JFK Assassination Forum

General Discussion & Debate => General Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: John Iacoletti on January 12, 2018, 05:54:33 PM

Title: Lame LN excuses
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 12, 2018, 05:54:33 PM
I've been compiling a list of lame excuses that LNers make to "explain" away conflicting or contradictory evidence in this case.  Feel free to suggest any additions.

- Howard Brennan lied at the lineup because he was scared for his family.
- Howard Brennan had the ability to estimate a man's height and weight from seeing him in a crouched position from the chest up.
- Klein's mistakenly put February on a March deposit slip
- J. M. Poe forgot to mark the shells
- Studebaker accidentally didn't photograph the bag
- The police forgot to check Oswald's pockets for hours after he was arrested
- Buell Frazier was mistaken about the length of the package
- Linnie Mae Randle was mistaken about the length of the package
- Linnie Mae Randle could see through a wall
- Essie Mae Williams just didn't notice the bag Oswald was carrying
- Arnold Rowland was lying about seeing an elderly black man
- Arnold Rowland was lying about seeing two men on the sixth floor
- So was Carolyn Walther
- So was Ruby Henderson
- Amos Euins was mistaken about seeing a colored man in the sixth floor window
- Amos Euins was mistaken about seeing a man with a bald spot in the sixth floor window
- Jack Dougherty just didn't notice the bag Oswald was carrying
- Marina Oswald was mistaken about the camera viewfinder and how many pictures she took
- The bullet holes don't match because JFK's jacket was bunched
- The lower hole in the autopsy back photo is just a spot of blood
- In every interview and affidavit Charles Givens gave for over 4 months after the assassination he forgot the detail about going back to the sixth floor to get cigarettes and seeing Oswald there.
- Bonnie Ray Williams was mistaken when he said in his affidavit that he only heard two shots
- Carolyn Walther was mistaken about seeing a man with a brown sport coat
- Richard Randolph Carr was mistaken about seeing a man in a brown sport coat in an upper floor of the TSBD
- James Worrell was mistaken about seeing a man in a dark sports jacket run out the back of the building
- The first 6 officers on the 6th floor just didn't notice the long bag
- Helen Markham didn't understand the question 6 times
- The clock at Markham's washateria was slow
- T. F. Bowley's watch was slow
- Margie Higgins' clock was slow
- The clock at Memorial Hospital was slow
- Roger Craig was lying about seeing a Mauser
- Roger Craig was lying about seeing Oswald run down the hill and get into a Nash Rambler
- So was Marvin Robinson
- So was Mrs. James Forrester
- Ed Hoffman was lying about seeing two men behind the fence break down a rifle
- Gordon Arnold was lying about being on he grassy knoll during the assassination and shots being fired from behind him
- Rose Cheramie was lying about riding in a car with two men who told her that they were going to kill the president in Dallas in just a few days
- Acquilla Clemons was mistaken about seeing two men at the scene of Tippit shooting from her front porch, one who had a pistol and was waving the other man away, neither of whom resembled Oswald.
- Frank Wright was mistaken about seeing a man standing over Tippit after he was shot and then driving away in a gray, 1951 Plymouth coupe.
- Gerald Hill was mistaken about the shells being from an automatic .38
- Gerald Hill was mistaken about there being 3 shells in Benavides' cigarette packet
- Julia Ann Mercer was mistaken about seeing two men exit a green Ford truck with what looked like a gun case and carry it up the grassy knoll at about 10:50.
- Sam Holland was mistaken about seeing a puff of smoke come out from under trees on the grassy knoll
- Bernard Haire was lying about seeing police escort a man with a white pullover shirt from the rear of the Texas Theater
- Aletha Frair was lying about seeing Lee Oswald's driver's license
- So was Lee Bozarth
- Sylvia Odio was mistaken about Oswald visiting her apartment in Houston with two hispanic men in late September, 1963
- Annie Odio was also mistaken about the same thing
- Darrell Tomlinson was mistaken about which stretcher he found a bullet on
- O.P. Wright was mistaken about what the bullet looked like
- Bardwell Odum was mistaken when he said he never saw CE399 or showed it to anybody
- Earlene Roberts was mistaken about a police car stopping and honking while Oswald was in the rooming house
- Eugene Boone was mistaken about the Mauser
- Seymour Weitzman was mistaken about the Mauser
- Marrion Baker was mistaken about the 3rd or 4th floor suspect
- Victoria Adams was mistaken about when she went down the stairs
- Carolyn Arnold was mistaken about seeing Oswald in the second floor lunchroom at 12:25
- The Parkland doctors were all mistaken about the back of the head wound
- George Burkley was mistaken about the location of the back wound
- Sibert and O?Neill were mistaken about a back wound below the shoulders, a shallow back wound, and surgery to the head area
- Rosemary Willis was mistaken about a shot coming from the grassy knoll
- Jean Hill was lying about seeing a shooter on the grassy knoll
- Bill Newman was mistaken about a shot coming from directly behind him
- Nellie Connally was mistaken about seeing JFK reacting after the first shot
- John Connally was mistaken about which shot hit him
- John Connally had a "delayed reaction" from being struck in the chest by a bullet
- Jack Ruby was demented when he said "Everything pertaining to what's happening has never come to the surface. The world will never know the true facts of what occurred, my motives. The people who had so much to gain, and had such an ulterior motive for putting me in the position I'm in, will never let the true facts come above board to the world".
- Whaley didn't record his passenger times accurately
- Oswald forgot that he was carrying around an ID card with the name he used to purchase the guns he used that day
- Oswald just happened to have 5 wallets
- The other 7 firearms experts weren't as skilled as Nicol
- The other photography experts weren't as skilled as Kirk
- The other fingerprint experts weren't as skilled as Scalice's examination of photographs 30 years later
- The post office forgot to follow their own rules about PO box delivery
- Railway Express forgot to follow their own rules about delivery of weapons
- Louis Feldsott said that Klein's purchased C2766 in June, 1962, but he really meant February, 1963.
- The police didn't record interrogations in those days
- Carl Day forgot to tell the FBI about the palmprint
- Paraffin tests aren't reliable, except when they are
- Vince Drain wrote up two versions of the report on the paper bag characteristics before the results were determined so that he could just throw away the one that was incorrect.
- Dr. Shaw at Parkland just accidentally referred to a fragment in Connally's leg as a bullet
- Oswald snuck off from work in the morning when he was supposed to be working to walk to a post office over a mile away and back in order to go buy a money order and mail an order to Klein's and then falsified his timesheet and nobody noticed.
- The police just accidentally mistook a copper-jacketed 6.5mm bullet for a .30 caliber steel-jacketed bullet
- John Hurt got drunk and just tried to call Oswald in jail to express his outrage over what Oswald had done.  Actually, no, wait, the switchboard operator just made up the whole story.
- Joseph Milteer just made a lucky guess
- W.R. (Dub) Stark was mistaken about Tippit's phone call from the record shop
- So was Louis Cortinas
- Albert Bogard was lying about Oswald test driving a car
- So was Eugene Wilson
- So was Frank Rizzo
- Malcolm Price was mistaken about Oswald practicing at the Sports Drome Rifle Range
- So was Garland Slack
- Edith Whitworth was mistaken about the Oswalds coming in to the Furniture Mart and looking for a gun part
- Dial Ryder was lying about mounting a scope on an Argentinian rifle for a customer named Oswald
- Dr. Humes burned his autopsy notes because he didn't want the president's blood to fall into hands of people with peculiar ideas about the value of that type of material.  But he also burned a copy of the notes and a first draft report that had no blood on them, and he neglected to burn Boswell's autopsy notes, even though they did have blood on them.
- Seth Kantor was mistaken about seeing Jack Ruby at Parkland
- Butch Burroughs was lying when he said he sold popcorn to Oswald at 1:15
- Benavides thought the killer had a squared-off hairline because the guy's jacket collar was hiding the actual hairline
- Marina confused Nixon with LBJ (i.e. the Vice President) who was in Dallas in April '63.
- R.J. Gebelein from the Winchester-Western company really meant 1954 when he wrote to Stewart Galanor that their last production of the 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano cartridges was in 1944.
- Shirley Randall was mistaken about SS asking her to get "...someone to come and wash the blood out of the car"
- The SS had to remove blood spatter evidence to get the bubble top back on.
- The SS had to remove more blood spatter evidence so they could drive the car.

added by Rick McTague:
- Dr. Evalea Glanges lied when she stated that there was a "through and through bullet hole, front to back" in the windshield of the limo.
- Dr. Malcom Perry was either mistaken or lied when he told the press 3 times on 11/22/63 that the throat wound was an entrance wound.
- Lee Bowers lied about seeing the 3 cars entering and driving in the parking lot the 20 minutes before the shooting, the men inside them, the 2 men behind the fence, a flash of light, gun smoke and hearing the last 2 shots "almost on top of each other".
- Every person who said they smelled gunsmoke in the area after the shooting is lying.
- Richard C. Dodd was lying about gunsmoke coming from the top of the hedges at the top of the grassy knoll and footprints and cigarette butts behind the fence.
- J. C. Price (atop the Terminal Annex building) was lying about the shots coming from the area near the triple underpass and seeing a man running behind the fence, through the parking lot and behind the TSBD.
- James L. Simmons lied about seeing a puff of smoke from the wooden fence and hearing shots come from that area.
- Charles Brehm lied about the skull fragment from JFK's head fly back and to the left.
- Robert Vinson was lying about seeing LHO on the CIA flight out of Dallas to Roswell.

Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: John Mytton on January 13, 2018, 01:21:30 AM
Quote
- Howard Brennan lied at the lineup because he was scared for his family.

Brennan's first day affidavit of seeing a slender man white with a rifle in the very window where a sniper's nest with shells was found is supported by the Police Broadcast at 12:45 and proves that Brennan saw Oswald.

Quote
- Howard Brennan had the ability to estimate a man's height and weight from seeing him in a crouched position from the chest up.

Mr. BELIN. At the time you saw this man on the sixth floor, how much of the man could you see?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I could see at one time he came to the window and he sat sideways on the window sill. That was previous to President Kennedy getting there. And I could see practically his whole body, from his hips up. But at the time that he was firing the gun, a possibility from his belt up.


Quote
- Klein's mistakenly put February on a March deposit slip

Right back at ya, the conspirators only had one job to and they even stuffed that up!

Quote
- J. M. Poe forgot to mark the shells

The other two shells were marked and verified.

Mr. BALL. Did you make a mark?
Mr. POE. I can't swear to it; no, sir.
Mr. BALL. But there is a mark on two of these?
Mr. POE. There is a mark. I believe I put on them, but I couldn't swear to it. I couldn't make them out any more.

Quote
- Studebaker accidentally didn't photograph the bag

The bag at one time was in the building at the same time as Studebaker and his camera so if they wanted to do they had the option of placing the bag and photographing it in the sniper's nest but pure logic must be observed and that the brown paper bag must have been accidentally moved and following strict Police procedure wasn't replaced for the photo because that would be naughty.

Quote
- The police forgot to check Oswald's pockets for hours after he was arrested

You rely on a Police report to tell that you that the very same Police discovered bullets on Oswald a couple of hours later, where does that go?

Quote
- Buell Frazier was mistaken about the length of the package

Up until 12:30 Oswald's bag that he claimed contained Curtain rods, to Frazier must have been insignificant and this is reinforced by his testimony where he repeatedly says he never payed attention to the bag.

Mr. BALL - All right.
When you got in the car did you say anything to him or did he say anything to you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?"
And he said, "Curtain rods," and I said, "Oh, yes, you told me you was going to bring some today."
That is the reason, the main reason he was going over there that Thursday afternoon when he was to bring back some curtain rods, so I didn't think any more about it when he told me that.

Mr. BALL - Did it look to you as if there was something heavy in the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word.

Mr. BALL - Well, from the way he carried it, the way he walked, did it appear he was carrying something that had more than the weight of a paper?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.

Mr. BALL - You will notice that this bag which is the colored bag, FBI Exhibit No. 10, is folded over. Was it folded over when you saw it the first time, folded over to the end?
Mr. FRAZIER - I will say I am not sure about that, whether it was folded over or not, because, like I say, I didn't pay that much attention to it.

Mr. BALL - But are you sure that his hand was at the end of the package or at the side of the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Like I said, I remember I didn't look at the package very much, paying much attention, but when I did look at it he did have his hands on the package like that.

Mr. BALL - Mr. Frazier, we have here this Exhibit No. 364 which is a sack and in that we have put a dismantled gun. Don't pay any attention to that. Will you stand up here and put this under your arm and then take a hold of it at the side?
Now, is that anywhere near similar to the way that Oswald carried the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, you know, like I said now, I said I didn't pay much attention--


Quote
- Linnie Mae Randle was mistaken about the length of the package

On the first weekend she told the FBI that the package was 3 feet long.

Quote
- Linnie Mae Randle could see through a wall

Really???, the garage was enclosed by slats.

(https://s17.postimg.org/zce3aycmn/Slattedwall1.gif)

(https://s17.postimg.org/g7au1633j/Slattedwall2a.gif)

(https://s17.postimg.org/kgfk37167/Slattedwall3.gif)

Quote
- Essie Mae Williams just didn't notice the bag Oswald was carrying

So what?

Anyway so far from your compiled list I see the usual misrepresentations, ignorance and lies which don't seem to lead to any specific conclusion. Surely all your extensive lists of suspicious evidence must go somewhere, where? Or is your only job to create as much obfuscation as possible, so clearly you can hide your mates on Capitol Hill???

JohnM
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Benjamin Cole on January 13, 2018, 01:02:57 PM
U discuss the gunsmoke in my Grassy Knoll as a Diversion post.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Benjamin Cole on January 13, 2018, 01:03:51 PM
I discuss, that is....
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Ray Mitcham on January 13, 2018, 01:34:30 PM
Bill Newman

First day affidavit
?I thought the shot had come from the garden directly behind me, that it was on an elevation from where I was as I was right on the curb. I do not recall looking toward the Texas School Book Depository. I looked back in the vacinity [sic] of the garden.?

FBI report

?NEWMAN first thought the President and Governor were playing some kind of a game and suddenly realized they had been shot and that he was perhaps in the line of fire because officers started running toward the arcade diectly back of him and his wife.?

Shaw trial

?Q: Now would you push the microphone aside and step down to the aerial photograph and identify that general area, just the general area from which the sounds came.
A: In my opinion, the sounds of the shots sounded as if they had come from directly behind me (indicating). I was standing near this light standard here, and I thought the shots were coming from back here, and apparently everybody else did because they all ran in that direction. ?

?Newman: (Indicating) ?This is all the grassy knoll area, and it was my opinion or my thought from the noise, that the shots were coming from directly behind in here. I would say that the shots could have been fired from here, but the further this way you go, the less likely it would have been. ?
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: I see. Now from the parking lot area behind the grassy knoll -- I am referring to the area north of the building here (indicating) --
A: Yes, sir.



Behind him. Not from his left side.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Steve Barber on January 13, 2018, 02:07:31 PM
Bill Newman

First day affidavit
?I thought the shot had come from the garden directly behind me, that it was on an elevation from where I was as I was right on the curb. I do not recall looking toward the Texas School Book Depository. I looked back in the vacinity [sic] of the garden.?

FBI report

?NEWMAN first thought the President and Governor were playing some kind of a game and suddenly realized they had been shot and that he was perhaps in the line of fire because officers started running toward the arcade diectly back of him and his wife.?

Shaw trial

?Q: Now would you push the microphone aside and step down to the aerial photograph and identify that general area, just the general area from which the sounds came.
A: In my opinion, the sounds of the shots sounded as if they had come from directly behind me (indicating). I was standing near this light standard here, and I thought the shots were coming from back here, and apparently everybody else did because they all ran in that direction. ?

?Newman: (Indicating) ?This is all the grassy knoll area, and it was my opinion or my thought from the noise, that the shots were coming from directly behind in here. I would say that the shots could have been fired from here, but the further this way you go, the less likely it would have been. ?
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: I see. Now from the parking lot area behind the grassy knoll -- I am referring to the area north of the building here (indicating) --
A: Yes, sir.



Behind him. Not from his left side.

I urge you to look at the "Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald" the mock trial in London, with Gerry Spence and Vince Bugliosi as trial attorneys.   Take a look at where Mr. Newman indicated where he was referring to when asked where on the map of Dealey Plaza he thought the shots came from.  It wasn't to his right by a long shot.  It was to his LEFT.  He highlighted the area with a marker.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 13, 2018, 02:11:54 PM
I urge you to look at the "Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald" the mock trial in London, with Gerry Spence and Vince Bugliosi as trial attorneys.   Take a look at where Mr. Newman indicated where he was referring to when asked where on the map of Dealey Plaza he thought the shots came from.  It wasn't to his right by a long shot.  It was to his LEFT.  He highlighted the area with a marker.

Which only shows that witness recollection may change as more time passes by.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Steve Barber on January 13, 2018, 02:20:17 PM
Which only shows that witness recollection may change as more time passes by.

If Bill Newman were to walk up to you and slap you on the face and point to you where he thought the shots came from, you'd tell him he is wrong.  That's a typical conspiracy nutter.  If you listen to Bill Newman describe the reason he thought the shot came from the area he referred to as "the garden", it isn't because he thought it sounded like it, it was because of how the president reacted during the fatal shot.  Haven't you seen the Newman family interview with Stephen Fagin at The Sixth Floor Museum in 2013? It was broadcast on C-Span and is available on YouTube.  As many times as the Newman's have been interviewed and contacted over the years, I highly doubt that the passage of time has changed Bill or Gayle Newman's opinions on what they witnessed that day.  It stays fresh on their minds because according to Bill, they get at least one letter a week, and they have stuck to their stories over the past 54 years without changing anything. 
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 13, 2018, 02:34:56 PM
If Bill Newman were to walk up to you and slap you on the face and point to you where he thought the shots came from, you'd tell him he is wrong.  That's a typical conspiracy nutter.  If you listen to Bill Newman describe the reason he thought the shot came from the area he referred to as "the garden", it isn't because he thought it sounded like it, it was because of how the president reacted during the fatal shot.  Haven't you seen the Newman family interview with Stephen Fagin at The Sixth Floor Museum in 2013? It was broadcast on C-Span and is available on YouTube.

If Bill Newman were to walk up to you and slap you on the face and point to you where he thought the shots came from, you'd tell him he is wrong.  That's a typical conspiracy nutter.

You clearly just want to hear what your bias tells you, you want to hear.

There is a clear contradiction between what Newman said in his first day affidavit (which is likely why the WC did not call him to testify) and what he said 13 years later as well as in 2013.

The contradiction can be explained by the fact that, as time goes by, people's memory plays tricks on them, whether you like it or not. 


Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Duncan MacRae on January 13, 2018, 02:43:10 PM
I urge you to look at the "Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald" the mock trial in London, with Gerry Spence and Vince Bugliosi as trial attorneys.   Take a look at where Mr. Newman indicated where he was referring to when asked where on the map of Dealey Plaza he thought the shots came from.  It wasn't to his right by a long shot.  It was to his LEFT.  He highlighted the area with a marker.

Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Steve Barber on January 13, 2018, 03:00:45 PM
 Thank you, Duncan.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Ray Mitcham on January 13, 2018, 03:54:01 PM
Note how the angle of looking at the chalk board changes at about 17 secs. so that the curve appears to be more elongated.

It's called editing to suit the point of view of the editor.

As Newman states in the video "I thought the shots came directly from"behind me'". Which he shows  on the  diagram.

The TSBD was not directly behind him.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Steve Barber on January 13, 2018, 04:41:23 PM
Note how the angle of looking at the chalk board changes at about 17 secs. so that the curve appears to be more elongated.

It's called editing to suit the point of view of the editor.

As Newman states in the video "I thought the shots came directly from"behind me'". Which he shows  on the  diagram.

The TSBD was not directly behind him.


Where did he draw the lines, Ray?   Those lines are to the LEFT of where he was standing. Not directly behind him, not to his right, but to the LEFT of where he stood that day.  IF you don't want to accept the clip posted by the "editor" watch the actual video on YouTube.  He indicates that the shot sounds emanated from the direction to his left and behind him, which is basically in the direction of the school book depository, no matter how you slice it.

 
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Ray Mitcham on January 13, 2018, 04:55:52 PM
Nobody said the shots came from the "right" behind him. He actually said "I thought the shots came from directly behind me."

You just don't want to believe him.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Steve Barber on January 13, 2018, 05:27:20 PM
Nobody said the shots came from the "right" behind him. He actually said "I thought the shots came from directly behind me."

You just don't want to believe him.

 Where did I use the term "Right behind him"? I never said that.  You are missing the point, completely. I **DO** believe him, it's you who doesn't believe him.  You are trying to change what he says, when you said " Note how the angle of looking at the chalk board changes at about 17 secs. so that the curve appears to be more elongated.

It's called editing to suit the point of view of the editor."

 That is why I posted the clip in its entirety because when the camera looks straight at the board he drew the lines on, we can clearly see that he is talking about to his left and behind.   
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Jerry Organ on January 13, 2018, 05:33:38 PM
Nobody said the shots came from the "right" behind him. He actually said "I thought the shots came from directly behind me."

You just don't want to believe him.

I think people could mean a cone-like area when they say "directly behind". Newman's area behind him was changing because his head was presumably following the limousine as it went pass him.

(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Gordon_Smith_copy__full_frame.jpg)

At about the moment of the head shot, the Moorman photo shows the grassy knoll fence was to Newman's right and the walkway east of the Pergola was behind him.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Ray Mitcham on January 13, 2018, 07:27:16 PM
Agreed the Grassy knoll fence was to the the right behind Newman, but the grassy knoll spread right across the area to the north of the underpass access road.. The grassy knoll wasn't just to the right  of Zapruder, which a lot of LNs believe.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Gary Craig on January 13, 2018, 08:07:09 PM
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/newman3.jpg)
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Steve Barber on January 13, 2018, 08:45:18 PM
Agreed the Grassy knoll fence was to the the right behind Newman, but the grassy knoll spread right across the area to the north of the underpass access road.. The grassy knoll wasn't just to the right  of Zapruder, which a lot of LNs believe.

   The  conspiracy nutters point to the stockade fence area as the knoll. Having lived in Dallas, I am very familiar with the area of Dealey Plaza. As I pointed out earlier, Newman's reaction that the shots were coming from behind him wasn't the sound of the gunfire, it was the reaction of President Kennedy's body after the fatal shot.  You can hear him saying this during the interview with the Newman family in 2013.   
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Gary Craig on January 13, 2018, 09:05:36 PM
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/newman1.jpg)
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: John Mytton on January 14, 2018, 02:31:20 AM
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/newman1.jpg)



(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1061/1924/products/Thumbs_Up_Hand_Sign_Emoji_large.png?v=1480481047)

I thought the shot had come from the garden directly behind me, that it was on an elevation from where I was as I was right on the curb. I do not recall looking toward the Texas School Book Depository. I looked back in the vacinity [sic] of the garden.
William Eugene Newman's affidavit


(https://s17.postimg.org/tlxlvt00v/Dealey-_Plaza-_Nov-1963.png)



JohnM
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: John Anderson on January 14, 2018, 03:20:53 AM
He didn't say he heard it from behind though.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 16, 2018, 08:28:18 PM
Brennan's first day affidavit of seeing a slender man white with a rifle in the very window where a sniper's nest with shells was found is supported by the Police Broadcast at 12:45 and proves that Brennan saw Oswald.

"slender white man" is proof that he saw Oswald?  (http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/roflmao.gif)

Quote
Mr. BELIN. At the time you saw this man on the sixth floor, how much of the man could you see?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I could see at one time he came to the window and he sat sideways on the window sill. That was previous to President Kennedy getting there. And I could see practically his whole body, from his hips up. But at the time that he was firing the gun, a possibility from his belt up.


Cool, now you get to explain how he knew it was the same person.

Quote
Right back at ya, the conspirators only had one job to and they even stuffed that up!

What conspirators?  You can either prove that the money order found in Virginia was deposited after March 13 or you cannot.

Quote
The other two shells were marked and verified.

You mean the other shells that were handed to the police by civilians who couldn't tell if they were the same shells?

Quote
Mr. BALL. Did you make a mark?
Mr. POE. I can't swear to it; no, sir.
Mr. BALL. But there is a mark on two of these?
Mr. POE. There is a mark. I believe I put on them, but I couldn't swear to it. I couldn't make them out any more.


So I was accurate then.  Your position is that Poe forgot to mark the shells, because they are not marked.

Quote

 the brown paper bag must have been accidentally moved and following strict Police procedure wasn't replaced for the photo because that would be naughty.

Or CE142 was not there at all when the SN was discovered...

Quote
You rely on a Police report to tell that you that the very same Police discovered bullets on Oswald a couple of hours later, where does that go?

They don't search a suspected double murderer's pockets immediately?  Even by DPD standards, that's incredibly stupid.  Or maybe those bullets were never in his pockets.

Quote
On the first weekend she told the FBI that the package was 3 feet long.

Correction:  Bookhout wrote in his report that on the first weekend she told the FBI that the package was 3 feet long.

Quote
Really???, the garage was enclosed by slats.

Point out the car on the other side of the slats.

Quote
So what?

Essie Mae looked out the same window that Linnie Mae did.

Quote
Anyway so far from your compiled list I see the usual misrepresentations, ignorance and lies

On that we agree.  That's why they are lame LN excuses.

Quote
which don't seem to lead to any specific conclusion.

The conclusion is that LN-ers will go through all sorts of silly contortions to try to "explain" away conflicting or contradictory evidence.  It's called special pleading.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 16, 2018, 08:30:41 PM
No matter which Bill Newman statement you go with, they all result in an LNer conclusion that he was mistaken about the source of the shots, right?
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Richard Smith on January 16, 2018, 10:11:27 PM
Lame John I. excuses:

1) Everyone lied or planted evidence if it implicates Oswald (repeat in every instance but then deny this is what you are doing).
2) Suggest that every explanation that addresses an insane CTer claim is a "strawman" argument (demonstrating either a traumatic childhood experience with The Wizard of Oz or a way to avoid acknowledging the lunacy of these claims without having to address the substance)
3)  Suggest all evidence is the product of an "opinion, "assumption," or "speculation." Fingerprints, hand writing, document, pictures - any inference drawn from this evidence is merely an opinion.  This limitation does not, however, apparently apply to any nutty counter-alternative to Oswald's guilt no matter how improbable or baseless.  If it is possible, then it can be entertained or implied so long as it lends itself to doubt about Oswald's guilt.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: John Mytton on January 16, 2018, 10:29:48 PM
Lame John I. excuses:

1) Everyone lied or planted evidence if it implicates Oswald (repeat in every instance but then deny this is what you are doing).
2) Suggest that every explanation that addresses an insane CTer claim is a "strawman" argument (demonstrating either a traumatic childhood experience with The Wizard of Oz or a way to avoid acknowledging the lunacy of these claims without having to address the substance)
3)  Suggest all evidence is the product of an "opinion, "assumption," or "speculation." Fingerprints, hand writing, document, pictures - any inference drawn from this evidence is merely an opinion.  This limitation does not, however, apparently apply to any nutty counter-alternative to Oswald's guilt no matter how improbable or baseless.  If it is possible, then it can be entertained or implied so long as it lends itself to doubt about Oswald's guilt.






Nice work Richard, I couldn't have put it better myself.



JohnM
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 16, 2018, 11:39:37 PM
Lame John I. excuses:

1) Everyone lied or planted evidence if it implicates Oswald (repeat in every instance but then deny this is what you are doing).

Which you still haven't been able to substantiate with a single quote.  Because it's a flat out lie.

Quote
2) Suggest that every explanation that addresses an insane CTer claim is a "strawman" argument

No, Richard's "vast conspiracy" that nobody actually ever claims there is is a strawman argument.

Quote
3)  Suggest all evidence is the product of an "opinion, "assumption," or "speculation." Fingerprints, hand writing, document, pictures - any inference drawn from this evidence is merely an opinion.

LOL.  Your "inferences" aren't any different from anyone else's opinion.  You just pretend they are.

Quote
This limitation does not, however, apparently apply to any nutty counter-alternative to Oswald's guilt no matter how improbable or baseless.  If it is possible, then it can be entertained or implied so long as it lends itself to doubt about Oswald's guilt.

Demonstrably false.  See my Walt's Fabrications thread or my responses to Patrick Jackson's "blood cannons" or Alan Fritzke's "Malcolm Summers was the assassin".  On the other hand, you endorse every lame LN excuse without question and you think that insults make your lame arguments more convincing.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Jerry Freeman on December 05, 2018, 02:02:46 AM
Bump....This was one spicy thread.
Way to go Richard..Atta boy John I couldn't have choked any better myself ;)
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Martin Weidmann on December 05, 2018, 03:20:53 AM
Kinda explains why LNs don't like (or "get tired" of) questions being asked about the evidence and perhaps even why some get a "courtroom feel" when faced with those questions?.

Much easier to "demand" theories to be put forward (even those that do not exist) because those they can attack.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Jack Trojan on December 05, 2018, 06:52:10 PM
Sheriff John I. is the only one keeping you LNers honest. He doesn't propose CTs, he only calls out the LNer BS lame excuses and it drives them nuts. That's because foremost he is a logistician and he calls out all the fallacies, of which there are many, and destroys their arguments thru logic. The LNers only recourse is to accuse him of dishonesty and try to discredit him with extreme prejudice. They take all this so personally it's comical. It's all a frustrating game for them because they have the untenable position of defending the WC 100%. Oswald was a lone nut, period. No collusion, no conspiracy. All other evidence to the contrary must be attacked, dismissed or ignored. Oswald can't be the shooter in a conspiracy. Nope, the LNers are diehard WC defenders all the way baby! If they have to embarrass themselves via lame excuses, then so be it. It makes the JFK forum what it is. John I. tries to debate the LNers but they never give an inch because it is baked into their ideology, so their lame excuses get destroyed every time.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Bill Chapman on December 05, 2018, 10:23:17 PM
Sheriff John I. is the only one keeping you LNers honest. He doesn't propose CTs, he only calls out the LNer BS lame excuses and it drives them nuts. That's because foremost he is a logistician and he calls out all the fallacies, of which there are many, and destroys their arguments thru logic. The LNers only recourse is to accuse him of dishonesty and try to discredit him with extreme prejudice. They take all this so personally it's comical. It's all a frustrating game for them because they have the untenable position of defending the WC 100%. Oswald was a lone nut, period. No collusion, no conspiracy. All other evidence to the contrary must be attacked, dismissed or ignored. Oswald can't be the shooter in a conspiracy. Nope, the LNers are diehard WC defenders all the way baby! If they have to embarrass themselves via lame excuses, then so be it. It makes the JFK forum what it is. John I. tries to debate the LNers but they never give an inch because it is baked into their ideology, so their lame excuses get destroyed every time.

Now that is some major league arse-kissing... by a career minor leaguer about a paid gaslighter

All other evidence to the contrary
>>> What other 'evidence' might that be, Sherlock?
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Martin Weidmann on December 05, 2018, 11:29:13 PM
Now that is some major league arse-kissing... by a career minor leaguer about a paid gaslighter

All other evidence to the contrary
>>> What other 'evidence' might that be, Sherlock?

Now that is some major league arse-kissing... by a career minor leaguer about a paid gaslighter

This tells a great deal about the world you live in. 
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Jack Trojan on December 06, 2018, 01:41:10 AM
Now that is some major league arse-kissing... by a career minor leaguer about a paid gaslighter

Minor leaguer???  :'( I know you are but what am I? Like you've never high-fived a fellow nutter? Isn't that all you do, every day, 24/7 on a JFK forum? Who is the career minor leaguer here? ;D

Quote
All other evidence to the contrary
>>> What other 'evidence' might that be, Sherlock?

All the evidence that you respond to with lame excuses, of course Watson.

Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 12, 2018, 10:54:16 PM
Minor leaguer???  :'( I know you are but what am I? Like you've never high-fived a fellow nutter? Isn't that all you do, every day, 24/7 on a JFK forum? Who is the career minor leaguer here? ;D

Now now...Chapman also expends a lot of effort cutting-and-pasting Bugliosi and McAdams.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Walt Cakebread on December 14, 2018, 01:12:09 PM
Now now...Chapman also expends a lot of effort cutting-and-pasting Bugliosi and McAdams.

That's because he's very limited intellectually....  He can only repeat or copy the theory of others who espouse that which he has accepted as the truth.   And he accepted utter nonsense as the truth, because he lacks the guts to face reality....
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Thomas Graves on January 04, 2020, 08:37:58 AM
Thomas, you need to stop the name calling and nicknaming of members immediately. https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2006.0.html (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2006.0.html)
Do not respond to my demand.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Thomas Graves on January 04, 2020, 01:03:15 PM
Iacoletti,

How many hundreds of members of the evil, evil, evil Military Industrial intelligence Community Complex do you figure were "in" on the assassination and/or cover up?

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 04, 2020, 04:06:25 PM
You also need to stop trying to divert every thread with your off-topic strawman questions.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Thomas Graves on January 04, 2020, 04:43:45 PM
You also need to stop trying to divert every thread with your off-topic strawman questions.

1)  Howard Brennan lied at the lineup because he was scared for his family.

Brennan lied?

How so?

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 04, 2020, 05:17:44 PM
1)  Howard Brennan lied at the lineup because he was scared for his family.

Brennan lied?

How so?

Mr. BELIN. Now, is there anything else you told the officers at the time of the lineup?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I told them I could not make a positive identification.
Mr. BELIN. When you told them that, did you ever later tell any offlcer or investigating person anything
different?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. When did that happen?
Mr. BRENNAN. I believe some days later-I don’t recall exactly-and I believe the Service man identifled hisself as being Williams, I believe, from Houston. I won’t swear to that-whether his name was Williams or not.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Mr. BRENNAN. And he could have been an FBI. As far as I remember, it could have been FBI instead of Secret Service.
But I believe it was a Secret Service man from Houston.
And I-
Mr. BELIN. What did he say to you and what did you say to him?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, he asked me-he said, “You said you couldn’t make a positive identification.”
He said, “Did you do that for security reasons personally, or couldn’t you?’ And I told him I could with all honesty, but I did it more or less for security reasons--my family and myself.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Thomas Graves on January 04, 2020, 08:03:33 PM
Mr. BELIN. Now, is there anything else you told the officers at the time of the lineup?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I told them I could not make a positive identification.
Mr. BELIN. When you told them that, did you ever later tell any offlcer or investigating person anything
different?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. When did that happen?
Mr. BRENNAN. I believe some days later-I don’t recall exactly-and I believe the Service man identifled hisself as being Williams, I believe, from Houston. I won’t swear to that-whether his name was Williams or not.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Mr. BRENNAN. And he could have been an FBI. As far as I remember, it could have been FBI instead of Secret Service.
But I believe it was a Secret Service man from Houston.
And I-
Mr. BELIN. What did he say to you and what did you say to him?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, he asked me-he said, “You said you couldn’t make a positive identification.”
He said, “Did you do that for security reasons personally, or couldn’t you?’ And I told him I could with all honesty, but I did it more or less for security reasons--my family and myself.

Iacoletti

How is that lying?

Did any witnesses who allegedly saw an evil, evil, evil CIA or FBI or ONI or Army Intelligence or Mafia (or whatever) operative plan to kill or kill JFK or Tippit refuse to divulge what they allegedly saw or heard to the authorities right after it happened?

--  MWT ;)

Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 04, 2020, 09:02:51 PM
How is that lying?

Seriously, Graves?

He said that he really could make an identification but told the police that day that he could not.

That’s a lie. Unless you think that claim in his testimony was actually a lie. Then it’s just a different lie. But either way, he lied.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Thomas Graves on January 04, 2020, 09:50:42 PM
Seriously, Graves?

He said that he really could make an identification but told the police that day that he could not.

That’s a lie. Unless you think that claim in his testimony was actually a lie. Then it’s just a different lie. But either way, he lied.

Iacoletti,

Everybody is capable of having a change of heart and telling a fib or two when they believe that they or their family might be in danger, so where's the beef if that was the case with Brennan?

Regardless, who's to say that Oswald didn't appear quite different to him at that normal angle, wearing those clothes, in that lighting, at that close distance, etc. -- factors Brennan obviously couldn't envision when he told the police, "Sure, I can identify him, easy!" ?

D'oh

--  MWT   ;)

Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 04, 2020, 10:37:06 PM
Everybody is capable of having a change of heart and telling a fib or two when they believe that they or their family might be in danger, so where's the beef if that was the case with Brennan?

So it wasn’t a lie, it was a “fib”. Got it.  :D
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Thomas Graves on January 04, 2020, 10:56:42 PM
So it wasn’t a lie, it was a “fib”. Got it.  :D

Iacoletti,

Okay, you win.

An in-the-interest-of-self-preservation "white lie" then, gosh darn it.

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Thomas Graves on January 05, 2020, 12:15:54 AM
Iacoletti,

Brennan said the dude was kneeling?  The whole time he watched him?

Poe didn't initial which casings?

Regardless, regarding your lending credence to Amos Euins, you seem to think that he lied to Max Holland when he said that he heard the first shot ring out right after the limo passed that pole on the "island" with all the black-and-white highway signs.

If you believe Euins' seeing a "Colored man" with a "bald spot," why don't you believe him about the timing of the first shot?

Hmm?

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 05, 2020, 02:39:01 AM
I never said Euins was lying.

I’m asking why “what happened to the bullet” is a legitimate argument against a non-SBT throat shot (as if anybody really knows what happened to the alleged SBT bullet either), but not a legitimate argument against the speculative “first missed shot”. The fact that some witnesses reported an early shot doesn’t mean that shot missed.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Mitch Todd on January 05, 2020, 03:50:53 AM
I never said Euins was lying.

I’m asking why “what happened to the bullet” is a legitimate argument against a non-SBT throat shot (as if anybody really knows what happened to the alleged SBT bullet either), but not a legitimate argument against the speculative “first missed shot”. The fact that some witnesses reported an early shot doesn’t mean that shot missed.

If JFK was hit by a bullet to the throat, then that bullet has to have gone somewhere. Either it exits or stops while still in the body. If it stops, it shows up on an x-ray. If it fragments, it shows up all over the x-ray. If it goes all the way through JFK, even if the bullet is never found, it still leaves an exit wound somewhere.  A bullet that hits the ground might dig into the earth, but it's more likely to ricochet or simply disintegrate on a hard surface as seen in "Inside the Target Car."
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Jack Trojan on January 05, 2020, 04:01:09 AM
If JFK was hit by a bullet to the throat, then that bullet has to have gone somewhere. Either it exits or stops while still in the body. If it stops, it shows up on an x-ray. If it fragments, it shows up all over the x-ray. If it goes all the way through JFK, even if the bullet is never found, it still leaves an exit wound somewhere.  A bullet that hits the ground might dig into the earth, but it's more likely to ricochet or simply disintegrate on a hard surface as seen in "Inside the Target Car."

Too bad there isn't a straight-line path entering JFK's back at the T1 vertebrae and exiting the throat at C7. If there is then there isn't a LNer with guts to show us the trajectory using my 2 laser challenge. LNers is cheap, lazy bastages who are not interested in the truth. Prove me wrong, I DARE YOU!  ;D

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/2lasersJFK.jpg)
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Thomas Graves on January 05, 2020, 04:07:40 AM
Too bad there isn't a straight-line path entering JFK's back at the T1 vertebrae and exiting the throat at C7. If there is then there isn't a LNer with guts to show us the trajectory using my 2 laser challenge. LNers is cheap, lazy bastages who are not interested in the truth. Prove me wrong, I DARE YOU!  ;D

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/2lasersJFK.jpg)

Trojan,

What's a bastage?

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Mitch Todd on January 05, 2020, 04:58:35 AM
Too bad there isn't a straight-line path entering JFK's back at the T1 vertebrae and exiting the throat at C7. If there is then there isn't a LNer with guts to show us the trajectory using my 2 laser challenge. LNers is cheap, lazy bastages who are not interested in the truth. Prove me wrong, I DARE YOU!  ;D

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/2lasersJFK.jpg)

It's quite well known that bullets often do not travel in a straight line once they've hit something, and measurements have some amount of uncertainty built in, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with your straight line shtick. Other than the rest of us shouldn't take you seriously.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 05, 2020, 06:27:11 AM
It's quite well known that bullets often do not travel in a straight line once they've hit something, and measurements have some amount of uncertainty built in, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with your straight line shtick. Other than the rest of us shouldn't take you seriously.

bullets often do not travel in a straight line once they've hit something

What does that mean.... "hit something"?

Are you saying that a bullet going through a body without hitting anything other than soft tissue will not travel in a straight line?

Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Jerry Organ on January 05, 2020, 05:42:11 PM
(https://images2.imgbox.com/50/29/gP4bRQ2M_o.jpg)

This is a 3D model from Render People. They claim their models are photorealistic by virtue of a 250-camera scan system. I added a high-poly skeleton scaled to the figure's height.

I had to articulate the skeleton's neck bones above T1 to match the figure's neck posture and orient the skull. All bones are connected to articulation points fixed on the original skeleton model. The SBT missile track entered at the model's C7 level and exited T1 level. It passed the spine without striking it or the first rib, but encountered the T1 vertebra's external process. So on a model that isn't replicating Kennedy's neck posture, the neck transit did come close in some regards to the proposed SBT transit.

BTW, it is possible for the SBT missile track to pass by the skeleton model at C7/T1 without striking any bone; I have seen this on the skeleton model alone.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Bill Brown on January 05, 2020, 06:47:30 PM
Lame John I. excuses:

1) Everyone lied or planted evidence if it implicates Oswald (repeat in every instance but then deny this is what you are doing).
2) Suggest that every explanation that addresses an insane CTer claim is a "strawman" argument (demonstrating either a traumatic childhood experience with The Wizard of Oz or a way to avoid acknowledging the lunacy of these claims without having to address the substance)
3)  Suggest all evidence is the product of an "opinion, "assumption," or "speculation." Fingerprints, hand writing, document, pictures - any inference drawn from this evidence is merely an opinion.  This limitation does not, however, apparently apply to any nutty counter-alternative to Oswald's guilt no matter how improbable or baseless.  If it is possible, then it can be entertained or implied so long as it lends itself to doubt about Oswald's guilt.

 Thumb1: Thumb1:
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 05, 2020, 08:48:28 PM
It's quite well known that bullets often do not travel in a straight line once they've hit something,

Then how do you know where the bullet(s) that wounded Connally originated from?
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 05, 2020, 08:50:18 PM
Thumb1: Thumb1:

Way to chime in on a 2-year-old post, Brown!
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 05, 2020, 10:13:38 PM
Way to chime in on a 2-year-old post, Brown!

Give him a break. He's a bit slow.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Thomas Graves on January 05, 2020, 10:40:06 PM
Way to chime in on a 2-year-old post, Brown!

Iacoletti,

Is that against the rules?

You "chimed in," too, didn't you?
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Mitch Todd on January 05, 2020, 11:57:44 PM
Then how do you know where the bullet(s) that wounded Connally originated from?

From the position of the sounds themselves, you don't. At least not exactly. You can still suss out the general direction of the bullet's origin. Then it comes down to how many shooter locations you can find evidence for in that area.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Mitch Todd on January 05, 2020, 11:59:07 PM
bullets often do not travel in a straight line once they've hit something

What does that mean.... "hit something"?

Are you saying that a bullet going through a body without hitting anything other than soft tissue will not travel in a straight line?


Do you really need someone to tell you what "hit something" means? It should be self-evident, as an Illinois rail splitter might say.

What I'm saying is that you can't count on a bullet taking a straight path through a body.  See this:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/M16_5.56x45mm_wound_ballistics.gif)

and this:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/M16A2_M855_5.56X45mm_NATO_wound_ballistics.gif)

for example.

Note that these examples, like yours, are in ideal conditions for a straight-line path: the bullets hit the target normal to the surface and the targets are composed of a homogeneous and monolithic block of material. The structure of the human body is far from being either homogeneous or monolithic, and there's no guarantee the bullet will be travelling normal to the target's surface at impact.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 06, 2020, 06:49:33 AM
(https://images2.imgbox.com/50/29/gP4bRQ2M_o.jpg)

This is a 3D model from Render People. They claim their models are photorealistic by virtue of a 250-camera scan system. I added a high-poly skeleton scaled to the figure's height.

I had to articulate the skeleton's neck bones above T1 to match the figure's neck posture and orient the skull. All bones are connected to articulation points fixed on the original skeleton model. The SBT missile track entered at the model's C7 level and exited T1 level. It passed the spine without striking it or the first rib, but encountered the T1 vertebra's external process. So on a model that isn't replicating Kennedy's neck posture, the neck transit did come close in some regards to the proposed SBT transit.

BTW, it is possible for the SBT missile track to pass by the skeleton model at C7/T1 without striking any bone; I have seen this on the skeleton model alone.

If the bullet, coming downwards from left of the car, went through Kennedy in a straight line, as depicted in the photo on the top left of your gif, there is IMO no way that it could have struck Connally where he was hit. That bullet path would have resulted in the bullet ending up somewhere between the two jump seats.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Jerry Organ on January 09, 2020, 06:07:43 PM
If the bullet, coming downwards from left of the car, went through Kennedy in a straight line, as depicted in the photo on the top left of your gif, there is IMO no way that it could have struck Connally where he was hit. That bullet path would have resulted in the bullet ending up somewhere between the two jump seats.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/87/11/G6jWMDiO_o.png)

These rough sketches show that in order for the bullet to go between the seats, it would require an approx. 30° right-to-left angle.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 09, 2020, 09:31:24 PM
(https://images2.imgbox.com/87/11/G6jWMDiO_o.png)

These rough sketches show that in order for the bullet to go between the seats, it would require an approx. 30° right-to-left angle.

Depending on the exact position of the car and assuming the jump seats were where the sketches put them.

Having seen the interior of the actual car, I doubt that the sketches are correct.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Jerry Organ on January 09, 2020, 11:21:35 PM
Depending on the exact position of the car and assuming the jump seats were where the sketches put them.

Having seen the interior of the actual car, I doubt that the sketches are correct.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/canning/sbt/z225canningmap.png)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Canning back-project method (5% margin-of-error)
Z225 shown because both men clear of sign; Z223 hit frame?
 
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/canning/reworked/wcr-sbtslope.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
WCR slope: 17° relative to car rail

12° lateral is what works at the early-Z220s. It's what I used on the 3D model.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 09, 2020, 11:44:22 PM
Any good reason to think that Connally had half his body hanging off the edge of the seat?  Other than that it makes things sort of line up?
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Jerry Organ on January 10, 2020, 12:33:17 AM
Any good reason to think that Connally had half his body hanging off the edge of the seat?  Other than that it make things sort of line up?

IMO, Canning's figures were placed a little too far inboard. I would move both a few inches towards their right. The large ovals represent the shoulders, not where the hips were.

I don't see how a bullet emerging from Kennedy's throat would end up between the jump seats. Only in a CT scenario.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Charles Collins on January 10, 2020, 12:45:06 AM
Any good reason to think that Connally had half his body hanging off the edge of the seat?  Other than that it make things sort of line up?

The reason is that he (as he stated) had just turned around to his right in an attempt to see JFK. And had started to turn back the other way. I do something similar every time I turn around to see behind me when I back up in my old pickup truck. And my right shoulder is always near the center of the seat back. Try it for yourself some time.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Jerry Organ on January 10, 2020, 02:36:33 AM
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/canning/sbt/f144_sbttrajectory.gif)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Canning's original version (Z190) for the HSCA
 
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/canning/sbt/z225canningmap.png)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
My version using Canning's back-projection unchanged (Z225)

When I replicated Thomas Canning's back-projection to see how it worked out in the Z220s, I simply left the larger inset drawing of the limousine and figures alone. Connally's head should be facing Zapruder in Z225 and his shoulders were facing more forward. Canning had Kennedy's right shoulder flush with the interior of the car, but photographs show his right shoulder extended a bit over the car wall; thus his right torso was against the interior wall.

Famed Massachusetts WC-critic Cutler, an architect and very fine draftsman, produced several books in the 1970s showing line-of-sights on maps and side-views. In 1978, NASA engineer Canning basically used the same method for work done at the request of the HSCA. In 1980, NOVA showed a primitive wire-frame 3D rendering of the two figures with the SBT trajectory. The first 3D solid rendering of the SBT appeared in 1995.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Jack Trojan on January 10, 2020, 02:58:44 AM
IMO, Canning's figures were placed a little too far inboard. I would move both a few inches towards their right. The large ovals represent the shoulders, not where the hips were.

I don't see how a bullet emerging from Kennedy's throat would end up between the jump seats. Only in a CT scenario.

You can't eyeball anything and I don't buy your graphics. You need to develop a more sophisticated 3D model and show the trajectory from the 6th floor of the TSBD in and out of JFK and in and out and in and out and into Connally. I'll let you get away with this if you have an exact 3D model to scale and you are very specific re the entrance/exit wounds. Short of that, you are wasting your time.

Note that you (or anyone) can also use the 2 laser challenge for 3 people.

First, line up JFK's surrogate to match the entrance/exit wounds, then remove JFK's surrogate and insert/fit Connally's surrogate into the scene and match up his rib/wrist/thigh relative to the MB trajectory (providing it was a straight line). Take photos of both surrogates and superimpose them into 1 image. Then note the body positions and look to the Z film to find the frame that best fits. Otherwise, a 3D re-enactment is the ONLY exercise that will advance this and it's cheap and easy and anyone can do it.

You expect us to believe that your CAD rendering is accurate and detailed enough to resolve the MB trajectory, which even YOU can't confirm is true. You are living in a 2D world projected from 3D via a physics engine. Lots of potential error with your methods since you are a CAD operator, not a geomaticist that knows how 3D->2D projection works.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Jerry Organ on January 10, 2020, 04:21:22 AM
You can't eyeball anything and I don't buy your graphics. You need to develop a more sophisticated 3D model and show the trajectory from the 6th floor of the TSBD in and out of JFK and in and out and in and out and into Connally. I'll let you get away with this if you have an exact 3D model to scale and you are very specific re the entrance/exit wounds. Short of that, you are wasting your time.

Note that you (or anyone) can also use the 2 laser challenge for 3 people.

First, line up JFK's surrogate to match the entrance/exit wounds, then remove JFK's surrogate and insert/fit Connally's surrogate into the scene and match up his rib/wrist/thigh relative to the MB trajectory (providing it was a straight line). Take photos of both surrogates and superimpose them into 1 image. Then note the body positions and look to the Z film to find the frame that best fits. Otherwise, a 3D re-enactment is the ONLY exercise that will advance this and it's cheap and easy and anyone can do it.

Be the first to do all that and post it here.

Quote
You expect us to believe that your CAD rendering is accurate and detailed enough to resolve the MB trajectory, which even YOU can't confirm is true. You are living in a 2D world projected from 3D via a physics engine. Lots of potential error with your methods since you are a CAD operator, not a geomaticist that knows how 3D->2D projection works.

The "Render People" 3D model was to show the SBT-angled trajectory through a realistic person in a casual position. The single-bullet trajectory through both men is another matter for another day.

For one lacking in knowledge of 3D modeling and photogrammetry, you really shouldn't be making such offensive comments. It's like a Trump Tweet.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Tim Nickerson on January 10, 2020, 05:25:24 AM
Be the first to do all that and post it here.

 Hear hear! Thumb1:
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Vincent Baxter on January 10, 2020, 08:45:59 PM
If the bullet, coming downwards from left of the car, went through Kennedy in a straight line, as depicted in the photo on the top left of your gif, there is IMO no way that it could have struck Connally where he was hit. That bullet path would have resulted in the bullet ending up somewhere between the two jump seats.

So what happened to the bullet? And how come a speeding bullet that would have only slightly been slowed down by travelling through flesh caused no damage to the interior of the car?
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Jack Trojan on January 10, 2020, 08:58:26 PM
Be the first to do all that and post it here.

The "Render People" 3D model was to show the SBT-angled trajectory through a realistic person in a casual position. The single-bullet trajectory through both men is another matter for another day.

For one lacking in knowledge of 3D modeling and photogrammetry, you really shouldn't be making such offensive comments. It's like a Trump Tweet.

Sorry, but I've been a photogrammetrist working with digital 3D modeling before you were crapping in your pants (unless you're an old man who has resumed crapping in your pants). For over 30+ years I've developed CAD applications for GIS mapping for Google Maps and I have several apps that currently compete with ArcGIS. Test me if you have doubts. On that note, I think I'm entitled to know what your qualifications are re 3D modeling. Are you an operator or a player?
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Jack Trojan on January 10, 2020, 09:00:21 PM
Hear hear! Thumb1:

Done my 2 laser challenge yet? Why not dufus?
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Vincent Baxter on January 10, 2020, 09:17:16 PM
I have a friend who works in forensics for the police and they say that the worst thing to hinder solving a crime is if there are eyewitnesses. Just because someone gives their account of what they witnessed does not make it fact, so to use eyewitness reports from Dealey Plaza as some sort of argument against the LN theory is ridiculous.

How many people were in Dealey Plaza that day? How many people, with all good intention, described what they saw? How many different accounts were there? How do you decide who is right and who is wrong?

Various survivors of the Titanic gave different accounts of how the ship sank. Some said it sank on one piece where as others stated it snapped in two before going under. That's quite a big thing to differ on.

I remember coming back from a football match one evening and having a heated argument with my friends about whether a player scored a volley with his left foot or right foot. Each of us were convinced we were right.

On Halloween I was walking home and some little shits were setting off fireworks in the street. At first I thought the banging noises were coming from behind me. Then it sounded like they were coming from the street to the right of me. Turns out they were actually coming from up ahead of me. My point here is that I couldn't even accurately pinpoint the sound of loud bangs in normal calm surroundings, let alone with people screaming and seeing half of the president's head being blown away.

Desperately clinging on to something like what Frazier said about how Oswald was carrying the bag or how long someone said said they thought it was in order to create an argument is pointless. How about looking at the hard evidence that was actually found on the 6th floor rather than sodding about with unreliable testimonies?

Some interesting (and scientific) reading on eyewitnesses here - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/


Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 10, 2020, 09:45:38 PM
I have a friend who works in forensics for the police and they say that the worst thing to hinder solving a crime is if there are eyewitnesses. Just because someone gives their account of what they witnessed does not make it fact, so to use eyewitness reports from Dealey Plaza as some sort of argument against the LN theory is ridiculous.

Then it’s also ridiculous to use eyewitness reports to argue that Oswald did it. That cuts both ways.

Quote
How about looking at the hard evidence that was actually found on the 6th floor rather than sodding about with unreliable testimonies?

Because the hard evidence that was actually found on the 6th floor doesn’t tell you what weapon killed JFK or who fired it.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Jerry Organ on January 10, 2020, 10:01:59 PM
Sorry, but I've been a photogrammetrist working with digital 3D modeling before you were crapping in your pants (unless you're an old man who has resumed crapping in your pants). For over 30+ years I've developed CAD applications for GIS mapping for Google Maps and I have several apps that currently compete with ArcGIS. Test me if you have doubts. On that note, I think I'm entitled to know what your qualifications are re 3D modeling. Are you an operator or a player?

The accuracy of a 250-camera 3D-scan system that instantly captures a figure from virtually all angles is not to be confused with the inaccuracies of single-camera remote-sensing.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/50/29/gP4bRQ2M_o.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Sample of my work

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/2lasers.jpg)
Sample of your work

People around here expect tangible results. Being a blowhard and chastising people to do something you won't do yourself only goes so far.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 10, 2020, 10:39:27 PM
So what happened to the bullet? And how come a speeding bullet that would have only slightly been slowed down by travelling through flesh caused no damage to the interior of the car?

So what happened to the bullet?

I have no idea. Who searched the limo again before the FBI team arrived?

And how come a speeding bullet that would have only slightly been slowed down by travelling through flesh caused no damage to the interior of the car?

Who said there was no damage to the interior of the car?
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 10, 2020, 10:45:42 PM
I have a friend who works in forensics for the police and they say that the worst thing to hinder solving a crime is if there are eyewitnesses. Just because someone gives their account of what they witnessed does not make it fact, so to use eyewitness reports from Dealey Plaza as some sort of argument against the LN theory is ridiculous.

How many people were in Dealey Plaza that day? How many people, with all good intention, described what they saw? How many different accounts were there? How do you decide who is right and who is wrong?

Various survivors of the Titanic gave different accounts of how the ship sank. Some said it sank on one piece where as others stated it snapped in two before going under. That's quite a big thing to differ on.

I remember coming back from a football match one evening and having a heated argument with my friends about whether a player scored a volley with his left foot or right foot. Each of us were convinced we were right.

On Halloween I was walking home and some little shits were setting off fireworks in the street. At first I thought the banging noises were coming from behind me. Then it sounded like they were coming from the street to the right of me. Turns out they were actually coming from up ahead of me. My point here is that I couldn't even accurately pinpoint the sound of loud bangs in normal calm surroundings, let alone with people screaming and seeing half of the president's head being blown away.

Desperately clinging on to something like what Frazier said about how Oswald was carrying the bag or how long someone said said they thought it was in order to create an argument is pointless. How about looking at the hard evidence that was actually found on the 6th floor rather than sodding about with unreliable testimonies?

Some interesting (and scientific) reading on eyewitnesses here - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/

so to use eyewitness reports from Dealey Plaza as some sort of argument against the LN theory is ridiculous.

But with the Tippit shooting, where they support the LN theory, those eyewitness reports are reliable, right?

How about looking at the hard evidence that was actually found on the 6th floor

And by that you mean a paper bag, made from TSBD shipping materials, with several unidentifiable prints on them and one identifiable palmprint from Oswald who happened to work in the building and frequently was on the 6th floor, right?

Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Jerry Organ on January 10, 2020, 11:02:28 PM
So what happened to the bullet?

I have no idea. Who searched the limo again before the FBI team arrived?

And how come a speeding bullet that would have only slightly been slowed down by travelling through flesh caused no damage to the interior of the car?

Who said there was no damage to the interior of the car?

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/books/simpleact/neck-transit-upward-deflection.png)

Mark Fuhrman thought a deflection near the start of the neck transit went on to cause the indentation in the windshield frame. Others think the dent there was caused by one of the large spent fragments from the head shot.

I think what Baxter was getting at is there was no intact bullet (from the neck transit that was mostly, if not all, soft tissue) recovered in the limo and no bullet holes in the upholstery. Maybe they were foolish, but the Commission figured a barely-slowed bullet exiting the throat and traveling downward would have struck something to the immediate front of Kennedy.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 10, 2020, 11:19:50 PM
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/books/simpleact/neck-transit-upward-deflection.png)

Mark Fuhrman thought a deflection near the start of the neck transit went on to cause the indentation in the windshield frame. Others think the dent there was caused by one of the large spent fragments from the head shot.

I think what Baxter was getting at is there was no intact bullet (from the neck transit that was mostly, if not all, soft tissue) recovered in the limo and no bullet holes in the upholstery. Maybe they were foolish, but the Commission figured a barely-slowed bullet exiting the throat and traveling downward would have struck something to the immediate front of Kennedy.

Furman's use of the word "probably" in the first gif is telling you that he is speculating.

The picture shown in the second gif shows Kennedy and Connally's position relative to eachother. IMO it's actually fairly accurate, in spite of the fact that it had the path of the bullet coming from behind rather than from the side of the car. 

I think what Baxter was getting at is there was no intact bullet (from the neck transit that was mostly, if not all, soft tissue) recovered in the limo and no bullet holes in the upholstery.

Of course that is what he was getting at. However, as the limo was already searched prior to Frazier and his FBI team arrived we can never be sure what was really found or not. Frazier was handed bullet fragments and told they came from the car. There isn't a court in the land that would have accepted such evidence! What in the world were those guys thinking when they decided to search the car and thus contaminate the crime scene? What plausible motive could they have had to not wait for the forensic team of the FBI?

As for there being no bullet holes in the upholstery, how do you know? Have you seen photos of the interior of the limo?
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 11, 2020, 02:34:47 AM
Maybe they were foolish, but the Commission figured a barely-slowed bullet exiting the throat and traveling downward would have struck something to the immediate front of Kennedy.

Depends on where the throat shot came from and then how or if it deflected. Just presuming with no evidence that it was CE399 isn’t just automatically warranted.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Vincent Baxter on January 11, 2020, 03:58:47 AM
so to use eyewitness reports from Dealey Plaza as some sort of argument against the LN theory is ridiculous.

But with the Tippit shooting, where they support the LN theory, those eyewitness reports are reliable, right?

And when exactly did I say that? From what I remember there were several contradictory statements to Tippit murder too so the same rule applies to that.
How about the fact that Oswald's jacket (verified by Marina that it was his) was found dumped nearby? The fact that Johnny Brewer saw Oswald duck into his shop when a police car went by, thought he looked suspicious so followed him to the Texas Theatre and the fact that Oswald then pulled out a revolver and fired at a cop when they came into the theatre to question him?
For a completely innocent man who had definitely not shot the President or Tippit, do you not find that peculiar behaviour?.

How about looking at the hard evidence that was actually found on the 6th floor

And by that you mean a paper bag, made from TSBD shipping materials, with several unidentifiable prints on them and one identifiable palmprint from Oswald who happened to work in the building and frequently was on the 6th floor, right?

Well, yeah that and the fact that OSWALD'S RIFLE was found hidden on the 6th floor too. Not to mention that out of the entire staff of TSBD Oswald was the only one who legged it from the building and was missing from a later head count. That he had broken his usual visiting routine by going to visit Marina the night before to allegedly pick up some "curtain rods" which he took to work with him. Also, do you not find it a bit of a coincidence that he took off his wedding ring for the first time and left it on Marina's dresser that morning?

I'd say those 6 points alone (which are the first few that comes to mind) are a fair indication of Oswald's guilt and certainly more viable than a handful of 200+ different eyewitness statements claiming otherwise.

Incidentally, whatever happened to the curtain rods in the paper bag that Oswald took into work with him that morning?

I can kind of understand how people might believe there was a second shooter or that he was part of a larger group, but with such a ridiculous amount of both hard and circumstantial evidence against Oswald, I really don't get how some people can believe he was totally innocent and had nothing whatsoever to do with the assassination.
I think I read that there has been something like 80+ assassins, 40+ groups or organisations and two to three hundred people accused of being responsible or involved in the assassination over the the years and yet not one of those have produced real credible or reliable evidence. Where as Oswald, this poor innocent man, has so many points against him.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Vincent Baxter on January 11, 2020, 04:10:01 AM
Furman's use of the word "probably" in the first gif is telling you that he is speculating.

The picture shown in the second gif shows Kennedy and Connally's position relative to eachother. IMO it's actually fairly accurate, in spite of the fact that it had the path of the bullet coming from behind rather than from the side of the car. 

I think what Baxter was getting at is there was no intact bullet (from the neck transit that was mostly, if not all, soft tissue) recovered in the limo and no bullet holes in the upholstery.

Of course that is what he was getting at. However, as the limo was already searched prior to Frazier and his FBI team arrived we can never be sure what was really found or not. Frazier was handed bullet fragments and told they came from the car. There isn't a court in the land that would have accepted such evidence! What in the world were those guys thinking when they decided to search the car and thus contaminate the crime scene? What plausible motive could they have had to not wait for the forensic team of the FBI?

As for there being no bullet holes in the upholstery, how do you know? Have you seen photos of the interior of the limo?

Yawn! Are we really going to go down this lame path?

How do you know JFK sustained injuries to his neck or that Governor Connally received a bullet wound to his back, wrist & thigh? Did you personally inspect their bodies? No, you didn't. Therefore it's clearly all lies and it never even happened.   ::)

Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 11, 2020, 04:44:31 AM
How about the fact that Oswald's jacket (verified by Marina that it was his) was found dumped nearby?

It was? You mean the white jacket found by nobody-knows-who, supposedly under a car in a “nearby” parking lot (and by “nearby” you mean 2 blocks away) was the gray jacket that Marina said was an old shirt?

Quote
The fact that Johnny Brewer saw Oswald duck into his shop when a police car went by,

He didn’t actually enter the shop, he just looked in the windows.

Quote
thought he looked suspicious so followed him to the Texas Theatre

Brewer said “funny”, not suspicious, and he didn’t see anybody enter the theater. But is this supposed to prove that this man killed a policeman?

Quote
and the fact that Oswald then pulled out a revolver and fired at a cop

That’s not a fact.

Quote
when they came into the theatre to question him?

They didn’t “question him”, they conducted an illegal search and arrested Oswald for murder without a warrant or probable cause.

Quote
For a completely innocent man who had definitely not shot the President or Tippit, do you not find that peculiar behaviour?.

“Peculiar behavior” is not evidence of murder.

Quote
Well, yeah that and the fact that OSWALD'S RIFLE was found hidden on the 6th floor too.

“Oswald’s rifle”. LOL.

Quote
Not to mention that out of the entire staff of TSBD Oswald was the only one who legged it from the building

Not true. Other employees including Charles Givens didn’t return after the motorcade.

Quote
and was missing from a later head count. That he had broken his usual visiting routine by going to visit Marina the night before to allegedly pick up some "curtain rods" which he took to work with him. Also, do you not find it a bit of a coincidence that he took off his wedding ring for the first time and left it on Marina's dresser that morning?

This is all biased rhetoric, not evidence of murder.

Quote
I'd say those 6 points alone (which are the first few that comes to mind) are a fair indication of Oswald's guilt

Of course you would.

Quote
Incidentally, whatever happened to the curtain rods in the paper bag that Oswald took into work with him that morning?

I don’t know and neither do you. Is that supposed to be evidence of murder too?

Quote
I can kind of understand how people might believe there was a second shooter or that he was part of a larger group, but with such a ridiculous amount of both hard and circumstantial evidence against Oswald,

You haven’t mentioned any “hard evidence” yet!

Quote
I really don't get how some people can believe he was totally innocent and had nothing whatsoever to do with the assassination.

I don’t know if he was totally innocent or not, but you certainly haven’t proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty.

Quote
I think I read that there has been something like 80+ assassins, 40+ groups or organisations and two to three hundred people accused of being responsible or involved in the assassination over the the years and yet not one of those have produced real credible or reliable evidence. Where as Oswald, this poor innocent man, has so many points against him.

That’s the problem with relying on Bugliosi for your information. You end up thinking lawyer rhetoric is evidence and that you can arbitrarily dismiss anything you want by just calling it not “credible”.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 11, 2020, 04:49:13 AM
And when exactly did I say that? From what I remember there were several contradictory statements to Tippit murder too so the same rule applies to that.
How about the fact that Oswald's jacket (verified by Marina that it was his) was found dumped nearby? The fact that Johnny Brewer saw Oswald duck into his shop when a police car went by, thought he looked suspicious so followed him to the Texas Theatre and the fact that Oswald then pulled out a revolver and fired at a cop when they came into the theatre to question him?
For a completely innocent man who had definitely not shot the President or Tippit, do you not find that peculiar behaviour?.

Well, yeah that and the fact that OSWALD'S RIFLE was found hidden on the 6th floor too. Not to mention that out of the entire staff of TSBD Oswald was the only one who legged it from the building and was missing from a later head count. That he had broken his usual visiting routine by going to visit Marina the night before to allegedly pick up some "curtain rods" which he took to work with him. Also, do you not find it a bit of a coincidence that he took off his wedding ring for the first time and left it on Marina's dresser that morning?

I'd say those 6 points alone (which are the first few that comes to mind) are a fair indication of Oswald's guilt and certainly more viable than a handful of 200+ different eyewitness statements claiming otherwise.

Incidentally, whatever happened to the curtain rods in the paper bag that Oswald took into work with him that morning?

I can kind of understand how people might believe there was a second shooter or that he was part of a larger group, but with such a ridiculous amount of both hard and circumstantial evidence against Oswald, I really don't get how some people can believe he was totally innocent and had nothing whatsoever to do with the assassination.
I think I read that there has been something like 80+ assassins, 40+ groups or organisations and two to three hundred people accused of being responsible or involved in the assassination over the the years and yet not one of those have produced real credible or reliable evidence. Where as Oswald, this poor innocent man, has so many points against him.

And when exactly did I say that? From what I remember there were several contradictory statements to Tippit murder too so the same rule applies to that.

So we agree on that.  Thumb1:

How about the fact that Oswald's jacket (verified by Marina that it was his) was found dumped nearby?

Let's examine that claim a little bit closer, shall we? Yes, Marina identified the gray jacket now in evidence as belonging to Oswald, but is that really the jacket that was found under a parked car? A few things to consider there; first of all, nobody knows who actually found the jacket under the car. Captain Westbrook was directed to the jacket by the officer who allegedly found it, but in his testimony he could not say who that officer was. Secondly, when the discovery of the jacket was called in, it was described as a white jacket. One can argue that there may have been shade which made the jacket look different in color, but there is a photograph of an officer holding the jacket in plain sunlight at the carpark, which makes it bit difficult to believe that they couldn't see the difference between gray and white. Thirdly, Westbrook testified that he went on to the Texas Theater and gave the jacket to an uniformed officer, but again he could not say who that officer was. And then of course, there is no record at all of how the jacket from the carpark got to the police station and how Westbrook got it back to place it in the evidence room some two hours later. What we do know is that the initials seen on the jacket now in evidence were put on that jacket at the police station, which of course calls into question the chain of custody.

And there is more. Marina said that Oswald had two jackets. One dark and another gray. The dark jacket was later found at the TSBD. However, Frazier, testified that when he drove Oswald to Irving on Thursday he was wearing a gray jacket. Granted, his description of the jacket was not perfect, but as we know from Marina that Oswald only had one gray jacket, one has to wonder how it can be that Oswald left the roominghouse in Oak Cliff on Friday afternoon wearing his gray jacket, when he wore that same gray jacket to Irving on Thursday and was wearing his dark jacket to the TSBD on Friday morning.

So, how can you be sure that the jacket now in evidence is in fact the one they found at the carpark?

Oswald then pulled out a revolver and fired at a cop when they came into the theatre to question him?

Oswald did not fire at anybody inside the Texas Theater.

For a completely innocent man who had definitely not shot the President or Tippit, do you not find that peculiar behaviour?.

Since when makes "peculiar behaviour" somebody a killer? I've met quite a few people in my life who acted peculiar but none of them (as far as I know) killed anybody.

Well, yeah that and the fact that OSWALD'S RIFLE was found hidden on the 6th floor too.

What makes you say it was Oswald's rifle?

Not to mention that out of the entire staff of TSBD Oswald was the only one who legged it from the building and was missing from a later head count.

That's not true. Others were missing also.

That he had broken his usual visiting routine by going to visit Marina the night before to allegedly pick up some "curtain rods" which he took to work with him.

And what routine was that exactly? If I recall correctly he only went to Irving with Frazier a couple of times and had in fact not gone the previous weekend, because Marina was upset with him. Both Marina and Ruth Paine testified that they believed that Oswald had come to Irving on Thursday to make up with Marina. If that was the case, do you really think he's going to tell a 19 year old Frazier that? Far easier to tell a little white lie... if that is what happened.

Also, do you not find it a bit of a coincidence that he took off his wedding ring for the first time and left it on Marina's dresser that morning?

Nope, first of all, you do not know if it was the first time he took his wedding ring off. And secondly, if he went to Irving to make up with Marina and to persuade her to start living together again, which she did not want, he may well have thought that his marriage was over.

I'd say those 6 points alone (which are the first few that comes to mind) are a fair indication of Oswald's guilt

No. There is way too much conjecture and speculation in those points to be a fair indication of anything. It is however telling that some of these arguments are actually needed to make a highly circumstantial case against Oswald. It only shows just how weak the case actually is.

Incidentally, whatever happened to the curtain rods in the paper bag that Oswald took into work with him that morning?

I don't know and neither does anybody else. There is no record of the TSBD having been searched for curtain rods, and even if Oswald did in fact bring curtain rods, he would have had the entire morning to dispose of them. Fact is that we do not know for sure what was in the paper bag, nor do we know what happened to the content or the bag itself for that matter. On Friday evening, Frazier was given a polygraph test. He was shown the paper bag the DPD had found on the 6th floor and he denied it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry. This is day 1 information which is often simply ignored!

I can kind of understand how people might believe there was a second shooter or that he was part of a larger group, but with such a ridiculous amount of both hard and circumstantial evidence against Oswald, I really don't get how some people can believe he was totally innocent and had nothing whatsoever to do with the assassination.

I find it highly unlikely that a completely innocent and not somehow involved man could be framed in such an elaborate way, making it likely that Oswald was involved in some way.

I think I read that there has been something like 80+ assassins, 40+ groups or organisations and two to three hundred people accused of being responsible or involved in the assassination over the the years and yet not one of those have produced real credible or reliable evidence.

I do think that it is likely there was indeed a plot against Kennedy, but there is way too much speculation about who would have been involved and how it was done. Too many people have too many pet theories and it seems to me that's possibly exactly what the plotters wanted. Create so much contradictory evidence to keep everybody guessing for decades to come. The simple truth of the matter is that, if there was indeed a plot, most, if not all, of those involved have likely died by now and the chance that somebody has left a written record behind is IMO remote. And so, we keep on discussing and guessing.




Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 11, 2020, 04:55:26 AM
Yawn! Are we really going to go down this lame path?

How do you know JFK sustained injuries to his neck or that Governor Connally received a bullet wound to his back, wrist & thigh? Did you personally inspect their bodies? No, you didn't. Therefore it's clearly all lies and it never even happened.   ::)

Yawn! Are we really going to go down this lame path?

What lame path would that be? Do you think it is normal that a crime scene is searched and being contaminated by unqualified people who later hand in some bullet fragments to Frazier and his FBI team?

How do you know JFK sustained injuries to his neck or that Governor Connally received a bullet wound to his back, wrist & thigh? Did you personally inspect their bodies? No, you didn't.

The answer is that we don't know that with any kind of certainty, because the autopsy was a mess and there is sufficient witness testimony from those who were there to know that there was a lot of shenanigans going on at Bethesda.

Therefore it's clearly all lies and it never even happened.

It's BS, but if you say so... You seem to know it all, so who am I to argue?

It is beyond a shadow of a doubt that there have been lies told in this case. For instance, the WC knew that Marina had frequently lied, prior to her testimony, yet they relied on her testimony as truthful nevertheless. Michael Paine testified that an FBI agent had shown him a backyard photo in Friday evening to determine where it was taken and Fritz confirmed on Saturday morning that they knew it was the Neeley addres from Paine, but the backyard photos were officially not found until the second search of Ruth Paine's house on Saturday afternoon. And why were FBI documents about Tippit's time of death altered? And why did the FBI claim that SA Odum had shown bullet CE399 to Tomlinson and Wright in mid-1964 when Tomlinson himself said that he was only shown a bullet once by SAC Shanklin in December 1963 and Odum said that he never had CE399 to show to anybody?.... It goes on and on.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 11, 2020, 05:30:09 AM
The fact that Johnny Brewer saw Oswald duck into his shop when a police car went by

Oswald didn't duck into the shop, but notably, did enter the foyer (or whatever they call it) which effectively got him off the sidewalk. Brewer said he thinks he saw him in his store in the past apparently; maybe you confused that part.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Jerry Organ on January 11, 2020, 02:13:24 PM
I would say that poor Mr. Baxter was just handed a taste of Warren Commission Derangement Syndrome. There's no known cure. :P
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 11, 2020, 04:05:01 PM
I would say that poor Mr. Baxter was just handed a taste of Warren Commission Derangement Syndrome. There's no known cure. :P

Actually Mr Baxter is suffering from Warren Commission Derangement Syndrome and needs a dose of the actual facts.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Thomas Graves on January 11, 2020, 11:43:54 PM
Oswald didn't duck into the shop, but notably, did enter the foyer (or whatever they call it) which effectively got him off the sidewalk. Brewer said he thinks he saw him in his store in the past apparently; maybe you confused that part.

Yes, maybe Lee was just nervously looking for some new shoes for Junie.

--  MWT   ;)
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 12, 2020, 12:49:27 AM
Yes, maybe Lee was just nervously looking for some new shoes for Junie.

--  MWT   ;)

Who said he was nervous?
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Thomas Graves on January 12, 2020, 01:01:42 AM
Who said he was nervous?

That evil, evil, evil Deep State agent, Brewer, for one, and at least one person in the sparsely-filled theater who said he was a-switchin' seats like crazy and sittin' next to people he evidently didn't know, as though he was a-tryin' to "blend in" and look innocent an' everythang.

D'oh

But I suppose it could be argued he was just tryin' to find his evil, evil, evil Deep State handler who was, unbeknownst to Lee "The Pawn" Oswald, was a-settin' him up to be the patsy for the assassination!

LOL

--  MWT  ;)

PS  And earlier, didn't the cabdriver say Oswald had told him to let him out a block or two past his residence, as though he was checkin' it out so see if the police wuz there yet?
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 12, 2020, 01:06:24 AM
I think I read that there has been something like 80+ assassins, 40+ groups or organisations and two to three hundred people accused of being responsible or involved in the assassination over the the years and yet not one of those have produced real credible or reliable evidence. Where as Oswald, this poor innocent man, has so many points against him.

"Former Los Angeles District Attorney Vincent Bugliosi estimated that a total of 42 groups, 82 assassins, and 214 people had been accused in various Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories"
-Wikipedia
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 12, 2020, 01:12:03 AM
Yes, maybe Lee was just nervously looking for some new shoes for Junie.

--  MWT   ;)

You missed my point.
See if you can figure it out.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Thomas Graves on January 12, 2020, 01:13:12 AM
"Former Los Angeles District Attorney Vincent Bugliosi estimated that a total of 42 groups, 82 assassins, and 214 people had been accused in various Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories"
-Wikipedia

And who ultimately benefited from all those tinfoil hat conspiracy theories that were promulgated over the years by the likes of Mark "Paid By The KGB To Debunk The Warren Report" Lane, and Oliver "I Like Putin And My Son Works For RT" Stone?

Answer: The fascistic mafia organization known as the KGB, because those conspiracy theories dumbed-down and made paranoiac our society in general, and paved the way for said organization (now oh-so-politely known as the FSB and the SVR) to install KGB-boy Vladimir Putin's useful idiot, Donald Trump, as our "anti-Deep State"/pro-Russia president.

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Thomas Graves on January 12, 2020, 01:22:41 AM
You missed my point.
See if you can figure it out.

Chapman,

What makes you think I was addressing you in particular?

--  MWT  ;)

PS  Brewer thought maybe he'd seen Oswald nervously hanging around that shoe store at least once before?

Hmm

Probably to meet with his evil, evil, evil Deep State handler whom poor old Lee thought was a pro-Castro (or an anti-Castro) agent, or somesuch thing.

Either that, or he'd been lookin' for new shoes for Junie for quite some time, you know ... maybe doin' a little "comparison shopping"!

LOL
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Thomas Graves on January 12, 2020, 01:34:29 AM
It was? You mean the white jacket found by nobody-knows-who, supposedly under a car in a “nearby” parking lot (and by “nearby” you mean 2 blocks away) was the gray jacket that Marina said was an old shirt?

He didn’t actually enter the shop, he just looked in the windows.

Brewer said “funny”, not suspicious, and he didn’t see anybody enter the theater. But is this supposed to prove that this man killed a policeman?

That’s not a fact.

They didn’t “question him”, they conducted an illegal search and arrested Oswald for murder without a warrant or probable cause.

“Peculiar behavior” is not evidence of murder.

“Oswald’s rifle”. LOL.

Not true. Other employees including Charles Givens didn’t return after the motorcade.

This is all biased rhetoric, not evidence of murder.

Of course you would.

I don’t know and neither do you. Is that supposed to be evidence of murder too?

You haven’t mentioned any “hard evidence” yet!

I don’t know if he was totally innocent or not, but you certainly haven’t proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty.

That’s the problem with relying on Bugliosi for your information. You end up thinking lawyer rhetoric is evidence and that you can arbitrarily dismiss anything you want by just calling it not “credible”.

Iacoletti

Why trust anything probable Leningrad KGB honey-trap gal Marina said, ever?

Or probable long-term KGB "illegal," George DeMohrenschildt, for that matter?

Russophile Ruth Paine?

LOL

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 12, 2020, 02:00:50 AM
That evil, evil, evil Deep State agent, Brewer, for one, and at least one person in the sparsely-filled theater who said he was a-switchin' seats like crazy and sittin' next to people he evidently didn't know, as though he was a-tryin' to "blend in" and look innocent an' everythang.

D'oh

But I suppose it could be argued he was just tryin' to find his evil, evil, evil Deep State handler who was, unbeknownst to poor old Lee "The Pawn" Oswald, was a-settin' him up to be the patsy for the assassination!

LOL

--  MWT  ;)

PS  And earlier, didn't the cabdriver say Oswald had told him to let him out a block or two past his residence, as though he was checkin' it out so see if the police wuz there yet?

Would that be the same Oswald who;

- didn't blink an eye when Officer Baker pointed a revolver at him?

- wanted to give his taxi to a woman, when he was supposed to be "on the run"?

- was cool, calm and collected (or words to that effect) during his interrogation, according to Chief Curry?
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Thomas Graves on January 12, 2020, 03:22:36 AM
Would that be the same Oswald who;

- didn't blink an eye when Officer Baker pointed a revolver at him?

- wanted to give his taxi to a woman, when he was supposed to be "on the run"?

- was cool, calm and collected (or words to that effect) during his interrogation, according to Chief Curry?

Why, yes!  I guess it would!

So maybe Ion Pacepa was right, after all, when he said Oswald had been programmed in the USSR!

--  MWT  ;)

Or shall we believe that everyone who testified one way or another against poor Lee Oswald was part of the evil, evil, evil Deep State?

LOL
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 12, 2020, 03:46:34 AM
Chapman

What makes you think I was addressing you in particular?
>>> Reply#95

PS  Brewer thought maybe he'd seen Oswald nervously hanging around that shoe store at least once before?
>>> Brewer didn't say anything of the sort. Neither did I. You continue to miss my point. Again, see if you can figure it out.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Thomas Graves on January 12, 2020, 03:55:31 AM
What makes you think I was addressing you in particular?
>>> Reply#95

PS  Brewer thought maybe he'd seen Oswald nervously hanging around that shoe store at least once before?
>>> Brewer didn't say anything of the sort. Neither did I. You continue to miss my point. Again, see if you can figure it out.

Chapman,

Why don't you tell us the point you were trying to make?

Or ... gasp ... is it too late now?

--  MWT  ;)

Edit:  Oh!  You mean Oswald didn't actually go inside the shoe store that particular day, just kinda slunk around in the foyer until the police cars had passed by?

Works for me, Bill!
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Joffrey van de Wiel on January 30, 2020, 05:19:47 PM
Gentlemen,

I noticed that there is still some confusion about which officer found Oswald's jacket under a parked vehicle. Let me try to help clear up the matter.

First, the DPD radio log is of importance. At around 1:25 p.m. an officer with call sign 279 (listed as "unknown") contacts dispatch and says:

We believe we've got that suspect on shooting this officer out here. Got his white jacket. Believe he dumped it on this parking lot behind this service station at 400 block East Jefferson, across from Dudley Hughes, and he had a white jacket on. We believe this is it.

See CE 1974, page 62:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1139&search=CE_1974#relPageId=894&tab=page

The 'unknown' officer #279 was officer J.T. Griffin of the Traffic Division of the Dallas Police Department according to Lawrence Exhibit 2, page 2:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1137&search=lawrence_exhibit#relPageId=510&tab=page

I trust this will put an end to the we-don't-know-who- found-the- jacket nonsense.



Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Tim Nickerson on January 30, 2020, 05:58:08 PM
Gentlemen,

I noticed that there is still some confusion about which officer found Oswald's jacket under a parked vehicle. Let me try to help clear up the matter.

First, the DPD radio log is of importance. At around 1:25 p.m. an officer with call sign 279 (listed as "unknown") contacts dispatch and says:

We believe we've got that suspect on shooting this officer out here. Got his white jacket. Believe he dumped it on this parking lot behind this service station at 400 block East Jefferson, across from Dudley Hughes, and he had a white jacket on. We believe this is it.

See CE 1974, page 62:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1139&search=CE_1974#relPageId=894&tab=page

The 'unknown' officer #279 was officer J.T. Griffin of the Traffic Division of the Dallas Police Department according to Lawrence Exhibit 2, page 2:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1137&search=lawrence_exhibit#relPageId=510&tab=page

I trust this will put an end to the we-don't-know-who- found-the- jacket nonsense.

That doesn't clear up the matter. Griffin was the officer who reported to Dispatch that the jacket had been found.  That doesn't tell us who it was that actually found the jacket.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 30, 2020, 06:46:31 PM
That doesn't clear up the matter. Griffin was the officer who reported to Dispatch that the jacket had been found.  That doesn't tell us who it was that actually found the jacket.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 30, 2020, 07:17:37 PM
Gentlemen,

I noticed that there is still some confusion about which officer found Oswald's jacket under a parked vehicle. Let me try to help clear up the matter.

First, the DPD radio log is of importance. At around 1:25 p.m. an officer with call sign 279 (listed as "unknown") contacts dispatch and says:

We believe we've got that suspect on shooting this officer out here. Got his white jacket. Believe he dumped it on this parking lot behind this service station at 400 block East Jefferson, across from Dudley Hughes, and he had a white jacket on. We believe this is it.

See CE 1974, page 62:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1139&search=CE_1974#relPageId=894&tab=page

The 'unknown' officer #279 was officer J.T. Griffin of the Traffic Division of the Dallas Police Department according to Lawrence Exhibit 2, page 2:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1137&search=lawrence_exhibit#relPageId=510&tab=page

I trust this will put an end to the we-don't-know-who- found-the- jacket nonsense.

Actually, no it doesn't and it isn't nonsense. The officer that called it in wasn't the one who actually found the jacket.

Westbrook testified that an officer, who has never been identified, pointed him towards the jacket under a car. He picked it up and gave it to another officer before moving on to the Texas Theater. The officer he gave the jacket to could well have been Griffin, although that was also never confirmed.

So, we do indeed not know who found the jacket.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Joffrey van de Wiel on January 30, 2020, 08:31:56 PM
Gentlemen, - Tim, John, Martin-

It appears I misspoke and apologize. However it seemed logical and rational to me that the officer who found the jacket actually called it in himself. 

But I note that in the radio log officer Griffin refers to more than just himself by the use of the phrase We believe this is it.  Therefore the possibility that he just called it in after another officer found the jacket can not be denied. No doubt the officer who actually discovered the discarded jacket in the parking lot typed up a report or is listed on the evidence log sheet, but I can't bloody find it. Most annoying  >:(
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 30, 2020, 08:45:15 PM
I don't think you'll ever find it, Joffrey.
Title: Re: Lame LN excuses
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 30, 2020, 09:35:28 PM
Gentlemen, - Tim, John, Martin-

It appears I misspoke and apologize. However it seemed logical and rational to me that the officer who found the jacket actually called it in himself. 

But I note that in the radio log officer Griffin refers to more than just himself by the use of the phrase We believe this is it.  Therefore the possibility that he just called it in after another officer found the jacket can not be denied. No doubt the officer who actually discovered the discarded jacket in the parking lot typed up a report or is listed on the evidence log sheet, but I can't bloody find it. Most annoying  >:(

Joffrey,

You will never be able to find that report because IMO it doesn't exist. In fact, to this day, nobody knows who the officer was that found the jacket under the car, nor does anybody know who the officer was who took the jacket to the police station, where it suddenly showed up some two hours later, again in possession of Westbrook, who had some officers, who were not even in the chain of custody, initial it before handing it in to the evidence room at around 3pm (if memory serves).

By then of course the white jacket had suddenly become grey. Go figure.