jobs at the
TSBD and who may have had bad marriages, then according to your "pure and
perfect" reasoning, the TSBD should have bristling with rifles on 11/22/63
as every employee there "who had nothing to lose" took aim.
"Each of these assassins had his own twisted motive that would appeal only
to him. As Jim Bishop, author of The Day Kennedy Was Shot, observed, "A
history of assassins is a glossary of persons sick and obsessed."
Which does not tell us whether or not Oswald acted alone.
"Nature of Conspiracies
But for a group of conspirators to come together to plot the death of the
president, there must be a rational motive, however evil and immoral. The
president's death must result in some clear-cut, practical benefit to all
the members of the group. And the benefit must be so great, the motive so
powerful, that the conspirators are willing to risk
everything-imprisonment, death, disgrace, loss of career and family-to
reach their goal."
This sounds good but, if true, what was the benefit that was "so great,
the motive so powerful, that the assassin (Ruby) was willing to risk
everything-imprisonment, death, disgrace, loss of career and family-to
reach his goal" of killing Oswald?
And, once you have answered that, explain the benefit Oswald achieved by
killing JFK.
" These mysterious men in our hypothetical conspiracy had to know that the
odds were heavily against them."
So did Oswald and Ruby, correct? Did that stop them?
" In Lincoln's day, presidential assassination was easy. But since at
least the middle of the Twentieth Century, it has been a task of the most
extreme difficulty. Getting away with it is probably impossible. Men
intelligent and capable enough to plan and carry out an assassination
would be aware of the odds against them."
Oswald and Ruby were "men intelligent and capable enough to plan and carry
out an assassination (who) would be aware of the odds against them",
correct?
"What would drive them to undertake a mission that would almost certainly
fail and bring them to ruin?"
If you demand CTers answer this question, then CTers are entitled to
demand LNers answer the same question of Oswald and Ruby.
" And whatever benefits they thought they would obtain, wasn't there some
simpler, less risky path to the same goal? Did they really have to kill
the president? These questions would apply as much to foreign conspirators
acting for a government as to domestic ones."
Or equally apply to Ruby and Oswald acting alone, correct?
"We could try to discover the motive by asking "cui bono," who benefited
from the murder."
Blind speculation
"You could say that Vice President Lyndon Johnson benefited because
Kennedy 's death vaulted him into the presidency. And there have been
suggestions that, indeed, Johnson was the mastermind who plotted the
assassination."
Shades of Posner.
"Let's deal with that allegation."
No. Let's not. If there are 100 CT theories and you disprove one, that
does not, by extension, disprove the other 99 as well.
<SNIP>
"Motives and Men
Who are the other suspects that have been suggested by various theorists
as forming the deadly conspiracy? The FBI, the CIA, the Secret Service,
the U.S. military, the Mafia, anti-Castro Cubans, Jews, the "Communist
Conspiracy," Big Oil men, the Dallas police, and some combination of
these. One writer even claimed that TV newsmen Dan Rather and Robert
MacNeil were involved.(5) It's hard to imagine what benefit the
individual members of these groups thought they would realize from
attempting such an audacious undertaking as the assassination of the
President of the United States."
But yet you don't feel any obligation to explain what benefits Oswald and
Ruby "thought they would realize from attempting such an audacious
undertaking as the assassination of the President of the United States".
Why is that? It seems your pure reasoning has a double standard.
"They had to be aware that the odds against them were close to
prohibitive. Yet they went ahead-and (if there really was a conspiracy)
succeeded beyond their imaginings."
You just described Ruby and Oswald.
"The absence of a believable rational motive that couldn't be satisfied
any other way than killing the president"
and Oswald
" is itself a powerful argument against the existence of a conspiracy."
By this logic, it is a "powerful argument" that Oswald didn't shoot JFK
and Ruby didn't shoot Oswald. They both must be innocent due to the
absense of a logical motive.
"Various motives have been suggested, and I have no intention of going
down the list and refuting them one by one. Some are fantastic and some
merely mundane, but none are believable. None describe a goal that
couldn't have been achieved in far easier and less risky ways than killing
a president."
As far as Oswald and Ruby are concerned, "various motives have been
suggested, and I have no intention of going down the list and refuting
them one by one. Some are fantastic and some merely mundane, but none are
believable. None describe a goal that couldn't have been achieved in far
easier and less risky ways than killing a president" or his assassin.
"And think about the men who planned this presidential assassination,
prevented any leaks, executed it to perfection, and escaped. They would
have to be highly intelligent, "
Oswald was highly intelligent or there abouts.
"knowledgeable men of the world,"
Oswald was knowledgeable about the world.
" men who know how to kill,"
Oswald knew how to kill.
" who know guns and explosives"
I don't know about where you're getting "explosives" but Oswald knew about
guns and attempted to build an expolosive bomb while in the USSR.
", who know military and paramilitary operations,"
Oswald knew about military and paramilitary operations and offered to
share it with Carlos Bringuier.
" who know law enforcement and how to evade it."
Oswald knew about law enforcement and how to evade it.
It appears that Oswald fits perfectly with the members of the conspiracy
you describe. Why is that?
" They would be the cream, the smartest of the smart, the toughest of the
tough. Before proceeding, they would devise an airtight plan that would
ensure the success of their operation."
And was the operation a success?
"(Incidentally, some theorists hold that Oswald was part of the
conspiracy, but didn't do the actual shooting, or that he did shoot, along
with one or more additional gunman, but that he was set up by other
members of the group to take the fall while they got away. Some have even
argued that Oswald was a patsy, a nice young man who had nothing to do
with the crime.)"
And your pure rational reasoning that shows them all to be wrong is- what?
Missing?
"A Double Objective
Now let's consider the conspirators' goals, which were twofold. One was to
kill the president-not wound him, not scare him, but kill him."
False. A conspiracy that had as its goals the intent of killing JFK would
not have used FMJ ammunition but a hunting load, and such hunting loads
for 6.5mm MC rifles were available in Dallas. You ignore the fact that FMJ
ammunition is designed to wound and not kill.
"For whatever reason, they wanted Kennedy dead."
No. They wanted him hit by FMJ ammunition. Now why would a conspiracy or
even a non-conspiracy use FMJ ammunition if they wanted him dead?
" The other goal was to get away with the crime. We assume that this was
not a suicide mission. (After all, unless you count Oswald, the
conspirators got away, didn't they?)"
Well - Gee! If the goal is to get away with the crime, how is Oswald
supposed to get away? And on $ 13?
By your pure reasoning you are again arguing for Oswald's innocence.
"Now, when you set out to kill a president, you don't want to try
something haphazard and hope for the best. What you want is something
close to a foolproof plan that will result in the success of your mission
and your escape."
Oswald had a foolproof plan that allowed him to successfully shoot at JFK
and escape from the TSBD.
" So what plan did these mysterious conspirators come up with?"
To discard the rifle and walk out the front door along with the other TSBD
employees while the police looked for an armed suspect inside.
"Let's start with their choice of weapon, a gun. Is there anything
foolproof about the use of a gun? Hardly. A gun, in fact, is a very
unreliable means of killing a person."
Odd. They work fine on deer, elk, and moose.
" Certainly a gun will kill, and sometimes one quick shot is all it takes.
Many people have died that way. But a gun will kill reliably only when the
shooter is in a controlled situation, has the victim cornered in some way
and has the time to shoot and shoot again until the person is
unquestionably dead. "
Oswald had the time to shoot and shoot again. And JFK was unquestionably
dead.
"Otherwise, especially in a public place where the gunman may have a
window of opportunity of only a few seconds, he is likely to miss his
target altogether."
Accoring to LN theory, Oswald miss his target altogether.
" There are no statistics on how many people have been shot at and missed,
but the number must be huge. Second, even if the gunman hits his target,
the shot is most likely to be nonlethal."
Oswald's first hit likely was nonlethal.
" As far as I have been able to determine, the FBI doesn't keep statistics
comparing the number of people who are wounded by gunshots with those who
are shot fatally. However, all it takes is the daily reading of a
newspaper for several years to teach anyone the truth that most gunshot
victims recover from their wounds."
Military records show that FMJ ammunition wounds the vast majority of the
time.
"I think true believers in the Kennedy conspiracy-as opposed to those who
pretend to believe it for the sake of monetary gain-are people who have
had little or no experience with firearms, who have no idea how difficult
and tricky guns are to use in real life, especially at long range."
Was JFK killed at "long range"?
" These people see cowboys and detectives on TV casually dropping their
victims with a single shot at a distance and it looks easy. All you have
to do is pull the trigger and, poof, your victim bites the dust. You want
to kill the president? Sure, just shoot him and he's gone."
So now you're making the argument that Oswald can't make the hits that the
LNers attribute to him. I thought that was a CT argument?
<SNIP>
"The point here is that neither of our conspirators' twin
goals-assassination and escape-was met. Reagan fully recovered from his
wound, was reelected by a landslide in 1984, and at this writing, 21 years
after the attack, is still living. And Hinckley, far from escaping,
remains in custody. Of course, he wanted to be caught, or at least
identified. Otherwise he wouldn't have become famous and in a position to
impress Jody Foster."
But LHO didn't want to be caught, tried to shoot it out with the police
when aprehended, and denied killng JFK so that he could become famous. So
apparently Oswald had the twin goals you subscribe to conspiracists - that
of assassination and escape. According to your pure reasoning, Oswald is
part of a conspiracy.
"In fact, it's typical of lone assassins that they don't expect to get
away with their crime."
ThenOswald was not being a "typical lone asassin" when he expected to be
able to walk out of the TSBD?
Your case for conspiracy is growing stronger all the time, isn't it?
" Their motive may be to achieve notoriety, e.g., Hinckley and Bremer."
Again, Oswald was not behaving as a "typical lone asassin" when he made no
effort to ahieve notoriety afterwards. I thought you were making a case
against conspiracy? What happened? Did pure reasoning get in your way?
" Or they may be so fanatically devoted to their cause that they are
willing to trade their life or freedom for the life of their victim, e.g.,
Sirhan. That's why lone assassins aren't bothered by another disadvantage
of using a gun-i.e., that the shooter has to be close to his victim,
making escape all but impossible. Even a high-powered rifle with a
telescopic sight requires the shooter to be close enough to his target
that detection of the marksman' s location is certain and escape virtually
impossible. So-wherever you have a lone assassin with an irrational motive
for killing a president, there you can expect the absence of a getaway
plan. And there you have Lee Harvey Oswald."
Incorrect. Oswald did have a getaway plan from the TSBD. He deliberately
chose a window which would allow him to escape detection - and it worked.
And he had a plan for leaving the building - and it worked. By your logic,
JFK was killed by a conspiracy. You have repeatedly made the arguments
using pure reasoning.
<SNIP>
"If there were additional gunmen, however, such as the one that has been
claimed to have shot at the oncoming president from the infamous "grassy
knoll," they would have been obliged to calculate lead-probably a good
bit. They would have to have been positioned some distance to either the
side of the street rather than being directly in front of or behind the
president's car. Furthermore, any gunman at ground level would have faced
the difficulty of shooting at precisely the right moment, to coordinate
with the shots from the depository, while keeping himself concealed from
the numerous spectators lining the motorcade route-an impossible task."
I forget. Why does he have to coordinate with the shots from theTSBD?
"Some authors have theorized that there were assassins in other buildings
as well as on the ground."
Waste of time. If there are 100 CT theories and you disprove one, that
does not disprove the other 99 CT theories or prove LN Theory.
<SNIP>
"To sum up what we've discussed so far."
You have shown Oswald behaved as you predicted a conspiracy would behave
and shown that he did not behave as known "lone nuts" have behaved. Your
case is admittedly overwhelming. Too bad it's not in your favor.
Let me know if you want me to continue my criticisms to the rest of your
thesis.
Just a thought.
::Clark::
<SNIP>
Peter Fokes
Hello Gary,
<quote>
Excuse me, ladies, I don’t think any women would have been involved in those
days.
<unquote>
Do you have any idea who was involved in a plot to assassinate Castro?
<quote>
"....there comes a time when all little boys and girls must grow up and put
away their conspiracy theories, just as they gave up their bubble gum, comic
books and yo-yos when they were growing up the first time.."
<unquote>
Usually an author sums up his central argument in the final paragraphs of an
article. Your argument appears to be: grow up.
I suppose this is a somewhat "novel" approach in that you are trying to
combine pedagogy with guidance counselling.
Perhaps the "little boys and girls" will have some questions for your once
they -- unlike you -- are distracted from the "evidence" that you so
studiously and voluntarily chose to ignore.
But let me quote you directly:
<quote>
I’m not going to deal with evidence in this analysis."
<unquote>
Lovely
Btw, could you tell me a little more about LBJ? You do say:
<quote>
And as for Johnson, was he so power crazed that he couldn’t wait for the
election of 1968, when he might well have become president in his own right?
<unquote>
Have you read Caro, the Pulitzer Prize winner?
His detailed account of LBJ's quest for power contradicts your opinion.
Do you have evidence that Caro is wrong?
Peter Fokes
http://www.toronto.hm/
>
>
>
>
>
Gary Combs
After spending about an hour reading your essay, and the first three
replies, I just thought I would weigh in with my two cents worth that simply
makes sense, an issue that just jumped out at me.
Quote on:
"Let's start with their choice of weapon, a gun. Is there anything
foolproof about the use of a gun? Hardly. A gun, in fact, is a very
unreliable means of killing a person."
Quote off:
Quote on: (credit to Clark Wilkins for reply to G.O. Summer)
Odd. They work fine on deer, elk, and moose.
Quote off:
Of course Clark could have added "and humans" for a gun caused JFK's death,
beyond all doubt. But, also, there are those that say guns don't kill
people, people kill people.
Gary Combs
After spending about an hour reading your essay, and the first three
out at me.
Quote on:
foolproof about the use of a gun? Hardly. A gun, in fact, is a very
unreliable means of killing a person."
Quote on:(by Clark)
Odd. They work fine on deer, elk, and moose.
Quote off:
Clark could have added "and humans". Think of all since the discovery of
gunpowder, the Wars, the street killings, the suicides, etc.
Martin Shackelford
"reason" to the JFK assassination evidence.
Convenient of you to assume that the "real evidence" is only that which
points to Oswald as the assassin. Odd that you only include one
"conspiracy" book among your sources, as though it represented all. In
your notes, you also mention a website, and Penn Jones "as cited by
Posner"--at best, a filtered conspiracy viewpoint.
Reason doesn't usually begin with a conclusion, declare it won't deal
with the evidence, and work back from there.
You conclude (no bothering with messy "evidence") that Oswald was "a
communist who was filled with hatred for the United States." Odd, then,
that he would reject the Soviet Union and return to the U.S. when he
could have remained.
You declare him a loner, again avoiding evidence, because it is an old
myth that you seem to have adopted. And a husband and father with two
young children has "nothing to lose"? Try applying reason to THAT.
Regarding Johnon, the idea that he would likely have become "President
in his own right" in 1968 flies in the face of all the evidence. No
wonder you don't want to deal with evidence. Additionally, you seem
unaware of the evidence that LBJ's Texas organization employed a killer
named Malcolm Wallace.
You dismiss all other conspiracy theories in a single paragraph--again
offering your version of "reason" without evidence to support it, though
reason and logic without content becomes mere rhetoric.
The next section is so riddled with assumptions as to be meaningless.
Among these are the assumption that, if Oswald was the shooter, he had
no getaway plan (if escape was "impossible," how did he manage it?--and
he did manage it). Then there is the assumption that a "real conspiracy"
wouldn't use a gun. Ever read "Day of the Jackal"? Or non-fictional
accounts of the OAS attempts on DeGaulle? How about the conspiracy that
assassination Archduke Franz Ferdinand--with a gun? Or the one that
killed Lincoln--with a gun?
Another assumption you make, which certainly underscores your comment
about not being familiar with the literature, is that "no conspirator
has talked...Not one has made a death-bed confession...Not one has left
behind a letter." Well, I suppose it depends on who you believe, but a
number of people have claimed involvment--and talked. According to his
attorney, Santo Trafficante made a death-bed confession. And Christian
David left a letter with his attorney to be opened upon his death.
Finally, you give Gerald Posner credit for "demolishing" various
conspiracy claims--but all of the work he took credit for had been done
earlier by conspiracy authors themselves.
It doesn't sound to me like to applied reason to the case. It sounds to
me as though, as you admit near the end, that you were "already of the
opinion that there had been no conspiracy," and viewed what you saw in
that light--thus, Posner good, Marrs bad, etc. Your 1992 "vision" seems
quite unnecessary. Such a disappointment, you way, to "discover" that
you had been right all along. I'm sure.
Martin
For the original "reasoned essay":
http://www.madbbs.com/~tracy/lho/gs1.htm
john smithson
Wow -- your memo sounded as if you were a resaonable man intereste in
real discussion. Your is both insulting in a number of places and
stale interms of the "new approach."
Do you have any idea why there are so many unbelievers? It goes much
deeper than the "evidence."
We have a government who presented contradictory evidence (i.e.
compare the drawing of the back wound "at the base of the neck" and
the autopsy photo. And there is a considerable amount of such
evidence.
The body is stolen from the Dallas coroner with the threat of gun
point.
The autopsists were told what they could and could not do at one point
in the autopsy (their intention t dissect the back wound and discover
its path through the body).
The brain disagppears.
And the government seals all the evidence until the year 2038
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If I went to my kid's closed door room and demanded to inspect for
drugs and was told by him, "No problem, Dad, but give me a week or
two and I'll let you right in." You think I might be a little
suspicous???? That is what 2038 means to me. Someone has
something to hide.
The only comment about your article that I will make concerns your
sarcasm regarding just how intelligent those mean ol conspirators must
have been to plan something that was so perfect and to do so in
public. Wow, gee wiz these guys must have been the smartest of the
smart.
The fact of the matter is this: perfect crimes against the people are
committed by the Feds from time to time. This is a government who
tested syphilis on unkowing blacks back in the late 50's; who tested
atomic ratiation of other unsuspecting American, who denied the aiding
the regime change in Vietnam in the early 60' in opposition to
President Kennedy's claim that "we were responsible." This crime - if
indeed it was a conspiracy -- could have only continued wioth the
help of those in the Federal governament. In fact, it is easy when
you sequesture evidence, splice filmed evidence and release tons of
misinformaton.
Give me a good reason for 2038 Charlie Brown and I'll admit to be a
"moron.
John Smithson
GordonD
GD
"Gary O. Sumner" <guns...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<3dc5...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>...
Jaykhill
>beyond all doubt. But, also, there are those that say guns don't kill
>people, people kill people.
>
8888
Actually, small pieces of metal or metal composites moving at rapid speeds are
the things that kill people; and elk, caribou, deer, etc. etc.
John in VA.
Jaykhill
>suspicous???? That is what 2038 means to me. Someone has
>something to hide.
>
******
Those who are professional historians will tell you that a 50 year seal on
government documents is commonly the rule---with most governments on the
planet.
Even the census records are sealed for fifty years. What, pray tell, is so
"suspicious" about census figures.
Regarding documentation on the Dealey Plaza murder, my understanding is the
additional time of keeping the documents from historians was requested by the
Kennedy family because they wanted the latest generation (kids in 1963) laid to
rest before historians began working in the documents.
John in VA
Joe Zircon
> "Gary O. Sumner" <guns...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3dc5...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> > I have written an anti-conspiracy essay that is posted at
> > http://www.madbbs.com/~tracy/lho/gs1.htm. Also, John McAdams has kindly
> > quoted from it and linked to it at http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/logic4.htm.
> > Instead of quibbling over evidence, the essay takes what I think is a
> fresh
> > approach to the Kennedy case. I would be glad to hear anybody's thoughts
> on
> > it.
> >
> > Gary Sumner
>
> Hello Gary,
>
> <quote>
>
> Excuse me, ladies, I don't think any women would have been involved in those
> days.
>
> <unquote>
>
> Do you have any idea who was involved in a plot to assassinate Castro?
>
Judyth?
;-)
Drumrolls2
>Subject: Re: New Approach
>From: "Peter Fokes" pfo...@rogers.com
>Date: 11/3/02 9:47 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3dc5...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
Peter,
who was it just two days ago posted that stupid little childish story about
LN'rs?
How "productive" was that, and waht hasthat to do with evidence?
I can see now how the truth hurts people such as yourself.
Steve
Ricky Tobias
wrote:
That may be true but one of the main reasons the records were sealed
was to protect working FBI, CIA, Police informants and agents.
Exposing these people could cause day to day working problems. This
is why so many of the documents are blacked out. Powerful people also
had things to hide and influence with the government. Most of the
census data is made public and used to determine districts and
funding. What is sealed is the personal information that would amount
to invasion of privacy or be sold to marketers thus deterring people
from participating in the census. Americans generally do not like
telling the government about themselves.
>John in VA
Ricky
"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
An early draft with some errors is posted at:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
Problems try:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Peter Fokes
"Drumrolls2" <drumr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021105095034...@mb-mc.aol.com...
Perhaps "Canny observation about LNers -:)"?
Methinks you are reacting harshly to my gentle, ironic criticism of your LN
position.
Lighten up. I have enough confidence in my writing to accept your criticism
with some relish.
But the "hot sauce" seems to have enflamed your LN pride, eh?
> How "productive" was that, and waht hasthat to do with evidence?
Well, at least I am keeping on topic. The fellow said:
> ><quote>
> >
> >I'm not going to deal with evidence in this analysis."
> >
> ><unquote>
So why are you arguing we should be discussing "evidence" anyway?
> I can see now how the truth hurts people such as yourself.
How so?
Explain yourself.
Peter F
>
> Steve
Gary Combs
JFK.
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Peter Fokes
"Joe Zircon" <joez1...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7f2b02a8.02110...@posting.google.com...
Marita.
Peter F
Joe Zircon
Trivia quiz: What early critic claimed JFK wasn't shot in Dealey
Plaza, but police officer J.D.Tippit, riding in the limo & dressed up
as JFK, was?
He also claimed a submachine gun was used, and 10 or more shots were
fired, if my memory serves me well.
JoeZ
Caeruleo
joez1...@aol.com (Joe Zircon) wrote:
> "Peter Fokes" <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:<3dc5...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>...
>
> > Do you have any idea who was involved in a plot to assassinate Castro?
>
> Judyth?
>
> ;-)
*spew*
Ooo, I *know* you didn't just say that.
You owe me a new keyboard. ;-)
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Joe Zircon
The other woman who claims such, and probably the woman Peter was
referring to, is Marita Lorenz -- a former mistress of Castro.
Peter Fokes
"Caeruleo" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:caeruleo-061...@hunt-pri6-a8.txucom.net...
Joe said "Judyth"
Peter said "Marita"
Peter F
ps. Buy an ergonomic keyboard -:))
Joe Zircon
> How about: What early critic claimed the grassy knoll was fake?
>
> Martin
That's easy, Martin. David Lifton.
But I'm glad you wrote, "most can agree", not "all" below, because
some critics have questioned even that.
JoeZ
ECageTX23
Gary,
I read your essay; It makes sense to me. Common sense is an ingredient
that conspiracy buffs consistently and continually leave out of there
research formula.
Ed Cage
____________________________________
Martin Shackelford
Martin
ECageTX23
>From: "Clark Wilkins" clwi...@prodigy.net
>Date: 11/3/02 5:09 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <Mkhx9.533$F25.16...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com>
____ Input by Ed Cage _____
Clark,
The only way you could say less is to say more.
Regards,
Mr Ed
________________________
Peter Fokes
"ECageTX23" <ecag...@aol.com> wrote in message >
> ____ Input by Ed Cage _____
> Clark,
> The only way you could say less is to say more.
>
> Regards,
> Mr Ed
Mr. Ed, would it be correct to infer through your plethora of recent posts
that you are telling us you have less to say than meets the eye
<<<<<<>>>>>>><<<<>>>>>>?
Peter F
Ricky Tobias
No one actually saw him do the shooting. He can be placed in the
building but the gun cannot be placed in his hands.
>>
>>
>>" And he was the only shooter."
>>
>>Again, a mistake. Oswald's rifle scored two hits but there is evidence of
>>three shots fired. LN theory has not come up with a plausible explanation
>>for how Oswald could have fired a third shot. It also cannot trace this
>>third shot fired to Oswald's rifle. Therefore you cannot say with any
>>certainty that "he was the only shooter".
>>
Reports of other shots were also made.
>>" However, I'm not going to deal with evidence in this analysis."
>>
>>This is an absolute neccessity for any LNer to do since LN evidence does
>>not support LN theory. Therefore, LNers take the tact that the evidence
>>does not support CT theory - which I predict you will try and do.
>>
>>
>>" The evidence is there, it is overwhelming, and it has already been
>>massively written up."
>>
Because it is so "overwhelming" and yet disputed at almost each key
issue it is very strange. Most simple murders remain simple without
conflicts at each issue.
>>And disputed - usually successfully.
>>
>>" That hasn't prevented unscrupulous (or misguided) writers and at least
>>one movie maker from trying to convince people that Kennedy's death was
>>the result of a mysterious conspiracy. Probably more nonsense has been
>>written about the Kennedy assassination in the past 40 years than on any
>>other subject."
>>
>>This is true. It is also the first undisputable point you have made. If
>>CTer's posit 100 different theories then simple math tells us that at
>>least 99, if not all, of these CT theories must be wrong.
But CTs do not have to be absolutely correct on all issues. They
should simply get a few of the issues correct and evolve as new issues
are resolved. Even the LN theory has many issues that have not been
resolved.
> However, when an
>>LNer demonstrates a CTer's theory to be wrong that is not he same thing as
>>demonstrating their own LN Theory to be right. LNer's have never proven
>>their theory to be right or even remotely believable.
>>
>>
>>
>>"There is something as important as evidence-as long as it is not
>>contradicted by it-"
>>
>>And herein lies the problem with LN theory - It is contradicted by its own
>>evidence.
>>
>>"and that is reason. Was there a group of men who planned and carried out
>>the murder? "<SNIP>At the outset let's be clear that there is a large
>>difference between a lone assassin and a group of conspirators. The lone
>>killer will generally have an irrational motive that appeals only to him.
>>John W. Hinckley Jr. shot President Reagan in 1981 with the bizarre notion
>>that actress Jody Foster would admire him and even fall in love with him
>>because of it.(1) Arthur Bremer shot presidential candidate George
>>Wallace in 1972 to make a name for himself and also because he thought it
>>would be a riotously fun thing to do.(2) (Wallace was permanently
>>paralyzed from the waist down.) Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian immigrant,
>>fatally shot Sen. Robert Kennedy in 1968 in a Los Angeles hotel because of
>>the senator's backing of Israel in its conflicts with its Arab
>>neighbors.
That is disputed by Contract on America. It seams the Mob used the
security guard to Kill RFK and we get the same cover up issues as
occurred in OJ and JFK.
>(3) Oswald, who was himself shot to death two days after the
>>Kennedy assassination, never explained his motive, but it's known that he
>>was a communist"
>>
>>Another mistake.
>>
>>Oswald was an anti-communist (He was opposed to Marxist-Leninism). You
>>have also left out the assassins of Lincoln, Admiral Darlan, Trotsky,
>>Ghandi, Rabin, Malcom X, Aquilo, and others. Why is that?
>>
>>" who was filled with hatred of the United States and who had defected
>>temporarily to the Soviet Union. He was also an antisocial -"
>>
>>What social invitations did Oswald refuse?
>>
>>
>>"loner in a bad marriage and a dead-end job who had nothing to lose."
>>
He does not fit this profile. Most loners do not have wives nor could
they function in the Corps and then go to Russia.
>>Since there were 59 others who shared those same "dead end" jobs at the
>>TSBD and who may have had bad marriages, then according to your "pure and
>>perfect" reasoning, the TSBD should have bristling with rifles on 11/22/63
>>as every employee there "who had nothing to lose" took aim.
>>
>>
>>
>>"Each of these assassins had his own twisted motive that would appeal only
>>to him. As Jim Bishop, author of The Day Kennedy Was Shot, observed, "A
>>history of assassins is a glossary of persons sick and obsessed."
>>
>>Which does not tell us whether or not Oswald acted alone.
>>
One is not going to convict Oswald by calling him a not. Character
assassination would not be permitted in a court of law. I doubt
Oswald would have used the insanity defense.
>>
>>
>>"Nature of Conspiracies
>>
>>But for a group of conspirators to come together to plot the death of the
>>president, there must be a rational motive, however evil and immoral. The
>>president's death must result in some clear-cut, practical benefit to all
>>the members of the group. And the benefit must be so great, the motive so
>>powerful, that the conspirators are willing to risk
>>everything-imprisonment, death, disgrace, loss of career and family-to
>>reach their goal."
>>
>>This sounds good but, if true, what was the benefit that was "so great,
>>the motive so powerful, that the assassin (Ruby) was willing to risk
>>everything-imprisonment, death, disgrace, loss of career and family-to
>>reach his goal" of killing Oswald?
>>
To hear Ruby, he thought it would bring him fame and he did it for
Jackie. He also thought that he would not be indicted and convicted
as Oswald needed killing. The fact that Ruby could have killed Oswald
under orders cannot be ignored.
>>And, once you have answered that, explain the benefit Oswald achieved by
>>killing JFK.
>>
There is no known benefit and Oswald denied killing JFK so fame was
not it.
A cover up occurred after the assassination and LBJ had a lot to do
with it. This could be for political reasons than actual knowledge of
conspiracy.
>>Shades of Posner.
>>
>>"Let's deal with that allegation."
>>
>>No. Let's not. If there are 100 CT theories and you disprove one, that
>>does not, by extension, disprove the other 99 as well.
>>
>><SNIP>
>>
>>
>>
>>"Motives and Men
>>
>>Who are the other suspects that have been suggested by various theorists
>>as forming the deadly conspiracy? The FBI, the CIA, the Secret Service,
>>the U.S. military, the Mafia, anti-Castro Cubans, Jews, the "Communist
>>Conspiracy," Big Oil men, the Dallas police, and some combination of
>>these. One writer even claimed that TV newsmen Dan Rather and Robert
>>MacNeil were involved.(5) It's hard to imagine what benefit the
>>individual members of these groups thought they would realize from
>>attempting such an audacious undertaking as the assassination of the
>>President of the United States."
>>
1963 had a lot of right wing anti-communist and para-military groups.
JFK had offended just about all powerful groups. Finding a small
group of people willing to kill him would not have been difficult.
Have these people in the government and military at key positions and
yes an assassination can occur. Their benefit would be no more JFK's
policies after the elections. One of the biggest things was the Test
Ban treaty and the trading of missiles in Turkey for those in Cuba.
>>But yet you don't feel any obligation to explain what benefits Oswald and
>>Ruby "thought they would realize from attempting such an audacious
>>undertaking as the assassination of the President of the United States".
>>Why is that? It seems your pure reasoning has a double standard.
>>
>>
>>"They had to be aware that the odds against them were close to
>>prohibitive. Yet they went ahead-and (if there really was a conspiracy)
>>succeeded beyond their imaginings."
>>
>>You just described Ruby and Oswald.
>>
>>"The absence of a believable rational motive that couldn't be satisfied
>>any other way than killing the president"
>>
>>and Oswald
>>
>>" is itself a powerful argument against the existence of a conspiracy."
>>
Sounds like BS to me.
>>By this logic, it is a "powerful argument" that Oswald didn't shoot JFK
>>and Ruby didn't shoot Oswald. They both must be innocent due to the
>>absense of a logical motive.
>>
>>
>>"Various motives have been suggested, and I have no intention of going
>>down the list and refuting them one by one. Some are fantastic and some
>>merely mundane, but none are believable. None describe a goal that
>>couldn't have been achieved in far easier and less risky ways than killing
>>a president."
>>
>>As far as Oswald and Ruby are concerned, "various motives have been
>>suggested, and I have no intention of going down the list and refuting
>>them one by one. Some are fantastic and some merely mundane, but none are
>>believable. None describe a goal that couldn't have been achieved in far
>>easier and less risky ways than killing a president" or his assassin.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>"And think about the men who planned this presidential assassination,
>>prevented any leaks, executed it to perfection, and escaped. They would
>>have to be highly intelligent, "
>>
They would have had to be in control of major governmental
departments.
>>Oswald was highly intelligent or there abouts.
>>
>>"knowledgeable men of the world,"
>>
>>Oswald was knowledgeable about the world.
>>
>>" men who know how to kill,"
>>
>>Oswald knew how to kill.
>>
>>" who know guns and explosives"
>>
>>I don't know about where you're getting "explosives" but Oswald knew about
>>guns and attempted to build an expolosive bomb while in the USSR.
>>
>>", who know military and paramilitary operations,"
>>
>>Oswald knew about military and paramilitary operations and offered to
>>share it with Carlos Bringuier.
>>
>>" who know law enforcement and how to evade it."
>>
>>Oswald knew about law enforcement and how to evade it.
>>
>>It appears that Oswald fits perfectly with the members of the conspiracy
>>you describe. Why is that?
>>
Many fit this description. Oswald needed money and knowledge of the
parade and security. Many of the normal security things did not occur
in Dallas. Did Oswald get lucky or did he have SS help?
>>" They would be the cream, the smartest of the smart, the toughest of the
>>tough. Before proceeding, they would devise an airtight plan that would
>>ensure the success of their operation."
>>
>>And was the operation a success?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>"(Incidentally, some theorists hold that Oswald was part of the
>>conspiracy, but didn't do the actual shooting, or that he did shoot, along
>>with one or more additional gunman, but that he was set up by other
>>members of the group to take the fall while they got away. Some have even
>>argued that Oswald was a patsy, a nice young man who had nothing to do
>>with the crime.)"
>>
>>And your pure rational reasoning that shows them all to be wrong is- what?
>>Missing?
>>
>>
>>
>>"A Double Objective
>>
>>Now let's consider the conspirators' goals, which were twofold. One was to
>>kill the president-not wound him, not scare him, but kill him."
>>
>>False. A conspiracy that had as its goals the intent of killing JFK would
>>not have used FMJ ammunition but a hunting load, and such hunting loads
>>for 6.5mm MC rifles were available in Dallas. You ignore the fact that FMJ
>>ammunition is designed to wound and not kill.
>>
Who said they used FMJ? The head shot fragmented.
>> "For whatever reason, they wanted Kennedy dead."
>>
>>No. They wanted him hit by FMJ ammunition. Now why would a conspiracy or
>>even a non-conspiracy use FMJ ammunition if they wanted him dead?
>>
Sounds strange but Oswald was not the primary shooter and he picked
the gun and ammo. The wanted JFK dead so that he would not start a
major manhunt for them. FMJ does kill even if it is not a first
choice.
>>" The other goal was to get away with the crime. We assume that this was
>>not a suicide mission. (After all, unless you count Oswald, the
>>conspirators got away, didn't they?)"
>>
>>Well - Gee! If the goal is to get away with the crime, how is Oswald
>>supposed to get away? And on $ 13?
>>
I would have thought Oswald would have had a better escape plan. He
appears to have been surprised by the events.
>>By your pure reasoning you are again arguing for Oswald's innocence.
>>
>>
>>
>>"Now, when you set out to kill a president, you don't want to try
>>something haphazard and hope for the best. What you want is something
>>close to a foolproof plan that will result in the success of your mission
>>and your escape."
>>
>>Oswald had a foolproof plan that allowed him to successfully shoot at JFK
>>and escape from the TSBD.
>>
But why did he not have the bus ticket to get out of town?
>>
>>" So what plan did these mysterious conspirators come up with?"
>>
>>To discard the rifle and walk out the front door along with the other TSBD
>>employees while the police looked for an armed suspect inside.
>>
>>
>>
>>"Let's start with their choice of weapon, a gun. Is there anything
>>foolproof about the use of a gun? Hardly. A gun, in fact, is a very
>>unreliable means of killing a person."
>>
>>Odd. They work fine on deer, elk, and moose.
>>
>>
>>
>>" Certainly a gun will kill, and sometimes one quick shot is all it takes.
>>Many people have died that way. But a gun will kill reliably only when the
>>shooter is in a controlled situation, has the victim cornered in some way
>>and has the time to shoot and shoot again until the person is
>>unquestionably dead. "
>>
Guns are designed to kill and usually kill people.
>>Oswald had the time to shoot and shoot again. And JFK was unquestionably
>>dead.
>>
>>
>>
>>"Otherwise, especially in a public place where the gunman may have a
>>window of opportunity of only a few seconds, he is likely to miss his
>>target altogether."
>>
>>Accoring to LN theory, Oswald miss his target altogether.
>>
Yes a lot of stress occurs when killing the president. It appears
that Oswald missed three times hitting only Connally.
>>" There are no statistics on how many people have been shot at and missed,
>>but the number must be huge. Second, even if the gunman hits his target,
>>the shot is most likely to be nonlethal."
>>
That depends upon what bullets and guns are used and where they are
hit. You seam to be taking national averages and attempting to apply
them to this case.
>>Oswald's first hit likely was nonlethal.
>>
>>" As far as I have been able to determine, the FBI doesn't keep statistics
>>comparing the number of people who are wounded by gunshots with those who
>>are shot fatally.
Yes they do as well as the number of cases where shots are reported
and no one is injured.
> However, all it takes is the daily reading of a
>>newspaper for several years to teach anyone the truth that most gunshot
>>victims recover from their wounds."
>>
Yes they do but you fail to realize most people are shot with pistols
and not rifles. There is a significant difference in the wounds.
>> Military records show that FMJ ammunition wounds the vast majority of the
>>time.
>>
>>
>>
>>"I think true believers in the Kennedy conspiracy-as opposed to those who
>>pretend to believe it for the sake of monetary gain-are people who have
>>had little or no experience with firearms, who have no idea how difficult
>>and tricky guns are to use in real life, especially at long range."
>>
>>Was JFK killed at "long range"?
>>
Yes but short rifle range. I have lots of firearm experience and I
see JFK as a conspiracy as do many here who own MC 6.5 mm. Guns are
designed to be simple to use which is why kids often use them.
Ricky
Joe Zircon
<snip>
> >>
> >>"loner in a bad marriage and a dead-end job who had nothing to lose."
> >>
> He does not fit this profile. Most loners do not have wives nor could
> they function in the Corps and then go to Russia.
>
>
You must not have heard of Charles Whitman, then. He was married. He
functioned in the Marine Corp (including getting a shooting score just
one point better than Oswald).
Ok, he didn't go to Russia, but so what?
He still shot and killed a lot of people with a rifle.
Ricky Tobias
But he was NOT classified as a "loner".
Joe Zircon
> On 14 Nov 2002 16:57:36 -0500, joez1...@aol.com (Joe Zircon) wrote:
>
> >Ricky Tobias <Ric...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<tmovsukm3mptkim81...@4ax.com>...
> ><snip>
> >
> >> >>
> >> >>"loner in a bad marriage and a dead-end job who had nothing to lose."
> >> >>
> >> He does not fit this profile. Most loners do not have wives nor could
> >> they function in the Corps and then go to Russia.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >You must not have heard of Charles Whitman, then. He was married. He
> >functioned in the Marine Corp (including getting a shooting score just
> >one point better than Oswald).
> >
> >Ok, he didn't go to Russia, but so what?
> >
> >He still shot and killed a lot of people with a rifle.
>
> But he was NOT classified as a "loner".
> Ricky
Define 'loner'. I think Whitman qualifies. But that term is somewhat
subjective. I don't think Whitman had any close friends, for instance.
Serving in the Marine Corps is not subjective. Being married is not
subjective.
It is curious you find nothing of substance to quibble with.
Whitman fits the same profile Oswald does. And he went to the top of
the Texas Tower and started killing people with a bolt action rifle
200 - 500 yards away.
He had the same skill level with a weapon that Oswald had, scoring
within a couple of points of Oswald's best score on the same Marine
Corps test.
Nobody's claiming Whitman couldn't shoot all those people 500 yards
away. Anyone claiming Oswald didn't have the same skill set as Whitman
is seriously mistaken. Oswald's longest hit - from sixty feet up - was
just 87 yards.
Whitman made hits up to 500 yards away from 231 feet up.
Whitman proves Oswald had the ability to shoot JFK.
Whitman also proves your quibbles about a wife and Marine Corps
experience are meaningless.
Which is why you don't read about Whitman too much in conspiracy
literature, I guess.
Or was he framed too?
JoeZ
Ricky Tobias
>Ricky Tobias <Ric...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<lmi8tu0skiedvhk38...@4ax.com>...
>> On 14 Nov 2002 16:57:36 -0500, joez1...@aol.com (Joe Zircon) wrote:
>>
>> >Ricky Tobias <Ric...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<tmovsukm3mptkim81...@4ax.com>...
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>"loner in a bad marriage and a dead-end job who had nothing to lose."
>> >> >>
>> >> He does not fit this profile. Most loners do not have wives nor could
>> >> they function in the Corps and then go to Russia.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >You must not have heard of Charles Whitman, then. He was married. He
>> >functioned in the Marine Corp (including getting a shooting score just
>> >one point better than Oswald).
>> >
>> >Ok, he didn't go to Russia, but so what?
>> >
>> >He still shot and killed a lot of people with a rifle.
>>
>> But he was NOT classified as a "loner".
>> Ricky
>
>Define 'loner'. I think Whitman qualifies. But that term is somewhat
>subjective. I don't think Whitman had any close friends, for instance.
>
Loners are people who have No friends and most likely no family. The
Uinbomber was an true loner or hermit as I understand it. Loners tend
to be paranoid schizophrenics.
>Serving in the Marine Corps is not subjective. Being married is not
>subjective.
>
>It is curious you find nothing of substance to quibble with.
>
>Whitman fits the same profile Oswald does. And he went to the top of
>the Texas Tower and started killing people with a bolt action rifle
>200 - 500 yards away.
>
No he does not. Oswald killed only JFJ as a deliberate act so he had
a point to make but no one can define it. Whitman was on drugs and
anger killing anything that moves. This is a common mass murder
profile often seen when jobs are lost. He had several rifles of
different types with him and many of his victims were about 100 yds.
>He had the same skill level with a weapon that Oswald had, scoring
>within a couple of points of Oswald's best score on the same Marine
>Corps test.
>
He was also a hunter gun collector and Oswald was not. I recall he
had about 29 guns.
>Nobody's claiming Whitman couldn't shoot all those people 500 yards
>away. Anyone claiming Oswald didn't have the same skill set as Whitman
>is seriously mistaken. Oswald's longest hit - from sixty feet up - was
>just 87 yards.
>
>Whitman made hits up to 500 yards away from 231 feet up.
>
>Whitman proves Oswald had the ability to shoot JFK.
BS. One man's ability does not prove another mans ability.
>
>Whitman also proves your quibbles about a wife and Marine Corps
>experience are meaningless.
>
You need to take some psychology courses and learn the academic
deference. You can start with the DSM IV and contact some FBI
profilers.
>Which is why you don't read about Whitman too much in conspiracy
>literature, I guess.
>
No need to read about him for he falls in the mass murder category of
criminals who commit crimes of anger.
>Or was he framed too?
>
No he was shot and killed in the act on the tower.
>
>JoeZ
Caeruleo
joez1...@aol.com (Joe Zircon) wrote:
As I seem to recall he was essentially caught in the act when law
enforcement finally got to the observation deck, I rather doubt it.
Marvellous, Joe. It's amazing that more researchers haven't used the
Whitman example to demonstrate that Oswald's purported feat was not
especially miraculous.
Joe Zircon
> On 15 Nov 2002 12:16:27 -0500, joez1...@aol.com (Joe Zircon) wrote:
>
> >Ricky Tobias <Ric...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<lmi8tu0skiedvhk38...@4ax.com>...
> >> On 14 Nov 2002 16:57:36 -0500, joez1...@aol.com (Joe Zircon) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Ricky Tobias <Ric...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<tmovsukm3mptkim81...@4ax.com>...
> >> ><snip>
> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>"loner in a bad marriage and a dead-end job who had nothing to lose."
> >> >> >>
> >> >> He does not fit this profile. Most loners do not have wives nor could
> >> >> they function in the Corps and then go to Russia.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >You must not have heard of Charles Whitman, then. He was married. He
> >> >functioned in the Marine Corp (including getting a shooting score just
> >> >one point better than Oswald).
> >> >
> >> >Ok, he didn't go to Russia, but so what?
> >> >
> >> >He still shot and killed a lot of people with a rifle.
> >>
> >> But he was NOT classified as a "loner".
> >> Ricky
> >
> >Define 'loner'. I think Whitman qualifies. But that term is somewhat
> >subjective. I don't think Whitman had any close friends, for instance.
> >
> Loners are people who have No friends and most likely no family. The
> Uinbomber was an true loner or hermit as I understand it. Loners tend
> to be paranoid schizophrenics.
Sounds like Whitman and Oswald. They had family, but no true friends.
>
> >Serving in the Marine Corps is not subjective. Being married is not
> >subjective.
> >
> >It is curious you find nothing of substance to quibble with.
> >
> >Whitman fits the same profile Oswald does. And he went to the top of
> >the Texas Tower and started killing people with a bolt action rifle
> >200 - 500 yards away.
> >
> No he does not. Oswald killed only JFJ as a deliberate act so he had
Tippit. Or was that an accident? Funny he didn't apologize to Tippit's
wife and kids at any time. And McDonald? That was an accident too, of
course. He didn't really mean to punch him in the face and pull a gun
on him, and certainly it never entered his mind to pull that trigger
after he pulled the gun from his belt. He was just gonna show Officer
McDonald what a neat gun he had, right?
> a point to make but no one can define it. Whitman was on drugs and
> anger killing anything that moves. This is a common mass murder
> profile often seen when jobs are lost. He had several rifles of
> different types with him and many of his victims were about 100 yds.
It's like 77 yards straight down from the point on the Texas Tower
where Whitman was shooting from!Did he throw rocks at them and kill
them that way??
The victims were 100-500 yards from the base of the tower, not from
Whitman.
>
> >He had the same skill level with a weapon that Oswald had, scoring
> >within a couple of points of Oswald's best score on the same Marine
> >Corps test.
> >
> He was also a hunter gun collector and Oswald was not. I recall he
> had about 29 guns.
>
So what? The point is their skill levels - when tested - were
comparable.
If I've got 100 books on the assassination, and you've got 5, and we
both take a JFK test, and both get about 212 out of 250 right, do I
get extra credit because I've got more books than you?
I don't think so.
Or is our knowledge of the assassination comparable, based on the
results of that test?
> >Nobody's claiming Whitman couldn't shoot all those people 500 yards
> >away. Anyone claiming Oswald didn't have the same skill set as Whitman
> >is seriously mistaken. Oswald's longest hit - from sixty feet up - was
> >just 87 yards.
> >
> >Whitman made hits up to 500 yards away from 231 feet up.
> >
> >Whitman proves Oswald had the ability to shoot JFK.
>
> BS. One man's ability does not prove another mans ability.
Let me explain it again because you missed the pertinent point,
apparently.
When tested in the Marina Corp, both men had comparable shooting
scores.
Ergo, Whitman's far more difficult feats from the Texas Tower
establish beyond a doubt that the assassination was an easy feat for
Whitman, or any other comparably-skilled shooter - e.g., Oswald.
> >
> >Whitman also proves your quibbles about a wife and Marine Corps
> >experience are meaningless.
> >
> You need to take some psychology courses and learn the academic
> deference. You can start with the DSM IV and contact some FBI
> profilers.
hahahahaha.
You need to point out why the quibbles are important. As I noted,
Whitman has much the same background, rendering your quibbles moot.
>
> >Which is why you don't read about Whitman too much in conspiracy
> >literature, I guess.
> >
> No need to read about him for he falls in the mass murder category of
> criminals who commit crimes of anger.
It's not his motive that's important here, it's his shooting skills
and background.
Both are similar to Oswald's, and yet he accomplished far more
difficult shooting feats.
>
> >Or was he framed too?
> >
> No he was shot and killed in the act on the tower.
Yep. And Oswald was shot and killed in the police station parking
garage.
So what? The point is still their shooting skills and background.
Deal with those two items.
You haven't yet.
Ricky Tobias
>Ricky Tobias <Ric...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<50katukqo8ujf4b7s...@4ax.com>...
>> On 15 Nov 2002 12:16:27 -0500, joez1...@aol.com (Joe Zircon) wrote:
>>
>> >Ricky Tobias <Ric...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<lmi8tu0skiedvhk38...@4ax.com>...
>> >> On 14 Nov 2002 16:57:36 -0500, joez1...@aol.com (Joe Zircon) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Ricky Tobias <Ric...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<tmovsukm3mptkim81...@4ax.com>...
>> >> ><snip>
>> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>"loner in a bad marriage and a dead-end job who had nothing to lose."
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> He does not fit this profile. Most loners do not have wives nor could
>> >> >> they function in the Corps and then go to Russia.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >You must not have heard of Charles Whitman, then. He was married. He
>> >> >functioned in the Marine Corp (including getting a shooting score just
>> >> >one point better than Oswald).
>> >> >
>> >> >Ok, he didn't go to Russia, but so what?
>> >> >
>> >> >He still shot and killed a lot of people with a rifle.
>> >>
>> >> But he was NOT classified as a "loner".
>> >> Ricky
>> >
>> >Define 'loner'. I think Whitman qualifies. But that term is somewhat
>> >subjective. I don't think Whitman had any close friends, for instance.
>> >
>> Loners are people who have No friends and most likely no family. The
>> Uinbomber was an true loner or hermit as I understand it. Loners tend
>> to be paranoid schizophrenics.
>
>Sounds like Whitman and Oswald. They had family, but no true friends.
>
No. As I understand it Ted K. the bomber never married and lived in a
cabin all alone. The clinical difference is apparent.
>
>
>>
>> >Serving in the Marine Corps is not subjective. Being married is not
>> >subjective.
>> >
>> >It is curious you find nothing of substance to quibble with.
>> >
>> >Whitman fits the same profile Oswald does. And he went to the top of
>> >the Texas Tower and started killing people with a bolt action rifle
>> >200 - 500 yards away.
>> >
>> No he does not. Oswald killed only JFJ as a deliberate act so he had
>
>Tippit. Or was that an accident? Funny he didn't apologize to Tippit's
>wife and kids at any time. And McDonald? That was an accident too, of
>course. He didn't really mean to punch him in the face and pull a gun
>on him, and certainly it never entered his mind to pull that trigger
>after he pulled the gun from his belt. He was just gonna show Officer
>McDonald what a neat gun he had, right?
>
Tippit was not a planned act but self defense happenstance. He did
not resist arrest nor draw his pistol according the arrest report and
I do not recall ever hearing he hit McDonald. What ever occurred in
the TT was not significant enough to charge Oswald with resisting
arrest or assaulting an officer or checking the resisting arrest box
on the arrest report.
>
>> a point to make but no one can define it. Whitman was on drugs and
>> anger killing anything that moves. This is a common mass murder
>> profile often seen when jobs are lost. He had several rifles of
>> different types with him and many of his victims were about 100 yds.
>
>It's like 77 yards straight down from the point on the Texas Tower
>where Whitman was shooting from!Did he throw rocks at them and kill
>them that way??
>
>The victims were 100-500 yards from the base of the tower, not from
>Whitman.
>
I have been there and read the reports. You need to draw some
triangles from body position to the tower bottom and then the top. In
fact why don't you go find the details of the body positions and post
them.
>
>
>>
>> >He had the same skill level with a weapon that Oswald had, scoring
>> >within a couple of points of Oswald's best score on the same Marine
>> >Corps test.
>> >
>> He was also a hunter gun collector and Oswald was not. I recall he
>> had about 29 guns.
>>
>
>So what? The point is their skill levels - when tested - were
>comparable.
Not really.
>
>If I've got 100 books on the assassination, and you've got 5, and we
>both take a JFK test, and both get about 212 out of 250 right, do I
>get extra credit because I've got more books than you?
>
I have over 100 but suffer health and memory problems but I can still
tell what is possible and what is probable and what is improbable and
what is impossible. Your abilities do not reflect my abilities no
matter what the test shows and if the test is designed to be fair to
both.
>I don't think so.
>
>Or is our knowledge of the assassination comparable, based on the
>results of that test?
>
>
>
>> >Nobody's claiming Whitman couldn't shoot all those people 500 yards
>> >away. Anyone claiming Oswald didn't have the same skill set as Whitman
>> >is seriously mistaken. Oswald's longest hit - from sixty feet up - was
>> >just 87 yards.
>> >
>> >Whitman made hits up to 500 yards away from 231 feet up.
>> >
>> >Whitman proves Oswald had the ability to shoot JFK.
>>
>> BS. One man's ability does not prove another mans ability.
>
>Let me explain it again because you missed the pertinent point,
>apparently.
>
>When tested in the Marina Corp, both men had comparable shooting
>scores.
>Ergo, Whitman's far more difficult feats from the Texas Tower
>establish beyond a doubt that the assassination was an easy feat for
>Whitman, or any other comparably-skilled shooter - e.g., Oswald.
>
It does not establish anything of the sort. Whitman had more time to
get his shots off than Oswald and many of his shots were at people
walking or stationary on the ground.
>
>
>
>> >
>> >Whitman also proves your quibbles about a wife and Marine Corps
>> >experience are meaningless.
>> >
>> You need to take some psychology courses and learn the academic
>> deference. You can start with the DSM IV and contact some FBI
>> profilers.
>
>hahahahaha.
>
>You need to point out why the quibbles are important. As I noted,
>Whitman has much the same background, rendering your quibbles moot.
>
I have studied psychology and know the difference. You are not
required to learn the differences and may remain WRONG if you desire.
>
>>
>> >Which is why you don't read about Whitman too much in conspiracy
>> >literature, I guess.
>> >
>> No need to read about him for he falls in the mass murder category of
>> criminals who commit crimes of anger.
>
>It's not his motive that's important here, it's his shooting skills
>and background.
>
Nether are applicable to Oswald or Dealey unless you are contending he
was a Dealey Shooter!
>Both are similar to Oswald's, and yet he accomplished far more
>difficult shooting feats.
>
Prove it. Give us the exact details of the shots he took and the time
intervals.
>
>
>>
>> >Or was he framed too?
>> >
>> No he was shot and killed in the act on the tower.
>
>Yep. And Oswald was shot and killed in the police station parking
>garage.
>So what? The point is still their shooting skills and background.
>
>Deal with those two items.
>
>You haven't yet.
>
Yes I have.
Joe Zircon
Who's talking about Ted Karzcynski?
I was comparing Oswald to Whitman.
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >Serving in the Marine Corps is not subjective. Being married is not
> >> >subjective.
> >> >
> >> >It is curious you find nothing of substance to quibble with.
> >> >
> >> >Whitman fits the same profile Oswald does. And he went to the top of
> >> >the Texas Tower and started killing people with a bolt action rifle
> >> >200 - 500 yards away.
> >> >
> >> No he does not. Oswald killed only JFJ as a deliberate act so he had
> >
> >Tippit. Or was that an accident? Funny he didn't apologize to Tippit's
> >wife and kids at any time. And McDonald? That was an accident too, of
> >course. He didn't really mean to punch him in the face and pull a gun
> >on him, and certainly it never entered his mind to pull that trigger
> >after he pulled the gun from his belt. He was just gonna show Officer
> >McDonald what a neat gun he had, right?
> >
> Tippit was not a planned act but self defense happenstance.
So you claim. Regardless, Oswald did kill Tippit. He did attempt to
kill McDonald.
> He did
> not resist arrest nor draw his pistol according the arrest report and
> I do not recall ever hearing he hit McDonald.
This was self-inflicted, right?
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0271a.htm
> What ever occurred in
> the TT was not significant enough to charge Oswald with resisting
> arrest or assaulting an officer or checking the resisting arrest box
> on the arrest report.
>
Resisting arrest was the least of Oswald's problems on that day. He
was charged with killing the president and a police officer, charges
that dwarf any charge of resisting arrest.
> >
> >> a point to make but no one can define it. Whitman was on drugs and
> >> anger killing anything that moves. This is a common mass murder
> >> profile often seen when jobs are lost. He had several rifles of
> >> different types with him and many of his victims were about 100 yds.
> >
> >It's like 77 yards straight down from the point on the Texas Tower
> >where Whitman was shooting from!Did he throw rocks at them and kill
> >them that way??
> >
> >The victims were 100-500 yards from the base of the tower, not from
> >Whitman.
> >
> I have been there and read the reports. You need to draw some
> triangles from body position to the tower bottom and then the top. In
> fact why don't you go find the details of the body positions and post
> them.
Are you disputing the furthest shot was at least 500 yards away?
Joe Zircon
Ricky Tobias <Ric...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<ik1etuktgnq748uc2...@4ax.com>...
See previous response.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >Serving in the Marine Corps is not subjective. Being married is not
> >> >subjective.
> >> >
> >> >It is curious you find nothing of substance to quibble with.
> >> >
> >> >Whitman fits the same profile Oswald does. And he went to the top of
> >> >the Texas Tower and started killing people with a bolt action rifle
> >> >200 - 500 yards away.
> >> >
> >> No he does not. Oswald killed only JFJ as a deliberate act so he had
> >
> >Tippit. Or was that an accident? Funny he didn't apologize to Tippit's
> >wife and kids at any time. And McDonald? That was an accident too, of
> >course. He didn't really mean to punch him in the face and pull a gun
> >on him, and certainly it never entered his mind to pull that trigger
> >after he pulled the gun from his belt. He was just gonna show Officer
> >McDonald what a neat gun he had, right?
> >
> Tippit was not a planned act but self defense happenstance. He did
> not resist arrest nor draw his pistol according the arrest report and
> I do not recall ever hearing he hit McDonald. What ever occurred in
> the TT was not significant enough to charge Oswald with resisting
> arrest or assaulting an officer or checking the resisting arrest box
> on the arrest report.
>
See previous response.
> >
> >> a point to make but no one can define it. Whitman was on drugs and
> >> anger killing anything that moves. This is a common mass murder
> >> profile often seen when jobs are lost. He had several rifles of
> >> different types with him and many of his victims were about 100 yds.
> >
> >It's like 77 yards straight down from the point on the Texas Tower
> >where Whitman was shooting from!Did he throw rocks at them and kill
> >them that way??
> >
> >The victims were 100-500 yards from the base of the tower, not from
> >Whitman.
> >
> I have been there and read the reports. You need to draw some
> triangles from body position to the tower bottom and then the top. In
> fact why don't you go find the details of the body positions and post
> them.
See previous response.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >He had the same skill level with a weapon that Oswald had, scoring
> >> >within a couple of points of Oswald's best score on the same Marine
> >> >Corps test.
> >> >
> >> He was also a hunter gun collector and Oswald was not. I recall he
> >> had about 29 guns.
> >>
> >
> >So what? The point is their skill levels - when tested - were
> >comparable.
>
> Not really.
212 out of 250 (84.8 out of 100) is not comparable to 215 out of 250
(86 of 100)????
> >
> >If I've got 100 books on the assassination, and you've got 5, and we
> >both take a JFK test, and both get about 212 out of 250 right, do I
> >get extra credit because I've got more books than you?
> >
> I have over 100 but suffer health and memory problems but I can still
> tell what is possible and what is probable and what is improbable and
> what is impossible. Your abilities do not reflect my abilities no
> matter what the test shows and if the test is designed to be fair to
> both.
You're missing the point. Tests are recognized the world over as proof
of a certain level of ability. Otherwise, there'd be no Bar exam, no
final exams, etc. And the number of books we have have no bearing on
it.
Oswald scored a 212 on his Marine Corps shooting test.
Whitman scored a 215 on the same test.
The number of rifles each had has no bearing on it.
Live with it. Their scores and shooting abilities are comparable.
>
> >I don't think so.
> >
> >Or is our knowledge of the assassination comparable, based on the
> >results of that test?
> >
> >
> >
> >> >Nobody's claiming Whitman couldn't shoot all those people 500 yards
> >> >away. Anyone claiming Oswald didn't have the same skill set as Whitman
> >> >is seriously mistaken. Oswald's longest hit - from sixty feet up - was
> >> >just 87 yards.
> >> >
> >> >Whitman made hits up to 500 yards away from 231 feet up.
> >> >
> >> >Whitman proves Oswald had the ability to shoot JFK.
> >>
> >> BS. One man's ability does not prove another mans ability.
> >
> >Let me explain it again because you missed the pertinent point,
> >apparently.
> >
> >When tested in the Marina Corp, both men had comparable shooting
> >scores.
> >Ergo, Whitman's far more difficult feats from the Texas Tower
> >establish beyond a doubt that the assassination was an easy feat for
> >Whitman, or any other comparably-skilled shooter - e.g., Oswald.
> >
>
> It does not establish anything of the sort. Whitman had more time to
> get his shots off than Oswald and many of his shots were at people
> walking or stationary on the ground.
And others were not. And they were all at targets far more distant.
Geez, if Whitman shot the rifle *straight down* from the Texas Tower
observation deck(231 feet - 77 yards), that would be roughly
equivalent to Oswald's furthest shot (265.3 feet - 88 yards).
But of course Whitman's target's were up tp 500 yards from the base of
the building.
> >
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> >Whitman also proves your quibbles about a wife and Marine Corps
> >> >experience are meaningless.
> >> >
> >> You need to take some psychology courses and learn the academic
> >> deference. You can start with the DSM IV and contact some FBI
> >> profilers.
> >
> >hahahahaha.
> >
> >You need to point out why the quibbles are important. As I noted,
> >Whitman has much the same background, rendering your quibbles moot.
> >
> I have studied psychology and know the difference. You are not
> required to learn the differences and may remain WRONG if you desire.
You haven't pointed out any significant differences between Whitman
and Oswald yet.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >Which is why you don't read about Whitman too much in conspiracy
> >> >literature, I guess.
> >> >
> >> No need to read about him for he falls in the mass murder category of
> >> criminals who commit crimes of anger.
> >
> >It's not his motive that's important here, it's his shooting skills
> >and background.
> >
> Nether are applicable to Oswald or Dealey unless you are contending he
> was a Dealey Shooter!
His shooting skills aren't applicable to a study of the Dealey Plaza
shooting?
He had a comparable score in the Marine Corps when tested. He had a
similar background - married, with Marine Corps service. Both he and
Oswald were busted back to private for various offenses. Both had
incidents with the possession of an illegal weapon while in the Corps.
Not at all similar, are they?
You assured us originally Oswald's background effectively eliminated
him as a lone-nut killer from the TSBD. Curiously, it didn't eliminate
Whitman from as the lone-nut shooter from the Texas Tower.
And Whitman's skill set didn't eliminate him as the Texas Tower
shooter, either, with far more difficult shots at far more distant
targets than in Dealey Plaza.
Ergo, Oswald's shooting ability is more than adequate for the task,
and his purported lack of shooting skills is just so much nonsense by
conspiracy authors.
>
> >Both are similar to Oswald's, and yet he accomplished far more
> >difficult shooting feats.
> >
> Prove it. Give us the exact details of the shots he took and the time
> intervals.
Here's just a couple (he killed 10 people and wounded 31 more in
shooting from the Texas tower, in addition to killing a few more who
were at the Tower observation deck when he arrived).
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial/whitman/6.htm
"His first target was Claire Wilson, a heavily pregnant
eighteen-year-old. The bullet pierced her abdomen and fractured the
skull of the baby she carried, killing it. When she cried out, an
acquaintance, Thomas Eckman turned and asked her what was wrong. Just
then he was hit in the chest. He fell dead across his wounded girl."
(Two dead victims in 10 seconds or less, at far greater distances than
the Dealey Plaza shooting).
"Then Alex Hernandez, a newsboy on a bicycle, fell wounded." (why
don't you tell us how fast a bicycle moves, and whether it's
comparable to the speed of the limo)?
"Officers Jerry Culp and Billy Speed were huddled, with others, under
a statue south of the Tower, trying to figure their next move.
Charlie shot Billy Speed through a six-inch space between two
balusters, which were part of a rail that surrounded the statue.
Though Speed's wound looked superficial to those around him, it was in
fact grave. He was dying."
"As Paul peered out from behind the barricade to see what was
happening, Charlie shot him through his open mouth. He was killed
instantly."
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >Or was he framed too?
> >> >
> >> No he was shot and killed in the act on the tower.
> >
> >Yep. And Oswald was shot and killed in the police station parking
> >garage.
> >So what? The point is still their shooting skills and background.
> >
> >Deal with those two items.
> >
> >You haven't yet.
> >
> Yes I have.
No, you just claimed they weren't pertinent. That's not dealing with
them, that's dismissing them.
JoeZ
Ricky Tobias
And I am explaining the difference between a "loner" and a "social"
person. Oswald is neither Ted nor Whitman. Oswald may have acted
alone but he was not a clinical "loner".
>
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >Serving in the Marine Corps is not subjective. Being married is not
>> >> >subjective.
>> >> >
>> >> >It is curious you find nothing of substance to quibble with.
>> >> >
>> >> >Whitman fits the same profile Oswald does. And he went to the top of
>> >> >the Texas Tower and started killing people with a bolt action rifle
>> >> >200 - 500 yards away.
>> >> >
>> >> No he does not. Oswald killed only JFJ as a deliberate act so he had
>> >
>> >Tippit. Or was that an accident? Funny he didn't apologize to Tippit's
>> >wife and kids at any time. And McDonald? That was an accident too, of
>> >course. He didn't really mean to punch him in the face and pull a gun
>> >on him, and certainly it never entered his mind to pull that trigger
>> >after he pulled the gun from his belt. He was just gonna show Officer
>> >McDonald what a neat gun he had, right?
>> >
>> Tippit was not a planned act but self defense happenstance.
>
>So you claim. Regardless, Oswald did kill Tippit. He did attempt to
>kill McDonald.
I suspect that Oswald did kill Tippit based upon the paraffin tests.
No I do not think he attempted to kill McDonald. He was never charged
with it and the resisting arrest box on the arrest report was not
marked. Cops tend to exaggerate some things. Oswald could have drawn
his gun before they got close enough to gab him.
>
>
>> He did
>> not resist arrest nor draw his pistol according the arrest report and
>> I do not recall ever hearing he hit McDonald.
>
>This was self-inflicted, right?
>http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0271a.htm
>
I do not know. Oswald had cuts also and claimed they hit him. In the
struggle who knows what occurred.
>
>
>> What ever occurred in
>> the TT was not significant enough to charge Oswald with resisting
>> arrest or assaulting an officer or checking the resisting arrest box
>> on the arrest report.
>>
>
>Resisting arrest was the least of Oswald's problems on that day. He
>was charged with killing the president and a police officer, charges
>that dwarf any charge of resisting arrest.
>
The box should of been marked if he resisted. If they beat him he
would of course defend or struggle to protect himself.
>
>
>
>
>> >
>> >> a point to make but no one can define it. Whitman was on drugs and
>> >> anger killing anything that moves. This is a common mass murder
>> >> profile often seen when jobs are lost. He had several rifles of
>> >> different types with him and many of his victims were about 100 yds.
>> >
>> >It's like 77 yards straight down from the point on the Texas Tower
>> >where Whitman was shooting from!Did he throw rocks at them and kill
>> >them that way??
>> >
>> >The victims were 100-500 yards from the base of the tower, not from
>> >Whitman.
>> >
>> I have been there and read the reports. You need to draw some
>> triangles from body position to the tower bottom and then the top. In
>> fact why don't you go find the details of the body positions and post
>> them.
>
>Are you disputing the furthest shot was at least 500 yards away?
>
I do not recall all the details of the case not having reviewed it in
about 30 years but I do recall seeing an anniversary film documentary
a few years ago.
Ricky Tobias
No. The time between testing and the amount of practice prior to the
murders is a big factor. Oswald did not collect guns and spend a lot
of time practicing at the range. Some of his Corps buddies said he
did not like going to the range.
>
>
>> >
>> >If I've got 100 books on the assassination, and you've got 5, and we
>> >both take a JFK test, and both get about 212 out of 250 right, do I
>> >get extra credit because I've got more books than you?
>> >
>> I have over 100 but suffer health and memory problems but I can still
>> tell what is possible and what is probable and what is improbable and
>> what is impossible. Your abilities do not reflect my abilities no
>> matter what the test shows and if the test is designed to be fair to
>> both.
>
>You're missing the point. Tests are recognized the world over as proof
>of a certain level of ability. Otherwise, there'd be no Bar exam, no
>final exams, etc. And the number of books we have have no bearing on
>it.
>
And it is recognized that tests can be wrong or misleading. As I said
my health and memory problems would be reflected on the test. As to
the number of guns one owns, the more guns means the more dedicated to
shooting the person is. Oswald had a rifle and a pistol and of course
a family with limited money. If he had more money would he have
bought more guns? From all reports probably not. Whitman bought guns
because he likes to shoot them. As a hunter and collector I see a
difference between them as shooters.
>Oswald scored a 212 on his Marine Corps shooting test.
>Whitman scored a 215 on the same test.
>
So what? In my younger years I did better than that but cannot do it
now. Time and practice prior to the murders is the important issue.
>The number of rifles each had has no bearing on it.
>
See above.
>Live with it. Their scores and shooting abilities are comparable.
>
At that time when both were in the military yes. But the scores are
meaningless to the time of the murders because years had elapsed since
the testing.
Prove it.
>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Whitman also proves your quibbles about a wife and Marine Corps
>> >> >experience are meaningless.
>> >> >
>> >> You need to take some psychology courses and learn the academic
>> >> deference. You can start with the DSM IV and contact some FBI
>> >> profilers.
>> >
>> >hahahahaha.
>> >
>> >You need to point out why the quibbles are important. As I noted,
>> >Whitman has much the same background, rendering your quibbles moot.
>> >
>> I have studied psychology and know the difference. You are not
>> required to learn the differences and may remain WRONG if you desire.
>
>You haven't pointed out any significant differences between Whitman
>and Oswald yet.
>
You have not been reading nor do I think you desire to understand the
difference. I do not have the time to give you a psychology course.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >Which is why you don't read about Whitman too much in conspiracy
>> >> >literature, I guess.
>> >> >
>> >> No need to read about him for he falls in the mass murder category of
>> >> criminals who commit crimes of anger.
>> >
>> >It's not his motive that's important here, it's his shooting skills
>> >and background.
>> >
>> Nether are applicable to Oswald or Dealey unless you are contending he
>> was a Dealey Shooter!
>
>His shooting skills aren't applicable to a study of the Dealey Plaza
>shooting?
>
No they are not.
>He had a comparable score in the Marine Corps when tested. He had a
>similar background - married, with Marine Corps service. Both he and
>Oswald were busted back to private for various offenses. Both had
>incidents with the possession of an illegal weapon while in the Corps.
>Not at all similar, are they?
>
Does not matter as the two are different people involved in different
types of crimes.
>You assured us originally Oswald's background effectively eliminated
>him as a lone-nut killer from the TSBD.
I did not say any such thing. I said Oswald was not a "loner" as
opposed to a social person. This relates to psychology and not
committing a crime alone. Ted K. is a loner. Oswald was not. That
has been my point.
> Curiously, it didn't eliminate
>Whitman from as the lone-nut shooter from the Texas Tower.
>
Whitman was not a "loner" but he acted in his crime alone. Do you not
understand the difference in psychology?
>And Whitman's skill set didn't eliminate him as the Texas Tower
>shooter, either, with far more difficult shots at far more distant
>targets than in Dealey Plaza.
>
Wrong again Joe.
>Ergo, Oswald's shooting ability is more than adequate for the task,
>and his purported lack of shooting skills is just so much nonsense by
>conspiracy authors.
>
Wrong again Joe.
These are distractions from the psychology point was Oswald a loner?
The answer is no. Could he of acted alone? Yes. Did he act alone?
My answer is no.
>
>
>
>>
>> >Both are similar to Oswald's, and yet he accomplished far more
>> >difficult shooting feats.
>> >
>> Prove it. Give us the exact details of the shots he took and the time
>> intervals.
>
>Here's just a couple (he killed 10 people and wounded 31 more in
>shooting from the Texas tower, in addition to killing a few more who
>were at the Tower observation deck when he arrived).
>
>http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial/whitman/6.htm
>
I scanned the article but found no details about the ranges of the
shots nor the number of guns. You will have to do better than this to
prove the shots were more difficult.
Courts deal with claims all the time by dismissing them. I have
addressed them.
Joe Zircon
You mentioned two things initially that separated Oswald from the
typical loner, in theory: He was married and functioned in the Marine
Corps (your third point: defected to Russia, has no bearing on
Oswald's lonership.
Both Oswald and Whitman are similar in background. Both fit the same
profile. If Whitman can go to the top of the Texas Tower and start
blowing people away with a rifle, Oswald can go to the TSBD and shoot
the President.
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >Serving in the Marine Corps is not subjective. Being married is not
> >> >> >subjective.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It is curious you find nothing of substance to quibble with.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Whitman fits the same profile Oswald does. And he went to the top of
> >> >> >the Texas Tower and started killing people with a bolt action rifle
> >> >> >200 - 500 yards away.
> >> >> >
> >> >> No he does not. Oswald killed only JFJ as a deliberate act so he had
> >> >
> >> >Tippit. Or was that an accident? Funny he didn't apologize to Tippit's
> >> >wife and kids at any time. And McDonald? That was an accident too, of
> >> >course. He didn't really mean to punch him in the face and pull a gun
> >> >on him, and certainly it never entered his mind to pull that trigger
> >> >after he pulled the gun from his belt. He was just gonna show Officer
> >> >McDonald what a neat gun he had, right?
> >> >
> >> Tippit was not a planned act but self defense happenstance.
> >
> >So you claim. Regardless, Oswald did kill Tippit. He did attempt to
> >kill McDonald.
>
> I suspect that Oswald did kill Tippit based upon the paraffin tests.
> No I do not think he attempted to kill McDonald.
Hahahahaha. He slugged McDonald and pulled a gun (see Brewer's
testimony, for instance).
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0271a.htm
> He was never charged
> with it and the resisting arrest box on the arrest report was not
> marked. Cops tend to exaggerate some things. Oswald could have drawn
> his gun before they got close enough to gab him.
Drawing it too soon makes him a target. Waiting until he's surrounded
by cops prevents the other cops from firing back for fear of shooting
a fellow officer.
> >
> >
> >> He did
> >> not resist arrest nor draw his pistol according the arrest report and
> >> I do not recall ever hearing he hit McDonald.
> >
> >This was self-inflicted, right?
> >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0271a.htm
> >
> I do not know. Oswald had cuts also and claimed they hit him.
Received in the struggle to subdue Oswald after he pulled a gun and
punched McDonald.
> In the
> struggle who knows what occurred.
According to the witnesses, Oswald pulled a gun and punched McDonald.
Then a struggle over the gun ensued.
Pretend otherwise all you want.
> >
> >
> >> What ever occurred in
> >> the TT was not significant enough to charge Oswald with resisting
> >> arrest or assaulting an officer or checking the resisting arrest box
> >> on the arrest report.
> >>
> >
> >Resisting arrest was the least of Oswald's problems on that day. He
> >was charged with killing the president and a police officer, charges
> >that dwarf any charge of resisting arrest.
> >
> The box should of been marked if he resisted. If they beat him he
> would of course defend or struggle to protect himself.
Hello? You're claiming the failure to check off a box on a form takes
precedence over the testimony of the numerous people who said Oswald
did resist arrest, did punch McDonald, and did draw a weapon in the
crowded theatre?
Don't be absurd.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> >> a point to make but no one can define it. Whitman was on drugs and
> >> >> anger killing anything that moves. This is a common mass murder
> >> >> profile often seen when jobs are lost. He had several rifles of
> >> >> different types with him and many of his victims were about 100 yds.
> >> >
> >> >It's like 77 yards straight down from the point on the Texas Tower
> >> >where Whitman was shooting from!Did he throw rocks at them and kill
> >> >them that way??
> >> >
> >> >The victims were 100-500 yards from the base of the tower, not from
> >> >Whitman.
> >> >
> >> I have been there and read the reports. You need to draw some
> >> triangles from body position to the tower bottom and then the top. In
> >> fact why don't you go find the details of the body positions and post
> >> them.
> >
> >Are you disputing the furthest shot was at least 500 yards away?
> >
> I do not recall all the details of the case not having reviewed it in
> about 30 years but I do recall seeing an anniversary film documentary
> a few years ago.
Are you disputing the furthest shot was at least 500 yards away? Your
above answer sounds like a 'no' to that question.
<snip>
Joe Zircon
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >He had the same skill level with a weapon that Oswald had, scoring
> >> >> >within a couple of points of Oswald's best score on the same Marine
> >> >> >Corps test.
> >> >> >
> >> >> He was also a hunter gun collector and Oswald was not. I recall he
> >> >> had about 29 guns.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >So what? The point is their skill levels - when tested - were
> >> >comparable.
> >>
> >> Not really.
> >
> >212 out of 250 (84.8 out of 100) is not comparable to 215 out of 250
> >(86 of 100)????
> >
> No. The time between testing and the amount of practice prior to the
> murders is a big factor. Oswald did not collect guns and spend a lot
> of time practicing at the range. Some of his Corps buddies said he
> did not like going to the range.
We're talking two different things, it appears. I said there skill
levels when they were tested were comparable. You said 'Not really'.
But now you're saying their skill levels may have been different when
the murders were committed. That's a different argument entirely from
the one I initially advanced, and the one you initially claimed wasn't
true. We can move on to their skill levels at the time of the murders
shortly, but, isn't a score of 212 of 250 comparable to a score of 215
of 250?
>
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> >If I've got 100 books on the assassination, and you've got 5, and we
> >> >both take a JFK test, and both get about 212 out of 250 right, do I
> >> >get extra credit because I've got more books than you?
> >> >
> >> I have over 100 but suffer health and memory problems but I can still
> >> tell what is possible and what is probable and what is improbable and
> >> what is impossible. Your abilities do not reflect my abilities no
> >> matter what the test shows and if the test is designed to be fair to
> >> both.
> >
> >You're missing the point. Tests are recognized the world over as proof
> >of a certain level of ability. Otherwise, there'd be no Bar exam, no
> >final exams, etc. And the number of books we have have no bearing on
> >it.
> >
> And it is recognized that tests can be wrong or misleading.
They are the best we have. We use them daily in all facets of life.
The Marine Corps uses them daily to determine who is an adequate
Marksman and who is needs additional training. Whitman and Oswald's
scores, when they were tested, differed by 3 points out of 250 (1.2%
of the total).
That's pretty damn close. Of course, if you want to take the approach
that the tests are wrong or misleading, then what evidence do you have
that Oswald was an *inadequate* shot? You just took his test scores
off the board.
Moreover, if the tests can be wrong or misleading, then Oswald could
actually be a better shot than Whitman, according to your own
arguments on their relative shooting skills.
Are you sure you want to pursue this 'tests can be wrong or
misleading' argument? It works against you, not in favor.
> As I said
> my health and memory problems would be reflected on the test.
Yep, which means if you score the same as me, then *taking your health
and memory problems into account*, you have about the same level of
knowledge of the assassination as me.
>As to
> the number of guns one owns, the more guns means the more dedicated to
> shooting the person is.
That's a generalization only. It may or may not be true on a
person-by-person basis.
> Oswald had a rifle and a pistol and of course
> a family with limited money. If he had more money would he have
> bought more guns? From all reports probably not.
No? He talked a lot with Adrian Alba about guns, didn't he? He tried
to acquire a better rifle from Alba, didn't he?
>Whitman bought guns
> because he likes to shoot them. As a hunter and collector I see a
> difference between them as shooters.
Sergeant York in WWI was a man who owned only one rifle. Seems to me
that didn't reflect too badly on his shooting ability.
And back to the specific point I made. Since they scored within 3
points of each other on the Marine Corps shooting test, are their
shooting skills comparable at the time they took the test?
I say yes. You initially said 'Not really', but your arguments concern
their abilities at the time of the murders, not at the time of the
tests.
What arguments do you have concerning their abilities as judged by the
test results (Oswald 212, Whitman 215).
>
> >Oswald scored a 212 on his Marine Corps shooting test.
> >Whitman scored a 215 on the same test.
> >
> So what? In my younger years I did better than that but cannot do it
> now. Time and practice prior to the murders is the important issue.
We can move on to the time of the murders in a moment. But your 'so
what' seems a lot like an admission that their abilities at the time
of their tests were pretty much comparable - the point I initially
made.
>
> >The number of rifles each had has no bearing on it.
> >
> See above.
>
And I've got six hundred books on the assassination so I'm smarter
than you?
That's never been the fair way to judge knowledge or ability, and we
both know it. The number of rifles owned is meaningless to the
shooting ability.
> >Live with it. Their scores and shooting abilities are comparable.
> >
> At that time when both were in the military yes. But the scores are
> meaningless to the time of the murders because years had elapsed since
> the testing.
Aha. You initially said "Not really." Now you admit that was wrong.
Yes, years had elapsed for each (about six for Oswald, and seven for
Whitman, as I recall).
But the argument advanced by critics is that Oswald was a poor shot
*in the Marine Corps*, as reflected in his test scores. Was Whitman
likewise a poor shot in the Marine Corps?
Please familiarize yourself with the Texas Tower shooting. Deny basic
facts of the case, or asking me to prove each and every point isn't
the best way to advance your case. It merely serves to delay.
> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Whitman also proves your quibbles about a wife and Marine Corps
> >> >> >experience are meaningless.
> >> >> >
> >> >> You need to take some psychology courses and learn the academic
> >> >> deference. You can start with the DSM IV and contact some FBI
> >> >> profilers.
> >> >
> >> >hahahahaha.
> >> >
> >> >You need to point out why the quibbles are important. As I noted,
> >> >Whitman has much the same background, rendering your quibbles moot.
> >> >
> >> I have studied psychology and know the difference. You are not
> >> required to learn the differences and may remain WRONG if you desire.
> >
> >You haven't pointed out any significant differences between Whitman
> >and Oswald yet.
> >
> You have not been reading nor do I think you desire to understand the
> difference. I do not have the time to give you a psychology course.
Curiously, you cited two things initially that you claimed meant
Oswald didn't fit the loner profile: He was married and he served in
the Marine Corps.
So did Whitman. So did Whitman. You've pointed out nothing in terms of
significant differences to date.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >Which is why you don't read about Whitman too much in conspiracy
> >> >> >literature, I guess.
> >> >> >
> >> >> No need to read about him for he falls in the mass murder category of
> >> >> criminals who commit crimes of anger.
> >> >
> >> >It's not his motive that's important here, it's his shooting skills
> >> >and background.
> >> >
> >> Nether are applicable to Oswald or Dealey unless you are contending he
> >> was a Dealey Shooter!
> >
> >His shooting skills aren't applicable to a study of the Dealey Plaza
> >shooting?
> >
> No they are not.
Hahahahaha. So Whitman can kill people with one shot 500 yards away,
and Oswald, who had similar skills in the Marine Corps to Whitman,
couldn't kill JFK with three shots at 50 - 88 yards away. Is that the
extent of your argument here?
>
> >He had a comparable score in the Marine Corps when tested. He had a
> >similar background - married, with Marine Corps service. Both he and
> >Oswald were busted back to private for various offenses. Both had
> >incidents with the possession of an illegal weapon while in the Corps.
> >Not at all similar, are they?
> >
> Does not matter as the two are different people involved in different
> types of crimes.
>
Both used rifles from a tall building to shoot people.
> >You assured us originally Oswald's background effectively eliminated
> >him as a lone-nut killer from the TSBD.
>
> I did not say any such thing. I said Oswald was not a "loner" as
> opposed to a social person. This relates to psychology and not
> committing a crime alone. Ted K. is a loner. Oswald was not. That
> has been my point.
What about Whitman? His background is exceedingly similar to Oswald's.
Married, with Marine Corps service - two points that you said made
Oswald not a loner.
>
> > Curiously, it didn't eliminate
> >Whitman from as the lone-nut shooter from the Texas Tower.
> >
> Whitman was not a "loner" but he acted in his crime alone. Do you not
> understand the difference in psychology?
How is he different than Oswald? If he can go to the Texas Tower and
shoot people with his background, Oswald can go to the TSBD and shoot
JFK.
>
> >And Whitman's skill set didn't eliminate him as the Texas Tower
> >shooter, either, with far more difficult shots at far more distant
> >targets than in Dealey Plaza.
> >
> Wrong again Joe.
They weren't more difficult? They weren't more distant?
C'mon - the distance alone of Whitman's furthest shot is over 5 times
Oswald's furthest shot!
That alone makes it more difficult. Or are you about to claim distance
doesn't matter?
>
> >Ergo, Oswald's shooting ability is more than adequate for the task,
> >and his purported lack of shooting skills is just so much nonsense by
> >conspiracy authors.
> >
> Wrong again Joe.
See above. Oswald's shooting skills are more than adequate for the
task - and you can't argue any different, because you already told us
his test scores don't necessarily reflect his true shooting ability!
You cannot argue that Oswald was a poor shot because you shot that
argument dead yourself.
>
> These are distractions from the psychology point was Oswald a loner?
> The answer is no. Could he of acted alone? Yes. Did he act alone?
> My answer is no.
Was Oswald a loner? Yes. Read the statements of his co-workers at the
TSBD, for instance. Name one close friend he had in the six months
prior to the assassination.
Bet you can't.
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >Both are similar to Oswald's, and yet he accomplished far more
> >> >difficult shooting feats.
> >> >
> >> Prove it. Give us the exact details of the shots he took and the time
> >> intervals.
> >
> >Here's just a couple (he killed 10 people and wounded 31 more in
> >shooting from the Texas tower, in addition to killing a few more who
> >were at the Tower observation deck when he arrived).
> >
> >http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial/whitman/6.htm
> >
> I scanned the article but found no details about the ranges of the
> shots nor the number of guns. You will have to do better than this to
> prove the shots were more difficult.
Geez, read below.
>
> >"His first target was Claire Wilson, a heavily pregnant
> >eighteen-year-old. The bullet pierced her abdomen and fractured the
> >skull of the baby she carried, killing it. When she cried out, an
> >acquaintance, Thomas Eckman turned and asked her what was wrong. Just
> >then he was hit in the chest. He fell dead across his wounded girl."
> >(Two dead victims in 10 seconds or less, at far greater distances than
> >the Dealey Plaza shooting).
Two people killed dead in 10 seconds with one shot each is not more
difficult than Oswald's toughest shot?
Remember that Whitman was nearly as high up (77 yards) as Oswald's
longest shot - measured from the rifle to JFK's head. If Whitman was
shooting straight down and hit Wilson and Eckman, that alone would be
better shooting than Oswald's best in DP - two hits at 77 yards is
better than one hit at 88 and one hit at 45 yards (or so).
Isn't it?
> >
> >"Then Alex Hernandez, a newsboy on a bicycle, fell wounded." (why
> >don't you tell us how fast a bicycle moves, and whether it's
> >comparable to the speed of the limo)?
A boy on a bicycle isn't moving at a speed comparable to JFK in the
limo at 11 mph?
Remember Hernandez was far more distant from Whitman than JFK from
Oswald, too.
> >
> >"Officers Jerry Culp and Billy Speed were huddled, with others, under
> >a statue south of the Tower, trying to figure their next move.
> >Charlie shot Billy Speed through a six-inch space between two
> >balusters, which were part of a rail that surrounded the statue.
> >Though Speed's wound looked superficial to those around him, it was in
> >fact grave. He was dying."
Speed was shot and killed through a 6 inch gap in the concrete
ballistrade Speed thought he was safe behind.
Oswald shot JFK in tougher circumstances?
> >
> >"As Paul peered out from behind the barricade to see what was
> >happening, Charlie shot him through his open mouth. He was killed
> >instantly."
Paul was shot when he took a peak and killed instantly. He was over
300 yards away and felt safe taking a look. He must've been reading
conspiracy literature, which told him a guy who scored in the 210-215
range in the Marine Corps couldn't kill JFK at 88 yards, let alone hit
somebody at 300+.
> >
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >Or was he framed too?
> >> >> >
> >> >> No he was shot and killed in the act on the tower.
> >> >
> >> >Yep. And Oswald was shot and killed in the police station parking
> >> >garage.
> >> >So what? The point is still their shooting skills and background.
> >> >
> >> >Deal with those two items.
> >> >
> >> >You haven't yet.
> >> >
> >> Yes I have.
> >
> >No, you just claimed they weren't pertinent. That's not dealing with
> >them, that's dismissing them.
> >
> Courts deal with claims all the time by dismissing them. I have
> addressed them.
You're a judge and jury now? Dismissing the arguments is not
addressing them.
Oswald's shooting skills (212) and background (married, Marine Corps
service), is comparable to Whitman's shooting skills (215) and
background (married, Marine Corps service). And Whitman shot 41 on the
ground people from the Tower.
This means to you Oswald couldn't have killed JFK, apparently.
Pretend some more you've pointed out significant differences, because
you haven't.
Ricky Tobias
At that age and under those conditions yes but Oswald and Whitman are
two different types of shooters which has alsways been my point.
See above. I have been a Federal Firearms Dealer and have collected
many guns and shot on the University rifle and pistol teams. There is
a significant difference between the shooter with many guns who
shoots often and the shooter with only a few guns who seldom shoots.
>
>
>> As I said
>> my health and memory problems would be reflected on the test.
>
>Yep, which means if you score the same as me, then *taking your health
>and memory problems into account*, you have about the same level of
>knowledge of the assassination as me.
>
>
>
>>As to
>> the number of guns one owns, the more guns means the more dedicated to
>> shooting the person is.
>
>That's a generalization only. It may or may not be true on a
>person-by-person basis.
>
above
>
>> Oswald had a rifle and a pistol and of course
>> a family with limited money. If he had more money would he have
>> bought more guns? From all reports probably not.
>
>No? He talked a lot with Adrian Alba about guns, didn't he? He tried
>to acquire a better rifle from Alba, didn't he?
>
I do not know. For the cost of the MC he could of bought a better
rifle at most gun shows and pawn shops where no records would be kept.
>
>
>
>>Whitman bought guns
>> because he likes to shoot them. As a hunter and collector I see a
>> difference between them as shooters.
>
>Sergeant York in WWI was a man who owned only one rifle. Seems to me
>that didn't reflect too badly on his shooting ability.
>
Yes and he used that rifle to hunt so he could eat and at that time
rifles were expensive and not mass produced in the amounts they were
by 1963.
>And back to the specific point I made. Since they scored within 3
>points of each other on the Marine Corps shooting test, are their
>shooting skills comparable at the time they took the test?
>
Above.
>I say yes. You initially said 'Not really', but your arguments concern
>their abilities at the time of the murders, not at the time of the
>tests.
>
>What arguments do you have concerning their abilities as judged by the
>test results (Oswald 212, Whitman 215).
>
>
above
>
>>
>> >Oswald scored a 212 on his Marine Corps shooting test.
>> >Whitman scored a 215 on the same test.
>> >
>> So what? In my younger years I did better than that but cannot do it
>> now. Time and practice prior to the murders is the important issue.
>
>We can move on to the time of the murders in a moment. But your 'so
>what' seems a lot like an admission that their abilities at the time
>of their tests were pretty much comparable - the point I initially
>made.
>
You tried to say or imply the scores made them identical at the time
of the murders.
>
>
>
>>
>> >The number of rifles each had has no bearing on it.
>> >
>> See above.
>>
>
>And I've got six hundred books on the assassination so I'm smarter
>than you?
>
Since you have not read them, no.
>That's never been the fair way to judge knowledge or ability, and we
>both know it. The number of rifles owned is meaningless to the
>shooting ability.
>
Wrong. I know collectors who never shoot but have hundreds of guns.
Of the known shooters, the best shots have many guns and display an
interest in shooting while the less able shooters have few guns and
little interest in shooting. I see the numbers of guns owned as an
indication of the shooters interest in shooting.
>
>
>> >Live with it. Their scores and shooting abilities are comparable.
>> >
>> At that time when both were in the military yes. But the scores are
>> meaningless to the time of the murders because years had elapsed since
>> the testing.
>
>Aha. You initially said "Not really." Now you admit that was wrong.
>
No. "Not really" was followed with why which is the same as above.
>Yes, years had elapsed for each (about six for Oswald, and seven for
>Whitman, as I recall).
>
>But the argument advanced by critics is that Oswald was a poor shot
>*in the Marine Corps*, as reflected in his test scores. Was Whitman
>likewise a poor shot in the Marine Corps?
>
By Marine standards yes but they were different types of shooters.
Whitman liked to shoot and Oswald did not.
I do not have the time to do your research. If you want to make the
case you should read true crimes or some other books on major crimes
and present it. A 500 yard shot is not that difficult when one has
the time to aim and proper rifle. Oswald could not have done it with
the MC in my opinion but probably could with Whitman's rifle.
>
>
>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Whitman also proves your quibbles about a wife and Marine Corps
>> >> >> >experience are meaningless.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> You need to take some psychology courses and learn the academic
>> >> >> deference. You can start with the DSM IV and contact some FBI
>> >> >> profilers.
>> >> >
>> >> >hahahahaha.
>> >> >
>> >> >You need to point out why the quibbles are important. As I noted,
>> >> >Whitman has much the same background, rendering your quibbles moot.
>> >> >
>> >> I have studied psychology and know the difference. You are not
>> >> required to learn the differences and may remain WRONG if you desire.
>> >
>> >You haven't pointed out any significant differences between Whitman
>> >and Oswald yet.
>> >
>> You have not been reading nor do I think you desire to understand the
>> difference. I do not have the time to give you a psychology course.
>
>Curiously, you cited two things initially that you claimed meant
>Oswald didn't fit the loner profile: He was married and he served in
>the Marine Corps.
>
>So did Whitman. So did Whitman. You've pointed out nothing in terms of
>significant differences to date.
>
The nature of the crimes they are accused of.
>
>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Which is why you don't read about Whitman too much in conspiracy
>> >> >> >literature, I guess.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> No need to read about him for he falls in the mass murder category of
>> >> >> criminals who commit crimes of anger.
>> >> >
>> >> >It's not his motive that's important here, it's his shooting skills
>> >> >and background.
>> >> >
>> >> Nether are applicable to Oswald or Dealey unless you are contending he
>> >> was a Dealey Shooter!
>> >
>> >His shooting skills aren't applicable to a study of the Dealey Plaza
>> >shooting?
>> >
>> No they are not.
>
>Hahahahaha. So Whitman can kill people with one shot 500 yards away,
>and Oswald, who had similar skills in the Marine Corps to Whitman,
>couldn't kill JFK with three shots at 50 - 88 yards away. Is that the
>extent of your argument here?
>
That is the extent of your understanding and I do not think you are
willing to learn nor do I have the time to teach you.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> >He had a comparable score in the Marine Corps when tested. He had a
>> >similar background - married, with Marine Corps service. Both he and
>> >Oswald were busted back to private for various offenses. Both had
>> >incidents with the possession of an illegal weapon while in the Corps.
>> >Not at all similar, are they?
>> >
>> Does not matter as the two are different people involved in different
>> types of crimes.
>>
>
>Both used rifles from a tall building to shoot people.
>
>
Meaningless
>
>
>> >You assured us originally Oswald's background effectively eliminated
>> >him as a lone-nut killer from the TSBD.
>>
>> I did not say any such thing. I said Oswald was not a "loner" as
>> opposed to a social person. This relates to psychology and not
>> committing a crime alone. Ted K. is a loner. Oswald was not. That
>> has been my point.
>
>What about Whitman? His background is exceedingly similar to Oswald's.
>Married, with Marine Corps service - two points that you said made
>Oswald not a loner.
>
So? The same two points meant Whitman was not a loner.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> > Curiously, it didn't eliminate
>> >Whitman from as the lone-nut shooter from the Texas Tower.
>> >
>> Whitman was not a "loner" but he acted in his crime alone. Do you not
>> understand the difference in psychology?
>
>How is he different than Oswald? If he can go to the Texas Tower and
>shoot people with his background, Oswald can go to the TSBD and shoot
>JFK.
>
Yes and so could you or I. Whitman acted out of a known motive of
anger and a desire to be killed. If Oswald was shooting no one has
identified his motives but clearly he wanted to live by his actions
afterwards.
>
>
>
>>
>> >And Whitman's skill set didn't eliminate him as the Texas Tower
>> >shooter, either, with far more difficult shots at far more distant
>> >targets than in Dealey Plaza.
>> >
>> Wrong again Joe.
>
>They weren't more difficult? They weren't more distant?
>
Distance does not make a shot more difficult. Clearly you are not an
experienced shooter or are you trying to fool me?
>C'mon - the distance alone of Whitman's furthest shot is over 5 times
>Oswald's furthest shot!
>
BS.
>That alone makes it more difficult. Or are you about to claim distance
>doesn't matter?
>
>
Above.
>
>
>>
>> >Ergo, Oswald's shooting ability is more than adequate for the task,
>> >and his purported lack of shooting skills is just so much nonsense by
>> >conspiracy authors.
>> >
>> Wrong again Joe.
>
>See above. Oswald's shooting skills are more than adequate for the
>task - and you can't argue any different, because you already told us
>his test scores don't necessarily reflect his true shooting ability!
>
You are arguing absurdities just to argue.
>You cannot argue that Oswald was a poor shot because you shot that
>argument dead yourself.
>
Yes I can but you lack the skill to understand it and are playing word
games for debate points.
>
>
>>
>> These are distractions from the psychology point was Oswald a loner?
>> The answer is no. Could he of acted alone? Yes. Did he act alone?
>> My answer is no.
>
>Was Oswald a loner? Yes.
Not from a clinical point of view.
> Read the statements of his co-workers at the
>TSBD, for instance. Name one close friend he had in the six months
>prior to the assassination.
>
>Bet you can't.
>
I do not need to. We do not know all of Oswald's activities and his
friends may have been in the FBI or CIA if he is their informant.
>
>
>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >Both are similar to Oswald's, and yet he accomplished far more
>> >> >difficult shooting feats.
>> >> >
>> >> Prove it. Give us the exact details of the shots he took and the time
>> >> intervals.
>> >
>> >Here's just a couple (he killed 10 people and wounded 31 more in
>> >shooting from the Texas tower, in addition to killing a few more who
>> >were at the Tower observation deck when he arrived).
>> >
>> >http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial/whitman/6.htm
>> >
>> I scanned the article but found no details about the ranges of the
>> shots nor the number of guns. You will have to do better than this to
>> prove the shots were more difficult.
>
>Geez, read below.
>
I have. I do not see anything indicating his shots were more
difficult than Oswald's given his shooting conditions.
>
>>
>> >"His first target was Claire Wilson, a heavily pregnant
>> >eighteen-year-old. The bullet pierced her abdomen and fractured the
>> >skull of the baby she carried, killing it. When she cried out, an
>> >acquaintance, Thomas Eckman turned and asked her what was wrong. Just
>> >then he was hit in the chest. He fell dead across his wounded girl."
>> >(Two dead victims in 10 seconds or less, at far greater distances than
>> >the Dealey Plaza shooting).
>
>Two people killed dead in 10 seconds with one shot each is not more
>difficult than Oswald's toughest shot?
>
No. They were stationary and not expecting to be shot.
>Remember that Whitman was nearly as high up (77 yards) as Oswald's
>longest shot - measured from the rifle to JFK's head. If Whitman was
>shooting straight down and hit Wilson and Eckman, that alone would be
>better shooting than Oswald's best in DP - two hits at 77 yards is
>better than one hit at 88 and one hit at 45 yards (or so).
>
>Isn't it?
>
BS. Do you know what the hypotenuse of a right triangle is? You need
to cite the hypotenuse distance because elevation differences are
meaningless (except to true snipers but that is more technical than
this discussion). You need to at least cite the distance from the
base of the tower to the victim. You do not understand the shooting
problem and are in over your head.
>
>
>> >
>> >"Then Alex Hernandez, a newsboy on a bicycle, fell wounded." (why
>> >don't you tell us how fast a bicycle moves, and whether it's
>> >comparable to the speed of the limo)?
>
>A boy on a bicycle isn't moving at a speed comparable to JFK in the
>limo at 11 mph?
>
Probably.
>Remember Hernandez was far more distant from Whitman than JFK from
>Oswald, too.
>
Distance does not matter when one has time to aim.
>
>
>
>> >
>> >"Officers Jerry Culp and Billy Speed were huddled, with others, under
>> >a statue south of the Tower, trying to figure their next move.
>> >Charlie shot Billy Speed through a six-inch space between two
>> >balusters, which were part of a rail that surrounded the statue.
>> >Though Speed's wound looked superficial to those around him, it was in
>> >fact grave. He was dying."
>
>Speed was shot and killed through a 6 inch gap in the concrete
>ballistrade Speed thought he was safe behind.
>
>Oswald shot JFK in tougher circumstances?
>
No. Whitman had time to aim and saw a target in the gap and hit it.
Oswald also hit the bull's eye every now and then. Whitman was on
that tower 3, 4 or 6 hours as I recall.
>
>
>> >
>> >"As Paul peered out from behind the barricade to see what was
>> >happening, Charlie shot him through his open mouth. He was killed
>> >instantly."
>
>Paul was shot when he took a peak and killed instantly. He was over
>300 yards away
According to what source? Not this one.
>and felt safe taking a look. He must've been reading
>conspiracy literature, which told him a guy who scored in the 210-215
>range in the Marine Corps couldn't kill JFK at 88 yards, let alone hit
>somebody at 300+.
>
He was reading LN literature and knew the guy only had three shots!
>
>
>
>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Or was he framed too?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> No he was shot and killed in the act on the tower.
>> >> >
>> >> >Yep. And Oswald was shot and killed in the police station parking
>> >> >garage.
>> >> >So what? The point is still their shooting skills and background.
>> >> >
>> >> >Deal with those two items.
>> >> >
>> >> >You haven't yet.
>> >> >
>> >> Yes I have.
>> >
>> >No, you just claimed they weren't pertinent. That's not dealing with
>> >them, that's dismissing them.
>> >
>> Courts deal with claims all the time by dismissing them. I have
>> addressed them.
>
>You're a judge and jury now? Dismissing the arguments is not
>addressing them.
>
Dismissal is addressing them usually as frivolous.
>Oswald's shooting skills (212) and background (married, Marine Corps
>service), is comparable to Whitman's shooting skills (215) and
>background (married, Marine Corps service). And Whitman shot 41 on the
>ground people from the Tower.
>This means to you Oswald couldn't have killed JFK, apparently.
>
An absurdity by you. -10 debate points ;-)
>Pretend some more you've pointed out significant differences, because
>you haven't.
You have failed to understand them.
Ricky Tobias
BS. You lack the knowledge to understand the issue.
>Both Oswald and Whitman are similar in background. Both fit the same
>profile. If Whitman can go to the top of the Texas Tower and start
>blowing people away with a rifle, Oswald can go to the TSBD and shoot
>the President.
>
The do not fit the same profile and they are different. Provide some
true experts (FBI or ?) who would make such a claim. You personal
opinion is meaningless.
BS. He would have it drawn and in hand when they got close. Cops
have been known to shoot other cops so there is no protection by
waiting and he knows he is going to be the target. Sounds like you
have never carried a gun.
>
>
>> >
>> >
>> >> He did
>> >> not resist arrest nor draw his pistol according the arrest report and
>> >> I do not recall ever hearing he hit McDonald.
>> >
>> >This was self-inflicted, right?
>> >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0271a.htm
>> >
>> I do not know. Oswald had cuts also and claimed they hit him.
>
>Received in the struggle to subdue Oswald after he pulled a gun and
>punched McDonald.
>
Doubtful. Sounds more like they started beating him and then he
struggled.
>
>> In the
>> struggle who knows what occurred.
>
>According to the witnesses, Oswald pulled a gun and punched McDonald.
>Then a struggle over the gun ensued.
>
>Pretend otherwise all you want.
>
I will just as you pretend the WC is right and twist words.
>
>> >
>> >
>> >> What ever occurred in
>> >> the TT was not significant enough to charge Oswald with resisting
>> >> arrest or assaulting an officer or checking the resisting arrest box
>> >> on the arrest report.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Resisting arrest was the least of Oswald's problems on that day. He
>> >was charged with killing the president and a police officer, charges
>> >that dwarf any charge of resisting arrest.
>> >
>> The box should of been marked if he resisted. If they beat him he
>> would of course defend or struggle to protect himself.
>
>Hello? You're claiming the failure to check off a box on a form takes
>precedence over the testimony of the numerous people who said Oswald
>did resist arrest, did punch McDonald, and did draw a weapon in the
>crowded theatre?
>
Yes when the accused is dead and unable to defend himself in a major
investigation that wants him to be found the LN. Why did not the WC
let Mark Lane defend Oswald and present opposing evidence? Because
they did not want conflicting evidence in the record. They wanted a
record that would support the LN.
>Don't be absurd.
>
In Texas he would have been charged with it if it had occurred.
>
>
>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> a point to make but no one can define it. Whitman was on drugs and
>> >> >> anger killing anything that moves. This is a common mass murder
>> >> >> profile often seen when jobs are lost. He had several rifles of
>> >> >> different types with him and many of his victims were about 100 yds.
>> >> >
>> >> >It's like 77 yards straight down from the point on the Texas Tower
>> >> >where Whitman was shooting from!Did he throw rocks at them and kill
>> >> >them that way??
>> >> >
>> >> >The victims were 100-500 yards from the base of the tower, not from
>> >> >Whitman.
>> >> >
>> >> I have been there and read the reports. You need to draw some
>> >> triangles from body position to the tower bottom and then the top. In
>> >> fact why don't you go find the details of the body positions and post
>> >> them.
>> >
>> >Are you disputing the furthest shot was at least 500 yards away?
>> >
>> I do not recall all the details of the case not having reviewed it in
>> about 30 years but I do recall seeing an anniversary film documentary
>> a few years ago.
>
>Are you disputing the furthest shot was at least 500 yards away? Your
>above answer sounds like a 'no' to that question.
>
I have not seen any measurements in many years so I do not know how
far the shots were. I do know he had lots of time for each shot and
most of his targets were not in motion thus significantly different
than Oswald's.
>
>
>
><snip>
Caeruleo
joez1...@aol.com (Joe Zircon) wrote:
> Ricky Tobias <Ric...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:<9tuitugj7gpbrvah9...@4ax.com>...
> > On 18 Nov 2002 15:23:14 -0500, joez1...@aol.com (Joe Zircon) wrote:
> >
> > >And others were not. And they were all at targets far more distant.
> > >Geez, if Whitman shot the rifle *straight down* from the Texas Tower
> > >observation deck(231 feet - 77 yards), that would be roughly
> > >equivalent to Oswald's furthest shot (265.3 feet - 88 yards).
> > >
> > >But of course Whitman's target's were up tp 500 yards from the base of
> > >the building.
> >
> > Prove it.
>
> Please familiarize yourself with the Texas Tower shooting. Deny basic
> facts of the case, or asking me to prove each and every point isn't
> the best way to advance your case. It merely serves to delay.
I'm curious as to whether Mr. Tobias has ever been on Guadalupe Street in
Austin. I have, many times (I was born in Austin & have visited it many
many times since I last lived there), & it is considerably more distant
from the U.T. tower even at its closest approach to that tower than any
portion of Elm in Dealey is from the TSBD. I have no idea as to the exact
number of yards, but it's *much* farther. Yet Mr. Whitman shot people on
Guadalupe, as is said in the very article which Mr. Tobias purports to
have "scanned":
"Charlie was still moving about the observation deck unhindered, and
turned his attention westward, toward Guadalupe Street. Known as the
Drag, the busy street was lined with businesses and formed the western
boundary of the UT campus. Initially, people on Guadalupe Street thought
the echoing gunshots were part of a college prank. Then Alex Hernandez, a
newsboy on a bicycle, fell wounded. Seventeen-year-old Karen Griffin fell
next, and would die a week later. Thomas Karr, who had probably turned to
render aid to Griffin, was then shot in the back. He died an hour later.
Those inside Guadalupe Street businesses huddled together away from
windows."
> > >Here's just a couple (he killed 10 people and wounded 31 more in
> > >shooting from the Texas tower, in addition to killing a few more who
> > >were at the Tower observation deck when he arrived).
> > >
> > >http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial/whitman/6.htm
> > >
> > I scanned the article but found no details about the ranges of the
> > shots nor the number of guns.
And yet apparently he missed the reference to people on Guadalupe being
hit, 3 of whom are named in the article.
> > You will have to do better than this to
> > prove the shots were more difficult.
Mr. Tobias is cordially invited to look at maps of Austin & of the U.T.
campus & see for himself how far Guadalupe is from the tower.
> > >"Then Alex Hernandez, a newsboy on a bicycle, fell wounded." (why
> > >don't you tell us how fast a bicycle moves, and whether it's
> > >comparable to the speed of the limo)?
>
> A boy on a bicycle isn't moving at a speed comparable to JFK in the
> limo at 11 mph?
>
> Remember Hernandez was far more distant from Whitman than JFK from
> Oswald, too.
Yeppers, he was on Guadalupe. I'll view with contempt & ridicule any
human who makes a claim that Guadalupe, a street I've been on many times
in my life, is not substantially farther from the U.T. tower even at its
closest approach, than Elm in Dealey is from the Depository. The
Depository is *on* Elm, for goodness sake. The U.T. tower is not even
remotely close to being "on" Guadalupe.
Rob Spencer
Ah not for nothing fellas, but the Marine Corps, Army, Navy and the
Air Force, all qualify recruits with IRON SIGHTS, both Whitman and
Oswald used scopes, big difference.
Spence
Ricky Tobias
>In article <7f2b02a8.02112...@posting.google.com>,
>joez1...@aol.com (Joe Zircon) wrote:
>
>> Ricky Tobias <Ric...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:<9tuitugj7gpbrvah9...@4ax.com>...
>> > On 18 Nov 2002 15:23:14 -0500, joez1...@aol.com (Joe Zircon) wrote:
>> >
>> > >And others were not. And they were all at targets far more distant.
>> > >Geez, if Whitman shot the rifle *straight down* from the Texas Tower
>> > >observation deck(231 feet - 77 yards), that would be roughly
>> > >equivalent to Oswald's furthest shot (265.3 feet - 88 yards).
>> > >
>> > >But of course Whitman's target's were up tp 500 yards from the base of
>> > >the building.
>> >
>> > Prove it.
>>
>> Please familiarize yourself with the Texas Tower shooting. Deny basic
>> facts of the case, or asking me to prove each and every point isn't
>> the best way to advance your case. It merely serves to delay.
>
>I'm curious as to whether Mr. Tobias has ever been on Guadalupe Street in
>Austin.
Yes I have about 20 years ago.
> I have, many times (I was born in Austin & have visited it many
>many times since I last lived there), & it is considerably more distant
>from the U.T. tower even at its closest approach to that tower than any
>portion of Elm in Dealey is from the TSBD. I have no idea as to the exact
>number of yards, but it's *much* farther. Yet Mr. Whitman shot people on
>Guadalupe, as is said in the very article which Mr. Tobias purports to
>have "scanned":
>
Distance is not the only factor to consider.
>"Charlie was still moving about the observation deck unhindered, and
>turned his attention westward, toward Guadalupe Street. Known as the
>Drag, the busy street was lined with businesses and formed the western
>boundary of the UT campus. Initially, people on Guadalupe Street thought
>the echoing gunshots were part of a college prank. Then Alex Hernandez, a
>newsboy on a bicycle, fell wounded. Seventeen-year-old Karen Griffin fell
>next, and would die a week later. Thomas Karr, who had probably turned to
>render aid to Griffin, was then shot in the back. He died an hour later.
>Those inside Guadalupe Street businesses huddled together away from
>windows."
>
>> > >Here's just a couple (he killed 10 people and wounded 31 more in
>> > >shooting from the Texas tower, in addition to killing a few more who
>> > >were at the Tower observation deck when he arrived).
>> > >
>> > >http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial/whitman/6.htm
>> > >
>> > I scanned the article but found no details about the ranges of the
>> > shots nor the number of guns.
>
>And yet apparently he missed the reference to people on Guadalupe being
>hit, 3 of whom are named in the article.
>
No distances are cited to determine the range.
>> > You will have to do better than this to
>> > prove the shots were more difficult.
>
>Mr. Tobias is cordially invited to look at maps of Austin & of the U.T.
>campus & see for himself how far Guadalupe is from the tower.
>
Show me the map. I am not going to go look it. Joe made this his
argument let him do his own research. As I recall the news magazines
gave the details when they covered it.
>> > >"Then Alex Hernandez, a newsboy on a bicycle, fell wounded." (why
>> > >don't you tell us how fast a bicycle moves, and whether it's
>> > >comparable to the speed of the limo)?
>>
>> A boy on a bicycle isn't moving at a speed comparable to JFK in the
>> limo at 11 mph?
>>
>> Remember Hernandez was far more distant from Whitman than JFK from
>> Oswald, too.
>
>Yeppers, he was on Guadalupe. I'll view with contempt & ridicule any
>human who makes a claim that Guadalupe, a street I've been on many times
>in my life, is not substantially farther from the U.T. tower even at its
>closest approach, than Elm in Dealey is from the Depository. The
>Depository is *on* Elm, for goodness sake. The U.T. tower is not even
>remotely close to being "on" Guadalupe.
Show me the actual shot and then we can decide if it was more
difficult from a sniper's point of view. Until then you are just
speculating. See you in Dealey.
Caeruleo
rob_s...@elementk.com (Rob Spencer) wrote:
> Ah not for nothing fellas, but the Marine Corps, Army, Navy and the
> Air Force, all qualify recruits with IRON SIGHTS, both Whitman and
> Oswald used scopes, big difference.
In other words, both had the same "disadvantage" in their respective
shooting sprees? The "difference," upon close scrutiny, does not appear
to be especially different at all.
Joe Zircon
>
> Ah not for nothing fellas, but the Marine Corps, Army, Navy and the
> Air Force, all qualify recruits with IRON SIGHTS, both Whitman and
> Oswald used scopes, big difference.
>
> Spence
Oswald's rifle had a scope, but there's no evidence he used it. It was
mounted so that you could use the scope or the iron sights,
interchangeably. The scope did not obstruct or deter the use of the
iron sights.
If it's shooting using Oswald's rifle with the iron sights you want,
bear in mind that using Oswald's rifle after the assassination, a man
named Miller took three shots using the iron sight, and made two hits
in the head of the target, in 4.45 seconds, total. The third shot to
the head was high of the target by inches.
See Simmons testimony starting here:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0225a.htm