Stuff Recently Added To DVP's Sites

[David Von Pein]

JICAGAH*,

Here are some new things I've added to some of my websites in recent
weeks:

http://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2012/12/kennedy-gallery-276.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/12/assassination-photos-cbs-nbc-abc.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/11/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-80.html

http://classic--movies.blogspot.com/2012/12/thirteen-days.html

http://classic--movies.blogspot.com/2012/12/ruby-and-oswald.html

http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/10/cincinnati-reds-index.html

http://classic--movies.blogspot.com/2012/09/9-11.html

* = Just In Case Anybody Gives A Hoot :-)

[elpdr...@gmail.com]

Thanks, Dave. Awesome, as usual. It would really be something if the
video footage were as clean and sharp as the captures from them can be. I
am hoping that someday, technology will provide a way for this.

[John Fiorentino]

David:

You are one of the best! I mean that sincerely.

It's because of people like you that I hang around here and annoy
everybody.

KUDOS as usual.

PS........Hello to my good friend Steve!


John F.



<elpdr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6fef65b9-26eb-4e58...@googlegroups.com...

[David Von Pein]

A few more (including some HD photos of Dealey Plaza):

http://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2012/06/kennedy-gallery-087.html

http://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2012/11/kennedy-gallery-267.html

http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2012/12/john-f-kennedy-june-14-1962.html

http://old-time-radio-shows.blogspot.com/2011/06/mercury-theatre.html

[David Von Pein]

http://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2012/12/kennedy-gallery-280.html

[David Von Pein]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/12/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-296.html

[hmalt...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 5:47:35 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> http://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2012/12/kennedy-gallery-280.html

Wasn't the "Lincoln Bedroom" actually Lincoln's office?

with appreciation,
Harry Maltravers

[hmalt...@gmail.com]

For the record, i give a hoot.

Oops. I got "Thirteen Days" confused with "Seven Days in May"--I think
that's the correct title of the flick in which Burt Lancaster attempts a
coup to take over the government.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "I got "Thirteen Days" confused with "Seven Days in May"." <<<

Never fear. I've got a page for that one too:

http://classic--movies.blogspot.com/2011/07/seven-days-in-may.html

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/18/2012 8:47 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> http://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2012/12/kennedy-gallery-280.html
>

Also look for the TV Special “A White House Christmas: First Families
Remember.”

http://www.nbcudirect.com/jenna-bush-shares-white-house-christmas-memories/

[Anthony Marsh]

But I wonder if you'd have the guts to post this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6YLVOjTcHg

I often cite it when cover-up artists say that there was no need for an
assassination conspiracy because they could have simply waited for the
election and voted JFK out of office.
Interesting side note. JFK read Seven Days in May and told a friend that
he knew a General like that.

Seven Days in May
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Seven Days in May

Theatrical release poster
Directed by John Frankenheimer
Produced by John Frankenheimer
Edward Lewis
Written by Novel:
Fletcher Knebel
Charles W. Bailey II
Screenplay:
Rod Serling
Starring Burt Lancaster
Kirk Douglas
Fredric March
Ava Gardner
Edmond O'Brien
Music by Jerry Goldsmith
Cinematography Ellsworth Fredericks
Editing by Ferris Webster
Distributed by Paramount Pictures (original release)
Warner Bros. (current rights holders)
Release date(s) February 12, 1964
(Washington, D.C. premiere)
Running time 118 minutes
Country United States
Language English
Budget $2.2 million (est.)

Seven Days in May is an American political thriller novel written by
Fletcher Knebel and Charles W. Bailey II which was published in 1962. It
was made into a motion picture and released in February 1964, with a
screenplay by Rod Serling, directed by John Frankenheimer, and starring
Burt Lancaster, Kirk Douglas, Fredric March, and Ava Gardner.

The story is said to have been influenced by the right-wing
anti-Communist political activities of General Edwin A. Walker after he
resigned from the military. An additional inspiration was provided by
the 1961 interview by Knebel, who was also a political journalist and
columnist, conducted with the newly-appointed Air Force Chief of Staff,
Curtis LeMay, an advocate of preventive first-strike nuclear option.

President John F. Kennedy had read the novel and believed the scenario
as described could actually occur in the United States. According to
Frankenheimer in his director's commentary, production of the film
received encouragement and assistance from Kennedy through White House
Press Secretary Pierre Salinger, who conveyed to Frankenheimer Kennedy's
wish that the film be produced and that, although the Pentagon did not
want the film made, the President would conveniently arrange to visit
Hyannis Port for a weekend when the film needed to shoot outside the
White House.

One of Kennedy's friends, Paul Fay, Jr., wrote in his book The Pleasure
of His Company how one summer weekend in 1962, one of Kennedy's friends
bought Knebel's book to his attention, and Kennedy read the book that night.

The next day, Kennedy discussed the plot with friends, who wanted to
know if Kennedy felt such a scenario was possible. Bear in mind this was
after the Bay of Pigs but before the Cuban Missile Crisis.

"It's possible," Kennedy acknowledged. "It could happen in this country,
but the conditions would have to be just right. If, for example, the
country had a young President, and he had a Bay of Pigs, there would be
a certain uneasiness.

“Maybe the military would do a little criticizing behind his back, but
this would be written off as the usual military dissatisfaction with
civilian control. Then if there were another Bay of Pigs, the reaction
of the country would be, 'Is he too young and inexperienced?'

“The military would almost feel that it was their patriotic obligation
to stand ready to preserve the integrity of the nation, and only God
knows just what segment of democracy they would be defending if they
overthrew the elected establishment."

After a moment, Kennedy continued. "Then, if there were a third Bay of
Pigs, it could happen."

Kennedy wanted the public to understand the threat to the presidency,
and encouraged the film's director and longtime Kennedy friend John
Frankenheimer to make the film "as a warning to the Republic."

[David Von Pein]

Tony,

All of that stuff about "Seven Days In May" is interesting, but of
course it has no bearing on the way JFK died.

In case you didn't know, Tony, the assassination of John F. Kennedy
was NOT a military coup to take over the U.S. Government. It was the
result of a lone gunman who had already pointed a gun at a political
figure several months before Kennedy went to Dallas.

I wonder why so many people continue to ignore the significance of the
General Walker shooting, which establishes the following chilling fact
that nearly all conspiracy theorists will ignore or distort for all
time:

LEE OSWALD WAS, IN EFFECT, ALREADY A MURDERER PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 22,
1963.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/12/edwin-walker-and-lee-harvey-oswald.html

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/20/2012 12:47 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> Tony,
>
> All of that stuff about "Seven Days In May" is interesting, but of
> course it has no bearing on the way JFK died.
>
> In case you didn't know, Tony, the assassination of John F. Kennedy
> was NOT a military coup to take over the U.S. Government. It was the
> result of a lone gunman who had already pointed a gun at a political
> figure several months before Kennedy went to Dallas.
>

In case you didn't know, General Scott, I never said that the
assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy was a military coup to take
over the United States Government. Can you explain how a military coup
could be designed to NOT take over the U.S. Government?
It was not the result of a lone gunman. It was ruled a conspiracy. We
won, you lost. Now, get over it and move on.

> I wonder why so many people continue to ignore the significance of the
> General Walker shooting, which establishes the following chilling fact
> that nearly all conspiracy theorists will ignore or distort for all
> time:
>

How come I am the only one continually bringing up the Walker shooting?
Why don't you have a page devoted to it?

> LEE OSWALD WAS, IN EFFECT, ALREADY A MURDERER PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 22,
> 1963.
>

That is why he shot Tippit. Cover-up artists ask why Oswald would shoot
Tippit if he was innocent? He wasn't. He was guilty of attempted murder.
That's why he was afraid of the police.

> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/12/edwin-walker-and-lee-harvey-oswald.html
>

[David Emerling]

On Thursday, December 20, 2012 10:33:57 AM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:

>
> It was not the result of a lone gunman. It was ruled a conspiracy. We
>
> won, you lost. Now, get over it and move on.

It was ruled a conspiracy? No doubt you are referring to the HSCA
conclusion of a "probable conspiracy". Right?

What always interests me is how so many conspiracy theorists chide the
Warren Commission's conclusion because it was a government-sponsored
investigation. The WC ruled that there was "no evidence of a conspiracy".
And then we have the HSCA, another government investigation that ruled a
"probable conspiracy". They embrace the latter and reject the former
conclusion, seemingly oblivious that BOTH were US government
investigations.

Do you also agree with the HSCA's conclusion that Oswald fired all the
shots that struck President Kennedy and Governor Connally?

Do you also agree with the HSCA's conclusion that the shot fired from the
grassy knoll was a complete miss?

Do you also agree with the subsequent conclusion that the most pivotal
piece of evidence used for their conspiracy conclusion (the acoustical
evidence) was determined severely flawed?

How convenient to cherry-pick your conclusions - even if they do not fit
into any discernible scheme.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/10/2013 11:40 PM, David Emerling wrote:
> On Thursday, December 20, 2012 10:33:57 AM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>>
>> It was not the result of a lone gunman. It was ruled a conspiracy. We
>>
>> won, you lost. Now, get over it and move on.
>
> It was ruled a conspiracy? No doubt you are referring to the HSCA
> conclusion of a "probable conspiracy". Right?
>
> What always interests me is how so many conspiracy theorists chide the
> Warren Commission's conclusion because it was a government-sponsored
> investigation. The WC ruled that there was "no evidence of a conspiracy".

No, as Ford explained they did not say categorically that there was no
conspiracy, just that they could not find evidence of a conspiracy.

> And then we have the HSCA, another government investigation that ruled a
> "probable conspiracy". They embrace the latter and reject the former
> conclusion, seemingly oblivious that BOTH were US government
> investigations.
>
> Do you also agree with the HSCA's conclusion that Oswald fired all the
> shots that struck President Kennedy and Governor Connally?
>

No, we've been through this before.

> Do you also agree with the HSCA's conclusion that the shot fired from the
> grassy knoll was a complete miss?
>

No, the two scientists who analyzed that shot said it hit.

> Do you also agree with the subsequent conclusion that the most pivotal
> piece of evidence used for their conspiracy conclusion (the acoustical
> evidence) was determined severely flawed?
>

No, I was the first person to refute the Ramsey Panel.

> How convenient to cherry-pick your conclusions - even if they do not fit
> into any discernible scheme.
>

Juvenile.

> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 1/11/13 12:18 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 1/10/2013 11:40 PM, David Emerling wrote:
>> On Thursday, December 20, 2012 10:33:57 AM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It was not the result of a lone gunman. It was ruled a conspiracy. We
>>>
>>> won, you lost. Now, get over it and move on.
>>
>> It was ruled a conspiracy? No doubt you are referring to the HSCA
>> conclusion of a "probable conspiracy". Right?
>>
>> What always interests me is how so many conspiracy theorists chide the
>> Warren Commission's conclusion because it was a government-sponsored
>> investigation. The WC ruled that there was "no evidence of a conspiracy".
>
> No, as Ford explained they did not say categorically that there was no
> conspiracy, just that they could not find evidence of a conspiracy.
>
>> And then we have the HSCA, another government investigation that ruled a
>> "probable conspiracy". They embrace the latter and reject the former
>> conclusion, seemingly oblivious that BOTH were US government
>> investigations.
>>
>> Do you also agree with the HSCA's conclusion that Oswald fired all the
>> shots that struck President Kennedy and Governor Connally?
>>
>
> No, we've been through this before.
>
>> Do you also agree with the HSCA's conclusion that the shot fired from the
>> grassy knoll was a complete miss?
>>
>
> No, the two scientists who analyzed that shot said it hit.
>

Where did they say that?
And where, exactly, are they supposed to have said it it?
I believe your sole source for this allegation is a newspaper article
that came out before the scientists' report was released, and that the
reporter says that they said the bullet would have landed "in the
vicinity of" the presidential motorcade.

(I'm also quite sure, of course, that it doesn't matter what they said
about a bullet that didn't exist, based on an experiment whose premises
were fatally flawed and a recording that was not made in Dealey Plaza at
the moment of the assassination.)

/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

In the George Lardner interview which appeared in the Washington Post on
Dec.22, 1978.

> And where, exactly, are they supposed to have said it it?
> I believe your sole source for this allegation is a newspaper article
> that came out before the scientists' report was released, and that the
> reporter says that they said the bullet would have landed "in the
> vicinity of" the presidential motorcade.
>
> (I'm also quite sure, of course, that it doesn't matter what they said
> about a bullet that didn't exist, based on an experiment whose premises
> were fatally flawed and a recording that was not made in Dealey Plaza at
> the moment of the assassination.)
>

BIAS.

> /sm

[Sandy McCroskey]

Right, and what's the exact quote?
And why haven't you scanned and uploaded that to your site, like here:
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/news.htm
?

>> And where, exactly, are they supposed to have said it it?
>> I believe your sole source for this allegation is a newspaper article
>> that came out before the scientists' report was released, and that the
>> reporter says that they said the bullet would have landed "in the
>> vicinity of" the presidential motorcade.
>>
>> (I'm also quite sure, of course, that it doesn't matter what they said
>> about a bullet that didn't exist, based on an experiment whose premises
>> were fatally flawed and a recording that was not made in Dealey Plaza at
>> the moment of the assassination.)
>>
>
> BIAS.
>

Now, now. Two can play that game. It's my considered opinion. And I used
to think JFK was killed by a conspiracy.

/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

You are being silly again. I have posted it dozens of times, but you
never pay attention. Not every file on my Web site is listed on separate
pages. There are way too many GBs to categorize each. Most of them are
used on Web pages or found on the FILELIST.

This is the first page from the article in the Boston Herald.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/BH12_22_78p2.jpg

Lardner paraphrases what W&A told him.

>
>
>>> And where, exactly, are they supposed to have said it it?
>>> I believe your sole source for this allegation is a newspaper article
>>> that came out before the scientists' report was released, and that the
>>> reporter says that they said the bullet would have landed "in the
>>> vicinity of" the presidential motorcade.
>>>
>>> (I'm also quite sure, of course, that it doesn't matter what they said
>>> about a bullet that didn't exist, based on an experiment whose premises
>>> were fatally flawed and a recording that was not made in Dealey Plaza at
>>> the moment of the assassination.)
>>>
>>
>> BIAS.
>>
>
> Now, now. Two can play that game. It's my considered opinion. And I used
> to think JFK was killed by a conspiracy.
>

Ridiculous.

> /sm
>
>

[Sandy McCroskey]

On the contrary, I know I've seen it, and I'm telling everybody what I
remember: there was no direct quote, and what Lardner said they said was
*not* that the bullet struck its target.

> Not every file on my Web site is listed on separate
> pages. There are way too many GBs to categorize each. Most of them are
> used on Web pages or found on the FILELIST.
>

It seems to me that you don't know how to organize a website. You have a
link to "Newspaper" articles. There is *nothing* listed there.

> This is the first page from the article in the Boston Herald.
>


> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/BH12_22_78p2.jpg
>
> Lardner paraphrases what W&A told him.
>

Exactly. So read that headline again.

/sandy

[Sandy McCroskey]

So let's get this straight.

Marsh regards a newspaper reporter's paraphrase of what the scientists
said in an interview as having more significance than what the scientists
said in their own words in their own official report.

But the article doesn't even report that they said what Marsh wants them
to. Before your very eyes, abracadabra, the amazing prestidigitator turns
the statement that a fourth bullet landed *near* the limo into an
assurance that the bullet "hit."

[Anthony Marsh]

It's my damn Web site and I'll organize it any way I want to. If I set
aside areas for future expansion of files, you don't have the right to
tell me when I have to fill them up. Nor does the FBI have the right to
tell my ISP what files to take down.

Some files I scan in and upload to my Web site only because certain
idiots here demand that I document every little fact. But I don't plan
to waste my time writing new articles about each file I upload.
I just scanned in and uploaded a letter for Robert Harris, but I do not
plan to write an article about it since I had already written so many
messages about it. Some people are smart enough to search for all the
messages I have written.

[Sandy McCroskey]

That page has been that way for years. (Like a lot of things.)

/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/12/2013 5:51 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> So let's get this straight.
>
> Marsh regards a newspaper reporter's paraphrase of what the scientists
> said in an interview as having more significance than what the
> scientists said in their own words in their own official report.
>

Yes, I do because their report is censored and they were not allowed to
put the information in their report.

> But the article doesn't even report that they said what Marsh wants them
> to. Before your very eyes, abracadabra, the amazing prestidigitator
> turns the statement that a fourth bullet landed *near* the limo into an
> assurance that the bullet "hit."
>

"In" or "near" the limo. Show me what else a bullet fired from the
grassy knoll could hit and stop IN the limo at Z-312/313 except JFK's
head. You are being deliberately obtuse.
And at least I don't deliberately misquote the statement the way you
just did.

[Anthony Marsh]

Yeah, so what? It remains as a place holder so that the link will work
when I write a file to fill up the hole. That's why it says UNDER
CONSTRUCTION rather than 404 NOT FOUND. Most people who write Web pages
understand that.

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 1/13/13 9:07 AM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 1/12/2013 5:51 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>> So let's get this straight.
>>
>> Marsh regards a newspaper reporter's paraphrase of what the scientists
>> said in an interview as having more significance than what the
>> scientists said in their own words in their own official report.
>>
>
> Yes, I do because their report is censored and they were not allowed to
> put the information in their report.
>

You fantasize.

>> But the article doesn't even report that they said what Marsh wants them
>> to. Before your very eyes, abracadabra, the amazing prestidigitator
>> turns the statement that a fourth bullet landed *near* the limo into an
>> assurance that the bullet "hit."
>>
>
> "In" or "near" the limo. Show me what else a bullet fired from the
> grassy knoll could hit and stop IN the limo at Z-312/313 except JFK's
> head.

The scientists didn't place that shot at Z-312/313.

There's no indication that that shot (or any other) hit JFK from the
front. His head continued to go forward until 314, after the bullet had
gone out the other side. Therefore the movement backward was caused by
something other than the impact of that bullet and indicates nothing
about the direction of the shot.

(Your fanciful exploding bullet theory is not a way around this
objection because such a bullet would have exploded (in your own
estimation) within "nanoseconds" of impact.)

> You are being deliberately obtuse.
> And at least I don't deliberately misquote the statement the way you
> just did.
>

There is no direct quote of the scientists' statement to be found there,
only the newspaper and reporter's paraphrases.
So let's look at what you just wrote: that's a big "OR" sitting there
between "near" and "in."
They didn't say this (fictitious) bullet definitely hit inside the limo,
and they didn't say it hit JFK's head. They said it missed.
In their official report.
Which conspiracy believers in the House committee were very glad to have
anyway. Because it's all they had.
/sandy

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/13/2013 12:39 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> On 1/13/13 9:07 AM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 1/12/2013 5:51 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>>> So let's get this straight.
>>>
>>> Marsh regards a newspaper reporter's paraphrase of what the scientists
>>> said in an interview as having more significance than what the
>>> scientists said in their own words in their own official report.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I do because their report is censored and they were not allowed to
>> put the information in their report.
>>
>
> You fantasize.
>

I cite examples. Mary Woodward's story was rewritten because she said a
shot came from the front.

>>> But the article doesn't even report that they said what Marsh wants them
>>> to. Before your very eyes, abracadabra, the amazing prestidigitator
>>> turns the statement that a fourth bullet landed *near* the limo into an
>>> assurance that the bullet "hit."
>>>
>>
>> "In" or "near" the limo. Show me what else a bullet fired from the
>> grassy knoll could hit and stop IN the limo at Z-312/313 except JFK's
>> head.
>
> The scientists didn't place that shot at Z-312/313.
>

They didn't. I did. W&A disagreed with the HSCA conclusions and thought
the grassy knoll shot was at 313.

> There's no indication that that shot (or any other) hit JFK from the
> front. His head continued to go forward until 314, after the bullet had
> gone out the other side. Therefore the movement backward was caused by
> something other than the impact of that bullet and indicates nothing
> about the direction of the shot.
>

More nonsense. What is it today, the Jet Effect or the neuromuscular
spasm? You make up a new theory every day.

> (Your fanciful exploding bullet theory is not a way around this
> objection because such a bullet would have exploded (in your own
> estimation) within "nanoseconds" of impact.)
>
>
>> You are being deliberately obtuse.
>> And at least I don't deliberately misquote the statement the way you
>> just did.
>>
>
> There is no direct quote of the scientists' statement to be found there,
> only the newspaper and reporter's paraphrases.
> So let's look at what you just wrote: that's a big "OR" sitting there
> between "near" and "in."

Which you left out. You said "near" not "in or near." You deliberately
changed the wording to push a political agenda.

> They didn't say this (fictitious) bullet definitely hit inside the limo,
> and they didn't say it hit JFK's head. They said it missed.
> In their official report.

Who said? You mean the HSCA, not W&A.
The HSCA said it missed because they were too stupid and needed a
majority to vote for conspiracy.

> Which conspiracy believers in the House committee were very glad to have
> anyway. Because it's all they had.
> /sandy
>

They needed to say it missed to give cover to your WC defender buddies
on the committee.
No harm, no foul.

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 1/13/13 9:14 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 1/13/2013 12:39 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>> On 1/13/13 9:07 AM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>> On 1/12/2013 5:51 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>>>> So let's get this straight.
>>>>
>>>> Marsh regards a newspaper reporter's paraphrase of what the scientists
>>>> said in an interview as having more significance than what the
>>>> scientists said in their own words in their own official report.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I do because their report is censored and they were not allowed to
>>> put the information in their report.
>>>
>>
>> You fantasize.
>>
>
> I cite examples. Mary Woodward's story was rewritten because she said a
> shot came from the front.

CT myth. "Rewritten" by whom?
The WCR had no problem mentioning witnesses who thought a shot or shots
came from the knoll. Why single her out?

> >>>> But the article doesn't even report that they said what Marsh wants
>>>> them
>>>> to. Before your very eyes, abracadabra, the amazing prestidigitator
>>>> turns the statement that a fourth bullet landed *near* the limo into an
>>>> assurance that the bullet "hit."
>>>>
>>>
>>> "In" or "near" the limo. Show me what else a bullet fired from the
>>> grassy knoll could hit and stop IN the limo at Z-312/313 except JFK's
>>> head.
>>
>> The scientists didn't place that shot at Z-312/313.
>>
>
> They didn't. I did.

Riiiiiiight.

> W&A disagreed with the HSCA conclusions and thought
> the grassy knoll shot was at 313.
>
>> There's no indication that that shot (or any other) hit JFK from the
>> front. His head continued to go forward until 314, after the bullet had
>> gone out the other side. Therefore the movement backward was caused by
>> something other than the impact of that bullet and indicates nothing
>> about the direction of the shot.
>>
>
> More nonsense.

Well, no. but then I don't know what strange physical laws prevail in
*your* universe, Marsh. So I don't know where to start explaining the
ones that rule in ours.

> What is it today, the Jet Effect or the neuromuscular
> spasm? You make up a new theory every day.
>

I don't know whom you think you are addressing there.

What I have consistently said is that the backward motion could not (in
this universe) have been caused by the impact (or explosion) of the
bullet that passed thru Kennedy's head at 312/313, and I've opined that
a neuromuscular reaction seems the most likely explanation for the
backward motion.

I, Sandy McCroskey, have never argued for the jet effect on this
newsgroup or any other.

>> (Your fanciful exploding bullet theory is not a way around this
>> objection because such a bullet would have exploded (in your own
>> estimation) within "nanoseconds" of impact.)
>>
>>
>>> You are being deliberately obtuse.
>>> And at least I don't deliberately misquote the statement the way you
>>> just did.
>>>
>>
>> There is no direct quote of the scientists' statement to be found there,
>> only the newspaper and reporter's paraphrases.
>> So let's look at what you just wrote: that's a big "OR" sitting there
>> between "near" and "in."
>
> Which you left out. You said "near" not "in or near." You deliberately
> changed the wording to push a political agenda.
>

In my first reference to this article, I used the word "proximity." Look
it up.
With "near" I was merely quoting the headline of the article.

What political agenda? Defending Richard Helms? Now, that would sure be
silly. But since you think Richard Helms was behind the assassination,
for the sake of saving his job, that must be what you think I'm intent
on "covering up."

>> They didn't say this (fictitious) bullet definitely hit inside the limo,
>> and they didn't say it hit JFK's head. They said it missed.
>> In their official report.
>
> Who said? You mean the HSCA, not W&A.

W&A didn't say it hit either.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo2/jfk5/hscashot.htm
Mr. WEISS - [...[ Even if one makes the assumption that it was aimed
directly at the head of the President, you could for a range of such
velocities, assume that it fell short of. the target, that it fell at
the target, that it went well beyond the target. There is simply no way
of knowing.

W&A identified the supposed grassy knoll shot with the third supposed
shot on the recording, just as BB&N did. The one that was said to have
missed.

> The HSCA said it missed because they were too stupid and needed a
> majority to vote for conspiracy.
>

Which majority they got.

Why wouldn't any one of those who voted for conspiracy have *not* done
so if the experiment seemed to show that the supposed grassy knoll shot
was the one that went thru Kennedy's head between Z-frames 312 and 313?

No, they said it missed because that's what the scientists came up with,
a supposed fourth shot, third in the sequence of shots, but that didn't
hit JFK and didn't come, like the others, from the TSDB. And if you
believe *that*...


/sandy

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/14/2013 1:09 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> On 1/13/13 9:14 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 1/13/2013 12:39 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>>> On 1/13/13 9:07 AM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>> On 1/12/2013 5:51 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>>>>> So let's get this straight.
>>>>>
>>>>> Marsh regards a newspaper reporter's paraphrase of what the scientists
>>>>> said in an interview as having more significance than what the
>>>>> scientists said in their own words in their own official report.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I do because their report is censored and they were not allowed to
>>>> put the information in their report.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You fantasize.
>>>
>>
>> I cite examples. Mary Woodward's story was rewritten because she said a
>> shot came from the front.
>
> CT myth. "Rewritten" by whom?

By her editor. Not a myth. Confirmed at the Journalist Remember
Symposium. Which you are not allowed to see because you are a WC defender.

> The WCR had no problem mentioning witnesses who thought a shot or shots
> came from the knoll. Why single her out?

Because it appeared in print within minutes of the shooting. Did the WC
even bother calling her to testify? No. Why not? Because they were happy
with her FBI statement which indicated the shots came from the TSBD. NB
the date of her FBI statement.


FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Date December 7, 1963

MARY ELIZABETH WOODWARD, 4812 Alcott, employee, Woman's News, "Dallas
Morning News," Dallas, Texas, advised that she, AURELIA ALONZO, MARGARET
BROWN and ANNE DONALDSON, on November 22, 1963 left the office of the
"Dallas Morning NEWS" just about 12:00 noon to observe the Presidential
Motorcade.

They walked to Elm Street and stopped in front of the Texas School Book
Depository building, but were located a short distance down the street
near the second light post. They were standing in this spot when the
Presidential Motorcade came by. She stated she was watching President
and Mrs. KENNEDY closely, and all of her group cheered loudly as they
went by. Just as the President and Mrs. KENNEDY went by, they turned and
waved at them. Just a second or two later, she heard a loud noise. At
this point, it appeared to her that President and Mrs. KENNEDY probably
were about one hundred feet from her. There seemed to be a pause of a
few seconds, and then there were two more loud noises which she suddenly
realized were shots, and she saw President KENNEDY fall over and Mrs.
KENNEDY jumped up and started crawling over the back of the car. She
stated that her first reaction was that the shots had been fired from
above her head and from possibly behind her. Her next reaction was that
the shots might have come from the overpass which was to her right. She
stated, however, because of the loud echo, she could not say where the
shots had come from, other than they had come from above her head. She
stated that she had seen about five or six persons standing on top of
the overpass, and possibly this is why her first reaction was to look at
the top of this overpass. She never at any time saw anything in the
hands of the people on the overpass. She never looked at any time toward
the Texas School Book Depository building, and stated she could not
furnish any information regarding anyone who appeared to be leaving the
area, as there was a lot of confusion and everyone was running around.

She and her friends stayed for a few minutes under a tree on the grounds
of the Texas School Book Depository building, as she thought that she
was going to be sick. After standing under this tree for a few minutes,
they returned to their office. She stated she did not know RUBY or
OSWALD and stated to her knowledge she did not see either RUBY or OSWALD
at the scene of the assassination.

on 12/6/63 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 89-43

By Special Agent HENRY J. OLIVER, DAVID R. BARRY Date Dictated 12/6/63

>

What does Loftus tell us about evaluating witness statements?

You. What is your explanation today?

> What I have consistently said is that the backward motion could not (in
> this universe) have been caused by the impact (or explosion) of the
> bullet that passed thru Kennedy's head at 312/313, and I've opined that
> a neuromuscular reaction seems the most likely explanation for the
> backward motion.
>

And yet you think the impact of a bullet moved his head forward by 2.3
inches in half a Zapruder frame.

> I, Sandy McCroskey, have never argued for the jet effect on this
> newsgroup or any other.
>

Maybe it was one of your aliases who did.

>
>>> (Your fanciful exploding bullet theory is not a way around this
>>> objection because such a bullet would have exploded (in your own
>>> estimation) within "nanoseconds" of impact.)
>>>
>>>
>>>> You are being deliberately obtuse.
>>>> And at least I don't deliberately misquote the statement the way you
>>>> just did.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is no direct quote of the scientists' statement to be found there,
>>> only the newspaper and reporter's paraphrases.
>>> So let's look at what you just wrote: that's a big "OR" sitting there
>>> between "near" and "in."
>>
>> Which you left out. You said "near" not "in or near." You deliberately
>> changed the wording to push a political agenda.
>>
>
> In my first reference to this article, I used the word "proximity." Look
> it up.
> With "near" I was merely quoting the headline of the article.
>

But you said "near" instead of "in or near."

> What political agenda? Defending Richard Helms? Now, that would sure be
> silly. But since you think Richard Helms was behind the assassination,
> for the sake of saving his job, that must be what you think I'm intent
> on "covering up."
>

Maybe your job is to defend the CIA at all costs.

>
>
>>> They didn't say this (fictitious) bullet definitely hit inside the limo,
>>> and they didn't say it hit JFK's head. They said it missed.
>>> In their official report.
>>
>> Who said? You mean the HSCA, not W&A.
>
> W&A didn't say it hit either.
> http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo2/jfk5/hscashot.htm
> Mr. WEISS - [...[ Even if one makes the assumption that it was aimed
> directly at the head of the President, you could for a range of such
> velocities, assume that it fell short of. the target, that it fell at
> the target, that it went well beyond the target. There is simply no way
> of knowing.
>

At that time with the evidence they had.
They were forced to be vague.

> W&A identified the supposed grassy knoll shot with the third supposed
> shot on the recording, just as BB&N did. The one that was said to have
> missed.
>

They were asked to resolve that shot after BBN said it passed their
screening tests. It had more matches to the TSBD than the grassy knoll.

>
>> The HSCA said it missed because they were too stupid and needed a
>> majority to vote for conspiracy.
>>
>
> Which majority they got.

And a sizeable minority said it was not conspiracy, but coincidence.

>
> Why wouldn't any one of those who voted for conspiracy have *not* done
> so if the experiment seemed to show that the supposed grassy knoll shot
> was the one that went thru Kennedy's head between Z-frames 312 and 313?
>

That doesn't make any sense. What are you trying to say? They only had a
couple of days to vote on it.

> No, they said it missed because that's what the scientists came up with,
> a supposed fourth shot, third in the sequence of shots, but that didn't
> hit JFK and didn't come, like the others, from the TSDB. And if you
> believe *that*...

No. Because Blakey told them it missed.

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 1/14/13 9:46 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 1/14/2013 1:09 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>> On 1/13/13 9:14 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>> On 1/13/2013 12:39 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>>>> On 1/13/13 9:07 AM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>>> On 1/12/2013 5:51 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>>>>>> So let's get this straight.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Marsh regards a newspaper reporter's paraphrase of what the
>>>>>> scientists
>>>>>> said in an interview as having more significance than what the
>>>>>> scientists said in their own words in their own official report.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I do because their report is censored and they were not
>>>>> allowed to
>>>>> put the information in their report.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You fantasize.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I cite examples. Mary Woodward's story was rewritten because she said a
>>> shot came from the front.
>>
>> CT myth. "Rewritten" by whom?
>
> By her editor. Not a myth.

Not rewritten by the Warren Commission.
Editors do edit, you know.

> Confirmed at the Journalist Remember
> Symposium. Which you are not allowed to see because you are a WC defender.
>



>
>> The WCR had no problem mentioning witnesses who thought a shot or shots
>> came from the knoll. Why single her out?
>
> Because it appeared in print within minutes of the shooting.

So it was rewritten within minutes of the shooting?

> Did the WC
> even bother calling her to testify? No. Why not? Because they were happy
> with her FBI statement which indicated the shots came from the TSBD.

Actually, no, her statement says she suspected the overpass as the
source of the shots and that she never looked in the direction of the
TSBD, which you would assume she would have done if she had thought the
shots came from there.
Thanks for providing the quotation, below. It saved me the trouble.

Same as it always has been on this newsgroup.

>
>> What I have consistently said is that the backward motion could not (in
>> this universe) have been caused by the impact (or explosion) of the
>> bullet that passed thru Kennedy's head at 312/313, and I've opined that
>> a neuromuscular reaction seems the most likely explanation for the
>> backward motion.
>>
>
> And yet you think the impact of a bullet moved his head forward by 2.3
> inches in half a Zapruder frame.
>

"And yet"? There is a lot of difference between that movement and the
dramatic backward lunge that begins a frame later.

But I have never claimed to be sure that the bullet's impact imparted
any extra momentum.

What I do know, and what anyone can see, is that his head didn't move
backward at the point but continued moving forward.

>> I, Sandy McCroskey, have never argued for the jet effect on this
>> newsgroup or any other.
>>
>
> Maybe it was one of your aliases who did.
>

I've never had any aliases.

You are fantasizing again.

>>
>>>> (Your fanciful exploding bullet theory is not a way around this
>>>> objection because such a bullet would have exploded (in your own
>>>> estimation) within "nanoseconds" of impact.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You are being deliberately obtuse.
>>>>> And at least I don't deliberately misquote the statement the way you
>>>>> just did.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is no direct quote of the scientists' statement to be found
>>>> there,
>>>> only the newspaper and reporter's paraphrases.
>>>> So let's look at what you just wrote: that's a big "OR" sitting there
>>>> between "near" and "in."
>>>
>>> Which you left out. You said "near" not "in or near." You deliberately
>>> changed the wording to push a political agenda.
>>>
>>
>> In my first reference to this article, I used the word "proximity." Look
>> it up.
>> With "near" I was merely quoting the headline of the article.
>>
>
> But you said "near" instead of "in or near."
>

I was pointing out that the scientists didn't say, as you claim, that
the bullet definitely hit.
If it fell "in" the limo it was certainly "near" the presumed target,
but if it was only "near," it wasn't necessarily "in."

>> What political agenda? Defending Richard Helms? Now, that would sure be
>> silly. But since you think Richard Helms was behind the assassination,
>> for the sake of saving his job, that must be what you think I'm intent
>> on "covering up."
>>
>
> Maybe your job is to defend the CIA at all costs.
>

Sheer fantasy.

>>
>>
>>>> They didn't say this (fictitious) bullet definitely hit inside the
>>>> limo,
>>>> and they didn't say it hit JFK's head. They said it missed.
>>>> In their official report.
>>>
>>> Who said? You mean the HSCA, not W&A.
>>
>> W&A didn't say it hit either.
>> http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo2/jfk5/hscashot.htm
>> Mr. WEISS - [...[ Even if one makes the assumption that it was aimed
>> directly at the head of the President, you could for a range of such
>> velocities, assume that it fell short of. the target, that it fell at
>> the target, that it went well beyond the target. There is simply no way
>> of knowing.
>>
>
> At that time with the evidence they had.
> They were forced to be vague.
>

You wouldn't want the scientists to go beyond the evidence they had,
would you?

>> W&A identified the supposed grassy knoll shot with the third supposed
>> shot on the recording, just as BB&N did. The one that was said to have
>> missed.
>>
>
> They were asked to resolve that shot after BBN said it passed their
> screening tests. It had more matches to the TSBD than the grassy knoll.
>
>>
>>> The HSCA said it missed because they were too stupid and needed a
>>> majority to vote for conspiracy.
>>>
>>
>> Which majority they got.
>
> And a sizeable minority said it was not conspiracy, but coincidence.
>
>>
>> Why wouldn't any one of those who voted for conspiracy have *not* done
>> so if the experiment seemed to show that the supposed grassy knoll shot
>> was the one that went thru Kennedy's head between Z-frames 312 and 313?
>>
>
> That doesn't make any sense. What are you trying to say?

Sorry, I was only trying to make sense of what you said.

> They only had a
> couple of days to vote on it.
>

What relevance does that have?

>> No, they said it missed because that's what the scientists came up with,
>> a supposed fourth shot, third in the sequence of shots, but that didn't
>> hit JFK and didn't come, like the others, from the TSDB. And if you
>> believe *that*...
>
> No. Because Blakey told them it missed.
>

Ha ha.
Some "scientists," then!
/sm

[Bud]

On Jan 13, 9:14 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 1/13/2013 12:39 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>
> > On 1/13/13 9:07 AM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> On 1/12/2013 5:51 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> >>> So let's get this straight.
>
> >>> Marsh regards a newspaper reporter's paraphrase of what the scientists
> >>> said in an interview as having more significance than what the
> >>> scientists said in their own words in their own official report.
>
> >> Yes, I do because their report is censored and they were not allowed to
> >> put the information in their report.
>
> > You fantasize.
>
> I cite examples. Mary Woodward's story was rewritten because she said a
> shot came from the front.

How could she tell?

> >>> But the article doesn't even report that they said what Marsh wants them
> >>> to. Before your very eyes, abracadabra, the amazing prestidigitator
> >>> turns the statement that a fourth bullet landed *near* the limo into an
> >>> assurance that the bullet "hit."
>
> >> "In" or "near" the limo. Show me what else a bullet fired from the
> >> grassy knoll could hit and stop IN the limo at Z-312/313 except JFK's
> >> head.
>
> > The scientists didn't place that shot at Z-312/313.
>
> They didn't. I did.

Why tout the HSCA conclusions if you find fault in the information
they used to make those conclusions?

> W&A disagreed with the HSCA conclusions and thought
> the grassy knoll shot was at 313.
>
> > There's no indication that that shot (or any other) hit JFK from the
> > front. His head continued to go forward until 314, after the bullet had
> > gone out the other side. Therefore the movement backward was caused by
> > something other than the impact of that bullet and indicates nothing
> > about the direction of the shot.
>
> More nonsense. What is it today, the Jet Effect or the neuromuscular
> spasm? You make up a new theory every day.

It doesn`t really matter once the bullet is ruled out as the cause.

> > (Your fanciful exploding bullet theory is not a way around this
> > objection because such a bullet would have exploded (in your own
> > estimation) within "nanoseconds" of impact.)
>
> >> You are being deliberately obtuse.
> >> And at least I don't deliberately misquote the statement the way you
> >> just did.
>
> > There is no direct quote of the scientists' statement to be found there,
> > only the newspaper and reporter's paraphrases.
> > So let's look at what you just wrote: that's a big "OR" sitting there
> > between "near" and "in."
>
> Which you left out. You said "near" not "in or near." You deliberately
> changed the wording to push a political agenda.
>
> > They didn't say this (fictitious) bullet definitely hit inside the limo,
> > and they didn't say it hit JFK's head. They said it missed.
> > In their official report.
>
> Who said? You mean the HSCA, not W&A.
> The HSCA said it missed because they were too stupid and needed a
> majority to vote for conspiracy.

You were touting that the WC ruled it a conspiracy, yet you abandon
the HSCA as soon as scrutiny is applied to what you said.

> > Which conspiracy believers in the House committee were very glad to have
> > anyway. Because it's all they had.
> > /sandy
>
> They needed to say it missed to give cover to your WC defender buddies
> on the committee.
> No harm, no foul.

Conspiracy mongers need to pretend they have support for their silly
ideas.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/15/2013 1:49 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Jan 13, 9:14 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 1/13/2013 12:39 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/13/13 9:07 AM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>> On 1/12/2013 5:51 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>>>>> So let's get this straight.
>>
>>>>> Marsh regards a newspaper reporter's paraphrase of what the scientists
>>>>> said in an interview as having more significance than what the
>>>>> scientists said in their own words in their own official report.
>>
>>>> Yes, I do because their report is censored and they were not allowed to
>>>> put the information in their report.
>>
>>> You fantasize.
>>
>> I cite examples. Mary Woodward's story was rewritten because she said a
>> shot came from the front.
>
> How could she tell?

Because she said so.

>
>>>>> But the article doesn't even report that they said what Marsh wants them
>>>>> to. Before your very eyes, abracadabra, the amazing prestidigitator
>>>>> turns the statement that a fourth bullet landed *near* the limo into an
>>>>> assurance that the bullet "hit."
>>
>>>> "In" or "near" the limo. Show me what else a bullet fired from the
>>>> grassy knoll could hit and stop IN the limo at Z-312/313 except JFK's
>>>> head.
>>
>>> The scientists didn't place that shot at Z-312/313.
>>
>> They didn't. I did.
>
> Why tout the HSCA conclusions if you find fault in the information
> they used to make those conclusions?
>

Silly. You think I am not allowed to cite the HSCA at all if I disagree
with any part of it? Does that explain why you believe everything the WC
said?

>> W&A disagreed with the HSCA conclusions and thought
>> the grassy knoll shot was at 313.
>>
>>> There's no indication that that shot (or any other) hit JFK from the
>>> front. His head continued to go forward until 314, after the bullet had
>>> gone out the other side. Therefore the movement backward was caused by
>>> something other than the impact of that bullet and indicates nothing
>>> about the direction of the shot.
>>
>> More nonsense. What is it today, the Jet Effect or the neuromuscular
>> spasm? You make up a new theory every day.
>
> It doesn`t really matter once the bullet is ruled out as the cause.
>

You haven't.

>>> (Your fanciful exploding bullet theory is not a way around this
>>> objection because such a bullet would have exploded (in your own
>>> estimation) within "nanoseconds" of impact.)
>>
>>>> You are being deliberately obtuse.
>>>> And at least I don't deliberately misquote the statement the way you
>>>> just did.
>>
>>> There is no direct quote of the scientists' statement to be found there,
>>> only the newspaper and reporter's paraphrases.
>>> So let's look at what you just wrote: that's a big "OR" sitting there
>>> between "near" and "in."
>>
>> Which you left out. You said "near" not "in or near." You deliberately
>> changed the wording to push a political agenda.
>>
>>> They didn't say this (fictitious) bullet definitely hit inside the limo,
>>> and they didn't say it hit JFK's head. They said it missed.
>>> In their official report.
>>
>> Who said? You mean the HSCA, not W&A.
>> The HSCA said it missed because they were too stupid and needed a
>> majority to vote for conspiracy.
>
> You were touting that the WC ruled it a conspiracy, yet you abandon
> the HSCA as soon as scrutiny is applied to what you said.
>

When did I say that the WC ruled it a conspiracy? They did not rule it a
conspiracy. They may have thought it was, but they were forbidden from
ruling it was.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Then you really believe in some sort of... magic bullet!

/sm

[Bud]

On Jan 15, 11:32 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 1/15/2013 1:49 PM, Bud wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 13, 9:14 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 1/13/2013 12:39 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>
> >>> On 1/13/13 9:07 AM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >>>> On 1/12/2013 5:51 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> >>>>> So let's get this straight.
>
> >>>>> Marsh regards a newspaper reporter's paraphrase of what the scientists
> >>>>> said in an interview as having more significance than what the
> >>>>> scientists said in their own words in their own official report.
>
> >>>> Yes, I do because their report is censored and they were not allowed to
> >>>> put the information in their report.
>
> >>> You fantasize.
>
> >> I cite examples. Mary Woodward's story was rewritten because she said a
> >> shot came from the front.
>
> >    How could she tell?
>
> Because she said so.

I didn`t ask what she said, I asked how could she tell?

> >>>>> But the article doesn't even report that they said what Marsh wants them
> >>>>> to. Before your very eyes, abracadabra, the amazing prestidigitator
> >>>>> turns the statement that a fourth bullet landed *near* the limo into an
> >>>>> assurance that the bullet "hit."
>
> >>>> "In" or "near" the limo. Show me what else a bullet fired from the
> >>>> grassy knoll could hit and stop IN the limo at Z-312/313 except JFK's
> >>>> head.
>
> >>> The scientists didn't place that shot at Z-312/313.
>
> >> They didn't. I did.
>
> >    Why tout the HSCA conclusions if you find fault in the information
> > they used to make those conclusions?
>
> Silly. You think I am not allowed to cite the HSCA at all if I disagree
> with any part of it?

No, why tout the HSCA conclusions if you find fault in the
information used to make those conclusions?

>Does that explain why you believe everything the WC
> said?
>
> >> W&A disagreed with the HSCA conclusions and thought
> >> the grassy knoll shot was at 313.
>
> >>> There's no indication that that shot (or any other) hit JFK from the
> >>> front. His head continued to go forward until 314, after the bullet had
> >>> gone out the other side. Therefore the movement backward was caused by
> >>> something other than the impact of that bullet and indicates nothing
> >>> about the direction of the shot.
>
> >> More nonsense. What is it today, the Jet Effect or the neuromuscular
> >> spasm? You make up a new theory every day.
>
> >    It doesn`t really matter once the bullet is ruled out as the cause.
>
> You haven't.

You think it went through and came back?

> >>> (Your fanciful exploding bullet theory is not a way around this
> >>> objection because such a bullet would have exploded (in your own
> >>> estimation) within "nanoseconds" of impact.)
>
> >>>> You are being deliberately obtuse.
> >>>> And at least I don't deliberately misquote the statement the way you
> >>>> just did.
>
> >>> There is no direct quote of the scientists' statement to be found there,
> >>> only the newspaper and reporter's paraphrases.
> >>> So let's look at what you just wrote: that's a big "OR" sitting there
> >>> between "near" and "in."
>
> >> Which you left out. You said "near" not "in or near." You deliberately
> >> changed the wording to push a political agenda.
>
> >>> They didn't say this (fictitious) bullet definitely hit inside the limo,
> >>> and they didn't say it hit JFK's head. They said it missed.
> >>> In their official report.
>
> >> Who said? You mean the HSCA, not W&A.
> >> The HSCA said it missed because they were too stupid and needed a
> >> majority to vote for conspiracy.
>
> >    You were touting that the WC ruled it a conspiracy, yet you abandon
> > the HSCA as soon as scrutiny is applied to what you said.
>
> When did I say that the WC ruled it a conspiracy? They did not rule it a
> conspiracy. They may have thought it was, but they were forbidden from
> ruling it was.

My bad, that obviously should have read "You were touting that the
HSCA ruled it a conspiracy, yet you abandon them as soon as scrutiny

is applied to what you said".

>
>
>
>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/16/2013 9:02 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Jan 15, 11:32 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 1/15/2013 1:49 PM, Bud wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 13, 9:14 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 1/13/2013 12:39 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 1/13/13 9:07 AM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/12/2013 5:51 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>>>>>>> So let's get this straight.
>>
>>>>>>> Marsh regards a newspaper reporter's paraphrase of what the scientists
>>>>>>> said in an interview as having more significance than what the
>>>>>>> scientists said in their own words in their own official report.
>>
>>>>>> Yes, I do because their report is censored and they were not allowed to
>>>>>> put the information in their report.
>>
>>>>> You fantasize.
>>
>>>> I cite examples. Mary Woodward's story was rewritten because she said a
>>>> shot came from the front.
>>
>>> How could she tell?
>>
>> Because she said so.
>
>
> I didn`t ask what she said, I asked how could she tell?
>

Because her editor told her.

>
>>>>>>> But the article doesn't even report that they said what Marsh wants them
>>>>>>> to. Before your very eyes, abracadabra, the amazing prestidigitator
>>>>>>> turns the statement that a fourth bullet landed *near* the limo into an
>>>>>>> assurance that the bullet "hit."
>>
>>>>>> "In" or "near" the limo. Show me what else a bullet fired from the
>>>>>> grassy knoll could hit and stop IN the limo at Z-312/313 except JFK's
>>>>>> head.
>>
>>>>> The scientists didn't place that shot at Z-312/313.
>>
>>>> They didn't. I did.
>>
>>> Why tout the HSCA conclusions if you find fault in the information
>>> they used to make those conclusions?
>>
>> Silly. You think I am not allowed to cite the HSCA at all if I disagree
>> with any part of it?
>
> No, why tout the HSCA conclusions if you find fault in the
> information used to make those conclusions?
>

Silly. Why do you cite the WC when you don't believe it 100%. You have
an illogical standard.

>> Does that explain why you believe everything the WC
>> said?
>>
>>>> W&A disagreed with the HSCA conclusions and thought
>>>> the grassy knoll shot was at 313.
>>
>>>>> There's no indication that that shot (or any other) hit JFK from the
>>>>> front. His head continued to go forward until 314, after the bullet had
>>>>> gone out the other side. Therefore the movement backward was caused by
>>>>> something other than the impact of that bullet and indicates nothing
>>>>> about the direction of the shot.
>>
>>>> More nonsense. What is it today, the Jet Effect or the neuromuscular
>>>> spasm? You make up a new theory every day.
>>
>>> It doesn`t really matter once the bullet is ruled out as the cause.
>>
>> You haven't.
>
> You think it went through and came back?
>

No.

Not abandon. Criticize. I criticized then even before their report came
out. I don't know what country you come from, but in my country we are
allowed to criticize our government.

[Anthony Marsh]

Which one? There was nothing magical about the explosive bullet that hit
James Brady in the head.

> /sm

[Sandy McCroskey]

Your magic bullet that first passes all the way through a body and only
then, as an afterthought, pushes that body back from the point of impact.
That one.
/sm

[Bud]

On Jan 17, 12:24 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 1/16/2013 9:02 PM, Bud wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 15, 11:32 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 1/15/2013 1:49 PM, Bud wrote:
>
> >>> On Jan 13, 9:14 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 1/13/2013 12:39 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>
> >>>>> On 1/13/13 9:07 AM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >>>>>> On 1/12/2013 5:51 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> >>>>>>> So let's get this straight.
>
> >>>>>>> Marsh regards a newspaper reporter's paraphrase of what the scientists
> >>>>>>> said in an interview as having more significance than what the
> >>>>>>> scientists said in their own words in their own official report.
>
> >>>>>> Yes, I do because their report is censored and they were not allowed to
> >>>>>> put the information in their report.
>
> >>>>> You fantasize.
>
> >>>> I cite examples. Mary Woodward's story was rewritten because she said a
> >>>> shot came from the front.
>
> >>>     How could she tell?
>
> >> Because she said so.
>
> >    I didn`t ask what she said, I asked how could she tell?
>
> Because her editor told her.

If this is the best explanation you can come up with her opinion
can`t be worth very much.

> >>>>>>> But the article doesn't even report that they said what Marsh wants them
> >>>>>>> to. Before your very eyes, abracadabra, the amazing prestidigitator
> >>>>>>> turns the statement that a fourth bullet landed *near* the limo into an
> >>>>>>> assurance that the bullet "hit."
>
> >>>>>> "In" or "near" the limo. Show me what else a bullet fired from the
> >>>>>> grassy knoll could hit and stop IN the limo at Z-312/313 except JFK's
> >>>>>> head.
>
> >>>>> The scientists didn't place that shot at Z-312/313.
>
> >>>> They didn't. I did.
>
> >>>     Why tout the HSCA conclusions if you find fault in the information
> >>> they used to make those conclusions?
>
> >> Silly. You think I am not allowed to cite the HSCA at all if I disagree
> >> with any part of it?
>
> >    No, why tout the HSCA conclusions if you find fault in the
> > information used to make those conclusions?
>
> Silly. Why do you cite the WC when you don't believe it 100%. You have
> an illogical standard.

No, you have an illogical position. You tout the HSCA`s finding of
probable conspiracy while disputing the information that directly led
to that finding.

> >> Does that explain why you believe everything the WC
> >> said?
>
> >>>> W&A disagreed with the HSCA conclusions and thought
> >>>> the grassy knoll shot was at 313.
>
> >>>>> There's no indication that that shot (or any other) hit JFK from the
> >>>>> front. His head continued to go forward until 314, after the bullet had
> >>>>> gone out the other side. Therefore the movement backward was caused by
> >>>>> something other than the impact of that bullet and indicates nothing
> >>>>> about the direction of the shot.
>
> >>>> More nonsense. What is it today, the Jet Effect or the neuromuscular
> >>>> spasm? You make up a new theory every day.
>
> >>>     It doesn`t really matter once the bullet is ruled out as the cause.
>
> >> You haven't.
>
> >    You think it went through and came back?
>
> No.

Then it couldn`t have been the bullet that flung Kennedy back, as it
was already gone. And once the bullet is ruled out, it`s irrelevant
what caused Kennedy`s movement back.

No, not criticize. Abandon. You said...

"It was not the result of a lone gunman. It was ruled a conspiracy.
We
won, you lost. Now, get over it and move on. "

So you tout the finding of probable conspiracy (although we both
know that you claim that it was ruled a conspiracy is an untruth), yet
you abandon the HSCA when how that got to that conclusion is
scrutinized. You start attacking the very process they used to get to
that conclusion.

[Anthony Marsh]

Yeah, what's wrong with that? I am saying they did not go far enough.
Some of my criticisms can be considered very minor. Like pointing out
that the real percentage was 99.9% not 95%.

>>>> Does that explain why you believe everything the WC
>>>> said?
>>
>>>>>> W&A disagreed with the HSCA conclusions and thought
>>>>>> the grassy knoll shot was at 313.
>>
>>>>>>> There's no indication that that shot (or any other) hit JFK from the
>>>>>>> front. His head continued to go forward until 314, after the bullet had
>>>>>>> gone out the other side. Therefore the movement backward was caused by
>>>>>>> something other than the impact of that bullet and indicates nothing
>>>>>>> about the direction of the shot.
>>
>>>>>> More nonsense. What is it today, the Jet Effect or the neuromuscular
>>>>>> spasm? You make up a new theory every day.
>>
>>>>> It doesn`t really matter once the bullet is ruled out as the cause.
>>
>>>> You haven't.
>>
>>> You think it went through and came back?
>>
>> No.
>
> Then it couldn`t have been the bullet that flung Kennedy back, as it
> was already gone. And once the bullet is ruled out, it`s irrelevant
> what caused Kennedy`s movement back.
>

You are talking about a different bullet.

Never. You misrepresent what I said.

[Anthony Marsh]

Not what I said.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Not in so many words, of course.
Because that sure sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?
But that's what your bullet would have had to do if the body's later
backward motion is supposed to indicate anything about the bullet's
direction.

/sm

(sorry, Marsh, I hit "Reply" instead of "Followup" a few minutes ago and
sent this to your e-mail)

[Anthony Marsh]

No, not MY bullet. Maybe YOUR bullet.
I never said anything about impact and direction. Itek said the impact
caused the head to move forward by 2.3 inches in half a Zapruder frame
and you seem to accept that with no hesitation.

[Bud]

It`s illogical. If someone comes to the number "2" by adding "1 + 1",
and someone else comes up to the same number by being blindfolded and
throwing a dart at a dartboard, one result does not in any way support the
other. Getting to the same place is neither corroborative nor significant.

> I am saying they did not go far enough.

No, you said the HSCA ruled for conspiracy.

> Some of my criticisms can be considered very minor. Like pointing out
> that the real percentage was 99.9% not 95%.

They put the qualifier in to signify they weren`t stating an
absolute position. They could say there was a conspiracy because they
couldn`t find one.

> >>>> Does that explain why you believe everything the WC
> >>>> said?
>
> >>>>>> W&A disagreed with the HSCA conclusions and thought
> >>>>>> the grassy knoll shot was at 313.
>
> >>>>>>> There's no indication that that shot (or any other) hit JFK from the
> >>>>>>> front. His head continued to go forward until 314, after the bullet had
> >>>>>>> gone out the other side. Therefore the movement backward was caused by
> >>>>>>> something other than the impact of that bullet and indicates nothing
> >>>>>>> about the direction of the shot.
>
> >>>>>> More nonsense. What is it today, the Jet Effect or the neuromuscular
> >>>>>> spasm? You make up a new theory every day.
>
> >>>>>      It doesn`t really matter once the bullet is ruled out as the cause.
>
> >>>> You haven't.
>
> >>>     You think it went through and came back?
>
> >> No.
>
> >    Then it couldn`t have been the bullet that flung Kennedy back, as it
> > was already gone. And once the bullet is ruled out, it`s irrelevant
> > what caused Kennedy`s movement back.
>
> You are talking about a different bullet.

Maybe you are. I`m talking about the bullet that struck Kennedy in
the head.

I quoted you. I suppose if I said such silly things I wouldn`t like
to be held to them either.

[Sandy McCroskey]

What a dance you do. You never said "impact." No, you say a bullet that
exploded within "nanoseconds" of impact. So what?

And how do you say you "never said anything about...direction"? The whole
point of your argument (if it had one) sure *seemed* to be that you still
think that JFK's backward motion starting in Z-frame 314 indicates
something about where the bullet came from.

If you agree that it doesn't, then what are you arguing about?

/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

Who said corroboration? I was talking about duplicating and refining.

>> I am saying they did not go far enough.
>
> No, you said the HSCA ruled for conspiracy.
>

No far enough.

>> Some of my criticisms can be considered very minor. Like pointing out
>> that the real percentage was 99.9% not 95%.
>
> They put the qualifier in to signify they weren`t stating an
> absolute position. They could say there was a conspiracy because they
> couldn`t find one.
>

No scientist ever says 100%, even a weatherman.
I pointed out that they used the wrong chart.

>>>>>> Does that explain why you believe everything the WC
>>>>>> said?
>>
>>>>>>>> W&A disagreed with the HSCA conclusions and thought
>>>>>>>> the grassy knoll shot was at 313.
>>
>>>>>>>>> There's no indication that that shot (or any other) hit JFK from the
>>>>>>>>> front. His head continued to go forward until 314, after the bullet had
>>>>>>>>> gone out the other side. Therefore the movement backward was caused by
>>>>>>>>> something other than the impact of that bullet and indicates nothing
>>>>>>>>> about the direction of the shot.
>>
>>>>>>>> More nonsense. What is it today, the Jet Effect or the neuromuscular
>>>>>>>> spasm? You make up a new theory every day.
>>
>>>>>>> It doesn`t really matter once the bullet is ruled out as the cause.
>>
>>>>>> You haven't.
>>
>>>>> You think it went through and came back?
>>
>>>> No.
>>
>>> Then it couldn`t have been the bullet that flung Kennedy back, as it
>>> was already gone. And once the bullet is ruled out, it`s irrelevant
>>> what caused Kennedy`s movement back.
>>
>> You are talking about a different bullet.
>
> Maybe you are. I`m talking about the bullet that struck Kennedy in
> the head.
>

You want that to be a bullet from behind. I say it is the bullet from
the right front.

You misrepresented what I said. That is the only way you know how to attack.

[Bud]

I just did, pay attention. You were touting the HSCA`s finding of
"probable conspiracy" (although you left out the "probable"). But them
getting to the place you got to isn`t significant if you think they got
there through an erroneous process.

> I was talking about duplicating and refining.

Whatever you were talking about had little to do with the issue I
raised with you.

> >> I am saying they did not go far enough.
>
> >    No, you said the HSCA ruled for conspiracy.
>
> No far enough.

Actually they didn`t rule for conspiracy. They indicated it was
likely there was one, but they didn`t state there was one.

> >> Some of my criticisms can be considered very minor. Like pointing out
> >> that the real percentage was 99.9% not 95%.
>
> >    They put the qualifier in to signify they weren`t stating an
> > absolute position. They could say there was a conspiracy because they
> > couldn`t find one.
>
> No scientist ever says 100%, even a weatherman.

How many problems are there with that analogy? The HSCA weren`t
scientists, and predicting isn`t the same as determining. Something 100%
happened, and it is possible to determine things that happen with surety.

> I pointed out that they used the wrong chart.

The used the word "probable" to signify that they were stating there
was a conspiracy.

> >>>>>> Does that explain why you believe everything the WC
> >>>>>> said?
>
> >>>>>>>> W&A disagreed with the HSCA conclusions and thought
> >>>>>>>> the grassy knoll shot was at 313.
>
> >>>>>>>>> There's no indication that that shot (or any other) hit JFK from the
> >>>>>>>>> front. His head continued to go forward until 314, after the bullet had
> >>>>>>>>> gone out the other side. Therefore the movement backward was caused by
> >>>>>>>>> something other than the impact of that bullet and indicates nothing
> >>>>>>>>> about the direction of the shot.
>
> >>>>>>>> More nonsense. What is it today, the Jet Effect or the neuromuscular
> >>>>>>>> spasm? You make up a new theory every day.
>
> >>>>>>>       It doesn`t really matter once the bullet is ruled out as the cause.
>
> >>>>>> You haven't.
>
> >>>>>      You think it went through and came back?
>
> >>>> No.
>
> >>>     Then it couldn`t have been the bullet that flung Kennedy back, as it
> >>> was already gone. And once the bullet is ruled out, it`s irrelevant
> >>> what caused Kennedy`s movement back.
>
> >> You are talking about a different bullet.
>
> >    Maybe you are. I`m talking about the bullet that struck Kennedy in
> > the head.
>
> You want that to be a bullet from behind. I say it is the bullet from
> the right front.

That is just another of your irrelevant strawmen. Regardless of where
the bullet came from it was already gone before Kennedy`s dramatic
backward motion. Therefore the bullet`s energy cannot be the cause of it.
You make the meaningless claim that the bullet isn`t ruled out as the
cause of this motion, but it isn`t a position you can support.

[Anthony Marsh]

I never said erroneous. They did not use the proper chart to state the
higher probability.

>> I was talking about duplicating and refining.
>
> Whatever you were talking about had little to do with the issue I
> raised with you.
>
>>>> I am saying they did not go far enough.
>>
>>> No, you said the HSCA ruled for conspiracy.
>>
>> No far enough.
>
> Actually they didn`t rule for conspiracy. They indicated it was
> likely there was one, but they didn`t state there was one.
>

Scientists rarely say 100%.

>>>> Some of my criticisms can be considered very minor. Like pointing out
>>>> that the real percentage was 99.9% not 95%.
>>
>>> They put the qualifier in to signify they weren`t stating an
>>> absolute position. They could say there was a conspiracy because they
>>> couldn`t find one.
>>
>> No scientist ever says 100%, even a weatherman.
>
> How many problems are there with that analogy? The HSCA weren`t
> scientists, and predicting isn`t the same as determining. Something 100%
> happened, and it is possible to determine things that happen with surety.
>

They were basing their conclusion on the findings of the scientists.
You are living in a fantasy world.

I never said the impact was the cause.

[Bud]

Why do you tout their conclusion if you dispute how they came to
that conclusion?

> >> I was talking about duplicating and refining.
>
> >    Whatever you were talking about had little to do with the issue I
> > raised with you.
>
> >>>> I am saying they did not go far enough.
>
> >>>     No, you said the HSCA ruled for conspiracy.
>
> >> No far enough.
>
> >    Actually they didn`t rule for conspiracy. They indicated it was
> > likely there was one, but they didn`t state there was one.
>
> Scientists rarely say 100%.

You said the HSCA ruled for conspiracy. Why are you bringing up
scientists?

> >>>> Some of my criticisms can be considered very minor. Like pointing out
> >>>> that the real percentage was 99.9% not 95%.
>
> >>>     They put the qualifier in to signify they weren`t stating an
> >>> absolute position. They could say there was a conspiracy because they
> >>> couldn`t find one.
>
> >> No scientist ever says 100%, even a weatherman.
>
> >    How many problems are there with that analogy? The HSCA weren`t
> > scientists, and predicting isn`t the same as determining. Something 100%
> > happened, and it is possible to determine things that happen with surety.
>
> They were basing their conclusion on the findings of the scientists.

It was the HSCA that made the ruling that you were touting, not the

Still not speaking to what I said, why is that?

[Anthony Marsh]

Because they didn't go far enough.

>>>> I was talking about duplicating and refining.
>>
>>> Whatever you were talking about had little to do with the issue I
>>> raised with you.
>>
>>>>>> I am saying they did not go far enough.
>>
>>>>> No, you said the HSCA ruled for conspiracy.
>>
>>>> No far enough.
>>
>>> Actually they didn`t rule for conspiracy. They indicated it was
>>> likely there was one, but they didn`t state there was one.
>>
>> Scientists rarely say 100%.
>
> You said the HSCA ruled for conspiracy. Why are you bringing up
> scientists?
>

Because the HSCA based their conclusion largely on the acoustical studies.

>>>>>> Some of my criticisms can be considered very minor. Like pointing out
>>>>>> that the real percentage was 99.9% not 95%.
>>
>>>>> They put the qualifier in to signify they weren`t stating an
>>>>> absolute position. They could say there was a conspiracy because they
>>>>> couldn`t find one.
>>
>>>> No scientist ever says 100%, even a weatherman.
>>
>>> How many problems are there with that analogy? The HSCA weren`t
>>> scientists, and predicting isn`t the same as determining. Something 100%
>>> happened, and it is possible to determine things that happen with surety.
>>
>> They were basing their conclusion on the findings of the scientists.
>
> It was the HSCA that made the ruling that you were touting, not the
> scientists.
>

I said "basing." Do you know what that means?

Because you are spewing nonsense.

[Bud]

Then why tout the conclusion at all?

> >>>> I was talking about duplicating and refining.
>
> >>>     Whatever you were talking about had little to do with the issue I
> >>> raised with you.
>
> >>>>>> I am saying they did not go far enough.
>
> >>>>>      No, you said the HSCA ruled for conspiracy.
>
> >>>> No far enough.
>
> >>>     Actually they didn`t rule for conspiracy. They indicated it was
> >>> likely there was one, but they didn`t state there was one.
>
> >> Scientists rarely say 100%.
>
> >    You said the HSCA ruled for conspiracy. Why are you bringing up
> > scientists?
>
> Because the HSCA based their conclusion largely on the acoustical studies.

But you were touting the HSCA`s conclusion.

> >>>>>> Some of my criticisms can be considered very minor. Like pointing out
> >>>>>> that the real percentage was 99.9% not 95%.
>
> >>>>>      They put the qualifier in to signify they weren`t stating an
> >>>>> absolute position. They could say there was a conspiracy because they
> >>>>> couldn`t find one.
>
> >>>> No scientist ever says 100%, even a weatherman.
>
> >>>     How many problems are there with that analogy? The HSCA weren`t
> >>> scientists, and predicting isn`t the same as determining. Something 100%
> >>> happened, and it is possible to determine things that happen with surety.
>
> >> They were basing their conclusion on the findings of the scientists.
>
> >    It was the HSCA that made the ruling that you were touting, not the
> > scientists.
>
> I said "basing." Do you know what that means?

Do you? Do you realize that the HSCA concluded that Oswald fired all the
shots that hit people in the limo, and that there was a shot from an
unidentified source, and this information is what they used to conclude
that it was likely there was a conspiracy. Why were you touting a
conclusion based on processes you consider incorrect?

If you aren`t speak to what I say why respond at all?

[Anthony Marsh]

Tout? Did you get a new dictionary for Christmas?
You misuse words to create false impressions. You have to use cheap
propaganda tricks because you don't have any facts.

>>>>>> I was talking about duplicating and refining.
>>
>>>>> Whatever you were talking about had little to do with the issue I
>>>>> raised with you.
>>
>>>>>>>> I am saying they did not go far enough.
>>
>>>>>>> No, you said the HSCA ruled for conspiracy.
>>
>>>>>> No far enough.
>>
>>>>> Actually they didn`t rule for conspiracy. They indicated it was
>>>>> likely there was one, but they didn`t state there was one.
>>
>>>> Scientists rarely say 100%.
>>
>>> You said the HSCA ruled for conspiracy. Why are you bringing up
>>> scientists?
>>
>> Because the HSCA based their conclusion largely on the acoustical studies.
>
> But you were touting the HSCA`s conclusion.
>

Not touting.
And for the record they can reach the right conclusion, but get some
details wrong.

>>>>>>>> Some of my criticisms can be considered very minor. Like pointing out
>>>>>>>> that the real percentage was 99.9% not 95%.
>>
>>>>>>> They put the qualifier in to signify they weren`t stating an
>>>>>>> absolute position. They could say there was a conspiracy because they
>>>>>>> couldn`t find one.
>>
>>>>>> No scientist ever says 100%, even a weatherman.
>>
>>>>> How many problems are there with that analogy? The HSCA weren`t
>>>>> scientists, and predicting isn`t the same as determining. Something 100%
>>>>> happened, and it is possible to determine things that happen with surety.
>>
>>>> They were basing their conclusion on the findings of the scientists.
>>
>>> It was the HSCA that made the ruling that you were touting, not the
>>> scientists.
>>
>> I said "basing." Do you know what that means?
>
> Do you? Do you realize that the HSCA concluded that Oswald fired all the
> shots that hit people in the limo, and that there was a shot from an
> unidentified source, and this information is what they used to conclude

They didn't say unidentified. They identified the location and the
scientists who studied the grassy knoll shot identified the approximate
muzzle velocity of the rifle and said that the bullet stopped in the
vicinity of the limo. You can't show me what it hit.

> that it was likely there was a conspiracy. Why were you touting a
> conclusion based on processes you consider incorrect?
>

I never said the processes were incorrect. I said they did not state
their findings boldly enough.

Someone has to correct your nonsense.

[Bud]

Yes, "tout". Look it up if you don`t know what it means. And after
you cure your ignorance you can stop running from the question and
answer it.

> Did you get a new dictionary for Christmas?
> You misuse words to create false impressions. You have to use cheap
> propaganda tricks because you don't have any facts.
>

> >>>>>> I was talking about duplicating and refining.
>
> >>>>>      Whatever you were talking about had little to do with the issue I
> >>>>> raised with you.
>
> >>>>>>>> I am saying they did not go far enough.
>
> >>>>>>>       No, you said the HSCA ruled for conspiracy.
>
> >>>>>> No far enough.
>
> >>>>>      Actually they didn`t rule for conspiracy. They indicated it was
> >>>>> likely there was one, but they didn`t state there was one.
>
> >>>> Scientists rarely say 100%.
>
> >>>     You said the HSCA ruled for conspiracy. Why are you bringing up
> >>> scientists?
>
> >> Because the HSCA based their conclusion largely on the acoustical studies.
>
> >    But you were touting the HSCA`s conclusion.
>
> Not touting.

Yes, touting. Playing it up as significant.

> And for the record they can reach the right conclusion, but get some
> details wrong.

You can guess and come up with a right answer. But you were touting
the HSCA`s conclusion of conspiracy even though you disagree with how
they got there. Why?

> >>>>>>>> Some of my criticisms can be considered very minor. Like pointing out
> >>>>>>>> that the real percentage was 99.9% not 95%.
>
> >>>>>>>       They put the qualifier in to signify they weren`t stating an
> >>>>>>> absolute position. They could say there was a conspiracy because they
> >>>>>>> couldn`t find one.
>
> >>>>>> No scientist ever says 100%, even a weatherman.
>
> >>>>>      How many problems are there with that analogy? The HSCA weren`t
> >>>>> scientists, and predicting isn`t the same as determining. Something 100%
> >>>>> happened, and it is possible to determine things that happen with surety.
>
> >>>> They were basing their conclusion on the findings of the scientists.
>
> >>>     It was the HSCA that made the ruling that you were touting, not the
> >>> scientists.
>
> >> I said "basing." Do you know what that means?
>
> >    Do you? Do you realize that the HSCA concluded that Oswald fired all the
> > shots that hit people in the limo, and that there was a shot from an
> > unidentified source, and this information is what they used to conclude
>
> They didn't say unidentified.

They identified a shooter?

> They identified the location and the
> scientists who studied the grassy knoll shot identified the approximate
> muzzle velocity of the rifle and said that the bullet stopped in the
> vicinity of the limo. You can't show me what it hit.

Again you are diverting attention towards the scientists when it was
the HSCA ruling of conspiracy (although it was only "probable", which
neglected to specify) you were holding up as significant.

> > that it was likely there was a conspiracy. Why were you touting a
> > conclusion based on processes you consider incorrect?
>
> I never said the processes were incorrect.

No, you said that the HSCA ruled for conspiracy (which was untrue),
and you were holding up this conclusion as significant. But they
concluded that Oswald fired that shots that accounted for all the
wounds inflicted on the people in the limo and that someone else that
conspired with Oswald fired a shot that inflicted no wounds on people
riding in the limo. Do you believe this conclusion? Does anyone?

[Anthony Marsh]

I don't have to answer phony questions. Have you stopped beating your
wife yet?

>> Did you get a new dictionary for Christmas?
>> You misuse words to create false impressions. You have to use cheap
>> propaganda tricks because you don't have any facts.
>>
>
>>>>>>>> I was talking about duplicating and refining.
>>
>>>>>>> Whatever you were talking about had little to do with the issue I
>>>>>>> raised with you.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am saying they did not go far enough.
>>
>>>>>>>>> No, you said the HSCA ruled for conspiracy.
>>
>>>>>>>> No far enough.
>>
>>>>>>> Actually they didn`t rule for conspiracy. They indicated it was
>>>>>>> likely there was one, but they didn`t state there was one.
>>
>>>>>> Scientists rarely say 100%.
>>
>>>>> You said the HSCA ruled for conspiracy. Why are you bringing up
>>>>> scientists?
>>
>>>> Because the HSCA based their conclusion largely on the acoustical studies.
>>
>>> But you were touting the HSCA`s conclusion.
>>
>> Not touting.
>
> Yes, touting. Playing it up as significant.

A finding of conspiracy is very significant. The tests were very

significant.

>
>> And for the record they can reach the right conclusion, but get some
>> details wrong.
>
> You can guess and come up with a right answer. But you were touting
> the HSCA`s conclusion of conspiracy even though you disagree with how
> they got there. Why?
>

Again you misrepresent what I said.

>>>>>>>>>> Some of my criticisms can be considered very minor. Like pointing out
>>>>>>>>>> that the real percentage was 99.9% not 95%.
>>
>>>>>>>>> They put the qualifier in to signify they weren`t stating an
>>>>>>>>> absolute position. They could say there was a conspiracy because they
>>>>>>>>> couldn`t find one.
>>
>>>>>>>> No scientist ever says 100%, even a weatherman.
>>
>>>>>>> How many problems are there with that analogy? The HSCA weren`t
>>>>>>> scientists, and predicting isn`t the same as determining. Something 100%
>>>>>>> happened, and it is possible to determine things that happen with surety.
>>
>>>>>> They were basing their conclusion on the findings of the scientists.
>>
>>>>> It was the HSCA that made the ruling that you were touting, not the
>>>>> scientists.
>>
>>>> I said "basing." Do you know what that means?
>>
>>> Do you? Do you realize that the HSCA concluded that Oswald fired all the
>>> shots that hit people in the limo, and that there was a shot from an
>>> unidentified source, and this information is what they used to conclude
>>
>> They didn't say unidentified.
>
> They identified a shooter?

Neither did the acoustical scientists identify Oswald as the shooter.
But you never say unidentified shooter in the sniper's nest. Because you
are biased.
In both cases the location was identified not the shooter.

>
>> They identified the location and the
>> scientists who studied the grassy knoll shot identified the approximate
>> muzzle velocity of the rifle and said that the bullet stopped in the
>> vicinity of the limo. You can't show me what it hit.
>
> Again you are diverting attention towards the scientists when it was
> the HSCA ruling of conspiracy (although it was only "probable", which
> neglected to specify) you were holding up as significant.
>

As I've said before you have a hard time finding any scientists who
likes to state things as an absolute fact, 100%. They will tell you
plausible, likely, probable, highly probable.

>>> that it was likely there was a conspiracy. Why were you touting a
>>> conclusion based on processes you consider incorrect?
>>
>> I never said the processes were incorrect.
>
> No, you said that the HSCA ruled for conspiracy (which was untrue),

What kind of WC denialism is this. You lost, we won. So now you say you
won.

> and you were holding up this conclusion as significant. But they
> concluded that Oswald fired that shots that accounted for all the

That was the HSCA conclusion. BBN did not name Oswald as the shooter.

> wounds inflicted on the people in the limo and that someone else that
> conspired with Oswald fired a shot that inflicted no wounds on people
> riding in the limo. Do you believe this conclusion? Does anyone?
>

Except for about half of the committee who said it was not conspiracy,
only a coincidence of two lone nuts.

[David Von Pein]

T. MARSH:

But you [Bud] never say unidentified shooter in the sniper's nest.


DVP:

That's because Bud knows the shooter in the Nest was not unidentified.
It was Oswald. Duh. You know that. Why argue about it?

[Bud]

Nor do you have to take positions that make sense. Like touting the
HSCA`s conclusion when you don`t agree with them.

> Have you stopped beating your
> wife yet?
>
> >> Did you get a new dictionary for Christmas?
> >> You misuse words to create false impressions. You have to use cheap
> >> propaganda tricks because you don't have any facts.
>
> >>>>>>>> I was talking about duplicating and refining.
>
> >>>>>>>       Whatever you were talking about had little to do with the issue I
> >>>>>>> raised with you.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> I am saying they did not go far enough.
>
> >>>>>>>>>        No, you said the HSCA ruled for conspiracy.
>
> >>>>>>>> No far enough.
>
> >>>>>>>       Actually they didn`t rule for conspiracy. They indicated it was
> >>>>>>> likely there was one, but they didn`t state there was one.
>
> >>>>>> Scientists rarely say 100%.
>
> >>>>>      You said the HSCA ruled for conspiracy. Why are you bringing up
> >>>>> scientists?
>
> >>>> Because the HSCA based their conclusion largely on the acoustical studies.
>
> >>>     But you were touting the HSCA`s conclusion.
>
> >> Not touting.
>
> >    Yes, touting. Playing it up as significant.
>
> A finding of conspiracy is very significant. The tests were very
> significant.

Actually their conclusion are much closer to what I believe occurred
than what you do. I believe like they concluded, that Oswald took all
the shots that accounts for the wounds of people in the limo. They
thought someone fired a shot that wounded no one in the limo,
something neither you nor I believe. Thats why it makes no sense for
you to tout their conclusions.

> >> And for the record they can reach the right conclusion, but get some
> >> details wrong.
>
> >     You can guess and come up with a right answer. But you were touting
> > the HSCA`s conclusion of conspiracy even though you disagree with how
> > they got there. Why?
>
> Again you misrepresent what I said.

I`m trying to make sense of what you said. It appears to be
nonsense, and you are doing a poor job justifying your stance.

> >>>>>>>>>> Some of my criticisms can be considered very minor. Like pointing out
> >>>>>>>>>> that the real percentage was 99.9% not 95%.
>
> >>>>>>>>>        They put the qualifier in to signify they weren`t stating an
> >>>>>>>>> absolute position. They could say there was a conspiracy because they
> >>>>>>>>> couldn`t find one.
>
> >>>>>>>> No scientist ever says 100%, even a weatherman.
>
> >>>>>>>       How many problems are there with that analogy? The HSCA weren`t
> >>>>>>> scientists, and predicting isn`t the same as determining. Something 100%
> >>>>>>> happened, and it is possible to determine things that happen with surety.
>
> >>>>>> They were basing their conclusion on the findings of the scientists.
>
> >>>>>      It was the HSCA that made the ruling that you were touting, not the
> >>>>> scientists.
>
> >>>> I said "basing." Do you know what that means?
>
> >>>     Do you? Do you realize that the HSCA concluded that Oswald fired all the
> >>> shots that hit people in the limo, and that there was a shot from an
> >>> unidentified source, and this information is what they used to conclude
>
> >> They didn't say unidentified.
>
> >    They identified a shooter?
>
> Neither did the acoustical scientists identify Oswald as the shooter.

You don`t seem to be aware of it, but there is other evidence in
this case.

> But you never say unidentified shooter in the sniper's nest. Because you
> are biased.

Because I know that person was identified.

> In both cases the location was identified not the shooter.
>
>
>
> >> They identified the location and the
> >> scientists who studied the grassy knoll shot identified the approximate
> >> muzzle velocity of the rifle and said that the bullet stopped in the
> >> vicinity of the limo. You can't show me what it hit.
>
> >    Again you are diverting attention towards the scientists when it was
> > the HSCA ruling of conspiracy (although it was only "probable", which
> > neglected to specify) you were holding up as significant.
>
> As I've said before you have a hard time finding any scientists who
> likes to state things as an absolute fact, 100%. They will tell you
> plausible, likely, probable, highly probable.

You might as well be talking about what plumbers do, it was the WC
that concluded there was probably someone who conspired with Oswald.

> >>> that it was likely there was a conspiracy. Why were you touting a
> >>> conclusion based on processes you consider incorrect?
>
> >> I never said the processes were incorrect.
>
> >    No, you said that the HSCA ruled for conspiracy (which was untrue),
>
> What kind of WC denialism is this.

Just correcting the untruth you told.

> You lost, we won. So now you say you
> won.

Once Oswald is determined to be JFK`s killer my side wins. Your side
can`t show anyone conspiring with Oswald, so your side loses.

> > and you were holding up this conclusion as significant. But they
> > concluded that Oswald fired that shots that accounted for all the
>
> That was the HSCA conclusion.

It was the HSCA you were talking about when you said they ruled for
conspiracy, right? That was entity who`s ruling you felt vindicated
your position. Problem with that is how they came to believe there was
a conspiracy is in a manner you disagree with, saying Oswald alone
shot Kennedy and Connally.

> BBN did not name Oswald as the shooter.
>
> > wounds inflicted on the people in the limo and that someone else that
> > conspired with Oswald fired a shot that inflicted no wounds on people
> > riding in the limo. Do you believe this conclusion? Does anyone?
>
> Except for about half of the committee who said it was not conspiracy,
> only a coincidence of two lone nuts.

Outside of the HSCA, who believes that Oswald took the shots that
injured Connally and killed Kennedy, and that someone who colluded
with Oswald fired a shot but was not responsible for any of the wounds
on these two men?

[Anthony Marsh]

Silly. You know that there is no proof of that and I doubt it.
My point stands. This was about what the BBN report said. It never said
that Oswald was the shooter in the sniper's nest.

[Anthony Marsh]

All you can do is make false charges because you don't have any facts on
your side.

>> Have you stopped beating your
>> wife yet?
>>
>>>> Did you get a new dictionary for Christmas?
>>>> You misuse words to create false impressions. You have to use cheap
>>>> propaganda tricks because you don't have any facts.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> I was talking about duplicating and refining.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Whatever you were talking about had little to do with the issue I
>>>>>>>>> raised with you.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am saying they did not go far enough.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, you said the HSCA ruled for conspiracy.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> No far enough.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Actually they didn`t rule for conspiracy. They indicated it was
>>>>>>>>> likely there was one, but they didn`t state there was one.
>>
>>>>>>>> Scientists rarely say 100%.
>>
>>>>>>> You said the HSCA ruled for conspiracy. Why are you bringing up
>>>>>>> scientists?
>>
>>>>>> Because the HSCA based their conclusion largely on the acoustical studies.
>>
>>>>> But you were touting the HSCA`s conclusion.
>>
>>>> Not touting.
>>
>>> Yes, touting. Playing it up as significant.
>>
>> A finding of conspiracy is very significant. The tests were very
>> significant.
>
> Actually their conclusion are much closer to what I believe occurred
> than what you do. I believe like they concluded, that Oswald took all

Nonsense.

> the shots that accounts for the wounds of people in the limo. They
> thought someone fired a shot that wounded no one in the limo,
> something neither you nor I believe. Thats why it makes no sense for
> you to tout their conclusions.
>

So you want to join the WC defenders on the HSCA in their theory of the
coincidence of two lone nuts?

>>>> And for the record they can reach the right conclusion, but get some
>>>> details wrong.
>>
>>> You can guess and come up with a right answer. But you were touting
>>> the HSCA`s conclusion of conspiracy even though you disagree with how
>>> they got there. Why?
>>
>> Again you misrepresent what I said.
>
> I`m trying to make sense of what you said. It appears to be
> nonsense, and you are doing a poor job justifying your stance.
>

No, you are not. You attack without any reason just for the bloodlust of
attacking.

>>>>>>>>>>>> Some of my criticisms can be considered very minor. Like pointing out
>>>>>>>>>>>> that the real percentage was 99.9% not 95%.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> They put the qualifier in to signify they weren`t stating an
>>>>>>>>>>> absolute position. They could say there was a conspiracy because they
>>>>>>>>>>> couldn`t find one.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> No scientist ever says 100%, even a weatherman.
>>
>>>>>>>>> How many problems are there with that analogy? The HSCA weren`t
>>>>>>>>> scientists, and predicting isn`t the same as determining. Something 100%
>>>>>>>>> happened, and it is possible to determine things that happen with surety.
>>
>>>>>>>> They were basing their conclusion on the findings of the scientists.
>>
>>>>>>> It was the HSCA that made the ruling that you were touting, not the
>>>>>>> scientists.
>>
>>>>>> I said "basing." Do you know what that means?
>>
>>>>> Do you? Do you realize that the HSCA concluded that Oswald fired all the
>>>>> shots that hit people in the limo, and that there was a shot from an
>>>>> unidentified source, and this information is what they used to conclude
>>
>>>> They didn't say unidentified.
>>
>>> They identified a shooter?
>>
>> Neither did the acoustical scientists identify Oswald as the shooter.
>
> You don`t seem to be aware of it, but there is other evidence in
> this case.
>

This particular discussion was only about the acoustical evidence.

>> But you never say unidentified shooter in the sniper's nest. Because you
>> are biased.
>
> Because I know that person was identified.
>

Not by BBN.

>> In both cases the location was identified not the shooter.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> They identified the location and the
>>>> scientists who studied the grassy knoll shot identified the approximate
>>>> muzzle velocity of the rifle and said that the bullet stopped in the
>>>> vicinity of the limo. You can't show me what it hit.
>>
>>> Again you are diverting attention towards the scientists when it was
>>> the HSCA ruling of conspiracy (although it was only "probable", which
>>> neglected to specify) you were holding up as significant.
>>
>> As I've said before you have a hard time finding any scientists who
>> likes to state things as an absolute fact, 100%. They will tell you
>> plausible, likely, probable, highly probable.
>
> You might as well be talking about what plumbers do, it was the WC
> that concluded there was probably someone who conspired with Oswald.
>

Huh? You trying to make news here? Name the co-conspirator.

>>>>> that it was likely there was a conspiracy. Why were you touting a
>>>>> conclusion based on processes you consider incorrect?
>>
>>>> I never said the processes were incorrect.
>>
>>> No, you said that the HSCA ruled for conspiracy (which was untrue),
>>
>> What kind of WC denialism is this.
>
> Just correcting the untruth you told.

So you deny that the HSCA conclused conspiracy?

>
>> You lost, we won. So now you say you
>> won.
>
> Once Oswald is determined to be JFK`s killer my side wins. Your side
> can`t show anyone conspiring with Oswald, so your side loses.
>

The HSCA said Oswald was JFK's killer.
It's the conspiracy finding you don't like.
So you think the grassy knoll shot does not prove conspiracy?
You think it was a coincidence of two lone nuts?

>>> and you were holding up this conclusion as significant. But they
>>> concluded that Oswald fired that shots that accounted for all the
>>
>> That was the HSCA conclusion.
>
> It was the HSCA you were talking about when you said they ruled for
> conspiracy, right? That was entity who`s ruling you felt vindicated
> your position. Problem with that is how they came to believe there was

No. Stop mischaracterizing what I believe and say.

> a conspiracy is in a manner you disagree with, saying Oswald alone
> shot Kennedy and Connally.
>

Maybe I disagree with them on which group they pinned it on.

>> BBN did not name Oswald as the shooter.
>>
>>> wounds inflicted on the people in the limo and that someone else that
>>> conspired with Oswald fired a shot that inflicted no wounds on people
>>> riding in the limo. Do you believe this conclusion? Does anyone?
>>
>> Except for about half of the committee who said it was not conspiracy,
>> only a coincidence of two lone nuts.
>
> Outside of the HSCA, who believes that Oswald took the shots that
> injured Connally and killed Kennedy, and that someone who colluded
> with Oswald fired a shot but was not responsible for any of the wounds
> on these two men?
>

Not many.

[Bud]

I can see why you would want to run from the position you took.
Unfortunately it is saved in the archives.

Not nonsense. They said Oswald took all the shots that account for
the wounds of the limo. So do I. They said there was a shot that
didn`t hit anyone in the limo. You don`t believe this, yet you tout
their findings.

> > the shots that accounts for the wounds of people in the limo. They
> > thought someone fired a shot that wounded no one in the limo,
> > something neither you nor I believe. Thats why it makes no sense for
> > you to tout their conclusions.
>
> So you want to join the WC defenders on the HSCA in their theory of the
> coincidence of two lone nuts?

Why is that such a bad idea. When you know one of the shooters and
how they got there (and know he wasn`t one to work and play with
others) it only needs another person selecting the knoll because it
afforded cover for someone who didn`t happen to have a job along the
motorcade route.

> >>>> And for the record they can reach the right conclusion, but get some
> >>>> details wrong.
>
> >>>      You can guess and come up with a right answer. But you were touting
> >>> the HSCA`s conclusion of conspiracy even though you disagree with how
> >>> they got there. Why?
>
> >> Again you misrepresent what I said.
>
> >    I`m trying to make sense of what you said. It appears to be
> > nonsense, and you are doing a poor job justifying your stance.
>
> No, you are not. You attack without any reason just for the bloodlust of
> attacking.

Thats pretty dramatic, is this how you see people who ask you to
support what you`ve said?

> >>>>>>>>>>>> Some of my criticisms can be considered very minor. Like pointing out
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that the real percentage was 99.9% not 95%.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>         They put the qualifier in to signify they weren`t stating an
> >>>>>>>>>>> absolute position. They could say there was a conspiracy because they
> >>>>>>>>>>> couldn`t find one.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> No scientist ever says 100%, even a weatherman.
>
> >>>>>>>>>        How many problems are there with that analogy? The HSCA weren`t
> >>>>>>>>> scientists, and predicting isn`t the same as determining. Something 100%
> >>>>>>>>> happened, and it is possible to determine things that happen with surety.
>
> >>>>>>>> They were basing their conclusion on the findings of the scientists.
>
> >>>>>>>       It was the HSCA that made the ruling that you were touting, not the
> >>>>>>> scientists.
>
> >>>>>> I said "basing." Do you know what that means?
>
> >>>>>      Do you? Do you realize that the HSCA concluded that Oswald fired all the
> >>>>> shots that hit people in the limo, and that there was a shot from an
> >>>>> unidentified source, and this information is what they used to conclude
>
> >>>> They didn't say unidentified.
>
> >>>     They identified a shooter?
>
> >> Neither did the acoustical scientists identify Oswald as the shooter.
>
> >    You don`t seem to be aware of it, but there is other evidence in
> > this case.
>
> This particular discussion was only about the acoustical evidence.

You don`t even know what the discussion is about. It`s about you
saying this...

"It was not the result of a lone gunman. It was ruled a conspiracy.
We won, you lost. Now, get over it and move on."

> >> But you never say unidentified shooter in the sniper's nest. Because you
> >> are biased.
>
> >    Because I know that person was identified.
>
> Not by BBN.

You think that is who ruled it a (probable) conspiracy?

> >> In both cases the location was identified not the shooter.
>
> >>>> They identified the location and the
> >>>> scientists who studied the grassy knoll shot identified the approximate
> >>>> muzzle velocity of the rifle and said that the bullet stopped in the
> >>>> vicinity of the limo. You can't show me what it hit.
>
> >>>     Again you are diverting attention towards the scientists when it was
> >>> the HSCA ruling of conspiracy (although it was only "probable", which
> >>> neglected to specify) you were holding up as significant.
>
> >> As I've said before you have a hard time finding any scientists who
> >> likes to state things as an absolute fact, 100%. They will tell you
> >> plausible, likely, probable, highly probable.
>
> >    You might as well be talking about what plumbers do, it was the WC
> > that concluded there was probably someone who conspired with Oswald.
>
> Huh? You trying to make news here? Name the co-conspirator.

WC should have been HSCA, of course. They concluded someone
conspired with Oswald.

> >>>>> that it was likely there was a conspiracy. Why were you touting a
> >>>>> conclusion based on processes you consider incorrect?
>
> >>>> I never said the processes were incorrect.
>
> >>>     No, you said that the HSCA ruled for conspiracy (which was untrue),
>
> >> What kind of WC denialism is this.
>
> >    Just correcting the untruth you told.
>
> So you deny that the HSCA conclused conspiracy?

Yes. They ruled "probable conspiracy". Two distinctly different
concepts.

> >> You lost, we won. So now you say you
> >> won.
>
> >    Once Oswald is determined to be JFK`s killer my side wins. Your side
> > can`t show anyone conspiring with Oswald, so your side loses.
>
> The HSCA said Oswald was JFK's killer.

Yes, that is why their conclusion is closer to mine. On the issue of
who ended Kennedy`s life we agree.

> It's the conspiracy finding you don't like.

You don`t like how they got there any more than I do. They thought
there was a second shooter that didn`t shoot anyone in the limo.

> So you think the grassy knoll shot does not prove conspiracy?

I think the shot itself is unproven.

> You think it was a coincidence of two lone nuts?

Nope. Oswald alone.

[Anthony Marsh]

All you can do is misrepresent what I say because you do not have any
facts on your side.

Yes, that's what the HSCA said. We were talking about what the acoustical
scientists said and they did not name any person as the shooter.

> the wounds of the limo. So do I. They said there was a shot that

I am not sure they can prove that Oswald wounded the limo.

> didn`t hit anyone in the limo. You don`t believe this, yet you tout
> their findings.
>

You keep repeating this nonsense. You seem to see the world only in
black and white.

>>> the shots that accounts for the wounds of people in the limo. They
>>> thought someone fired a shot that wounded no one in the limo,
>>> something neither you nor I believe. Thats why it makes no sense for
>>> you to tout their conclusions.
>>
>> So you want to join the WC defenders on the HSCA in their theory of the
>> coincidence of two lone nuts?
>
> Why is that such a bad idea. When you know one of the shooters and

Betcha don't even know who proposed the idea to them? Of course it's a
silly idea. No sane person would seriously consider it.

> how they got there (and know he wasn`t one to work and play with
> others) it only needs another person selecting the knoll because it
> afforded cover for someone who didn`t happen to have a job along the
> motorcade route.
>

How do you know that? Do you know who the grassy knoll shooter was?
Confess now and we'll grant you immunity. Maybe he worked there.

>>>>>> And for the record they can reach the right conclusion, but get some
>>>>>> details wrong.
>>
>>>>> You can guess and come up with a right answer. But you were touting
>>>>> the HSCA`s conclusion of conspiracy even though you disagree with how
>>>>> they got there. Why?
>>
>>>> Again you misrepresent what I said.
>>
>>> I`m trying to make sense of what you said. It appears to be
>>> nonsense, and you are doing a poor job justifying your stance.
>>
>> No, you are not. You attack without any reason just for the bloodlust of
>> attacking.
>
> Thats pretty dramatic, is this how you see people who ask you to
> support what you`ve said?
>

People like you.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some of my criticisms can be considered very minor. Like pointing out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the real percentage was 99.9% not 95%.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> They put the qualifier in to signify they weren`t stating an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolute position. They could say there was a conspiracy because they
>>>>>>>>>>>>> couldn`t find one.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No scientist ever says 100%, even a weatherman.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How many problems are there with that analogy? The HSCA weren`t
>>>>>>>>>>> scientists, and predicting isn`t the same as determining. Something 100%
>>>>>>>>>>> happened, and it is possible to determine things that happen with surety.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> They were basing their conclusion on the findings of the scientists.
>>
>>>>>>>>> It was the HSCA that made the ruling that you were touting, not the
>>>>>>>>> scientists.
>>
>>>>>>>> I said "basing." Do you know what that means?
>>
>>>>>>> Do you? Do you realize that the HSCA concluded that Oswald fired all the
>>>>>>> shots that hit people in the limo, and that there was a shot from an
>>>>>>> unidentified source, and this information is what they used to conclude
>>
>>>>>> They didn't say unidentified.
>>
>>>>> They identified a shooter?
>>
>>>> Neither did the acoustical scientists identify Oswald as the shooter.
>>
>>> You don`t seem to be aware of it, but there is other evidence in
>>> this case.
>>
>> This particular discussion was only about the acoustical evidence.
>
> You don`t even know what the discussion is about. It`s about you
> saying this...
>

No, it's about you using any occasion to attack me.

> "It was not the result of a lone gunman. It was ruled a conspiracy.
> We won, you lost. Now, get over it and move on."
>
>>>> But you never say unidentified shooter in the sniper's nest. Because you
>>>> are biased.
>>
>>> Because I know that person was identified.
>>
>> Not by BBN.
>
> You think that is who ruled it a (probable) conspiracy?
>

You can identify one of the shooters without having to say it was a
conspiracy or not.

>>>> In both cases the location was identified not the shooter.
>>
>>>>>> They identified the location and the
>>>>>> scientists who studied the grassy knoll shot identified the approximate
>>>>>> muzzle velocity of the rifle and said that the bullet stopped in the
>>>>>> vicinity of the limo. You can't show me what it hit.
>>
>>>>> Again you are diverting attention towards the scientists when it was
>>>>> the HSCA ruling of conspiracy (although it was only "probable", which
>>>>> neglected to specify) you were holding up as significant.
>>
>>>> As I've said before you have a hard time finding any scientists who
>>>> likes to state things as an absolute fact, 100%. They will tell you
>>>> plausible, likely, probable, highly probable.
>>
>>> You might as well be talking about what plumbers do, it was the WC
>>> that concluded there was probably someone who conspired with Oswald.
>>
>> Huh? You trying to make news here? Name the co-conspirator.
>
> WC should have been HSCA, of course. They concluded someone
> conspired with Oswald.
>

Yes, and Blakey went even further and blamed it on the Mafia. To protect
the CIA.

>>>>>>> that it was likely there was a conspiracy. Why were you touting a
>>>>>>> conclusion based on processes you consider incorrect?
>>
>>>>>> I never said the processes were incorrect.
>>
>>>>> No, you said that the HSCA ruled for conspiracy (which was untrue),
>>
>>>> What kind of WC denialism is this.
>>
>>> Just correcting the untruth you told.
>>
>> So you deny that the HSCA conclused conspiracy?
>
> Yes. They ruled "probable conspiracy". Two distinctly different
> concepts.
>
>>>> You lost, we won. So now you say you
>>>> won.
>>
>>> Once Oswald is determined to be JFK`s killer my side wins. Your side
>>> can`t show anyone conspiring with Oswald, so your side loses.
>>
>> The HSCA said Oswald was JFK's killer.
>
> Yes, that is why their conclusion is closer to mine. On the issue of
> who ended Kennedy`s life we agree.
>
>> It's the conspiracy finding you don't like.
>
> You don`t like how they got there any more than I do. They thought
> there was a second shooter that didn`t shoot anyone in the limo.
>

I applauded their finally looking for scientific evidence of conspiracy.

>> So you think the grassy knoll shot does not prove conspiracy?
>
> I think the shot itself is unproven.
>

So you doubt the science of only the grassy knoll analysis?
Maybe you think that shot came from the sniper's nest?

[Bud]

Use your own words against you to make you run.

Yes, that is body whos ruling you were touting.

> We were talking about what the acoustical
> scientists said and they did not name any person as the shooter.
>
> > the wounds of the limo. So do I. They said there was a shot that
>
> I am not sure they can prove that Oswald wounded the limo.
>
> > didn`t hit anyone in the limo. You don`t believe this, yet you tout
> > their findings.
>
> You keep repeating this nonsense.

Your nonsense. You were touting a conclusion when you disagreed with
how that conclusion was reached.

> You seem to see the world only in
> black and white.

It`s all I need when I`m looking at a zebra.

> >>> the shots that accounts for the wounds of people in the limo. They
> >>> thought someone fired a shot that wounded no one in the limo,
> >>> something neither you nor I believe. Thats why it makes no sense for
> >>> you to tout their conclusions.
>
> >> So you want to join the WC defenders on the HSCA in their theory of the
> >> coincidence of two lone nuts?
>
> >    Why is that such a bad idea. When you know one of the shooters and
>
> Betcha don't even know who proposed the idea to them? Of course it's a
> silly idea. No sane person would seriously consider it.

You don`t seem to like it, yet the idea remains unharmed by your
rebuttal.

> > how they got there (and know he wasn`t one to work and play with
> > others) it only needs another person selecting the knoll because it
> > afforded cover for someone who didn`t happen to have a job along the
> > motorcade route.
>
> How do you know that?

I have the ability to reason.

> Do you know who the grassy knoll shooter was?
> Confess now and we'll grant you immunity. Maybe he worked there.
>
> >>>>>> And for the record they can reach the right conclusion, but get some
> >>>>>> details wrong.
>
> >>>>>       You can guess and come up with a right answer. But you were touting
> >>>>> the HSCA`s conclusion of conspiracy even though you disagree with how
> >>>>> they got there. Why?
>
> >>>> Again you misrepresent what I said.
>
> >>>     I`m trying to make sense of what you said. It appears to be
> >>> nonsense, and you are doing a poor job justifying your stance.
>
> >> No, you are not. You attack without any reason just for the bloodlust of
> >> attacking.
>
> >    Thats pretty dramatic, is this how you see people who ask you to
> > support what you`ve said?
>
> People like you.

Right, people who ask you to support what you`ve said.

I only give you the opportunity to run from what you`ve said, I
don`t make you take it.

> >     "It was not the result of a lone gunman. It was ruled a conspiracy.
> > We won, you lost. Now, get over it and move on."
>
> >>>> But you never say unidentified shooter in the sniper's nest. Because you
> >>>> are biased.
>
> >>>     Because I know that person was identified.
>
> >> Not by BBN.
>
> >    You think that is who ruled it a (probable) conspiracy?
>
> You can identify one of the shooters without having to say it was a
> conspiracy or not.

So?

> >>>> In both cases the location was identified not the shooter.
>
> >>>>>> They identified the location and the
> >>>>>> scientists who studied the grassy knoll shot identified the approximate
> >>>>>> muzzle velocity of the rifle and said that the bullet stopped in the
> >>>>>> vicinity of the limo. You can't show me what it hit.
>
> >>>>>      Again you are diverting attention towards the scientists when it was
> >>>>> the HSCA ruling of conspiracy (although it was only "probable", which
> >>>>> neglected to specify) you were holding up as significant.
>
> >>>> As I've said before you have a hard time finding any scientists who
> >>>> likes to state things as an absolute fact, 100%. They will tell you
> >>>> plausible, likely, probable, highly probable.
>
> >>>     You might as well be talking about what plumbers do, it was the WC
> >>> that concluded there was probably someone who conspired with Oswald.
>
> >> Huh? You trying to make news here? Name the co-conspirator.
>
> >    WC should have been HSCA, of course. They concluded someone
> > conspired with Oswald.
>
> Yes, and Blakey went even further and blamed it on the Mafia. To protect
> the CIA.

The Mafia conspired with Oswald?

> >>>>>>> that it was likely there was a conspiracy. Why were you touting a
> >>>>>>> conclusion based on processes you consider incorrect?
>
> >>>>>> I never said the processes were incorrect.
>
> >>>>>      No, you said that the HSCA ruled for conspiracy (which was untrue),
>
> >>>> What kind of WC denialism is this.
>
> >>>     Just correcting the untruth you told.
>
> >> So you deny that the HSCA conclused conspiracy?
>
> >    Yes. They ruled "probable conspiracy". Two distinctly different
> > concepts.
>
> >>>> You lost, we won. So now you say you
> >>>> won.
>
> >>>     Once Oswald is determined to be JFK`s killer my side wins. Your side
> >>> can`t show anyone conspiring with Oswald, so your side loses.
>
> >> The HSCA said Oswald was JFK's killer.
>
> >    Yes, that is why their conclusion is closer to mine. On the issue of
> > who ended Kennedy`s life we agree.
>
> >> It's the conspiracy finding you don't like.
>
> >    You don`t like how they got there any more than I do. They thought
> > there was a second shooter that didn`t shoot anyone in the limo.
>
> I applauded their finally looking for scientific evidence of conspiracy.

Which according to you they got wrong, and the shot they said didn`t
hit Kennedy actually did hit Kennedy. Just a minor error, eh? Not
enough to stop you from touting their conclusion.

> >> So you think the grassy knoll shot does not prove conspiracy?
>
> >    I think the shot itself is unproven.
>
> So you doubt the science of only the grassy knoll analysis?
> Maybe you think that shot came from the sniper's nest?

Reread what I wrote for comprehension.

[Anthony Marsh]

Misrepresenting what I say.

Wrong. Not disagreed with. Just pointing out that they did not go far
enough. They understated the significance of their results. By not using
the correct chart.

>> You seem to see the world only in
>> black and white.
>
> It`s all I need when I`m looking at a zebra.
>
>>>>> the shots that accounts for the wounds of people in the limo. They
>>>>> thought someone fired a shot that wounded no one in the limo,
>>>>> something neither you nor I believe. Thats why it makes no sense for
>>>>> you to tout their conclusions.
>>
>>>> So you want to join the WC defenders on the HSCA in their theory of the
>>>> coincidence of two lone nuts?
>>
>>> Why is that such a bad idea. When you know one of the shooters and
>>
>> Betcha don't even know who proposed the idea to them? Of course it's a
>> silly idea. No sane person would seriously consider it.
>
> You don`t seem to like it, yet the idea remains unharmed by your
> rebuttal.
>

Stumped you, didn't I?

>>> how they got there (and know he wasn`t one to work and play with
>>> others) it only needs another person selecting the knoll because it
>>> afforded cover for someone who didn`t happen to have a job along the
>>> motorcade route.
>>
>> How do you know that?
>
> I have the ability to reason.

No.

>
>> Do you know who the grassy knoll shooter was?
>> Confess now and we'll grant you immunity. Maybe he worked there.
>>
>>>>>>>> And for the record they can reach the right conclusion, but get some
>>>>>>>> details wrong.
>>
>>>>>>> You can guess and come up with a right answer. But you were touting
>>>>>>> the HSCA`s conclusion of conspiracy even though you disagree with how
>>>>>>> they got there. Why?
>>
>>>>>> Again you misrepresent what I said.
>>
>>>>> I`m trying to make sense of what you said. It appears to be
>>>>> nonsense, and you are doing a poor job justifying your stance.
>>
>>>> No, you are not. You attack without any reason just for the bloodlust of
>>>> attacking.
>>
>>> Thats pretty dramatic, is this how you see people who ask you to
>>> support what you`ve said?
>>
>> People like you.
>
> Right, people who ask you to support what you`ve said.

I am not allowed to clarify what it meant.

I never run.

>>> "It was not the result of a lone gunman. It was ruled a conspiracy.
>>> We won, you lost. Now, get over it and move on."
>>
>>>>>> But you never say unidentified shooter in the sniper's nest. Because you
>>>>>> are biased.
>>
>>>>> Because I know that person was identified.
>>
>>>> Not by BBN.
>>
>>> You think that is who ruled it a (probable) conspiracy?
>>
>> You can identify one of the shooters without having to say it was a
>> conspiracy or not.
>
> So?
>

So the acoustical scientists did not have any obligation and did not
attempt to say who fired which shots.

>>>>>> In both cases the location was identified not the shooter.
>>
>>>>>>>> They identified the location and the
>>>>>>>> scientists who studied the grassy knoll shot identified the approximate
>>>>>>>> muzzle velocity of the rifle and said that the bullet stopped in the
>>>>>>>> vicinity of the limo. You can't show me what it hit.
>>
>>>>>>> Again you are diverting attention towards the scientists when it was
>>>>>>> the HSCA ruling of conspiracy (although it was only "probable", which
>>>>>>> neglected to specify) you were holding up as significant.
>>
>>>>>> As I've said before you have a hard time finding any scientists who
>>>>>> likes to state things as an absolute fact, 100%. They will tell you
>>>>>> plausible, likely, probable, highly probable.
>>
>>>>> You might as well be talking about what plumbers do, it was the WC
>>>>> that concluded there was probably someone who conspired with Oswald.
>>
>>>> Huh? You trying to make news here? Name the co-conspirator.
>>
>>> WC should have been HSCA, of course. They concluded someone
>>> conspired with Oswald.
>>
>> Yes, and Blakey went even further and blamed it on the Mafia. To protect
>> the CIA.
>
> The Mafia conspired with Oswald?

That was Blakey's theory, not mine, that he foisted on the HSCA.

>
>>>>>>>>> that it was likely there was a conspiracy. Why were you touting a
>>>>>>>>> conclusion based on processes you consider incorrect?
>>
>>>>>>>> I never said the processes were incorrect.
>>
>>>>>>> No, you said that the HSCA ruled for conspiracy (which was untrue),
>>
>>>>>> What kind of WC denialism is this.
>>
>>>>> Just correcting the untruth you told.
>>
>>>> So you deny that the HSCA conclused conspiracy?
>>
>>> Yes. They ruled "probable conspiracy". Two distinctly different
>>> concepts.
>>
>>>>>> You lost, we won. So now you say you
>>>>>> won.
>>
>>>>> Once Oswald is determined to be JFK`s killer my side wins. Your side
>>>>> can`t show anyone conspiring with Oswald, so your side loses.
>>
>>>> The HSCA said Oswald was JFK's killer.
>>
>>> Yes, that is why their conclusion is closer to mine. On the issue of
>>> who ended Kennedy`s life we agree.
>>
>>>> It's the conspiracy finding you don't like.
>>
>>> You don`t like how they got there any more than I do. They thought
>>> there was a second shooter that didn`t shoot anyone in the limo.
>>
>> I applauded their finally looking for scientific evidence of conspiracy.
>
> Which according to you they got wrong, and the shot they said didn`t

No. You are misrepresenting what I said. I said they did not go far enough.

> hit Kennedy actually did hit Kennedy. Just a minor error, eh? Not
> enough to stop you from touting their conclusion.
>

Enough for me to criticize them.

>>>> So you think the grassy knoll shot does not prove conspiracy?
>>
>>> I think the shot itself is unproven.
>>
>> So you doubt the science of only the grassy knoll analysis?
>> Maybe you think that shot came from the sniper's nest?
>
> Reread what I wrote for comprehension.

So you refuse to answer my direct questions.
No surprise there.

[David Von Pein]

January 2013 additions:

http://YouTube.com/playlist?list=PLjjjemgRs8wCHHhax6lHBgNNKAKMlRTFa

http://YouTube.com/DVPOldTimeRadio

http://Classic--Movies.blogspot.com/2013/01/green-mile.html

http://Kennedy-Photos.blogspot.com/2013/01/kennedy-gallery-282.html

[Bud]

Trying to make sense of what you said. You touted the HSCA ruling,
even though they concluded that only Oswald wounded Connally and
killed Kennedy, something you don`t believe.

Yes, disagreed. You disagreed with their conclusion that Oswald was
solely responsible for inflicting the wounds on Connally and Kennedy.

> Just pointing out that they did not go far
> enough. They understated the significance of their results. By not using
> the correct chart.
>
> >> You seem to see the world only in
> >> black and white.
>
> >    It`s all I need when I`m looking at a zebra.
>
> >>>>> the shots that accounts for the wounds of people in the limo. They
> >>>>> thought someone fired a shot that wounded no one in the limo,
> >>>>> something neither you nor I believe. Thats why it makes no sense for
> >>>>> you to tout their conclusions.
>
> >>>> So you want to join the WC defenders on the HSCA in their theory of the
> >>>> coincidence of two lone nuts?
>
> >>>     Why is that such a bad idea. When you know one of the shooters and
>
> >> Betcha don't even know who proposed the idea to them? Of course it's a
> >> silly idea. No sane person would seriously consider it.
>
> >    You don`t seem to like it, yet the idea remains unharmed by your
> > rebuttal.
>
> Stumped you, didn't I?

You`d have to offer something against the idea I expressed other
than displeasure to do that.

> >>> how they got there (and know he wasn`t one to work and play with
> >>> others) it only needs another person selecting the knoll because it
> >>> afforded cover for someone who didn`t happen to have a job along the
> >>> motorcade route.
>
> >> How do you know that?
>
> >    I have the ability to reason.
>
> No.

You can take the counter idea that the knoll wouldn`t be selected
because it afforded no cover if you like.

> >> Do you know who the grassy knoll shooter was?
> >> Confess now and we'll grant you immunity. Maybe he worked there.
>
> >>>>>>>> And for the record they can reach the right conclusion, but get some
> >>>>>>>> details wrong.
>
> >>>>>>>        You can guess and come up with a right answer. But you were touting
> >>>>>>> the HSCA`s conclusion of conspiracy even though you disagree with how
> >>>>>>> they got there. Why?
>
> >>>>>> Again you misrepresent what I said.
>
> >>>>>      I`m trying to make sense of what you said. It appears to be
> >>>>> nonsense, and you are doing a poor job justifying your stance.
>
> >>>> No, you are not. You attack without any reason just for the bloodlust of
> >>>> attacking.
>
> >>>     Thats pretty dramatic, is this how you see people who ask you to
> >>> support what you`ve said?
>
> >> People like you.
>
> >    Right, people who ask you to support what you`ve said.
>
> I am not allowed to clarify what it meant.

One of your personalities stopping you?

You do a lot of the time. Here you`ve opted to dance.

> >>>      "It was not the result of a lone gunman. It was ruled a conspiracy.
> >>> We won, you lost. Now, get over it and move on."
>
> >>>>>> But you never say unidentified shooter in the sniper's nest. Because you
> >>>>>> are biased.
>
> >>>>>      Because I know that person was identified.
>
> >>>> Not by BBN.
>
> >>>     You think that is who ruled it a (probable) conspiracy?
>
> >> You can identify one of the shooters without having to say it was a
> >> conspiracy or not.
>
> >    So?
>
> So the acoustical scientists did not have any obligation and did not
> attempt to say who fired which shots.

But it wasn`t the scientists that made the ruling that you touted.

> >>>>>> In both cases the location was identified not the shooter.
>
> >>>>>>>> They identified the location and the
> >>>>>>>> scientists who studied the grassy knoll shot identified the approximate
> >>>>>>>> muzzle velocity of the rifle and said that the bullet stopped in the
> >>>>>>>> vicinity of the limo. You can't show me what it hit.
>
> >>>>>>>       Again you are diverting attention towards the scientists when it was
> >>>>>>> the HSCA ruling of conspiracy (although it was only "probable", which
> >>>>>>> neglected to specify) you were holding up as significant.
>
> >>>>>> As I've said before you have a hard time finding any scientists who
> >>>>>> likes to state things as an absolute fact, 100%. They will tell you
> >>>>>> plausible, likely, probable, highly probable.
>
> >>>>>      You might as well be talking about what plumbers do, it was the WC
> >>>>> that concluded there was probably someone who conspired with Oswald.
>
> >>>> Huh? You trying to make news here? Name the co-conspirator.
>
> >>>     WC should have been HSCA, of course. They concluded someone
> >>> conspired with Oswald.
>
> >> Yes, and Blakey went even further and blamed it on the Mafia. To protect
> >> the CIA.
>
> >    The Mafia conspired with Oswald?
>
> That was Blakey's theory, not mine, that he foisted on the HSCA.

So, Oswald was conspiring with the CIA?

But not enough to prevent you from touting their ruling.

> >>>> So you think the grassy knoll shot does not prove conspiracy?
>
> >>>     I think the shot itself is unproven.
>
> >> So you doubt the science of only the grassy knoll analysis?
> >> Maybe you think that shot came from the sniper's nest?
>
> >    Reread what I wrote for comprehension.
>
> So you refuse to answer my direct questions.
> No surprise there.

The answer was provided before the question was asked.

> >>> You think it was a coincidence of two lone nuts?
>
> >>>     Nope. Oswald alone.

<SNAP>

[Anthony Marsh]

Silly. What do you hope to gain by constantly misrepresenting what I
have said? Most people are smart enough to read back through the old
messages and see what I actually said.

Disagreed with some of their points.

It was good cover. Proven by the fact that you can't see the man behind
the fence.

>>>> Do you know who the grassy knoll shooter was?
>>>> Confess now and we'll grant you immunity. Maybe he worked there.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> And for the record they can reach the right conclusion, but get some
>>>>>>>>>> details wrong.
>>
>>>>>>>>> You can guess and come up with a right answer. But you were touting
>>>>>>>>> the HSCA`s conclusion of conspiracy even though you disagree with how
>>>>>>>>> they got there. Why?
>>
>>>>>>>> Again you misrepresent what I said.
>>
>>>>>>> I`m trying to make sense of what you said. It appears to be
>>>>>>> nonsense, and you are doing a poor job justifying your stance.
>>
>>>>>> No, you are not. You attack without any reason just for the bloodlust of
>>>>>> attacking.
>>
>>>>> Thats pretty dramatic, is this how you see people who ask you to
>>>>> support what you`ve said?
>>
>>>> People like you.
>>
>>> Right, people who ask you to support what you`ve said.
>>
>> I am not allowed to clarify what it meant.
>
> One of your personalities stopping you?

Prevented by the rules of this newsgroup.

Nope.

>
>>>>> "It was not the result of a lone gunman. It was ruled a conspiracy.
>>>>> We won, you lost. Now, get over it and move on."
>>
>>>>>>>> But you never say unidentified shooter in the sniper's nest. Because you
>>>>>>>> are biased.
>>
>>>>>>> Because I know that person was identified.
>>
>>>>>> Not by BBN.
>>
>>>>> You think that is who ruled it a (probable) conspiracy?
>>
>>>> You can identify one of the shooters without having to say it was a
>>>> conspiracy or not.
>>
>>> So?
>>
>> So the acoustical scientists did not have any obligation and did not
>> attempt to say who fired which shots.
>
> But it wasn`t the scientists that made the ruling that you touted.

BBN did not say who fired which shots.
You can drop your phony "touting" nonsense. I cited the acoustical studies.

>
>>>>>>>> In both cases the location was identified not the shooter.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> They identified the location and the
>>>>>>>>>> scientists who studied the grassy knoll shot identified the approximate
>>>>>>>>>> muzzle velocity of the rifle and said that the bullet stopped in the
>>>>>>>>>> vicinity of the limo. You can't show me what it hit.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Again you are diverting attention towards the scientists when it was
>>>>>>>>> the HSCA ruling of conspiracy (although it was only "probable", which
>>>>>>>>> neglected to specify) you were holding up as significant.
>>
>>>>>>>> As I've said before you have a hard time finding any scientists who
>>>>>>>> likes to state things as an absolute fact, 100%. They will tell you
>>>>>>>> plausible, likely, probable, highly probable.
>>
>>>>>>> You might as well be talking about what plumbers do, it was the WC
>>>>>>> that concluded there was probably someone who conspired with Oswald.
>>
>>>>>> Huh? You trying to make news here? Name the co-conspirator.
>>
>>>>> WC should have been HSCA, of course. They concluded someone
>>>>> conspired with Oswald.
>>
>>>> Yes, and Blakey went even further and blamed it on the Mafia. To protect
>>>> the CIA.
>>
>>> The Mafia conspired with Oswald?
>>
>> That was Blakey's theory, not mine, that he foisted on the HSCA.
>
> So, Oswald was conspiring with the CIA?

No. I never said anything like that. Why do you keep making up straw man
arguments?

This discussion will come to a quick end if you keep saying "touting."

[Bud]

I`ll save them the trouble and quote you once more...

"It was not the result of a lone gunman. It was ruled a
conspiracy. We won, you lost. Now, get over it and move on."

You touted the HSCA ruling, even though they concluded that only
Oswald wounded Connally and killed Kennedy, something you don`t
believe.

responsible for inflicting the wounds on Connally and Kennedy. Do you
see this as a minor disagreement?

So why is it so absurd that it be chosen by someone apart from
Oswald?

> Proven by the fact that you can't see the man behind
> the fence.

Do you think not seeing him proves he is there?

> >>>> Do you know who the grassy knoll shooter was?
> >>>> Confess now and we'll grant you immunity. Maybe he worked there.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> And for the record they can reach the right conclusion, but get some
> >>>>>>>>>> details wrong.
>
> >>>>>>>>>         You can guess and come up with a right answer. But you were touting
> >>>>>>>>> the HSCA`s conclusion of conspiracy even though you disagree with how
> >>>>>>>>> they got there. Why?
>
> >>>>>>>> Again you misrepresent what I said.
>
> >>>>>>>       I`m trying to make sense of what you said. It appears to be
> >>>>>>> nonsense, and you are doing a poor job justifying your stance.
>
> >>>>>> No, you are not. You attack without any reason just for the bloodlust of
> >>>>>> attacking.
>
> >>>>>      Thats pretty dramatic, is this how you see people who ask you to
> >>>>> support what you`ve said?
>
> >>>> People like you.
>
> >>>     Right, people who ask you to support what you`ve said.
>
> >> I am not allowed to clarify what it meant.
>
> >    One of your personalities stopping you?
>
> Prevented by the rules of this newsgroup.

Lame to blame the moderation for your inability to get the gist of
your ideas across.

And deny. Anything but offer support for your idea that the HSCA
conclusions constitute a "win" for conspiracy. Oswald being Kennedy`s
killer is not a "win" for conspiracy. LNers would be more satisfied
with the finding that Oswald killed Kennedy but someone who conspired
with Oswald got away than CTers would be.

> >>>>>       "It was not the result of a lone gunman. It was ruled a conspiracy.
> >>>>> We won, you lost. Now, get over it and move on."
>
> >>>>>>>> But you never say unidentified shooter in the sniper's nest. Because you
> >>>>>>>> are biased.
>
> >>>>>>>       Because I know that person was identified.
>
> >>>>>> Not by BBN.
>
> >>>>>      You think that is who ruled it a (probable) conspiracy?
>
> >>>> You can identify one of the shooters without having to say it was a
> >>>> conspiracy or not.
>
> >>>     So?
>
> >> So the acoustical scientists did not have any obligation and did not
> >> attempt to say who fired which shots.
>
> >    But it wasn`t the scientists that made the ruling that you touted.
>
> BBN did not say who fired which shots.
> You can drop your phony "touting" nonsense. I cited the acoustical studies.

No, you touted the HSCA`s ruling.

"It was not the result of a lone gunman. It was ruled a conspiracy.

We won, you lost. Now, get over it and move on." - Tony Marsh

> >>>>>>>> In both cases the location was identified not the shooter.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> They identified the location and the
> >>>>>>>>>> scientists who studied the grassy knoll shot identified the approximate
> >>>>>>>>>> muzzle velocity of the rifle and said that the bullet stopped in the
> >>>>>>>>>> vicinity of the limo. You can't show me what it hit.
>
> >>>>>>>>>        Again you are diverting attention towards the scientists when it was
> >>>>>>>>> the HSCA ruling of conspiracy (although it was only "probable", which
> >>>>>>>>> neglected to specify) you were holding up as significant.
>
> >>>>>>>> As I've said before you have a hard time finding any scientists who
> >>>>>>>> likes to state things as an absolute fact, 100%. They will tell you
> >>>>>>>> plausible, likely, probable, highly probable.
>
> >>>>>>>       You might as well be talking about what plumbers do, it was the WC
> >>>>>>> that concluded there was probably someone who conspired with Oswald.
>
> >>>>>> Huh? You trying to make news here? Name the co-conspirator.
>
> >>>>>      WC should have been HSCA, of course. They concluded someone
> >>>>> conspired with Oswald.
>
> >>>> Yes, and Blakey went even further and blamed it on the Mafia. To protect
> >>>> the CIA.
>
> >>>     The Mafia conspired with Oswald?
>
> >> That was Blakey's theory, not mine, that he foisted on the HSCA.
>
> >    So, Oswald was conspiring with the CIA?
>
> No. I never said anything like that. Why do you keep making up straw man
> arguments?

The HSCA found that it was probable that someone conspired with
Oswald. Who do you think that might be?

I don`t see any reason to search for an alternative.

Lets see, synonyms... "pitch", "trumpet", "hype", like any of these
better?

[David Von Pein]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/03/jfk-speech-august-13-1962.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zt0uyqoYd0c

[David Von Pein]

WOODY ALLEN ON JFK:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V4hYKtylvY

http://classic--movies.blogspot.com/2011/07/annie-hall.html