Larry Sturdivan's book
Kenneth A. Rahn
I just received my copy of Larry Sturdivan's new book "The JFK Myths"
today. I highly recommend it to everyone who wants to understand the basic
simplicity of the JFK case and the power of the physical evidence to lay
it bare. It is published by Paragon Books of St. Paul, and will soon be
available in better bookstores everywhere (I hope).
For all you fans of the neutron activation analysis, I am happy to
report that it is dealt with at several points in the text. Larry's
detailed statistical calculations are presented in one of the appendices.
Although the book is small in size, it is packed with information and
understanding. As Steve Barber has rightfully said, it promises to be an
"educational tool" for all students of the case.
Just for the record, I am getting no cut of the proceeds. :-)
Ken Rahn
--
Kenneth A. Rahn
Graduate School of Oceanography
University of Rhode Island
Narragansett, RI 02882
Peter Makres
"Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote in message
news:433b...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
To All,
Thanks for the heads up Ken, I ordered a copy the minute I saw it
available on Amazon.com. I expect its delivery tomorrow (Thursday). I'm
definitely looking forwad to its arrival.
Peter M.
Kenneth A. Rahn
"Peter Makres" <pmak...@msn.com> wrote in message
I consider the book to be an important moment in our understanding of the
assassination, because it puts a "full stop," as our British friends would
say, on the speculation about conspiracy. It shows in spades how the
physical evidence speaks with one voice.
Ken Rahn
garag...@gmail.com
Say, Ken, does it speak with any more force that the June, 2004 article
by Levy, Grossman et al in the "peer reviewed" journal, Neurosurgery,
did?
Did you know that Grossman's research associate, Larry Sturdivan,
"peer-reviewed" that article, or so he told me?
Since he had collaborated with Grossman, isn't that sort of like
someone "peer reviewing" his own work?
I know you have strong feelings about the sanctity of scientific peer
review, Ken. Care to comment? ;~>
Ha!
Gary
Brian Kelleher
wrote:
>To All,
>
> I just received my copy of Larry Sturdivan's new book "The JFK Myths"
>today. I highly recommend it to everyone who wants to understand the basic
>simplicity of the JFK case and the power of the physical evidence to lay
>it bare. It is published by Paragon Books of St. Paul, and will soon be
>available in better bookstores everywhere (I hope).
> For all you fans of the neutron activation analysis, I am happy to
>report that it is dealt with at several points in the text. Larry's
>detailed statistical calculations are presented in one of the appendices.
> Although the book is small in size, it is packed with information and
>understanding. As Steve Barber has rightfully said, it promises to be an
>"educational tool" for all students of the case.
> Just for the record, I am getting no cut of the proceeds. :-)
>
>Ken Rahn
I advanced ordered it on Amazon, and look forward to receiving it.
Congradulation to Larry for being a published author.
Brian Kelleher
Robert Harris
Does Larry discuss his public acknowledgement in the JFK newsgroups,
of the simultaneous reactions following Z285, by the limousine
passengers?
Gee - how did I know he would omit that, without even seeing his
book:-)
Robert Harris
On 28 Sep 2005 22:54:34 -0400, "Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu>
wrote:
>To All,
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
atlasrecrd
I thought the title of that book was "Strawmen and the People That
Love Them".
I guess I was wrong.
garag...@gmail.com
You know what I found interesting, Ken, is that Larry Sturdivan told me
on the phone the other day that, although he discusses JFK's
medical/autopsy evidence at some length in his new book, he hasn't
bothered to read the 3000+ pages of med/autopsy-related evidence
released by the ARRB over 7 years ago.
One might have hoped that somone who professed to present something
that was au courrant would have familiarized himself with the relevant,
recent literature on the subject in question, don't you think? What
value is there in a book that ignores highly pertinent data that has
been available for more than half a decade?
Is that how science is supposed to be done, Ken? I hope my question
isn't too difficult. Should I expect what I usually get when I ask such
questions - embarrassed silence?
Gary
Cliff
With one voice?
Great!
I agree with you, Dr. Rahn, that physical evidence trumps all
other categories of evidence (eyewitness, ear-witness, documentary,
etc).
In the matter of the location of JFK's back wound, the only direct
physical evidence are the bullet defects in JFK's shirt and
jacket -- 4" below the bottom of the collars, a location 2+" below
the SBT inshoot.
Dr. Rahn, would you please give a brief outline of the methodology
Mr. Sturdivan used to determine that JFK's clothing was elevated
2+" above the C7/T1 inshoot?
Thank you,
Cliff Varnell
PS -- And I'll buy 10 copies if Mr. Sturdivan explains how JFK's
jacket collar DROPPED into a normal position at the base of the neck,
just as the limo turned onto Elm St as seen in the Towner film, when
(according to the SBT) there was 4+" of clothing fabric piled up at
the base of his neck.
>
> Ken Rahn
Kenneth A. Rahn
Please do not misinterpret any lack of a reply as an "embarrassed
silence." That is a big logical fallacy.
Ken Rahn
"garyN...@gmail.com" <garag...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127971622....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Pamela McElwain-Brown
wrote:
With all due respect, Ken, I doubt that this is the case. Does the
book address any of the myths the LNTs put forth?
Pamela
Our hearts go out to all those affected by Katrina and now Rita. The
citizens and their pets will need our help for a long time to come. I
encourage everyone to follow your heart and contribute and share as you
are able. Two of my favorites are the Red Cross http://www.redcross.org
and the ASPCA http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer
The JFK Assassination Presidential Limousine SS-100-X page,
now at http://www.in-broad-daylight.com
Check out www.themagicflute.org for info about me as a flute player and
teacher.
Kenneth A. Rahn
"Cliff" <nk...@sfo.com> wrote in message
news:1128003925.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
I think you should consult his book yourself.
Ken Rahn
Anthony Marsh
I seriously doubt that. WC defenders often say things like that and then
ignore scientific evidence that they do not like and cite eyewitness
testimony that they rely upon.
> In the matter of the location of JFK's back wound, the only direct
> physical evidence are the bullet defects in JFK's shirt and
> jacket -- 4" below the bottom of the collars, a location 2+" below
> the SBT inshoot.
>
What's the matter with looking at the autopsy photos?
> Dr. Rahn, would you please give a brief outline of the methodology
> Mr. Sturdivan used to determine that JFK's clothing was elevated
> 2+" above the C7/T1 inshoot?
>
I hope he didn't say anything so foolish.
> Thank you,
>
> Cliff Varnell
>
> PS -- And I'll buy 10 copies if Mr. Sturdivan explains how JFK's
> jacket collar DROPPED into a normal position at the base of the neck,
> just as the limo turned onto Elm St as seen in the Towner film, when
> (according to the SBT) there was 4+" of clothing fabric piled up at
> the base of his neck.
>
>
>>Ken Rahn
>
>
>
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
Cliff
No thanks. Your non-answer convinces me Mr. Sturdivan doesn't address the
issue of JFK clothes, much less the fact that the jacket collar couldn't
drop down to a normal postion at the base of JFK's neck if there were 4+"
of clothing fabric piled up there.
LNers never address these facts.
Just as you never address the impact of a 20mph swirling wind on the
trajectory of the Fantasy Fragment you claim wounded James Tague.
Thanks anyway for your non-response, Dr. Rahn.
Cliff Varnell
Kenneth A. Rahn
I think you should actually read Larry's book before trying to
denigrate it any further.
Oh, say, I just noticed that your posts before you read things
strongly resemble the posts after you have read things. Hmmm...
Ken Rahn
"garyN...@gmail.com" <garag...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127971959....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Kenneth A. Rahn
"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pame...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:gn8oj1hvabe7hoe5t...@4ax.com...
Are you somjeone who can divine the contents of things without reading
them? If so, could you teach me, please? :-)
Does the
> book address any of the myths the LNTs put forth?
It can't, because nonconspiracists haven't created any myths.
Ken Rahn
Kenneth A. Rahn
"Brian Kelleher" <bkel...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:0l0nj1t4ktq4d2j7t...@4ax.com...
Don't forget that Larry became a published author one year ago with the
two NAA articles.
Ken Rahn
Kenneth A. Rahn
"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:433bf9a...@news20.forteinc.com...
>
>
> Does Larry discuss his public acknowledgement in the JFK newsgroups,
> of the simultaneous reactions following Z285, by the limousine
> passengers?
>
> Gee - how did I know he would omit that, without even seeing his
> book:-)
You don't know it. You are guessing, and not for the first time.
And if he omitted it, you have no clue about the reason. You would be
guessing again.
Ken Rahn
jwrush
> Sent 9/28/05 in response to Ken Rahn's "Larry Sturdivan's book."
>
> You know what I found interesting, Ken, is that Larry Sturdivan told me
> on the phone the other day that, although he discusses JFK's
> medical/autopsy evidence at some length in his new book, he hasn't
> bothered to read the 3000+ pages of med/autopsy-related evidence
> released by the ARRB over 7 years ago.
You seem to be saying that every book on the case must contain all the
pages of all the previous reports written on the case over the years. I
don't think that can be done. Every single book published is limted in
pages, and it covers what the author thinks would be interesting to his
readers. If you want to write about the 3000+ ARRB pages, then publish
your own book about them.
Larry's book will sell well and will be read by many and will be placed in
many libraries -- from junior high schools to universities -- because it
covers a topic that is of great interest to a lot of people: "The JFK
Myths"
LOL.
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>Robert,
Hi Ken,
When you read the book, will you please post whatever Sturdivan says
about the location of the entry and whatever he says about the 6.5mm
cookie frag.
Or anybody else who reads what Sturdivan says about those 2 things
first...
Thanks,
Barb :-)
>
>
Pamela McElwain-Brown
wrote:
I am somewhat psychic. I have discerned so far that "JFK Myths"
probably only applies to those attributed to CTs, for example. So the
correct title should be "Some of the JFK Myths", or "Myths I don't
like", or something like that...:-)
>
> Does the
>> book address any of the myths the LNTs put forth?
>
>It can't, because nonconspiracists haven't created any myths.
>
>Ken Rahn
>
Were only that were so, Ken. The translation of your statement is
that nonconspiratists, keeping blinders firmly in place, refuse to
acknowledge that they have both initiated and expounded upon myths.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
And readers will quickly determine that his book tells only half the
story, as the myths initiated by and expounded by the LNTs will be
excluded.
LOL yourself.
garag...@gmail.com
You know what I found interesting, Ken, is that Larry Sturdivan told me
on the phone the other day that, although he discusses JFK's
medical/autopsy evidence at some length in his new book, he hasn't
bothered to read the 3000+ pages of med/autopsy-related evidence
released by the ARRB over 7 years ago.
One might have hoped that somone who professed to present something
that was au courrant would have familiarized himself with the relevant,
recent literature on the subject in question, don't you think? What
value is there in a book that ignores highly pertinent data that has
been available for more than half a decade?
Is that how science is supposed to be done, Ken? ...
Gary
garag...@gmail.com
adjusting one's view.
Gary
Peter Fokes
I'm going to order the book today.
Congratulations Larry.
I don't mind spoilers though!
Feel free to answer Barb's questions!
PF
Peter Fokes
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
While ordering I noticed the book is published by one of the
universities I attended, University of Toronto.
Will the book be available at the U of T bookstore, Larry?
PF
>>
>>
Pamela McElwain-Brown
<garag...@gmail.com> wrote:
I wonder how much of the conflicting autopsy timeline Larry discusses
also.
jwrush
Gary,
Word going around is that Bugliosi is trying to cover so much of the case
in his "new" book, it's up to 2,500 pages now and his publisher want's him
to cut out 1,000 pages.
So, if YOU want certain topics covered in a book, then YOU must write that
book yourself. You have no right to tell some other writer that he should
cover any particular topic in his own book, just because YOU say he
should.
Larry's book covers some interesting stuff that he wanted to cover, and
many readers will enjoy his book. You'll just have to live with that fact.
If you want other things covered, then write your own book.
Rush
jwrush
> On 30 Sep 2005 00:50:06 -0400, "jwrush" <jwr...@advantas.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"garyN...@gmail.com" <garag...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1127971622....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>> Sent 9/28/05 in response to Ken Rahn's "Larry Sturdivan's book."
>>>
>>> You know what I found interesting, Ken, is that Larry Sturdivan told me
>>> on the phone the other day that, although he discusses JFK's
>>> medical/autopsy evidence at some length in his new book, he hasn't
>>> bothered to read the 3000+ pages of med/autopsy-related evidence
>>> released by the ARRB over 7 years ago.
>>
>>You seem to be saying that every book on the case must contain all the
>>pages of all the previous reports written on the case over the years. I
>>don't think that can be done. Every single book published is limted in
>>pages, and it covers what the author thinks would be interesting to his
>>readers. If you want to write about the 3000+ ARRB pages, then publish
>>your own book about them.
>>
>>Larry's book will sell well and will be read by many and will be placed in
>>many libraries -- from junior high schools to universities -- because it
>>covers a topic that is of great interest to a lot of people: "The JFK
>>Myths"
>>
>>LOL.
>
> And readers will quickly determine that his book tells only half the
> story, as the myths initiated by and expounded by the LNTs will be
> excluded.
LOL. No they won't. The vast majority of readers will quickly determine
that this book tells about many JFK case myths, and they will love that,
because the general public loves to read books exposing myths.
A few CTs will get very upset about this book because they don't want the
myths exposed.
Ha, ha, ha. Too bad.
jwrush
> On 30 Sep 2005 07:17:07 -0400, "garyN...@gmail.com"
> <garag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>No, Johann, that's not what I'm saying at all. I said, instead:
>>
>>You know what I found interesting, Ken, is that Larry Sturdivan told me
>>on the phone the other day that, although he discusses JFK's
>>medical/autopsy evidence at some length in his new book, he hasn't
>>bothered to read the 3000+ pages of med/autopsy-related evidence
>>released by the ARRB over 7 years ago.
>>
>>One might have hoped that somone who professed to present something
>>that was au courrant would have familiarized himself with the relevant,
>>recent literature on the subject in question, don't you think? What
>>value is there in a book that ignores highly pertinent data that has
>>been available for more than half a decade?
>>
>>Is that how science is supposed to be done, Ken? ...
>>
>>Gary
>>
>
> I wonder how much of the conflicting autopsy timeline Larry discusses
> also.
Hi Pam,
If you want the autopsy timeline covered in a book, then write the book
yourself. I don't understand why you CT types insist on telling other
people what they should put in their own book. Do we try to tell you what
you should have on your website? Of course not.
Anthony Marsh
I've heard that the subtitle is "How to make a strawman argument." ;]>
>>Does the
>>
>>>book address any of the myths the LNTs put forth?
>>
>>It can't, because nonconspiracists haven't created any myths.
>>
>>Ken Rahn
>>
>
> Were only that were so, Ken. The translation of your statement is
> that nonconspiratists, keeping blinders firmly in place, refuse to
> acknowledge that they have both initiated and expounded upon myths.
>
> Pamela
>
> Our hearts go out to all those affected by Katrina and now Rita. The citizens and their pets will
> need our help for a long time to come. I encourage everyone to follow your heart and contribute and share as you are able.
> Two of my favorites are the Red Cross http://www.redcross.org
> and the ASPCA http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer
>
> The JFK Assassination Presidential Limousine SS-100-X page,
> now at http://www.in-broad-daylight.com
>
> Check out www.themagicflute.org for info about me as a flute player and teacher.
>
Robert Harris
wrote:
>Robert,
>
>"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:433bf9a...@news20.forteinc.com...
>>
>>
>> Does Larry discuss his public acknowledgement in the JFK newsgroups,
>> of the simultaneous reactions following Z285, by the limousine
>> passengers?
>>
>> Gee - how did I know he would omit that, without even seeing his
>> book:-)
>
>You don't know it.
Yes I do. Look at the book and verify it yourself.
>You are guessing, and not for the first time.
I am not above guessing, but I always say so, when I do.
The fact that I am correct and know I am correct, will confirm that.
>And if he omitted it, you have no clue about the reason.
ROFLMAO!!
Of course I know the reason, which is also why you shrug off
preposterously untrue headline in your own articles, claiming to have
"proven" that only a single assassin was involved in the attack.
Why don't any of your articles discuss the fact that the final shots were
totally inconsistent with a single assassin, using the alleged murder
weapon?
Please be very specific.
Robert Harris
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
Anthony Marsh
Ever hear of the Single Bullet Theory?
Stug...@aol.com
non-random sample? Or can he establish that Guinn's sample was actually
random? You do know the onus is on the person doing the analysis, don't
you? And you do know that any statistician from any math department in
America will tell you that a random sample is difficult to create and
requires deliberate effort? You don't, for instance, take first 14 bullets
someone provides to you and assume you have a random sample. The ASTM
insists on the use of a random number chart at the at the place of
manufacture for the very type of analysis you and Larry are claiming to
perform? Does Larry show how Guinn did this some 20 years after the
bullets were even produced? The chances of me receiving a response to this
email are actually lower than Larry's odds for an NAA false positive.
-Stu
tomnln
You have yet to expose the myths about the authorities destroying
evidence.
"jwrush" <jwr...@advantas.net> wrote in message
news:433d...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Peter Makres
"Anthony Marsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
news:Cmj%e.192$wb3.98@trndny03...
Kenneth A. Rahn wrote:
Also known as Single bullet fact.
Peter Makres
From one of your buddies, I'm sure. 42 years and still trying to rewrite
history.
garag...@gmail.com
chosen to "peer review" a review article on JFK's medical/autopsy
evidence for a distinguished medical journal, "Neurosurgery."
What greater respect can there be than to be acknowledged by legitimate
medical, scientific authoritites for one's expertise on a topic? The
article he reviewed had been authored by one Michael Levy, MD, Ph.D.
and Robert Grossman, MD, the latter of Parkland fame. The article in
June 2004's edition of "Neurosurgery" was an overview, a "review," of
all the JFK medical/autopsy evidence and it was distinguished by
neither author having read any of the more than 3000 pages of
Assassinations Records Review Board declassifications pertaining to
JFK's medical autopsy evidence.
Very luckily for Levy and Grossman, the "peer-reviewer" who approved
the article just happened to be Grossman's research associate, Larry
Sturdivan. Amazing luck, eh? And even more luckily, Sturdivan, who
apparently devotes attention to JFK's med/autopsy evidence in his book,
hasn't read any of the ARRB's med/autopsy releases either!
That's science as it's done these days - by Warrenistas!
I sure wish Warrenistas would be as forgiving of skeptics when they
tried to practice that kind of science! ;~}
Gary
Pamela McElwain-Brown
Really? Which SB scnario are you referencing? WCR? HSCA? Posner?
They were all different, you know.
jwrush
LOL, the Rush-West-Connally version is the best.
twvaug...@yahoo.com
different impact times for the SBT?
Anthony Marsh
All I can say is thank God he debunked the story that aliens shot the
President from a flying saucer.
>>Does the
>>
>>>book address any of the myths the LNTs put forth?
>>
>>It can't, because nonconspiracists haven't created any myths.
>>
>>Ken Rahn
>>
>
> Were only that were so, Ken. The translation of your statement is
> that nonconspiratists, keeping blinders firmly in place, refuse to
> acknowledge that they have both initiated and expounded upon myths.
>
> Pamela
>
> Our hearts go out to all those affected by Katrina and now Rita. The citizens and their pets will
> need our help for a long time to come. I encourage everyone to follow your heart and contribute and share as you are able.
> Two of my favorites are the Red Cross http://www.redcross.org
> and the ASPCA http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer
>
> The JFK Assassination Presidential Limousine SS-100-X page,
> now at http://www.in-broad-daylight.com
>
> Check out www.themagicflute.org for info about me as a flute player and teacher.
>
Peter Makres
<twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128209253.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Are you trying to make the claim that the WC, HSCA, and Posner all have
different impact times for the SBT?
What she is really trying to do is muddy the water and sidestep the central
fact.
Peter M.
John Hunt
> different impact times for the SBT?
Brown picked that up from Marsh. All three concluded that one bullet went
through both men, but their versions are different. Some of we CTs take the
easy way out and bitch about the differences. What we don't do is attack the
theories in detail, where warranted. Take Brown's horrible "Pretty Pig"
piece as the quintessential example. It purports to destroy the SBT, but
merely bitches about differences.
The SBT ultimately fails on the science based on kinetic energy. Once
Larry's book is in the hands of critics (like myself), those issues will
come to the fore. The "Diminishing Velocity Theory" (my term, not
Sturdivan's) fails, leaving the bullet traveling too fast to avoid major
damage on the rib.
For now suffice it to say that Larry's "sideways impact deformation
velocity" for the WCC/MC round changed from 1000f/s in 1978 to 1400 f/s for
his 2005 book. Larry could not slow the bullet down. No one can because the
numbers are already out there. What he did do is *up* the velocity required
to damage the bullet. That "allows" the bullet to strike the rib and not be
more deformed than it is. The trouble is, *how* did that critical change
take place and upon what was it based??
I read and critiqued the book and offered suggestions in advance. I also
have the published book. Keep lurking; I'll post more on this when I have
the time.
John Hunt
>
>
Pamela McElwain-Brown
>Are you trying to make the claim that the WC, HSCA, and Posner all have
>different impact times for the SBT?
Here's the link to The Pretty Pig's Saturday Night, which explains my
thinking in a bit more detail:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2372
The WC posited a 'range' of opportunity only, and used incorrect limo
measurement for the clearance from jump seat to right door, therefore
placing the two models in the reenactment even farther out of actual
alignment. HSCA posited Z190 and Posner chose Z223-4 because of the
supposed (actually a shadow) 'lapel-flip'. So, yes, each is a
different timing and alignment scenario.
Warranistas love to glop the three together, claiming that Posner
'narrowed down' what the WC had 'proven'. Yet, with any examination
at all, we can see the WC did not prove anything, using incorrect
information, and that any 'narrowing down' would only be one of error.
Warrenistas are still looking to the sky for their Hail Mary pass.
The latest hopeful is Larry Sturdivan's book. I've heard from Amazon
that my copy is in the mail, so we will soon be able to see for
ourselves what the latest attempt consists of. :-0
Pamela McElwain-Brown
What 'central fact' are you referencing? If it is so central, why
have you not defined it?
I am attempting to encourage people to look at the scenarios and
rfeason things through for themselves.
Are you saying that an LNT is not supposed to do that?
Pamela McElwain-Brown
wrote:
>
><twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1128209253.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Are you trying to make the claim that the WC, HSCA, and Posner all have
>> different impact times for the SBT?
>
>
>Brown picked that up from Marsh.
Hunt is again mistaken.. "Brown" determined this when she was working
with Foxnews on their 2003 JFK Assassination documentary which was
about the only one presented with a conspiracy base. "Brown"
determined the error in limo measurement, and then proceeded from
there.
>All three concluded that one bullet went
>through both men, but their versions are different. Some of we CTs take the
>easy way out and bitch about the differences. What we don't do is attack the
>theories in detail, where warranted. Take Brown's horrible "Pretty Pig"
>piece as the quintessential example. It purports to destroy the SBT, but
>merely bitches about differences.
TPPSN defines the differences, in hopes of encouraging people to
reason things through for themselves. Hunt doesn't bother to read the
article, just proclaims his revelation about it.
Here's the link:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2372
>
>The SBT ultimately fails on the science based on kinetic energy. Once
>Larry's book is in the hands of critics (like myself), those issues will
>come to the fore. The "Diminishing Velocity Theory" (my term, not
>Sturdivan's) fails, leaving the bullet traveling too fast to avoid major
>damage on the rib.
Interesting Hunt. We'll see.
>
>For now suffice it to say that Larry's "sideways impact deformation
>velocity" for the WCC/MC round changed from 1000f/s in 1978 to 1400 f/s for
>his 2005 book. Larry could not slow the bullet down. No one can because the
>numbers are already out there. What he did do is *up* the velocity required
>to damage the bullet. That "allows" the bullet to strike the rib and not be
>more deformed than it is. The trouble is, *how* did that critical change
>take place and upon what was it based??
>
>I read and critiqued the book and offered suggestions in advance. I also
>have the published book. Keep lurking; I'll post more on this when I have
>the time.
>
>
>John Hunt
>
>
Peter Makres
On 2 Oct 2005 10:12:50 -0400, "Peter Makres" <pmak...@msn.com> wrote:
>
><twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1128209253.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>Are you trying to make the claim that the WC, HSCA, and Posner all have
>different impact times for the SBT?
>
>What she is really trying to do is muddy the water and sidestep the central
>fact.
>
>Peter M.
>
What 'central fact' are you referencing? If it is so central, why
have you not defined it?
Come on, Pam. You know what central fact I am referring to. The fact that
a single bullet wounded both President Kennedy and Governor Connally.
I am attempting to encourage people to look at the scenarios and
rfeason things through for themselves.
Are you saying that an LNT is not supposed to do that?
Yes, I am all for that.
Peter Makres
For the record, I will respond to this. Assuming you mean the time of
impact,
I believe Posner has it right, with the impact being Circa 223-224. I
believe
this to be correct both from the standpoint of Connally's suit bulge, and
the
reactions as the President's car emerges from behind the freeway sign.
Anthony Marsh
> Are you trying to make the claim that the WC, HSCA, and Posner all have
> different impact times for the SBT?
>
>
I simply don't understand your question. Are you challenging that claim?
The HSCA picked frame Z-190 for their SBT.
The WC said some time between Z-210 and Z-225.
Posner et al said Z-224.
Doesn't it bother you in the slightest that no matter which frame is
chosen, advocates of the SBT can align Kennedy and Connally perfectly to
produce a straight line trajectory through their wounds?
It's not much a theory when you can keep changing the data and produce
whatever result you want.
Anthony Marsh
So you say. But you keep changing the hit frames hourly.
Barb Junkkarinen
Amen. The 224 epiphany came with discovery of the lapel flip, as I
recall. Before that, LNs argued aplenty about delayed reactions on
Connally's part. Now they argue JFK reacted with lighning like speed
being hit AND exhibiting visible reactive movements in the span of 1 -
2 frames. Can only imagine the gas CTs would take for such ... uh ...
adaptive to the bottomline fervor.
Barb :-)
Anthony Marsh
> <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1128209253.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Are you trying to make the claim that the WC, HSCA, and Posner all have
>>different impact times for the SBT?
>
>
>
> Brown picked that up from Marsh. All three concluded that one bullet went
I am not the only person to point out that the WC, HSCA, and Posner all
had different Zapruder frames for their SBTs. I simply don't see how
anyone can dispute that fact. Z-190 (HSCA) is not the same frame as Z-224
(Posner et al). But each version usually requires a perfectly straight
line trajectory through both men and it is simply a physical impossibility
that both men always stayed in exactly the same orientation all the way
down Elm Street, as we can see for ourselves in the Zapruder film and
Connally himself testified that he was in the process of turning around
when he was hit.
> through both men, but their versions are different. Some of we CTs take the
> easy way out and bitch about the differences. What we don't do is attack the
> theories in detail, where warranted. Take Brown's horrible "Pretty Pig"
That is exactly what I have been doing, attacking the specific details
about each version.
> piece as the quintessential example. It purports to destroy the SBT, but
> merely bitches about differences.
>
> The SBT ultimately fails on the science based on kinetic energy. Once
Would it were that easy. But remember that the WC defenders argue by
Authority. If one of their scientists argues something which is physically
impossible, we have no choice but to accept it, or be labeled terrorists.
> Larry's book is in the hands of critics (like myself), those issues will
> come to the fore. The "Diminishing Velocity Theory" (my term, not
> Sturdivan's) fails, leaving the bullet traveling too fast to avoid major
> damage on the rib.
Huh? There WAS major damage to the rib. About 5 inches of the rib was
pulverized. One popular WC defender argument is that the actual
deformation of CE 399 on its side, not its nose, was caused at the moment
of hitting the rib. And you have to remember that the WCC M-C jacket was
exceptionally thick. Remember how it penetrated 47 inches of Ponderosa
Pine with absolutely no deformation.
>
> For now suffice it to say that Larry's "sideways impact deformation
> velocity" for the WCC/MC round changed from 1000f/s in 1978 to 1400 f/s for
> his 2005 book. Larry could not slow the bullet down. No one can because the
This is the mark of a true scientist. The numbers can change from day to
day, but they always support the theory.
> numbers are already out there. What he did do is *up* the velocity required
> to damage the bullet. That "allows" the bullet to strike the rib and not be
> more deformed than it is. The trouble is, *how* did that critical change
> take place and upon what was it based??
>
And has anyone actually tested this concept and found out that the range
of values really is? Or is it sufficient for a real scientist to simply
say that such things can never be tested so they are free to pluck numbers
from the sky to fit into their equations?
> I read and critiqued the book and offered suggestions in advance. I also
> have the published book. Keep lurking; I'll post more on this when I have
> the time.
>
>
> John Hunt
>
>
>
>
>>
>
>
>
John Hunt
>
> TPPSN defines the differences, in hopes of encouraging people to
> reason things through for themselves. Hunt doesn't bother to read the
> article, just proclaims his revelation about it.
As usual, Brown is wrong. From my critical response to Brown's "Pretty
Pig," "Sow Many Errors":
The beginning: Pamela Brown wrote an essay on those who have posited a
SBT entitled The Pretty Pig's Saturday Night, which can be found at:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?act=ST&f=197&t=2372&st=0#...
That piece is so shot full of factual errors and lame analysis it boggles
the mind. What follows is an accounting of some of Brown's many and
serious errors of fact. My comments are inserted in [red bracketed text.
Irrelevant stuff has been snipped.]
...
The ending: We conspiracy theorists generally agree that the SBT is
nonsense. I am one of those. Still, Brown has manage to distinguished
herself by created one of the all-time sloppiest pieces ever written on
the Kennedy assassination.
Detail and backed up with citations.
John Hunt
jwrush
No. The hit frame we said in the video in 1991 is 225. The reaction frame
is 226. The video has always remained the same.
Failure analysis said 224 because of the lapel flip.
Bud
Only a general concept of what occurred is needed, the bar in murder
cases has never been so high as to require knowing exactly how all
wounds were caused before drawing conclusions about what occurred.
as to necessitate accounting
garag...@gmail.com
writing what is currently know about that subject. Right? But Larry
told me that he'd not read any of the 3000+ pages of
medical/autopsy-related material put out by the ARRB - in 1998!
What kind of scholarship is it to write as if an authority on a topic
and ignore pertinent and recent data, data that is already now 7 years
old?
You've defended Sturdivan's ignoring the ARRB material and yet if a
skeptic did that, you and Warrenistas would be the first to criticize.
The double standard Warrenistas use is as clear as the shoddy, out of
date scholarship that went into the Levy/Grossman article that
Sturdivan approved as a "peer reviewer" for Neurosurgery, a task he had
no business doing since he'd collaborated with Grossman before the
review.
Gary
Pamela McElwain-Brown
wrote:
>
>"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pame...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:1240k111fu4ded8oc...@4ax.com...
>> On 2 Oct 2005 10:35:40 -0400, "John Hunt" <johnh...@verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>
>>
>> TPPSN defines the differences, in hopes of encouraging people to
>> reason things through for themselves. Hunt doesn't bother to read the
>> article, just proclaims his revelation about it.
>
>As usual, Brown is wrong. From my critical response to Brown's "Pretty
>Pig," "Sow Many Errors":
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/73aaaca526fbfe32?&hl=en&q=%22Sow+Many+Errors%22+group:alt.conspiracy.jfk
Unfortunately, Hunt is also reluctant to acknowledge his errors. He
has a tendency to pounce on points of view that he thinks work to his
advantage. Hunt would do better focusing on the material he is
attempting to put forth than attempting to critique that of others.
>
>The beginning: Pamela Brown wrote an essay on those who have posited a
>SBT entitled The Pretty Pig's Saturday Night, which can be found at:
>http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?act=ST&f=197&t=2372&st=0#...
>
>That piece is so shot full of factual errors and lame analysis it boggles
>the mind. What follows is an accounting of some of Brown's many and
>serious errors of fact. My comments are inserted in [red bracketed text.
>Irrelevant stuff has been snipped.]
Hunt, who maintains at least one paper at McAdams site, seems to have
difficulty maintaining any sort of objective orientation to this
issue.
>
>...
>
>The ending: We conspiracy theorists generally agree that the SBT is
>nonsense. I am one of those.
Any 'conspiracist' who voluntarily places any material at McAdams'
website needs to be viewed with at list a smidgen of skepticism.
>Still, Brown has manage to distinguished
>herself by created one of the all-time sloppiest pieces ever written on
>the Kennedy assassination.
Unfortunately, it is in no way comparable to Hunt's down-the-Drain
series, which simply is a peep show of innuendo and conclusions
hastily drawn.
>
>
>Detail and backed up with citations.
>
>John Hunt
Which arena are you trying to stir up action in today Hunt? Not
getting enough response with RFK? LOL
jwrush
> If Larry writes about a subject in 2005, the assumption is that he's
> writing what is currently know about that subject. Right?
No, the asumption is that Larry writes about the parts of the case he wants
to write about.
If you want a certain thing to be included in a book, then you write that
book. You don't tell other people what to write in their book.
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>>twvaug...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Are you trying to make the claim that the WC, HSCA, and Posner all have
>>>different impact times for the SBT?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>I simply don't understand your question. Are you challenging that claim?
>>The HSCA picked frame Z-190 for their SBT.
>>The WC said some time between Z-210 and Z-225.
>>Posner et al said Z-224.
>>Doesn't it bother you in the slightest that no matter which frame is
>>chosen, advocates of the SBT can align Kennedy and Connally perfectly to
>>produce a straight line trajectory through their wounds?
>>It's not much a theory when you can keep changing the data and produce
>>whatever result you want.
>
>
> Only a general concept of what occurred is needed, the bar in murder
> cases has never been so high as to require knowing exactly how all
> wounds were caused before drawing conclusions about what occurred.
>
I like your reasoning. So if the police find a body with 27 gunshot
wounds from three different calibers, they just ignore the implication
and determine that there was only one shooter and don't bother to look
for the real killers?
Pamela McElwain-Brown
The issue here seems to be research protocol, not topic. If
information is available in the area a writer is researching and it is
excluded, one has to ask why. If the answer is that it would destroy
the thesis being put forth, the limiting of the process will only make
the writer look less professional. However, from the Warranista point
of view, it takes so much time to keep the blinders firmly in place
that ignoring new research is given awards. :-)
Bud
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> Bud wrote:
>
> > Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >
> >>twvaug...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Are you trying to make the claim that the WC, HSCA, and Posner all have
> >>>different impact times for the SBT?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>I simply don't understand your question. Are you challenging that claim?
> >>The HSCA picked frame Z-190 for their SBT.
> >>The WC said some time between Z-210 and Z-225.
> >>Posner et al said Z-224.
> >>Doesn't it bother you in the slightest that no matter which frame is
> >>chosen, advocates of the SBT can align Kennedy and Connally perfectly to
> >>produce a straight line trajectory through their wounds?
> >>It's not much a theory when you can keep changing the data and produce
> >>whatever result you want.
> >
> >
> > Only a general concept of what occurred is needed, the bar in murder
> > cases has never been so high as to require knowing exactly how all
> > wounds were caused before drawing conclusions about what occurred.
> >
>
> I like your reasoning.
And I yours. It`s the same reasoning employed by the 9-11 conspiracy
"folks".
Unless it can positively proven how every bolt snapped and structural
member failed, then what is offered is only a theory. And since
theories, by their nature, aren`t proven, then it is equal to any other
theory that can be imagined.
> So if the police find a body with 27 gunshot
> wounds from three different calibers, they just ignore the implication
> and determine that there was only one shooter and don't bother to look
> for the real killers?
Why would 27 gunshot wounds from 3 different calibers imply there
was more than one killer? Occam`s Razor says what can be done with
fewer is rarely done better with more. Applying this maxim, you
wouldn`t need to look for more killers until you have determined that
one killer wasn`t enough to account for the known data.
Anthony Marsh
That's a perfect example of the illogic of the WC defenders. There is
clear evidence that more than one person was involved and you can't even
see it. And you misuse Occam's Razor. That is NOT what it says.
jwrush
> On 3 Oct 2005 10:41:04 -0400, "jwrush" <jwr...@advantas.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"garyN...@gmail.com" <garag...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1128301444....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> If Larry writes about a subject in 2005, the assumption is that he's
>>> writing what is currently know about that subject. Right?
>>
>>No, the asumption is that Larry writes about the parts of the case he
>>wants
>>to write about.
>>
>>If you want a certain thing to be included in a book, then you write that
>>book. You don't tell other people what to write in their book.
>>
>>
> The issue here seems to be research protocol, not topic.
No it isn't. The issue here is people who have never read the book trying
to tell the guy who wrote it what they wanted him to put in his book.
That's really silly. If you want something in a book, write it yourself.
Bud
And the fallacy of CT thinking.
> There is
> clear evidence that more than one person was involved and you can't even
> see it.
Not in what you mentioned there isn`t. If one person`s finger prints
are on all three weapons and all but one of the shots was postmortem,
then what would be the purpose of looking for other killers?
> And you misuse Occam's Razor. That is NOT what it says.
I know what it says, and what it means. You haven`t displayed that
you know either. It says "Plurality should not be posited without
necessity." Applying Occam`s Razor to your example, it speaks to not
looking for multiple killers if the evidence can be accounted for with
one. If the police catch a pursesnatcher, should they conclude he is
part of an international ring of pursesnatchers with an evil
mastermind, just because the possibility can`t be ruled out? Conspiracy
is difficult or impossible to rule out in any crime, that doesn`t mean
it exists in every crime. Conspiracy needs to be shown, and not by the
weak fare CT use to convince themselves. They want to believe there was
a conspiracy, so they cling to anything they think shows it.
John Hunt
> On 2 Oct 2005 21:48:56 -0400, "John Hunt" <johnh...@verizon.net>
>
> Any 'conspiracist' who voluntarily places any material at McAdams'
> website needs to be viewed with at list a smidgen of skepticism.
Notice that Brown did not dispute the SUBSTANCE of my "bunched
jacket/backwound location" essay. Notice also that I tore her lame Pig
Piece a new one based upon the SUBSTANCE.
As for Brown's being skeptical about me simply because my essay appears on
.John's website: Imagine my surprise...
John Hunt
Cliff
Pamela McElwain-Brown wrote:
>
> Hunt, who maintains at least one paper at McAdams site, seems to have
> difficulty maintaining any sort of objective orientation to this
> issue [of the SBT].
That's putting it mildly!
John Hunt is arguably the most influential Single Bullet Theorist in this
decade. His Bunch Theory is cited by John McAdams, Ken Rahn, Jerry Organ,
Chad Zimmerman, Michael Russ, Tracy Parnell -- the capper is that Dale
Myers in his computer model appears to have placed JFK's jacket according
to Hunt's Bunch Theory.
On 5/24/02 John Hunt wrote on aajfk:
(quote on)
In any event here is what I believe happened: One bullet went through both
men but it was not CE399. CE399 was planted to inculpate Oswald and never
went through Kennedy or Connally, or anyone. Oswald did not fire a shot at
Kennedy. He was set up. The bullet that broke up in Connally's chest
emerged in two pieces, each causing a separate wound. One the thigh, and
one the wrist. Conspiracy
(quote off)
Conspiracy? This scenario leaves the LNer 3-shot-one-shooter Theory
intact, and one guy could have set Oswald up and also done the shooting.
John Hunt's Single Bullet Theory (sans CE399) is nothing more than a
refurbished Lone Assassin Theory.
Meet the new SBT, same as the old SBT (debunked).
Cliff Varnell
Pamela McElwain-Brown
Ironically, that logic illustrates again the LNT characteristic of being
comfortable with a very narrow approach. Not examining the areas that
could have defined conspiracy is evident not only in the WC approach to
LHO, but also to the fact that LHO was murdered while in custody of the
DPD. The WC decided that that, also, was the work of a lone gunman not
involved with anyone else. In addition, if LHO were murdered so that he
would be unable to reveal what he knew, that is evidence of a conspiracy
under their noses. LNTs seem to spend most of their time keeping their
blinders firmly in place. :-)
Anthony Marsh
Who said anything about any weapons being found? If you want to flesh out
the example, let's say that the suspected killer was found dead, shot 5
times in the back of the head and there was only one weapon, not the same
caliber as the bullets that hit him in the back of the head. Now, as a
loyal naysayer you would claim that the killer did it alone and in a fit
of remorse committed suicide. End of case.
>
>
>>And you misuse Occam's Razor. That is NOT what it says.
>
>
> I know what it says, and what it means. You haven`t displayed that
No you don't, obviously.
> you know either. It says "Plurality should not be posited without
> necessity." Applying Occam`s Razor to your example, it speaks to not
And who is talking about plurality? The conspiracy can be quite small.
> looking for multiple killers if the evidence can be accounted for with
> one. If the police catch a pursesnatcher, should they conclude he is
That's your problem. You are tailoring the evidence to produce the
whitewash solution.
> part of an international ring of pursesnatchers with an evil
> mastermind, just because the possibility can`t be ruled out? Conspiracy
That is what is known in the business as a strawman argument. A very small
conspiracy of a small gang of pursesnatchers or maybe a pursesnatcher and
his girlfriend is not the grandeous international ring you are making up,
but it is nonetheless a conspiracy. Just an aside: Homeland Security has
recently been investigating a link between local car theft rings and
International terrorists.
> is difficult or impossible to rule out in any crime, that doesn`t mean
I am not talking about ruling anything out or proving a negative.
Anthony Marsh
That's not his point at all. The point is someone pretending to be an
expert on a subject without having read the literature.
Bud
Well, the shortest route between two points is a straight line, and
all that. The CT method of meandering all over creation doesn`t see an
efficient way to arrive at a destination.
> Not examining the areas that
> could have defined conspiracy is evident not only in the WC approach to
> LHO, but also to the fact that LHO was murdered while in custody of the
> DPD.
Yah, that still remains true, even after all this time, and is not
likely to change any time soon. And no one has been able to show that
the DPD purposely allowed Oz to be killed, and that too is unlikely to
change any time soon.
> The WC decided that that, also, was the work of a lone gunman not
> involved with anyone else.
And who can fault them at reaching this conclusion? Many people with
great effort and desire have come up woefully short at showing anyone
putting Ruby up to killing Oz.
> In addition, if LHO were murdered so that he
> would be unable to reveal what he knew, that is evidence of a conspiracy
> under their noses.
Ah, stellar thinking, since Oz was killed, that must mean there was
a conspiracy, as killing him *must* have been for the purpose of
shutting him up.
> LNTs seem to spend most of their time keeping their
> blinders firmly in place. :-)
A popular figure was killed, yet people with blinders arbitrarily
disregard retribution as motivation.
garag...@gmail.com
answer. Thanks!
Gary
garag...@gmail.com
Your response suggests I didn't make the real issues clear enough. Let me
put them another way, O.K.?
In the Levy/Griossman article that Sturdivan approved as a "peer reviwer,"
Levy/Grossman wrote that they intended to, "present that which iscurrently
known regarding the nature of the wounds sustained by President Kennedy,"
and to, "point out areas of discrepancy and controversy in the
interpretation of the data and to attempt to providea resolution of the
controversies."
Then, with Sturdivan's approval, they went about discussing what was
"currently known" by NOT discussing what was then currently known. They
said virtually nothing about what was in the 3000+ pages from the ARRB
concerning JFK's med/autopsy evidence, something that was "currently
known" by 1999, to say nothing of 2004.
Michael Levy spoke at our conference last year in Washington, D.C. and
admitted to me that he was unfamiliar with the now 7-year old ARRB
releases, quite an admission for someone who promises readers he's going
to present what is "currently known."
But the real problem is that the "expert" they chose to "peer review" the
article for Neurosurgery, Larry Sturdivan, hadn't/hasn't read any of the
ARRB material, either. How do I know that? Because Larry told me that on
the phone himself. But even if he had, since he has admitted being
Grossman's collaborator, he had no business "peer reviewing" the
Levy/Grossman paper.
The knock on Warrenistas is that they are much more indulgent of shoddy
scholarship when said shoddiness butresses the Warren Commission and they
are quite intolerant of shoddiness if it is used to question the Warren
Commission.
For example, were a skeptic to publish something pro-conspiracy that the
skeptic had called "current," but something that was woefully out of date
and that overlooked copious anti-conspiracy evidence, you, Johann, and
other Warrenistas would be quick to cry: "Foul!" And Warrenista would be
quick to cry "Foul!" had a skeptic arranged to have his own research
associate "peer review" his out of date article in order to get it
published. Agreed?
But a few questions, if you would be so kind, Johann:
1) Do you think it was appropriate for Sturdivan, who had done JFK
research for Grossman but was not up to date on the med/autopsy evidence
[since he'd not read any of the ARRB's 3000+ pages of med/autopsy
material] to "peer review" the Levy/Grossman, "review" article? A simple
yes or no would suffice.
2) If you think it was appropriate, why do you think so? And if you think
so, what do you believe "peer review" means?
3) When a distinguished author writes in an authoritative journal, what
duty do you think he has to readers when he promises to "present what is
currently known about a subject"?
Gary
Pamela McElwain-Brown
<jo...@jamestowndistributors.com> wrote:
>
>Pamela McElwain-Brown <pame...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:hid1k19rmdom17n5o...@4ax.com...
>> On 2 Oct 2005 21:48:56 -0400, "John Hunt" <johnh...@verizon.net>
>
>
>>
>> Any 'conspiracist' who voluntarily places any material at McAdams'
>> website needs to be viewed with at list a smidgen of skepticism.
>
>Notice that Brown did not dispute the SUBSTANCE of my "bunched
>jacket/backwound location" essay.
So what? You have positioned that essay at McAdams' site. If you
want to be considered a conspiracist, what is the point?
> Notice also that I tore her lame Pig
>Piece a new one based upon the SUBSTANCE.
You did nothing of the sort. In fact, your rambling post was filled
with straw. You spent your time trying to shore up the WCR and
re-quoting the same FBI box.
You don't like the fact that I called you on the lack of documentation
in the "Down the Drain" series. Too bad. You don't like the way I
write either. Not my problem.
>
>As for Brown's being skeptical about me simply because my essay appears on
>.John's website: Imagine my surprise...
>
What are you really Hunt? Why not come clean with us?
Are you really a CT or are you a Warrenista? :-0
Bud
Neither your original scenario, or this one, speak to multiple
killers.
> >
> >>And you misuse Occam's Razor. That is NOT what it says.
> >
> >
> > I know what it says, and what it means. You haven`t displayed that
>
> No you don't, obviously.
I`ve cited it, and applied it. You`ve done neither, or shown how
I`ve applied it incorrectly.
> > you know either. It says "Plurality should not be posited without
> > necessity." Applying Occam`s Razor to your example, it speaks to not
>
> And who is talking about plurality?
Occam.
> The conspiracy can be quite small.
Most of the musings I see offered by CT around here are of the
complex variety. Seems to me that a small conspiracy must include Oz,
as that is who the evidence points to. Either Oz is in on it, or
someone worked hard to make it appear Oz was in on it. And if there was
an effort to make Oz appear guilty, that indicates a large conspiracy.
> > looking for multiple killers if the evidence can be accounted for with
> > one. If the police catch a pursesnatcher, should they conclude he is
>
> That's your problem. You are tailoring the evidence to produce the
> whitewash solution.
Like I explained to you, a conspiracy is always a possibility in any
crime. That is why you need to show they exist, rather than just say
they do.
> > part of an international ring of pursesnatchers with an evil
> > mastermind, just because the possibility can`t be ruled out? Conspiracy
>
> That is what is known in the business as a strawman argument.
You understand strawman arguments as well as you understand Occam`s
razor. You offer the existance of conspiracies (here and in other
posts) to support the concept of a conspiracy in the assassination. I
respond that since the possibility of a conspiracy always exists, it
must be shown in a case by case basis, not assumed. The Rodney King
beating might show police brutality in one instance, it doesn`t show
brutality in all cases brutality might be alledged.
> A very small
> conspiracy of a small gang of pursesnatchers or maybe a pursesnatcher and
> his girlfriend is not the grandeous international ring you are making up,
> but it is nonetheless a conspiracy.
Yah, it is. But how could they move against the girlfriend if the
pursesnatcher they caught couldn`t or wouldn`t testify against her? If
Oz was part of a conspiracy, and Oz never implicated anyone, and never
told anyone, then unless these people confess their role, it seems
unlikely to surface through investigation. If Oz wasn`t involved, then
there was a massive effort to make him appear so, which speaks to a
large conspiracy powerful enough to control all aspects of a wide
ranging investigation.
> Just an aside: Homeland Security has
> recently been investigating a link between local car theft rings and
> International terrorists.
A local car theft ring is in itself a conspiracy, without
international connections.
> > is difficult or impossible to rule out in any crime, that doesn`t mean
>
> I am not talking about ruling anything out or proving a negative.
Then the fault with LN is that they don`t endlessly entertain this
possibility of conspiracy as CT do? For years, people have claimed
Nessie lives in Loch Ness. A lot of effort has been put into
establishing that she does. Just because it can`t be proven Nessie
isn`t there doesn`t mean you can`t conclude Nessie isn`t there. Forty
some odd years of effort in this case, and CT still can`t show this
conspiracy. The reason why is obvious to me.
Anthony Marsh
I just want to make sure that is really your position. You find the
suspected killer shot in the back of the head 5 times and the slugs do not
match his pistol, so you conclude that it was a lone killer and that he
committed suicide. No wonder you can't solve the JFK assassination.
>
>>>>And you misuse Occam's Razor. That is NOT what it says.
>>>
>>>
>>> I know what it says, and what it means. You haven`t displayed that
>>
>>No you don't, obviously.
>
>
> I`ve cited it, and applied it. You`ve done neither, or shown how
> I`ve applied it incorrectly.
>
No, I have discussed it many times. It does not apply to political
assassinations.
>
>>>you know either. It says "Plurality should not be posited without
>>>necessity." Applying Occam`s Razor to your example, it speaks to not
>>
>>And who is talking about plurality?
>
>
> Occam.
>
If you know what he means by plurality.
>
>>The conspiracy can be quite small.
>
>
> Most of the musings I see offered by CT around here are of the
> complex variety. Seems to me that a small conspiracy must include Oz,
> as that is who the evidence points to. Either Oz is in on it, or
A small conspiracy could include Oswald, but it does not have to. He
could just be the patsy.
> someone worked hard to make it appear Oz was in on it. And if there was
> an effort to make Oz appear guilty, that indicates a large conspiracy.
>
Not grandiose.
>
>>>looking for multiple killers if the evidence can be accounted for with
>>>one. If the police catch a pursesnatcher, should they conclude he is
>>
>>That's your problem. You are tailoring the evidence to produce the
>>whitewash solution.
>
>
> Like I explained to you, a conspiracy is always a possibility in any
> crime. That is why you need to show they exist, rather than just say
> they do.
>
That is exactly what we have been doing all these years. Where have you
been?
>
>>>part of an international ring of pursesnatchers with an evil
>>>mastermind, just because the possibility can`t be ruled out? Conspiracy
>>
>>That is what is known in the business as a strawman argument.
>
>
> You understand strawman arguments as well as you understand Occam`s
> razor. You offer the existance of conspiracies (here and in other
> posts) to support the concept of a conspiracy in the assassination. I
I did not offer the fact of conspiracies in other cases to prove one in
the JFK case. I gave you an example to see how badly you could stumble.
And you fell for the bait, claiming that the man committed suicide by
shooting himself 5 times in the back of the head with a different weapon.
> respond that since the possibility of a conspiracy always exists, it
> must be shown in a case by case basis, not assumed. The Rodney King
> beating might show police brutality in one instance, it doesn`t show
> brutality in all cases brutality might be alledged.
>
No one here is presuming conspiracy. You'd be on the side of the police
arguing that the Rodney King case was not police brutality. I am not
talking about differences of opinion about the motive. I am talking about
the physical facts of the case. Do you deny that the tape of the Rodney
King beating is physical evidence and trumps the anecdotal denials of the
officers who did the beating?
>
>>A very small
>>conspiracy of a small gang of pursesnatchers or maybe a pursesnatcher and
>>his girlfriend is not the grandeous international ring you are making up,
>>but it is nonetheless a conspiracy.
>
>
> Yah, it is. But how could they move against the girlfriend if the
> pursesnatcher they caught couldn`t or wouldn`t testify against her? If
> Oz was part of a conspiracy, and Oz never implicated anyone, and never
> told anyone, then unless these people confess their role, it seems
Maybe Oswald did not know who was setting him up. But he did indicate
before he was killed that he had been set up.
> unlikely to surface through investigation. If Oz wasn`t involved, then
You need to look at historical examples. There are cases where a guilty
verdict was returned 40 years after the murder and without a confession.
New evidence, new witnesses, reexamined evidence, change in political
weather, etc.
> there was a massive effort to make him appear so, which speaks to a
> large conspiracy powerful enough to control all aspects of a wide
> ranging investigation.
>
Another strawman. Who said there had to be a "massive effort"? It could
be done by one intelligence agent.
How many people were involved in Nixon's plan to plant evidence on Bremer?
>
>>Just an aside: Homeland Security has
>>recently been investigating a link between local car theft rings and
>>International terrorists.
>
>
> A local car theft ring is in itself a conspiracy, without
> international connections.
>
Ah, but your strawman argument was that some minor local crime could not
possibly be an international plot.
>
>>>is difficult or impossible to rule out in any crime, that doesn`t mean
>>
>>I am not talking about ruling anything out or proving a negative.
>
>
> Then the fault with LN is that they don`t endlessly entertain this
> possibility of conspiracy as CT do? For years, people have claimed
Not exactly. The LNers have many faults. One of which is a refusal to
look at the evidence.
> Nessie lives in Loch Ness. A lot of effort has been put into
> establishing that she does. Just because it can`t be proven Nessie
> isn`t there doesn`t mean you can`t conclude Nessie isn`t there. Forty
> some odd years of effort in this case, and CT still can`t show this
> conspiracy. The reason why is obvious to me.
>
I won't go into every possible case, but just because something is not
found today does not prove that it will never be found. Scientists are
making new finds every day. Was the meteorite from Mars found in 1900?
So you'd claim that such a thing is impossible.
Anthony Marsh
Not necessarily. Only when you are limiting your thinking to very simple
examples such as 2 dimensions. A straight line is not the shortest path
between 2 cities when flying. And according to some latest theories, the
shortest path is a worm hole.
>
>> Not examining the areas that
>>could have defined conspiracy is evident not only in the WC approach to
>>LHO, but also to the fact that LHO was murdered while in custody of the
>>DPD.
>
>
> Yah, that still remains true, even after all this time, and is not
> likely to change any time soon. And no one has been able to show that
> the DPD purposely allowed Oz to be killed, and that too is unlikely to
> change any time soon.
>
That is not the point. The point is that some WC defenders are gullible
enough to fall for simplistic explanations to exhonerate the DPD.
>
>>The WC decided that that, also, was the work of a lone gunman not
>>involved with anyone else.
>
>
> And who can fault them at reaching this conclusion? Many people with
> great effort and desire have come up woefully short at showing anyone
> putting Ruby up to killing Oz.
>
Except for the very words that came out of his own mouth.
>
>>In addition, if LHO were murdered so that he
>>would be unable to reveal what he knew, that is evidence of a conspiracy
>>under their noses.
>
>
> Ah, stellar thinking, since Oz was killed, that must mean there was
> a conspiracy, as killing him *must* have been for the purpose of
> shutting him up.
>
>
>> LNTs seem to spend most of their time keeping their
>>blinders firmly in place. :-)
>
>
> A popular figure was killed, yet people with blinders arbitrarily
> disregard retribution as motivation.
>
>
>>Pamela
>>
>>Our hearts go out to all those affected by Katrina and now Rita. The
>>citizens and their pets will need our help for a long time to come. I
>>encourage everyone to follow your heart and contribute and share as you
>>are able. Two of my favorites are the Red Cross http://www.redcross.org
>>and the ASPCA http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer
>>
>>The JFK Assassination Presidential Limousine SS-100-X page,
>>now at http://www.in-broad-daylight.com
>>
>>Check out www.themagicflute.org for info about me as a flute player and
>>teacher.
>
>
>
jwrush
All of this is irrelevant. Sturdivan has a new book out titled "The JFK
Myths" and you are trying to defame his personal character in an apparent
attempt to discourage people from reading his new book. This thread isn't
about any journal article, it's about his new book.
Anthony Marsh
You have a point, but Hunt's theories go just beyond that. And he is
suggesting that there was a conspiracy involving several people to set up
Oswald as the patsy, not just one person doing the set up AND the
shooting. As I have said before, it might be possible for someone to
construct a SBT which does work, but I don't think that John Hunt has it
perfected.
Bud
I gave it. Neither of the scenarios you described must be acts of a
conspiracy.
> You find the
> suspected killer shot in the back of the head 5 times and the slugs do not
> match his pistol, so you conclude that it was a lone killer and that he
> committed suicide. No wonder you can't solve the JFK assassination.
Did that in five minutes. Simple case, really.
> >>>>And you misuse Occam's Razor. That is NOT what it says.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I know what it says, and what it means. You haven`t displayed that
> >>
> >>No you don't, obviously.
> >
> >
> > I`ve cited it, and applied it. You`ve done neither, or shown how
> > I`ve applied it incorrectly.
> >
>
> No, I have discussed it many times. It does not apply to political
> assassinations.
It can be applied to any theory.
> >>>you know either. It says "Plurality should not be posited without
> >>>necessity." Applying Occam`s Razor to your example, it speaks to not
> >>
> >>And who is talking about plurality?
> >
> >
> > Occam.
> >
>
> If you know what he means by plurality.
Don`t you? If you don`t understand the words he uses, how do you be
sure if you are applying his maxim correctly?
> >>The conspiracy can be quite small.
> >
> >
> > Most of the musings I see offered by CT around here are of the
> > complex variety. Seems to me that a small conspiracy must include Oz,
> > as that is who the evidence points to. Either Oz is in on it, or
>
> A small conspiracy could include Oswald, but it does not have to. He
> could just be the patsy.
Can you explain how Oz can be the patsy in a small conspiracy scenario?
Explain the BY photo, or his rifle being found on the 6th floor of the
TSBD, and Oz trying to kill the cops who arrested him using the small
scenario model.
> > someone worked hard to make it appear Oz was in on it. And if there was
> > an effort to make Oz appear guilty, that indicates a large conspiracy.
> >
>
> Not grandiose.
Whatever that means to you I can only imagine. There is a good deal
of incriminating evidence against Oz. If you would be so kind, explain
it`s existance within the parameters of a small conspiracy in which Oz
was not a part.
> >>>looking for multiple killers if the evidence can be accounted for with
> >>>one. If the police catch a pursesnatcher, should they conclude he is
> >>
> >>That's your problem. You are tailoring the evidence to produce the
> >>whitewash solution.
> >
> >
> > Like I explained to you, a conspiracy is always a possibility in any
> > crime. That is why you need to show they exist, rather than just say
> > they do.
> >
>
> That is exactly what we have been doing all these years. Where have you
> been?
Here waiting to see this conspiracy produced. Any day now...
> >>>part of an international ring of pursesnatchers with an evil
> >>>mastermind, just because the possibility can`t be ruled out? Conspiracy
> >>
> >>That is what is known in the business as a strawman argument.
> >
> >
> > You understand strawman arguments as well as you understand Occam`s
> > razor. You offer the existance of conspiracies (here and in other
> > posts) to support the concept of a conspiracy in the assassination. I
>
> I did not offer the fact of conspiracies in other cases to prove one in
> the JFK case.
I didn`t say "prove". I said "support the concept".
> I gave you an example to see how badly you could stumble.
> And you fell for the bait, claiming that the man committed suicide by
> shooting himself 5 times in the back of the head with a different weapon.
I wonder why you think I said the man committed suicide...
> > respond that since the possibility of a conspiracy always exists, it
> > must be shown in a case by case basis, not assumed. The Rodney King
> > beating might show police brutality in one instance, it doesn`t show
> > brutality in all cases brutality might be alledged.
> >
>
> No one here is presuming conspiracy. You'd be on the side of the police
> arguing that the Rodney King case was not police brutality.
Totally ignoring the point I was trying to make with this example, I
see. Does the Rodney King incident show brutality exists in all cases
where brutality is alledged?
> I am not
> talking about differences of opinion about the motive.
Neither was I. I was making the point that cases need to be viewed
on a case by case basis, not as an extention of some other unrelated
incident.
> I am talking about
> the physical facts of the case.
No, you were talking about hypothetical crimes being commited by
persons unknown.
> Do you deny that the tape of the Rodney
> King beating is physical evidence and trumps the anecdotal denials of the
> officers who did the beating?
I think if RK hadn`t pulled away from the cops upon exiting his car,
this incident would not have occurred. Had he complied with the officers
orders, instead of repeatedly trying to rise, the beating might have
stopped (the footage shows cops reaching for their cuffs, only to return
to beating when RK attempted to get up again). Personally. I don`t think
cops should be wrestling around with the knuckleheads they have to deal
with on a daily basis. The only result is cops in the hospital with
sprains and breaks, when they are needed on the streets. They are trained
*not* to scuffle and wrestle with suspects, but to use the clubs to subdue
(I think that has changed now). RK`s actions were the reason that incident
occurred, not the cops, the cops acted as they were trained, which is why
they were found innocent.
> >>A very small
> >>conspiracy of a small gang of pursesnatchers or maybe a pursesnatcher and
> >>his girlfriend is not the grandeous international ring you are making up,
> >>but it is nonetheless a conspiracy.
> >
> >
> > Yah, it is. But how could they move against the girlfriend if the
> > pursesnatcher they caught couldn`t or wouldn`t testify against her? If
> > Oz was part of a conspiracy, and Oz never implicated anyone, and never
> > told anyone, then unless these people confess their role, it seems
>
> Maybe Oswald did not know who was setting him up. But he did indicate
> before he was killed that he had been set up.
How? That "patsy " remark? He claime he was being picked on because
he had been to the Soviet Union, not that he had been set up.
> > unlikely to surface through investigation. If Oz wasn`t involved, then
>
> You need to look at historical examples. There are cases where a guilty
> verdict was returned 40 years after the murder and without a confession.
> New evidence, new witnesses, reexamined evidence, change in political
> weather, etc.
Well, you guys keep plugging away, I`m sure that dry well will
result in a gusher for you folks some day.
> > there was a massive effort to make him appear so, which speaks to a
> > large conspiracy powerful enough to control all aspects of a wide
> > ranging investigation.
> >
>
> Another strawman. Who said there had to be a "massive effort"? It could
> be done by one intelligence agent.
Then explain hypothetically how this one agent can account for all
the evidence against Oz.
> How many people were involved in Nixon's plan to plant evidence on Bremer?
If the only damning evidence against Oz was his rifle being found
where the shots came from you could maybe point to this as a similar
case. It`s not.
> >>Just an aside: Homeland Security has
> >>recently been investigating a link between local car theft rings and
> >>International terrorists.
> >
> >
> > A local car theft ring is in itself a conspiracy, without
> > international connections.
> >
>
> Ah, but your strawman argument was that some minor local crime could not
> possibly be an international plot.
No, my point with the pursesnatcher should have been clear to you. I
said "If the police catch a pursesnatcher, should they conclude he is
part of an international ring of pursesnatchers, just because that
possibility can`t be ruled out?" What part of that is giving you such
problems?
> >>>is difficult or impossible to rule out in any crime, that doesn`t mean
> >>
> >>I am not talking about ruling anything out or proving a negative.
> >
> >
> > Then the fault with LN is that they don`t endlessly entertain this
> > possibility of conspiracy as CT do? For years, people have claimed
>
> Not exactly. The LNers have many faults. One of which is a refusal to
> look at the evidence.
Yah, look at Cliff, claiming to know exactlly how Kennedy`s clothing
was arranged when he was shot. Such is the desperation with which CT
"look at the evidence".
> > Nessie lives in Loch Ness. A lot of effort has been put into
> > establishing that she does. Just because it can`t be proven Nessie
> > isn`t there doesn`t mean you can`t conclude Nessie isn`t there. Forty
> > some odd years of effort in this case, and CT still can`t show this
> > conspiracy. The reason why is obvious to me.
> >
>
> I won't go into every possible case, but just because something is not
> found today does not prove that it will never be found.
Exactlly the point. Nessie can never be ruled out, and neither can
conspiracy.
> Scientists are
> making new finds every day. Was the meteorite from Mars found in 1900?
> So you'd claim that such a thing is impossible.
Personally, I wait for someone to offer a reasonable explaination.
With the assassination, that has been done for over forty years.
tomnln
"jwrush" <jwr...@advantas.net> wrote in message
news:4344...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
========================================================================
> All of this is irrelevant. Sturdivan has a new book out titled "The JFK
> Myths" and you are trying to defame his personal character in an apparent
> attempt to discourage people from reading his new book. This thread isn't
> about any journal article, it's about his new book.
So, Exactly what's wrong about "Defaming" someone's personal character?
It didn't seem to bother you when it was being done to JFK for the past 35
years.
I just Love it when people Complain about the "Standards" they themselves
set.
=======================================================================
garag...@gmail.com
What a marvelous sashay!
My questions are a bit too tough, eh? How did I know beforehand that
they would be?
In considering whether to lay out the long green for a book,
Sturdivan's or anyone else's, one must judge whether the author's work
deserves the green, no? Although my post indirectly suggests
Sturdivan's work may NOT be worth the price of admission, my comments
stand entirely apart from any book he may have written. And I note with
considerable satisfaction that you zealously avoided challenging any of
my assertions.
Ha!
Rest assurred. I've already laid down my green. I'm expecting Larry's
book in 4 to 5 days.
Gary
Pamela McElwain-Brown
Valid point imo. And how many LNTs have complained about Lee Oswald's
character being defamed? In fact, the act of slandering LHO's
character is considered a virtue by them.
John Hunt
> On 4 Oct 2005 20:16:36 -0400, "John Hunt"
> <jo...@jamestowndistributors.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Pamela McElwain-Brown <pame...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:hid1k19rmdom17n5o...@4ax.com...
> >> On 2 Oct 2005 21:48:56 -0400, "John Hunt" <johnh...@verizon.net>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Any 'conspiracist' who voluntarily places any material at McAdams'
> >> website needs to be viewed with at list a smidgen of skepticism.
> >
> >Notice that Brown did not dispute the SUBSTANCE of my "bunched
> >jacket/backwound location" essay.
>
> So what? You have positioned that essay at McAdams' site. If you
> want to be considered a conspiracist, what is the point?
>
> > Notice also that I tore her lame Pig
> >Piece a new one based upon the SUBSTANCE.
>
> You did nothing of the sort. In fact, your rambling post was filled
> with straw. You spent your time trying to shore up the WCR and
> re-quoting the same FBI box.
>
> You don't like the fact that I called you on the lack of documentation
> in the "Down the Drain" series. Too bad. You don't like the way I
> write either. Not my problem.
>
> >
> >As for Brown's being skeptical about me simply because my essay appears
on
> >.John's website: Imagine my surprise...
> >
> What are you really Hunt?
A dope for expecting you to be accurate and reasonable.
John Hunt
jwrush
Yeah, but Oswald shot the President. Larry didn't.
(Is Larry a suspect? Did I miss something in my research?)
Anthony Marsh
> Johann,
>
> What a marvelous sashay!
>
> My questions are a bit too tough, eh? How did I know beforehand that
> they would be?
>
> In considering whether to lay out the long green for a book,
> Sturdivan's or anyone else's, one must judge whether the author's work
> deserves the green, no? Although my post indirectly suggests
I would disagree with the premise. I am sure that there are major
publication houses out there who have paid out big bucks to a particular
celebrity well before the book was even written expecting that the book
will promote their particular world view.
> Sturdivan's work may NOT be worth the price of admission, my comments
> stand entirely apart from any book he may have written. And I note with
> considerable satisfaction that you zealously avoided challenging any of
> my assertions.
>
> Ha!
>
> Rest assurred. I've already laid down my green. I'm expecting Larry's
> book in 4 to 5 days.
>
> Gary
>
>
Pamela McElwain-Brown
Anthony Marsh
So you don't think it is even suspicious that the alleged killer is
found dead next to the victim, shot 5 times in the back of the head?
>
>>You find the
>>suspected killer shot in the back of the head 5 times and the slugs do not
>>match his pistol, so you conclude that it was a lone killer and that he
>>committed suicide. No wonder you can't solve the JFK assassination.
>
>
> Did that in five minutes. Simple case, really.
>
The problem is that you believe whatever the government tells you. If
the government had immediately told you that it was a conspiracy, then
you would be a conspiracy believer to this day.
>
>>>>>>And you misuse Occam's Razor. That is NOT what it says.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I know what it says, and what it means. You haven`t displayed that
>>>>
>>>>No you don't, obviously.
>>>
>>>
>>> I`ve cited it, and applied it. You`ve done neither, or shown how
>>>I`ve applied it incorrectly.
>>>
>>
>>No, I have discussed it many times. It does not apply to political
>>assassinations.
>
>
> It can be applied to any theory.
>
No, it can't.
>
>>>>>you know either. It says "Plurality should not be posited without
>>>>>necessity." Applying Occam`s Razor to your example, it speaks to not
>>>>
>>>>And who is talking about plurality?
>>>
>>>
>>> Occam.
>>>
>>
>>If you know what he means by plurality.
>
>
> Don`t you? If you don`t understand the words he uses, how do you be
> sure if you are applying his maxim correctly?
>
I do. You don't. He is not saying that events are always caused by a
single individual. He is talking about the complexity of causality.
>
>>>>The conspiracy can be quite small.
>>>
>>>
>>> Most of the musings I see offered by CT around here are of the
>>>complex variety. Seems to me that a small conspiracy must include Oz,
>>>as that is who the evidence points to. Either Oz is in on it, or
>>
>>A small conspiracy could include Oswald, but it does not have to. He
>>could just be the patsy.
>
>
> Can you explain how Oz can be the patsy in a small conspiracy scenario?
> Explain the BY photo, or his rifle being found on the 6th floor of the
> TSBD, and Oz trying to kill the cops who arrested him using the small
> scenario model.
>
Again, I have always said that Oswald could have been in a conspiracy, but
more likely was set up. We have discussed all the things you mentioned
many times. If they wanted to set him up then it would help to use his
rifle in the attack. The shooting of Tippit and arrest in the theatre are
not directly connected to the assassination of the President. I don't
think that Tippit was related to the conspiracy. I think it was just bad
luck.
>
>>>someone worked hard to make it appear Oz was in on it. And if there was
>>>an effort to make Oz appear guilty, that indicates a large conspiracy.
>>>
>>
>>Not grandiose.
>
>
> Whatever that means to you I can only imagine. There is a good deal
> of incriminating evidence against Oz. If you would be so kind, explain
> it`s existance within the parameters of a small conspiracy in which Oz
> was not a part.
>
It means that you keep trying the same old strawman trick of claiming that
the conspiracy would have to be huge and of course huge conspiracies do
not work. Take a look at some historical examples. The Castro plots
involved about a dozen people, but had the support of the entire US
government. Would you even deny that the Lincoln assassination was a
conspiracy? And that involved only about a dozen people. But perhaps that
conspiracy was sponsored from much higher up.
>
>>>>>looking for multiple killers if the evidence can be accounted for with
>>>>>one. If the police catch a pursesnatcher, should they conclude he is
>>>>
>>>>That's your problem. You are tailoring the evidence to produce the
>>>>whitewash solution.
>>>
>>>
>>> Like I explained to you, a conspiracy is always a possibility in any
>>>crime. That is why you need to show they exist, rather than just say
>>>they do.
>>>
>>
>>That is exactly what we have been doing all these years. Where have you
>>been?
>
>
> Here waiting to see this conspiracy produced. Any day now...
>
Been there, done that, day by day.
>
>>>>>part of an international ring of pursesnatchers with an evil
>>>>>mastermind, just because the possibility can`t be ruled out? Conspiracy
>>>>
>>>>That is what is known in the business as a strawman argument.
>>>
>>>
>>> You understand strawman arguments as well as you understand Occam`s
>>>razor. You offer the existance of conspiracies (here and in other
>>>posts) to support the concept of a conspiracy in the assassination. I
>>
>>I did not offer the fact of conspiracies in other cases to prove one in
>>the JFK case.
>
>
> I didn`t say "prove". I said "support the concept".
>
You can sometimes learn from noticing patterns.
>
>>I gave you an example to see how badly you could stumble.
>>And you fell for the bait, claiming that the man committed suicide by
>>shooting himself 5 times in the back of the head with a different weapon.
>
>
> I wonder why you think I said the man committed suicide...
>
Because you had agreed with the premise.
>
>>>respond that since the possibility of a conspiracy always exists, it
>>>must be shown in a case by case basis, not assumed. The Rodney King
>>>beating might show police brutality in one instance, it doesn`t show
>>>brutality in all cases brutality might be alledged.
>>>
>>
>>No one here is presuming conspiracy. You'd be on the side of the police
>>arguing that the Rodney King case was not police brutality.
>
>
> Totally ignoring the point I was trying to make with this example, I
> see. Does the Rodney King incident show brutality exists in all cases
> where brutality is alledged?
>
Of course not. Another strawman argument.
There is not conspiracy in every case where it is alleged. But there
often is.
>
>>I am not
>>talking about differences of opinion about the motive.
>
>
> Neither was I. I was making the point that cases need to be viewed
> on a case by case basis, not as an extention of some other unrelated
> incident.
>
>
>>I am talking about
>>the physical facts of the case.
>
>
> No, you were talking about hypothetical crimes being commited by
> persons unknown.
>
Now, how do you know that? Maybe I was setting you up with a real case.
>
>>Do you deny that the tape of the Rodney
>>King beating is physical evidence and trumps the anecdotal denials of the
>>officers who did the beating?
>
>
> I think if RK hadn`t pulled away from the cops upon exiting his car,
> this incident would not have occurred. Had he complied with the officers
Sure, sure. How many times have we heard that? I might remind you that
the 3 civil rights workers complied with the police. And what happened
to them? You seem to be living in some dream world where nothing
sinister ever happens.
> orders, instead of repeatedly trying to rise, the beating might have
> stopped (the footage shows cops reaching for their cuffs, only to return
> to beating when RK attempted to get up again). Personally. I don`t think
> cops should be wrestling around with the knuckleheads they have to deal
> with on a daily basis. The only result is cops in the hospital with
> sprains and breaks, when they are needed on the streets. They are trained
> *not* to scuffle and wrestle with suspects, but to use the clubs to subdue
> (I think that has changed now). RK`s actions were the reason that incident
> occurred, not the cops, the cops acted as they were trained, which is why
> they were found innocent.
>
>
Some time you should try putting yourself into the victim's shoes. Would
you be willing to simply lie on the ground and be beaten to death? Would
you just walk into the cattle car for your "vacation" to a "resort" in
Poland?
>>>>A very small
>>>>conspiracy of a small gang of pursesnatchers or maybe a pursesnatcher and
>>>>his girlfriend is not the grandeous international ring you are making up,
>>>>but it is nonetheless a conspiracy.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yah, it is. But how could they move against the girlfriend if the
>>>pursesnatcher they caught couldn`t or wouldn`t testify against her? If
>>>Oz was part of a conspiracy, and Oz never implicated anyone, and never
>>>told anyone, then unless these people confess their role, it seems
>>
>>Maybe Oswald did not know who was setting him up. But he did indicate
>>before he was killed that he had been set up.
>
>
> How? That "patsy " remark? He claime he was being picked on because
> he had been to the Soviet Union, not that he had been set up.
>
First, he did not have the time to flesh out what he meant. And perhaps
he did not know exactly who was setting him up. But he got the gist of
it correct, that he was being used to blame it on the Communists.
And perhaps you do not understand it because you do not have all the
facts. Like the fact that you did not know that he was originally
charged with killing the President as part of an International Communist
Conspiracy.
>
>>>unlikely to surface through investigation. If Oz wasn`t involved, then
>>
>>You need to look at historical examples. There are cases where a guilty
>>verdict was returned 40 years after the murder and without a confession.
>>New evidence, new witnesses, reexamined evidence, change in political
>>weather, etc.
>
>
> Well, you guys keep plugging away, I`m sure that dry well will
> result in a gusher for you folks some day.
>
Already has. But new evidence keeps coming out every year.
>
>>>there was a massive effort to make him appear so, which speaks to a
>>>large conspiracy powerful enough to control all aspects of a wide
>>>ranging investigation.
>>>
>>
>>Another strawman. Who said there had to be a "massive effort"? It could
>>be done by one intelligence agent.
>
>
> Then explain hypothetically how this one agent can account for all
> the evidence against Oz.
>
It's called a control. A CIA officer who runs agents. He tells Oswald
what to do or by using a cut-out influences him.
>
>>How many people were involved in Nixon's plan to plant evidence on Bremer?
>
>
> If the only damning evidence against Oz was his rifle being found
> where the shots came from you could maybe point to this as a similar
> case. It`s not.
>
If Oswald was being set up, using his rifle would be the most important
element. But to mislead the investigation, the conspirators would want
to use someone with links to Communism.
>
>>>>Just an aside: Homeland Security has
>>>>recently been investigating a link between local car theft rings and
>>>>International terrorists.
>>>
>>>
>>> A local car theft ring is in itself a conspiracy, without
>>>international connections.
>>>
>>
>>Ah, but your strawman argument was that some minor local crime could not
>>possibly be an international plot.
>
>
> No, my point with the pursesnatcher should have been clear to you. I
> said "If the police catch a pursesnatcher, should they conclude he is
> part of an international ring of pursesnatchers, just because that
> possibility can`t be ruled out?" What part of that is giving you such
> problems?
>
Your strawman is in stating a proposition which can easily be knocked
down. That's what a strawman argument is. The point is in the word you
chose to use - "conclude." Your argument would not be so ridiculous if
you had simply talked about suspecting or ruling out.
>
>>>>>is difficult or impossible to rule out in any crime, that doesn`t mean
>>>>
>>>>I am not talking about ruling anything out or proving a negative.
>>>
>>>
>>> Then the fault with LN is that they don`t endlessly entertain this
>>>possibility of conspiracy as CT do? For years, people have claimed
>>
>>Not exactly. The LNers have many faults. One of which is a refusal to
>>look at the evidence.
>
>
> Yah, look at Cliff, claiming to know exactlly how Kennedy`s clothing
> was arranged when he was shot. Such is the desperation with which CT
> "look at the evidence".
>
Cliff is reacting to the WC defenders who claim to know exactly how
Kennedy's clothing was arranged when he was shot, which they desperately
need to do in order to move the wound up above the shoulders to get their
SBT to work.
>
>>>Nessie lives in Loch Ness. A lot of effort has been put into
>>>establishing that she does. Just because it can`t be proven Nessie
>>>isn`t there doesn`t mean you can`t conclude Nessie isn`t there. Forty
>>>some odd years of effort in this case, and CT still can`t show this
>>>conspiracy. The reason why is obvious to me.
>>>
>>
>>I won't go into every possible case, but just because something is not
>>found today does not prove that it will never be found.
>
>
> Exactlly the point. Nessie can never be ruled out, and neither can
> conspiracy.
>
Maybe you think so. The problem is in making a prouncement about what
exists or what does not exist without bothering to actually look for the
evidence. Such as the Coelacanth. Everyone was comfortable in saying
that it was extinct, despite the rumors. The experts would say that it
was easy to just talk about the possibility, but if it really was still
alive, then it would be easy to produce a specimen. You'd be arguing the
same thing. For hundreds of years.
1800 - The Coelacanth is extinct.
1900 - The Coelacanth is extinct.
1938 - Oops, we just found a live Coelacanth.
Of course, you'd be claiming that it was a fake. Or how do we know it
really was alive?
>
>>Scientists are
>>making new finds every day. Was the meteorite from Mars found in 1900?
>>So you'd claim that such a thing is impossible.
>
>
> Personally, I wait for someone to offer a reasonable explaination.
> With the assassination, that has been done for over forty years.
>
No, you avoid looking at the evidence, lest it disprove your
preconceived notions.
Anthony Marsh
Well, it could be a case of poisoning the well, but I would urge people
to read it just to see how far WC defenders will go when bending the
evidence.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
You believe that because his character was defamed after his murder.
He had no chance to defend himself
> Larry didn't.
>
>(Is Larry a suspect? Did I miss something in my research?)
>
>
Lee Oswald was supposed to be innocent until proven guilty in a court
of law. That never happened. Yes, I think you missed something.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
Well, Anthony, here I am at 2:30 a.m., eating ice cream to calm myself
down to try to go to sleep, after reading Larry's book since midnight.
It appears that Larry has managed to devise his own SB scenario -- it
is a combination of the WC 'range of possibility' with the Posner
lapel-flip orientation, but using the Dale Myers animation which,
ironically, used the correct limo clearance measurement (as opposed to
the WC, which did not). Whew.
So far, I'm finding it deja vu all over again -- a mini WCR, with a
whole new target -- the troublesome CTs who don't just give you one
simple story but actually force people to think and evaluate a number
of possibilities. In addition, I'm getting the impression that all
CT's are somehow Communists, but that just may be a result of some
paranoia that seems to be creeping up on me, maybe from reading late
at night.
jwrush
> He had no chance to defend himself
>
>>
>>(Is Larry a suspect? Did I miss something in my research?)
>>
>>
>
> of law. That never happened. Yes, I think you missed something.
That's only a legal status thing. He was guilty when he pulled the trigger,
whether or not a jury ever pronounce him guilty. You can't kill a President
and then get off the hook in history books just because you died before you
had a trial. He shouldn't have killed the President, he shouldn't have
killed Tippit, and he shouldn't have tried to shoot McDonald. If he had not
done all those things, the boy might be alive today and would probably have
a couple of more daughters and a nice minimum wage job somewhere. You
shouldn't portray him as some kind of poetic hero just because he got shot
by a crackpot before he had a trial.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
wrote:
Yes, and you make light of it.
> He was guilty when he pulled the trigger,
He claimed he was innocent, and received no trial. He was not proven
guilty. He was unable to make a defense for himself because he was
killed. Why are you unable to acknowledge this?
>whether or not a jury ever pronounce him guilty. You can't kill a President
>and then get off the hook in history books just because you died before you
>had a trial.
Pure Warranista 'logic'. Lee Oswald was not allowed to live to stand
trial. He was not proven guilty in any court of law. There would have
been two sides to a trial, and he would have been able to present a
defense. His murder created a slanted field. Is that so
>He shouldn't have killed the President, he shouldn't have
>killed Tippit, and he shouldn't have tried to shoot McDonald. If he had not
>done all those things, the boy might be alive today and would probably have
>a couple of more daughters and a nice minimum wage job somewhere.
He claimed he was innocent.
You
>shouldn't portray him as some kind of poetic hero just because he got shot
>by a crackpot before he had a trial.
>
I am defining the facts that exist. The WC had no problem creating their
slanted field. They had everything their way. No LHO. No defense.
Marina in 'protective custody' and threatened with deportation if she
didn't give them what they wanted. A problem I am seeing with LNTs is
that they are perfectly happy forgetting some basic tenets of our freedom.
They don't care if LHO's legal rights were violated. They don't care if
he was murdered because he refused to 'confess'. They don't care if
evidence is tainted. They don't care if a wacky theory is created to tie
up the forensic evidence. Why is that?
Bud
My guess would be that someone wanted him dead. Or, if I was CT, a
mysterious international cabal wanted him dead.
> >>You find the
> >>suspected killer shot in the back of the head 5 times and the slugs do not
> >>match his pistol, so you conclude that it was a lone killer and that he
> >>committed suicide. No wonder you can't solve the JFK assassination.
> >
> >
> > Did that in five minutes. Simple case, really.
> >
>
> The problem is that you believe whatever the government tells you. If
> the government had immediately told you that it was a conspiracy, then
> you would be a conspiracy believer to this day.
There is only one reasonable explaination offered for what
occurred, so I`m forced to accept it. You CT just can`t produce
anything you can put beside the WC findings, and knock it out of
contention.
> >>>>>>And you misuse Occam's Razor. That is NOT what it says.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I know what it says, and what it means. You haven`t displayed that
> >>>>
> >>>>No you don't, obviously.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I`ve cited it, and applied it. You`ve done neither, or shown how
> >>>I`ve applied it incorrectly.
> >>>
> >>
> >>No, I have discussed it many times. It does not apply to political
> >>assassinations.
> >
> >
> > It can be applied to any theory.
> >
>
> No, it can't.
You mean you can`t. Perhaps you can explain why political
assassinations are exempt.
> >>>>>you know either. It says "Plurality should not be posited without
> >>>>>necessity." Applying Occam`s Razor to your example, it speaks to not
> >>>>
> >>>>And who is talking about plurality?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Occam.
> >>>
> >>
> >>If you know what he means by plurality.
> >
> >
> > Don`t you? If you don`t understand the words he uses, how do you be
> > sure if you are applying his maxim correctly?
> >
>
> I do. You don't. He is not saying that events are always caused by a
> single individual.
Who said it did? The maxim finds it often needless to posit complex
solutions where simpiler ones suffice. No need to posit two gunman if
all the evdience can be explained by one. Not that there isn`t two
gunman, but to make sure that two gunman are needed to explain the
known data.
> He is talking about the complexity of causality.
Hiding behind big words doesn`t show you understand the maxim.
> >>>>The conspiracy can be quite small.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Most of the musings I see offered by CT around here are of the
> >>>complex variety. Seems to me that a small conspiracy must include Oz,
> >>>as that is who the evidence points to. Either Oz is in on it, or
> >>
> >>A small conspiracy could include Oswald, but it does not have to. He
> >>could just be the patsy.
> >
> >
> > Can you explain how Oz can be the patsy in a small conspiracy scenario?
> > Explain the BY photo, or his rifle being found on the 6th floor of the
> > TSBD, and Oz trying to kill the cops who arrested him using the small
> > scenario model.
> >
>
> Again, I have always said that Oswald could have been in a conspiracy, but
> more likely was set up. We have discussed all the things you mentioned
> many times. If they wanted to set him up then it would help to use his
> rifle in the attack. The shooting of Tippit and arrest in the theatre are
> not directly connected to the assassination of the President. I don't
> think that Tippit was related to the conspiracy. I think it was just bad
> luck.
I didn`t mention Tippit, I said the cops who arrested him. You didn`t
attempt to explain the case against Oz is terms of a small conspiracy
scenario. How does all the evidence against an innocent Oz exist without
people in high places actively working against him? You brought up the
"small conspiracy", but I`m sure you won`t be able to squeeze all the
incriminating evidence against Oz into it unless a) Oz particpated, or b)
large forces conspire agaist him.
> >>>someone worked hard to make it appear Oz was in on it. And if there was
> >>>an effort to make Oz appear guilty, that indicates a large conspiracy.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Not grandiose.
> >
> >
> > Whatever that means to you I can only imagine. There is a good deal
> > of incriminating evidence against Oz. If you would be so kind, explain
> > it`s existance within the parameters of a small conspiracy in which Oz
> > was not a part.
> >
>
> It means that you keep trying the same old strawman trick of claiming that
> the conspiracy would have to be huge and of course huge conspiracies do
> not work.
Describe a small conspiracy that accounts for all the evidence
against Oz in which Oz is innocent.
> Take a look at some historical examples. The Castro plots
> involved about a dozen people, but had the support of the entire US
> government. Would you even deny that the Lincoln assassination was a
> conspiracy? And that involved only about a dozen people. But perhaps that
> conspiracy was sponsored from much higher up.
Your examples only serve to muddy the water. Plenty on your plate to
explain how Oz was innocent, but had so much evidence indicating his
guilt, yet no one was working against him. I `ve heard this "small
conspiracy" mentioned by CT, yet I`ve seen no attempts at applying it to
the known evidence. For instance, either the backyard photo was faked or
it shows Oz holding the murder weapon. A small conspiracy wouldn`t have
the resources to fake a photo and plant it in the Paine`s garage for the
police to find, we`re already complex on just this one thing out of many.
> >>>>>looking for multiple killers if the evidence can be accounted for with
> >>>>>one. If the police catch a pursesnatcher, should they conclude he is
> >>>>
> >>>>That's your problem. You are tailoring the evidence to produce the
> >>>>whitewash solution.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Like I explained to you, a conspiracy is always a possibility in any
> >>>crime. That is why you need to show they exist, rather than just say
> >>>they do.
> >>>
> >>
> >>That is exactly what we have been doing all these years. Where have you
> >>been?
> >
> >
> > Here waiting to see this conspiracy produced. Any day now...
> >
>
> Been there, done that, day by day.
I`m listening, produce it. Put you theory on th table, and let it be
subjected to the scrutiny the WC findings have for years.
> >>>>>part of an international ring of pursesnatchers with an evil
> >>>>>mastermind, just because the possibility can`t be ruled out? Conspiracy
> >>>>
> >>>>That is what is known in the business as a strawman argument.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> You understand strawman arguments as well as you understand Occam`s
> >>>razor. You offer the existance of conspiracies (here and in other
> >>>posts) to support the concept of a conspiracy in the assassination. I
> >>
> >>I did not offer the fact of conspiracies in other cases to prove one in
> >>the JFK case.
> >
> >
> > I didn`t say "prove". I said "support the concept".
> >
>
> You can sometimes learn from noticing patterns.
It can also lead to mistaken assumptions.
> >>I gave you an example to see how badly you could stumble.
> >>And you fell for the bait, claiming that the man committed suicide by
> >>shooting himself 5 times in the back of the head with a different weapon.
> >
> >
> > I wonder why you think I said the man committed suicide...
> >
>
> Because you had agreed with the premise.
Never did.
> >>>respond that since the possibility of a conspiracy always exists, it
> >>>must be shown in a case by case basis, not assumed. The Rodney King
> >>>beating might show police brutality in one instance, it doesn`t show
> >>>brutality in all cases brutality might be alledged.
> >>>
> >>
> >>No one here is presuming conspiracy. You'd be on the side of the police
> >>arguing that the Rodney King case was not police brutality.
> >
> >
> > Totally ignoring the point I was trying to make with this example, I
> > see. Does the Rodney King incident show brutality exists in all cases
> > where brutality is alledged?
> >
>
> Of course not. Another strawman argument.
> There is not conspiracy in every case where it is alleged. But there
> often is.
There sometimes is, and sometimes isn`t, which means you need to
judge each case on it`s own merits, not predisposition. The frequency
of conspiracy in crimes in general doesn`t speak at all as to whether
there was a conspiracy in this particular case.
> >>I am not
> >>talking about differences of opinion about the motive.
> >
> >
> > Neither was I. I was making the point that cases need to be viewed
> > on a case by case basis, not as an extention of some other unrelated
> > incident.
> >
> >
> >>I am talking about
> >>the physical facts of the case.
> >
> >
> > No, you were talking about hypothetical crimes being commited by
> > persons unknown.
> >
>
> Now, how do you know that? Maybe I was setting you up with a real case.
Go for it.
> >>Do you deny that the tape of the Rodney
> >>King beating is physical evidence and trumps the anecdotal denials of the
> >>officers who did the beating?
> >
> >
> > I think if RK hadn`t pulled away from the cops upon exiting his car,
> > this incident would not have occurred. Had he complied with the officers
>
> Sure, sure. How many times have we heard that? I might remind you that
> the 3 civil rights workers complied with the police. And what happened
> to them? You seem to be living in some dream world where nothing
> sinister ever happens.
Are you seriously saying that because some police officers killed
some people, that we should no longer be compelled to comply with the
law? I`m arguing for examining on a case by case basis, not "this
happened a thousand miles away 40 years ago, so it proves any case I
care to apply it to".
> > orders, instead of repeatedly trying to rise, the beating might have
> > stopped (the footage shows cops reaching for their cuffs, only to return
> > to beating when RK attempted to get up again). Personally. I don`t think
> > cops should be wrestling around with the knuckleheads they have to deal
> > with on a daily basis. The only result is cops in the hospital with
> > sprains and breaks, when they are needed on the streets. They are trained
> > *not* to scuffle and wrestle with suspects, but to use the clubs to subdue
> > (I think that has changed now). RK`s actions were the reason that incident
> > occurred, not the cops, the cops acted as they were trained, which is why
> > they were found innocent.
> >
> >
>
> Some time you should try putting yourself into the victim's shoes. Would
> you be willing to simply lie on the ground and be beaten to death? Would
> you just walk into the cattle car for your "vacation" to a "resort" in
> Poland?
In Rodney King`s shoes, I would have simply pulled over for the cops.
You should stop pretending that his actions had nothing to do with how
that event played out. He got out of the car acting very strangely,
wouldn`t comply with their instructions and then pulled away from the
cops. You have police who are pumped with adrenaline from a high speed
pursuit which RK initiated. They are dealing with a person acting
strangly, they might think he is high, he isn`t complying to their
commands, what should they do? Grapple with him, getting themselves hurt?
I remember a film shot here when "Cops" were here in Philly. A naked guy
broke into a barbershop. He was shot by the owner before the cops came,
and when they got there, instead of using their cluns, they decided to
grapple this guy (probably because the cameras were rolling). In any case,
the guy was sweaty, bloody, and the cops couldn`t get a hold of him, he
was throwing them all over the place, probably hopped up on drugs. They
finally got him down and cuffed, but at any time during this scuffle any
of them could have been seriously injured. And after they cuffed him, they
took him to the hospital where he died from the gunshot wound. Here is a
guy with a fatal gunshot wound kicking a half dozen cops asses for a few
minutes. The point is that the cops don`t know what they are dealing with
a lot of the time, and it is possible that someone could get up at some
point during that beating, and put a cop or two in the hospital,
especially if they have enough drugs in their system.
> >>>>A very small
> >>>>conspiracy of a small gang of pursesnatchers or maybe a pursesnatcher and
> >>>>his girlfriend is not the grandeous international ring you are making up,
> >>>>but it is nonetheless a conspiracy.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Yah, it is. But how could they move against the girlfriend if the
> >>>pursesnatcher they caught couldn`t or wouldn`t testify against her? If
> >>>Oz was part of a conspiracy, and Oz never implicated anyone, and never
> >>>told anyone, then unless these people confess their role, it seems
> >>
> >>Maybe Oswald did not know who was setting him up. But he did indicate
> >>before he was killed that he had been set up.
> >
> >
> > How? That "patsy " remark? He claime he was being picked on because
> > he had been to the Soviet Union, not that he had been set up.
> >
>
> First, he did not have the time to flesh out what he meant.
You can argue what he meant, but not what he said. And what he said was
that he was being picked on for his having gone to the Soviet Union. Now,
he may have meant that he killed JFK by saying that, but that isn`t what
he said either.
> And perhaps
> he did not know exactly who was setting him up. But he got the gist of
> it correct, that he was being used to blame it on the Communists.
So, of all the ways he could have chosen to convey that thought, he
said something that didn`t?
> And perhaps you do not understand it because you do not have all the
> facts. Like the fact that you did not know that he was originally
> charged with killing the President as part of an International Communist
> Conspiracy.
<snicker> Is that a charge? On the Dallas arrest sheets I`ve seen, they
just typed in "Murder". Can you direct me to a charge sheet that has
"killing the President as part of an International Communist Conspiracy"
on it?
> >>>unlikely to surface through investigation. If Oz wasn`t involved, then
> >>
> >>You need to look at historical examples. There are cases where a guilty
> >>verdict was returned 40 years after the murder and without a confession.
> >>New evidence, new witnesses, reexamined evidence, change in political
> >>weather, etc.
> >
> >
> > Well, you guys keep plugging away, I`m sure that dry well will
> > result in a gusher for you folks some day.
> >
>
> Already has. But new evidence keeps coming out every year.
Yah, thats what I always hear, how well stocked with paint you folks
are. You just never paint any pictures with them. Funny how you folks
claim you could if you wanted to, or already have, but I never see these
pictures.
> >>>there was a massive effort to make him appear so, which speaks to a
> >>>large conspiracy powerful enough to control all aspects of a wide
> >>>ranging investigation.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Another strawman. Who said there had to be a "massive effort"? It could
> >>be done by one intelligence agent.
> >
> >
> > Then explain hypothetically how this one agent can account for all
> > the evidence against Oz.
> >
>
> It's called a control. A CIA officer who runs agents. He tells Oswald
> what to do or by using a cut-out influences him.
Now he has a stable of agents. This small conspiracy is growing
already, and you haven`t begun to explain particulars. I don`t care about
the oganization, I just want to see you produce a small conspiracy model
involving one agent that could account for the incriminating evidence
against Oz in which Oz is a non-participant in the assassination. Like I
said, either Oz is guilty or there was a massive effort to make him appear
so. You claim there is middle ground, yet seem unable to show it.
> >>How many people were involved in Nixon's plan to plant evidence on Bremer?
> >
> >
> > If the only damning evidence against Oz was his rifle being found
> > where the shots came from you could maybe point to this as a similar
> > case. It`s not.
> >
>
> If Oswald was being set up, using his rifle would be the most important
> element.
No, the most important element would be to make sure Oz didn`t watch
the President go by on the front steps with many of the other employees.
That alone could be complex and tricky, controlling Oz to be out of sight
when the motorcade went past. Human beings are much harder to control than
inanimate objects. Now, you have to get control of Oz`s rifle, and get it
to the sixth floor of the TSBD. Already, with only a few of the aspects of
the case examined it is becoming complex. How is this small conspiracy
acomplishing those tasks?
> But to mislead the investigation, the conspirators would want
> to use someone with links to Communism.
Yah, I know. He didn`t kill JFK because he was a crackpot political
fanatic, he was chosen to be set up because he was a crackpot political
fanatic. But, back to this small conspiracy model. Who is tracking Oz,
getting the background on him, learning his habits and politics, where he
keeps his rifle, in a small conspiracy model? I don`t think many of the
people he worked with knew he was a Communist, or had defected to the
Soviet Union. More complexity, as information about Oz must be gathered
for him to be set up.
> >>>>Just an aside: Homeland Security has
> >>>>recently been investigating a link between local car theft rings and
> >>>>International terrorists.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> A local car theft ring is in itself a conspiracy, without
> >>>international connections.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Ah, but your strawman argument was that some minor local crime could not
> >>possibly be an international plot.
> >
> >
> > No, my point with the pursesnatcher should have been clear to you. I
> > said "If the police catch a pursesnatcher, should they conclude he is
> > part of an international ring of pursesnatchers, just because that
> > possibility can`t be ruled out?" What part of that is giving you such
> > problems?
> >
>
> Your strawman is in stating a proposition which can easily be knocked
> down. That's what a strawman argument is. The point is in the word you
> chose to use - "conclude." Your argument would not be so ridiculous if
> you had simply talked about suspecting or ruling out.
But it was never "that some minor local crime could not possibly be
an international plot" as you characterized it.
> >>>>>is difficult or impossible to rule out in any crime, that doesn`t mean
> >>>>
> >>>>I am not talking about ruling anything out or proving a negative.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Then the fault with LN is that they don`t endlessly entertain this
> >>>possibility of conspiracy as CT do? For years, people have claimed
> >>
> >>Not exactly. The LNers have many faults. One of which is a refusal to
> >>look at the evidence.
> >
> >
> > Yah, look at Cliff, claiming to know exactlly how Kennedy`s clothing
> > was arranged when he was shot. Such is the desperation with which CT
> > "look at the evidence".
> >
>
> Cliff is reacting to the WC defenders who claim to know exactly how
> Kennedy's clothing was arranged when he was shot, which they desperately
> need to do in order to move the wound up above the shoulders to get their
> SBT to work.
I wouldn`t trash the theory of evolution just because of the
platypus.
> >>>Nessie lives in Loch Ness. A lot of effort has been put into
> >>>establishing that she does. Just because it can`t be proven Nessie
> >>>isn`t there doesn`t mean you can`t conclude Nessie isn`t there. Forty
> >>>some odd years of effort in this case, and CT still can`t show this
> >>>conspiracy. The reason why is obvious to me.
> >>>
> >>
> >>I won't go into every possible case, but just because something is not
> >>found today does not prove that it will never be found.
> >
> >
> > Exactlly the point. Nessie can never be ruled out, and neither can
> > conspiracy.
> >
>
> Maybe you think so. The problem is in making a prouncement about what
> exists or what does not exist without bothering to actually look for the
> evidence. Such as the Coelacanth. Everyone was comfortable in saying
> that it was extinct, despite the rumors. The experts would say that it
> was easy to just talk about the possibility, but if it really was still
> alive, then it would be easy to produce a specimen. You'd be arguing the
> same thing. For hundreds of years.
> 1800 - The Coelacanth is extinct.
> 1900 - The Coelacanth is extinct.
> 1938 - Oops, we just found a live Coelacanth.
> Of course, you'd be claiming that it was a fake. Or how do we know it
> really was alive?
2005. Still no Nessie. Still no conspiracy. Perhaps Nessie was in on
the conspiracy, that would be a two-fer-one.
> >>Scientists are
> >>making new finds every day. Was the meteorite from Mars found in 1900?
> >>So you'd claim that such a thing is impossible.
> >
> >
> > Personally, I wait for someone to offer a reasonable explaination.
> > With the assassination, that has been done for over forty years.
> >
>
> No, you avoid looking at the evidence, lest it disprove your
> preconceived notions.
Even in one single aspect, Oz trying to kill the cops who arrested
him, you CT fail to give a reasonable explaination. Yet there is an
explaination staring you in the face you don`t want to accept.
Bud
Yah, well you go meander all over the palace looking for worm holes,
and I`ll take a beeline, and we`ll se who gets somewhere quicker.
> >> Not examining the areas that
> >>could have defined conspiracy is evident not only in the WC approach to
> >>LHO, but also to the fact that LHO was murdered while in custody of the
> >>DPD.
> >
> >
> > Yah, that still remains true, even after all this time, and is not
> > likely to change any time soon. And no one has been able to show that
> > the DPD purposely allowed Oz to be killed, and that too is unlikely to
> > change any time soon.
> >
>
> That is not the point. The point is that some WC defenders are gullible
> enough to fall for simplistic explanations to exhonerate the DPD.
Certainly you wouldn`t believe Oswald was purposely allowed to be
killed without it being proven, right? That hasn`t been done, has it?
> >>The WC decided that that, also, was the work of a lone gunman not
> >>involved with anyone else.
> >
> >
> > And who can fault them at reaching this conclusion? Many people with
> > great effort and desire have come up woefully short at showing anyone
> > putting Ruby up to killing Oz.
> >
>
> Except for the very words that came out of his own mouth.
Who did Ruby name as having put him up to killing Oz?
Peter Makres
Problem for one is, in 42 years nobody has been able to prove that anyone
but LHO committed the crime. You've no proof whatsoever that LHO was
murdered "because" he refused to "confess". Pure speculation. As for wacky
theories, lord knows we've heard plenty of them in the last 4 decades! And
the
theory (if you insist on calling it a theory) has survived many, many
attempts to
show that it was incorrect. That should tell you something.
Peter M.
jwrush
There was enough evidence against him before he was killed so that
students of history can understand that he shot the President, he shot
Tippit while trying to escape, and he tried to kill McDonald when he
finally realized he was being captured.
Conspiracy buffs want it both ways: 1) Oswald was innocent, 2) Oswald was
part of a government conspiracy to kill the President.
With that common attitude among the buffs, Oswald has won a great victory.
He shot the President, and for 42 years he's had hundreds of defenders
trying to take the blame off of him and place it on right wingers. That
was his motive to start with. He manipulated people when he was alive and
he's still manipulating people now.
Dollarmaker
MIDDLE POST
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1128746419....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
==========================================================================
> Who did Ruby name as having put him up to killing Oz?
PEOPLE IN HIGH PLACES
==========================================================================
Barb Junkkarinen
What's "common" is your assumptions ... almost all off target.
I'm one of the dreaded CTs, as you know. I do not now, nor have I ever
claimed, that Oswald was involved in some sort of "government
conspiracy." Most I know of do not claim a "government conspiracy" to
kill JFK.
That's not the "common attitude aamong the buffs." If there is a
"common attitude" here ... it's yours and it reeks of intolerance and
assumptive leaps.
Barb :-)
>
>
>
Bud
You are right, there was no point to having an investigation into this
affair. Since the owner of the murder weapon was dead, and that wasn`t
about to change anytime soon, no explaination could be forthcoming from
him. Since Oz was obviously guilty, and, as you say, can`t be either
prosecuted or offer a defense, why look into this case at all? Even if a
conspiracy did exist, chances are that many of the conspirators are dead
by now, hence out of the reach of the law, and unable to defend
themselves. And since it is impossible to sully the names of dead people
who can`t defend themselves, I suppose we can have an end to the
complaining about Hoover, Nixon, McCarthy, ect. After all, it is a slanted
field to attack dead people who can`t defend themselves. In fact, I don`t
remeber Hitler getting a trial, perhaps he was just a patsy also.
> Marina in 'protective custody' and threatened with deportation if she
> didn't give them what they wanted. A problem I am seeing with LNTs is
> that they are perfectly happy forgetting some basic tenets of our freedom.
> They don't care if LHO's legal rights were violated.
CT don`t seem to care that JFK`s were.
> They don't care if
> he was murdered because he refused to 'confess'.
No, I don`t care to listen every bit of unsupported conjecture that
pops into someones head.
> They don't care if
> evidence is tainted.
The picture of Oz holding his rifle, the murder weapon, and the weapon
he said he didn`t own is tainted? His prints on the murder weapon? Him
being the last person seen on the floor the shots were fired from? On and
on. Chuck the whole case against Oz because CT perceive some problems with
some of the evidence?
> They don't care if a wacky theory is created to tie
> up the forensic evidence. Why is that?
Because the WC offered reasonable explainations for the events, and
CT cannot.