single bullet theory is not true says Soily [Archive] - Page 2

TraneWreck

21st September 2010, 01:29 PM

Like a lot of the evidence, those fibers certainly were fibbing!

Oswald's post office box was taken out in his name, but the rifle ordered under an alias. Under post office regulations Oswald could not have received the rifle, it would have been sent back return to sender
http://i39.tinypic.com/2w7fleh.jpg

Good summary of the rest of the postal problems here http://oswaldsmother.blogspot.com/2009/11/who-bought-guns.html

These little niggling points are so very, very lame.

The discussion of the order and delivery of the rifle begins on page 118 of the Warren Commission Report:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0071b.htm

On page 121 we get two explanations of why the rifle would be shipped to Oswald's box even though the package had a different name:

1) It was unknown who Oswald listed as other people with access to the box because that slip was destroyed pursuant to post office regulation when the box was closed.

2) Even if the name doesn't match with the box, a notice will be placed in the box. The person with the box takes the slip and receives the item. Often identification is not required. It's assumed the person with the slip is the person with the box.

There is nothing mysterious. Oswald used the name multiple times. THere are easy explanations. This is trying to build something out of nothing.

carlitos

21st September 2010, 01:30 PM

Oswald's post office box was taken out in his name, but the rifle ordered under an alias. Under post office regulations Oswald could not have received the rifle, it would have been sent back return to senderRespectfully, I am asking which postal regulations were broken. When I look for information on this topic (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=oswald+rifle+postal+regulation&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8), all I find are conspiracy sites that allude to vague "postal regulations," like you are doing (indeed this thread is the 7th link from google).

What's the specific postal regulation that says Oswald can't receive another person's mail at his address in Texas in 1963?

Where does it become axiomatic that the mail would have been "returned to sender?" I get other people's mail all the time; I'm the one who has to write "return to sender" on it.

ETA - TraneWreck makes a good point. When I go to UPS today, I rarely get asked for ID, even in 2010. Texas in the 60's seems like it might be a little more lax. Take the slip, get the package.

riptowtan

21st September 2010, 01:41 PM

No, here's no evidence that CE399 was ever found at parkland on a gurney or otherwise. Please post it if you have it.

(Talking about Guinn's NAA)
"His most important conclusion by far, however, scientifically defeating the notion that the bullet found on Connally's stecher had been planed, was that the elemental composition and concentration of trace elements of the three bullet fragments removed from Governor Connally's wrist matched those of a second bullet (the stretcher bullet). The stretcher bullet, then, had to be the one that struck Connally, which all of the other evidence already shown."
Reclaiming History pg. 814

The whole chain of evidence argument fails because there would be no reason for the conspirators to plant a bullet. If there was someone else on the sixth floor firing Oswald's gun, why would they need to plant an extra bullet? It doesn't make any sense.

TraneWreck

21st September 2010, 01:51 PM

No, here's no evidence that CE399 was ever found at parkland on a gurney or otherwise. Please post it if you have it.

Well, there are witnesses to the bullet, including Connally himself, but I argued that eyewitnesses should be ignored, so set that aside.

First, we have the old "when you hear hoofbeats in Kansas assume horses instead of Zebras maxim." Unless you've assumed a conspiracy, there's no other reasonable explanation of how the bullet was recovered.

But the stronger argument is that it doesn't matter. The fragments match the rifle. Three spent cartridges were found. The video evidence supports 3 bullets being shot. It's possible for one bullet to do the damage claimed by the single bullet theory...etc.

The physical evidence is 100% in support of Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone shooter.

Soily

21st September 2010, 01:59 PM

(Talking about Guinn's NAA)
"His most important conclusion by far, however, scientifically defeating the notion that the bullet found on Connally's stecher had been planed, was that the elemental composition and concentration of trace elements of the three bullet fragments removed from Governor Connally's wrist matched those of a second bullet (the stretcher bullet). The stretcher bullet, then, had to be the one that struck Connally, which all of the other evidence already shown."
Reclaiming History pg. 814

The whole chain of evidence argument fails because there would be no reason for the conspirators to plant a bullet. If there was someone else on the sixth floor firing Oswald's gun, why would they need to plant an extra bullet? It doesn't make any sense.
Jesus Christ. Its like banging your head against a brick wall.

1 the bullet at parkland was not planted. That is not the argument. The bullet at parkland was simply not CE399. There is nothing, and I repeat nothing to suggest CE399 was found at Parkland.
2 the NAA used to come to Bugliosis conclusion has comprehensively been debunked and Bugliosi knows it. It's junk science.

But almost immediately, there were doubts about the statistical analysis. Then, something unexpected happened. Two scientists from Lawrence Livermore Laboratory who were avowedly agnostic on the conspiracy question, Erik Randich, Ph.D. and Pat Grant, Ph.D., published a paper in the Journal of Forensic Science calling both Guinn's original report and the two papers by Rahn and Sturdivan into serious question.
One of Randich and Grant's objections was that, although Guinn worked in good faith, he didn't understand elemental bullet metallurgy, which was Randich's area of expertise. (Nor, they made clear, did Rahn or Sturdivan.) Guinn was wrong that Mannlicher Carcano bullets were unique because the trace levels of component Sb varied. The levels of antimony in MCC bullets do vary, they said. But so do Sb levels in many bullets that, like MCC shells, are jacketed. It is the non-jacketed bullets that have consistent levels of trace components. And the levels are controlled for a very good reason.
Randich and Grant also disproved another, key Guinn contention: that there is little variation in Sb levels within a single bullet
Finally, Randich and Grant analyzed the statistical model Guinn presented to the HSCA. They determined that the number of samples he had evaluated and the number of tests he performed were inadequate to draw the sweeping statistical conclusions Guinn, Rahn and Sturdivan had drawn.

In May 2007, a second paper appeared reporting on a chemical, forensic and statistical analysis of bullets derived from the same batch as those supposedly used by Oswald. The authors, Cliff Spiegelman, professor of statistics at Texas A&M and an expert in bullet lead analysis, William A. Tobin, the FBI's former Chief Forensic Metallurgist, William D. James, research chemist with the Texas A&M Center for Chemical Characterization and Analysis, and Stuart Wexler, brought considerable expertise to their study. As with Randich and Grant, they also concluded that, "evidence used to rule out a second assassin is fundamentally flawed." They reported that, "many bullets within a box of Mannlicher-Carcano bullets have similar composition." Thus, it was not true, as Guinn had said, that such matches are extraordinarily rare.
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Is_Vincent_Bugliosi_Right_that_Neutron_Activation _Analysis_Proves_Oswalds_Guilt

TraneWreck

21st September 2010, 02:00 PM

TraneWreck

21st September 2010, 02:03 PM

Jesus Christ. Its like banging your head against a brick wall.

This is a result of you JAQing it. If you explained your theory, then we would know how to respond to reject your doubtless insane premise.

Soily

21st September 2010, 02:07 PM

Well, there are witnesses to the bullet, including Connally himself, but I argued that eyewitnesses should be ignored, so set that aside.

First, we have the old "when you hear hoofbeats in Kansas assume horses instead of Zebras maxim." Unless you've assumed a conspiracy, there's no other reasonable explanation of how the bullet was recovered.

But the stronger argument is that it doesn't matter. The fragments match the rifle. Three spent cartridges were found. The video evidence supports 3 bullets being shot. It's possible for one bullet to do the damage claimed by the single bullet theory...etc.

The physical evidence is 100% in support of Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone shooter.
No there are not witnesses to CE399 at parkland. The fragments matching the rifle is not a statement of fact, the NAA evidence has been disproved. Video evidence does not support anything other than Kennedy clutches his throat and Kennedy gets his head blown apart. Everthing else is rorschach. It's possible for one bullet to do the damage just unbelievably unlikely on every level, plus you don't have the bullet, the autopsy evidence, the psysical evidence and can only make the trajectory work by lying.

But apart from that you're right.

riptowtan

21st September 2010, 02:25 PM

Jesus Christ. Its like banging your head against a brick wall.

1 the bullet at parkland was not planted. That is not the argument. The bullet at parkland was simply not CE399. There is nothing, and I repeat nothing to suggest CE399 was found at Parkland.
2 the NAA used to come to Bugliosis conclusion has comprehensively been debunked and Bugliosi knows it. It's junk science.

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Is_Vincent_Bugliosi_Right_that_Neutron_Activation _Analysis_Proves_Oswalds_Guilt

Jesus Christ. Its like banging your head against a brick wall.

1 the bullet at parkland was not planted. That is not the argument. The bullet at parkland was simply not CE399. There is nothing, and I repeat nothing to suggest CE399 was found at Parkland.
2 the NAA used to come to Bugliosis conclusion has comprehensively been debunked and Bugliosi knows it. It's junk science.

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Is_Vincent_Bugliosi_Right_that_Neutron_Activation _Analysis_Proves_Oswalds_Guilt

The findings have not been debunked whatsoever. The paper you referred to has lots of problems with it.
http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/JFK.html
So then someone replaced the stretcher bullet with CE399 afterwards?? Why would they do this? Don't worry your not the only one banging your head against the wall. You keep making all of these assertions about the trajectory being impossible or evidence that's "clearly faked." But your arguments for why you think that are nonexistent. We know that CE399 was the bullet because it was fired from Oswald's gun to the exclusion of all other weapons. Where does your claim take us? Do you think someone stole his gun from the Paine's garage, fired a shot, recovered the bullet and then later swapped it? And then of course all of the other evidence you've ignored or dismissed. (53 pieces)

riptowtan

21st September 2010, 02:29 PM

No there are not witnesses to CE399 at parkland. The fragments matching the rifle is not a statement of fact, the NAA evidence has been disproved. Video evidence does not support anything other than Kennedy clutches his throat and Kennedy gets his head blown apart. Everthing else is rorschach. It's possible for one bullet to do the damage just unbelievably unlikely on every level, plus you don't have the bullet, the autopsy evidence, the psysical evidence and can only make the trajectory work by lying.

But apart from that you're right.

We have the bullet. (You deny its real)
The bullet could have done all that damage.(I showed you an experiment showing this is true)
I'm not sure what you believe about the autopsy evidence but you probably think that's all fake too. Everything you have said so far is the exact same lines of debate tactics that the truth movement and young earth creationists use. Cherry picking, anomaly hunting and quote mining all the way.

TraneWreck

21st September 2010, 02:33 PM

Soily

21st September 2010, 02:47 PM

Literally every sentence of that post is incorrect. Impressive.
Come on then, show us the evidence CE399 was found at Parkland.

carlitos

21st September 2010, 02:49 PM

No postal regulations, nor a refutation of the logic in posts 257 and 258. Got it.

Soily

21st September 2010, 02:52 PM

We have the bullet. (You deny its real)
The bullet could have done all that damage.(I showed you an experiment showing this is true)
I'm not sure what you believe about the autopsy evidence but you probably think that's all fake too. Everything you have said so far is the exact same lines of debate tactics that the truth movement and young earth creationists use. Cherry picking, anomaly hunting and quote mining all the way.
No you posted some pseudo scientific thing from the discovery channel, which had the bullet exiting Kennedy's chest. Is there an exist wound in Kennedy's chest riptowan? Does Kennedy clutch his chest or his throat in the Zapruder film? Why do you promote false evidence? I've been asking since the first post for the evidence that CE399 was found at Parkland and still nobody has been able to produce any.

Your arguments on this matter are entirely faith based.

TraneWreck

21st September 2010, 03:04 PM

Come on then, show us the evidence CE399 was found at Parkland.

First of all, as I explained, it doesn't really matter. If that bullet was never located, there is still ample evidence (despite your hystrionic protests).

Second, the NAA tests are convincing. They are strong support, but don't, alone, prove that the fragments were from the same bullet, just that its really, really likely.

Finally, you're engaging in absurd circular reasoning. There's absolutely no positive evidence to suggest that CE399 wasn't found were everyone (including the guy who had the bullet lodged in him) says it was. You're assuming a conspiracy then making massive logical leaps.

CE399 clearly came from Oswald's gun. How are you suggesting it got to the hospital or before the Warren Commission?

Soily

21st September 2010, 03:06 PM

No postal regulations, nor a refutation of the logic in posts 257 and 258. Got it.
There's no logic in quoting false science.

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/-84653h-.jpg?t=1279347120
Section 355 I believe.

TraneWreck

21st September 2010, 03:07 PM

No you posted some pseudo scientific thing from the discovery channel, which had the bullet exiting Kennedy's chest. Is there an exist wound in Kennedy's chest riptowan? Does Kennedy clutch his chest or his throat in the Zapruder film? Why do you promote false evidence? I've been asking since the first post for the evidence that CE399 was found at Parkland and still nobody has been able to produce any.

Your arguments on this matter are entirely faith based.

Please. That wasn't pseudo-scientific. It was an excellent test.

You're demanding that the test mimic the event in every detail, this is impossible. The bullet entered Kennedy's back and left by his throat. Just slump your shoulders, press your shoulder blades together, slouch, sit up straight, and notice how dramatically that angle can change.

The test showed that a bullet can, indeed, penetrate all necessary elements to sustain the single bullet theory. Hell, if it hadn't hit an extra rib it even would have lodged in the thigh part.

TraneWreck

21st September 2010, 03:13 PM

There's no logic in quoting false science.

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/-84653h-.jpg?t=1279347120
Section 355 I believe.

These things are updated from time to time. Are you sure the rule was the same in 1966 as it was in 1963?

Not to mention that even if you're right, that doesn't mean that the post office in Texas followed that procedure and you haven't dealt with the Warren Commission's second plausible explanation.

Soily

21st September 2010, 03:15 PM

First of all, as I explained, it doesn't really matter. If that bullet was never located, there is still ample evidence (despite your hystrionic protests).

Second, the NAA tests are convincing. They are strong support, but don't, alone, prove that the fragments were from the same bullet, just that its really, really likely.

Finally, you're engaging in absurd circular reasoning. There's absolutely no positive evidence to suggest that CE399 wasn't found were everyone (including the guy who had the bullet lodged in him) says it was. You're assuming a conspiracy then making massive logical leaps.

CE399 clearly came from Oswald's gun. How are you suggesting it got to the hospital or before the Warren Commission?
No, there's loads of positive evidence CE399 wasn't found at Parkland, including the evidence of all 3 men who found the parkland bullet and the testimony of everyone who handled it that day. NAA is junk.

No bullet was ever found in Connolly's thigh, just fragments. Connolly never saw a bullet, never saw CE399 and maintained till the day he died he was hit by a different bullet to Kennedy. Not a great witness for you.

Soily

21st September 2010, 03:18 PM

Please. That wasn't pseudo-scientific. It was an excellent test.

You're demanding that the test mimic the event in every detail, this is impossible. The bullet entered Kennedy's back and left by his throat. Just slump your shoulders, press your shoulder blades together, slouch, sit up straight, and notice how dramatically that angle can change.

The test showed that a bullet can, indeed, penetrate all necessary elements to sustain the single bullet theory. Hell, if it hadn't hit an extra rib it even would have lodged in the thigh part.
Priceless. So the test doesn't replicate what happened but it's still right. Faith.

Soily

21st September 2010, 03:20 PM

These things are updated from time to time. Are you sure the rule was the same in 1966 as it was in 1963?

Because it says so in the letter.

Holmes basically told the Warren commission what they wanted to hear, even lying about how long the documentation had to be kept for.

TraneWreck

21st September 2010, 03:31 PM

Priceless. So the test doesn't replicate what happened but it's still right. Faith.

No, not even close.

There is no possible way to replicate every detail. People's exact postures cannot be known. The way the bullet ricocheted off of bones and seats and other materials cannot be mimiced. The position of the car can only be known within a certain margin of error.

The test showed these important things:

1) That the model of rifle and bullet could hit the target from the same height and distance as Oswald was from Kennedy.
2) The Gun/Bullet could travel through 1 person, a seat, and another person and remain largely intact.
3) The path of the single bullet would result in all of the wounds found on the victims.

That's a really, really successful test. Your piddly little complaints are laughable in the face of that experiment.

RoboTimbo

21st September 2010, 03:33 PM

TraneWreck

21st September 2010, 03:34 PM

No, there's loads of positive evidence CE399 wasn't found at Parkland, including the evidence of all 3 men who found the parkland bullet and the testimony of everyone who handled it that day. NAA is junk.

No bullet was ever found in Connolly's thigh, just fragments. Connolly never saw a bullet, never saw CE399 and maintained till the day he died he was hit by a different bullet to Kennedy. Not a great witness for you.

Ah, so its back to unreliable eyewitnesses, is it? Connally said he heard a bullet fall when they moved him. Chances are he was a little preoccupied so he might not be able to give a perfect description.

Asking people if they remember what a bullet looks like that they only glimpsed while they're trying to save the lives of the President and Governor is an exercise in futility.

Many people agreed there was a bullet there. They just weren't sure it was the same bullet. Which question are people likely to get right?

1) Did you see a bullet?
2) Did you see this bullet?

Laughable argument you've presented.

RoboTimbo

21st September 2010, 03:34 PM

Priceless. So the test doesn't replicate what happened but it's still right. Faith.

Please do a test yourself that does replicate exactly the path of the bullet or bullets. Remember, it must exactly replicate it.

RoboTimbo

21st September 2010, 03:52 PM

Also, Soily, set up a test where you're in the sixth floor window and make the same shot and try not to hit Connolly after shooting through soft tissue on Kennedy.

If you need help setting up the shot, watch the Myers video.

TraneWreck

21st September 2010, 03:57 PM

Because it says so in the letter.

Holmes basically told the Warren commission what they wanted to hear, even lying about how long the documentation had to be kept for.

Where's your evidence that the Texas branch followed that policy?

Where's your evidence that they asked for Oswald's identification when he went to receive the rifle?

RoboTimbo

21st September 2010, 04:02 PM

There's no logic in quoting false science.

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/-84653h-.jpg?t=1279347120
Section 355 I believe.

The application for PO Box 2915 in Dallas had been discarded so it isn't known what names he had put on it. The PO Box in New Orleans, he had listed himself, Marina and one of his aliases, "AJ Hidell". AJ Hidell is the name he used to purchase the assassination rifle and the revolver he used to kill Tippit. Those were mailed to PO Box 2915 in Dallas. These things really aren't difficult.

riptowtan

21st September 2010, 06:43 PM

Priceless. So the test doesn't replicate what happened but it's still right. Faith.

The test was done to see if a bullet could cause all of those wounds. It showed that it could. You are now changing the subject to the trajectory, which was not precise in the experiment. With all of the unknowns about the exact position and angle of Oswald's rifle, you can't expect the experiment to look exactly like what happened. The experiment showed a strikingly similar trajectory and passed through both bodies. What more could one ask? Is there anything that could convince you that Oswald did it? We have just about all of the evidence there could be. I don't think anyone of the criticisms of the evidence holds up to careful scrutiny. Your anaylses are at best inconclusive and at worst pathetic nitpicking.
-Fingerprints on the gun and bag
-Oswald's rifle found in the book depository
-3 bullets were fired from his gun, and positively matched with NAA (Read the critique of the study I posted)
-The trajectory and bullet wounds are plausible
-Oswald had the motive to kill Kennedy and tried to assassinate Walker 7 months prior
-The vast majority of eyewitness testimony leads to the placing of the shots to the 6th floor of the book depository.
-Oswald did a whole list of very suspicious things including leaving behind his wedding ring, all of him money, bringing in a bag of "curtain rods", not filling out his clipboard at work, running away from the scene of the crime to grab his pistol to later shoot a cop...etc
Not to mention that the LN theory is the only one that can explain the totality of evidence. There is not a single shred of evidence incriminating any other shooters or even anyone who hired Oswald to do it.

Ranb

21st September 2010, 07:23 PM

Interesting. How long is that package? Oswalds was at least 35 inches long.

Here's a video of Wesley Buell Frazier describing how Oswald held the package he saw, which is not how you are carrying yours, but cupped under his hand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDWaOjFqgHk

The package shown in my hand was about 35 inches long. From your video link Frazier says;
The length of the package that I saw that morning was roughly a two foot long. Lee got out of the car, took the package that he said contained curtain rods and he put one end of the package in the cup of his hand (touches right hand) and the other (end? other part of package?) up under his armpit (motions to right armpit). He put the package under his arm that way and he walked off toward the TSBD up on Elm street.
I am about Oswald's height, but the longest object I can hold under my armpit and cupped in my hand is about 24 inches long, but not comfortably. Even if the package was only 24 inches long, I'm willing to bet that a person Oswald's size would have held any package with his elbow bent in a more comfortable position with the object held something like I presented in my previous photo.

Ranb

Ranb

21st September 2010, 08:22 PM

Ranb, Does your Carcano have side sling mounts as the rifle found in the Depository or bottom mounts as the rifle in the famous photo taken in his yard?

My 6.5mm 91/38 Carcano has the sling mounts on the left side (oppisite side of the bolt handle). Which of the two photos do you speak of?

Here is a picture of the right hand side of my carcano showing the right hand side of the forward sling mount screw on the front end. Also shown is the portion of the carcano that Oswald is holding; he is holding it with the right hand side of the rifle showing.
http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u320/ranb40/firearms/carcanosling.jpg

The photo shows an object that appears to be a leaf on the bush in the background. If it is a sling mount, then it should have a sling in it, but it does not. The sling appears to be attached at the back of the stock, but since it attaches on the left, it is not visible.

I'm guessing you have a different opinion on this matter?

Ranb

Soily

22nd September 2010, 12:10 AM

Ah, so its back to unreliable eyewitnesses, is it? Connally said he heard a bullet fall when they moved him. Chances are he was a little preoccupied so he might not be able to give a perfect description.

Asking people if they remember what a bullet looks like that they only glimpsed while they're trying to save the lives of the President and Governor is an exercise in futility.

Many people agreed there was a bullet there. They just weren't sure it was the same bullet. Which question are people likely to get right?

1) Did you see a bullet?
2) Did you see this bullet?

Laughable argument you've presented.
Ohh right, so now you're saying Connolly heard a bullet fall from him. This would be the remarks in Connolly's memoirs that he heard a bullet fall from him in the emergency room, and nurse bell picked it up and put it in her pocket, then gave it to a Texas ranger. Well Robert Harris in the video I posted earlier in this thread has the evidence envelope for that and it says bullet fragments. So either way you're in big trouble. If it was a bullet then you now have a 4th bullet and proof of conspiracy, if it was a fragment big enough for Connolly to have heard it fall out then it could not have come from CE399. So which is it?

TraneWreck

22nd September 2010, 06:01 AM

Ohh right, so now you're saying Connolly heard a bullet fall from him. This would be the remarks in Connolly's memoirs that he heard a bullet fall from him in the emergency room, and nurse bell picked it up and put it in her pocket, then gave it to a Texas ranger. Well Robert Harris in the video I posted earlier in this thread has the evidence envelope for that and it says bullet fragments. So either way you're in big trouble. If it was a bullet then you now have a 4th bullet and proof of conspiracy, if it was a fragment big enough for Connolly to have heard it fall out then it could not have come from CE399. So which is it?

No, it's not a problem at all. I've already pointed out the absolute unreliability of eyewitnesses, especially one in the middle of a fight for his life.

Bullet fragments wouldn't make the same noise as a falling bullet. It's very possible that he heard the bullet and saw something being put in an envelope by a nurse. That doesn't mean they were the same thing.

Demanding perfect recall in a time of crisis is one of the silly things conspiracy theorists do all the time.

Once again, if no one ever found CE399, there's more than enough evidence to prove Oswald was the shooter and EXACTLY ZERO evidence for anyone else or even a shot originating from a different location.

pgwenthold

22nd September 2010, 07:14 AM

Once again, if no one ever found CE399, there's more than enough evidence to prove Oswald was the shooter and EXACTLY ZERO evidence for anyone else or even a shot originating from a different location.

Indeed. Connally would still have had the wound in his leg, for example, and it would have lined up with the entrance/exit wounds on his and JFKs torsos exactly the same.

Given the number of shots that were fired and what we can see from the Z-film, a single bullet is far and away the best explanation for that. That the bullet found only confirms that it came from Oswald's gun found on the 6th floor of the SBD is nice, but isn't critical. Most importantly, nothing about the bullet creates any reason to question the single bullet explanation.

Soily

22nd September 2010, 07:20 AM

No, it's not a problem at all. I've already pointed out the absolute unreliability of eyewitnesses, especially one in the middle of a fight for his life.

Bullet fragments wouldn't make the same noise as a falling bullet. It's very possible that he heard the bullet and saw something being put in an envelope by a nurse. That doesn't mean they were the same thing.

Demanding perfect recall in a time of crisis is one of the silly things conspiracy theorists do all the time.

Once again, if no one ever found CE399, there's more than enough evidence to prove Oswald was the shooter and EXACTLY ZERO evidence for anyone else or even a shot originating from a different location.

Hang on your the one quoting Connolly to support your confused argument. Make your mind up, do you think witnesses are reliable or not? If not then don't quote them.

A bullet was found on a stretcher at parkland
All 3 men who found it, including the former deputy chief of police, say it was point nosed.
Suppressed FBI reports show that none of the 3 men or the 3 Agents who saw the bullet at Parkland could identify it as CE399.
The FBI lied to the WC by fabricating an interview by Bardwell Odum with the men at parkland in which they positively ID'd the bullet as CE399. This did not happen.
No bullet was found in Connolly's leg, just fragments. And Police Chief Jesse Curry's evidence photo shows a fragment from Connolly's thigh far bigger than could have come from CE399.
It's quite apparent that the FBI lab received two bullets that evening. Robert Frazier records the receipt of a bullet q1, which later became CE399, at 7:30pm. He records this not once but twice, once in the evidence sheet and once in his notes. Meanwhile the parkland bullet is at the White House at 7:30. Elmer Todd takes possession of it, scratches his initials on it and marks the time on the evidence envelope as 8:50pm. He then delivers the bullet to the FBI crime lab.
At some point after this someone realizes that the Elmer Todd Parkland bullet could not have been fired by Oswald and the bullet has to be deep sixed. This would explain why Elmer Todds initials do not seem to be on CE399, the bullet he had from Parkland was a different bullet.

Fourbrick

22nd September 2010, 07:30 AM

My 6.5mm 91/38 Carcano has the sling mounts on the left side (oppisite side of the bolt handle). Which of the two photos do you speak of?

Here is a picture of the right hand side of my carcano showing the right hand side of the forward sling mount screw on the front end. Also shown is the portion of the carcano that Oswald is holding; he is holding it with the right hand side of the rifle showing.
http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u320/ranb40/firearms/carcanosling.jpg

The photo shows an object that appears to be a leaf on the bush in the background. If it is a sling mount, then it should have a sling in it, but it does not. The sling appears to be attached at the back of the stock, but since it attaches on the left, it is not visible.

I'm guessing you have a different opinion on this matter?

Ranb

Does the right hand photo here show a side or bottom mounted sling?http://artheat.net/wip/uploaded_images/CE-133-all-706788.jpg

Soily

22nd September 2010, 07:35 AM

Indeed. Connally would still have had the wound in his leg, for example, and it would have lined up with the entrance/exit wounds on his and JFKs torsos exactly the same.

Given the number of shots that were fired and what we can see from the Z-film, a single bullet is far and away the best explanation for that. That the bullet found only confirms that it came from Oswald's gun found on the 6th floor of the SBD is nice, but isn't critical. Most importantly, nothing about the bullet creates any reason to question the single bullet explanation.

They only line up if you lie about the positions of the men and the location of the wounds, which the WC and its subsequent supports have shamelessly for 47 years. Why did the WC put Kennedy's back wound 6 inches higher than it was?

There's no evidence placing Oswald on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting and no evidence that 3 shots were fired other than the 3 shells found. Unfortunately Tom Alyea saw and filmed Will Fritz picking these up with his hands before they could be photographed, so the crime scene photographs today are staged, nullifying them as evidence. The 3 Amigos on floor 5 did not all hear 3 shots, they differ on that, and they certainly did not hear the action of a bolt or 3 shells falling to the floor, that was a later embellishment by one of the men. Ear Witnesses all differ on the amount of shots they heard, their location and their timing. Indeed a great many witnesses heard 2 shots right on top of each other which in itself would shred the official account. So you think its all clear, but if you read beyond Bugliosi's lies, distortions, omissions and factoids your case is utterly flawed.

Ranb

22nd September 2010, 07:42 AM

Does the right hand photo here show a side or bottom mounted sling?http://artheat.net/wip/uploaded_images/CE-133-all-706788.jpg
Well, that link you provided shows a rather low rez version of the photos. It shows the sling as a lighter color than the stock. The sling clearly is attached to the left side at the rear of the stock. Up front is less clear, but zooming in shows that the sling covers half of the bottom of the stock on the left. So I would have to say that the sling is attached to on the left.

I have never seen an example of a 91/38 Carcano with the sling attached on the bottom or the right. The front sling mount can be switched to the right side by simply removing the sling mount and turning it around. The rear mount would need new holes drilled in the stock to facilitate this change. It would be easy to do this, but I have not seen any evidence that it was done on Oswald's rifle.

So do I get any answers from you or just questions?

Ranb

RoboTimbo

22nd September 2010, 07:52 AM

They only line up if you lie about the positions of the men and the location of the wounds, which the WC and its subsequent supports have shamelessly for 47 years. Why did the WC put Kennedy's back wound 6 inches higher than it was?

There's no evidence placing Oswald on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting and no evidence that 3 shots were fired other than the 3 shells found. Unfortunately Tom Alyea saw and filmed Will Fritz picking these up with his hands before they could be photographed, so the crime scene photographs today are staged, nullifying them as evidence. The 3 Amigos on floor 5 did not all hear 3 shots, they differ on that, and they certainly did not hear the action of a bolt or 3 shells falling to the floor, that was a later embellishment by one of the men. Ear Witnesses all differ on the amount of shots they heard, their location and their timing. Indeed a great many witnesses heard 2 shots right on top of each other which in itself would shred the official account. So you think its all clear, but if you read beyond Bugliosi's lies, distortions, omissions and factoids your case is utterly flawed.

From Chapter 3.
Jarman testified that Norman said "that he thought the shots had come from above us, and I noticed that Bonnie Ray had a few debris in his head. It was sort of white stuff, or something." 49 Jarman stated that Norman said "that he was sure that the shot came from inside the building because he had been used to guns and all that, and he said it didn't sound like it was too far off anyway."50 The three men ran to the west side of the building, where they could look toward the Triple Underpass to see what had happened to the motorcade.51

After the men had gone to the window on the west side of the building, Jarman "got to thinking about all the debris on Bonnie Ray's head" and said, "That shot probably did come from upstairs, up over us."52 He testified that Norman said, "I know it did, because I could

Page 71

hear the action of the bolt, and I could hear the cartridges drop on the floor."53 After pausing for a few minutes, the three men ran downstairs. Norman and Jarman ran out of the front entrance of the building, where they saw Brennan, the construction worker who had seen the man in the window firing the gun, talking to a police officer, and they then reported their own experience.
All you have to do is read. What do you believe they were hearing, Soily?

RoboTimbo

22nd September 2010, 07:57 AM

There's no evidence placing Oswald on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting...

Where does evidence place Oswald during the time of the shooting?

Fourbrick

22nd September 2010, 08:40 AM

So do I get any answers from you or just questions?

Ranb

You asked two questions.
The first question I've answered by giving you a link.
The answer to the second question is obviously yes.

TraneWreck

22nd September 2010, 09:45 AM

Hang on your the one quoting Connolly to support your confused argument. Make your mind up, do you think witnesses are reliable or not? If not then don't quote them.

I have consistently said to ignore all eyewitnesses. You have no case without confused recollections, they're irrelevant to Oswald as the lone shooter.

I was pointing out that even if we consider the opinion of the witnesses, they make a much stronger argument for finding A bullet at the hospital and a very weak case for identifying A PARTICULAR bullet.

A bullet was found on a stretcher at parkland
All 3 men who found it, including the former deputy chief of police, say it was point nosed.
Suppressed FBI reports show that none of the 3 men or the 3 Agents who saw the bullet at Parkland could identify it as CE399.

This surprises you? They couldn't identify with specificity that a bullet shown to them months later was a bullet they saw in the midst of chaos? Your reliance on eyewitness testimony just means your argument sucks.

And, for the record, both Tomilinson and Wright said that it looked like the bullet they saw. That's the best you're going to get:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/399doc.jpg

The FBI lied to the WC by fabricating an interview by Bardwell Odum with the men at parkland in which they positively ID'd the bullet as CE399. This did not happen.

So people who can't positively ID the bullet or say it was different can be trusted, but anyone who says they recognize the bullet is lying. Gotcha.

I think you're confused about who Bardwell Odum was in the chain of custody.

Here's the chain of custody working backwards:

Frazier testified about how he got the bullet from Elmer Todd (3H428).
Both Todd and Frazier had marked their initials on the bullet (CE 2011).

Todd had gotten the bullet from James Rowley, of the Secret Service.
Rowley had gotten it from an agent, Richard Johnsen. Johnsen filed a
report about getting the bullet (18H798-799), and forwarded a note along
with the bullet (18H800). The note said, in part, " . . . the attached
expended bullet was received by me about 5 minutes prior to Mrs. Kennedy's
departure from the hospital."

The note further named the "person from whom I received this bullet" as
O.P. Wright.

I can't find any WC testimony from O.P. Wright, although CE 2011 records
that he passed the bullet along. And then, we have Tomlinson's WC
testimony that he gave the bullet to Wright, and Johnsen's written
statements that he got the bullet from Wright.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/cece399.txt

Notice that there's no Bardwell Odum on that list. Here was Odum's role:

In case anyone is interested, here's what the FBI said,
in CE2011 (24H412) about Wright and the bullet:

"On June 12, 1964, O.P. Wright, Personnel Officer, Parkland
Hospital, Dallas, Texas, advised Special Agent Bardwell
D. Odum that Exhibit C1, a rifle slug, shown to him at the
time of the interview, looks like the slug found at Parkland
Hospital on November 22, 1963, which he gave to
Richard Johnsen, Special Agent of the Secret Service.
He stated he was not present at the time the bullet
was found, but on the afternoon of November 22, 1963,
as he entered the Emergency Unit on the ground floor
of the hospital, Mr. Tomlinson, an employee, called to him
and pointed out a bullet, which was on a hospital carriage
at that location. He estimated the time as being within an hour
of the time President Kennedy and Governor Connally
were brought to the hospital. He advised he could not
postiviely identify C1 as being the same bullet which
was found on November 22, 1963."

What evidence is there that this is a lie? A snipped interview with a confused Odom in 2002, when he was 83? When the interviewer asks if he went to Parkland hospital with the bullet, which he didn't?
http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/dallasmorningnews/obituary.aspx?n=bardwell-odum&pid=143129833&fhid=5721

No bullet was found in Connolly's leg, just fragments. And Police Chief Jesse Curry's evidence photo shows a fragment from Connolly's thigh far bigger than could have come from CE399.

They found a hole in his leg consistent with a bullet wound. The fragments weren't too big, that's a paranoid fabrication.

Of course they didn't find the bullet IN his thigh, it fell out.

It's quite apparent that the FBI lab received two bullets that evening. Robert Frazier records the receipt of a bullet q1, which later became CE399, at 7:30pm. He records this not once but twice, once in the evidence sheet and once in his notes. Meanwhile the parkland bullet is at the White House at 7:30. Elmer Todd takes possession of it, scratches his initials on it and marks the time on the evidence envelope as 8:50pm. He then delivers the bullet to the FBI crime lab.

Nope.

At some point after this someone realizes that the Elmer Todd Parkland bullet could not have been fired by Oswald and the bullet has to be deep sixed. This would explain why Elmer Todds initials do not seem to be on CE399, the bullet he had from Parkland was a different bullet.

What?

Instead of JAQing it, why don't you explain what you think happened.

Here are the things you need to explain:

Anybody who wants to posit that CE 399 was faked and planted by conspirators needs to supply plausible answers to all of the following questions. Why did the conspirators . . .
1) Plant it in a location where it could easily have been lost?
2) Plant a bullet that was only "slightly" damaged if its role was to have passed through at least the President? Why not shoot up some livestock and get a bullet a bit more mangled?
3) Plant it before it could have been known how many other bullets would be recovered? How could they have known that CE 399 would not be the "one bullet too many" that would blow the whole plot?
4) Plant the bullet so it was found before it was known how much lead was in JFK's neck/upper back? What if a big chunk of lead was found in JFK's neck or upper back, a chunk too big to have come from CE 399?

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

Once again, ALL physical evidence points to the single bullet theory and Oswald as the shooter. All you have is mangled recollections of people in the midst of chaos. Additionally, your fantasy about the chain of custody of CE399 makes no sense to any potential conspiracy.

Soily

22nd September 2010, 10:04 AM

From Chapter 3.

All you have to do is read. What do you believe they were hearing, Soily?

Again, you're not reading. I've already posted the original testimony of Norman, who makes no mention of any of these sensational details http://mysite.verizon.net/respxxbt/dukelane/ss491.htm his story gradually gets exaggerated with each retelling.

It is in short yet another of Bugliosis 'factoids'.

riptowtan

22nd September 2010, 11:40 AM

They only line up if you lie about the positions of the men and the location of the wounds, which the WC and its subsequent supports have shamelessly for 47 years. Why did the WC put Kennedy's back wound 6 inches higher than it was?
They made an illustration that was inaccurate, but the facesheets also have a measurement for the wound.

"What is the evidence for the "low" back wound location? The piece of evidence that conspiracy books will most often show you is the facesheet from the autopsy. It seems to place the wound too low to be consistent with the exit wound in the front of the neck.

What will the conspiracy books not tell you about this? They won't tell you that the face sheet also has a measurement placing the wound. It places the wound 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process. That's not consistent with the lower dot location, but it is consistent with other statements in the autopsy. They also won't tell you what the autopsy report says about the track of the bullet through the body.

The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax above the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular and the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the neck. This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal pleura and of the apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck. Warren Commission Report, p. 543."

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

Since you keep saying that the positions of the men are lies, why don't you provide us with a illustration of how you think they are sitting. This is a very simple thing to confirm and yet for 47 years conspiracy theorists have shamelessly been positioning Connally right in front of JFK. You can look at pictures of the Limo afterwards and see there was a jump seat where Connally was sitting. By looking at the Zapruder film you can see that they were positioned just like they are in Myer's simulation.

There's no evidence placing Oswald on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting and no evidence that 3 shots were fired other than the 3 shells found. Unfortunately Tom Alyea saw and filmed Will Fritz picking these up with his hands before they could be photographed, so the crime scene photographs today are staged, nullifying them as evidence. The 3 Amigos on floor 5 did not all hear 3 shots, they differ on that, and they certainly did not hear the action of a bolt or 3 shells falling to the floor, that was a later embellishment by one of the men. Ear Witnesses all differ on the amount of shots they heard, their location and their timing. Indeed a great many witnesses heard 2 shots right on top of each other which in itself would shred the official account. So you think its all clear, but if you read beyond Bugliosi's lies, distortions, omissions and factoids your case is utterly flawed.

There is tons of evidence. His fingerprints are all of the room and murder weapon. No one else saw Oswald during the assassination so we know he was by himself somewhere. And it just so happens that Oswald was the only person to leave the Book Depository. Hmmmm. This is a hard one. There is no evidence for your claim whatsoever, and no plausible alternative to Oswald killing JFK. If the crime scene photos were staged why would they record one of the men staging it? Your fantasy conspirators are some of the dumbest people on the planet yet they have managed to leave no evidence behind and keep thousands of mouths shut for 40 years. Ear witness testimony is overruled by physical evidence and common sense. The only reason why I used the "3 amigos" is because they were the ones closest to the shooting, and they did all hear the shots from above. You should consider that maybe it's the authors you are reading who are distorting the historical record. After all, with 47 years of investigating no positive evidence has ever been found for another gunman or conspirator.

Again, you're not reading. I've already posted the original testimony of Norman, who makes no mention of any of these sensational details http://mysite.verizon.net/respxxbt/dukelane/ss491.htm his story gradually gets exaggerated with each retelling.

It is in short yet another of Bugliosis 'factoids'.

Ok, so what do you think about his original testimony in which he said the shots sounded like they came from above? You can nitpick Bugliosi all you want, but when it comes down to it, his general facts hold up. I don't think you have made one convincing argument for a conspiracy, let alone provide any evidence.

Soily

22nd September 2010, 11:42 AM

I have consistently said to ignore all eyewitnesses. *You have no case without confused recollections, they're irrelevant to Oswald as the lone shooter.

I was pointing out that even if we consider the opinion of the witnesses, they make a much stronger argument for finding A bullet at the hospital and a very weak case for identifying A PARTICULAR bullet.

This surprises you? *They couldn't identify with specificity that a bullet shown to them months later was a bullet they saw in the midst of chaos? *Your reliance on eyewitness testimony just means your argument sucks.

And, for the record, both Tomilinson and Wright said that it looked like the bullet they saw. *That's the best you're going to get:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/399doc.jpg

So people who can't positively ID the bullet or say it was different can be trusted, but anyone who says they recognize the bullet is lying. *Gotcha.

I think you're confused about who Bardwell Odum was in the chain of custody. *

Here's the chain of custody working backwards:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/cece399.txt

Notice that there's no Bardwell Odum on that list. *Here was Odum's role:

What evidence is there that this is a lie? *A smipped interview with a confused Odom in 2002, when he was 83? *
http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/dallasmorningnews/obituary.aspx?n=bardwell-odum&pid=143129833&fhid=5721

They found a hole in his leg consistent with a bullet wound. *The fragments weren't too big, that's a paranoid fabrication.

Of course they didn't find the bullet IN his thigh, it fell out.

Nope.

What?

Instead of JAQing it, why don't you explain what you think happened.

Here are the things you need to explain:

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

Once again, ALL physical evidence points to the single bullet theory and Oswald as the shooter. *All you have is mangled recollections of people in the midst of chaos. *Additionally, your fantasy about the chain of custody of CE399 makes no sense to any potential conspiracy.

You can dismiss Odum's testimony all you like, but it's corroborated. Not only by the suppressed FBI memos but, if you'd read Aguilar's original article, there is no FBI report for it, and no gap in the consequently numbered documents where it may have got lost. So thats at least 2 points of corroboration, the FBI memos which contradict the fabricated FBI 'Odum' memo and the fact there is no FBI report or document detailing the clearly fictitious interviews. On top of all that, Odum was friends with Wright, and this was the biggest case of his life. You'd imagine he'd remember possessing and showing his friend the most famous bullet in history.

And no, all the evidence, physical evidence does not point to the sbt. It only points where you want it to because you have the destination in mind to begin with.

1 You have no bullet. The chain of evidence is junk, since no one who handled the bullet before it was in the FBI labs initials appear on it.
2 Clear signs there were 2 intact bullets found
3 The NAA you cling to to show the bullet fragments were related to CE399 has been comprehensively debunked, meaning you have no link between the fragments found in Connolly and the Oswald rifle.
4 The fragments found in Connolly, including the ones still in him when he died, and the enormous fragment shown in the Jesse Curry evidence photograph are far too large to have come from CE which was missing no more than a few grains, some of them taken for analysis purposes.
5 Bungled autopsy means no link between Kennedy back and throat wound found, FBI autopsy reports say back wound shallow
6 Trajectory doesn't line up unless you lie about the position of the wounds and the men in the car, something Dale Myers has turned into an artform in his cartoons.
7 No evidence placing Oswald on the 6th floor at time of the shooting. Witnesses in the moments before and after the assassination place Oswald on the first or second floors and indeed if Oswald was on the 6th floor he'd have to have set up his snipers nest and assemble his rifle in full view of Bonnie Ray Williams and make his escape in full view of Jack Doughtery. neither of which happened.
8 Oswald had an encounter with motorcycle cop Marian Baker in the 2nd floor Lunchroom less than 90 seconds after the shooting. The WC reconstruction put it at 75 seconds. However, Lillian Mooneyham in a nearby building observed a man in the 6th floor window a few minutes after the gunshots. There is other evidence to back this up. The hsca photographic experts examined 2 photographs, one taken immediately after the last shot, and one taken a few minutes later. They concluded the boxes in the snipers nest had been moved by someone during this time. * * **
9 The ARRB released many previously classified FBI files in the 90s, amongst them an evidence envelope for a 7.65 rifle shell found in Dealey plaza sometime between the 22nd and the 2nd.
10 The argument for the sbt is circular. Without it, Oswald cannot be the LN, yet that Oswald was the LN is cited as evidence for the sbt theory. A logical fallacy.

TraneWreck

22nd September 2010, 12:05 PM

You can dismiss Odum's testimony all you like, but it's corroborated. Not only by the suppressed FBI memos but, if you'd read Aguilar's original article, there is no FBI report for it, and no gap in the consequently numbered documents where it may have got lost. So thats at least 2 points of corroboration, the FBI memos which contradict the fabricated FBI 'Odum' memo and the fact there is no FBI report or document detailing the clearly fictitious interviews. On top of all that, Odum was friends with Wright, and this was the biggest case of his life. You'd imagine he'd remember possessing and showing his friend the most famous bullet in history.....

What a well-referenced, perfectly reasoned response.

You're literally wrong about everything, and that's before sharing your doubtless comically insane theory of what did happen.

Notice that everything in your list relies on people remembering exact details. They ran into each 90seconds after the shooting? The President just got killed and you expect people to have flawless recollections down to the second?

The wounds line up just like one would imagine if a single bullet caused the damage. What happened to the bullet that entered the base of Kennedy's neck and exited his throat?

There is no circularity. All available physical evidence indicates that the bullets that hit Kennedy came from above and behind. What do we find above and behind? A rifle with Oswald's palm print on it in the building he works in with three spent shells.

If you think this is a "circular" case, you have deeper issues than just an affinity for paranoid conspiracy theories.

Not only have you miserably failed to poke any holes in the Warren Commission description of events (relying solely on the manipulation of eyewitness testimony), you're even further from developing evidence for ANYTHING BUT Oswald as the lone shooter.

RoboTimbo

22nd September 2010, 01:03 PM

What do you believe they were hearing, Soily?
Where does evidence place Oswald during the time of the shooting?

You have failed to answer these questoins, Soily. When will you be able to answer them?

Fourbrick

22nd September 2010, 01:13 PM

Compare the gunsling on the rifle shown by the Police as being Oswald's@
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.markccollins.com/images/RIFLE.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.markccollins.com/jfk_warren_commission.htm&usg=__kjnmUpnYadRDAj7EHh4XbtQnQMc=&h=329&w=297&sz=63&hl=en&start=14&zoom=1&tbnid=9fKY0BDEdYQJYM:&tbnh=119&tbnw=107&prev=/images%3Fq%3DDallas%2BPolice%2Bdisplaying%2Bcarcan o%2Brifle%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26rlz%3D1G1G GLQ_ENUK359%26biw%3D922%26bih%3D498%26tbs%3Disch:1 0%2C7670%2C767&um=1&itbs=1&ei=bWKaTMWgJtS5jAfb_rTzDw&biw=922&bih=498

with the one of Oswald in his yard. (centre photo)

http://www.thislooksshopped.com/images/oswald3_lg.jpg

Same gun?

RoboTimbo

22nd September 2010, 01:15 PM

Yes, they are both mounted on the left side of the rifle. And?

Fourbrick

22nd September 2010, 01:25 PM

One is a gun strap, the other isn't.

RoboTimbo

22nd September 2010, 01:56 PM

Again, and?

Ranb

22nd September 2010, 01:58 PM

One is a gun strap, the other isn't.
How can you tell what the photos in your second link are when they are of such poor quality? I can not find a scan that is any good. Can you?

Ranb

carlitos

22nd September 2010, 02:04 PM

Poor quality photos are the cornerstone of many a conspiracy theory.

Ranb

22nd September 2010, 02:36 PM

How right you are. One only has to go to the places where the moonbats hang out trying to convince us that men never walked on the moon to know that. :) What I find most common is that they reach a conclusion, then later on judge the evidence by how well it supports their conclusion; although both sides can suffer from that.

Ranb

Soily

22nd September 2010, 02:56 PM

You have failed to answer these questoins, Soily. When will you be able to answer them?
None of the 3 amigos mention anything about the sounds of shells or bolts in their first statement, these embellishments are only added by Norman later. Indeed, as the lambert article shows, the original first statements of these men are credible because they are self corrobarating and also by other witnesses and the photo evidence.

Shelley, piper and Givens all see Oswald on the first or second floors at around 12. Bonnie Ray Williams was eating his lunch on the 6th floor from around 12. Arnold Rowland says be saw an elderly Negro on the 6th floor at around 12:20-12:25. Oswald tells his interrogators he was in the lunchroom at 12:15 and another employee was there who he thought was called Junior. Junior Jarman was in the 2nd floor lunchroom at 12:15, so either oswald was aswell or he is psychic. We know that Norman and Jarman go up to the 5th floor when they hear about the imminent arrival of the motorcade somewhere between 12:22 and 12:26. On their arrival on the 5th floor, Bonnie Williams on the 6th hears them and goes down to join them. This version of events is self corroborated by all 3 men. If Oswald is on the 6th floor, he'd have to be setting up the shooting right in front of williams. At the time of the shooting, Jack doughty is 'getting stock' near the 5 floor elevator and stairs. He hears what he thinks is a backfire, but despite Oswald having to run right past him to make his escape he does not see him. 75-90 seconds after the shots, Marian Baker sees Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room looking calm. During this time, someone is apparently moving the boxes in the snipers nest window, and Mooneyham sees a man on the 6th floor. So despite the obvious shortcomings of witness testimony, many of these points have convincing corroboration.

RoboTimbo

22nd September 2010, 03:08 PM

Interesting, you freely accept witness testimony as gospel only when it satisfies your quest for a conspiracy theory. Every other time, they are lying or mistaken, especially when their testimony agrees with physical evidence. How do you reconcile that?

riptowtan

22nd September 2010, 03:50 PM

None of the 3 amigos mention anything about the sounds of shells or bolts in their first statement, these embellishments are only added by Norman later. Indeed, as the lambert article shows, the original first statements of these men are credible because they are self corrobarating and also by other witnesses and the photo evidence.

Shelley, piper and Givens all see Oswald on the first or second floors at around 12.
Irrelevant testimony. This was 30 minutes before the motorcade. At the time of the assassination, Oswald was out of sight. Some thought he was on the second or first floor but there is no evidence of that, and we have good reasons to think that he was on the 6th floor. I've already gone over this.

Bonnie Ray Williams was eating his lunch on the 6th floor from around 12. Arnold Rowland says be saw an elderly Negro on the 6th floor at around 12:20-12:25. "

At approximately 12:10 PM today, my wife Barbara and I arrived in downtown Dallas and took position to see the President's motorcade. We took position at the west entrance of the Sheriff's Office on Houston Street. We stood there for a time talking about the security measures that were being made for the president's visit in view of the recent trouble when Mr. Adelai [sic] Stevenson had been a recent visitor to Dallas. It must have been 5 or 10 minutes later when we were just looking at the surroudding [sic] buildings when I looked up at the Texas Book [cross-out -- Suppository?] building and noticed that the second floor from the top had two adjoining windows which were open, and upon looking I saw what I thought was a man standing back about 15 feet from the windows and was holding in his arms what appeared to be a hi [sic] powered rifle because it looked like it had a scope on it. He appeared to be holding this at a parade rest sort of position. I mentioned this to my wife and merely made the remark that it must be the secret service [sic] men. This man appeared to be a white man and appeared to have a light colored shirt on, open at the neck. He appeared to be of slender build and appeared to have dark hair.

Rowland's testimony does not help you out at all. Although he says he saw a black man with a rifle, he could have easily mixed up details about one of the 3 black men on the 5th floor with Oswald on the 6th. If you think Rowland really saw a black man with a rifle on the 6th floor, who do you think it was and where is the evidence/supporting argument to back it up? Wouldn't someone in the depository notice an unfamiliar face walking around? There were no reports that day of anyone unfamiliar from any of the workers.

Oswald tells his interrogators he was in the lunchroom at 12:15 and another employee was there who he thought was called Junior. Junior Jarman was in the 2nd floor lunchroom at 12:15, so either oswald was aswell or he is psychic. We know that Norman and Jarman go up to the 5th floor when they hear about the imminent arrival of the motorcade somewhere between 12:22 and 12:26. On their arrival on the 5th floor, Bonnie Williams on the 6th hears them and goes down to join them. This version of events is self corroborated by all 3 men. If Oswald is on the 6th floor, he'd have to be setting up the shooting right in front of williams. At the time of the shooting, Jack doughty is 'getting stock' near the 5 floor elevator and stairs. He hears what he thinks is a backfire, but despite Oswald having to run right past him to make his escape he does not see him. 75-90 seconds after the shots, Marian Baker sees Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room looking calm. During this time, someone is apparently moving the boxes in the snipers nest window, and Mooneyham sees a man on the 6th floor. So despite the obvious shortcomings of witness testimony, many of these points have convincing corroboration.

The sniper's nest was hidden with stacks of boxes. Oswald could have set everything up and hidden his assembled rifle in the boxes before the assassination. It doesn't take much time to assemble a Mannlicher Carcano (about 2-3 minutes). We can't presuppose that Oswald assembled the boxes and sniper's nest within the ten minute time frame you have selected. He could have set it up much earlier. As for Mooneyham's testimony:

"Mrs. MOONEYHAM and Mrs. CLARK left Judge KING's courtroom and went to the office of Judge JULIEN C. MYER to observe the happenings from Judge MYER's window. . . . Mrs. MOONEYHAM estimated that it was about 4½ to 5 minutes following the shots fired by the assassin, that she looked up towards the sixth floor of the TSBD and observed the figure of a man standing in the sixth floor window behind some cardboard boxes. This man appeared to Mrs. MOONEYHAM to be looking out of the window, however, the man was not close up to the window but was standing slightly back from it, so that Mrs. MOONEYHAM could not make out his features...." (Jim Marrs, Crossfire, p. 53; Commission Exhibit 2098)

Since Oswald was now gone from the Depository, and it was more than a half-hour before the Sniper's Nest was discovered by Dallas law enforcement, the obvious inference is that Mooneyham saw a conspirator in the Sniper's Nest.

But just what would a conspiracy shooter do after killing Kennedy? Would he decide "it's Miller time!" and open a cold beer, lounging in the Sniper's Nest savoring his feat? Or would he hightail it out of the Depository before it was sealed off? Would he hang around waiting to confront armed cops, or would he disappear as quickly as possible?

Since it's vastly implausible that any conspiracy shooter would have been in the Sniper's Nest in the time frame that Mooneyham mentions, and since it's known that Oswald was not there and Dallas law enforcement was not there, the most plausible conclusion is that she was simply confused about the time. "

Soily

22nd September 2010, 04:19 PM

Irrelevant testimony. This was 30 minutes before the motorcade. At the time of the assassination, Oswald was out of sight. Some thought he was on the second or first floor but there is no evidence of that, and we have good reasons to think that he was on the 6th floor. I've already gone over this.

Rowland's testimony does not help you out at all. Although he says he saw a black man with a rifle, he could have easily mixed up details about one of the 3 black men on the 5th floor with Oswald on the 6th. If you think Rowland really saw a black man with a rifle on the 6th floor, who do you think it was and where is the evidence/supporting argument to back it up? Wouldn't someone in the depository notice an unfamiliar face walking around? There were no reports that day of anyone unfamiliar from any of the workers.

The sniper's nest was hidden with stacks of boxes. Oswald could have set everything up and hidden his assembled rifle in the boxes before the assassination. It doesn't take much time to assemble a Mannlicher Carcano (about 2-3 minutes). We can't presuppose that Oswald assembled the boxes and sniper's nest within the ten minute time frame you have selected. He could have set it up much earlier. As for Mooneyham's testimony:

So either oswald built his snipers nest and assembled his rifle right in front of Bonnie Ray Williams and he never saw him, which is laughable, or somehow Oswald built the snipers nest earlier that morning.

Problem. Work was slack that month, and several of the men, including Bonnie Ray Williams spent the morning of the 22nd laying a new plywood floor on the 6th floor. So when did Ozzie build the snipers nest, retrieve his rifle from wherever he'd hidden it and assemble it? All unseen despite a bunch of men laying a new floor?

RoboTimbo

22nd September 2010, 04:29 PM

riptowtan

22nd September 2010, 04:46 PM

So either oswald built his snipers nest and assembled his rifle right in front of Bonnie Ray Williams and he never saw him, which is laughable, or somehow Oswald built the snipers nest earlier that morning.

Problem. Work was slack that month, and several of the men, including Bonnie Ray Williams spent the morning of the 22nd laying a new plywood floor on the 6th floor. So when did Ozzie build the snipers nest, retrieve his rifle from wherever he'd hidden it and assemble it? All unseen despite a bunch of men laying a new floor?

There are many more options. We know that the sniper's nest was built before the shooting, so someone had to have built it before that time. I love how you take William's 12:20 time, when he was clearly not sure of how long he was up there. He originally said 3 minutes, then 5-15. Oswald could have been behind the boxes at 12:10 giving him plenty of time. Since we don't know the exact time William left, all you can say is that Oswald was out of sight and that someone had built a sniper's nest, shot 3 rounds from Oswald's gun, and that Oswald left for no apparent reason. If someone were to assassinate the president, they would have kept themselves hidden during the minutes before the assassination. There were many rows of boxes on the sixth floor, making it easy for him to stay out of view.

I'm curious to hear what you think happened Soily. Did some stranger walk into the Paine's garage, steal Oswald's gun, the go up to the 6th floor unnoticed with the rifle, set up the sniper's nest, and then leave without anyone seeing him? If so, it looks like you have the "invisible gunman" theory on your hands.

riptowtan

22nd September 2010, 04:50 PM

All unseen despite a bunch of men laying a new floor?
They quit around 11:45 and were working on the west side of the 6th floor. Oswald's sniper nest was on the east side. It doesn't take long to build a sniper's nest and to assemble a rifle.

JimBenArm

22nd September 2010, 06:21 PM

You know, I've read through all this and I'm even more convinced that Oswald did it all by himself. The only question I have is this:

If it is true that Oswald was a patsy, so freaking what? How long has it been? Do you think the mysterious shooter(s) and co-conspirators are still alive? Do you think, if they are still alive, that there is any way any of the JFK conspiracy believers could convince a jury of anything? Not the way they present themselves, unless they think acting like closed-minded buffoons is how you sway people.

Sorry, Oswald did it, but even if, by some twist, he didn't, they got away with it, and there's nothing you can do to change it.
Deal with it.
You lose, either way.

Soily

23rd September 2010, 12:44 AM

They quit around 11:45 and were working on the west side of the 6th floor. Oswald's sniper nest was on the east side. It doesn't take long to build a sniper's nest and to assemble a rifle.
The 6th floor is one big room the idea that Oswald could do this when the floor is full of workmen is fanciful. And you speak as if these boxes were empty, they were piled up with books, no easy task to simply toss the boxes into a makeshift nest as if they weighed nothing, especially for a slight man like oswald. 'oh pardon me boys, i'm just going to take this large rifle shaped package behind this snipers nest I constructed in front of you. And yet nobody saw him. But even worse that the unlikeyhood of it, is that Oswald would choose to build his nest on the floor with workman on it. That's almost as inexplicable as his decision to buy traceable weapons by mail. And you know you're going to have a hard time dismissing Bonnie Ray Williams, since his story is corroborated by both other witneses and the time of a known event.

Soily

23rd September 2010, 03:56 AM

The application for PO Box 2915 in Dallas had been discarded so it isn't known what names he had put on it. The PO Box in New Orleans, he had listed himself, Marina and one of his aliases, "AJ Hidell". AJ Hidell is the name he used to purchase the assassination rifle and the revolver he used to kill Tippit. Those were mailed to PO Box 2915 in Dallas. These things really aren't difficult.
Factoid.

I've already posted the actual documents that prove this is not true.
http://i39.tinypic.com/2w7fleh.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/-84653h-.jpg?t=1279347120

Are you blind?

Harry Holmes lied to the WC.

And these aren't the only regulations that were broken. Oswald also didn't fill out the form 2162, which was mandatory for sales of firearms through the post. He also didn't have the magistrates certificate of good character which was mandatory for buying handguns through the post. And this was done by a well known commie agitator in the middle of the cold war, right under the nose of an FBI informant who was leaking peoples postal behavior to the FBI and secret service, and during Senator Dodd's subcommittee investigation into the gun mail-order business and during the CIA's illegal domestic Mail Watch programme which was keeping tabs on virtually anyone who received anything from Fair play for Cuba, American Communist Party, letters from the Soviet Union (and which John Newman in Oswald and the CIA has shown Oswald has been on the watch list before)

TheRedWorm

23rd September 2010, 04:14 AM

Fourbrick

23rd September 2010, 04:24 AM

Again, and?

Unless Oswald changed the sling, subsequently, then they are different rifles.
Do you think that is what happened?

Fourbrick

23rd September 2010, 04:29 AM

How can you tell what the photos in your second link are when they are of such poor quality? I can not find a scan that is any good. Can you?

Ranb

Sorry that your screen is such poor resolution. However the photos shown on my screen are sharp enough to see that all three show the gun straps are different to the one on the rifle shown by the Dallas Police department.

If you look at the first photo, it shows the bottom of the strap to be bent and thin. The strap shown in the police photo wouldn't bend like that.

The middle photo shows a very thin strap as against a wide strap shown by the police.

Ditto for the right picture.

TraneWreck

23rd September 2010, 05:21 AM

Factoid.

[...]

Are you blind?

Harry Holmes lied to the WC.

And these aren't the only regulations that were broken. Oswald also didn't fill out the form 2162, which was mandatory for sales of firearms through the post. He also didn't have the magistrates certificate of good character which was mandatory for buying handguns through the post. And this was done by a well known commie agitator in the middle of the cold war, right under the nose of an FBI informant who was leaking peoples postal behavior to the FBI and secret service, and during Senator Dodd's subcommittee investigation into the gun mail-order business and during the CIA's illegal domestic Mail Watch programme which was keeping tabs on virtually anyone who received anything from Fair play for Cuba, American Communist Party, letters from the Soviet Union (and which John Newman in Oswald and the CIA has shown Oswald has been on the watch list before)

This is so, so silly.

First of all, it would be nice if you included links to these documents or at least citations. I don't know where you're getting these and they're contrary to other parts of the Warren Commission so I'd like to read them in context.

Second, realize what you're arguing, here. Somehow this massive, secret conspiracy is able to twist and contort all available evidence to make ALL PHYSICAL CLUES lead directly to Oswald, but the whole thing hinges on someone lying to the Warren Commission about postal regulations that are publicly available.

This is a very, very stupid premise.

Your entire argument is completely negated by one postal worker putting a slip in a PO Box without checking the names.

Which is the more likely scenario? The idiot-genius massive conspiracy revealed by their inability to understand postal regulations? Or a local branch that was lax in their interpretation of the rules?

If they could forge the order form, all the pictures of Oswald with the gun, put his palm print on the rifle, plant bullets that match the rifle found in the exact spot that ALL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE shows the bullets had to come from...and so on, yet they couldn't forge a goddamn post office box slip.

All conspiracy theories end up at this point. With 9-11, we're supposed to believe that this awesome undertaking was flawlessly executed to justify a war with Iraq, yet no one remembered to put Iraqis in the planes. Now you're telling us that the most perfect crime in human history, involving hundreds of officials on all levels, is revealed through a faulty understanding of post office regulations.

Unreal.

TraneWreck

23rd September 2010, 05:28 AM

Compare the gunsling on the rifle shown by the Police as being Oswald's@

[...]

with the one of Oswald in his yard. (centre photo)

http://www.thislooksshopped.com/images/oswald3_lg.jpg

Same gun?

Your argument is that variations in a removable strap prove that the guns aren't the same?

I guess I become a different person every time I change my underwear.

More of this nonsense notion that complicated, flawlessly executed and perfectly secret conspiracies will reveal themselves in niggling little details. They couldn't find a strap that matched the one in the photo?

Soily

23rd September 2010, 05:34 AM

Too true. I think they pursue this crap because they feel that they are special in some way, having "knowledge" that so few others have.

Rule 122 of the debunkers manual - "Skeptics question an official story not because it is wanting in some regard, but because in our amateur pseudo-psychological opinion they like to feel they somehow have secret knowledge that makes them special."

Rule 123 - Mention Occam's Razor, but spectacularly fail to understand what it means.

Fourbrick

23rd September 2010, 05:37 AM

Your argument is that variations in a removable strap prove that the guns aren't the same?

I guess I become a different person every time I change my underwear.

More of this nonsense notion that complicated, flawlessly executed and perfectly secret conspiracies will reveal themselves in niggling little details. They couldn't find a strap that matched the one in the photo?

So if the straps are different, then you mean Oswald changed the straps?If he didn't and there is no indication anywhere that he did, (why would he anyway?) then the rifles were different and there is a major problem.

Maybe when you change your underwear you do become a different person. (whatever turns you on, I suppose) but that doesn't alter the above.

It is because of niggling little details that cases fall apart,.

Dave Rogers

23rd September 2010, 05:38 AM

Rule 122 of the debunkers manual - "Skeptics question an official story not because it is wanting in some regard, but because in our amateur pseudo-psychological opinion they like to feel they somehow have secret knowledge that makes them special."

You must be reading a fake manual. We don't use the word "skeptics" to describe people who start from a belief system then adjust the evidence to fit it.

Rule 123 - Mention Occam's Razor, but spectacularly fail to understand what it means.

Rule 17 of the conspiracy theorist's manual: put things you've made up on the spur of the moment into numbered lists, because that makes them look like they're an authoritative source.

Dave

TraneWreck

23rd September 2010, 05:43 AM

So if the straps are different, then you mean Oswald changed the straps?If he didn't and there is no indication anywhere that he did, (why would he anyway?) then the rifles were different and there is a major problem.

Maybe when you change your underwear you do become a different person. (whatever turns you on, I suppose) but that doesn't alter the above.

It is because of niggling little details that cases fall apart,.

No, not even close. It's a really dumb point.

The only difference is what looks like a leather pad. Maybe it came with the rifle, but Oswald couldn't decide if liked it on or off. Maybe he had multiple straps that he switched around. Maybe he went to the local military surplus store, paid with cash and didn't keep the receipt.

It's a stupid, trivial concept with many, many available answers that don't involve magical conspiracies.

RoboTimbo

23rd September 2010, 05:44 AM

The 6th floor is one big room the idea that Oswald could do this when the floor is full of workmen is fanciful. And you speak as if these boxes were empty, they were piled up with books, no easy task to simply toss the boxes into a makeshift nest as if they weighed nothing, especially for a slight man like oswald. 'oh pardon me boys, i'm just going to take this large rifle shaped package behind this snipers nest I constructed in front of you. And yet nobody saw him. But even worse that the unlikeyhood of it, is that Oswald would choose to build his nest on the floor with workman on it. That's almost as inexplicable as his decision to buy traceable weapons by mail. And you know you're going to have a hard time dismissing Bonnie Ray Williams, since his story is corroborated by both other witneses and the time of a known event.

So you're saying that nobody could have built the sniper's nest? And yet there obviously was one? How do you reconcile that, Soily?

Fourbrick

23rd September 2010, 05:51 AM

Double post

Fourbrick

23rd September 2010, 05:52 AM

No, not even close. It's a really dumb point.

The only difference is what looks like a leather pad. Maybe it came with the rifle, but Oswald couldn't decide if liked it on or off. Maybe he had multiple straps that he switched around. Maybe he went to the local military surplus store, paid with cash and didn't keep the receipt.

It's a stupid, trivial concept with many, many available answers that don't involve magical conspiracies.

Yeh. Maybe :rolleyes:

RoboTimbo

23rd September 2010, 05:56 AM

Unless Oswald changed the sling, subsequently, then they are different rifles.
Do you think that is what happened?

Unless you can show that it is impossible for Oswald to have changed the sling, then Occam's Razor applies here. Do you think it is impossible for Oswald to have changed the sling?

Fourbrick

23rd September 2010, 05:58 AM

Certainly isn't, but nowhere is it mentioned that it was.

RoboTimbo

23rd September 2010, 06:01 AM

Harry Holmes lied to the WC.

And these aren't the only regulations that were broken. Oswald also didn't fill out the form 2162, which was mandatory for sales of firearms through the post. He also didn't have the magistrates certificate of good character which was mandatory for buying handguns through the post. And this was done by a well known commie agitator in the middle of the cold war, right under the nose of an FBI informant who was leaking peoples postal behavior to the FBI and secret service, and during Senator Dodd's subcommittee investigation into the gun mail-order business and during the CIA's illegal domestic Mail Watch programme which was keeping tabs on virtually anyone who received anything from Fair play for Cuba, American Communist Party, letters from the Soviet Union (and which John Newman in Oswald and the CIA has shown Oswald has been on the watch list before)

And yet the rifle and revolver were both shipped to that PO Box and not returned. How do you reconcile that, Soily? They were shipped to an alias that Oswald was positively shown to have used elsewhere. They are positively shown to have been in Oswald's possession. The revolver he had in his possession when he was cornered in the theater after he murdered Tippit. The rifle had his prints on it, even in a place that was only accessible when the rifle was broken down. How do you reconcile these things, Soily?

RoboTimbo

23rd September 2010, 06:06 AM

Certainly isn't, but nowhere is it mentioned that it was.

Nowhere is it mentioned that it is possible? Is that what you're saying?

Fourbrick

23rd September 2010, 06:15 AM

Soily

23rd September 2010, 06:16 AM

This is so, so silly.

First of all, it would be nice if you included links to these documents or at least citations. I don't know where you're getting these and they're contrary to other parts of the Warren Commission so I'd like to read them in context.

Second, realize what you're arguing, here. Somehow this massive, secret conspiracy is able to twist and contort all available evidence to make ALL PHYSICAL CLUES lead directly to Oswald, but the whole thing hinges on someone lying to the Warren Commission about postal regulations that are publicly available.

This is a very, very stupid premise.

Your entire argument is completely negated by one postal worker putting a slip in a PO Box without checking the names.

Which is the more likely scenario? The idiot-genius massive conspiracy revealed by their inability to understand postal regulations? Or a local branch that was lax in their interpretation of the rules?

If they could forge the order form, all the pictures of Oswald with the gun, put his palm print on the rifle, plant bullets that match the rifle found in the exact spot that ALL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE shows the bullets had to come from...and so on, yet they couldn't forge a goddamn post office box slip.

All conspiracy theories end up at this point. With 9-11, we're supposed to believe that this awesome undertaking was flawlessly executed to justify a war with Iraq, yet no one remembered to put Iraqis in the planes. Now you're telling us that the most perfect crime in human history, involving hundreds of officials on all levels, is revealed through a faulty understanding of post office regulations.

Unreal.

This is both a huge series of false dilemmas and massive lapse into amnesia on your part. Since all of your physical evidence is either hopelessly tainted and suspect or showing the opposite of what you say it shows, the fact that the postal aspects of the case are also so suspect is just another blow to your simple minded 'a man, a gun, a corpse' argument which is what your case essentially boils down to.

You can't prove Oswald fired the shots - evidence suggests he didn't.
You can't put Oswald on the 6th floor - evidence suggest he wasn't.
you can't prove your shot pattern - evidence suggest we haven't got a clue.
You can't prove CE399 had anything to do with the assassination - evidence suggests it didn't.
You can't prove any of the fragments in Connolly were anything to do with CE399 or Oswald - evidence suggests they weren't

And that's just 5 points out of dozens.

I also think that shifting between different areas of the case isn't very enlightening, so perhaps we could stick to one area at a time and debate that before moving onto another area? This thread is meant to be about the SBT!

Soily

23rd September 2010, 06:19 AM

No. Not mentioned that it was possible, but not mentioned that it had happened.

And why do you think the Dallas police evenytaully released a photo which had a cut out matching the photos?

http://www.pimall.com/nais/news/backyard.html

For what its worth, I think they were trying to see if it was possible to fake the photos.

And I also think they're probably genuine (likewise the Zapurder film, genuine of course, there is no question). For too long the debate has been about whether the backyard photos are fake or not, when the real issue is what story those photos are telling and it isn't what the LNs say.

Fourbrick

23rd September 2010, 06:24 AM

But, Soily, if the backyard photos are proved to be fakes, then the whole case falls apart.

Soily

23rd September 2010, 06:52 AM

But, Soily, if the backyard photos are proved to be fakes, then the whole case falls apart.

True, but I've never seen a particularly convincing case for it myself. The best argument I ever saw was from some guy who'd gotten a copy of the actual paper Oswald has in one of the photos and he seemed to show that the margins around the text were much bigger than in the photo, indicating the paper had been added afterward. But it was hardly conclusive.

To me, those photos clearly show a man playing the role of agent provocateur in some convoluted intelligence operation. He couldn't be trying harder than to project the image of a dangerous subversive commie bastard. But the fact the two papers he holds are ideologically opposite to each other would seem to show he was not a genuine commie. That Oswald at least thought he was playing this role seems to be beyond doubt, what with the aliases, microdots, minox spy cameras and his military intelligence background.

I'm also fascinated at the moment by the work of the late George Michael Evica. He was convinced Oswald was working for Senator Dodds covert investigation into the sale of firearms through the mail. Evica claimed to have two absolutely rock solid sources that Dodds committee ordered at least 1 firearm in 1963 under the name of Oswald or Hidell.

TraneWreck

23rd September 2010, 07:03 AM

This is both a huge series of false dilemmas and massive lapse into amnesia on your part. Since all of your physical evidence is either hopelessly tainted and suspect or showing the opposite of what you say it shows, the fact that the postal aspects of the case are also so suspect is just another blow to your simple minded 'a man, a gun, a corpse' argument which is what your case essentially boils down to.

No, all of the physical evidence is solid and untainted.

You can't prove Oswald fired the shots - evidence suggests he didn't.
You can't put Oswald on the 6th floor - evidence suggest he wasn't.
you can't prove your shot pattern - evidence suggest we haven't got a clue.
You can't prove CE399 had anything to do with the assassination - evidence suggests it didn't.
You can't prove any of the fragments in Connolly were anything to do with CE399 or Oswald - evidence suggests they weren't

And that's just 5 points out of dozens.

You like making these lists because you think it's impressive, I suppose, but 0+0+0+0...=0. Every point above is wrong.

It's simple. All physical and video evidence indicates three bullets came from above and behind Kennedy. What do we find above and behind Kennedy? A rifle with Oswald's fingerprints on it that matches a rifle ordered by Oswald, three spent shells from said rifle, and all recovered bullets and fragments match that rifle.

There's NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE suggesting any other scenario.

I also think that shifting between different areas of the case isn't very enlightening, so perhaps we could stick to one area at a time and debate that before moving onto another area? This thread is meant to be about the SBT!

The hell are you talking about? We're more than capable of responding to your vapid arguments as they appear. I didn't bring up the PO box, you did.

RoboTimbo

23rd September 2010, 07:16 AM

No. Not mentioned that it was possible, but not mentioned that it had happened.
To this day, I have never made a note when I changed a sling on a rifle.

Fourbrick

23rd September 2010, 07:18 AM

Good on yer,, sport.

RoboTimbo

23rd September 2010, 07:25 AM

You can't prove Oswald fired the shots - evidence suggests he didn't.
The evidence has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Oswald fired the shots.
You can't put Oswald on the 6th floor - evidence suggest he wasn't.
The evidence actually proves that he was on the sixth floor. Witness testimony is backed up by fingerprint evidence plus his rifle and bag.
you can't prove your shot pattern
All the evidence says that the one bullet caused the injuries that we, in fact, do see to Kennedy and Connolly
evidence suggest we haven't got a clue.
Well, ok, I'll give you and Fourbrick that one.
You can't prove CE399 had anything to do with the assassination - evidence suggests it didn't.
All of the evidence proves that that bullet did do the wounds found on Kennedy and Connolly, except for the Oswald's finishing shot to the back of Kennedy's head.
You can't prove any of the fragments in Connolly were anything to do with CE399 or Oswald - evidence suggests they weren't
Actually, all of the evidence says that that bullet is consistent with the wounds to Kennedy and Connolly and was definitively fired from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano.

TraneWreck

23rd September 2010, 07:27 AM

Yeh. Maybe :rolleyes:

When you hear hoofbeats in Kansas don't assume it's a zebra.

Soily

23rd September 2010, 07:41 AM

No, all of the physical evidence is solid and untainted.

You like making these lists because you think it's impressive, I suppose, but 0+0+0+0...=0. Every point above is wrong.

It's simple. All physical and video evidence indicates three bullets came from above and behind Kennedy. What do we find above and behind Kennedy? A rifle with Oswald's fingerprints on it that matches a rifle ordered by Oswald, three spent shells from said rifle, and all recovered bullets and fragments match that rifle.

Wooah wooah back up. The rifle did not have Oswald's fingerprints on. There no need to lie. If you want to accept the latter day evidence of LN researchers who used photos then fine, but then you also have to accept that Mac Wallace was in the snipers nest too. The rifle was dusted on the 22nd. Nothing was found on it. Several days later, after Oswald was dead, a partial palm print was found on it.

There's NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE suggesting any other scenario.

As explained several times, your pyscial evidence has completely fallen apart. You can't prove any of these things you say, you clearly don't have a grasp of the case because you keep saying things that are not true, and you're obviously just cutting and pasting everything from Bugliosi and macadams. Try expanding your horizons a little bit.

The hell are you talking about? We're more than capable of responding to your vapid arguments as they appear. I didn't bring up the PO box, you did.

If you're so certain, then you should be able to explain in detail on a subject by subject basis why you come to your conclusions. So Oswald fired a rifle that day did he? Whats the physical evidence for that then?

CE399 was fired at Kennedy and did those wounds did it? Whats the physical evidence for that then?

You haven't got any physical evidence for those things, and the more you look at each aspect of your case, the more obvious these hard facts you trumpet are in fact circular and circumstantial.

Ranb

23rd September 2010, 07:47 AM

Sorry that your screen is such poor resolution. However the photos shown on my screen are sharp enough to see that all three show the gun straps are different to the one on the rifle shown by the Dallas Police department.

If you look at the first photo, it shows the bottom of the strap to be bent and thin. The strap shown in the police photo wouldn't bend like that.

The middle photo shows a very thin strap as against a wide strap shown by the police.

Ditto for the right picture.

My screen resolution is just fine. Those photos are too poorly lit to show enough detail to support the conclusions that you are making. I even tried to adjust the brightness and contrast to bring out more detail and it was not enough. You are seeing things that are not present in those photos. In other words, you are making stuff up.

Ranb

Fourbrick

23rd September 2010, 07:52 AM

My screen resolution is just fine. Those photos are too poorly lit to show enough detail to support the conclusions that you are making. I even tried to adjust the brightness and contrast to bring out more detail and it was not enough. You are seeing things that are not present in those photos. In other words, you are making stuff up.

Ranb

They are quite distinct to me, and I'm not making anything up. They do say there are none so blind as those who cannot see.:)

So you say the photos are too indistinct. Others say that they don't matter because Oswald could have changed the gunstrap.

Should I take my pick on which is the right comeback?

Fourbrick

23rd September 2010, 07:54 AM

http://www.thislooksshopped.com/images/oswald3_lg.jpg

See any gunstrap?

TraneWreck

23rd September 2010, 07:58 AM

Wooah wooah back up. The rifle did not have Oswald's fingerprints on. There no need to lie. If you want to accept the latter day evidence of LN researchers who used photos then fine, but then you also have to accept that Mac Wallace was in the snipers nest too. The rifle was dusted on the 22nd. Nothing was found on it. Several days later, after Oswald was dead, a partial palm print was found on it.

For god's sake, do you understand how investigations work? This is such a ridiculous, trivial bunch of crap. The palm print was identified as Oswald's some days later, but it was taken before the rifle was turned over to the FBI by Lt. Day. He was told not to complete the investigation, but he had Oswald's print of file, so he made the connection.

As explained several times, your pyscial evidence has completely fallen apart. You can't prove any of these things you say, you clearly don't have a grasp of the case because you keep saying things that are not true, and you're obviously just cutting and pasting everything from Bugliosi and macadams. Try expanding your horizons a little bit.

You've said it's fallen apart, but all you have are spurious gripes about postal regulations and mangled witness accounts.

And after launching the idiot-genius theory of conspiracy, now we get the ad hominem against people providing solid evidence. Now you're doing the equivalent of bitching about NIST, "You trust the government."

These are old, tired tactics and even as an attempt to distract from the TOTAL LACK OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE indicating any scenario other than Oswald as the lone gunman, they fail.

If you're so certain, then you should be able to explain in detail on a subject by subject basis why you come to your conclusions. So Oswald fired a rifle that day did he? Whats the physical evidence for that then?

Again: video evidence shows bullets came from behind. The wounds can only be explained by a bullet coming from above and behind. The car was damaged in such a way and the blood spatter additionally indicated that the bullets came from above and behind.

Guess what's above and behind? A rifle and shell casings that match the bullets and fragments recovered that just happens to have a palm print from Lee Harvey Oswald, who, coincidentally, I'm sure, ordered that very rifle with an alias he consistently used and the forms were filled out in his handwriting.

And on top of that, THERE'S NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE SUGGESTING ANY OTHER SCENARIO.

CE399 was fired at Kennedy and did those wounds did it? Whats the physical evidence for that then?

The fact that the fragments in Connally match the chemical composition of the bullet. The fact that it was recovered from Connally's gurney (You still haven't explained how the bullet being found as it was would support any conspiracy theory). The fact that it was fired from the rifle that had Oswald's palm print on it that he ordered and had pictures of that were matched to a camera he owned.

You haven't got any physical evidence for those things, and the more you look at each aspect of your case, the more obvious these hard facts you trumpet are in fact circular and circumstantial.

You've assumed a conspiracy, without ever explaining what you think happened, and are randomly dismissing facts to suit that inchoate and infantile position.

You've wholly failed to dismiss any evidence suggesting it was Oswald and you've produced exactly zero to support any other scenario.

You're just JAQing it. A sweaty, furious, shameful JAQ session.

RoboTimbo

23rd September 2010, 08:00 AM

They are quite distinct to me, and I'm not making anything up. They do say there are none so blind as those who cannot see.:)

So you say the photos are too indistinct. Others say that they don't matter because Oswald could have changed the gunstrap.

Should I take my pick on which is the right comeback?

You are absolutely fixated on this sling business. Why? Your hypothesis is that someone obtained an exact replica of Oswald's rifle, down to the serial number but got the sling wrong? That's more plausible than that he changed the sling? Really?

TraneWreck

23rd September 2010, 08:03 AM

You are absolutely fixated on this sling business. Why? Your hypothesis is that someone obtained an exact replica of Oswald's rifle, down to the serial number but got the sling wrong? That's more plausible than that he changed the sling? Really?

You have to remember that the conspirators have magical powers when it comes to pulling off the crime, that's why I've always suspected Voldemort, but they're total idiots when it comes to the evidence they leave behind.

So amazingly talented that they could kill the president in front of hundreds of people and get away with, but so stupid they were foiled by a leather patch on a gunstrap and postal regulations.

Fourbrick

23rd September 2010, 08:03 AM

Fourbrick

23rd September 2010, 08:04 AM

You have to remember that the conspirators have magical powers when it comes to pulling off the crime, that's why I've always suspected Voldemort, but they're total idiots when it comes to the evidence they leave behind.

So amazingly talented that they could kill the president in front of hundreds of people and get away with, but so stupid they were foiled by a leather patch on a gunstrap and postal regulations.

Nixon was stupid enough to tape all his conversations in the White House. There's clever.

RoboTimbo

23rd September 2010, 08:06 AM

Not at all, but if it isn't the same rifle, ......

But you haven't shown that. You've shown that the sling could be different. What is your hypothesis?

Fourbrick

23rd September 2010, 08:18 AM

But you haven't shown that. You've shown that the sling could be different. What is your hypothesis?

The pictures are fakes.

RoboTimbo

23rd September 2010, 08:19 AM

The pictures are fakes.

Nope.

Fourbrick

23rd September 2010, 08:24 AM

Nope.

Right. That settles that then:rolleyes:

Fourbrick

23rd September 2010, 08:27 AM

RoboTimbo

23rd September 2010, 08:31 AM

Appendix 10, starting at page 592, Warren Commission Report:
PHOTOGRAPHS

Two photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle were found among Oswald's possessions in Mrs. Ruth Paine's garage at 2515 West Fifth Street, Irving, Tex.383 In one, Commission Exhibit No. 133-A, Oswald is holding the rifle generally in front of his body; in the other, Commission Exhibit. No. 133-B, he is holding the rifle to his right. Also found at Mrs. Paine's garage were a negative of 133-B and several photographs of the rear of General Walker's house.384 An Imperial reflex camera,385 which Marina Oswald testified she used to take 133-A and 133-B, was subsequently produced by Robert Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald's brother.386 Testimony concerning the photographs, the negative, and the camera was given by Lyndal D. Shaneyfelt of the FBI.387 Shaneyfelt has been connected with photographic work since 1937. He has made 100-300 photographic examinations, and has testified frequently on the subject in court.388

It goes on for some length after that if you'd care to read it.

carlitos

23rd September 2010, 08:34 AM

Photographic expert Jack White

:dl:

:dl:

:dl:

Dave Rogers

23rd September 2010, 08:42 AM

Damn, carlitos beat me to it with the laughing dogs. Anybody who can describe Jack White as a photographic expert must have such a severe cranio-rectal inversion that he's never seen daylight. I saw his analysis of the 9/11 Pentagon crash scene photos a few years ago, and I've only just stopped laughing.

Dave

RoboTimbo

23rd September 2010, 08:57 AM

Here's an excerpt from his destruction by Mickey Goldsmith. Good for a laugh.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. I see that you have taken a ruler and placed it by Oswald's body and also by his rifle; is that correct?

Mr. WHITE. Yes.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, do you believe that an object photographed can be measured simply by placing a ruler against the image in the photograph?

Mr. WHITE. No.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. When you measured the object in this photograph, what did you do beyond using the ruler?

Mr. WHITE. This is strictly a two-dimensional measurement. Obviously I did not take into consideration any perspective which might exist or any other considerations. It is just a mere measurement of the body from the weightbearing foot to the top of the head in each case and of the rifle from the muzzle to the butt.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Without giving any account to other factors?

Mr. WHITE. That is true. I am not a physicist or any sort of a scientist who could determine anything relating to the perspective. We don't know how close the rifle is to his body. We don't know how close the camera is to the subject, so it would be virtually impossible for just a plain citizen like me to interpret the perspective of this photograph.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Have you had any training in analytical photogrammetry?

Mr. WHITE. No.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Have you had any formal training in forensic photography?

Mr. WHITE. No.

[...]

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, you have made reference to several points in these photographs that suggest that Oswald's head is disproportionately----

I withdraw the question.

That the body of Oswald is not consistent in the various photographs in light of the head size; is that correct?

Mr. WHITE. Yes.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. To what extent, if any, did you compute photogrammetrically the effect of an object's tilt on its apparent length in the photograph?

Mr. WHITE. As I said, I am not a scientist. I don't indulge in that sort of thing.

[...]

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, I just have one question.

Mr. WHITE. All right.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. When you did this study, did you compute photogrammetrically the effect of tilt on the way that the length of an object appears in a photograph?

Mr. WHITE. I conducted a study by photographing a yardstick from three different-

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, answer my question. Did you compute photogrammetrically----

Mr. WHITE. What is "photogrammetrically"? Describe to me what "photogrammetrically" is.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. I just have one more question Mr. White. Do you know what photogrammetry is?

Mr. WHITE. No.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. I have no further questions. Thank you.

He's sort of a microcosm or poster child for the whole assassination conspiracy theory.

uk_dave

23rd September 2010, 09:05 AM

The pictures are fakes.

But your fellow CTist disagrees with you.

Interesting, isn't it?

What makes one conspiracy theory better than another?

In the 9/11 sub-forum accusations of cointelpro would be flying between you by now.

You both believe that Oswald wasn't the 'lone nutter', but you can't agree on the evidence for this?

Doesn't give you pause to reconsider?

uk_dave

23rd September 2010, 09:07 AM

RoboTimbo

23rd September 2010, 09:12 AM

Jack White, "What is this photogrammetry of which you speak?"
:dl:

TraneWreck

23rd September 2010, 09:26 AM

Nixon was stupid enough to tape all his conversations in the White House. There's clever.

No one is accusing Nixon of pulling off THE GREATEST, MOST COMPLICATED, AND FLAWLESSLY EXECUTED CRIME IN HUMAN HISTORY.

That's actually an a pros pos example: Nixon was a manipulative criminal who was paranoid and secretive and yet we learned almost everything about his crimes.

Yet no one has whispered a word about a massive plot to assassinate the president.

Riiiiiiight.

Fourbrick

23rd September 2010, 09:37 AM

I'm glad to see there are so many expert photo analysts amongst us.

Belz...

23rd September 2010, 09:38 AM

No one is accusing Nixon of pulling off THE GREATEST, MOST COMPLICATED, AND FLAWLESSLY EXECUTED CRIME IN HUMAN HISTORY.

That's actually an a pros pos example: Nixon was a manipulative criminal who was paranoid and secretive and yet we learned almost everything about his crimes.

Yet no one has whispered a word about a massive plot to assassinate the president.

Riiiiiiight.

Pfft... Obviously "they" wanted us to find out about Nixon. How naive are you, anyway ? ;)

Dave Rogers

23rd September 2010, 09:39 AM

I'm glad to see there are so many expert photo analysts amongst us.

None of us is an expert photoanalyst, and none of us pretends to be. See if you can spot the difference between us and Jack White.

Dave

RoboTimbo

23rd September 2010, 09:40 AM

I'm glad to see there are so many expert photo analysts amongst us.

But what did you think of Jack White getting totally smacked down?

TraneWreck

23rd September 2010, 10:07 AM

Pfft... Obviously "they" wanted us to find out about Nixon. How naive are you, anyway ? ;)

In all fairness, between the flouride and brain implant, what chance do I have?

Soily

23rd September 2010, 11:03 AM

But your fellow CTist disagrees with you.

Interesting, isn't it?

What makes one conspiracy theory better than another?

In the 9/11 sub-forum accusations of cointelpro would be flying between you by now.

You both believe that Oswald wasn't the 'lone nutter', but you can't agree on the evidence for this?

Doesn't give you pause to reconsider?

It's a 47 year old case. Most of the witnesses are dead. Most of the evidence is tainted or gone. The original investigation was a farce, the Dallas police unbelievably incompetent, the FBI destroyed manipulated and fabricated evidence, the autopsy was a total disaster and both sides of the debate have spread such total bollocks that have muddied the water for over 40 years that its now almost impossible to see through the fog. So its hardly surprising nobody can agree. And don't tell me the official side agree, 3 members of the WC didn't agree with their own conclusions, the chairman of the HSCA thought the mafia did it. Even Dale Myers and bugliosi parted ways because they couldn't agree on certain issues. Mack and mysers doesn't even agree with themselves, they both used to be die hard conspiracy theorists (badge man indeed)

SpitfireIX

23rd September 2010, 11:38 AM

Photographic expert Jack White . . .

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

TraneWreck

23rd September 2010, 12:22 PM

It's a 47 year old case. Most of the witnesses are dead. Most of the evidence is tainted or gone. The original investigation was a farce, the Dallas police unbelievably incompetent, the FBI destroyed manipulated and fabricated evidence, the autopsy was a total disaster and both sides of the debate have spread such total bollocks that have muddied the water for over 40 years that its now almost impossible to see through the fog. So its hardly surprising nobody can agree. And don't tell me the official side agree, 3 members of the WC didn't agree with their own conclusions, the chairman of the HSCA thought the mafia did it. Even Dale Myers and bugliosi parted ways because they couldn't agree on certain issues. Mack and mysers doesn't even agree with themselves, they both used to be die hard conspiracy theorists (badge man indeed)

This is very sloppy. The single-gunmen contingent, or sane people, differ with respect to the specifics of the case.

Conspiracy nuts differ in every way possible: it was Castro or LBJ or the CIA or the Russians...THe shots were fired from the Grassy Knoll or a storm drain or by the lemo driver...

There is a total lack of symmetry. Pretending like disagreement over details among a group that consents to a broad theory is the same as people varying wildly on every possible topic is silly. It's the same thing global warming deniers try to do: SEE, SEE!! The scientists can't agree whether sea levels will rise 2m or 2.2m over the next century, therefore everyone's opinion is just as valid and global warming hasn't been proven.

More goofy tactics.

Ranb

23rd September 2010, 12:36 PM

Photographic expert Jack White studied these two photographs for two decades and testified before the House Select Committee. His conclusion is that the photographs are fakes. You obviously know better.

Now I just know you are messing with us. Jack White is a fool who got his butt handed to him when he testified about these photos. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/hscawhte.htm

He claimed to not have any experience as a physicist or any sort of a scientist who could determine anything relating to the perspective. He also claimed to not have any training in analytical photogrammetry, forensic photography or training in the study of shadows in photographs. In other words, he is a fool for claiming that the photos were faked when he obviously lacked the skills to make that determination.

He is also one of those flakes that uses low resolution photos to prove the Apollo landings did not take place when the readily available high res photos prove just how wrong he is.

Jack White is a known liar and the wrong person to use to back any argument that you want to make. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas. I hope you are wearing your flea collar.

Ranb

ETA; Fourbrick, why do you claim White is an expert photo analyst when he claims that he is not?

TraneWreck

23rd September 2010, 12:48 PM

Now I just know you are messing with us. Jack White is a fool who got his butt handed to him when he testified about these photos. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/hscawhte.htm

Just reading the intro paragraph on that link indicated that Mr. White was a journalism major. That offered a very big hint about the quality of the testimony to follow...

Ranb

23rd September 2010, 12:53 PM

We are being kind to White compared to how he is treated at the Apollo hoax forums. The guy makes a real fool of himself on a regular basis. Anyone who questions him is an agent provocateur and his enemy.

Ranb

Soily

23rd September 2010, 12:56 PM

This is very sloppy. The single-gunmen contingent, or sane people, differ with respect to the specifics of the case.

Conspiracy nuts differ in every way possible: it was Castro or LBJ or the CIA or the Russians...THe shots were fired from the Grassy Knoll or a storm drain or by the lemo driver...

There is a total lack of symmetry. Pretending like disagreement over details among a group that consents to a broad theory is the same as people varying wildly on every possible topic is silly. It's the same thing global warming deniers try to do: SEE, SEE!! The scientists can't agree whether sea levels will rise 2m or 2.2m over the next century, therefore everyone's opinion is just as valid and global warming hasn't been proven.

More goofy tactics.

I would have thought the warren report is true and the Warren report is false were pretty major disagreements myself. I also would have thought Oswald acted alone and it was a mafia conspiracy were fairly major points of diversion too.

And there's an inherent flaw in your criticism, if the conspiracy theorists aren't homogenous then you can't critize them in a broad stroked generalities.

Also i've not had the answer to my questions yet.

Please post the physical evidence that Oswald fired a rifle that day.

Please post the physical evidence that ce399 was fired at Kennedy or was ever in their bodies.

Please post the physical evidence that any of the fragments in connoly were fired from oswalds rifle or came from ce399.

I wait with baited breath.

Ranb

23rd September 2010, 12:59 PM

I wait with baited breath.

Why isn't circumstantial evidence enough?

Ranb

TraneWreck

23rd September 2010, 01:01 PM

I would have thought the warren report is true and the Warren report is false were pretty major disagreements myself. I also would have thought Oswald acted alone and it was a mafia conspiracy were fairly major points of diversion too.

Haha, therein lies your problem. Calling the report "true" or "false" is an exercise in vapidity.

And there's an inherent flaw in your criticism, if the conspiracy theorists aren't homogenous then you can't critize them in a broad stroked generalities.

Some people think the Earth is flat, some think it's 6000 years old, some think the moon landings were faked, some think the US government plotted 9-11, some think Castro killed Kennedy. That's a wide variance of belief that can all be carried on the broad shoulders of the word "idiotic."

Also i've not had the answer to my questions yet.

Please post the physical evidence that Oswald fired a rifle that day.

Please post the physical evidence that ce399 was fired at Kennedy or was ever in their bodies.

Please post the physical evidence that any of the fragments in connoly were fired from oswalds rifle or came from ce399.

I wait with baited breath.

You were given those answers, you just continue to deny them without good reason.

Dave Rogers

23rd September 2010, 01:01 PM

I would have thought the warren report is true and the Warren report is false were pretty major disagreements myself.

I'd have thought that portraying the Warren Commission report as either entirely true or entirely false, and the opinions of sane people as aligning with one or other of those extremes, was a pretty major strawman fallacy myself.

Dave

RoboTimbo

23rd September 2010, 01:05 PM

Also i've not had the answer to my questions yet.

You've fallen a bit behind on answering questions yourself, Soily. And these are just the ones I've asked without getting an answer. You'll need to check with everyone else, too.
Interesting, you freely accept witness testimony as gospel only when it satisfies your quest for a conspiracy theory. Every other time, they are lying or mistaken, especially when their testimony agrees with physical evidence. How do you reconcile that?
So you're saying that nobody could have built the sniper's nest? And yet there obviously was one? How do you reconcile that, Soily?
And yet the rifle and revolver were both shipped to that PO Box and not returned. How do you reconcile that, Soily? They were shipped to an alias that Oswald was positively shown to have used elsewhere. They are positively shown to have been in Oswald's possession. The revolver he had in his possession when he was cornered in the theater after he murdered Tippit. The rifle had his prints on it, even in a place that was only accessible when the rifle was broken down. How do you reconcile these things, Soily?
And I wait with bated breath.

carlitos

23rd September 2010, 01:08 PM

This was some of Jack White's best work, in my opinion:

2SHAX4z4sLg

Soily

23rd September 2010, 01:11 PM

Why isn't circumstantial evidence enough?

Ranb

Do you have physical evidence for those things yes or no?

TraneWreck

23rd September 2010, 01:13 PM

Do you have physical evidence for those things yes or no?

"Circumstantial" evidence and "physical" evidence are not mutually exclusive terms.

The palm print, for example, is both circumstantial and physical.

Ranb

23rd September 2010, 01:19 PM

Do you have physical evidence for those things yes or no?

I have nothing to add that has not already been discussed in this thread. So, is circumstantial evidence enough?

Ranb

Soily

23rd September 2010, 01:24 PM

I'd have thought that portraying the Warren Commission report as either entirely true or entirely false, and the opinions of sane people as aligning with one or other of those extremes, was a pretty major strawman fallacy myself.

Dave
You not heard of Bugliosi then? He thinks the WC is unimpeachable. And there's no getting round the fact that Hale Boggs, John Cooper and Richard Russell didn't agree with the Warren commissions central finding that the same bullet hit jfk and Connolly. So if that's a strawman it's a strawman with a big disagreement over the central issue, not over little details. And how divergent from the standard LN case could the chairman of the HSCA thinking the mafia did it be?

Debunkers manual number 137 - if you have no rational argument to make, just mention something vague about a strawman and hope 'll make your vapid non point point sound intellectual.

Soily

23rd September 2010, 01:25 PM

I have nothing to add that has not already been discussed in this thread. So, is circumstantial evidence enough?

Ranb
I'll take that as a no then, 3 central points in the case that you have absolutely no proof for.

I thought so.

Soily

23rd September 2010, 01:27 PM

"Circumstantial" evidence and "physical" evidence are not mutually exclusive terms.

The palm print, for example, is both circumstantial and physical.

A palm print on the rifle is not proof it was fired by the palms owner at the time of the assassination. Please post the physical evidence that Oswald fired that rifle or any rifle on the 22nd of November 1963.

RoboTimbo

23rd September 2010, 01:28 PM

I'll take that as a no then, 3 central points in the case that you have absolutely no proof for.

I thought so.

Another refusal to answer questions.

TraneWreck

23rd September 2010, 01:31 PM

JimBenArm

23rd September 2010, 02:17 PM

Rule 122 of the debunkers manual - "Skeptics question an official story not because it is wanting in some regard, but because in our amateur pseudo-psychological opinion they like to feel they somehow have secret knowledge that makes them special."

Rule 123 - Mention Occam's Razor, but spectacularly fail to understand what it means.

Actually, we like watching you slice yourself to ribbons trying to wield it.

riptowtan

23rd September 2010, 02:27 PM

A palm print on the rifle is not proof it was fired by the palms owner at the time of the assassination. Please post the physical evidence that Oswald fired that rifle or any rifle on the 22nd of November 1963.

We've already gone over this and you claim its all faked, or all of the supporting witnesses are lying. I cannot disprove that, but since you are making the claim, you have to PROVE it. The burden of proof is on your shoulders. What I and others have already presented in my opinion stands up to your weak attempts to discredit them. The fact that you cannot accept any evidence incriminating Oswald as genuine, any eyewitness testimony supporting the OT,or any of the arguments and points raised here shows that you have an unfalsifiable belief system grounded in faith alone. You've presented no positive evidence or even an alternative scenario that's plausible. You have been using the scientific method in reverse the entire time, convinced from the get go that Oswald was framed without any evidence. What your doing is no science, nor is it convincing to any reasonable person. Obsessing over who said what and at what time something occurred is not how to properly investigate. You look at the totality of evidence, make sure your logic is correct, and then form a conclusion.

There is 53 pieces of evidence that show Oswald killed JFK. (Physical, eye witness, indirect) There are many reasons to think Oswald was the kind of guy to do this. (His political views, and history of abuse towards his own mother, loneliness, his assassination attempt on Walker, the bomb plot) There is not a shred of evidence for a grassy knoll shooter, additional bullets, or any unexplained wounds on either Connally or JFK. Oswald's behavior after the assassination fits the behavior or a man who was fleeing from some awful deed. And there is no evidence that anyone else was in contact with Oswald, nor is there any that Ruby was part of the mob.

The conclusion I have reached it that Oswald is clearly guilty.

Here are some huge problems with the JFK conspiracy theory as a whole, as said by Vincent Bugliosi:

" All of these theories and beliefs have turned out to be “moonshine.” I am convinced beyond all doubt that Oswald killed Kennedy. I am convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that there was no conspiracy.

Number one, there’s no credible evidence that the mob or CIA, KGB, military-industrial complex, [or others] were behind the assassination. All we have is naked speculation. I told the jury in London, I’ll stipulate that three people can keep a secret, but only if two are dead. Now here, it’s close to 44 years later, and not one word, not one syllable has leaked out that any of these groups were involved in the assassination.

Number two, there’s no evidence whatsoever that Oswald ever had any connection whatsoever with any of these groups, and we know that the FBI checked this guy out. Even [assassination researcher Harold] Weisberg conceded that the FBI checked out every breath [Oswald] ever breathed, from the moment he arrived back to the States from the Soviet Union on June 13, 1962 to the day of the assassination. They accounted for everything this guy did. They found no evidence after 25,000 interviews, that he had any connection with any of these groups.

Number three, assuming one of these groups wanted to kill the president, and I reject that out of hand, Oswald would have been one of the last people on the face of this earth whom they would have gone to kill Kennedy. Why? He was not an expert shot. He was a good shot, but not an expert shot. He owned only a twelve-dollar, mail-order rifle. He was notoriously unreliable, extremely unstable. Here’s a guy who defects to the Soviet Union pre-Gorbachev. I mean even today, who in the world defects to the Soviet Union? It’s one of the bleakest places on the face of the earth. And then he gets over there, tries to become a Soviet citizen, and is turned down. What does he do? He tries to commit suicide. He slashes his wrists and they had to take him to the hospital. Just the type of guy—I’m being sarcastic—that the CIA or mob would rely on to commit the biggest murder in American history.

Taking it to its final step, assuming that one of these groups wanted to kill Kennedy, and assuming further that for whatever crazy, bizarre reason they wanted to use Oswald to do it, and he agreed to do it, after he shot Kennedy in Dealey Plaza and the left the book depository, one of two things would have happened. The least likely thing is that there would have been a car there waiting for him to help him escape down to Mexico or wherever. Certainly the conspirators would not want their hit man to be apprehended and interrogated. The most likely thing by far: there would have a car waiting for him to drive him to his death. And yet we know that Oswald was out on the street with 13 dollars in his pocket, trying to flag down buses and cabs, and that alone tells any sensible person that there was no conspiracy here because that would not have happened if the CIA or mob were behind the assassination.

Even the motorcade route that took the president beneath Oswald’s sixth-floor window wasn’t determined until November 18, 1963, four days before the assassination. Now what rational person could believe that the CIA or mob or whatever the group it was would conspire with Oswald to kill Kennedy within just four days of the assassination?"

TraneWreck

23rd September 2010, 02:44 PM

Even the motorcade route that took the president beneath Oswald’s sixth-floor window wasn’t determined until November 18, 1963, four days before the assassination. Now what rational person could believe that the CIA or mob or whatever the group it was would conspire with Oswald to kill Kennedy within just four days of the assassination?"

Yep. All the physical evidence points to Oswald as the lone shooter. The random coincidences and impossible to control scenarios that led motorcade down that street with Kennedy exposed prove that there was no conspiracy behind Oswald.

This is an excellent, detailed run-down of the important events leading up to the assassination:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dallas.txt

Notice that Oswald had already begun working at the Book Depository before the route Kennedy would take had been decided.

Additionally, the fact that Oswald even had that job involved a series of random events that were obviously unplanned:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/leejob2.txt

I recommend reading both of those in their entirety. Oswald was a lone nut and outrageous fortune put he and Kennedy in their places at the crucial time. There was no plan.

Dave Rogers

23rd September 2010, 02:59 PM

You not heard of Bugliosi then? He thinks the WC is unimpeachable. And there's no getting round the fact that Hale Boggs, John Cooper and Richard Russell didn't agree with the Warren commissions central finding that the same bullet hit jfk and Connolly. So if that's a strawman it's a strawman with a big disagreement over the central issue, not over little details.

Rubbish. The central issue is who killed Kennedy, and the disagreement here is over the details of bullet trajectories.

And how divergent from the standard LN case could the chairman of the HSCA thinking the mafia did it be?

So a conspiracy theorist got himself into a position of influence. Good for him, it gave him a golden opportunity to prove his case. Remind me, how did that work out for him?

Sorry, but I wouldn't class Downing as a representative of the mainstream view.

Debunkers manual number 137 - if you have no rational argument to make, just mention something vague about a strawman and hope 'll make your vapid non point point sound intellectual.

Strange, I think that's roughly what you're doing here.

Dave

Soily

23rd September 2010, 03:11 PM

You've fallen a bit behind on answering questions yourself, Soily. And these are just the ones I've asked without getting an answer. You'll need to check with everyone else, too.

And I wait with bated breath.
There's actually not one shred of documentation that Oswald ever picked up either of those weapons and if he did, we don't know how because both those weapons were shipped to an address that didn't exist and both violated mandatory postal laws. And all this when there were ay least 3 reasons why oswald's activities through the post were been monitored. And this is where the more fundamental problem lies, because if oswald did order those weapons it almost as bad for you, if not worse. We know the CIAs illegal mail intercept programme opened Oswald's mail on January 24th 1963 and May 22nd 1963 (see Newman's Oswald and the CIA p286) Both the alleged weapons were ordered during this time span. Harry holmes the FBI informant in the Dallas post office was also monitoring peoples mail for anything potentially subversive. By early 63 oswald was ordereing so much subversive communist literature through his post office box that he got in to trouble with the post office and was forced to fill in customs form 2153-x, to which he added the comments 'I protest this intimidation'. James Hosty also found out about this surge of commie material that was coming through Oswald's mailbox via harry holmes, who bizarrely also sat in on Oswald interrogation. And to be clear all of this was happing through the 2915 post office box oswald supposedly ordered the weapons. So if Oswald the lone nut really did order these weapons, somebody knew about it alright. And what's more, Oswald knew full well somebody knew, because he knew and protested the fact his mailbox was been surveilled.

Does Bugliosi mention any of this in his tenditious book? Does he bollocks

Why would Oswald order weapons through a mailbox he knew was been watched?
Why would the CIA, FBI and the dallas post office let Oswald buy weapons through the mailbox they were watching and do nothing about it?

Ranb

23rd September 2010, 03:13 PM

Soily, you are very persistent when it comes to demanding answers from those who do not agree with you. How about answering a few questions yourself?

So for the third time, is circumstantial evidence enough?

Ranb

TraneWreck

23rd September 2010, 03:41 PM

There's actually not one shred of documentation that Oswald ever picked up either of those weapons and if he did...So if Oswald the lone nut really did order these weapons, somebody knew about it alright. And what's more, Oswald knew full well somebody knew, because he knew and protested the fact his mailbox was been surveilled.

The FBI followed Oswald after he re-entered the US when the USSR denied him citizenship. Thus, he was paranoid and used an alias. Why would he order a rifle that way? Because he was stupid, because he wasn't planning on assassinating anyone when he ordered it, because he thought they couldn't trace him through his alias, who knows? But he did. His handwriting was used on the order forms, he was in pictures with the gun, his palm print was on the gun.

It's pretty simple unless you adopt the position that the only acceptable facts are those that prove a conspiracy (which leaves you without any facts).

Why would Oswald order weapons through a mailbox he knew was been watched?

Maybe he thought the alias was enough, maybe he thought he could argue that he needed it for hunting. It doesn't matter why, because he did.

Why would the CIA, FBI and the dallas post office let Oswald buy weapons through the mailbox they were watching and do nothing about it?

Because they screwed up. Same reason the 9-11 hijackers managed to get on those planes despite all the evidence we had about their activities.

There was no reason to think Oswald was dangerous before he started trying to assassinate people. He was a small-fry, unimportant, the CIA and FBI didn't waste resources on him.

sackett

23rd September 2010, 07:38 PM

Here I go again. Damn, it's been a long 47 years.

Let's suppose that some cabal of criminals, politicians, and businessmen turned on one of their own and had him killed. Is that so surprising?

I really really really really really really really REALLY wonder why you give a damn?

dafydd

24th September 2010, 01:46 AM

Soily

24th September 2010, 02:51 AM

LightinDarkness

24th September 2010, 03:06 AM

From the debunkers manual no 215: "When you have nothing of any worth to add, simply adopt the mindset of a 12 year old girl and tell your opponent to get a life (or question why they care so much, even though you obviously care enough yourself to reply to the thread)"

From the Conspiracy Propagandists Manual no 1: "When you attempt to push conspiracy propaganda that has no proof - which is really everything you push, since none of it has any relationship to reality - never actually bring up proof or address counter-evidence. Ignore entire pages of material that completely debunk you and instead hyper focus on off hand remarks or small portions of posts in order to dismiss the great weight of evidence against you."

Soily

24th September 2010, 03:28 AM

propaganda that has no proof
The best description of the Single Bullet Theory I've yet heard.

Dave Rogers

24th September 2010, 03:57 AM

The best description of the Single Bullet Theory I've yet heard.

The best evidence I've seen yet that what you hear is limited to what you want to hear.

Dave

dafydd

24th September 2010, 04:54 AM

RoboTimbo

24th September 2010, 05:40 AM

Soily, don't forget that you have questions that you have yet to answer.

Soily

24th September 2010, 06:52 AM

Soily, don't forget that you have questions that you have yet to answer.
I'm not answering any more questions until you answer mine.

RoboTimbo

24th September 2010, 06:53 AM

I'm not answering any more questions until you answer mine.

That's all we've been doing. Your turn.

carlitos

24th September 2010, 06:56 AM

Soily, the random-numbered items from the "debunkers manual" don't inspire confidence. They just make you seem more paranoid.

Soily

24th September 2010, 07:05 AM

And by the way, that Bugliosi factoid about the Mannlicher Carcano having a unique serial number is clearly not true:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/pdf/WH25_CE_2562.pdf

Sucher advissd the Mannlicher-Carcpno rifle
was manufactured in Italy from 1891 until 1?41 however in the 1930's
Mussolini ordered all arms factories to manufacture the Mannlicher-
Carcano rifle. Since many concerns were manufacturing the same
weapon, the same serial number appears on weapons manufactured by
more than one concern.

This suggests the fact that Klein's themselves had two MC rifles with the 'Oswald' serial number, one in 62 and one in 63 was not a mistake as suggested but because these weapons do not have unique serial numbers.

Soily

24th September 2010, 07:08 AM

That's all we've been doing. Your turn.

You haven't answered these 3 questions yet:

Please post the physical evidence that Oswald fired a rifle that day.

Please post the physical evidence that ce399 was fired at Kennedy or was ever in their bodies.

Please post the physical evidence that any of the fragments in connoly were fired from oswalds rifle or came from ce399.

If you haven't got time to answer them again, simply post the link to the post where you answered them before. I obviously missed it in the hubhub.

When you have answered these questions I will answer yours.

TraneWreck

24th September 2010, 07:18 AM

You haven't answered these 3 questions yet:

If you haven't got time to answer them again, simply post the link to the post where you answered them before. I obviously missed it in the hubhub.

When you have answered these questions I will answer yours.

This is silly. Multiple people have answered these multiple times. You just respond with irrelevant, false, and absurd dismissals, then go right back to claiming no one has answered the questions.

1) The rifle ordered with a slip in Oswald's handwriting with an alias used by Oswald was delivered to Oswald's PO Box. Said rifle was shown in pictures taken by Oswald's camera of Oswald with said rifle. On the day of the assassination, all physical evidence points to shots coming from above and behind the motorcade. The same rifle ordered by Oswald, in pictures taken by Oswald with Oswald, is found above and behind the motorcade with 3 spent shells and Oswald's palm print. This also happens to be where Oswald works. The bullets and fragments are matched to Oswald's rifle.

2&3) The bullet fragments taken from the victims were matched to CE399 with forensic techniques. The odds that they came from separate bullets are very, very slim. Once again, CE399 is not essentially to proving the case, anyway. If it was never found, there would still be more than enough evidence and THERE IS NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE POINTING TO ANY OTHER EXPLANATION.

Now your turn. In addition to the questions other forum members have asked, that you will continue to dodge, work on these:

Anybody who wants to posit that CE 399 was faked and planted by conspirators needs to supply plausible answers to all of the following questions. Why did the conspirators . . .
1) Plant it in a location where it could easily have been lost?
2) Plant a bullet that was only "slightly" damaged if its role was to have passed through at least the President? Why not shoot up some livestock and get a bullet a bit more mangled?
3) Plant it before it could have been known how many other bullets would be recovered? How could they have known that CE 399 would not be the "one bullet too many" that would blow the whole plot?
4) Plant the bullet so it was found before it was known how much lead was in JFK's neck/upper back? What if a big chunk of lead was found in JFK's neck or upper back, a chunk too big to have come from CE 399?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm

pgwenthold

24th September 2010, 07:27 AM

I'd have thought that portraying the Warren Commission report as either entirely true or entirely false, and the opinions of sane people as aligning with one or other of those extremes, was a pretty major strawman fallacy myself.

I will say, I really would like to hope that conspiracy idiots would try to keep up instead of going back and reinventing the wheel, thinking they have done something profound.

I am not a JFK expert in any way, but even I know that the WC had some problems, particularly in terms of timing, but they have been solved by using more modern analytical methods. I won't credit Posner with revising the timeline, but it did happen about the time his book came out, with the recognition of the Connally jacket flap/hat tilt.

IIRC, the WC was under the impression that Kennedy's "grabbing his throat" after being shot was a voluntary response, and hence needed a sufficient lag time. Thus, they thought that shot should have been a lot sooner. However, it was later realized that it was reflexive, and therefore could happen a lot more quickly.

But again, these are trivial, fundamental aspects of the case that anyone with a passing interest should have at least heard of. At least, from a modern perspective.

carlitos

24th September 2010, 08:28 AM

It would be tough to name any world event, for example an assassination, for which you couldn't make these kinds of trivial nitpicks. All you have to do is ignore the big picture and focus on detail.

Soily

24th September 2010, 08:57 AM

This is silly. Multiple people have answered these multiple times. You just respond with irrelevant, false, and absurd dismissals, then go right back to claiming no one has answered the questions.

1) The rifle ordered with a slip in Oswald's handwriting with an alias used by Oswald was delivered to Oswald's PO Box. Said rifle was shown in pictures taken by Oswald's camera of Oswald with said rifle. On the day of the assassination, all physical evidence points to shots coming from above and behind the motorcade. The same rifle ordered by Oswald, in pictures taken by Oswald with Oswald, is found above and behind the motorcade with 3 spent shells and Oswald's palm print. This also happens to be where Oswald works. The bullets and fragments are matched to Oswald's rifle.

That's not the question I asked. Read again. (also proof of the parts highlighted in bold please)

2&3) The bullet fragments taken from the victims were matched to CE399 with forensic techniques. The odds that they came from separate bullets are very, very slim. Once again, CE399 is not essentially to proving the case, anyway. If it was never found, there would still be more than enough evidence and THERE IS NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE POINTING TO ANY OTHER EXPLANATION.

No, no they weren't. The NAA tests conducted by Vincent Guinn have been debunked and proved to be wrong. The fragments can't be linked to CE399, of which in turn there is no proof was fired at Kennedy or found at Parkland. I'm after the physical evidence I was promised. The highlighted sentence is particularly interesting, since the single bullet theory is the theory that CE399 not some imaginary bullet made 8 wounds in 2 men, something for which there isn't one single shred of physical evidence.

Instead of saying multiple people have answered these questions multiple time, just link to the post with the answer in, or quote it.

TraneWreck

24th September 2010, 09:32 AM

That's not the question I asked. Read again. (also proof of the parts highlighted in bold please)

This is the problem, you don't understand answers when you get them. I suppose my difficulty is that I'm 1) rational and 2) a lawyer so I understand circumstantial evidence, chains of custody, and proper investigations, and I additionally am capable of dealing with the world as it actually exists rather than viewing through a prism of delusional fantasy.

No, no they weren't. The NAA tests conducted by Vincent Guinn have been debunked and proved to be wrong. The fragments can't be linked to CE399, of which in turn there is no proof was fired at Kennedy or found at Parkland. I'm after the physical evidence I was promised. The highlighted sentence is particularly interesting, since the single bullet theory is the theory that CE399 not some imaginary bullet made 8 wounds in 2 men, something for which there isn't one single shred of physical evidence.

They have not been debunked. There have been multiple tests that confirmed the findings, but my suspicion is that you have no idea what the chemical composition tests showed.

CE399 is not essential because the path of the bullet can be determined whether or not the actual physical bullet is examined. The fact that it was found and matched to both Oswald's rifle and the fragments recovered from the victims makes the evidence so overwhelming that only someone in total denial of reality can cling to paranoid conspiracy theories.

It's reminiscent of the "missle hit the pentagon" fantasy. They always claim that no plane wreckage was recovered, which is, of course, false, but it doesn't matter. The destruction, severed light polls, skid marks, and pattern on the Pentagon establishes that an airplane hit whether or not any physical remnants of it remained. The fact that A LOT of wreckage was recovered makes it an obvious case.

Instead of saying multiple people have answered these questions multiple time, just link to the post with the answer in, or quote it.

As I said, your questions have been answered, you just continue to dismiss those answers based on nothing. This is the dance you will do for the rest of your life if you continue to buy into theories with no evidentiary support.

I take it you really, really don't want to answer the questions posed to you. Another dodge. Do you even notice that you're avoiding all these issues, or have you blocked those out in your mind like you've done with all the evidence showing Oswald to be the lone shooter?

Soily

24th September 2010, 12:39 PM

This is the problem, you don't understand answers when you get them. I suppose my difficulty is that I'm 1) rational and 2) a lawyer so I understand circumstantial evidence, chains of custody, and proper investigations, and I additionally am capable of dealing with the world as it actually exists rather than viewing through a prism of delusional fantasy.

They have not been debunked. There have been multiple tests that confirmed the findings, but my suspicion is that you have no idea what the chemical composition tests showed.
U
CE399 is not essential because the path of the bullet can be determined whether or not the actual physical bullet is examined. The fact that it was found and matched to both Oswald's rifle and the fragments recovered from the victims makes the evidence so overwhelming that only someone in total denial of reality can cling to paranoid conspiracy theories.

It's reminiscent of the "missle hit the pentagon" fantasy. They always claim that no plane wreckage was recovered, which is, of course, false, but it doesn't matter. The destruction, severed light polls, skid marks, and pattern on the Pentagon establishes that an airplane hit whether or not any physical remnants of it remained. The fact that A LOT of wreckage was recovered makes it an obvious case.

As I said, your questions have been answered, you just continue to dismiss those answers based on nothing. This is the dance you will do for the rest of your life if you continue to buy into theories with no evidentiary support.

I take it you really, really don't want to answer the questions posed to you. Another dodge. Do you even notice that you're avoiding all these issues, or have you blocked those out in your mind like you've done with all the evidence showing Oswald to be the lone shooter?

1. You don't understand the NAA tests in this case. They have been debunked from here to next Tuesday
2 . I'm struggling to understand why, if my questions have been answered and I missed them, you can't just either quote the answer I missed or link to the post containing the answer. Once I have these answers we can move on.

Just as a reminder of my questions.

Please post the physical evidence Oswald fired a rifle thaqt day
Please post the physical evidence CE399 was fired at Kennedy that day or was found at Parkland
Please post the physical evidence any of the wounds on JFK and Connolly or any of the fragments removed from their bodies were caused by CE 399.

TraneWreck

24th September 2010, 12:55 PM

1. You don't understand the NAA tests in this case. They have been debunked from here to next Tuesday
...

Alright, this is now pointless. Depending on your resolution, you can probably get the post where I responded to your questions on screen at the same time as your post wondering where people answered your question.

You are viciously wrong about the forensics on CE399 and you continue to avoid answering any questions posed to you.

This is just pathetic.

RoboTimbo

24th September 2010, 01:06 PM

Soily

24th September 2010, 01:08 PM

Alright, this is now pointless. Depending on your resolution, you can probably get the post where I responded to your questions on screen at the same time as your post wondering where people answered your question.

You are viciously wrong about the forensics on CE399 and you continue to avoid answering any questions posed to you.

This is just pathetic.
The fact you are inable to simply post the answer or link to the post number or quote the post answering the question suggests to me no such answer was ever given. You don't have the answer do you?

You have no proof Oswald fired a rifle that day, no proof CE399 was ever fired at JFK or found at parkland, and no proof any of the fragments in jfk or connolly came from CE 399.

If you had proof of these things you'd either just post it, refer me to the post it was proved or quote that post. You repeatedly fail to do either. Just post the answers and we can move on to subjecting me to your incredibly difficult and unanswerable questions that will flummox and destroy me. But until you post the answers to my questions you won't get that opportunity.

riptowtan

24th September 2010, 01:38 PM

Ok one last time.... Since I have already went over all of this, I will post a JFK researcher's series of points that leave us with CE399 being the only bullet that could have done the damage to both Kennedy and COnnally.

1.) President John F. Kennedy and Texas Governor John B. Connally were shot by rifle bullets in Dallas' Dealey Plaza on Friday, November 22, 1963.

2.) Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (Serial Number C2766) was located inside a building which overlooked the assassination site (the Texas School Book Depository) when JFK and JBC were being wounded by gunfire.

3.) A nearly-whole bullet (Warren Commission Exhibit #399) was found inside the hospital where JFK and JBC were taken after the shooting. And CE399 was found in a location within the hospital where President Kennedy was never located prior to the bullet being found by Darrell Tomlinson. (Nor was JFK's stretcher ever in the area of the hospital where Tomlinson discovered the bullet.)

4.) Bullet CE399 was positively fired from Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle.

5.) Bullet CE399, based on the above points in total, HAD to have been inside Governor Connally's body on 11/22/63.

6.) A man who looked like Lee Harvey Oswald was seen firing a rifle at the President's limousine from a southeast corner window on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository Building. No other gunmen were seen firing any weapons in Dealey Plaza on November 22nd.

7.) No bullets (or large bullet fragments) were found in the upper back or neck of John Kennedy's body. And no significant damage was found inside these areas of JFK's body either.

8.) No bullets (or large bullet fragments) were found inside the body of Governor Connally after the shooting. The only bullet, anywhere, that can possibly be connected with Connally's wounds is Bullet CE399.

9.) Given the point in time when both JFK and JBC were first hit by rifle fire (based on the Abraham Zapruder Film), and given the known location of Governor Connally's back (entrance) wound, and also taking into account the individual points made above -- Bullet CE399 had no choice but to have gone through the body of President Kennedy prior to entering the back of John B. Connally.

http://www.single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/

With this all in mind, it logically follows that the bullet found that was fired from Oswald's gun is the bullet that passed through Kennedy and Connally. There was no other bullet found. Since I doubt this will convince Soily, I have to ask what evidence would change your mind? Do you need a video of Oswald firing the gun? And why is it that you failed to respond to a lot of really good points that shows how absurd your "theory" is? Is this just cognitive closure on your part, or do you actually have answers to the questions asked?

riptowtan

24th September 2010, 01:47 PM

1. You don't understand the NAA tests in this case. They have been debunked from here to next Tuesday

This is not clear at all. There are many criticism of the 2006 paper you are referring to. If anything it is inconclusive, but then again I am no forensic chemist.
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/scientific_topics/NAA/NAA.html

Soily

24th September 2010, 02:03 PM

D

It's completely clear now you can't answer my questions.you've had at least a dozen opportunities now to provide the answers and you've dissembled every time.

Lets look at your points:

1.) President John F. Kennedy and Texas Governor John B. Connally were shot by rifle bullets in Dallas' Dealey Plaza on Friday, November 22, 1963.
True
2.) Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (Serial Number C2766) was located inside a building which overlooked the assassination site (the Texas School Book Depository) when JFK and JBC were being wounded by gunfire.
Dubious. The rifle Oswald ordered was not this rifle. Numerous postal refutations broken. CIA, FBI watching mailbox and Oswald knew it.

3.) A nearly-whole bullet (Warren Commission Exhibit #399) was found inside the hospital where JFK and JBC were taken after the shooting. And CE399 was found in a location within the hospital where President Kennedy was never located prior to the bullet being found by Darrell Tomlinson. (Nor was JFK's stretcher ever in the area of the hospital where Tomlinson discovered the bullet.)
False on every level. All available evidence shows CE399 concocted at FBI lab, real parkland bullet deep sixed
4.) Bullet CE399 was positively fired from Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle.
It was fired from the 'Oswald' rifle.

5.) Bullet CE399, based on the above points in total, HAD to have been inside Governor Connally's body on 11/22/63.
Utterly False. No physical, circumstantial or anecdotal evidence for this. A fantasy

6.) A man who looked like Lee Harvey Oswald was seen firing a rifle at the President's limousine from a southeast corner window on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository Building. No other gunmen were seen firing any weapons in Dealey Plaza on November 22nd.
Hilariously false. Brennan's testimony fails on every level. He describes things physically impossible, he fails to ID Oswald. The guy's a clown.
7.) No bullets (or large bullet fragments) were found in the upper back or neck of John Kennedy's body. And no significant damage was found inside these areas of JFK's body either.
No bullet fragments were found full stop. No evidence the back wound was connected to the neck wound. No evidence neck wound was caused by a bullet.

8.) No bullets (or large bullet fragments) were found inside the body of Governor Connally after the shooting. The only bullet, anywhere, that can possibly be connected with Connally's wounds is Bullet CE399.
Absolutely false on every level. No evidence any fragment found in Connoly was related in anyway to CE399

9.) Given the point in time when both JFK and JBC were first hit by rifle fire (based on the Abraham Zapruder Film), and given the known location of Governor Connally's back (entrance) wound, and also taking into account the individual points made above -- Bullet CE399 had no choice but to have gone through the body of President Kennedy prior to entering the back of John B. Connally
False assumption. The zapruder film*shows no*such thing, unless your mind is preset on one conclusion and your are seeing what you want to. Which is what you are.

TraneWreck

24th September 2010, 02:06 PM

The fact you are inable to simply post the answer or link to the post number or quote the post answering the question suggests to me no such answer was ever given. You don't have the answer do you?

You have no proof Oswald fired a rifle that day, no proof CE399 was ever fired at JFK or found at parkland, and no proof any of the fragments in jfk or connolly came from CE 399.

If you had proof of these things you'd either just post it, refer me to the post it was proved or quote that post. You repeatedly fail to do either. Just post the answers and we can move on to subjecting me to your incredibly difficult and unanswerable questions that will flummox and destroy me. But until you post the answers to my questions you won't get that opportunity.

Let me translate that post into paranoid conspiracy nut (special thanks to the new google translate function that helps people intepret insanity like that above):

"I am completely inable to make a coherent argument or present evidence that doesn't rely on twisting eyewitness testimony, therefore I'm going to repeat the same false, idiotic points over and over, deny all contradictory evidence without reason, and whine a whole bunch. This will help me maintain the necessary psychological denial to be a conspiracy theories instead of scrolling up the page to answer my question."

More dodging from you.

TraneWreck

24th September 2010, 02:08 PM

No bullet fragments were found full stop. No evidence the back wound was connected to the neck wound. No evidence neck wound was caused by a bullet.

Of all the absurdity in that post, this was my favorite.

Explain what you think happened.

jargon buster

24th September 2010, 02:16 PM

soily
Lets say everything you posted is correct (big ask i know but bear with me) and that it wasnt Oswald and it was a Illuminati ordered hit.

My question is , "What now?"
what do you want to happen?

tsig

24th September 2010, 03:24 PM

Soily

24th September 2010, 03:36 PM

Of all the absurdity in that post, this was my favorite.

Explain what you think happened.

Haha I don't think so sonny. You're the one that is certain what happened, not me. I freely admit I don't know,which is the only credible answer.

tsig

24th September 2010, 03:52 PM

Yep. All the physical evidence points to Oswald as the lone shooter. The random coincidences and impossible to control scenarios that led motorcade down that street with Kennedy exposed prove that there was no conspiracy behind Oswald.

This is an excellent, detailed run-down of the important events leading up to the assassination:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dallas.txt

Notice that Oswald had already begun working at the Book Depository before the route Kennedy would take had been decided.

Additionally, the fact that Oswald even had that job involved a series of random events that were obviously unplanned:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/leejob2.txt

I recommend reading both of those in their entirety. Oswald was a lone nut and outrageous fortune put he and Kennedy in their places at the crucial time. There was no plan.

The NWO has no plan we just cover all contingencies.

dafydd

24th September 2010, 03:55 PM

Haha I don't think so sonny. You're the one that is certain what happened, not me. I freely admit I don't know,which is the only credible answer.

If you don't know what happened,why are you rabbiting on about it?

jargon buster

24th September 2010, 04:02 PM

soily wrote in his first post
Thanks very much!

This one is really easy. There's a whole list of reasons why it's false which we can go through if you want but they're largely irrelevant because of one simple fact. There is no single bullet theory because there is no single bullet. The bullet found at parkland hospital was absolutely not the same bullet entered into evidence as CE399. If anyone has proof it was I'd contact the authorities as you have a major new breakthrough on your hands!
then finally wrote
I freely admit I don't know,which is the only credible answer.

:eye-poppi

tsig

24th September 2010, 04:22 PM

Haha I don't think so sonny. You're the one that is certain what happened, not me. I freely admit I don't know,which is the only credible answer.

So Oswald could have been the lone gunman or there was a man on the Grassy Knoll or a sniper on the overpass or aliens from Arcturus?

sackett

24th September 2010, 04:22 PM

All this is idle.

Look: *I* shot JFK!

With my little bow and arrow.

Longfellow

24th September 2010, 04:59 PM

Soily, if you are standing in a deep, deep hole with a shovel in your hand wouldn't it be better to stop digging?

Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy. You have no proof suggesting otherwise. You will never convince anyone here (save our resident JFK conspiracy theorists) of anything. I don't know why you keep posting, personally. It would likely be best if you were to return to whatever conspiracy minded forum you honed your technique on and go ahead and declare victory.

Honestly, I'm starting to become embarrassed for you. You're kind of like Monty Python's Black Knight. Armless. Legless. Threatening to bite everyone.

dafydd

24th September 2010, 05:41 PM

riptowtan

24th September 2010, 08:06 PM

Haha I don't think so sonny. You're the one that is certain what happened, not me. I freely admit I don't know,which is the only credible answer.

You don't want to even think about what happened, because once you start it is clear that there is no alternative narrative that makes any sense. This is why it is so clear to the rest of us why these conspiracy theories are BS. You keep fixating on the branches or even twigs of trees, while failing to see the forest in front of you. You need to posit a testable, plausible alternative if you ever want to get anywhere, or even be taken seriously.

Hans

24th September 2010, 11:18 PM

You need to posit a testable, plausible alternative if you ever want to get anywhere, or even be taken seriously.

You do know that is a request that will never be honoured!

Longfellow

25th September 2010, 09:36 AM

Should we have a monthly Black Knight award for Soily and his ilk?

That's not a bad idea at all. :D

9/11 Chewy Defense

25th September 2010, 10:54 AM

Single Bullet Fact: Bullets travel in a straight line & curves downward when gravity takes affect on it at long distances. Also wind can be a factor!

Nov. 22nd, 1963 was a calm sunny day. So the bullet traveled a short distance & hit Kennedy's back, exited out his neck & began to tumble, struck Connelly's side, breaking 3 of his ribs & causing a 3 inch hole, exited out his chest hitting his wrist & then landing in his lap.

If a .58 caliber bullet fired from a Civil War rifle can penetrait through 24 inches of 2 X 4's, then it's a proven fact that a single bullet can cause that much damage into 2 humans.

Bullets don't magically turn in mid-air, it's impossible!

CurtC

25th September 2010, 12:19 PM

So the bullet traveled a short distance & hit Kennedy's back, exited out his neck & began to tumble, struck Connelly's side, breaking 3 of his ribs & causing a 3 inch hole, exited out his chest hitting his wrist & then landing in his lap.

It didn't land in his lap - it embedded in his thigh.

Soily

25th September 2010, 03:14 PM

It didn't land in his lap - it embedded in his thigh.

Factoid. No evidence any bullet was ever in connollys thigh. His own surgeon thought he was hit by fragments of other bullets. In fact, startlingly, we have no evidence any of the fragments in either men were fired by the Oswald rifle.

RoboTimbo

25th September 2010, 05:31 PM

Factoid. No evidence any bullet was ever in connollys thigh. His own surgeon thought he was hit by fragments of other bullets. In fact, startlingly, we have no evidence any of the fragments in either men were fired by the Oswald rifle.

So still not answering questions, Soily? I have to say, some real stumpers have been put to you so I'm not surprised at your simply wanting them to go away. That one about "What is your hypothesis?", I think that's the one that really made you clam up.

riptowtan

25th September 2010, 11:38 PM

Factoid. No evidence any bullet was ever in connollys thigh. His own surgeon thought he was hit by fragments of other bullets. In fact, startlingly, we have no evidence any of the fragments in either men were fired by the Oswald rifle.

Those damn magic fragments hopping over Connally to get his thigh and wrist! Still in denial mode about the fact that the only bullets found that day were all linked to Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all weapons. The fragments found in Connally add up to what was missing from CE399. so it all fits. And looking at the rest of the evidence it makes complete sense. Since you haven't proposed an alternative that better explains all of the evidence and is plausible, you should accept the single bullet theory. All you have is an empty sac, and no one here is buying it.

RoboTimbo

26th September 2010, 12:41 PM

roundhead banned, 7forever flew the coop, fourbrick abandoned the thread after dropping Joke White on us, Soily abstaining from answering questions...

Disappointing, really.

CurtC

26th September 2010, 08:55 PM

Whatever happened to Rouser? I sorta miss him.

Regnad Kcin

27th September 2010, 07:03 PM

JFK conspiracy theorists. They'd be boring if they weren't so entertaining.

Actually, no, they're pretty boring as well.

dafydd

28th September 2010, 04:45 AM

JFK conspiracy theorists. They'd be boring if they weren't so entertaining.

Actually, no, they're pretty boring as well.

There must be something missing in their lives.Otherwise why would they pursue this nonsense after all these years?

Fourbrick

28th September 2010, 05:41 AM

roundhead banned, 7forever flew the coop, fourbrick abandoned the thread after dropping Joke White on us, Soily abstaining from answering questions...

Disappointing, really.

Sorry Robo but I haven't abandoned the thread. Just been away.

Maybe you all think Jack White was a joke. That's your prerogative.

How about this opinion? ( I won't say from an"expert" as there are too many of same on here.)

Major John Pickard, commander of the photographic department at the Canadian Defense Department,:

"The pictures have the earmarks of being faked. The shadows fall in conflicting directions. The shadow of Oswald's nose falls in one direction and that of his body in another. The photos were shot from a slightly different angle, a different distance, with the gun in a different hand. So, if one photo is laid on top of another, nothing could match exactly. Yet, impossibly, while one body is bigger, in the other the heads match perfectly, bearing out Oswald's charge that his head was pasted on an incriminating photograph."

or this from another "non expert"

Retired Detective Superintendent Malcolm Thompson, a past president of the Institute of Incorporated Photographers in England.

Thompson said he detected retouching in the photos around the area of Oswald's head and on the butt of the rifle. He also noted inconsistencies in the location of shadows and the different chin on Oswald
Thompson stated: "One can only conclude that Oswald's head has been stuck on to a chin which is not Oswald's chin.... My opinion is that those photographs are faked.... I consider the pictures to be the result of a montage."

Comments?

RoboTimbo

28th September 2010, 07:25 AM

Did they examine the photographs or the negatives?

Ranb

28th September 2010, 07:56 AM

Maybe you all think Jack White was a joke. That's your prerogative.

So why do you quote Pickard, Thompson and White? White claims to lack the training and knowledge required to be an expert photo analyst.

What about the opinion of Hany Farid? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/05/hany-farid-dartmouth-scie_n_347862.html Why are you not commenting on his analysis? Do you support the conclusions of those who say the photos were faked merely because it in turn supports your line of reasoning on the matter?

You go on and on about how some posters here are "experts" because they are not impressed with White. But you have to remember, White himself claims to lack the expertise to analyze photos. Why are you calling White an expert when he clearly says he is not?

Ranb

Fourbrick

28th September 2010, 08:02 AM

What about the opinion of Hany Farid? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/05/hany-farid-dartmouth-scie_n_347862.html Why are you not commenting on his analysis? Do you support the conclusions of those who say the photos were faked merely because it in turn supports your line of reasoning on the matter?

Ranb

Farid (who did work for the F.B.I.)examined only one of the photos. And he investigated only the nose shadow, not the rest of the shadow inconsistencies in the other photos.

Regarding the photo he said

"You can never really prove an image is real, but the evidence that people have pointed to that the photo is fake is incorrect," Farid said Thursday. "As an academic and a scientist, I don't like to say it's absolutely authentic ... but it's extremely unlikely to have been a fake.”

And he admitted, "We are really bad at judging shadows. I'm bad at it and this is what I do for a living."”:rolleyes:

Farid said “There is no evidence of digital tampering evident on the photo.”

As digital enhancing was not available in 1963, it is not surprising.

RoboTimbo

28th September 2010, 08:21 AM

Interestingly enough, we have Marina's testimony that she took the pictures. Where is her testimony incorrect? Sorry, the photos aren't faked.

Ranb

28th September 2010, 08:24 AM

Farid said “There is no evidence of digital tampering evident on the photo.”

As digital enhancing was not available in 1963, it is not surprising.

Got a link to those words you are quoting? If he was examining a digital copy, then there is no need to roll your eyes at his statement.

You are rather evasive when it comes to answering simple questions.

1. Do you support the conclusions of those who say the photos were faked merely because it in turn supports your line of reasoning on the matter?

2. Why are you calling White an expert when he clearly says he is not?

Ranb

Fourbrick

28th September 2010, 08:27 AM

Ranb

28th September 2010, 08:27 AM

Interestingly enough, we have Marina's testimony that she took the pictures. Where is her testimony incorrect? Sorry, the photos aren't faked.

You do not understand. The CT dingbats will point to the hearsay statements published in CT books claiming that Marina later claimed she did not take the photos. That is all the iron clad evidence they need to show the photos were faked after they realize that White was not actually an expert in anything. :)

Ranb

Ranb

28th September 2010, 08:33 AM

As a previous contributor said, you can't rely on individual testimony.....When asked how she took the photos she said she took them at eye level, (like any normal camera). Trouble was the camera she used was an Imperial Reflex camera which is held at waste level, not up to the eye.

I have used a camera of this type before. While it can be held at the waist, it is not required to do so. Like any other camera it can be held near the eye or away, whatever it takes to get the desired photo.

Ironic that you would say one can not rely on individual testimony. White claims no expertise in photo analysis, but he is your champion, or was a few days ago. Why did you rely on White so much recently? Can not find someone with any integrity to prop up your claims?

Ranb

Fourbrick

28th September 2010, 08:35 AM

You are rather evasive when it comes to answering simple questions.

1. Do you support the conclusions of those who say the photos were faked merely because it in turn supports your line of reasoning on the matter?[QUOTE]

No.

[QUOTE]2. Why are you calling White an expert when he clearly says he is not?

Ranb
O.k. let's say he's not an "expert." What about the other "experts" opinions shown above?

RoboTimbo

28th September 2010, 08:37 AM

As a previous contributor said, you can't rely on individual testimony.

When asked how she took the photos she said she took them at eye level, (like any normal camera). Trouble was the camera she used was an Imperial Reflex camera which is held at waste level, not up to the eye.

She originally said that she took just one photo. When shown the second, she admitted that she might have taken two. She in fact took three according to the evidence.

Yeh, a great witness.

Two days ago, I was at a botannical garden with my wife. I took my cell phone out to take some pictures of birds. Later that evening, I was showing them to my wife and told her I had taken three pictures. There were actually four.

Do you think the fact that I had forgotten the number of pictures I took invalidates the fact that I knew that I had taken pictures of birds? How about the orientation of the photos? I had forgotten that I held the phone horizontally for three of them and vertically for the last. Does that invalidate my knowledge of taking pictures of birds? Please show your work in your explanation.

Fourbrick

28th September 2010, 08:37 AM

I have used a camera of this type before. While it can be held at the waist, it is not required to do so. Like any other camera it can be held near the eye or away, whatever it takes to get the desired photo.

Really? You must be about the only person (apart from Marina:D) who uses a Rollieflex type camera this way. How on Earth do you see what you are photographing?

Ironic that you would say one can not rely on individual testimony. White claims no expertise in photo analysis, but he is your champion, or was a few days ago. Why did you rely on White so much recently? Can not find someone with any integrity to prop up your claims?

Ranb

See above.

Fourbrick

28th September 2010, 08:41 AM

Two days ago, I was at a botannical garden with my wife. I took my cell phone out to take some pictures of birds. Later that evening, I was showing them to my wife and told her I had taken three pictures. There were actually four.

Do you think the fact that I had forgotten the number of pictures I took invalidates the fact that I knew that I had taken pictures of birds? How about the orientation of the photos? I had forgotten that I held the phone horizontally for three of them and vertically for the last. Does that invalidate my knowledge of taking pictures of birds? Please show your work in your explanation.

Irrelevant (by the way it's "botanical")

RoboTimbo

28th September 2010, 08:47 AM

Irrelevant (by the way it's "botanical")

Thanks! But you didn't show your working, as requested.

Fourbrick

28th September 2010, 09:12 AM

Thanks! But you didn't show your working, as requested.

The working of what? The start of your Altzheimers?

RoboTimbo

28th September 2010, 09:15 AM

The working of what? The start of your Altzheimers?

I'm not sure why the gratuitous insult but your working on the questions I asked you. Do you believe my forgetting I had taken four pictures rather than three invalidated my knowledge of taking pictures of birds. Why or why not? Show your working.

Fourbrick

28th September 2010, 09:22 AM

I'm not sure why the gratuitous insult but your working on the questions I asked you. Do you believe my forgetting I had taken four pictures rather than three invalidated my knowledge of taking pictures of birds. Why or why not? Show your working.

Not a gratuitous insult. You said yourself "my forgetting I had taken four photos rather than three."

And it's a stupid question.

RoboTimbo

28th September 2010, 09:27 AM

Not a gratuitous insult. You said yourself "my forgetting I had taken four photos rather than three."

And it's a stupid question.

So how did you get from me forgetting something to Alzheimers? No, it's a pertinent question that you don't want to acknowledge the ramifications of. Do you understand why you don't want to face it?

Fourbrick

28th September 2010, 09:33 AM

Do you think the fact that I had forgotten the number of pictures I took invalidates the fact that I knew that I had taken pictures of birds?

No

How about the orientation of the photos? I had forgotten that I held the phone horizontally for three of them and vertically for the last. Does that invalidate my knowledge of taking pictures of birds?

No

Please show your work in your explanation.

Not necessary see above.

Now show your working of how the above diversion into your ornithological past time has anything to do with the fact that Marina Oswald was an unreliable witness.

Fourbrick

28th September 2010, 09:38 AM

Incidentally accept my apologies for the Altzheimers comment. It was over the top.

RoboTimbo

28th September 2010, 09:46 AM

No

No

Not necessary see above.

Now show your working of how the above diversion into your ornithological past time has anything to do with the fact that Marina Oswald was an unreliable witness.

And yet you want to invalidate the fact that she did take pictures of Oswald with his guns due to the fact that she didn't remember taking two pictures rather than one or how she held the camera.

Fourbrick

28th September 2010, 10:03 AM

And yet you want to invalidate the fact that she did take pictures of Oswald with his guns due to the fact that she didn't remember taking two pictures rather than one or how she held the camera.

No. First of all she said she only took one photo. When this was shown to be incorrect she changed her story to two. Later it was shown that she had taken at least three. You don't think it's relevant that she didn't know how to hold the camera?

RoboTimbo

28th September 2010, 10:18 AM

Chapter 4, page 127 of the WCR:
The authenticity of these pictures has been established by expert testimony which links the second picture, Commission Exhibit No. 133-B, to Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera, with which Marina Oswald testified she took the pictures.87 The negative of that picture, Commission Exhibit No. 133-B, was found among Oswald's possessions.88 Using a recognized technique of determining whether a picture was taken with a particular camera, Shaneyfelt compared this negative with a negative which he made by taking a new picture with Oswald's camera.89 He concluded that the negative of Exhibit No. 133-B was exposed in Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera to the exclusion of all other cameras. 90 He could not test Exhibit No. 133-A in the same way because the negative was never recovered. 91 Both pictures, however, have identical backgrounds and lighting and, judging from the shadows, were taken at the same angle. They are photographs of the same scene.92 Since Exhibit No. 133-B was taken with Oswald's camera, it is reasonably certain that Exhibit No. 133-A was taken by the same camera at the same time, as Marina Oswald testified. Moreover, Shaneyfelt testified that in his opinion the photographs were not composites of two different photographs and that Oswald's face had not been superimposed on another body.93
No, not relevant. Do you think it's relevant?

Ranb

28th September 2010, 10:19 AM

Really? You must be about the only person (apart from Marina:D) who uses a Rollieflex type camera this way. How on Earth do you see what you are photographing?

So what are the rules for holding an Imperial Reflex camera? :) What experience do you have with these cameras? How is it that you do not understand a camera does not have to be held in only one way to take a photo? The viewfinder on these dual lens cameras is very easy to use in various positions

Suggesting that White is no longer an expert does not explain why you insisted that he was. So why were you putting him on a pedestal in the first place? Calling
White a photo analysis expert is like calling Hitler an expert on getting along with people that you don't like.

Ranb

Edited to add; so what about your other experts? Do you believe them merely because they support your conspiracy theories? I have not seen anything that impresses me about your experts. I have only read their conclusions, not how they arrived at them. It seems that you have not either.

Fourbrick

28th September 2010, 10:47 AM

So what are the rules for holding an Imperial Reflex camera? :)

http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Reflex_620_Duo_Lens

What experience do you have with these cameras?

My son is a professional photographer.

How is it that you do not understand a camera does not have to be held in only one way to take a photo? The viewfinder on these dual lens cameras is very easy to use in various positions

Please tell me how you view the subject when using a reflex to your eye.

Suggesting that White is no longer an expert does not explain why you insisted that he was. So why were you putting him on a pedestal in the first place? Calling
White a photo analysis expert is like calling Hitler an expert on getting along with people that you don't like.

That's just your opinion.

Edited to add; so what about your other experts? Do you believe them merely because they support your conspiracy theories?

No, because they appear to confirm my suspicions.

I have not seen anything that impresses me about your experts. I have only read their conclusions, not how they arrived at them. It seems that you have not either.

That's your problem, not mine. Having read the expert you mentioned his conclusions were based on limited information.

Ranb

28th September 2010, 11:18 AM

Your link to the Reflex camera contains nothing on how they are required to be used. But it does support (look at the pictures of he viewfinder) the opinion that holding it at the waist is not the only position it can be used in.

So your son is a photographer, I guess this means you know nothing about cameras then if you are unwilling to admit to knowing anything about them.

The reflex camera can be held in any position as long as the person can actually see the image projected at the top. Even using a point/shoot method without using the viewfinder is possible, although i see no reason why Marina would have done this.

It was your opinion that White was an expert. I am still trying to find out why you made this claim even though you had no evidence to support it and access to White's claims to deny it.

Ranb

Fourbrick

28th September 2010, 11:26 AM

So your son is a photographer, I guess this means you know nothing about cameras then if you are unwilling to admit to knowing anything about them.

You can guess as much as you like. Seems that's what you usually do.

The reflex camera can be held in any position as long as the person can actually see the image projected at the top. Even using a point/shoot method without using the viewfinder is possible, although i see no reason why Marina would have done this.

Arf. Tell me how you can see the image when the camera is held up to eye.

And she got three photos exactly the same by point and shoot. Don't make me laugh.

It was your opinion that White was an expert. I am still trying to find out why you made this claim even though you had no evidence to support it and access to White's claims to deny it.

Ranb

You were prepared to quote your expert when he admits that he only studied one photo. Why do you believe your expert?

Ranb

28th September 2010, 12:21 PM

You have not admitted to actually knowing anything about reflex cameras at all yet. So far you have claimed that they have to be held at waist level to take a photo and that your son is a professional photographer. You have not even bothered to claim to know anything about the camera used other than stuff you make up.

The camera can be held at the upper chest with the photographers head tilted down so that his or her eye is near the viewfinder. It is not so hard and I have used them this way. I never said they were held like an SLR camera.

I never said I believed any expert. I have questioned why you believe in yours and why you claimed that White was an expert. I also questioned why you did not include the claims of those who say the photos were not faked.

Why are you so reluctant to tell us why you claimed White was an expert when you had no rational reason to believe it?

Ranb

JohnG

28th September 2010, 04:12 PM

Irrelevant (by the way it's "botanical")

The working of what? The start of your Altzheimers?

Incidentally accept my apologies for the Altzheimers comment. It was over the top.

By the way, it's "Alzheimer's".:)

RoboTimbo

28th September 2010, 04:15 PM

Really? You must be about the only person (apart from Marina:D) who uses a Rollieflex type camera this way. How on Earth do you see what you are photographing?

See above.

And Rolleiflex.

JimBenArm

28th September 2010, 06:05 PM

And moron.

phillyboy

28th September 2010, 06:28 PM

As I understand it, Marina--being relatively new to America, and not knowing our legal system--was petrified that she would be held as an accomplice to JFK's murder. Consequently, some of her answers to initial questioning were evasive. Her statements were all over the place.

Dave Rogers

29th September 2010, 02:58 AM

My son is a professional photographer.

Well then, I can cite myself as an expert. When I was a kid, my brother had a twin-lens reflex camera with the viewfinder on the top, just like the Imperial Reflex. The viewfinder projected a picture on to a glass plate on top of the body, and you looked down on to it to line up the shot. If you held the camera at waist level, the viewfinder picture was quite a long way away, and in any kind of sunlight it was quite difficult to see anything. If you look at the picture of the camera on the link you so helpfully posted, though, you'll see it's got an angled shade over the viewfinder so that you can cut out the sunlight. The only problem with this - and again, it's very clear from the link you posted - is that, if you hold the camera at waist level, this shade is in the way of the viewfinder. The way round this is to hold the camera a little below eye level, look down on to the viewfinder, and take the photo with it shaded.

There were some clear shadows in the photos of Oswald, so it must have been quite sunny. Exactly the conditions where, in a twin lens camera, you needed to use the shade and hold it up to about chin level. But, since SLR cameras have made them obsolete, today's basement warriors for truthiness don't know all that, so they think there's a discrepancy. As usual, it's simply that they lack knowledge that they don't know they lack.

I know this. I've used these things. Have you?

Dave

Fourbrick

29th September 2010, 05:41 AM

By the way, it's "Alzheimer's".:)

TOUCHÉ :o

Fourbrick

29th September 2010, 05:43 AM

And Rolleiflex.

TOUCHÉ again!

Fourbrick

29th September 2010, 05:44 AM

And moron.

Thank you for your valued contribution.:rolleyes:

Fourbrick

29th September 2010, 05:50 AM

. The way round this is to hold the camera a little below eye level, look down on to the viewfinder, and take the photo with it shaded.

Only trouble is it not possible to see into the viewfinder if you hold it just below eye level. The highest you can hold it is top of the chest, which is way below eye level, not just below eye level, otherwise you can't see the viewfinder. (You have to bend your head down to see the viewfinder, and that's not at eye level) But then there's no accounting for the different way that people use cameras. I suppose it would be possible to stir my cream into my coffee with my walking stick, but I don't suppose it's common.

I know this. I've used these things. Have you?

Dave

Yes.

Ranb

29th September 2010, 06:28 AM

Only trouble is it not possible to see into the viewfinder if you hold it just below eye level.

What a surprise. Fourbrick would not believe it is possible to use one at just below eye level even if we were to demonstate it for him. He is just like the moonbats who would not believe it is posible to travel to the moon even if they were sent there.

If I still had access to one of these cameras, then I would demonstrate its use, but I do not. It would be a waste of time anyway.

Ranb

Dave Rogers

29th September 2010, 06:31 AM

Only trouble is it not possible to see into the viewfinder if you hold it just below eye level. The highest you can hold it is top of the chest, which is way below eye level, not just below eye level, otherwise you can't see the viewfinder. (You have to bend your head down to see the viewfinder, and that's not at eye level)

So now it doesn't have to be held at waist level, it can be held at the top of the chest. Don't you think you're backpedalling a bit?

But even that isn't exactly right, is it? You see, if you incline your head downwards slightly, you can see the viewfinder picture very clearly with the top of the camera just a couple of inches below eye level. In fact, in sunlight, you'll see it more clearly if it's that close. And that's a little higher than the top of the chest, and so close to eye level that even an expert like Jack White probably couldn't tell the difference in the angle.

And, of course, if you bend your head down, "eye level" is a little lower, and you are in fact holding the camera up to your eye to see the viewfinder.

But then there's no accounting for the different way that people use cameras. I suppose it would be possible to stir my cream into my coffee with my walking stick, but I don't suppose it's common.

Put your statement that "there's no accounting for the different way that people use cameras" next to your absolute certainty that Marina Oswald used one in the specific way you claimed this type of camera must be used, and that next to your admission that there are in fact other ways it can be used, and your argument here is looking pretty threadbare, isn't it?

Dave

Fourbrick

29th September 2010, 06:57 AM

So now it doesn't have to be held at waist level, it can be held at the top of the chest. Don't you think you're backpedalling a bit?

No. It's not at eye level.

But even that isn't exactly right, is it? You see, if you incline your head downwards slightly, you can see the viewfinder picture very clearly with the top of the camera just a couple of inches below eye level. In fact, in sunlight, you'll see it more clearly if it's that close.

You have to incline your head more than slightly. Then if you incline your head to look into the view finder you are not holding it up to eye level

And that's a little higher than the top of the chest, and so close to eye level that even an expert like Jack White probably couldn't tell the difference in the angle.

I'd love to be able to see you take a decent photo from that position.

And, of course, if you bend your head down, "eye level" is a little lower, and you are in fact holding the camera up to your eye to see the viewfinder.

Semantically, yes, but in the normal use of eye level, no. You are lowering your eye to below "eye level"

Put your statement that "there's no accounting for the different way that people use cameras" next to your absolute certainty that Marina Oswald used one in the specific way you claimed this type of camera must be used, and that next to your admission that there are in fact other ways it can be used, and your argument here is looking pretty threadbare, isn't it?

Dave

Not at all.