Re: All Conspiracy Believers
John McAdams
<mswa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sep 11, 6:52=A0pm, Steve <sahist...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 11, 4:19=A0pm, ShutterBun <shutter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 11, 2:36=A0pm, MSwanberg <mswanb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Is it any wonder that believers in a Kennedy conspiracy are
>> universally regarded as nuts?
>
>
>
>3. 7.65 Mauser. At least that much we KNOW was found. Say all you
>want about how the DPD was just blind and couldn't ID the weapon
>(which would be the same DPD that caught LHO and gathered the spent
>shells... either they're incompetent or they're not), but there is a
>lot to show that a 7.65 Mauser was indeed found and reported.
>
Unfortunately, the very best evidence is film footage and still photos
of the rifle in place and being recovered.
Tom Alyea shot the rifle being recovered, and his 16 mm. footage shows
an MC.
Here are two stills:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/day1.jpg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/day2.jpg
>4. How about a single bullet from Oswald's rifle that actually could
>have been involved in the shooting? It's pretty unanimous, even among
>the autopsists, that CE399 could NOT have been involved in the
>shooting.
>
I'm afraid that the best ballistics tests show that the bullet could
have done what it was supposed to have done and remain "pristine"
(except that it wasn't pristine).
Check out Lattimer's tests and Fackler's tests.
>5. Likewise, there isn't a single credible witness that could place
>Oswald in that window with a rifle in his hands. If you say Brennan,
>then be prepared for the plethora of evidence against him as well...
There is no "plethora of evidence" against him. Most of the stuff
conspiracists have thrown at him is bogus.
There was one problem: he told the WC that he might have seen Oswald
on TV before he went down to the lineup. That doesn't make him an
evil person, although it does lessen the value of his (sort of)
identification.
>many other witnesses -- some of them 1 or 2 floors below the "sniper's
>nest" -- believe the shots originated from the SW corner of the TSBD.
I'm not aware of this.
Of the three guys directly below the SN, two said the shots came from
directly above them, and one (Jarman) thought the shots came from
below and to the left.
That's zero witnesses for the "SW corner."
>Brennan was myopic
No, his eyes were injured *after* the assassination.
>as well and described an impossible amount of
>things about the shooter, including height, even though the person
>wasn't standing and was only viewed through a window that was open
>about 12 inches.
You can estimate the height of somebody just by looking at their
general build.
>Likewise, the description of Oswald went out a good
>15-20 minutes before Brennan even told anyone what he'd seen.
Not true. He apparently told Sawyer.
>So in
>the end, saying there are no credible eyewitnesses to the contrary
>brings us nowhere since there are no credible eyewitnesses to the deed
>as purported by the WC.
>
There is a ton of evidence against Oswald.
Do you deny that he ordered the rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods?
>
>8. I could put that back in your court. Oswald's palm print didn't
>show up in the FBI's investigation of the MC. Then later it shows
>up?
Check out the book FIRST DAY EVIDENCE. There are plenty of witnesses
*besides* Day (whom I assume you are willing to call a liar) who saw
the palm print in the Identification Bureau over the weekend.
>And there were SOMEone's fingerprints found in and around the
>SN... but we've never been told whose.
>
Oswald's were found there.
And there was an unidentified print or two.
Do you think this is unusual?
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
tomnln
You tell us about 16mm movie film THEN show us 2 STILL Photos ! ! ! !
Are you having a Bad Day???
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4ab3b506....@news.supernews.com...
Anthony Marsh
Unfortunately not. Not to do ALL the damage.
> Check out Lattimer's tests and Fackler's tests.
>
Both of them need to lie about something to get their SBTs to work.
>
>> 5. Likewise, there isn't a single credible witness that could place
>> Oswald in that window with a rifle in his hands. If you say Brennan,
>> then be prepared for the plethora of evidence against him as well...
>
> There is no "plethora of evidence" against him. Most of the stuff
> conspiracists have thrown at him is bogus.
>
If you want to trash Jean Hill then we can trash Brennan.
> There was one problem: he told the WC that he might have seen Oswald
> on TV before he went down to the lineup. That doesn't make him an
> evil person, although it does lessen the value of his (sort of)
> identification.
>
There is another problem also. The first time Brennan saw Oswald in a
line up he refused to identify him. He feared for his family thinking it
was a Communist plot and Oswald's co-conspirators would kill his family
in retaliation. Then the police took him aside and pointed out to him
that he was the ONLY witness that could positively identify Oswald as
the killer. Then Brennan was able to identify Oswald regardless of who
was in the line-up.
>
>
>> many other witnesses -- some of them 1 or 2 floors below the "sniper's
>> nest" -- believe the shots originated from the SW corner of the TSBD.
>
> I'm not aware of this.
>
There is a lot you are not aware of. You misrepresent the ear witness
testimony.
> Of the three guys directly below the SN, two said the shots came from
> directly above them, and one (Jarman) thought the shots came from
> below and to the left.
>
Left? What, from the street? I don't think so.
> That's zero witnesses for the "SW corner."
>
>
>
>> Brennan was myopic
>
> No, his eyes were injured *after* the assassination.
>
>> as well and described an impossible amount of
>> things about the shooter, including height, even though the person
>> wasn't standing and was only viewed through a window that was open
>> about 12 inches.
>
> You can estimate the height of somebody just by looking at their
> general build.
>
>
But Brennan could not see the shooter from the waist up standing at the
window. He did not realize that the windows were so close to the floor.
>> Likewise, the description of Oswald went out a good
>> 15-20 minutes before Brennan even told anyone what he'd seen.
>
>
> Not true. He apparently told Sawyer.
>
>
>> So in
>> the end, saying there are no credible eyewitnesses to the contrary
>> brings us nowhere since there are no credible eyewitnesses to the deed
>> as purported by the WC.
>>
>
> There is a ton of evidence against Oswald.
>
Yeah, there was a ton of evidence against Drefyus too.
> Do you deny that he ordered the rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods?
>
Be careful there. There are some kooks who claim that he ordered A
carbine, but didn't get the rifle which was found in the TSBD.
>> 8. I could put that back in your court. Oswald's palm print didn't
>> show up in the FBI's investigation of the MC. Then later it shows
>> up?
>
>
> Check out the book FIRST DAY EVIDENCE. There are plenty of witnesses
> *besides* Day (whom I assume you are willing to call a liar) who saw
> the palm print in the Identification Bureau over the weekend.
>
I personally talked to Rusty Livingstone and found him convincing.
>
>> And there were SOMEone's fingerprints found in and around the
>> SN... but we've never been told whose.
>>
>
> Oswald's were found there.
>
Oswald WORKED there. Naturally his fingerprints were found there. Just
because your fingerprints were found all over the campus does not prove
that you murdered that coed.
> And there was an unidentified print or two.
>
> Do you think this is unusual?
>
Could have been identified. Should have been identified. Should not come
from a stranger to the building. Should belong to a klutzy cop who had a
bad habit of mishandling evidence.
tomnln
CITATIONS ARE VITAL ! ! !
None of which offered below from John are OFFICIAL
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/radio_debate.htm
Until Official Citations are offered, we are stuck with "Back Fence
Gossip".
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4ab3b506....@news.supernews.com...
Anthony Marsh
> John, John, John !
>
> You tell us about 16mm movie film THEN show us 2 STILL Photos ! ! ! !
>
> Are you having a Bad Day???
>
>
YOU can't see the Alyea film. You are not a researcher.
John McAdams
>John, John, John !
>
>You tell us about 16mm movie film THEN show us 2 STILL Photos ! ! ! !
>
>Are you having a Bad Day???
>
The still photos are frame captures from the Alyea film.
The Alyea film shows a Mannlicher-Carcano.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
tomnln
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4ab44616$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> tomnln wrote:
>> John, John, John !
>>
>> You tell us about 16mm movie film THEN show us 2 STILL Photos ! ! ! !
>>
>> Are you having a Bad Day???
>>
>>
Marsh wrote;
> YOU can't see the Alyea film. You are not a researcher.
I never claimed to be a "researcher".
I've Always claimed to be a serious student of the subject !
I also Double as Your "Seeing Eye dog" ! ! !
You think that BOTH of these exhibits look like "steel jacketed bullets".
HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/wally_world.htm
You even believe that seasoned DPD detectives would describe BOTH exhibits
as "steel jacketed".
HOHOHOHOHOHO
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Herbert Blenner
The problem is that all ballistic tests have failed to reproduce entry
wounds resembling those on the two victims. In particular, I refer to
the 4 mm X 7 mm oval bullet hole surrounded by the 10 mm X 7 mm
elliptical abrasion on President Kennedy's back and the 15 mm
elliptical wound on Governor Connally's back.
Herbert
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Pagehttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
ShutterBun
> John McAdams wrote:
> > There is no "plethora of evidence" against him. Most of the stuff
> > conspiracists have thrown at him is bogus.
>
> If you want to trash Jean Hill then we can trash Brennan.
Well, gee, which "version"of Jean Hill shall we trash? The version
who, on Day One said she didn't see any shooters or any guns, or
version 4.0 who saw smoke, flashes of light, Jack Ruby running, men
posing as secret security, etc.?
> > There was one problem: he told the WC that he might have seen Oswald
> > on TV before he went down to the lineup. That doesn't make him an
> > evil person, although it does lessen the value of his (sort of)
> > identification.
>
> There is another problem also. The first time Brennan saw Oswald in a
> line up he refused to identify him. He feared for his family thinking it
> was a Communist plot and Oswald's co-conspirators would kill his family
> in retaliation. Then the police took him aside and pointed out to him
> that he was the ONLY witness that could positively identify Oswald as
> the killer. Then Brennan was able to identify Oswald regardless of who
> was in the line-up.
You might at least mention that Brennan merely refused to *positively*
identify Oswald initially, but did state that Oswald looked like the
person he saw.
> >> many other witnesses -- some of them 1 or 2 floors below the "sniper's
> >> nest" -- believe the shots originated from the SW corner of the TSBD.
>
> > I'm not aware of this.
>
> There is a lot you are not aware of. You misrepresent the ear witness
> testimony.
Well, who is the source then? Elsie Dorman didn't know where the
shots came from. Who else?
> > Of the three guys directly below the SN, two said the shots came from
> > directly above them, and one (Jarman) thought the shots came from
> > below and to the left.
>
> Left? What, from the street? I don't think so.
I don't either. Jarman was also convinced that the shots came from
within the TSBD.
> > That's zero witnesses for the "SW corner."
>
> >> Brennan was myopic
>
> > No, his eyes were injured *after* the assassination.
>
> >> as well and described an impossible amount of
> >> things about the shooter, including height, even though the person
> >> wasn't standing and was only viewed through a window that was open
> >> about 12 inches.
>
> > You can estimate the height of somebody just by looking at their
> > general build.
>
> But Brennan could not see the shooter from the waist up standing at the
> window. He did not realize that the windows were so close to the floor.
Well jeez, he could tell the guy wasn't fat or muscular. How hard is
it to guess somebody's weight within 20 pounds?
> >> Likewise, the description of Oswald went out a good
> >> 15-20 minutes before Brennan even told anyone what he'd seen.
>
> > Not true. He apparently told Sawyer.
>
> >> So in
> >> the end, saying there are no credible eyewitnesses to the contrary
> >> brings us nowhere since there are no credible eyewitnesses to the deed
> >> as purported by the WC.
>
> > There is a ton of evidence against Oswald.
>
> Yeah, there was a ton of evidence against Drefyus too.
A ton? The whole case was based on a single handwritten note, which
couldn't even be conclusively linked to him. If you're speaking of
the "fabricated" evidence against him, I hope you're at least willing
to concede that the evidence against Oswald has withstood scrutiny
1000 times better than that of the Dreyfus case, which (more or less)
got reversed within a decade.
> > Do you deny that he ordered the rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods?
>
> Be careful there. There are some kooks who claim that he ordered A
> carbine, but didn't get the rifle which was found in the TSBD.
I agree with the kooks. He ordered one rifle, but he DID recieve an
alternate version. More importantly, the rifle which he is shown
holding in the "backyard photos" is the same rifle that was found in
the TSBD. Of this, there is no doubt.
> >> 8. I could put that back in your court. Oswald's palm print didn't
> >> show up in the FBI's investigation of the MC. Then later it shows
> >> up?
>
> > Check out the book FIRST DAY EVIDENCE. There are plenty of witnesses
> > *besides* Day (whom I assume you are willing to call a liar) who saw
> > the palm print in the Identification Bureau over the weekend.
>
> I personally talked to Rusty Livingstone and found him convincing.
The Bureau was pretty cheesed off at the accusation that they
"couldn't find the palm print." In fact they did see it, and had
apparently received Day's report of it. I recall reading a fairly
strongly worded memo from the FBI stating that they were well aware of
the palm print.
>
>
> >> And there were SOMEone's fingerprints found in and around the
> >> SN... but we've never been told whose.
>
> > Oswald's were found there.
>
> Oswald WORKED there. Naturally his fingerprints were found there. Just
> because your fingerprints were found all over the campus does not prove
> that you murdered that coed.
Gotta love the fingerprints. So useful for both sides. A finding of
"no fingerprints" is hardly surprising, since oftentimes, no
fingerprints are found. But when we DO find fingerprints, the
opposition points out that they could have been created innocently. I
mean sheesh, we're looking for Oswald's prints on his own damn rifle,
which we already know 2 different ways DID belong to him. I can
imagine the Dallas police: "we need to find prints in order to place
the gun in Oswald's hands." "Ummm, Chief, how about this photo of
Oswald actually holding the rifle?"
Oswald's prints on the boxes obviously doesn't prove he was there at
the time of the shooting. But here's what it does prove: it proves
he wasn't NOT EVER there.
Fingerprints are apparently very persuasive with juries, so law
enforcement agencies go out of their way to obtain them. But I
suspect that they all know something the general public doesn't:
fingerprints don't really mean jack squat, even if you DO find them.
> > And there was an unidentified print or two.
>
> > Do you think this is unusual?
>
> Could have been identified. Should have been identified. Should not come
> from a stranger to the building. Should belong to a klutzy cop who had a
> bad habit of mishandling evidence.
>
>
>
> > .John
>
> > --
> > The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
Weren't you ever Curious about not seeing all 400 feet of the film Alyea
shot That Day???
I sure am ! ! !
tomnln
WHY didn't Williams, Norman & Jarman Holler down to the Police were
Running in the WRONG direction (grassy knoll)???
WHY DID Williams, Norman & Jarman immediately RUN to the west side of the
TSBD??? (grassy knoll)
WHY didn't Williams, Norman & Jarman HEAR the shooter above them Running
to the Northwest corner???
"ShutterBun" <shutt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1a0b2d6e-f386-44df...@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> On Sep 18, 4:54 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> John McAdams wrote:
>
>>> There is no "plethora of evidence" against him. Most of the stuff
>>> conspiracists have thrown at him is bogus.
>> If you want to trash Jean Hill then we can trash Brennan.
>
> Well, gee, which "version"of Jean Hill shall we trash? The version
> who, on Day One said she didn't see any shooters or any guns, or
> version 4.0 who saw smoke, flashes of light, Jack Ruby running, men
> posing as secret security, etc.?
>
Well, gee, which "version" of Brennan shall we trash? The version
when, on DAY ONE, he could not identify Oswald as the shooter, or
Version 5.1 after the DPP "helped" him to finally identify Oswald as
the shooter?
>>> There was one problem: he told the WC that he might have seen Oswald
>>> on TV before he went down to the lineup. That doesn't make him an
>>> evil person, although it does lessen the value of his (sort of)
>>> identification.
>> There is another problem also. The first time Brennan saw Oswald in a
>> line up he refused to identify him. He feared for his family thinking it
>> was a Communist plot and Oswald's co-conspirators would kill his family
>> in retaliation. Then the police took him aside and pointed out to him
>> that he was the ONLY witness that could positively identify Oswald as
>> the killer. Then Brennan was able to identify Oswald regardless of who
>> was in the line-up.
>
> You might at least mention that Brennan merely refused to *positively*
> identify Oswald initially, but did state that Oswald looked like the
> person he saw.
>
Wonderful. You might at least mention that several people did state that
Lovelady looked like Oswald. You might at least mention that Euins said
the shooter was a black man. Never, repeat NEVER rely on eyewitnesses.
>>>> many other witnesses -- some of them 1 or 2 floors below the "sniper's
>>>> nest" -- believe the shots originated from the SW corner of the TSBD.
>>> I'm not aware of this.
>> There is a lot you are not aware of. You misrepresent the ear witness
>> testimony.
>
> Well, who is the source then? Elsie Dorman didn't know where the
> shots came from. Who else?
>
>>> Of the three guys directly below the SN, two said the shots came from
>>> directly above them, and one (Jarman) thought the shots came from
>>> below and to the left.
>> Left? What, from the street? I don't think so.
>
> I don't either. Jarman was also convinced that the shots came from
> within the TSBD.
>
WOW, that really narrows it down. This is not an argument about whether
any shots came from the TSBD. The acoustical evidence proved that. Exactly
three shots from the sniper's nest. We don't need dubious witnesses to
establish that.
>>> That's zero witnesses for the "SW corner."
>>>> Brennan was myopic
>>> No, his eyes were injured *after* the assassination.
>>>> as well and described an impossible amount of
>>>> things about the shooter, including height, even though the person
>>>> wasn't standing and was only viewed through a window that was open
>>>> about 12 inches.
>>> You can estimate the height of somebody just by looking at their
>>> general build.
>> But Brennan could not see the shooter from the waist up standing at the
>> window. He did not realize that the windows were so close to the floor.
>
> Well jeez, he could tell the guy wasn't fat or muscular. How hard is
> it to guess somebody's weight within 20 pounds?
>
I said nothing about weight.
>>>> Likewise, the description of Oswald went out a good
>>>> 15-20 minutes before Brennan even told anyone what he'd seen.
>>> Not true. He apparently told Sawyer.
>>>> So in
>>>> the end, saying there are no credible eyewitnesses to the contrary
>>>> brings us nowhere since there are no credible eyewitnesses to the deed
>>>> as purported by the WC.
>>> There is a ton of evidence against Oswald.
>> Yeah, there was a ton of evidence against Drefyus too.
>
> A ton? The whole case was based on a single handwritten note, which
> couldn't even be conclusively linked to him. If you're speaking of
> the "fabricated" evidence against him, I hope you're at least willing
> to concede that the evidence against Oswald has withstood scrutiny
> 1000 times better than that of the Dreyfus case, which (more or less)
> got reversed within a decade.
>
Wow, so if it got reversed within a decade it's like it didn't happen? I
don't care how long it took. The point is that Drefyus was easily
convicted and the evidence was overwhelming BECAUSE he was framed.
>>> Do you deny that he ordered the rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods?
>> Be careful there. There are some kooks who claim that he ordered A
>> carbine, but didn't get the rifle which was found in the TSBD.
>
> I agree with the kooks. He ordered one rifle, but he DID recieve an
> alternate version. More importantly, the rifle which he is shown
> holding in the "backyard photos" is the same rifle that was found in
> the TSBD. Of this, there is no doubt.
>
The HSCA analysis of the wear marks proves that. There is no need to
rely on Jack White photographic analysis.
Well, my fingerprints were all over my rifle when it was stolen, because I
had it out while working on it. If someone wanted to murder someone with
it my fingerprints would have been found on the murder weapon. Entwistle's
father-in-law's fingerprints could have been found on his own revolver
which his son-in-law stole to kill the wife.
> Oswald's prints on the boxes obviously doesn't prove he was there at
> the time of the shooting. But here's what it does prove: it proves
> he wasn't NOT EVER there.
>
WOW, you just figured out that he actually showed up for work, unlike
Riley?
Gerry Simone
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4ab3b506....@news.supernews.com...
John McAdams
<newdec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Believing whatever the government tells you is insane.
>
Is it rational to believe whatever conspiracy book authors tell you?
Anthony Marsh
> On 21 Sep 2009 21:00:15 -0400, "Gerry Simone"
> <newdec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Believing whatever the government tells you is insane.
>>
>
> Is it rational to believe whatever conspiracy book authors tell you?
>
Even if you can only believe 1% of what you read in a conspiracy book,
when you add up all those 1%s you start to get a significant doubt.
Gerry Simone
insane.
Likewise, you can't believe every conspiracy book or everything they write
about.
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4ab8225a....@news.supernews.com...
Gerry Simone
Mr. Alyea emailed me directly last year or so with some astounding photos,
which I promised to not distribute, although you probably have seen them
yourself.
He seems like a fine gentleman and photo-journalist of integrity, even
though we have a difference of opinion on the assassination.
Is his film shown at The Sixth Floor Museum?
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4ab3b506....@news.supernews.com...
Gerry Simone
> have done what it was supposed to have done and remain "pristine"
> (except that it wasn't pristine).
>
> Check out Lattimer's tests and Fackler's tests.
Are they referring to the pineboard test? How does that compare to bone?
Doesn't the grain or consistent density of the wood keep the bullet
intact?
Not even the test bullet from Beyond The Magic Bullet compares.
Gerry Simone
The cumulative effect of all pro-conspiracy circumstantial evidence cannot
be ignored, and seriously calls into question the LAN.
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4ab8281e$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
bigdog
> True.
>
> The cumulative effect of all pro-conspiracy circumstantial evidence cannot
> be ignored, and seriously calls into question the LAN.
>
Now that's interesting. The case for conspiracy consists almost entirely
of challenges to the WCR. Little evidence is ever offered to support a
conspiracy. Please list what you believe are the five most compelling
pieces of evidence of a conspiracy.