Reasonable Doubt Link

[BT George]

Patrick Collins in another group posted this. It can come in handy in these debates, since it gives a good layman's idea of the different legal standards necessary for conviction:

https://www.brudviklaw.com/blog/2016/04/proof-beyond-a-resonable-doubt-what-does-that-mean.shtml

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Patrick Collins in another group posted this. It can come in handy in these debates, since it gives a good layman's idea of the different legal standards necessary for conviction:
>
> https://www.brudviklaw.com/blog/2016/04/proof-beyond-a-resonable-doubt-what-does-that-mean.shtml

Is this the same Patrick Collins who thinks only two shots were fired in Dealey Plaza?

The same Patrick Collins who pretended that he used to be a critic, and worked on TMWKK doc?

Right...

Maybe tell him that part of the legal standards necessary for a conviction include a competent--or even EXISTING--defense counsel. Something Oswald didn't have.

[BT George]

Uhhh...as dead men generally don't. But this doesn't stop CT's like you from confusing a lack of a *legal* conviction with being *innocent* of a crime. But of course, legal verdicts are usually limited in the facts that may be considered---often more than should be the case.

But in fact, judging the historical record is far *better* than being limited to a trial that can---at most---find someone *legally* "not guilty". For one thing, no evidence may be logically deemed "inadmissible". For example, Spousal Privilege; doesn't exist, so we can find out what they think/thought. A past history of similar deeds is fair game, as there is not judge to rule in favor of withhold it from the Jury. Heresay can be considered based on the credibility of the sources. Mishandled evidence is still open for evaluation as to whether the mishandling was serious enough to completely invalidate it as a point of evidence. *All* of which leads to a far more *complete* picture of the suspected perpetrator.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>>
> > Maybe tell him that part of the legal standards necessary for a conviction include a competent--or even EXISTING--defense counsel. Something Oswald didn't have.
>
> Uhhh...as dead men generally don't.

But lo, troll...isn't that what the Warren Commission was supposed to be? A fair and unbiased investigation? It's not like they STARTED with their conclusion and worked AROUND it. Tell us more.

>
> But in fact, judging the historical record is far *better* than being limited to a trial that can---at most---find someone *legally* "not guilty".

Which is why every year LNer dullards become fewer and fewer.

>
> For one thing, no evidence may be logically deemed "inadmissible".

Except when it proves a conspiracy. Do go on.

>
> Heresay can be considered based on the credibility of the sources.

Cite one expert from this case whose testimony you find wholly credible.

>
> Mishandled evidence is still open for evaluation as to whether the mishandling was serious enough to completely invalidate it as a point of evidence.

Your idiot ally would call this "looking at all the wrong things incorrectly." I'd call it an extension of your confirmation bias. There's no doubt you have a logical explanation for the "mishandling" of all those altered FBI statements. Just for example.

[BT George]

On Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 5:20:21 PM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> > > Maybe tell him that part of the legal standards necessary for a conviction include a competent--or even EXISTING--defense counsel. Something Oswald didn't have.
> >
> > Uhhh...as dead men generally don't.
>
> But lo, troll...isn't that what the Warren Commission was supposed to be? A fair and unbiased investigation? It's not like they STARTED with their conclusion and worked AROUND it. Tell us more.
>

What the heck does this missive have to do with what I said? I am talking about the *evidence*. You seem to think the Warren Commission processed and gathered it all, but in fact the DPD, SS, FBI, and Postal Service already had done most of it before the Commission even got set up. I totally disagree with your claim that they started with a conclusion and then worked around it, though it would be *STUPID* to just ignore what the CONSIDERABLE evidence already gathered pointed to.

But back to the point. We not only have the aforementioned evidence, plus what the WC turned up, or exposed, or interpreted more adequately, but we also have the considerable work done by the HSCA. Throw away the multiply debunked Dictabelt "Evidence" and most of what they did was very sound. Do *you* know what a Committee that was willing to find (albeit erroneously) "probable conspiracy" said about the SBT and who killed JFK and Tippit?

Moreover, we have *MANY* documents released since. (Probably at least 99+% of everything.) Not *ONE* contains any "proof" of conspiracy, nor exonerates Oz as the killer. That is the rather inconvenient *truth* for CT'dom.

> >
> > But in fact, judging the historical record is far *better* than being limited to a trial that can---at most---find someone *legally* "not guilty".
>
> Which is why every year LNer dullards become fewer and fewer.
>

Cite your evidence for this outlandish claim. The last major poll I know of in 2013 indicated an almost 60/40 split among the public. Up from the 75/25 ratio that 30+ years of nearly uninterrupted CT blathery had created through most of the 70's - 90's.

> >
> > For one thing, no evidence may be logically deemed "inadmissible".
>
> Except when it proves a conspiracy. Do go on.
>

Non Sequitur. I am taking about *admitting* all *excluded* evidence. Your comment would indicate a suppression of evidence. If you want to get that, the best way is to go set up a trial and get a skilled attorney to argue why it shouldn't be seen by the jury.

> >
> > Heresay can be cons

idered based on the credibility of the sources.
>
> Cite one expert from this case whose testimony you find wholly credible.
>

Is this "Boris" or beb? Interesting similarities there Beanie Boy! Since you *well* know that LN's believe the *recognized* experts to a far *higher* degree than do CT's, I think it best to put this in your direction. What *recognized* experts testimony to do *you* find "wholly" credible?

> >
> > Mishandled evidence is still open for evaluation as to whether the mishandling was serious enough to completely invalidate it as a point of evidence.
>
> Your idiot ally would call this "looking at all the wrong things incorrectly." I'd call it an extension of your confirmation bias. There's no doubt you have a logical explanation for the "mishandling" of all those altered FBI statements. Just for example.

My intelligent ally would call this "looking at *everything* that is *evidential* to assess its validity and reliability." Name a "mishandled" FBI statement that invalidates the case against OZ or that establishes a conspiracy to kill JFK.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 8:32:18 AM UTC-8, BT George wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 5:20:21 PM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>
> > > > Maybe tell him that part of the legal standards necessary for a conviction include a competent--or even EXISTING--defense counsel. Something Oswald didn't have.
> > >
> > > Uhhh...as dead men generally don't.
> >
> > But lo, troll...isn't that what the Warren Commission was supposed to be? A fair and unbiased investigation? It's not like they STARTED with their conclusion and worked AROUND it. Tell us more.
> >
>
> What the heck does this missive have to do with what I said? I am talking about the *evidence*. You seem to think the Warren Commission processed and gathered it all, but in fact the DPD, SS, FBI, and Postal Service already had done most of it before the Commission even got set up. I totally disagree with your claim that they started with a conclusion and then worked around it, though it would be *STUPID* to just ignore what the CONSIDERABLE evidence already gathered pointed to.
>
> But back to the point. We not only have the aforementioned evidence, plus what the WC turned up, or exposed, or interpreted more adequately, but we also have the considerable work done by the HSCA. Throw away the multiply debunked Dictabelt "Evidence" and most of what they did was very sound. Do *you* know what a Committee that was willing to find (albeit erroneously) "probable conspiracy" said about the SBT and who killed JFK and Tippit?
>
> Moreover, we have *MANY* documents released since. (Probably at least 99+% of everything.) Not *ONE* contains any "proof" of conspiracy, nor exonerates Oz as the killer. That is the rather inconvenient *truth* for CT'dom.
>
> > >
> > > But in fact, judging the historical record is far *better* than being limited to a trial that can---at most---find someone *legally* "not guilty".
> >
> > Which is why every year LNer dullards become fewer and fewer.
> >
>
> Cite your evidence for this outlandish claim. The last major poll I know of in 2013 indicated an almost 60/40 split among the public. Up from the 75/25 ratio that 30+ years of nearly uninterrupted CT blathery had created through most of the 70's - 90's.
>
> > >
> > > For one thing, no evidence may be logically deemed "inadmissible".
> >
> > Except when it proves a conspiracy. Do go on.
> >
>
> Non Sequitur. I am taking about *admitting* all *excluded* evidence. Your comment would indicate a suppression of evidence. If you want to get that, the best way is to go set up a trial and get a skilled attorney to argue why it shouldn't be seen by the jury.
>
> > >
> > > Heresay can be cons
> idered based on the credibility of the sources.
> >
> > Cite one expert from this case whose testimony you find wholly credible.
> >
>
> Is this "Boris" or beb? Interesting similarities there Beanie Boy! Since you *well* know that LN's believe the *recognized* experts to a far *higher* degree than do CT's, I think it best to put this in your direction. What *recognized* experts testimony to do *you* find "wholly" credible?

Dude, you sure smell like DVP. Hiding behind yet another of your 116 loon nut aliases... Why do you have to do that?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 10:49:08 -0800 (PST), healyd...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 8:32:18 AM UTC-8, BT George wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 5:20:21 PM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > >>
>> > > > Maybe tell him that part of the legal standards necessary for a conviction include a competent--or even EXISTING--defense counsel. Something Oswald didn't have.
>> > >
>> > > Uhhh...as dead men generally don't.
>> >
>> > But lo, troll...isn't that what the Warren Commission was supposed to be? A fair and unbiased investigation? It's not like they STARTED with their conclusion and worked AROUND it. Tell us more.
>> >
>>
>> What the heck does this missive have to do with what I said? I am talking about the *evidence*. You seem to think the Warren Commission processed and gathered it all, but in fact the DPD, SS, FBI, and Postal Service already had done most of it before the Commission even got set up. I totally disagree with your claim that they started with a conclusion and then worked around it, though it would be *STUPID* to just ignore what the CONSIDERABLE evidence already gathered pointed to.
>>
>> But back to the point. We not only have the aforementioned evidence, plus what the WC turned up, or exposed, or interpreted more adequately, but we also have the considerable work done by the HSCA. Throw away the multiply debunked Dictabelt "Evidence" and most of what they did was very sound. Do *you* know what a Committee that was willing to find (albeit erroneously) "probable conspiracy" said about the SBT and who killed JFK and Tippit?
>>
>> Moreover, we have *MANY* documents released since. (Probably at least 99+% of everything.) Not *ONE* contains any "proof" of conspiracy, nor exonerates Oz as the killer. That is the rather inconvenient *truth* for CT'dom.
>>
>> > >
>> > > But in fact, judging the historical record is far *better* than being limited to a trial that can---at most---find someone *legally* "not guilty".
>> >
>> > Which is why every year LNer dullards become fewer and fewer.
>> >
>>
>> Cite your evidence for this outlandish claim. The last major poll I know of in 2013 indicated an almost 60/40 split among the public. Up from the 75/25 ratio that 30+ years of nearly uninterrupted CT blathery had created through most of the 70's - 90's.
>>
>> > >
>> > > For one thing, no evidence may be logically deemed "inadmissible".
>> >
>> > Except when it proves a conspiracy. Do go on.
>> >
>>
>> Non Sequitur. I am taking about *admitting* all *excluded* evidence. Your comment would indicate a suppression of evidence. If you want to get that, the best way is to go set up a trial and get a skilled attorney to argue why it shouldn't be seen by the jury.
>>
>> > >
>> > > Heresay can be cons
>> idered based on the credibility of the sources.
>> >
>> > Cite one expert from this case whose testimony you find wholly credible.
>> >
>>
>> Is this "Boris" or beb? Interesting similarities there Beanie Boy! Since you *well* know that LN's believe the *recognized* experts to a far *higher* degree than do CT's, I think it best to put this in your direction. What *recognized* experts testimony to do *you* find "wholly" credible?
>
>Dude, you sure smell like DVP. Hiding behind yet another of your 116 loon nut aliases... Why do you have to do that?

Amusingly, whoever the troll is, couldn't name a *SINGLE* expert in
this case whom he accepts completely in their testimony.

Believers can't use their real name ... they know full well the
dishonesty and cowardice that's required to defend the WCR.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > But lo, troll...isn't that what the Warren Commission was supposed to be? A fair and unbiased investigation? It's not like they STARTED with their conclusion and worked AROUND it. Tell us more.
> >
>
> What the heck does this missive have to do with what I said?

It has to do with everything, of course. It's the whole crux of the case.

>
> I totally disagree with your claim that they started with a conclusion and then worked around it,

Then you agree Anne Boudreaux, Hiram Conway, Myrtle and Julian Evans, William Wulf, Mildred Sawyer and Viola Peterman were solid material witnesses who in no way reflect an "agenda" on behalf of the Warren Commission. Explain.

>
> though it would be *STUPID* to just ignore what the CONSIDERABLE evidence already gathered pointed to.

Oh, I think Joseph Dolce's letter alone proves how much was flat-out ignored, although every day Ben provides excerpts from Mark Lane's book dissecting hard evidence and testimony that was ignored even when it was spoonfed to them.

>
> But back to the point. We not only have the aforementioned evidence, plus what the WC turned up, or exposed, or interpreted more adequately,

The WC's "interpretations" have been so badly debunked they border on Saturday morning cartoon. And cooperation from the FBI was limited and equally worthless for them, as I'm sure you well know but pretend not to, from the schism within the WC, including Hale Boggs's famous "Hoover lied his eyes out" comment, which I'm sure anyone but you would find suspicious...lest you have no issues with the lead investigators who handled all the hard evidence LYING about the hard evidence, according to the very people who were supposed to be "interpreting" it. Do you pause before you think, Barnum?

>
> but we also have the considerable work done by the HSCA. Throw away the multiply debunked Dictabelt "Evidence" and most of what they did was very sound.

Naturally. You *would* throw that away. As well, you'd pretend that's the only evidence they used to conclude "probable conspiracy."

>
> Moreover, we have *MANY* documents released since. (Probably at least 99+% of everything.) Not *ONE* contains any "proof" of conspiracy, nor exonerates Oz as the killer.

You mean they didn't put everything in writing? On paper? Now I just feel foolish.

>
> > >
> > > For one thing, no evidence may be logically deemed "inadmissible".
> >
> > Except when it proves a conspiracy. Do go on.
> >
>
> Non Sequitur. I am taking about *admitting* all *excluded* evidence. Your comment would indicate a suppression of evidence.

If the hill you want to die on is that the Warren Commission didn't exclude important evidence, then I'm laughing.

> >
> > Cite one expert from this case whose testimony you find wholly credible.
> >
>
> Is this "Boris" or beb? Interesting similarities there Beanie Boy! Since you *well* know that LN's believe the *recognized* experts to a far *higher* degree than do CT's, I think it best to put this in your direction.

No kidding! You think it's best to run from my question (which you did) and extend that avoidance in the form of answering a question with a question. Like I haven't seen this before. And let's note here...that you'll NEVER answer that question.

>
> What *recognized* experts testimony to do *you* find "wholly" credible?

Naturally your definition of "recognized" differs from mine. Any expert who recognizes anomalies in the official narrative would not be considered "recognized." Let's dispense with your talking-point bullshit right there. Otherwise, I'm happy to point out the credibility of these experts:

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm

And these ones:

https://goo.gl/images/Zcv3rH

I also appreciate Dolce, Gregory and Frazier as well, because their opinions of shots from behind notwithstanding, they each point to serious inconsistencies which neither you nor the WC can reconcile, and so ignore instead.

>
> My intelligent ally would call this "looking at *everything* that is *evidential* to assess its validity and reliability."

Someone who calls everyone a "retard" is intelligent, by your standards. Your ability for judgement has been noted.

>
> Name a "mishandled" FBI statement that invalidates the case against OZ or that establishes a conspiracy to kill JFK.

Mishandled (not in quotes, denoting sarcasm) statements include those of Charles Brehm, Wayne and Edna Hartman, Arnold Rowland, James Simmons, Julia Ann Mercer, Harold Norman and Phil Willis. And that's a scenario where even one name would be too much, and seriously compromise the ethics of your "investigators". There's some "quotes" for you.

[BT George]

On Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 12:49:09 PM UTC-6, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 8:32:18 AM UTC-8, BT George wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 5:20:21 PM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>
> > > > > Maybe tell him that part of the legal standards necessary for a conviction include a competent--or even EXISTING--defense counsel. Something Oswald didn't have.
> > > >
> > > > Uhhh...as dead men generally don't.
> > >
> > > But lo, troll...isn't that what the Warren Commission was supposed to be? A fair and unbiased investigation? It's not like they STARTED with their conclusion and worked AROUND it. Tell us more.
> > >
> >
> > What the heck does this missive have to do with what I said? I am talking about the *evidence*. You seem to think the Warren Commission processed and gathered it all, but in fact the DPD, SS, FBI, and Postal Service already had done most of it before the Commission even got set up. I totally disagree with your claim that they started with a conclusion and then worked around it, though it would be *STUPID* to just ignore what the CONSIDERABLE evidence already gathered pointed to.
> >
> > But back to the point. We not only have the aforementioned evidence, plus what the WC turned up, or exposed, or interpreted more adequately, but we also have the considerable work done by the HSCA. Throw away the multiply debunked Dictabelt "Evidence" and most of what they did was very sound. Do *you* know what a Committee that was willing to find (albeit erroneously) "probable conspiracy" said about the SBT and who killed JFK and Tippit?
> >
> > Moreover, we have *MANY* documents released since. (Probably at least 99+% of everything.) Not *ONE* contains any "proof" of conspiracy, nor exonerates Oz as the killer. That is the rather inconvenient *truth* for CT'dom.
> >
> > > >
> > > > But in fact, judging the historical record is far *better* than being limited to a trial that can---at most---find someone *legally* "not guilty".
> > >
> > > Which is why every year LNer dullards become fewer and fewer.
> > >
> >
> > Cite your evidence for this outlandish claim. The last major poll I know of in 2013 indicated an almost 60/40 split among the public. Up from the 75/25 ratio that 30+ years of nearly uninterrupted CT blathery had created through most of the 70's - 90's.
> >
> > > >
> > > > For one thing, no evidence may be logically deemed "inadmissible".
> > >
> > > Except when it proves a conspiracy. Do go on.
> > >
> >
> > Non Sequitur. I am taking about *admitting* all *excluded* evidence. Your comment would indicate a suppression of evidence. If you want to get that, the best way is to go set up a trial and get a skilled attorney to argue why it shouldn't be seen by the jury.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Heresay can be cons
> > idered based on the credibility of the sources.
> > >
> > > Cite one expert from this case whose testimony you find wholly credible.
> > >
> >
> > Is this "Boris" or beb? Interesting similarities there Beanie Boy! Since you *well* know that LN's believe the *recognized* experts to a far *higher* degree than do CT's, I think it best to put this in your direction. What *recognized* experts testimony to do *you* find "wholly" credible?
>
> Dude, you sure smell like DVP. Hiding behind yet another of your 116 loon nut aliases... Why do you have to do that?
>

You really should clear out your sinuses Healy from drug trips gone by. Nevertheless, since DVP is one of the most *thorough* and logic oriented persons who have ever studied this case, I will take that as a distinct compliment. Of course, you sound more like Cap'n beb everyday! I will let the discerning Lurker decide if that is a compliment or vile insult. :-)

[BT George]

On Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 2:12:40 PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 10:49:08 -0800 (PST), healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 8:32:18 AM UTC-8, BT George wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 5:20:21 PM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > > > Maybe tell him that part of the legal standards necessary for a conviction include a competent--or even EXISTING--defense counsel. Something Oswald didn't have.
> >> > >
> >> > > Uhhh...as dead men generally don't.
> >> >
> >> > But lo, troll...isn't that what the Warren Commission was supposed to be? A fair and unbiased investigation? It's not like they STARTED with their conclusion and worked AROUND it. Tell us more.
> >> >
> >>
> >> What the heck does this missive have to do with what I said? I am talking about the *evidence*. You seem to think the Warren Commission processed and gathered it all, but in fact the DPD, SS, FBI, and Postal Service already had done most of it before the Commission even got set up. I totally disagree with your claim that they started with a conclusion and then worked around it, though it would be *STUPID* to just ignore what the CONSIDERABLE evidence already gathered pointed to.
> >>
> >> But back to the point. We not only have the aforementioned evidence, plus what the WC turned up, or exposed, or interpreted more adequately, but we also have the considerable work done by the HSCA. Throw away the multiply debunked Dictabelt "Evidence" and most of what they did was very sound. Do *you* know what a Committee that was willing to find (albeit erroneously) "probable conspiracy" said about the SBT and who killed JFK and Tippit?
> >>
> >> Moreover, we have *MANY* documents released since. (Probably at least 99+% of everything.) Not *ONE* contains any "proof" of conspiracy, nor exonerates Oz as the killer. That is the rather inconvenient *truth* for CT'dom.
> >>
> >> > >
> >> > > But in fact, judging the historical record is far *better* than being limited to a trial that can---at most---find someone *legally* "not guilty".
> >> >
> >> > Which is why every year LNer dullards become fewer and fewer.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Cite your evidence for this outlandish claim. The last major poll I know of in 2013 indicated an almost 60/40 split among the public. Up from the 75/25 ratio that 30+ years of nearly uninterrupted CT blathery had created through most of the 70's - 90's.
> >>
> >> > >
> >> > > For one thing, no evidence may be logically deemed "inadmissible".
> >> >
> >> > Except when it proves a conspiracy. Do go on.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Non Sequitur. I am taking about *admitting* all *excluded* evidence. Your comment would indicate a suppression of evidence. If you want to get that, the best way is to go set up a trial and get a skilled attorney to argue why it shouldn't be seen by the jury.
> >>
> >> > >
> >> > > Heresay can be cons
> >> idered based on the credibility of the sources.
> >> >
> >> > Cite one expert from this case whose testimony you find wholly credible.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Is this "Boris" or beb? Interesting similarities there Beanie Boy! Since you *well* know that LN's believe the *recognized* experts to a far *higher* degree than do CT's, I think it best to put this in your direction. What *recognized* experts testimony to do *you* find "wholly" credible?
> >
> >Dude, you sure smell like DVP. Hiding behind yet another of your 116 loon nut aliases... Why do you have to do that?
>
>
> Amusingly, whoever the troll is, couldn't name a *SINGLE* expert in
> this case whom he accepts completely in their testimony.
>

Amazingly, beb's continues to pretend that my real name isn't pretty *well* known now by most in the JFK debate world. ...But then again, there is a *lot* the Cap'n cannot figure out or comprehend, so maybe he is not pretending folks. :-)

[healyd...@gmail.com]

On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 10:37:19 AM UTC-8, BT George wrote:
> On Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 12:49:09 PM UTC-6, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 8:32:18 AM UTC-8, BT George wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 5:20:21 PM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > > > Maybe tell him that part of the legal standards necessary for a conviction include a competent--or even EXISTING--defense counsel. Something Oswald didn't have.
> > > > >
> > > > > Uhhh...as dead men generally don't.
> > > >
> > > > But lo, troll...isn't that what the Warren Commission was supposed to be? A fair and unbiased investigation? It's not like they STARTED with their conclusion and worked AROUND it. Tell us more.
> > > >
> > >
> > > What the heck does this missive have to do with what I said? I am talking about the *evidence*. You seem to think the Warren Commission processed and gathered it all, but in fact the DPD, SS, FBI, and Postal Service already had done most of it before the Commission even got set up. I totally disagree with your claim that they started with a conclusion and then worked around it, though it would be *STUPID* to just ignore what the CONSIDERABLE evidence already gathered pointed to.
> > >
> > > But back to the point. We not only have the aforementioned evidence, plus what the WC turned up, or exposed, or interpreted more adequately, but we also have the considerable work done by the HSCA. Throw away the multiply debunked Dictabelt "Evidence" and most of what they did was very sound. Do *you* know what a Committee that was willing to find (albeit erroneously) "probable conspiracy" said about the SBT and who killed JFK and Tippit?
> > >
> > > Moreover, we have *MANY* documents released since. (Probably at least 99+% of everything.) Not *ONE* contains any "proof" of conspiracy, nor exonerates Oz as the killer. That is the rather inconvenient *truth* for CT'dom.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > But in fact, judging the historical record is far *better* than being limited to a trial that can---at most---find someone *legally* "not guilty".
> > > >
> > > > Which is why every year LNer dullards become fewer and fewer.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Cite your evidence for this outlandish claim. The last major poll I know of in 2013 indicated an almost 60/40 split among the public. Up from the 75/25 ratio that 30+ years of nearly uninterrupted CT blathery had created through most of the 70's - 90's.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > For one thing, no evidence may be logically deemed "inadmissible".
> > > >
> > > > Except when it proves a conspiracy. Do go on.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Non Sequitur. I am taking about *admitting* all *excluded* evidence. Your comment would indicate a suppression of evidence. If you want to get that, the best way is to go set up a trial and get a skilled attorney to argue why it shouldn't be seen by the jury.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Heresay can be cons
> > > idered based on the credibility of the sources.
> > > >
> > > > Cite one expert from this case whose testimony you find wholly credible.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Is this "Boris" or beb? Interesting similarities there Beanie Boy! Since you *well* know that LN's believe the *recognized* experts to a far *higher* degree than do CT's, I think it best to put this in your direction. What *recognized* experts testimony to do *you* find "wholly" credible?
> >
> > Dude, you sure smell like DVP. Hiding behind yet another of your 116 loon nut aliases... Why do you have to do that?
> >
>
> You really should clear out your sinuses Healy from drug trips gone by. Nevertheless, since DVP is one of the most *thorough* and logic oriented persons who have ever studied this case, I will take that as a distinct compliment. Of course, you sound more like Cap'n beb everyday! I will let the discerning Lurker decide if that is a compliment or vile insult. :-)
>

DVP is a loon nut composite. A loon nut wet dream for years. Ever see the prolific poster appear in public, anywhere? Attend a JFK assassination related forum ANYWHERE? Nope!

[BT George]

On Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 2:30:38 PM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > But lo, troll...isn't that what the Warren Commission was supposed to be? A fair and unbiased investigation? It's not like they STARTED with their conclusion and worked AROUND it. Tell us more.
> > >
> >
> > What the heck does this missive have to do with what I said?
>
> It has to do with everything, of course. It's the whole crux of the case.
>

The crux of the case is that the evidence reviewed and or gathered by WC and HSCA, and *numerous* empirical demonstrations and reenactments have done nothing but *support* Oz's guilt. And not a scintilla of *credible* evidence has *ever* established a conspiracy beside or behind him. :-)

> >
> > I totally disagree with your claim that they started with a conclusion and then worked around it,
>
> Then you agree Anne Boudreaux, Hiram Conway, Myrtle and Julian Evans, William Wulf, Mildred Sawyer and Viola Peterman were solid material witnesses who in no way reflect an "agenda" on behalf of the Warren Commission. Explain.
>

Why don't you explain why they *should* have ignored if there was any evidence of Oswald's pro-Communist/Marxist views and/or violent behavior going back to his childhood. Once again you assume Oswald should have been treated like he was hardly in Dallas---let alone anywhere near Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63? Were they supposed to *pretend* they didn't know there was any evidence against him, or that several witnesses said he took a somewhat circuitous route to his boarding hours, encountered and gunned down a Police Officer, appeared to be hiding from the Police, and resisted arrest when they found him.

That's the problem with too many CT's. They think the WC should have centered their case around a TSBD janitor, or random person who worked or was seen in the Dal Tex building, or that was employed as librarian a few blocks away, or perhaps just thrown a dart at a map and started looking where it landed. *ANYTHING* but center it on the *obvious* PRIME suspect.

> >
> > though it would be *STUPID* to just ignore what the CONSIDERABLE evidence already gathered pointed to.
>
> Oh, I think Joseph Dolce's letter alone proves how much was flat-out ignored, although every day Ben provides excerpts from Mark Lane's book dissecting hard evidence and testimony that was ignored even when it was spoonfed to them.
>

Well if Lane says it I belie.... Actually, no I don't. :-)

> >
> > But back to the point. We not only have the aforementioned evidence, plus what the WC turned up, or exposed, or interpreted more adequately,
>
> The WC's "interpretations" have been so badly debunked they border on Saturday morning cartoon. And cooperation from the FBI was limited and equally worthless for them, as I'm sure you well know but pretend not to, from the schism within the WC, including Hale Boggs's famous "Hoover lied his eyes out" comment, which I'm sure anyone but you would find suspicious...lest you have no issues with the lead investigators who handled all the hard evidence LYING about the hard evidence, according to the very people who were supposed to be "interpreting" it. Do you pause before you think, Barnum?
>

Says Boris with Beanie-Boy blades spinning over the tin foil lined Beanie, with such racket he cannot even process a logical thought. I guess if you believe 9/11 Conspiracies that goes without saying. :-)

> >
> > but we also have the considerable work done by the HSCA. Throw away the multiply debunked Dictabelt "Evidence" and most of what they did was very sound.
>
> Naturally. You *would* throw that away. As well, you'd pretend that's the only evidence they used to conclude "probable conspiracy."
>

Naturally I throw *clearly* erroneous evidence out the door! Can you demonstrate that *absent* it, the Committee was going to issue their finding of "Probable" Conspiracy?

> >
> > Moreover, we have *MANY* documents released since. (Probably at least 99+% of everything.) Not *ONE* contains any "proof" of conspiracy, nor exonerates Oz as the killer.
>
> You mean they didn't put everything in writing? On paper? Now I just feel foolish.
>

You mean that the only evidence you will *accept* is one that shows that you *want* it to show. :-)

>
> >
> > > >
> > > > For one thing, no evidence may be logically deemed "inadmissible".
> > >
> > > Except when it proves a conspiracy. Do go on.
> > >
> >
> > Non Sequitur. I am taking about *admitting* all *excluded* evidence. Your comment would indicate a suppression of evidence.
>
> If the hill you want to die on is that the Warren Commission didn't exclude important evidence, then I'm laughing.
>

Those blades really are disjointing your thoughts. You and many CT's insist that Oswald should be considered innocent *historically* because he died *legally* in a state *presumed* to be "not guilty." My point is both clear and *relevant* to that contention which is *what* we are talking about. That is that *more* evidence was available and reviewed by the WC (or since by the HSCA. ARRB, and further releases) than would *ever* have been available at trial.

You guys want to have it both way and disqualify the WC because Oswald was dead and couldn't get a legal trial, yet also scream "foul play" even though *more* was reviewed, because you also have an endless list of (generally irrelevant) "But what about this, or this, or that's?" that they allegedly missed or ignored. (Not to mention that anything they missed or ignored only counts in such a discussion *if* it is *still* missing after what has followed or clearly *relevant* to proving a conspiracy.)

> > >
> > > Cite one expert from this case whose testimony you find wholly credible.
> > >
> >
> > Is this "Boris" or beb? Interesting similarities there Beanie Boy! Since you *well* know that LN's believe the *recognized* experts to a far *higher* degree than do CT's, I think it best to put this in your direction.
>
> No kidding! You think it's best to run from my question (which you did) and extend that avoidance in the form of answering a question with a question. Like I haven't seen this before. And let's note here...that you'll NEVER answer that question.
>

I don't need to comb over every expert's testimony and 100% of what they said to assess whether (1) I am even fully competent as a layman to contradict it, or (2) I agree with 100% of it even if I am, in order to *correctly* state that the vast majority of *recognized* experts who have chimed in on this case have *CLEARLY* agreed with the following":

1) Two shots struck JFK from behind him slightly above and to his right. These resulted in his death.

2) All gun and a ballistics evidence examined point back to weapons owned by LHO and fired from them either to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world, or beyond any realistic and reasonable doubt.

3) There is no clear evidence of other shots or shooters that may be forensically or otherwise scientifically established.

3) All the available photographic and video evidence related to this case and relied on by the WC or subsequent Panels is genuine.

4) The SBT is both possible and *likely* given the wounds to JFK and Connally and all available *hard* evidence which point back to a single shooter.

> >
> > What *recognized* experts testimony to do *you* find "wholly" credible?
>
> Naturally your definition of "recognized" differs from mine. Any expert who recognizes anomalies in the official narrative would not be considered "recognized." Let's dispense with your talking-point bullshit right there. Otherwise, I'm happy to point out the credibility of these experts:
>
> http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
>
> And these ones:
>
> https://goo.gl/images/Zcv3rH
>
> I also appreciate Dolce, Gregory and Frazier as well, because their opinions of shots from behind notwithstanding, they each point to serious inconsistencies which neither you nor the WC can reconcile, and so ignore instead.
>
>

In short you believe just about *anyone* that calls into question *anything* that you would like to disbelieve qualifies as an expert. But no matter how smart they are, no matter how accomplished and qualified they may be in *another* field (like the Parkland Doctor for example) their judgments justifiably face the need to carry a higher burden of proof, than opposing judgments rendered by the *consensus* of experts who are recognized to be so in the *very* disciplines called for to analyze the evidence.

The consensus of experts operating in their natural fields of endeavor routinely have supported the underlying evidence for the LN conclusion. That is simply a *reality*. To overcome it such a consensus, either *compelling* counter evidence and/or inevitable logical necessity or probability that the consensus is in error are a *must*.

> >
> > My intelligent ally would call this "looking at *everything* that is *evidential* to assess its validity and reliability."
>
> Someone who calls everyone a "retard" is intelligent, by your standards. Your ability for judgement has been noted.
>

He only calls people who serially reject any and all credible evidence and basic logic to continue to believe Oswald was innocent or that a conspiracy has been "proved". Naturally since you do those very things you are offended so your lack of objectivity in deciding if his usage is correct is noted.

>
> >
> > Name a "mishandled" FBI statement that invalidates the case against OZ or that establishes a conspiracy to kill JFK.
>
> Mishandled (not in quotes, denoting sarcasm) statements include those of Charles Brehm, Wayne and Edna Hartman, Arnold Rowland, James Simmons, Julia Ann Mercer, Harold Norman and Phil Willis. And that's a scenario where even one name would be too much, and seriously compromise the ethics of your "investigators". There's some "quotes" for you.

Well don't vague. Describe exactly how it was mishandled and how this "proves" a conspiracy. (BTW, the quotes actually indicated that you have made a general claim that would be unwise to grant until you make it more specific and establish how it was mishandled.)

[Jason Burke]

On 12/6/2018 10:49 AM, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 8:32:18 AM UTC-8, BT George wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 5:20:21 PM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe tell him that part of the legal standards necessary for a conviction include a competent--or even EXISTING--defense counsel. Something Oswald didn't have.
>>>>
>>>> Uhhh...as dead men generally don't.
>>>
>>> But lo, troll...isn't that what the Warren Commission was supposed to be? A fair and unbiased investigation? It's not like they STARTED with their conclusion and worked AROUND it. Tell us more.
>>>
>>
>> What the heck does this missive have to do with what I said? I am talking about the *evidence*. You seem to think the Warren Commission processed and gathered it all, but in fact the DPD, SS, FBI, and Postal Service already had done most of it before the Commission even got set up. I totally disagree with your claim that they started with a conclusion and then worked around it, though it would be *STUPID* to just ignore what the CONSIDERABLE evidence already gathered pointed to.
>>
>> But back to the point. We not only have the aforementioned evidence, plus what the WC turned up, or exposed, or interpreted more adequately, but we also have the considerable work done by the HSCA. Throw away the multiply debunked Dictabelt "Evidence" and most of what they did was very sound. Do *you* know what a Committee that was willing to find (albeit erroneously) "probable conspiracy" said about the SBT and who killed JFK and Tippit?
>>
>> Moreover, we have *MANY* documents released since. (Probably at least 99+% of everything.) Not *ONE* contains any "proof" of conspiracy, nor exonerates Oz as the killer. That is the rather inconvenient *truth* for CT'dom.
>>
>>>>
>>>> But in fact, judging the historical record is far *better* than being limited to a trial that can---at most---find someone *legally* "not guilty".
>>>
>>> Which is why every year LNer dullards become fewer and fewer.
>>>
>>
>> Cite your evidence for this outlandish claim. The last major poll I know of in 2013 indicated an almost 60/40 split among the public. Up from the 75/25 ratio that 30+ years of nearly uninterrupted CT blathery had created through most of the 70's - 90's.
>>
>>>>
>>>> For one thing, no evidence may be logically deemed "inadmissible".
>>>
>>> Except when it proves a conspiracy. Do go on.
>>>
>>
>> Non Sequitur. I am taking about *admitting* all *excluded* evidence. Your comment would indicate a suppression of evidence. If you want to get that, the best way is to go set up a trial and get a skilled attorney to argue why it shouldn't be seen by the jury.
>>
>>>>
>>>> Heresay can be cons
>> idered based on the credibility of the sources.
>>>

>>> Cite one expert from this case whose testimony you find wholly credible..

>>>
>>
>> Is this "Boris" or beb? Interesting similarities there Beanie Boy! Since you *well* know that LN's believe the *recognized* experts to a far *higher* degree than do CT's, I think it best to put this in your direction. What *recognized* experts testimony to do *you* find "wholly" credible?
>
> Dude, you sure smell like DVP. Hiding behind yet another of your 116 loon nut aliases... Why do you have to do that?

Main problem with Healy is that he can't tell the difference between his
mommy and any other woman.

And since he hasn't been weaned yet, well, it gets him in a little trouble.

[BT George]

On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 2:54:01 PM UTC-6, Jason Burke wrote:
> On 12/6/2018 10:49 AM, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 8:32:18 AM UTC-8, BT George wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 5:20:21 PM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Maybe tell him that part of the legal standards necessary for a conviction include a competent--or even EXISTING--defense counsel. Something Oswald didn't have.
> >>>>
> >>>> Uhhh...as dead men generally don't.
> >>>
> >>> But lo, troll...isn't that what the Warren Commission was supposed to be? A fair and unbiased investigation? It's not like they STARTED with their conclusion and worked AROUND it. Tell us more.
> >>>
> >>
> >> What the heck does this missive have to do with what I said? I am talking about the *evidence*. You seem to think the Warren Commission processed and gathered it all, but in fact the DPD, SS, FBI, and Postal Service already had done most of it before the Commission even got set up. I totally disagree with your claim that they started with a conclusion and then worked around it, though it would be *STUPID* to just ignore what the CONSIDERABLE evidence already gathered pointed to.
> >>
> >> But back to the point. We not only have the aforementioned evidence, plus what the WC turned up, or exposed, or interpreted more adequately, but we also have the considerable work done by the HSCA. Throw away the multiply debunked Dictabelt "Evidence" and most of what they did was very sound. Do *you* know what a Committee that was willing to find (albeit erroneously) "probable conspiracy" said about the SBT and who killed JFK and Tippit?
> >>
> >> Moreover, we have *MANY* documents released since. (Probably at least 99+% of everything.) Not *ONE* contains any "proof" of conspiracy, nor exonerates Oz as the killer. That is the rather inconvenient *truth* for CT'dom.
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> But in fact, judging the historical record is far *better* than being limited to a trial that can---at most---find someone *legally* "not guilty".
> >>>
> >>> Which is why every year LNer dullards become fewer and fewer.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Cite your evidence for this outlandish claim. The last major poll I know of in 2013 indicated an almost 60/40 split among the public. Up from the 75/25 ratio that 30+ years of nearly uninterrupted CT blathery had created through most of the 70's - 90's.
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> For one thing, no evidence may be logically deemed "inadmissible".
> >>>
> >>> Except when it proves a conspiracy. Do go on.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Non Sequitur. I am taking about *admitting* all *excluded* evidence. Your comment would indicate a suppression of evidence. If you want to get that, the best way is to go set up a trial and get a skilled attorney to argue why it shouldn't be seen by the jury.
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> Heresay can be cons
> >> idered based on the credibility of the sources.
> >>>
> >>> Cite one expert from this case whose testimony you find wholly credible..
> >>>
> >>
> >> Is this "Boris" or beb? Interesting similarities there Beanie Boy! Since you *well* know that LN's believe the *recognized* experts to a far *higher* degree than do CT's, I think it best to put this in your direction. What *recognized* experts testimony to do *you* find "wholly" credible?
> >
> > Dude, you sure smell like DVP. Hiding behind yet another of your 116 loon nut aliases... Why do you have to do that?
>
> Main problem with Healy is that he can't tell the difference between his
> mommy and any other woman.
>
> And since he hasn't been weaned yet, well, it gets him in a little trouble.
>

Now *THAT* is funny!

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> The crux of the case is that the evidence reviewed and or gathered by WC and HSCA, and *numerous* empirical demonstrations and reenactments have done nothing but *support* Oz's guilt.

No, the crux of the case is that the WC started with their presumed conclusion of Oswald's guilt, most importantly decided he was guilty alone, then selected all the evidence which orbited that conclusion, and carefully retrofitted it to that conclusion. They led witnesses, ignored important testimony which contradicted their findings, and spent more time asking about Viola Peterman's kids than they did exploring the idea of a "confederate" in Dealey Plaza. That's pathetic.

>
> > >
> > > I totally disagree with your claim that they started with a conclusion and then worked around it,
> >
> > Then you agree Anne Boudreaux, Hiram Conway, Myrtle and Julian Evans, William Wulf, Mildred Sawyer and Viola Peterman were solid material witnesses who in no way reflect an "agenda" on behalf of the Warren Commission. Explain.
> >
>
> Why don't you explain why they *should* have ignored if there was any evidence of Oswald's pro-Communist/Marxist views and/or violent behavior going back to his childhood.

No. The question was posed to you, and besides...

>
> Once again you assume Oswald should have been treated like he was hardly in Dallas---let alone anywhere near Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63?

...You are doing what the WC did, and Begging the Question. They decided it was Oswald, because that was their conclusion from the beginning (and despite your insistence it wasn't, you're proving that you agree with me and don't even know it). That decision was the reason they interviewed everyone who ever breathed air around him. Read the testimony of any of those people and cherry pick ANYTHING of importance from it. They were not witnesses and they were not experts related to the case. Explain their line of questioning to these witnesses in a way which does not show a predetermined bias of sole guilt from the WC. We'll wait....forever.

>
> That's the problem with too many CT's. They think the WC should have centered their case around a TSBD janitor, or random person who worked or was seen in the Dal Tex building, or that was employed as librarian a few blocks away, or perhaps just thrown a dart at a map and started looking where it landed. *ANYTHING* but center it on the *obvious* PRIME suspect.

Ironically, any one of those hyperbolic examples would have been better than the aforementioned witnesses called by the WC, because at least THOSE people were there on 11/22/63. Was Bennierita Smith?

> >
> > Oh, I think Joseph Dolce's letter alone proves how much was flat-out ignored, although every day Ben provides excerpts from Mark Lane's book dissecting hard evidence and testimony that was ignored even when it was spoonfed to them.
> >
>
> Well if Lane says it I belie.... Actually, no I don't. :-)

Who cares what you believe. You can't defend it. So your comment is meaningless.

> >
> > The WC's "interpretations" have been so badly debunked they border on Saturday morning cartoon. And cooperation from the FBI was limited and equally worthless for them, as I'm sure you well know but pretend not to, from the schism within the WC, including Hale Boggs's famous "Hoover lied his eyes out" comment, which I'm sure anyone but you would find suspicious...lest you have no issues with the lead investigators who handled all the hard evidence LYING about the hard evidence, according to the very people who were supposed to be "interpreting" it. Do you pause before you think, Barnum?

Note the silence from BT Barnum on this.

>
> > >
> > > but we also have the considerable work done by the HSCA. Throw away the multiply debunked Dictabelt "Evidence" and most of what they did was very sound.
> >
> > Naturally. You *would* throw that away. As well, you'd pretend that's the only evidence they used to conclude "probable conspiracy."
> >
>
> Naturally I throw *clearly* erroneous evidence out the door! Can you demonstrate that *absent* it, the Committee was going to issue their finding of "Probable" Conspiracy?

Note that BT Barnum cannot deny the dictabelt evidence was their "only" evidence. He continues to pretend otherwise.

>
> > >
> > > Moreover, we have *MANY* documents released since. (Probably at least 99+% of everything.) Not *ONE* contains any "proof" of conspiracy, nor exonerates Oz as the killer.
> >
> > You mean they didn't put everything in writing? On paper? Now I just feel foolish.
> >
>
> You mean that the only evidence you will *accept* is one that shows that you *want* it to show. :-)

No, and...ditto, in reverse.

> > > >
> > >
> > > Non Sequitur. I am taking about *admitting* all *excluded* evidence. Your comment would indicate a suppression of evidence.
> >
> > If the hill you want to die on is that the Warren Commission didn't exclude important evidence, then I'm laughing.
> >
>
> Those blades really are disjointing your thoughts. You and many CT's insist that Oswald should be considered innocent *historically* because he died *legally* in a state *presumed* to be "not guilty."

Strawman, and non-sequitur.

>
> You guys want to have it both way and disqualify the WC because Oswald was dead and couldn't get a legal trial, yet also scream "foul play" even though *more* was reviewed, because you also have an endless list of (generally irrelevant) "But what about this, or this, or that's?" that they allegedly missed or ignored. (Not to mention that anything they missed or ignored only counts in such a discussion *if* it is *still* missing after what has followed or clearly *relevant* to proving a conspiracy.)

Regardless of his guilt, Oswald would have walked due to lack of chain of custody on several of those pieces of evidence. Then his defense attorney would have called Hale Boggs to the stand and asked him what he thought of the head of the organization who HANDLED all that evidence. And he would have said the man "lied his eyes out" about "all of it". And then what?

>
> > > >
> > > > Cite one expert from this case whose testimony you find wholly credible.

He can't.

> >
>
> I don't need to comb over every expert's testimony and 100% of what they said to assess whether (1) I am even fully competent as a layman to contradict it, or (2) I agree with 100% of it even if I am, in order to *correctly* state that the vast majority of *recognized* experts who have chimed in on this case have *CLEARLY* agreed with the following":
>
> 1) Two shots struck JFK from behind him slightly above and to his right. These resulted in his death.

Shots were fired from behind.

>
> 2) All gun and a ballistics evidence examined point back to weapons owned by LHO and fired from them either to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world, or beyond any realistic and reasonable doubt.

Now you sound like Chuck, Mr. "ALL the experts stated..." yet couldn't name a single one. And the "exclusion of all other weapons" fallacy has been debunked several times here. You should pay more attention than studying the musings of Jason Burke.

>
> 3) There is no clear evidence of other shots or shooters that may be forensically or otherwise scientifically established.

You can't even explain Connally's wrist wound. And that's the easiest part!

>
> 3) All the available photographic and video evidence related to this case and relied on by the WC or subsequent Panels is genuine.

Then why does the autopsy report contradict all of it?

>
> 4) The SBT is both possible and *likely* given the wounds to JFK and Connally and all available *hard* evidence which point back to a single shooter.

Following that weak logic, a half-dozen bullet wounds caused by more than one missile is not likely or possible.

>
>
> > >
> > > What *recognized* experts testimony to do *you* find "wholly" credible?
> >
> > Naturally your definition of "recognized" differs from mine. Any expert who recognizes anomalies in the official narrative would not be considered "recognized." Let's dispense with your talking-point bullshit right there. Otherwise, I'm happy to point out the credibility of these experts:
> >
> > http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
> >
> > And these ones:
> >
> > https://goo.gl/images/Zcv3rH
> >
> > I also appreciate Dolce, Gregory and Frazier as well, because their opinions of shots from behind notwithstanding, they each point to serious inconsistencies which neither you nor the WC can reconcile, and so ignore instead.
> >
> >
>
> In short you believe just about *anyone* that calls into question *anything* that you would like to disbelieve qualifies as an expert.

Frazier, Gregory and Dolce are not *anyone*. Note the subtle way LNers try to throw these people under the bus, and downplay their abilities. It's pathetic.

>
> But no matter how smart they are, no matter how accomplished and qualified they may be in *another* field (like the Parkland Doctor for example) their judgments justifiably face the need to carry a higher burden of proof, than opposing judgments rendered by the *consensus* of experts who are recognized to be so in the *very* disciplines called for to analyze the evidence.

BT Barnum doesn't believe a single Parkland doctor was qualified enough to recognize what a large, gaping hole in the back of someone's head looks like. He's just not courageous enough to come out and say it.

>
> The consensus of experts operating in their natural fields of endeavor routinely have supported the underlying evidence for the LN conclusion.

"Word salad", as a certain idiot would say. But I don't need to say it. All
I have to do is demand you graduate from vague to specific by citing some examples...and then watch as you don't.

>
> >
> > >
> > > Name a "mishandled" FBI statement that invalidates the case against OZ or that establishes a conspiracy to kill JFK.
> >
> > Mishandled (not in quotes, denoting sarcasm) statements include those of Charles Brehm, Wayne and Edna Hartman, Arnold Rowland, James Simmons, Julia Ann Mercer, Harold Norman and Phil Willis. And that's a scenario where even one name would be too much, and seriously compromise the ethics of your "investigators". There's some "quotes" for you.

BT Barnum has NOTHING here.

>
> Well don't vague. Describe exactly how it was mishandled and how this "proves" a conspiracy. (BTW, the quotes actually indicated that you have made a general claim that would be unwise to grant until you make it more specific and establish how it was mishandled.)

Specifically, they were all determined they said one thing, and then stated the FBI recorded something completely different. That's as specific as I need to be. Because if one of them said one plus one equals "three" and the FBI recorded "two", that is enough to render their statements a serious inadmissible breach, and reeks of corruption and agenda. State one non-conspiratorial reason this was done over and over again; you can't even come up with a hypothetical.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

what IS funny is .John mcadams loon nuts are still running from Mark Lane. We can smell your fear... Carry on Fostick... rotflmfao!

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 9 Dec 2018 19:12:30 -0800 (PST), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

>>
>> The crux of the case is that the evidence reviewed and or gathered by WC and HSCA, and *numerous* empirical demonstrations and reenactments have done nothing but *support* Oz's guilt.
>
> No, the crux of the case is that the WC started with their presumed
> conclusion of Oswald's guilt, most importantly decided he was guilty
> alone, then selected all the evidence which orbited that conclusion,
> and carefully retrofitted it to that conclusion. They led witnesses,
> ignored important testimony which contradicted their findings, and
> spent more time asking about Viola Peterman's kids than they did
> exploring the idea of a "confederate" in Dealey Plaza. That's
> pathetic.

Indeed! Quite correct. And believers have nothing other than lies & ad
hominem to refute these facts.

[BT George]

On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 9:12:31 PM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > The crux of the case is that the evidence reviewed and or gathered by WC and HSCA, and *numerous* empirical demonstrations and reenactments have done nothing but *support* Oz's guilt.
>
> No, the crux of the case is that the WC started with their presumed conclusion of Oswald's guilt, most importantly decided he was guilty alone, then selected all the evidence which orbited that conclusion, and carefully retrofitted it to that conclusion. They led witnesses, ignored important testimony which contradicted their findings, and spent more time asking about Viola Peterman's kids than they did exploring the idea of a "confederate" in Dealey Plaza. That's pathetic.
>

What's pathetic is *ignoring* that the only *hard* evidence, and the only person acting serially peculiar after the shooting was LHO. As for finding a "confederate" in Dealey Plaza name *one* witness who on November *22*, 1963 reported seeing a shooter anywhere, but the 6th floor window.

Can you name one *credible* piece of evidence that the WC *AND* the subsequent investigations. releases that have followed (which you would like to *pretend* has never occurred) did not look into or shed light on at all? You will be expected to explain how and why this is "evidence" that should be considered both *credible and important* to the finding of no *evidence* of conspiracy.

> >
> > > >
> > > > I totally disagree with your claim that they started with a conclusion and then worked around it,
> > >
> > > Then you agree Anne Boudreaux, Hiram Conway, Myrtle and Julian Evans, William Wulf, Mildred Sawyer and Viola Peterman were solid material witnesses who in no way reflect an "agenda" on behalf of the Warren Commission. Explain.
> > >
> >
> > Why don't you explain why they *should* have ignored if there was any evidence of Oswald's pro-Communist/Marxist views and/or violent behavior going back to his childhood.
>
> No. The question was posed to you, and besides...
>

IOW, that you know good and well that was a valid path of inquiry, but would prefer not to admit it. :-)

> >
> > Once again you assume Oswald should have been treated like he was hardly in Dallas---let alone anywhere near Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63?
>
> ...You are doing what the WC did, and Begging the Question. They decided it was Oswald, because that was their conclusion from the beginning (and despite your insistence it wasn't, you're proving that you agree with me and don't even know it). That decision was the reason they interviewed everyone who ever breathed air around him. Read the testimony of any of those people and cherry pick ANYTHING of importance from it. They were not witnesses and they were not experts related to the case. Explain their line of questioning to these witnesses in a way which does not show a predetermined bias of sole guilt from the WC. We'll wait....forever.
>

Begging the question implies one lacks evidence, or possesses evidence to the contrary, but expects others to take it as a given. What you are claiming would only be true if the WC:

A) Lacked evidence against Oswald.

B) And/or already had evidence *clearly* indicating involvement of others and ignored it.

C) Made *no* demonstrated attempt to look at possible evidence of conspiracies.

So are you *really* saying that in 26 volumes they looked *nowhere* but in the direction of Oswald's guilt? ...Be careful how you answer. I will surely do my homework and call out any false claims.

Also, the above is only *relevant* if we *still* in 2018 cannot dismiss the claims of conspiracy that the WC missed looking into or allegedly intentionally ignored.

>
> >
> > That's the problem with too many CT's. They think the WC should have centered their case around a TSBD janitor, or random person who worked or was seen in the Dal Tex building, or that was employed as librarian a few blocks away, or perhaps just thrown a dart at a map and started looking where it landed. *ANYTHING* but center it on the *obvious* PRIME suspect.
>
> Ironically, any one of those hyperbolic examples would have been better than the aforementioned witnesses called by the WC, because at least THOSE people were there on 11/22/63. Was Bennierita Smith?
>

I don't care it they called Santa Claus. That would not change the fact that there was no *reason* to start with the assumption that there *was* a conspiracy or that Oz was should not be the focal point even if there *was* since all roads pointed---at the very least--to his involvement. BTW, tell me again what *credible* leads of conspiracy we have no further insight into in 2018?

>
> > >
> > > Oh, I think Joseph Dolce's letter alone proves how much was flat-out ignored, although every day Ben provides excerpts from Mark Lane's book dissecting hard evidence and testimony that was ignored even when it was spoonfed to them.
> > >
> >
> > Well if Lane says it I belie.... Actually, no I don't. :-)
>
> Who cares what you believe. You can't defend it. So your comment is meaningless.
>

Lane's frequent lying by omission---and occasionally by commission---have been *CLEARLY* shown to you and beb. Therefore it is yours statement that is meaningless.

>
> > >
> > > The WC's "interpretations" have been so badly debunked they border on Saturday morning cartoon. And cooperation from the FBI was limited and equally worthless for them, as I'm sure you well know but pretend not to, from the schism within the WC, including Hale Boggs's famous "Hoover lied his eyes out" comment, which I'm sure anyone but you would find suspicious...lest you have no issues with the lead investigators who handled all the hard evidence LYING about the hard evidence, according to the very people who were supposed to be "interpreting" it. Do you pause before you think, Barnum?
>
> Note the silence from BT Barnum on this.
>

Note that you threw out a bunch of general accusations that are not my burden to refute. Tell me *exactly* what you think was missed or suppressed, why you think it was important, and how you think you have establish that it was indeed deceitfully handled.

> >
> > > >
> > > > but we also have the considerable work done by the HSCA. Throw away the multiply debunked Dictabelt "Evidence" and most of what they did was very sound.
> > >
> > > Naturally. You *would* throw that away. As well, you'd pretend that's the only evidence they used to conclude "probable conspiracy."
> > >
> >
> > Naturally I throw *clearly* erroneous evidence out the door! Can you demonstrate that *absent* it, the Committee was going to issue their finding of "Probable" Conspiracy?
>
> Note that BT Barnum cannot deny the dictabelt evidence was their "only" evidence. He continues to pretend otherwise.
>

Of course I cannot deny it was their only evidence that they used to justify their find of "probable conspiracy." Neither can you. Which you will prove when you fail to document what else led them to that conclusion.

> >
> > > >
> > > > Moreover, we have *MANY* documents released since. (Probably at least 99+% of everything.) Not *ONE* contains any "proof" of conspiracy, nor exonerates Oz as the killer.
> > >
> > > You mean they didn't put everything in writing? On paper? Now I just feel foolish.
> > >
> >
> > You mean that the only evidence you will *accept* is one that shows that you *want* it to show. :-)
>
> No, and...ditto, in reverse.
>
>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Non Sequitur. I am taking about *admitting* all *excluded* evidence. Your comment would indicate a suppression of evidence.
> > >
> > > If the hill you want to die on is that the Warren Commission didn't exclude important evidence, then I'm laughing.
> > >
> >
> > Those blades really are disjointing your thoughts. You and many CT's insist that Oswald should be considered innocent *historically* because he died *legally* in a state *presumed* to be "not guilty."
>
> Strawman, and non-sequitur.
>

Hardly. My statement is quite true, about common CT behavior. One needs only participate in a JFK debate forum for any length of time and you will see this concept that he should be historically be considered innocent for all time, because he never got a trial that found him "guilty".

>
> >
> > You guys want to have it both way and disqualify the WC because Oswald was dead and couldn't get a legal trial, yet also scream "foul play" even though *more* was reviewed, because you also have an endless list of (generally irrelevant) "But what about this, or this, or that's?" that they allegedly missed or ignored. (Not to mention that anything they missed or ignored only counts in such a discussion *if* it is *still* missing after what has followed or clearly *relevant* to proving a conspiracy.)
>
> Regardless of his guilt, Oswald would have walked due to lack of chain of custody on several of those pieces of evidence. Then his defense attorney would have called Hale Boggs to the stand and asked him what he thought of the head of the organization who HANDLED all that evidence. And he would have said the man "lied his eyes out" about "all of it". And then what?
>

Now you are clearly begging the question, when you state "Oswald would have walked due to lack of chain of custody on several of those pieces of evidence." Not to mention your contentions about what Boggs would have said *under oath* and whether he could have offered any *proof* for his claim and that it called into serious question Oz's guilt.

> >
> > > > >
> > > > > Cite one expert from this case whose testimony you find wholly credible.
>
> He can't.
>
> > >
> >
> > I don't need to comb over every expert's testimony and 100% of what they said to assess whether (1) I am even fully competent as a layman to contradict it, or (2) I agree with 100% of it even if I am, in order to *correctly* state that the vast majority of *recognized* experts who have chimed in on this case have *CLEARLY* agreed with the following":
> >
> > 1) Two shots struck JFK from behind him slightly above and to his right. These resulted in his death.
>
> Shots were fired from behind.
>

Glad *you* admit that, though you seem to have missed the part that they struck home and killed him.

> >
> > 2) All gun and a ballistics evidence examined point back to weapons owned by LHO and fired from them either to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world, or beyond any realistic and reasonable doubt.
>
> Now you sound like Chuck, Mr. "ALL the experts stated..." yet couldn't name a single one. And the "exclusion of all other weapons" fallacy has been debunked several times here. You should pay more attention than studying the musings of Jason Burke.
>

Tell me again how you have "debunked" that CE399 and and the two limo fragments were not matched so back in 1963/64? Your "proof" for that should be most entertaining.

And while your at it, tell me again why when Oz was arrested in the TSBD he was had the *very* weapon on his person that was ballistically matched to the shells he was seen dumping out as he left the Tippit scene to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world? (Not to mention that at least one examiner Joseph Nicol, though he could conclusively match one of the Tippit bullets to this gun also.)

> >
> > 3) There is no clear evidence of other shots or shooters that may be forensically or otherwise scientifically established.
>
> You can't even explain Connally's wrist wound. And that's the easiest part!
>

It's been explained many times. The fact you cannot comprehend or will not accept the explanation is not my problem.

> >
> > 3) All the available photographic and video evidence related to this case and relied on by the WC or subsequent Panels is genuine.
>
> Then why does the autopsy report contradict all of it?
>

You mean the part where both wounds, were found to come from above and slightly to the right of JFK? The part where their was evidence of exit wound beveling on one of the skull fragments towards the front of Kennedy's skull. Or perhaps it was their finding that back wound bullet must have exited out of the place where the tracheotomy was put in at Parkland?

> >
> > 4) The SBT is both possible and *likely* given the wounds to JFK and Connally and all available *hard* evidence which point back to a single shooter.
>
> Following that weak logic, a half-dozen bullet wounds caused by more than one missile is not likely or possible.
>

Sounds like word salad to me.

> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > What *recognized* experts testimony to do *you* find "wholly" credible?
> > >
> > > Naturally your definition of "recognized" differs from mine. Any expert who recognizes anomalies in the official narrative would not be considered "recognized." Let's dispense with your talking-point bullshit right there. Otherwise, I'm happy to point out the credibility of these experts:
> > >
> > > http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
> > >
> > > And these ones:
> > >
> > > https://goo.gl/images/Zcv3rH
> > >
> > > I also appreciate Dolce, Gregory and Frazier as well, because their opinions of shots from behind notwithstanding, they each point to serious inconsistencies which neither you nor the WC can reconcile, and so ignore instead.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > In short you believe just about *anyone* that calls into question *anything* that you would like to disbelieve qualifies as an expert.
>
> Frazier, Gregory and Dolce are not *anyone*. Note the subtle way LNers try to throw these people under the bus, and downplay their abilities. It's pathetic.
>

So I am to trust the inconsistencies you feel they report, but distrust their judgement that the shots came from behind? Point proven.

> >
> > But no matter how smart they are, no matter how accomplished and qualified they may be in *another* field (like the Parkland Doctor for example) their judgments justifiably face the need to carry a higher burden of proof, than opposing judgments rendered by the *consensus* of experts who are recognized to be so in the *very* disciplines called for to analyze the evidence.
>
> BT Barnum doesn't believe a single Parkland doctor was qualified enough to recognize what a large, gaping hole in the back of someone's head looks like. He's just not courageous enough to come out and say it.
>

Sounding like bebs more all the time. :-) And no, their skills as doctors and surgeons, and their effort which was directed *only* to try to save a rapidly dying (really already dead) President did not qualify them to make a forensic judgement. And it bothers you and beb not at all that many of them have since *admitted* they might have been or even *were* mistaken. This is exactly what Bud calls looking at the wrong things wrongly.

> >
> > The consensus of experts operating in their natural fields of endeavor routinely have supported the underlying evidence for the LN conclusion.
>
> "Word salad", as a certain idiot would say. But I don't need to say it. All
> I have to do is demand you graduate from vague to specific by citing some examples...and then watch as you don't.
>

You haven't stated a specific you want that is relevant to this discussion. And what I said above is only word salad to you because you don't want to admit it is correct or are too lazy to figure out how it is dead true.

> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Name a "mishandled" FBI statement that invalidates the case against OZ or that establishes a conspiracy to kill JFK.
> > >
> > > Mishandled (not in quotes, denoting sarcasm) statements include those of Charles Brehm, Wayne and Edna Hartman, Arnold Rowland, James Simmons, Julia Ann Mercer, Harold Norman and Phil Willis. And that's a scenario where even one name would be too much, and seriously compromise the ethics of your "investigators". There's some "quotes" for you.
>
> BT Barnum has NOTHING here.
>
> >
> > Well don't vague. Describe exactly how it was mishandled and how this "proves" a conspiracy. (BTW, the quotes actually indicated that you have made a general claim that would be unwise to grant until you make it more specific and establish how it was mishandled.)
>
> Specifically, they were all determined they said one thing, and then stated the FBI recorded something completely different. That's as specific as I need to be. Because if one of them said one plus one equals "three" and the FBI recorded "two", that is enough to render their statements a serious inadmissible breach, and reeks of corruption and agenda. State one non-conspiratorial reason this was done over and over again; you can't even come up with a hypothetical.

You need to give a couple of clear examples and where I need to look to verify where and when the witnesses claimed they were blatantly misquoted. "When" matters, because someone claiming long after the fact that they were misquoted is less reliable and meaningful than such a claim made near to the fact, especially given how many people in this case have changed their story (often multiple times) over the years.)

Without a couple of specifics, it is the very definition of begging the question to state it as fact and expect me to answer for it.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
>
> What's pathetic is *ignoring* that the only *hard* evidence,

You mean like shell cartridges found on adjacent rooftops in DP?

>
> As for finding a "confederate" in Dealey Plaza name *one* witness who on November *22*, 1963 reported seeing a shooter anywhere,

Name one person who saw the DC sniper.

This is common idiocy put forth by the LNers, who seem not to understand the concept of a "sniper." Especially when the president's head is being blown off in front of you, where else would people be looking?

>
> but the 6th floor window.

And what did they see? We've got some interesting descriptions from several sources.

> > > >
> > >
> > > Why don't you explain why they *should* have ignored if there was any evidence of Oswald's pro-Communist/Marxist views and/or violent behavior going back to his childhood.
> >
> > No. The question was posed to you, and besides...
> >
> IOW, that you know good and well that was a valid path of inquiry, but would prefer not to admit it. :-)

I would have thought you'd be embarrassed enough bringing this up once without being foolish enough to do it again. First by equating communism with his guilt...and not just his guilt, but his SOLE guilt...as if he were the only communism in the world.

And you really think they were trying to "establish" something about his past in this manner, by interviewing all these inconsequentials? Show me where in Anne Boudreaux's testimony that occurs.

> >
>
> Begging the question implies one lacks evidence, or possesses evidence to the contrary, but expects others to take it as a given. What you are claiming would only be true if the WC:
>
> A) Lacked evidence against Oswald.

The issue is not evidence against Oswald, but evidence of sole guilt. Try to keep up.

>
> B) And/or already had evidence *clearly* indicating involvement of others and ignored it.

They even had evidence of other plots, in other cities.

>
> C) Made *no* demonstrated attempt to look at possible evidence of conspiracies.

None whatsoever.

>
> So are you *really* saying that in 26 volumes they looked *nowhere* but in the direction of Oswald's guilt? ...Be careful how you answer. I will surely do my homework and call out any false claims.

Do it.

> > >
> > > That's the problem with too many CT's. They think the WC should have centered their case around a TSBD janitor, or random person who worked or was seen in the Dal Tex building, or that was employed as librarian a few blocks away, or perhaps just thrown a dart at a map and started looking where it landed. *ANYTHING* but center it on the *obvious* PRIME suspect.
> >
> > Ironically, any one of those hyperbolic examples would have been better than the aforementioned witnesses called by the WC, because at least THOSE people were there on 11/22/63. Was Bennierita Smith?
> >
>
> I don't care it they called Santa Claus. That would not change the fact that there was no *reason* to start with the assumption that there *was* a conspiracy

Why, because Katzenbach already said so? Tell us more about their hindsight.

> >
>
> Lane's frequent lying by omission---and occasionally by commission---have been *CLEARLY* shown to you and beb. Therefore it is yours statement that is meaningless.

Laughably, not only would Lane have to lie, he would have to lie about *everything*, since there are so many points of contention. NONE of which you've adequately covered, let alone all or some of them.

>
> >
> > > >
> > > > The WC's "interpretations" have been so badly debunked they border on Saturday morning cartoon. And cooperation from the FBI was limited and equally worthless for them, as I'm sure you well know but pretend not to, from the schism within the WC, including Hale Boggs's famous "Hoover lied his eyes out" comment, which I'm sure anyone but you would find suspicious...lest you have no issues with the lead investigators who handled all the hard evidence LYING about the hard evidence, according to the very people who were supposed to be "interpreting" it. Do you pause before you think, Barnum?
> >
> > Note the silence from BT Barnum on this.

Silence, (cont.)

> >
> > Note that BT Barnum cannot deny the dictabelt evidence was their "only" evidence. He continues to pretend otherwise.
> >
> Of course I cannot deny it was their only evidence that they used to justify their find of "probable conspiracy." Neither can you. Which you will prove when you fail to document what else led them to that conclusion.

Ruby's polygraph.

> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Non Sequitur. I am taking about *admitting* all *excluded* evidence. Your comment would indicate a suppression of evidence.

Are you talking about the thousands of documents still withheld by the government due to "national security"? Or the absence of the many recognized experts not called to testify? Or the hard evidence that went missing?

>
> >
> > >
> > > "But what about this, or this, or that's?"

What is it about science and what is it about hard evidence?

> >
> > Regardless of his guilt, Oswald would have walked due to lack of chain of custody on several of those pieces of evidence. Then his defense attorney would have called Hale Boggs to the stand and asked him what he thought of the head of the organization who HANDLED all that evidence. And he would have said the man "lied his eyes out" about "all of it". And then what?
> >
>
> Now you are clearly begging the question, when you state "Oswald would have walked due to lack of chain of custody on several of those pieces of evidence." Not to mention your contentions about what Boggs would have said *under oath* and whether he could have offered any *proof* for his claim and that it called into serious question Oz's guilt.

I'm begging the question in that it's what he would have said on the stand. Not what he DID say. These are facts you're simply ignoring because...who the fuck knows/cares.

>
> > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cite one expert from this case whose testimony you find wholly credible.
> >
> > He can't.

Still can't.

> >
> > Shots were fired from behind.
> >
>
> Glad *you* admit that, though you seem to have missed the part that they struck home and killed him.

Uh-huh, and Connally's wrist wound still remains unexplained.

>
> > >
> > > 2) All gun and a ballistics evidence examined point back to weapons owned by LHO and fired from them either to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world, or beyond any realistic and reasonable doubt.
> >
> > Now you sound like Chuck, Mr. "ALL the experts stated..." yet couldn't name a single one. And the "exclusion of all other weapons" fallacy has been debunked several times here. You should pay more attention than studying the musings of Jason Burke.
> >
>
> Tell me again how you have "debunked" that CE399 and and the two limo fragments were not matched so back in 1963/64? Your "proof" for that should be most entertaining.

It was debunked in that CE853 was cited as an example of a bullet fired from the Carcano "to the exclusion of any other weapon," and yet it clearly was not fired in Dealey Plaza.

And tell us, which experts studied the head shot bullet and concluded it was fired from the Carcano to the exclusion of any other weapon? We'll wait.

>
> And while your at it, tell me again why when Oz was arrested in the TSBD he was had the *very* weapon on his person that was ballistically matched to the shells he was seen dumping out as he left the Tippit scene to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world?

Are we talking automatic shells, or revolver? The shells Poe initialed, or the shells he could not identify? The shells which were never admitted into evidence? The shells found at the crime scene, or the shells found down the street? You'll have to be more specific :-)

> >
> > You can't even explain Connally's wrist wound. And that's the easiest part!
> >
>
> It's been explained many times. The fact you cannot comprehend or will not accept the explanation is not my problem.

And the fact you can't cite any of these explanations IS your problem.

>
> > >
> > > 3) All the available photographic and video evidence related to this case and relied on by the WC or subsequent Panels is genuine.
> >
> > Then why does the autopsy report contradict all of it?
> >
>
> You mean the part where both wounds, were found to come from above and slightly to the right of JFK?

No, the part mentioning the "actual absence of bone and scalp" in the occipital/parietal region.

>
> The part where their was evidence of exit wound beveling on one of the skull fragments towards the front of Kennedy's skull.

No, the part where LN clowns swear the BOH photo shows an intact head because the flaps are being held in place by someone's hand, yet there are no flaps to the back of his head seen in the Z-film.

>
> Or perhaps it was their finding that back wound bullet must have exited out of the place where the tracheotomy was put in at Parkland?

Reading too much Bugliosi again, "ragged wound" boy?

>
> > >
> > > 4) The SBT is both possible and *likely* given the wounds to JFK and Connally and all available *hard* evidence which point back to a single shooter.
> >
> > Following that weak logic, a half-dozen bullet wounds caused by more than one missile is not likely or possible.
> >
>
> Sounds like word salad to me.

Sounds like I exposed your shit logic for what it was.

> >
> > Frazier, Gregory and Dolce are not *anyone*. Note the subtle way LNers try to throw these people under the bus, and downplay their abilities. It's pathetic.
> >
>
> So I am to trust the inconsistencies you feel they report, but distrust their judgement that the shots came from behind? Point proven.

What YOU trust is their presumptive conclusions. What *I* trust is the scientific findings based on their expertise. You trust opinion. I trust science.

> >
> > BT Barnum doesn't believe a single Parkland doctor was qualified enough to recognize what a large, gaping hole in the back of someone's head looks like. He's just not courageous enough to come out and say it.
> >
>
> Sounding like bebs more all the time. :-) And no, their skills as doctors and surgeons, and their effort which was directed *only* to try to save a rapidly dying (really already dead) President did not qualify them to make a forensic judgement.

Unfortunately for you, observing the presence a large gaping defect at the back of his skull is not a "forensic" judgement.

>
> And it bothers you and beb not at all that many of them have since *admitted* they might have been or even *were* mistaken. This is exactly what Bud calls looking at the wrong things wrongly.

Don't spare us ALL their names now. Show us how they were mistaken, and then try and explain away the total ineptness required on anyone's behalf, much less a doctor, to say they were mistaken when they saw a large absence of bone and scalp at the back of Kennedy's head. Then explain how both they AND the autopsy report were mistaken in that regard.

>
> > >
> > > The consensus of experts operating in their natural fields of endeavor routinely have supported the underlying evidence for the LN conclusion.
> >
> > "Word salad", as a certain idiot would say. But I don't need to say it. All
> > I have to do is demand you graduate from vague to specific by citing some examples...and then watch as you don't.

And doesn't.

> > > > >
> > > > > Name a "mishandled" FBI statement that invalidates the case against OZ or that establishes a conspiracy to kill JFK.
> > > >
> > > > Mishandled (not in quotes, denoting sarcasm) statements include those of Charles Brehm, Wayne and Edna Hartman, Arnold Rowland, James Simmons, Julia Ann Mercer, Harold Norman and Phil Willis. And that's a scenario where even one name would be too much, and seriously compromise the ethics of your "investigators". There's some "quotes" for you.
> >
> > BT Barnum has NOTHING here.

Still has nothing. Feigns (?) ignorance instead, rather than seek out the "Lying or Mistaken" thread. Or my mockery of Dim Brennan's sig.

“*SIMMONS advised that it was his opinion the shots came from the direction of the Texas School Book Depository Building*”
From FBI Report, 3/19/64 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 100-10461
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce1416.htm

And yet when he was asked on camera to mark the area where he thought the shots came from, this is what he indicated:
https://youtu.be/0w4sQtwWfBo?t=2175

X marks the spot where the FBI LIED!

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 15:14:32 -0800 (PST), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

>> >
>>
>> What's pathetic is *ignoring* that the only *hard* evidence,
>
>You mean like shell cartridges found on adjacent rooftops in DP?

Or the pattern of bullet fragments seen in the X-rays...

Or the documented contradictory FBI reports on the paper...

Or the envelope that used to contain part of a bullet...

Or the Autopsy Report...

Or the bullet fragments that have disappeared from the National
Archives?

"Hard Evidence" doesn't support the Warren Commission... it never did.

And believers have been lyin bout that for the last 50+ years.

[BT George]

I will try to answer more at length some of the above when time allows. But the claim "Boris" made that they made *no* demonstrated attempt to look at the possibility of conspiracies is laughably disproved Lurkers:

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-6.html

Go check it out and all the connected links and see if you good folks think they made *no* demonstrated effort as Boris disingenuously tried to claim.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
>
> I will try to answer more at length some of the above when time allows. But the claim "Boris" made that they made *no* demonstrated attempt to look at the possibility of conspiracies is laughably disproved Lurkers:
>
> https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-6.html
>
> Go check it out and all the connected links and see if you good folks think they made *no* demonstrated effort as Boris disingenuously tried to claim.

LOL! I ask for an investigation, and all you give me a glorified, overly bloviated Oswald bio. All this does is further prove my point that the WC was stuck in "Oswald-did-it" gear. It was the starting point they worked from, and never looked back. 130 pages of blathering, and they couldn't even manage the time to look at the discrepancies of the medical evidence.

This was some "investigation" of a conspiracy, you joke.

Besides, Katzenbach had already decided an "appointment of a Presidential Commission of unimpeachable personnel" were not going to find any "confederates," (trying to throw Jack Ruby under the bus notwithstanding).
The rest reads as an loquacious appeasement to growing concern rather than investigation, including no fingerprints other than Oswald's found on the boxes in the sniper's nest, which is complete bullshit clearly.

But that's okay. I don't blame you for thinking this chapter has anything to say. After all, it was really long. Long means thorough in LN-ese.

[Bud]

On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 6:14:34 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> >
> > What's pathetic is *ignoring* that the only *hard* evidence,
>
> You mean like shell cartridges found on adjacent rooftops in DP?
>
> >
> > As for finding a "confederate" in Dealey Plaza name *one* witness who on November *22*, 1963 reported seeing a shooter anywhere,
>
> Name one person who saw the DC sniper.

Are you saying there was a Chevy Caprice on the grassy knoll?

> This is common idiocy put forth by the LNers, who seem not to understand the concept of a "sniper."

Conspiracy retards have no concept of reality.

> Especially when the president's head is being blown off in front of you, where else would people be looking?

People can look around before, during and after. Film and photographs can record images. People can choose to stand anywhere, making it impossible for a sniper to choose a spot to shot from without the possibility that that spot would be rendered useless by spectators. Retards plug in shooter after the fact because they are indulging in a retarded hobby.

> > but the 6th floor window.
>
> And what did they see?

Oswald. Oswald`s rifle.

> We've got some interesting descriptions from several sources.
>
>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Why don't you explain why they *should* have ignored if there was any evidence of Oswald's pro-Communist/Marxist views and/or violent behavior going back to his childhood.
> > >
> > > No. The question was posed to you, and besides...
> > >
> > IOW, that you know good and well that was a valid path of inquiry, but would prefer not to admit it. :-)
>
> I would have thought you'd be embarrassed enough bringing this up once without being foolish enough to do it again. First by equating communism with his guilt...and not just his guilt, but his SOLE guilt...as if he were the only communism in the world.

Just the only political fanatic to end Kennedy`s life.

> And you really think they were trying to "establish" something about his past in this manner, by interviewing all these inconsequentials? Show me where in Anne Boudreaux's testimony that occurs.

<snicker> Conspiracy retards criticize the WC`s investigation, can you imagine the one these idiots would have conducted. It would still be in session, barking up all the wrong trees, looking for pools of blood that never existed, just decades of retard circle jerking.

>
> > >
> >
> > Begging the question implies one lacks evidence, or possesses evidence to the contrary, but expects others to take it as a given. What you are claiming would only be true if the WC:
> >
> > A) Lacked evidence against Oswald.
>
> The issue is not evidence against Oswald, but evidence of sole guilt. Try to keep up.

Stupid criteria, idiot. Any murderer could have unknown help. What can be determined is who committed the murder.

> >
> > B) And/or already had evidence *clearly* indicating involvement of others and ignored it.
>
> They even had evidence of other plots, in other cities.

They had evidence there was a dog in the limo.

> >
> > C) Made *no* demonstrated attempt to look at possible evidence of conspiracies.
>
> None whatsoever.

Of course government agencies looked into the possibility that Russia or Cuba put Oswald up to the murder.

> > So are you *really* saying that in 26 volumes they looked *nowhere* but in the direction of Oswald's guilt? ...Be careful how you answer. I will surely do my homework and call out any false claims.
>
> Do it.

Oswald was charged with these murdered before the WC was even formed.It was already determined by criminal investigators that Oswald was responsible for these crimes.

> > > >
> > > > That's the problem with too many CT's. They think the WC should have centered their case around a TSBD janitor, or random person who worked or was seen in the Dal Tex building, or that was employed as librarian a few blocks away, or perhaps just thrown a dart at a map and started looking where it landed. *ANYTHING* but center it on the *obvious* PRIME suspect.
> > >
> > > Ironically, any one of those hyperbolic examples would have been better than the aforementioned witnesses called by the WC, because at least THOSE people were there on 11/22/63. Was Bennierita Smith?
> > >
> >
> > I don't care it they called Santa Claus. That would not change the fact that there was no *reason* to start with the assumption that there *was* a conspiracy
>
> Why, because Katzenbach already said so? Tell us more about their hindsight.

The Dallas police said so before Katzenbach did.

Were the people who concluded that Ruby killed Oswald rushing to justice after they saw him do it? Should everyone have pretended he didn`t do it until he had a trial?

> >
> > Lane's frequent lying by omission---and occasionally by commission---have been *CLEARLY* shown to you and beb. Therefore it is yours statement that is meaningless.
>
> Laughably, not only would Lane have to lie, he would have to lie about *everything*, since there are so many points of contention. NONE of which you've adequately covered, let alone all or some of them.

Mark Lane`s dishonesty has been clearly shown.

>
>
> >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The WC's "interpretations" have been so badly debunked they border on Saturday morning cartoon. And cooperation from the FBI was limited and equally worthless for them, as I'm sure you well know but pretend not to, from the schism within the WC, including Hale Boggs's famous "Hoover lied his eyes out" comment, which I'm sure anyone but you would find suspicious...lest you have no issues with the lead investigators who handled all the hard evidence LYING about the hard evidence, according to the very people who were supposed to be "interpreting" it. Do you pause before you think, Barnum?
> > >
> > > Note the silence from BT Barnum on this.
>
> Silence, (cont.)
>
> > >
> > > Note that BT Barnum cannot deny the dictabelt evidence was their "only" evidence. He continues to pretend otherwise.
> > >
> > Of course I cannot deny it was their only evidence that they used to justify their find of "probable conspiracy." Neither can you. Which you will prove when you fail to document what else led them to that conclusion.
>
> Ruby's polygraph.

Show that that impacted their finding.

>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Non Sequitur. I am taking about *admitting* all *excluded* evidence. Your comment would indicate a suppression of evidence.
>
> Are you talking about the thousands of documents still withheld by the government due to "national security"? Or the absence of the many recognized experts not called to testify? Or the hard evidence that went missing?

So you admit you have nothing.

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > "But what about this, or this, or that's?"
>
> What is it about science and what is it about hard evidence?
>
> > >
> > > Regardless of his guilt, Oswald would have walked due to lack of chain of custody on several of those pieces of evidence. Then his defense attorney would have called Hale Boggs to the stand and asked him what he thought of the head of the organization who HANDLED all that evidence. And he would have said the man "lied his eyes out" about "all of it". And then what?
> > >
> >
> > Now you are clearly begging the question, when you state "Oswald would have walked due to lack of chain of custody on several of those pieces of evidence." Not to mention your contentions about what Boggs would have said *under oath* and whether he could have offered any *proof* for his claim and that it called into serious question Oz's guilt.
>
> I'm begging the question in that it's what he would have said on the stand. Not what he DID say. These are facts you're simply ignoring because...who the fuck knows/cares.

For all you know Oswald would have confessed and plead guilty.

> >
> > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cite one expert from this case whose testimony you find wholly credible.
> > >
> > > He can't.
>
> Still can't.
>
>
> > >
> > > Shots were fired from behind.
> > >
> >
> > Glad *you* admit that, though you seem to have missed the part that they struck home and killed him.
>
> Uh-huh, and Connally's wrist wound still remains unexplained.

He was shot in it, stupid.

> >
> > > >
> > > > 2) All gun and a ballistics evidence examined point back to weapons owned by LHO and fired from them either to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world, or beyond any realistic and reasonable doubt.
> > >
> > > Now you sound like Chuck, Mr. "ALL the experts stated..." yet couldn't name a single one. And the "exclusion of all other weapons" fallacy has been debunked several times here. You should pay more attention than studying the musings of Jason Burke.
> > >
> >
> > Tell me again how you have "debunked" that CE399 and and the two limo fragments were not matched so back in 1963/64? Your "proof" for that should be most entertaining.
>
> It was debunked in that CE853 was cited as an example of a bullet fired from the Carcano "to the exclusion of any other weapon," and yet it clearly was not fired in Dealey Plaza.

Retard figuring.

> And tell us, which experts studied the head shot bullet and concluded it was fired from the Carcano to the exclusion of any other weapon? We'll wait.

The fragments found in the limo were.

> >
> > And while your at it, tell me again why when Oz was arrested in the TSBD he was had the *very* weapon on his person that was ballistically matched to the shells he was seen dumping out as he left the Tippit scene to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world?
>
> Are we talking automatic shells, or revolver? The shells Poe initialed, or the shells he could not identify? The shells which were never admitted into evidence? The shells found at the crime scene, or the shells found down the street? You'll have to be more specific :-)

You`ll have to be less retarded.

>
> > >
> > > You can't even explain Connally's wrist wound. And that's the easiest part!
> > >
> >
> > It's been explained many times. The fact you cannot comprehend or will not accept the explanation is not my problem.
>
> And the fact you can't cite any of these explanations IS your problem.

Who owes explanations to retards?

> >
> > > >
> > > > 3) All the available photographic and video evidence related to this case and relied on by the WC or subsequent Panels is genuine.
> > >
> > > Then why does the autopsy report contradict all of it?
> > >
> >
> > You mean the part where both wounds, were found to come from above and slightly to the right of JFK?
>
> No, the part mentioning the "actual absence of bone and scalp" in the occipital/parietal region.

Retards look at the wrong things incorrectly.

> >
> > The part where their was evidence of exit wound beveling on one of the skull fragments towards the front of Kennedy's skull.
>
> No, the part where LN clowns swear the BOH photo shows an intact head because the flaps are being held in place by someone's hand, yet there are no flaps to the back of his head seen in the Z-film.

Who said it had to be a flap?

> >
> > Or perhaps it was their finding that back wound bullet must have exited out of the place where the tracheotomy was put in at Parkland?
>
> Reading too much Bugliosi again, "ragged wound" boy?

Retards will cling to anything that lets them pretend that what actually happened didn`t happen. But in order to reject what actually happened they end up with a hodge podge of nonsense that can`t be formed into a cohesive narrative explaining this event. You can`t put a case up when you only have objections.

> >
> > > >
> > > > 4) The SBT is both possible and *likely* given the wounds to JFK and Connally and all available *hard* evidence which point back to a single shooter.
> > >
> > > Following that weak logic, a half-dozen bullet wounds caused by more than one missile is not likely or possible.
> > >
> >
> > Sounds like word salad to me.
>
> Sounds like I exposed your shit logic for what it was.

The retards would have you believe that the two victims jerking at the same time (which is just the sort of motion the SBT requires) is just some coincidence.

> > >
> > > Frazier, Gregory and Dolce are not *anyone*. Note the subtle way LNers try to throw these people under the bus, and downplay their abilities. It's pathetic.
> > >
> >
> > So I am to trust the inconsistencies you feel they report, but distrust their judgement that the shots came from behind? Point proven.
>
> What YOU trust is their presumptive conclusions. What *I* trust is the scientific findings based on their expertise. You trust opinion. I trust science.

You do what all conspiracy retards do, you cherry pick the parts you think you can build retarded premises from.

>
> > >
> > > BT Barnum doesn't believe a single Parkland doctor was qualified enough to recognize what a large, gaping hole in the back of someone's head looks like. He's just not courageous enough to come out and say it.
> > >
> >
> > Sounding like bebs more all the time. :-) And no, their skills as doctors and surgeons, and their effort which was directed *only* to try to save a rapidly dying (really already dead) President did not qualify them to make a forensic judgement.
>
> Unfortunately for you, observing the presence a large gaping defect at the back of his skull is not a "forensic" judgement.

Then explain the effort to save Kennedy`s life. Surely such a wound is not survivable.

> > And it bothers you and beb not at all that many of them have since *admitted* they might have been or even *were* mistaken. This is exactly what Bud calls looking at the wrong things wrongly.
>
> Don't spare us ALL their names now. Show us how they were mistaken, and then try and explain away the total ineptness required on anyone's behalf, much less a doctor, to say they were mistaken when they saw a large absence of bone and scalp at the back of Kennedy's head. Then explain how both they AND the autopsy report were mistaken in that regard.

Make a case that these things occurred because of some conspiracy. Spell out all the conspiratorial actions you see being done. When it becomes so fantastic and unrealistic to be considered possible admit defeat and get a new hobby.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 18:10:49 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>> Laughably, not only would Lane have to lie, he would have to lie
>> about *everything*, since there are so many points of contention. NONE
>> of which you've adequately covered, let alone all or some of them.
>
> Mark Lane`s dishonesty has been clearly shown.

Argumentum Ad Tony Marshium.

[BT George]

Does beb have even the slightest clue how to use a logical phrase that has been used against him folks? Marsh is the king of non sequitur's and utterly unsupported nonsense. Yet Lane's dishonesty has been clearly *demonstrated* to beb several times, so Bud's statement is both on point and evidence backed.

[BT George]

On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 7:01:37 PM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > I will try to answer more at length some of the above when time allows. But the claim "Boris" made that they made *no* demonstrated attempt to look at the possibility of conspiracies is laughably disproved Lurkers:
> >
> > https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-6.html
> >
> > Go check it out and all the connected links and see if you good folks think they made *no* demonstrated effort as Boris disingenuously tried to claim.
>
> LOL! I ask for an investigation, and all you give me a glorified, overly bloviated Oswald bio.

Lurkers, IOW, you called me on my lie that *no* investigation into possible conspiracies was undertaken, and now I am going to complain that any designed to focus on Oswald's (obvious) involvement don't count at all. :-)

All this does is further prove my point that the WC was stuck in "Oswald-did-it" gear. It was the starting point they worked from, and never looked back. 130 pages of blathering, and they couldn't even manage the time to look at the discrepancies of the medical evidence.
>

Once again a conspiracy clown thinks that the Commission should have thrown all the evidence that already existed against Oswald out the door, and started chasing leads that had little or nothing to do with him. Once again, the *evidence* was both *clear* and *compelling* that he was---at the very least---a shooter on 11/22/63. It only makes sense that investigative roads would center around *him* and any assistance or connections *he* might have had.

We should all thank God daily that the police don't consult these folks and apply their silly investigative "procedures" when conducted cases. If they did, the prisons would be full of the innocent, and the streets full of the guilty. :-)

> This was some "investigation" of a conspiracy, you joke.
>

See above Lurkers.

> Besides, Katzenbach had already decided an "appointment of a Presidential Commission of unimpeachable personnel" were not going to find any "confederates," (trying to throw Jack Ruby under the bus notwithstanding).

I love it when Conspiracy clowns try to prove Katzenbach had no interest in the actual *facts* and just wanted to blindly hang it all on Oz. From here:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/AL-2Wzwufos/nEoAjJwPRmQJ

Here is a prior post of mine with emphasis on the words from the Katzenbach memo that many CT's would like to ignore:

------------------------------prior post------------------------------------

And a perfectly understandable and reasonable statement it was too. This
was NO time to let wild rumors get out of hand and create a "Red Scare"
that could have untold consequences. In context, the meaning of his
statement, "The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin;
that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the
evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial." is clearly
defined by the preceding and follow remarks.

In particular, it should be noted that the prior statement said (all
emphasis mine), "It is important that ALL of the *facts* surrounding
President Kennedy’s Assassination be made public in a way which will
satisfy people in the United States and abroad that ALL the *facts* have
been told..." followed later by, "The matter has been handled thus far
with neither dignity nor conviction. FACTS have been mixed with RUMOUR and
SPECULATION."

The twisting of the plain meaning and context of his words by many in the
CT community is difficult to characterize as anything other than willful.
I think it is shameful that so many men, who appear to have been operating
both responsibly and in good faith, have in the aftermath been made out to
be underhanded and devious plotters scheming to keep the truth away from
the American people.

BT George

-----------------------------End of prior post------------------------------

> The rest reads as an loquacious appeasement to growing concern rather than investigation, including no fingerprints other than Oswald's found on the boxes in the sniper's nest, which is complete bullshit clearly.
>

Really. Demonstrate who else's fingerprint were on so many boxes that were arranged in places that might be expected for a shooter using that position as a SN. For the interested Lurker, here are the places where "coincidentally" they found Oswald's prints---all consistent with being in position to shoot at something west and southwest of the window:

:http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce1301.jpghttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce1301.jpg

> But that's okay. I don't blame you for thinking this chapter has anything to say. After all, it was really long. Long means thorough in LN-ese.

*Anything* that points to the Oswald's clear involvement and lack of any evident conspiratorial connections, will not be considered thorough by a CT hobbyist Lurkers---without regard to length.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > LOL! I ask for an investigation, and all you give me a glorified, overly bloviated Oswald bio.
>
> Lurkers, IOW, you called me on my lie that *no* investigation into possible conspiracies was undertaken,

And wasn't. It was an Oswald bio, nothing more. You lose. 130 pages and not a single effort to dissect any of the known evidence.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

What a show of cowardice, BHolmes has drove you loon nut moron's right into the ground... Yet, you continue to whine. 120+ posts regarding Rush to Judgement and here you are still limping in your defense of the 1964 WCR. Carry on twerp.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 09:56:00 -0800 (PST), healyd...@gmail.com

Indeed!

We *STILL* don't have a simple quote from 'Rush To Judgment', then a
cite to the evidence that he's contradicting.

This is the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM needed to prove Mark Lane a liar, yet
no-one can do it.

Not Tony Marsh...

Not the troll, "PT Barnum."

Not Puddy.

Not Chuckles.

Not Jean Davison.

**NO-ONE**

For if any example had EVER been provided, a believer could simply
keep quoting such an example for all the lurkers to read.

[BT George]

Uh-huh. They just went back and looked at his history in detail for "heck" of it Lurkers, making note of different indications that he did or did not receive any conspiratorial aid at certain points or in terms of any money payments. Poor Oz barely belched in his life without them looking at it, but that represents "no" effort to detect if the obviously involved Oz had any cohorts. Once again. Thank God these guys aren't charged with *actual* investigations!

[BT George]

Clear that haze from your eyes Healy, and you might get half a clue. ...Though half a clue is likely WAAAAAAAAYYYYY over-optimistic.

[BT George]

And just think Lurkers. beb finds a way to respond to me this often while Killfiltered. As I predicted, it would *kill* him to actually remain quiet while his treasured nonsense was being attacked. :-)

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Uh-huh. They just went back and looked at his history in detail for "heck" of it Lurkers,

They did it to profile him, and to appease idiots like yourself who believe their doing so constituted a thorough investigation into a conspiracy.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

you simply have to do better than that snookums....

[BT George]

On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 4:41:55 PM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Uh-huh. They just went back and looked at his history in detail for "heck" of it Lurkers,
>
> They did it to profile him, and to appease idiots like yourself who believe their doing so constituted a thorough investigation into a conspiracy.

LOL! Indeed Lurkers, it *is* standard Police and Investigative Agency practice to profile *prime suspects*. Just because these clueless clowns cannot see the evidence that *clearly* put Oswald at the center of the act---regardless of whether there was a conspiracy---does not me the WC or any other sane person has to be equally blind.

Keep it ups ACJFK sleuths! Following your "procedures" maybe in another 55 years your technique will allow you to state with some definitivness that Oswald was actually in the DFW area on 11/22/63.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> LOL! Indeed Lurkers, it *is* standard Police and Investigative Agency practice to profile *prime suspects*.

As usual you're talking out your ass, because you're not a cop and neither were the WC. That, of course, is what was told of me when I pointed out the lack of chain of custody of much of the physical evidence. One thing I'd say cops and investigators DON'T do is write 130-page "conspiracy" reports...like you *think* the WC did while they were pretending to be thorough.

[BT George]

On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 6:28:44 PM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > LOL! Indeed Lurkers, it *is* standard Police and Investigative Agency practice to profile *prime suspects*.
>
>
> As usual you're talking out your ass, because you're not a cop and neither were the WC. That, of course, is what was told of me when I pointed out the lack of chain of custody of much of the physical evidence. One thing I'd say cops and investigators DON'T do is write 130-page "conspiracy" reports...like you *think* the WC did while they were pretending to be thorough.

Boris is evidently thinks out of his folks. Which is why he imply that
Oswald was not the *logical* *focal point* of any investigation, since his involvement was manifest.

Heck, even "Boris" has indicated he believes Oswald did some shooting, though his musings---to say the least---are hard to parse sometimes since he stated two irreconcilable claims in the same post: (1) "Unfortunately, the SCIENCE of the NAA test proves he did not fire a rifle." and (2) "But you asked what I think Oswald did that day. I think Oswald fired the head shot. From behind. I know all the Parkland doctors described a large BOH wound, thereby assigning QUALITY and QUANTITY to what witnesses saw." / "I know it, because I know Oswald fired the head shot. That's what he did that day."

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/ytLo1vcnXEk/vMeUlr8lAgAJ


Naturally, "Boris" (and beb) swiftly chimed in to try to reclaim the nonsense (Let's call their efforts "Reclaiming Nonsense") with more word salad and and some silly bleating to the effect that the above was some form of sarcasm. :-)

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/ytLo1vcnXEk/BO9Fvs9ZAgAJ

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/ytLo1vcnXEk/uURanuiUAgAJ

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Heck, even "Boris" has indicated he believes Oswald did some shooting, though his musings---to say the least---are hard to parse sometimes since he stated two irreconcilable claims in the same post: (1) "Unfortunately, the SCIENCE of the NAA test proves he did not fire a rifle." and (2) "But you asked what I think Oswald did that day. I think Oswald fired the head shot. From behind. I know all the Parkland doctors described a large BOH wound, thereby assigning QUALITY and QUANTITY to what witnesses saw." / "I know it, because I know Oswald fired the head shot. That's what he did that day."

HAHAHA! That you have to assume a clearly sarcastic comment to your position is the most desperate move of all. Tell you what...you can HAVE it. And you still lose. That's how nice I am.

[BT George]

On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 3:22:47 PM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Heck, even "Boris" has indicated he believes Oswald did some shooting, though his musings---to say the least---are hard to parse sometimes since he stated two irreconcilable claims in the same post: (1) "Unfortunately, the SCIENCE of the NAA test proves he did not fire a rifle." and (2) "But you asked what I think Oswald did that day. I think Oswald fired the head shot. From behind. I know all the Parkland doctors described a large BOH wound, thereby assigning QUALITY and QUANTITY to what witnesses saw." / "I know it, because I know Oswald fired the head shot. That's what he did that day."
>
> HAHAHA! That you have to assume a clearly sarcastic comment to your position is the most desperate move of all. Tell you what...you can HAVE it. And you still lose. That's how nice I am.

Word salad Lurkers. "Boris" cannot rationally square the circle he spouted out either. :-)