Observations of a Lurker and a question
severin
Some time ago I was a lurker and later occaisional contributor to this
group. After several years absence I decided to pop in for a quick look.
Unsurprisingly the group is still dominated by quibbling over minor
aspects of the evidence (and point scoring in disputes about same).
Oswald's shaved or unshaved pubic hairs indeed. :)
I came to study of this case a few years ago with the attitude I had
picked up from the little I had seen/heard/read about the case - JFK was
obviously killed by a conspiracy involving multiple shooters. After half a
year or so of reading all I could find about the case, I reluctantly
concluded that there was only fragmentary and contradictory evidence
supporting that viewpoint, and a great deal of cohesive evidence
supporting the conclusion that the assassination consisted of 3 shots from
Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle fired from the 6th floor of
the TSBD, the rifle most likely being operated by Lee Harvey Oswald at the
time.
I have the dedication of conspiracy-oriented researches to thank for my
quick conversion - I only became interested in the case at a time when
their efforts had already uncovered or released or provoked most of the
relevant evidence and analysis, and so a lot of the questions asked by the
initial critics of the Warren Commission had been answered by the time I
got there. It seems to me that new evidence as it has been uncovered has
tended to confirm the WC, rather than contradict it. The redundancy and
coherence of the evidence for the lone-assassin case is what finally
convinced me it was the best working hypothesis.
So why am I in the minority? Why all the quibbling? I guess some people
probably hold the pro-conspiracy opinions they do either because they
formed them back when the evidence was by no means as abundant or as
clear, or because they learned about the case from the arguments of people
who formed their opinions at that time. I can understand this. Some people
claim much of the lone-assassin evidence is fake. This I can't understand
and couldn't be bothered trying to, because the conspiracy scenario that
it implies is not credible. But others seem to focus on specific pieces of
pro-conspiracy evidence, or insist on reinterpreting specific pieces of
evidence in a pro-conspiracy light, or assign the pro-conspiracy evidence
greater weight in some way. This I'd like to understand. Surely the goal
of these people is to eventually produce a collection of internally
consistent, coherent evidence that explains the conspiracy behind the
assassination and it's execution.
I want to get an idea of "big picture" pro-conspiracy thinking. If you
have a pet issue that doesn't agree with the lone-assassin scenario (eg
you have found evidence of a second shooter in the Z-film or autopsy
photos), what kind of working hypothesis are you using to inform your
further research? Indulge me in this exercise:
All agree that JFK was killed by a gun or guns shooting at a moving car in
a public place with many spectators. If so, then you must agree that the
planner or planners understood there was a chance the shots would miss and
there was a chance the shooter or shooters would be identified or
captured. They must also have understood that increasing the the number of
shots or shooters also increased the risk of identification or capture.
Choosing to kill a president this way makes sense if it was a politically
symbolic crime of opportunity committed by someone who expected to be
identified or even apprehended.
But if you believe that a conspiracy was responsible, why might they
choose to do it this way? Can anyone come up with a logically consistent
scenario?
Regards,
Severin
pjsp...@aol.com
government, the CIA provided its Guatemalan trainees with A Study of
Assassination. Here are a few excerpts from this study.
"Firearms are often used in assassination, often very ineffectively.
The assassin usually has insufficient technical knowledge of the
limitations of weapons, and expects more range, accuracy and killing
power than can be provided with reliability. Since certainty of death
is the major requirement, firearms should be used which can provide
destructive power at least 100% in excess of that thought to be
necessary, and ranges should be half that considered practical for the
weapon.
Firearms have other drawbacks. Their possession is often incriminating.
They may be difficult to obtain. They require a degree of experience
from the user. They are [illeg]. Their [illeg] is consistently
over-rated.
However, there are many cases in which firearms are probably more
efficient than any other means. These cases usually involve distance
between the assassin and the subject, or comparative physical weakness
of the assassin, as with a woman.
(a) The precision rifle. In guarded assassination, a good hunting or
target rifle should always be considered as a possibility. Absolute
reliability can nearly always be achieved at a distance of one hundred
yards. In ideal circumstances, t he range may be extended to 250 yards.
The rifle should be a well made bolt or falling block action type,
handling a powerful long-range cartridge. The .300 F.A.B. Magnum is
probably the best cartridge readily available. Other excellent calibers
are . 375 M.[illeg]. Magnum, .270 Winchester, .30 - 106 p.s., 8 x 60 MM
Magnum, 9.3 x 62 kk and others of this type. These are preferable to
ordinary military calibers, since ammunition available for them is
usually of the expanding bullet type, whereas most ammunition for
military rifles is full jacketed and hence not sufficiently let hal.
Military ammunition should not be altered by filing or drilling
bullets, as this will adversely affect accuracy.
The rifle may be of the "bull gun" variety, with extra heavy barrel and
set triggers, but in any case should be capable of maximum precision.
Ideally, the weapon should be able to group in one inch at one hundred
yards, but 21/2" groups are adequa te. The sight should be telescopic,
not only for accuracy, but because such a sight is much better in dim
light or near darkness. As long as the bare outline of the target is
discernable, a telescope sight will work, even if the rifle and shooter
are in total darkness.
An expanding, hunting bullet of such calibers as described above will
produce extravagant laceration and shock at short or mid-range. If a
man is struck just once in the body cavity, his death is almost
entirely certain.
Public figures or guarded officials may be killed with great
reliability and some safety if a firing point can be established prior
to an official occasion. TTHE PROPAGANDA VALUE OF THIS SYSTEM MAY BE
VERY HIGH.
(f) Silent Firearms
The sound of the explosion of the proponent in a firearm can be
effectively silenced by appropriate attachments. However, the sound of
the projective passing through the air cannot, since this sound is
generated outside the weapon. In cases w here the velocity of the
bullet greatly exceeds that of sound, the noise so generated is much
louder than that of the explosion. Since all powerful rifles have
muzzle velocities of over 2000 feet per second, they cannot be
silenced.
Pistol bullets, on the other hand, usually travel slower than sound and
the sound of their flight is negligible. Therefore, pistols, submachine
guns and any sort of improvised carbine or rifle which will take a low
velocity cartridge can be silenc ed. The user should not forget that
the sound of the operation of a repeating action is considerable, and
that the sound of bullet strike, particularly in bone is quite loud.
Silent firearms are only occasionally useful to the assassin, though
they have been widely publicized in this connection. BECAUSE
PERMISSIBLE VELOCITY IS LOW, EFFECTIVE PRECISION RANGE IS HELD TO ABOUT
100 YARDS with rifle or carbine type weapons, while with pistols,
silent or otherwise, are most efficient just beyond arms length. The
silent feature attempts to provide a degree of safety to the assassin,
but mere possession of a silent firearm is likely to create enough
hazard to counter the advantage of its silence. The silent pisto l
combines the disadvantages of any pistol with the added one of its
obviously clandestine purpose.
A telescopically sighted, closed-action carbine shooting a low velocity
bullet of great weight, and built for accuracy, could be very useful to
an assassin in certain situations. At the time of writing, no such
weapon is known to exist."
So here the CIA is telling its assassins that a silenced rifle using
subsonic ammunition is effective up to 100 yards, and that the
propaganda value of killing a public figure in such a manner is very
high. Well, who were the CIA agents in charge of training these men?
Rip Robertson and David Morales, suspects in Kennedy's death long
before the mid-90's release of this document. And who was the
propaganda director of the Guatemalan OP? E. Howard Hunt, a suspect in
Kennedy's death since the days of Watergate.
So what would be the propaganda value of killing Kennedy in such a
manner? Just a guess: "don't mess with the hidden powers-that-be." Was
the message received by those anxious to walk in Kennedy's foot-steps?
Probably.
Robert Harris
<seve...@removethisbit.bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>Hello all.
>
>Some time ago I was a lurker and later occaisional contributor to this
>group. After several years absence I decided to pop in for a quick look.
>
>Unsurprisingly the group is still dominated by quibbling over minor
>aspects of the evidence (and point scoring in disputes about same).
>Oswald's shaved or unshaved pubic hairs indeed. :)
You are absolutely correct about that. In fact, that single biggest
complaint I get is that I only post about evidence related to the
assassination:-)
>
>I came to study of this case a few years ago with the attitude I had
>picked up from the little I had seen/heard/read about the case - JFK was
>obviously killed by a conspiracy involving multiple shooters. After half a
>year or so of reading all I could find about the case, I reluctantly
>concluded that there was only fragmentary and contradictory evidence
>supporting that viewpoint, and a great deal of cohesive evidence
>supporting the conclusion that the assassination consisted of 3 shots from
>Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle fired from the 6th floor of
>the TSBD, the rifle most likely being operated by Lee Harvey Oswald at the
>time.
As is so often the case, your first impression was the right one.
In more recent times, a great deal of new analysis has pretty well
nailed the question of conspiracy. This is based on the well
established fact that the spacing of the shots was inconsistent with a
single sniper firing the alleged murder weapon.
There is a detail presenation on the subject at this URL:
http://two.fsphost.com/reharris/jfk.mov
And a lengthy article here:
http://two.fsphost.com/reharris/jfk.mov
>
>I have the dedication of conspiracy-oriented researches to thank for my
>quick conversion - I only became interested in the case at a time when
>their efforts had already uncovered or released or provoked most of the
>relevant evidence and analysis, and so a lot of the questions asked by the
>initial critics of the Warren Commission had been answered by the time I
>got there. It seems to me that new evidence as it has been uncovered has
>tended to confirm the WC, rather than contradict it. The redundancy and
>coherence of the evidence for the lone-assassin case is what finally
>convinced me it was the best working hypothesis.
There is indeed evidence pointing to Oswald, but if you look closely,
you will discover that there is absolutely nothing which isolates him
as the only assassin. In fact, once you look at the shots that were
fired, and when, I think you will agree that Oswald couldn't have done
the job alone.
>
>So why am I in the minority?
Because you are wrong:-)
>Why all the quibbling? I guess some people
>probably hold the pro-conspiracy opinions they do either because they
>formed them back when the evidence was by no means as abundant or as
>clear, or because they learned about the case from the arguments of people
>who formed their opinions at that time. I can understand this. Some people
>claim much of the lone-assassin evidence is fake.
There is NO "lone-assassin" evidence.
It doesn't exist.
There is evidence which suggests that Oswald took part in the attack,
but it by no means proves he acted alone.
>This I can't understand
>and couldn't be bothered trying to, because the conspiracy scenario that
>it implies is not credible. But others seem to focus on specific pieces of
>pro-conspiracy evidence, or insist on reinterpreting specific pieces of
>evidence in a pro-conspiracy light, or assign the pro-conspiracy evidence
>greater weight in some way. This I'd like to understand.
You seem to be trying to make this an either/or issues.
Evidence of other shooters does not contradict evidence of Oswald's
participation, any more than evidence of one terrorists involvement in
a murder contradicts his partners guilt.
>Surely the goal
>of these people is to eventually produce a collection of internally
>consistent, coherent evidence that explains the conspiracy behind the
>assassination and it's execution.
We are pretty close to that now, actually.
>
>I want to get an idea of "big picture" pro-conspiracy thinking.
This crime was mostly about Cuba.
Another source of (relatively) new evidence in the case is *Oswald
Talked* by Ray and Mary La Fontaine. The only thing Ray and Mary
overlooked IMO, was that Oswald was not a communist, and was very
likely, in cahoots with the killers.
>If you
>have a pet issue that doesn't agree with the lone-assassin scenario (eg
>you have found evidence of a second shooter in the Z-film or autopsy
>photos), what kind of working hypothesis are you using to inform your
>further research? Indulge me in this exercise:
>
>All agree that JFK was killed by a gun or guns shooting at a moving car in
>a public place with many spectators. If so, then you must agree that the
>planner or planners understood there was a chance the shots would miss and
>there was a chance the shooter or shooters would be identified or
>captured. They must also have understood that increasing the the number of
>shots or shooters also increased the risk of identification or capture.
>
>Choosing to kill a president this way makes sense if it was a politically
>symbolic crime of opportunity committed by someone who expected to be
>identified or even apprehended.
>
>But if you believe that a conspiracy was responsible, why might they
>choose to do it this way? Can anyone come up with a logically consistent
>scenario?
First, they had no intention of getting caught and had a good plan to
escape.
Second, they intended for Oswald to be seen and for everyone to go
after him.
Third, they wanted a least, a couple snipers to insure that they
succeeded in killing Kennedy.
As anyone in the military will tell you, a good team has much greater
chances of success than a solitary attacker.
Historically, crimes like this have indeed, been carried out by
individuals as well as by small groups. It is ridiculously illogical
to hope that you can resolve the conspiracy question by trying to
generalize this way.
There is really only ONE way to resolve this question, and that is by
looking through a lot of evidence and testimony. Check out those links
I gave you and see if you don't agree.
Robert Harris
>
>Regards,
>Severin
>
>
There is NO question that an honest man will evade.
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
Grizzlie Antagonist
> So what would be the propaganda value of killing Kennedy in such a
> manner? Just a guess: "don't mess with the hidden powers-that-be." Was
> the message received by those anxious to walk in Kennedy's foot-steps?
> Probably.
"In an off-the-record talk at the White House a few weeks earlier,
Johnson had shocked me by exploding: 'If I ever get killed, it won't
be because of an assassin. It'll be some Secret Service agent who
trips himself up and his gun goes off. They're worse than
trigger-happy Texas sheriffs.'"
- LBJ: The Way He Was, Frank Cormier, Doubleday & Co. (1977)
Robert Harris
Great stuff!
It is indeed interesting that the CIA takes a much different view of
the use of silencers in assassinations, than our resident LNT
ridiculers do:-)
Robert Harris
On 12 Jun 2006 09:39:18 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@AOL.COM>
wrote:
There is NO question that an honest man will evade.
Grizzlie Antagonist
heard on behalf of a conclusion of conspiracy. In fact, I'm going to
sum up for you all of the arguments that you will hear IN THE FUTURE in
favor of that conclusion.
1. The case against Oswald was just too good. Pains must have been
taken to ensure that this would appear to be a random act by a lone
assassin.
2. The case against Oswald is just too poor. The fingerprints of the
military-industrial complex are all over this case - so much so that
pains must have been taken to ensure that this wouldn't be mistaken for
a random act by a lone assassin.
You also need to take the conspiracy theorists game of "cui bono" and
turn it around on the conspiracy theorists.
Who are the people pushing most vociferously for a conclusion of
conspiracy and how would they gain by such a finding? I'm not talking
specifically about personalities in this ng; I mean, in general.
Anthony Marsh
> On 12 Jun 2006 01:07:46 -0400, "severin"
> <seve...@removethisbit.bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>> Hello all.
>>
>> Some time ago I was a lurker and later occaisional contributor to this
>> group. After several years absence I decided to pop in for a quick look.
>>
>> Unsurprisingly the group is still dominated by quibbling over minor
>> aspects of the evidence (and point scoring in disputes about same).
>> Oswald's shaved or unshaved pubic hairs indeed. :)
>
> You are absolutely correct about that. In fact, that single biggest
> complaint I get is that I only post about evidence related to the
> assassination:-)
>
It may not matter to you, but some of us think it is important to stick
to the facts and not make up or perpetuate myths. That is why I
interject when I see someone posting something which is false.
And if Oswald was indeed framed, don't you think the conspirators would
be smart enough to make the evidence point to Oswald?
Anthony Marsh
> Severin, in preparation for the 1954 overthrow of the Guatemalan
> government, the CIA provided its Guatemalan trainees with A Study of
> Assassination. Here are a few excerpts from this study.
>
> "Firearms are often used in assassination, often very ineffectively.
> The assassin usually has insufficient technical knowledge of the
> limitations of weapons, and expects more range, accuracy and killing
> power than can be provided with reliability. Since certainty of death
> is the major requirement, firearms should be used which can provide
> destructive power at least 100% in excess of that thought to be
> necessary, and ranges should be half that considered practical for the
> weapon.
>
> Firearms have other drawbacks. Their possession is often incriminating.
> They may be difficult to obtain. They require a degree of experience
> from the user. They are [illeg]. Their [illeg] is consistently
> over-rated.
>
"Unreliable." "Killing power."
Yes, which is one reason why Oswald may have been using the scope
instead of the iron sights when he shot at General Walker.
Except for the DeLisle. And shortly thereafter the Destroyer.
Grizzlie Antagonist
> On 12 Jun 2006 01:07:46 -0400, "severin"
> <seve...@removethisbit.bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> >Hello all.
> >
> >Some time ago I was a lurker and later occaisional contributor to this
> >group. After several years absence I decided to pop in for a quick look.
> >
> >Unsurprisingly the group is still dominated by quibbling over minor
> >aspects of the evidence (and point scoring in disputes about same).
> >Oswald's shaved or unshaved pubic hairs indeed. :)
>
> You are absolutely correct about that.
How come severin's jaw isn't dropping with awe at your perspicacity in
deciphering the hidden meaning of Frames 285, 335, and 337?
Isn't he one of the lurkers that you always claimed that you were
REALLY addressing?
severin
"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:448d729...@news20.forteinc.com...
> On 12 Jun 2006 01:07:46 -0400, "severin"
> <seve...@removethisbit.bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>>Hello all.
>>
>>Some time ago I was a lurker and later occaisional contributor to this
>>group. After several years absence I decided to pop in for a quick look.
>>
>>Unsurprisingly the group is still dominated by quibbling over minor
>>aspects of the evidence (and point scoring in disputes about same).
>>Oswald's shaved or unshaved pubic hairs indeed. :)
>
> You are absolutely correct about that. In fact, that single biggest
> complaint I get is that I only post about evidence related to the
> assassination:-)
>
People complain about the material or the frequency? :)
>>
>>I came to study of this case a few years ago with the attitude I had
>>picked up from the little I had seen/heard/read about the case - JFK was
>>obviously killed by a conspiracy involving multiple shooters. After half a
>>year or so of reading all I could find about the case, I reluctantly
>>concluded that there was only fragmentary and contradictory evidence
>>supporting that viewpoint, and a great deal of cohesive evidence
>>supporting the conclusion that the assassination consisted of 3 shots from
>>Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle fired from the 6th floor of
>>the TSBD, the rifle most likely being operated by Lee Harvey Oswald at the
>>time.
>
> As is so often the case, your first impression was the right one.
>
It was based on very selectively presented information.
> In more recent times, a great deal of new analysis has pretty well
> nailed the question of conspiracy. This is based on the well
> established fact that the spacing of the shots was inconsistent with a
> single sniper firing the alleged murder weapon.
>
> There is a detail presenation on the subject at this URL:
>
> http://two.fsphost.com/reharris/jfk.mov
>
> And a lengthy article here:
>
> http://two.fsphost.com/reharris/jfk.mov
>
I don't get video, only audio. My Quicktime claims it is up-to-date.
I don't want to argue the validity of your theory in this thread. Instead,
I am happy to assume, for the sake of argument, that your evidence is
valid. What does that imply about the conspiracy you suggest? See below
for my questions.
True. Perhaps I should have called it "evidence which does not support
multiple shooters".
>
>
>>This I can't understand
>>and couldn't be bothered trying to, because the conspiracy scenario that
>>it implies is not credible. But others seem to focus on specific pieces of
>>pro-conspiracy evidence, or insist on reinterpreting specific pieces of
>>evidence in a pro-conspiracy light, or assign the pro-conspiracy evidence
>>greater weight in some way. This I'd like to understand.
>
> You seem to be trying to make this an either/or issues.
>
> Evidence of other shooters does not contradict evidence of Oswald's
> participation, any more than evidence of one terrorists involvement in
> a murder contradicts his partners guilt.
>
I'm referring to people focussing on testimony that suggests other
shooters, or interpreting the Z-film or autopsy photos to find evidence of
other shooters.
I'm not suggesting this evidence exonerates the TSBD shooter in any way
(though some people may choose to argue that). This evidence (if we accept
it), does rule out Oswald acting alone, unless you suggest two independent
assassination teams were in the same location at the same time.
>
>>Surely the goal
>>of these people is to eventually produce a collection of internally
>>consistent, coherent evidence that explains the conspiracy behind the
>>assassination and it's execution.
>
> We are pretty close to that now, actually.
>
>
>>
>>I want to get an idea of "big picture" pro-conspiracy thinking.
>
> This crime was mostly about Cuba.
>
> Another source of (relatively) new evidence in the case is *Oswald
> Talked* by Ray and Mary La Fontaine. The only thing Ray and Mary
> overlooked IMO, was that Oswald was not a communist,
This implies a long history of Oswald "masquerading" as a communist, or a
political conversion at some point.
> and was very
> likely, in cahoots with the killers.
>
A conspiracy that doesn't include Oswald has to explain all the evidence
incriminating him in some way.
So how do they ensure the additional shooters aren't identified or
captured?
Are their aims still acheived if the additional shooters are idenified or
captured?
Are their aims still acheived if both shooters fail to kill JFK?
>
> Historically, crimes like this have indeed, been carried out by
> individuals as well as by small groups. It is ridiculously illogical
> to hope that you can resolve the conspiracy question by trying to
> generalize this way.
>
> There is really only ONE way to resolve this question, and that is by
> looking through a lot of evidence and testimony. Check out those links
> I gave you and see if you don't agree.
>
The correct way to draw conclusions about the assassination is the same as
with any other rational enquiry - you collect the evidence, form a
hypothesis on the basis of this evidence, then attempt to disprove the
hypothesis.
This thread is not an attempt to draw conclusions about the assassination.
It is an attempt to examine consipracy theories to see what they imply
about the thinking of the conspirators they posit (and the conspiracy
theorists who posit them).
Regards, Severin
severin
Thanks kindly for that, very relevant.
Firstly I'd like to point out that just because someone in the CIA said
it, doesn't mean it is correct. A study of historical assassinations
invloving firearms would be more convincing.
But still the assassins in this scenario have the possible problems of the
assassins being seen (I assume you are suggesting a second assassin with a
silencer, somewhere other than the TSBD). What would the conspirators
possible plan have been if the assassin with silencer was identified or
captured?
Also they have the problem of the target being alerted or protected in
some way before he can be shot. For example, one of the SS agents may have
spotted something and reacted in the same way that Youngblood did with LBJ
early enough to prevent the fatal shots to JFK. There are photos of SS
agents riding on the rear of the presidential limo earlier in the trip,
how were they to know that wouldn't be the case in Dealy Plaza?
As an aside, your scenario, and the CIA document, implies that the first
shot would be the most lethal, as it is unsuspected. Evidence from Dealy
Plaza is that wasn't the case, and if your assassin with silencer is in
the most popular second shooter position (Grassy Knoll), he couldn't even
have fired until after a non-silenced shot had alerted JFKs protectors to
danger.
Do the various failure scenarios still get the CIA's "don't mess with the
hidden powers-that-be." message across?
Regards,
Severin
David VP
looking through a lot of evidence and testimony."
I agree with Robert H. re. the "looking at the evidence and testimony".
However, when you look at a "lot" of the evidence and testimony in this
case (and nobody can deny that there is a ton of it), you're BOUND to
find oddities, discrepancies, inconsistencies, and things that lead
toward the LN conclusion as well as some things (when ISOLATED) that
lead toward a "CT" conclusion.
That type of thing is inevitable....because we're dealing with human
beings who were writing up the reports, giving the testimony, and doing
the work for the authorities in this case (extending to the J.D. Tippit
murder too, of course). These aren't machines doing the testifying and
investigating and report-writing....they are men and women. And men and
women are prone to errors and misjudgments.
A big part of Mr. Harris' problem, and many other JFK researchers, IMO,
is that they'll look at a "lot" of evidence UNTIL THEY FIND SOMETHING
THAT TENDS TO LEAD TOWARD CT-ism, and then they will proceed to
"ISOLATE" those items and run with them toward their CT endzone until
they think they've scored a "Conspiracy Touchdown" using this isolated
evidence.
But IMO such isolation of evidence is not the way to solve the JFK
case, or to come to the CORRECT answer as to how President Kennedy died
in 1963.
Two excellent examples of the "Isolation Syndrome" to which I
refer......
1.) The "It Was Really A Mauser Rifle Found In The TSBD" conspiracy
theory. .... Many CTers take this simple mis-identification of Oswald's
C2766 M.-C. carbine (with it being mistaken by Boone/Weitzman as a
"Mauser" at first blush) to be some kind of ironclad PROOF that Oswald
is innocent and didn't fire his own rifle at JFK on 11/22. When, in
actuality, this "isolated" piece of evidence means no such
conspiratorial thing, and the overall record is quite clear about that.
2.) Gerald Hill initially referring to the Tippit murder weapon as an
"automatic". .... This, like the "Mauser" mix-up, is something the
CTers have pounced on and gotten a lot of mileage out of. But is it
truly a REASONABLE argument for CTers to spout? Answer: no, it is not.
Gerald Hill was quite clear in his statements after 11/22/63 as to the
reason why he initially thought the killer was carrying an "automatic".
He made a simple HUMAN ERROR in judgment. Period. Because no automatic
shells were picked up (by anybody) at the Tippit murder scene; and, no
automatic shells were placed into the record in the case. Only shells
from Oswald's revolver exist in the Tippit murder case. And to believe
that all four Oswald bullet shells were "planted" at 10th & Patton (or
afterward) is to engage in sheer speculation -- which, of course, is
something that CTers rely on quite heavily to help them "solve" both
the JFK and Tippit crimes; and is THAT a reasonable thing to constantly
engage in either? Hardly.
I talk about more of this type of CTer behavior in my review at the
link below......
I enjoyed reading the remarks made by Severin in this thread...and
wholly concur with "Sev". Many CTers pluck items from the batch of
evidence that seem to favor conspiracy (and I'm not denying that there
are some things that do, when isolated, look suspicious) and then the
conspiracists will just let them dangle there....out of context if you
will.
For example......
Re. the people who believe in a vast plot to "set up" Lee Oswald in the
days, weeks, and even months prior to November 22 --- these CTers then
fail to go back and apply some ordinary common sense to such a plot.
Oliver Stone being one such CTers who seemed to be in the CT club with
a crazy theory that could easily have been labelled: "Let's Just Allow
This Silly Plot To Dangle Out Here And Then Let The Gullible Public Eat
It Up".
Stone, in his fanciful movie, actually (I guess) wants people to
believe that a group of always-unnamed and unknown (and evidently
brain-dead) plotters would risk letting their only "Patsy" just wander
around the Depository at exactly 12:30 when the President is being shot
at from upstairs on the 6th Floor....instead of the plotters keeping a
tight leash on their lone patsy (which, of course, SHOULD have been a
top priority for the "Patsy Baby-Sitters" on the assassination payroll
that Friday in Dallas).
Does Mr. Stone's interpretation of Oswald's movements ("waiting for a
phone call" on the 1st or 2nd Floor) make ANY logical sense within the
confines of Stone's "Patsy" plot? Any sense at all?
To Stone I guess it did...but to anyone with some "common"
sense....letting Oswald wander around loose at the exact time he's
needed on the sixth floor is just potential SUICIDE for that group of
patsy-framers (who took the time to frame him so carefully, too, in the
weeks leading up to 11/22).
And just think --- Many people actually base their current CT beliefs
on things found in THAT Oliver Stone movie. Amazing.
More LN CS&L here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2468ba452baf99c0
Regards,
David R. Von Pein
Robert Harris
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Robert Harris wrote:
>> On 12 Jun 2006 01:07:46 -0400, "severin"
>> <seve...@removethisbit.bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello all.
>>>
>>> Some time ago I was a lurker and later occaisional contributor to this
>>> group. After several years absence I decided to pop in for a quick look.
>>>
>>> Unsurprisingly the group is still dominated by quibbling over minor
>>> aspects of the evidence (and point scoring in disputes about same).
>>> Oswald's shaved or unshaved pubic hairs indeed. :)
>>
>> You are absolutely correct about that. In fact, that single biggest
>> complaint I get is that I only post about evidence related to the
>> assassination:-)
>>
>
>It may not matter to you, but some of us think it is important to stick
>to the facts and not make up or perpetuate myths. That is why I
>interject when I see someone posting something which is false.
No Tony, as nearly every proconspiracy person in the uncensored
newsgroups will confirm, you only interject when someone is posting
evidence of conspiracy.
Robert Harris
Texextra
You seem to assume that a conspiracy must involve more than one shooter
and/or a shooter other than Oswald, but there are CTs who believe in
these possibilities.
The withholding of evidence by the government makes it very difficult
to believe anything the government says. If there was no conspiracy,
why isn't the government eager to release all documents to prove it?
The Single Bullet Theory was concocted to accomodate the only theory
under consideration. In order to believe Oswald acted alone, there has
to be not just one, but two magic bullets. The Teague bullet has to be
considered magic, too.
Ruby shot Oswald.
You are correct, though, that this forum gets bogged down in the
minutia far too often and dismisses the overview.
David VP
Dead wrong (of course).
Go read the WR again (page 117 in particular). On that page, it
expressly says that the Main St. curb damage and Tague's cheek wound
might have been caused by a fragment from the head shot, and not
necessarily by a separate "missed" shot/bullet.
Therefore, Page 117 of the Warren Report (all by itself) shatters the
pre-conceived CTer myth that the SBT was (to quote the CTer above)
"concocted to accommodate the only theory under consideration", which
is simply not true based on Page #117. (Or was Page 117 "inserted" as
an afterthought by the WC to cover their asses? If so...proof please.)
Because if the WC was of the opinion that James Tague's injury could
have been caused by a head-shot fragment, then a "SBT" was NOT an
absolute "necessity" for the WC -- even if the Warren boys HAD been on
a mission to paint Oswald as a lone killer at all costs. They would
still have had two pre-kill shots with which to cause the wounds
(separately) to JFK & JBC.
Again -- go read the very top of Page 117 and then tell me that the WC
absolutely, positively NEEDED the Single-Bullet Theory to exist (even
in a "We Must Convict Lee Harvey Oswald" WC mindset).
James K. Olmstead
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1150154853.4...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> "There is really only ONE way to resolve this question, and that is by
> looking through a lot of evidence and testimony."
>
>
> I agree with Robert H. re. the "looking at the evidence and testimony".
> However, when you look at a "lot" of the evidence and testimony in this
> case (and nobody can deny that there is a ton of it), you're BOUND to
> find oddities, discrepancies, inconsistencies, and things that lead
> toward the LN conclusion as well as some things (when ISOLATED) that
> lead toward a "CT" conclusion.
David: In all "cases" dealing with crime, it is the legal duty of both sides to
look for the "oddities, discrepancies, inconsistencies and things that lead
toward".........conclusions. If the proper legal proceedure for the prosecution
and the defense is to examine the evidence in detail, it's a very good
proceedure to follow, by those interested in understanding the actions and
the problems faced by both the prosecution and defense. It's how the
problems are presented that is the problem....not the study of the case
evidence in detail.
When the prosecution witholds or destroys records or evidence and there
are several examples of this in this case....that evidence, when "discovered"
becomes exculpatory and favors the defense, regarless of conspiracy or
actions of a lone individual. Granted, many use this discovered evidence
the wrong way, but the facts witheld or destroyed remain exculpatory.
Here's one area as an example:
Oswald's Summary Court Martial records from duty in Japan........key documents
in his USMC file were destroyed and material relating to the related actions witheld
from the WC. FOIA request to the USN/USMC have established that as fact.
The WC even noted some concern dealing with his military service records.
Are all of those records......key documents or "smoking guns"? That would
depend on how they are applied as indicators of Oswald's actions.
In the first court martial case, the USN regulation or General Order, was issued
only days before the "shooting incident"......legally Oswald still had several
days if not weeks to meet the deadline for registering his handgun.
It's odd that to this day the USN can't find a copy of that General Order, but
we know it exsisted. There are security clearance issue as well connected
here.
Another related example.....the charges in his second court martial pertain to
actions "on duty" not "off duty" yet Oswald ends up going to the brig. The Sgt. was
warned only days before by his CO, that actions would be taken if any more
fights broke out in his squad.........yet this NCO was not charged or punished
for his actions. That same NCO was part of the group that attacked Oswald
after the shooting incident on guard duty.
The issue of value of "oddities, discrepancies, inconsistencies" depends
on the specific area.....and can not be applied "in general" to the over all
considerations of the evidence.
jko
Peter Fokes
>>> "There is really only ONE way to resolve this question, and that is by
>looking through a lot of evidence and testimony."
>
>
>I agree with Robert H. re. the "looking at the evidence and testimony".
>However, when you look at a "lot" of the evidence and testimony in this
>case (and nobody can deny that there is a ton of it), you're BOUND to
>find oddities, discrepancies, inconsistencies, and things that lead
>toward the LN conclusion ...
So you advocate looking only at evidence that supports your belief?
And which LN conclusion are you talking about? There are more than
one. Please re-read the thread, Discord and Confusion in the LN Ranks.
>as well as some things .... that
>lead toward a "CT" conclusion.
CTs also have different conclusions re: the evidence.
>That type of thing is inevitable....because we're dealing with human
>beings who were writing up the reports, giving the testimony, and doing
>the work for the authorities in this case (extending to the J.D. Tippit
>murder too, of course). These aren't machines doing the testifying and
>investigating and report-writing....they are men and women. And men and
>women are prone to errors and misjudgments.
Of course. A major one occurred in Dallas the day of the assassination
when federal authorities removed the limo and body. As Max Holland
writes, "material evidence in a felony" was removed from Dallas. As a
result, some evidence was lost, and laws were broken.
>A big part of Mr. Harris' problem, and many other JFK researchers, IMO,
>is that they'll look at a "lot" of evidence UNTIL THEY FIND SOMETHING
>THAT TENDS TO LEAD TOWARD CT-ism,
A procedure often followed by Posner and many other JFK researchers
who not only find some evidence tending to lean toward LN-ism but also
selectively ignore other evidence.
> and then they will proceed to
>"ISOLATE" those items and run with them toward their CT endzone until
>they think they've scored a "Conspiracy Touchdown" using this isolated
>evidence.
OF course, the same game plan is followed by LNers who claim the field
contains evidence of a missed shot, but then fail to prove their case,
and make assumptions based on such a belief. The lack of such proof,
for example, reduces Rahn's analysis to guesswork.
>But IMO such isolation of evidence is not the way to solve the JFK
>case, or to come to the CORRECT answer as to how President Kennedy died
>in 1963.
We should just agree with you, right?
>
>Two excellent examples of the "Isolation Syndrome" to which I
>refer......
A syndrome affecting some LNs and CTs ....
>
>1.) The "It Was Really A Mauser Rifle Found In The TSBD" conspiracy
>theory. ....
1) A "Shot Must Have Missed LN theory" .....
>
>2.) Gerald Hill initially referring to the Tippit murder weapon as an
>"automatic". ....
2) The Arlen Specter " a pointer is straight so the bullet path was
straight theory" .....
>
>I talk about more of this type of CTer behavior in my review at the
>link below......
>
>www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0788600931/ref=cm_rev_sort/102-0679552-6293763?customer-reviews.sort_by=byExactRating_1&x=8&y=12&s=video
At least with the Amazon vanity press option, you don't have to pay a
cent!
>I enjoyed reading the remarks made by Severin in this thread...and
>wholly concur with "Sev". Many CTers pluck items from the batch of
>evidence that seem to favor conspiracy
And don't forget the fact that many LNers do the same thing.
> (and I'm not denying that there
>are some things that do, when isolated, look suspicious)
Of course there are .... that's why even the commissioners did not
agree among themselves about the SBT, for example.
>and then the
>conspiracists will just let them dangle there....out of context if you
>will.
In the case of the WC, Warren was forced to water down the SBT due to
dissent by other commissioners. They dangled the myth of the SBT
despite the fact it is an impossibility.
>Stone, in his fanciful movie,
Agree. He also said it was a story not a documentary.
> actually (I guess) wants people to
>believe
No. He was entertaining folks. If you mean to suspend their disbelief,
I agree but that is part and parcel of Hollywood.
that a group of always-unnamed and unknown (and evidently
>brain-dead) plotters would risk letting their only "Patsy" just wander
>around the Depository at exactly 12:30 when the President is being shot
>at from upstairs on the 6th Floor....instead of the plotters keeping a
>tight leash on their lone patsy (which, of course, SHOULD have been a
>top priority for the "Patsy Baby-Sitters" on the assassination payroll
>that Friday in Dallas).
Debunking your own silly theory accomplishes one thing: debunking your
own silly theory.
>Does Mr. Stone's interpretation of Oswald's movements ("waiting for a
>phone call" on the 1st or 2nd Floor) make ANY logical sense within the
>confines of Stone's "Patsy" plot? Any sense at all?
Do you really have the wacky view that Stone's movie was strictly
factual?
Where have you been?
<snip>
>
>And just think --- Many people actually base their current CT beliefs
>on things found in THAT Oliver Stone movie. Amazing.
Very few.
Can you name one or two? Even Stone doesn't believe his fictional
version is factual.
Why do you issue such red herrings? It makes it appear you are not
serious. Are you?
<snip>
>
>Regards,
>David R. Von Pein
PF
>
Robert Harris
>>> "There is really only ONE way to resolve this question, and that is by
>looking through a lot of evidence and testimony."
>
>
>I agree with Robert H. re. the "looking at the evidence and testimony".
>However, when you look at a "lot" of the evidence and testimony in this
>case (and nobody can deny that there is a ton of it), you're BOUND to
>find oddities, discrepancies, inconsistencies, and things that lead
>toward the LN conclusion as well as some things (when ISOLATED) that
>lead toward a "CT" conclusion.
David, the fallacy in your reasoning is that the LN conclusion is a
nonfalsifiable. There may be evidence of Oswald's guilt, but there is
no such thing as "lone-nut" evidence.
Even if the overwhelming preponderance of evidence did not support the
existence of multiple assassins, you could never say with absolute
certainty, that Oswald had no co-conspirators.
More importantly, we are NOT talking about mere "oddities,
discrepancies, and inconsistencies".
MOST witnesses contradicted the LN shooting scenaro.
ZERO law enforcement professionals supported a LN shooting scenario.
The very best science places a startling noise, which could only have
been a gunshot, at a point which is indisputably, inconsistent with
your theory, and is confirmed both visually and verbally, by the
reactions of the people in the Zapruder film, who were closest to the
President.
This is not trivial stuff, David. It is the best science, the best
witnesses and much of it is objectively corroborated by the visible
reactions of the same people who told us about the shots.
And David - NONE of this evidence contradicts in any way, shape or
form, the evidence that suggests Oswald took part in the attack.
And that's before we even BEGIN to talk about that last shot.
>
>That type of thing is inevitable....because we're dealing with human
>beings who were writing up the reports, giving the testimony, and doing
>the work for the authorities in this case (extending to the J.D. Tippit
>murder too, of course). These aren't machines doing the testifying and
>investigating and report-writing....they are men and women. And men and
>women are prone to errors and misjudgments.
>
>A big part of Mr. Harris' problem, and many other JFK researchers, IMO,
>is that they'll look at a "lot" of evidence UNTIL THEY FIND SOMETHING
>THAT TENDS TO LEAD TOWARD CT-ism,
You are absolutely and flatly wrong.
You may not believe this, but it all started in 1995, just after I had
finally come to the conclusion after a long series of debates with
LNer and Physicist, Cary Zeitlin, that the SBT was generally correct.
I became for a time, convinced that either Oswald really did act
alone, or that there was just no way to prove with absolute certainty,
that there was a conspiracy.
I had actually decided that this was all a big waste of time, and was
going to delete all this JFK crap from my computer, but for some
reason, decided to look once again at the low res version of the
Zapruder film that I had stored on the hard drive.
As I watched the film and the reactions of JBC, I thought to myself
that Nellie Connally certainly was confused. How in hell, could she
have thought the second and third shots were fired after she looked
back at Kennedy and after her husband had areadly begun to start
shouting?
It was as I watched her reactions, that it finally hit me, that she
had to have heard another shot then.
So I started to look at what the other witnesses said, and what they
did at the same instant Nellie reacted.
I counted back from those reactions to what I figured was the likely
cause of them, and guesstimated frame 284, which is what you will see
in a few of my early posts.
That was before I realized that Dr. Alvarez placed that same loud
noise at frame 285.
But even if you throw out all the witnesses, and all the science, here
is the acid test, David. Look at these reactions and with a straight
face, tell me these people were NOT reacting to a gunshot.
http://jfkhistory.com/reactions18fps.mov
Robert Harris
"Shut up about the evidence." Bud 6-12-2006
Texextra
David VP wrote:
> >> "The Single Bullet Theory was concocted to accomodate [sic] the only theory under consideration. ... The Teague [sic] bullet has to be considered magic, too."
>
> Dead wrong (of course).
>
> Go read the WR again (page 117 in particular). On that page, it
> expressly says that the Main St. curb damage and Tague's cheek wound
> might have been caused by a fragment from the head shot, and not
> necessarily by a separate "missed" shot/bullet.
Let's take a look at the top of page 117:
<quote on>
Nevertheless, the preponderance of the eyewitness testimony that the head
shot was the final shot must be weighed in any determination as to whether
it was the third shot that missed. Even if it were caused by a bullet
fragment, the mark on the south curb of Main Street cannot be identified
conclusively with any of the three shots fired. Under the circumstances it
might have come from the bullet which hit the President's head, or it
might have been a product of the fragmentation of the missed shot upon
hitting some other object in the area. Since he did not observe any of the
shots striking the President, Tague's testimony that the second shot,
rather than the third, cause the scratch on his cheek, does not assist in
limiting the possibilities.
The wide range of possibilities and the existence of conflicting
testimony, when coupled with the impossibility of scientific verification,
precludes a conclusive finding by the Commission as to which shot missed.
<quote off>
"might have". It "might have" been either way. That's certainly very
conclusive, "might have". Of course, it might have been some other way,
too. If you can't say which way it "might have" been, then you can't say
with any certainty that "might have" necessarily eliminated other "might
have" scenarios. It "might have"....
>
> Therefore, Page 117 of the Warren Report (all by itself) shatters the
> pre-conceived CTer myth that the SBT was (to quote the CTer above)
> "concocted to accommodate the only theory under consideration", which
> is simply not true based on Page #117. (Or was Page 117 "inserted" as
> an afterthought by the WC to cover their asses? If so...proof please.)
>
> Because if the WC was of the opinion that James Tague's injury could
> have been caused by a head-shot fragment, then a "SBT" was NOT an
> absolute "necessity" for the WC -- even if the Warren boys HAD been on
> a mission to paint Oswald as a lone killer at all costs. They would
> still have had two pre-kill shots with which to cause the wounds
> (separately) to JFK & JBC.
Saying that "James Tague's injury COULD HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY A HEAD-SHOT
FRAGMENT" is exactly what I said it was, a second case of a MAGIC
BULLET. Thanks for proving me right.
>
> Again -- go read the very top of Page 117 and then tell me that the WC
> absolutely, positively NEEDED the Single-Bullet Theory to exist (even
> in a "We Must Convict Lee Harvey Oswald" WC mindset).
You tell me how you pin everything on Oswald without the SBT. Can't be
done. I'm still correct. The SBT was concocted to accommodate the only
theory under consideration, that LHO acted alone in killing JFK.
Ricky
>>> "The Single Bullet Theory was concocted to accomodate [sic] the only theory under consideration. ... The Teague [sic] bullet has to be considered magic, too."
>
>Dead wrong (of course).
>
>Go read the WR again (page 117 in particular). On that page, it
>expressly says that the Main St. curb damage and Tague's cheek wound
>might have been caused by a fragment from the head shot, and not
>necessarily by a separate "missed" shot/bullet.
>
It could have been caused by bird shit also. The WC did not study the
possibility and simply speculated. Fact the limo size position and
distances prevent a fragment from exiting at the head shot and reaching
the curb with enough energy to cause Tague's wound. Several physicists
and engineers have done the calculations.
A missed shot has to hit near the S. Elm manhole then bounce to the curb
and cause Tague's wounds.
See WR 111 The Shot That Missed. The WC concluded that a shot did miss.
>Therefore, Page 117 of the Warren Report (all by itself) shatters the
>pre-conceived CTer myth that the SBT was (to quote the CTer above)
>"concocted to accommodate the only theory under consideration", which
>is simply not true based on Page #117. (Or was Page 117 "inserted" as
>an afterthought by the WC to cover their asses? If so...proof please.)
>
The FBI first reports were of three shots inside the limo and we know
this changed with the Tague wound becoming known.
>Because if the WC was of the opinion that James Tague's injury could
>have been caused by a head-shot fragment, then a "SBT" was NOT an
>absolute "necessity" for the WC -- even if the Warren boys HAD been on
>a mission to paint Oswald as a lone killer at all costs. They would
>still have had two pre-kill shots with which to cause the wounds
>(separately) to JFK & JBC.
>
The WC may have had the calculations done and could not get an expert to
support a head-shot fragment argument. Thus the SBT was created.
>Again -- go read the very top of Page 117 and then tell me that the WC
>absolutely, positively NEEDED the Single-Bullet Theory to exist (even
>in a "We Must Convict Lee Harvey Oswald" WC mindset).
>
Read the entire section and a shot did miss was the final conclusion but
they could neo determine which shot it was.
Bud
Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
> Severin, I am now going to sum up for you the arguments that you have
> heard on behalf of a conclusion of conspiracy. In fact, I'm going to
> sum up for you all of the arguments that you will hear IN THE FUTURE in
> favor of that conclusion.
>
> 1. The case against Oswald was just too good. Pains must have been
> taken to ensure that this would appear to be a random act by a lone
> assassin.
>
> 2. The case against Oswald is just too poor. The fingerprints of the
> military-industrial complex are all over this case - so much so that
> pains must have been taken to ensure that this wouldn't be mistaken for
> a random act by a lone assassin.
>
> You also need to take the conspiracy theorists game of "cui bono" and
> turn it around on the conspiracy theorists.
>
> Who are the people pushing most vociferously for a conclusion of
> conspiracy and how would they gain by such a finding? I'm not talking
> specifically about personalities in this ng; I mean, in general.
Ah, now I understand your approach, Grizzlie. If leftist extremists
can exploit this case as a weapon to make attacks against the
establishment, then the best response is to use blanket attacks against
the beliefs and values of conspiracy proponents. Cool.
severin
ftl.
"Texextra" <texe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150172570.4...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> severin wrote:
>> Hello all.
>>
>> [snippage]
>
> You seem to assume that a conspiracy must involve more than one shooter
> and/or a shooter other than Oswald,
No I believe most conspiracy theorists assume that.
Personally i think the only valid conspiracy theories involve 3 shots
only, all fired from Oswald's Mannlicher Carcano from the TSBD sniper's
nest, with Oswald as the most likely shooter.
I would be very interested in hearing about a conspiracy scenario of this
type.
> but there are CTs who believe in
> these possibilities.
>
> The withholding of evidence by the government makes it very difficult
> to believe anything the government says. If there was no conspiracy,
> why isn't the government eager to release all documents to prove it?
>
What evidence are you referring to? None released so far has provided
strong evidence for conspiracy, despite predictions to the contrary.
> The Single Bullet Theory was concocted to accomodate the only theory
> under consideration. In order to believe Oswald acted alone, there has
> to be not just one, but two magic bullets. The Teague bullet has to be
> considered magic, too.
>
If the WC were going to "concoct" something, regardless of the evidence,
why not "concoct" a story that JFK and JBC were hit by separate shots, and
Tague by a fragment from one of the shots that didn't lodge in a victim?
That would have served their "nefarious" purposes better, as people,
including some on the WC, would have found it easier to believe.
Your theory about the SBT doesn't make any sense to me. The only reason
for them to propose the SBT is that it best explained the confusing
evidence they were presented with. If you are suggesting they made-up or
concealed evidence about the shots and their source, surely they could
have done more of the same to produce a more easily believable scenario?
> Ruby shot Oswald.
>
> You are correct, though, that this forum gets bogged down in the
> minutia far too often and dismisses the overview.
>
Minutia is often interesting, though. Bickering, however, rarely is.
Regards,
Severin
severin
"Peter Fokes" <jp...@toronto.hm> wrote in message
news:9pmt82p8tm0j1d77h...@4ax.com...[snippage]
>
> OF course, the same game plan is followed by LNers who claim the field
> contains evidence of a missed shot, but then fail to prove their case,
> and make assumptions based on such a belief. The lack of such proof,
> for example, reduces Rahn's analysis to guesswork.
>
Peter, that is silly.
There is no need to "assume" a missed shot.
There is only strong evidence in favor of two shots, because only two
bullets were recovered. (Or more correctly, the various fragments of
bullets that were recovered have been demonstrated to come from only two
bullets to a high degree of certainty).
There is weak evidence for a missed shot, from 3 shells in the TSBD, from
witness testimony, and from comparing testimony to the visible actions of
people in the Z-film and other records.
What LN theories depend on this missed shot? (Other than Posner's
contention that it was the shot that wounded Tague?)
>>But IMO such isolation of evidence is not the way to solve the JFK
>>case, or to come to the CORRECT answer as to how President Kennedy died
>>in 1963.
>
> We should just agree with you, right?
>
>>
>>Two excellent examples of the "Isolation Syndrome" to which I
>>refer......
>
> A syndrome affecting some LNs and CTs ....
>
>>
>>1.) The "It Was Really A Mauser Rifle Found In The TSBD" conspiracy
>>theory. ....
>
> 1) A "Shot Must Have Missed LN theory" .....
>
See above
>>
>>2.) Gerald Hill initially referring to the Tippit murder weapon as an
>>"automatic". ....
>
> 2) The Arlen Specter " a pointer is straight so the bullet path was
> straight theory" .....
>
The ammunition was designed to travel through a human body if it didn't
hit anything solid to deflect it. There is no evidence of the bullet that
caused JFKs back and neck wounds having hit any bones is there? If the
bullet passes through JFK, and JBC is sitting in front of JFK, where else
is the bullet meant to go on it's way out? How is Specter wrong to suggest
it continued in a straight line?
>>
>>I talk about more of this type of CTer behavior in my review at the
>>link below......
>>
>>www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0788600931/ref=cm_rev_sort/102-0679552-6293763?customer-reviews.sort_by=byExactRating_1&x=8&y=12&s=video
>
> At least with the Amazon vanity press option, you don't have to pay a
> cent!
>
>>I enjoyed reading the remarks made by Severin in this thread...and
>>wholly concur with "Sev". Many CTers pluck items from the batch of
>>evidence that seem to favor conspiracy
>
> And don't forget the fact that many LNers do the same thing.
>
>
>
>> (and I'm not denying that there
>>are some things that do, when isolated, look suspicious)
>
> Of course there are .... that's why even the commissioners did not
> agree among themselves about the SBT, for example.
>
>
>>and then the
>>conspiracists will just let them dangle there....out of context if you
>>will.
>
> In the case of the WC, Warren was forced to water down the SBT due to
> dissent by other commissioners. They dangled the myth of the SBT
> despite the fact it is an impossibility.
>
>
>
>>Stone, in his fanciful movie,
>
> Agree. He also said it was a story not a documentary.
>
Sure he did. But how many uninformed viewers of the movie will assume it
is fiction? It is not presented as fiction by any stretch of the
imagination.
What he believes isn't the issue. The movie is presented as historical
drama. What it then causes uninformed viewers to believe is the problem.
Are you saying you have never had a discussion with an uninformed person
about the JFK assassination and had them quote "evidence" from Stone's
"JFK" at you?
> Why do you issue such red herrings? It makes it appear you are not
> serious. Are you?
>
> <snip>
>
>>
>>Regards,
>>David R. Von Pein
>
>
> PF
Anyway, all the above is off topic.
Care to present to me a conspiracy scenario that explains why plotters
should choose (over any other method) to kill JFK with firearms shooting
at a moving target in a public place where they could be quite possibly be
identified and also fail to even hit him ? Would they still acheive their
aims if either or both of those thing happened?
You don't need to believe the theory, just present one that makes sense.
Regards,
Severin
David VP
Yeah, sure. Right. ~~rolls eyes~~
I'm saying (quite obviously) that all of the evidence should be looked
at (including testimony from witnesses) and then APPLY SOME FREAKIN'
COMMON SENSE AND OVERALL "WAS THIS POSSIBLE?" PERSPECTIVE to the
evidence and testimony....and then try to decide how BEST the evidence
and testimony gels and binds together to form something called "What's
Right".
Does the pro-CT evidence form anything resembling "cohesiveness"? Or
believability? Or, for that matter, doability?
I think it does not.
The best evidence by far suggests one killer firing from the
Depository's SN with C2766....with the likelihood of that one killer
being L.H. Oswald being extremely high....with the starting point, of
course, very often glossed over by CTers to the point of outright
dismissal in some CT quarters -- i.e., IT WAS OSWALD'S OWN RIFLE. This
is not even debatable. It was Oswald's OWN GUN that was positively
involved in shooting the President, with ONLY C2766 M-C bullets and
shells being recovered from the scenes of the crime and in the hospital
and inside the victims.
To take this basic starting point and then twist it into a complicated
"This Was Faked And This Was Conveniently Planted" multi-gun conspiracy
theory is the height of absurdity, in my opinion.
YMMV...and shall.
>> "He {Ollie Stone} also said it was a story, not a documentary."
Yeah, and then he'll turn right around in the next interview and say
pretty much the opposite, wanting the public to believe his "story" was
indeed factual. Ollie's "It's Only A Story" line is pure BS, IMO. He
created a detailed movie of a real-life event -- even going so far as
to trim the trees in DP to circa '63 levels -- and, IMO, he has tried
to peddle his "story" as the truth of 11/22/63.
Trying to duck away from the fact that Stone thinks his movie is nearly
all "fact" is to also (IMO) to try to dodge the fact that the authors
of the two books on which the movie is based are/were ALSO only writing
a "fictional" (or at least "semi-fictional") account of the events of
November 22nd.
And does anybody really think Jim Garrison or Jim Marrs thought they
were writing a "fictional" story when each penned his respective
publication?
(Of course, both books ARE fiction...but that's another topic
altogether.) :)
>> "We should just agree with you, right?"
Well....of course. Natch. ~grin~
That'd save you a lot of wear and tear on your computer (and your
nerves).
But whether you believe me or not -- you'll have no choice but to give
the LN-favoring arguments of former Prosecutor Vincent T. Bugliosi a
good long hard look. I know of no one stupid enough to totally dismiss
VB out of hand. And VB isn't stupid enough to label an item "FINAL
VERDICT: THE SIMPLE TRUTH IN THE KILLING OF JFK" and then NOT have the
goods to back up that title. That is a certainty. But good luck trying
to prove HIM wrong too. You'll need it.
David VP
I'd love to see the skewed CT-favoring-only data you dredged up to
support this outlandishly-absurd and dead-wrong statement, Bob.
MOST witnesses, in general, positively FAVOR the LN scenario....with a
HUGE majority hearing EXACTLY THREE SHOTS fired, instead of hearing
four or more. This figure is incredibly high in favor of "LN" (i.e., 3
shots)......
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots3.jpg
And even if you want to believe that Mr. McAdams' pie chart above is
full of shit and skewed toward LN drastically...you could arbitrarily
slice off a full 25% of the 76% three-shot witnesses and STILL be at a
"majority" for "3 Shots Only".
And the majority of "directional" witnesses favor the general/overall
LN scenario as well. (Robert Groden's blatant misrepresentation of the
facts notwithstanding...with Mr. Groden claiming, in 1975 on live TV,
that "80%" of the witnesses heard shots from the Grassy Knoll, which
even CTers today must agree is a figure skewed beyond tolerance. Wonder
what Mr. Groden's current % is in this regard. Is he still holding firm
at a ridiculous "80%"?......
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots4.jpg
Tell us again, Robert, how it is that "MOST witnesses contradicted the
LN shooting scenario".
pjsp...@aol.com
led Specter to go with the SBT. They concluded Kennedy was hit behind the
sign. They concluded Connally showed signs of being hit less than 2.3
seconds after they believed Kennedy had been hit. Bingo: a single-bullet
theory emerges. Specter convinces himself, and far too many others, it
MUST have happened. They REFUSE to actually test its feasiblitly,
however. Specter is only allowed to test whether it was remotely POSSIBLE.
After the re-enctment, he tells them "yes," and there you have it.
The problem.... Specter was wrong. And KNEW he was wrong. He knew the
bullet entered Kennedy's back. He knew the trajectories didn't line-up.
The question: did he LIE to himself and convince himself everything was
close-enough? Or did he LIE to the WC in order to further his career? I
suspect the latter. Why? Even though Specter told U.S. News in 67 that
Kelley had shown him an autopsy photo before the re-enactment, and even
though he admitted it again in his 2000 auto-bio, he failed to mention
this INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT fact to the HSCA in 78. Why? What was he
covering up? It should be obvious he was trying to avoid being confronted
on his blatantly incompetent and/or disreputable behavior. Think about it.
He allowed the WC to print the Rydbery Drawings even though he KNEW they
were inaccurate. And this is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, a
man with a "passion for truth." Pathetic.
:
pjsp...@aol.com
chuck schuyler wrote:
> pjspeare:
>
> Interesting but irrelevant post. There isn't any evidence of someone on
> the knoll or in a storm drain firing a weapon. And the stuff about E.
> Howard Hunt as it relates to the JFK assassination is a factoid.
For the record, in my presentation, available here:
http://homepage.mac.com/bkohley/Menu18.html
I argue against any shots coming from the sewer or the stockade fence.
I leave open the possibility a shot was fired from just west of the
TSBD, but if if did, it missed...
And what does that mean? Factoid? That Hunt wasn't involved? I would
agree that he's not a "tramp" if that's what you mean. On the other hand,
why did Nixon think the CIA would help shut down the Watergate
investigation to conceal Hunt's involvement in the "Bay of Pigs thing,"
and why was Haldeman convinced this was a reference to the assassination?
And why did Angleton show Joe Trento a CIA memo stating that Hunt was in
Dallas at the time of the assassination? IMO, Hunt was involved, if only
tangentially through Phillips and Artime.
>
> We do have a considerable amount of evidence showing that a frustrated,
> warped, troubled young man with a failing marriage and children he had
> a hard time supporting fired shots at the Presidential motorcade on
> 11-22-63. In fact, the case is so compelling that you could probably
> discard a big percentage of the hard evidence in the case and still get
> a jury to convict Lee Oswald of a double murder that day.
>
> It is silly to suppose that the Mob, Castro, CIA, Military/Industrial
> Complex, FBI or others would really accomplish anything by murdering a
> president when the number two guy taking over, as is constitutionally
> mandated, is from the same political party and is likely to hold most
> of the same viewpoints as the guy being replaced. Silly.
"Likely"? Perhaps the assassins KNEW precisely where Johnson and
Kennedy differed in opinion. Perhaps because Johnson told them. As far
as the mob's motivation, have you ever read the HSCA report? They
found that criminal investigations into mob activity slowed to a halt
under Johnson. As far as Johnson's own history, Marcello bagman Jack
Halphen was on record in the 1950's as saying that LBJ was on the take.
Have you ever heard of Bobby Baker, Fred Black, Irving Davidson? JFK may
have been a lying womanizer, but there's no evidence he was as corrupt as
Johnson, or willing to murder his political enemies. Have you ever heard
of Henry Marshall? Billie Sol Estes? While the Johnson-was-in-on-it
scenarios may not be true, they stand up at least as well as Oswald acting
alone.
> Oswald is the guilty party.
Possibly. But to ignore the possibility of other scenarios just because
the truth in this instance might be a little "messy" is symptomatic of
someone who's trying to run from history.
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>chuck schuyler wrote:
>> pjspeare:
>>
>> Interesting but irrelevant post. There isn't any evidence of someone on
>> the knoll or in a storm drain firing a weapon. And the stuff about E.
>> Howard Hunt as it relates to the JFK assassination is a factoid.
>
>For the record, in my presentation, available here:
>http://homepage.mac.com/bkohley/Menu18.html
>I argue against any shots coming from the sewer or the stockade fence.
>I leave open the possibility a shot was fired from just west of the
>TSBD, but if if did, it missed...
>
>And what does that mean? Factoid? That Hunt wasn't involved? I would
>agree that he's not a "tramp" if that's what you mean. On the other hand,
>why did Nixon think the CIA would help shut down the Watergate
>investigation to conceal Hunt's involvement in the "Bay of Pigs thing,"
>and why was Haldeman convinced this was a reference to the assassination?
Translation: I have no evidence at all that Nixon thought Hunt was in
any way involved in the assassination, and when Nixon said "Bay of
Pigs," Haldeman, with no basis whatsoever, thought it meant "Kennedy
assassination."
>And why did Angleton show Joe Trento a CIA memo stating that Hunt was in
>Dallas at the time of the assassination? IMO, Hunt was involved, if only
>tangentially through Phillips and Artime.
>
You can produce that memo, right?
Of course you can't.
And the Rockefeller Commission looked into Hunt's whereabouts on the
day of the assassination, and concluded he was in DC.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hunt_sturgis.htm
>>
>> We do have a considerable amount of evidence showing that a frustrated,
>> warped, troubled young man with a failing marriage and children he had
>> a hard time supporting fired shots at the Presidential motorcade on
>> 11-22-63. In fact, the case is so compelling that you could probably
>> discard a big percentage of the hard evidence in the case and still get
>> a jury to convict Lee Oswald of a double murder that day.
>>
>> It is silly to suppose that the Mob, Castro, CIA, Military/Industrial
>> Complex, FBI or others would really accomplish anything by murdering a
>> president when the number two guy taking over, as is constitutionally
>> mandated, is from the same political party and is likely to hold most
>> of the same viewpoints as the guy being replaced. Silly.
>
>"Likely"? Perhaps the assassins KNEW precisely where Johnson and
>Kennedy differed in opinion. Perhaps because Johnson told them. As far
>as the mob's motivation, have you ever read the HSCA report? They
>found that criminal investigations into mob activity slowed to a halt
>under Johnson. As far as Johnson's own history, Marcello bagman Jack
>Halphen was on record in the 1950's as saying that LBJ was on the take.
And you believe that?
> Have you ever heard of Bobby Baker, Fred Black, Irving Davidson? JFK may
>have been a lying womanizer, but there's no evidence he was as corrupt as
>Johnson, or willing to murder his political enemies. Have you ever heard
>of Henry Marshall? Billie Sol Estes? While the Johnson-was-in-on-it
>scenarios may not be true, they stand up at least as well as Oswald acting
>alone.
>
>> Oswald is the guilty party.
>
>Possibly. But to ignore the possibility of other scenarios just because
>the truth in this instance might be a little "messy" is symptomatic of
>someone who's trying to run from history.
>
>
You need to understand that PLAUSIBLE DENIAL, which you seem to
accept, is a dishonest and unreliable book.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/denial.htm
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
> On 12 Jun 2006 23:28:36 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Robert Harris wrote:
>>> On 12 Jun 2006 01:07:46 -0400, "severin"
>>> <seve...@removethisbit.bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello all.
>>>>
>>>> Some time ago I was a lurker and later occaisional contributor to this
>>>> group. After several years absence I decided to pop in for a quick look.
>>>>
>>>> Unsurprisingly the group is still dominated by quibbling over minor
>>>> aspects of the evidence (and point scoring in disputes about same).
>>>> Oswald's shaved or unshaved pubic hairs indeed. :)
>>> You are absolutely correct about that. In fact, that single biggest
>>> complaint I get is that I only post about evidence related to the
>>> assassination:-)
>>>
>> It may not matter to you, but some of us think it is important to stick
>> to the facts and not make up or perpetuate myths. That is why I
>> interject when I see someone posting something which is false.
>
> No Tony, as nearly every proconspiracy person in the uncensored
> newsgroups will confirm, you only interject when someone is posting
> evidence of conspiracy.
>
Nonsense. I post evidence of conspiracy every day.
Robert Harris
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> "MOST witnesses contradicted the LN shooting scenaro."
>
> I'd love to see the skewed CT-favoring-only data you dredged up to
> support this outlandishly-absurd and dead-wrong statement, Bob.
David, when you snip your adversaries arguments and evidence, you only
prove that you are evasive and unable to deal with the facts. I will put
the deleted content back for you and give you another chance to respond,
>>> "There is really only ONE way to resolve this question, and that is
by
>looking through a lot of evidence and testimony."
>
>
>I agree with Robert H. re. the "looking at the evidence and testimony".
>However, when you look at a "lot" of the evidence and testimony in this
>case (and nobody can deny that there is a ton of it), you're BOUND to
>find oddities, discrepancies, inconsistencies, and things that lead
>toward the LN conclusion as well as some things (when ISOLATED) that
>lead toward a "CT" conclusion.
David, the fallacy in your reasoning is that the LN conclusion is a
nonfalsifiable. There may be evidence of Oswald's guilt, but there is
no such thing as "lone-nut" evidence.
Even if the overwhelming preponderance of evidence did not support the
existence of multiple assassins, you could never say with absolute
certainty, that Oswald had no co-conspirators.
More importantly, we are NOT talking about mere "oddities,
discrepancies, and inconsistencies".
MOST witnesses contradicted the LN shooting scenaro.
ZERO law enforcement professionals supported a LN shooting scenario.
Texextra
severin wrote:
> replied yesterday, from work, but i think my browser ate it. Google groups
> ftl.
>
> "Texextra" <texe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1150172570.4...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > severin wrote:
> >> Hello all.
> >>
> >> [snippage]
> >
> > You seem to assume that a conspiracy must involve more than one shooter
> > and/or a shooter other than Oswald,
>
> No I believe most conspiracy theorists assume that.
>
> Personally i think the only valid conspiracy theories involve 3 shots
> only, all fired from Oswald's Mannlicher Carcano from the TSBD sniper's
> nest, with Oswald as the most likely shooter.
>
> I would be very interested in hearing about a conspiracy scenario of this
> type.
>
> > but there are CTs who believe in
> > these possibilities.
> >
> > The withholding of evidence by the government makes it very difficult
> > to believe anything the government says. If there was no conspiracy,
> > why isn't the government eager to release all documents to prove it?
> >
>
> What evidence are you referring to? None released so far has provided
> strong evidence for conspiracy, despite predictions to the contrary.
Give me a case where I can release the evidence that I want to release.
Do you think I'm going to release the most damning evidence to my side
first? Please, don't pretend that I have no reasoning ability at all.
>
> > The Single Bullet Theory was concocted to accomodate the only theory
> > under consideration. In order to believe Oswald acted alone, there has
> > to be not just one, but two magic bullets. The Teague bullet has to be
> > considered magic, too.
> >
>
> If the WC were going to "concoct" something, regardless of the evidence,
> why not "concoct" a story that JFK and JBC were hit by separate shots, and
> Tague by a fragment from one of the shots that didn't lodge in a victim?
> That would have served their "nefarious" purposes better, as people,
> including some on the WC, would have found it easier to believe.
>
> Your theory about the SBT doesn't make any sense to me. The only reason
> for them to propose the SBT is that it best explained the confusing
> evidence they were presented with. If you are suggesting they made-up or
> concealed evidence about the shots and their source, surely they could
> have done more of the same to produce a more easily believable scenario?
You are just making my argument with different words. Re-read what I
said. The SBT was concocted to accommodate the only theory under
consideration. I think even most LNers would have to agree with me.
Anthony Marsh
Exactly what they did do, flash genuine SS identification and help in
the search for the assassins.
> Also they have the problem of the target being alerted or protected in
> some way before he can be shot. For example, one of the SS agents may have
> spotted something and reacted in the same way that Youngblood did with LBJ
> early enough to prevent the fatal shots to JFK. There are photos of SS
> agents riding on the rear of the presidential limo earlier in the trip,
> how were they to know that wouldn't be the case in Dealy Plaza?
>
Depends on the level of sophistication of the conspirators. Not my
theory, but some nut has claimed that the conspirators, not JFK himself,
ordered that the SS agents not ride on the rear of the Presidential limo.
Anthony Marsh
> "Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:448d729...@news20.forteinc.com...
>> On 12 Jun 2006 01:07:46 -0400, "severin"
>> <seve...@removethisbit.bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello all.
>>>
>>> Some time ago I was a lurker and later occaisional contributor to this
>>> group. After several years absence I decided to pop in for a quick look.
>>>
>>> Unsurprisingly the group is still dominated by quibbling over minor
>>> aspects of the evidence (and point scoring in disputes about same).
>>> Oswald's shaved or unshaved pubic hairs indeed. :)
>> You are absolutely correct about that. In fact, that single biggest
>> complaint I get is that I only post about evidence related to the
>> assassination:-)
>>
>
> People complain about the material or the frequency? :)
There can no longer be any doubt that it is the repetitive nature.
Grizzlie Antagonist
Bud wrote:
> Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
> > Severin, I am now going to sum up for you the arguments that you have
> > heard on behalf of a conclusion of conspiracy. In fact, I'm going to
> > sum up for you all of the arguments that you will hear IN THE FUTURE in
> > favor of that conclusion.
> >
> > 1. The case against Oswald was just too good. Pains must have been
> > taken to ensure that this would appear to be a random act by a lone
> > assassin.
> >
> > 2. The case against Oswald is just too poor. The fingerprints of the
> > military-industrial complex are all over this case - so much so that
> > pains must have been taken to ensure that this wouldn't be mistaken for
> > a random act by a lone assassin.
> >
> > You also need to take the conspiracy theorists game of "cui bono" and
> > turn it around on the conspiracy theorists.
> >
> > Who are the people pushing most vociferously for a conclusion of
> > conspiracy and how would they gain by such a finding? I'm not talking
> > specifically about personalities in this ng; I mean, in general.
>
> Ah, now I understand your approach, Grizzlie. If leftist extremists
> can exploit this case as a weapon to make attacks against the
> establishment, then the best response is to use blanket attacks against
> the beliefs and values of conspiracy proponents.
Something like that.
> Cool.
It's actually very very VERY hot.
David VP
WTF is this mish-mash?? I never said the WC (via Page 117) was making
any "conclusive" statements re. the missed shot, Tague's wounding, the
curb strike, or anything else. Obviously, by telling people to "go read
Page 117", I couldn't be claiming such "finality" on the part of the
Commission, because Page 117 is nothing BUT ambiguity.
But the ambiguity is not the point....the point is that the WC was
considering ALTERNATE OPTIONS for the curb strike and Tague's injury.
Period. Many CTers seem to think the opposite, and want to believe the
WC was FORCED to accept the SBT due to Tague's wounding. And that just
ain't so.
>> "You tell me how you pin everything on Oswald without the SBT. Can't be done."
Oh, I fully agree with you here....it cannot be done. I definitely
concur with that statement. Without the SBT, LHO cannot be the lone
shooter, in my opinion. But the SBT *is* correct....the totality of
evidence favors it, and so does good ol' common sense. And the WC knew
this too. That's why the SBT was adopted by the WC as the
most-likely-to-be-correct shooting scenario...and that's why the SBT is
STILL the most-logical and likely-accurate scenario 40+ years later.
However, the point I was making before still applies -- i.e., the WC
was not pigeon-holed by the Tague wounding, in that they DID consider
an alternate method for Tague's injury (not an accurate one, IMO, but
that's another discussion).
Therefore, my point still stands --- The CTers who are forever claiming
that a "missed" shot must account for the Tague wounding (in the WC's
eyes that is), therefore creating the NECESSITY of the SBT by way of
NEEDING that missed shot to hit Tague, are in error and always were
.... by way of Page 117 alone.
severin
No insult intended, I am just inquiring as to what "smoking gun"
evidence you believe is still unreleased, and why you believe it
exists.
The argument that the "real" conspiracy evidence is being suppressed
has been made for years, but each time evidence is released, it proves
not to be the "real" conspiracy evidence. Is there a point at which you
would accept that there isn't any?
> >
> > > The Single Bullet Theory was concocted to accomodate the only theory
> > > under consideration. In order to believe Oswald acted alone, there has
> > > to be not just one, but two magic bullets. The Teague bullet has to be
> > > considered magic, too.
> > >
> >
> > If the WC were going to "concoct" something, regardless of the evidence,
> > why not "concoct" a story that JFK and JBC were hit by separate shots, and
> > Tague by a fragment from one of the shots that didn't lodge in a victim?
> > That would have served their "nefarious" purposes better, as people,
> > including some on the WC, would have found it easier to believe.
> >
> > Your theory about the SBT doesn't make any sense to me. The only reason
> > for them to propose the SBT is that it best explained the confusing
> > evidence they were presented with. If you are suggesting they made-up or
> > concealed evidence about the shots and their source, surely they could
> > have done more of the same to produce a more easily believable scenario?
>
> You are just making my argument with different words. Re-read what I
> said. The SBT was concocted to accommodate the only theory under
> consideration. I think even most LNers would have to agree with me.
>
I don't see how I am making your argument. Obviously I misunderstand
you. Let me start from scratch, you tell me where I have you wrong:
"The only theory under consideration" - you mean the theory that Oswald
was the sole shooter was the only explanation of the assassination
under consideration by the WC, correct?
When you say the SBT was intended to accomodate it, you mean they
proposed the SBT as a theory of how the assassination could be
accomplished in accordance with the evidence, and with their
pre-determined solution that Oswald was the sole shooter, correct?
By saying the WC "concocted" the SBT, you are suggesting they created
the SBT without full regard to the available evidence, or that the WC
manipulated, distorted, misrepresented or created evidence to support
the SBT. This SBT then enables and supports the lone assassin theory,
correct?
I am assuming here that you posit the purpose of the WC was to "sell"
the lone-assassin theory, to satisfy the public's demand for an
investigation and convince them that the lone-assassin explanation is
correct, so as not to draw attention to the true conspirators. Is this
an incorrect assumption?
Assuming I have understood you so far, I return to my question - if the
purpose of the WC is to sell the lone-assassin theory, and the WC are
willing and able to "concoct" evidence to achieve this, why pick such a
poor explanation to convince people?
People are rarely convinced of the SBT on first hearing. Those who come
to believe it often need to hear all the evidence in it's favour
explained in detail. The SBT is a difficult idea to "sell" to the
public. If the WC was trying to "sell", and they weren't completely
constrained by the evidence, why didn't they concoct something
"catchier"?
Regards,
Severin
David VP
And yet, incredibly, Dale Myers' animation of Specter's "wrong" theory
JUST HAPPENS to work out perfectly as being a CORRECT "theory".
Amazing. (Myers is a liar and cheat and a fraud, right? Yeah, right.)
And -- It, too, is also remarkable that (41 years after 11/22/63) a
team of researchers in Australia was able to mimic the SBT and CE399's
actions and general NON-FRAGMENTED appearance via a detailed
re-creation .... a re-creation that has a WCC M-C 6.5mm bullet doing
pert-near what CE399 did, following a path damn close to 399, and doing
damage in 2 "bodies" very similar to that of 399, plus emerging in ONE
COMPLETE PIECE (just like 399) --- and yet Specter's theory was dead
"wrong". Right?
Is that your contention, sir?
If it is....think again. And then try to find out if even in Vegas they
could calculate the odds of the Myers' animation and the real-life
(with limitations) re-creation by the Discovery Channel both coming to
the overall conclusion that a TOTALLY-IMPOSSIBLE THEORY (the SBT) could
be re-created with such precision.
IOW -- If it's "wrong" and/or utterly unfathomable, how could anyone
HOPE to mimic its success so well (like Myers and The Discovery Channel
have done)?
For a "theory" that's all wet....it sure has passed several detailed
tests with flying colors.....wouldn't you agree?
Texextra
I don't know what the evidence is that is unreleased. It's UNRELEASED!
I don't know what it is, you don't know what it is and nobody on this
newsgroup knows what it is. I don't know whether it is a "smoking gun"
or a "wet noodle". All I know is that the government doesn't want us to
know.
>
> The argument that the "real" conspiracy evidence is being suppressed
> has been made for years, but each time evidence is released, it proves
> not to be the "real" conspiracy evidence. Is there a point at which you
> would accept that there isn't any?
Each time evidence is released, it is still the evidence the government
is willing to release at the time. The government is still not
releasing the evidence they want to control. At this point, there's
probably a lot of evidence that no longer exists or that doesn't exist
in a place that can be determined. So, to be quite straight-foward with
you, no, I doubt I'll ever be satisfied.
>
> > >
> > > > The Single Bullet Theory was concocted to accomodate the only theory
> > > > under consideration. In order to believe Oswald acted alone, there has
> > > > to be not just one, but two magic bullets. The Teague bullet has to be
> > > > considered magic, too.
> > > >
> > >
> > > If the WC were going to "concoct" something, regardless of the evidence,
> > > why not "concoct" a story that JFK and JBC were hit by separate shots, and
> > > Tague by a fragment from one of the shots that didn't lodge in a victim?
> > > That would have served their "nefarious" purposes better, as people,
> > > including some on the WC, would have found it easier to believe.
> > >
> > > Your theory about the SBT doesn't make any sense to me. The only reason
> > > for them to propose the SBT is that it best explained the confusing
> > > evidence they were presented with. If you are suggesting they made-up or
> > > concealed evidence about the shots and their source, surely they could
> > > have done more of the same to produce a more easily believable scenario?
> >
> > You are just making my argument with different words. Re-read what I
> > said. The SBT was concocted to accommodate the only theory under
> > consideration. I think even most LNers would have to agree with me.
> >
>
> I don't see how I am making your argument. Obviously I misunderstand
> you. Let me start from scratch, you tell me where I have you wrong:
>
> "The only theory under consideration" - you mean the theory that Oswald
> was the sole shooter was the only explanation of the assassination
> under consideration by the WC, correct?
Yes.
>
> When you say the SBT was intended to accomodate it, you mean they
> proposed the SBT as a theory of how the assassination could be
> accomplished in accordance with the evidence, and with their
> pre-determined solution that Oswald was the sole shooter, correct?
Basically, yes.
>
> By saying the WC "concocted" the SBT, you are suggesting they created
> the SBT without full regard to the available evidence, or that the WC
> manipulated, distorted, misrepresented or created evidence to support
> the SBT. This SBT then enables and supports the lone assassin theory,
> correct?
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying they had a few puzzle pieces
and assumed a way in which the rest of the puzzle might fit together
based on what they knew and what they wanted the outcome to be.
>
> I am assuming here that you posit the purpose of the WC was to "sell"
> the lone-assassin theory, to satisfy the public's demand for an
> investigation and convince them that the lone-assassin explanation is
> correct, so as not to draw attention to the true conspirators. Is this
> an incorrect assumption?
End the statement with "explanation is correct" and I'd say absolutely,
no question about it. Add in the phrase about conspirators and I'd say
likely.
>
> Assuming I have understood you so far, I return to my question - if the
> purpose of the WC is to sell the lone-assassin theory, and the WC are
> willing and able to "concoct" evidence to achieve this, why pick such a
> poor explanation to convince people?
It was the best Specter came up with.
>
> People are rarely convinced of the SBT on first hearing. Those who come
> to believe it often need to hear all the evidence in it's favour
> explained in detail. The SBT is a difficult idea to "sell" to the
> public. If the WC was trying to "sell", and they weren't completely
> constrained by the evidence, why didn't they concoct something
> "catchier"?
I don't know. I guess I'm not the one to ask.
severin
"severin" <seve...@removethisbit.bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:448de675$0$7196$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> "Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:448d729...@news20.forteinc.com...
>> On 12 Jun 2006 01:07:46 -0400, "severin"
>> <seve...@removethisbit.bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>>Hello all.
>>>
>>>Some time ago I was a lurker and later occaisional contributor to this
>>>group. After several years absence I decided to pop in for a quick look.
>>>
>>>Unsurprisingly the group is still dominated by quibbling over minor
>>>aspects of the evidence (and point scoring in disputes about same).
>>>Oswald's shaved or unshaved pubic hairs indeed. :)
>>
>> You are absolutely correct about that. In fact, that single biggest
>> complaint I get is that I only post about evidence related to the
>> assassination:-)
>>
>
> People complain about the material or the frequency? :)
>
>>>
>>>I came to study of this case a few years ago with the attitude I had
>>>picked up from the little I had seen/heard/read about the case - JFK was
>>>obviously killed by a conspiracy involving multiple shooters. After half
>>>a
>>>year or so of reading all I could find about the case, I reluctantly
>>>concluded that there was only fragmentary and contradictory evidence
>>>supporting that viewpoint, and a great deal of cohesive evidence
>>>supporting the conclusion that the assassination consisted of 3 shots
>>>from
>>>Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle fired from the 6th floor of
>>>the TSBD, the rifle most likely being operated by Lee Harvey Oswald at
>>>the
>>>time.
>>
>> As is so often the case, your first impression was the right one.
>>
>
> It was based on very selectively presented information.
>
>> In more recent times, a great deal of new analysis has pretty well
>> nailed the question of conspiracy. This is based on the well
>> established fact that the spacing of the shots was inconsistent with a
>> single sniper firing the alleged murder weapon.
>>
>> There is a detail presenation on the subject at this URL:
>>
>> http://two.fsphost.com/reharris/jfk.mov
>>
>> And a lengthy article here:
>>
>> http://two.fsphost.com/reharris/jfk.mov
>>
>
> I don't get video, only audio. My Quicktime claims it is up-to-date.
>
> I don't want to argue the validity of your theory in this thread. Instead,
> I am happy to assume, for the sake of argument, that your evidence is
> valid. What does that imply about the conspiracy you suggest? See below
> for my questions.
>
>>
>>>
>>>I have the dedication of conspiracy-oriented researches to thank for my
>>>quick conversion - I only became interested in the case at a time when
>>>their efforts had already uncovered or released or provoked most of the
>>>relevant evidence and analysis, and so a lot of the questions asked by
>>>the
>>>initial critics of the Warren Commission had been answered by the time I
>>>got there. It seems to me that new evidence as it has been uncovered has
>>>tended to confirm the WC, rather than contradict it. The redundancy and
>>>coherence of the evidence for the lone-assassin case is what finally
>>>convinced me it was the best working hypothesis.
>>
>> There is indeed evidence pointing to Oswald, but if you look closely,
>> you will discover that there is absolutely nothing which isolates him
>> as the only assassin. In fact, once you look at the shots that were
>> fired, and when, I think you will agree that Oswald couldn't have done
>> the job alone.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>So why am I in the minority?
>>
>> Because you are wrong:-)
>>
>>>Why all the quibbling? I guess some people
>>>probably hold the pro-conspiracy opinions they do either because they
>>>formed them back when the evidence was by no means as abundant or as
>>>clear, or because they learned about the case from the arguments of
>>>people
>>>who formed their opinions at that time. I can understand this. Some
>>>people
>>>claim much of the lone-assassin evidence is fake.
>>
>> There is NO "lone-assassin" evidence.
>>
>> It doesn't exist.
>>
>> There is evidence which suggests that Oswald took part in the attack,
>> but it by no means proves he acted alone.
>>
>
> True. Perhaps I should have called it "evidence which does not support
> multiple shooters".
>
>>
>>
>>>This I can't understand
>>>and couldn't be bothered trying to, because the conspiracy scenario that
>>>it implies is not credible. But others seem to focus on specific pieces
>>>of
>>>pro-conspiracy evidence, or insist on reinterpreting specific pieces of
>>>evidence in a pro-conspiracy light, or assign the pro-conspiracy evidence
>>>greater weight in some way. This I'd like to understand.
>>
>> You seem to be trying to make this an either/or issues.
>>
>> Evidence of other shooters does not contradict evidence of Oswald's
>> participation, any more than evidence of one terrorists involvement in
>> a murder contradicts his partners guilt.
>>
>
> I'm referring to people focussing on testimony that suggests other
> shooters, or interpreting the Z-film or autopsy photos to find evidence of
> other shooters.
>
> I'm not suggesting this evidence exonerates the TSBD shooter in any way
> (though some people may choose to argue that). This evidence (if we accept
> it), does rule out Oswald acting alone, unless you suggest two independent
> assassination teams were in the same location at the same time.
>
>>
>>>Surely the goal
>>>of these people is to eventually produce a collection of internally
>>>consistent, coherent evidence that explains the conspiracy behind the
>>>assassination and it's execution.
>>
>> We are pretty close to that now, actually.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>I want to get an idea of "big picture" pro-conspiracy thinking.
>>
>> This crime was mostly about Cuba.
>>
>> Another source of (relatively) new evidence in the case is *Oswald
>> Talked* by Ray and Mary La Fontaine. The only thing Ray and Mary
>> overlooked IMO, was that Oswald was not a communist,
>
> This implies a long history of Oswald "masquerading" as a communist, or a
> political conversion at some point.
>
>> and was very
>> likely, in cahoots with the killers.
>>
>
> A conspiracy that doesn't include Oswald has to explain all the evidence
> incriminating him in some way.
>
>>
>>>If you
>>>have a pet issue that doesn't agree with the lone-assassin scenario (eg
>>>you have found evidence of a second shooter in the Z-film or autopsy
>>>photos), what kind of working hypothesis are you using to inform your
>>>further research? Indulge me in this exercise:
>>>
>>>All agree that JFK was killed by a gun or guns shooting at a moving car
>>>in
>>>a public place with many spectators. If so, then you must agree that the
>>>planner or planners understood there was a chance the shots would miss
>>>and
>>>there was a chance the shooter or shooters would be identified or
>>>captured. They must also have understood that increasing the the number
>>>of
>>>shots or shooters also increased the risk of identification or capture.
>>>
>>>Choosing to kill a president this way makes sense if it was a politically
>>>symbolic crime of opportunity committed by someone who expected to be
>>>identified or even apprehended.
>>>
>>>But if you believe that a conspiracy was responsible, why might they
>>>choose to do it this way? Can anyone come up with a logically consistent
>>>scenario?
>>
Anthony Marsh
> chuck schuyler wrote:
>> pjspeare:
>>
>> Interesting but irrelevant post. There isn't any evidence of someone on
>> the knoll or in a storm drain firing a weapon. And the stuff about E.
>> Howard Hunt as it relates to the JFK assassination is a factoid.
>
> For the record, in my presentation, available here:
> http://homepage.mac.com/bkohley/Menu18.html
> I argue against any shots coming from the sewer or the stockade fence.
> I leave open the possibility a shot was fired from just west of the
> TSBD, but if if did, it missed...
>
> And what does that mean? Factoid? That Hunt wasn't involved? I would
> agree that he's not a "tramp" if that's what you mean. On the other hand,
> why did Nixon think the CIA would help shut down the Watergate
> investigation to conceal Hunt's involvement in the "Bay of Pigs thing,"
> and why was Haldeman convinced this was a reference to the assassination?
Because E. Howard Hunt as a former CIA officer knew about the Castro
assassination plots, and the fact that Helms was in charge of them and
Nixon had given the OK.
> And why did Angleton show Joe Trento a CIA memo stating that Hunt was in
> Dallas at the time of the assassination? IMO, Hunt was involved, if only
> tangentially through Phillips and Artime.
>
Because Angleton knew it wasn't true.
Anthony Marsh
By lying about the evidence.
Chad Zimmerman
<pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:1150233494.9...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Mr. VP, I believe it was not the Tague bullet, but the Zapruder film, that
> led Specter to go with the SBT. They concluded Kennedy was hit behind the
> sign. They concluded Connally showed signs of being hit less than 2.3
> seconds after they believed Kennedy had been hit. Bingo: a single-bullet
> theory emerges. Specter convinces himself, and far too many others, it
> MUST have happened. They REFUSE to actually test its feasiblitly,
> however. Specter is only allowed to test whether it was remotely POSSIBLE.
> After the re-enctment, he tells them "yes," and there you have it.
That's because exact duplication of such an event is most possible on paper,
and almost infinitely
impossible in reality. Once a bullet hits someone, what it does is hard to
predict. However, many
other people have tested the components of the SBT and found it to be
reliable, such as Lattimer.
Barb also knows of someone that replicated CE399 and even tried to get Wecht
to pony up the
dough that he had offered for such a thing.
>
> The problem.... Specter was wrong. And KNEW he was wrong.
And your proof that he knew he was wrong is what?
He knew the
> bullet entered Kennedy's back.
They lined up just fine. All of this up vs. down conflict is nonsensical.
Nobody knows exactly what
degree of rotation was present with JFK (at the point of impact) and JBC (at
the point of impact). Such
variances exist, but you'll almost never see anyone discuss that in a book.
They pick one drawing and
ask you to believe that it is reliable.
He knew the trajectories didn't line-up.
> The question: did he LIE to himself and convince himself everything was
> close-enough? Or did he LIE to the WC in order to further his career? I
> suspect the latter.
No proof of any of that.
Why? Even though Specter told U.S. News in 67 that
> Kelley had shown him an autopsy photo before the re-enactment, and even
> though he admitted it again in his 2000 auto-bio, he failed to mention
> this INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT fact to the HSCA in 78. Why? What was he
> covering up?
The damn photograph is not all inclusive. Almost everyone concedes that he
was hit in the
area of T1 due to the fracture and the lack of any penetrating damage to the
lung (T1-2). However,
the photograph makes the wound appear to be at T2-3 area. Why is that?
Look at the AP x-ray. His shoulders are elevated well beyond the normal,
neutral position that
everyone likes to ASS-u-me. This is what led to all the confusion and it
apparently persists today.
It should be obvious he was trying to avoid being confronted
> on his blatantly incompetent and/or disreputable behavior. Think about it.
> He allowed the WC to print the Rydbery Drawings even though he KNEW they
> were inaccurate. And this is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, a
> man with a "passion for truth." Pathetic.
His theory makes more sense than any other that I've ever heard. Any other
action by a bullet
is more magical than that.
Chad
Chad Zimmerman
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1150264654.2...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Oh, it gets better:
CE399- 158.6 grains
Discovery Bullet- 158.0 grains.
Other than the damage difference, which is easily explained by how the
bullet hit the ribs,
the weight was almost the same!
Chad
>
>
Anthony Marsh
> Mr. VP, I believe it was not the Tague bullet, but the Zapruder film, that
> led Specter to go with the SBT. They concluded Kennedy was hit behind the
> sign. They concluded Connally showed signs of being hit less than 2.3
> seconds after they believed Kennedy had been hit. Bingo: a single-bullet
> theory emerges. Specter convinces himself, and far too many others, it
> MUST have happened. They REFUSE to actually test its feasiblitly,
> however. Specter is only allowed to test whether it was remotely POSSIBLE.
> After the re-enctment, he tells them "yes," and there you have it.
>
Everything was going so well. Three shots, three hits. Kennedy in the
back, Connally in the back, Kennedy in the head. Then Connally said and
his doctors agreed that he was hit at about Z-230. Then they looked at
the reenactment photos and a sniper did not have a clear shot until
Z-210. Not enough time for one shooter to fire those two wounding shots.
Even if you move the Connally shot to Z-240 and the early shot to Z-190
for the gap in the tree, you have a maximum of 50 frames, or 2.7 seconds
, a little too right.
Anthony Marsh
> "Peter Fokes" <jp...@toronto.hm> wrote in message
> news:9pmt82p8tm0j1d77h...@4ax.com...
>> On 13 Jun 2006 01:18:00 -0400, "David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
> [snippage]
>> OF course, the same game plan is followed by LNers who claim the field
>> contains evidence of a missed shot, but then fail to prove their case,
>> and make assumptions based on such a belief. The lack of such proof,
>> for example, reduces Rahn's analysis to guesswork.
>>
>
> Peter, that is silly.
>
> There is no need to "assume" a missed shot.
>
Almost every solution to the shooting has a missed shot. No one was able
to get a fragment from a known wounding to hit the curb near Tague.
> There is only strong evidence in favor of two shots, because only two
> bullets were recovered. (Or more correctly, the various fragments of
> bullets that were recovered have been demonstrated to come from only two
> bullets to a high degree of certainty).
>
No, the evidence does not prove that the two large fragments came from
the same bullet.
> There is weak evidence for a missed shot, from 3 shells in the TSBD, from
> witness testimony, and from comparing testimony to the visible actions of
> people in the Z-film and other records.
>
> What LN theories depend on this missed shot? (Other than Posner's
> contention that it was the shot that wounded Tague?)
>
>>> But IMO such isolation of evidence is not the way to solve the JFK
>>> case, or to come to the CORRECT answer as to how President Kennedy died
>>> in 1963.
>> We should just agree with you, right?
>>
>>> Two excellent examples of the "Isolation Syndrome" to which I
>>> refer......
>> A syndrome affecting some LNs and CTs ....
>>
>>> 1.) The "It Was Really A Mauser Rifle Found In The TSBD" conspiracy
>>> theory. ....
>> 1) A "Shot Must Have Missed LN theory" .....
>>
>
> See above
>
>>> 2.) Gerald Hill initially referring to the Tippit murder weapon as an
>>> "automatic". ....
>> 2) The Arlen Specter " a pointer is straight so the bullet path was
>> straight theory" .....
>>
>
> The ammunition was designed to travel through a human body if it didn't
> hit anything solid to deflect it. There is no evidence of the bullet that
> caused JFKs back and neck wounds having hit any bones is there? If the
Yes, there is. The bullet hit the T-1 vertebra.
> bullet passes through JFK, and JBC is sitting in front of JFK, where else
> is the bullet meant to go on it's way out? How is Specter wrong to suggest
> it continued in a straight line?
Simplistic solution.
>
>>> I talk about more of this type of CTer behavior in my review at the
>>> link below......
>>>
>>> www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0788600931/ref=cm_rev_sort/102-0679552-6293763?customer-reviews.sort_by=byExactRating_1&x=8&y=12&s=video
>> At least with the Amazon vanity press option, you don't have to pay a
>> cent!
>>
>>> I enjoyed reading the remarks made by Severin in this thread...and
>>> wholly concur with "Sev". Many CTers pluck items from the batch of
>>> evidence that seem to favor conspiracy
>> And don't forget the fact that many LNers do the same thing.
>>
>>
>>
>>> (and I'm not denying that there
>>> are some things that do, when isolated, look suspicious)
>> Of course there are .... that's why even the commissioners did not
>> agree among themselves about the SBT, for example.
>>
>>
>>> and then the
>>> conspiracists will just let them dangle there....out of context if you
>>> will.
>> In the case of the WC, Warren was forced to water down the SBT due to
>> dissent by other commissioners. They dangled the myth of the SBT
>> despite the fact it is an impossibility.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Stone, in his fanciful movie,
>> Agree. He also said it was a story not a documentary.
>>
>
> Sure he did. But how many uninformed viewers of the movie will assume it
> is fiction? It is not presented as fiction by any stretch of the
> imagination.
>
It is not a documentary, but many people would make the mistake of
confusing staged scenes with newsreel footage.
Almost any historical movie pretends to be accurate. Very few admit up
front that they are comedy or speculation. Stone was presenting a
counter myth.
> Are you saying you have never had a discussion with an uninformed person
> about the JFK assassination and had them quote "evidence" from Stone's
> "JFK" at you?
>
>> Why do you issue such red herrings? It makes it appear you are not
>> serious. Are you?
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> David R. Von Pein
>>
>> PF
>
> Anyway, all the above is off topic.
>
> Care to present to me a conspiracy scenario that explains why plotters
> should choose (over any other method) to kill JFK with firearms shooting
> at a moving target in a public place where they could be quite possibly be
> identified and also fail to even hit him ? Would they still acheive their
> aims if either or both of those thing happened?
>
So, your theory is that conspirators never try to shoot down a President
in public?
severin
I'm assuming you are positing a scenario similar to pjspeare's.
Questions below.
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:y_6dnR1p8-aJCRLZ...@comcast.com...
Would that technique work if they were observed firing?
Would it continue to work if the GK shooter was captured on film? (there
were several people with cameras opposite the GK. At least one of those
photos was in the hands of the press almost immediately - what if Moorman
had a decent camera instead of a Polaroid? What if Altgens didn't hesitate
to take his photo at the time of the headshot?)
Why should the plotters choose a scenario with so many observers with
cameras?
It seems the CIA scenario requires the plotters to be identified by the
victim or his successors (so they know not to "mess with" them), but not by
the public, and the victim (or his successors) are expected to be complicit
in concealing the plotters identity.
>> Also they have the problem of the target being alerted or protected in
>> some way before he can be shot. For example, one of the SS agents may
>> have spotted something and reacted in the same way that Youngblood did
>> with LBJ early enough to prevent the fatal shots to JFK. There are photos
>> of SS agents riding on the rear of the presidential limo earlier in the
>> trip, how were they to know that wouldn't be the case in Dealy Plaza?
>>
>
> Depends on the level of sophistication of the conspirators. Not my theory,
> but some nut has claimed that the conspirators, not JFK himself, ordered
> that the SS agents not ride on the rear of the Presidential limo.
>
>
Even if they did forbid agents to ride on the limo, how can the conspirators
be sure that no-one in the car would show the presence of mind that Rufus
Youngblood did? He got LBJ out of harms way after the first shot. What if
JFK hears a shot or sees something prior to the first shot and takes cover?
Why would the plotters choose a plan that has the rear shooter firing and
potentially alerting the limo occupants BEFORE the GK shooter had a chance
to hit?
Are the plotters aims achieved if they are unable to hit the target? If they
are publicly identified?
Regards,
Severin
Peter Fokes
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
True or false:
1. The crime scene WAS removed from Texas?
2. The autopsy WAS controlled?
3. False leads WERE planted?
4. Evidence WAS lost?
5. Evidence WAS destroyed?
6. The suspect WAS murdered?
7. No trial WAS held?
8. A directive WAS issued to "resolve all allegations" before all the
facts were known?
9. Fears of nuclear war WERE pondered?
10. Fears of exposure of covert acts against Castro DID exist?
11. A Commission of politicians WAS formed?
12. Most evidence WAS supplied by the FBI?
13. A report WAS issued to convince Americans?
14. The CIA actively TRIED to discredit critics of that report?
An alternative scenario:
If the car HAD been impounded, if the autopsy had been done by Dr.
Rose, if Oswald HAD lived, if a trial HAD been held, if a conclusion
HAD been drawn through investigation rather than preordination, if
there HAD been no concern over war, if exposure of assassination plots
HAD been exposed, if a Commission of experts and non-politicians HAD
been formed, if independent investigation HAD been primary, if smear
tactics against critics HAD not been used ....
Ask your police chief:
Go tell your local police chief that his force does not have access to
the crime scene, that the autopsy will be done in another city far
from the crime, that the suspect will be exposed to the press, that a
conclusion has been reached before a thorough investigation, that
secrets must be kept, that a group of politicians not detectives will
head the commission to find out the truth, that the force will hand
over evidence to another investigating body, that critics must be
stifled .....
Possible response of police chief:
"You must be joking."
PF
severin
How do you know that then? (serious question)
>>
>> The argument that the "real" conspiracy evidence is being suppressed
>> has been made for years, but each time evidence is released, it proves
>> not to be the "real" conspiracy evidence. Is there a point at which you
>> would accept that there isn't any?
>
> Each time evidence is released, it is still the evidence the government
> is willing to release at the time. The government is still not
> releasing the evidence they want to control. At this point, there's
> probably a lot of evidence that no longer exists or that doesn't exist
> in a place that can be determined. So, to be quite straight-foward with
> you, no, I doubt I'll ever be satisfied.
>
That, and your previous answer, seems to me to be an admission that your
contention that there is evidence which proves a conspiracy that the
government is concealing is a matter of faith with you. You have no proof
the evidence exists, you cannot specify what evidence exists, you just
believe it must exist because you believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy,
and because you believe the government knows that, correct?
So what convinces you it was a conspiracy, and what convinces you the
government must know that?
OK
>>
>> When you say the SBT was intended to accomodate it, you mean they
>> proposed the SBT as a theory of how the assassination could be
>> accomplished in accordance with the evidence, and with their
>> pre-determined solution that Oswald was the sole shooter, correct?
>
> Basically, yes.
>
OK
>>
>> By saying the WC "concocted" the SBT, you are suggesting they created
>> the SBT without full regard to the available evidence, or that the WC
>> manipulated, distorted, misrepresented or created evidence to support
>> the SBT. This SBT then enables and supports the lone assassin theory,
>> correct?
>
> No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying they had a few puzzle pieces
> and assumed a way in which the rest of the puzzle might fit together
> based on what they knew and what they wanted the outcome to be.
So, you are saying that the SBT corresponds both with the evidence they WC
had available to them, and the conslusion they wanted to reach?
In other words, the WC did not manipulate, distort, ignore or create
evidence relating to the SBT?
In that case, it is unfair to say they "concocted" it, is it not? You are
saying the SBT is a valid "lone-assassin" theory of the assassination and is
not contradicted by the evidence available to the WC. I understand you are
not saying that the lone-assassin theory itself is correct, only that the
SBT is a valid theory in support of it.
>
>>
>> I am assuming here that you posit the purpose of the WC was to "sell"
>> the lone-assassin theory, to satisfy the public's demand for an
>> investigation and convince them that the lone-assassin explanation is
>> correct, so as not to draw attention to the true conspirators. Is this
>> an incorrect assumption?
>
> End the statement with "explanation is correct" and I'd say absolutely,
> no question about it. Add in the phrase about conspirators and I'd say
> likely.
>
So their motivation in "selling" the lone-assassin theory was not
necessarily to protect the true conspirators from discovery, but, say, to
avoid domestic or internation political disruption?
>>
>> Assuming I have understood you so far, I return to my question - if the
>> purpose of the WC is to sell the lone-assassin theory, and the WC are
>> willing and able to "concoct" evidence to achieve this, why pick such a
>> poor explanation to convince people?
>
> It was the best Specter came up with.
>
But why is it the best? As you agreed above that the SBT does not contradict
the evidence available to the WC, I would submit it was the best Specter
came up with because it was the best "lone-assassin" theory of the
assassination - ie the theory that best matched the evidence.
You have agreed as much above.
So to continue investigating the implications of your conspiracy scenario
(the purpose of this thread), could you fill me in on the competing
conspiracy theory of the assassination which you subscribe to?
What is it's alternative explanation of the evidence explained by the SBT?
>>
>> People are rarely convinced of the SBT on first hearing. Those who come
>> to believe it often need to hear all the evidence in it's favour
>> explained in detail. The SBT is a difficult idea to "sell" to the
>> public. If the WC was trying to "sell", and they weren't completely
>> constrained by the evidence, why didn't they concoct something
>> "catchier"?
>
> I don't know. I guess I'm not the one to ask.
>
I would suggest you do know, and admitted as much above. The WC selected the
SBT because the SBT best corresponds with the evidence and the
pre-determined conlusion that a lone assassin was responsible.
Do you posit conspiracy because you have a multi-shooter scenario that
better corresponds with the evidence?
Regards,
Severin
James K. Olmstead
"severin" <seve...@removethisbit.bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:448f180f$0$7193$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
"severin": Are you claiming that CE 567 and CE 569 are the same round?
If so please outline the basis for this......if not consider that there are three rounds
fired and three rounds recovered.....no missed shot.
thanks in advance of stating your position.
jko
> "Peter Fokes" <jp...@toronto.hm> wrote in message news:9pmt82p8tm0j1d77h...@4ax.com...
>> On 13 Jun 2006 01:18:00 -0400, "David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
> [snippage]
>>
>> OF course, the same game plan is followed by LNers who claim the field
>> contains evidence of a missed shot, but then fail to prove their case,
>> and make assumptions based on such a belief. The lack of such proof,
>> for example, reduces Rahn's analysis to guesswork.
>>
>
> Peter, that is silly.
>
> There is no need to "assume" a missed shot.
>
> There is only strong evidence in favor of two shots, because only two bullets were recovered. (Or more correctly, the
> various fragments of bullets that were recovered have been demonstrated to come from only two bullets to a high degree
> of certainty).
>
> There is weak evidence for a missed shot, from 3 shells in the TSBD, from witness testimony, and from comparing
> testimony to the visible actions of people in the Z-film and other records.
>
> What LN theories depend on this missed shot? (Other than Posner's contention that it was the shot that wounded Tague?)
>
>>>But IMO such isolation of evidence is not the way to solve the JFK
>>>case, or to come to the CORRECT answer as to how President Kennedy died
>>>in 1963.
>>
>> We should just agree with you, right?
>>
>>>
>>>Two excellent examples of the "Isolation Syndrome" to which I
>>>refer......
>>
>> A syndrome affecting some LNs and CTs ....
>>
>>>
>>>1.) The "It Was Really A Mauser Rifle Found In The TSBD" conspiracy
>>>theory. ....
>>
>> 1) A "Shot Must Have Missed LN theory" .....
>>
>
> See above
>
>>>
>>>2.) Gerald Hill initially referring to the Tippit murder weapon as an
>>>"automatic". ....
>>
>> 2) The Arlen Specter " a pointer is straight so the bullet path was
>> straight theory" .....
>>
>
> The ammunition was designed to travel through a human body if it didn't hit anything solid to deflect it. There is no
> evidence of the bullet that caused JFKs back and neck wounds having hit any bones is there? If the bullet passes
> through JFK, and JBC is sitting in front of JFK, where else is the bullet meant to go on it's way out? How is Specter
> wrong to suggest it continued in a straight line?
>
>>>
>>>I talk about more of this type of CTer behavior in my review at the
>>>link below......
>>>
>>>www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0788600931/ref=cm_rev_sort/102-0679552-6293763?customer-reviews.sort_by=byExactRating_1&x=8&y=12&s=video
>>
>> At least with the Amazon vanity press option, you don't have to pay a
>> cent!
>>
>>>I enjoyed reading the remarks made by Severin in this thread...and
>>>wholly concur with "Sev". Many CTers pluck items from the batch of
>>>evidence that seem to favor conspiracy
>>
>> And don't forget the fact that many LNers do the same thing.
>>
>>
>>
>>> (and I'm not denying that there
>>>are some things that do, when isolated, look suspicious)
>>
>> Of course there are .... that's why even the commissioners did not
>> agree among themselves about the SBT, for example.
>>
>>
>>>and then the
>>>conspiracists will just let them dangle there....out of context if you
>>>will.
>>
>> In the case of the WC, Warren was forced to water down the SBT due to
>> dissent by other commissioners. They dangled the myth of the SBT
>> despite the fact it is an impossibility.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Stone, in his fanciful movie,
>>
>> Agree. He also said it was a story not a documentary.
>>
>
> Sure he did. But how many uninformed viewers of the movie will assume it is fiction? It is not presented as fiction by
> any stretch of the imagination.
>
>>
> to believe is the problem. Are you saying you have never had a discussion with an uninformed person about the JFK
> assassination and had them quote "evidence" from Stone's "JFK" at you?
>
>> Why do you issue such red herrings? It makes it appear you are not
>> serious. Are you?
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>David R. Von Pein
>>
>>
>> PF
>
> Anyway, all the above is off topic.
>
> Care to present to me a conspiracy scenario that explains why plotters should choose (over any other method) to kill
> JFK with firearms shooting at a moving target in a public place where they could be quite possibly be identified and
> also fail to even hit him ? Would they still acheive their aims if either or both of those thing happened?
>
Anthony Marsh
I personally don't think so, but maybe back in 1963 people would not
question authority, just obey orders.
> Would it continue to work if the GK shooter was captured on film? (there
It seems to have worked because the grassy knoll shooter WAS captured on
film. We have one WC defender here who denies the existence of Black Dog
Man and claims it is a shadow on the fence. So dedicated WC defenders
can deny anything.
> were several people with cameras opposite the GK. At least one of those
> photos was in the hands of the press almost immediately - what if Moorman
> had a decent camera instead of a Polaroid? What if Altgens didn't hesitate
> to take his photo at the time of the headshot?)
>
Ah yes. What if. And ignore the fact that her photo does show the
shooter. Nice touch.
> Why should the plotters choose a scenario with so many observers with
> cameras?
Exactly. Why should anyone ever murder anyone else since there is always
some possibility of being photographed. So Hinckley would not shoot at
Reagan because he was surrounded by photographers? Remember the Aquino
assassination? The guards kept the photographers away so that they could
not film the guards shooting Aquino. Dedicated assassins will kill their
target live on TV in front of millions. So what?
>
> It seems the CIA scenario requires the plotters to be identified by the
> victim or his successors (so they know not to "mess with" them), but not by
> the public, and the victim (or his successors) are expected to be complicit
> in concealing the plotters identity.
>
My scenario may be slightly different. It is a rogue operation by CIA
agents. Like Watergate and Hunt's little projects. Supported by the CIA,
but not an official CIA project.
The bravado is similar to a Mafia hit or local gangs. There are 1,000
witnesses to the killing in broad daylight and everyone knows who did
it, but no one will testify.
>
>>> Also they have the problem of the target being alerted or protected in
>>> some way before he can be shot. For example, one of the SS agents may
>>> have spotted something and reacted in the same way that Youngblood did
>>> with LBJ early enough to prevent the fatal shots to JFK. There are photos
>>> of SS agents riding on the rear of the presidential limo earlier in the
>>> trip, how were they to know that wouldn't be the case in Dealy Plaza?
>>>
>> Depends on the level of sophistication of the conspirators. Not my theory,
>> but some nut has claimed that the conspirators, not JFK himself, ordered
>> that the SS agents not ride on the rear of the Presidential limo.
>>
>>
> Even if they did forbid agents to ride on the limo, how can the conspirators
> be sure that no-one in the car would show the presence of mind that Rufus
> Youngblood did? He got LBJ out of harms way after the first shot. What if
> JFK hears a shot or sees something prior to the first shot and takes cover?
>
How would they know that Clint Hill would not jump off the follow-up car
and run up to the limousine? That doesn't matter when they triangulate
fire. If the target is obscured by one angle, another angle is open.
You have to realize that there are professionals who are paid millions
of our tax dollars to work out details like this.
> Why would the plotters choose a plan that has the rear shooter firing and
> potentially alerting the limo occupants BEFORE the GK shooter had a chance
> to hit?
>
Maybe you missed my point the first 10,000,000 times. The man on the
grassy knoll was not supposed to shoot unless the target was getting
away alive.
> Are the plotters aims achieved if they are unable to hit the target? If they
> are publicly identified?
>
Partially. Like the Mossad revenge assassinations. It sends the message
that they can strike anyone anytime anywhere.
Anthony Marsh
I guess facts are nonsensical.
> Nobody knows exactly what
> degree of rotation was present with JFK (at the point of impact) and JBC (at
> the point of impact). Such
Not sure what point you are trying to make. JFK was facing forward.
Connally was facing forward. A difference of a couple of degrees does
not change an impossible path to become possible.
> variances exist, but you'll almost never see anyone discuss that in a book.
> They pick one drawing and
> ask you to believe that it is reliable.
>
>
> He knew the trajectories didn't line-up.
>> The question: did he LIE to himself and convince himself everything was
>> close-enough? Or did he LIE to the WC in order to further his career? I
>> suspect the latter.
>
> No proof of any of that.
>
> Why? Even though Specter told U.S. News in 67 that
>> Kelley had shown him an autopsy photo before the re-enactment, and even
>> though he admitted it again in his 2000 auto-bio, he failed to mention
>> this INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT fact to the HSCA in 78. Why? What was he
>> covering up?
>
> The damn photograph is not all inclusive. Almost everyone concedes that he
> was hit in the
> area of T1 due to the fracture and the lack of any penetrating damage to the
> lung (T1-2). However,
And also the fact that a bullet entering at T-3 and going down
undeflected at 18 degrees would hit the manubrium which we know was
undamaged.
> the photograph makes the wound appear to be at T2-3 area. Why is that?
>
I don't think the photograph makes the wound appear to be at T2-3. You
have no way of knowing just by looking at the autopsy photos exactly
where Kennedy's vertebrae were.
> Look at the AP x-ray. His shoulders are elevated well beyond the normal,
> neutral position that
> everyone likes to ASS-u-me. This is what led to all the confusion and it
> apparently persists today.
>
> It should be obvious he was trying to avoid being confronted
>> on his blatantly incompetent and/or disreputable behavior. Think about it.
>> He allowed the WC to print the Rydbery Drawings even though he KNEW they
>> were inaccurate. And this is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, a
>> man with a "passion for truth." Pathetic.
>
> His theory makes more sense than any other that I've ever heard. Any other
> action by a bullet
> is more magical than that.
>
Forensic pathologists are well aware of the fact that bullets can be
deflected in the body when hitting bone. Maybe Chiropractic
practitioners are not.
Anthony Marsh
> pjspeare:
>
> I think you can throw out all of the conspiracy stuff. There wasn't any
> conspiracy that day to shoot JFK, and the CIA and Mob were not planning
> on killing him either. The deeper we go on this, the sillier it seems
> in retrospect.
>
> The CIA probably had more interest in LHO than we've been led to
> believe, and partially because of this, they had a fear of being
> FALSELY linked to the assassination. They also were trying to keep
> secret their assassination attempts against Castro and the ongoing
> attempts to overthrow the Communist government of Cuba. I think the
> feeling in the CIA was that the right guy was arrested-no plot, and
> that all this other stuff about Cuba, Castro, etc. is going to put us
> in a bad light, so let's shut everything down.
>
> There isn't any proof that anyone but Lee Oswald was involved that
> afternoon. You can speculate that a shot was fired west of the TSBD and
> missed, or that the CIA knew where LBJ and JFK differed in opinions on
> issues, etc. but like many CT'ers, you display a fundemental lack of
> understanding regarding the mechanics of conspiracies, and why they
> fail to hold together.
>
> If there was any conspiracy to kill the POTUS, we'd know the hard facts
> about it by now. A conspiracy this large would be too complex to keep
> from falling apart. Political winds change, co-conspirators rat out
Please point out for me a conspiracy about as large which had not fallen
apart. And remember other such as Operation Northwoods which were kept
secret for 40 years. Did you read the article about the CIA covering up
its collaboration with the Nazis?
> fellow plotters, people confess because they've had a change of heart,
> etc. In the CT world, this was the one plot separated from the basic
> laws of human nature.
>
> Unless you can explain away the veritable mountain of evidence against
> Lee Oswald (and many of your stripe do), LHO did this alone. Stuff
> about Billy Sol Estes and others is frivolous.
>
>
Texextra
Hmmm, I thought this was simple. If the government wanted us to know,
they'd tell us.
>
> >>
> >> The argument that the "real" conspiracy evidence is being suppressed
> >> has been made for years, but each time evidence is released, it proves
> >> not to be the "real" conspiracy evidence. Is there a point at which you
> >> would accept that there isn't any?
> >
> > Each time evidence is released, it is still the evidence the government
> > is willing to release at the time. The government is still not
> > releasing the evidence they want to control. At this point, there's
> > probably a lot of evidence that no longer exists or that doesn't exist
> > in a place that can be determined. So, to be quite straight-foward with
> > you, no, I doubt I'll ever be satisfied.
> >
>
> That, and your previous answer, seems to me to be an admission that your
> contention that there is evidence which proves a conspiracy that the
> government is concealing is a matter of faith with you. You have no proof
> the evidence exists, you cannot specify what evidence exists, you just
> believe it must exist because you believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy,
> and because you believe the government knows that, correct?
No. You keep reading between the lines. Again, NOBODY knows what
evidence exists but has not been released. What we do know is that the
evidence that remains logically has to be the evidence that the
government considers the most secret and seemingly the most damaging.
>
> So what convinces you it was a conspiracy, and what convinces you the
> government must know that?
I didn't say the government MUST know that. It's just that if they
don't know, then they're faking it VERY well. Why keep secrets if you
have nothing to hide?
No, again you are reading between the lines. They took the little they
knew and jumped to a conclusion that suited their purposes. Just take a
look at page 117 again. Look how much the WC admits that they didn't
know. If you don't know what shot missed, how can you know some other
shot hit two people? It's ludicrous.
>
> In other words, the WC did not manipulate, distort, ignore or create
> evidence relating to the SBT?
I didn't say that, either.
>
> In that case, it is unfair to say they "concocted" it, is it not? You are
> saying the SBT is a valid "lone-assassin" theory of the assassination and is
> not contradicted by the evidence available to the WC. I understand you are
> not saying that the lone-assassin theory itself is correct, only that the
> SBT is a valid theory in support of it.
I stand by my use of the word "concocted".
>
> >
> >>
> >> I am assuming here that you posit the purpose of the WC was to "sell"
> >> the lone-assassin theory, to satisfy the public's demand for an
> >> investigation and convince them that the lone-assassin explanation is
> >> correct, so as not to draw attention to the true conspirators. Is this
> >> an incorrect assumption?
> >
> > End the statement with "explanation is correct" and I'd say absolutely,
> > no question about it. Add in the phrase about conspirators and I'd say
> > likely.
> >
>
> So their motivation in "selling" the lone-assassin theory was not
> necessarily to protect the true conspirators from discovery, but, say, to
> avoid domestic or internation political disruption?
Give me all the evidence and I'll give you a more informed answer.
>
> >>
> >> Assuming I have understood you so far, I return to my question - if the
> >> purpose of the WC is to sell the lone-assassin theory, and the WC are
> >> willing and able to "concoct" evidence to achieve this, why pick such a
> >> poor explanation to convince people?
> >
> > It was the best Specter came up with.
> >
>
> But why is it the best? As you agreed above that the SBT does not contradict
> the evidence available to the WC, I would submit it was the best Specter
> came up with because it was the best "lone-assassin" theory of the
> assassination - ie the theory that best matched the evidence.
I don't know why Specter couldn't come up with anything any better. All
I know is that he didn't.
>
> You have agreed as much above.
Uh, again, no.
>
> So to continue investigating the implications of your conspiracy scenario
> (the purpose of this thread), could you fill me in on the competing
> conspiracy theory of the assassination which you subscribe to?
I don't subscribe to a theory. I follow what I know and what I sense.
What I sensed immediately was that Ruby killing Oswald was a hit.
>From there, I know that governments don't keep secrets without a
reason.
I know that Oswald was no lone nut. His trips to Russia and Mexico, his
attempts to manipulate both right and left wing organizations, his
encounters with the FBI certainly reveal to us that he should not be
characterized as a lone nut.
The evidence suggests to me that Oswald was likely a patsy.
>
> What is it's alternative explanation of the evidence explained by the SBT?
In order to have a bullet hit Tague, a bullet hit both JFK and JBC and
a bullet hit JFK, you have to have at least two magic bullets (the head
shot might as well be considered a magic bullet or more precisely a
magic shot since the other two were not nearly as good). Math alone
tells me that's so incredibly unlikely as to make it preposterous.
>
> >>
> >> People are rarely convinced of the SBT on first hearing. Those who come
> >> to believe it often need to hear all the evidence in it's favour
> >> explained in detail. The SBT is a difficult idea to "sell" to the
> >> public. If the WC was trying to "sell", and they weren't completely
> >> constrained by the evidence, why didn't they concoct something
> >> "catchier"?
> >
> > I don't know. I guess I'm not the one to ask.
> >
>
> I would suggest you do know, and admitted as much above. The WC selected the
> SBT because the SBT best corresponds with the evidence and the
> pre-determined conlusion that a lone assassin was responsible.
No, I don't know that. Again, let's go back to page 117. Look at how
much the WC admits to NOT knowing. How can we say they cracked the most
crucial part of the case when they didn't know the most fundamental
aspects? You give them far too much credit.
>
> Do you posit conspiracy because you have a multi-shooter scenario that
> better corresponds with the evidence?
No.
severin
> severin wrote:
> > "Peter Fokes" <jp...@toronto.hm> wrote in message
> > news:9pmt82p8tm0j1d77h...@4ax.com...
> >> On 13 Jun 2006 01:18:00 -0400, "David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> > [snippage]
> >> OF course, the same game plan is followed by LNers who claim the field
> >> contains evidence of a missed shot, but then fail to prove their case,
> >> and make assumptions based on such a belief. The lack of such proof,
> >> for example, reduces Rahn's analysis to guesswork.
> >>
> >
> > Peter, that is silly.
> >
> > There is no need to "assume" a missed shot.
> >
>
> Almost every solution to the shooting has a missed shot. No one was able
> to get a fragment from a known wounding to hit the curb near Tague.
We do not have accurate information on Tague's location and
orientation, or on the number and path of all fragments. Nothing can be
said about Tague's wounding with certainty.
>
> > There is only strong evidence in favor of two shots, because only two
> > bullets were recovered. (Or more correctly, the various fragments of
> > bullets that were recovered have been demonstrated to come from only two
> > bullets to a high degree of certainty).
> >
>
> No, the evidence does not prove that the two large fragments came from
> the same bullet.
As I understand it, the NAA demonstrates that all recovered fragments
almost certainly came from only two bullets. Are you disputing the
validity of the NAA or my understanding of it?
Regardless, I argue the lone-assasin conclusion does not require you to
"assume" a missed shot. Even if you reject the SBT and the NAA, the
rest of the evidence only implicates Oswald's MC. I suggest you could
argue Oswald's MC fired 3 shots from the TSBD, and all 3 shots hit,
fragments from these shots caused the Tague and limo damage, and
provide more evidence to support your claims that any conspiracy
scenario has so far.
>
> > There is weak evidence for a missed shot, from 3 shells in the TSBD, from
> > witness testimony, and from comparing testimony to the visible actions of
> > people in the Z-film and other records.
> >
> > What LN theories depend on this missed shot? (Other than Posner's
> > contention that it was the shot that wounded Tague?)
> >
> >>> But IMO such isolation of evidence is not the way to solve the JFK
> >>> case, or to come to the CORRECT answer as to how President Kennedy died
> >>> in 1963.
> >> We should just agree with you, right?
> >>
> >>> Two excellent examples of the "Isolation Syndrome" to which I
> >>> refer......
> >> A syndrome affecting some LNs and CTs ....
> >>
> >>> 1.) The "It Was Really A Mauser Rifle Found In The TSBD" conspiracy
> >>> theory. ....
> >> 1) A "Shot Must Have Missed LN theory" .....
> >>
> >
> > See above
> >
> >>> 2.) Gerald Hill initially referring to the Tippit murder weapon as an
> >>> "automatic". ....
> >> 2) The Arlen Specter " a pointer is straight so the bullet path was
> >> straight theory" .....
> >>
> >
> > The ammunition was designed to travel through a human body if it didn't
> > hit anything solid to deflect it. There is no evidence of the bullet that
> > caused JFKs back and neck wounds having hit any bones is there? If the
>
> Yes, there is. The bullet hit the T-1 vertebra.
Hit it, or damaged it when transiting near to it?
>
> > bullet passes through JFK, and JBC is sitting in front of JFK, where else
> > is the bullet meant to go on it's way out? How is Specter wrong to suggest
> > it continued in a straight line?
>
> Simplistic solution.
>
And that makes it wrong how? Newtownian mechanics is simple.
Exactly. It is shot in such as way as to enhance that confusion.
And viciously slandering two innocent people who can't fight back
because they're dead. Nice guy.
>
> > Are you saying you have never had a discussion with an uninformed person
> > about the JFK assassination and had them quote "evidence" from Stone's
> > "JFK" at you?
> >
> >> Why do you issue such red herrings? It makes it appear you are not
> >> serious. Are you?
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> David R. Von Pein
> >>
> >> PF
> >
> > Anyway, all the above is off topic.
> >
> > Care to present to me a conspiracy scenario that explains why plotters
> > should choose (over any other method) to kill JFK with firearms shooting
> > at a moving target in a public place where they could be quite possibly be
> > identified and also fail to even hit him ? Would they still acheive their
> > aims if either or both of those thing happened?
> >
>
> So, your theory is that conspirators never try to shoot down a President
> in public?
No, I'm suggesting that choosing Dealy Plaza on 22/11/63 as a place of
public execution implies some strange choices on the part of the
assassins. Putting a shooter in an exposed location like the GK
particularly implies some interesting things about the conspiracy and
its plans and aims.
If it was a crime of opportunity committed by a lone man that was not
averse to failure or identification or capture, you can explain those
choices.
Anyways, we are arguing that issue in another subthread, let's keep
that discussion there.
Regards,
Severin
severin
> severin wrote:
>> Thanks for your response, Tony.
>> I'm assuming you are positing a scenario similar to pjspeare's.
>> Questions below.
>>
>> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:y_6dnR1p8-aJCRLZ...@comcast.com...
>>> severin wrote:
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: <pjsp...@AOL.COM>
>>>> Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
>>>> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:39 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: Observations of a Lurker and a question
[snippage]
>>>>
>>>> But still the assassins in this scenario have the possible problems of
>>>> the assassins being seen (I assume you are suggesting a second assassin
>>>> with a silencer, somewhere other than the TSBD). What would the
>>>> conspirators possible plan have been if the assassin with silencer was
>>>> identified or captured?
>>>>
>>> Exactly what they did do, flash genuine SS identification and help in
>>> the search for the assassins.
>>>
>>
>> Would that technique work if they were observed firing?
>>
>
> I personally don't think so, but maybe back in 1963 people would not
> question authority, just obey orders.
So your conspirators likely planned that anyone who saw the GK shooter
firing a gun in the direction of the president might believe the GK shooter
was actually protecting the president if they flashed SS ID?
Did the conspirators think that that witness would likely grow suspicious
later (as people did)? Such a witness could possibly ID the shooter. At the
very least they would basically confirm the idea that there was a second
shooter.
So how do you think your conspirators planned to deal with their second
shooter being exposed in this way?
>
>> Would it continue to work if the GK shooter was captured on film? (there
>
> It seems to have worked because the grassy knoll shooter WAS captured on
> film. We have one WC defender here who denies the existence of Black Dog
> Man and claims it is a shadow on the fence. So dedicated WC defenders can
> deny anything.
[off topic]
My personal opinion after brief study is that the "Black Dog Man" image may
be a person, or it may be a shadow, the image is not clear enough to say. I
suspect more than one WC defender would agree with that analysis. Even if it
is a person, which I suspect it may well be, that doesn't mean that person
is a shooter. But that is irrelevant to this discussion.
[/off topic]
>
>> were several people with cameras opposite the GK. At least one of those
>> photos was in the hands of the press almost immediately - what if Moorman
>> had a decent camera instead of a Polaroid? What if Altgens didn't
>> hesitate to take his photo at the time of the headshot?)
>>
>
> Ah yes. What if.
"What if" is the whole point of this thread. I want to examine what the
conspirators answers might have been to the "what if" questions that came up
during their planning. I want to see if their plan is rational and
consistent.
> And ignore the fact that her photo does show the shooter. Nice touch.
You misunderstand me. I am not arguing the lone-assassin case in this
thread. I am trying to examine the implications of your conspiracy theory.
My question still holds, what if Mary Moorman had a decent camera and
recorded a _clear_ image of the GK shooter? Surely you agree the image in
Moorman is ambiguous, otherwise there would be no disagreement about it. If
it is a GK shooter, a better camera (or Altgens) could have produced a much
clearer image of that shooter with greater forensic value.
>
>> Why should the plotters choose a scenario with so many observers with
>> cameras?
>
> Exactly. Why should anyone ever murder anyone else since there is always
> some possibility of being photographed. So Hinckley would not shoot at
> Reagan because he was surrounded by photographers? Remember the Aquino
> assassination? The guards kept the photographers away so that they could
> not film the guards shooting Aquino. Dedicated assassins will kill their
> target live on TV in front of millions. So what?
>
Anthony, you misunderstand my question. The motivations of assassins vary.
Hinckley, for example, needed to be identified so he could impress Jodie
Foster. I am trying to examine the motivations of the assassins you posit.
Most conspiracy theorists posit that the conspirators wanted to kill JFK but
not be identified by the public as the assassins. To achieve this they
planned the event and manipulated the aftermath so that Oswald would appear
to be the sole guilty party. Having your GK shooter recorded unambigously on
camera foils that plan.
If that is not the kind of conspiracy you posit, please set me straight
here. I said when I first responded to you that I was assuming that your
conspiracy scenario was very similar to pjspeare's. and you did not
contradict me.
>>
>> It seems the CIA scenario requires the plotters to be identified by the
>> victim or his successors (so they know not to "mess with" them), but not
>> by the public, and the victim (or his successors) are expected to be
>> complicit in concealing the plotters identity.
>>
>
> My scenario may be slightly different. It is a rogue operation by CIA
> agents. Like Watergate and Hunt's little projects. Supported by the CIA,
> but not an official CIA project.
> The bravado is similar to a Mafia hit or local gangs. There are 1,000
> witnesses to the killing in broad daylight and everyone knows who did it,
> but no one will testify.
>
Ok, that kind of answers my question above. So your conspirators expected
that if they were identified, they could intimidate people into not
testifying?
In that case, how might they have dealt with the possibility of media
broadcast of clear evidence of their involvement (say a photo that clearly
shows an identifiable shooter who can be connected to the conspirators)?
Moorman and Altgens potentially could have taken that photo. Wouldn't that
create a national public demand for investigation and retribution? They
can't intimidate the entire audience of NBC.
>>
>>>> Also they have the problem of the target being alerted or protected in
>>>> some way before he can be shot. For example, one of the SS agents may
>>>> have spotted something and reacted in the same way that Youngblood did
>>>> with LBJ early enough to prevent the fatal shots to JFK. There are
>>>> photos of SS agents riding on the rear of the presidential limo earlier
>>>> in the trip, how were they to know that wouldn't be the case in Dealy
>>>> Plaza?
>>>>
>>> Depends on the level of sophistication of the conspirators. Not my
>>> theory, but some nut has claimed that the conspirators, not JFK himself,
>>> ordered that the SS agents not ride on the rear of the Presidential
>>> limo.
>>>
>>>
>> Even if they did forbid agents to ride on the limo, how can the
>> conspirators be sure that no-one in the car would show the presence of
>> mind that Rufus Youngblood did? He got LBJ out of harms way after the
>> first shot. What if JFK hears a shot or sees something prior to the first
>> shot and takes cover?
>>
>
> How would they know that Clint Hill would not jump off the follow-up car
> and run up to the limousine? That doesn't matter when they triangulate
> fire. If the target is obscured by one angle, another angle is open.
> You have to realize that there are professionals who are paid millions of
> our tax dollars to work out details like this.
>
By triangulate, do you mean three shooters?
Regardless of triangulation, JFK can still duck or hit the deck. SA Ready,
SA Hill or even Jackie can still jump on top of him and shield him
>> Why would the plotters choose a plan that has the rear shooter firing and
>> potentially alerting the limo occupants BEFORE the GK shooter had a
>> chance to hit?
>>
>
> Maybe you missed my point the first 10,000,000 times.
I didn't catch you making that point earlier in this thread. Remember I am
not a veteran of this NG, I'm not familiar with all your other posts.
> The man on the grassy knoll was not supposed to shoot unless the target
> was getting away alive.
There goes your triangulation for the early shots though, unless you have
several shooters with triangulated LOF to higher up Elm.
>
>> Are the plotters aims achieved if they are unable to hit the target? If
>> they are publicly identified?
>>
>
> Partially. Like the Mossad revenge assassinations. It sends the message
> that they can strike anyone anytime anywhere.
>
OK.
So like pjspeare, your conspirators primarily wanted to send a message? What
effect was the message supposed to have? Is triangulated fire in a public
place with plenty of cameras the only or even the best way to deliver their
message?
Was assigning the blame to Oswald the "silly little Communist" an integral
part of the plot or just an added bonus?
For that matter, was Oswald a shooter in this theory, or just his rifle, or
neither?
And if one or more shooters (other than Oswald) were identified and linked
to the CIA publicly, would they still achieve their aims? Mightn't public
outrage give JFK or LBJ the courage to retaliate against the CIA and truly
splinter it into all those pieces, instead of heeding their message?
Regards,
Severin
severin
That is not a response to any of my questions above.
Regards,
Severin
> PF
>
>
>
>
>
>
severin
"James K. Olmstead" <jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:44908ea9$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
>
> "severin" <seve...@removethisbit.bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> news:448f180f$0$7193$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>
> "severin": Are you claiming that CE 567 and CE 569 are the same round?
>
> If so please outline the basis for this......if not consider that there
> are three rounds
> fired and three rounds recovered.....no missed shot.
>
The purpose of this thread wasn't for me to state a position at all, it was
to examine the implications of conspiract theories if you assume they are
true.
But it got sidetracked like this:
- PF claimed LN theories must assume a missed shot.
- I responded that the LN theory does nothing of the sort. The evidence as I
understand it only proves two shots. However the LN theory is still the best
theory going if you reject the SBT and the NAA and argue 3 rounds fired, 3
rounds hit.
- PF responded by changing the subject
As for CE567s relationship to CE569 - I don't believe the evidence says
anything about that as CE569 was not tested via NAA IIRC. We can't draw any
conclusions from CE569 as to the number of shots.
> thanks in advance of stating your position.
>
You're welcome.
Regards,
Severin
Peter Fokes
<seve...@removethisbit.bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>"James K. Olmstead" <jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:44908ea9$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>
>>
>> "severin" <seve...@removethisbit.bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:448f180f$0$7193$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>
>>
>> "severin": Are you claiming that CE 567 and CE 569 are the same round?
>>
>> If so please outline the basis for this......if not consider that there
>> are three rounds
>> fired and three rounds recovered.....no missed shot.
>>
>
>The purpose of this thread wasn't for me to state a position at all, it was
>to examine the implications of conspiract theories if you assume they are
>true.
>But it got sidetracked like this:
>
>- PF claimed LN theories must assume a missed shot.
Wrong. I did not use the word "must" ..... Indeed, some LNs believe
all three shots caused injuries. Fuhrman, for example. Many LNers do
claim there was a missed shot but fail to provide proof of such a
missed shot.
>
>- I responded that the LN theory does nothing of the sort.
False. It is a fact that some LNers believe a shot missed.
> The evidence as I
>understand it only proves two shots.
Wrong. The evidence does not prove how many shots caused the injuries.
However the LN theory is still the best
>theory going if you reject the SBT and the NAA and argue 3 rounds fired, 3
>rounds hit.
>
>- PF responded by changing the subject
I did not. In reference to the SBT, I mentioned it is a myth. In
reference to Rahn and the NAA, I said it is a guess.
>
>As for CE567s relationship to CE569 - I don't believe the evidence says
>anything about that as CE569 was not tested via NAA IIRC. We can't draw any
>conclusions from CE569 as to the number of shots.
>
>> thanks in advance of stating your position.
>>
>
>You're welcome.
>
>Regards,
>Severin
>
>> jko
PF
Anthony Marsh
> "severin" <seve...@removethisbit.bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> news:448f180f$0$7193$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> "severin": Are you claiming that CE 567 and CE 569 are the same round?
>
> If so please outline the basis for this......if not consider that there are three rounds
> fired and three rounds recovered.....no missed shot.
>
I can't speak for him, but I consider that the two large fragments came
from the same bullet. They do not overlap. So they could both come from
the same bullet. They appear to me to have broken up from hitting a body
part and then became deformed by hitting the chrome topping and possibly
the windshield. I don't see how they both could wind up in similar
locations in the front seat from different shots. The angles line up
better coming from a single source.
You should also be aware of the fact that the nose fragment looked much
different when originally found, like CE 399.
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> severin wrote:
>>> "Peter Fokes" <jp...@toronto.hm> wrote in message
>>> news:9pmt82p8tm0j1d77h...@4ax.com...
>>>> On 13 Jun 2006 01:18:00 -0400, "David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>> [snippage]
>>>> OF course, the same game plan is followed by LNers who claim the field
>>>> contains evidence of a missed shot, but then fail to prove their case,
>>>> and make assumptions based on such a belief. The lack of such proof,
>>>> for example, reduces Rahn's analysis to guesswork.
>>>>
>>> Peter, that is silly.
>>>
>>> There is no need to "assume" a missed shot.
>>>
>> Almost every solution to the shooting has a missed shot. No one was able
>> to get a fragment from a known wounding to hit the curb near Tague.
>
> We do not have accurate information on Tague's location and
> orientation, or on the number and path of all fragments. Nothing can be
> said about Tague's wounding with certainty.
We can state with certainty that Tague was wounded on the cheek by a
fragment during the shooting, unlike the WC defender factoid that he was
uninjured or cut himself shaving.
>
>>> There is only strong evidence in favor of two shots, because only two
>>> bullets were recovered. (Or more correctly, the various fragments of
>>> bullets that were recovered have been demonstrated to come from only two
>>> bullets to a high degree of certainty).
>>>
>> No, the evidence does not prove that the two large fragments came from
>> the same bullet.
>
> As I understand it, the NAA demonstrates that all recovered fragments
> almost certainly came from only two bullets. Are you disputing the
> validity of the NAA or my understanding of it?
>
Both.
> Regardless, I argue the lone-assasin conclusion does not require you to
> "assume" a missed shot. Even if you reject the SBT and the NAA, the
> rest of the evidence only implicates Oswald's MC. I suggest you could
> argue Oswald's MC fired 3 shots from the TSBD, and all 3 shots hit,
> fragments from these shots caused the Tague and limo damage, and
> provide more evidence to support your claims that any conspiracy
> scenario has so far.
>
But that doesn't agree with the WC. What do you want to do, start WWIII?
Most likely hit it, grazed it, due to the location of the entrance wound
and the right to left angle of the shot.
>
>>> bullet passes through JFK, and JBC is sitting in front of JFK, where else
>>> is the bullet meant to go on it's way out? How is Specter wrong to suggest
>>> it continued in a straight line?
>> Simplistic solution.
>>
>
> And that makes it wrong how? Newtownian mechanics is simple.
>
Is that what Einstein said?
To imagine that the line has to be a perfectly straight line is
simplistic, because bullets rarely take a perfectly straight line path
through bodies.
It is propaganda. Very effective.
Two innocent people? Such as? WC defenders have no problem slandering
Oswald.
>>> Are you saying you have never had a discussion with an uninformed person
>>> about the JFK assassination and had them quote "evidence" from Stone's
>>> "JFK" at you?
>>>
>>>> Why do you issue such red herrings? It makes it appear you are not
>>>> serious. Are you?
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> David R. Von Pein
>>>> PF
>>> Anyway, all the above is off topic.
>>>
>>> Care to present to me a conspiracy scenario that explains why plotters
>>> should choose (over any other method) to kill JFK with firearms shooting
>>> at a moving target in a public place where they could be quite possibly be
>>> identified and also fail to even hit him ? Would they still acheive their
>>> aims if either or both of those thing happened?
>>>
>> So, your theory is that conspirators never try to shoot down a President
>> in public?
>
> No, I'm suggesting that choosing Dealy Plaza on 22/11/63 as a place of
> public execution implies some strange choices on the part of the
> assassins. Putting a shooter in an exposed location like the GK
> particularly implies some interesting things about the conspiracy and
> its plans and aims.
>
It is not anything extraordinary. You need to look at some historical cases.
> If it was a crime of opportunity committed by a lone man that was not
> averse to failure or identification or capture, you can explain those
> choices.
>
Again, look at some other assassinations.
Robert Harris
<seve...@removethisbit.bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>I watched your videos, might you respond to my questions?
>
>"severin" <seve...@removethisbit.bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
>news:448de675$0$7196$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>> "Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:448d729...@news20.forteinc.com...
>>> On 12 Jun 2006 01:07:46 -0400, "severin"
>>> <seve...@removethisbit.bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hello all.
>>>>
>>>>Some time ago I was a lurker and later occaisional contributor to this
>>>>group. After several years absence I decided to pop in for a quick look.
>>>>
>>>>Unsurprisingly the group is still dominated by quibbling over minor
>>>>aspects of the evidence (and point scoring in disputes about same).
>>>>Oswald's shaved or unshaved pubic hairs indeed. :)
>>>
>>> You are absolutely correct about that. In fact, that single biggest
>>> complaint I get is that I only post about evidence related to the
>>> assassination:-)
>>>
>>
>> People complain about the material or the frequency? :)
Must be the material, since there have been far more posts about
nonsensical topics like "judyth", with no complaints at all.
>>
>>>>
>>>>I came to study of this case a few years ago with the attitude I had
>>>>picked up from the little I had seen/heard/read about the case - JFK was
>>>>obviously killed by a conspiracy involving multiple shooters. After half
>>>>a
>>>>year or so of reading all I could find about the case, I reluctantly
>>>>concluded that there was only fragmentary and contradictory evidence
>>>>supporting that viewpoint, and a great deal of cohesive evidence
>>>>supporting the conclusion that the assassination consisted of 3 shots
>>>>from
>>>>Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle fired from the 6th floor of
>>>>the TSBD, the rifle most likely being operated by Lee Harvey Oswald at
>>>>the
>>>>time.
>>>
>>> As is so often the case, your first impression was the right one.
>>>
>>
>> It was based on very selectively presented information.
Nonspecific statements like this are a waste of time.
They are also totally false.
The vast majority of witnesses confirmed that the final shots were
closely bunched, as did an even larger preponderance of the law
enforcement agents.
In fact, ZERO law enforcement people testified or were officially
documented in support of a Posner/WC shooting pattern with the first
shots closer than the final ones.
More importantly, there are NO witnesses whose recollections of a
Posner pattern, can be verified in terms of their visual reactions in
the films and photos as I demonstrated among many witnesses in the
presentation and main article at my website.
To put it another way Severin, how can I have been "selective", when
there were no contradictory witnesses to select?
>>
>>> In more recent times, a great deal of new analysis has pretty well
>>> nailed the question of conspiracy. This is based on the well
>>> established fact that the spacing of the shots was inconsistent with a
>>> single sniper firing the alleged murder weapon.
>>>
>>> There is a detail presenation on the subject at this URL:
>>>
>>> http://two.fsphost.com/reharris/jfk.mov
>>>
>>> And a lengthy article here:
>>>
>>> http://two.fsphost.com/reharris/jfk.mov
>>>
>>
>> I don't get video, only audio. My Quicktime claims it is up-to-date.
Just download Quicktime 7.1, as I stated before.
>>
>> I don't want to argue the validity of your theory in this thread.
Somehow, I suspect that you would love to argue about its validity, if
you had the ammunition to do so:-)
>> Instead,
>> I am happy to assume, for the sake of argument, that your evidence is
>> valid. What does that imply about the conspiracy you suggest?
It does not imply; it proves that this conspiracy killed President
Kennedy.
Why not just call it what it is?
It is evidence that Oswald was involved in the attack.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>This I can't understand
>>>>and couldn't be bothered trying to, because the conspiracy scenario that
>>>>it implies is not credible. But others seem to focus on specific pieces
>>>>of
>>>>pro-conspiracy evidence, or insist on reinterpreting specific pieces of
>>>>evidence in a pro-conspiracy light, or assign the pro-conspiracy evidence
>>>>greater weight in some way. This I'd like to understand.
>>>
>>> You seem to be trying to make this an either/or issues.
>>>
>>> Evidence of other shooters does not contradict evidence of Oswald's
>>> participation, any more than evidence of one terrorists involvement in
>>> a murder contradicts his partners guilt.
>>>
>>
>> I'm referring to people focussing on testimony that suggests other
>> shooters, or interpreting the Z-film or autopsy photos to find evidence of
>> other shooters.
>>
>> I'm not suggesting this evidence exonerates the TSBD shooter in any way
>> (though some people may choose to argue that). This evidence (if we accept
>> it), does rule out Oswald acting alone, unless you suggest two independent
>> assassination teams were in the same location at the same time.
FWIW, I think Oswald was guilty in one way or another, of involvement
in the assassination.
>>
>>>
>>>>Surely the goal
>>>>of these people is to eventually produce a collection of internally
>>>>consistent, coherent evidence that explains the conspiracy behind the
>>>>assassination and it's execution.
>>>
>>> We are pretty close to that now, actually.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I want to get an idea of "big picture" pro-conspiracy thinking.
>>>
>>> This crime was mostly about Cuba.
>>>
>>> Another source of (relatively) new evidence in the case is *Oswald
>>> Talked* by Ray and Mary La Fontaine. The only thing Ray and Mary
>>> overlooked IMO, was that Oswald was not a communist,
>>
>> This implies a long history of Oswald "masquerading" as a communist, or a
>> political conversion at some point.
That is correct.
To understand the single biggest influence in Oswald's life, you must
understand who Herbert Philbrick was, and the FBI sponsored television
program about Philbrick, that obsessed Oswald, during three of the
most impressionable years of his life.
Philbrick was an FBI informant who infiltrated communists in the
Boston area and later testified before the House Committee on
UnAmerican activities, helping to convict some of the reds he
associated with.
During the years he was undercover, he told no-one outside of the FBI,
including his wife and family, about what he was up to - exactly as
Oswald would do.
"I led two lives" was arguably, the single most powerful piece of
anti-communist propaganda that ever appeared in the American media.
It was at the end of those three years that Oswald wrote the letter to
the Young Socialists that was every bit as sincere as the phony claims
he made in his letters to V.T. Lee.
>>
>>> and was very
>>> likely, in cahoots with the killers.
>>>
>>
>> A conspiracy that doesn't include Oswald has to explain all the evidence
>> incriminating him in some way.
Oswald was on exactly the same page as the others. He literally,
destroyed the FPCC and tried to do the same to the ACLU. He was
apparently, considering doing the same to the C.O.R.E. in Clinton, La.
I am pretty much convinced that Oswald's intention was to martyr
himself, following the assassination - taking the full blame for the
crime and hoping that his connection to Castro would result in
bringing him down.
He had already proven himself to be suicidal in Russia, and he was
obviously, trying to do the same, in the Texas theater.
They don't, of course.
But neither can they insure that a solitary assassin will escape.
>>
>> Are their aims still acheived if the additional shooters are idenified or
>> captured?
They are if they manage to kill Kennedy, and if Oswald associates the
assassination with Castro.
>>
>> Are their aims still acheived if both shooters fail to kill JFK?
Not totallly of course, although the attempt could still be associated
with the commies.
>>
>>>
>>> Historically, crimes like this have indeed, been carried out by
>>> individuals as well as by small groups. It is ridiculously illogical
>>> to hope that you can resolve the conspiracy question by trying to
>>> generalize this way.
>>>
>>> There is really only ONE way to resolve this question, and that is by
>>> looking through a lot of evidence and testimony. Check out those links
>>> I gave you and see if you don't agree.
>>>
>>
>> The correct way to draw conclusions about the assassination is the same as
>> with any other rational enquiry - you collect the evidence, form a
>> hypothesis on the basis of this evidence, then attempt to disprove the
>> hypothesis.
Well, I believe the SA hypothesis has certainly been disproven.
I think there is also, more than sufficent evidence to make some
important conclusions about the nature of the assassination - such as
that it was about Cuba and an attempt to blame the crime on Castro.
What I don't know, and may never know with certainty, is the extent of
involvement by the CIA and FBI. Oswald was involved with both
organizations, but the lack of a genuine investigation leaves us with
very little evidence about who among them, might have been supporting
the attack.
>>
>> This thread is not an attempt to draw conclusions about the assassination.
Why not?
Isn't 43 years, enough time to speculate and guess? Maybe it's time
that we start to get serious about finding out what really did happen.
Robert Harris
>> It is an attempt to examine consipracy theories to see what they imply
>> about the thinking of the conspirators they posit (and the conspiracy
>> theorists who posit them).
>>
>> Regards, Severin
>
>
There is no question that an honest man will evade.
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
Anthony Marsh
Track record. Like the Castro plots, or the Nazi documents.
>
>>> The argument that the "real" conspiracy evidence is being suppressed
>>> has been made for years, but each time evidence is released, it proves
>>> not to be the "real" conspiracy evidence. Is there a point at which you
>>> would accept that there isn't any?
>> Each time evidence is released, it is still the evidence the government
>> is willing to release at the time. The government is still not
>> releasing the evidence they want to control. At this point, there's
>> probably a lot of evidence that no longer exists or that doesn't exist
>> in a place that can be determined. So, to be quite straight-foward with
>> you, no, I doubt I'll ever be satisfied.
>>
>
> That, and your previous answer, seems to me to be an admission that your
> contention that there is evidence which proves a conspiracy that the
> government is concealing is a matter of faith with you. You have no proof
One problem is that the government may not know the importance of the
documents, but knows it should withhold them on principle, lest a
careful researcher find the smoking gun. For example, I found the
smoking gun by serendipity. When looking at other copies of documents,
one had some marginalia. If you know who is writing about whom and what
it means, it nails Helms. Or like the document telling another agent
that he is going to be late for the office picnic, but he is going to
bring the sub sandwich and pineapples. A careful researcher finds out
that this is actually referring to an assassination and the agent is
bringing the bazooka and grenades.
> the evidence exists, you cannot specify what evidence exists, you just
> believe it must exist because you believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy,
> and because you believe the government knows that, correct?
>
> So what convinces you it was a conspiracy, and what convinces you the
> government must know that?
>
It is not necessary that the government know it, just that they believe it.
The point is that they had a timing problem. If they resolved it one way
it proves conspiracy. If the resolve it the other way, Oswald remains
the lone assassin. Their mandate was to convince the public that Oswald
was the lone shooter.
> In other words, the WC did not manipulate, distort, ignore or create
> evidence relating to the SBT?
>
> In that case, it is unfair to say they "concocted" it, is it not? You are
> saying the SBT is a valid "lone-assassin" theory of the assassination and is
> not contradicted by the evidence available to the WC. I understand you are
> not saying that the lone-assassin theory itself is correct, only that the
> SBT is a valid theory in support of it.
>
I might remind you that for many months everyone's solution was that
Oswald was the lone shooter and that Kennedy and Connally were hit by
separate bullets.
>>> I am assuming here that you posit the purpose of the WC was to "sell"
>>> the lone-assassin theory, to satisfy the public's demand for an
>>> investigation and convince them that the lone-assassin explanation is
>>> correct, so as not to draw attention to the true conspirators. Is this
>>> an incorrect assumption?
>> End the statement with "explanation is correct" and I'd say absolutely,
>> no question about it. Add in the phrase about conspirators and I'd say
>> likely.
>>
>
> So their motivation in "selling" the lone-assassin theory was not
> necessarily to protect the true conspirators from discovery, but, say, to
> avoid domestic or internation political disruption?
>
Avoid WWIII.
>>> Assuming I have understood you so far, I return to my question - if the
>>> purpose of the WC is to sell the lone-assassin theory, and the WC are
>>> willing and able to "concoct" evidence to achieve this, why pick such a
>>> poor explanation to convince people?
>> It was the best Specter came up with.
>>
>
> But why is it the best? As you agreed above that the SBT does not contradict
> the evidence available to the WC, I would submit it was the best Specter
> came up with because it was the best "lone-assassin" theory of the
> assassination - ie the theory that best matched the evidence.
>
Their SBT contradicts the evidence they had. So they had to lie about
the evidence.
> You have agreed as much above.
>
> So to continue investigating the implications of your conspiracy scenario
> (the purpose of this thread), could you fill me in on the competing
> conspiracy theory of the assassination which you subscribe to?
>
See mine.
> What is it's alternative explanation of the evidence explained by the SBT?
>
There are several possibilities.
>>> People are rarely convinced of the SBT on first hearing. Those who come
>>> to believe it often need to hear all the evidence in it's favour
>>> explained in detail. The SBT is a difficult idea to "sell" to the
>>> public. If the WC was trying to "sell", and they weren't completely
>>> constrained by the evidence, why didn't they concoct something
>>> "catchier"?
>> I don't know. I guess I'm not the one to ask.
>>
>
> I would suggest you do know, and admitted as much above. The WC selected the
> SBT because the SBT best corresponds with the evidence and the
> pre-determined conlusion that a lone assassin was responsible.
>
Not exactly. Their SBT did not fit the evidence. It was the only
alternative to WWIII.
James K. Olmstead
>
> "James K. Olmstead" <jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message news:44908ea9$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>
>>
>> "severin" <seve...@removethisbit.bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:448f180f$0$7193$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>
>>
>> "severin": Are you claiming that CE 567 and CE 569 are the same round?
>>
>> If so please outline the basis for this......if not consider that there are three rounds
>> fired and three rounds recovered.....no missed shot.
>>
>
> The purpose of this thread wasn't for me to state a position at all, it was to examine the implications of conspiract
> theories if you assume they are true.
> But it got sidetracked like this:
>
It's not really sidetracked....but I understand how thread started for one
purpose tend to include more than what one expects to address.
However, I take it from your response that you can't support a LN positon
on the evidence that one shot missed.
> - PF claimed LN theories must assume a missed shot.
>
> - I responded that the LN theory does nothing of the sort. The evidence as I understand it only proves two shots.
> However the LN theory is still the best theory going if you reject the SBT and the NAA and argue 3 rounds fired, 3
> rounds hit.
There are variations of the LN theory that does consider a "missed shot"....Posner
for one, yet when challanged with the evidence of CE 399, CE567 and CE 569
they all clam up on the LN position of a missed shot, based on the "Isolation" of
Evidence"
>
> - PF responded by changing the subject
>
> As for CE567s relationship to CE569 - I don't believe the evidence says anything about that as CE569 was not tested
> via NAA IIRC. We can't draw any conclusions from CE569 as to the number of shots.
Until testing is done, one can only consider two seperate rounds, based on the
"Isolation of Evidence" Several fragments were added to CE 567, however
CE 569 was "Isolated".
>
>> thanks in advance of stating your position.
>>
>
> You're welcome.
I just sorry that you could not support a missed shot by the "Isolation" of the
evidence.
jko
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>In essence, it was 'just' a murder. A man in a
>building shot at a man in a car. The victim happened to be the
>President.
So if it was just a regular old murder, why was the body removed from
Dallas?
Why was the limo, the scene of the crime, removed from Dallas?
Why was the FBI given authority over the case?
If Oswald had come to trial, would these violations of Texas law be
enough to acquit him?
To argue these violations of the law were acceptable, the FEDS would
have been left with one choice: to convince the judge there was a
CONSPIRACY.
PF
Anthony Marsh
In theory maybe. But in practice we can know what the evidence is that
has not been officially released. We know what the autopsy photos look
like. We know about the 4 additional autopsy photos. I have several
documents which the government refuses to release officially.
>> So what convinces you it was a conspiracy, and what convinces you the
>> government must know that?
>
> I didn't say the government MUST know that. It's just that if they
> don't know, then they're faking it VERY well. Why keep secrets if you
> have nothing to hide?
>
Maybe they are too stupid to understand what they have.
James K. Olmstead
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:Cb-dnRj1naIc8QzZ...@comcast.com...
> James K. Olmstead wrote:
>> "severin" <seve...@removethisbit.bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:448f180f$0$7193$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>> "severin": Are you claiming that CE 567 and CE 569 are the same round?
>>
>> If so please outline the basis for this......if not consider that there are three rounds
>> fired and three rounds recovered.....no missed shot.
>>
>
> I can't speak for him, but I consider that the two large fragments came from the same bullet. They do not overlap. So
> they could both come from the same bullet. They appear to me to have broken up from hitting a body part and then
> became deformed by hitting the chrome topping and possibly the windshield. I don't see how they both could wind up in
> similar locations in the front seat from different shots. The angles line up better coming from a single source.
> You should also be aware of the fact that the nose fragment looked much different when originally found, like CE 399.
Tony: No need to speak for him....but I respect your opinion (and his), I just don't
believe that anybody can "prove" that CE 567 and CE 569 are the same
bullet. Until testing can be done or a "verdict" can be reached, they have
to be considered "seperate rounds" unless proven otherwise.
jko
Texextra
Of course I agree that some unreleased evidence is known. Certainly
some unreleased evidence is not known and it is that evidence to which
I was referring. Dang, I hope that didn't sound too much like Don
Rumsfeld's explanation of known's and unknown's.
pjsp...@aol.com
To me, a man who's traveled the world, been interviewed on the radio about
his political beliefs, and fathered two beautiful children, all by the age
of 24, is not a loser, but a man of great interest. There is no evidence
Oswald thought of himself as a loser whose only chance at fame was killing
Kennedy. If you watch the tapes you'll see that Oswald is greatly
disappointed when he finds he's been charged with killing Kennedy. He
clearly had no desire to be caught (I believe he killed Tippit) and no
desire to be charged--so how can anyone reasonably assert that his desire
for "fame" had anything to do with the killing? There's also no evidence
he thought killing Kennedy would accomplish a political objective. He
liked Kennedy and UNDOUBTEDLY preferred Kennedy to Johnson. If he killed
Kennedy to protect Castro, then why didn't he say so when given the
opportunity on national TV, with the world's press in attendance??? Oswald
would have had NO REASON to believe Johnson would curtail the government's
efforts against Castro.
It simply amazes me how men of your ilk (since you insist on depictng me
as just another CT wacko, I'll play along and pretend you're just another
LN wacko) find it necessary to ASSASSINATE Oswald's character in order to
justify their own lack of curiosity as to why Kennedy was killed. Maybe
Oswald did kill him. I doubt it. I've spent three years FULL TIME
examining the evidence, and guess what, it doesn't add up. Mark Lane
didn't tell me that. Robert Groden didn't tell me that. Cyril Wecht
didn't tell me that. Reading thousands of pages of medical books and
hundreds of articles on wound ballistics and x-rays tells me that. If
you're curious as to why I believe what I believe, feel free to take a
look: http://homepage.mac.com/bkohley/Menu18.html
As far as your ridiculous and oft-repeated contention that someone would
have talked blah blah blah, please read Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have
Talked and repeat this contention. Plenty of people talked. The problem is
trying to figure out which ones were just making stuff up to sound
impressive in the Cuban community, and which ones were telling the truth.
chuck schuyler wrote:
> pjspeare:
>
> I think you can throw out all of the conspiracy stuff. There wasn't any
> conspiracy that day to shoot JFK, and the CIA and Mob were not planning
> on killing him either. The deeper we go on this, the sillier it seems
> in retrospect.
>
> The CIA probably had more interest in LHO than we've been led to
> believe, and partially because of this, they had a fear of being
> FALSELY linked to the assassination. They also were trying to keep
> secret their assassination attempts against Castro and the ongoing
> attempts to overthrow the Communist government of Cuba. I think the
> feeling in the CIA was that the right guy was arrested-no plot, and
> that all this other stuff about Cuba, Castro, etc. is going to put us
> in a bad light, so let's shut everything down.
>
> There isn't any proof that anyone but Lee Oswald was involved that
> afternoon. You can speculate that a shot was fired west of the TSBD and
> missed, or that the CIA knew where LBJ and JFK differed in opinions on
> issues, etc. but like many CT'ers, you display a fundemental lack of
> understanding regarding the mechanics of conspiracies, and why they
> fail to hold together.
>
> If there was any conspiracy to kill the POTUS, we'd know the hard facts
> about it by now. A conspiracy this large would be too complex to keep
> from falling apart. Political winds change, co-conspirators rat out
Chad Zimmerman
Funny how Dales Z223-4 frames line up exactly with the Zframes and his
shows the trajectory to be just fine.
Yours has it hitting JBC on the left.
Something very wrong...
>
>> variances exist, but you'll almost never see anyone discuss that in a
>> book. They pick one drawing and
>> ask you to believe that it is reliable.
>>
>>
>> He knew the trajectories didn't line-up.
>>> The question: did he LIE to himself and convince himself everything was
>>> close-enough? Or did he LIE to the WC in order to further his career?
>>> I
>>> suspect the latter.
>>
>> No proof of any of that.
>>
>> Why? Even though Specter told U.S. News in 67 that
>>> Kelley had shown him an autopsy photo before the re-enactment, and even
>>> though he admitted it again in his 2000 auto-bio, he failed to mention
>>> this INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT fact to the HSCA in 78. Why? What was he
>>> covering up?
>>
>> The damn photograph is not all inclusive. Almost everyone concedes that
>> he was hit in the
>> area of T1 due to the fracture and the lack of any penetrating damage to
>> the lung (T1-2). However,
>
> And also the fact that a bullet entering at T-3 and going down undeflected
> at 18 degrees would hit the manubrium which we know was undamaged.
>
>> the photograph makes the wound appear to be at T2-3 area. Why is that?
>>
>
> I don't think the photograph makes the wound appear to be at T2-3. You
> have no way of knowing just by looking at the autopsy photos exactly where
> Kennedy's vertebrae were.
Gee, Tony, were you absent when all the CT's looked at the photograph and
claimed the wound was near T3 because of its relationship to the shoulder?
>
>> Look at the AP x-ray. His shoulders are elevated well beyond the normal,
>> neutral position that
>> everyone likes to ASS-u-me. This is what led to all the confusion and it
>> apparently persists today.
>>
>> It should be obvious he was trying to avoid being confronted
>>> on his blatantly incompetent and/or disreputable behavior. Think about
>>> it.
>>> He allowed the WC to print the Rydbery Drawings even though he KNEW they
>>> were inaccurate. And this is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, a
>>> man with a "passion for truth." Pathetic.
>>
>> His theory makes more sense than any other that I've ever heard. Any
>> other action by a bullet
>> is more magical than that.
>>
>
> Forensic pathologists are well aware of the fact that bullets can be
> deflected in the body when hitting bone. Maybe Chiropractic practitioners
> are not.
Read it again, Tony. I said that the SBT makes more sense than any other
theory out there. Your comment about chiros not understanding ballistic
movements is irrelevant to the comment and is nothing but a low
blow...busdriver.
Chad
pjsp...@aol.com
account of the trial. Nor do I accept your articles except as what
they are, your attempts to shut down what you believe to be unwarranted
speculation about government involvement in the assassination of
President Kennedy. By studying both sides of the story, one can come to
something somewhere near the truth, IMO.
As far as the "Bay of Pigs thing," are you speculating that Haldeman
had it wrong? If so, on what basis? Nixon was fully aware of
Haldeman's book and never commented on Haldeman's assertion, as far as
I''m aware. Nixon was obsessed with how he would be viewed in history.
If he felt Haldeman had misrepresented the "Bay of Pigs thing" then he
most certainly would have made that "perfectly clear," wouldn't you
say? As it stands, in RN, Nixon makes a point of letting everyone know
that he invited Jackie and the kids back to the White House, and how he
let John-John play with his dog, etc. It certainly seems like Nixon
felt some guilt about the assassination, possibly it was only
survivor's guilt, it's tough to say. BUT, since we know LBJ felt Cubans
were involved, and since LBJ was close to Connally, who NEVER believed
in the SBT, and since Nixon thereafter became close to Connally, it's
entirely logical to assume that Nixon had his own doubts about the
assassination, and that he suspected Cuban involvement. If so, since
Nixon was undoubtedly involved with Kohley and Pawley others seeking
Castro's ouster, and since Hunt sent memos to Cushman calling for
Castro's assassination, it's quite reasonable to assume that Nixon's
fear among fears was that the operations he supported against Castro
boomeranged and got Kennedy killed. This is speculation, but warranted
speculation. IMO.
As far as the Angleton memo on Hunt.. Trento testified to his having
been shown the memo by Angleton. He has not sought to benefit from it
in any way. He even left it out of his book, The Secret History. He
has confirmed seeing this memo several other times as well, most
recently on the Simkin Forum. I find him credible. If you read
Angleton's HSCA testimony, it's obvious Angleton is lying when he talks
about the issue. He says that Trento was confused by a comment he made
about another man named Hunt, Jim Hunt. Trento, of course, remained in
close contact with both Angleton and another of Marchetti's sources,
William Corson, for the remainder of their lives. He co-wrote books
with Corson. If Trento had lied about this memo, I don't see these men
maintaining their friendship with him. The memo existed. Now what did
it say exactly? What did it mean? It didn't say that Hunt killed
Kennedy, only that he'd been to Dallas. Perhaps his presence there was
innocent.
Perhaps not. Well, what was Hunt's job in 1963? He was working in the
Domestic Operations Division, right? Chief of Covert Operations or
some such thing. Well, what kind of Domestic Operations were above
ground, and which ones were covert? Was Hunt involved in the break-ins
at the Fair Play for Cuba Committee? Was he following up by following
Oswald? Another aspect of the DOD, from what I can uncover, is that
they were responsible for trying to turn foreign citizens into U.S.
assets while they were present on U.S. soil. This included finding
evidence on these citizens through which to blackmail them. Well, which
foreign citizens would be of most interest. Ambassadors, perhaps?
Well, is it a coincidence, then, that Oswald just so happened to have
spent time at the Cuban embassy chatting with a woman, Sylvia Duran,
who just so happened to be the mistress of the Cuban Ambassador to the
U.N.. Carlos Lechuga? Was it also a coincidence that there were
witnesses who reported Oswald and this woman together at a party? Was
it also a coincidence that this ambassador was in secret negotiations
at the time with U.S ambassador William Attwood to normalize U.S./Cuba
relations? Was it also a coincidence that Hunt, the man quite possibly
charged with spying on this ambassador, was a close friend to Manuel
Artime, the man preparing, with U.S. sanction, for a second invasion of
Cuba, and the man who would be most hurt by these secret negotiations?
Or should all these coincidences be ignored because Chuck Schuyler
believes Oswald was a loser with nothing better to do than shoot
presidents for fun?
There's a web of mysterious circumstance surrounding Hunt and the
assassination. I don't claim to understand his role. But I feel
certain the man has never told us all that he knows.
John McAdams wrote:
> On 14 Jun 2006 00:31:30 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@AOL.COM>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >chuck schuyler wrote:
> >> pjspeare:
> >>
> >> Interesting but irrelevant post. There isn't any evidence of someone on
> >> the knoll or in a storm drain firing a weapon. And the stuff about E.
> >> Howard Hunt as it relates to the JFK assassination is a factoid.
> >
> >For the record, in my presentation, available here:
> >http://homepage.mac.com/bkohley/Menu18.html
> >I argue against any shots coming from the sewer or the stockade fence.
> >I leave open the possibility a shot was fired from just west of the
> >TSBD, but if if did, it missed...
> >
> >And what does that mean? Factoid? That Hunt wasn't involved? I would
> >agree that he's not a "tramp" if that's what you mean. On the other hand,
> >why did Nixon think the CIA would help shut down the Watergate
> >investigation to conceal Hunt's involvement in the "Bay of Pigs thing,"
> >and why was Haldeman convinced this was a reference to the assassination?
>
> Translation: I have no evidence at all that Nixon thought Hunt was in
> any way involved in the assassination, and when Nixon said "Bay of
> Pigs," Haldeman, with no basis whatsoever, thought it meant "Kennedy
> assassination."
>
>
> >And why did Angleton show Joe Trento a CIA memo stating that Hunt was in
> >Dallas at the time of the assassination? IMO, Hunt was involved, if only
> >tangentially through Phillips and Artime.
> >
>
> You can produce that memo, right?
>
> Of course you can't.
>
> And the Rockefeller Commission looked into Hunt's whereabouts on the
> day of the assassination, and concluded he was in DC.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hunt_sturgis.htm
>
>
> >>
> >> We do have a considerable amount of evidence showing that a frustrated,
> >> warped, troubled young man with a failing marriage and children he had
> >> a hard time supporting fired shots at the Presidential motorcade on
> >> 11-22-63. In fact, the case is so compelling that you could probably
> >> discard a big percentage of the hard evidence in the case and still get
> >> a jury to convict Lee Oswald of a double murder that day.
> >>
> >> It is silly to suppose that the Mob, Castro, CIA, Military/Industrial
> >> Complex, FBI or others would really accomplish anything by murdering a
> >> president when the number two guy taking over, as is constitutionally
> >> mandated, is from the same political party and is likely to hold most
> >> of the same viewpoints as the guy being replaced. Silly.
> >
> >"Likely"? Perhaps the assassins KNEW precisely where Johnson and
> >Kennedy differed in opinion. Perhaps because Johnson told them. As far
> >as the mob's motivation, have you ever read the HSCA report? They
> >found that criminal investigations into mob activity slowed to a halt
> >under Johnson. As far as Johnson's own history, Marcello bagman Jack
> >Halphen was on record in the 1950's as saying that LBJ was on the take.
>
>
> And you believe that?
>
>
> > Have you ever heard of Bobby Baker, Fred Black, Irving Davidson? JFK may
> >have been a lying womanizer, but there's no evidence he was as corrupt as
> >Johnson, or willing to murder his political enemies. Have you ever heard
> >of Henry Marshall? Billie Sol Estes? While the Johnson-was-in-on-it
> >scenarios may not be true, they stand up at least as well as Oswald acting
> >alone.
> >
> >> Oswald is the guilty party.
> >
> >Possibly. But to ignore the possibility of other scenarios just because
> >the truth in this instance might be a little "messy" is symptomatic of
> >someone who's trying to run from history.
> >
> >
>
> You need to understand that PLAUSIBLE DENIAL, which you seem to
> accept, is a dishonest and unreliable book.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/denial.htm
>
> .John
>
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
wrote:
>John, I don't accept Plausible Denial except as what it is, Mark Lane's
>account of the trial. Nor do I accept your articles except as what
>they are, your attempts to shut down what you believe to be unwarranted
>speculation about government involvement in the assassination of
>President Kennedy. By studying both sides of the story, one can come to
>something somewhere near the truth, IMO.
>
Then you have to face the fact that Lane gave you the impression that
the jury believed that Hunt had been involved with the JFK
assassination.
But then you have to face the fact that newspaper accounts showed that
the majority of the jury didn't reach any such conclusion, but rather
followed the judge's instructions, which were that "actual malice" was
the question.
>As far as the "Bay of Pigs thing," are you speculating that Haldeman
>had it wrong? If so, on what basis? Nixon was fully aware of
>Haldeman's book and never commented on Haldeman's assertion, as far as
>I''m aware. Nixon was obsessed with how he would be viewed in history.
You really have no evidence that Nixon paid any attention to
Haldeman's book.
You argument seems to be: it was published, and nobody contradicted
it, so it's true.
Haldeman admittedly is making a wild-ass guess.
>If he felt Haldeman had misrepresented the "Bay of Pigs thing" then he
>most certainly would have made that "perfectly clear," wouldn't you
>say? As it stands, in RN, Nixon makes a point of letting everyone know
>that he invited Jackie and the kids back to the White House, and how he
>let John-John play with his dog, etc. It certainly seems like Nixon
>felt some guilt about the assassination, possibly it was only
>survivor's guilt, it's tough to say. BUT, since we know LBJ felt Cubans
>were involved, and since LBJ was close to Connally, who NEVER believed
>in the SBT, and since Nixon thereafter became close to Connally, it's
>entirely logical to assume that Nixon had his own doubts about the
>assassination, and that he suspected Cuban involvement.
My god, what a wild web it supposition!
>If so, since
>Nixon was undoubtedly involved with Kohley and Pawley others seeking
>Castro's ouster, and since Hunt sent memos to Cushman calling for
>Castro's assassination, it's quite reasonable to assume that Nixon's
>fear among fears was that the operations he supported against Castro
>boomeranged and got Kennedy killed. This is speculation, but warranted
>speculation. IMO.
>
>As far as the Angleton memo on Hunt.. Trento testified to his having
>been shown the memo by Angleton.
"Said." I don't think "testified" is the right word.
>He has not sought to benefit from it
>in any way. He even left it out of his book, The Secret History.
Which suggests something, doesn't it?
>He
>has confirmed seeing this memo several other times as well, most
>recently on the Simkin Forum. I find him credible. If you read
>Angleton's HSCA testimony, it's obvious Angleton is lying when he talks
>about the issue.
How is that obvious?
>He says that Trento was confused by a comment he made
>about another man named Hunt, Jim Hunt. Trento, of course, remained in
>close contact with both Angleton and another of Marchetti's sources,
>William Corson, for the remainder of their lives. He co-wrote books
>with Corson. If Trento had lied about this memo, I don't see these men
>maintaining their friendship with him. The memo existed. Now what did
>it say exactly? What did it mean? It didn't say that Hunt killed
>Kennedy, only that he'd been to Dallas. Perhaps his presence there was
>innocent.
>
Earth to pjspeare: Hunt was not in Dallas. Hunt was in DC.
>Perhaps not. Well, what was Hunt's job in 1963? He was working in the
>Domestic Operations Division, right? Chief of Covert Operations or
>some such thing. Well, what kind of Domestic Operations were above
>ground, and which ones were covert? Was Hunt involved in the break-ins
>at the Fair Play for Cuba Committee? Was he following up by following
>Oswald? Another aspect of the DOD, from what I can uncover, is that
>they were responsible for trying to turn foreign citizens into U.S.
>assets while they were present on U.S. soil. This included finding
>evidence on these citizens through which to blackmail them. Well, which
>foreign citizens would be of most interest. Ambassadors, perhaps?
>Well, is it a coincidence, then, that Oswald just so happened to have
>spent time at the Cuban embassy chatting with a woman, Sylvia Duran,
>who just so happened to be the mistress of the Cuban Ambassador to the
>U.N.. Carlos Lechuga? Was it also a coincidence that there were
>witnesses who reported Oswald and this woman together at a party? Was
>it also a coincidence that this ambassador was in secret negotiations
>at the time with U.S ambassador William Attwood to normalize U.S./Cuba
>relations? Was it also a coincidence that Hunt, the man quite possibly
>charged with spying on this ambassador, was a close friend to Manuel
>Artime, the man preparing, with U.S. sanction, for a second invasion of
>Cuba, and the man who would be most hurt by these secret negotiations?
>
>
>Or should all these coincidences be ignored because Chuck Schuyler
>believes Oswald was a loser with nothing better to do than shoot
>presidents for fun?
>
What "coincidences?"
You have just shown that you can tie a bunch of people buffs consider
"suspicious" together.
Given that buffs have named *hundreds* of people as "suspicious" and
possible conspirators, there have to be a lot of connections.
>There's a web of mysterious circumstance surrounding Hunt and the
>assassination. I don't claim to understand his role. But I feel
>certain the man has never told us all that he knows.
>
And what is the basis of your "certainty?"
Could it be based on the *assumption* that a conspiracy killed JFK?
Anthony Marsh
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:Cb-dnRj1naIc8QzZ...@comcast.com...
>> James K. Olmstead wrote:
>>> "severin" <seve...@removethisbit.bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
>>> news:448f180f$0$7193$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>
>>> "severin": Are you claiming that CE 567 and CE 569 are the same round?
>>>
>>> If so please outline the basis for this......if not consider that there are three rounds
>>> fired and three rounds recovered.....no missed shot.
>>>
>> I can't speak for him, but I consider that the two large fragments came from the same bullet. They do not overlap. So
>> they could both come from the same bullet. They appear to me to have broken up from hitting a body part and then
>> became deformed by hitting the chrome topping and possibly the windshield. I don't see how they both could wind up in
>> similar locations in the front seat from different shots. The angles line up better coming from a single source.
>> You should also be aware of the fact that the nose fragment looked much different when originally found, like CE 399.
>
> Tony: No need to speak for him....but I respect your opinion (and his), I just don't
> believe that anybody can "prove" that CE 567 and CE 569 are the same
> bullet. Until testing can be done or a "verdict" can be reached, they have
> to be considered "seperate rounds" unless proven otherwise.
>
I don't think testing will prove the proposition. I do not say it is
proven or can be proven. But it is a reasonable assumed and the counter
is very unlikely.
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> chuck schuyler wrote:
>>> pjspeare:
>>>
>> apart. And remember other such as Operation Northwoods which were kept
>> secret for 40 years. Did you read the article about the CIA covering up
>> its collaboration with the Nazis?
>>
>
> You make the common mistake of trying to connect the big events of the
> day to this murder. In essence, it was 'just' a murder. A man in a
> building shot at a man in a car. The victim happened to be the
> President.
Then you could trivialize any event. You could say that Watergate was
just a third-rate burglary. Have you no sense of history?
>
> The crime stands on it's own. No need for you and others to bring in
> Operations Northwoods, Vietnam, Marcello hated the Kennedys, etc. It's
> all interesting, but moot. Oswald was a Communist loner, and a loser.
> It's his rifle, the bullets match, no one can place him at 1230pm, and
> he fled. He was captured with his pistol on him. One of the Tippit
> slugs was matched to his weapon.
>
Many of the points you make are irrelevant.
> Accept that things do happen randomly, and that the overall reasoning
> behind the twisted actions of someone like Oswald is not fully
> understandable, nor will it ever be.
>
If you think that things only happen randomly, you need to read some
history.
> We know that in April of 63, he shot at another political figure from a
> concealed location, acting on his own, using his rifle. It is a
We do not know that he was acting on his own. We assume that.
> reasonable, and makes the most sense based on what we know about
> 11-22-63, to assume he operated the same way that afternoon.
>
> You need to invent an array of highly speculative and implausible
> events to debunk the Oswald did it alone scenario.
>
Who does? I am going where the evidence leads me.
> Doesn't it all sound silly 42+ years later? Snipers firing from the
> knoll, storm drain, or other locations? Mysterious deaths? Dart-firing
> Umbrellas? Cliff's "sweaty-shirt-scenario?"
> Harris's fixation on Zframes 285, 335/337? Oswald was "sheep-dipped?"
> Sneaking a shooter in to the TSBD?
>
It sounds silly when you say it because you know you are employing the
strawman argument of the most ludicrous theories. You could also cite
those who believe it was aliens in UFOs. Such is not a serious argument.
> Oswald did it, no help.
>
>
Anthony Marsh
> "severin" <seve...@removethisbit.bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> news:449159a9$0$7210$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> "James K. Olmstead" <jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message news:44908ea9$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>>
>>> "severin" <seve...@removethisbit.bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
>>> news:448f180f$0$7193$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>> "severin": Are you claiming that CE 567 and CE 569 are the same round?
>>>
>>> If so please outline the basis for this......if not consider that there are three rounds
>>> fired and three rounds recovered.....no missed shot.
>>>
>> The purpose of this thread wasn't for me to state a position at all, it was to examine the implications of conspiract
>> theories if you assume they are true.
>> But it got sidetracked like this:
>>
>
> It's not really sidetracked....but I understand how thread started for one
> purpose tend to include more than what one expects to address.
>
> However, I take it from your response that you can't support a LN positon
> on the evidence that one shot missed.
>
I find it disgraceful that some WC defenders would go against the WC
finding that one shot missed. That's like a Catholic saying that he
doesn't believe in God.
>
>> - PF claimed LN theories must assume a missed shot.
>>
>> - I responded that the LN theory does nothing of the sort. The evidence as I understand it only proves two shots.
>> However the LN theory is still the best theory going if you reject the SBT and the NAA and argue 3 rounds fired, 3
>> rounds hit.
>
> There are variations of the LN theory that does consider a "missed shot"....Posner
> for one, yet when challanged with the evidence of CE 399, CE567 and CE 569
> they all clam up on the LN position of a missed shot, based on the "Isolation" of
> Evidence"
>
>> - PF responded by changing the subject
>>
>> As for CE567s relationship to CE569 - I don't believe the evidence says anything about that as CE569 was not tested
>> via NAA IIRC. We can't draw any conclusions from CE569 as to the number of shots.
>
> Until testing is done, one can only consider two seperate rounds, based on the
> "Isolation of Evidence" Several fragments were added to CE 567, however
> CE 569 was "Isolated".
>
I don't follow you here. What do you mean about several fragments added
to CE 567?
Anthony Marsh
No what I said. But if challenged, he would and did flash his SS ID. And
if someone accused him, he would threaten the witness.
> Did the conspirators think that that witness would likely grow suspicious
> later (as people did)? Such a witness could possibly ID the shooter. At the
> very least they would basically confirm the idea that there was a second
> shooter.
So what if witnesses said they saw a grassy knoll shooter? They could
count on people like you to call them kooks.
>
> So how do you think your conspirators planned to deal with their second
> shooter being exposed in this way?
>
Well concealed. Position protected by the back-up man.
The sniper is being protected by the spotter.
>>> Would it continue to work if the GK shooter was captured on film? (there
>> It seems to have worked because the grassy knoll shooter WAS captured on
>> film. We have one WC defender here who denies the existence of Black Dog
>> Man and claims it is a shadow on the fence. So dedicated WC defenders can
>> deny anything.
>
> [off topic]
> My personal opinion after brief study is that the "Black Dog Man" image may
> be a person, or it may be a shadow, the image is not clear enough to say. I
> suspect more than one WC defender would agree with that analysis. Even if it
> is a person, which I suspect it may well be, that doesn't mean that person
> is a shooter. But that is irrelevant to this discussion.
> [/off topic]
>
I doubt there are many who are on the fence so to speak. Either you
believe there was a person there or not.
>>> were several people with cameras opposite the GK. At least one of those
>>> photos was in the hands of the press almost immediately - what if Moorman
>>> had a decent camera instead of a Polaroid? What if Altgens didn't
>>> hesitate to take his photo at the time of the headshot?)
>>>
>> Ah yes. What if.
>
> "What if" is the whole point of this thread. I want to examine what the
> conspirators answers might have been to the "what if" questions that came up
> during their planning. I want to see if their plan is rational and
> consistent.
>
You want rational and consistent? Were the CIA's Castro plots rational
and consistent? Study all political assassinations.
>> And ignore the fact that her photo does show the shooter. Nice touch.
>
> You misunderstand me. I am not arguing the lone-assassin case in this
> thread. I am trying to examine the implications of your conspiracy theory.
No, you are setting up strawman arguments.
> My question still holds, what if Mary Moorman had a decent camera and
> recorded a _clear_ image of the GK shooter? Surely you agree the image in
Your question is moot. We can already see the grassy knoll shooter in
her photograph. That does not mean that even with a classy camera we
could identify him. You can't identify Black Dog Man or the other two
men on the steps next to Emmet Hudsen.
> Moorman is ambiguous, otherwise there would be no disagreement about it. If
No. Moorman is not ambiguous which is why WC defenders are the only ones
who can't see the shooter.
> it is a GK shooter, a better camera (or Altgens) could have produced a much
> clearer image of that shooter with greater forensic value.
Greater forensic value? Such as what?
>
>>> Why should the plotters choose a scenario with so many observers with
>>> cameras?
>> Exactly. Why should anyone ever murder anyone else since there is always
>> some possibility of being photographed. So Hinckley would not shoot at
>> Reagan because he was surrounded by photographers? Remember the Aquino
>> assassination? The guards kept the photographers away so that they could
>> not film the guards shooting Aquino. Dedicated assassins will kill their
>> target live on TV in front of millions. So what?
>>
>
> Anthony, you misunderstand my question. The motivations of assassins vary.
> Hinckley, for example, needed to be identified so he could impress Jodie
> Foster. I am trying to examine the motivations of the assassins you posit.
He did not need to be identified so that he would be intercepted before
he could get off any shots as Squeaky was.
> Most conspiracy theorists posit that the conspirators wanted to kill JFK but
> not be identified by the public as the assassins. To achieve this they
Maybe some do. Certainly they did not want to be interrupted, as Sarah
Jane Moore was.
> planned the event and manipulated the aftermath so that Oswald would appear
> to be the sole guilty party. Having your GK shooter recorded unambigously on
> camera foils that plan.
>
No, they could count on people like you.
Elite assets in the media, for example.
> If that is not the kind of conspiracy you posit, please set me straight
> here. I said when I first responded to you that I was assuming that your
> conspiracy scenario was very similar to pjspeare's. and you did not
> contradict me.
>
Well, I'll try to contradict every word you utter, but there is a
limited amount of time each day.
>
>>> It seems the CIA scenario requires the plotters to be identified by the
>>> victim or his successors (so they know not to "mess with" them), but not
>>> by the public, and the victim (or his successors) are expected to be
>>> complicit in concealing the plotters identity.
>>>
>> My scenario may be slightly different. It is a rogue operation by CIA
>> agents. Like Watergate and Hunt's little projects. Supported by the CIA,
>> but not an official CIA project.
>> The bravado is similar to a Mafia hit or local gangs. There are 1,000
>> witnesses to the killing in broad daylight and everyone knows who did it,
>> but no one will testify.
>>
>
> Ok, that kind of answers my question above. So your conspirators expected
> that if they were identified, they could intimidate people into not
> testifying?
>
Certainly.
You gonna argue with a SS agent pointing a gun at your face?
> In that case, how might they have dealt with the possibility of media
> broadcast of clear evidence of their involvement (say a photo that clearly
> shows an identifiable shooter who can be connected to the conspirators)?
Now, can you explain to me who in the media would instantly recognize
Emilio Santana or Gerry Droller?
Can you identify every person in every photo taken in Dealey Plaza? Do
you know anyone who can?
> Moorman and Altgens potentially could have taken that photo. Wouldn't that
> create a national public demand for investigation and retribution? They
> can't intimidate the entire audience of NBC.
>
Oh my God. Some people claim that Altgens did take a photo of the
killer, Oswald in front of the TSBD. So, is that claim proof?
There was a national public demand for an investigation. It was called
the HSCA. No one was talking about retribution. Do you think we should
nuke England for burning down the White House?
>>>>> Also they have the problem of the target being alerted or protected in
>>>>> some way before he can be shot. For example, one of the SS agents may
>>>>> have spotted something and reacted in the same way that Youngblood did
>>>>> with LBJ early enough to prevent the fatal shots to JFK. There are
>>>>> photos of SS agents riding on the rear of the presidential limo earlier
>>>>> in the trip, how were they to know that wouldn't be the case in Dealy
>>>>> Plaza?
>>>>>
>>>> Depends on the level of sophistication of the conspirators. Not my
>>>> theory, but some nut has claimed that the conspirators, not JFK himself,
>>>> ordered that the SS agents not ride on the rear of the Presidential
>>>> limo.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Even if they did forbid agents to ride on the limo, how can the
>>> conspirators be sure that no-one in the car would show the presence of
>>> mind that Rufus Youngblood did? He got LBJ out of harms way after the
>>> first shot. What if JFK hears a shot or sees something prior to the first
>>> shot and takes cover?
>>>
>> How would they know that Clint Hill would not jump off the follow-up car
>> and run up to the limousine? That doesn't matter when they triangulate
>> fire. If the target is obscured by one angle, another angle is open.
>> You have to realize that there are professionals who are paid millions of
>> our tax dollars to work out details like this.
>>
>
> By triangulate, do you mean three shooters?
>
I think that is what triangulate means, coming from the root word
"triangle" meaning three sided figure.
> Regardless of triangulation, JFK can still duck or hit the deck. SA Ready,
> SA Hill or even Jackie can still jump on top of him and shield him
>
No, JFK can not duck. There is no room to duck. And he was wearing a
back brace. Instead of theorizing you need to look at real life conditions.
>>> Why would the plotters choose a plan that has the rear shooter firing and
>>> potentially alerting the limo occupants BEFORE the GK shooter had a
>>> chance to hit?
>>>
>> Maybe you missed my point the first 10,000,000 times.
>
> I didn't catch you making that point earlier in this thread. Remember I am
> not a veteran of this NG, I'm not familiar with all your other posts.
>
>> The man on the grassy knoll was not supposed to shoot unless the target
>> was getting away alive.
>
>
> There goes your triangulation for the early shots though, unless you have
> several shooters with triangulated LOF to higher up Elm.
>
I did not say there was triangulation for early shots. Triangulation
allows a secondary shooter to hit the target if the primary shooter does
not have a good shot. Maybe someone walks in front of the target.
>>> Are the plotters aims achieved if they are unable to hit the target? If
>>> they are publicly identified?
>>>
>> Partially. Like the Mossad revenge assassinations. It sends the message
>> that they can strike anyone anytime anywhere.
>>
>
> OK.
> So like pjspeare, your conspirators primarily wanted to send a message? What
> effect was the message supposed to have? Is triangulated fire in a public
> place with plenty of cameras the only or even the best way to deliver their
> message?
>
Yes, if it is a coup d'etat. How about the way the US assassinated
Zarqawi the other day? They did not quietly poison him or get one of his
aides to shoot him. Dropping those bombs sends a message to all the
terrorists that there are no rules when the US wants to kill someone.
Women, children, Mosques, Hospitals.
> Was assigning the blame to Oswald the "silly little Communist" an integral
> part of the plot or just an added bonus?
Essential because of Oswald's background. It is called false
sponsorship. Make it look as though the Russians did it. CIA used to do
that in the Middle East all the time.
> For that matter, was Oswald a shooter in this theory, or just his rifle, or
> neither?
>
I can't tell if Oswald was a shooter, but I doubt it.
> And if one or more shooters (other than Oswald) were identified and linked
> to the CIA publicly, would they still achieve their aims? Mightn't public
How? So what if one of the criminals was linked to the CIA? Two of the
Watergate criminals were directly linked to the CIA and the rest
indirectly. Nothing came of it.
> outrage give JFK or LBJ the courage to retaliate against the CIA and truly
> splinter it into all those pieces, instead of heeding their message?
>
Some people do play that game of what JFK would have done. But since he
was dead I don't think there is much he could have done about it.
Johnson was hoodwinked. He really did think that Castro was behind it,
as did Hoover.
severin
> severin wrote:
>> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>> severin wrote:
>>>> "Peter Fokes" <jp...@toronto.hm> wrote in message
>>>> news:9pmt82p8tm0j1d77h...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On 13 Jun 2006 01:18:00 -0400, "David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> [snippage]
>>>>> OF course, the same game plan is followed by LNers who claim the field
>>>>> contains evidence of a missed shot, but then fail to prove their case,
>>>>> and make assumptions based on such a belief. The lack of such proof,
>>>>> for example, reduces Rahn's analysis to guesswork.
>>>>>
>>>> Peter, that is silly.
>>>>
>>>> There is no need to "assume" a missed shot.
>>>>
>>> Almost every solution to the shooting has a missed shot. No one was able
>>> to get a fragment from a known wounding to hit the curb near Tague.
>>
>> We do not have accurate information on Tague's location and
>> orientation, or on the number and path of all fragments. Nothing can be
>> said about Tague's wounding with certainty.
>
> We can state with certainty that Tague was wounded on the cheek by a
> fragment during the shooting, unlike the WC defender factoid that he was
> uninjured or cut himself shaving.
>
He testified that is what happened. The curb mark is consistent with that.
There seems little reason to disbelieve him.
But none of that evidence is falsifiable, so saying it is certain is too
strong.
>>
>>>> There is only strong evidence in favor of two shots, because only two
>>>> bullets were recovered. (Or more correctly, the various fragments of
>>>> bullets that were recovered have been demonstrated to come from only
>>>> two
>>>> bullets to a high degree of certainty).
>>>>
>>> No, the evidence does not prove that the two large fragments came from
>>> the same bullet.
>>
>> As I understand it, the NAA demonstrates that all recovered fragments
>> almost certainly came from only two bullets. Are you disputing the
>> validity of the NAA or my understanding of it?
>>
>
> Both.
Let me clarify. My statement that "various fragments of bullets that were
recovered have been demonstrated to come from only two bullets to a high
degree of certainty" is incorrect as written. I should say that the
fragments _that_have_been _tested_ have been demonstrated to come from only
two bullets. We can't say anything about the origin of the other fragments,
so we only have strong evidence in favour of two shots.
>
>> Regardless, I argue the lone-assasin conclusion does not require you to
>> "assume" a missed shot. Even if you reject the SBT and the NAA, the
>> rest of the evidence only implicates Oswald's MC. I suggest you could
>> argue Oswald's MC fired 3 shots from the TSBD, and all 3 shots hit,
>> fragments from these shots caused the Tague and limo damage, and
>> provide more evidence to support your claims that any conspiracy
>> scenario has so far.
>>
>
> But that doesn't agree with the WC. What do you want to do, start WWIII?
>
I am under no compulsion to agree with the WC. Some of the conclusions they
reached were later shown to be valid. I would not be inclined to accept
their conclusions without this later independent confirmation.
But it is not certain that it hit. The bullet could have continued in a
straight line.
>>
>>>> bullet passes through JFK, and JBC is sitting in front of JFK, where
>>>> else
>>>> is the bullet meant to go on it's way out? How is Specter wrong to
>>>> suggest
>>>> it continued in a straight line?
>>> Simplistic solution.
>>>
>>
>> And that makes it wrong how? Newtownian mechanics is simple.
>>
>
> Is that what Einstein said?
Not sure what he said. Newtonian mechanics is certainly simple in comparison
to Relativistic mechanics.
> To imagine that the line has to be a perfectly straight line is
> simplistic, because bullets rarely take a perfectly straight line path
> through bodies.
>
Simplistic but not invalid. A straight line is a reasonable approximation of
the path of a bullet which does not collide with anything rigid in transit.
Shaw and Ferrie.
The slander on Shaw is particularly evil as there really is no evidence he
was involved in the assassination in any way. The orgy scene is really
pushing it.
> WC defenders have no problem slandering Oswald.
>
I'm not aware of any that goes beyond what is known from the testimony of
those who knew him and his own writings. Not to say that some "WC Defenders"
don't slander him in that way, just that I'm not aware of it.
Personally, I admire Oswald in some ways - he chose an unusual and even
courageous path out of the life he was born into. You could say he achieved
a lot by his own standards.
Happy to do that. Name some relevant ones and I will.
Regards,
Severin
Peter Fokes
<seve...@removethisbit.bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>Let me clarify. My statement that "various fragments of bullets that were
>recovered have been demonstrated to come from only two bullets to a high
>degree of certainty" is incorrect as written. I should say that the
>fragments _that_have_been _tested_ have been demonstrated to come from only
>two bullets.
And how many shots did most people hear?
> We can't say anything about the origin of the other fragments,
>so we only have strong evidence in favour of two shots.
There is strong evidence of at least 3 shots.
It is a guess to state the injuries were caused by 2 shots.
PF
severin
>
> "severin" <seve...@removethisbit.bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> news:449159a9$0$7210$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>> "James K. Olmstead" <jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:44908ea9$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>>
>>>
>>> "severin" <seve...@removethisbit.bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
>>> news:448f180f$0$7193$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>
>>>
>>> "severin": Are you claiming that CE 567 and CE 569 are the same round?
>>>
>>> If so please outline the basis for this......if not consider that there
>>> are three rounds
>>> fired and three rounds recovered.....no missed shot.
>>>
>>
>> The purpose of this thread wasn't for me to state a position at all, it
>> was to examine the implications of conspiract theories if you assume they
>> are true.
>> But it got sidetracked like this:
>>
>
> It's not really sidetracked....but I understand how thread started for one
> purpose tend to include more than what one expects to address.
>
> However, I take it from your response that you can't support a LN positon
> on the evidence that one shot missed.
>
No, I'm just saying that you don't need to assume that one shot missed to
conslude that a lone-assassin is the most likely explanation of what
happened.
>
>> - PF claimed LN theories must assume a missed shot.
>>
>> - I responded that the LN theory does nothing of the sort. The evidence
>> as I understand it only proves two shots. However the LN theory is still
>> the best theory going if you reject the SBT and the NAA and argue 3
>> rounds fired, 3 rounds hit.
>
> There are variations of the LN theory that does consider a "missed
> shot"....Posner
> for one, yet when challanged with the evidence of CE 399, CE567 and CE 569
> they all clam up on the LN position of a missed shot, based on the
> "Isolation" of
> Evidence"
>
I'm confused. What do you mean?
>>
>> - PF responded by changing the subject
>>
>> As for CE567s relationship to CE569 - I don't believe the evidence says
>> anything about that as CE569 was not tested via NAA IIRC. We can't draw
>> any conclusions from CE569 as to the number of shots.
>
> Until testing is done, one can only consider two seperate rounds, based on
> the
> "Isolation of Evidence" Several fragments were added to CE 567, however
> CE 569 was "Isolated".
>
>>
>>> thanks in advance of stating your position.
>>>
>>
>> You're welcome.
>
> I just sorry that you could not support a missed shot by the "Isolation"
> of the
> evidence.
>
I think there is good evidence to suggest a shot missed. However it is not
certain.
Regards,
Severin
severin
> On 15 Jun 2006 16:16:23 -0400, "severin"
> <seve...@removethisbit.bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>>
>>"James K. Olmstead" <jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
>>news:44908ea9$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>>
>>>
>>> "severin" <seve...@removethisbit.bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
>>> news:448f180f$0$7193$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>
>>>
>>> "severin": Are you claiming that CE 567 and CE 569 are the same round?
>>>
>>> If so please outline the basis for this......if not consider that there
>>> are three rounds
>>> fired and three rounds recovered.....no missed shot.
>>>
>>
>>The purpose of this thread wasn't for me to state a position at all, it
>>was
>>to examine the implications of conspiract theories if you assume they are
>>true.
>>But it got sidetracked like this:
>>
>>- PF claimed LN theories must assume a missed shot.
>
> Wrong. I did not use the word "must" ..... Indeed, some LNs believe
> all three shots caused injuries. Fuhrman, for example. Many LNers do
> claim there was a missed shot but fail to provide proof of such a
> missed shot.
>
I apologise, you didn't say "must".
But you did say that Ken Rahn's work was "reduced to guesswork" because he
assumed a missed shot. Do you mean his NAA analysis work or his work on a
formalised, rational analysis of the assassination? I don't see how either
piece or work must assume a missed shot.
>>
>>- I responded that the LN theory does nothing of the sort.
>
> False. It is a fact that some LNers believe a shot missed.
>
You do not need to assume a missed shot for the lone-assassin theory to be
the most likely explanation of the evidence. The LN theory does not require
a missed shot. Some LN theorists posit a missed shot.
>
>> The evidence as I
>>understand it only proves two shots.
>
> Wrong. The evidence does not prove how many shots caused the injuries.
>
Strawman. The injuries are irrelevant. The evidence proves that there were
at least two shots fired. There is no strong evidence for any more than two
shots. Therefore the evidence only proves two shots were fired. There is
much evidence for a third shot, but none of it is strong enough to _prove_ a
third shot was fired, AFAIK.
>
> However the LN theory is still the best
>>theory going if you reject the SBT and the NAA and argue 3 rounds fired, 3
>>rounds hit.
>>
>>- PF responded by changing the subject
>
> I did not. In reference to the SBT, I mentioned it is a myth. In
> reference to Rahn and the NAA, I said it is a guess.
>
Your response to my post did not answer a single question i asked. Instead
you posted a completely separate section at the bottom beggining with:
[quote]
True or false:
1. The crime scene WAS removed from Texas?
2. The autopsy WAS controlled?
3. False leads WERE planted?
[/quote]
You did not mention the SBT, Rahn or the NAA. You changed the subject.
Regards,
Severin
Peter Fokes
<seve...@removethisbit.bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>"Peter Fokes" <jp...@toronto.hm> wrote in message
>news:93g39255r24cvduhb...@4ax.com...
>> On 15 Jun 2006 16:16:23 -0400, "severin"
>> <seve...@removethisbit.bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"James K. Olmstead" <jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>news:44908ea9$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "severin" <seve...@removethisbit.bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
>>>> news:448f180f$0$7193$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "severin": Are you claiming that CE 567 and CE 569 are the same round?
>>>>
>>>> If so please outline the basis for this......if not consider that there
>>>> are three rounds
>>>> fired and three rounds recovered.....no missed shot.
>>>>
>>>
>>>The purpose of this thread wasn't for me to state a position at all, it
>>>was
>>>to examine the implications of conspiract theories if you assume they are
>>>true.
>>>But it got sidetracked like this:
>>>
>>>- PF claimed LN theories must assume a missed shot.
>>
>> Wrong. I did not use the word "must" ..... Indeed, some LNs believe
>> all three shots caused injuries. Fuhrman, for example. Many LNers do
>> claim there was a missed shot but fail to provide proof of such a
>> missed shot.
>>
>
>I apologise, you didn't say "must".
No prob. No need to apologize.
>
>But you did say that Ken Rahn's work was "reduced to guesswork" because he
>assumed a missed shot.
Yes. He does. There is strong evidence three shots were fired.
Do you mean his NAA analysis work or his work on a
>formalised, rational analysis of the assassination? I don't see how either
>piece or work must assume a missed shot.
In their paper entitled 'Neutron activation and the JFK assassination,
K.A. Rahn and L.M. Sturdivan conclude the FBI replicate analyses
"substantiates GUINN's original conclusion that two and only two
bullets from LEE HARVEY OSWALD's rifle struck the two men."
There is strong evidence of three shots. SO .... use your logic.
They state only two bullets struck the men... what about the third
shot?
And if that bullet left the limo there is no way for them to know if
it caused some of the injuries to the men.
They are guessing.
>>>- I responded that the LN theory does nothing of the sort.
>>
>> False. It is a fact that some LNers believe a shot missed.
>>
>
>You do not need to assume a missed shot for the lone-assassin theory to be
>the most likely explanation of the evidence. The LN theory does not require
>a missed shot. Some LN theorists posit a missed shot.
But Rahn and Sturdivan do.
>
>>
>>> The evidence as I
>>>understand it only proves two shots.
>>
>> Wrong. The evidence does not prove how many shots caused the injuries.
>>
>
>Strawman. The injuries are irrelevant.
Wrong. An injury could have been caused by a bullet that left the
vehicle therefore voiding the S & R argument.
The evidence proves that there were
>at least two shots fired. There is no strong evidence for any more than two
>shots.
Yes there is.
> Therefore the evidence only proves two shots were fired.
Wrong. You simply dismiss the majority of witnesses who HEARD three
shots, including some INSIDE the TSBD.
There is
>much evidence for a third shot, but none of it is strong enough to _prove_ a
>third shot was fired, AFAIK.
A weak argument. There is more evidence available to prove there were
three shots fired, than evidence to assert only two shots struck the
men.
>
>>
>> However the LN theory is still the best
>>>theory going if you reject the SBT and the NAA and argue 3 rounds fired, 3
>>>rounds hit.
>>>
>>>- PF responded by changing the subject
>>
>> I did not. In reference to the SBT, I mentioned it is a myth. In
>> reference to Rahn and the NAA, I said it is a guess.
>>
>
>Your response to my post did not answer a single question i asked. Instead
>you posted a completely separate section at the bottom beggining with:
I thought you asked for a scenario that involved conspiracy. I
outlined the evidence for such a scenario.
>
>[quote]
>True or false:
>
>1. The crime scene WAS removed from Texas?
>
>2. The autopsy WAS controlled?
>
>3. False leads WERE planted?
>[/quote]
>
>You did not mention the SBT, Rahn or the NAA. You changed the subject.
No, I didn't.
>
>Regards,
>Severin
PF
pjsp...@aol.com
making people believe that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy. But I am
no more willing to consider him an evil liar than consider you an evil
liar.(Some extreme CTs believe that men such as Max Holland and
yourself are on the CIA's payroll and part of an ongoing conspiracy.) I
have learned from Lane's books and I have learned from your website.
You both have your objectives and your work reflects your objectives.
As far as my thoughts about Nixon, I am far from the first to theorize
that Nixon felt some sort of guilt over Kennedy's death. A number of
biographies on Nixon have touched on this. It was also a central theme
in Stone's critically-aclaimed film on Nixon (which was NOT based upon
a book by Jim Garrison, by the way.)
As far as Hunt, by your own admission, some of the jurors believed he
was guilty. His presence in DC was never proved to the satisfaction of
many. And even if he was in DC...that his little bearing on whether or
not he was involved in the assassination. Hunt was the man to
organize resistance groups and plan propaganda. I don't believe he'd
run a team of shooters any more than I believe he'd hide out in an
empty train car after the assassination, pretending to be a bum.
Your refusal to attribute any significance to the connections and
coincidences surrounding many of the men considered possible suspects
in this case is unfortunate. Crime-solving is frequently the art of
noticing connections and coincidences. John Doe was killed by a
blow-dart. He had a recent fight with his wife. His wife is from the
Amazon region of South America. Her brother recently visited. Puzzles
are put together one piece at a time. But FIRST you need to sort the
pieces into pieces with flat sides. You search for the connections and
coincidences. Or maybe I've just seen too many episodes of Columbo...
Maybe the only surefire way to solve a murder is to have the murderer
get killed before he can offer up a defense and then believe whatever
the government tells you, no matter how incredible and incomplete.
I mean, do you really believe Baden knew what he was talking about?
Guinn? Canning? And, if so, since you believe in these HSCA experts,
why don't you believe in the acoustic experts?
P.S. have you read Larry Hancock's book? Was that all wild speculation?
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>Peter Fokes wrote:
>> On 15 Jun 2006 16:51:25 -0400, "chuck schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In essence, it was 'just' a murder. A man in a
>> >building shot at a man in a car. The victim happened to be the
>> >President.
>>
>> So if it was just a regular old murder, why was the body removed from
>> Dallas?
>
>It was prudent, correct, and responsible to assume the worst that
>afternoon;
JFK was dead already. Were they fearful the conspirators would steal
the body too ???
> that there was a possible plot, perhaps involving the
>Soviets. As is typical with your crowd,
Ridicule dressed up in an overgeneralization. Note the use of the
term "your crowd". Not content with presenting a reasoned argument,
Chuck resorts to smear by association with a mysterious "crowd". As
far as this subject is concerned, John McAdams is the person I
correspond with on a daily basis. There is no "your crowd".
> all of this is looked at with
>20/20 vision after the fact. The JFK murder was a huge event, no doubt
>about it, but the murder is straightforward.
Tell that to publishers, academics, news people who have been writing
and debating the issues since Nov 22, 1963.
>If his body had been left in Dallas you'd carp that that is precisely
>what the Megaplotters wanted...
Again, more ridicule dressed up in a wacky hypothetical.
Anyone can invent rhetorical arguments and then take a whack at them,
but it's meaningless, except perhaps for some propaganda impact. And
that's highly doubtful given the limited number of folks who read the
newsgroup. Why is it so tough for you to make your points in a logical
and reasonable manner?
>an autopsy in the deep-south, pro-oil,
>pro-LBJ, racsist fly-over land...far away from the probing eyes of the
>skeptical Washington professionals. You'd argue
More ridicule dressed up as some kind of assumption about what I would
argue under different circumstances. You don't have a clue who I am or
what I would argue under a different circumstance. Lets ignore the
concept of respect for another person's opinion and suggest that
person would hold the wacky idea that you say they would.
> that the JFK murder was
>special, and that the body should've been removed from Dallas, where
>the President had many political enemies.
>
>Getting the Presidential entourage away from Dallas was the right thing
>to do.
Why? Breaking the laws of Texas? Is the executive branch above the
law?
>> Why was the limo, the scene of the crime, removed from Dallas?
>What does it matter in the scheme of things?
Just a reflection of your attitude toward the laws of your land... Do
you believe the executive should adopt the prerogatives of
16th-century royalty?
> Note to Peter:
Were you replying to someone else? Or is this just a lead in to a
sarcastic comment rather than intelligent reply?
> The limo
>has WHEELS.
Very good, Chuck. I am glad you have figured that out.
> Technically, the limo left the 'crime scene' when it drove
>to Parkland.
The killing occurred IN the limo. Evidence was contained IN the limo.
The limo was part of the crime scene. The limo cannot drive away from
itself even though it has wheels (which you have finally figured out
after all these years).
> It's a silly pro CT argument with no legs to stand on.
What argument? The argument that the limo was part of the crime scene
is not an argument. It is a fact. Nothing silly about it. It just is
a fact. Not a pro CT or pro LN argument... it is a FACT. The car
stands on its on 4 wheels. Nothing to do with legs.
>Again, if it'd stayed in Dallas you'd scream
Again, you resort to a propaganda technique by pretending to know what
I would say.... but this time you add that I would "scream" therefore
making what you think I would do appear even more ludicrous. Problem
for you is that it is your wacky thought, not mine, and it is your
wacky attempt to associate me with your imagined nonsense, instead of
offering an reasonable argument.
>that it gave the
>conspiracists an opportunity to remove any proof of conspiracy from the
>vehicle.
Why do you have such a problem with the Dallas police and detectives?
Why do you think they were incapable of investigating this crime? Why
are you so passive when it comes to folks breaking the law?
>> Why was the FBI given authority over the case?
>
>It was assigned to them.
The President had no authority to interfere with the law.
>If the POTUS is in a limo and he is killed outside of Mayberry, are you
>OK with Barney Fife as lead investigator deputizing Floyd the Barber
>and Goober to help process the crime scene?
So now you ridicule the police in Dallas? I suppose you think Hoover
was a paragon of virtue and not involved in politics. Why do you call
people names .. and even worse, people you don't even know?
>> If Oswald had come to trial, would these violations of Texas law be
>> enough to acquit him?
>
>No. The case against Oswald is overwhelming.
Not an answer. You avoid the issue.
>> To argue these violations of the law were acceptable, the FEDS would
>> have been left with one choice: to convince the judge there was a
>> CONSPIRACY.
>The violations you list have nothing to do with LHO snapping off three
>shots from the TSBD 6th floor.
They have everything to do with the application of the law, and a fair
trial for the accused. Do you believe in lynching?
>Again, hindsight is 20/20. No one argues that in the hours after the
>assassination, conspiracy seemed to be the answer to the mayhem that
>afternoon.
False. It was suspected by many that Oswald acted alone. Media reports
did not mention conspiracy.
>Admit that whatever happened that day with evidence, etc. that you'd be
>convinced of conspiracy, regardless of the facts.
Again, you pretend to know what I would believe. It is convenient to
suggest such a thing because then you can associate me with the
earlier term, "your crowd".
Your post is a classic example of a non-argument dressed in wacky
comments that associate someone you don't know with other people.
I don't know you. I've never met you. I read a few comments you make
on a newsgroup. So should I then post a comment suggesting that you
should admit that whatever happened that day with evidence, etc., that
you'd be convinced there was no conspiracy, regardless of the facts?
It would be meaningless to do so.... just as meaningless as your
comment.
What you ARE trying to do is create an image of me.
> Heck, you probably
>believe
Again, note how Chuck starts his comment..... you probably believe....
you see Chuck really has no idea of what I would believe but he wants
you to believe he somehow does know.
Chuck is not arguing about the JFK assassination, or presenting a
reasoned argument. He is using spin to create an image about a poster.
It is pointless except for the perceived propaganda value he must
associate with such an effort.
> in a conspiracy to kill RFK, too, even though the shooting was
>at point blank range and the killer was captured in the act.
False. I have no opinion regarding the RFK assassination. But Chuck
doesn't know that and could care less anyway. What is important to
Chuck is what HE SAYS I think rather than what I really do think.
>You
>probably believe
Again and again... the spin goes on and on.....
>Bush/Cheney are behind 9-11 and that the Iraq War is a
>war for oil to advance the American neo-con empire, blah, blah, blah.
It is your blah, blah, blah, not mine.
You probably believe child porn is good, eh, Chuck?
How does that feel? Do you like it when other people show you such
disrespect and invent things about you and pretend to know what you
believe?
Eh, Chuck?
We are all desperately waiting for more of your BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
>I'll happily stand corrected if I'm wrong about your views on the
>events listed above.
Wrong? Why would you ever assume you were right?
You don't have a clue about me. Have never met me, never talked to me,
etc.
But that isn't what's important to you though.
And your post isn't really about the JFK assassination.
It's just about your spin, and you don't seem to realize your effort
is transparent to all.
>> PF
PF
severin
Woah! I said _my_ inital conclusion of conspiracy was based on a very
selective presentation of information - one pro-conspiracy TV show I saw as
a pre-teen and various pop-culture references. Nothing to do with your
theory or presentation.
>
>>>
>>>> In more recent times, a great deal of new analysis has pretty well
>>>> nailed the question of conspiracy. This is based on the well
>>>> established fact that the spacing of the shots was inconsistent with a
>>>> single sniper firing the alleged murder weapon.
>>>>
>>>> There is a detail presenation on the subject at this URL:
>>>>
>>>> http://two.fsphost.com/reharris/jfk.mov
>>>>
>>>> And a lengthy article here:
>>>>
>>>> http://two.fsphost.com/reharris/jfk.mov
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't get video, only audio. My Quicktime claims it is up-to-date.
>
> Just download Quicktime 7.1, as I stated before.
>
Sorted. Watched it.
>
>>>
>>> I don't want to argue the validity of your theory in this thread.
>
> Somehow, I suspect that you would love to argue about its validity, if
> you had the ammunition to do so:-)
>
I may argue it later in another thread, but it isn't the point of this
thread.
>
>>> Instead,
>>> I am happy to assume, for the sake of argument, that your evidence is
>>> valid. What does that imply about the conspiracy you suggest?
>
> It does not imply; it proves that this conspiracy killed President
> Kennedy.
>
Maybe, but I am interested in what it implies about the plans of the
conspiracy. If I understand it right, you have at least two shooters, one
using a silenced firearm. Where are they located?
That works too.
The conspiracies seem to get pretty complicated if they don't allow that.
That is plausible as a motive. In fact it is the only explanation of Oswald
as a phony lefty that makes much sense to me in light of the testimony of
the people that knew him. Robert said he was "obsessed" with that show.
So at what point (if ever) did Oswald convert from fantasizing about being
an undercover red for the FBI to actually working for them?
Couldn't he have actually joined more socialist organisations if that was
his aim?
Why should Oswald pretend to be disaffected with CPUSA and write things like
"The Atheian System" and "The Communist Party of the United States Has
Betrayed Itself" if he wasn't a true believer, but trying to destroy from
within? Wouldn't he achieve more by firmly allying himself with either CPUSA
or SWP?
And how do you explain Walker?
>
>>>
>>>> and was very
>>>> likely, in cahoots with the killers.
>>>>
>>>
>>> A conspiracy that doesn't include Oswald has to explain all the evidence
>>> incriminating him in some way.
>
> Oswald was on exactly the same page as the others. He literally,
> destroyed the FPCC and tried to do the same to the ACLU. He was
> apparently, considering doing the same to the C.O.R.E. in Clinton, La.
>
> I am pretty much convinced that Oswald's intention was to martyr
> himself, following the assassination - taking the full blame for the
> crime and hoping that his connection to Castro would result in
> bringing him down.
>
> He had already proven himself to be suicidal in Russia, and he was
> obviously, trying to do the same, in the Texas theater.
>
When I speculate about Oswald's motives and plans, martyrdom seems likely to
me too.
Your theory of Oswald's motive is internally consistent so far, save for my
queries above.
Yes, but things are very different if someone other than Oswald is
identified or captured. Do the other shooters have the left-wing background
and impulse to matyrdom of Oswald? They might blow the legend or crack under
pressure and talk.
Also, your scenario requires Oswald's capture. Why didn't he just tarry in
the TSBD to ensure he was caught? Why not pull a gun on Marion Baker just
after the shooting?
>
>>>
>>> Are their aims still acheived if the additional shooters are idenified
>>> or
>>> captured?
>
> They are if they manage to kill Kennedy, and if Oswald associates the
> assassination with Castro.
>
But will that association stick if the other shooters don't fit the legend?
>
>>>
>>> Are their aims still acheived if both shooters fail to kill JFK?
>
> Not totallly of course, although the attempt could still be associated
> with the commies.
>
Fair enough. The plotters can be realistic about their chances of success
and still think it is worthwhile proceeding.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Historically, crimes like this have indeed, been carried out by
>>>> individuals as well as by small groups. It is ridiculously illogical
>>>> to hope that you can resolve the conspiracy question by trying to
>>>> generalize this way.
>>>>
>>>> There is really only ONE way to resolve this question, and that is by
>>>> looking through a lot of evidence and testimony. Check out those links
>>>> I gave you and see if you don't agree.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The correct way to draw conclusions about the assassination is the same
>>> as
>>> with any other rational enquiry - you collect the evidence, form a
>>> hypothesis on the basis of this evidence, then attempt to disprove the
>>> hypothesis.
>
> Well, I believe the SA hypothesis has certainly been disproven.
>
Sorry, what is SA? Sole-Assassin?
> I think there is also, more than sufficent evidence to make some
> important conclusions about the nature of the assassination - such as
> that it was about Cuba and an attempt to blame the crime on Castro.
>
A plot with this aim makes more sense than many others. Killing JFK is a
means rather than an end in this plot, correct? They can fail to kill JFK
and still achieve some of their aims.
Also, choosing such a public spot is not a disadvantage when the plan
requires the assassin to be identified and caught.
> What I don't know, and may never know with certainty, is the extent of
> involvement by the CIA and FBI. Oswald was involved with both
> organizations, but the lack of a genuine investigation leaves us with
> very little evidence about who among them, might have been supporting
> the attack.
>
Have you any evidence or opinions about the identity and affiliations of the
immediate conspirators (other shooters and closely associated people?)
>>>
>>> This thread is not an attempt to draw conclusions about the
>>> assassination.
>
> Why not?
>
> Isn't 43 years, enough time to speculate and guess? Maybe it's time
> that we start to get serious about finding out what really did happen.
>
>
By all means, but my project in this thread is to understand the kind of
conspiracy scenarios people believe in and why they believe them.
Thanks for responding,
Regards,
Severin
severin
Yes, but you are assuming they actually have something more to tell us
about the assassination. I'm asking how you know they are concealing
further information.
>>
>> >>
>> >> The argument that the "real" conspiracy evidence is being suppressed
>> >> has been made for years, but each time evidence is released, it proves
>> >> not to be the "real" conspiracy evidence. Is there a point at which
>> >> you
>> >> would accept that there isn't any?
>> >
>> > Each time evidence is released, it is still the evidence the government
>> > is willing to release at the time. The government is still not
>> > releasing the evidence they want to control. At this point, there's
>> > probably a lot of evidence that no longer exists or that doesn't exist
>> > in a place that can be determined. So, to be quite straight-foward with
>> > you, no, I doubt I'll ever be satisfied.
>> >
>>
>> That, and your previous answer, seems to me to be an admission that your
>> contention that there is evidence which proves a conspiracy that the
>> government is concealing is a matter of faith with you. You have no proof
>> the evidence exists, you cannot specify what evidence exists, you just
>> believe it must exist because you believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy,
>> and because you believe the government knows that, correct?
>
> No. You keep reading between the lines.
I'm trying to examine implications. But please correct me when I
misprepresent your position.
> Again, NOBODY knows what
> evidence exists but has not been released. What we do know is that the
> evidence that remains logically has to be the evidence that the
> government considers the most secret and seemingly the most damaging.
>
But you don't explain how you know that there _is_ evidence remaining.
Have you considered that the government does not possess any secret and
damaging information about a JFK conspiracy? Have you considered that
evidence may be being withheld for other reasons (eg protecting
intelligence sources and methods), but that that evidence does not suggest
or prove conspiracy?
>>
>> So what convinces you it was a conspiracy, and what convinces you the
>> government must know that?
>
> I didn't say the government MUST know that. It's just that if they
> don't know, then they're faking it VERY well. Why keep secrets if you
> have nothing to hide?
>
You say the government probably knows about the conspiracy because they
are keeping secrets about the assassination. But you have no proof that
they are keeping secrets, you just assume that they are keeping secrets
because they haven't released any information about the conspiracy. Is
that correct?
I'm examining the implications.
> They took the little they
> knew and jumped to a conclusion that suited their purposes.
So what relationship does the SBT have with "the little they knew"?
> Just take a
> look at page 117 again. Look how much the WC admits that they didn't
> know. If you don't know what shot missed, how can you know some other
> shot hit two people? It's ludicrous.
>
So are you saying that each shot is affected by the shots fired before and
after it? If the WC has evidence to suggest that one shot hit two people,
how does the path of any previous or subsequent shot have any bearing on
that evidence? Why is it essential to know the path of all shots?
>>
>> In other words, the WC did not manipulate, distort, ignore or create
>> evidence relating to the SBT?
>
> I didn't say that, either.
>
Did they abide by the evidence they had or didn't they? You said the SBT
was based on "what they knew and what they wanted the outcome to be".
Doesn't that mean it was consistent with what they knew (ie the evidence
they had)?
>>
>> In that case, it is unfair to say they "concocted" it, is it not? You are
>> saying the SBT is a valid "lone-assassin" theory of the assassination and
>> is
>> not contradicted by the evidence available to the WC. I understand you
>> are
>> not saying that the lone-assassin theory itself is correct, only that the
>> SBT is a valid theory in support of it.
>
> I stand by my use of the word "concocted".
>
As you are entitled to.
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I am assuming here that you posit the purpose of the WC was to "sell"
>> >> the lone-assassin theory, to satisfy the public's demand for an
>> >> investigation and convince them that the lone-assassin explanation is
>> >> correct, so as not to draw attention to the true conspirators. Is this
>> >> an incorrect assumption?
>> >
>> > End the statement with "explanation is correct" and I'd say absolutely,
>> > no question about it. Add in the phrase about conspirators and I'd say
>> > likely.
>> >
>>
>> So their motivation in "selling" the lone-assassin theory was not
>> necessarily to protect the true conspirators from discovery, but, say, to
>> avoid domestic or internation political disruption?
>
> Give me all the evidence and I'll give you a more informed answer.
>
OK. Could you guess at their motivation?
>>
>> >>
>> >> Assuming I have understood you so far, I return to my question - if
>> >> the
>> >> purpose of the WC is to sell the lone-assassin theory, and the WC are
>> >> willing and able to "concoct" evidence to achieve this, why pick such
>> >> a
>> >> poor explanation to convince people?
>> >
>> > It was the best Specter came up with.
>> >
>>
>> But why is it the best? As you agreed above that the SBT does not
>> contradict
>> the evidence available to the WC, I would submit it was the best Specter
>> came up with because it was the best "lone-assassin" theory of the
>> assassination - ie the theory that best matched the evidence.
>
> I don't know why Specter couldn't come up with anything any better. All
> I know is that he didn't.
>
Do you find it strange that that was the theory he picked to sell the
lone-assassin explanation of the shooting? Do you think he was trying to
make his theory fit the evidence?
>>
>> You have agreed as much above.
>
> Uh, again, no.
>
You said the SBT agreed with what the WC knew and what they wanted to
outcome to be. I am suggesting that Specter picked the SBT becaused it
agreed with what they knew better than any other theory (given their
pre-determined conclusion).
>>
>> So to continue investigating the implications of your conspiracy scenario
>> (the purpose of this thread), could you fill me in on the competing
>> conspiracy theory of the assassination which you subscribe to?
>
> I don't subscribe to a theory. I follow what I know and what I sense.
>
OK. I am attempting to discover how you know what you know about the
assassination.
So you don't have a working theory of what happened to guide you in your
enquiries? Am I right to say that you start from what you know and sense,
and attempt to discover more information about what happened from there?
> What I sensed immediately was that Ruby killing Oswald was a hit.
>
If the evidence did not support that conclusion, would you abandon it? Or do
you trust what you sensed?
>From there, I know that governments don't keep secrets without a
> reason.
>
> I know that Oswald was no lone nut. His trips to Russia and Mexico, his
> attempts to manipulate both right and left wing organizations, his
> encounters with the FBI certainly reveal to us that he should not be
> characterized as a lone nut.
>
I think maybe "lone nut" is a perjorative term that confuses things. It
suggests Oswald must be insane and incapable. Let's avoid it and use
"acting alone" instead. How do you know, from Oswald's actions you listed
above, that he wasn't acting alone when he did them? What does that tell
you about wether he acted alone when killing JFK?
> The evidence suggests to me that Oswald was likely a patsy.
>
Do you have a theory about who set him up? Why do you think they would do
that?
>>
>> What is it's alternative explanation of the evidence explained by the
>> SBT?
>
> In order to have a bullet hit Tague, a bullet hit both JFK and JBC and
> a bullet hit JFK, you have to have at least two magic bullets (the head
> shot might as well be considered a magic bullet or more precisely a
> magic shot since the other two were not nearly as good). Math alone
> tells me that's so incredibly unlikely as to make it preposterous.
>
Have you attempted to calculate the probability of these things with math?
Or have you studied the trajectories with math? What about the mathematics
tell you those trajectories are incredibly unlikely?
If the evidence all suggested something unlikely but not impossible had
happened, would you reject the evidence?
Also, there are lone-assassin theories that have Tague hit by a fragment
of a bullet that hit JFK or JBC. Some of these lone-assassin theories
don't include the SBT at all, but have 3 shots hitting. On what basis do
you reject those theories?
>>
>> >>
>> >> People are rarely convinced of the SBT on first hearing. Those who
>> >> come
>> >> to believe it often need to hear all the evidence in it's favour
>> >> explained in detail. The SBT is a difficult idea to "sell" to the
>> >> public. If the WC was trying to "sell", and they weren't completely
>> >> constrained by the evidence, why didn't they concoct something
>> >> "catchier"?
>> >
>> > I don't know. I guess I'm not the one to ask.
>> >
>>
>> I would suggest you do know, and admitted as much above. The WC selected
>> the
>> SBT because the SBT best corresponds with the evidence and the
>> pre-determined conlusion that a lone assassin was responsible.
>
> No, I don't know that. Again, let's go back to page 117. Look at how
> much the WC admits to NOT knowing. How can we say they cracked the most
> crucial part of the case when they didn't know the most fundamental
> aspects? You give them far too much credit.
>
So you don't believe the WC can make any conclusions about the path of one
bullet without making conclusions about the paths of all other bullets
fired? What are the "fundamental" aspects they must first determine, and
what are the "crucial" aspects that can't be determined before them?
Is it possible that they admitted not knowing some things because they
didn't have enough evidence to draw any meaningful conclusions about those
things? Does that mean the conclusions they did draw from strong evidence
are wrong?
>>
>> Do you posit conspiracy because you have a multi-shooter scenario that
>> better corresponds with the evidence?
>
> No.
OK. So do you believe multiple shooters were involved?
If so, what causes you to believe that rather than any single-shooter
scenario that corresponds with the evidence?
Thanks very much for your responses, Tex.
Regards,
Severin
severin
And if a crowd accused him?
>> Did the conspirators think that that witness would likely grow suspicious
>> later (as people did)? Such a witness could possibly ID the shooter. At
>> the very least they would basically confirm the idea that there was a
>> second shooter.
>
> So what if witnesses said they saw a grassy knoll shooter? They could
> count on people like you to call them kooks.
>
I suggest those accusations have arisen because the witnesses claiming
they saw a GK shooter are few in number and inconsistent in testimony over
time. If several people saw the same thing and described it consistently
that tactic would not be effective. Your plotters are confident all
witnesses can be intimidated or discredited?
>>
>> So how do you think your conspirators planned to deal with their second
>> shooter being exposed in this way?
>>
>
> Well concealed. Position protected by the back-up man.
> The sniper is being protected by the spotter.
>
I'm not really convinced it is possible to be well concealed from nearby
motorcade spectators in that location. But I will assume it is for the
sake of this discussion.
>
>>>> Would it continue to work if the GK shooter was captured on film?
>>>> (there
>>> It seems to have worked because the grassy knoll shooter WAS captured on
>>> film. We have one WC defender here who denies the existence of Black Dog
>>> Man and claims it is a shadow on the fence. So dedicated WC defenders
>>> can deny anything.
>>
>> [off topic]
>> My personal opinion after brief study is that the "Black Dog Man" image
>> may be a person, or it may be a shadow, the image is not clear enough to
>> say. I suspect more than one WC defender would agree with that analysis.
>> Even if it is a person, which I suspect it may well be, that doesn't mean
>> that person is a shooter. But that is irrelevant to this discussion.
>> [/off topic]
>>
>
> I doubt there are many who are on the fence so to speak. Either you
> believe there was a person there or not.
No, there is a third option: you do not believe there is enough information
to say with certainty either way.
>
>>>> were several people with cameras opposite the GK. At least one of those
>>>> photos was in the hands of the press almost immediately - what if
>>>> Moorman had a decent camera instead of a Polaroid? What if Altgens
>>>> didn't hesitate to take his photo at the time of the headshot?)
>>>>
>>> Ah yes. What if.
>>
>> "What if" is the whole point of this thread. I want to examine what the
>> conspirators answers might have been to the "what if" questions that came
>> up during their planning. I want to see if their plan is rational and
>> consistent.
>>
>
> You want rational and consistent? Were the CIA's Castro plots rational and
> consistent? Study all political assassinations.
I didn't say I "want" rational and consistent, I said I want to see if the
conspirators plan is rational and consistent. If you do not believe that
their plan was rational and consistent, that is fine by me. It helps me
understand why you and I draw different conclusions about this case.
>
>>> And ignore the fact that her photo does show the shooter. Nice touch.
>>
>> You misunderstand me. I am not arguing the lone-assassin case in this
>> thread. I am trying to examine the implications of your conspiracy
>> theory.
>
> No, you are setting up strawman arguments.
As you like.
Please consider that I am not following the conventions of this newsgroup
in trying to score points against "the opposition" in this thread
(although I did get sidetracked responding to Peter Fokes). I am trying to
understand why you and I have drawn different conclusions from the same
evidence. I do not believe the lone-assassin theory is absolutely correct.
It seems the best explanation of the evidence I am aware of. You could
convince me otherwise if your theory is a better explanation of the known
evidence.
>
>> My question still holds, what if Mary Moorman had a decent camera and
>> recorded a _clear_ image of the GK shooter? Surely you agree the image in
>
> Your question is moot. We can already see the grassy knoll shooter in her
> photograph. That does not mean that even with a classy camera we could
> identify him. You can't identify Black Dog Man or the other two men on the
> steps next to Emmet Hudsen.
But it is not impossible that a clear photo or film of the GK shooter
could have been taken. Just because it didn't happen doesn't mean it
_could not_ have happened. Do you think the plotters ruled out the
possibility of the GK shooter being clearly photographed?
>
>> Moorman is ambiguous, otherwise there would be no disagreement about it.
>> If
>
> No. Moorman is not ambiguous which is why WC defenders are the only ones
> who can't see the shooter.
Are you claiming that any person who is not a "WC defender" will always
identify that image as a shooter?
So all people who believe a conspiracy killed JFK (80%+ of the US
population IIRC) agree that Moorman clearly shows a shooter?
>
>> it is a GK shooter, a better camera (or Altgens) could have produced a
>> much clearer image of that shooter with greater forensic value.
>
> Greater forensic value? Such as what?
>
Such as being able to identify the shooter and be used as evidence in
their prosecution. Or at least having an image which is clearly
identifiable as a person shooting.
>>
>>>> Why should the plotters choose a scenario with so many observers with
>>>> cameras?
>>> Exactly. Why should anyone ever murder anyone else since there is always
>>> some possibility of being photographed. So Hinckley would not shoot at
>>> Reagan because he was surrounded by photographers? Remember the Aquino
>>> assassination? The guards kept the photographers away so that they could
>>> not film the guards shooting Aquino. Dedicated assassins will kill their
>>> target live on TV in front of millions. So what?
>>>
>>
>> Anthony, you misunderstand my question. The motivations of assassins
>> vary. Hinckley, for example, needed to be identified so he could impress
>> Jodie Foster. I am trying to examine the motivations of the assassins you
>> posit.
>
> He did not need to be identified so that he would be intercepted before he
> could get off any shots as Squeaky was.
Sure, but his plan can only succeed if Jodie knows he did it.
>
>> Most conspiracy theorists posit that the conspirators wanted to kill JFK
>> but not be identified by the public as the assassins. To achieve this
>> they
>
> Maybe some do. Certainly they did not want to be interrupted, as Sarah
> Jane Moore was.
>
>> planned the event and manipulated the aftermath so that Oswald would
>> appear to be the sole guilty party. Having your GK shooter recorded
>> unambigously on camera foils that plan.
>>
>
> No, they could count on people like you.
Are you claiming I am a CIA asset?
> Elite assets in the media, for example.
So the CIA controls all media outlets? Are you really claiming that the
CIA could prevent the image of the century (JFKs shooter caught in the
act) from being broadcast or printed anywhere?
>
>> If that is not the kind of conspiracy you posit, please set me straight
>> here. I said when I first responded to you that I was assuming that your
>> conspiracy scenario was very similar to pjspeare's. and you did not
>> contradict me.
>>
>
> Well, I'll try to contradict every word you utter, but there is a limited
> amount of time each day.
>
>>
>>>> It seems the CIA scenario requires the plotters to be identified by the
>>>> victim or his successors (so they know not to "mess with" them), but
>>>> not by the public, and the victim (or his successors) are expected to
>>>> be complicit in concealing the plotters identity.
>>>>
>>> My scenario may be slightly different. It is a rogue operation by CIA
>>> agents. Like Watergate and Hunt's little projects. Supported by the CIA,
>>> but not an official CIA project.
>>> The bravado is similar to a Mafia hit or local gangs. There are 1,000
>>> witnesses to the killing in broad daylight and everyone knows who did
>>> it, but no one will testify.
>>>
>>
>> Ok, that kind of answers my question above. So your conspirators expected
>> that if they were identified, they could intimidate people into not
>> testifying?
>>
>
> Certainly.
> You gonna argue with a SS agent pointing a gun at your face?
Certainly not at the time. But I might later go to a trusted media or
police institution and tell of the intimidation, hoping to recieve
protection. Do you believe the CIA is still in a position to prevent that
happening?
>
>> In that case, how might they have dealt with the possibility of media
>> broadcast of clear evidence of their involvement (say a photo that
>> clearly shows an identifiable shooter who can be connected to the
>> conspirators)?
>
> Now, can you explain to me who in the media would instantly recognize
> Emilio Santana or Gerry Droller?
> Can you identify every person in every photo taken in Dealey Plaza? Do you
> know anyone who can?
If the media copy and broadcast/print the picture very soon after the
assassination, it cannot later be suppressed. They don't need to identify
the person shown at the time. Dedicated researchers and law enforcement
people will work to identify the individuals from the photos. The
government would be forced to throw massive resources at the
investigation. Do you disagree?
While there may be people in the DP photos still unidentified, do you
really think they would still be unidentified if they were photographed in
the act of shooting at the POTUS?
>
>> Moorman and Altgens potentially could have taken that photo. Wouldn't
>> that create a national public demand for investigation and retribution?
>> They can't intimidate the entire audience of NBC.
>>
>
> Oh my God. Some people claim that Altgens did take a photo of the killer,
> Oswald in front of the TSBD.
He isn't firing a rifle at the time, though, is he?
> So, is that claim proof?
It would be strong evidence if the photo showed him shooting a rifle.
> There was a national public demand for an investigation. It was called the
> HSCA.
And that was on the basis of the inconclusive evidence people had at the
time. If there was a clear photo of an identifiable shooter, do you claim
the US public would have gotten nothing more than a HSCA-style enquiry?
> No one was talking about retribution.
Because they could not identify the killers. If they could, would that
still be the case? You claimed elsewhere (another sub-thread, I think)
that the WC reached the conclusion it did because they were trying to
avoid starting WWIII. I assume you mean that if the evidence suggested a
communist conspiracy, the public would demand retribution, which would
spark a global conflict. Why wouldn't they demand retribution if they
learnt it was a CIA conspiracy?
> Do you think we should nuke England for burning down the White House?
You seem to be claiming elsewhere that people would want to nuke the USSR
or Cuba if they thought they killed JFK.
>
>>>>>> Also they have the problem of the target being alerted or protected
>>>>>> in some way before he can be shot. For example, one of the SS agents
>>>>>> may have spotted something and reacted in the same way that
>>>>>> Youngblood did with LBJ early enough to prevent the fatal shots to
>>>>>> JFK. There are photos of SS agents riding on the rear of the
>>>>>> presidential limo earlier in the trip, how were they to know that
>>>>>> wouldn't be the case in Dealy Plaza?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Depends on the level of sophistication of the conspirators. Not my
>>>>> theory, but some nut has claimed that the conspirators, not JFK
>>>>> himself, ordered that the SS agents not ride on the rear of the
>>>>> Presidential limo.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Even if they did forbid agents to ride on the limo, how can the
>>>> conspirators be sure that no-one in the car would show the presence of
>>>> mind that Rufus Youngblood did? He got LBJ out of harms way after the
>>>> first shot. What if JFK hears a shot or sees something prior to the
>>>> first shot and takes cover?
>>>>
>>> How would they know that Clint Hill would not jump off the follow-up car
>>> and run up to the limousine? That doesn't matter when they triangulate
>>> fire. If the target is obscured by one angle, another angle is open.
>>> You have to realize that there are professionals who are paid millions
>>> of our tax dollars to work out details like this.
>>>
>>
>> By triangulate, do you mean three shooters?
>>
>
> I think that is what triangulate means, coming from the root word
> "triangle" meaning three sided figure.
Thankyou.
>
>> Regardless of triangulation, JFK can still duck or hit the deck. SA
>> Ready, SA Hill or even Jackie can still jump on top of him and shield him
>>
>
> No, JFK can not duck. There is no room to duck.
Look at the photos of the limo on the way to Parkland. Pictures of the
Pain p245, p477, p480, p484, p567. No room to hit the deck?
> And he was wearing a back brace. Instead of theorizing you need to look at
> real life conditions.
So noone can physically cover him from fire?
>
>>>> Why would the plotters choose a plan that has the rear shooter firing
>>>> and potentially alerting the limo occupants BEFORE the GK shooter had a
>>>> chance to hit?
>>>>
>>> Maybe you missed my point the first 10,000,000 times.
>>
>> I didn't catch you making that point earlier in this thread. Remember I
>> am not a veteran of this NG, I'm not familiar with all your other posts.
>>
>>> The man on the grassy knoll was not supposed to shoot unless the target
>>> was getting away alive.
>>
>>
>> There goes your triangulation for the early shots though, unless you have
>> several shooters with triangulated LOF to higher up Elm.
>>
>
> I did not say there was triangulation for early shots. Triangulation
> allows a secondary shooter to hit the target if the primary shooter does
> not have a good shot. Maybe someone walks in front of the target.
>
So we are back to the TSBD shooter alerting the victims before the
plotters have triangulation. But failure is still somewhat acceptable for
the plotters in your scenario, so I guess that is OK.
>
>>>> Are the plotters aims achieved if they are unable to hit the target? If
>>>> they are publicly identified?
>>>>
>>> Partially. Like the Mossad revenge assassinations. It sends the message
>>> that they can strike anyone anytime anywhere.
>>>
>>
>> OK.
>> So like pjspeare, your conspirators primarily wanted to send a message?
>> What effect was the message supposed to have? Is triangulated fire in a
>> public place with plenty of cameras the only or even the best way to
>> deliver their message?
>>
>
> Yes, if it is a coup d'etat. How about the way the US assassinated Zarqawi
> the other day? They did not quietly poison him or get one of his aides to
> shoot him. Dropping those bombs sends a message to all the terrorists that
> there are no rules when the US wants to kill someone. Women, children,
> Mosques, Hospitals.
>
OK. I understand. Choosing a public place fits this scenario. The
preponderance of cameras in DP though suggests the plotters are
over-confident of their ability to control incriminating images.
>> Was assigning the blame to Oswald the "silly little Communist" an
>> integral part of the plot or just an added bonus?
>
> Essential because of Oswald's background. It is called false sponsorship.
> Make it look as though the Russians did it. CIA used to do that in the
> Middle East all the time.
>
How does the conspiracy maintain false sponsorship if the GK shooter or
the 3rd shooter is identified or captured? Do those shooters have the
right background too?
>> For that matter, was Oswald a shooter in this theory, or just his rifle,
>> or neither?
>>
>
> I can't tell if Oswald was a shooter, but I doubt it.
So do you think his rifle was used? If not, how did they ensure bullets
traceable to it were recovered?
Indeed, how do they ensure no bullets from the other shooters are
recovered?
>
>> And if one or more shooters (other than Oswald) were identified and
>> linked to the CIA publicly, would they still achieve their aims? Mightn't
>> public
>
> How? So what if one of the criminals was linked to the CIA? Two of the
> Watergate criminals were directly linked to the CIA and the rest
> indirectly. Nothing came of it.
>
I would suggest that the links would be more agressively persued in the
case of the assassination of a president.
>> outrage give JFK or LBJ the courage to retaliate against the CIA and
>> truly splinter it into all those pieces, instead of heeding their
>> message?
>>
>
>
> Some people do play that game of what JFK would have done. But since he
> was dead I don't think there is much he could have done about it.
You understand the purpose of this thread. It is to look at the planning
process of the conspirators. Are you suggesting they did not contemplate
failure? If they did, they had to consider what would happen if JFK
survived and the "false sponsorship" plan failed.
Thanks for your time,
Regards,
Severin
severin
> On 16 Jun 2006 11:29:14 -0400, "severin"
> <seve...@removethisbit.bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>>Let me clarify. My statement that "various fragments of bullets that were
>>recovered have been demonstrated to come from only two bullets to a high
>>degree of certainty" is incorrect as written. I should say that the
>>fragments _that_have_been _tested_ have been demonstrated to come from
>>only
>>two bullets.
>
> And how many shots did most people hear?
3 of course. But without another bullet, it doesn't prove anything. It
makes it highly likely there were 3 shots, but it doesn't prove it. We are
still missing a 3rd bullet or fragment provable not to be part of the
known 2 bullets.
>
>> We can't say anything about the origin of the other fragments,
>>so we only have strong evidence in favour of two shots.
>
> There is strong evidence of at least 3 shots.
We are arguing semantics here. There is a lot of evidence for 3 shots, but
none of it is as strong as an actual bullet. By strong evidence I mean
falsifiable evidence. We cannot prove wether people did or did not hear 3
shots. We can prove wether we do or do not have the remains of 3 bullets.
The tests done to date only prove that we have the remains of at least 2
bullets.
>
> It is a guess to state the injuries were caused by 2 shots.
All theories are tentative. The SBT should be discarded if a better theory
comes along. But at this time it is the simplest theory that explains the
wounds to both men.
Regards,
Severin
severin
Rahn does not "assume" a missed shot, in the sense of taking it as given
without proving it, then using that fact to prove other things. His work
shows that the evidence is consistent with two shots hitting. It follows
from that that if there were 3 shots, the evidence is consistent with one
of them missing. That a 3rd shot most likely missed is a consequence of
his work, not an assumption. Do you get the difference? A consequence
cannot reduce it to guesswork, because the consequence plays no part in
the work- it _follows_ from the work.
> Do you mean his NAA analysis work or his work on a
>>formalised, rational analysis of the assassination? I don't see how either
>>piece or work must assume a missed shot.
>
>
> In their paper entitled 'Neutron activation and the JFK assassination,
> K.A. Rahn and L.M. Sturdivan conclude the FBI replicate analyses
> "substantiates GUINN's original conclusion that two and only two
> bullets from LEE HARVEY OSWALD's rifle struck the two men."
>
> There is strong evidence of three shots. SO .... use your logic.
I am using logic. We are going round in circles here.
First some definitions :
strong evidence - falsifiable/verifiable evidence.
prove - determine from strong evidence
(these are different to Ken Rahn's definitions)
Where is the falsifiable evidence of 3 shots? We cannot prove if people
did or did not hear 3 shots. We cannot prove if all 3 shells in the TSBD
correspond to bullets that were or were not fired on 22/11/63 in DP. We
can prove if we do or do not have the remains of 3 bullets. Rahn and
Sturdivan show it is very very likely that we do have the remains of at
least 2 bullets. No-one has any stong evidence of a 3rd separate bullet.
The sentence you quoted above says only that if there was a 3rd shot,
there is no evidence of it hitting either of the two men. That is a
consequence of their work, not an assumption.
>
> They state only two bullets struck the men... what about the third
> shot?
>
We never proved it existed. We only know there is a high probability that
it existed. If it did exist, there is no evidence it hit anything. That is
not an assumption, it is a consequence of proving the wounds and fragments
are consistent with only two shots.
> And if that bullet left the limo there is no way for them to know if
> it caused some of the injuries to the men.
>
You are absolutely right. All they can do is select the simplest theory
consustent with all the evidence we have.
> They are guessing.
>
>
Again, all theories are tentative. The SBT is the most correct at this
time because it is the simplest theory consistent with the evidence we
have at this time. If an explanation involving a hit from a 3rd bullet was
consistent with all the evidence and simpler than the SBT, it would be the
most correct theory.
Looks like the scientific method is guessing by your definition.
>
>>>>- I responded that the LN theory does nothing of the sort.
>>>
>>> False. It is a fact that some LNers believe a shot missed.
>>>
>>
>>You do not need to assume a missed shot for the lone-assassin theory to be
>>the most likely explanation of the evidence. The LN theory does not
>>require
>>a missed shot. Some LN theorists posit a missed shot.
>
> But Rahn and Sturdivan do.
>
So what - it is not an assumption. It is a consequence of demonstrating
that there is only evidence of two bullets hitting the two victims. They
dont need to assume that for the proof.
>>>
>>>> The evidence as I
>>>>understand it only proves two shots.
>>>
>>> Wrong. The evidence does not prove how many shots caused the injuries.
>>>
>>
>>Strawman. The injuries are irrelevant.
>
> Wrong. An injury could have been caused by a bullet that left the
> vehicle therefore voiding the S & R argument.
>
> The evidence proves that there were
>>at least two shots fired. There is no strong evidence for any more than
>>two
>>shots.
>
> Yes there is.
>
>> Therefore the evidence only proves two shots were fired.
>
> Wrong. You simply dismiss the majority of witnesses who HEARD three
> shots, including some INSIDE the TSBD.
>
That is not falsfiable evidence. It does not PROVE a 3rd shot. You cannot
disprove someone's contention that those witnesses were all confused by
echoes or all all lying. You can disprove someone's contention that only 1
Mannlicher Carcano bullet was recovered from the crime scene. They are
different kinds of evidence. One is more valuable than the other.
>
> There is
>>much evidence for a third shot, but none of it is strong enough to _prove_
>>a
>>third shot was fired, AFAIK.
>
> A weak argument. There is more evidence available to prove there were
> three shots fired, than evidence to assert only two shots struck the
> men.
>
More evidence but not stronger evidence. If we found wounds and fragments
consistent with 3 bullets and the majority of people only heard two shots,
would you say that was strong evidence for two shots?
If you believe it is a weak argument that we should give more credence to
falsifiable evidence over non-falsifiable evidence, then we haven't
actually strayed off topic after all. That explains to me how you and I
reach different conclusions from the same evidence.
>
>>
>>>
>>> However the LN theory is still the best
>>>>theory going if you reject the SBT and the NAA and argue 3 rounds fired,
>>>>3
>>>>rounds hit.
>>>>
>>>>- PF responded by changing the subject
>>>
>>> I did not. In reference to the SBT, I mentioned it is a myth. In
>>> reference to Rahn and the NAA, I said it is a guess.
>>>
>>
>>Your response to my post did not answer a single question i asked. Instead
>>you posted a completely separate section at the bottom beggining with:
>
> I thought you asked for a scenario that involved conspiracy. I
> outlined the evidence for such a scenario.
>
Sorry, it just seemed like a non-sequitur to me. I was mainly looking for a
shooting scenario - number and location of shooters etc. I will try and
revisit that thread and give you a proper response.
Regards,
Severin
pjsp...@aol.com
through Kennedy and Connally travel in a straight line through Kennedy?
If so, where did it enter? A bullet traveling in a straight line would not
impact on Connally's armpit as depicted by Myers. Myers DISTORTED
Kennedy's body shape to get the back wound to exit Kennedy's throat. Myers
also SHRUNK Connally on the overhead view in order to move his armpit
closer to the middle of the car, and drag the rear-projection of the
wounds off the Dal-Tex Building. Canning's HSCA work is similarly
deceptive. If you believe the bullet did NOT travel in a straight line, do
you agree that Myers' simulation is deceptive?
As far as Specter, is it your contention that a reasonable person could
look at the back wound photo and come to the conclusion the wound in that
photo is consistent with the wound in the Rydberg drawings? Could you
possibly be saying this? And can you possibly believe Specter innocently
forgot to tell the HSCA that he'd seen an autopsy photo before the
re-enactment? He repeatedly complained about the WC's refusal to let him
look at the photo. And then LEFT OUT that he'd seen a photo that failed
to match the drawings he'd had created, drawings that he knew or should
have known had been created WITHOUT REFERENCE to the measurements, and
that HE'D failed to tell anyone on the commission about his looking at
this photo, and what it showed! There can be no doubt his behavior in
this regard was less than admirable. And his theory is garbage. In his
defense, I believe he picked up on a vibe--that he wasn't supposed to look
too hard--and played along. I'm sure you've read the Redlich memo where he
discusses the re-enactment, and where he makes a point of saying that they
only plan on testing whether Specter's theory is plausible, and not if it
is LIKELY. To me, this is the Warren Commission in a nutshell--"Let's come
up with some crap that will sell in Peoria, so we don't have to do the
heavy-lifting and figure out what REALLY happened!!"
James K. Olmstead
>
> "James K. Olmstead" <jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message news:4491...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>
>> "severin" <seve...@removethisbit.bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:449159a9$0$7210$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>
>>> "James K. Olmstead" <jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message news:44908ea9$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "severin" <seve...@removethisbit.bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
>>>> news:448f180f$0$7193$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "severin": Are you claiming that CE 567 and CE 569 are the same round?
>>>>
>>>> If so please outline the basis for this......if not consider that there are three rounds
>>>> fired and three rounds recovered.....no missed shot.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The purpose of this thread wasn't for me to state a position at all, it was to examine the implications of
>>> conspiract theories if you assume they are true.
>>> But it got sidetracked like this:
>>>
>>
>> It's not really sidetracked....but I understand how thread started for one
>> purpose tend to include more than what one expects to address.
>>
>> However, I take it from your response that you can't support a LN positon
>> on the evidence that one shot missed.
>>
>
> No, I'm just saying that you don't need to assume that one shot missed to conslude that a lone-assassin is the most
> likely explanation of what happened.
>
Nobody is worried about or discussing more than one shooter.....the
discussion deals with 3 shots fired from one location and the SBT. For
the most part those that support the SBT also support a "missed shot" as
part of the SBT, yet when pressed they can't support it with facts.
>>
>>> - PF claimed LN theories must assume a missed shot.
>>>
>>> - I responded that the LN theory does nothing of the sort. The evidence as I understand it only proves two shots.
>>> However the LN theory is still the best theory going if you reject the SBT and the NAA and argue 3 rounds fired, 3
>>> rounds hit.
>>
>> There are variations of the LN theory that does consider a "missed shot"....Posner
>> for one, yet when challanged with the evidence of CE 399, CE567 and CE 569
>> they all clam up on the LN position of a missed shot, based on the "Isolation" of
>> Evidence"
>>
>
> I'm confused. What do you mean?
The term "Isolation" of Evidence is part of the thread. To me, discussion
of the shots fired requires that the specific points and the evidence be
"isolated" ie 3 hulls and three rounds. Every effort is made by "missed
shot" supporters of the SBT to avoid discusion of the three rounds
recovered...CE 399, CE 567 and CE 569. Several large carpet fragments
were placed with CE 567, and CE 569 is "isolated"......which is a clear
indications that it's offically considered a seperate round.
>
>>>
>>> - PF responded by changing the subject
>>>
>>> As for CE567s relationship to CE569 - I don't believe the evidence says anything about that as CE569 was not tested
>>> via NAA IIRC. We can't draw any conclusions from CE569 as to the number of shots.
>>
>> Until testing is done, one can only consider two seperate rounds, based on the
>> "Isolation of Evidence" Several fragments were added to CE 567, however
>> CE 569 was "Isolated".
>>
>>>
>>>> thanks in advance of stating your position.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You're welcome.
>>
>> I just sorry that you could not support a missed shot by the "Isolation" of the
>> evidence.
>>
>
> I think there is good evidence to suggest a shot missed. However it is not certain.
There is no evidence within the JFK Records Collection that supports a
missed shot. If there is.....please indicate the material evidence, that
supports that missed shot. You only have to present the exhibit number so
we can be on the same page.
Thanks
jko
Gerry Simone (O)
direction of the wind surely suggests a shooter from the front for one
thing...this is called circumstantial evidence.
So, just because no shells or assassins, etc remained in locations to the
front of JFK doesn't mean that an assassin (s) did not exist. Maybe they
hid in a car trunk; maybe they got away in a clever disguise and shielded
by phony secret service agents; maybe they hid or escaped thru a storm
drain (one researcher found that a drain led to a jail in D.P.).
It's not an irrelevant post. It shows the possible use of silenced
weapons.
Also, clever conspiracies involve distractions to permit perpetrators to
get away.
As an example but maybe not quite an analogy, it's reasonable to say that
Jimmy Hoffa was probably murdered as a result of a conspiracy involving
the mob but we have no guns, bullets, shells, assassins or even a body.
According to you, if nothing tangible is found, ie., 'evidence of someone
on the knoll or in a storm drain firing a weapon', then it absolutely
never existed or happened. According to you, Jimmy Hoffa simply vanished
into thin air.
"chuck schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote in message
news:1150125596.2...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> pjspeare:
>
> Interesting but irrelevant post. There isn't any evidence of someone on
> the knoll or in a storm drain firing a weapon. And the stuff about E.
> Howard Hunt as it relates to the JFK assassination is a factoid.
>
> We do have a considerable amount of evidence showing that a frustrated,
> warped, troubled young man with a failing marriage and children he had
> a hard time supporting fired shots at the Presidential motorcade on
> 11-22-63. In fact, the case is so compelling that you could probably
> discard a big percentage of the hard evidence in the case and still get
> a jury to convict Lee Oswald of a double murder that day.
>
> It is silly to suppose that the Mob, Castro, CIA, Military/Industrial
> Complex, FBI or others would really accomplish anything by murdering a
> president when the number two guy taking over, as is constitutionally
> mandated, is from the same political party and is likely to hold most
> of the same viewpoints as the guy being replaced. Silly.
>
Gerry Simone (O)
Vietnam.
Political party affiliation is irrelevant.
Gerry Simone (O)
If as you say "The CIA probably had more interest in LHO than we've been led
to
> > believe, and partially because of this, they had a fear of being
> > FALSELY linked to the assassination.", is true, then the CIA has nothing
to fear if their interest was to monitor LHO for being a possible Soviet
spy.
If LHO WAS CIA, then they would fear of being falsely accused or negligent
in some way.
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:AoGdncgZMvvkQQ3Z...@comcast.com...
> chuck schuyler wrote:
> > pjspeare:
> >
> > I think you can throw out all of the conspiracy stuff. There wasn't any
> > conspiracy that day to shoot JFK, and the CIA and Mob were not planning
> > on killing him either. The deeper we go on this, the sillier it seems
> > in retrospect.
> >
> > The CIA probably had more interest in LHO than we've been led to
> > believe, and partially because of this, they had a fear of being
> > FALSELY linked to the assassination. They also were trying to keep
> > secret their assassination attempts against Castro and the ongoing
> > attempts to overthrow the Communist government of Cuba. I think the
> > feeling in the CIA was that the right guy was arrested-no plot, and
> > that all this other stuff about Cuba, Castro, etc. is going to put us
> > in a bad light, so let's shut everything down.
> >
> > There isn't any proof that anyone but Lee Oswald was involved that
> > afternoon. You can speculate that a shot was fired west of the TSBD and
> > missed, or that the CIA knew where LBJ and JFK differed in opinions on
> > issues, etc. but like many CT'ers, you display a fundemental lack of
> > understanding regarding the mechanics of conspiracies, and why they
> > fail to hold together.
> >
> > If there was any conspiracy to kill the POTUS, we'd know the hard facts
> > about it by now. A conspiracy this large would be too complex to keep
> > from falling apart. Political winds change, co-conspirators rat out
>
> Please point out for me a conspiracy about as large which had not fallen
> apart. And remember other such as Operation Northwoods which were kept
> secret for 40 years. Did you read the article about the CIA covering up
> its collaboration with the Nazis?
>
> > fellow plotters, people confess because they've had a change of heart,
> > etc. In the CT world, this was the one plot separated from the basic
> > laws of human nature.
> >
> > Unless you can explain away the veritable mountain of evidence against
> > Lee Oswald (and many of your stripe do), LHO did this alone. Stuff
> > about Billy Sol Estes and others is frivolous.
> >
> >
>
Gerry Simone (O)
Yes, the limo IS ONE OF THE CRIME SCENES if not the single most important
one.
If the autopsy was in Dallas, you'd have had actual & experienced
pathologists performing it.
"Peter Fokes" <jp...@toronto.hm> wrote in message
news:fu1692d6vtdbj95tv...@4ax.com...