|
|
 March 09, 2011, 03:43:00 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 3611
|
Making it clear that they will say anything, or do anything to try and keep their fantasy alive, CT on this board have said some things that have made us all scratch our heads really hard. Feel free to add, and I am sure the list will grow in the future.
1- David Sellers trying to hint that Oswald couldn't do the shooting, because the fact that he couldn't drive a car is proof he didn't have good hand eye coordination.
2- Tony posting that proof that Oswald went to work with his wedding ring on 11/22/63, is the fact that Frazier didn't ask him why he wasn't wearing his wedding ring. A few things wrong with this Gem right off the bat. 1- Anyone who has ever lived knows that you rarely notice if someone is wearing a ring, unless you want to ask them out. 2- Frazier barely knew Oswald, so I don't think he would ask him even if he did notice, and even if he happened to notice before 11/22 that Oswald wore a ring. 3- If Frazier noticed the ring and asked Oswald. why hasn't he told anyone in 47 years. I am sure he knows the evidence to the case.
3- Tony saying the fact that nobody claimed to be with Oswald during the assasination, is not proof that nobody was with Oswald, because maybe he was sitting with some black guys but they were threatened to not say anything.
4- Herbert saying Curry was a back of the head witnsses, because he found an audio of Curry saying that maybe a shot came from the front because of the way JFK's head reacted when hit, and because of the blood spatter.
He can't tell you anything aboiut this audio, it could be Curry opinion after reading a conspiracy book, because he sure didn't see it. But Herbert in his desperate quest to find a Dealey Plaza back of the head witnsses, tried to force this square peg in our round hole. And even if the Curry thing took, say nobody here had an IQ above 70, then it would be everyone else in Dealey who saw it vs Curry. I guess this would be proof to Herbert that the back of Oswald's head opened up.
-------------------------
-------------------------
What is silly is thinking that two turns that reduced the speed of the car to 8-11 m.p.h. is no big deal when motorcades are suppose to keep a 44 m.p.h. speed..R Caprio
LHO had poor hand-eye coordination and proof of this is seen in the fact he couldn't drive an automobile-- R Caprio
|
|
|
 Reply |
|
|
|
|
March 09, 2011, 07:42:49 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 1899
|
Making it clear that they will say anything, or do anything to try and keep their fantasy alive, CT on this board have said some things that have made us all scratch our heads really hard. Feel free to add, and I am sure the list will grow in the future.
1- David Sellers trying to hint that Oswald couldn't do the shooting, because the fact that he couldn't drive a car is proof he didn't have good hand eye coordination.
2- Tony posting that proof that Oswald went to work with his wedding ring on 11/22/63, is the fact that Frazier didn't ask him why he wasn't wearing his wedding ring. A few things wrong with this Gem right off the bat. 1- Anyone who has ever lived knows that you rarely notice if someone is wearing a ring, unless you want to ask them out. 2- Frazier barely knew Oswald, so I don't think he would ask him even if he did notice, and even if he happened to notice before 11/22 that Oswald wore a ring. 3- If Frazier noticed the ring and asked Oswald. why hasn't he told anyone in 47 years. I am sure he knows the evidence to the case.
3- Tony saying the fact that nobody claimed to be with Oswald during the assasination, is not proof that nobody was with Oswald, because maybe he was sitting with some black guys but they were threatened to not say anything.
4- Herbert saying Curry was a back of the head witnsses, because he found an audio of Curry saying that maybe a shot came from the front because of the way JFK's head reacted when hit, and because of the blood spatter.
He can't tell you anything aboiut this audio, it could be Curry opinion after reading a conspiracy book, because he sure didn't see it. But Herbert in his desperate quest to find a Dealey Plaza back of the head witnsses, tried to force this square peg in our round hole. And even if the Curry thing took, say nobody here had an IQ above 70, then it would be everyone else in Dealey who saw it vs Curry. I guess this would be proof to Herbert that the back of Oswald's head opened up.
Doesn't matter what we come up with, you guys will always have the SBT.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
March 09, 2011, 08:04:54 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2201
|
Making it clear that they will say anything, or do anything to try and keep their fantasy alive, CT on this board have said some things that have made us all scratch our heads really hard. Feel free to add, and I am sure the list will grow in the future.
1- David Sellers trying to hint that Oswald couldn't do the shooting, because the fact that he couldn't drive a car is proof he didn't have good hand eye coordination.
2- Tony posting that proof that Oswald went to work with his wedding ring on 11/22/63, is the fact that Frazier didn't ask him why he wasn't wearing his wedding ring. A few things wrong with this Gem right off the bat. 1- Anyone who has ever lived knows that you rarely notice if someone is wearing a ring, unless you want to ask them out. 2- Frazier barely knew Oswald, so I don't think he would ask him even if he did notice, and even if he happened to notice before 11/22 that Oswald wore a ring. 3- If Frazier noticed the ring and asked Oswald. why hasn't he told anyone in 47 years. I am sure he knows the evidence to the case.
3- Tony saying the fact that nobody claimed to be with Oswald during the assasination, is not proof that nobody was with Oswald, because maybe he was sitting with some black guys but they were threatened to not say anything.
4- Herbert saying Curry was a back of the head witnsses, because he found an audio of Curry saying that maybe a shot came from the front because of the way JFK's head reacted when hit, and because of the blood spatter.
He can't tell you anything aboiut this audio, it could be Curry opinion after reading a conspiracy book, because he sure didn't see it. But Herbert in his desperate quest to find a Dealey Plaza back of the head witnsses, tried to force this square peg in our round hole. And even if the Curry thing took, say nobody here had an IQ above 70, then it would be everyone else in Dealey who saw it vs Curry. I guess this would be proof to Herbert that the back of Oswald's head opened up.
Somehow my citation of Chief Curry as a witness to debris that flew out of the back of JFK’s head enters Brian’s head and comes as an alleged citation of a back of the head witness. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login At least we now know where things get all mixed up. I cited Greer and Hill as back of the head witnesses who did not belong to Parkland Hospital. Brian knows this to be true because he replied with the ususal dismissal of the Hill testimony. In particular, I said. “At Parkland Hospital two agents saw the damage to the rear of President Kennedy’s head. William Robert Greer saw that the top and right rear side of the head was all blown off and Clinton Hill observed the right rear portion of his head was missing.” Brian replied. “Hill again. What Hill describes could be exactly what the WC described. Why do you keep trying this. Anything behind the ear can be described as the back part of the head. When Hill was asked where exactly the wound was, he pointed to above the right ear.” Herbert
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
March 09, 2011, 09:35:35 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 9143
|
Be careful, guys. We ALL make mistakes.
Bill, Surely we all do. I made one once, but I corrected it by becoming an LN. 
-------------------------
-------------------------
Marsh can not even comprehend a simple time stamp. How will he ever comprehend the evidence?
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
March 09, 2011, 10:58:20 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 3611
|
Making it clear that they will say anything, or do anything to try and keep their fantasy alive, CT on this board have said some things that have made us all scratch our heads really hard. Feel free to add, and I am sure the list will grow in the future.
1- David Sellers trying to hint that Oswald couldn't do the shooting, because the fact that he couldn't drive a car is proof he didn't have good hand eye coordination.
2- Tony posting that proof that Oswald went to work with his wedding ring on 11/22/63, is the fact that Frazier didn't ask him why he wasn't wearing his wedding ring. A few things wrong with this Gem right off the bat. 1- Anyone who has ever lived knows that you rarely notice if someone is wearing a ring, unless you want to ask them out. 2- Frazier barely knew Oswald, so I don't think he would ask him even if he did notice, and even if he happened to notice before 11/22 that Oswald wore a ring. 3- If Frazier noticed the ring and asked Oswald. why hasn't he told anyone in 47 years. I am sure he knows the evidence to the case.
3- Tony saying the fact that nobody claimed to be with Oswald during the assasination, is not proof that nobody was with Oswald, because maybe he was sitting with some black guys but they were threatened to not say anything.
4- Herbert saying Curry was a back of the head witnsses, because he found an audio of Curry saying that maybe a shot came from the front because of the way JFK's head reacted when hit, and because of the blood spatter.
He can't tell you anything aboiut this audio, it could be Curry opinion after reading a conspiracy book, because he sure didn't see it. But Herbert in his desperate quest to find a Dealey Plaza back of the head witnsses, tried to force this square peg in our round hole. And even if the Curry thing took, say nobody here had an IQ above 70, then it would be everyone else in Dealey who saw it vs Curry. I guess this would be proof to Herbert that the back of Oswald's head opened up.
Somehow my citation of Chief Curry as a witness to debris that flew out of the back of JFK’s head enters Brian’s head and comes as an alleged citation of a back of the head witness. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login At least we now know where things get all mixed up. I cited Greer and Hill as back of the head witnesses who did not belong to Parkland Hospital. Brian knows this to be true because he replied with the ususal dismissal of the Hill testimony. In particular, I said. “At Parkland Hospital two agents saw the damage to the rear of President Kennedy’s head. William Robert Greer saw that the top and right rear side of the head was all blown off and Clinton Hill observed the right rear portion of his head was missing.” Brian replied. “Hill again. What Hill describes could be exactly what the WC described. Why do you keep trying this. Anything behind the ear can be described as the back part of the head. When Hill was asked where exactly the wound was, he pointed to above the right ear.” Herbert Once again Herbert, anything behind the ear can be described as back of the head. Its a vague statement. Stop using vague statements. That could describe the WC wound. When Hill was asked to point to wound he pointed above the right ear. You know this, but don't much care. Don't even try to explain away the Curry thing. You can't.
-------------------------
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 09, 2011, 12:18:40 PM by Brian Walker »
|
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
March 09, 2011, 10:59:19 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 3611
|
Making it clear that they will say anything, or do anything to try and keep their fantasy alive, CT on this board have said some things that have made us all scratch our heads really hard. Feel free to add, and I am sure the list will grow in the future.
1- David Sellers trying to hint that Oswald couldn't do the shooting, because the fact that he couldn't drive a car is proof he didn't have good hand eye coordination.
2- Tony posting that proof that Oswald went to work with his wedding ring on 11/22/63, is the fact that Frazier didn't ask him why he wasn't wearing his wedding ring. A few things wrong with this Gem right off the bat. 1- Anyone who has ever lived knows that you rarely notice if someone is wearing a ring, unless you want to ask them out. 2- Frazier barely knew Oswald, so I don't think he would ask him even if he did notice, and even if he happened to notice before 11/22 that Oswald wore a ring. 3- If Frazier noticed the ring and asked Oswald. why hasn't he told anyone in 47 years. I am sure he knows the evidence to the case.
3- Tony saying the fact that nobody claimed to be with Oswald during the assasination, is not proof that nobody was with Oswald, because maybe he was sitting with some black guys but they were threatened to not say anything.
4- Herbert saying Curry was a back of the head witnsses, because he found an audio of Curry saying that maybe a shot came from the front because of the way JFK's head reacted when hit, and because of the blood spatter.
He can't tell you anything aboiut this audio, it could be Curry opinion after reading a conspiracy book, because he sure didn't see it. But Herbert in his desperate quest to find a Dealey Plaza back of the head witnsses, tried to force this square peg in our round hole. And even if the Curry thing took, say nobody here had an IQ above 70, then it would be everyone else in Dealey who saw it vs Curry. I guess this would be proof to Herbert that the back of Oswald's head opened up.
Doesn't matter what we come up with, you guys will always have the SBT. The one that a team of pathologists agreed with. THats a real knee slapper.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
March 09, 2011, 11:00:14 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 9143
|
Making it clear that they will say anything, or do anything to try and keep their fantasy alive, CT on this board have said some things that have made us all scratch our heads really hard. Feel free to add, and I am sure the list will grow in the future.
1- David Sellers trying to hint that Oswald couldn't do the shooting, because the fact that he couldn't drive a car is proof he didn't have good hand eye coordination.
2- Tony posting that proof that Oswald went to work with his wedding ring on 11/22/63, is the fact that Frazier didn't ask him why he wasn't wearing his wedding ring. A few things wrong with this Gem right off the bat. 1- Anyone who has ever lived knows that you rarely notice if someone is wearing a ring, unless you want to ask them out. 2- Frazier barely knew Oswald, so I don't think he would ask him even if he did notice, and even if he happened to notice before 11/22 that Oswald wore a ring. 3- If Frazier noticed the ring and asked Oswald. why hasn't he told anyone in 47 years. I am sure he knows the evidence to the case.
3- Tony saying the fact that nobody claimed to be with Oswald during the assasination, is not proof that nobody was with Oswald, because maybe he was sitting with some black guys but they were threatened to not say anything.
4- Herbert saying Curry was a back of the head witnsses, because he found an audio of Curry saying that maybe a shot came from the front because of the way JFK's head reacted when hit, and because of the blood spatter.
He can't tell you anything aboiut this audio, it could be Curry opinion after reading a conspiracy book, because he sure didn't see it. But Herbert in his desperate quest to find a Dealey Plaza back of the head witnsses, tried to force this square peg in our round hole. And even if the Curry thing took, say nobody here had an IQ above 70, then it would be everyone else in Dealey who saw it vs Curry. I guess this would be proof to Herbert that the back of Oswald's head opened up.
Doesn't matter what we come up with, you guys will always have the SBT. The one that a team of pathologists agreed with. THats a real knee slapper. NICE!
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 09, 2011, 12:42:47 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 8748
|
My all-time favorite has to be Danny Stracener (sp?) who insisted on more than one occasion that Ruby shooting Oswald was a "staged Hollywood stunt." Another time he said that Kennedy wore a hairpiece. I also have to laugh when I see the Zapruder film referred to as the "Zaptoon."
Another howler: Miles Scull finding no trace of LBJ in a motorcade photo and concluding that he was "ducking" in order to avoid getting hit with bullets, despite the fact that if he were in on it, he would presumably have nothing to fear, as he wouldn't be a target. Of course, Duncan MacRae posted a version of the photo which brought Johnson out of the shadows, but that only made MS fight and defend his position even harder.
Oh, and how about Robert Morrow posting his long, rambling, contradictory nonsense about how LBJ killed JFK because the Kennedy family was going to expose him in "Life" magazine?
This is fun.
Another howler: Miles Scull finding no trace of LBJ in a motorcade photo and concluding that he was "ducking" in order to avoid getting hit with bullets, despite the fact that if he were in on it, he would presumably have nothing to fear, as he wouldn't be a target. Of course, Duncan MacRae posted a version of the photo which brought Johnson out of the shadows, but that only made MS fight and defend his position even harder.
That is grossly false & typically stupid. Johnson did not know he would not be shot. Second, he would have feared a double cross in any event. Duh. I was the analyst to first discover LBJ in the photo, not Duncan. You have not understood the thread. No surprise. Duh. By the way, Grillo (short for Gorilla?), you cannot spell "MacRae" correctly.  As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginBy the way, you have not closely observed the photos in the lead post of this thread. Otherwise you would have noticed a very odd thing. You missed the boat. No surprise.
-------------------------
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 09, 2011, 12:45:14 PM by Miles Scull »
|
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
March 09, 2011, 03:05:17 PM
|
Sr. Member
Posts: 352
|
Well, I'm not going to say who said it, but on a different forum a well-respected and well-spoken conspiracy theorist said that he didn't believe Oswald ever asked for attorney John Abt.
If not, that means, Oswald's family and Ruth Paine, the police, and the head of the Dallas Bar Association were all lying. Unfortunately, Oswald's request is on film. Oswald said it to reporters and it was broadcast across the nation. I remembered seeing it during my initial research, and it was later confirmed by the CTers on that thread. But you oughta see the CTers wrap their head about what the request must mean, and how it was part of a set-up.
Problem is, Oswald said it in front of the whole friggin' world. You can find a video of the film on YouTube.
There are other howlers on this board. Right now it's the cognitive impairment of using deductive logical structures where they don't apply. For example:
Statement: If the bullets matched Oswald's pistol, then Oswald shot Tippit.
Converse: If Oswald shot Tippit, then the bullets matched Oswald's pistol.
Inverse: If the bullets didn't match Oswald's pistol, then Oswald didn't shoot Tippit.
Contrapositive: If Oswald didn't shoot Tippit, then the bullets didn't match Oswald's pistol.
So someone comes along and says the inverse proves Oswald wasn't involved. The bullets didn't match, thus Oz didn't shoot Tippit.
The problem is every one of the statements above is not necessarily true. Let's review them again:
Statement: If the bullets were a perfect match to Oswald's pistol, then Oswald shot Tippit. (Not necessarily -- someone could have used Oswald's pistol and handed it to him later.)
Converse: If Oswald shot Tippit, then the bullets were a perfect match to Oswald's pistol. (Not necessarily -- there could have been problems with ballistics labs ability to match.)
Inverse: If the bullets were not a perfect match to Oswald's pistol, then Oswald didn't shoot Tippit. (Ditto.)
Contrapositive: If Oswald didn't shoot Tippit, then the bullets were not a perfect match to Oswald's pistol. (Ditto.)
BTW, just because a statement is true/false, it doesn't mean the converse is true/false.
The problem with constructing the above logical schematic (a form of deductive logic) is that the ballistics tests were inconclusive, neither positively matching nor positively ruling out the use of Oswald's pistol. And so we have the failure of deductive logic to apply in the piece of evidence known as the case of the ballistics tests of the bullets. Thus, we must proceed inductively, not deductively. This is intuitively obvious to most people.
Note: If the bullets were positively ruled out as coming from Oswald's pistol, then we could proceed deductively. We could rebuild the box and it would be powerful evidence of Oswald's innocence in Tippit's murder. Not proof, but it would be so compelling that the Oswald-is-guilty crowd would face an almost insurmountable obstacle. But the ballistics weren't ruled out, so that's just a hypothetical.
-------------------------
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 09, 2011, 03:14:58 PM by Lee Johnson »
|
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
March 09, 2011, 03:22:11 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 3611
|
Well, I'm not going to say who said it, but on a different forum a well-respected and well-spoken conspiracy theorist said that he didn't believe Oswald ever asked for attorney John Abt.
If not, that means, Oswald's family and Ruth Paine, the police, and the head of the Dallas Bar Association were all lying. Unfortunately, Oswald's request is on film. Oswald said it to reporters and it was broadcast across the nation. I remembered seeing it during my initial research, and it was later confirmed by the CTers on that thread. But you oughta see the CTers wrap their head about what the request must mean, and how it was part of a set-up.
Problem is, Oswald said it in front of the whole friggin' world. You can find a video of the film on YouTube.
There are other howlers on this board. Right now it's the cognitive impairment of using deductive logical structures where they don't apply. For example:
Statement: If the bullets matched Oswald's pistol, then Oswald shot Tippit.
Converse: If Oswald shot Tippit, then the bullets matched Oswald's pistol.
Inverse: If the bullets didn't match Oswald's pistol, then Oswald didn't shoot Tippit.
Contrapositive: If Oswald didn't shoot Tippit, then the bullets didn't match Oswald's pistol.
So someone comes along and says the inverse proves Oswald wasn't involved. The bullets didn't match, thus Oz didn't shoot Tippit.
The problem is every one of the statements above is not necessarily true. Let's review them again:
Statement: If the bullets were a perfect match to Oswald's pistol, then Oswald shot Tippit. (Not necessarily -- someone could have used Oswald's pistol and handed it to him later.)
Converse: If Oswald shot Tippit, then the bullets were a perfect match to Oswald's pistol. (Not necessarily -- there could have been problems with ballistics labs ability to match.)
Inverse: If the bullets were not a perfect match to Oswald's pistol, then Oswald didn't shoot Tippit. (Ditto.)
Contrapositive: If Oswald didn't shoot Tippit, then the bullets were not a perfect match to Oswald's pistol. (Ditto.)
BTW, just because a statement is true/false, it doesn't mean the converse is true/false.
The problem with constructing the above logical schematic (a form of deductive logic) is that the ballistics tests were inconclusive, neither positively matching nor positively ruling out the use of Oswald's pistol. And so we have the failure of deductive logic to apply in the piece of evidence known as the case of the ballistics tests of the bullets. Thus, we must proceed inductively, not deductively. This is intuitively obvious to most people.
Note: If the bullets were positively ruled out as coming from Oswald's pistol, then we could proceed deductively. We could rebuild the box and it would be powerful evidence of Oswald's innocence in Tippit's murder. Not proof, but it would be so compelling that the Oswald-is-guilty crowd would face an almost insurmountable obstacle. But the ballistics weren't ruled out, so that's just a hypothetical.
One CT said that Oswald leaving his wedding ring, and almost all of his money with Marina on 11/22, was a sign that Oswald knew he was about to be set up for the murder of JFK. When asked why he wouldn’t just skip work that day, the CT said Oswald was good at following orders. So we often hear there is nothing suspicious about Oswald leaving his ring and money with Marina that day, but then it turned into it was a sign that he knew he was being set up. He went ahead with it because he was good at taking orders, but then tried to tell people at the press conference that he was being set up, by saying he was a patsy. So in this persons mind Oswald felt he had to follow orders and be set up to take the blame for killing JFK, but then he would just expose the plot after. That thread gave me a really bad headache.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
March 09, 2011, 03:49:47 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 841
|
The Nutters Theme Song......As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login
-------------------------
-------------------------
Dream As If You'll Live Forever
Live As If You'll Die Today
It Don't Hurt Till The Bone Shows
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
March 09, 2011, 03:55:36 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 3611
|
The Nutters Theme Song......As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login So says a guy who after 47 years can't tell us who shot JFK, or who shot Tippit. Basically can't tell us anything except they don't think the WC report is perfect. Maybe I am wrong..Tell us who shot JFK or Tippit.
-------------------------
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 09, 2011, 03:56:46 PM by Brian Walker »
|
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
| 0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
|
