LNers who used to be CTers?
Dave Reitzes
vehemently, as a matter of fact) that JFK was killed by a conspiracy
and no longer do.
Who else at this forum has gone this route?
Dave
bigdog
Count bigdog in.
Robert Harris
David, what would you say, was your most "vehement" pro-conspiracy
posting??
Or better yet, could you point us to one of your postings in which you
described your theory about who did it and/or how it was done?
Robert Harris
Steve Thomas
Im about 85 percent there. I still think there could have been a
conspiracy, but until/unless something new and BIG comes out, its looking
more like Oswald could have done it alone. There are still things i find
hard to believe in both CT and LN versions though.
Anthony Marsh
Oh, you mean like a deathbed confession?
The problem is that you would never even be aware of something new and
BIG coming out because you are not a researcher.
Jean Davison
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:26c19662-125f-4d64...@a21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Rush to Judgment was the first book I read, and I fell for it.
Years ago I wrote an article arguing for four shots, based on
eyewitness testimony. Fortunately, I wasn't able to get it published.
Could that be the biggest difference between LNs and CTs -- the weight given
to witness statements?
Jean
claviger
lived on for awhile and didn't confess to anything. He SPECULATED that
LBJ and Cord Meyer had something to do with the assassination. I'm
sure its only coincidence two guys he detested they were named as
culprits. And when DPD Smith when ran up with gun in hand the fake SS
Agent asked, "Voulez vous voir mon ID."
Anthony Marsh
Yes, even a deathbed confession is not enough for you. You just claim the
guy is lying. I guess you don't understand the concept. The person is
dying and wants to confess before he dies to ease his conscience, but not
face any legal action. It's rare that they execute a person who is already
dead. E. Howard Hunt was dying. He confessed.
Sandy McCroskey
For many years I accepted the notion that there was a conspiracy. I
started to second-guess the claims for it after the Oliver Stone movie
came out and critics did some fact-checking.
/sm
Robert Harris
wrote:
>
>
>David, what would you say, was your most "vehement" pro-conspiracy
>posting??
>
>Or better yet, could you point us to one of your postings in which you
>described your theory about who did it and/or how it was done?
David?
Steve Thomas
No, nothing like a deathbed confession, i mean like PROOF! Duh!
As for not being aware, whatev's Marsh. Although i hope the outburst
made you feel better, it does with kids for some reason.
pjsp...@aol.com
I saw JFK like everyone else and was intrigued by the idea there was a
conspiracy, but not convinced. 10 years or so later I read Case Closed and
was 95% convinced there was no conspiracy. I decided, however, to check
out some of Posner's claims before firmly committing myself to one
position. One thing that particularly bothered me was that the SBT
drawings of JFK and Connally in Posner's book distorted their body shapes
to make the wounds align. This led me to start reading about Posner's book
on the internet. I soon realized there were many other deceptions in his
book.
What pushed me to the CT side, however, was Lattimer's SBT drawing. That
drawing is the single-most ridiculous and embarrassing exhibit I've ever
seen, and yet many--perhaps the majority--of those holding Oswald fired
the shots, find it compelling, and argue for its accuracy.
Upon further reading, I realized that the mystery photo had been re-
interpreted, that the doctors lied about the back wound location in 66 and
67, etc... And it slowly came together. The evidence suggested a
conspiracy, and the LBJ Administration--perhaps concerned a conspiracy
investigation would hurt the country--refused to follow the evidence.
On May 3, 7:00 am, "Jean Davison" <jjdavison2000NO...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> "Dave Reitzes" <dreit...@aol.com> wrote in message
Bud
> On 5/2/2010 7:49 PM, Steve Thomas wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 2, 9:30 am, Dave Reitzes<dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> A lot of people here are probably aware that I used to believe (rather
> >> vehemently, as a matter of fact) that JFK was killed by a conspiracy
> >> and no longer do.
>
> >> Who else at this forum has gone this route?
>
> >> Dave
>
> > Im about 85 percent there. I still think there could have been a
> > conspiracy, but until/unless something new and BIG comes out, its looking
> > more like Oswald could have done it alone. There are still things i find
> > hard to believe in both CT and LN versions though.
>
> Oh, you mean like a deathbed confession?
Oswald didn`t confess, the most he got out was an "Oh!"
> The problem is that you would never even be aware of something new and
> BIG coming out because you are not a researcher.
Says assassination hobbyist Tony Marsh.
yeuhd
convinced he was right, that there was more than one gunman in Dealey
Plaza.
Sandy McCroskey
> David, what would you say, was your most "vehement" pro-conspiracy
> posting??
>
> Or better yet, could you point us to one of your postings in which you
> described your theory about who did it and/or how it was done?
>
> Robert Harris
>
I think you have a point, Bob: a person who has developed his own pet
theory about the assassination would find it harder to change his
mind.
/sandy
claviger
If E Howard Hunt is right your shooting scenario is ready for the
trash bin. So who is right E H Hunt or you?
John Blubaugh
What? This movie that LNs claim is entirely responsible for making
most of the people in the world believe in a conspiracy turned you
into an LN? How can that be? Perhaps you were intelligent enough to
realize it was only a fictional account and that it included just
about every conspiracy theory ever conceived? The outrage the LN
fanatics here spew about this movie really amuses me.
JB
Dave Reitzes
wrote:
> "Dave Reitzes" <dreit...@aol.com> wrote in message
I'm writing an article that touches upon this subject. Off the cuff,
I'd say that LNs tend to be more impressed by hard evidence and expert
testimony, while CTs tend to be persuaded by lay interpretations of
forensic evidence, eyewitness testimony, speculation, hearsay, rumor,
and innuendo.
Dave
Dave Reitzes
> On 2 May 2010 19:48:56 -0400, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > >David, what would you say, was your most "vehement" pro-conspiracy
> >posting??
>
> >Or better yet, could you point us to one of your postings in which you
> >described your theory about who did it and/or how it was done?
>
> David?
Whatever you do, Bob, don't try a Google search!
Dave \:^)
claviger
After seeing the Zapruder film for the first time I was convinced the
shot came from the front right. My reaction was how could the
authorities be so stupid as to not realize this after looking at this
film? However, after reading a lot more about the case I realized it
was my ignorance of ballistics that was the problem.
bigdog
> How about CTs who used to be LNers? Now that's a small group.
>
> I saw JFK like everyone else and was intrigued by the idea there was a
> conspiracy, but not convinced. 10 years or so later I read Case Closed and
> was 95% convinced there was no conspiracy. I decided, however, to check
> out some of Posner's claims before firmly committing myself to one
> position. One thing that particularly bothered me was that the SBT
> drawings of JFK and Connally in Posner's book distorted their body shapes
> to make the wounds align. This led me to start reading about Posner's book
> on the internet. I soon realized there were many other deceptions in his
> book.
>
> What pushed me to the CT side, however, was Lattimer's SBT drawing. That
> drawing is the single-most ridiculous and embarrassing exhibit I've ever
> seen, and yet many--perhaps the majority--of those holding Oswald fired
> the shots, find it compelling, and argue for its accuracy.
>
liking, is there a bullet trajectory that does satisfy you. If so,
what is the path of the bullet after it leaves JFK's throat? How does
it miss JBC? Does it go left, right, or over JBC? Or is there another
possibility?
The problem with trying to diagram the path of the SBT is that you are
trying to represent a 3 dimensional event in two dimensions. You are
faced with that limitation no matter what perspective you diagram the
bullet path from. That is why I have been most impressed with Dale
Meyers work. He shows the bullet trajectory in a virtual 3-D world
which can be viewed from any perspective. It shows the SBT works.
I will continue to believe in the SBT until someone develops a more
credible theory of the path of the bullet that went threw JFK's neck.
If it didn't hit Connally, what happened to it. The SBT is the
lynchpin of the single assassin theory. Without it, there had to be
two shooters. The SBT is as sound today as when it was first developed
by the WC. It is the result of rock solid deductive reasoning. The
fact that no one in 46 years has been able to develop a reasonable
alternative is a testament to that.
> Upon further reading, I realized that the mystery photo had been re-
> interpreted, that the doctors lied about the back wound location in 66 and
> 67, etc... And it slowly came together. The evidence suggested a
> conspiracy, and the LBJ Administration--perhaps concerned a conspiracy
> investigation would hurt the country--refused to follow the evidence.
>
> On May 3, 7:00 am, "Jean Davison" <jjdavison2000NO...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Dave Reitzes" <dreit...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:26c19662-125f-4d64...@a21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >A lot of people here are probably aware that I used to believe (rather
> > > vehemently, as a matter of fact) that JFK was killed by a conspiracy
> > > and no longer do.
>
> > > Who else at this forum has gone this route?
>
> > > Dave
>
> > Rush to Judgment was the first book I read, and I fell for it.
> > Years ago I wrote an article arguing for four shots, based on
> > eyewitness testimony. Fortunately, I wasn't able to get it published.
> > Could that be the biggest difference between LNs and CTs -- the weight given
> > to witness statements?
> > Jean- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
You are already not aware of the proof which everyone else can see.
Sandy McCroskey
Soi-disant "guerrilla historian" Oliver Stone was on a mission, but he
unwittingly came up with a ridiculous scenario that, as you say,
"included just about every conspiracy theory every conceived." That's
no way to convince intelligent people of anything at all, except that
any conspiracy theory is an utter crock if it relies on any of the
misrepresentations, inaccuracies and outright falsehoods of which his
film are made.
/sandy
Robert Harris
Yes I did David. And I found nothing even remotely like that. I did
however, find a few posts in which I asked you that very question and
you replied pretty much like you do now:-)
Who did you think was behind the assassination and how did they pull
it off, david?
Robert Harris
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
You saw it as entertainment only and that is what it was. Stone is no
historian no matter what he might say.
JB
Bud
> On 5/3/2010 10:07 AM, claviger wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 2, 11:18 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 5/2/2010 7:49 PM, Steve Thomas wrote:
>
> >>> On May 2, 9:30 am, Dave Reitzes<dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>> A lot of people here are probably aware that I used to believe (rather
> >>>> vehemently, as a matter of fact) that JFK was killed by a conspiracy
> >>>> and no longer do.
>
> >>>> Who else at this forum has gone this route?
>
> >>>> Dave
>
> >>> Im about 85 percent there. I still think there could have been a
> >>> conspiracy, but until/unless something new and BIG comes out, its looking
> >>> more like Oswald could have done it alone. There are still things i find
> >>> hard to believe in both CT and LN versions though.
>
> >> Oh, you mean like a deathbed confession?
> >> The problem is that you would never even be aware of something new and
> >> BIG coming out because you are not a researcher.
> > What deathbed confession? James Files is still alive and E Howard Hunt
> > lived on for awhile and didn't confess to anything. He SPECULATED that
> > LBJ and Cord Meyer had something to do with the assassination. I'm
> > sure its only coincidence two guys he detested they were named as
> > culprits. And when DPD Smith when ran up with gun in hand the fake SS
> > Agent asked, "Voulez vous voir mon ID."
>
> Yes, even a deathbed confession is not enough for you.
He wasn`t on his deathbed. And the possibility of editing makes it
difficult to determine his intent.
>You just claim the
> guy is lying.
You can believe him if you like Tony, it`s a free country.
>I guess you don't understand the concept. The person is
> dying and wants to confess before he dies to ease his conscience, but not
> face any legal action.
He didn`t provide any information to go after himself or anyone
else.
>It's rare that they execute a person who is already
> dead. E. Howard Hunt was dying. He confessed.
Maybe he did, maybe he didn`t. But what he did do is neglect to
provide anything to substantiate any of his claims.
Anthony Marsh
> On May 3, 9:15 pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM"<pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>> How about CTs who used to be LNers? Now that's a small group.
>>
>> I saw JFK like everyone else and was intrigued by the idea there was a
>> conspiracy, but not convinced. 10 years or so later I read Case Closed and
>> was 95% convinced there was no conspiracy. I decided, however, to check
>> out some of Posner's claims before firmly committing myself to one
>> position. One thing that particularly bothered me was that the SBT
>> drawings of JFK and Connally in Posner's book distorted their body shapes
>> to make the wounds align. This led me to start reading about Posner's book
>> on the internet. I soon realized there were many other deceptions in his
>> book.
>>
>> What pushed me to the CT side, however, was Lattimer's SBT drawing. That
>> drawing is the single-most ridiculous and embarrassing exhibit I've ever
>> seen, and yet many--perhaps the majority--of those holding Oswald fired
>> the shots, find it compelling, and argue for its accuracy.
>>
> If the Posner and Lattimer diagrams of the bullet path are not to your
> liking, is there a bullet trajectory that does satisfy you. If so,
> what is the path of the bullet after it leaves JFK's throat? How does
> it miss JBC? Does it go left, right, or over JBC? Or is there another
> possibility?
>
Yes, it misses Connally. It goes over his left shoulder and out of the
limo.
> The problem with trying to diagram the path of the SBT is that you are
> trying to represent a 3 dimensional event in two dimensions. You are
> faced with that limitation no matter what perspective you diagram the
> bullet path from. That is why I have been most impressed with Dale
> Meyers work. He shows the bullet trajectory in a virtual 3-D world
> which can be viewed from any perspective. It shows the SBT works.
>
Dale Myers lies and you believe him.
> I will continue to believe in the SBT until someone develops a more
> credible theory of the path of the bullet that went threw JFK's neck.
You continue to believe in the Warren Commission even after you know
that they lied to you.
> If it didn't hit Connally, what happened to it. The SBT is the
Yeah, what happened to the bullet the WC missed? Show it to me. Show me
what it hit.
> lynchpin of the single assassin theory. Without it, there had to be
> two shooters. The SBT is as sound today as when it was first developed
Jeez, you are not trying hard enough. If you were a really dedicated lone
nutter you would figure out a way that Oswald could have fired separate
shots which each wounded JFK, then Connally. Or maybe you could invent a
Modified Single Bullet Theory, copyright Anthony Marsh 1995, where one
bullet went through Kennedy and hit Connally's back, exiting this chest
and landing in his thigh, then Connally was hit by a later bullet in his
wrist. You are not pulling your own weight, slacker.
> by the WC. It is the result of rock solid deductive reasoning. The
It is the result of official lies.
> fact that no one in 46 years has been able to develop a reasonable
> alternative is a testament to that.
>
It's a testament to how lazy you guys are.
Anthony Marsh
WC defenders try their phony Argument by Authority, but they never
produce the evidence, only lies.
John Blubaugh
Sometimes people who are dying do that type of thing. Very rude of him
don't you think?
JB
David Von Pein
>>> "WC defenders try their phony Argument by Authority, but they never
produce the evidence, only lies." <<<
<chuckle>
The evidence has been on the table since '63. Tony Marsh, like all CTers,
just refuses to accept it. It's as simple (and silly) as that.
But, naturally, Anthony Marsh and his cohorts in conspiracyville will
continue to twist in the wind and invent anti-SBT theories and other
unsupportable works of fiction and fantasy to keep from facing the "Oswald
Did It By Himself" truth, even though a perfectly good and reasonable
"SBT" is already on the table, thanks to the Warren Commission's work.
The HSCA's Z190 timeline is ridiculous, but at least they acknowledged the
obvious fact that one bullet--CE399--wounded both JFK and JBC, and that
was the most-important bottom-line conclusion for the House Select
Committee to reach, regardless of the exact timing for that SBT shot.
CTers, of course, want to believe that not only did the WC get things all
fouled up with respect to CE399 and the SBT, but the HSCA (14 years later
and with a totally DIFFERENT group of investigators!) ALSO got it all
wrong too, because the HSCA also said that that exact bullet--CE399--was
THE BULLET that went through the bodies of both President Kennedy and
Governor Connally.
How many official investigations would it take to convince CTers of the
validity of the Single-Bullet Theory and Commission Exhibit No. 399? Four?
Five? Six investigations perhaps? I wonder.
More conspiracy believers should really watch the first-day and second-
day TV coverage from November 22 and 23, 1963. It blows the various
"multi-gun plots" to bits, and strongly suggests (to the point of virtual
verification after Day 1) three very crucial things:
1.) Three shots (and only three shots) were fired during the assassination
of President Kennedy in Dealey Plaza.
2.) There was only ONE person shooting at JFK.
3.) Lee Harvey Oswald was shooting at JFK.
The math's pretty easy when you've got all three of the above things
staring you in the face.
And the six DPD hallway interviews given by Chief Jesse Curry (linked
below) pretty much seal the deal on Oswald's guilt, right down to Curry's
November 23rd hallway announcement that the DPD had just received word
from the FBI that "the order letter" for the murder weapon (the C2766
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle) was filled out in the handwriting of "our
suspect--Oswald".
So, just 24 hours after the assassination, the Dallas Police Department
and the FBI had Lee Oswald tied to the President's murder in various
highly-incriminating ways. Let's take a look at just a few of them:
1.) It was HIS (Oswald's) rifle.
2.) HIS (Oswald's) palmprint was lifted off the gun by Lt. J.C. Day of the
Dallas Police Department. (Lt. Day stated to the Warren Commission that he
was reasonably certain right from the get-go that the palmprint he lifted
off of Rifle C2766 was Oswald's print. That print was later conclusively
proven by the FBI to be Oswald's palmprint.)
3.) By the afternoon of November 23, multiple witnesses had already
identified HIM (Oswald) as J.D. Tippit's killer.
4.) It was HIS (Oswald's) handwriting on "the order letter" [Curry's
11/23/63 words] that was filled out by LHO and mailed to Klein's Sporting
Goods in March '63.
5.) And it was OSWALD who was fighting like a wild man and pulling a gun
on the police in the Texas Theater just 80 minutes after JFK was killed on
a street that was just yards away from where HE (Oswald) worked.
6.) Plus: the DPD also knew as of 11/22/63 and 11/23/63 that HE (Oswald)
was positively INSIDE THE BUILDING at about 12:32 PM, which was just two
minutes after the President was killed from that very same building (the
TSBD).
Yes, indeed, more conspiracy theorists should take advantage of these
videos linked below which show what was happening in Dallas and at City
Hall--live, as it was occurring--on November 22 and 23.
If the cops were "covering up" a bunch of evidence in the murder cases of
JFK and J.D. Tippit and were engaging in a plot to frame an innocent patsy
named Lee Harvey Oswald THIS QUICKLY on Friday and Saturday (as many
conspiracy theorists seem to believe), then they did an outstanding job of
"framing" him -- because just about every single thing we see in these
videos is spelling out "Oswald's guilty of two murders":
http://JFK-Assassination-As-It-Happened.blogspot.com
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/jesse-curry-interviews.html
Anthony Marsh
He THOUGHT he was dying.
>> You just claim the
>> guy is lying.
>
> You can believe him if you like Tony, it`s a free country.
>
>> I guess you don't understand the concept. The person is
>> dying and wants to confess before he dies to ease his conscience, but not
>> face any legal action.
>
> He didn`t provide any information to go after himself or anyone
> else.
>
Treason.
WhiskyJoe
> from: pjspeare
> How about CTs who used to be LNers?
> Now that's a small group.
Yes, it is.
> One thing that particularly bothered me was
> that the SBT drawings of JFK and Connally in
> Posner's book distorted their body shapes
> to make the wounds align.
All of the pro SBT diagrams are pretty similar
to each other. LNers are not at all reluctant
to show a top down view, where one can check
the angles. In general, the pro SBT diagrams
have the following properties:
* all show a small horizontal angle, between
the path of the bullet and the direction the
limousine is pointing, 5 to 10 degrees.
This is clearly accurate.
* all show Connally 6 to 8 inches inboard of JFK.
Connally may have leaned inboard an inch or two,
to make it easier to possibly try to glance at
JFK, so the 8 inches may be accurate.
* most show Connally's torso turned to the right,
around 30 to 40 degrees. This is accurate.
The diagrams showing a greater turn may be
representing a SBT at z-210 or z-215 and so
are not unreasonable.
In contrast, the prominent Anti SBT diagrams,
are way off. Dr. Wecht's HSCA diagram shows a
horizontal angle for the bullet of 37 degrees.
In the book 'High Treason' the angle is
27 degrees. The movie JFK shows an angle of
around 25 degrees. No where near the true
5 to 10 degrees.
I cannot see how anyone can seriously claim that
both sides present diagrams that are equally
inaccurate.
Most telling, I've asked CTers to provide a link
to a good quality Anti SBT diagram. One that
shows a top down view, like Dr. Wecht's HSCA
diagram or the one in 'High Treason' that they
are willing to defend. For some strange reason,
the prefer to argue the point with words, not
with diagrams. They just claim the bullet
through JFK's neck will miss Connally's wound
by 4 inches. Or maybe 6 inches. But they won't
back this up with a good diagram.
The reason is clear. Such a diagram will make it
clear, even under CT geometry, how remarkably
close the wounds line up. It will also
graphically demonstrate how the bullet through
JFK should of struck Connally, so if the SBT is
false, then Connally should have two back
entrance wounds. The only way to avoid these
problems, is to use angles and other distortions
that are clearly false. So they restrict their
arguments to words.
**************************************************
Question:
Why won't CTers present a good Anti SBT diagram
that they are willing to defend? Where is that
good Anti SBT diagram that I can check the
angles with and compare with maps of Dealey
Plaza?
Why shouldn't I believe the Pro SBT diagrams,
when CTers have forfeited the argument, by
not providing a good Anti SBT diagram that
I can check?
Dave Reitzes
All right, Bob. As amusing as it is to watch your research skills hinder
your ambition to rend me limb from limb, I'll, er, throw you a bone:
http://www.jfk-online.com/conspiracy.html
Kindly cut me some slack for making many of the same mistakes you make to
this very day. It's not as though I haven't tried to tell you.
Dave
Steve Thomas
No im aware of it, its just not proof.
Bud
He didn`t die until two years after the initial statements. In the video
with his son, he seems lucid, sitting and drinking coffee and talking. Not
even in bed.
> Very rude of him
> don't you think?
When he doesn`t actually say anything substantial, it kind of nullifies
the whole effort, don`t you think?
It`s an extraordinary claim that requires a "walkthrough" type narrative
from start to finish, with information that can be checked to either lend
credibility to the story, or discredit it. Something like "I was working
on "x" in the summer of "x", when "x" came to me and said there was an
operation in the works that I was being considered for. I went with "x" to
see"X", and he said it was decided that Kennedy had to die for national
security reasons. I was to go with "x", meet "x" and "x", go and stay at
"x", and my role was "x"." This is the sort of thing he could present if
their was any validity to what he was saying. That he didn`t detracts
greatly from the credibility of what he is offering. And since the
information doesn`t seem to be presented in it`s entirety, and unedited
leaves the possibility open that the content is being manipulated.
Bud
<snicker> We`re all dying, Tony.
> >> You just claim the
> >> guy is lying.
>
> > You can believe him if you like Tony, it`s a free country.
>
> >> I guess you don't understand the concept. The person is
> >> dying and wants to confess before he dies to ease his conscience, but not
> >> face any legal action.
>
> > He didn`t provide any information to go after himself or anyone
> > else.
>
> Treason.
You think he could be convicted of treason solely on the strength of
this? I don`t think any prosecutor would have much of a chance, there
isn`t anything to work with.
Anthony Marsh
>
>> from: pjspeare
>
>> How about CTs who used to be LNers?
>> Now that's a small group.
>
> Yes, it is.
>
>> One thing that particularly bothered me was
>> that the SBT drawings of JFK and Connally in
>> Posner's book distorted their body shapes
>> to make the wounds align.
>
> All of the pro SBT diagrams are pretty similar
> to each other. LNers are not at all reluctant
> to show a top down view, where one can check
> the angles. In general, the pro SBT diagrams
> have the following properties:
>
> * all show a small horizontal angle, between
> the path of the bullet and the direction the
> limousine is pointing, 5 to 10 degrees.
> This is clearly accurate.
>
The problem is that YOU don't know the correct numbers.
The angle is never 5 degrees. You just pulled that out of your ass.
> * all show Connally 6 to 8 inches inboard of JFK.
6 inches will not do it. The bullet leaving JFK's throat will already
travel 5 inches to the left by the time it gets to Connally. The wound
on Connally's back was almost 8 inches to the right of his midline. So
that's at least 5 + 8 = 13 inches that Connally needs to be to the left
of JFK, not 6 or 8. These are basic facts and you don't even know them.
> Connally may have leaned inboard an inch or two,
> to make it easier to possibly try to glance at
> JFK, so the 8 inches may be accurate.
>
Or maybe he knew to suddenly jump over 13 inches in order to get ready
for the SBT.
> * most show Connally's torso turned to the right,
> around 30 to 40 degrees. This is accurate.
Wrong. Connally said that he was facing forward when he was hit.
> The diagrams showing a greater turn may be
> representing a SBT at z-210 or z-215 and so
> are not unreasonable.
>
Ok, so like Bugliosi you can't figure out if it was at Z-210, or Z-224,
or even Z-215.
> In contrast, the prominent Anti SBT diagrams,
> are way off. Dr. Wecht's HSCA diagram shows a
Some, not all.
> horizontal angle for the bullet of 37 degrees.
> In the book 'High Treason' the angle is
> 27 degrees. The movie JFK shows an angle of
> around 25 degrees. No where near the true
> 5 to 10 degrees.
>
They do not assume that the bullet which hit Connally also was fired
from the sniper's nest.
> I cannot see how anyone can seriously claim that
> both sides present diagrams that are equally
> inaccurate.
>
Because you are biased.
> Most telling, I've asked CTers to provide a link
> to a good quality Anti SBT diagram. One that
> shows a top down view, like Dr. Wecht's HSCA
> diagram or the one in 'High Treason' that they
> are willing to defend. For some strange reason,
> the prefer to argue the point with words, not
> with diagrams. They just claim the bullet
For some strange reason whenever I post my diagrams you refuse to look
at them.
> through JFK's neck will miss Connally's wound
> by 4 inches. Or maybe 6 inches. But they won't
> back this up with a good diagram.
>
I have several times.
> The reason is clear. Such a diagram will make it
> clear, even under CT geometry, how remarkably
> close the wounds line up. It will also
Close is only ok in horseshoes and hand grenades.
Close enough is the hallmark of the WC defenders.
> graphically demonstrate how the bullet through
> JFK should of struck Connally, so if the SBT is
> false, then Connally should have two back
> entrance wounds. The only way to avoid these
False argument.
There is even one kook who claims that the bullet left Kennedy's throat
and then directly hit Connally's thigh.
> problems, is to use angles and other distortions
> that are clearly false. So they restrict their
> arguments to words.
>
> **************************************************
>
> Question:
>
> Why won't CTers present a good Anti SBT diagram
> that they are willing to defend? Where is that
> good Anti SBT diagram that I can check the
> angles with and compare with maps of Dealey
> Plaza?
>
You don't even have a good map of Dealey Plaza.
Anthony Marsh
>
>>>> "WC defenders try their phony Argument by Authority, but they never
> produce the evidence, only lies."<<<
>
> <chuckle>
>
> The evidence has been on the table since '63. Tony Marsh, like all CTers,
> just refuses to accept it. It's as simple (and silly) as that.
>
> But, naturally, Anthony Marsh and his cohorts in conspiracyville will
> continue to twist in the wind and invent anti-SBT theories and other
> unsupportable works of fiction and fantasy to keep from facing the "Oswald
> Did It By Himself" truth, even though a perfectly good and reasonable
> "SBT" is already on the table, thanks to the Warren Commission's work.
>
The SBT is a lie. That's why you lost the case.
> The HSCA's Z190 timeline is ridiculous, but at least they acknowledged the
> obvious fact that one bullet--CE399--wounded both JFK and JBC, and that
They were stuck with it only because of their faulty matchup of the
acoustical evidence. Don Thomas places a SBT at Z-224 based on his
reading of the acoustical evidence.
> was the most-important bottom-line conclusion for the House Select
> Committee to reach, regardless of the exact timing for that SBT shot.
>
> CTers, of course, want to believe that not only did the WC get things all
> fouled up with respect to CE399 and the SBT, but the HSCA (14 years later
> and with a totally DIFFERENT group of investigators!) ALSO got it all
> wrong too, because the HSCA also said that that exact bullet--CE399--was
> THE BULLET that went through the bodies of both President Kennedy and
> Governor Connally.
>
The HSCA was tasked with endorsing the WC conclusions.
> How many official investigations would it take to convince CTers of the
> validity of the Single-Bullet Theory and Commission Exhibit No. 399? Four?
> Five? Six investigations perhaps? I wonder.
>
> More conspiracy believers should really watch the first-day and second-
> day TV coverage from November 22 and 23, 1963. It blows the various
> "multi-gun plots" to bits, and strongly suggests (to the point of virtual
> verification after Day 1) three very crucial things:
>
What are you babbling about? The original conclusion was three shots,
three hits. It wasn't until April 1964 that they invented the SBT.
yeuhd
> On 5/4/2010 8:47 PM, Bud wrote:
> >> I guess you don't understand the concept. The person is
> >> dying and wants to confess before he dies to ease his conscience, but not
> >> face any legal action.
>
> > He didn`t provide any information to go after himself or anyone
> > else.
>
> Treason.
A person does not get charged with treason unless he is working on behalf
of an enemy of the United States, and two other witnesses can testify
against him on that charge. His actions can't just be incidentally
beneficial to a foreign enemy; he has to be working with a foreign enemy.
Squeaky Fromme, Sarah Jane Moore, and John Hinckley Jr. were not charged
with treason.
Are you alleging that E. Howard Hunt was working on behalf of a foreign
enemy of the United States? Not too long ago you alleged here that Dallas
steamfitter Howard Brennan was also guilty of conspiring to aide enemies
of this country.
claviger
> It`s an extraordinary claim that requires a "walkthrough" type narrative
> from start to finish, with information that can be checked to either lend
> credibility to the story, or discredit it. Something like "I was working
> on "x" in the summer of "x", when "x" came to me and said there was an
> operation in the works that I was being considered for. I went with "x" to
> see"X", and he said it was decided that Kennedy had to die for national
> security reasons. I was to go with "x", meet "x" and "x", go and stay at
> "x", and my role was "x"." This is the sort of thing he could present if
> their was any validity to what he was saying. That he didn`t detracts
> greatly from the credibility of what he is offering. And since the
> information doesn`t seem to be presented in it`s entirety, and unedited
> leaves the possibility open that the content is being manipulated.
Bud,
Exactly. E Howard Hunt is so casual about the whole thing. He basically
said, "I confess. I'm innocent. Not so sure about those other guys,
though." He had no proof LBJ or Cord Meyer had anything to do with Frank
Sturgis, who also had Mafia connections. He referred to the assassin as
French, not Corsican. No doubt Hunt had seen "The Men Who Killed Kennedy."
It's a little suspicious Hunt puts together a team of assassins made up of
people he intensely disliked while working for the CIA.
Anthony Marsh
Doesn't matter. He was told that he was going to die soon.
>> Very rude of him
>> don't you think?
>
> When he doesn`t actually say anything substantial, it kind of nullifies
> the whole effort, don`t you think?
>
He named names, all CIA.
Robert Harris
>On May 4, 6:27?pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 4 May 2010 16:21:08 -0400, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On May 3, 9:14?pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> On 2 May 2010 19:48:56 -0400, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> > >David, what would you say, was your most "vehement" pro-conspiracy
>> >> >posting??
>>
>> >> >Or better yet, could you point us to one of your postings in which you
>> >> >described your theory about who did it and/or how it was done?
>>
>> >> David?
>>
>> >Whatever you do, Bob, don't try a Google search!
>>
>> >Dave ?\:^)
>>
>> Yes ?I did David. And I found nothing even remotely like that. I did
>> however, find a few posts in which I asked you that very question and
>> you replied pretty much like you do now:-)
>>
>> Who did you think was behind the assassination and how did they pull
>> it off, david?
>>
>> Robert Harris
>
>
>All right, Bob. As amusing as it is to watch your research skills hinder
>your ambition to rend me limb from limb, I'll, er, throw you a bone:
>
>http://www.jfk-online.com/conspiracy.html
David, that is not a citation. Nor does it explain who you used to think
was behind the assassination, or how they carried it out.
In fact, you NEVER stated such things, David.
There is a passion among those who believe this was a conspiracy. It takes
several strong men to shut us up about things like that.
The only passion you EVER displayed in this newsgroup was when you were
attacking Garrison or conspiracy researchers.
The very first posting you made in reply to me, accused me of being a
plagiarist - an accusation that you would not retract until after I
hounded you for over a month.
Shortly after that, you replied to my claim that David Ferrie was involved
in setting up the assassination, by accusing me of being homophobic.
And all that was when you were a "CT".
Our relationship deteriorated considerably, from then on:-)
Robert Harris
Bud
> On 5/5/2010 12:04 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>
>
> >>>> "WC defenders try their phony Argument by Authority, but they never
> > produce the evidence, only lies."<<<
>
> > <chuckle>
>
> > The evidence has been on the table since '63. Tony Marsh, like all CTers,
> > just refuses to accept it. It's as simple (and silly) as that.
>
> > But, naturally, Anthony Marsh and his cohorts in conspiracyville will
> > continue to twist in the wind and invent anti-SBT theories and other
> > unsupportable works of fiction and fantasy to keep from facing the "Oswald
> > Did It By Himself" truth, even though a perfectly good and reasonable
> > "SBT" is already on the table, thanks to the Warren Commission's work.
>
> The SBT is a lie. That's why you lost the case.
Are you saying there was a trial? I remember one Garrison tried, but
that didn`t do much for the cause of conspiracy.
> > The HSCA's Z190 timeline is ridiculous, but at least they acknowledged the
> > obvious fact that one bullet--CE399--wounded both JFK and JBC, and that
>
> They were stuck with it only because of their faulty matchup of the
> acoustical evidence. Don Thomas places a SBT at Z-224 based on his
> reading of the acoustical evidence.
>
> > was the most-important bottom-line conclusion for the House Select
> > Committee to reach, regardless of the exact timing for that SBT shot.
>
> > CTers, of course, want to believe that not only did the WC get things all
> > fouled up with respect to CE399 and the SBT, but the HSCA (14 years later
> > and with a totally DIFFERENT group of investigators!) ALSO got it all
> > wrong too, because the HSCA also said that that exact bullet--CE399--was
> > THE BULLET that went through the bodies of both President Kennedy and
> > Governor Connally.
>
> The HSCA was tasked with endorsing the WC conclusions.
Any real investiation has no choice.
> > How many official investigations would it take to convince CTers of the
> > validity of the Single-Bullet Theory and Commission Exhibit No. 399? Four?
> > Five? Six investigations perhaps? I wonder.
>
> > More conspiracy believers should really watch the first-day and second-
> > day TV coverage from November 22 and 23, 1963. It blows the various
> > "multi-gun plots" to bits, and strongly suggests (to the point of virtual
> > verification after Day 1) three very crucial things:
>
> What are you babbling about?
Why not wait for him to complete the thought before you object to
it?
> The original conclusion was three shots,
> three hits. It wasn't until April 1964 that they invented the SBT.
See, if you had waited until he finished you wouldn`t have
embarrassed yourself with this irrelevancy. His actual points remain
untouched by you below.
Anthony Marsh
> On May 5, 5:51 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 5/5/2010 12:04 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> "WC defenders try their phony Argument by Authority, but they never
>>> produce the evidence, only lies."<<<
>>
>>> <chuckle>
>>
>>> The evidence has been on the table since '63. Tony Marsh, like all CTers,
>>> just refuses to accept it. It's as simple (and silly) as that.
>>
>>> But, naturally, Anthony Marsh and his cohorts in conspiracyville will
>>> continue to twist in the wind and invent anti-SBT theories and other
>>> unsupportable works of fiction and fantasy to keep from facing the "Oswald
>>> Did It By Himself" truth, even though a perfectly good and reasonable
>>> "SBT" is already on the table, thanks to the Warren Commission's work.
>>
>> The SBT is a lie. That's why you lost the case.
>
> Are you saying there was a trial? I remember one Garrison tried, but
> that didn`t do much for the cause of conspiracy.
>
I didn't say trial. I said case.
Anthony Marsh
All your trivializing doesn't matter. The fact remains that he reports
that he was approached by a fellow CIA officer about a plot to
assassinate President Kennedy.
Dave Reitzes
This is getting awfully tedious, Bob. Click on the link that says,
"Click here to continue on to my archive of conspiracy articles."
> There is a passion among those who believe this was a conspiracy. It takes
> several strong men to shut us up about things like that.
>
> The only passion you EVER displayed in this newsgroup was when you were
> attacking Garrison or conspiracy researchers.
I'll defer discussion until you actually read some of what I wrote at
the time.
> The very first posting you made in reply to me, accused me of being a
> plagiarist - an accusation that you would not retract until after I
> hounded you for over a month.
I never made any such accusation, Bob. As I recall, I said that an
article you posted about Rosemary Willis offered no more information
than could already be obtained from a particular Harold Weisberg book.
(Presenting similar material or arriving at the same conclusion as
another researcher does not make you a plagiarist, and I don't recall
ever stating or implying otherwise. If I'm wrong, just show me a
citation.) When I returned home from my holiday vacation, I consulted
the book and found that I was mistaken about what Weisberg had said. I
apologized for my error.
Are you really carrying around a 12-year-old grudge over an accusation
I never made?
> Shortly after that, you replied to my claim that David Ferrie was involved
> in setting up the assassination, by accusing me of being homophobic.
I don't recall this. Could you provide a citation?
> And all that was when you were a "CT".
The Rosemary Willis discussion, certainly. I don't recall the Ferrie
discussion. Ferrie used to be one of my suspects, too.
> Our relationship deteriorated considerably, from then on:-)
>
> Robert Harris
Dave
Bud
Doesn`t matter, he didn`t die soon.
> >> Very rude of him
> >> don't you think?
>
> > When he doesn`t actually say anything substantial, it kind of nullifies
> > the whole effort, don`t you think?
>
> He named names, all CIA.
He said names.
Bud
Context always matters.
> The fact remains that he reports
> that he was approached by a fellow CIA officer about a plot to
> assassinate President Kennedy.
But he didn`t offer anything of substance to substantiate or
corroborate the amazing and extraordinary claims he seems to have
made.
claviger
Why not James Files? He gave a lot more details in his story. Why do
you trivialize his confession?
Robert Harris
David, this is a very old and worn out trick you have used for years.
When you are asked for a citation, you do not link a website. A "citation"
is a verbatim copy of what was said. Here is how it works, David.
1. Locate the text which is in question, at your website or elsewhere.
2. Hold down the left button of your mouse, and carefully highlight the
relevant text.
3. While the text is still highlighted, either right click and select
"copy", or hit CTRL-C.
4. Return to the newsgroup and position the mouse pointer where you wish
the text to appear, and then right click again, but this time, select
"paste". Or, you can just type CTRL-V.
5. Insert quotation marks surrounding the pasted text.
That may sound complicated David, but after you do it a few times, you
will find you can do it, almost instantly.
You should probably add the link to the URL as well, but ONLY after you
have presented the verbatim text.
>
>
>> There is a passion among those who believe this was a conspiracy. It takes
>> several strong men to shut us up about things like that.
>>
>> The only passion you EVER displayed in this newsgroup was when you were
>> attacking Garrison or conspiracy researchers.
>
>
>I'll defer discussion until you actually read some of what I wrote at
>the time.
As I looked back through the Google archives, I found it hilarious to see
that in the late 90's you were employing the same tactics you do today, to
get around posting legitimate citations. This was my post to you in
January of 1999.
Your accusation at the time was that I said the same thing Harold Weisberg
did, regarding my posting about Posner. The truth of course was, that
there were absolutely no common points between my article and Weisberg.
Your rather pathetic excuse back then, for failing to document your
accusation was, that you didn't have access to your books:-)
"There is just no nice way to say it David. You're a ( deleted)
Joe Reihl was good enough to send me the entire text of the Weisberg pages
you claimed contained the same arguments that I posted. Weisberg *NEVER*
made those statements.
That's why you refused to post a citation, isn't it David? It had nothing
to do with you not being able to get to your books, or your feelings being
hurt.
My arguments were:
1. That Posner 's statement that Rosemary turned to look back at Z160 was
false.
2. That Posner snipped a critical sentence when he cited Rosemary, in
which she admitted she couldn't recall turning or reacting.
Now, David, since you are above posting direct citations, why don't you
just give us the page number and paragraph in which Weisberg made either
of those claims?
And if you can't do that, you need to post an apology, not to me, god
forbid, but to everyone whom you've been misleading.
Robert Harris "
>
>
>> The very first posting you made in reply to me, accused me of being a
>> plagiarist - an accusation that you would not retract until after I
>> hounded you for over a month.
>
>
>I never made any such accusation, Bob. As I recall, I said that an
>article you posted about Rosemary Willis offered no more information
>than could already be obtained from a particular Harold Weisberg book.
These are your own words David, also from 1/1999
"Mr. Harris, the only claim I ever made with regard to you was that
'there's nothing in Robert's post that wasn't published five years ago
in Harold Weisberg's *Case Open..'"
And of course, that was totally untrue, since my article which pointed
out that Posner snipped a critical portion of Rosemary Willis's
statement was totallyl different from anything Weisberg had ever said.
Isn't that why you didn't have access to your books, David:-)
>(Presenting similar material or arriving at the same conclusion as
>another researcher does not make you a plagiarist, and I don't recall
>ever stating or implying otherwise. If I'm wrong, just show me a
>citation.) When I returned home from my holiday vacation, I consulted
>the book and found that I was mistaken about what Weisberg had said. I
>apologized for my error.
>
>Are you really carrying around a 12-year-old grudge over an accusation
>I never made?
David, I hadn't thought about that in years, until I saw your claim
that you were a "vehement" conspiracy buff:-)
I didn't know whether to laugh or throw up.
>
>
>> Shortly after that, you replied to my claim that David Ferrie was involved
>> in setting up the assassination, by accusing me of being homophobic.
>
>
>I don't recall this. Could you provide a citation?
I don't think so. I also couldn't find the original posting in which
you claimed I said the same thing that Weisberg did, although I did
turn up your posting in which you cited your own statement (see
above).
Unfortunately, a considerable number of messages seem to have been
lost from the archives over the years and this is not the first I have
been unable to retrieve.
But you definitely said it, David. It stands out in my memory because I
happen to be a bit sensitive to accusations that I am a bigot. You might
want to look up my posts in alt.conspiracy.jfk regarding that kind of
thing and particularly, homophobia.
But back in the 90's, you spent most of your time attacking conspiracy
people, just like you do now. Many of them were deserving of your attacks
David, but that doesn't change the fact that 90 percent of everything you
said was anti-conspiracy and the little you said otherwise, about multiple
Oswalds and such, was preposterously and I am quite sure, deliberately,
unconvincing.
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
Because His story is a hoax.
Dave Reitzes
I'm done trying to reason with Mr. Harris. When one is prone to concoct
seemingly endless theories about historical events or natural phenomena,
perhaps it can be called a hobby. When one is prone to concoct such
theories about one's interpersonal relationships, it is something else
altogether.
If anyone is genuinely curious about things I used to believe, check out:
http://www.jfk-online.com/conspiracy.html
Some people, oddly enough, are capable of admitting their errors and
changing their ways.
Dave
On May 6, 5:44�pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Robert Harris- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Robert Harris
>TOP POST
>
>I'm done trying to reason with Mr. Harris.
David, what you were doing, was not reasoning.
You falsely stated that your website contained your opinion of who was
behind the assassination and who did the shooting. It did not.
And you falsely denied that you accused me of plagiarizing Harold
Weisberg.
And there are countless other tactics in your bag of tricks. For
example, I remember that when I asked you for a citation, you dumped
50 pages of text from the HSCA reports which contained nothing
remotely like your assertion.
And I remember having to harass you and Dale Myers over and over and
over again, to get you to post citations by witnesses whom you
claimed, said Oswald was walking in the opposite direction the WC
claimed, just prior to the Tippit murder.
Myers was smart enough to get out of town and left you holding the
bag, having to post citations by witnesses who almost unanimously,
said the guy they saw was NOT Oswald. Do you remember that one:-)
David, you are a blind advocate for the theory that Oswald carried out
the assassination alone. You prove that in many ways, including the
fact that like the other nutters around here, you totally evade the
evidence which proves you are wrong.
A classic example of what happens when nutters make the mistake of
actually trying to debate those issues, can be seen at
jfkassassinationforum.com where they had to fall lback to the argument
that Oswald could have fired shots at both 285 and 312, or at least
they did in between a hundred personal insults, accusing me of
everything except shoplilfting.
David, I know I have said this before, but this battle is not between
nutters and CT's. It's about those who genuinely seek the truth and
those who don't.
I really don't think you are a dishonest person, David. Nor do I think
that some of the CT's who are your mirror image are dishonest. But to
most of us, this case has become more of a religion than a crime. And
of course, our gods must be defended, even if we have to take a little
short cut now and then, in order to defend them.
Robert Harris
pjsp...@aol.com
in particular, are completely destroyed in chapters 11 and of my webpage,
patspeer.com. Now, is it possible a bullet went through Kennedy and hit
Connally? I would say yes. But not a high-velocity bullet, and not a
bullet of any type traveling on a straight trajectory.
On May 4, 1:26 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 3, 9:15 pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>
> > How about CTs who used to be LNers? Now that's a small group.
>
> > I saw JFK like everyone else and was intrigued by the idea there was a
> > conspiracy, but not convinced. 10 years or so later I read Case Closed and
> > was 95% convinced there was no conspiracy. I decided, however, to check
> > out some of Posner's claims before firmly committing myself to one
> > position. One thing that particularly bothered me was that the SBT
> > drawings of JFK and Connally in Posner's book distorted their body shapes
> > to make the wounds align. This led me to start reading about Posner's book
> > on the internet. I soon realized there were many other deceptions in his
> > book.
>
> > What pushed me to the CT side, however, was Lattimer's SBT drawing. That
> > drawing is the single-most ridiculous and embarrassing exhibit I've ever
> > seen, and yet many--perhaps the majority--of those holding Oswald fired
> > the shots, find it compelling, and argue for its accuracy.
>
> If the Posner and Lattimer diagrams of the bullet path are not to your
> liking, is there a bullet trajectory that does satisfy you. If so,
> what is the path of the bullet after it leaves JFK's throat? How does
> it miss JBC? Does it go left, right, or over JBC? Or is there another
> possibility?
>
> The problem with trying to diagram the path of the SBT is that you are
> trying to represent a 3 dimensional event in two dimensions. You are
> faced with that limitation no matter what perspective you diagram the
> bullet path from. That is why I have been most impressed with Dale
> Meyers work. He shows the bullet trajectory in a virtual 3-D world
> which can be viewed from any perspective. It shows the SBT works.
>
> I will continue to believe in the SBT until someone develops a more
> credible theory of the path of the bullet that went threw JFK's neck.
> If it didn't hit Connally, what happened to it. The SBT is the
> lynchpin of the single assassin theory. Without it, there had to be
> two shooters. The SBT is as sound today as when it was first developed
> by the WC. It is the result of rock solid deductive reasoning. The
> fact that no one in 46 years has been able to develop a reasonable
> alternative is a testament to that.
>
> > Upon further reading, I realized that the mystery photo had been re-
> > interpreted, that the doctors lied about the back wound location in 66 and
> > 67, etc... And it slowly came together. The evidence suggested a
> > conspiracy, and the LBJ Administration--perhaps concerned a conspiracy
> > investigation would hurt the country--refused to follow the evidence.
>
> > On May 3, 7:00 am, "Jean Davison" <jjdavison2000NO...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > "Dave Reitzes" <dreit...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:26c19662-125f-4d64...@a21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > >A lot of people here are probably aware that I used to believe (rather
> > > > vehemently, as a matter of fact) that JFK was killed by a conspiracy
> > > > and no longer do.
>
> > > > Who else at this forum has gone this route?
>
> > > > Dave
>
> > > Rush to Judgment was the first book I read, and I fell for it.
> > > Years ago I wrote an article arguing for four shots, based on
> > > eyewitness testimony. Fortunately, I wasn't able to get it published.
> > > Could that be the biggest difference between LNs and CTs -- the weight given
> > > to witness statements?
> > > Jean- Hide quoted text -
pjsp...@aol.com
WhiskyJoe
> The angle is never 5 degrees. You just pulled
> that out of your ass.
I got 5 degrees, the horizontal angle between the
trajectory from Oswald's sniper's nest to the line
of travel of the limousine at z222, from my
measurements of Don Roberdeau map of Dealey
Plaza. I don't think anyone would come up with
an estimate that is many degrees off of that.
> 6 inches will not do it.
Don't explain to me in words about how it
won't do. Show me in a quality diagram that I
can check. You only confirm my point, that
CTers won't use diagrams once people are on
to them, because they either have to make a
diagram that is an obvious lie, or they end
up with a diagram that looks too close to the
Pro SBT diagrams. So they just use words to
explain how the geometry does not work for
the SBT.
claviger
> > Why not James Files? He gave a lot more details in his story. Why do
> > you trivialize his confession?
> Because his story is a hoax.
So too is Hunt's ingenious parthian shot. A clever artifice on his part to
get even with past rivals and muddy the water. This 'short story' is
Hunt's last work of fiction, one last chance for a practical joke on his
critics. And you fell for it.
WhiskyJoe
No, the main point I made is not covered in
Chapters 11 and 12, nor by anyone else.
It is evident to me that the Pro SBT diagrams
are much more accurate than the Anti SBT diagrams.
The Pro SBT diagrams show a horizontal angle
of 5 to 10 degrees. The Anti SBT diagrams show
angles like 27 or 37 degrees. Furthermore, no
one can direct me to a diagram that is:
* Anti SBT
* for z220-224 where 95% of LNers say the
SBT occurred.
* Shows a top down view, where I can check
the angles
* Has straight lines
* Has a straight line through JFK's wounds and
continue on to Connally, so I can see how much
the bullet would have missed Connally's right
armpit.
**************************************************
To clarify what I what:
* I don't want an explanation about how wrong the
Pro SBT diagrams are wrong.
* I don't want a verbal explanation about the
bullet through JFK's wounds missing Connally's
back wound by 4 inches, or 6 inches or 8 inches.
I want a diagram that shows the situation at
z220-224, so I can compare an Anti SBT diagram
with a Pro SBT diagram, to see which conforms
better with reality.
The failure to produce such a diagram, means the
LNers win by default.
If I am going to become a CTer, I am going to
need some help with my first step. And the first
step is going to have to be a diagram showing
the true angles and positions of JFK and
Connally, something I can compare with the
Pro SBT diagrams. Help me take the first step.
**************************************************
The fundamentals of a good SBT diagram is:
* do they can the horizontal angle of the
bullet correct?
* do they have Connally inboard of JFK the
correct amount?
* do they have Connally turned to his right
the correct amount?
Until these issues are addressed, I don't want
to hear about coat bunching or lung placement.
Let's get the fundamentals right first.
**************************************************
On a secondary matter, you said you were a LNer,
but the Pro SBT diagrams drove you to become
a CTer. Are the Pro SBT that much more inaccurate
than the Anti SBT diagrams. Which is more accurate,
the horizontal angles of 5-10 degrees of the Pro
SBT diagrams or the 25-37 degrees of the Anti SBT
diagrams.
If the inaccurate Pro SBT diagrams drove you into
becoming a CTer, why didn't the wildly inaccurate
Anti SBT diagrams drive you back into being a LNer?
Or do you feel the 25-27 degrees of the Anti SBT
diagrams are accurate, or no more inaccurate than
the 5-10 degrees of the Pro SBT diagrams?
bigdog
> bigdog, the SBT in general, and the animated depiction of it by Dale Myers
> in particular, are completely destroyed in chapters 11 and of my webpage,
> patspeer.com. Now, is it possible a bullet went through Kennedy and hit
> Connally? I would say yes. But not a high-velocity bullet, and not a
> bullet of any type traveling on a straight trajectory.
>
A bullet passing through JFK's neck on a straight line trajectory could
not have missed JBC.
Anthony Marsh
>
>> The angle is never 5 degrees. You just pulled
>> that out of your ass.
>
> I got 5 degrees, the horizontal angle between the
> trajectory from Oswald's sniper's nest to the line
> of travel of the limousine at z222, from my
> measurements of Don Roberdeau map of Dealey
> Plaza. I don't think anyone would come up with
> an estimate that is many degrees off of that.
>
Ridiculous.
Anyone who has a good map of Dealey Plaza can calculate the angle and it
is never 5 degrees.
Dale Myers claims to have the most accurate map of Dealey Plaza and here
is what his Web page says the angle is:
To determine the firing source of the bullet that passed between Kennedy
and Connally, the entrance wound on JBC's back was connected to the exit
wound on the front of the President's throat at the equivalent of
Zapruder frame 223 using a straight line. That trajectory line was then
projected rearward 200 feet to its source.
The result shows the bullet moving at a 10 degree angle, right to left,
relative to the midline of the limousine.
10 degrees, not 5. No sane person says 5 degrees.
>> 6 inches will not do it.
>
> Don't explain to me in words about how it
> won't do. Show me in a quality diagram that I
> can check. You only confirm my point, that
More BS. The numbers are real. If you can't add 5 and 8 and get more
than 6 inches you have no business discussing this.
> CTers won't use diagrams once people are on
I've been uploading diagrams for many years. You are incapable of
measuring the angles, hence your pronouncements.
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/limo2004.gif
> to them, because they either have to make a
> diagram that is an obvious lie, or they end
> up with a diagram that looks too close to the
> Pro SBT diagrams. So they just use words to
> explain how the geometry does not work for
> the SBT.
>
Close is only good in horseshoes and hand grenades.
You just use words to deny simple facts, simple addition.
WhiskyJoe
> pjspeare:
> bigdog, the SBT in general, and the animated
> depiction of it by Dale Myers in particular,
> are completely destroyed in chapters 11 and
> of my webpage, patspeer.com. Now, is it possible
> a bullet went through Kennedy and hit Connally?
> I would say yes. But not a high-velocity bullet,
> and not a bullet of any type traveling on a
> straight trajectory.
> bigdog:
> A bullet passing through JFK's neck on a
> straight line trajectory could not have
> missed JBC.
If I may add a comment. Even the most bold
CTers generally do not claim that a straight
line path through JFK's wounds will miss
Connally's armpit to the left by more than
6 inches. That is not nearly enough to miss
Connally completely.
Anyone who claims a straight line path will miss
Connally completely cannot be taken seriously.
At the vary least, we need to see a top down
diagram, with straight lines, showing such a
path missing Connally completely. Of course,
any such diagram will be obviously false,
as soon as one checks the maps and photographs
of the limousine.
We do not need words. We need a simple diagram
we can check.
Anthony Marsh
>
>> pjspeare:
>> bigdog, the SBT in general, and the animated
>> depiction of it by Dale Myers in particular,
>> are completely destroyed in chapters 11 and
>> of my webpage, patspeer.com. Now, is it possible
>> a bullet went through Kennedy and hit Connally?
>> I would say yes. But not a high-velocity bullet,
>> and not a bullet of any type traveling on a
>> straight trajectory.
>
>> bigdog:
>> A bullet passing through JFK's neck on a
>> straight line trajectory could not have
>> missed JBC.
>
> If I may add a comment. Even the most bold
> CTers generally do not claim that a straight
> line path through JFK's wounds will miss
> Connally's armpit to the left by more than
> 6 inches. That is not nearly enough to miss
> Connally completely.
>
> Anyone who claims a straight line path will miss
> Connally completely cannot be taken seriously.
>
Again you are stuck in two dimensions. The bullet can go OVER Connally.
> At the vary least, we need to see a top down
> diagram, with straight lines, showing such a
> path missing Connally completely. Of course,
> any such diagram will be obviously false,
> as soon as one checks the maps and photographs
> of the limousine.
No, that is NOT how bullet missed Connally. Phony challenge.
Anthony Marsh
Not as long as it continues on the downward trajectory. If it is deflect
up off T-1 it could miss Connally.
Anthony Marsh
>
>> WhiskyJoe, all of this is covered, and more,
>> in chapters 11 and 12 at patspeer.com.
>
> No, the main point I made is not covered in
> Chapters 11 and 12, nor by anyone else.
>
> It is evident to me that the Pro SBT diagrams
> are much more accurate than the Anti SBT diagrams.
> The Pro SBT diagrams show a horizontal angle
> of 5 to 10 degrees. The Anti SBT diagrams show
No pro SBT diagram shows 5 degrees. You can't produce such a diagram,
because no WC defender is THAT stupid.
> angles like 27 or 37 degrees. Furthermore, no
> one can direct me to a diagram that is:
>
> * Anti SBT
>
> * for z220-224 where 95% of LNers say the
> SBT occurred.
>
> * Shows a top down view, where I can check
> the angles
>
> * Has straight lines
>
> * Has a straight line through JFK's wounds and
> continue on to Connally, so I can see how much
> the bullet would have missed Connally's right
> armpit.
>
I already did so many years ago and you refuse to look at it.
> **************************************************
>
> To clarify what I what:
>
> * I don't want an explanation about how wrong the
> Pro SBT diagrams are wrong.
>
> * I don't want a verbal explanation about the
> bullet through JFK's wounds missing Connally's
> back wound by 4 inches, or 6 inches or 8 inches.
>
You just can't add 5 and 8 and realize that it is a bigger number number
than 6. You need to retake 3rd grade.
> I want a diagram that shows the situation at
> z220-224, so I can compare an Anti SBT diagram
> with a Pro SBT diagram, to see which conforms
> better with reality.
>
You've had ample opportunity, but you can not do what you propose.
It is beyong your technical capabilities.
> The failure to produce such a diagram, means the
> LNers win by default.
>
You lost a long time ago.
Your refusal to look at the evidence means you have no chance.
> If I am going to become a CTer, I am going to
> need some help with my first step. And the first
> step is going to have to be a diagram showing
> the true angles and positions of JFK and
> Connally, something I can compare with the
> Pro SBT diagrams. Help me take the first step.
>
> **************************************************
>
> The fundamentals of a good SBT diagram is:
>
> * do they can the horizontal angle of the
> bullet correct?
>
YOU can't.
> * do they have Connally inboard of JFK the
> correct amount?
>
You don't.
> * do they have Connally turned to his right
> the correct amount?
>
He was facing forward.
> Until these issues are addressed, I don't want
> to hear about coat bunching or lung placement.
> Let's get the fundamentals right first.
>
Keep your blinders on.
> **************************************************
>
> On a secondary matter, you said you were a LNer,
> but the Pro SBT diagrams drove you to become
> a CTer. Are the Pro SBT that much more inaccurate
> than the Anti SBT diagrams. Which is more accurate,
> the horizontal angles of 5-10 degrees of the Pro
> SBT diagrams or the 25-37 degrees of the Anti SBT
> diagrams.
>
> If the inaccurate Pro SBT diagrams drove you into
> becoming a CTer, why didn't the wildly inaccurate
> Anti SBT diagrams drive you back into being a LNer?
>
> Or do you feel the 25-27 degrees of the Anti SBT
> diagrams are accurate, or no more inaccurate than
> the 5-10 degrees of the Pro SBT diagrams?
>
No one has a 5 degree angle. You are just making up crap.