The "Whole"
David Von Pein
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16189&view=findpost&p=197146
I saw the above-linked message on The Education Forum today and wanted
to share a portion of its inane craziness and pot/kettle-ism with
other readers. Quoting Lee Farley:
"You see, what a “Lone Assassin” mind does is it fixates on the
individual details. Each one must be looked at in isolation to all
others. If one sticks to this formula then one cannot form patterns
within the evidence or become concerned with the connections that
would be formed if the formula was dispensed with.
[...]
"You see, the “whole” doesn’t matter to a “Lone Nut.” They are
only interested in the “bits.” The “whole” frightens them. It creates
a world where the illusion of “democracy” becomes threatened, where
our institutions cannot be trusted, and demonstrates that we live in a
world that “is”, and it is kept “as is” for the benefit of a small
minority of people. John Kennedy was looking for what the world “could
be” rather than “what was”, however one must not spend too long
looking at the politics of the man whose death we all debate."
-- Lee Farley; July 2010
[End Kook Quote.]
-------------------------------
Lee Farley must surely be kidding (or maybe he was sniffing something
funny when he wrote the above message).
But, alas, I fear he did not have his tongue rooted in his cheek when
he said: "You see, the “whole” doesn’t matter to a “Lone Nut.”"
Incredible, isn't it?
The truth is, of course, that the people who believe Lee Harvey Oswald
acted alone in killing President Kennedy are nearly ALWAYS looking at
the "whole" as far as the evidence in the JFK case is concerned. I
sure do anyway.
The truth that the conspiracy fantasists refuse to face is still the
raw and unvarnished truth nonetheless....and that truth is: Based on
the totality of the evidence in the JFK and Tippit murder cases (i.e.,
based on that "whole" that Lee Farley thinks LNers have ignored), it
would be virtually impossible for Lee Harvey Oswald to be innocent.
It's the conspiracy theorists who choose to "isolate" the "bits" and
forever keep those pieces of isolated evidence AWAY from the "whole".
CTers perform this "isolation" trick all the time, and particularly
the "Anybody But Oswald" kooks who want to pretend that LHO never
fired a shot at ANYBODY on November 22, 1963.
I can provide many examples of CTers doing that very thing. Take all
of the various pieces of ballistics evidence connected with JFK's
assassination, for instance.
1. ) There's the rifle (which was OSWALD'S, of course).
2.) There are the three bullet shells beneath the Sniper's-Nest window
(which were fired in OSWALD'S rifle, of course).
3.) There is CE399 (which was fired in OSWALD'S rifle, too). And,
whether any conspiracy theorists like it or not, that exact bullet--
Commission Exhibit 399--was deemed by both the Warren Commission and
the HSCA to be THE bullet that passed through both JFK and Governor
Connally in Dealey Plaza.
4.) There are the two front-seat bullet fragments (which also came out
of OSWALD'S rifle).
The above batch of physical evidence (which ALL points straight to
OSWALD'S Mannlicher-Carcano rifle) were found in THREE separate
locations too! Three different places -- The Book Depository, Parkland
Hospital, and the President's limousine!
But what do conspiracy theorists do with this very incriminating
evidence against OSWALD? They choose to "isolate" the "bits" (to use
Lee Farley's words), and they take each isolated part away from the
"whole" and attempt to discredit each "bit" individually.
And in the case of my #2 item listed above--the bullet shells in the
TSBD--the conspiracy kooks go one step further in their "isolation" of
that ballistics evidence -- they focus on only ONE of the three bullet
shell casings and attempt to discredit it alone, via the oddball
argument that it couldn't possibly have really been fired in Oswald's
rifle on the day of the assassination, due to that "dented lip" on the
cartridge case (which is just a flat-out lie, of course; tests have
been done with Carcano rifles that prove that a cartridge can, indeed,
get dented upon ejection from the rifle's chamber after a live round
has been fired).
But the other two shells--also fired from OSWALD'S rifle--don't have a
dented lip, so the CTers can't utilize that same poor argument about
the other two shells being "fakes".
So, the CTers in the "Anybody But Oswald" club will just throw their
"It's All Planted" blanket over ALL THREE shells, and they'll pretend
that the Dallas Police Department was up to no good on the sixth floor
of the Book Depository Building (even though the cops allowed a TV
cameraman to FILM THEIR ACTIVITY while they were supposedly fiddling
around with the evidence). Brilliant plan there.
And CTers do the very same thing with the ballistics evidence in the
Tippit case too. They love to harp on the two "Poe" bullet shells, all
the while totally ignoring the fact that TWO OTHER SHELLS FROM
OSWALD'S REVOLVER were also found at the SAME MURDER SCENE on Tenth
Street in Oak Cliff.
And those other two shells that positively came out of Oswald's gun
(the same gun LHO had on him when he was arrested 35 minutes after
shooting J.D. Tippit) were picked up by TWO additional civilian
witnesses--Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis.
And I've yet to hear any conspiracy promoter argue that the two Davis
shells were "planted" or are otherwise tainted evidence in the case
against Oswald.
But since the conspiracy kooks can argue about Officer Poe's initials
not being on the two bullet shells that were found by Domingo
Benavides (who is yet another civilian witness who saw Tippit's killer
dumping empty shell casings from his gun), those same kooks think they
have somehow proven that the OTHER two "Davis" shells from Oswald's
gun are fake or planted shells too.
But since all reasonable people know that there was only ONE gunman
dumping shells out of ONE gun on Tenth Street just after Officer
Tippit was shot, this fact MUST mean that ANY AND ALL bullet shells
that littered the corner of 10th & Patton on 11/22/63 had to have been
left there by someone who was carrying Lee Harvey Oswald's Smith &
Wesson revolver.
And who was the person who had that very gun in his possession just 35
minutes after Tippit was killed?
Answer -- Every kook's favorite patsy: Lee H. Oswald.
The above is an example of how a reasonable person puts the "whole"
together in this case. But conspiracy theorists who are bent on
ignoring the "whole" proceed to do the things I described above--they
nitpick the Poe shells and refuse to admit that the only person on
Planet Earth who could possibly have murdered Officer J.D. Tippit,
based on that "whole", is Lee Harvey Oswald.
And CTers never present a "whole" that makes any sense at all from
their conspiracy point-of-view. In fact, that's one of the biggest
problems with JFK conspiracy theorists. And I've said that very thing
in several of my Internet messages on the subject over the years, like
the ones highlighted below:
"Every single discrepancy in the case, and every gaffe made by
the Dallas Police or the FBI (and there were some mistakes, as can be
expected in any criminal case), have been blown up by CTers to
Herculean importance and isolated from the "whole" of the JFK case in
an attempt to prove that somebody else besides Oswald committed the
two murders that LHO was charged with on November 22nd. (Although,
implacably, the identity of this "somebody else" is never, ever
revealed by conspiracists. We're just supposed to take it on "faith",
I guess, that there was "somebody else", despite a complete lack of
physical evidence to bolster such "somebody else" allegations.)
"And by isolating those individual items that CTers claim don't
add up to LHO's guilt, the theorists have succeeded in some circles in
turning a relatively-simple murder case (two cases including Tippit's,
which is and was a no-brainer in favor of Oswald's guilt from Day 1)
into a convoluted, complicated case of massive conspiratorial
proportions, with Oswald not only being innocent of BOTH murders --
but with many CTers also wishing to absolve Lee Oswald of ALL
connection with even the massive "plot" they advocate. Totally and
outrageously ridiculous.
"A few examples of what I'm talking about -- re: the "isolation"
of certain evidence that makes CTers scream "frame up" and
"conspiracy", etc.----
"The Tippit murder weapon being identified initially as an
"automatic" weapon, instead of what it turned out to be -- Oswald's
non-automatic revolver.
"The rifle in the TSBD being innocently mis-labelled a "Mauser"
initially by police, instead of what we later know it really was --
Oswald's "Carcano".
"The ONE single witness at the Tippit scene who said she saw two
men involved in the shooting of Officer Tippit -- instead of what we
later KNOW occurred: Oswald, ALONE, was at the scene of the murder,
per the multiple witnesses who do not back up Acquilla Clemmons' claim
of two killers.
"JFK's head moving violently backward after the fatal head shot
-- which is probably the single biggest example of "isolating" a
particular item in the case which has CT promoters telling us that it
"proves conspiracy", instead of examining ALL the possibilities of why
JFK's head did what it did on November 22 -- with a PROVEN possibility
being: a head can go backward, toward the source of the gunfire, when
shot from behind. That fact has been proven by people WAY more
qualified than I (or the CTers) to make such an assessment. But
staunch theorists in the popular "It Couldn't Have Been Oswald" club
stand firm by their "I just don't believe it" stance.
"Oswald's not being out of breath or excited when confronted by
Officer Baker in the lunch room after the shooting. This, to many
CTers, is somehow virtual PROOF that Oswald was innocent. IMO, the
CTers who espouse that belief just aren't looking at the situation in
the proper context and light. For, if Oswald had just shot the
President on the 6th Floor, he would have no doubt somewhat EXPECTED
the building to be crawling with cops a very short time after the
shots rang out. ....
"See what I mean about isolating certain things and removing
them from the bigger picture? The CTers are experts at doing this and
then attaching the word "conspiracy" around each item as if that
single item itself proves the whole "CT case". Well, it does not." --
DVP; February 2006
http://Amazon.com/review/R10A8UNAG60FJB
---------------
"The Rabid Kooks will continue to isolate the evidence and then
hold up each "isolated" piece and shout "Look! Here's proof of
conspiracy!", without placing that piece back into the TOTALITY of the
overall evidence in the case (in order to figure out if this isolated
hunk of data really DOES, in fact, point away from Oswald's lone
guilt).
"Several recent "isolation" examples have been demonstrated by
crazy CT-Kooks. Such as (but certainly not limited to the following):
"The "Irving Sports Shop" controversy. Did LHO have some repair
work done on his rifle (C2766)? Or was it part of the grand "plot" to
set him up as the "Patsy"? .... Bud provided various reasonable
examples of why the CT-Kooks have totally misinterpreted the Sports
Shop incident. But the kooks fail to re-assess that incident. They,
instead, will INSIST it was an act of "conspiracy". ....
"Howard Brennan's testimony, which has been dissected to totally-
ludicrous levels of craziness by some CT-Kooks. The kooks will
"isolate" things within Brennan's testimony, and will single these
things out as being that ever-desired "proof of conspiracy" in JFK's
murder. And such isolation regarding Brennan's remarks is just plain
screwy -- esp. when it comes to the kooks who wish to tear down
Brennan's physical description of the sixth-floor assassin, which was
a description that comes remarkably close, indeed, to matching Lee
Oswald---"A [white] man in his early thirties, fair complexion,
slender but neat, neat slender, possibly 5-foot-10, 160 to 170
pounds." -- Howard L. Brennan
"That description, when taken as a "general" witness
observation, certainly does NOT exclude Lee Harvey Oswald. In fact, it
"fits" Lee Harvey Oswald pretty darn nicely in most crucial respects
-- e.g., Oswald was "slender"; Oswald was a "white man"; Oswald did
have a "fair complexion"; Oswald was 5'9" (Brennan was a mere one inch
off there); Oswald weighed an "estimated 150 pounds" (per his autopsy
report). So Brennan was only ten pounds off on his weight estimate of
the assassin. .....
"But the kooks will isolate the "early 30s" reference, or the
"170 pounds" remark, and attempt to make it appear that Mr. Brennan
could not POSSIBLY have been looking at Lee Oswald for those few
fleeting moments on 11/22/63." -- DVP; August 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/aa0dfed2f3951967
---------------
"JFK's head could have performed a Linda Blair imitation and
spun around thirteen times after the bullet hit him, and it still
wouldn't have altered the verifiable entry and exit wounds on his head
that were discovered at the President's autopsy.
"But CTers love to isolate the "Back And To The Left" motion of
JFK's head, instead of looking at the autopsy photos and autopsy
report which verify that JUST ONE BULLET hit Kennedy in the head. And
that one bullet positively came from behind." -- DVP; December 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/ce06b353b6ff7f7d
---------------
"The plain truth of the matter is that ANY kook can easily pick
apart the Warren Report (they've had ample time, and desire, to do
this of course) and then isolate some things that (on the surface)
appear to lead down Conspiracy Avenue.
"But what these CTers fail to EVER do is place those isolated
items back into a COHESIVE WHOLE that adds up to a logical and
reasonable...conspiracy plot to kill JFK.
"Have we EVER seen such a COHESIVE WHOLE from the CTers? Ever? I
sure haven't. Their theories are scattershot and piecemeal (at best);
and utterly laughable (at worst)." -- DVP; February 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fc83ec42c74e4601
-------------------------------
In summary:
For Lee Farley to actually suggest that it's the "lone nutters" who
"isolate" the "bits" and never look at the "whole" is just
mindbogglingly farcical on his part. But, as usual, it's yet another
instance where a conspiracy theorist has been caught changing day into
night and the truth into silliness.
But, that's just par for the course for a JFK conspiracy nut, I guess.
David Von Pein
July 12, 2010
http://The-JFK-Assassination.blogspot.com
pjsp...@aol.com
did it. You DID NOT look at the whole. It's an entirely different way
of thinking than that engaged by most CTs.
To YOU, and most LNs, if "official sources" such as the FBI and DPD
provide you with enough evidence, then what follows from that evidence
is a FACT. A fact upon which you base your world view...
To most other people, however, suspicion can cloud "facts" to the
point where they are no longer "facts".
Consider...
A number of very powerful people benefited from Kennedy's death. Some
of them had even threatened his life.
His supposed assassin--a mystery man--denied his guilt and was killed
before he could be given a trial.
The fact-finding commission formed to investigate the crime refused to
allow this supposed assassin legal council, so that exculpatory
evidence could be considered and justice as we know it could be
served.
This same commission refused to allow the doctors who'd performed
Kennedy's autopsy to inspect the autopsy photos and x-rays THEY'D
taken, for THEIR use, before testifying. It was later found that the
drawings they'd created for the commission in lieu of these photos and
x-rays were horribly inaccurate, and inaccurate in ways that helped
the commission sell the guilt of the supposed assassin.
A number of eyewitnesses to the crime felt sure shots were fired from
a location other than the building from which the supposed assassin
supposedly fired the shots.
The only eyewitness to the shooting who claimed he could identify the
shooter refused to do so after viewing the supposed assassin, and only
came forward after this suspect's death, under pressure from the
Secret Service.
A number of Dallas law enforcement figures identified the rifle found
in the building--what was purportedly the supposed assassin's rifle--
as a different kind of rifle entirely.
The supposed assassin supposedly brought his rifle to work in a bag.
The only people who saw him with this bag, however, claimed it was far
too small to hold his rifle.
The FBI was unable to find any evidence this supposed assassin had
practiced with his rifle for months before the shooting. They also
were unable to find any ammunition or cleaning supplies among his
possessions.
The threads found on the rifle which supposedly came from the
suspect's shirt came from a shirt no one at his work saw him wearing,
and that he claimed he put on only after the shooting.
The only print of his found on the rifle was reportedly an old print,
and was supposedly lifted by a DPD officer who not only inexplicably
forgot to photograph the print before lifting it, but forgot to tell
the FBI about it for days after the assassination, even after the FBI
had informed his department no prints were found on the rifle. This
DPD officer later refused to sign a statement on this issue.
This DPD officer also failed to file a report on his activities for
more than a month after the assassination, even though the DPD's
policy was that he'd write daily and weekly reports on the crimes he
investigated.
In fact, this DPD officer ran a test on the suspect, in order to see
if he'd fired a rifle. When this test proved negative, the DPD opted
to leak that another test--one in which the possibility he'd fired a
revolver was tested--was positive, and not mention the negative. This
led to the widespread reporting that this other test had proved the
suspect had fired a rifle--which the DPD knew not to be true, and yet
never sought to correct. The results of these tests, however, were
later called into question.
There was a secret test performed on the paraffin casts used in these
tests, however, that also suggested that the suspect had not fired a
rifle. The results of these tests are still accepted in court.
Suspiciously, however, when the FBI testified on the first series of
tests, its agent offered his PERSONAL expectation about what could be
shown through the secret test. This hid that the results had already
come in, and that his PERSONAL expectation had been dead wrong.
The FBI and Secret Service, when asked to re-enact the crime, BOTH did
so in a way that helped sell the supposed assassin's guilt, but was so
obviously incorrect that even th fact-finding commission decided they
were wrong.
The supposed shooting of this supposed assassin, who hadn't practiced
in months, could not be duplicated by the Army's test shooters.
The president's back wound location was misrepresented in testimony
regarding the fact-finding commission's own re-enactment of the crime;
this testimony, not surprisingly, helped sell the guilt of the
supposed assassin.
The alignment of the president and Governor Connally within the
limousine was also misrepresented in this testimony, and this also
helped sell the guilt of the supposed assassin.
Several years later, after the trajectory of the bullet creating the
president's head wound came into question, a secret panel suddenly
decided that the bullet entered four inches higher on the president's
skull.
A number of Kennedy's emergency room doctors recalled Kennedy's large
head wound being in a different location than that depicted in the
autopsy photos.
I could go on and on. This is what Lee means by the WHOLE. If one
looks at all this, it is easy to see that this is the MESSIEST case
ever. To many, this suggests there was a set-up, a whitewash, you name
it... To others...these people--the vast majority of human beings--are
all "kooks"...
On Jul 12, 10:00 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16189&view=find...
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/ce06b353b6ff...
Ace Kefford
I agree this is truly amazing to make the charge of not looking at the
whole and only focusing on little details on the lone nutters, rather
than the conspiracy people.
I know in part because that is the journey that I made. It was only
when I focused on the whole -- or as I put it "something REAL happened
ONLY ONE WAY that day in Dealey Plaza" -- that led me from a
conspiracy-oriented belief to a very strong (but still open-minded)
current belief that Oswald was the lone assassin. What does what
happened at some shop in Irving have to do with that?
By the way, I very much admire the time and effort you have put in on
the case, including putting useful materials up on the Internet. Way
back in the day I thought you were just a troll, but you have
definitely shown a sincere interest in seeking the truth in the case
(and not just jerking chains).
Ace K.
Bud
> http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16189&view=find...
>
Yah, astounding hypocrisy. The LN position is obviously the truth,
because it is the ONLY way the "whole" could exist. There is no way for
what we know to be in evidence without Oswald being the person who shot
Kennedy.
The CTer "whole" requires an impossible amount of incredible and
astounding things they can`t show occurring. It has an impossible amount
of complexity. As you have pointed out well many times, the CTers "whole"
makes no sense as a plan (shooting Kennedy from multiple directions and
pinning it on an innocent man in one location). If you gave the CTer
position a hundred "free passes", where they could assert something
underhanded without have to show that the underhanded thing occurred,
they`d use up that hundred free passes and it still wouldn`t be enough to
cover what they assert occurred. (example: many CTers think Brennan was
coerced into saying Oswald was the man he saw. Since they can`t show it,
this would cost them a "free pass").
> The truth is, of course, that the people who believe Lee Harvey Oswald
> acted alone in killing President Kennedy are nearly ALWAYS looking at
> the "whole" as far as the evidence in the JFK case is concerned. I
> sure do anyway.
The LNer "whole", that Oswald is guilty of shooting Kennedy, is the only
answer that satisfies what we know. It explains why Oswald went to the
Paine`s and left with a long, paper covered object. It explains why people
say they saw Oswald shoot Tippit. It explains why Brewer said he saw
Oswald duck from police. It explains why he had the murder weapons sent to
his PO box. It explains why he left work shortly after the assassination.
It explains why Brennan said he saw Oswald shoot Kennedy. It explains
Oswald`s prints on the rifle. No unseen ninjas or impossibly complex plots
needed.
You see the same treatment with Markham. We`re supposed to believe the
witnesses, but when they say something the CTers don`t want to believe,
they seem to scrutinize that witness for reasons to disregard them. And by
strange coincidence, the witnesses that CTers want to disregard are the
witnesses who saw the most, the murderer committing the murders in
question.
> ---------------
>
> "JFK's head could have performed a Linda Blair imitation and
> spun around thirteen times after the bullet hit him, and it still
> wouldn't have altered the verifiable entry and exit wounds on his head
> that were discovered at the President's autopsy.
>
> "But CTers love to isolate the "Back And To The Left" motion of
> JFK's head, instead of looking at the autopsy photos and autopsy
> report which verify that JUST ONE BULLET hit Kennedy in the head. And
> that one bullet positively came from behind." -- DVP; December 2006
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/ce06b353b6ff...
>
> ---------------
>
> "The plain truth of the matter is that ANY kook can easily pick
> apart the Warren Report (they've had ample time, and desire, to do
> this of course) and then isolate some things that (on the surface)
> appear to lead down Conspiracy Avenue.
>
> "But what these CTers fail to EVER do is place those isolated
> items back into a COHESIVE WHOLE that adds up to a logical and
> reasonable...conspiracy plot to kill JFK.
They won`t because such a their "whole" would be easily seen for what it
is, a construct intended to avoid the truth.
I had the idea to list all the known events, and have the LN
explanation for each event given, and allow the CT the chance to gice
their explaination for each event.
example: Brennan said he saw Oswald shooting at the motorcade
because...
LN answer: He was.
CT answer: ???
After all the known events were filled in, we could compare the "whole"
of each, and dismiss the CT position as too silly to even be considered
once and for all.
Unfortunately I`m too lazy to follow through with it, and I don`t expect
CTers would be willing to participate, because there game is to isolate
and fixate on the individual details, like the kook from the Education
Forum claims LNers do.
Bud
> David...you PROVED Lee's point. You itemized reasons to believe Oswald
> did it. You DID NOT look at the whole. It's an entirely different way
> of thinking than that engaged by most CTs.
>
> To YOU, and most LNs, if "official sources" such as the FBI and DPD
> provide you with enough evidence, then what follows from that evidence
> is a FACT. A fact upon which you base your world view...
>
> To most other people, however, suspicion can cloud "facts" to the
> point where they are no longer "facts".
>
> Consider...
>
> A number of very powerful people benefited from Kennedy's death. Some
> of them had even threatened his life.
This doesn`t speak at all as to whether Oswald, of his own volition,
took Kennedy`s life.
> His supposed assassin--a mystery man--
<snicker> Bill Kelly thinks we know more about Oswald than anyone
else ever, and you consider him a "mystery man". The truth lies
somewhere in between.
>denied his guilt and was killed
> before he could be given a trial.
This doesn`t speak to whether Oswald, of his on volition, took
Kennedy`s life.
> The fact-finding commission formed to investigate the crime refused to
> allow this supposed assassin legal council, so that exculpatory
> evidence could be considered and justice as we know it could be
> served.
This doesn`t speak to Oswald`s guilt or innocence, either. The fact-
finding Commission wasn`t formed until Kennedy was well dead, and they
had no power to make Oswald guilty or innocent.
And can you show precedence for giving a dead man legal council?
> This same commission refused to allow the doctors who'd performed
> Kennedy's autopsy to inspect the autopsy photos and x-rays THEY'D
> taken, for THEIR use, before testifying. It was later found that the
> drawings they'd created for the commission in lieu of these photos and
> x-rays were horribly inaccurate, and inaccurate in ways that helped
> the commission sell the guilt of the supposed assassin.
This doesn`t speak to Oswald`s guilt, it is only the usual criticism
about the way things were done.
> A number of eyewitnesses to the crime felt sure shots were fired from
> a location other than the building from which the supposed assassin
> supposedly fired the shots.
And a large number of witnesses must, by necessity, be wrong. Why
can`t CTers grasp this?
I was just reading some witness affidavits, and John Chism said he heard
3 shots, and he looked behind him to see if there was a fireworks display.
He was standing at the base of the knoll. So this witness is indicating
that he heard 3 shots from the direction of the knoll. Now, lets see you
construct a viable theory that has three loud shots being fired from the
knoll. If you can`t, you must concede the witness was mistaken.
Putting what the witnesses said into categories is a mistake, as what
each one related has to be weighted on it`s own merits. Just like the
observations of each witness at Parkland has to be weighed on it`s merits,
not everyone had the same look or vantage. This is lumping information
together, it isn`t viewing it as a whole.
> The only eyewitness to the shooting who claimed he could identify the
> shooter refused to do so after viewing the supposed assassin,
And gave a perfectly reasonable and understandable reason why. And I`m
not convinced the reason he gave (fear for his family) is the entire
reason. I think he thought it would play out the same with or without his
participation. And it probably wouldn`t have been that significant had
this gone to trial, where there was plenty to convict Oswald. But when
Ruby shot Oswald the situation changed.
> and only
> came forward after this suspect's death, under pressure from the
> Secret Service.
How much pressure would it take to make you say an innocent man was
a murderer? I wouldn`t do it, but it seems CTers all would.
> A number of Dallas law enforcement figures identified the rifle found
> in the building--what was purportedly the supposed assassin's rifle--
> as a different kind of rifle entirely.
No, the same kind of rifle entirely, a similar type of bolt action
rifle.
And it`s a silly idea that they switched the rifle, so it can be
dismissed out of hand.
> The supposed assassin supposedly brought his rifle to work in a bag.
> The only people who saw him with this bag, however, claimed it was far
> too small to hold his rifle.
Not "far" too small, about eight inches too small, the length of an
ordinary pencil. Given the context of their observations (interest
level, amount of time observing the item, distance, ect) they weren`t
off by that much.
> The FBI was unable to find any evidence this supposed assassin had
> practiced with his rifle for months before the shooting.
They should have checked Marina`s testimony.
> They also
> were unable to find any ammunition or cleaning supplies among his
> possessions.
I wonder if the DPD checked the sewers between the Paine`s house and
the Randle`s. They might have found scraps from making the bag, as
well as gun cleaning equipment.
> The threads found on the rifle which supposedly came from the
> suspect's shirt came from a shirt no one at his work saw him wearing,
> and that he claimed he put on only after the shooting.
The shirt he was arrested in had the bus transfer from the bus he
boarded when he left work in the pocket. And here we are looking at
the "bits" in much the manner Lee was complaining that LNers do.
> The only print of his found on the rifle was reportedly an old print,
> and was supposedly lifted by a DPD officer who not only inexplicably
> forgot to photograph the print before lifting it, but forgot to tell
> the FBI about it for days after the assassination, even after the FBI
> had informed his department no prints were found on the rifle. This
> DPD officer later refused to sign a statement on this issue.
The prints on the trigger guard were subsequently examined and found
to be Oswald`s.
> This DPD officer also failed to file a report on his activities for
> more than a month after the assassination, even though the DPD's
> policy was that he'd write daily and weekly reports on the crimes he
> investigated.
Bad cop, bad cop, whacha gonna do...
It`s starting to look like the usual focus on small minor details
and the usual criticism about what was done to me. It`s like focusing
on the firemen who respond to a fire to try and figure out how the
fire got started. It`s a silly approach, but CTers seem to enjoy it.
> In fact, this DPD officer ran a test on the suspect, in order to see
> if he'd fired a rifle. When this test proved negative, the DPD opted
> to leak that another test--one in which the possibility he'd fired a
> revolver was tested--was positive, and not mention the negative. This
> led to the widespread reporting that this other test had proved the
> suspect had fired a rifle--which the DPD knew not to be true, and yet
> never sought to correct.
You think this is part of their job?
>The results of these tests, however, were
> later called into question.
So what? Everything can be "called into question".
> There was a secret test performed on the paraffin casts used in these
> tests, however, that also suggested that the suspect had not fired a
> rifle. The results of these tests are still accepted in court.
> Suspiciously, however, when the FBI testified on the first series of
> tests, its agent offered his PERSONAL expectation about what could be
> shown through the secret test. This hid that the results had already
> come in, and that his PERSONAL expectation had been dead wrong.
I think Harold Weisberg was supposed to have copies of this testing.
If it had conspiratorial connotations, why didn`t he produce it?
> The FBI and Secret Service, when asked to re-enact the crime, BOTH did
> so in a way that helped sell the supposed assassin's guilt, but was so
> obviously incorrect that even th fact-finding commission decided they
> were wrong.
You seems to be making a strong case that some things could have
been done better. So what?
> The supposed shooting of this supposed assassin, who hadn't practiced
> in months, could not be duplicated by the Army's test shooters.
What shooting has ever been duplicated?
> The president's back wound location was misrepresented in testimony
> regarding the fact-finding commission's own re-enactment of the crime;
> this testimony, not surprisingly, helped sell the guilt of the
> supposed assassin.
Are you saying the WC didn`t look at the photo of the bullet wound
in Kennedy`s back?
> The alignment of the president and Governor Connally within the
> limousine was also misrepresented in this testimony, and this also
> helped sell the guilt of the supposed assassin.
The WC didn`t look at the z-film and photos and see how the people
in the limo were seated?
> Several years later, after the trajectory of the bullet creating the
> president's head wound came into question, a secret panel suddenly
> decided that the bullet entered four inches higher on the president's
> skull.
How did this move help sell the idea that he was shot from behind by
a single shooter?
> A number of Kennedy's emergency room doctors recalled Kennedy's large
> head wound being in a different location than that depicted in the
> autopsy photos.
Why do you suppose they had an autopsy when they has so many casual
observers?
> I could go on and on. This is what Lee means by the WHOLE.
A multitude of little things? Isn`t that what Lee was complaining
that LNers focus on, "the bits"?
> If one
> looks at all this, it is easy to see that this is the MESSIEST case
> ever.
What does this mean? How many large investigations have you
scrutinized like you have this one?
> To many, this suggests there was a set-up, a whitewash, you name
> it... To others...these people--the vast majority of human beings--are
> all "kooks"...
I differentiate between the average American who thinks something
fishy happened and a typical conspiracy kook.
Anthony Marsh
> On Jul 13, 9:47 am, "pjspe...@AOL.COM"<pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>> David...you PROVED Lee's point. You itemized reasons to believe Oswald
>> did it. You DID NOT look at the whole. It's an entirely different way
>> of thinking than that engaged by most CTs.
>>
>> To YOU, and most LNs, if "official sources" such as the FBI and DPD
>> provide you with enough evidence, then what follows from that evidence
>> is a FACT. A fact upon which you base your world view...
>>
>> To most other people, however, suspicion can cloud "facts" to the
>> point where they are no longer "facts".
>>
>> Consider...
>>
>> A number of very powerful people benefited from Kennedy's death. Some
>> of them had even threatened his life.
>
> This doesn`t speak at all as to whether Oswald, of his own volition,
> took Kennedy`s life.
>
The fact is that several groups wanted to kill Kennedy. It was like
waiting in line at the deli and taking a number to wait your turn. If one
group had not gotten to him in Dallas another group would have gotten to
him later.
>>> "You see, what a ?Lone Assassin? mind does is it fixates on the
>>> individual details. Each one must be looked at in isolation to all
>>> others. If one sticks to this formula then one cannot form patterns
>>> within the evidence or become concerned with the connections that
>>> would be formed if the formula was dispensed with.
>>
>>> [...]
>>
>>> "You see, the ?whole? doesn?t matter to a ?Lone Nut.? They are
>>> only interested in the ?bits.? The ?whole? frightens them. It creates
>>> a world where the illusion of ?democracy? becomes threatened, where
>>> our institutions cannot be trusted, and demonstrates that we live in a
>>> world that ?is?, and it is kept ?as is? for the benefit of a small
>>> minority of people. John Kennedy was looking for what the world ?could
>>> be? rather than ?what was?, however one must not spend too long
>>> looking at the politics of the man whose death we all debate."
>>
>>> -- Lee Farley; July 2010
>>
>>> [End Kook Quote.]
>>
>>> -------------------------------
>>
>>> Lee Farley must surely be kidding (or maybe he was sniffing something
>>> funny when he wrote the above message).
>>
>>> But, alas, I fear he did not have his tongue rooted in his cheek when
>>> he said: "You see, the ?whole? doesn?t matter to a ?Lone Nut.?"
>>> that littered the corner of 10th& Patton on 11/22/63 had to have been
Anthony Marsh
Circular reasoning.
>> that littered the corner of 10th& Patton on 11/22/63 had to have been
Bud
> On 7/13/2010 12:56 PM, Bud wrote:
>
> > On Jul 13, 9:47 am, "pjspe...@AOL.COM"<pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
> >> David...you PROVED Lee's point. You itemized reasons to believe Oswald
> >> did it. You DID NOT look at the whole. It's an entirely different way
> >> of thinking than that engaged by most CTs.
>
> >> To YOU, and most LNs, if "official sources" such as the FBI and DPD
> >> provide you with enough evidence, then what follows from that evidence
> >> is a FACT. A fact upon which you base your world view...
>
> >> To most other people, however, suspicion can cloud "facts" to the
> >> point where they are no longer "facts".
>
> >> Consider...
>
> >> A number of very powerful people benefited from Kennedy's death. Some
> >> of them had even threatened his life.
>
> > This doesn`t speak at all as to whether Oswald, of his own volition,
> > took Kennedy`s life.
>
> The fact is that several groups wanted to kill Kennedy.
You can`t show one and now you want to extend your incompetence?
> It was like
> waiting in line at the deli and taking a number to wait your turn. If one
> group had not gotten to him in Dallas another group would have gotten to
> him later.
What about individuals, they can`t pull triggers?
Bud
Going from what is known to a conclusion is circular to you?
> ...
>
> read more »
pjsp...@aol.com
as a WHOLE, you dissected it piece by piece, offering reason after reason,
excuses after excuse, (no matter how weak), why we should ignore ALL this.
On Jul 13, 9:56 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> On Jul 13, 9:47 am, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>
> > David...you PROVED Lee's point. You itemized reasons to believe Oswald
> > did it. You DID NOT look at the whole. It's an entirely different way
> > of thinking than that engaged by most CTs.
>
> > To YOU, and most LNs, if "official sources" such as the FBI and DPD
> > provide you with enough evidence, then what follows from that evidence
> > is a FACT. A fact upon which you base your world view...
>
> > To most other people, however, suspicion can cloud "facts" to the
> > point where they are no longer "facts".
>
> > Consider...
>
> > A number of very powerful people benefited from Kennedy's death. Some
> > of them had even threatened his life.
>
> This doesn`t speak at all as to whether Oswald, of his own volition,
> took Kennedy`s life.
Wasn't supposed to. It was supposed to demonstrate one of the reasons CTs
are suspicious.
>
> > His supposed assassin--a mystery man--
>
> <snicker> Bill Kelly thinks we know more about Oswald than anyone
> else ever, and you consider him a "mystery man". The truth lies
> somewhere in between.
Bill Kelly would most certainly agree that Oswald's behavior and
motivations are mysterious.
>
> >denied his guilt and was killed
> > before he could be given a trial.
>
> This doesn`t speak to whether Oswald, of his on volition, took
> Kennedy`s life.
Once again, this was just to demonstrate one of the reasons people
suspect a conspiracy.
>
> > The fact-finding commission formed to investigate the crime refused to
> > allow this supposed assassin legal council, so that exculpatory
> > evidence could be considered and justice as we know it could be
> > served.
>
> This doesn`t speak to Oswald`s guilt or innocence, either. The fact-
> finding Commission wasn`t formed until Kennedy was well dead, and they
> had no power to make Oswald guilty or innocent.
>
> And can you show precedence for giving a dead man legal council?
LOL. The WC was supposed to answer all the questions, but instead opted to
make sure many of the questions were never asked. But that's okay by you,
and not at all suggestive of a whitewash. Sigh.
>
> > This same commission refused to allow the doctors who'd performed
> > Kennedy's autopsy to inspect the autopsy photos and x-rays THEY'D
> > taken, for THEIR use, before testifying. It was later found that the
> > drawings they'd created for the commission in lieu of these photos and
> > x-rays were horribly inaccurate, and inaccurate in ways that helped
> > the commission sell the guilt of the supposed assassin.
>
> This doesn`t speak to Oswald`s guilt, it is only the usual criticism
> about the way things were done.
If for no other reason, this criticism is valid because these actions
engendered suspicion. Suspicion the WC was supposed to eradicate.
>
> > A number of eyewitnesses to the crime felt sure shots were fired from
> > a location other than the building from which the supposed assassin
> > supposedly fired the shots.
>
> And a large number of witnesses must, by necessity, be wrong. Why
> can`t CTers grasp this?
LOL. It's amazing to me that LNs will often cite that, oh well, some
witnesses are gonna be wrong--without ever accepting the possibility THEIR
witnesses were wrong.
>
> I was just reading some witness affidavits, and John Chism said he heard
> 3 shots, and he looked behind him to see if there was a fireworks display.
> He was standing at the base of the knoll. So this witness is indicating
> that he heard 3 shots from the direction of the knoll. Now, lets see you
> construct a viable theory that has three loud shots being fired from the
> knoll. If you can`t, you must concede the witness was mistaken.
>
> Putting what the witnesses said into categories is a mistake, as what
> each one related has to be weighted on it`s own merits. Just like the
> observations of each witness at Parkland has to be weighed on it`s merits,
> not everyone had the same look or vantage. This is lumping information
> together, it isn`t viewing it as a whole.
You've gotta be kidding. I am the only researcher to ever create a data
base of witness statements and go through these one by one to demonstrate,
how, when taken as a WHOLE, they tell a quite different story than that
proposed by most LNs...AND most CTs. You can find this data base at
patspeer.com.
>
> > The only eyewitness to the shooting who claimed he could identify the
> > shooter refused to do so after viewing the supposed assassin,
>
> And gave a perfectly reasonable and understandable reason why. And I`m
> not convinced the reason he gave (fear for his family) is the entire
> reason. I think he thought it would play out the same with or without his
> participation. And it probably wouldn`t have been that significant had
> this gone to trial, where there was plenty to convict Oswald. But when
> Ruby shot Oswald the situation changed.
If he didn't want to get involved, then why did he offer in his initial
statement that he could recognize the shooter if he saw him again? His
subsequent failure to ID Oswald could have helped Oswald go free! Your
suggestion that things changed after Oswald was killed is equally
specious, as Brennan did not come forward after Oswald's death.
>
> > and only
> > came forward after this suspect's death, under pressure from the
> > Secret Service.
>
> How much pressure would it take to make you say an innocent man was
> a murderer? I wouldn`t do it, but it seems CTers all would.
If you SUSPECTED someone fired a shot, but couldn't honestly identify him,
and he was then killed, and YOUR PRESIDENT, through the Secret Service,
then came to you and asked you to help them prove to the public the man
was guilty, YOU would almost certainly comply. As would most Americans...
>
> > A number of Dallas law enforcement figures identified the rifle found
> > in the building--what was purportedly the supposed assassin's rifle--
> > as a different kind of rifle entirely.
>
> No, the same kind of rifle entirely, a similar type of bolt action
> rifle.
>
> And it`s a silly idea that they switched the rifle, so it can be
> dismissed out of hand.
These suspicions still add to the WHOLE.
>
> > The supposed assassin supposedly brought his rifle to work in a bag.
> > The only people who saw him with this bag, however, claimed it was far
> > too small to hold his rifle.
>
> Not "far" too small, about eight inches too small, the length of an
> ordinary pencil. Given the context of their observations (interest
> level, amount of time observing the item, distance, ect) they weren`t
> off by that much.
Your math ain't so good, is it? Frazier said the bag he saw on his back
seat was roughly 27 by 6, covering 162 square inches. The bag in the
archives, meanwhile, is roughly 38 by 8 1/2, covering 323 square inches.
Frazier thereby claimed to have seen a bag about HALF the size the bag
shown to him. FAR TOO SMALL.
>
> > The FBI was unable to find any evidence this supposed assassin had
> > practiced with his rifle for months before the shooting.
>
> They should have checked Marina`s testimony.
Marina did not testify to Oswald's even touching his rifle after they'd
moved from New Orleans. If I recall, she only recalled him dry- firing the
rifle while in New Orleans. This suggests it had been many MONTHS since
Oswald had practiced with his rifle.
>
> > They also
> > were unable to find any ammunition or cleaning supplies among his
> > possessions.
>
> I wonder if the DPD checked the sewers between the Paine`s house and
> the Randle`s. They might have found scraps from making the bag, as
> well as gun cleaning equipment.
I wonder that, too, but feel fairly certain they did not.
>
> > The threads found on the rifle which supposedly came from the
> > suspect's shirt came from a shirt no one at his work saw him wearing,
> > and that he claimed he put on only after the shooting.
>
> The shirt he was arrested in had the bus transfer from the bus he
> boarded when he left work in the pocket. And here we are looking at
> the "bits" in much the manner Lee was complaining that LNers do.
Fritz's notes reflect that Oswald had told them he'd changed shirts at the
rooming house. The landlady saw him waiting at the bus stop. It follows
then that he held onto his transfer, and transferred it to his fresh
shirt.
>
> > The only print of his found on the rifle was reportedly an old print,
> > and was supposedly lifted by a DPD officer who not only inexplicably
> > forgot to photograph the print before lifting it, but forgot to tell
> > the FBI about it for days after the assassination, even after the FBI
> > had informed his department no prints were found on the rifle. This
> > DPD officer later refused to sign a statement on this issue.
>
> The prints on the trigger guard were subsequently examined and found
> to be Oswald`s.
One man has identified those prints as Oswald's--Scalice. The FBI's top
guys refused to do so. Scalice's motivations, furthermore, are
questionable, seeing as he has also associated himself with right-wing nut
types out to get Clinton, and has sold himself as an expert on documents
claiming Vince Foster's suicide note was forged. Or something like that.
>
> > This DPD officer also failed to file a report on his activities for
> > more than a month after the assassination, even though the DPD's
> > policy was that he'd write daily and weekly reports on the crimes he
> > investigated.
>
> Bad cop, bad cop, whacha gonna do...
>
> It`s starting to look like the usual focus on small minor details
> and the usual criticism about what was done to me. It`s like focusing
> on the firemen who respond to a fire to try and figure out how the
> fire got started. It`s a silly approach, but CTers seem to enjoy it.
Wrong. Day's laziness and/or incompetence has cast a cloud of
suspicion over the entire investigation
>
> > In fact, this DPD officer ran a test on the suspect, in order to see
> > if he'd fired a rifle. When this test proved negative, the DPD opted
> > to leak that another test--one in which the possibility he'd fired a
> > revolver was tested--was positive, and not mention the negative. This
> > led to the widespread reporting that this other test had proved the
> > suspect had fired a rifle--which the DPD knew not to be true, and yet
> > never sought to correct.
The whole state of Texas was under suspicion. And yet Jesse Curry and
Henry Wade only leaked evidence pointing to Oswald's guilt, and withheld
from the public evidence suggesting his innocence. This in itself is
suspicious, and may have led to a change of venue should Oswald not have
been murdered while in their protective custody.
>
> You think this is part of their job?
>
> >The results of these tests, however, were
> > later called into question.
>
> So what? Everything can be "called into question".
Paraffin tests for nitrates are no longer performed
>
> > There was a secret test performed on the paraffin casts used in these
> > tests, however, that also suggested that the suspect had not fired a
> > rifle. The results of these tests are still accepted in court.
> > Suspiciously, however, when the FBI testified on the first series of
> > tests, its agent offered his PERSONAL expectation about what could be
> > shown through the secret test. This hid that the results had already
> > come in, and that his PERSONAL expectation had been dead wrong.
>
> I think Harold Weisberg was supposed to have copies of this testing.
> If it had conspiratorial connotations, why didn`t he produce it?
You really are kidding me, right? I acquired Weisberg's files on the FBI
tests from the Hood College Library, and acquired reports on similar tests
from the federal government, and discuss these in detail in the Casts of
Contention chapter at patspeer.com.
>
> > The FBI and Secret Service, when asked to re-enact the crime, BOTH did
> > so in a way that helped sell the supposed assassin's guilt, but was so
> > obviously incorrect that even th fact-finding commission decided they
> > were wrong.
>
> You seems to be making a strong case that some things could have
> been done better. So what?
When BIG FAT LIES are told, that even a child could see through, there
is reason to suspect a cover-up is afoot.
>
> > The supposed shooting of this supposed assassin, who hadn't practiced
> > in months, could not be duplicated by the Army's test shooters.
>
> What shooting has ever been duplicated?
The army's shooters--shooting at stationary targets--could not put two
shots within the small circle of Kennedy's wounds rapid-fire, even after
repairing the alignment of the rifle's scope.
>
> > The president's back wound location was misrepresented in testimony
> > regarding the fact-finding commission's own re-enactment of the crime;
> > this testimony, not surprisingly, helped sell the guilt of the
> > supposed assassin.
>
> Are you saying the WC didn`t look at the photo of the bullet wound
> in Kennedy`s back?
They looked at it, and knew the drawings provided by the doctors mis-
represented its location, and then opted to pretend they'd never seen it.
Even worse, Specter had an SS agent lie and claim they'd used the doctors'
drawings during their re-enactment.
>
> > The alignment of the president and Governor Connally within the
> > limousine was also misrepresented in this testimony, and this also
> > helped sell the guilt of the supposed assassin.
>
> The WC didn`t look at the z-film and photos and see how the people
> in the limo were seated?
SS Inspector Thomas Kelley lied and told Specter the jump seat was 6
inches inboard of Kennedy's seat, when the schematics of the limo prove it
was but 2 1/2 inches inboard. (This and the previous point are discussed
in detail in chapter 10 at patspeer.com)
>
> > Several years later, after the trajectory of the bullet creating the
> > president's head wound came into question, a secret panel suddenly
> > decided that the bullet entered four inches higher on the president's
> > skull.
>
> How did this move help sell the idea that he was shot from behind by
> a single shooter?
The low entry/high exit proposed by the WC had led to speculation the shot
was fired from closer to the ground. And then presto! the Clark Panel
moved the wound...
>
> > A number of Kennedy's emergency room doctors recalled Kennedy's large
> > head wound being in a different location than that depicted in the
> > autopsy photos.
>
> Why do you suppose they had an autopsy when they has so many casual
> observers?
This, once again, was offered to show how all this--as a WHOLE-- suggests
conspiracy. I, in fact, think the Parkland doctors were mistaken, and have
added a chapter to patspeer.com (chapter 18c) explaining how I came to
such an unpopular conclusion.
>
> > I could go on and on. This is what Lee means by the WHOLE.
>
> A multitude of little things? Isn`t that what Lee was complaining
> that LNers focus on, "the bits"?
>
> > If one
> > looks at all this, it is easy to see that this is the MESSIEST case
> > ever.
>
> What does this mean? How many large investigations have you
> scrutinized like you have this one?
What? Do you think ALL cases of this importance are this messy? Do you
think ALL government investigations are filled with lies and
distortions? And you're okay with this?
>
> > To many, this suggests there was a set-up, a whitewash, you name
> > it... To others...these people--the vast majority of human beings--are
> > all
>
> ...
>
> read more »
bigdog
whole is like the KKK accusing someone of bigotry. You got to be be
freaking kidding me!!!
It isn't a single piece of evidence which damns Oswald. It is the totality
of evidence which does so. One piece of evidence strengthens another. The
totality of evidence is greater than the sum or its parts. One can isolate
a single piece of evidence of Oswald's guilt and offer a reasonable, if
unlikely alternative explaination that isn't incriminating to Oswald.
However, when one has to stretch for the least likely explaination for
every one of the dozens of pieces of evidence of Oswald's guilt, arguing
for his innocence becomes a ludicrous enterprise.
David Von Pein
>>> "David...you PROVED Lee's point. You itemized reasons to believe
Oswald did it. You DID NOT look at the whole. It's an entirely different
way of thinking than that engaged by most CTs." <<<
Nonsense.
CTers never look at the "whole". Ever. (Especially the "Anybody But
Oswald" CTers.) They chop out, whittle down, and misrepresent each "bit"
of the evidence, until it's the "messiest case ever" (to use the words of
Patrick Speer).
But it's only the messiest case ever because of the conspiracy
theorists--and everybody knows it.
Take the examples I previously cited (and I didn't cite every part of the
"Oswald Did It" whole, of course, in my thread-starting post; I just
talked about a few things that are part of the "whole" that CTers always
ignore or misrepresent; so I must disagree with Pat Speer when he says I
proved Lee Farley's point by citing just a few things; I was merely using
those items as an example of the parts of the "whole" that CTers want to
misrepresent and "isolate" all the time):
It's utterly foolish to believe that just ONE of the three spent bullet
shells in the Sniper's Nest couldn't have been fired on Nov. 22 (due to
the "dented lip" argument). That shell was right there with TWO OTHERS
from Oswald's rifle. And over 90% of the witnesses heard THREE SHOTS.
Shouldn't those two things--in tandem--be a pretty big hint as to how many
shots really were fired in Dealey Plaza? And those two things in
combination with one another--i.e., the THREE spent shells and the
incredibly large number of THREE-SHOT witnesses--are certainly part of
"the whole" too.
Is it truly reasonable to "isolate" that ONE bullet shell from the other
two and pretend that that one shell couldn't be fired on the day of the
assassination, but the others could have been...even though ALL THREE of
the shells are right there near each other in THE VERY SAME SNIPER'S NEST?
No. Frankly, that argument is just plain silly. And furthermore, as John
McAdams pointed out to Jim DiEugenio during their radio debate last year,
the argument made by CTers about the dented lip is just a flat-out lie
too--because Prof. McAdams HIMSELF said he fired a Carcano rifle and got a
dented lip on a cartridge case after firing a round.
Do CTers think McAdams just MADE THAT UP?
(Don't answer, CTers. I know what the answer will likely be anyway.)
Bottom Line: If conspiracy theorists really did look at "the whole", they
couldn't possibly REALISTICALLY believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was
innocent of shooting John Kennedy and J.D. Tippit. Because the "whole"
tells any rational-thinking person that Oswald had to be the killer of
BOTH Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Tippit.
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/isolating-evidence.html
John McAdams
wrote:
Of course, if somebody doesn't want to believe me, they might believe
the HSCA Firearms Panel.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/firearms_hsca.htm#155
Actually, no.
If they'll call me a liar, they'll call the HSCA Firearms Panel liars
too.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
wrote:
>David...you PROVED Lee's point. You itemized reasons to believe Oswald
>did it. You DID NOT look at the whole. It's an entirely different way
>of thinking than that engaged by most CTs.
>
>To YOU, and most LNs, if "official sources" such as the FBI and DPD
>provide you with enough evidence, then what follows from that evidence
>is a FACT. A fact upon which you base your world view...
>
>To most other people, however, suspicion can cloud "facts" to the
>point where they are no longer "facts".
>
>Consider...
>
>A number of very powerful people benefited from Kennedy's death. Some
>of them had even threatened his life.
So they *all* killed him!
>
>His supposed assassin--a mystery man--denied his guilt and was killed
>before he could be given a trial.
>
Well of course if he had been guilty he would have admitted it.
>The fact-finding commission formed to investigate the crime refused to
>allow this supposed assassin legal council, so that exculpatory
>evidence could be considered and justice as we know it could be
>served.
>
You mean: limited the extent to which attention-seeking ambulance
chaser Mark Lane could disrupt the proceedings.
They *did* let him testify.
He lied about what Helen Markham said.
>This same commission refused to allow the doctors who'd performed
>Kennedy's autopsy to inspect the autopsy photos and x-rays THEY'D
>taken, for THEIR use, before testifying. It was later found that the
>drawings they'd created for the commission in lieu of these photos and
>x-rays were horribly inaccurate, and inaccurate in ways that helped
>the commission sell the guilt of the supposed assassin.
>
The Commission didn't want to make a public spectacle of the gruesome
photos.
They goofed in this, but it was the result of deference to the Kennedy
family.
>A number of eyewitnesses to the crime felt sure shots were fired from
>a location other than the building from which the supposed assassin
>supposedly fired the shots.
>
"Felt sure" just flat untrue.
You need to quit enhancing evidence.
More people thought the shots came from the direction of the
Depository, AND NO OTHER DIRECTION.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm
>The only eyewitness to the shooting who claimed he could identify the
>shooter refused to do so after viewing the supposed assassin,
Can't you tell the simple truth?
Brennan picked Oswald out, but merely stopped short of a positive ID.
Quite enhancing the evidence.
>and only
>came forward after this suspect's death, under pressure from the
>Secret Service.
>
Citation!
>A number of Dallas law enforcement figures identified the rifle found
>in the building--what was purportedly the supposed assassin's rifle--
>as a different kind of rifle entirely.
>
The Alyea film shows it to be Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano.
>The supposed assassin supposedly brought his rifle to work in a bag.
>The only people who saw him with this bag, however, claimed it was far
>too small to hold his rifle.
>
But the bag recovered was big enough to hold the rifle, and it had a
finger print and palm print of Oswald's on it.
>The FBI was unable to find any evidence this supposed assassin had
>practiced with his rifle for months before the shooting. They also
>were unable to find any ammunition or cleaning supplies among his
>possessions.
>
Irrelevant.
>The threads found on the rifle which supposedly came from the
>suspect's shirt came from a shirt no one at his work saw him wearing,
>and that he claimed he put on only after the shooting.
>
Citation!
>The only print of his found on the rifle was reportedly an old print,
>and was supposedly lifted by a DPD officer who not only inexplicably
>forgot to photograph the print before lifting it, but forgot to tell
>the FBI about it for days after the assassination,
But multiple witnesses saw the print in the Identification Bureau.
See FIRST DAY EVIDENCE.
>even after the FBI
>had informed his department no prints were found on the rifle. This
>DPD officer later refused to sign a statement on this issue.
>
He told the FBI that since he was going to testify for the WC in a few
days, he would just stand by his WC testimony.
Why do you feel the need to distort the evidence so?
>This DPD officer also failed to file a report on his activities for
>more than a month after the assassination, even though the DPD's
>policy was that he'd write daily and weekly reports on the crimes he
>investigated.
Citation!
>
>In fact, this DPD officer ran a test on the suspect, in order to see
>if he'd fired a rifle. When this test proved negative, the DPD opted
>to leak that another test--one in which the possibility he'd fired a
>revolver was tested--was positive, and not mention the negative.
You use language in a bizarre way.
What you call a "leak" was a simple public statement to reporters.
And the cops said a lot of things to reporters that they should not
have, and were clueless about.
But in your world, everything the Dallas cops do is sinister, right?
>This
>led to the widespread reporting that this other test had proved the
>suspect had fired a rifle--which the DPD knew not to be true, and yet
>never sought to correct. The results of these tests, however, were
>later called into question.
>
The test proves nothing.
Don't you know that?
You are just too steeped in conspiracy lore.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm
>There was a secret test performed on the paraffin casts used in these
>tests, however, that also suggested that the suspect had not fired a
>rifle. The results of these tests are still accepted in court.
>Suspiciously, however, when the FBI testified on the first series of
>tests, its agent offered his PERSONAL expectation about what could be
>shown through the secret test. This hid that the results had already
>come in, and that his PERSONAL expectation had been dead wrong.
>
In fact, this test proved nothing.
If you disagree, post some evidence.
>The FBI and Secret Service, when asked to re-enact the crime, BOTH did
>so in a way that helped sell the supposed assassin's guilt, but was so
>obviously incorrect that even th fact-finding commission decided they
>were wrong.
>
Huh?
They put the Kennedy back wound way too low, in the place where
conspiracists *still* want it.
They put the head wound about the hairline, where a lot of "back of
the head buffs" still want it.
>The supposed shooting of this supposed assassin, who hadn't practiced
>in months, could not be duplicated by the Army's test shooters.
>
Do you feel *any* obligation to tell the truth?
The Army shooters got 13 out of 18 hits in their trials.
That was one better than the 12 out of 18 needed to match Oswald's
performance.
>The president's back wound location was misrepresented in testimony
>regarding the fact-finding commission's own re-enactment of the crime;
>this testimony, not surprisingly, helped sell the guilt of the
>supposed assassin.
>
Explain.
This is so arcane that even I don't know what you are talking about.
>The alignment of the president and Governor Connally within the
>limousine was also misrepresented in this testimony, and this also
>helped sell the guilt of the supposed assassin.
>
Explain.
Connally was well inboard of Kennedy.
Do you contest that?
>Several years later, after the trajectory of the bullet creating the
>president's head wound came into question, a secret panel suddenly
>decided that the bullet entered four inches higher on the president's
>skull.
>
Which is what the autopsy photos and x-rays show.
>A number of Kennedy's emergency room doctors recalled Kennedy's large
>head wound being in a different location than that depicted in the
>autopsy photos.
>
No really, or at least not to a greater degree than expected with
normal witness testimony.
And the photos and x-rays show where the wound really was.
>I could go on and on. This is what Lee means by the WHOLE. If one
>looks at all this, it is easy to see that this is the MESSIEST case
>ever. To many, this suggests there was a set-up, a whitewash, you name
>it... To others...these people--the vast majority of human beings--are
>all "kooks"...
>
Your own list shows what the problem with you folks is.
The list is full of dumb factoids.
They are easy enough for you folks to repeat, but when lone nutters
examine them one at a time, they fall like dominoes.
Of course, you can always come up with *another* bunch of factoids.
Those will be shot down, but then you can always produce some more.
But after a while, sensible people won't take your factoids very
seriously.
By then, you folks have no credibility. You claims get summarily
dismissed.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
wrote:
>Congratulations, Bud, you PROVED my point. Rather than look at all this,
>as a WHOLE, you dissected it piece by piece, offering reason after reason,
>excuses after excuse, (no matter how weak), why we should ignore ALL this.
>
>> to be Oswald`s.
>
>One man has identified those prints as Oswald's--Scalice. The FBI's top
>guys refused to do so.
Are you being intentionally misleading?
The FBI guy did not have the variety of photos at different exposures
that Scalice did.
>Scalice's motivations, furthermore, are
>questionable, seeing as he has also associated himself with right-wing nut
>types out to get Clinton, and has sold himself as an expert on documents
>claiming Vince Foster's suicide note was forged. Or something like that.
>
Oh, my!
You'll believe any nonsense about the Kennedy assassination, but you
don't think the Clintons could have been up to anything.
Actually, I don't think the Clintons were killing anybody. But I'm
consistently skeptical.
You skepticism seems to be a function of the politics of the people
involved.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John Blubaugh
That totality you always mention is seriously flawed. The best way to
commit the perfect crime is to be in charge of the investigation and that
is what happened here. LHO had an alibi you can't touch. The violent
reaction by JFK was NOT a reaction to being shot from behind but you won't
admit it even though the HSCA concluded there was a conspriacy and people
besides LHO firing that day. In fact, you have no credibility on this
subject whatever. Your complete knowledge on the subject can be summed up
by saying, "Well, the WCR says........." It doesn't work. Only a few
fanatics who post here agree with you.
JB
Bud
> Congratulations, Bud, you PROVED my point. Rather than look at all this,
> as a WHOLE, you dissected it piece by piece, offering reason after reason,
> excuses after excuse, (no matter how weak), why we should ignore ALL this.
>
> On Jul 13, 9:56 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 13, 9:47 am, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>
> > > David...you PROVED Lee's point. You itemized reasons to believe Oswald
> > > did it. You DID NOT look at the whole. It's an entirely different way
> > > of thinking than that engaged by most CTs.
>
> > > To YOU, and most LNs, if "official sources" such as the FBI and DPD
> > > provide you with enough evidence, then what follows from that evidence
> > > is a FACT. A fact upon which you base your world view...
>
> > > To most other people, however, suspicion can cloud "facts" to the
> > > point where they are no longer "facts".
>
> > > Consider...
>
> > > A number of very powerful people benefited from Kennedy's death. Some
> > > of them had even threatened his life.
>
> > This doesn`t speak at all as to whether Oswald, of his own volition,
> > took Kennedy`s life.
>
> Wasn't supposed to. It was supposed to demonstrate one of the reasons CTs
> are suspicious.
A "bit", as the original poster on the Education Forum put it. But
his premise was that this is something LNers do.
> > > His supposed assassin--a mystery man--
>
> > <snicker> Bill Kelly thinks we know more about Oswald than anyone
> > else ever, and you consider him a "mystery man". The truth lies
> > somewhere in between.
>
> Bill Kelly would most certainly agree that Oswald's behavior and
> motivations are mysterious.
He seemed to be arguing the opposite.
> > >denied his guilt and was killed
> > > before he could be given a trial.
>
> > This doesn`t speak to whether Oswald, of his on volition, took
> > Kennedy`s life.
>
> Once again, this was just to demonstrate one of the reasons people
> suspect a conspiracy.
>
>
>
> > > The fact-finding commission formed to investigate the crime refused to
> > > allow this supposed assassin legal council, so that exculpatory
> > > evidence could be considered and justice as we know it could be
> > > served.
>
> > This doesn`t speak to Oswald`s guilt or innocence, either. The fact-
> > finding Commission wasn`t formed until Kennedy was well dead, and they
> > had no power to make Oswald guilty or innocent.
>
> > And can you show precedence for giving a dead man legal council?
>
> LOL. The WC was supposed to answer all the questions, but instead opted to
> make sure many of the questions were never asked. But that's okay by you,
> and not at all suggestive of a whitewash. Sigh.
So your answer to my question is no, you can`t show a precedence for
a dead man getting legal counsel.
How do you know Oswald wouldn`t have plead guilty had he gone to trial?
Or tried to cop an insanity plea? The defendant instructs his attorney
which defense he wishes to employ. Dead people suck at this.
> > > This same commission refused to allow the doctors who'd performed
> > > Kennedy's autopsy to inspect the autopsy photos and x-rays THEY'D
> > > taken, for THEIR use, before testifying. It was later found that the
> > > drawings they'd created for the commission in lieu of these photos and
> > > x-rays were horribly inaccurate, and inaccurate in ways that helped
> > > the commission sell the guilt of the supposed assassin.
>
> > This doesn`t speak to Oswald`s guilt, it is only the usual criticism
> > about the way things were done.
>
> If for no other reason, this criticism is valid because these actions
> engendered suspicion.
It is still merely criticism which doesn`t speak to Oswald`s guilt
or innocence.
> Suspicion the WC was supposed to eradicate.
The WC wielded no magical power to stop people from being
suspicious.
> > > A number of eyewitnesses to the crime felt sure shots were fired from
> > > a location other than the building from which the supposed assassin
> > > supposedly fired the shots.
>
> > And a large number of witnesses must, by necessity, be wrong. Why
> > can`t CTers grasp this?
>
> LOL. It's amazing to me that LNs will often cite that, oh well, some
> witnesses are gonna be wrong--without ever accepting the possibility THEIR
> witnesses were wrong.
It amazes you because of your inability to weigh and process
information properly. A large group of people split on their opinion where
the sound of the shots they heard originated from is nowhere near the same
thing as a person seeing someone, seeing them again later, and declaring
that they are both one and the same person.
> > I was just reading some witness affidavits, and John Chism said he heard
> > 3 shots, and he looked behind him to see if there was a fireworks display.
> > He was standing at the base of the knoll. So this witness is indicating
> > that he heard 3 shots from the direction of the knoll. Now, lets see you
> > construct a viable theory that has three loud shots being fired from the
> > knoll. If you can`t, you must concede the witness was mistaken.
>
> > Putting what the witnesses said into categories is a mistake, as what
> > each one related has to be weighted on it`s own merits. Just like the
> > observations of each witness at Parkland has to be weighed on it`s merits,
> > not everyone had the same look or vantage. This is lumping information
> > together, it isn`t viewing it as a whole.
>
> You've gotta be kidding. I am the only researcher to ever create a data
> base of witness statements and go through these one by one to demonstrate,
> how, when taken as a WHOLE, they tell a quite different story than that
> proposed by most LNs...AND most CTs. You can find this data base at
> patspeer.com.
Can but won`t.
> > > The only eyewitness to the shooting who claimed he could identify the
> > > shooter refused to do so after viewing the supposed assassin,
>
> > And gave a perfectly reasonable and understandable reason why. And I`m
> > not convinced the reason he gave (fear for his family) is the entire
> > reason. I think he thought it would play out the same with or without his
> > participation. And it probably wouldn`t have been that significant had
> > this gone to trial, where there was plenty to convict Oswald. But when
> > Ruby shot Oswald the situation changed.
>
> If he didn't want to get involved, then why did he offer in his initial
> statement that he could recognize the shooter if he saw him again?
He did recognize Oswald as the person he saw shooting. He just
didn`t identify him as such.
> His
> subsequent failure to ID Oswald could have helped Oswald go free!
Apparently a risk Brennan was willing to take. But Brennan knew they
had him cold in two murders, with or without his imput.
> Your
> suggestion that things changed after Oswald was killed is equally
> specious, as Brennan did not come forward after Oswald's death.
The situation did change when Oswald was killed. No trial, no closure
for many. You shouldn`t need Brennan to figure out that Oswald killed
Kennedy. And you wouldn`t be able to figure it out even if he had picked
Oswald out of the line-up as the man he saw.
> > > and only
> > > came forward after this suspect's death, under pressure from the
> > > Secret Service.
>
> > How much pressure would it take to make you say an innocent man was
> > a murderer? I wouldn`t do it, but it seems CTers all would.
>
> If you SUSPECTED someone fired a shot, but couldn't honestly identify him,
> and he was then killed, and YOUR PRESIDENT, through the Secret Service,
> then came to you and asked you to help them prove to the public the man
> was guilty, YOU would almost certainly comply. As would most Americans...
No, I wouldn`t make a positive ID in a murder case unless I was sure
the person I was selecting was the person I saw commit the murder. As
I said, this must be a CTer thing.
> > > A number of Dallas law enforcement figures identified the rifle found
> > > in the building--what was purportedly the supposed assassin's rifle--
> > > as a different kind of rifle entirely.
>
> > No, the same kind of rifle entirely, a similar type of bolt action
> > rifle.
>
> > And it`s a silly idea that they switched the rifle, so it can be
> > dismissed out of hand.
>
> These suspicions still add to the WHOLE.
No, if you dismiss the silly ideas they don`t add to anything.
> > > The supposed assassin supposedly brought his rifle to work in a bag.
> > > The only people who saw him with this bag, however, claimed it was far
> > > too small to hold his rifle.
>
> > Not "far" too small, about eight inches too small, the length of an
> > ordinary pencil. Given the context of their observations (interest
> > level, amount of time observing the item, distance, ect) they weren`t
> > off by that much.
>
> Your math ain't so good, is it? Frazier said the bag he saw on his back
> seat was roughly 27 by 6, covering 162 square inches. The bag in the
> archives, meanwhile, is roughly 38 by 8 1/2, covering 323 square inches.
> Frazier thereby claimed to have seen a bag about HALF the size the bag
> shown to him. FAR TOO SMALL.
Lets see how many problems there are with this. First of, Frazier never
said the bag he saw was 27 by 6. Secondly, the bag would have been around
35 inches when Oswald carried it with the rifle parts inside of it, with
the remainder just a flap pulled over. Thirdly, when shown the bag found n
the TSBD, he said it could have been the bag he saw Oswald carry that
morning (if it hadn`t been discolored by the fingerprint treatment).
> > > The FBI was unable to find any evidence this supposed assassin had
> > > practiced with his rifle for months before the shooting.
>
> > They should have checked Marina`s testimony.
>
> Marina did not testify to Oswald's even touching his rifle after they'd
> moved from New Orleans. If I recall, she only recalled him dry- firing the
> rifle while in New Orleans. This suggests it had been many MONTHS since
> Oswald had practiced with his rifle.
She said something about him taking it to Love Field to practice.
> > > They also
> > > were unable to find any ammunition or cleaning supplies among his
> > > possessions.
>
> > I wonder if the DPD checked the sewers between the Paine`s house and
> > the Randle`s. They might have found scraps from making the bag, as
> > well as gun cleaning equipment.
>
> I wonder that, too, but feel fairly certain they did not.
Certain they did not check or certain they did not contain
incriminating evidence ditched by Oswald?
> > > The threads found on the rifle which supposedly came from the
> > > suspect's shirt came from a shirt no one at his work saw him wearing,
> > > and that he claimed he put on only after the shooting.
>
> > The shirt he was arrested in had the bus transfer from the bus he
> > boarded when he left work in the pocket. And here we are looking at
> > the "bits" in much the manner Lee was complaining that LNers do.
>
> Fritz's notes reflect that Oswald had told them he'd changed shirts at the
> rooming house.
Fritz`s notes reflect a lot of lies told by Oswald..
> The landlady saw him waiting at the bus stop.
You don`t stop before stepping out into the street?
> It follows
> then that he held onto his transfer, and transferred it to his fresh
> shirt.
No, it doesn`t follow. Bus transfers only work on buses that connect
to the route you bought the transer on, and then in only a continuing
direction. It only follows if you have the information to make it
follow.
> > > The only print of his found on the rifle was reportedly an old print,
> > > and was supposedly lifted by a DPD officer who not only inexplicably
> > > forgot to photograph the print before lifting it, but forgot to tell
> > > the FBI about it for days after the assassination, even after the FBI
> > > had informed his department no prints were found on the rifle. This
> > > DPD officer later refused to sign a statement on this issue.
>
> > The prints on the trigger guard were subsequently examined and found
> > to be Oswald`s.
>
> One man has identified those prints as Oswald's--Scalice. The FBI's top
> guys refused to do so.
In 1963. Different techniques and technology were available when
Scalice made his identification.
> Scalice's motivations, furthermore, are
> questionable, seeing as he has also associated himself with right-wing nut
> types out to get Clinton, and has sold himself as an expert on documents
> claiming Vince Foster's suicide note was forged. Or something like that.
You need to show his science is faulty in regards to this evidence,
not that his politics are faulty.
> > > This DPD officer also failed to file a report on his activities for
> > > more than a month after the assassination, even though the DPD's
> > > policy was that he'd write daily and weekly reports on the crimes he
> > > investigated.
>
> > Bad cop, bad cop, whacha gonna do...
>
> > It`s starting to look like the usual focus on small minor details
> > and the usual criticism about what was done to me. It`s like focusing
> > on the firemen who respond to a fire to try and figure out how the
> > fire got started. It`s a silly approach, but CTers seem to enjoy it.
>
> Wrong. Day's laziness and/or incompetence has cast a cloud of
> suspicion over the entire investigation
No, it was CTers who cast the cloud.
> > > In fact, this DPD officer ran a test on the suspect, in order to see
> > > if he'd fired a rifle. When this test proved negative, the DPD opted
> > > to leak that another test--one in which the possibility he'd fired a
> > > revolver was tested--was positive, and not mention the negative. This
> > > led to the widespread reporting that this other test had proved the
> > > suspect had fired a rifle--which the DPD knew not to be true, and yet
> > > never sought to correct.
>
> The whole state of Texas was under suspicion.
Don`t be silly.
> And yet Jesse Curry and
> Henry Wade only leaked evidence pointing to Oswald's guilt,
The best evidence they had pointed towards Oswald`s guilt. Not
suprizing, since he was guilty.
> and withheld
> from the public evidence suggesting his innocence.
Like what, people seeing him who said it wasn`t killing people at
the time they saw him?
> This in itself is
> suspicious, and may have led to a change of venue should Oswald not have
> been murdered while in their protective custody.
Oswald has been dead for some time now, you can stop making legal
moves on his behalf.
> > You think this is part of their job?
>
> > >The results of these tests, however, were
> > > later called into question.
>
> > So what? Everything can be "called into question".
>
> Paraffin tests for nitrates are no longer performed
A lot of places weren`t using them at the time. So what?
> > > There was a secret test performed on the paraffin casts used in these
> > > tests, however, that also suggested that the suspect had not fired a
> > > rifle. The results of these tests are still accepted in court.
> > > Suspiciously, however, when the FBI testified on the first series of
> > > tests, its agent offered his PERSONAL expectation about what could be
> > > shown through the secret test. This hid that the results had already
> > > come in, and that his PERSONAL expectation had been dead wrong.
>
> > I think Harold Weisberg was supposed to have copies of this testing.
> > If it had conspiratorial connotations, why didn`t he produce it?
>
> You really are kidding me, right? I acquired Weisberg's files on the FBI
> tests from the Hood College Library, and acquired reports on similar tests
> from the federal government, and discuss these in detail in the Casts of
> Contention chapter at patspeer.com.
Now that might be worth a look. According to one CTer, Weisberg
claimed in one of his books that when the assassination rifle was
fired, it left heavy deposits if nitrates on the shooters face. He
couldn`t produce the primary testing, is this information available on
your site?
> > > The FBI and Secret Service, when asked to re-enact the crime, BOTH did
> > > so in a way that helped sell the supposed assassin's guilt, but was so
> > > obviously incorrect that even th fact-finding commission decided they
> > > were wrong.
>
> > You seems to be making a strong case that some things could have
> > been done better. So what?
>
> When BIG FAT LIES are told, that even a child could see through, there
> is reason to suspect a cover-up is afoot.
You don`t seem to understand that any investigation done could be
criticized (even if it was run to your specifications). You being able
to do what would be impossible to prevent isn`t meaningful.
> > > The supposed shooting of this supposed assassin, who hadn't practiced
> > > in months, could not be duplicated by the Army's test shooters.
>
> > What shooting has ever been duplicated?
>
> The army's shooters--shooting at stationary targets--could not put two
> shots within the small circle of Kennedy's wounds rapid-fire, even after
> repairing the alignment of the rifle's scope.
Were they as exactly familiar with the weapon as Oswald? In order to
achieve true duplication, all factors must be the same.
> > > The president's back wound location was misrepresented in testimony
> > > regarding the fact-finding commission's own re-enactment of the crime;
> > > this testimony, not surprisingly, helped sell the guilt of the
> > > supposed assassin.
>
> > Are you saying the WC didn`t look at the photo of the bullet wound
> > in Kennedy`s back?
>
> They looked at it, and knew the drawings provided by the doctors mis-
> represented its location, and then opted to pretend they'd never seen it.
> Even worse, Specter had an SS agent lie and claim they'd used the doctors'
> drawings during their re-enactment.
How could this mislead the WC, who saw the actual photo of the wound
on Kennedy`s back?
> > > The alignment of the president and Governor Connally within the
> > > limousine was also misrepresented in this testimony, and this also
> > > helped sell the guilt of the supposed assassin.
>
> > The WC didn`t look at the z-film and photos and see how the people
> > in the limo were seated?
>
> SS Inspector Thomas Kelley lied and told Specter the jump seat was 6
> inches inboard of Kennedy's seat, when the schematics of the limo prove it
> was but 2 1/2 inches inboard. (This and the previous point are discussed
> in detail in chapter 10 at patspeer.com)
More of those "bits".
> > > Several years later, after the trajectory of the bullet creating the
> > > president's head wound came into question, a secret panel suddenly
> > > decided that the bullet entered four inches higher on the president's
> > > skull.
>
> > How did this move help sell the idea that he was shot from behind by
> > a single shooter?
>
> The low entry/high exit proposed by the WC had led to speculation the shot
> was fired from closer to the ground. And then presto! the Clark Panel
> moved the wound...
So, it`s bad if they get something wrong, and it bad if they try to
correct something they think is wrong.
> > > A number of Kennedy's emergency room doctors recalled Kennedy's large
> > > head wound being in a different location than that depicted in the
> > > autopsy photos.
>
> > Why do you suppose they had an autopsy when they has so many casual
> > observers?
>
> This, once again, was offered to show how all this--as a WHOLE-- suggests
> conspiracy. I, in fact, think the Parkland doctors were mistaken, and have
> added a chapter to patspeer.com (chapter 18c) explaining how I came to
> such an unpopular conclusion.
>
>
>
> > > I could go on and on. This is what Lee means by the WHOLE.
>
> > A multitude of little things? Isn`t that what Lee was complaining
> > that LNers focus on, "the bits"?
>
> > > If one
> > > looks at all this, it is easy to see that this is the MESSIEST case
> > > ever.
>
> > What does this mean? How many large investigations have you
> > scrutinized like you have this one?
>
> What?
You heard.
> Do you think ALL cases of this importance are this messy?
For sure, and investigation this complex could have the
discrepancies and errors exploited. Lokk at the 9-11 investigation,
the same thing. The bigger the investigation, the easier.
In almost every true crime book I`ve read, glaring mistakes are made
during the course investigation, and in the case of serial killers,
they are often able to continue to kill long after they should have
been identified.
> Do you
> think ALL government investigations are filled with lies and
> distortions? And you're okay with this?
How many large investigations have you scrutinized? If you are
clueless about what is normal in an investigation, how can you say
when something is abnormal?
David Von Pein
>>> "I had the idea to list all the known events, and have the LN
explanation for each event given, and allow the CT the chance to gice
position as too silly to even be considered once and for all." <<<
That's pretty much what I was going to do to Jim DiEugenio in my proposed
debate with him (which is a debate he won't agree to participate in,
because he doesn't like the idea of me getting to ask him questions; he
thinks I'll just "make stuff up", which is hilarious, due to the built-in
pot/kettle nature of Jim's excuse).
I currently have a list of 33 questions for Jim D., all of them centered
on pretty much the physical evidence in the case. The questions would
force DiEugenio (who resides in the Anybody-But-Oswald club, you know) to
admit that he thinks every last piece of evidence against Oswald has been
faked or planted, etc.
This type of onslaught via my long list of questions which go toward the
crux of the whole case (i.e., the physical evidence of Oswald's guilt in
two murders) is an onslaught that DiEugenio obviously doesn't want to have
to face. So, Jim has decided that my format which has the debaters asking
the questions is no good, because he has decided that I will be inclined
to "make stuff up" out of thin air.
That excuse is doubly hysterical--coming as it does from a kook who "makes
stuff up" continuously....such as when he decided (on his own) that Buell
Frazier and Linnie Randle were liars when they each said they saw LHO with
a paper bag on Nov. 22.
Seems to me that *I* should be the one complaining about my opponent
"making stuff up". Just another example of the upside-down world that
conspiracy kooks like James DiEugenio reside in.
tomnln
Name the DPD Officer who discovered the bag in front of thr 6th floor
widow???
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:2i5q36hjj66h4o2ul...@4ax.com...
John Canal
>>Several years later, after the trajectory of the bullet creating the
>>president's head wound came into question, a secret panel suddenly
>>decided that the bullet entered four inches higher on the president's
>>skull.
>Which is what the autopsy photos and x-rays show.
.john you were doing pretty well until you steped into this aspect of the
evidence, the head wounds...not exctly your specialty. That's not to say
it's Pat's either.
I'm going to reply to this and you usually say I add too much baggage to
my posts...but I wonder if the reason you sarcastically call those added
comments or points "baggage" is because it's information you don't want to
hear?
Anyway, here goes...with some baggage (maybe the lurkers will appreciate
the baggage?). Ya think?
Re. the photos allegedly showing the high entry, question for you. Were
the photos you're referring to time stamped? IOW do you know when during
the night those photos were taken?
You do know that all the morticians said they repaired (stretched and
sutured closed) the scalp because they thought there'd be an open-casket
funeral.....right?
You do know that S & O were shocked when they saw the photos of undamaged
BOH....right? Do you think there's any possibility that they made such
statements because they left the morgue around 1:00 AM and the photos were
taken well after they left?
so, have you been holding back evidence that proves the photos weren't
taken after the scalp had been worked on? If so, would you share it?
You do know, of course, that six film holders were added (handwritten
notations) to the list of film holders that Kellerman originally signed
for...don't you?
You do know that each film holder contained two exposed sheets of
undeveloped film, right?
You do know that there are a total of 12 pics that show an undamaged rear
scalp....right? Do you think it's a coincidence that 12 equals 12? I guess
you do or would simply say, "So what?" Ok, that's a fair rebuttal, go fo
it.
You do know that there are several eyewitnesses who said that photos were
taken later.....right?
You do know that Stringer left the morgue around 3:15 AM...and that he
probably wasn't playing ping-pong in the breakroom that late....right?
You do know that the orignal (and "modified", with the handwritten
notations reflecting the six additional filmholders) receipt was retyped
and marked as a "certified true copy of the original"...with that latest
copy excluding the aforementioned handwritten notations....and any
indication whatsoever that this copy was prepared after the 22d of
November, 1963....right? You do know that this so called "certified true
copy of the original" did not reflect the signature of Kellerman....right?
Do you get the picture? No? I didn"t think so. And no pun intended, re.
picture.
For you edificaion, the BOH photo that Baden and you would like everyone
to think was taken when the body was first received was clearly taken (at
least to some of us who don't think all the eyewitnesses were lying or
hallucinating)....after the morticians had done what they were supposed
tyo do, i.e. repair the hole in the scalp.
Now, re. the x-rays, are you going to ignore the reports of the three ARRB
experts who saw no entry whatsoever at the high site on the X-rays (you
know were Baden said all his experts were positive there was one) and the
fact that Seaman said the existence of any entry there was
inconclusive....and that Davis proposed the bullet entered the skull near
the EOP....only to eventually sign the HSCA report that stated the bullet
entered in the cowlick?
BTW, the three ARRB experts had no horses in the race...meaning they were
unbiased and had no preconcieved notions about the evidence they examined.
Now, on the other hand, the Clark, Rockefeller and HSCA experts had more
associations and connections among them than a bowl of spaghetti. Of
course, in your mind they would still have rendered impartial,
independent, and objective opinions...right? Of course. :-(
>>A number of Kennedy's emergency room doctors recalled Kennedy's large
>>head wound being in a different location than that depicted in the
>>autopsy photos. >> > >No really, or at least not to a greater degree
than expected with >normal witness testimony.
Sure .john the autopsy docs (they said the large wound extended into the
occipital and Humes even said they saw that part of the cerebellum was
damaged--do you see any such damage in the photos...of the BOH
scalp?).......and all the other Bethesda and PH eyewitnesses were ether
lying about or misremembering the wounds......right?
LOL. You're a devoted Badenite...and I'm working hard to prove you and
your hardline LN buddies are wrong....and that your hero, Baden lied under
oath...several times. This past week my efforts inched forward towards my
goal....I may not achieve that goal, but if I do you guys will have enogh
crow on your plates to feed an army. We'll see what happens.
>And the photos and x-rays show where the wound really was.
See above.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
bigdog
> On Jul 13, 9:32 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > A CT accusing the LNs of refusing to look at the body of evidence as a
> > whole is like the KKK accusing someone of bigotry. You got to be be
> > freaking kidding me!!!
>
> > It isn't a single piece of evidence which damns Oswald. It is the totality
> > of evidence which does so. One piece of evidence strengthens another. The
> > totality of evidence is greater than the sum or its parts. One can isolate
> > a single piece of evidence of Oswald's guilt and offer a reasonable, if
> > unlikely alternative explaination that isn't incriminating to Oswald.
> > However, when one has to stretch for the least likely explaination for
> > every one of the dozens of pieces of evidence of Oswald's guilt, arguing
> > for his innocence becomes a ludicrous enterprise.
>
> That totality you always mention is seriously flawed. The best way to
> commit the perfect crime is to be in charge of the investigation and that
> is what happened here.
To quote one of our greatest presidents, "Well, there you go again".
Sooner or later, every CT has to resort to playing the all-the-
evidence-was-tainted card because as we all know, all the evidence
points to Oswald. You can't make a case against anyone but Oswald
based on the evidence so you invent excuses to dismiss the real
evidence, then dream up theories based on nothing but your own fertile
imagination. And just what makes you believe all the evidence was
tampered with? Do you have evidence of such tampering? Of course you
don't. You resort to baseless speculation for that as well. The
fundamental difference between LNs and CTs is that LNs explain the
evidence and the CTs must explain it away.
No one entity was in charge of the entire investigation. Evidence was
developed by numerous entities. The DPD, the SS, the FBI, the
military, as well as various crime labs around the country that were
enlisted to confirm findings regarding key pieces of forensic
evidence.
> LHO had an alibi you can't touch.
I can't touch something that doesn't exist.
> The violent
> reaction by JFK was NOT a reaction to being shot from behind
> admit it even though the HSCA concluded there was a conspriacy and people
> besides LHO firing that day.
The HSCA concluded JFK was shot from behind and that no frontal shot
struck him. Funny how you always leave that part out when you want to
use them to endorse your wacky theories.
> In fact, you have no credibility on this
> subject whatever. Your complete knowledge on the subject can be summed up
> by saying, "Well, the WCR says........." It doesn't work. Only a few
> fanatics who post here agree with you.
>
As I pointed out a few days ago, the WCR presented the only theory of
the assassination that has stood the test of time. Conspiracy theories
come and go. As a rule, they have a very short shelf life. New ones
have to keep being developed as the old ones get shot to pieces. I
don't believe Oswald acted alone because the WCR said so. I believe
that because it is the only explaination that makes an ounce of sense.
It is the only one that is compatible with the body of evidence. If is
the only conclusion that one can arrive at where all the pieces of the
puzzle fit together. In 46 years, no one has offered a better answer
and no one ever will.
Brigette Kohley
against Oswald, one is not looking at the WHOLE of the evidence regarding
the assassination. The sloppiness and dishonesty of the government's
investigation is part of the WHOLE looked at by CTs. As well it should
be...
If your wife's ex-husband leaves your house smelling of liquor, and your
wife tells you he came by without invitation and rudely helped himself,
but is then unable to look you in the eye, what are you to believe? A LNer
will assume she's telling the truth, but a CT will trust his gut and
assume the ex had had an invite. Not an exact analogy. But LNers tend to
think the government's behavior after the assassination should not be
considered when analyzing the evidence against Oswald, and CTs think this
behavior is half the story.
Brigette Kohley
> >>> "David...you PROVED Lee's point. You itemized reasons to believe
>
> Oswald did it. You DID NOT look at the whole. It's an entirely different
> way of thinking than that engaged by most CTs." <<<
>
> Nonsense.
>
> CTers never look at the "whole". Ever. (Especially the "Anybody But
> Oswald" CTers.) They chop out, whittle down, and misrepresent each "bit"
> of the evidence, until it's the "messiest case ever" (to use the words of
> Patrick Speer).
>
> But it's only the messiest case ever because of the conspiracy
> theorists--and everybody knows it.
Only you and a half dozen true believers "know" such a thing. The
investigation was re-opened in the 70's not because CTs had suddenly
gained in power, but because 1)the Zapruder film--which had been withheld
from public viewing--had suggested a shot from the knoll, 2) the FBI
admitted it lied about its knowledge of Oswald, and had destroyed
evidence, 3) the CIA admitted it had been trying to murder Castro at the
time of the assassination, and that this possible motive had never been
brought to the WC's attention, and 4) subsequent examinations of the
medical evidence had declared that the original autopsy report was in
error. In other words, the case was messy because of lies and screw-ups on
the part of those tasked with the original investigation, not because
wacky CT theories a la Oswald being on the front steps had suddenly become
popular.
>
> Take the examples I previously cited (and I didn't cite every part of the
> "Oswald Did It" whole, of course, in my thread-starting post; I just
> talked about a few things that are part of the "whole" that CTers always
> ignore or misrepresent; so I must disagree with Pat Speer when he says I
> proved Lee Farley's point by citing just a few things; I was merely using
> those items as an example of the parts of the "whole" that CTers want to
> misrepresent and "isolate" all the time):
>
> It's utterly foolish to believe that just ONE of the three spent bullet
> shells in the Sniper's Nest couldn't have been fired on Nov. 22 (due to
> the "dented lip" argument). That shell was right there with TWO OTHERS
> from Oswald's rifle. And over 90% of the witnesses heard THREE SHOTS.
SO??? How many people claimed, from the outset, that all three shots
were fired from that window? And why did Bonnie Ray Williams, less
than 10 feet away from the rifle, hear only two shots fired from that
window?
>
> Shouldn't those two things--in tandem--be a pretty big hint as to how many
> shots really were fired in Dealey Plaza? And those two things in
> combination with one another--i.e., the THREE spent shells and the
> incredibly large number of THREE-SHOT witnesses--are certainly part of
> "the whole" too.
If you're gonna rely on the three-shot witnesses to make the argument
three shots were fired, it would be hypocritical of you not to also
acknowledge that the vast majority of those commenting on the spacing of
the shots claimed the last two were bunched together and that this
suggests at least one shot was NOT fired from the sniper's nest.
pjsp...@aol.com
> On 13 Jul 2010 09:47:56 -0400, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
> wrote:
>
> >David...you PROVED Lee's point. You itemized reasons to believe Oswald
> >did it. You DID NOT look at the whole. It's an entirely different way
> >of thinking than that engaged by most CTs.
>
> >To YOU, and most LNs, if "official sources" such as the FBI and DPD
> >provide you with enough evidence, then what follows from that evidence
> >is a FACT. A fact upon which you base your world view...
>
> >To most other people, however, suspicion can cloud "facts" to the
> >point where they are no longer "facts".
>
> >Consider...
>
> >A number of very powerful people benefited from Kennedy's death. Some
> >of them had even threatened his life.
>
> So they *all* killed him!
No one said that.
>
>
>
> >His supposed assassin--a mystery man--denied his guilt and was killed
> >before he could be given a trial.
>
> Well of course if he had been guilty he would have admitted it.
Which is to say an accused assassin's being executed before trial is not
cause for suspicion? Tell that to Allen Dulles, who didn't believe
Castillo-Armas' supposed assassin (a card-carrying community who just so
happened to be one of his guards) was guilty...
>
> >The fact-finding commission formed to investigate the crime refused to
> >allow this supposed assassin legal council, so that exculpatory
> >evidence could be considered and justice as we know it could be
> >served.
>
> You mean: limited the extent to which attention-seeking ambulance
> chaser Mark Lane could disrupt the proceedings.
>
> They *did* let him testify.
>
> He lied about what Helen Markham said.
Uhhh... not entirely true. He PROVED Markham--one of the government's key
witnesses against Oswald--was a liar. (Admittedly, this doesn't mean she
lied about Oswald's killing Tippit.)
>
> >This same commission refused to allow the doctors who'd performed
> >Kennedy's autopsy to inspect the autopsy photos and x-rays THEY'D
> >taken, for THEIR use, before testifying. It was later found that the
> >drawings they'd created for the commission in lieu of these photos and
> >x-rays were horribly inaccurate, and inaccurate in ways that helped
> >the commission sell the guilt of the supposed assassin.
>
> The Commission didn't want to make a public spectacle of the gruesome
> photos.
Hogwash. They withheld thousands of documents from public viewing.
Warren's refusal to let Kennedy's autopsist view the materials he'd had
created to help him in his testimony would have to have been considered a
reversible error--should the WC have been anything like a real trial.
>
> They goofed in this, but it was the result of deference to the Kennedy
> family.
Not true. Katzenbach debunked this years ago when he told the HSCA he'd
talked to Bobby and explained that they needed to look at the evidence and
that Bobby had told him to do what needed to be done. Even Specter
admitted in his WC memos that Bobby was not a problem.
>
> >A number of eyewitnesses to the crime felt sure shots were fired from
> >a location other than the building from which the supposed assassin
> >supposedly fired the shots.
>
> "Felt sure" just flat untrue.
>
> You need to quit enhancing evidence.
Okay then "felt," just as Brennan "felt" Oswald was the man in the
window.
>
> More people thought the shots came from the direction of the
> Depository, AND NO OTHER DIRECTION.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm
Not true. Those in the motorcade claiming the shots came from Elm and
Houston or the right rear could just as easily have been saying they
thought the shots came from the Dal-Tex Building. The question you need to
ask is why the vast majority of those in front of the building thought the
last sound came from west of the building.
>
> >The only eyewitness to the shooting who claimed he could identify the
> >shooter refused to do so after viewing the supposed assassin,
>
> Can't you tell the simple truth?
>
> Brennan picked Oswald out, but merely stopped short of a positive ID.
>
> Quite enhancing the evidence.
>
> >and only
> >came forward after this suspect's death, under pressure from the
> >Secret Service.
>
> Citation!
When the SS shows up at your door and asks you to do something, that can
be considered pressure...
>
> >A number of Dallas law enforcement figures identified the rifle found
> >in the building--what was purportedly the supposed assassin's rifle--
> >as a different kind of rifle entirely.
>
> The Alyea film shows it to be Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano.
Hey, we agree on something. The rifle is probably the rifle bought from
Klein's, and the person buying this rifle was probably Oswald.
>
> >The supposed assassin supposedly brought his rifle to work in a bag.
> >The only people who saw him with this bag, however, claimed it was far
> >too small to hold his rifle.
>
> But the bag recovered was big enough to hold the rifle, and it had a
> finger print and palm print of Oswald's on it.
And an unspecified amount of paper was taken from the building by the DPD,
sent to the FBI, and never returned
>
> >The FBI was unable to find any evidence this supposed assassin had
> >practiced with his rifle for months before the shooting. They also
> >were unable to find any ammunition or cleaning supplies among his
> >possessions.
>
> Irrelevant.
Not to anyone who knows anything about shooting... It takes PRACTICE.
>
> >The threads found on the rifle which supposedly came from the
> >suspect's shirt came from a shirt no one at his work saw him wearing,
> >and that he claimed he put on only after the shooting.
>
> Citation!
The last two-thirds of this chapter 4b is devoted to a discussion of
Oswald's shirt, and the probability the fibers were planted on the rifle.
Citations are included in that chapter.
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter4b%3A%22theso-calledevidence%22
>
> >The only print of his found on the rifle was reportedly an old print,
> >and was supposedly lifted by a DPD officer who not only inexplicably
> >forgot to photograph the print before lifting it, but forgot to tell
> >the FBI about it for days after the assassination,
>
> But multiple witnesses saw the print in the Identification Bureau.
>
> See FIRST DAY EVIDENCE.
They probably LIED. Day claimed he told no one of the print but Curry and
Fritz, and that he didn't even bother to match it to Oswald's print. And
then, years later, half the crime lab claims they knew about it, and knew
that it was a match. They were probably covering for him. It's what cops
do.
>
> >even after the FBI
> >had informed his department no prints were found on the rifle. This
> >DPD officer later refused to sign a statement on this issue.
>
> He told the FBI that since he was going to testify for the WC in a few
> days, he would just stand by his WC testimony.
You're remembering this incorrectly. He refused to sign a statement in
September, months after he'd testified.
>
> Why do you feel the need to distort the evidence so?
Yes, why do?
>
> >This DPD officer also failed to file a report on his activities for
> >more than a month after the assassination, even though the DPD's
> >policy was that he'd write daily and weekly reports on the crimes he
> >investigated.
>
> Citation!
It's in the WC's files.
>
>
>
> >In fact, this DPD officer ran a test on the suspect, in order to see
> >if he'd fired a rifle. When this test proved negative, the DPD opted
> >to leak that another test--one in which the possibility he'd fired a
> >revolver was tested--was positive, and not mention the negative.
>
> You use language in a bizarre way.
>
> What you call a "leak" was a simple public statement to reporters.
>
> And the cops said a lot of things to reporters that they should not
> have, and were clueless about.
>
> But in your world, everything the Dallas cops do is sinister, right?
No, not necessarily. I do find their telling the public the evidence for
Oswald's guilt--while withholding evidence suggesting his possible
innocence--problematic, however.
>
> >This
> >led to the widespread reporting that this other test had proved the
> >suspect had fired a rifle--which the DPD knew not to be true, and yet
> >never sought to correct. The results of these tests, however, were
> >later called into question.
>
> The test proves nothing.
>
> Don't you know that?
>
> You are just too steeped in conspiracy lore.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm
John, you seem to have forgotten about this
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter4e%3Acastsofcontention
>
> >There was a secret test performed on the paraffin casts used in these
> >tests, however, that also suggested that the suspect had not fired a
> >rifle. The results of these tests are still accepted in court.
> >Suspiciously, however, when the FBI testified on the first series of
> >tests, its agent offered his PERSONAL expectation about what could be
> >shown through the secret test. This hid that the results had already
> >come in, and that his PERSONAL expectation had been dead wrong.
>
> In fact, this test proved nothing.
>
> If you disagree, post some evidence.
Read the chapter. Cunningham testified that he wouldn't expect a rifle to
leak residue on a suspect's cheek AFTER the FBI had already performed
tests with Oswald's rifle proving that it did leak residue, and Guinn had
reported back to Gallagher on his tests, which proved the same thing.
So...let's not pretend Cunningham's testifying about a personal
expectation--when the FBI KNEW his expectation was false--was a
coincidence.
>
> >The FBI and Secret Service, when asked to re-enact the crime, BOTH did
> >so in a way that helped sell the supposed assassin's guilt, but was so
> >obviously incorrect that even th fact-finding commission decided they
> >were wrong.
>
> Huh?
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter2b%3Athesecretservicesecrets
>
> They put the Kennedy back wound way too low, in the place where
> conspiracists *still* want it.
>
> They put the head wound about the hairline, where a lot of "back of
> the head buffs" still want it.
>
> >The supposed shooting of this supposed assassin, who hadn't practiced
> >in months, could not be duplicated by the Army's test shooters.
>
> Do you feel *any* obligation to tell the truth?
>
> The Army shooters got 13 out of 18 hits in their trials.
>
> That was one better than the 12 out of 18 needed to match Oswald's
> performance.
Nonsense. They were firing at stationary targets with a re-aligned scope
and still failed to place two shots as close together on the target as the
two shots attributed to Oswald. In other words, most of their "hits" were
on the shoulder or the back, far from the center of the target.
>
> >The president's back wound location was misrepresented in testimony
> >regarding the fact-finding commission's own re-enactment of the crime;
> >this testimony, not surprisingly, helped sell the guilt of the
> >supposed assassin.
>
> Explain.
>
> This is so arcane that even I don't know what you are talking about.
This is discussed in the latter half of this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXg98M6lF68
>
> >The alignment of the president and Governor Connally within the
> >limousine was also misrepresented in this testimony, and this also
> >helped sell the guilt of the supposed assassin.
>
> Explain.
The jump seat was 2 1/2 inches in from the door, not 6, as purported
by Kelley in his WC testimony.
>
> Connally was well inboard of Kennedy.
>
> Do you contest that?
Yes. The word "well" implies his shoulder was in line with a shot from the
TSBD when LNs say a shot was fired. This is not true.
>
> >Several years later, after the trajectory of the bullet creating the
> >president's head wound came into question, a secret panel suddenly
> >decided that the bullet entered four inches higher on the president's
> >skull.
>
> Which is what the autopsy photos and x-rays show.
Wrong. If you believe ALL doctors think this is true, you need to explain
why the ARRB's experts failed to come to this conclusion?
>
> >A number of Kennedy's emergency room doctors recalled Kennedy's large
> >head wound being in a different location than that depicted in the
> >autopsy photos.
>
> No really, or at least not to a greater degree than expected with
> normal witness testimony.
I disagree that one should expect doctors to be so mistaken, but agree
that the Parkland witnesses were mistaken, and have added a chapter--
chapter 18c--in which I discuss the evidence they were mistaken--and why I
think they were mistaken, in detail. (Yes, yes, I have written a chapter
for my online book that will upset CTs, and please LNs. Oh well.)
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter18b%3Areasontobelieve
>
> And the photos and x-rays show where the wound really was.
>
> >I could go on and on. This is what Lee means by the WHOLE. If one
> >looks at all this, it is easy to see that this is the MESSIEST case
> >ever. To many, this suggests there was a set-up, a whitewash, you name
> >it... To others...these people--the vast majority of human beings--are
> >all "kooks"...
>
> Your own list shows what the problem with you folks is.
>
> The list is full of dumb factoids.
There are NO factoids here, John. It is absolutely clear the difference
between LNs and CTs is not one of cognition, but of perspective. LNs see
the case as a puzzle, in which the same old pieces--fingerprints,
handwriting, etc--are put together to point to Oswald. CTs see the case as
a mystery, in which the behavior of the DPD, FBI, WC, DOJ, etc is also
considered, and where the veracity of the puzzle pieces LNs hold onto like
scraps of meat are in question. It just doesn't smell right, John.
And it's not because Mark Lane says so...
>
> They are easy enough for you folks to repeat, but when lone nutters
> examine them one at a time, they fall like dominoes.
>
> Of course, you can always come up with *another* bunch of factoids.
> Those will be shot down, but then you can always produce some more.
John, I listed NO factoids. I listed reasons--specks of dots on the
canvas--that convince MOST people Kennedy was killed as the result of a
conspiracy. Now, are all those reasons PROOF of conspiracy? No. As stated,
I suspect the rifle found in the TSBD WAS indeed Oswald's rifle, and I
suspect the Parkland witnesses were IN FACT wrong. But that does not
lessen the
>
> But after a while, sensible people won't take your factoids very
> seriously.
Keep telling yourself that...
>
> By then, you folks have no credibility. You claims get summarily
> dismissed.
Only by the willfully blind.
>
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
pjsp...@aol.com
> On 13 Jul 2010 21:31:32 -0400, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
> wrote:
>
> >Congratulations, Bud, you PROVED my point. Rather than look at all this,
> >as a WHOLE, you dissected it piece by piece, offering reason after reason,
> >excuses after excuse, (no matter how weak), why we should ignore ALL this.
>
> >> to be Oswald`s.
>
> >One man has identified those prints as Oswald's--Scalice. The FBI's top
> >guys refused to do so.
>
> Are you being intentionally misleading?
>
> The FBI guy did not have the variety of photos at different exposures
> that Scalice did.
Wrong. From the transcript of Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald.
NARRATOR : Oswald was pronounced dead at Parkland Hospital. His death
meant the evidence against him would never be tested in court. But over
the years the strength of that case has continued to grow. Significant
evidence may have been overlooked by all the official investigations.
Soon after the shots were fired, Dallas police dusted the murder weapon
and found partial fingerprints near the trigger guard and a clear palm
print on the barrel. At police headquarters, the palm print was lifted
from the rifle for examination. But when the FBI rushed the rifle to
Washington, the palm print stayed in Dallas and a clear chain of evidence
was broken.
Amid decades of accusations that the police had planted the palm print on
the rifle, the latent fingerprints on the trigger guard were largely
ignored. Vincent Scalice, a leading fingerprint expert, examined all the
fingerprint evidence for the House Assassinations Committee.
VINCENT SCALICE : The FBI examined these latent prints and they determined
that they were worthless for identification purposes. I re- examined the
photograph of these latent prints again in 1978 for the Select Committee
on Assassinations and came to the same conclusion. Due to the faintness of
the prints, I determined that they were of no value for identification
purposes.
NARRATOR : But in 1963 the Dallas police had evidence that might have
changed that judgment. Rusty Livingston was on duty in the Dallas crime
lab on November 22nd. He developed pictures taken at the crime scene. He
also processed photographs of the rifle and of the latent fingerprints on
its trigger guard. Livingston made several sets of photographs, including
one for himself, but he didn't realize the significance of the fingerprint
photographs until he began working with his nephew, Gary Savage, on a book
about the assassination.
GARY SAVAGE : The wonderful thing about this is this is first-day
evidence. This is original evidence collected by the Dallas police. This
stuff didn't go through the Warren Commission. It didn't go through the
House Select Committee on Assassinations.
NARRATOR : The FBI says it never looked at the Dallas police photographs
of the fingerprints and experts for the Warren Commission and the House
Assassinations Committee never examined all of the fingerprint
photographs. But in 1993, a local police captain, Jerry Powdrill,
reexamined all the evidence. He compared the inked fingerprints taken from
Oswald in New Orleans with the pictures of the fingerprints found on the
trigger guard.
JERRY POWDRILL : It appears that the fingerprints depicted in the
photographs came from the right hand. I found three points of identity and
three possible points of identity during this comparison. The law
enforcement community uses six to ten points of identity for a positive
identification.
NARRATOR : Powdrill's analysis was not conclusive, but he found nothing to
indicate the prints were not Oswald's. A former high- ranking FBI
fingerprint expert who examined the prints for FRONTLINE said they were
simply not clear enough to make any identification. But Vincent Scalice,
the House Assassinations Committee expert, came to a very different
conclusion.
SO...they showed the First Day Evidence photos to two other fingerprint
experts: Jerry Powdrill and the legendary FBI print man George Bonebrake,
and neither of them would confirm Scalice's supposed match.
> >Scalice's motivations, furthermore, are
> >questionable, seeing as he has also associated himself with right-wing nut
> >types out to get Clinton, and has sold himself as an expert on documents
> >claiming Vince Foster's suicide note was forged. Or something like that.
>
> Oh, my!
>
> You'll believe any nonsense about the Kennedy assassination, but you
> don't think the Clintons could have been up to anything.
>
> Actually, I don't think the Clintons were killing anybody. But I'm
> consistently skeptical.
>
> You skepticism seems to be a function of the politics of the people
> involved.
You know nothing of my skepticism, or my politics, but seek to paint me
with a broad CT brush so you can ignore what I have to say. Paint away.
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
wrote:
Thank you for deleting the following:
<Quote on>
Mr. SCALICE: There were a total of four photographs in all. And I
began to examine them and I saw two faint prints and as I examined
them, I realized that these prints had been taken at different
exposures and it was necessary for me to utilize all of the
photographs to compare against the ink prints. As I examined them, I
found that by maneuvering the photographs in different positions, I
was able to pick up some details on one photograph and some details on
another photograph. Using all of the photographs at different
contrasts, I was able to find in the neighborhood of about 18 points
of identity between the two prints. Well, I feel that this is a major
breakthrough in this investigation because we're able for the first
time to actually say that these are definitely the fingerprints of Lee
Harvey Oswald and that they are on the rifle. There is no doubt about
it
<Quote off>
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
pjsp...@aol.com
Thank you for confirming that you, as most LNs, see the case as a puzzle,
as opposed to a mystery. This is the point I've been trying to make. The
difference between CTs and LNs is not so much a difference in intelligence
or education, or even political views, as it is a difference in problem
solving. LNs piece together a puzzle, a puzzle whose shape is determined
by the pieces they CHOOSE to include. CTs, on the other hand, look at the
COLORS of the pieces on the floor, and come to a conclusion based largely
upon their impression of these pieces, whether these pieces fit neatly
together or not.
My approach is somewhere in the middle. Not surprisingly, I had almost
identical scores on math and English on my SAT exam, oh so many years ago.
John Blubaugh
> On Jul 14, 12:30 am, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 13, 9:32 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > A CT accusing the LNs of refusing to look at the body of evidence as a
> > > whole is like the KKK accusing someone of bigotry. You got to be be
> > > freaking kidding me!!!
>
> > > It isn't a single piece of evidence which damns Oswald. It is the totality
> > > of evidence which does so. One piece of evidence strengthens another. The
> > > totality of evidence is greater than the sum or its parts. One can isolate
> > > a single piece of evidence of Oswald's guilt and offer a reasonable, if
> > > unlikely alternative explaination that isn't incriminating to Oswald.
> > > However, when one has to stretch for the least likely explaination for
> > > every one of the dozens of pieces of evidence of Oswald's guilt, arguing
> > > for his innocence becomes a ludicrous enterprise.
>
> > That totality you always mention is seriously flawed. The best way to
> > commit the perfect crime is to be in charge of the investigation and that
> > is what happened here.
>
> To quote one of our greatest presidents, "Well, there you go again".
> Sooner or later, every CT has to resort to playing the all-the-
> evidence-was-tainted card because as we all know, all the evidence
> points to Oswald.
Reagan was a great President? Wasn't he responsible for the deregulation
that culminated in our latest financial crisis? I don't consider that
great. He made the rich much richer and the poor much poorer. I don't
consider that great either. You say that about the evidence because you
will never even look at anything that does not point toward LHO. That
doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
You can't make a case against anyone but Oswald
> based on the evidence so you invent excuses to dismiss the real
> evidence, then dream up theories based on nothing but your own fertile
> imagination. And just what makes you believe all the evidence was
> tampered with? Do you have evidence of such tampering? Of course you
> don't. You resort to baseless speculation for that as well. The
> fundamental difference between LNs and CTs is that LNs explain the
> evidence and the CTs must explain it away.
>
Blah, blah, blah, more typical LN rhetoric that says absolutely
nothing.
> No one entity was in charge of the entire investigation. Evidence was
> developed by numerous entities. The DPD, the SS, the FBI, the
> military, as well as various crime labs around the country that were
> enlisted to confirm findings regarding key pieces of forensic
> evidence.
>
Oh? Who was able to use LHO's MC to duplicate the shootings? I don't
want to hear about the refurbished MCs that still wouldn't work
without jamming and were labled as "junk" by the experts who fired
them.
> > LHO had an alibi you can't touch.
>
> I can't touch something that doesn't exist.
>
Oh, it exists all right, you just ignore it. You can't explain it
away.
> > The violent
> > reaction by JFK was NOT a reaction to being shot from behind
> > admit it even though the HSCA concluded there was a conspriacy and people
> > besides LHO firing that day.
>
> The HSCA concluded JFK was shot from behind and that no frontal shot
> struck him. Funny how you always leave that part out when you want to
> use them to endorse your wacky theories.
>
You consider any theory that does not include LHO as wacky. I believe the
frontal shot did strike JFK and that is what caused his reaction. That
makes a lot more sense than your drivel to explain his reaction. Oh, wait,
you can even see that "back and to the left" violent reaction. What does
this say about the CT mentality? What it says is, "If I can't explain, I
will just refuse to see it and hope it goes away."
> > In fact, you have no credibility on this
> > subject whatever. Your complete knowledge on the subject can be summed up
> > by saying, "Well, the WCR says........." It doesn't work. Only a few
> > fanatics who post here agree with you.
>
> As I pointed out a few days ago, the WCR presented the only theory of
> the assassination that has stood the test of time. Conspiracy theories
> come and go. As a rule, they have a very short shelf life. New ones
> have to keep being developed as the old ones get shot to pieces. I
> don't believe Oswald acted alone because the WCR said so. I believe
> that because it is the only explaination that makes an ounce of sense.
> It is the only one that is compatible with the body of evidence. If is
> the only conclusion that one can arrive at where all the pieces of the
> puzzle fit together. In 46 years, no one has offered a better answer
> and no one ever will.- Hide quoted text -
>
The WCR has not stood any test of time. It was picked apart almost as soon
as it was released and the release of the Z-film sealed its doom. There
are not answers but there are a lot of questions. The WCR just made for
more questions and it didn't answer anything except the the bewildered
minds of a few LN fanatics who all post here.
JB
infidelus maximus
> acted alone in killing President Kennedy are nearly ALWAYS looking at
> the "whole" as far as the evidence in the JFK case is concerned. I
> sure do anyway.
>
>
David, I'd like to discuss your points with you, I like to see facts
referenced. Opinions are OK but need to be stated as such. Show evidence,
ADMISSABLE evidence. I honestly do not think Oswald would have been
convicted, had he lived. Not in 1964 after the WC. Not in 1979 after HCSA
or in 1993 after the ARRB. And don't give the "OJ did it but was not
convicted" crap as a possible out. I do not care about the Tippit case, it
is a sideshow. One does not prove nor disprove the other (Kennedy's and
Tippit murder), so it is irrelevant. Burden of proof is on the accuser.
Lets take your first 4 points.
1. The rifle. How do we know it was Oswald's? We all know that it was
ordered thru the mail. Why didn't he just walk into a gun shop and
anonymously buy one? What? was it because he was not a lone nut until
after he bought it? Gotta have some fact ot back that up. We also all know
that this rifle was too big to fit in his P.O. Box, so he must have had to
come in and sign for it, right? Where is the record of this?
Is there testimony of a PO employee?
Anyone see him with that specific rifle in his hands at any time?
How did a weapon, addressed to A. Hidell, which was LHO's PO box, get
picked up by LHO without violating Postal Regulations?
We know the FBI tracked the serial number of the gun, but as we well
know, that as many as 5 different rifles could have the exact same
serial number.
2. The bullet shells. They ballistically match the rifle. OK. I don't
care if one was dented. The only question here is, who fired it?
Evidence?
3. CE-399. I can see the possibility of a single bullet striking both
Kennedy and Conally But i cannot see CE-399 doing it as there was no
fabric nor human matter that could prove this bullet passed thru
either victims. Is there evidence that I do not know about? If not
than CE-399 is irrelevant to this case.
4. Fragments: another ballistic match to the rifle, but again, who
fired them? Fragments removed form Conally cannot have came from
CE-399 because of the total weight issue of thje fragments and CE-399
While we are talking about the rifle, is there evidence that Oswald
even brought the rifle into the TSBD? Witness testimony does not point
to this as we should already know due to the bag length issue.
(reasonable doubt)
How did more than one Sheriffs deputies, identify the rifle as
something other than the one supposedly owned by Oswald? Were they
dimply mistaken? Trained law enforcement officials?
Why were none of these officials even shown the rifle and asked to
confirm it as the one found, under oath, by the WC? They were only
shown photos and to my knowledge, none could identify it.
If I were on a Grand Jury, it's not looking good as of now. I would
have to see more evidence than this, more DEFINITIVE evidence to move
to trial. I will, of course, wait for any evidence you may have
countering anything I have said or evidence that I have requested from
you before we move on.
One does not have to be a lunatic, or lone nutter, or tinfoil hat
wearer to start looking at the evidence and at least begin to feel
that something does not seem quite right.
Brigette Kohley
I get for using someone else's computer...
pjsp...@aol.com
for using someone else's computer...
On Jul 14, 8:45 pm, Brigette Kohley <groovyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
David Von Pein
>>> "David, I'd like to discuss your points with you, I like to see facts referenced. Opinions are OK but need to be stated as such. Show evidence, ADMISSABLE evidence. I honestly do not think Oswald would have been convicted, had he lived." <<<
Yeah, he probably needed to kill three people in order to convince
most juries he was a murderer. Two murders wasn't enough. If he had
been successful in killing Officer McDonald in the theater, do you
think perhaps the jury would have thought twice about setting him
free?
>>> "I do not care about the Tippit case, it is a sideshow. One does not prove nor disprove the other (Kennedy's and Tippit's murder), so it is irrelevant." <<<
Mrs. Tippit will be thrilled to hear that.
>>> "Burden of proof is on the accuser. Lets take your first 4 points. 1. The rifle. How do we know it was Oswald's?" <<<
Oswald positively ordered it. CE773 and CE788 prove that
Oswald/"Hidell" ordered a rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods in March
1963. And Waldman Exhibit No. 7 proves that Klein's received that
order for a rifle from Oswald/"Hidell", and Waldman Exhibit #7 also
proves for all time that Klein's shipped an Italian 6.5mm. carbine
with the serial number C2766 to Oswald/"Hidell" on March 20th, 1963.
Are all three of these documents supposedly faked (including the two
that have Lee Harvey Oswald's provable handwriting on them)?:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0331a.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0352a.htm
>>> "We all know that it was ordered thru the mail. Why didn't he just walk into a gun shop and anonymously buy one? What? Was it because he was not a lone nut until after he bought it?" <<<
Shame on the Presidential assassin named Lee Harvey for not meeting
the rigid expectations of the conspiracy theorists of the world!
Lee doesn't deserve to be recognized as the assassin he is, because he
didn't obtain the gun he used to murder the President in the way that
CTers demand! Dammit, Lee! You should have known better!
And what about the commonly-heard argument about how no other
President in history had been killed with a rifle. It was always a
handgun being used to kill Presidents prior to November 1963.
So maybe you should also ask me this question too --- Why did Oswald
use a clumsy and crappy rifle to kill JFK, when he could have walked
right up to the limousine on Elm Street in from of the Book Depository
Building and shot the President with his Smith & Wesson revolver?
Again: Shame on Oswald for doing it the way HE wanted to do it!
>>> "We also all know that this rifle was too big to fit in his P.O. Box, so he must have had to come in and sign for it, right? Where is the record of this?" <<<
There was no need for Oswald to sign anything in order to get his
rifle package at the post office. He merely took the card/slip out of
P.O. Box 2915 and took it to the front desk, and a postal clerk would
hand over the package. Happens every day.
And as far as Oswald having to sign some type of specific firearms
form that Klein's should have included on the rifle package -- Well,
perhaps that form SHOULD have been included on Oswald's package. I've
never been sure whether or not that was a fact or not. But even if the
firearms form was supposed to be included, evidently it WASN'T in this
particular Oswald transaction. So if anybody was at fault regarding
the forms, it would have been Klein's. It wasn't Oswald's fault if no
forms were attached to his package. And it wasn't the fault of the
Dallas Post Office either.
Also -- Regarding this topic of "firearms forms":
You and many other people have claimed that Oswald could have waltzed
into any gun shop in Texas and walked out with a rifle that could
never be traced to the purchaser. But what about that "firearms form"
that you CTers keep insisting that Klein's was supposed to attach to
Oswald's mail-order rifle package? Didn't a brick-and-mortar gun shop
have to fill out any kind of firearms forms or paperwork when they
sold a customer a rifle in Texas in 1963?
Why would only a MAIL-ORDER company like Klein's be required to
include any sort of paperwork? Surely, if a mail-order firm was
required to abide by certain rules regarding a rifle's paperwork, then
why wouldn't a gun shop in Dallas have been required to abide by
similar rules? Wouldn't a gun shop have required their customers to
SIGN SOMETHING before walking out the door with a firearm?
I'll admit, I don't know the answer to that last question I just
asked. But it sure seems like a common-sense inquiry to me.
In any event, it would appear as if no firearms form was included with
the rifle package that Klein's shipped to Oswald/Hidell.
Or, as an alternative answer, perhaps the proper form WAS included
with Oswald's package, but somehow the form became detached from the
package in transit, and nobody at the post office examined the
contents carefully enough to KNOW FOR A FACT that a firearm was inside
the package.
~shrug~
But one thing is a ertainty -- Klein's shipped Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle #C2766 to "A. Hidell" in Dallas....and Klein's DID NOT GET THAT
PACKAGE BACK.
Therefore, somebody must have picked up that rifle at the Dallas Post
Office.
And who is more likely to have picked up a rifle that was ordered and
paid for by Lee Harvey Oswald -- Oswald himself? Or some unknown
person who did not order and pay for that rifle?
Not really a tough question. Is it?
>>> "Is there testimony of a PO employee?" <<<
Only Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes, as far as I am aware.
Conspiracy theorists expect way too much from the postal employees
concerning this matter. But, realistically, how could anyone expect
any of the clerks at the Dallas Post Office to remember giving a
specific box to a specific person MONTHS earlier?
The postal clerks hand out hundreds of packages a week, no doubt. It
was just one more package picked up by one more nameless face in the
crowd. If a postal employee HAD specifically remembered Oswald picking
up that package in March, I would have been very surprised.
In fact, I just envision what the conspiracy kooks would be saying if
some postal employee had recalled Oswald picking up the rifle -- the
kooks would probably say that the clerk was just part of the
continuing "cover up", and was lying when he/she said he/she
remembered giving Oswald the package.
You see, with the kooks who desperately want to take that rifle out of
Oswald's hands, no amount of evidence will be enough to prove LHO took
possession of C2766. That's fairly obvious already--just take another
look at the three ofiicial Warren Commission documents linked above.
The CTers have decided to totally ignore ALL THREE of those little
items.
>>> "Anyone see him with that specific rifle in his hands at any time?" <<<
Not at the post office, no. But a few days later--yes. That person was
Marina Oswald. She took multiple photographs of Lee Harvey while he
was holding that rifle in his hands.
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/backyard-photos.html
>>> "How did a weapon, addressed to A. Hidell, which was LHO's PO box, get picked up by LHO without violating Postal Regulations?" <<<
I'll let Postal Inspector Harry Holmes answer that one:
WESLEY LIEBELER -- "Now, supposing that Oswald had not, in fact,
authorized A. J. Hidell to receive mail here in the Dallas box and
that a package came addressed to the name of Hidell, which, in fact,
one did at Post Office Box 2915; what procedure would be followed when
that package came in?"
HARRY D. HOLMES -- "They would put the notice in the box."
MR. LIEBELER -- "Regardless of whose name was associated with the
box?"
MR. HOLMES -- "That is the general practice. The theory being, I have
a box. I have a brother come to visit me. My brother would have my
same name---well, a cousin. You can get mail in there. They are not
too strict. You don't have to file that third portion to get service
for other people there. I imagine they might have questioned him a
little bit when they handed it out to him, but I don't know. It
depends on how good he is at answering questions, and everything would
be all right."
MR. LIEBELER -- "So that the package would have come in addressed to
Hidell at Post Office Box 2915, and a notice would have been put in
the post office box without regard to who was authorized to receive
mail from it?"
MR. HOLMES -- "Actually, the window where you get the box is all the
way around the corner and a different place from the box, and the
people that box the mail, and in theory--I am surmising now, because
nobody knows. I have questioned everybody, and they have no
recollection. The man would take this card out. There is nothing on
this card. There is no name on it, not even a box number on it. He
comes around and says, "I got this out of my box." And he says, "What
box?" "Box number so and so." They look in a bin where they have this
by box numbers, and whatever the name on it, whatever they gave him,
he just hands him the package, and that is all there is to it."
MR. LIEBELER -- "Ordinarily, they won't even request any
identification because they would assume if he got the notice out of
the box, he was entitled to it?"
MR. HOLMES -- "Yes, sir."
MR. LIEBELER -- "It is very possible that that, in fact, is what
happened in this case?"
MR. HOLMES -- "That is in theory. I would assume that is what
happened."
MR. LIEBELER -- "On the other hand, it is also possible that Oswald
had actually authorized Hidell to receive mail through the box?"
MR. HOLMES -- "Could have been. And on the other hand, he had this
identification card of Hidell's in his billfold, which he could have
produced and showed the window clerk. Either way, he got it."
[Source for above WC testimony: 7 H 527-528.]
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0268a.htm
>>> "We know the FBI tracked the serial number of the gun, but as we well know, that as many as 5 different rifles could have the exact same serial number." <<<
This is total nonsense. What's the use of even stamping a unique
serial number on a particular item if there are several other items
with the exact same "unique" number on them (especially a firearm,
which could conceivably be used in a felony and, hence, would need to
be traced by the authorities)?
That's just silly/dumb.
I've gone a few rounds with other conspiracy theorists on this "serial
number" topic. Here's a sampling:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1745f5a6ed26ebaa
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8a7b86e1d6eb077b
>>> "2. The bullet shells. They ballistically match the rifle. OK. I don't care if one was dented. The only question here is, who fired it? Evidence?" <<<
Oswald fired it (of course).
All the evidence points to Oswald as being the person who fired at the
President from the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest, including Howard
Brennan's positive identification of Oswald as the gunman.
Plus, Oswald's fingerprints and palmprints were located in the EXACT
SAME PLACE WHERE THE ASSASSIN WAS LOCATED.
But that last piece of evidence doesn't sway the Anybody-But-Oswald
nuts one bit, even though those three prints of Oswald's were found
DEEP INSIDE THE SNIPER'S NEST (not just on the OUTSIDE boxes that
comprised the Nest).
Those prints were just a nice convenient coincidence for the people
who were setting up Oswald as their patsy, right? Meh.
In addition, I'd like to ask this common-sense question:
On ANY given day (November 22, 1963, or any other day on the
calendar), who is MORE LIKELY to have been firing shots from LEE
OSWALD'S RIFLE -- Lee Oswald or somebody else who DIDN'T own Rifle
#C2766?
If anybody answers that last question with "somebody else", they
should seek mental help as soon as they can.
>>> "3. CE-399. I can see the possibility of a single bullet striking both Kennedy and Connally. But I cannot see CE-399 doing it as there was no fabric nor human matter that could prove this bullet passed thru either victims." <<<
As far as I am aware, CE399 was never even tested for "fabric" or
"human matter". So how do you (or anyone) know for certain that CE399
had those things on it at some point in time?
Answer: You don't know.
>>> "Is there evidence that I do not know about? If not than CE-399 is irrelevant to this case." <<<
Oh, sure. It's only a bullet that is tied to the VERY SAME RIFLE that
was found on the Depository's sixth floor right after the shooting.
And that SAME RIFLE is also tied to JFK's murder via other ballistics
evidence besides CE399 -- namely, the three shells underneath the
assassin's window and the two bullet fragments found in the front seat
of JFK's limo.
So, apparently CORROBORATING evidence such as CE399 is "irrelevant" if
you're a conspiracy theorist. Great policy to live by there.
>>> "4. Fragments: another ballistic match to the rifle, but again, who fired them?" <<<
Already answered. See above.
You see, only ONE PERSON could have fired Carcano rifle C2766 during
the 8.36 seconds when President Kennedy was being subjected to rifle
fire in Dealey Plaza. And that person, via just garden-variety common
sense ALONE, was Lee H. Oswald.
Unless you'd like to postulate a really goofball theory that has TWO
gunmen sharing Oswald's Carcano in the Sniper's Nest on 11/22/63, with
the first gunman firing one of the shots at the President and then
handing off the gun to a second shooter, who then fired the last two
shots. (Or maybe if was 2 shots for the first killer, and only 1 shot
for the last shooter. Take your pick.)
>>> "Fragments removed form Connally cannot have came from CE-399 because of the total weight issue of the fragments and CE-399." <<<
You're wrong.
Granted, there is some confusion in the existing record and testimony
as to exactly how many metal fragments were removed from Governor
Connally's body during surgery, and the precise weight of those
fragments.
We do know, however, that Dr. Vincent P. Guinn tested three of
Connally's wrist fragments (CE842) for NAA tests in the late 1970s.
But as far as I know, only one of the Connally bullet fragments was
actually weighed, and it weighed one-half of a grain [per the WC
testimony of FBI agent Robert A. Frazier; see 5 H 72].
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0041b.htm
But another thing we do know is that ALL of the metal fragments that
were inside John Connally's whole body were very, very small
(including the fragments removed from his wrist by Dr. Charles Gregory
during surgery).
Also: From the available evidence and testimony, I can present a good
case for there being only two very tiny bullet fragments being left
inside Governor Connally's entire body at the time of Connally's death
in 1993. That case is presented in the article below:
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/connally-bullet-fragments.html
>>> "While we are talking about the rifle, is there evidence that Oswald even brought the rifle into the TSBD?" <<<
Plenty. It's just that the conspiracists don't want to ADD UP the
evidence and take it to its logical destination:
Oswald was seen by Buell Wesley Frazier carrying a large brown bag
into the TSBD at about 8:00 AM CST on November 22nd.
"I saw him [Oswald] go in the back door at the Loading Dock of
the building that we work in, and he still had the package under his
arm." -- Buell Wesley Frazier; Via Frazier's 11/22/63 affidavit [24 H
209]
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0114a.htm
Later that same day, an EMPTY brown paper bag with two of Oswald's
prints on it was found on the floor of the Sniper's Nest in the TSBD.
Oswald's rifle was also found on that same sixth floor.
The empty paper bag was 38 inches long. The lengthiest part of
Oswald's disassembled rifle measured 34.8 inches.
The empty bag (CE142) also contained fibers that were consistent with
the blanket in Ruth Paine's garage. Oswald's rifle was known to have
been stored inside that exact blanket in Mrs. Paine's garage.
This math is easy to do -- the bag Frazier saw Oswald carrying into
the Depository contained Rifle #C2766.
If you arrive at any other answer, you've flunked math class.
>>> "Witness testimony does not point to this as we should already know due to the bag length issue." <<<
The "bag length issue" has been overblown by conspiracy theorists.
It's just plain silly to think that the "bag length issue" trumps all
of the things I just talked about above associated with the paper bag
and Oswald's prints being on the bag found in the Sniper's Nest, etc.
There are also the following comments made by Wesley Frazier at the
1986 TV docu-trial:
VINCENT BUGLIOSI -- "Did you recall how he [Lee Oswald] was carrying
the bag?"
BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER -- "Yes sir. He was carrying it parallel to his
body."
BUGLIOSI -- "Okay, so he carried the bag right next to his body....on
the right side?"
FRAZIER -- "Yes sir. On the right side."
BUGLIOSI -- "Was it cupped in his hand and under his armpit? I think
you've said that in the past."
FRAZIER -- "Yes sir."
BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any
attention to this bag?"
FRAZIER -- "That is true."
BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his
body, and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"
FRAZIER -- "That is true."
BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER, LINNIE MAE RANDLE, AND THE PAPER BAG:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fb8cfb984a9b889c
>>> "How did more than one Sheriff's deputy identify the rifle as something other than the one supposedly owned by Oswald? Were they simply mistaken?" <<<
Of course. In 1967, Seymour Weitzman said this on CBS-TV:
SEYMOUR WEITZMAN -- "Mr. Boone was climbing on top and I was down on
my knees looking. And I moved a box and he moved a carton, and there
it was. And he, in turn, hollered we had found the rifle."
EDDIE BARKER (CBS NEWS) -- "What kind of gun did you think it was?"
WEITZMAN -- "To my sorrow, I looked at it and it looked like a Mauser,
which I said it was. But I said the wrong one; because just at a
glance, I saw the Mauser action....and, I don't know, it just came out
as words it was a German Mauser. Which it wasn't. It's an Italian type
gun. But from a glance, it's hard to describe; and that's all I saw,
was at a glance. I was mistaken. And it was proven that my statement
was a mistake; but it was an honest mistake."
>>> "Why were none of these officials even shown the rifle and asked to confirm it as the one found, under oath, by the WC? They were only shown photos and to my knowledge, none could identify it." <<<
Let's listen to what Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone has to say on this
"Mauser" matter in 1986:
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/on-trial-lee-harvey-oswald-1986.html
>>> "If I were on a Grand Jury, it's not looking good as of now. I would have to see more evidence than this, more DEFINITIVE evidence to move to trial. I will, of course, wait for any evidence you may have countering anything I have said or evidence that I have requested from you before we move on. One does not have to be a lunatic, or lone nutter, or tinfoil hat wearer to start looking at the evidence and at least begin to feel that something does not seem quite right." <<<
I doubt it will matter to you what I have to say about the huge pile
of evidence that proves Oswald's guilt. Most conspiracy theorists WANT
a conspiracy, and it doesn't make any difference how much evidence
they are forced to sidestep in order to achieve their goal. Because if
a CTer wants something to exist badly enough, he can always pretend
that all the evidence that points to Oswald as the lone assassin is
fake.
http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com
David Von Pein
July 15, 2010
bigdog
> You still don't get it. When one looks at the WHOLE of the evidence
> against Oswald, one is not looking at the WHOLE of the evidence regarding
> the assassination. The sloppiness and dishonesty of the government's
> investigation is part of the WHOLE looked at by CTs. As well it should
> be...
>
> If your wife's ex-husband leaves your house smelling of liquor, and your
> wife tells you he came by without invitation and rudely helped himself,
> but is then unable to look you in the eye, what are you to believe? A LNer
> will assume she's telling the truth, but a CT will trust his gut and
> assume the ex had had an invite. Not an exact analogy. But LNers tend to
> think the government's behavior after the assassination should not be
> considered when analyzing the evidence against Oswald, and CTs think this
> behavior is half the story.
>
it a perfect operation. Of course not. Few human endeavors are,
especially one as massive as this one was. The evidence the
investigation gathered of Oswald's guilt was massive and
overwhelmingly convincing. They found no compelling evidence Oswald
had any accomplices. For 46 years, armies of independent investigators
have searched high and low for evidence of conspirators in the crime
and have come up empty. No evidence of conspiracy has surfaced they
could withstand even a fraction of the scrutiny that the WCR has been
subjected to. Despite efforts to impeach the findings of the WC, their
report stands like a rock, impervious to the slings and arrows fired
at it. No revision has ever been needed to its original findings. New
technologies have only served to confirm those findings.
Jason Burke
Hmmm. Whom to believe. The HSCA or Blubaugh's imagination... Toughie
there!
That
> makes a lot more sense than your drivel to explain his reaction. Oh, wait,
> you can even see that "back and to the left" violent reaction. What does
> this say about the CT mentality? What it says is, "If I can't explain, I
> will just refuse to see it and hope it goes away."
>
>>> In fact, you have no credibility on this
>>> subject whatever. Your complete knowledge on the subject can be summed up
>>> by saying, "Well, the WCR says........." It doesn't work. Only a few
>>> fanatics who post here agree with you.
>>
>> As I pointed out a few days ago, the WCR presented the only theory of
>> the assassination that has stood the test of time. Conspiracy theories
>> come and go. As a rule, they have a very short shelf life. New ones
>> have to keep being developed as the old ones get shot to pieces. I
>> don't believe Oswald acted alone because the WCR said so. I believe
>> that because it is the only explaination that makes an ounce of sense.
>> It is the only one that is compatible with the body of evidence. If is
>> the only conclusion that one can arrive at where all the pieces of the
>> puzzle fit together. In 46 years, no one has offered a better answer
>> and no one ever will.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> The WCR has not stood any test of time. It was picked apart almost as soon
> as it was released and the release of the Z-film sealed its doom.
Wow. Even for YOU that's a stretch.
bigdog
> Thank you for confirming that you, as most LNs, see the case as a puzzle,
> as opposed to a mystery.
There is no mystery. The puzzle has been put together. The picture is
clear. Oswald did it.
> This is the point I've been trying to make. The
> difference between CTs and LNs is not so much a difference in intelligence
> or education, or even political views, as it is a difference in problem
> solving. LNs piece together a puzzle, a puzzle whose shape is determined
> by the pieces they CHOOSE to include.
We see that the pieces of the puzzle can only fit together one way.
That's the way puzzles are. There is only one right answer.
> CTs, on the other hand, look at the
> COLORS of the pieces on the floor, and come to a conclusion based largely
> upon their impression of these pieces, whether these pieces fit neatly
> together or not.
>
They do fit neatly together and in only one way. For 46 years, the CTs
have been trying to figure out another way to assemble the pieces but
it just won't work. They can't figure out another way the pieces fit
together, but they keep trying in vain.
bigdog
to digress into political discussions so I'll just pass on responding,
as tempting as it is and continue to maintain Reagan was one of our
greatest presidents.
> You can't make a case against anyone but Oswald
>
> > based on the evidence so you invent excuses to dismiss the real
> > evidence, then dream up theories based on nothing but your own fertile
> > imagination. And just what makes you believe all the evidence was
> > tampered with? Do you have evidence of such tampering? Of course you
> > don't. You resort to baseless speculation for that as well. The
> > fundamental difference between LNs and CTs is that LNs explain the
> > evidence and the CTs must explain it away.
>
> Blah, blah, blah, more typical LN rhetoric that says absolutely
> nothing.
>
That doesn't change the fact we base our beliefs on hard evidence and
you base yours on speculation.
> > No one entity was in charge of the entire investigation. Evidence was
> > developed by numerous entities. The DPD, the SS, the FBI, the
> > military, as well as various crime labs around the country that were
> > enlisted to confirm findings regarding key pieces of forensic
> > evidence.
>
> Oh? Who was able to use LHO's MC to duplicate the shootings? I don't
> want to hear about the refurbished MCs that still wouldn't work
> without jamming and were labled as "junk" by the experts who fired
> them.
>
You continue to ignore the obvious fact that the recovered bullets
could only have been fired by a weapon you describe as junk. Whether
it was junk or not, the evidence tells us it got the job done.
> > > LHO had an alibi you can't touch.
>
> > I can't touch something that doesn't exist.
>
> Oh, it exists all right, you just ignore it. You can't explain it
> away.
>
> > > The violent
> > > reaction by JFK was NOT a reaction to being shot from behind
> > > admit it even though the HSCA concluded there was a conspriacy and people
> > > besides LHO firing that day.
>
> > The HSCA concluded JFK was shot from behind and that no frontal shot
> > struck him. Funny how you always leave that part out when you want to
> > use them to endorse your wacky theories.
>
> You consider any theory that does not include LHO as wacky.
It is.
> I believe the
> frontal shot did strike JFK and that is what caused his reaction.
There was no frontal shot, miss or hit.
> That
> makes a lot more sense than your drivel to explain his reaction.
You believe something happened that is physically impossible. A bullet
could not have thrown JFK backward with the force that he moved.
> Oh, wait,
> you can even see that "back and to the left" violent reaction. What does
> this say about the CT mentality? What it says is, "If I can't explain, I
> will just refuse to see it and hope it goes away."
>
I see a backward movement and I know a bullet could not have caused the
movement. I also know that the wounds in JFK's skull could not have been
caused by a frontal shot because the medical evidence is conclusive on
this point. The medical evidence is the only reliable way to determine the
direction of the shots.
>
>
>
>
> > > In fact, you have no credibility on this
> > > subject whatever. Your complete knowledge on the subject can be summed up
> > > by saying, "Well, the WCR says........." It doesn't work. Only a few
> > > fanatics who post here agree with you.
>
> > As I pointed out a few days ago, the WCR presented the only theory of
> > the assassination that has stood the test of time. Conspiracy theories
> > come and go. As a rule, they have a very short shelf life. New ones
> > have to keep being developed as the old ones get shot to pieces. I
> > don't believe Oswald acted alone because the WCR said so. I believe
> > that because it is the only explaination that makes an ounce of sense.
> > It is the only one that is compatible with the body of evidence. If is
> > the only conclusion that one can arrive at where all the pieces of the
> > puzzle fit together. In 46 years, no one has offered a better answer
> > and no one ever will.- Hide quoted text -
>
> The WCR has not stood any test of time. It was picked apart almost as soon
> as it was released and the release of the Z-film sealed its doom.
The CTs have tried to pick it apart and failed miserably. It's
fundamental findings remain sound.
> There
> are not answers but there are a lot of questions.
Not for any one who can put 2 and 2 together.
> The WCR just made for
> more questions and it didn't answer anything except the the bewildered
> minds of a few LN fanatics who all post here.
>
We are all here? Amazing observation.
Bud
What chance do facts have against your gut feeling?
bigdog
The serial number. The pictures of him with it. The palm print. His
shirt fibers in the butt plate. Do these questions get harder?
> We all know that it was
> ordered thru the mail. Why didn't he just walk into a gun shop and
> anonymously buy one?
It was cheap.
> What? was it because he was not a lone nut until
> after he bought it? Gotta have some fact ot back that up. We also all know
> that this rifle was too big to fit in his P.O. Box, so he must have had to
> come in and sign for it, right? Where is the record of this?
>
> Is there testimony of a PO employee?
The above mentioned evidence is pretty good indication he picked it
up. Would you expect a PO employee to remember someone picking up a
package 6 months earlier?
> Anyone see him with that specific rifle in his hands at any time?
His wife who took the pictures.
> How did a weapon, addressed to A. Hidell, which was LHO's PO box, get
> picked up by LHO without violating Postal Regulations?
It was his PO Box.
> We know the FBI tracked the serial number of the gun, but as we well
> know, that as many as 5 different rifles could have the exact same
> serial number.
Just rotten luck he would get the same serial number as the murder
weapon.
> 2. The bullet shells. They ballistically match the rifle. OK. I don't
> care if one was dented. The only question here is, who fired it?
> Evidence?
Just more rotten luck his shirt matched the threads found in the butt
plate.
> 3. CE-399. I can see the possibility of a single bullet striking both
> Kennedy and Conally But i cannot see CE-399 doing it as there was no
> fabric nor human matter that could prove this bullet passed thru
> either victims. Is there evidence that I do not know about? If not
> than CE-399 is irrelevant to this case.
Why would you expect there to be human matter on the bullet.
> 4. Fragments: another ballistic match to the rifle, but again, who
> fired them?
Oswald.
> Fragments removed form Conally cannot have came from
> CE-399 because of the total weight issue of thje fragments and CE-399
A myth. Tell us how much those fragments weighed.
> While we are talking about the rifle, is there evidence that Oswald
> even brought the rifle into the TSBD?
You mean like blanket fibers found in the bag found next to the SN.
> Witness testimony does not point
> to this as we should already know due to the bag length issue.
> (reasonable doubt)
The bag that was found in the SN had his palm print on it and it was
long enough to hold the rifle.
> How did more than one Sheriffs deputies, identify the rifle as
> something other than the one supposedly owned by Oswald? Were they
> dimply mistaken?
Yes.
> Trained law enforcement officials?
Just how many MCs do you think these guys ever saw? The MC is very
similar in appearance to the more common Mauser. There is no Mauser in
evidence. There is an MC in evidence. Oswald's MC.
> Why were none of these officials even shown the rifle and asked to
> confirm it as the one found, under oath, by the WC? They were only
> shown photos and to my knowledge, none could identify it.
>
> If I were on a Grand Jury, it's not looking good as of now. I would
> have to see more evidence than this, more DEFINITIVE evidence to move
> to trial.
Over 50 pieces of evidence is not enough?
> I will, of course, wait for any evidence you may have
> countering anything I have said or evidence that I have requested from
> you before we move on.
>
> One does not have to be a lunatic, or lone nutter, or tinfoil hat
> wearer to start looking at the evidence and at least begin to feel
> that something does not seem quite right.
Lone nutters don't have that feeling.
pjsp...@aol.com
accepted method for fingerprint identification. Now, that said--and I know
this will come as a surprise--I'm perfectly willing to accept Oswald's
print was on the trigger guard. This, then, raises the question of why the
FBI claimed the trigger guard prints were worthless. Well, as I recall,
James Olmstead has theorized that there was more than on print on the
trigger guard, only one of which was Oswald's, and that the FBI couldn't
introduce a photo of one without also acknowledging the other. Or
something like that...
What is clear, moreover, is that the photos of the trigger guard prints in
the Dallas Archives are far more clear--and potentially identifiable--than
the photos of the supposed palm print on the barrel published by the WC.
So why weren't they identified? And why did the WC print really blurry
second or third generation versions of these photos in the 26 volumes, as
opposed to the no doubt clearer photos one can only assume were taken by
the FBI?
Something sure smells rotten...as demonstrated here:
http://sites.google.com/a/patspeer.com/www2/chapter-4-all-in-a-day-s-work/compareandcontrast.jpg
On Jul 14, 9:24 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 15 Jul 2010 00:18:57 -0400, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
John Blubaugh
> On Jul 14, 11:45 pm, Brigette Kohley <groovyst...@gmail.com> wrote:> You still don't get it. When one looks at the WHOLE of the evidence
> > against Oswald, one is not looking at the WHOLE of the evidence regarding
> > the assassination. The sloppiness and dishonesty of the government's
> > investigation is part of the WHOLE looked at by CTs. As well it should
> > be...
>
> > If your wife's ex-husband leaves your house smelling of liquor, and your
> > wife tells you he came by without invitation and rudely helped himself,
> > but is then unable to look you in the eye, what are you to believe? A LNer
> > will assume she's telling the truth, but a CT will trust his gut and
> > assume the ex had had an invite. Not an exact analogy. But LNers tend to
> > think the government's behavior after the assassination should not be
> > considered when analyzing the evidence against Oswald, and CTs think this
> > behavior is half the story.
>
> There is little wrong with the investigation of the assassination.
Now this is an amazing statement. The worst autopsy in history, sloppy
handling of evidence, selective interviewing of eyewitnesses, lying about
what the Z-film actual revealed and much more. How can anyone say there
was little wrong with this investigation. It was a house of horrors from
the beginning.
Was
> it a perfect operation. Of course not. Few human endeavors are,
> especially one as massive as this one was. The evidence the
> investigation gathered of Oswald's guilt was massive and
> overwhelmingly convincing.
Then why aren't people outside of a few hardcore LN fanatics who post here
convinced?
They found no compelling evidence Oswald
> had any accomplices.
You ignore the HSCA which concluded that it was a conspiracty and the
accoustical evidence that confirms it. Are you still having problems
seeing that "back and to the left" violent reaction by JFK. You ability so
simply ignore these things is remarkable.
For 46 years, armies of independent investigators
> have searched high and low for evidence of conspirators in the crime
> and have come up empty. No evidence of conspiracy has surfaced they
> could withstand even a fraction of the scrutiny that the WCR has been
> subjected to.
The WCR did not withstand the scrutiny. It has been discredited
completely. Only a few hardcore zealots like you still tout it today.
Despite efforts to impeach the findings of the WC, their
> report stands like a rock, impervious to the slings and arrows fired
> at it. No revision has ever been needed to its original findings. New
> technologies have only served to confirm those findings.
The WC failed miserably. The single bullet fiction was the start of their
demise. The release of the Z-film sealed it forever. New technologies have
not confirmed those findings, they have destroyed them. Try to speak the
truth once in a while at least.
JB
John Blubaugh
> > > To quote one of our greatest presidents, "Well, there you go again".
> > > Sooner or later, every CT has to resort to playing the all-the-
> > > evidence-was-tainted card because as we all know, all the evidence
> > > points to Oswald.
>
> > Reagan was a great President? Wasn't he responsible for the deregulation
> > that culminated in our latest financial crisis? I don't consider that
> > great. He made the rich much richer and the poor much poorer. I don't
> > consider that great either. You say that about the evidence because you
> > will never even look at anything that does not point toward LHO. That
> > doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
>
> The moderators have made the decision that threads will not be allowed
> to digress into political discussions so I'll just pass on responding,
> as tempting as it is and continue to maintain Reagan was one of our
> greatest presidents.
>
You maintain a lot of things. That doesn't make any of them true.
> > You can't make a case against anyone but Oswald
>
> > > based on the evidence so you invent excuses to dismiss the real
> > > evidence, then dream up theories based on nothing but your own fertile
> > > imagination. And just what makes you believe all the evidence was
> > > tampered with? Do you have evidence of such tampering? Of course you
> > > don't. You resort to baseless speculation for that as well. The
> > > fundamental difference between LNs and CTs is that LNs explain the
> > > evidence and the CTs must explain it away.
>
> > Blah, blah, blah, more typical LN rhetoric that says absolutely
> > nothing.
>
> That doesn't change the fact we base our beliefs on hard evidence and
> you base yours on speculation.
>
That isn't true. You base your beliefs on ignoring evidence that is
right in front of you.
> > > No one entity was in charge of the entire investigation. Evidence was
> > > developed by numerous entities. The DPD, the SS, the FBI, the
> > > military, as well as various crime labs around the country that were
> > > enlisted to confirm findings regarding key pieces of forensic
> > > evidence.
>
> > Oh? Who was able to use LHO's MC to duplicate the shootings? I don't
> > want to hear about the refurbished MCs that still wouldn't work
> > without jamming and were labled as "junk" by the experts who fired
> > them.
>
> You continue to ignore the obvious fact that the recovered bullets
> could only have been fired by a weapon you describe as junk. Whether
> it was junk or not, the evidence tells us it got the job done.
>
The evidence is only as good as the people interpreting it. Can't you get
this through your thick head that they had an agenda to make LHO the lone
assassin and they would do or distort anything to arrive at that result.
How many independent laboratories examined that evidence to corroborate
the DPD and FBI findings?
> > > > LHO had an alibi you can't touch.
>
> > > I can't touch something that doesn't exist.
>
> > Oh, it exists all right, you just ignore it. You can't explain it
> > away.
>
> > > > The violent
> > > > reaction by JFK was NOT a reaction to being shot from behind
> > > > admit it even though the HSCA concluded there was a conspriacy and people
> > > > besides LHO firing that day.
>
> > > The HSCA concluded JFK was shot from behind and that no frontal shot
> > > struck him. Funny how you always leave that part out when you want to
> > > use them to endorse your wacky theories.
>
> > You consider any theory that does not include LHO as wacky.
>
> It is.
>
The HSCA did not agree with you . They determined that there was
another shooter based on good scientific evidence that you dismiss but
it still holds true today.
> > I believe the
> > frontal shot did strike JFK and that is what caused his reaction.
>
> There was no frontal shot, miss or hit.
>
The official view is that you are in error but that is nothing new.
> > That
> > makes a lot more sense than your drivel to explain his reaction.
>
> You believe something happened that is physically impossible. A bullet
> could not have thrown JFK backward with the force that he moved.
>
Oh, so at least now you agree that he moved. Perhaps we are finally
getting somewhere. You are wrong, of course, the right kind of
ammunition could produce exactly that result.
> > Oh, wait,
> > you can even see that "back and to the left" violent reaction. What does
> > this say about the CT mentality? What it says is, "If I can't explain, I
> > will just refuse to see it and hope it goes away."
>
> I see a backward movement and I know a bullet could not have caused the
> movement. I also know that the wounds in JFK's skull could not have been
> caused by a frontal shot because the medical evidence is conclusive on
> this point. The medical evidence is the only reliable way to determine the
> direction of the shots.
>
The medical evidence that is so much in doubt and has been distorted to
the point that people can't even agree on where JFK was hit? Dig him up
and lets let an independent panel do a study. I'm betting the results will
be very different from the medical evidence you cite.
> > The WCR just made for
> > more questions and it didn't answer anything except the the bewildered
> > minds of a few LN fanatics who all post here.
>
> We are all here? Amazing observation.- Hide quoted text -
>
Apparently you are. No one hears from any of you anywhere but here as
far as I can see.
JB
pjsp...@aol.com
Ahhh, but to complete this puzzle, one has to throw out a few pieces that
don't seem to fit, and cut a few corners on others (e.g. the single-bullet
theory) to make them fit. That this puzzle is but part of a larger puzzle,
and that a lot of pieces are missing from this puzzle, is not even
considered by someone with an LN bent...
But to someone with a CT bent, this seems obvious...
pjsp...@aol.com
You really don't believe this, do you? While one might claim the WC was
correct, to assert they missed nothing and that subsequent investigations
have only confirmed their findings is silly. The HSCA, for example,
concluded that at least four shots were fired, that Jack Ruby had mob
ties, that Jack Ruby probably lied about not knowing Oswald, that a DPD
officer probably lied about not helping Jack Ruby into the basement, that
a CIA agent lied about not knowing a Cuban exile who claimed Oswald had
CIA ties, etc...
The rock upon which the WC's findings were based was blasted apart,
irregardless of one's attitude toward the dictabelt evidence...
Anthony Marsh
You continue to ignore the fact that the Mannlicher-Carcano was a piece of
junk and jammed, causing the grassy knoll shooter to take the fatal shot.
It failed.
John McAdams
wrote:
>Mixing and matching multiple photos to identify a single print is not an
>accepted method for fingerprint identification.
Citation!!
>Now, that said--and I know
>this will come as a surprise--I'm perfectly willing to accept Oswald's
>print was on the trigger guard. This, then, raises the question of why the
>FBI claimed the trigger guard prints were worthless. Well, as I recall,
>James Olmstead has theorized that there was more than on print on the
>trigger guard, only one of which was Oswald's, and that the FBI couldn't
>introduce a photo of one without also acknowledging the other. Or
>something like that...
>
>What is clear, moreover, is that the photos of the trigger guard prints in
>the Dallas Archives are far more clear--and potentially identifiable--than
>the photos of the supposed palm print on the barrel published by the WC.
>So why weren't they identified? And why did the WC print really blurry
>second or third generation versions of these photos in the 26 volumes, as
>opposed to the no doubt clearer photos one can only assume were taken by
>the FBI?
>
You guys go really far afield to find something to bitch about.
You are bitching about the Government Printing Office!
Look . . . the FBI apparently didn't have all the exposures that
Scalice had access to.
It doesn't matter what the WC volumes show, the FBI had first
generation prints.
But apparently not as many different versions as Rusty Livingstone.
>Something sure smells rotten...as demonstrated here:
>
>http://sites.google.com/a/patspeer.com/www2/chapter-4-all-in-a-day-s-work/c=
>ompareandcontrast.jpg
>
Everything always smells rotten to you folks.
But that's not my problem.
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Jul 13, 7:06=A0pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On 13 Jul 2010 09:47:56 -0400, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >David...you PROVED Lee's point. You itemized reasons to believe Oswald
>> >did it. You DID NOT look at the whole. It's an entirely different way
>> >of thinking than that engaged by most CTs.
>>
>> >To YOU, and most LNs, if "official sources" such as the FBI and DPD
>> >provide you with enough evidence, then what follows from that evidence
>> >is a FACT. A fact upon which you base your world view...
>>
>> >To most other people, however, suspicion can cloud "facts" to the
>> >point where they are no longer "facts".
>>
>> >Consider...
>>
>> >A number of very powerful people benefited from Kennedy's death. Some
>> >of them had even threatened his life.
>>
>> So they *all* killed him!
>
>No one said that.
>
The problem is that you have too many suspects.
In a real world criminal investigation, things proceed by eliminating
suspects until only one or two remain.
If no suspects can be eliminated, and suspects just get added, the
investigation is is *real* trouble.
>>
>>
>>
>> >His supposed assassin--a mystery man--denied his guilt and was killed
>> >before he could be given a trial.
>>
>> Well of course if he had been guilty he would have admitted it.
>
>Which is to say an accused assassin's being executed before trial is not
>cause for suspicion? Tell that to Allen Dulles, who didn't believe
>Castillo-Armas' supposed assassin (a card-carrying community who just so
>happened to be one of his guards) was guilty...
Given what we know about Ruby, no, it's not "suspicious."
>
>>
>> >The fact-finding commission formed to investigate the crime refused to
>> >allow this supposed assassin legal council, so that exculpatory
>> >evidence could be considered and justice as we know it could be
>> >served.
>>
>> You mean: limited the extent to which attention-seeking ambulance
>> chaser Mark Lane could disrupt the proceedings.
>>
>> They *did* let him testify.
>>
>> He lied about what Helen Markham said.
>
>Uhhh... not entirely true. He PROVED Markham--one of the government's key
>witnesses against Oswald--was a liar.
He only proved that she didn't remember talking to him.
Are you aware of how he tried to manipulate her?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane1.txt
And you think this sleazy shyster should have been allowed to jump in
and disrupt things?
And where do you get the idea that dead people deserve legal counsel?
You folks just make up stuff, and having made it up, move ahead to
assume things that you have just made up.
>(Admittedly, this doesn't mean she
>lied about Oswald's killing Tippit.)
>
>>
>> >This same commission refused to allow the doctors who'd performed
>> >Kennedy's autopsy to inspect the autopsy photos and x-rays THEY'D
>> >taken, for THEIR use, before testifying. It was later found that the
>> >drawings they'd created for the commission in lieu of these photos and
>> >x-rays were horribly inaccurate, and inaccurate in ways that helped
>> >the commission sell the guilt of the supposed assassin.
>>
>> The Commission didn't want to make a public spectacle of the gruesome
>> photos.
>
>Hogwash. They withheld thousands of documents from public viewing.
But they had committed to publishing all the evidence they *used.*
Did you know that Arlen Specter wrote Rankin a memo urging the
Commission to look at the autopsy photos and x-rays?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shootft.htm
So if there was some sinister cover-up, Specter was trying to
undermine it, right?
Then there is the fact that WHEN THE PHOTOS AND X-RAYS WERE FINALLY
EXAMINED by forensic pathologists, they showed two shots from behind.
>Warren's refusal to let Kennedy's autopsist view the materials he'd had
>created to help him in his testimony would have to have been considered a
>reversible error--should the WC have been anything like a real trial.
>
So what?
It wasn't a trial.
>>
>> They goofed in this, but it was the result of deference to the Kennedy
>> family.
>
>Not true. Katzenbach debunked this years ago when he told the HSCA he'd
>talked to Bobby and explained that they needed to look at the evidence and
>that Bobby had told him to do what needed to be done. Even Specter
>admitted in his WC memos that Bobby was not a problem.
>
From the Specter memo cited above:
<Quote on>
When Inspector Kelly talked to Attorney General Kennedy, he most
probably did not fully understand all the reasons for viewing the
films. According to Inspector Kelly, the Attorney General did not
categorically decline to make them available, but only wanted to be
satisified that they were really necessary.
<Quote off>
It doesn't sound like Bobby was gung-ho.
But, if you will read for comprehension, you will note that I said
"Kennedy family" and not "Bobby."
>>
>> >A number of eyewitnesses to the crime felt sure shots were fired from
>> >a location other than the building from which the supposed assassin
>> >supposedly fired the shots.
>>
>> "Felt sure" just flat untrue.
>>
>> You need to quit enhancing evidence.
>
>Okay then "felt," just as Brennan "felt" Oswald was the man in the
>window.
>
>>
>> More people thought the shots came from the direction of the
>> Depository, AND NO OTHER DIRECTION.
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm
>
>Not true.
If you disagree with my tabulation, post the names of some witnesses
you think I've misclassified, and we'll discuss it.
>Those in the motorcade claiming the shots came from Elm and
>Houston or the right rear could just as easily have been saying they
>thought the shots came from the Dal-Tex Building.
But in my tabulation, I classify as "grassy knoll" people who said
"the railroad yards" or "that monument" or "down by the overpass" and
such.
>The question you need to
>ask is why the vast majority of those in front of the building thought the
>last sound came from west of the building.
>
Sashay(tm)!!
Are you admitting that the majority of the witnesses said the shots
came from the direction of the Depository?
The fact that you are trying to change the subject suggests you can't
contest that point.
>>
>> >The only eyewitness to the shooting who claimed he could identify the
>> >shooter refused to do so after viewing the supposed assassin,
>>
>> Can't you tell the simple truth?
>>
>> Brennan picked Oswald out, but merely stopped short of a positive ID.
>>
>> Quit enhancing the evidence.
>
>
>>
>> >and only
>> >came forward after this suspect's death, under pressure from the
>> >Secret Service.
>>
>> Citation!
>
>When the SS shows up at your door and asks you to do something, that can
>be considered pressure...
>
Where the hell did you get "after the suspects death?" He identified
himself in Dealey Plaza at the time of the shooting.
And do you *really* think that federal agents going around
interviewing witnesses is sinister?
If nobody had shown up to talk to Brennan, you would consider *that*
sinister.
You folks consider *everything* sinister.
In his autobiography, Brennan said nothing about feeling intimidated
by federal agents. He got along with them quite well.
>>
>> >A number of Dallas law enforcement figures identified the rifle found
>> >in the building--what was purportedly the supposed assassin's rifle--
>> >as a different kind of rifle entirely.
>>
>> The Alyea film shows it to be Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano.
>
>Hey, we agree on something. The rifle is probably the rifle bought from
>Klein's, and the person buying this rifle was probably Oswald.
>
>>
>> >The supposed assassin supposedly brought his rifle to work in a bag.
>> >The only people who saw him with this bag, however, claimed it was far
>> >too small to hold his rifle.
>>
>> But the bag recovered was big enough to hold the rifle, and it had a
>> finger print and palm print of Oswald's on it.
>
>And an unspecified amount of paper was taken from the building by the DPD,
>sent to the FBI, and never returned
>
Huh? So what?
Can't you folks *ever* stop throwing out red herrings?
If you are claiming the FBI faked the bag, you have to face the fact
that it was brought out of the Depository at 2:19 p.m., and
photographed by numerous news photographers.
>>
>> >The FBI was unable to find any evidence this supposed assassin had
>> >practiced with his rifle for months before the shooting. They also
>> >were unable to find any ammunition or cleaning supplies among his
>> >possessions.
>>
>> Irrelevant.
>
>Not to anyone who knows anything about shooting... It takes PRACTICE.
>
Just because something was not found does not mean it did not exist.
There is some witness evidence (I'll admit, not iron-clad) that Oswald
went out and practiced.
>>
>> >The threads found on the rifle which supposedly came from the
>> >suspect's shirt came from a shirt no one at his work saw him wearing,
>> >and that he claimed he put on only after the shooting.
>>
>> Citation!
>
>The last two-thirds of this chapter 4b is devoted to a discussion of
>Oswald's shirt, and the probability the fibers were planted on the rifle.
>Citations are included in that chapter.
>
>http://www.patspeer.com/chapter4b%3A%22theso-calledevidence%22
>
In fact, if Oswald was wearing a white tee-shirt under the brown
shirt, the "white shirt" description makes perfect sense. Especially
if the "shirt" was "open at the neck" leaving the white tee-shirt
plainly visible.
Baker's "light brown jacket" makes sense too. The shirt was brown.
You *do* know that witness descriptions of chothing are rarely
precise, right?
>>
>> >The only print of his found on the rifle was reportedly an old print,
>> >and was supposedly lifted by a DPD officer who not only inexplicably
>> >forgot to photograph the print before lifting it, but forgot to tell
>> >the FBI about it for days after the assassination,
>>
>> But multiple witnesses saw the print in the Identification Bureau.
>>
>> See FIRST DAY EVIDENCE.
>
>They probably LIED. Day claimed he told no one of the print but Curry and
>Fritz, and that he didn't even bother to match it to Oswald's print. And
>then, years later, half the crime lab claims they knew about it, and knew
>that it was a match. They were probably covering for him. It's what cops
>do.
>
Oh, my. More "liar, liar" stuff.
Whatever Day said about who he told about the print, word had clearly
gotten around.
And Day had most certainly started work matching it to Oswald. You
seem to be implying that he told the WC he had not started.
That's not what he said.
Quit "enhancing" the evidence.
>>
>> >even after the FBI
>> >had informed his department no prints were found on the rifle. This
>> >DPD officer later refused to sign a statement on this issue.
>>
>> He told the FBI that since he was going to testify for the WC in a few
>> days, he would just stand by his WC testimony.
>
>You're remembering this incorrectly. He refused to sign a statement in
>September, months after he'd testified.
>
Citation!
And will you folks grab *any* excuse to call an inconvenient witness a
liar?
He had testified under oath before the WC. Anything else was
redundant.
>>
>> Why do you feel the need to distort the evidence so?
>
>Yes, why do?
>
>>
>> >This DPD officer also failed to file a report on his activities for
>> >more than a month after the assassination, even though the DPD's
>> >policy was that he'd write daily and weekly reports on the crimes he
>> >investigated.
>>
>> Citation!
>
>It's in the WC's files.
>
Citation!
And futher, why do you want to imply he's a liar?
You are aware that the FBI eventually matched the palm print to
Oswald, *and* to the rifle (from which it had been lifted), right?
>>
>>
>>
>> >In fact, this DPD officer ran a test on the suspect, in order to see
>> >if he'd fired a rifle. When this test proved negative, the DPD opted
>> >to leak that another test--one in which the possibility he'd fired a
>> >revolver was tested--was positive, and not mention the negative.
>>
>> You use language in a bizarre way.
>>
>> What you call a "leak" was a simple public statement to reporters.
>>
>> And the cops said a lot of things to reporters that they should not
>> have, and were clueless about.
>>
>> But in your world, everything the Dallas cops do is sinister, right?
>
>No, not necessarily. I do find their telling the public the evidence for
>Oswald's guilt--while withholding evidence suggesting his possible
>innocence--problematic, however.
>
Everything is suspicious to you.
Wade told reporters he thought the rifle was a Mauser.
He was clearly clueless.
Let's see you twist what he said into some sort of conspiracy
evidence.
A "leak" to convict Oswald, right?
>>
>> >This
>> >led to the widespread reporting that this other test had proved the
>> >suspect had fired a rifle--which the DPD knew not to be true, and yet
>> >never sought to correct. The results of these tests, however, were
>> >later called into question.
>>
>> The test proves nothing.
>>
>> Don't you know that?
>>
>> You are just too steeped in conspiracy lore.
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm
>
>John, you seem to have forgotten about this
>
>http://www.patspeer.com/chapter4e%3Acastsofcontention
First of all, are you admitting the Dermal Nitrate test was useless?
It would be nice if you would, since that would move the discussion
forward.
On your page, you are pushing the NAA.
But that was inconclusive, regardless of Weisberg's huffing and
puffing.
>>
>> >There was a secret test performed on the paraffin casts used in these
>> >tests, however, that also suggested that the suspect had not fired a
>> >rifle. The results of these tests are still accepted in court.
>> >Suspiciously, however, when the FBI testified on the first series of
>> >tests, its agent offered his PERSONAL expectation about what could be
>> >shown through the secret test. This hid that the results had already
>> >come in, and that his PERSONAL expectation had been dead wrong.
>>
>> In fact, this test proved nothing.
>>
>> If you disagree, post some evidence.
>
>Read the chapter.
Let's like me making an assertion and when you question it saying
"Read Posner, chapter 4."
I'm familiar with Weisberg's huffing and puffing, and the tests proved
nothing.
>Cunningham testified that he wouldn't expect a rifle to
>leak residue on a suspect's cheek AFTER the FBI had already performed
>tests with Oswald's rifle proving that it did leak residue,
Citation!
>and Guinn had
>reported back to Gallagher on his tests, which proved the same thing.
Citation!
(I've seen that Guinn said this to the New York Times, but I would
like to see the document.)
>So...let's not pretend Cunningham's testifying about a personal
>expectation--when the FBI KNEW his expectation was false--was a
>coincidence.
>
More "liar, liar" rhetoric.
Post the citations.
>>
>> >The FBI and Secret Service, when asked to re-enact the crime, BOTH did
>> >so in a way that helped sell the supposed assassin's guilt, but was so
>> >obviously incorrect that even th fact-finding commission decided they
>> >were wrong.
>>
>> Huh?
>
>
>http://www.patspeer.com/chapter2b%3Athesecretservicesecrets
>
I really don't have time to read all your arcane theories.
Explain right here how they "helped to sell the supposed assassin's
guilt."
You frankly seemed to be bitching about a few degrees of angle.
>>
>> They put the Kennedy back wound way too low, in the place where
>> conspiracists *still* want it.
>>
>> They put the head wound about the hairline, where a lot of "back of
>> the head buffs" still want it.
>>
>> >The supposed shooting of this supposed assassin, who hadn't practiced
>> >in months, could not be duplicated by the Army's test shooters.
>>
>> Do you feel *any* obligation to tell the truth?
>>
>> The Army shooters got 13 out of 18 hits in their trials.
>>
>> That was one better than the 12 out of 18 needed to match Oswald's
>> performance.
>
>Nonsense. They were firing at stationary targets with a re-aligned scope
>and still failed to place two shots as close together on the target as the
>two shots attributed to Oswald. In other words, most of their "hits" were
>on the shoulder or the back, far from the center of the target.
>
Sashay(tm)!!
So you *admit* that they got 13 out of 18 hits.
You are just bitching that they weren't as "close together" as
Oswald's hits.
Look . . . any test can fail *if* you are allowed to just keep
redefining what "success" is. But that's not honest arguing.
The targets were stationary, but the shooters did have to change their
aim, since there were three different targets.
As for the "realigned scope:" we don't know it was misalighted when
Oswald shot it.
And the WC also had one shooter use the iron sights, and he did quite
well.
>>
>> >The president's back wound location was misrepresented in testimony
>> >regarding the fact-finding commission's own re-enactment of the crime;
>> >this testimony, not surprisingly, helped sell the guilt of the
>> >supposed assassin.
>>
>> Explain.
>>
>> This is so arcane that even I don't know what you are talking about.
>
>This is discussed in the latter half of this video.
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DdXg98M6lF68
The video comes up as "not available."
>
>>
>> >The alignment of the president and Governor Connally within the
>> >limousine was also misrepresented in this testimony, and this also
>> >helped sell the guilt of the supposed assassin.
>>
>> Explain.
>
>The jump seat was 2 1/2 inches in from the door, not 6, as purported
>by Kelley in his WC testimony.
>
The simple fact is that Connally was well inboard of Kennedy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9Js3Qg6mVs
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/robinson1.jpg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/robinson2.jpg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jbcmuch.jpg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dca1.rm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dca2.rm
>>
>> Connally was well inboard of Kennedy.
>>
>> Do you contest that?
>
>Yes. The word "well" implies his shoulder was in line with a shot from the
>TSBD when LNs say a shot was fired. This is not true.
>
See the photos and video footage above.
There is no serious trajectory analysis that fails to confirm the SBT.
That includes:
ITEK
Canning
FAA
Dale Myers
>>
>> >Several years later, after the trajectory of the bullet creating the
>> >president's head wound came into question, a secret panel suddenly
>> >decided that the bullet entered four inches higher on the president's
>> >skull.
>>
>> Which is what the autopsy photos and x-rays show.
>
>Wrong. If you believe ALL doctors think this is true, you need to explain
>why the ARRB's experts failed to come to this conclusion?
>
Experts?
You mean people that Doug Horne recruited?
Why don't you use your eyes. The entry in the head is in the cowlick
area.
The entrance wound in the back is at C7/T1.
>>
>> >A number of Kennedy's emergency room doctors recalled Kennedy's large
>> >head wound being in a different location than that depicted in the
>> >autopsy photos.
>>
>> No really, or at least not to a greater degree than expected with
>> normal witness testimony.
>
>I disagree that one should expect doctors to be so mistaken, but agree
>that the Parkland witnesses were mistaken, and have added a chapter--
>chapter 18c--in which I discuss the evidence they were mistaken--and why I
>think they were mistaken, in detail. (Yes, yes, I have written a chapter
>for my online book that will upset CTs, and please LNs. Oh well.)
>
>http://www.patspeer.com/chapter18b%3Areasontobelieve
>
Mostly, they were not mistaken, they have just been misrepresented by
buff authors.
>>
>> And the photos and x-rays show where the wound really was.
>>
>> >I could go on and on. This is what Lee means by the WHOLE. If one
>> >looks at all this, it is easy to see that this is the MESSIEST case
>> >ever. To many, this suggests there was a set-up, a whitewash, you name
>> >it... To others...these people--the vast majority of human beings--are
>> >all "kooks"...
>>
>> Your own list shows what the problem with you folks is.
>>
>> The list is full of dumb factoids.
>
>There are NO factoids here, John. It is absolutely clear the difference
>between LNs and CTs is not one of cognition, but of perspective. LNs see
>the case as a puzzle, in which the same old pieces--fingerprints,
>handwriting, etc--are put together to point to Oswald. CTs see the case as
>a mystery, in which the behavior of the DPD, FBI, WC, DOJ, etc is also
>considered, and where the veracity of the puzzle pieces LNs hold onto like
>scraps of meat are in question. It just doesn't smell right, John.
>
The problem is that you find everything suspicious.
And that comes from not knowing how things work in the real world.
You guys just make up stuff, and then treat your made-up assumptions
as facts.
bigdog
> Mixing and matching multiple photos to identify a single print is not an
> accepted method for fingerprint identification.
The FBI has stringent standards for how many matching points must be on a
fingerprint in order to conclude that there is a positive match. If that
minimum number is not met, the FBI will not speculate on the probability
of a match. The FBI standards will allow only three possible results, a
positive match, a positive mismatch, or inconclusive. In this case, their
standards required them to find the prints inconclusive.
> Now, that said--and I know
> this will come as a surprise--I'm perfectly willing to accept Oswald's
> print was on the trigger guard. This, then, raises the question of why the
> FBI claimed the trigger guard prints were worthless. Well, as I recall,
> James Olmstead has theorized that there was more than on print on the
> trigger guard, only one of which was Oswald's, and that the FBI couldn't
> introduce a photo of one without also acknowledging the other. Or
> something like that...
>
> What is clear, moreover, is that the photos of the trigger guard prints in
> the Dallas Archives are far more clear--and potentially identifiable--than
> the photos of the supposed palm print on the barrel published by the WC.
> So why weren't they identified? And why did the WC print really blurry
> second or third generation versions of these photos in the 26 volumes, as
> opposed to the no doubt clearer photos one can only assume were taken by
> the FBI?
>
> Something sure smells rotten...as demonstrated here:
>
CTs love to claim something smells rotten when they can't find any
conclusive evidence to support their speculations, which is pretty much
the way it is all the time.
bigdog
> On Jul 15, 12:17 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 14, 11:45 pm, Brigette Kohley <groovyst...@gmail.com> wrote:> You still don't get it. When one looks at the WHOLE of the evidence
> > > against Oswald, one is not looking at the WHOLE of the evidence regarding
> > > the assassination. The sloppiness and dishonesty of the government's
> > > investigation is part of the WHOLE looked at by CTs. As well it should
> > > be...
>
> > > If your wife's ex-husband leaves your house smelling of liquor, and your
> > > wife tells you he came by without invitation and rudely helped himself,
> > > but is then unable to look you in the eye, what are you to believe? A LNer
> > > will assume she's telling the truth, but a CT will trust his gut and
> > > assume the ex had had an invite. Not an exact analogy. But LNers tend to
> > > think the government's behavior after the assassination should not be
> > > considered when analyzing the evidence against Oswald, and CTs think this
> > > behavior is half the story.
>
> > There is little wrong with the investigation of the assassination.
>
> Now this is an amazing statement. The worst autopsy in history, sloppy
> handling of evidence, selective interviewing of eyewitnesses, lying about
> what the Z-film actual revealed and much more. How can anyone say there
> was little wrong with this investigation. It was a house of horrors from
> the beginning.
>
The WC did their work in a little over 9 months and found no compelling
evidence of a conspiracy. The CTs have been at it for 46 years and have
gotten the same result.
> Was
>
> > it a perfect operation. Of course not. Few human endeavors are,
> > especially one as massive as this one was. The evidence the
> > investigation gathered of Oswald's guilt was massive and
> > overwhelmingly convincing.
>
> Then why aren't people outside of a few hardcore LN fanatics who post here
> convinced?
>
Because they have no idea how much evidence there is of Oswald's guilt.
The only thing most people are knowledgable about is the myths.
> They found no compelling evidence Oswald
>
> > had any accomplices.
>
> You ignore the HSCA which concluded that it was a conspiracty and the
> accoustical evidence that confirms it.
Well since I am not a government stooge, I don't automatically accept
everything the government tells me. I only believe them when what they
tell me makes sense and is supported by hard evidence. The HSCA conclusion
of a probable conspiracy was based primarily on junk science that never
passed the litmus test of peer review. It was the single most important
piece of evidence to support their finding and they failed to properly
scrutinize it before they made their 11th hour judgement of a probably
conspiracy.
> Are you still having ing problems
> seeing that "back and to the left" violent reaction by JFK. You ability so
> simply ignore these things is remarkable.
>
I see JFK go straigth back and I know this is not from the force of a
bullet because I understand basic physics.
> For 46 years, armies of independent investigators
>
> > have searched high and low for evidence of conspirators in the crime
> > and have come up empty. No evidence of conspiracy has surfaced they
> > could withstand even a fraction of the scrutiny that the WCR has been
> > subjected to.
>
> The WCR did not withstand the scrutiny. It has been discredited
> completely. Only a few hardcore zealots like you still tout it today.
>
> Despite efforts to impeach the findings of the WC, their
>
> > report stands like a rock, impervious to the slings and arrows fired
> > at it. No revision has ever been needed to its original findings. New
> > technologies have only served to confirm those findings.
>
> The WC failed miserably. The single bullet fiction was the start of their
> demise. The release of the Z-film sealed it forever. New technologies have
> not confirmed those findings, they have destroyed them. Try to speak the
> truth once in a while at least.
>
Keep clinging to your myths. They are all you have.
bigdog
Are you really going to claim that the recovered bullets did not match
the rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD? Go ahead. Make my day.
>
>
>
>
> > > > > LHO had an alibi you can't touch.
>
> > > > I can't touch something that doesn't exist.
>
> > > Oh, it exists all right, you just ignore it. You can't explain it
> > > away.
>
> > > > > The violent
> > > > > reaction by JFK was NOT a reaction to being shot from behind
> > > > > admit it even though the HSCA concluded there was a conspriacy and people
> > > > > besides LHO firing that day.
>
> > > > The HSCA concluded JFK was shot from behind and that no frontal shot
> > > > struck him. Funny how you always leave that part out when you want to
> > > > use them to endorse your wacky theories.
>
> > > You consider any theory that does not include LHO as wacky.
>
> > It is.
>
> The HSCA did not agree with you . They determined that there was
> another shooter based on good scientific evidence that you dismiss but
> it still holds true today.
>
They don't agree with you either. They said that shooter missed.
> > > I believe the
> > > frontal shot did strike JFK and that is what caused his reaction.
>
Of course when you aren't burdened by evidence, you can believe any
freaking thing you want.
> > There was no frontal shot, miss or hit.
>
> The official view is that you are in error but that is nothing new.
>
There you go again. Blindly accepting what your government tells you.
> > > That
> > > makes a lot more sense than your drivel to explain his reaction.
>
> > You believe something happened that is physically impossible. A bullet
> > could not have thrown JFK backward with the force that he moved.
>
> Oh, so at least now you agree that he moved.
That has never been in dispute. Are you going to pull a Marsh on us
now?
> Perhaps we are finally
> getting somewhere. You are wrong, of course, the right kind of
> ammunition could produce exactly that result.
>
And just what kind of ammo would that be?
> > > Oh, wait,
> > > you can even see that "back and to the left" violent reaction. What does
> > > this say about the CT mentality? What it says is, "If I can't explain, I
> > > will just refuse to see it and hope it goes away."
>
> > I see a backward movement and I know a bullet could not have caused the
> > movement. I also know that the wounds in JFK's skull could not have been
> > caused by a frontal shot because the medical evidence is conclusive on
> > this point. The medical evidence is the only reliable way to determine the
> > direction of the shots.
>
> The medical evidence that is so much in doubt and has been distorted to
> the point that people can't even agree on where JFK was hit? Dig him up
> and lets let an independent panel do a study. I'm betting the results will
> be very different from the medical evidence you cite.
>
The medical evidence was good enough to convince every forensic
pathologist who has reviewed it that JFK was shot twice from behind. Are
we suppose to let your amateurish speculations trump all that?
> > > The WCR just made for
> > > more questions and it didn't answer anything except the the bewildered
> > > minds of a few LN fanatics who all post here.
>
> > We are all here? Amazing observation.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Apparently you are. No one hears from any of you anywhere but here as
> far as I can see.
>
Right, JB. The only people who believe Oswald acted alone are those
who post to this forum. That really must be a fascinating universe you
inhabit. Do you ever let anyone else into it?
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
No pieces need to be thrown out. All the concrete evidence that is
available has been assembled and forms a clear picture of Oswald's guilt.
No corners need to be cut. You cast aspersions on the SBT but don't offer
any reason why it should not be believed. You think because the myth that
it is impossible has been around so long and so many people have bought
into it, you think it is enough simply to repeat the myth. There is
nothing mythical about the SBT. Like the conclusion of Oswald's guilt, it
is the only explaination that makes any sense.
bigdog
Are you channeling Tony Marsh now. Are you going to resort to telling
me what I do and don't believe?
> While one might claim the WC was
> correct, to assert they missed nothing and that subsequent investigations
> have only confirmed their findings is silly.
How so.
> The HSCA, for example,
> concluded that at least four shots were fired,
That was silly.
> that Jack Ruby had mob
> ties,
Just as silly.
> that Jack Ruby probably lied about not knowing Oswald,
Even sillier.
> that a DPD
> officer probably lied about not helping Jack Ruby into the basement,
That could be true. If I was the cop that screwed the pooch by letting
Ruby in, I wouldn't be too anxious to fess up to that either.
> that
> a CIA agent lied about not knowing a Cuban exile who claimed Oswald had
> CIA ties, etc...
>
Please be more specific.
> The rock upon which the WC's findings were based was blasted apart,
> irregardless of one's attitude toward the dictabelt evidence
The WCR will be the definitive work regarding the assassination of JFK
long after any and all alternatives have been relegated to the dust
bin of history.
pjsp...@aol.com
OMG. I devote several chapters to the SBT on my webpage and destroy
most every argument ever offered for its acceptance. Another
explanation is clearly needed.
pjsp...@aol.com
I'm not speculating. I'm asking a question. Why were bad copies of the
Dallas police photos of the trigger guard prints published in the WC's
volumes, rather than clearer copies taken by the FBI? Are we to assume
this means the FBI FAILED to even photograph these prints? If so, then
WHY? Day told them of these prints. He protected them with tape. Even
if Latona took a good look and found them inconclusive with the naked
eye, why wouldn't he photograph these prints at various exposures, and
study them to see if there was anything there?
P.S. As I recall, Omstead showed the DPD photos to a number of
professionals, and they all agreed the prints on the DPD photos could
be identified. So why didn't the FBI take photos of these prints? And
if by change they did take such photos, why were the second or third
generation DPD photos entered into evidence instead of these much
better photos?
pjsp...@aol.com
> On 15 Jul 2010 00:10:38 -0400, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
Just what exactly is it that we know about Ruby? That he had ties to a
number of mafia and teamster enforcers? That he'd been a person of
interest in a mob hit in Chicago? That he'd been involved in gun-
running, gambling, and, if I recall, prostitution?
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >The fact-finding commission formed to investigate the crime refused to
> >> >allow this supposed assassin legal council, so that exculpatory
> >> >evidence could be considered and justice as we know it could be
> >> >served.
>
> >> You mean: limited the extent to which attention-seeking ambulance
> >> chaser Mark Lane could disrupt the proceedings.
>
> >> They *did* let him testify.
>
> >> He lied about what Helen Markham said.
>
> >Uhhh... not entirely true. He PROVED Markham--one of the government's key
> >witnesses against Oswald--was a liar.
>
> He only proved that she didn't remember talking to him.
>
> Are you aware of how he tried to manipulate her?
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane1.txt
>
> And you think this sleazy shyster should have been allowed to jump in
> and disrupt things?
>
> And where do you get the idea that dead people deserve legal counsel?
From the Warren Commission's supposed purpose of proving to the public
that Oswald would have been convicted at trial. There's no way you can
prove such a thing if no defense is presented! This problem was noted
within weeks of the commission's formation. So why was nothing done
about?
>
> You folks just make up stuff, and having made it up, move ahead to
> assume things that you have just made up.
I am not part of a "you folks", John. Although I understand your
desperate need to believe so...
>
> >(Admittedly, this doesn't mean she
> >lied about Oswald's killing Tippit.)
>
> >> >This same commission refused to allow the doctors who'd performed
> >> >Kennedy's autopsy to inspect the autopsy photos and x-rays THEY'D
> >> >taken, for THEIR use, before testifying. It was later found that the
> >> >drawings they'd created for the commission in lieu of these photos and
> >> >x-rays were horribly inaccurate, and inaccurate in ways that helped
> >> >the commission sell the guilt of the supposed assassin.
>
> >> The Commission didn't want to make a public spectacle of the gruesome
> >> photos.
>
> >Hogwash. They withheld thousands of documents from public viewing.
>
> But they had committed to publishing all the evidence they *used.*
Yeah, and they sure kept that commitment, didn't they? Withholding
hundreds of thousands of pages. You need to re-read the executive
sessions. Warren agreed Humes could review the med evidence, and made
plans to have him review it, but then refused to do so after looking
at them himself... What, are you really so naive you think Warren was
afraid of shocking Humes, the man who tore the President's skull
apart?
>
> Did you know that Arlen Specter wrote Rankin a memo urging the
> Commission to look at the autopsy photos and x-rays?
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shootft.htm
>
> So if there was some sinister cover-up, Specter was trying to
> undermine it, right?
>
> Then there is the fact that WHEN THE PHOTOS AND X-RAYS WERE FINALLY
> EXAMINED by forensic pathologists, they showed two shots from behind.
>
> >Warren's refusal to let Kennedy's autopsist view the materials he'd had
> >created to help him in his testimony would have to have been considered a
> >reversible error--should the WC have been anything like a real trial.
>
> So what?
>
> It wasn't a trial.
It was designed to carry the weight of a trial.
>
>
>
> >> They goofed in this, but it was the result of deference to the Kennedy
> >> family.
>
> >Not true. Katzenbach debunked this years ago when he told the HSCA he'd
> >talked to Bobby and explained that they needed to look at the evidence and
> >that Bobby had told him to do what needed to be done. Even Specter
> >admitted in his WC memos that Bobby was not a problem.
>
> From the Specter memo cited above:
>
> <Quote on>
>
> When Inspector Kelly talked to Attorney General Kennedy, he most
> probably did not fully understand all the reasons for viewing the
> films. According to Inspector Kelly, the Attorney General did not
> categorically decline to make them available, but only wanted to be
> satisified that they were really necessary.
>
> <Quote off>
>
> It doesn't sound like Bobby was gung-ho.
This only confirms what I said. Bobby was not an impediment.
>
> But, if you will read for comprehension, you will note that I said
> "Kennedy family" and not "Bobby."
No one else was ever accused of interfering in the examination. What,
you think Jackie whispered to Warren, "Now Earl, if you let the
doctors look at those photos I'll never forgive you."
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >A number of eyewitnesses to the crime felt sure shots were fired from
> >> >a location other than the building from which the supposed assassin
> >> >supposedly fired the shots.
>
> >> "Felt sure" just flat untrue.
>
> >> You need to quit enhancing evidence.
>
> >Okay then "felt," just as Brennan "felt" Oswald was the man in the
> >window.
>
> >> More people thought the shots came from the direction of the
> >> Depository, AND NO OTHER DIRECTION.
>
> >>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm
>
> >Not true.
>
> If you disagree with my tabulation, post the names of some witnesses
> you think I've misclassified, and we'll discuss it.
>
> >Those in the motorcade claiming the shots came from Elm and
> >Houston or the right rear could just as easily have been saying they
> >thought the shots came from the Dal-Tex Building.
>
> But in my tabulation, I classify as "grassy knoll" people who said
> "the railroad yards" or "that monument" or "down by the overpass" and
> such.
>
> >The question you need to
> >ask is why the vast majority of those in front of the building thought the
> >last sound came from west of the building.
>
> Sashay(tm)!!
You need to read the HSCA report of David Green. He said it was easy
to locate the sound of a shot fired from the SN if you are standing in
front of the building. So why did almost all the witnesses standing
there get it wrong?
>
> Are you admitting that the majority of the witnesses said the shots
> came from the direction of the Depository?
>
> The fact that you are trying to change the subject suggests you can't
> contest that point.
I have never contested that shots were fired from the depository.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >The only eyewitness to the shooting who claimed he could identify the
> >> >shooter refused to do so after viewing the supposed assassin,
>
> >> Can't you tell the simple truth?
>
> >> Brennan picked Oswald out, but merely stopped short of a positive ID.
>
> >> Quit enhancing the evidence.
>
> >> >and only
> >> >came forward after this suspect's death, under pressure from the
> >> >Secret Service.
>
> >> Citation!
>
> >When the SS shows up at your door and asks you to do something, that can
> >be considered pressure...
>
> Where the hell did you get "after the suspects death?" He identified
> himself in Dealey Plaza at the time of the shooting.
Yes, but he only said it was OSWALD after Oswald was six feet under!
>
> And do you *really* think that federal agents going around
> interviewing witnesses is sinister?
He was off the books, John. He'd REFUSED to ID Oswald in a line up.
Not coincidentally, NO RECORD of this line up was created. Then, weeks
later, the SS came a knocking, and he suddenly was ready to say it was
Oswald. And he suddenly exists again. If he'd told them he felt sure
it wasn't Oswald, do you think he'd have re-emerged? No way. Like
Tague, he'd have been pushed into a closet.
>
> If nobody had shown up to talk to Brennan, you would consider *that*
> sinister.
>
> You folks consider *everything* sinister.
Not part of a "you folks," John. How many CTs spend months writing
chapters discussing why we should believe the Parkland witnesses were
wrong?
>
> In his autobiography, Brennan said nothing about feeling intimidated
> by federal agents. He got along with them quite well.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >A number of Dallas law enforcement figures identified the rifle found
> >> >in the building--what was purportedly the supposed assassin's rifle--
> >> >as a different kind of rifle entirely.
>
> >> The Alyea film shows it to be Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano.
>
> >Hey, we agree on something. The rifle is probably the rifle bought from
> >Klein's, and the person buying this rifle was probably Oswald.
>
> >> >The supposed assassin supposedly brought his rifle to work in a bag.
> >> >The only people who saw him with this bag, however, claimed it was far
> >> >too small to hold his rifle.
>
> >> But the bag recovered was big enough to hold the rifle, and it had a
> >> finger print and palm print of Oswald's on it.
>
> >And an unspecified amount of paper was taken from the building by the DPD,
> >sent to the FBI, and never returned
>
> Huh? So what?
>
> Can't you folks *ever* stop throwing out red herrings?
>
> If you are claiming the FBI faked the bag, you have to face the fact
> that it was brought out of the Depository at 2:19 p.m., and
> photographed by numerous news photographers.
Apparently, you've forgotten that my photo comparisons demonstrate
that the bag removed from the building is not the bag that made it to
the Archives. If you want to conduct an analysis showing how they are
the same bag, I'd love to see it.
>
>
>
> >> >The FBI was unable to find any evidence this supposed assassin had
> >> >practiced with his rifle for months before the shooting. They also
> >> >were unable to find any ammunition or cleaning supplies among his
> >> >possessions.
>
> >> Irrelevant.
>
> >Not to anyone who knows anything about shooting... It takes PRACTICE.
>
> Just because something was not found does not mean it did not exist.
Yes, like extra shooters in Dealy Plaza.
>
> There is some witness evidence (I'll admit, not iron-clad) that Oswald
> went out and practiced.
>
>
>
> >> >The threads found on the rifle which supposedly came from the
> >> >suspect's shirt came from a shirt no one at his work saw him wearing,
> >> >and that he claimed he put on only after the shooting.
>
> >> Citation!
>
> >The last two-thirds of this chapter 4b is devoted to a discussion of
> >Oswald's shirt, and the probability the fibers were planted on the rifle.
> >Citations are included in that chapter.
>
> >http://www.patspeer.com/chapter4b%3A%22theso-calledevidence%22
>
> In fact, if Oswald was wearing a white tee-shirt under the brown
> shirt, the "white shirt" description makes perfect sense. Especially
> if the "shirt" was "open at the neck" leaving the white tee-shirt
> plainly visible.
No, not at all. The brown shirt would still be covering his arms. DVP
actually came up with something that seems possible...that Oswald took
the brown shirt off in the SN, and then put it back on as he headed
downstairs.
>
> Baker's "light brown jacket" makes sense too. The shirt was brown.
>
> You *do* know that witness descriptions of chothing are rarely
> precise, right?
>
>
>
> >> >The only print of his found on the rifle was reportedly an old print,
> >> >and was supposedly lifted by a DPD officer who not only inexplicably
> >> >forgot to photograph the print before lifting it, but forgot to tell
> >> >the FBI about it for days after the assassination,
>
> >> But multiple witnesses
>
> ...
>
> read more »
Bud
The two victims are lined up one in front of the other when
someone is seen shooting at them, and the two victims show signs of
being shot near simultaneously. Where is the flip side of the SBT,
that explains the wounds on these men without a single bullet causing
them?
bigdog
>
You have found common ground with Rossley. You act as if your website is
gospel. Like Rossley's website, it is just a recitation of the popular
myths and misconceptions.
bigdog
Another typical CT ploy. Act as if raising questions is evidence of
something. Questions are not evidence of anything. The evidence lies in
the answers. You establish nothing by raising questions.
> P.S. As I recall, Omstead showed the DPD photos to a number of
> professionals, and they all agreed the prints on the DPD photos could
> be identified. So why didn't the FBI take photos of these prints? And
> if by change they did take such photos, why were the second or third
> generation DPD photos entered into evidence instead of these much
> better photos?- Hide quoted text -
>
More questions. Will there ever come a day when you guys come up with
answers.
John Blubaugh
> > The evidence is only as good as the people interpreting it. Can't you get
> > this through your thick head that they had an agenda to make LHO the lone
> > assassin and they would do or distort anything to arrive at that result.
> > How many independent laboratories examined that evidence to corroborate
> > the DPD and FBI findings?
>
> Are you really going to claim that the recovered bullets did not match
> the rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD? Go ahead. Make my day.
>
No. I just don't believe the government about ANY of the evidence they
touched. I want to see it verified by laboratories who do not have an
agenda.
>
> > The HSCA did not agree with you . They determined that there was
> > another shooter based on good scientific evidence that you dismiss but
> > it still holds true today.
>
> They don't agree with you either. They said that shooter missed.
>
It really doesn't matter. As long as there was another shooter, it was
a conspiracy. That is important and I want to know who was behind it.
> > > > I believe the
> > > > frontal shot did strike JFK and that is what caused his reaction.
>
> Of course when you aren't burdened by evidence, you can believe any
> freaking thing you want.
>
You are the person who ignores more evidence that anyone else here. I
see it and I am skeptical of the way the evidence was examined and
handled.
> > > There was no frontal shot, miss or hit.
>
> > The official view is that you are in error but that is nothing new.
>
> There you go again. Blindly accepting what your government tells you.
>
No, I believed there was a shot from the knoll long before the HSCA
affirmed it. I just believe that was the killing shot. I still do.
> > > > That
> > > > makes a lot more sense than your drivel to explain his reaction.
>
> > > You believe something happened that is physically impossible. A bullet
> > > could not have thrown JFK backward with the force that he moved.
>
> > Oh, so at least now you agree that he moved.
>
> That has never been in dispute. Are you going to pull a Marsh on us
> now?
>
No, you always said you could never see his violent back and to the
left reaction.
> > Perhaps we are finally
> > getting somewhere. You are wrong, of course, the right kind of
> > ammunition could produce exactly that result.
>
> And just what kind of ammo would that be?
>
Exploding ammunition.
> > > > Oh, wait,
> > > > you can even see that "back and to the left" violent reaction. What does
> > > > this say about the CT mentality? What it says is, "If I can't explain, I
> > > > will just refuse to see it and hope it goes away."
>
> > > I see a backward movement and I know a bullet could not have caused the
> > > movement. I also know that the wounds in JFK's skull could not have been
> > > caused by a frontal shot because the medical evidence is conclusive on
> > > this point. The medical evidence is the only reliable way to determine the
> > > direction of the shots.
>
> > The medical evidence that is so much in doubt and has been distorted to
> > the point that people can't even agree on where JFK was hit? Dig him up
> > and lets let an independent panel do a study. I'm betting the results will
> > be very different from the medical evidence you cite.
>
> The medical evidence was good enough to convince every forensic
> pathologist who has reviewed it that JFK was shot twice from behind. Are
> we suppose to let your amateurish speculations trump all that?
>
The medical evidence is garbage. No forensic pathologist can make any
correct determination if that evidence has been tampered with and it
is very clear that tampering has been done.
> > > > The WCR just made for
> > > > more questions and it didn't answer anything except the the bewildered
> > > > minds of a few LN fanatics who all post here.
>
> > > We are all here? Amazing observation.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Apparently you are. No one hears from any of you anywhere but here as
> > far as I can see.
>
> Right, JB. The only people who believe Oswald acted alone are those
> who post to this forum. That really must be a fascinating universe you
> inhabit. Do you ever let anyone else into it?- Hide quoted text -
>
Where else do you hear from them? The rest of the world is unanimous
that LHO did not act alone.
JB
tomnln
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e9c98c6f-1d7a-4970...@b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Americans are ALWAYS within their rights to ask HOW our tax dollars are
spent ! !
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bud
> > > The evidence is only as good as the people interpreting it. Can't you get
> > > this through your thick head that they had an agenda to make LHO the lone
> > > assassin and they would do or distort anything to arrive at that result.
> > > How many independent laboratories examined that evidence to corroborate
> > > the DPD and FBI findings?
>
> > Are you really going to claim that the recovered bullets did not match
> > the rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD? Go ahead. Make my day.
>
> No. I just don't believe the government about ANY of the evidence they
> touched. I want to see it verified by laboratories who do not have an
> agenda.
I want a pony. I think the days that the government is going to try
to provide CTers with answers are long gone.
> > > The HSCA did not agree with you . They determined that there was
> > > another shooter based on good scientific evidence that you dismiss but
> > > it still holds true today.
>
> > They don't agree with you either. They said that shooter missed.
>
> It really doesn't matter. As long as there was another shooter, it was
> a conspiracy.
You don`think they had the facts right, so why would you accept
their conclusion?
>That is important and I want to know who was behind it.
But we can`t trust any of the evidence, John. How are we going to find
the shooter that nobody saw when you don`t accept the information about
the one that was? You don`t think we can come to conclusions with what you
have against Oswald, what can be done with nothing?
> > > > > I believe the
> > > > > frontal shot did strike JFK and that is what caused his reaction.
>
> > Of course when you aren't burdened by evidence, you can believe any
> > freaking thing you want.
>
> You are the person who ignores more evidence that anyone else here. I
> see it and I am skeptical of the way the evidence was examined and
> handled.
And course you want to disregard it, it points in directions you
don`t want to go.
> > > > There was no frontal shot, miss or hit.
>
> > > The official view is that you are in error but that is nothing new.
>
> > There you go again. Blindly accepting what your government tells you.
>
> No, I believed there was a shot from the knoll long before the HSCA
> affirmed it. I just believe that was the killing shot. I still do.
Then you don`t believe the HSCA. They looked at the evidence and
concluded things went a very specific way according to what the evidence
told them. If you don`t believe it went down the way the said, you don`t
believe them, and you should stop touting their conclusions.
> > > > > That
> > > > > makes a lot more sense than your drivel to explain his reaction.
>
> > > > You believe something happened that is physically impossible. A bullet
> > > > could not have thrown JFK backward with the force that he moved.
>
> > > Oh, so at least now you agree that he moved.
>
> > That has never been in dispute. Are you going to pull a Marsh on us
> > now?
>
> No, you always said you could never see his violent back and to the
> left reaction.
What witness in Dealy Plaza did?
> > > Perhaps we are finally
> > > getting somewhere. You are wrong, of course, the right kind of
> > > ammunition could produce exactly that result.
>
> > And just what kind of ammo would that be?
>
> Exploding ammunition.
This idea has zero support. For one thing, when Kennedy`s head
explodes his head is going forward.
> > > > > Oh, wait,
> > > > > you can even see that "back and to the left" violent reaction. What does
> > > > > this say about the CT mentality? What it says is, "If I can't explain, I
> > > > > will just refuse to see it and hope it goes away."
>
> > > > I see a backward movement and I know a bullet could not have caused the
> > > > movement. I also know that the wounds in JFK's skull could not have been
> > > > caused by a frontal shot because the medical evidence is conclusive on
> > > > this point. The medical evidence is the only reliable way to determine the
> > > > direction of the shots.
>
> > > The medical evidence that is so much in doubt and has been distorted to
> > > the point that people can't even agree on where JFK was hit? Dig him up
> > > and lets let an independent panel do a study. I'm betting the results will
> > > be very different from the medical evidence you cite.
>
> > The medical evidence was good enough to convince every forensic
> > pathologist who has reviewed it that JFK was shot twice from behind. Are
> > we suppose to let your amateurish speculations trump all that?
>
> The medical evidence is garbage. No forensic pathologist can make any
> correct determination if that evidence has been tampered with and it
> is very clear that tampering has been done.
Throw out al the evidence John, then you guys can pretend this case
is a mystery.
> > > > > The WCR just made for
> > > > > more questions and it didn't answer anything except the the bewildered
> > > > > minds of a few LN fanatics who all post here.
>
> > > > We are all here? Amazing observation.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > Apparently you are. No one hears from any of you anywhere but here as
> > > far as I can see.
>
> > Right, JB. The only people who believe Oswald acted alone are those
> > who post to this forum. That really must be a fascinating universe you
> > inhabit. Do you ever let anyone else into it?- Hide quoted text -
>
> Where else do you hear from them? The rest of the world is unanimous
> that LHO did not act alone.
Where do you hear this?
> JB
pjsp...@aol.com
LOL. The company line for LNs is that any book or website challenging
their theories is just reciting popular myths and misconceptions, so THEY
DON'T NEED TO READ IT.
This is pretty pathetic, IMO. While plenty of researchers, such as myself,
have read McAdams's website, and Bugliosi's book, etc...so that they will
KNOW what they are writing about, few on the other "side" will do the
same. Like the "birthers" challenging the legitimacy of Barack Obama's
presidency, they know what they know and wear their IGNORANCE as a badge.
To be clear, I do not recite "myths and misconceptions" on my webpage. I
examine and discuss the evidence, and possible solutions to questions
raised by the evidence. I am not part of any "team" of CTs out to
undermine America, blah blah blah.. I think for myself and come to my own
conclusions...and spend plenty of time criticizing other CTs.
I have chapters where I discuss why I believe the autopsy photos, X-
Rays, and Zapruder film HAVE NOT been faked.
I have chapters where I discuss why I believe witnesses such as Jean
Hill are not reliable.
I have chapters in which I defend the autopsy findings of the doctors.
And perhaps most significantly, I have a chapter where I discuss the
Parkland witnesses, and conclude they were mistaken...
Not exactly the "myths and misconceptions" you had in mind, are they?
Bud
For one thing, way too much attention has been given to conspiracy
theorists and WC critics. For another, CTers sites aren`t worth reading
because they have nothing to say. Once you question that Oswald shot
Kennedy, you`ve identified yourself as someone not worth listening to.
> This is pretty pathetic, IMO. While plenty of researchers, such as myself,
> have read McAdams's website, and Bugliosi's book, etc...so that they will
> KNOW what they are writing about, few on the other "side" will do the
> same. Like the "birthers" challenging the legitimacy of Barack Obama's
> presidency, they know what they know and wear their IGNORANCE as a badge.
Once you figure out that we did land on the moon, what is the point
of visiting websites run by people who say we didn`t?
> To be clear, I do not recite "myths and misconceptions" on my webpage. I
> examine and discuss the evidence, and possible solutions to questions
> raised by the evidence. I am not part of any "team" of CTs out to
> undermine America, blah blah blah.. I think for myself and come to my own
> conclusions...and spend plenty of time criticizing other CTs.
All the hardcore CTers who has steeped themselves into this case have an
epiphany that they are the messiah who has the answers to get to the
promised land.
Not only do they delude themselves about the case, they delude
themselves that they bring something to it.
> I have chapters where I discuss why I believe the autopsy photos, X-
> Rays, and Zapruder film HAVE NOT been faked.
> I have chapters where I discuss why I believe witnesses such as Jean
> Hill are not reliable.
> I have chapters in which I defend the autopsy findings of the doctors.
> And perhaps most significantly, I have a chapter where I discuss the
> Parkland witnesses, and conclude they were mistaken...
>
> Not exactly the "myths and misconceptions" you had in mind, are they?
CTers come in a thousand different flavors, what real difference does it
make what they believe? Like people who cook chili, they use different
ingredients, different recipes, cook it different ways and swear their own
is the best in all the land, but it`s still just chili.
David Von Pein
BUD SAID:
>>> "For one thing, way too much attention has been given to conspiracy
theorists and WC critics. For another, CTers sites aren`t worth reading
because they have nothing to say. Once you question that Oswald shot
Kennedy, you`ve identified yourself as someone not worth listening to."
<<<
DVP SAYS:
It looks like Bud is striving to reach my "Quoting Common Sense" hall-
of-fame.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
(snicker)...the really funny part is that you really believe that.
bigdog
> Throw out al the evidence John, then you guys can pretend this case
> is a mystery.
>
That statement is brilliant in its simplicity.
bigdog
Yes, I came to that conclusion after pissing away my money on crap like
Best Evidence, High Treason, Mafia Kingfish, and Plausible Denial. Just
how many flavors does bullshit come in? Do I need to try them all? I keep
this crap on my library shelf to remind me of how foolish I had been to
waste my hard earned dollars on them.
> This is pretty pathetic, IMO. While plenty of researchers, such as myself,
> have read McAdams's website, and Bugliosi's book, etc...so that they will
> KNOW what they are writing about, few on the other "side" will do the
> same. Like the "birthers" challenging the legitimacy of Barack Obama's
> presidency, they know what they know and wear their IGNORANCE as a badge.
>
I know LHO shot and killed JFK. I know that LHO shot and killed JDT. That
isn't based in ignorance. It is based in a knowledge of that large amount
of solid evidence that is available to us. There is no solid evidence that
anyone except LHO was involved in either crime. Until someone provides
solid evidence to the contrary, I will continue to believe what I believe
and I will continue to call bullshit what it is. Your website is bullshit.
> To be clear, I do not recite "myths and misconceptions" on my webpage. I
> examine and discuss the evidence, and possible solutions to questions
> raised by the evidence. I am not part of any "team" of CTs out to
> undermine America, blah blah blah.. I think for myself and come to my own
> conclusions...and spend plenty of time criticizing other CTs.
>
I'm sure you have come to your own conclusions. Unfortunately, you
have come to the wrong ones.
> I have chapters where I discuss why I believe the autopsy photos, X-
> Rays, and Zapruder film HAVE NOT been faked.
> I have chapters where I discuss why I believe witnesses such as Jean
> Hill are not reliable.
> I have chapters in which I defend the autopsy findings of the doctors.
> And perhaps most significantly, I have a chapter where I discuss the
> Parkland witnesses, and conclude they were mistaken...
>
> Not exactly the "myths and misconceptions" you had in mind, are they?
>
So you don't buy into all the myths and misconceptions. Just some of
them. I'm proud of you.
John McAdams
wrote:
I'm afraid asking questions doesn't get you anywhere near exonorating
Oswald.
If somebody actually knows the answers to your questions, maybe they
will jump in.
I can tell you the FBI was pretty conservative in interpreting
evidence.
The FBI guy declined to call a "match" of any of the Tippit bullets to
Oswald's revolver, yet the top forensics guy from Illinois did indeed
call a "match" (to the exclusion of all other weapons) for one of
them.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
pjsp...@aol.com
curiosity is among the most self-unaware comments I have ever read. So
CTs think they know it all and this makes it okay to ignore anything
and everything they have to say? Uhhh...sounds like you're claiming to
know the answers to questions you've never even read... And that's
just spooky... I mean, who do you think YOU are? Karnak?
I don't have the answers, only fresh insights and arguments...
> Not only do they delude themselves about the case, they delude
> themselves that they bring something to it.
The amount of information on the case has grown tremendously since
1964. Most of this has come from CTs. Admittedly, a lot of nonsense
has come from CTs as well. I'd like to think we have a common cause in
separating out the nonsense. But it sounds like you're more interested
in pretending every bit of evidence suggesting a conspiracy is some
sort of sneaky lie. And that's just not true.
pjsp...@aol.com
>
> read more »
bigdog, my website does not come to any conclusions on WHO killed
Kennedy. Here is a list of the conclusions I reach. And they are solid
as granite...
1. There was a verifiable lack of interest by the FBI in uncovering
the facts of Kennedy’s autopsy.
2. The drawings of Kennedy's wounds prepared by the autopsy doctors
and presented to the Warren Commission were made without the use of
the doctors' measurements of the President’s wound locations. They
presented a grossly distorted picture of Kennedy's wounds. This
distorted picture, moreover, helped sell the single-assassin
conclusion. During his testimony, Dr. Humes misled the Commission
about the use of measurements in creating these drawings. This seems
more than a coincidence.
3. There was a verifiable lack of interest on the part of the Warren
Commission in determining the facts regarding the President’s wounds,
and how these related to the possibility of conspiracy.
4. The assassination re-enactment on May 24, 1964 was deliberately
not as accurate as it could have been, in ways that indicate it was
designed not to uncover the likelihood of the single-bullet theory,
but merely whether it was remotely possible.
5. Warren Commission counsel Arlen Specter elicited knowingly false
testimony about this re-enactment from Secret Service Agent Thomas
Kelley. This false testimony obscured the fact that Specter and Kelley
had used the autopsy photos to determine the location of the
President's back wound in order to best test the possibility a bullet
entering this location from a rifle in the sniper's nest could exit
the President's neck wound and go on to hit Governor Connally in his
right armpit. That no photos of the location used were entered into
evidence, and that Kelley falsely claimed they'd used the drawings
created by the doctors in order to establish this location, suggests
that both men were in fact engaged in a massive deception. Perjury and
subornation of perjury.
6. A report was created in 1967 that misrepresented the autopsy
photos of the President at the very time CBS News was pressuring the
administration to create a report confirming that these photographs
supported the conclusions of the Warren Commission.
7. When interviewed for the subsequent CBS TV special by Dan Rather,
Dr. Humes lied and claimed the autopsy photos he'd recently viewed
confirmed the wound locations on the inaccurate drawings he'd provided
the Warren Commission. He later provided the ARRB with documents
proving that this lie was included on a list of "talking points"
provided him by the Justice Dept. in anticipation of his interview.
8. Another report on the medical evidence was created in 1968, and
released in the final days of the Johnson Administration. This report
is clearly inaccurate in its assertion that Kennedy's back wound was
well-above his throat wound. Its re-appraisal of the President’s head
wounds is also in conflict with the published autopsy photos and X-
rays.
9. This incorrect appraisal of the head wound was seconded by the
HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel in 1979. To support their conclusions a
number of contradictory exhibits were presented.
10. Dr. Michael Baden presented an important exhibit to the HSCA
upside down, and inaccurately depicted the President's head wounds to
the committee. He made statements in his testimony that, when compared
to the pathology report created by his panel, reflected his total
confusion about Kennedy’s head wounds. He also misled the committee
about Dr. Humes' Warren Commission testimony about the head wounds.
11. The enhanced X-rays as presented by the HSCA were cropped in a
suspicious manner, with areas of supreme interest in the un-enhanced x-
ray, the occipital region of the skull and the upper cervical region
of the neck, deliberately excluded.
12. The interpretations of the autopsy photos and x-rays by the
HSCA’s various panels and consultants were frequently in disagreement
with each other. The committee for the most part ignored these
conflicts, and presented the reports of the consultants as if they had
all been accepted by the committee. While this may have spared the
doctors some embarrassment, it left an extremely confusing public
record.
13. The X-rays as presented included fractures and fragments that were
in conflict with the HSCA’s conclusions on the head wounds. While some
of these items of interest were acknowledged by the HSCA’s radiology
consultants, they were left unexplained by the pathology panel.
14. The HSCA’s trajectory analysis was conducted against the advice of
both its forensic pathology panel and wound ballistics expert and
presented false depictions of both Governor Connally’s position in the
car at Zapruder frame 190, and President Kennedy’s posture at frame
313. These false representations supported the committee’s conclusions
on the single-bullet theory and its assertion that Oswald fired all
the bullets striking Kennedy. The "expert" leading this analysis,
furthermore, testified that he'd used the precise measurements of
Kennedy's skull while creating exhibits depicting the bullet
trajectory through Kennedy's skull, but then changed these
measurements after he was told the bullet entrance was in a different
location. This is clear-cut evidence, proof even, that his "analysis"
was a fraud created to tell the public the bullets were all fired from
the school book depository sniper's nest.
15. The conclusions of the bullet lead analysis performed on behalf of
the HSCA were almost certainly incorrect and were undoubtedly in
conflict with the earlier and subsequent writings of its author.
These conclusions were also in conflict with the guidelines of the FBI
in place at that time.
16. The exhibit titles and testimony of the HSCA’s wound ballistics
expert were changed in such a manner as to disguise that he'd been
studying the wound ballistics of subsonic ammunition. This was
apparently done on purpose and without his knowledge.
17. The single-bullet theory simulations and recreations shown on TV
in recent years have all been deceptive in one way or another. None of
them present the proportions of Kennedy and the locations of his
wounds accurately. They are quite often deceptive about Connally’s
position in the limousine as well. Even worse, neither the Warren
Commission, nor any of the subsequent medical panels, nor any of the
television programs defending the single-bullet theory, have
demonstrated the internal passage of the magic bullet through Kennedy
and, specifically, how this bullet evaded bone.
18. The autopsy photos and x-rays available on the internet, whose
authenticity has been acknowledged by several of those who’ve
inspected the originals, reveal an entrance on the skull right where
the autopsy doctors said it was. I am at a loss to explain why so many
men who’ve viewed the originals of these photos and x-rays, lone-nut
theorist and conspiracy theorist alike, including the autopsy doctors
themselves, have failed to notice this entrance. If this failure is
due purely to human error, then perhaps many of the suspicious
“mistakes” listed above are not so suspicious at all. Perhaps the
level of competence we expect from our “experts” is simply unrealistic.
Bud
<snicker> I aim low and still fire over their heads half the time.
Bud
Likewise.
> This last excuse for your lack of
> curiosity is among the most self-unaware comments I have ever read. So
> CTs think they know it all and this makes it okay to ignore anything
> and everything they have to say?
It`s ok to ignore what they have to say because they don`t have
anything to say.
>Uhhh...sounds like you're claiming to
> know the answers to questions you've never even read... And that's
> just spooky... I mean, who do you think YOU are? Karnak?
It`s theoretically possible that some lunatic in an insane asylum is
babbling the cure for cancer. Do I need to listen to all of them rant
to determine if they are?
> I don't have the answers, only fresh insights and arguments...> Not only do they delude themselves about the case, they delude
> > themselves that they bring something to it.
>
> The amount of information on the case has grown tremendously since
> 1964.
Really? More prints were found on the murder weapon? More witnesses
have come forward saying they saw the shooter?
> Most of this has come from CTs.
Adding generous quantities of smoke and mirrors to the case hasn`t
led to clarity. Nor has their chasing red herrings down blind alleys,
snipe hunting or creative writing exercises helped anything.
>Admittedly, a lot of nonsense
> has come from CTs as well. I'd like to think we have a common cause in
> separating out the nonsense.
Like an inept prospector, you throw out the gold and keep the
rocks.
> But it sounds like you're more interested
> in pretending every bit of evidence suggesting a conspiracy is some
> sort of sneaky lie.
"suggesting" is all I can get past the moderation.
> And that's just not true.
Not the "sneaky" part, anyway.
bigdog
Right. We are supposed to believe all these qualified people were wrong,
lied, deliberately misled, etc., etc., blah, blah, blah and that only you
have the expertise and the honesty to accurately interpret the medical
evidence. Why do CTs think that people should believe their unqualified
judgements when it means that all the qualified people involved in the
investigation of the assassination conspired to cover up the truth. What a
joke. Why should we believe anyone who admits he can't figure out who
killed JFK? That answer is as easy as it gets. LHO did it and anyone who
looks objectively at the evidence and can put 2 and 2 together can figure
that part out. There is no mystery who shot JFK, just hoards of people who
refuse to confront the plain and simple truth.
bigdog
> On Jul 16, 4:12 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:> On Jul 16, 5:25 pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>
> > All the hardcore CTers who has steeped themselves into this case have an
> > epiphany that they are the messiah who has the answers to get to the
> > promised land.
>
> Thanks, Bud, for the entertainment. This last excuse for your lack of
> curiosity is among the most self-unaware comments I have ever read. So
> CTs think they know it all and this makes it okay to ignore anything
> and everything they have to say?
It is okay to ignore anything and everything the CTs have to say because
it is all crap and there is no reason to be curious about who shot JFK
because that is so painfully obvious.
> Uhhh...sounds like you're claiming to
> know the answers to questions you've never even read... And that's
> just spooky... I mean, who do you think YOU are? Karnak?
>
> I don't have the answers, only fresh insights and arguments...> Not only do they delude themselves about the case, they delude
> > themselves that they bring something to it.
>
> The amount of information on the case has grown tremendously since
> 1964.
Yes it has and it continues to support the findings of the WC.
> Most of this has come from CTs. Admittedly, a lot of nonsense
> has come from CTs as well. I'd like to think we have a common cause in
> separating out the nonsense. But it sounds like you're more interested
> in pretending every bit of evidence suggesting a conspiracy is some
> sort of sneaky lie. And that's just not true.
>
It isn't some sort of sneaky lie because you guys actually believe this
crap. A lie is when you say things you know to be false. You guys just
believe in myths which can easily be debunked.
Anthony Marsh
My Web site specializes in documents and photographs which no one else
had seen before.
Anthony Marsh
Another typical cover-up ploy. Dissent is not allowed. No one is allowed
to raise questions. You must accept whatever lies the government puts out.
You refuse to look at the evidence.
slice...@comcast.net
> > he said: "You see, the “whole” doesn’t matter to a “Lone Nut.”"
>
> > Incredible, isn't it?
>
> Yah, astounding hypocrisy. The LN position is obviously the truth,
> because it is the ONLY way the "whole" could exist. There is no way for
> what we know to be in evidence without Oswald being the person who shot
> Kennedy.
>
> The CTer "whole" requires an impossible amount of incredible and
> astounding things they can`t show occurring. It has an impossible amount
> of complexity. As you have pointed out well many times, the CTers "whole"
> makes no sense as a plan (shooting Kennedy from multiple directions and
> pinning it on an innocent man in one location). If you gave the CTer
> position a hundred "free passes", where they could assert something
> underhanded without have to show that the underhanded thing occurred,
> they`d use up that hundred free passes and it still wouldn`t be enough to
> cover what they assert occurred. (example: many CTers think Brennan was
> coerced into saying Oswald was the man he saw. Since they can`t show it,
> this would cost them a "free pass").
>
> > The truth is, of course, that the people who believe Lee Harvey Oswald
> > acted alone in killing President Kennedy are nearly ALWAYS looking at
> > the "whole" as far as the evidence in the JFK case is concerned. I
> > sure do anyway.
>
> The LNer "whole", that Oswald is guilty of shooting Kennedy, is the only
> answer that satisfies what we know. It explains why Oswald went to the
> Paine`s and left with a long, paper covered object. It explains why people
> say they saw Oswald shoot Tippit. It explains why Brewer said he saw
> Oswald duck from police. It explains why he had the murder weapons sent to
> his PO box. It explains why he left work shortly after the assassination.
> It explains why Brennan said he saw Oswald shoot Kennedy. It explains
> Oswald`s prints on the rifle. No unseen ninjas or impossibly complex plots
> needed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is tough to respond to because not all CTs agree on what should
be included in the "whole" picture. For me, a lot of time is wasted by
CTs trying to exonerate Oswald of most or all wrongdoing when that's not
really needed to make a conspiracy argument.
But in one respect I do agree with the CT "whole" argument because
while it often fails, it's the only side of this debate that attempts to
take seriously what is not known and apply the best possible explanation
for it. The LN tendency is to either accept a bad explanation for an
unknown ("Oh, the CIA's cameras were *broken* in Mexico City and that's
why there are no photos of Oswald? Sure thing!") or dismiss out of hand
other things because it was so long ago and nothing can really be done
about it ("Oh sure, I know there were some autopsy photos of JFK that have
been missing for years, but oh well, they're not here so there's nothing
that I can do or say about it!")
In those kinds of areas, LNs become willfully ignorant. While it is
true that many CTs often go to the other extreme, assigning great
importance to every little unknown, LNs simply ignore all of them. But
that's just being a really really bad armchair historian. Every
historical event has unexplained avenues whose resolution could contribute
greatly to what the "truth" of the matter was.
The trick is to know which unknowns are meaningful. So for that
reason I'm staying with the often sloppy, overreaching CTs because at
least they are trying. My frustration with how they've often screwed up
the case does not give me license to alter reality and say it's no longer
important that Oswald was debriefed by a CIA officer named Andy Anderson
just after leaving Russia or that two anti-Castro Cubans drove Oswald from
New Orleans to Dallas en route to Mexico City, etc.
Bud
wrote:
For the most part, they aren`t trying to make a conspiracy argument.
They are trying to blame Oswald`s crimes on groups of people they want
to pretend are guilty of Oswald`s crimes.
> But in one respect I do agree with the CT "whole" argument because
> while it often fails, it's the only side of this debate that attempts to
> take seriously what is not known and apply the best possible explanation
> for it.
By "best", you must mean impossibly complex and fanciful, with
little or no evidential support.
> The LN tendency is to either accept a bad explanation for an
> unknown ("Oh, the CIA's cameras were *broken* in Mexico City and that's
> why there are no photos of Oswald? Sure thing!")
And if the cameras were actually not working, what then? You reject
reality. If a CTer wants to make hay they were working they`d have to
uncover information that contradicts the information given. Just
saying "I don`t like that answer" is meaningless.
>or dismiss out of hand
> other things because it was so long ago and nothing can really be done
> about it ("Oh sure, I know there were some autopsy photos of JFK that have
> been missing for years, but oh well, they're not here so there's nothing
> that I can do or say about it!")
If these autopsy photos did exist, who took them, where did they go?
When you have nothing to go on, where can you go?
> In those kinds of areas, LNs become willfully ignorant.
Speak intelligently on that the cameras at the embassy were working,
or where the autopsy photos you mention went. If you can`t, you are
ignorant.
> While it is
> true that many CTs often go to the other extreme, assigning great
> importance to every little unknown, LNs simply ignore all of them.
Unknown information takes you nowhere.
> But
> that's just being a really really bad armchair historian.
Historians don`t sit around filling in the blanks with speculation,
they don`t engage in the creative exercise CTers do.
> Every
> historical event has unexplained avenues whose resolution could contribute
> greatly to what the "truth" of the matter was.
Only information can shed light, not speculation.
Anthony Marsh
> On Jul 17, 8:12 pm, "slicedm...@comcast.net"<slicedm...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>>>> But, alas, I fear he did not have his tongue rooted in his cheek when
They were trying new experimental automatic cameras. Ok, so maybe all
three just happened to not work one day at three different facilities. Ok,
but what about the other 40 cameras which they had been using before? None
of those worked in the meantime at three different facilities? And they
allowed this out of commission situation to go on for four days, and only
on the four days when Oswald was in Mexico? What are the odds?
Are you really that gullible?
>> or dismiss out of hand
>> other things because it was so long ago and nothing can really be done
>> about it ("Oh sure, I know there were some autopsy photos of JFK that have
>> been missing for years, but oh well, they're not here so there's nothing
>> that I can do or say about it!")
>
> If these autopsy photos did exist, who took them, where did they go?
> When you have nothing to go on, where can you go?
>
They found them and Kodak developed them. They are in the National
Archives. The public can not see them.
>> In those kinds of areas, LNs become willfully ignorant.
>
> Speak intelligently on that the cameras at the embassy were working,
> or where the autopsy photos you mention went. If you can`t, you are
> ignorant.
You didn't even know about the other autopsy photographs.
Anthony Marsh
>>> But, alas, I fear he did not have his tongue rooted in his cheek when
>>
No, CTers are not out to exonerate Oswald. Many agree that he was part of
the conspiracy. Some think he was framed. But either way we want to know
more about the other conspirators and the facts of what happened.
Bud
Not so gullible as to believe your claim that their were 40 cameras
that should have taken Oswald`s picture.
> >> or dismiss out of hand
> >> other things because it was so long ago and nothing can really be done
> >> about it ("Oh sure, I know there were some autopsy photos of JFK that have
> >> been missing for years, but oh well, they're not here so there's nothing
> >> that I can do or say about it!")
>
> > If these autopsy photos did exist, who took them, where did they go?
> > When you have nothing to go on, where can you go?
>
> They found them and Kodak developed them. They are in the National
> Archives. The public can not see them.
I think this guy is referring to one he claims should exist that
isn`t in evidence.
> >> In those kinds of areas, LNs become willfully ignorant.
>
> > Speak intelligently on that the cameras at the embassy were working,
> > or where the autopsy photos you mention went. If you can`t, you are
> > ignorant.
>
> You didn't even know about the other autopsy photographs.
Has what to do with what I wrote?
WhiskyJoe
It is CTers who don't look at the whole. They just
want to find isolated 'facts; that indicate
conspiracy, and not look beyond to see if they
can fit this 'fact' into a coherent theory.
**************************************************
"'Back and to the Left' proves conspiracy".
But they don't ask, why does the head initially
move forward? If the double movement was caused
by two bullets, how is it that after 5 to 8 seconds
after the first shot, they finally get not one but
two shots that hit within an eighteenth of a second
of each other, timed perfectly to simulate a
neurological spasm.
And why not come up with a coherent theory that
explains all of JFK's 'Back and to the Left'
observations:
* blood spatter seen in z313 being forward of the
head, not behind it.
* initial jerk of the head forward z312-z313
* the slower movement of the head backwards, which
doesn't reach the z312 position until z315-z316 and
then speeds up gradually till z318.
* the right arm rising during z316-z319
Are all these observations really best explained by
a bullet strike from the front (or one bullet from
behind followed by another from the front) which
caused the bloody spray to go forward and the right
arm to jerk up? Doesn't the 'Shot from behind' and
the neurological spasm theory offer a better and
more complete explanation, a better 'Whole Picture'
explanation?
**************************************************
The claim that JFK's back wound is lower than his
throat wound, indicating a shot from the front.
But where does that lead us? Where did that shot from?
The horizontal line through those wounds must go
through the windshield. And there are no high
buildings or any positions high enough to go
over the windshield and to the throat. The Altgens
photograph at z255 shows no bullet whole in the
windshield and who would be crazy enough to attempt
a shot through the windshield when even a minor
deflection would cause the shot to miss.
But, in CT thinking, there is no need to go for the
'Whole Picture'. The throat wound being higher shows
the shot came from the front and we can stop thinking
right there.
**************************************************
CTers sees evidence of many shots before the fatal
head shot. But does not stop to see the implications
of this. Surely a conspiracy would employ competent
shooters with recent practice at slow moving targets.
Surely they would see the advantages of the first shot
being fatal. Surely they would position the shooters
in good positions, to fire from behind down the line
of travel, to make the easiest shot, avoid the
windshield, avoid being easily spotted by the
Secret Service and to best simulate a shot from
Oswald.
How is it that at ranges of under 100 yards these
snipers kept missing and missing the head? An expert
shooter should not miss by an inch at under 100 yards.
What is going on here?
Instead, the success of the assassination hinged for
many seconds on the possibility that JFK might collapse
out of sight or Jackie might jerk him toward herself to
get him down out of sight. Does this really seem to be
the work of an expert assassination team? Or does it
more seem to be the work of someone who used to hit
man size targets at 200 yards consistently, was out
of practice, was not very familiar with his rifle,
had never fired at a moving target before, made a
very bad selection for his first shot at z152 and
so he somehow needed three shots even though all
were under 100 yards?
'Whole Picture' thinking supports the 'Oswald Alone'
theory better than the 'Assassination Team' theory.
In any case, No attempt by CTers to see the
'Whole Picture', to see of there are aspects
of their theory that does not make sense.
**************************************************
The lack of 'Whole' thinking by CTers is most
evident by the fact they typically don't come
up with a concrete scenario that explains
everything. Something like:
z180 - Shot from behind, missed everything
z190 - Shot from behind, wounds JFK neck
z220 - Shot from behind, wounds Connally's chest
z240 - Shot from behind, wounds Connally's wrist and thigh
z280 - Shot from the front, missed limousine
z313 - Shot from the front, strike's JFK in the head
In contrast, LNers link everything together to form a 'Whole' Theory:
z150-z160: Shot from behind, missed limousine
z220-z224: Shot from behind, wounds JFK and Connally
z312-z313: Shot from behind, kills JFK and wounds Tague
Not all LNers hold to this exact scenario. Some think
the missed shot wounded Tague, which may be true.
A few think it's possible there was no missed shot at
z150-z160, which may be true. While there is no
100% agreement on every minor detail, all LNers
have a 'Whole' theory in their mind as to what
happened. CTers generally do not. When they do
come up with a 'Whole Picture' theory, it is
probably by prompting from LNers, not something
they thought of doing themselves.
bigdog
>
> Not all LNers hold to this exact scenario. Some think
> the missed shot wounded Tague, which may be true.
> A few think it's possible there was no missed shot at
> z150-z160, which may be true. While there is no
> 100% agreement on every minor detail, all LNers
> have a 'Whole' theory in their mind as to what
> happened. CTers generally do not. When they do
> come up with a 'Whole Picture' theory, it is
> probably by prompting from LNers, not something
> they thought of doing themselves.
CTs can't come up with a "whole" theory because to do that, they would
have to make all the pieces fit. They simply can't do that. The pieces fit
together only one way and deep down, most of them probably know that. It
is much better to look at the evidence piecemeal. Continuing with the
analogy of the jigsaw puzzle, by taking that approach, they can say this
piece goes here, this piece goes there..., etc. That works as long as you
don't have to make the pieces fit. You can move the individual pieces
around to your heart's content. But when one has to make the pieces
actually fit together, that becomes very limiting. It takes away the
freedom to say where the individual pieces belong. There is only one way
the pieces fit together. Only one picture the pieces will present. It is
not the picture the CTs want. It is better just to leave the pieces in a
big pile on the table and imagine different ways they will go together.
slice...@comcast.net
> > This is tough to respond to because not all CTs agree on what should
> > be included in the "whole" picture. For me, a lot of time is wasted by
> > CTs trying to exonerate Oswald of most or all wrongdoing when that's not
> > really needed to make a conspiracy argument.
>
> For the most part, they aren`t trying to make a conspiracy argument.
> They are trying to blame Oswald`s crimes on groups of people they want
> to pretend are guilty of Oswald`s crimes.
> > But in one respect I do agree with the CT "whole" argument because
> > while it often fails, it's the only side of this debate that attempts to
> > take seriously what is not known and apply the best possible explanation
> > for it.
>
> By "best", you must mean impossibly complex and fanciful, with
> little or no evidential support.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No, a conspiracy is still the best possible explanation for what
happened. And it doesn't have to be impossibly complex, although many CTs
go that route. That has unfortunately splintered us, and left the door
open for people like you, whose interest is more in the CTs themselves and
not the actual case. What I see in your reply is a basic misunderstanding
of how to study history and a lot of false premises.
> > The LN tendency is to either accept a bad explanation for an
> > unknown ("Oh, the CIA's cameras were *broken* in Mexico City and that's
> > why there are no photos of Oswald? Sure thing!")
>
> And if the cameras were actually not working, what then? You reject
> reality. If a CTer wants to make hay they were working they`d have to
> uncover information that contradicts the information given. Just
> saying "I don`t like that answer" is meaningless.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When the CIA's story of how the cameras were "broken" is analyzed
honestly, it doesn't hold water. It's one facet of the entire (whole!)
picture of Oswald in Mexico City, in which the best possible conclusion
from the evidence shows that he was impersonated in phone calls to the
Russian embassy, that CIA HQ willfully kept Mexico City in the dark about
who Oswald was, and that recordings of Oswald's "voice" did survive after
supposedly being erased.
That's what is known now, after the WC's attempt to gloss over it.
Add to that the implausibilty of all the cameras being broken, and you get
a bad cover story from the CIA, who do cover stories for a living, among
other things.
Now, is it *possible* all the cameras in question were broken?
Sure. I could accept it easily. That's just not as plausible an
explanation however when looked at in context. They were lying about
Oswald. That of course doesn't mean Oswald didn't really go down there,
or shoot at Kennedy later. It just means that the CIA was lying about key
events in Mexico City.
You telling me to "uncover information that contradicts the
infomation given" is laughable because it shows in pure HD clarity just
how much you LNs have zero grasp of how to study history and how you cling
to a false premise in order to win an argument with people you dislike.
You task them with something impossible, like shaking loose information
from long dead CIA people, and then lord it over them when they can't do
the ridiculous thing you commanded them to do.
Well sorry, Bud. The game's over here now. The JFK assassination
is ancient history, gaps in the story and all. So it's interpreted as
such. As far as Mexico City is concerned, we know what the CIA said, we
know why their version is implausible, and we wind up with the best
possible explanation for it.
It's far from incredibly complex. It boils down to sending
incomplete info on Oswald back to MC and a bunch of false statements made
by people like Helms regarding broken cameras and erased tapes, stuff they
never had to substantiate beyond simply saying it. Statements that hardy
historians like yourself never batted an eye over or felt the need to hold
anyone accountable for.
> >or dismiss out of hand
> > other things because it was so long ago and nothing can really be done
> > about it ("Oh sure, I know there were some autopsy photos of JFK that have
> > been missing for years, but oh well, they're not here so there's nothing
> > that I can do or say about it!")
>
> If these autopsy photos did exist, who took them, where did they go?
> When you have nothing to go on, where can you go?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We know that there were photos of Kennedy's original head wound
(before it moved up the backside of his skull 4 inches), photos of the
inner chest, metal rod pics, etc. We know they existed and we know that
now they don't. That's a fact, not open to debate any more. For example,
Finck directed Stringer to take a photo of the rear head wound (w/
beveling) and he did as he was told. To this day Finck sticks to that low
entry wound and--whoah guess what!--Stringer was never deposed by the WC!
The autopsy photographer! Oh my, what a shock!
That's an important fact. If you can't understand the importance
of the missing pictures there's no need to talk to you really. Obviously
we can't examine those pictures, but you can't erase the whole idea of
them, as you would like to do. An explanation for what happened to them
is deserved, but since we're never going to get one, the best possible
explanation for them is that they show someting other than the WC's muder
scenario.
Does that mean Oswald didn't take his gun to work and shoot at
Kennedy? No. And sure, if the photos miraculously returned from whatever
black hole they went into and showed nothing spectacular I would be the
first to say so. But their absence, and silence, speaks very loudly.
LN's cavlier treatment of these pictures is a joke. It's key
evidence. If--heaven forbid--photos depicting wounds on someone you cared
about went missing like this you'd be out of your mind. But not here,
since this is the JFK case and all you have to do is win an argument.
> > In those kinds of areas, LNs become willfully ignorant.
>
> Speak intelligently on that the cameras at the embassy were working,
> or where the autopsy photos you mention went. If you can`t, you are
> ignorant.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Errrrah....think I already did that.
> > While it is
> > true that many CTs often go to the other extreme, assigning great
> > importance to every little unknown, LNs simply ignore all of them.
>
> Unknown information takes you nowhere.
>
> > But
> > that's just being a really really bad armchair historian.
>
> Historians don`t sit around filling in the blanks with speculation,
> they don`t engage in the creative exercise CTers do.
>
> > Every
> > historical event has unexplained avenues whose resolution could contribute
> > greatly to what the "truth" of the matter was.
>
> Only information can shed light, not speculation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LOL. Historians don't speculate. Holy macaroni.
In reality, they do all the time. But for me, in this particular
instance, I'm not filling in the blanks with unmovable facts. I'm filling
in the blanks with the best possible explanation for what is unknown. It
can change if new info is found. I just don't think it's going to in this
case.
slice...@comcast.net
> > This is tough to respond to because not all CTs agree on what should
> > be included in the "whole" picture. For me, a lot of time is wasted by
> > CTs trying to exonerate Oswald of most or all wrongdoing when that's not
> > really needed to make a conspiracy argument.
>
> No, CTers are not out to exonerate Oswald. Many agree that he was part of
> the conspiracy. Some think he was framed. But either way we want to know
> more about the other conspirators and the facts of what happened.
I know that not all CTs are out to rescue Oswald, but it distresses
me how many still are. I think there's perhaps a subconscious feeling on
some CTs' part that if you give Oswald up in any way (shooting Tippit for
example) then the game is over. So they don't look clearly at him.
bigdog
wrote:
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > This is tough to respond to because not all CTs agree on what should
> > > be included in the "whole" picture. For me, a lot of time is wasted by
> > > CTs trying to exonerate Oswald of most or all wrongdoing when that's not
> > > really needed to make a conspiracy argument.
>
> > For the most part, they aren`t trying to make a conspiracy argument.
> > They are trying to blame Oswald`s crimes on groups of people they want
> > to pretend are guilty of Oswald`s crimes.
> > > But in one respect I do agree with the CT "whole" argument because
> > > while it often fails, it's the only side of this debate that attempts to
> > > take seriously what is not known and apply the best possible explanation
> > > for it.
>
> > By "best", you must mean impossibly complex and fanciful, with
> > little or no evidential support.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> No, a conspiracy is still the best possible explanation for what
> happened. And it doesn't have to be impossibly complex, although many CTs
> go that route. That has unfortunately splintered us, and left the door
> open for people like you, whose interest is more in the CTs themselves and
> not the actual case. What I see in your reply is a basic misunderstanding
> of how to study history and a lot of false premises.
>
If we are to believe the CTs, there wasn't one conspiracy to kill JFK that
day in Dallas, there were a half dozen or more. Apparently they were
tripping over each other in their attempts to get to JFK first. It is a
little reminiscent of the attempts to kill Inspector Clouseau in the movie
Return of the Pink Panther. In a hilarious episode, the top assassins from
various countries around the world ended up killing off each other in
their attempts to get Clouseau. Apparently that is what happened in
Dallas. All the really good assassins must have ended up shooting each
other and it was left to little old Lee Harvey Oswald to get the job done.
> > > The LN tendency is to either accept a bad explanation for an
> > > unknown ("Oh, the CIA's cameras were *broken* in Mexico City and that's
> > > why there are no photos of Oswald? Sure thing!")
>
> > And if the cameras were actually not working, what then? You reject
> > reality. If a CTer wants to make hay they were working they`d have to
> > uncover information that contradicts the information given. Just
> > saying "I don`t like that answer" is meaningless.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> When the CIA's story of how the cameras were "broken" is analyzed
> honestly, it doesn't hold water. It's one facet of the entire (whole!)
> picture of Oswald in Mexico City, in which the best possible conclusion
> from the evidence shows that he was impersonated in phone calls to the
> Russian embassy, that CIA HQ willfully kept Mexico City in the dark about
> who Oswald was, and that recordings of Oswald's "voice" did survive after
> supposedly being erased.
>
The CIA lied. That's shocking!!!
> That's what is known now, after the WC's attempt to gloss over it.
> Add to that the implausibilty of all the cameras being broken, and you get
> a bad cover story from the CIA, who do cover stories for a living, among
> other things.
>
> Now, is it *possible* all the cameras in question were broken?
> Sure. I could accept it easily. That's just not as plausible an
> explanation however when looked at in context. They were lying about
> Oswald. That of course doesn't mean Oswald didn't really go down there,
> or shoot at Kennedy later. It just means that the CIA was lying about key
> events in Mexico City.
>
> You telling me to "uncover information that contradicts the
> infomation given" is laughable because it shows in pure HD clarity just
> how much you LNs have zero grasp of how to study history and how you cling
> to a false premise in order to win an argument with people you dislike.
> You task them with something impossible, like shaking loose information
> from long dead CIA people, and then lord it over them when they can't do
> the ridiculous thing you commanded them to do.
>
The fact that the CIA was less than honest with the WC investigation
hardly constitutes evidence of the complicity in the murder of JFK. They
are spy organization. International espionage is not a game played by Boy
Scouts. To do it right, you have to lie about lots of things, sometimes
even to people on your side.
What does it say?
> LN's cavlier treatment of these pictures is a joke. It's key
> evidence. If--heaven forbid--photos depicting wounds on someone you cared
> about went missing like this you'd be out of your mind. But not here,
> since this is the JFK case and all you have to do is win an argument.
>
There was more than enough autopsy evidence to convince a panel of the top
forensic pathologists in the country that JFK was shot twice from behind
and from no other direction. What else do we need to know?
> > > In those kinds of areas, LNs become willfully ignorant.
>
> > Speak intelligently on that the cameras at the embassy were working,
> > or where the autopsy photos you mention went. If you can`t, you are
> > ignorant.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Errrrah....think I already did that.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > While it is
> > > true that many CTs often go to the other extreme, assigning great
> > > importance to every little unknown, LNs simply ignore all of them.
>
> > Unknown information takes you nowhere.
>
> > > But
> > > that's just being a really really bad armchair historian.
>
> > Historians don`t sit around filling in the blanks with speculation,
> > they don`t engage in the creative exercise CTers do.
>
> > > Every
> > > historical event has unexplained avenues whose resolution could contribute
> > > greatly to what the "truth" of the matter was.
>
> > Only information can shed light, not speculation.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> LOL. Historians don't speculate. Holy macaroni.
>
> In reality, they do all the time. But for me, in this particular
> instance, I'm not filling in the blanks with unmovable facts. I'm filling
> in the blanks with the best possible explanation for what is unknown. It
> can change if new info is found. I just don't think it's going to in this
> case.- Hide quoted text -
>
On that we agree. LHO will go down in history as the assassin of JFK
and that won't change. It won't change because it is the truth.
bigdog
wrote:
Which is why they have no hope of ever learning the truth. If your
search for a conspiracy doesn't take you first to the shooter, you are
lost before you even get started.
slice...@comcast.net
> > > little or no evidential support.
>
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > No, a conspiracy is still the best possible explanation for what
> > happened. And it doesn't have to be impossibly complex, although many CTs
> > go that route. That has unfortunately splintered us, and left the door
> > open for people like you, whose interest is more in the CTs themselves and
> > not the actual case. What I see in your reply is a basic misunderstanding
> > of how to study history and a lot of false premises.
>
> If we are to believe the CTs, there wasn't one conspiracy to kill JFK that
> day in Dallas, there were a half dozen or more. Apparently they were
> tripping over each other in their attempts to get to JFK first. It is a
> little reminiscent of the attempts to kill Inspector Clouseau in the movie
> Return of the Pink Panther. In a hilarious episode, the top assassins from
> various countries around the world ended up killing off each other in
> their attempts to get Clouseau. Apparently that is what happened in
> Dallas. All the really good assassins must have ended up shooting each
> other and it was left to little old Lee Harvey Oswald to get the job done.
This is why you can't really be taken seriously. You're saying things
you know cannot be true. You're combining everything you ever heard a
critic say over 46+ years and then attributing all of it--the good and the
bad--to every critic out there.
The fact that you *want* every critic to think a cast of thousands
was in on the assasintion doesn't make it true, and it's never going to be
true. But as with all LNs, you're not really interested in the case.
There's nothing about it remotely worth calling into question and there
never was. You just want to win an argument with people you dislike, so
you'll frame the other side's argument for them.
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > When the CIA's story of how the cameras were "broken" is analyzed
> > honestly, it doesn't hold water. It's one facet of the entire (whole!)
> > picture of Oswald in Mexico City, in which the best possible conclusion
> > from the evidence shows that he was impersonated in phone calls to the
> > Russian embassy, that CIA HQ willfully kept Mexico City in the dark about
> > who Oswald was, and that recordings of Oswald's "voice" did survive after
> > supposedly being erased.
>
> The CIA lied. That's shocking!!!
>
>
> The fact that the CIA was less than honest with the WC investigation
> hardly constitutes evidence of the complicity in the murder of JFK. They
> are spy organization. International espionage is not a game played by Boy
> Scouts. To do it right, you have to lie about lots of things, sometimes
> even to people on your side.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wow, thanks for agreeing with me. Can you just get fully on the
record though? Please? Can you just state your belief that the CIA
purposely withheld info on Oswald from its Mexico City office, lied about
having broken surveillance cameras, lied about erasing Oswald's voice from
surveillance tapes, and--at the very least--knew that he was impersonated
in a phone call to the Russian embassy?
If you could just state that, in your own words, and then maybe add
a comment about how those actions on the part of the CIA are not worthy of
interest, that their very nature in no way would point honest
investigators to treat them with suspiscion, and that the study of history
should never acknowledge those facts because they lead away from what was
eventually presented by the gov't on Oswald.
Please, from your exalted position 46 years later, when further
investigation of those facts is impossible, soothe my concerns by stating
that the hidden facts that compelled the CIA to obstruct justice in that
way could not possibly have meaning, especially because they've remained
hidden. In fact, totally because they've remained hidden.
And maybe somewhere in there you could explain why their lies tend to
work against their own case. Like the phone call tape, which you agreed
was not erased. If that has Oswald's voice on it, then it should've been
played for the world. So please untwist some of that logic for me.
If you can't, then the best possible explanation for what happened
in Mexico City is that Oswald was down there on some kind of intelligence
mission. Because I'm looking at everything that happened--that's what you
do when you look at history--not just the partial picture provided by the
WC. If you don't like it, then YOU get in the time machine and go back
and clear up those issues. I've got all I need.
> > Does that mean Oswald didn't take his gun to work and shoot at
> > Kennedy? No. And sure, if the photos miraculously returned from whatever
> > black hole they went into and showed nothing spectacular I would be the
> > first to say so. But their absence, and silence, speaks very loudly.
>
> What does it say?
>
> > LN's cavlier treatment of these pictures is a joke. It's key
> > evidence. If--heaven forbid--photos depicting wounds on someone you cared
> > about went missing like this you'd be out of your mind. But not here,
> > since this is the JFK case and all you have to do is win an argument.
>
> There was more than enough autopsy evidence to convince a panel of the top
> forensic pathologists in the country that JFK was shot twice from behind
> and from no other direction. What else do we need to know?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Right...I'll bet when they were handing the pictures out to that
team of pathologists somebody in the gov't said, "Just say 'when'
gentlemen." And Baden was like, "OK, this is enough, take the rest back."
I mean, why ask for more? It's not like the HSCA had a *major*
problem getting the autposy docs to commit to the new wound location for
the head shot. It's not like all 3 autopsists never believed that the
head wound moved up 4 inches. Seriously, why would anyone want to resolve
that? It's not like it was important.
I for one am glad that the photo of the "low" entry wound taken by
Stringer was destroyed or stolen, among others.
But even though that makes me happy, I have to acknowledge that the
best possible explanation for the missing photos is that they show
something contradictory to the WC's findings. That an incomplete set was
put forth from which the WC's conclusion could be reached.
> > > Historians don`t sit around filling in the blanks with speculation,
> > > they don`t engage in the creative exercise CTers do.
>
> > > > Every
> > > > historical event has unexplained avenues whose resolution could contribute
> > > > greatly to what the "truth" of the matter was.
>
> > > Only information can shed light, not speculation.
>
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > LOL. Historians don't speculate. Holy macaroni.
>
> > In reality, they do all the time. But for me, in this particular
> > instance, I'm not filling in the blanks with unmovable facts. I'm filling
> > in the blanks with the best possible explanation for what is unknown. It
> > can change if new info is found. I just don't think it's going to in this
> > case.
>
> On that we agree. LHO will go down in history as the assassin of JFK
> and that won't change. It won't change because it is the truth.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Uh oh! Somebody sounds like they have a case of
truebelieveritis!
Bud
Exactly right, and the game is the blame game. If they accept Oswald`s
guilt, they need to show that the people they want to blame have
connections to Oswald. That would be too difficult, so they take the
intellectually lazy route of pretending it is possible for Oswald to be
innocent, set up by people they can`t show responsible. That way they
don`t have to connect it back from Oswald to say, LBJ or the CIA.
> So they don't look clearly at him.
They reinvent him.
bigdog
wrote:
I don't need or want every critic to think anything. The fact is that the
hoards of CTs have offered us so many different conspiracy theories, it is
almost impossible to count them. There is simply no consensus in CT land.
My satirical reference to the attempts to kill Clouseau in The Return of
the Pink Panther was appropriate. The CTs have offered us a smorgasboard
of conspiracy theories to choose from. How is an LN supposed to
distinguish the rational ones from the really nutty ones. They all seem
pretty nutty to me because not one I have ever encountered is based on
real evidence.
From my perspective, the only conspiracy theory that deserves any respect
are those that accept the fact that Oswald was the one and only shooter
because that is what the hard evidence unmistakably tells us. Based on my
experience on this forum and others, few if any CTs are willing to accept
that simple truth. They present us theories with Oswald having varying
degrees of participation from being one of a number of shooters, to being
a non-shooting co-conspirator, to being a completely innocent patsy. These
are all silly views in light of the evidence and I have no reservations
about stating that bluntly.
If you are willing to accept that Oswald was THE shooter but was acting on
behalf of others, I am perfectly willing to listen to your case. Any other
view isn't worth the time of day. The year is 2010. It is almost 47 years
since Oswald killed Kennedy. The day for wondering about his guilt or
innocence passed a long time ago. The only question even worth considering
is whether he had any accomplices. Sadly, little of the noise from the CT
camp addresses that issue.
No, because I don't know whether the CIA lied or whether their cameras
really did malfunction. That is something only they know and they aren't
saying. Keeping secrets is something spy organizations like to do.
> Please, from your exalted position 46 years later, when further
> investigation of those facts is impossible, soothe my concerns by stating
> that the hidden facts that compelled the CIA to obstruct justice in that
> way could not possibly have meaning, especially because they've remained
> hidden. In fact, totally because they've remained hidden.
>
There is always the theoretical possibility. I have seen nothing that
indicates to me the CIA was involved in any way in the assassination of
JFK and lots of reasons to believe they weren't.
> And maybe somewhere in there you could explain why their lies tend to
> work against their own case. Like the phone call tape, which you agreed
> was not erased. If that has Oswald's voice on it, then it should've been
> played for the world. So please untwist some of that logic for me.
>
I am not privy to the inner workings of the CIA so I don't know the
reasons they do what they do.
> If you can't, then the best possible explanation for what happened
> in Mexico City is that Oswald was down there on some kind of intelligence
> mission. Because I'm looking at everything that happened--that's what you
> do when you look at history--not just the partial picture provided by the
> WC. If you don't like it, then YOU get in the time machine and go back
> and clear up those issues. I've got all I need.
>
You're speculating, or more accurately, guessing. You see an anomaly and
because you can't find anything to explain it, you assume the explaination
has sinister implications. Speculations are not evidence. When you have
real evidence, I'll be most interested. I have no interest in your
guessing games.
> > > Does that mean Oswald didn't take his gun to work and shoot at
> > > Kennedy? No. And sure, if the photos miraculously returned from whatever
> > > black hole they went into and showed nothing spectacular I would be the
> > > first to say so. But their absence, and silence, speaks very loudly.
>
> > What does it say?
>
> > > LN's cavlier treatment of these pictures is a joke. It's key
> > > evidence. If--heaven forbid--photos depicting wounds on someone you cared
> > > about went missing like this you'd be out of your mind. But not here,
> > > since this is the JFK case and all you have to do is win an argument.
>
> > There was more than enough autopsy evidence to convince a panel of the top
> > forensic pathologists in the country that JFK was shot twice from behind
> > and from no other direction. What else do we need to know?
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Right...I'll bet when they were handing the pictures out to that
> team of pathologists somebody in the gov't said, "Just say 'when'
> gentlemen." And Baden was like, "OK, this is enough, take the rest back."
>
Give me a break.
> I mean, why ask for more? It's not like the HSCA had a *major*
> problem getting the autposy docs to commit to the new wound location for
> the head shot. It's not like all 3 autopsists never believed that the
> head wound moved up 4 inches. Seriously, why would anyone want to resolve
> that? It's not like it was important.
>
The only thing that matters to me is that the shot came from behind JFK,
which it undeniably did. That confirms what the rest of the evidence tells
us. Oswald fired the head shot from the TSBD. The exact striking point on
JFK's coconut isn't terribly important to me but it seems to be to others.
> I for one am glad that the photo of the "low" entry wound taken by
> Stringer was destroyed or stolen, among others.
>
> But even though that makes me happy, I have to acknowledge that the
> best possible explanation for the missing photos is that they show
> something contradictory to the WC's findings. That an incomplete set was
> put forth from which the WC's conclusion could be reached.
>
How could these alleged missing photos show something that is contrary to
the photos that were in evidence? It makes no sense. Despite whatever
errors of omission or commision that were made at autopsy, a wealth of
useful data was obtained and it leaves no doubt in the minds of every
qualified person that has reviewed the material that JFK was shot twice
from behind.
>
>
>
>
> > > > Historians don`t sit around filling in the blanks with speculation,
> > > > they don`t engage in the creative exercise CTers do.
>
> > > > > Every
> > > > > historical event has unexplained avenues whose resolution could contribute
> > > > > greatly to what the "truth" of the matter was.
>
> > > > Only information can shed light, not speculation.
>
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > LOL. Historians don't speculate. Holy macaroni.
>
> > > In reality, they do all the time. But for me, in this particular
> > > instance, I'm not filling in the blanks with unmovable facts. I'm filling
> > > in the blanks with the best possible explanation for what is unknown. It
> > > can change if new info is found. I just don't think it's going to in this
> > > case.
>
> > On that we agree. LHO will go down in history as the assassin of JFK
> > and that won't change. It won't change because it is the truth.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Uh oh! Somebody sounds like they have a case of
> truebelieveritis
If that means I believe in the truth, then yes I do.
Bud
> > > This is tough to respond to because not all CTs agree on what should
> > > be included in the "whole" picture. For me, a lot of time is wasted by
> > > CTs trying to exonerate Oswald of most or all wrongdoing when that's not
> > > really needed to make a conspiracy argument.
>
> > For the most part, they aren`t trying to make a conspiracy argument.
> > They are trying to blame Oswald`s crimes on groups of people they want
> > to pretend are guilty of Oswald`s crimes.
> > > But in one respect I do agree with the CT "whole" argument because
> > > while it often fails, it's the only side of this debate that attempts to
> > > take seriously what is not known and apply the best possible explanation
> > > for it.
>
> > By "best", you must mean impossibly complex and fanciful, with
> > little or no evidential support.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> No, a conspiracy is still the best possible explanation for what
> happened.
No, it really isn`t. Who the hell would have anything to do with
Oswald?
> And it doesn't have to be impossibly complex, although many CTs
> go that route.
I`ll tell you what, you outline your idea of the conspiracy you think
occurred, and we`ll see whether it is impossibly complex or not. My guess
is I can question your beliefs, and every answer will generate more and
more complexity, and necessitate more and more people involved. By the end
of say, 10 questions, your idea of conspiracy will collapse under the
weight of it`s own complexity. Yet at the end, you will still claim that
you don`t believe in a complex plot. Care to play?
> That has unfortunately splintered us, and left the door
> open for people like you, whose interest is more in the CTs themselves and
> not the actual case.
I believe in going to the root of problems in order to solve them.
The problems aren`t with the case.
> What I see in your reply is a basic misunderstanding
> of how to study history and a lot of false premises.
By all means, lets see you approach the case from a historian`s
perspective, I enjoy a good laugh.
> > > The LN tendency is to either accept a bad explanation for an
> > > unknown ("Oh, the CIA's cameras were *broken* in Mexico City and that's
> > > why there are no photos of Oswald? Sure thing!")
>
> > And if the cameras were actually not working, what then? You reject
> > reality. If a CTer wants to make hay they were working they`d have to
> > uncover information that contradicts the information given. Just
> > saying "I don`t like that answer" is meaningless.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> When the CIA's story of how the cameras were "broken" is analyzed
> honestly, it doesn't hold water.
Lets see you analyze it. What information do you have on the embassy
cameras? Any support for the idea they were working?
> It's one facet of the entire (whole!)
> picture of Oswald in Mexico City, in which the best possible conclusion
> from the evidence shows that he was impersonated in phone calls to the
> Russian embassy, that CIA HQ willfully kept Mexico City in the dark about
> who Oswald was, and that recordings of Oswald's "voice" did survive after
> supposedly being erased.
So, based on a lot of evidence you can`t produce you`ve come to a
conclusion?
> That's what is known now, after the WC's attempt to gloss over it.
> Add to that the implausibilty of all the cameras being broken, and you get
> a bad cover story from the CIA, who do cover stories for a living, among
> other things.
>
> Now, is it *possible* all the cameras in question were broken?
> Sure. I could accept it easily. That's just not as plausible an
> explanation however when looked at in context. They were lying about
> Oswald. That of course doesn't mean Oswald didn't really go down there,
> or shoot at Kennedy later. It just means that the CIA was lying about key
> events in Mexico City.
>
> You telling me to "uncover information that contradicts the
> infomation given" is laughable because it shows in pure HD clarity just
> how much you LNs have zero grasp of how to study history and how you cling
> to a false premise in order to win an argument with people you dislike.
> You task them with something impossible, like shaking loose information
> from long dead CIA people, and then lord it over them when they can't do
> the ridiculous thing you commanded them to do.
I know it`s laughable to ask you guys to provide information to shed
light. You instead use lack of information as building blocks to construct
with. I merely observe the activity and see it for what it is, and it has
nothing to do with "history", or "truth" or "investigation" or whatever
else you want to wrap it up in. It a diversionary tactic to divert
attention from Oswald`s activities. If you have the IQ of an OJ juror,
these things will work, some people will get distracted by the pretty
lights and not notice that you aren`t actually producing anything.
> Well sorry, Bud. The game's over here now. The JFK assassination
> is ancient history, gaps in the story and all. So it's interpreted as
> such. As far as Mexico City is concerned, we know what the CIA said, we
> know why their version is implausible, and we wind up with the best
> possible explanation for it.
We know you don`t like the explanation given, and we know you can
question the official explanations, and we know you can devise an
explanation you like better. This isn`t a historical approach, it`s
intellectual masturbation. If you want to believe there is evidence of
life on Mars, shadows thrown by rocks will do.
> It's far from incredibly complex. It boils down to sending
> incomplete info on Oswald back to MC and a bunch of false statements made
> by people like Helms regarding broken cameras and erased tapes, stuff they
> never had to substantiate beyond simply saying it. Statements that hardy
> historians like yourself never batted an eye over or felt the need to hold
> anyone accountable for.
How does your "liar, liar pants on fire" approach differ in real terms
from my benign indifference? Are you really closer to the truth, or have
you just followed a red herring up a blind alley to nowhere? If you are
somewhere, wave to me and I`ll come over and take a look, but you have to
have something to actually show me, don`t waste my time like numerous
CTers in the past have if you have nothing to show.
> > >or dismiss out of hand
> > > other things because it was so long ago and nothing can really be done
> > > about it ("Oh sure, I know there were some autopsy photos of JFK that have
> > > been missing for years, but oh well, they're not here so there's nothing
> > > that I can do or say about it!")
>
> > If these autopsy photos did exist, who took them, where did they go?
> > When you have nothing to go on, where can you go?
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> We know that there were photos of Kennedy's original head wound
> (before it moved up the backside of his skull 4 inches), photos of the
> inner chest, metal rod pics, etc. We know they existed and we know that
> now they don't. That's a fact, not open to debate any more.
Really? Do you have photos of these photos?
> For example,
> Finck directed Stringer to take a photo of the rear head wound (w/
> beveling) and he did as he was told. To this day Finck sticks to that low
> entry wound and--whoah guess what!--Stringer was never deposed by the WC!
> The autopsy photographer! Oh my, what a shock!
I`m sure one of the hundreds of conspiracy book authors must have
interviewed him. What did he say?
> That's an important fact. If you can't understand the importance
> of the missing pictures there's no need to talk to you really. Obviously
> we can't examine those pictures, but you can't erase the whole idea of
> them, as you would like to do. An explanation for what happened to them
> is deserved, but since we're never going to get one, the best possible
> explanation for them is that they show someting other than the WC's muder
> scenario.
Better for you when the evidence is missing, eh? Like playing poker
with a wild card, you can make it into anything you like. Can`t do this
with evidence in evidence, it curtails your imagination and you are stuck
with what it actually shows. But wait, if it shows something you don`t
like, you can say it`s faked, and then you can trump the evidence that can
be seen and considered with evidence that is unseen that can`t be
considered.
> Does that mean Oswald didn't take his gun to work and shoot at
> Kennedy? No. And sure, if the photos miraculously returned from whatever
> black hole they went into and showed nothing spectacular I would be the
> first to say so. But their absence, and silence, speaks very loudly.
>
> LN's cavlier treatment of these pictures is a joke. It's key
> evidence. If--heaven forbid--photos depicting wounds on someone you cared
> about went missing like this you'd be out of your mind. But not here,
> since this is the JFK case and all you have to do is win an argument.
Can you show any of the Kennedy clan going out of their minds over
these supposed missing photos?
> > > In those kinds of areas, LNs become willfully ignorant.
>
> > Speak intelligently on that the cameras at the embassy were working,
> > or where the autopsy photos you mention went. If you can`t, you are
> > ignorant.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Errrrah....think I already did that.
"intelligently" With authority, knowledge, insight. Make you case that
the cameras were working and that pictures were taken of Oswald. Explain
why the CIA, who said Oswald went to Mexico City, would hide evidence that
Oswald went to Mexico City. Or speak intelligently on where these supposed
autopsy photos went, who took them and when.
> > > While it is
> > > true that many CTs often go to the other extreme, assigning great
> > > importance to every little unknown, LNs simply ignore all of them.
>
> > Unknown information takes you nowhere.
>
> > > But
> > > that's just being a really really bad armchair historian.
>
> > Historians don`t sit around filling in the blanks with speculation,
> > they don`t engage in the creative exercise CTers do.
>
> > > Every
> > > historical event has unexplained avenues whose resolution could contribute
> > > greatly to what the "truth" of the matter was.
>
> > Only information can shed light, not speculation.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> LOL. Historians don't speculate. Holy macaroni.
>
> In reality, they do all the time. But for me, in this particular
> instance, I'm not filling in the blanks with unmovable facts. I'm filling
> in the blanks with the best possible explanation for what is unknown. It
> can change if new info is found. I just don't think it's going to in this
> case.
Do you see a bunch of people filling in the blanks with answers they
like best to be a meaningful exercise? Do you see this as movement towards
the truth? I bet you do.
Bill Kelly
> BUD SAID:
>
> >>> "For one thing, way too much attention has been given to conspiracy
>
> theorists and WC critics. For another, CTers sites aren`t worth reading
> because they have nothing to say. Once you question that Oswald shot
> Kennedy, you`ve identified yourself as someone not worth listening to."
> <<<
>
>
> It looks like Bud is striving to reach my "Quoting Common Sense" hall-
> of-fame.
>
> http://Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com
Bud, do you really believe that once you question that Oswald shot
Kennedy, you've identified yourself as someone not worth listening
to?
And DVP wants to give you a common sense award for thinking that way?
Common sense tells me that if Oswald is tied to the mail order
assassination weapon by an alias when he could have bought a better
rifle with cash at any department store in Dallas with no records of
the transaction at all, then he was framed for the crime.
And Bud, you think Oswald killed JFK? Then what was the motive again?
Or your not interested in motive or learning any more since you know
that he did it?
Thanks,
BK
David Von Pein
>>> "Common sense tells me that if Oswald is tied to the mail order
assassination weapon by an alias when he could have bought a better rifle
with cash at any department store in Dallas with no records of the
transaction at all, then he was framed for the crime." <<<
But Oswald didn't buy the rifle with the intention of killing President
Kennedy with it, Bill. That fact is obvious, because he purchased his
mail-order rifle in MARCH, months before Kennedy's Dallas trip was even on
the books.
Oswald very likely bought the rifle to kill General Walker with it. And it
just so happens that the gun came in handy for another murder attempt on
another political figure in November too.
Also.....
I'd like to know if conspiracists are right when they say that Oswald
could have walked into any gun shop or department store in Texas in 1963
and bought a gun that could never be traced?
No paperwork was required at a gun shop in Texas in '63? No signature from
the purchaser? Nothing? Just grab the gun and run?
I'm not saying that perhaps that wasn't how it worked in Texas gun stores,
circa 1963, but I'm just wondering if it really was that cut-&-
dried--even back in '63? I've never really ever seen that confirmed
anywhere (that I can think of).
Could that be just another of the many conspiracy myths that we've been
saddled with since the JFK assassination--with Oliver Stone giving it a
handy push in his blockbuster movie too?
I just wonder.
~~Thinking about the "Benavides' Brother" myth that was destroyed
recently, with Domingo's brother really being killed in 1965, not 1964~~
Bud
> On Jul 16, 6:13 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > BUD SAID:
>
> > >>> "For one thing, way too much attention has been given to conspiracy
>
> > theorists and WC critics. For another, CTers sites aren`t worth reading
> > because they have nothing to say. Once you question that Oswald shot
> > Kennedy, you`ve identified yourself as someone not worth listening to."
> > <<<
>
> > DVP SAYS:
>
> > It looks like Bud is striving to reach my "Quoting Common Sense" hall-
> > of-fame.
>
> >http://Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com
>
> Bud, do you really believe that once you question that Oswald shot
> Kennedy, you've identified yourself as someone not worth listening
> to?
Of course. There is almost as much evidence that Oswald shot Kennedy
as there is evidence that Kennedy got shot.
> And DVP wants to give you a common sense award for thinking that way?
>
> Common sense tells me that if Oswald is tied to the mail order
> assassination weapon by an alias when he could have bought a better
> rifle with cash at any department store in Dallas with no records of
> the transaction at all, then he was framed for the crime.
<snicker> This is common sense to you? You disregard a mass of evidence
because you think you have a better way he could have done it?
If the rifle is in the hands of the authorities, it has likely already
served Oswald`s purpose for it, successfully or not. The problem is that
you think of Oswald as trying to avoid conviction when you should be
thinking of him primarily concerned with succeeding in his plans.
Obviously Oswald felt getting a rifle under a different name through the
mail helped his chances of success.
I`m not sure your claim that there is no record made when purchasing a
rifle in 1963 Dallas. In any case, if Oswald is forced to discard the
weapon, it`s easily traced to where it was sold. If you think this makes
for an impossible connection to the person who purchased the weapon, I`d
say you are likely wrong.
> And Bud, you think Oswald killed JFK? Then what was the motive again?
What difference does it make, political, delusional, ect. It isn`t like
I can kill someone, and if I don`t say why I can`t be convicted.
> Or your not interested in motive or learning any more since you know
> that he did it?
Right.
> Thanks,
>
> BK
Jean Davison
Once again I ask, what's the evidence that a rifle could've been
bought in Dallas "with no records"? And again, here's an affidavit
from a gun dealer in Dallas that I posted in another thread, with my
emphasis this time:
QUOTE
>>>>
PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY
STATE OF TEXAS,
County of Dallas, ss:
I, Albert C. Yeargan. Jr. 1922 Mayflower Drive, Dallas, Texas, being
duly sworn say:
1. I was the Sporting Goods Department Manager at the H. L. Green
Company, 1623 Main Street, Dallas. Texas. from the Summer of 1963
until March 13, 1964. I am now employed by Smitty's Sporting Goods,
111 West Jefferson Avenue, Dallas, Texas.
2. When I worked for the H. L. Green Company, it had in stock and was
offering for sale, a large number of Italian 6.5 mm rifles that were
surpluses from World War II.
3. On November 22, 1963, FBI Agents, Secret Service Agents, and I
examined all ***sales records and receipt records*** concerning
Italian 6.5
mm rifles.
4. The records showed that the H. L. Green Company obtained its supply
of these Italian 6.5 mm rifles from the Crescent Firearms Company in
New York City.
5. A review of all of the ***records*** failed to reflect any
***record of sale***
of a 6.5 mm rifle with the Serial Number C2766.
6. ****As far as I know, the H. L. Green Company was at that time the
only
Company in Dallas that handled any quantity of these Italian 6.5 mm
rifles.****
Signed the 21st day of July 1964.
(S) Albert C. Yeargan, Jr.,
ALBERT C. YEARGAN. Jr.
>>>>
UNQUOTE
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/yeargan.htm
Jean
David Von Pein
Something rather remarkable happened this morning (July 21, 2010),
concerning three separate posts made by three different LNers --
myself, Bud, and Jean Davison.
In the very same aaj thread, there are three consecutive posts made by
those three aforementioned LNers, which all bring up the very same
thing concerning the question of whether it would have been possible
for Lee Harvey Oswald (or anyone) to have walked into a Texas gun
store in 1963 and bought a rifle which could never be traced (which is
the claim we constantly hear being made by conspiracy theorists, such
as in Oliver Stone's 1991 movie "JFK", which contains a scene that has
Jim Garrison and one of his investigators talking about how Oswald
could have gone into a Texas gun shop and walked out with a rifle that
could never be traced).
Anyway, I just thought that this was somewhat of a remarkable
coincidence today, to have three different people bringing up the
exact same thing regarding this potential "conspiracy myth" concerning
Texas gun shops and so-called untraceable weapons.
And another odd part about this "triple" post is the fact that (as far
as I can recall) this subject of challenging the CTers about this
potential myth regarding gun shops hasn't really come up very much at
JFK forums in the past.
In fact, it's been during just the last two or three days that I had
started thinking about this subject myself, and I started wondering if
the CTers were right, or if it was just another unfounded myth.
Below are the three posts that I was referring to, which appear back-
to-back in this aaj thread over an 8-hour time period on July 21,
2010.
I wonder if DVP, Bud, and Jean will now be accused of comparing notes
before posting messages on the newsgroup? Or maybe we'll all be
accused by some of the conspiracy theorists of being the very same
person.
=====================================
"I'd like to know if conspiracists are right when they say that
Oswald could have walked into any gun shop or department store in
Texas in 1963 and bought a gun that could never be traced?
"No paperwork was required at a gun shop in Texas in '63? No
signature from the purchaser? Nothing? Just grab the gun and run?
"I'm not saying that perhaps that wasn't how it worked in Texas
gun stores, circa 1963, but I'm just wondering if it really was that
cut-&-dried--even back in '63? I've never really ever seen that
confirmed anywhere (that I can think of).
"Could that be just another of the many conspiracy myths that
we've been saddled with since the JFK assassination--with Oliver Stone
giving it a handy push in his blockbuster movie too? I just wonder.
"~~Thinking about the "Benavides' Brother" myth that was
destroyed recently, with Domingo's brother really being killed in
1965, not 1964~~" -- DVP; 7/21/10; 12:24 AM EDT
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/2d55d21d970ad0f3
=====================================
"I'm not sure your claim that there is no record made when
purchasing a rifle in 1963 Dallas [is true?]. In any case, if Oswald
is forced to discard the weapon, it's easily traced to where it was
sold. If you think this makes for an impossible connection to the
person who purchased the weapon, I'd say you are likely wrong." --
Bud; 7/21/10; 12:25 AM EDT
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/6e38cb6847e5d2ee
=====================================
"Once again I ask, what's the evidence that a rifle could've
been bought in Dallas "with no records"?" -- Jean Davison; 7/21/10;
8:34 AM EDT
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/c48f641f72e2fd0d
=====================================
Bud
> >>> "Common sense tells me that if Oswald is tied to the mail order
>
> assassination weapon by an alias when he could have bought a better rifle
> with cash at any department store in Dallas with no records of the
> transaction at all, then he was framed for the crime." <<<
>
> But Oswald didn't buy the rifle with the intention of killing President
> Kennedy with it, Bill. That fact is obvious, because he purchased his
> mail-order rifle in MARCH, months before Kennedy's Dallas trip was even on
> the books.
>
> Oswald very likely bought the rifle to kill General Walker with it. And it
> just so happens that the gun came in handy for another murder attempt on
> another political figure in November too.
>
> Also.....
>
> I'd like to know if conspiracists are right when they say that Oswald
> could have walked into any gun shop or department store in Texas in 1963
> and bought a gun that could never be traced?
>
> No paperwork was required at a gun shop in Texas in '63? No signature from
> the purchaser? Nothing? Just grab the gun and run?
This according to an article written by Josephine Ripley for the
Science Cristian Monitor that appeared Nov. 26th, 1963.
"But there are nine which require registration or license to
purchase firearms. Texas is one of those states."
You have to pay to get the whole article.
I wonder why Bill Kelly is so eager to jump to the amazing
conclusion that Oswald was framed?
> I'm not saying that perhaps that wasn't how it worked in Texas gun stores,
> circa 1963, but I'm just wondering if it really was that cut-&-
> dried--even back in '63? I've never really ever seen that confirmed
> anywhere (that I can think of).
>
> Could that be just another of the many conspiracy myths that we've been
> saddled with since the JFK assassination--with Oliver Stone giving it a
> handy push in his blockbuster movie too?
>
> I just wonder.
Of course it is. There are thousands of CTers spending thousands of
hours trying to think up reasons why Oswald is innocent. When they
have an idea like this, it doesn`t occur to them to check it out and
see whether the idea has merit, they just run with it. Then it gets
repeated by scores of other CTers, none of which are interested enough
in the truth to check it out. If the idea sounds good to them, they
buy into it, in their desperation to believe Oswald is innocent.
bigdog
> On Jul 16, 6:13 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > BUD SAID:
>
> > >>> "For one thing, way too much attention has been given to conspiracy
>
> > theorists and WC critics. For another, CTers sites aren`t worth reading
> > because they have nothing to say. Once you question that Oswald shot
> > Kennedy, you`ve identified yourself as someone not worth listening to."
> > <<<
>
> > DVP SAYS:
>
> > It looks like Bud is striving to reach my "Quoting Common Sense" hall-
> > of-fame.
>
> >http://Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com
>
> Bud, do you really believe that once you question that Oswald shot
> Kennedy, you've identified yourself as someone not worth listening
> to?
>
If you are still wondering at this late date whether Oswald shot
Kennedy, you most certainly have identified yourself as someone not
worth listening to. That's like wondering if the earth is really
round.
> And DVP wants to give you a common sense award for thinking that way?
>
> Common sense tells me that if Oswald is tied to the mail order
> assassination weapon by an alias when he could have bought a better
> rifle with cash at any department store in Dallas with no records of
> the transaction at all, then he was framed for the crime.
>
I'd like to see the logic path that took you to that conclusion. When
Oswald bought the rifle, he had no idea he was going to use it to kill
JFK. Yes, he could have paid cash for a rifle at a Dallas store. More cash
then he shelled out for the MC. Oswald didn't have a lot of money. He
bought the MC because it was war surplus and cheap.
Does your common sense tell you that somebody was already trying to frame
Oswald for a crime back in March when the rifle was purchased? Does common
sense tell you this plot was already in the works, before JFK had
committed to making a trip to Texas and before Oswald got his job at the
TSBD?
> And Bud, you think Oswald killed JFK? Then what was the motive again?
> Or your not interested in motive or learning any more since you know
> that he did it?
>
Why do we need to know the motive? We know the guy did it. We don't need
to know why he did it. He never admitted to the crime and so never told
anybody why he did it. It would be nice to know, but hardly necessary. We
are never going to know what his motive was.
bigdog
Federal gun laws require dealers to keep a record of firearm purchases
(form 4473) as well as a log book of firearm purchases. When a dealer goes
out of business, he is required to turn the log book over to the BATFE.
The federal government does not keep a record of firearms purchases as
that would amount to gun registration. A weapon believed to have been used
in a crime can be traced back from manufacturer to the distributor to the
dealer who will have a record of who bought the gun. These requirements
were established by the Gun Control Act of 1968. Based on the above
affadavit, it appears similar record keeping was required prior to 1968.
tomnln
SEE>>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:7ef647fd-145d-4b0f...@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
SEE>>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/testimony.htm (First Testimony)
"Jean Davison" <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f839a59-a937-4bbe...@f33g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...