Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk, alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com>
Date: 15 Oct 2012 13:52:14 -0400
Local: Mon, Oct 15 2012 1:52 pm
Subject: Re: Battling Another CTer (Re: "Reclaiming History")
On Oct 14, 10:53 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 3:03 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:If indicative, how on earth is it going to help or hinder a lone
> > > > On Oct 12, 9:10 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Oct 11, 10:45 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Oct 11, 11:05 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Oct 10, 4:15 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Oct 8, 9:03 pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > This is similar to me. I'm still waiting, and waiting, and waiting for
> > > > > > > > First, most people wouldn't get involved with such a question. What does
> > > > > > > It wouldn`t "prove" anything.
> > > > > > True.
> > > > > So why set the bar where it can`t be reached?
> > > > I didn't set it.
> > > Yah, you did. You introduced "prove", as though if it couldn`t prove
> > Reading comprehension is mandantory. If one can't prove what they
> Wrong. It might not in and of itself prove something, but it can be
gunman or different shooters scenario?
> > That's whatThtat's like having a class instructor teaching how a square peg fits
> > I asserted and have stuck by.
> Yes, the wrong approach. I`m trying to teach you the right approach.
in a round hole, right?
> > > > The LNT'er did! He's bringing in statistics that areWhy would it, since the 90% that have chosen one location (more or
> > > > virtually meaningless. I am saying it's not going to help a lonegunman
> > > > scenario, if that's what he was after.
> > > How could it not be useful to determine what the evidence indicates?
> > Do you even know what he asserted???? You seem to be lost. He stated
> You really need me to explain to you that an overwhelming majority
less), have not one location they stated, but merely one of two?
> > > > > > It would indicate a single shootingIf you think you are in a thread to say the likelihood of all the
> > > > > > > location/direction.
> > > > > > It may, but it might also suggest different spots as their answers are
> > > > > The sound of where people thought the shots originated from is more
> > > > it should be significant if a person was just starting to look at the case
> > > But see, you aren`t getting where the shots originated from from the
> > Well the quality of their listening is something a court would decide,
> Why are you still scratching around for ways to rehabilitate this
shots came from one building, and one spot in the building, then I
contend you are entirely mush.
> >And if it wasn't thought of being relevant, theyRight, that the people fired upon were hit from two different
> > wouldn't have asked the questions at their hearings, would they?
> They asked because some were right. Their impressions were borne out
directions. Well done, Bud.
> > > > Let me guess who...lol.it might be wrong in the grand scheme of things, but their hearing
> > > > > > > > What is meant by direction?
> > > > > > > It means from where the person was to where the person thought the
> > > > > > > > You mean from one building or next
> > > > > > > Many indicated a particular building.
> > > > > > See above
> > > > > > > > How about within one building but different places?
> > > > > > > Echoes sound different than the shot.
> > > > > > IF they do, are they part of the shot that people are describing? Is an
> > > > > Possibly when someone hears a loud report from an unknown source
> > > > So where are you going to try to fit this in, in your grand scheme of
> > > I don`t need to, the evidence is clear that the impressions of where
> > Why is it necessarily erroneous?
> Because it isn`t unanmous. One thing happened, differing accounts of
might have been correct. Where they were positioned or they type of
gunfire that was loud, was only capable of hearing what they heard.
> > Isn't it only your opinion as aWere the ones that said shots were from the GK even standing outside
> > armchair quarterback, and nothing else?
> No, it`s a fact. Some of the witness *must* be wrong. In this case
the TSBD were just wrong by 'your' standards?
> > > > > > > > Maybe it was a conspiracy not to ask suchBut 'facts' have been argued on this case for many years, so the
> > > > > > > > a necessary question, eh?
> > > > > > > Why would such a question be necessary?
> > > > > > Because more penetrating questions may have ensued, and possible more
> > > > > You are trying to firm up mush. It would still be mush.
> > > > You must be afraid of them coming up with stuff that would go against
> > > That doesn`t surprise me that that is all you can think of.
> > It's just merely hypothetical. Is there anything that makes that
> The fact that it is backed up by facts.
'facts' aren't quite on the same page as the other 'facts.'
> > > > What else would you be afraid of?No, I think I did quite understand, but I am having a problem of your
> > > Why are you afraid of assessing information realistically? If it is
> > Are you saying witnesses are wrong because of some wayout bounce
> Are you incapable of understanding what I did say?
theory being somehow 'bonafide'.
> > Do you have any possible means to negate witness quality byIf you have experts other than yourself here, we would surely be
> > the introduction of such a theory?
> You really are afraid to assess witness supplied information
interested in how you might bounce things around...:)
> > > Instead of trying to squeeze something of value from theI have no idea, I just put the headphones on. But perhaps the people
> > > earwitnesses shouldn`t you first try to determine how well people do
> > > at determining the direction of sound in an area with soft and hard
> > > surfaces when they don`t see the source of the sound?
> > What does soft and hard surfaces have anything to do with anything?
> You are showing your ignorance of how sound operates. Soft surfaces
that were in-between were not affected by this bouncing as they were
between the soft grasses and hard buildings. But the
trees..hmmm...are they hard or soft?
> > > > > > > >Two different sounding weapons would mean deathOh noit necessarily. My witnesses were on the ground for a long time,
> > > > > > > > for a Lone Gunman theory, wouldn't it?
> > > > > > > Of course not. When a witness offers what something sound like, or
> > > > > > Yes, but if enough were asked and they came up with different sounds
> > > > > Little could be established regardless of the approach. You are trying
> > > > So when there is a shooting, no sound should ever be part of any
> > > It`s mush, of very little evidential value. If sound makes someone
> > Say there was a bank robbery with a few people doing the heist. More
> Thats a stupid analogy, they would see and know where the robbers doing
whilst the robbers too a long time to rob, going everywhich way in the
bank for a good time.
> was coming from the parking lot, but spent shells were found inside theNo spent shells allowed.
> bank, then the physical evidence would kick the hell out of the
> impressions of the witnesses cowering on the floor.
> > > Lets put it this way, in the Beltway sniper case, they pretty muchWell good. It didn't look promising for you anyway.
> > > now know where Malvo and the other clown were when they did their
> > > shooting. If they reviewed the witness supplied information and some
> > > witnesses indicated the shots came from somewhere else, should they
> > > ignore Malvo and look for other shooters?
> > I'm not sure how this would relate.
> I didn`t expect you would, it really wasn`t aimed at you, my target
> > Were these two people very closeNo, I meant for shooting purposes. And he thinks he is thinking..
> > together you speak of?
> By close do you mean proximity or as pertaining to a relationship?
> > > > > > > > I surely would have asked it theI think of it more like a kerfuffle.
> > > > > > > > sounds of firecrackers or backfires were thought of to be shots. And too
> > > > > > > > when some answers are so ambiguous like the west side of the GK or the
> > > > > > > > west side of the TSBD, couldn't it be thought of two different places as
> > > > > > > > the areas are so close together? And what about the people that heard two
> > > > > > > > shots? Are their directions more likely to be off, since the questioner
> > > > > > > > likes a 3 shot theory?
> > > > > > > Aren`t you likely to dismiss any information that supports a three
> > > > > > Not necessarily as i wouldn't dismss the people that heard 2 shots because
> > > > > Consult Occam, no silencers are needed to explain what occurred.
> > > > Weapons don't care about Occam. What about the people who died by the
> > > You are imagining silencers because your ideas require them. But
> > I don't have to imagine. They are a bona fide way of shooting
> So is a blunderbuss.
> > If there was a conpiracy potential, wouldn't using silencersNot at all. There were many descriptions of sounds, and there were
> > be of benefit if the conpirators wanted to keep things at a surprise,
> > and mask the potential of the amount of gunmen that might be in on the
> > shooting?
> As I said, your evidence for silencers is that your ideas require
descriptions of even a flurry of bullets hitting the limo by the
driver. Any weapon should be considered.
> > > > > > > > And shouldn't the questioners ask about their gunHe likely was approaching DP between the TSBD and the GK. They were
> > > > > > > > abilities when taking an oath? I believe A.J. Millican and Brennan's
> > > > > > > > boss, Speaker were way off offering so many bullets when positioned
> > > > > > > > between the two places that received the most consideration,
> > > > > > > Speaker wasn`t even in Dealey Plaza.> when they did
> > > > > > I believe if correct he was just arriving which was close enough for him
> > > > > Nearly 200 people actually in Dealey, whats one more opinion more or
> > > > Well there were two major sources for where the shooting directions
> > > There were witnesses between the TSBD and the grassy knoll, but you
> > No, as he was a half a block away. That's not too far. And can you
> In order for him to be between the grassy knoll and the TSBD he
> > > >would have more to observe and especiallyFor the thinking man, I would consider that a given.
> > > > if they were adept in hearing shots like a Sandy Speaker.
> > > You have no idea how adept Speaker is/was at determining the
> > He said he was a combat Marine veteran of WWII, and that he knows what
> Can you show that a person with Speaker`s credentials is more adept
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.