Lee Harvey Oswald... [Archive]

Mike B.

20th November 2003, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by Malachi151
Okay, lets just think about Oswald a second.

Things we know:

#1 He was in the military, was taught Russian in the military, he had security clearance, and monitored US flights over Russia.

#2 He was honorably discharged.

#3 Was was on the news passing out flyers on Marxism and talking to reporters right in the middle of an area where the FBI had offices.

#4 He went to Mexico City just prior to the assissniation, and at that time (something that we now know that we didn't then) the US was using the Mexican Embassy to inflitrate Cuba. The Mexican Embassy was a US spy front into Cuba.

There is more, but just to focus on that part first.

Has there EVER been a case of an assassin getting himself on the news and whatnot just prior to an assassination?

That alone is very strange.

Secondly, his military record obviously shows that he was involved in US military intelligence.

There is a lot more to him then just this, but IMO, he was NOT a real Marxist, he was setup as a fall guy by the people behind the assassination.

This is merely the same old same old from the "true believers" in communism.

Everytime one of these communist worker's paradises are shown to be a hellhole (i.e. North Korea).
The "true believer" states it doesn't matter because they were "not truly communist."

It is strange that EVERY place that calls itself communist always turns out to be "not truly communist."

Same thing going on here...

LHO does something bad. Well in Malachi's mind he can't be a "true communist" because communists don't do bad things.

Notice the similarities between Communism and fundamentalist religion. Everytime a terrorist bombs an abortion clinic or a bus of people. The religious say, "he wasn't a true Xian" or "he wasn't a true Muslim."

Let's face it Communism and religion are basically on the same level.
Nobody has seen God and nobody has seen "true Communism."

bangdazap

20th November 2003, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by Malachi151

#2 He was honorably discharged.

He received an "undesirable discharge" (aka section 8 IIRC) from the marines while in Russia.

Malachi151

20th November 2003, 05:48 PM

Umm.. in case you guys missed it, before your silly rants, I already came back and said that I was chaning my opinion on Oswald. Thanks for the wasted breath :p

Rouser2

21st November 2003, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by RonSceptic [/i]

>>I think you should read more about Oswald befor you start making such assumptions. Case Closed by Posner gives a very detailed accoount of Oswald's life. He was a highly disturbed individual.

So disturbed, that the Navy gave him a secruity clearance to work on radar at the top secrect Atsugi base tracking U2s. So disturbed that they set him up to "defect" and marry the sole relative of a top Soviet Intelligence official. So disturbed that he learned Russian so well (some where, some how) that he passed for a Russian with no traceable accent. So distrubed that he worked for as an under cover agent informant for the FBI and the CIA. LHO was harldy the "lone nut" the media painted him, but a highly intelligent man who fancied himself as a patriot, working for American Intelligence on several levels, a man with family and friends who loved his children and loved his country and his president.

-- Rouser

Rouser2

21st November 2003, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by Brown [/i]
For what it's worth, RL=http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/WorldNewsTonight/JFK_Robert_Oswald-1.html]his brother thinks he did it.[/URL] [/B]

It's not worth very much. Robert just knows Lee did it and did it alone because he looked in his eyes. That's it. Those are his facts. But the likes of ABC dare not bring any of Oswald's other family before the camera. Marina, once his chief prosecutorial witness, now believes her husband was in fact a government agent, and played for a patsy, just as he said. Ditto his mother, Marguerite.

-- Rouser

kookbreaker

21st November 2003, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
[B]Originally posted by RonSceptic [/i]

>>I think you should read more about Oswald befor you start making such assumptions. Case Closed by Posner gives a very detailed accoount of Oswald's life. He was a highly disturbed individual.

So disturbed, that the Navy gave him a secruity clearance to work on radar at the top secrect Atsugi base tracking U2s.

Atsugi was like any other military base: It had some secret bits, one of them was the U2. There is not evidence beyond vapid speculation that Oswald was 'tracking U2s'. The only connection is from one bobo Luitenant who decided to be nice and silent until the 70's.

So disturbed that they set him up to "defect" and marry the sole relative of a top Soviet Intelligence official.

Laughable. Marina's father was hardly a equivelant of a top Soviet official. ANd of course this assumes a "they" in control which is Rouser's fantasy.

So disturbed that he learned Russian so well (some where, some how) that he passed for a Russian with no traceable accent.

Again, nonsense. Contradicted by Marina's testimony as well as others he knew in the Soveit Union.

So distrubed that he worked for as an under cover agent informant for the FBI and the CIA. Some disburbed infividual.

Fantasy from Rouser.

Luke T.

21st November 2003, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by Malachi151

Has there EVER been a case of an assassin getting himself on the news and whatnot just prior to an assassination?

That alone is very strange.

Let's see. First, how many assassins have we had? How many lived in radio and televison man-on-the-street interview period?

Second, that interview with Oswald never made it on the air. At least not until after he shot JFK and it was of human interest.

Third, WTF does it have to do with whether or not Oswald shot JFK?

Solitaire

21st November 2003, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by Malachi151
Okay, lets just think about Oswald a second.

I'll go out on a limb and say, he and he alone did it, a conspiracy of one.
:p

Rouser2

22nd November 2003, 04:19 AM

Originally posted by kookbreaker [/i]

>>Atsugi was like any other military base: It had some secret bits, one of them was the U2. There is not evidence beyond vapid speculation that Oswald was 'tracking U2s'. The only connection is from one bobo Luitenant who decided to be nice and silent until the 70's.

That the U2's came of Atsugi where Oswald worked radar is no speculation. Nor the fact that the military found it necessary to change all their codes when he attempted to "defect".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So disturbed that they set him up to "defect" and marry the sole relative of a top Soviet Intelligence official.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>Laughable. Marina's father was hardly a equivelant of a top Soviet official. ANd of course this assumes a "they" in control which is Rouser's fantasy.

The fantasy is your own. Marina had no father.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So disturbed that he learned Russian so well (some where, some how) that he passed for a Russian with no traceable accent.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>Again, nonsense. Contradicted by Marina's testimony as well as others he knew in the Soveit Union.

Supported by Marina's own documented statements that she at first thought he was Russian he spoke the language so well.

-- Rouser

Garrette

22nd November 2003, 06:21 AM

Rouser2:

Nor the fact that the military found it necessary to change all their codes when he attempted to "defect".

The military changes its codes even when people do not defect. They change the codes when people change assignments. They change the codes when someone suspects one of them might have been compromised. If someone attempts to defect, damn skippy they'll change the codes.

Private sector does this, too. Security departments will (or should) change the combinations of cipher locks when employees quit or are fired. They do (or should) change them periodically even if no one quits or is fired.

This fact is indicative of nothing.

Malachi151

22nd November 2003, 06:50 AM

Originally posted by Malachi151
Umm.. in case you guys missed it, before your silly rants, I already came back and said that I was chaning my opinion on Oswald. Thanks for the wasted breath :p

Garrette

22nd November 2003, 07:09 AM

Malachi151:

Originally posted by Malachi151

Umm.. in case you guys missed it, before your silly rants, I already came back and said that I was chaning my opinion on Oswald. Thanks for the wasted breath

Dammit, Malachi! This obstinate refusal to ever yield in the face of contrary evidence is unforgivable. I for one will not stand for such a mockery of decency and all things patriotic. You simply must learn to admit defeat.

{Any other such displays of reasonableness from quarters undesired will be similarly ignored. You have been warned.}

kookbreaker

22nd November 2003, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
>>Laughable. Marina's father was hardly a equivelant of a top Soviet official. ANd of course this assumes a "they" in control which is Rouser's fantasy.

The fantasy is your own. Marina had no father.

No father? How interesting. Is parthenogenesis now part of your conspiracy plot?

Supported by Marina's own documented statements that she at first thought he was Russian he spoke the language so well.

Not supported by his language aptitute tests that he took in the Marines where he scored "poor" on all accounts.

Furthermore, her claim is that she thought Oswald was at first from the Baltic states (where they don't speak Russian very well). She did not think he was an American when she first met him. That covers a lot of other bases besides being Russian.

Others in Russia say he did not speak it well at all.

Rouser2

24th November 2003, 02:41 PM

]Originally posted by kookbreaker [/i]

>>Not supported by his language aptitute tests that he took in the Marines where he scored "poor" on all accounts.

Nor did he do well on his marksmanship tests.

>>Furthermore, her claim is that she thought Oswald was at first from the Baltic states (where they don't speak Russian very well). She did not think he was an American when she first met him. That covers a lot of other bases besides being Russian.

>>Others in Russia say he did not speak it well at all.

You can take it or leave it. Marina said he spoke Russian very well. Fact is, Oswald was an intelligent, multi-talented invidual whose only real fault was blind patriotism.

-- Rouser

RonSceptic

27th November 2003, 05:51 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Fact is, Oswald was an intelligent, multi-talented invidual whose only real fault was blind patriotism.

Well, that and being an assassin and cop killer.

Rouser2

30th November 2003, 04:51 AM

Originally posted by RonSceptic

Well, that and being an assassin and cop killer.

Oswald didn't shoot anybody.

-- Rouser

geni

30th November 2003, 05:09 AM

so who did kill kenny?

Ranb

30th November 2003, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
]Originally posted by kookbreaker [/i]

Nor did he do well on his marksmanship tests. .....................

Fact is, Oswald was an intelligent, multi-talented invidual whose only real fault was blind patriotism.

-- Rouser

Just because a Marinie did not do well on a marksmanship test does not mean he is a poor shot. Marines are expected to be very good and are graded on a much higher level than the average American. My 14yo daughter who is merely proficient with a rifle would find it easy to do what Oswald was accused of doing in Dallas. Why is it that people like to say that no one has duplicated Oswalds feat? If you were to look at what some of these conspiracy kooks mean by duplicate, it means one has to set up a nearly exact duplicate of the conditions as Dealy plaza to prove Oswald could have shot JFK. Why can't they believe experts like Robert Frazier who said it was well with-in the capability of an average shooter to shoot a man in a limo 84 yards from the Depository?

Oswald was also a wife beater. Or maybe Rouser believes that a woman with two black eyes does not need to be told anything because she was already done told twice!

Ranb

Rouser2

1st December 2003, 02:50 AM

Originally posted by Ranb [/i]

>>My 14yo daughter who is merely proficient with a rifle would find it easy to do what Oswald was accused of doing in Dallas. Why is it that people like to say that no one has duplicated Oswalds feat? If you were to look at what some of these conspiracy kooks mean by duplicate, it means one has to set up a nearly exact duplicate of the conditions as Dealy plaza to prove Oswald could have shot JFK. Why can't they believe experts like Robert Frazier who said it was well with-in the capability of an average shooter to shoot a man in a limo 84 yards from the Depository?

Others have duplicated Oswad's alleged feat, but never on the first try, with his mis-aligned scope, without a gun rest, at the same angle, at a moving target, through a bunch of tree branches, in the space of 5-8 seconds. Why should it be unreasonable to include all of those conditions in any test? As far as what your 14-year-old daughter could do -- talk is cheap.

-- Rouser

Some Friggin Guy

1st December 2003, 03:36 AM

Rouser, how do you explain the fact that the shot has scientifically be proven to have come from where Oswald was?

I do not have a link, since I read it in a book, however, I do know the information was posted here before.

The headshot that Kennedy received has to have come from the direction in which Oswald was because of the fact that Kennedy's head moved in that direction. When a bullet from that calibre of weapon stikes the human head, it does not transfer much energy, but when it exits on the other side, the resulting spray acts as a jet, causing the head to move in the direction the shot was fired from. In Kennedy's case (Everyone say it with me now...) Back and to the left.

RonSceptic

1st December 2003, 05:00 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2

Oswald didn't shoot anybody.

-- Rouser

How do you know that?

The Don

1st December 2003, 05:11 AM

Originally posted by RonSceptic

How do you know that?

Because the vioces tell him so

Ranb

1st December 2003, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Ranb [/i]

>>Others have duplicated Oswad's alleged feat, but never on the first try, with his mis-aligned scope, without a gun rest, at the same angle, at a moving target, through a bunch of tree branches, in the space of 5-8 seconds. Why should it be unreasonable to include all of those conditions in any test? As far as what your 14-year-old daughter could do -- talk is cheap.

-- Rouser

You are right, talk is cheap, you should know that. But I also know the shot Oswald took was easy. Because of the short range he was shooting at, a slightly misaligned scope would not be a problem. The solution has a name; Kentucky windage. Only the first shot was obscured by tree branches, maybe that is why it missed. He had a rest, cardboard boxes found at the scene. Sitting or kneeling behind a box provides a steady rest. When a shot is this easy, why not take an experts opinion on the matter?

Why do the experts have to duplicate Oswald's effort on the first try? Have you ever heard of luck? Or are presidential killers not allowed to be lucky?

Ranb

DrChinese

1st December 2003, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2

Oswald didn't shoot anybody.

-- Rouser

Did you forget that he murdered Policeman J.D. Tippitts in broad daylight? There were plenty of witnesses to that. He was caught with the handgun that killed him as well. In fact, he tried to use it to shoot the arresting officers.

Oswald had also tried to assassinate a local political figure a few months earlier with his famous rifle (the one he was photographed with by Marina and found on the 6th floor). He missed.

Better go back to square one and read up a bit more.

Rouser2

1st December 2003, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy [/i]

>>Rouser, how do you explain the fact that the shot has scientifically be proven to have come from where Oswald was?

Your question is loaded. Besides the fact that it has never been scientifically "proven" where the "shot" came from, in the first place the question assumes there was only one shot to the head. There is evidence of more than one shot and Foresic Patholgist Cyril Wecht, among others, believes there were in fact two simutaneous shots to the head -- one from the back, one from the front.

>>I do not have a link, since I read it in a book, however, I do know the information was posted here before.

Does Gerald Posner ring a bell?

>>The headshot that Kennedy received has to have come from the direction in which Oswald was because of the fact that Kennedy's head moved in that direction. When a bullet from that calibre of weapon stikes the human head, it does not transfer much energy, but when it exits on the other side, the resulting spray acts as a jet, causing the head to move in the direction the shot was fired from. In Kennedy's case (Everyone say it with me now...) Back and to the left.

As to the so-called "jet" effect, that all depends on the type of bullet used, where it impacts, etc., etc., etc. The head snap to the rear is perfectly consistent with a frangible bullet entering the right temple and blowing out the back. Other than that, it is farily difficult to address a study which you cannot cite. But all, ALL of the doctors, nurses and attendants at Parkland remember seeing a large blow-out hole in the back of JFK's head.

-- Rouser

Rouser2

1st December 2003, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by RonSceptic

How do you know that?

His girlfriend told me.

-- Rouser

Rouser2

1st December 2003, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by Ranb

You are right, talk is cheap, you should know that. But I also know the shot Oswald took was easy. Because of the short range he was shooting at, a slightly misaligned scope would not be a problem. The solution has a name; Kentucky windage. Only the first shot was obscured by tree branches, maybe that is why it missed. He had a rest, cardboard boxes found at the scene. Sitting or kneeling behind a box provides a steady rest. When a shot is this easy, why not take an experts opinion on the matter?

Why do the experts have to duplicate Oswald's effort on the first try? Have you ever heard of luck? Or are presidential killers not allowed to be lucky?

Ranb

Because replication is the hallmark of rational thinking and the scientific method. If a thing cannot or has not been replicated, it is not worthy of belief. To that conclusion, I offer the following:

"Ballistics expert Robert Frazier admitted in 1969 during the Clay Shaw trial that no FBI reenactment had duplicated Oswald's alleged performance. Monty Lutz, an expert rifleman and ballistics expert who served on the firearms panel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, conceded during a 1986 mock Oswald trial that to his knowledge no marksman had duplicated Oswald's supposed shooting feat. Lutz made this admission when he was cross-examined by leading trial attorney Gerry Spence:
Spence: Would it be true that in the history of the whole world, to your knowledge, nobody has ever duplicated what Lee Harvey Oswald is supposed to have done with that supposed rifle from the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository? That's true, isn't it?
Lutz: I don't know of any test that has been done from the School Book Depository in an attempt to duplicate it.
Spence: You don't know of anybody that's even duplicated that anywhere, do you? School Book Depository or elsewhere. You didn't, did you?
Prosecutor: Wait a minute, he didn't answer your first question.
Judge: We've got two questions.
Spence: Let's do this right. You don't know of anybody that has ever duplicated what Lee was supposed to have done, do you?
Lutz: I do not.
Spence: Not even master marksmen. Isn't that true?
Lutz: I do not.
Lutz, an expert shot himself, also testified that he conducted his own rifle test but that he FAILED to duplicate Oswald's supposed shooting feat."

-- Rouser

Aoidoi

1st December 2003, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
His girlfriend told me.
Well, at least you have a sense of humor. :D

btw, don't listen to my former girlfriends. They lie. All of them. It's a conspiracy, I tells ya. ;)

Anyway, the autopsy photographs are available online (was posted in the other thread). A rather large portion of his skull appears to have been blown out, mostly the top and towards the back. I'm a little hazy on the details, but I believe he was leaning forward as he was hit. Perhaps others can go into more detail if they wish, frankly I have little wish to look at those photos again.

Simultaneous shots? How would they pull that off? And why? Seems like overkill.

Rouser2

1st December 2003, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by DrChinese [/i]

>>Did you forget that he murdered Policeman J.D. Tippitts in broad daylight? There were plenty of witnesses to that. He was caught with the handgun that killed him as well. In fact, he tried to use it to shoot the arresting officers.

The difficulty with that is the fact that the slugs in Tippit's body did not match up with the shells found at the scene. Moroever the shells found at the scene did not have the initials of the officer who found them, though he claimed to have intialed the shells.

As to the witnesses to the Tippit shooting, there was in fact only one who claimed to have seen the actual shooting -- Helen Markham, and she testifed that the man she saw did not look like Oswald, but was short, kind of stocky with a ruddy complexion. The Warren Commission then concluded that she identiifed Oswald as the shooter, but she did not. Not that the Tippit shooting proves anything about the assassination of the President. Another witness, Avilia Clemmons said she saw two men running away from the scene just after the shooting -- one she described as short and stocky. Ms. Clemmons, however, was not called as a witness.

>>Oswald had also tried to assassinate a local political figure a few months earlier with his famous rifle (the one he was photographed with by Marina and found on the 6th floor). He missed.

Another conclusion unsupported by any fact. Somebody took a shot at General Walker's house. There is reason to believe that incident was in fact a ruse. As to the rifle, there is no incontrovertable evidence that Oswald even owned such a rifle.

>>Better go back to square one and read up a bit more.

Oh, I rather think you have pretty well demonstrated your own lack of scholarship on the subject.

-- Rouser

Rouser2

1st December 2003, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by Aoidoi [/i]

Re:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rouser2
His girlfriend told me.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>Well, at least you have a sense of humor.

It's no joke. Oswald's girlfriend (his mistress in 1963) is alive and well and living in Holland.

>>Simultaneous shots? How would they pull that off? And why? Seems like overkill.

That was the whole idea.

-- Rouser

kittynh

1st December 2003, 03:53 PM

hhmmm, I wish I could remember the book I recently read about the woman that Oswalds wife was living with during the time before the shooting. She was a very kind and giving person, who thought Oswald was a nasty violent guy, who saw no future for himself and his dreams of "glory" falling into a pit of lower class poverty and drearyness. He wanted to be a big shot, and he was smart, but he couldn't do it the regular way. You got the feeling that this smart guy wanted the short cut to being "somebody".

At least no one is saying that the Russians switched Oswald in Russia for a double. The family acutually agreed to an autopsy, which goes to show they don't always think clearly. Joe Nickell proved it was Oswald using ear prints, without DNA testing.

Aoidoi

1st December 2003, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
It's no joke. Oswald's girlfriend (his mistress in 1963) is alive and well and living in Holland. Well then, I retract my statement about your sense of humor. ;)

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm

>>Simultaneous shots? How would they pull that off? And why? Seems like overkill.

That was the whole idea.
To have an unnecessarily complex plot which increased the risk of discovery with little to gain by way of justification? And doesn't a two bullet theory still mean that Oswald shot him, which you are arguing against above?

Was Lex Luthor involved in this plan, by any chance? :D

Grammatron

1st December 2003, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by Aoidoi
Was Lex Luthor involved in this plan, by any chance? :D

Dang it Aoidoi you owe me a new keyboard; this is the last time I drink anything while reading this forum. :)

Rouser2

2nd December 2003, 03:32 AM

Originally posted by Aoidoi [/i]

>>To have an unnecessarily complex plot which increased the risk of discovery with little to gain by way of justification?

I don't know how you can argue with "success".

>> And doesn't a two bullet theory still mean that Oswald shot him, which you are arguing against above?

Of course not. There surely were shots from behind, fired by someone.

-- Rouser

Rouser2

2nd December 2003, 03:51 AM

Originally posted by Aoidoi [/i]

>>Well then, I retract my statement about your sense of humor. ;)

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm

Serious scholars do not view professer McAdams as an open minded JFK assassantion researcher. What he has done is to flood the internet with his sophomoric essays on his various web pages, but his one-sided bias and inherent dishonesty betrays him.

http://home.switchboard.com/JUDYTH

-- Rouser

Rouser2

2nd December 2003, 04:12 AM

Originally posted by kittynh [/i]

>>hhmmm, I wish I could remember the book I recently read about the woman that Oswalds wife was living with during the time before the shooting.

It was probably "Ruth Paine's Garage".

>> She was a very kind and giving person, who thought Oswald was a nasty violent guy,

She was so kind that it was she who helped Oswald procure his job at the Texas School Book Depository, which made it so convenient for him to assassinate the President -- or rather, to be set up as a patsy. Oswald got that job the old fashioned way. One stranger (Ruth Paine) phoned another stranger (TSBD Mrg. Roy Truly) that this nice fella she knew needed a job. So Truly hired him. Sound perfectly plausible? One stranger calls another stranger about a third stranger and he gets the job. Happens every day. And we owe it all to that nice lady, Ruth Paine.

>>...who saw no future for himself and his dreams of "glory" falling into a pit of lower class poverty and drearyness. He wanted to be a big shot, and he was smart, but he couldn't do it the regular way. You got the feeling that this smart guy wanted the short cut to being "somebody".

Of course that's all a bunch of garbage. LHO's only real failing was his blind patriotism.

-- Rouser

Regnad Kcin

2nd December 2003, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
...two simutaneous shots to the head -- one from the back, one from the front..Oh my. Oh my oh my oh my.

Folks, we had a spirited and lengthy discussion with Rouser/Rouser2 on a JFK assassination thread quite some time back. After a time it became obvious that he/she was in no way interested in anything having to do with logic or reasoned analysis. He/she is a true believer. And after forty years you aren't gonna make him/her budge.

"I talked to his girlfriend?" Oh my.

DrChinese

2nd December 2003, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by DrChinese [/i]

>>Did you forget that he murdered Policeman J.D. Tippitts in broad daylight? There were plenty of witnesses to that. He was caught with the handgun that killed him as well. In fact, he tried to use it to shoot the arresting officers.

The difficulty with that is the fact that the slugs in Tippit's body did not match up with the shells found at the scene. Moroever the shells found at the scene did not have the initials of the officer who found them, though he claimed to have intialed the shells.

As to the witnesses to the Tippit shooting, there was in fact only one who claimed to have seen the actual shooting -- Helen Markham, and she testifed that the man she saw did not look like Oswald, but was short, kind of stocky with a ruddy complexion. The Warren Commission then concluded that she identiifed Oswald as the shooter, but she did not. Not that the Tippit shooting proves anything about the assassination of the President. Another witness, Avilia Clemmons said she saw two men running away from the scene just after the shooting -- one she described as short and stocky. Ms. Clemmons, however, was not called as a witness.

>>Oswald had also tried to assassinate a local political figure a few months earlier with his famous rifle (the one he was photographed with by Marina and found on the 6th floor). He missed.

Another conclusion unsupported by any fact. Somebody took a shot at General Walker's house. There is reason to believe that incident was in fact a ruse. As to the rifle, there is no incontrovertable evidence that Oswald even owned such a rifle.

>>Better go back to square one and read up a bit more.

Oh, I rather think you have pretty well demonstrated your own lack of scholarship on the subject.

-- Rouser

I think you have demonstrated that you reject all evidence that runs counter to your conclusion. You said that Oswald never shot anyone and he did. If you reject that he owned the rifle he was pictured with, that witnesses saw him shoot a cop, etc. then you are essentially saying that it was random chance he was found in a movie house with a gun that had just been fired. Or that he worked where the assassination rifle was found. Etc. You are welcome to your opinion but you are obscuring the facts with your statements. The facts contradict you in virtually every respect.

corplinx

2nd December 2003, 02:30 PM

Congratulations Rouse on being the first guy to ever be thoroughly pimpslapped by DrChinese in a thread.

Oswald shot Kennedy. They should make that a true or false question to determine voting eligibility.

Rouser2

2nd December 2003, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by DrChinese [/i]

>>I think you have demonstrated that you reject all evidence that runs counter to your conclusion.

Another conclusion of your own, unsupported by any fact. Of course it is not evidence your are referring to, but assertions, conclusions, and sloganeering as repeatedly chanted by the mindless uninformed.

>>You said that Oswald never shot anyone and he did.

That, Dr. C, is not evidence but a conclusion. Do you understand the difference?

>> If you reject that he owned the rifle he was pictured with,

The backyard photos used to convict Oswald in the Court of Public Opinion are demonstrably fake.

>>>...that witnesses saw him shoot a cop, etc.

Only one witness claimed to have seen a man shoot a cop, and she described someone quite unlike Oswald. Get your facts straight.

>>... then you are essentially saying that it was random chance he was found in a movie house with a gun that had just been fired.

Of course, I never said any such thing.

>> Or that he worked where the assassination rifle was found.

A whole lot of people worked there. But that is not proof that any of them shot the president.

>>... You are welcome to your opinion but you are obscuring the facts with your statements. The facts contradict you in virtually every respect.

You still don't understand the difference between fact and conclusion. You haven't cited a single fact proving the LHO didi it much less that he did it alone.

-- Rouser

Rouser2

2nd December 2003, 04:48 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rouser2
[B]Originally posted by DrChinese [/i]

>>I think you have demonstrated that you reject all evidence that runs counter to your conclusion.

Another conclusion of your own, unsupported by any fact. Of course it is not evidence your are referring to, but assertions, conclusions, and sloganeering as repeatedly chanted by the mindless uninformed.

>>You said that Oswald never shot anyone and he did.

That, Dr. C, is not evidence but a conclusion. Do you understand the difference?

>> If you reject that he owned the rifle he was pictured with,

The backyard photos used to convict Oswald in the Court of Public Opinion are demonstrably fake.

>>>...that witnesses saw him shoot a cop, etc.

Only one witness claimed to have seen a man shoot a cop, and she described someone quite unlike Oswald. Get your facts straight.

>>... then you are essentially saying that it was random chance he was found in a movie house with a gun that had just been fired.

Of course, I never said any such thing.

>> Or that he worked where the assassination rifle was found.

A whole lot of people worked there. But that is not proof that any of them shot the president.

>>... You are welcome to your opinion but you are obscuring the facts with your statements. The facts contradict you in virtually every respect.

You still don't understand the difference between fact and conclusion. You haven't cited a single fact proving the LHO did it much less that he did it alone. I refer you to your great ancestor Confucious who once said "When the student is ready, the teacher appears." Your ain't ready yet, kiddo.

-- Rouser

Mike B.

2nd December 2003, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rouser2
[B]

>>>...that witnesses saw him shoot a cop, etc.

Only one witness claimed to have seen a man shoot a cop, and she described someone quite unlike Oswald. Get your facts straight.

-- Rouser

If you mean Helen Markam, you are being a little less than honest here. She identified Oswald in a police lineup.

The Central Scrutinizer

2nd December 2003, 08:44 PM

The Central Scrutinizer

2nd December 2003, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by kookbreaker

Fantasy from Rouser.

Keep in mind that Rouser2 believes that the moon landing was a hoax.

Aoidoi

2nd December 2003, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer

#5 He killed Kennedy. Acted alone. Get over it. Er, you're a bit late on this one, Malachi has already revised his opinion on Oswald. Rouser is the last bearer of "truth" here.

So far in this thread we've got Oswald being some sort of super sekrit government spook, but was being framed and didn't shoot anybody including the cop.

We've also got McAdams "flooding the internet" by (horror of horrors) putting up a website. With a nice dash of the No True Scotsman thrown in.

We've got simultaneous shots from front and back which does not include Oswald, but two other shooters (at least) without any theory on where they were, how they managed to time their shots to the millisecond, how they avoided detection, who they were, and why they bothered with multiple shots to the head when, as a general rule, one bullet to the brain tends to do the job. There are plausible answers to any number of these questions, but I'm fascinated to see what Rouser will come up with in his creative post hoc analysis.

Suddenly

2nd December 2003, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by corplinx

Oswald shot Kennedy. They should make that a true or false question to determine voting eligibility.

OK this last sentence and the "True Believer" talk is giving me a flashback to the movie of the same name. Remember that one? James Woods and Robert Downey Jr.?

They found that witness that said the guy arrested didn't commit the murder, problem was that he also believed the phone company shot Kennedy? They put him on the stand, and when the prosecutor asked the guy "Who shot Kennedy?" Woods jumped up and down objecting and screaming.

The guy blurted out "Lee ... Harvey .... Oswald."

This was more or less taken as proof of sanity.

Just thought I'd mention that.

Rouser2

3rd December 2003, 03:13 AM

Originally posted by Mike B. [/i]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rouser2
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rouser2
[B]

>>>...that witnesses saw him shoot a cop, etc.

Only one witness claimed to have seen a man shoot a cop, and she described someone quite unlike Oswald. Get your facts straight.

-- Rouser
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>If you mean Helen Markam, you are being a little less than honest here. She identified Oswald in a police lineup

The following is an excerpt from Helen Markham's Warren Commision testimony. Obviously, the conclusion that Markham identified Oswald in a police lineup is what seems to be a little less than honest:

Mr. Ball.
Now when you went into the room you looked these people over, these four men?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Mrs. Markham.
No, sir.
Mr. Ball.
You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. Markham.
From their face, no.
Mr. Ball.
Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Mrs. Markham.
I didn't know nobody.
Mr. Ball.
I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Mrs. Markham.
No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
Mr. Ball.
No one of the four?
Mrs. Markham.
No one of them.
Mr. Ball.
No one of all four?
Mrs. Markham.
No, sir.

Markham later confessed she selected the number two man based on getting "cold chills".

Your witness.

-- Rouser

Rouser2

3rd December 2003, 03:28 AM

Originally posted by Aoidoi [/i]

>>We've got simultaneous shots from front and back which does not include Oswald, but two other shooters (at least) without any theory on where they were, how they managed to time their shots to the millisecond, how they avoided detection, who they were, and why they bothered with multiple shots to the head when, as a general rule, one bullet to the brain tends to do the job. There are plausible answers to any number of these questions, but I'm fascinated to see what Rouser will come up with in his creative post hoc analysis.

It's an idiotic critique. That's my analysis.When the student is ready, the teacher appears. You may go to the back of the class. In the corner with Dr. Chinese. I only discuss evidence. Strawmen are not evidence.

-- Rouser

Mike B.

3rd December 2003, 04:27 AM

If you want to cut and paste from Markham. Here is another part:

"Mr. Ball.
Did you recognize the man from his clothing or from his face?
Mrs. Markham.
Mostly from his face.
Mr. Ball.
Were you sure it was the same man you had seen before?
Mrs. Markham.
I am sure."

The Central Scrutinizer

3rd December 2003, 07:19 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2

I only discuss evidence.

Great! So let's discuss the moon landing. You believe it was a hoax. What evidence do you have that this is true?

(To the rest of the readers: Rouser2 believes the moon landing was a hoax. He will, of course, refuse to answer my question, as he has numerous times in the past. I point this out just so you all know what kind of idiot you are debating here - if it wasn't already obvious. He will get especially upset if each of you start pressing him on the moon landing "hoax", and will fairly quickly disappear from this thread)

Aoidoi

3rd December 2003, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Aoidoi [/i]
>>We've got simultaneous shots from front and back which does not include Oswald, but two other shooters (at least) without any theory on where they were, how they managed to time their shots to the millisecond, how they avoided detection, who they were, and why they bothered with multiple shots to the head when, as a general rule, one bullet to the brain tends to do the job. There are plausible answers to any number of these questions, but I'm fascinated to see what Rouser will come up with in his creative post hoc analysis.

It's an idiotic critique. That's my analysis.When the student is ready, the teacher appears. You may go to the back of the class. In the corner with Dr. Chinese. I only discuss evidence. Strawmen are not evidence.This is just too much fun. How is what I wrote a strawman? I stated exactly what you did about there being 2 shots from the front and back and that Oswald was not a shooter. That theory rather requires multiple unidentified shooters (or one heck of a trick shot! :D) The rest of the questions follow from there. Where do I misrepresent your arguments? Do you even know what a strawman is? I'm asking questions about your theory which are clearly answered in the Lone Nut theory... i.e. Oswald shot from the Book depository, fled the scene after being seen by one cop but told he worked there, shot a cop, was caught in a theater, did it by himself for his own reasons. You have two unidentified shooters, haven't said where they shot from, haven't said why they did it, haven't said how they escaped notice, where they went to after the shooting, or anything else. Please give evidence to back up your theory instead of spouting lame metaphors.

And sheesh, between you and TENYEARS trying to teach my education could be set back decades. While we're spouting one-line philosophy, have you ever heard the phrase "those who cannot do, teach?" ;)

Oh, and were the two shooters working for NASA? I've heard they had to do a lot of wetwork to keep that whole "we didn't go to the moon" conspiracy under wraps. ;)

DrChinese

3rd December 2003, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by Mike B.

If you mean Helen Markam, you are being a little less than honest here. She identified Oswald in a police lineup.

There were plenty of witnesses who saw Oswald shoot the cop. Some may have looked and seen him after the gun went off, but there is really no doubt he did it. Never has been. This is something the conspiracy crew has to attack because it doesn't fit in with the theory that Oswald was a "patsy".

As stated previously, Rouser2 is clearly distorting the facts in his presentation. By his standards, Hitler would be innocent of all crimes as it was a all a communist conspiracy.

Rouser, it helps if you start with a point reasonable people can agree on. There is no shortage of evidence that Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippitts. You are free to challenge that evidence as being insufficient to convince yourself (or even faked), but the evidence is nonetheless real.

It would easily be enough to convict in a court of law by the standards of that time. No crime has the perfect evidence you apparently require for conviction.

Looking at just the rifle: records showing Oswald purchased it, photo of him with it taken by his wife, testimony of numerous people (e.g. the Paines) that he owned it and had access to it, testimony that he took it to work with him that day, it was found on the floor where he worked on after the crime. What more do you need to believe he owned such a gun and was responsible for positioning it on the 6th floor on Nov. 22? You have concocted an entire complex set of manipulations to deny this as evidence. IT IS EVIDENCE!! If you want to claim it is faked, where is YOUR evidence of who faked it and how it was done? It looks like you just wave your hands and shout "conspiracy" without a single fact to back you up.

Rouser2

3rd December 2003, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by Mike B.
If you want to cut and paste from Markham. Here is another part:

"Mr. Ball.
Did you recognize the man from his clothing or from his face?
Mrs. Markham.
Mostly from his face.
Mr. Ball.
Were you sure it was the same man you had seen before?
Mrs. Markham.
I am sure."

Obviously, the witness contradicted herself repeatedly. That is the Warren Commission's steller Tippit witness.

-- Rouser

Rouser2

3rd December 2003, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by corplinx
Congratulations Rouse on being the first guy to ever be thoroughly pimpslapped by DrChinese in a thread.

Oswald shot Kennedy. They should make that a true or false question to determine voting eligibility.

People who accept government pronouncements without evidence should not be allowed to vote. Especially pronouncements regarding the Crime of the Century -- one where the government itself is a prime suspect and a proven felon in the coverup. Course, that would disinfranchise at least 50 percent of the electorate and 98 percent of the alleged "skeptics" on this board.

-- Rouser

Rouser2

3rd December 2003, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by Aoidoi [/i]

>>This is just too much fun. How is what I wrote a strawman?

When you state my positions for me -- incorrectly, that is a strawman.

>> I stated exactly what you did about there being 2 shots from the front and back

I never said there were shots from the front and the back, only that there COULD have been. Do you get the difference???

>>... and that Oswald was not a shooter.

That is a reasonable theory in the absence of any evidence whatsoever that Oswald even fired a single shot.

>> That theory rather requires multiple unidentified shooters

Multiple shooters, of course. Excellent reasoning.

>> (or one heck of a trick shot! ) The rest of the questions follow from there. Where do I misrepresent your arguments? Do you even know what a strawman is? I'm asking questions about your theory which are clearly answered in the Lone Nut theory... i.e. Oswald shot from the Book depository,

Again, a conclusion, not an establshed fact.

>> fled the scene after being seen by one cop but told he worked there,

"Fled" is hardly what witnesses observed.

>>shot a cop,

Another conclusion unsupported by fact.

>>was caught in a theater, did it by himself for his own reasons.

Ah, for his own reasons, eh? First prove he did it.

>>You have two unidentified shooters,

That's a straw man. I've never said there were two shooters. There may well have been more than two.

>> haven't said where they shot from,

That hardly impeaches the argument.

>> haven't said why they did it,

That would be speculation. Hardly fitting in any rational argument.

>> haven't said how they escaped notice,

Who said they escaped notice? Another strawman and diversion as well.

>>Where they went to after the shooting,

Totally irrelevent. To a movie, perhaps?

>>...or anything else. Please give evidence to back up your theory instead of spouting lame metaphors.

You and your LN cohorts presume the conviction. It is up to you to provide the evidence. To date, you have provided none.

>>Oh, and were the two shooters working for NASA? I've heard they had to do a lot of wetwork to keep that whole "we didn't go to the moon" conspiracy under wraps.

Perhaps you too are age 12 going on 11 like Central S? Does your mommy know you are posting on the grownups board?

-- Rouser

Rouser2

3rd December 2003, 03:09 PM

]Originally posted by DrChinese [/i]

>>There were plenty of witnesses who saw Oswald shoot the cop.

Nope. Only one.

>> Some may have looked and seen him after the gun went off

That would not make them a witness to the shooting then, would it?

>>... but there is really no doubt he did it. Never has been.

You're back in you old habits -- stating conclusions unsupported by facts.

>>... This is something the conspiracy crew has to attack because it doesn't fit in with the theory that Oswald was a "patsy".

Actually, the shooting of Tippit is totally irrelevent to any evidence regarding the assassination of the President. It is the Lone Nutters, so desperate for their lack of evidence for the one , that they try to pin both murder raps on Oswald, with evidence for none.

>>As stated previously, Rouser2 is clearly distorting the facts in his presentation.

Name one.

>> By his standards, Hitler would be innocent of all crimes as it was a all a communist conspiracy.

Duh?????

>>Rouser, it helps if you start with a point reasonable people can agree on. There is no shortage of evidence that Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippitts.

Fine. Then why can't you cite any?

>> You are free to challenge that evidence as being insufficient to convince yourself (or even faked), but the evidence is nonetheless real.

So real, that only the self-annointed can see it.

>>It would easily be enough to convict in a court of law by the standards of that time.

Funny, the ABA mock trial ended up with a hung jury. But it is one thing to say Oswald did it. But quite another to say he did it alone.

>> No crime has the perfect evidence you apparently require for conviction.

Just show me one piece of evidence that is absolutley incontrovertable. You can't do it.

>>Looking at just the rifle: records showing Oswald purchased it,

That is false. The records show it was purchased by a fella named Hidell.

>>...photo of him with it taken by his wife,

Photos, demonstrably fake.

>> testimony of numerous people (e.g. the Paines) that he owned it and had access to it,

Oh, but Ruth Paine said she didn't even know he had such a rifle stored in her garage.

>>... testimony that he took it to work with him that day,

There is no such testimony. In fact, the man who drove him to work that day said the package he was carrying was much too short to have contained the dismantled rifle. Get your facts straight.

>>... it was found on the floor where he worked on after the crime.

A rifle was supposedly found on the 6th floor -- first ID'd as a Mauser. Other reports had the carcarno on a lower floor.

>> What more do you need to believe he owned such a gun and was responsible for positioning it on the 6th floor on Nov. 22?

Something more than what you have provided.

>>...You have concocted an entire complex set of manipulations to deny this as evidence.

I have concocted nothing. You have twisted, contorted and made up your own evidence along with evidence made up contorted and distorted by the Warren Commission.

>> IT IS EVIDENCE!! If you want to claim it is faked, where is YOUR evidence of who faked it and how it was done?

Where to start? I can't write a book on this board. Give me one piece of your Best Evidence and I'd be happy to take it to the cleaners.

>> It looks like you just wave your hands and shout "conspiracy" without a single fact to back you up.

I'll give you one fact that is not dependent on any of your so-called evidence. Even if you could absolutly prove that LHO shot the president and fired the only shots, that still does not preclude "conspiracy" and "conspiracy" can be proven by the testimony of a single witness by the name of Sylvia Odio. Now do your homework, first, then come back on this board with something rational.

-- Rouser

Aoidoi

3rd December 2003, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
When you state my positions for me -- incorrectly, that is a strawman.

>> I stated exactly what you did about there being 2 shots from the front and back

I never said there were shots from the front and the back, only that there COULD have been. Do you get the difference???Yes, obviously. And I took the possibility of two shots and made the very logical step to say that would mean two shooters. If that is not your theory of the crime, please state what is. So far all you have done is present a couple witnesses that contradict the pravailing theory and argued with some of the evidence, you haven't provided any sort of reasonable alternative theory.

>>... and that Oswald was not a shooter.

That is a reasonable theory in the absence of any evidence whatsoever that Oswald even fired a single shot.Oh, C'mon. No evidence whatsoever? How about the gun? Is it not evidence? You might argue it was planted or something, but surely it is evidence? The gun found on him in the theater, that isn't evidence? The eyewitness you're arguing about, that isn't evidence? You appear to be using the word in a decidedly non-standard way, would you care to define it for me?

>> That theory rather requires multiple unidentified shooters

Multiple shooters, of course. Excellent reasoning.Yes, simultaneous shots rather require 2 shooters (or a trick shot, as mentioned). Are you now saying that it was two different shots to the head? You stated above that there were shots fired from behind and that two shots could have hit the president. So, who was shooting him and from where?

>> (or one heck of a trick shot! ) The rest of the questions follow from there. Where do I misrepresent your arguments? Do you even know what a strawman is? I'm asking questions about your theory which are clearly answered in the Lone Nut theory... i.e. Oswald shot from the Book depository,

Again, a conclusion, not an establshed fact.Yes, that's why I clearly stated it is a theory of the crime. Are you having trouble understanding what I'm writing? I'll try to clarify: you have not prevented a believable theory of the crime, only argued over details in the well known one. I am trying to determine what you think did happen.

>> fled the scene after being seen by one cop but told he worked there,

"Fled" is hardly what witnesses observed.Perhaps a loaded word, but it is part of the theory. He did leave after being stopped by a cop.

>>shot a cop,

Another conclusion unsupported by fact.Only the weapon found on him, ballistic evidence, and at least one eyewitness. Do you not grasp what a fact is?

>>was caught in a theater, did it by himself for his own reasons.

Ah, for his own reasons, eh? First prove he did it. Sigh, I'm stating a theory. You know, I tell you what I think happened and you say what you think happened, then we argue the details.

>>You have two unidentified shooters,

That's a straw man. I've never said there were two shooters. There may well have been more than two.Um, ok. So 1 or 2 shooters.

>> haven't said where they shot from,

That hardly impeaches the argument.Of course not, there is no argument. You provide nothing to argue over, you just make a statement that goes nowhere. There could have been a thousand klingons hacking him to death with Batleths too, with roughtly the same level of support you've shown that there are other shooters.

>> haven't said why they did it,

That would be speculation. Hardly fitting in any rational argument.Finally, something I agree with. I merely asked because most conspiracists believe they know who did it and work backwards from there.

>> haven't said how they escaped notice,

Who said they escaped notice? Another strawman and diversion as well. Um, since they weren't caught they clearly "escaped." If you prefer how about "avoided capture" instead? This is neither a strawman or a diversion, it's a necessary element of your theory of the crime. You argue about Oswald's leaving, surely whoever the real shooter was had to have an exit strategy. Somehow they had to either avoid notice as the shooter or else get away from pursuit (or have all the police, Secret Service, etc. in on it). How did they get away with it?

>>Where they went to after the shooting,

Totally irrelevent. To a movie, perhaps?Heh, that's the Lone Nut theory, come up with your own ;)

>>...or anything else. Please give evidence to back up your theory instead of spouting lame metaphors.

You and your LN cohorts presume the conviction. It is up to you to provide the evidence. To date, you have provided none.My god man, are you totally insane? Just because you dismiss anything that you disagree with doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Even though flawed the Warren Commission report cites vast amounts of evidence.

The Lone Nut theory stands more or less as it has for decades, it's up to you to come up with a more plausible theory of the crime, not us to disprove every other possibility!

>>Oh, and were the two shooters working for NASA? I've heard they had to do a lot of wetwork to keep that whole "we didn't go to the moon" conspiracy under wraps.

Perhaps you too are age 12 going on 11 like Central S? Does your mommy know you are posting on the grownups board?ChuckleWell, when you resort to that sort of thing I suppose I might as well just claim victory and move on.

I feel sad for anyone who has to deal with you in real life. It must truly be a burden on them.

Regnad Kcin

3rd December 2003, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
[The famous backyard p]hotos [of Oswald], demonstrably fake.
Again (in reference to the old JFK thread), we so b***h-slapped Mr. R on the "faked" photo point that it was embarrassing. From that and other aspects of the discussion there quickly emerged a picture of one who ain't gonna budge on nuttin'.

And, leaving aside discussion of Oswald and evidence and entry wounds and the Warren Commission, try to approach the question from another angle* and all you get are ethereal comments like, "You can't argue with success."

* Why, if "they" wanted the president dead, would "they" choose such a public venue -- with all its opportunity for error and discovery -- rather than just off him in an easily orchestrated "accident," the planning and execution of which would involve no more than a few individuals?

Rouser2

3rd December 2003, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by Aoidoi [/i]

>>Yes, obviously. And I took the possibility of two shots and made the very logical step to say that would mean two shooters. If that is not your theory of the crime, please state what is. So far all you have done is present a couple witnesses that contradict the pravailing theory and argued with some of the evidence, you haven't provided any sort of reasonable alternative theory.

The alternative to a single shooter is more than one shooter. Am I going to fast for you? The alternative to the Lone Nut theory is more than one, and thus, conspiracy. Get it?

>>Oh, C'mon. No evidence whatsoever? How about the gun? Is it not evidence?

What gun? The carcarno? What does that prove? Even if owned by Oswald which is not at all certain.

>> You might argue it was planted or something, but surely it is evidence?

Yeah, right. Just like OJ's glove was "evidence" even if planted. But there is good evidence, bad evidence, false evidence, planted evidence, and most of all in the case of the murder of JFK, missing evidence. There's a whole bunch of that. But you cannot use bad, altered, false, planted or missing evidence to build a valid case.

>> The gun found on him in the theater, that isn't evidence?

Evidence for what? Surely not the murder of the president. And considering the ballistics, neither the murder of officer Tippit.

>> The eyewitness you're arguing about, that isn't evidence? You appear to be using the word in a decidedly non-standard way, would you care to define it for me?

If you're referring to Helen Markham, her confused story must come under the classification of self-contradictory and thus highly unreliable. Her witness story was also mis-represented by the Warren Commission.

>>Yes, simultaneous shots rather require 2 shooters (or a trick shot, as mentioned). Are you now saying that it was two different shots to the head? You stated above that there were shots fired from behind and that two shots could have hit the president. So, who was shooting him and from where?

At the very least from in front and behind. What more do you need for more than two and thus, conspiracy? You want me to say "grassy knoll". Sure. One or more shots probably came from the grassy knoll, one or more from the TSBD, the Dal-Tex building or elsewhere.

>>Um, since they weren't caught they clearly "escaped." If you prefer how about "avoided capture" instead?

That is very different than escaping "notice".

>> This is neither a strawman or a diversion, it's a necessary element of your theory of the crime. You argue about Oswald's leaving, surely whoever the real shooter was had to have an exit strategy. Somehow they had to either avoid notice as the shooter or else get away from pursuit (or have all the police, Secret Service, etc. in on it). How did they get away with it?

How they got away is irrelevent and only invites pointless speculation. There are all kinds of ways to get away with it. For example, there was at least one man behind the picket fence just after the shots who showed a Secret Service ID. But no Secret Service were known to be there.

>>The Lone Nut theory stands more or less as it has for decades, it's up to you to come up with a more plausible theory of the crime, not us to disprove every other possibility!

It is up to those who accuse to provide evidence. It is not up to the accused or his defenders to "prove" alternate scenarios.

>>ChuckleWell, when you resort to that sort of thing I suppose I might as well just claim victory and move on.

If you are going to enage in off-point childish nonsense like young Central S., then you might as well move on.

>>I feel sad for anyone who has to deal with you in real life. It must truly be a burden on them.

ZZZZZzzz. Another ad hominem attack.

-- Rouser

Rouser2

3rd December 2003, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin [/i]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rouser2
[The famous backyard p]hotos [of Oswald], demonstrably fake.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>Again (in reference to the old JFK thread), we so b***h-slapped Mr. R on the "faked" photo point that it was embarrassing.

Embarrassing for you, obviously.

>> From that and other aspects of the discussion there quickly emerged a picture of one who ain't gonna budge on nuttin'.

What emerged is what you could not deal with, namely a replication of the photo evidence, something neither you, nor the House Committee, nor anyone else has ever been able to do.

>>And, leaving aside discussion of Oswald and evidence and entry wounds and the Warren Commission, try to approach the question from another angle* and all you get are ethereal comments like, "You can't argue with success."

Leaving aside any discussion of the EVIDENCE is basically all you were ever able to do.

-- Rouser

Jon_in_london

4th December 2003, 03:41 AM

Hold on.

No one here has challenged the false statement that Oswald was a piss-poor shot.

He was actually quite good and was awarded the 'sharpshooter' skill by the marines, scoring 48 and 49 out of 50 on two occaisions (hitting a shoulder and head sized target from 200 yards). The assaination shots were from 80 yards away and in the space of 8 seconds he got 2 hits and a miss. Thats not that special.

This stuff about a mis-aligned scope is simply an invention.

fsol

4th December 2003, 04:58 AM

To the rest of the readers: Rouser2 believes the moon landing was a hoax. He will, of course, refuse to answer my question, as he has numerous times in the past. I point this out just so you all know what kind of idiot you are debating here - if it wasn't already obvious. He will get especially upset if each of you start pressing him on the moon landing "hoax", and will fairly quickly disappear from this thread)

ooh, Moon Landing, Moon Landing, Moon Landing.

Rouser2

4th December 2003, 06:21 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london [/i]

>>No one here has challenged the false statement that Oswald was a piss-poor shot.

>>He was actually quite good and was awarded the 'sharpshooter' skill by the marines, scoring 48 and 49 out of 50 on two occaisions (hitting a shoulder and head sized target from 200 yards). The assaination shots were from 80 yards away and in the space of 8 seconds he got 2 hits and a miss. Thats not that special.

Comment:
Even after weeks of practice and intensive training, Oswald barely managed to qualify at the level of "Sharpshooter," the middle of three rifle qualification levels in the Marines. He obtained a score of 212, two points above the minimum for the "Sharpshooter" level. In other words, even after extensive training and practice, and even though he was firing at stationary targets with a semi-automatic rifle and had plenty of time to shoot (even during the so-called "rapid-fire" phase), Oswald narrowly missed scoring at the lowest possible qualification level.
The next time Oswald fired for record in the Marines, he barely managed to qualify at all, obtaining a score of 191, which was one point above the minimum needed for the lowest qualification level, "Marksman." To put it another way, he came within two points of failing to qualify.

* Nelson Delgado
Before the Warren Commission:
Q. Did you fire with Oswald?
DELGADO. Right; I was in the same line. By that I mean we were on line together, the same time, but not firing at the same position, but at the same time, and I remember seeing his [shooting]. It was a pretty big joke, because he got a lot of "Maggie's drawers," you know, a lot of misses, but he didn't give a darn.
Q. Missed the target completely?
DELGADO. He just qualified, that's it. He wasn't as enthusiastic as the rest of us. We all loved--liked, you know going to the range. (8 H 235)

And in a filmed interveiw with Mark Lane:

LANE. How did the FBI react to your statement that Oswald was a poor shot?
DELGADO. They tried to disprove it. They did not like the idea when I came up with the statement that Oswald, as far as I knew, was a very poor shot.
LANE. Do you feel that the agents of the FBI actually tried to get you to change your statement that Oswald was a poor shot.
DELGADO. Yes, sir, I definitely do.

* * *
And in an interview with fellow marine, Sherman Cooley:

Cooley said in the following in an interview with former Rockefeller Foundation fellow Henry Hurt:
"If I had to pick one man in the whole United States to shoot me, I'd pick Oswald. I saw the man shoot. There's no way he could have ever learned to shoot well enough to do what they accused him of doing in Dallas." (REASONABLE DOUBT, New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1985, p. 99)

-- Rouser

The Central Scrutinizer

4th December 2003, 06:48 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
This stuff about a mis-aligned scope is simply an invention.

Rouser's whole world is an invention.

Although his trailer park is quite real.

The Central Scrutinizer

4th December 2003, 06:50 AM

Originally posted by fsol

ooh, Moon Landing, Moon Landing, Moon Landing.

You'll notice he has avoided the moon landing question, as I predicted. That doesn't make me a psychic - it's just that I've smacked him around so many times before, that his behavior is pretty predictable.

Mike B.

4th December 2003, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Jon_in_london [/i]

>>No one here has challenged the false statement that Oswald was a piss-poor shot.

>>He was actually quite good and was awarded the 'sharpshooter' skill by the marines, scoring 48 and 49 out of 50 on two occaisions (hitting a shoulder and head sized target from 200 yards). The assaination shots were from 80 yards away and in the space of 8 seconds he got 2 hits and a miss. Thats not that special.

Comment:
Even after weeks of practice and intensive training, Oswald barely managed to qualify at the level of "Sharpshooter," the middle of three rifle qualification levels in the Marines. He obtained a score of 212, two points above the minimum for the "Sharpshooter" level. In other words, even after extensive training and practice, and even though he was firing at stationary targets with a semi-automatic rifle and had plenty of time to shoot (even during the so-called "rapid-fire" phase), Oswald narrowly missed scoring at the lowest possible qualification level.
The next time Oswald fired for record in the Marines, he barely managed to qualify at all, obtaining a score of 191, which was one point above the minimum needed for the lowest qualification level, "Marksman." To put it another way, he came within two points of failing to qualify.

-- Rouser

So can we then stipulate that Oswald did qualify as a "sharpshooter" for the Marines?

The other stuff about "Maggie's drawers" is anecdotal and not worth nearly as much as the cold hard fact that he DID qualify as a sharpshooter, and no amount of mental gymnastics will make that go away.

kookbreaker

4th December 2003, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by Mike B.

So can we then stipulate that Oswald did qualify as a "sharpshooter" for the Marines?

The other stuff about "Maggie's drawers" is anecdotal and not worth nearly as much as the cold hard fact that he DID qualify as a sharpshooter, and no amount of mental gymnastics will make that go away.

Furthermore, wether you look at his earlier score or his later score, the bottom line is that he passed the Marine test. This is often called an 'easy' test by some macho fools, but it really isn't. The Marines demand that everyone is a rifleman first and foremost. What's 'average' to them is superior to any citizen. Combine that with the fact that it was not a hard shot to make (a concept unfamiliar to Rouser since he's apparently never fired a rifle in his life.) and still only hit 2 out of 3, I wonder why this is an issue.

Rouser2

4th December 2003, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by kookbreaker

Furthermore, wether you look at his earlier score or his later score, the bottom line is that he passed the Marine test. This is often called an 'easy' test by some macho fools, but it really isn't. The Marines demand that everyone is a rifleman first and foremost. What's 'average' to them is superior to any citizen. Combine that with the fact that it was not a hard shot to make (a concept unfamiliar to Rouser since he's apparently never fired a rifle in his life.) and still only hit 2 out of 3, I wonder why this is an issue.

Oh, I've fired rifles alright. But I could never duplicate what Oswald is alleged to have done. Neither could you. Nor has anyone to date.

The following bears repeating:

Monty Lutz, an expert rifleman and ballistics expert who served on the firearms panel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, conceded during a 1986 mock Oswald trial that to his knowledge no marksman had duplicated Oswald's supposed shooting feat. Lutz made this admission when he was cross-examined by leading trial attorney Gerry Spence:
Spence: Would it be true that in the history of the whole world, to your knowledge, nobody has ever duplicated what Lee Harvey Oswald is supposed to have done with that supposed rifle from the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository? That's true, isn't it?
Lutz: I don't know of any test that has been done from the School Book Depository in an attempt to duplicate it.
Spence: You don't know of anybody that's even duplicated that anywhere, do you? School Book Depository or elsewhere. You didn't, did you?
Prosecutor: Wait a minute, he didn't answer your first question.
Judge: We've got two questions.
Spence: Let's do this right. You don't of anybody that has ever duplicated what Lee was supposed to have done, do you?
Lutz: I do not.
Spence: Not even master marksmen. Isn't that true?
Lutz: I do not.
Lutz, an expert shot himself, also testified that he conducted his own rifle test but that he FAILED to duplicate Oswald's supposed shooting feat.

* * *

Talk is cheap. Nuff said.

-- Rouser

Grammatron

4th December 2003, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2

Oh, I've fired rifles alright. But I could never duplicate what Oswald is alleged to have done. Neither could you. Nor has anyone to date.

The following bears repeating:

Monty Lutz, an expert rifleman and ballistics expert who served on the firearms panel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, conceded during a 1986 mock Oswald trial that to his knowledge no marksman had duplicated Oswald's supposed shooting feat. Lutz made this admission when he was cross-examined by leading trial attorney Gerry Spence:
Spence: Would it be true that in the history of the whole world, to your knowledge, nobody has ever duplicated what Lee Harvey Oswald is supposed to have done with that supposed rifle from the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository? That's true, isn't it?
Lutz: I don't know of any test that has been done from the School Book Depository in an attempt to duplicate it.
Spence: You don't know of anybody that's even duplicated that anywhere, do you? School Book Depository or elsewhere. You didn't, did you?
Prosecutor: Wait a minute, he didn't answer your first question.
Judge: We've got two questions.
Spence: Let's do this right. You don't of anybody that has ever duplicated what Lee was supposed to have done, do you?
Lutz: I do not.
Spence: Not even master marksmen. Isn't that true?
Lutz: I do not.
Lutz, an expert shot himself, also testified that he conducted his own rifle test but that he FAILED to duplicate Oswald's supposed shooting feat.

* * *

Talk is cheap. Nuff said.

-- Rouser

From your quote:

Lutz: I don't know of any test that has been done from the School Book Depository in an attempt to duplicate it.
Spence: Let's do this right. You don't of anybody that has ever duplicated what Lee was supposed to have done, do you?
Lutz: I do not.

I don't know of anybody who flew B-2, doesn't mean it didn't happen now did it. Further more, with a little research you can find out just how many tests were conducted again and again that showed just how possible it was to do that.

Ranb

4th December 2003, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2

Oh, I've fired rifles alright. But I could never duplicate what Oswald is alleged to have done. Neither could you. Nor has anyone to date. .................

-- Rouser

So how do you define duplicate?

If I perch myself in a stand 60 feet off of the ground and shoot at target moving 5 mph at a slight angle away from me with a 91/48 carcano rifle equiped with a 3/4" 4 power scope adjusted to hit a bit high and right, will this duplicate things enough?

Or do I need to shutdown Dealey Plaza long enough to have a limo of the same type used by JFK drive by with 4 animatronic dummies in it while I fire away from the 6th floor of the Book Depository using the actual Oswald carcano?

I have read what "duplicate" means to some conspiracy folks. They even want a Marine who is indifferant to sharpshooting and only had 45 rounds of practise with his old surplus war rifle to do the shooting. Jushow close do conditions have to match Dallas 1963 before you will accept that the feat was duplicated and you will believe a competent shooter could do it?

Ranb

Regnad Kcin

4th December 2003, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
[The famous backyard p]hotos [of Oswald], demonstrably fake.Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Again (in reference to the old JFK thread), we so b***h-slapped Mr. R on the "faked" photo point that it was embarrassing.Rouser2
Embarrassing for you, obviously.Regnad Kcin
From that and other aspects of the discussion there quickly emerged a picture of one who ain't gonna budge on nuttin'.Rouser2
What emerged is what you could not deal with, namely a replication of the photo evidence, something neither you, nor the House Committee, nor anyone else has ever been able to do. IIRC, you posited that because the angle of the rifle's (and Oswald's arm's) shadow doesn't match up with the angle of the figure itself the photo is therefore "demonstrably fake."

To refresh your memory (and for anyone who missed it the first time around), you conveniently sidestepped the phenomenon of parallax. Oswald isn't just holding the rifle off to his side, but also forward & away from his body. This is not evident at first since we, the viewers of the photo, are looking at a two-dimensional representation of a 3-D object. This really is so painfully simple.

As to whether anyone could duplicate the effect, all one would need is a strong light source and a few objects to stand in for the body and the rifle. (Say, a pin spot and a GI Joe.) And no, I'm not going to do it for you.

Aoidoi

4th December 2003, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by Ranb
Jushow close do conditions have to match Dallas 1963 before you will accept that the feat was duplicated and you will believe a competent shooter could do it?
I suspect a time machine would be involved. You see, it wasn't Oswald that shot Kennedy- it was a time traveler proving that Oswald was the one who shot Kennedy that did it!

It's all so clear now!

(In case you're wondering, I've given up on Rouser presenting a believable argument and will now just proceed to make smart*ss comments whenever the whim strikes me. So, pretty much back to usual for me. ;))

Rouser2

5th December 2003, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by Grammatron

From your quote:

Lutz: I don't know of any test that has been done from the School Book Depository in an attempt to duplicate it.
Spence: Let's do this right. You don't of anybody that has ever duplicated what Lee was supposed to have done, do you?
Lutz: I do not.

I don't know of anybody who flew B-2, doesn't mean it didn't happen now did it. Further more, with a little research you can find out just how many tests were conducted again and again that showed just how possible it was to do that.

Possible? Of course. Never said it wasn't. Even though none of your "tests" were able to do it on a first try. It is just as absurd to say such a feat of was impossible as it is to say it was easy.

-- Rouser

Rouser2

5th December 2003, 01:48 AM

Originally posted by Ranb

So how do you define duplicate?

If I perch myself in a stand 60 feet off of the ground and shoot at target moving 5 mph at a slight angle away from me with a 91/48 carcano rifle equiped with a 3/4" 4 power scope adjusted to hit a bit high and right, will this duplicate things enough?

Or do I need to shutdown Dealey Plaza long enough to have a limo of the same type used by JFK drive by with 4 animatronic dummies in it while I fire away from the 6th floor of the Book Depository using the actual Oswald carcano?

I have read what "duplicate" means to some conspiracy folks. They even want a Marine who is indifferant to sharpshooting and only had 45 rounds of practise with his old surplus war rifle to do the shooting. Jushow close do conditions have to match Dallas 1963 before you will accept that the feat was duplicated and you will believe a competent shooter could do it?

Ranb

So who duplicated it?

-- Rouser

Rouser2

5th December 2003, 01:57 AM

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
IIRC, you posited that because the angle of the rifle's (and Oswald's arm's) shadow doesn't match up with the angle of the figure itself the photo is therefore "demonstrably fake."

To refresh your memory (and for anyone who missed it the first time around), you conveniently sidestepped the phenomenon of parallax. Oswald isn't just holding the rifle off to his side, but also forward & away from his body. This is not evident at first since we, the viewers of the photo, are looking at a two-dimensional representation of a 3-D object. This really is so painfully simple.

As to whether anyone could duplicate the effect, all one would need is a strong light source and a few objects to stand in for the body and the rifle. (Say, a pin spot and a GI Joe.) And no, I'm not going to do it for you.

Of course I've done it. Tried it, that is. No way, Impossible. Parrallax pitch and all. Can't be done. Nor have you done it. All you can do is posit that it could be done. But talk is cheap. Of course there is much more evidence of photo fraud than just the anomalies in the photos. There is that cryptic ghosted photo discovered in the DPD evidence locker in 1993. Pretty funny when Lone Nutters try to explain that away. And then there is the fact that two photo processors said the FBI give them backyard color transpariencies to develop on Nov. 22nd, the night before they "found" them in the Paine garage. That too is a laugher when LNs to explain that one.

The Ghosted Photo --- Neeley backyard minus Oswald.

Ranb

5th December 2003, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2

So who duplicated it?

-- Rouser

I have read in the past about other experiments, but I would have to dig to get a link or other details. The closest I have come to duplicating it myself was with a carcano 6.5 mm rifle at 100 yards into a man sized target. Three shots in about 6 seconds, all in a group about 8" wide on the target.

But we are getting away from the question. I was asking for YOUR opinion on what constitutes a valid duplication of what Oswald did. How close to the conditions and results of that day in 1963 are good enough to call it a valid test? Thanks.

Ranb

Regnad Kcin

5th December 2003, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Of course I've done it. Tried it, that is. No way, Impossible. Parrallax pitch and all. Can't be done. Nor have you done it. All you can do is posit that it could be done. But talk is cheap. "Nor have you done it." So I'm a liar now? Splendid.

Tell you what, please go on about your conspiracy. Go on until your dying day. The rest of us meanwhile will be accomplishing things with our lives.

Rouser2

5th December 2003, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by Ranb

I have read in the past about other experiments, but I would have to dig to get a link or other details. The closest I have come to duplicating it myself was with a carcano 6.5 mm rifle at 100 yards into a man sized target. Three shots in about 6 seconds, all in a group about 8" wide on the target.

But we are getting away from the question. I was asking for YOUR opinion on what constitutes a valid duplication of what Oswald did. How close to the conditions and results of that day in 1963 are good enough to call it a valid test? Thanks.

Ranb

Same distance, same angle, moving target, through tree branches, same or similar weapon, same mis-aligned sight, no gun rest, same time frame, head and shoulders hit, etc., etc., etc. First attempt; no practice.

Rouser

Ranb

5th December 2003, 05:01 PM

"Same distance, same angle, moving target, through tree branches, same or similar weapon, same mis-aligned sight, no gun rest, same time frame, head and shoulders hit, etc., etc., etc. First attempt; no practice."

A few comments. Oswald had a rest, the boxes he knelt behind while shooting. Only the first shot was blocked by the tree.

Given that the range was short, the target large, angle small, target speed slow, rifle of sufficient power/accuracy, the shot was not a hard one to make. Shooting through tree branches certainly complicates things.

The first shot should have been one that hit JFK. I can only imagine that LHO was following JFK through his scope as he passed the building. Shooting while the limo was directly in front of him would have been more difficult to lead properly. After the limo passed, Oswald only had to lead the target about 3-4 inches, or at the top/right of JFK's head, (according to my calculations using a ballistics program) for a center hit. If he was concentrating on the target through the scope, then the branches must have been a bit of a surprise as they appeared in the field of view. The two follow-up shots after the limo cleared the tree branchs would not have been hard as the limo was heading almost directly away from him. Jerking the trigger as some people are apt to do while shooting quickly could have resulted in hitting JFK low in the upper back, if the head was the target.

I have lots of experience shooting, although none of it is exactly like the conditions JFK was shot in. I can lead a target, operate a bolt rifle quickly, and can shoot well with-in the 7 minute of angle accuracy required for this shot. Making this shot is nothing to brag about. Please do not imply I am trying to be macho by saying I can shoot as well as Oswald was alleged to have done.

I am also very likely to believe an expert like Robert Frazier when he says a person with Oswald's experience could have made the shot.

Ranb

Rouser2

5th December 2003, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
"Nor have you done it." So I'm a liar now? Splendid.

Tell you what, please go on about your conspiracy. Go on until your dying day. The rest of us meanwhile will be accomplishing things with our lives.

Well now, you don't have to go and have a hissy-fit about it.

-- Rouser

Rouser2

5th December 2003, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by Ranb
"Same distance, same angle, moving target, through tree branches, same or similar weapon, same mis-aligned sight, no gun rest, same time frame, head and shoulders hit, etc., etc., etc. First attempt; no practice."

A few comments. Oswald had a rest, the boxes he knelt behind while shooting. Only the first shot was blocked by the tree.

Given that the range was short, the target large, angle small, target speed slow, rifle of sufficient power/accuracy, the shot was not a hard one to make. Shooting through tree branches certainly complicates things.

The first shot should have been one that hit JFK. I can only imagine that LHO was following JFK through his scope as he passed the building. Shooting while the limo was directly in front of him would have been more difficult to lead properly. After the limo passed, Oswald only had to lead the target about 3-4 inches, or at the top/right of JFK's head, (according to my calculations using a ballistics program) for a center hit. If he was concentrating on the target through the scope, then the branches must have been a bit of a surprise as they appeared in the field of view. The two follow-up shots after the limo cleared the tree branchs would not have been hard as the limo was heading almost directly away from him. Jerking the trigger as some people are apt to do while shooting quickly could have resulted in hitting JFK low in the upper back, if the head was the target.

I have lots of experience shooting, although none of it is exactly like the conditions JFK was shot in. I can lead a target, operate a bolt rifle quickly, and can shoot well with-in the 7 minute of angle accuracy required for this shot. Making this shot is nothing to brag about. Please do not imply I am trying to be macho by saying I can shoot as well as Oswald was alleged to have done.

I am also very likely to believe an expert like Robert Frazier when he says a person with Oswald's experience could have made the shot.

Ranb

Could have but didn't. The large blow-out in the back of the head along with the blast from the right front and violent backward lurch must point to at least one other shooter. Meanwhile, Oswald was seen in the lunchroom having a coke, probably waiting for his big assignment.

-- Rouser

Bjorn

6th December 2003, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
The large blow-out in the back of the headAny pictures of it?

along with the blast from the right front and violent backward lurch Did you ever see the videos of melon-shooting (or the goat) showing that a shot can actually make the head (or the melon) lurch towards the point where the shot came from?

Meanwhile, Oswald was seen in the lunchroom having a coke, probably waiting for his big assignment.False. He was seen there about 90 seconds after the shooting, giving him sufficient time to get there.

corplinx

6th December 2003, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by Bjorn
Any pictures of it?

[B]Did you ever see the videos of melon-shooting (or the goat) showing that a shot can actually make the head (or the melon) lurch towards the point where the shot came from?

It actually appears to me that his head twitches forward and bounces back when I watched the tape. Consistent with a shot from behind. Not to mention the bullet fragments spread out towards the front.

Yes, his head could have fallen forward or back but the location of the bullet fragments is the only evidence you need to prove a rear shooter. This is why some people try their best to discredit that evidence. If you passed out sketches of the head wound and the location of the fragments to a forensics class who didn't know it was Kennedy, you will get a resounding answer of a shot from the rear.

There are three kinds of "experts" who claim the shot was from the front. One's who already believe there was a conspiracy and compromise their integrity to support that belief. Those who won't compromise simple forensic evidence and instead refuse to belief the xrays/etc are real. And finally, people who are not qualified to make that pronouncement (i.e. someone in a medical profession but not a forensic investigator like a radiologist).

Rouser2

7th December 2003, 06:00 AM

Originally posted by Bjorn [/i]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rouser2
The large blow-out in the back of the head
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any pictures of it?

No. Course not. What we have is a picture of the back of the head in tact. Which means that either all of the doctors, nurses and attendents are lying or the picture is a lie.

Rouser2

7th December 2003, 06:06 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bjorn

Rouser quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
along with the blast from the right front and violent backward lurch
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>Did you ever see the videos of melon-shooting (or the goat) showing that a shot can actually make the head (or the melon) lurch towards the point where the shot came from?

Yes. But a melon does not replicate a human head. Moreover, the Warren Commision conducted test of 10 human skulls. Each time the skulls moved away from the shooter. The results of this test were suppressed and were not revealed until fifteen years later during the HSCA investigation. (1HSCA404)

Moreover, Alverez did not use carcano bullets. In separate
experiments performed by Dr. Doug DeSalles and physicist Art Snyder, the jet effect did not occur on melons shot with Mannlicher-Carcano bullets.

-- Rouser

Rouser2

7th December 2003, 06:10 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bjorn

>>quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, Oswald was seen in the lunchroom having a coke, probably waiting for his big assignment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>False. He was seen there about 90 seconds after the shooting, giving him sufficient time to get there.

Actually, 60 to 80 seconds later, with coke already in hand.

-- Rouser

Rouser2

7th December 2003, 06:14 AM

Originally posted by corplinx [/i]

>>If you passed out sketches of the head wound and the location of the fragments to a forensics class who didn't know it was Kennedy, you will get a resounding answer of a shot from the rear.

And just which "sketches" would you be referring to?

>>There are three kinds of "experts" who claim the shot was from the front. One's who already believe there was a conspiracy and compromise their integrity to support that belief. Those who won't compromise simple forensic evidence and instead refuse to belief the xrays/etc are real.

What is required to believe the X-Rays are real? A prounouncement from on high?

>> And finally, people who are not qualified to make that pronouncement (i.e. someone in a medical profession but not a forensic investigator like a radiologist).

Like Cyril Wecht, for instance?

-- Rouser

Bjorn

7th December 2003, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
What we have is a picture of the back of the head in tact. Which means that either all of the doctors, nurses and attendents are lying or the picture is a lie. .... and I realize that showing you more pictures or reports won't work - if they give no evidence of the back of the head blown out, they're faked ... :p

I rest my case.

Anyway, shortly after this accession, the 3 prosectors,
the radiologist who took the x-rays, and the medical
photographer who took the photos went to the Archives to
review the material. They agreed unanimously that the
photos and x-rays turned over by the Kennedys accurately
depicted JKF's wounds and were the authentic x-rays and
photos exposed on the night of the autopsy. Until the
House Select Committee on Assassinations looked into this
issue in 1977-1978 no further authentication was attempted.

Rouser2

7th December 2003, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by Bjorn [/i]

>> .... and I realize that showing you more pictures or reports won't work - if they give no evidence of the back of the head blown out, they're faked ... :

What pictures? You haven't shown nor cited any. What reports? You haven't cited any reports

>>I rest my case.

What case? You've yet to make a case.

>>Anyway, shortly after this accession, the 3 prosectors,
the radiologist who took the x-rays, and the medical
photographer who took the photos went to the Archives to
review the material. They agreed unanimously that the
photos and x-rays turned over by the Kennedys accurately
depicted JKF's wounds and were

Says who? And just what pictures? Of what? Obviously, you haven't a clue.

-- Rouser

Rouser2

7th December 2003, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by corplinx [/i]

>>Yes, his head could have fallen forward or back but the location of the bullet fragments is the only evidence you need to prove a rear shooter. This is why some people try their best to discredit that evidence. If you passed out sketches of the head wound and the location of the fragments to a forensics class who didn't know it was Kennedy, you will get a resounding answer of a shot from the rear.

What "Sketches". Here is a alleged JFK x-ray. Where are the fragments? And what does it prove? What forensics class are you talking about? Who you crappin????

-- Rouser

Bjorn

7th December 2003, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
What pictures? You haven't shown nor cited any. Sorry - when I wrote 'more' pictures, I ment more than the one you posted already, showing the back of the head intact. More of those cannot possibly do any good - since they are faked. Correct?

>>Anyway, shortly after this accession, the 3 prosectors,
the radiologist who took the x-rays, and the medical
photographer who took the photos went to the Archives to
review the material. They agreed unanimously that the
photos and x-rays turned over by the Kennedys accurately
depicted JKF's wounds and were

Says who? And just what pictures? Of what? Obviously, you haven't a clue.I think it is clear to you that we're talking about the pictures from the autopsy. Do you claim that the above didn't happen?

Are you familiar with the story below?

The HFP was able to identify all the people who were present in the autopsy room on the night of 11/22 - 11/23/63. The HFP determined that the following people were in the room:

Dr. James Humes, Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, Dr. Pierre Finck (the prosectors), Admiral Calvin Galloway, Admiral George Burkley, M.D. (JFK's personal physician), Captain James Stover, John Stringer (medical photographer), Dr. James Ebersole (the radiologist who took the x-rays), Jan Rudnicki, Paul O'Conner, Jerrol Custer, James Jenkins, Edward Reed, James Metzler, Dr. David Osborne, Gen. Godfrey McHugh, Dr. Gregory Cross, General Phillip Wehle, Chester Boyers, Dr. George Bakeman, Secret Service Agents Roy Kellerman, Bill Greer, and John O'Leary, Richard Lipsey, Samual Bird, Floyd Riebe, and FBI agents Francis O'Neill and James Sibert. In addition, 4 employees of Gawler's Funeral Home were present following the autopsy: John Van Haeson, Edwin Stoble, Thomas Robinson, and "Mr. Hagen."

The HFP set out to interview all of these people. I count 28, not including the Gawler's employees. Dr. George Bakeman could not be located. That leaves 27. The HFP claimed to have interviewed 26 of the people who were in the autopsy room and that that number represents all but one of those present. In either case, the HFP interviewed 26 people and concluded: "In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland doctors [as to the location of the head wound - jg] are the 26 people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted in the photographs; none had differing accounts." (7HSCA37)If you are, do you think that all these people are involved in the conspiracy, did they actually see another man's head, or do you have another explanation? :p

Rouser2

8th December 2003, 04:42 AM

Originally posted by Bjorn [/i]

Originally posted by Rouser2
What pictures? You haven't shown nor cited any.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>Sorry - when I wrote 'more' pictures, I ment more than the one you posted already, showing the back of the head intact. More of those cannot possibly do any good - since they are faked. Correct?

You haven't cited single picture. Moreover, the one I posted is, as I have said, an alleged copy of an alleged autopsy photo. This picture could not be used in a court of law since in cannot be authenticated. Nonetheless, it is alleged to be a copy of the official autopsy photos, which only a few people have actually seen. Any photo which shows the back of JFK's head in tact is in direct conflict with all of the initial statements of the Parkland doctors. Even your lifted HFP quoted via 3rd parties of 3rd parties admits that the HFP conclusion is in direct conflict with the initial statements of the Parkland doctors. That doesn't necessarily mean that all 26 people are lying and therefore involved in a conspiracy or cover up. What it clearly means, is that the author of the HFP statement mis-represented the truth. In fact, many of those listed persons have rejected the HFP conclusions as to the veracity of the autopsy photos they saw. But you have no hope of getting your facts straight if your only source of information is the McAdams CyberSpace Garbage Dump.

-- Rouser

Rouser2

8th December 2003, 04:56 AM

Originally posted by Bjorn [/i]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The HFP was able to identify all the people who were present in the autopsy room on the night of 11/22 - 11/23/63. The HFP determined that the following people were in the room:

Dr. James Humes, Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, Dr. Pierre Finck (the prosectors), Admiral Calvin Galloway, Admiral George Burkley, M.D. (JFK's personal physician), Captain James Stover, John Stringer (medical photographer), Dr. James Ebersole (the radiologist who took the x-rays), Jan Rudnicki, Paul O'Conner, Jerrol Custer, James Jenkins, Edward Reed, James Metzler, Dr. David Osborne, Gen. Godfrey McHugh, Dr. Gregory Cross, General Phillip Wehle, Chester Boyers, Dr. George Bakeman, Secret Service Agents Roy Kellerman, Bill Greer, and John O'Leary, Richard Lipsey, Samual Bird, Floyd Riebe, and FBI agents Francis O'Neill and James Sibert. In addition, 4 employees of Gawler's Funeral Home were present following the autopsy: John Van Haeson, Edwin Stoble, Thomas Robinson, and "Mr. Hagen."

The HFP set out to interview all of these people. I count 28, not including the Gawler's employees. Dr. George Bakeman could not be located. That leaves 27. The HFP claimed to have interviewed 26 of the people who were in the autopsy room and that that number represents all but one of those present. In either case, the HFP interviewed 26 people and concluded: "In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland doctors [as to the location of the head wound - jg] are the 26 people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted in the photographs; none had differing accounts." (7HSCA37)

* * *
So who is lying?

Floyd Riebe, one of the two autopsy photographers, stated in a filmed interview for KRON-TV in 1988 that the autopsy x-rays and photos had been doctored in some way, and that the photos did not show the wounds that he saw on the night of the autopsy.

Dr. John Ebersole, Bethesda Hospital radiologist. In an extensive interview with his hometown newspaper in 1978, Dr. Ebersole said, "When the body was removed from the casket there was a very obvious horrible gaping wound in the back of the head" (Lifton 543).Dr. Ebersole said the photos of the back of the head did NOT show the large defect as he recalled it (Livingstone, KILLING KENNEDY, 41-42). When shown one of the back-of-the-head photographs, Dr. Ebersole told HSCA investigators that his recollection was that the large defect was in the occipital region, and that he "certainly" could NOT state that the image seen in the photo was "the way it [the back of the head] looked" (Livingstone, KILLING KENNEDY, 41).

Bethesda x-ray technician Jerrol Custer has stated that on November 23, the day after the autopsy, he was instructed by his superiors to tape bullet fragments to pieces of skull and then to x-ray them. At the time, Custer was told these x-rays were for a "bust" of JFK's head, but no such "bust" has ever surfaced. Custer suspects the radiographs he was ordered to take on November 23 were used to make the autopsy x-rays (Livingstone, HIGH TREASON 2, 219, 554).

"Perhaps the above evidence explains why Saundra Kay Spencer, who processed the autopsy photos that Secret Service Agent James Fox brought from the autopsy, told the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) that she did NOT process any of the autopsy photos now in evidence, i.e., that the autopsy photos that she processed were different from the autopsy pictures now in evidence. She also told the ARRB she did not process any black and white photos, only negatives and color positives. This suggests the black and white autopsy photos were processed elsewhere, and that there were TWO sets of autopsy photos" http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id127.htm

One more thing. Each and every one of the initial statements of the doctors, nurses and attendents at Parkland (none of which I have as yet posted) can be documented and sourced, while none of the alleged interviews of the above people present at Bethesda can be documented and sourced. All you have is the summary assertions of an anonymous un-named HFP staffer -- assertions which have been challenged by several of the names listed in the report. But the McAdams garbage dump (which you are too ashamed to cite with an appropriate link) equates assertions and conclusions from pompous authorities on high as facts and evidence. But they are not.

-- Rouser