JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Dillon Rankine on April 07, 2019, 11:43:19 AM
-
Psychologists have long since noted a crucial function of CT epistemology ? they focus on errant data: that which isn?t explained by the official model. CTs are scarcely interested in making a cogent theory from the main facts, but rather they try to pull it down by connecting errant, auxiliary data.
Just look around this forum: CTs left and right arguing about the data of this document, what that witness smelled, and how dodgy the autopsy was, all in some desperate attempt to explain everything.
Listen CTs: your theories won?t do it. You can?t explain every fact. No theory of how anything works is going to account for everything, because, simply put, we don?t know everything about the world yet to be able to connect all the dots. Coincidences and anomalies are ok, because they happen in the real world ? sometimes in a dazzlingly large quantity.
I?d you?re goal is to explain everything?s forget about it. Think Thompson once said that when you?ve got a fact so obviously conclusive of your theory ? so obviously sinister ? forget about it, man, because you on your own cannot come up with all the perfectly reasonable, non-sinister explanations for that fact.
I joined this forum 5 years ago certain of a conspiracy ? 5 gunmen, 8 bullets (with no mystic missiles in sight) ? involving the CIA, mob, and LBJ. I?d read all the CT books ? Mantik, Marrs, Fetzer, McLaren, Menninger, Wrone, Lane, DiEugenio, Groden, you name it ? but after looking beyond the bubble, I began to realise something. Each and every one of these authors conveniently misses out on our favourite sociopath. Oswald?s life is trivialised, ignored or glamorised. We?re never told about Robert Oswald?s conversation with his brother at the DPD; anything shady Oswald did is rationalised as the marching orders of the CIA.
Today, I?m almost a pure LNer. I strongly doubt a conspiracy, and can explain the shooting in three bullets from the SN.
-
I?d you?re goal is to explain everything?s forget about it. Think Thompson once said that when you?ve got a fact so obviously conclusive of your theory ? so obviously sinister ? forget about it, man, because you on your own cannot come up with all the perfectly reasonable, non-sinister explanations for that fact.
Great! Now go apply that to all the sinister constructions put on Mr Oswald's actions by your favourite theory. Thumb1:
-
Listen CTs: your theories won?t do it. You can?t explain every fact. No theory of how anything works is going to account for everything, because, simply put, we don?t know everything about the world yet to be able to connect all the dots. Coincidences and anomalies are ok, because they happen in the real world ? sometimes in a dazzlingly large quantity.
Any explanation will do ? as long as you ignore the parts that don?t fit.
-
Any explanation will do ? as long as you ignore the parts that don?t fit.
No explanation will do - as long as you ignore the parts that fit.
-
Psychologists have long since noted a crucial function of CT epistemology ? they focus on errant data: that which isn?t explained by the official model. CTs are scarcely interested in making a cogent theory from the main facts, but rather they try to pull it down by connecting errant, auxiliary data.
Just look around this forum: CTs left and right arguing about the data of this document, what that witness smelled, and how dodgy the autopsy was, all in some desperate attempt to explain everything.
Listen CTs: your theories won?t do it. You can?t explain every fact. No theory of how anything works is going to account for everything, because, simply put, we don?t know everything about the world yet to be able to connect all the dots. Coincidences and anomalies are ok, because they happen in the real world ? sometimes in a dazzlingly large quantity.
I?d you?re goal is to explain everything?s forget about it. Think Thompson once said that when you?ve got a fact so obviously conclusive of your theory ? so obviously sinister ? forget about it, man, because you on your own cannot come up with all the perfectly reasonable, non-sinister explanations for that fact.
I joined this forum 5 years ago certain of a conspiracy ? 5 gunmen, 8 bullets (with no mystic missiles in sight) ? involving the CIA, mob, and LBJ. I?d read all the CT books ? Mantik, Marrs, Fetzer, McLaren, Menninger, Wrone, Lane, DiEugenio, Groden, you name it ? but after looking beyond the bubble, I began to realise something. Each and every one of these authors conveniently misses out on our favourite sociopath. Oswald?s life is trivialised, ignored or glamorised. We?re never told about Robert Oswald?s conversation with his brother at the DPD; anything shady Oswald did is rationalised as the marching orders of the CIA.
Today, I?m almost a pure LNer. I strongly doubt a conspiracy, and can explain the shooting in three bullets from the SN.
I joined the forum over seven years ago and I've never been able to convert any CT into a LN. It just doesn't happen that way. Those CTs who do come over to the LN side do so on their own. I encountered you when you joined up and have watched you slowly and steadily come to the realization that the CT view is unsustainable under the scrutinous logical eye.
-
Psychologists have long since noted a crucial function of CT epistemology ? they focus on errant data: that which isn?t explained by the official model. CTs are scarcely interested in making a cogent theory from the main facts, but rather they try to pull it down by connecting errant, auxiliary data.
Just look around this forum: CTs left and right arguing about the data of this document, what that witness smelled, and how dodgy the autopsy was, all in some desperate attempt to explain everything.
Listen CTs: your theories won?t do it. You can?t explain every fact. No theory of how anything works is going to account for everything, because, simply put, we don?t know everything about the world yet to be able to connect all the dots. Coincidences and anomalies are ok, because they happen in the real world ? sometimes in a dazzlingly large quantity.
I?d you?re goal is to explain everything?s forget about it. Think Thompson once said that when you?ve got a fact so obviously conclusive of your theory ? so obviously sinister ? forget about it, man, because you on your own cannot come up with all the perfectly reasonable, non-sinister explanations for that fact.
I joined this forum 5 years ago certain of a conspiracy ? 5 gunmen, 8 bullets (with no mystic missiles in sight) ? involving the CIA, mob, and LBJ. I?d read all the CT books ? Mantik, Marrs, Fetzer, McLaren, Menninger, Wrone, Lane, DiEugenio, Groden, you name it ? but after looking beyond the bubble, I began to realise something. Each and every one of these authors conveniently misses out on our favourite sociopath. Oswald?s life is trivialised, ignored or glamorised. We?re never told about Robert Oswald?s conversation with his brother at the DPD; anything shady Oswald did is rationalised as the marching orders of the CIA.
Today, I?m almost a pure LNer. I strongly doubt a conspiracy, and can explain the shooting in three bullets from the SN.
And when all is said and done, a conspiracy is essential to explain away why Oswald defenders can never offer direct proof to validate their theories. Like UFOs believers, JFK CTers can make all manner of outlandish claims and then avoid ever having to offer any support by attributing the lack of proof to a cover up. It's a circular process that allows CTers to eat their cake and have it too. They also rarely accept the implications of their nonsense being true. If A did not happen as they allege, then logically something else like B must have happened. But they have no interest in discussing B because the alternative is often absurd, involves multiple individuals lying for no apparent reason, and makes no narrative sense much less is there any evidence to support. The theory stops at pedantic nitpicking of A. It becomes a "strawman" or "loaded" question to ask them what they are suggesting if A is not true as they contend. For example, some lazy contrarians here don't accept the evidence that Oswald owned the MC rifle found on the 6th floor. They refuse to answer, however, whether they believe the underlying evidence linking Oswald to the rifle is fake or not. They apparently realize the absurdity of all this evidence as derived from a variety of different sources being the product of fakery. But they don't miss a beat in continuing to claim there is doubt about Oswald's ownership of the rifle. It is just so. It's dishonest defense attorney tactics to protect a guilty client rather than an honest assessment of the evidence and logical inferences that can be derived from the facts and evidence. An endless tactic to avoid admitting checkmate.
-
I?d you?re goal is to explain everything?s forget about it. Think Thompson....
Does anyone understand this?
-
They also rarely accept the implications of their nonsense being true. If A did not happen as they allege, then logically something else like B must have happened.
Except that "B" never logically follows from "A". That's why this is known as the "Richard Smith" strawman dance.
-
Does anyone understand this?
I think he meant:
"If your goal is to explain everything, forget about it. Tink Thompson...."
-
Psychologists have long since noted a crucial function of CT epistemology ? they focus on errant data: that which isn?t explained by the official model. CTs are scarcely interested in making a cogent theory from the main facts, but rather they try to pull it down by connecting errant, auxiliary data.
Just look around this forum: CTs left and right arguing about the data of this document, what that witness smelled, and how dodgy the autopsy was, all in some desperate attempt to explain everything.
Listen CTs: your theories won?t do it. You can?t explain every fact. No theory of how anything works is going to account for everything, because, simply put, we don?t know everything about the world yet to be able to connect all the dots. Coincidences and anomalies are ok, because they happen in the real world ? sometimes in a dazzlingly large quantity.
I?d you?re goal is to explain everything?s forget about it. Think Thompson once said that when you?ve got a fact so obviously conclusive of your theory ? so obviously sinister ? forget about it, man, because you on your own cannot come up with all the perfectly reasonable, non-sinister explanations for that fact.
I joined this forum 5 years ago certain of a conspiracy ? 5 gunmen, 8 bullets (with no mystic missiles in sight) ? involving the CIA, mob, and LBJ. I?d read all the CT books ? Mantik, Marrs, Fetzer, McLaren, Menninger, Wrone, Lane, DiEugenio, Groden, you name it ? but after looking beyond the bubble, I began to realise something. Each and every one of these authors conveniently misses out on our favourite sociopath. Oswald?s life is trivialised, ignored or glamorised. We?re never told about Robert Oswald?s conversation with his brother at the DPD; anything shady Oswald did is rationalised as the marching orders of the CIA.
Today, I?m almost a pure LNer. I strongly doubt a conspiracy, and can explain the shooting in three bullets from the SN.
Please. You were always a LNer. Your avoidance of the actual evidence proves this.
-
An endless tactic to avoid admitting checkmate.
:D Thanks for the psychoanalysis. So how much more time do you LNers need to checkmate this thing? You do realize that the onus is on you to prove the fringe LNer hypothesis not the other way round? It certainly isn't the default position if a conspiracy can't be proven.
Surely after 56 years the WC and your lot would have come up with at least 1 smoking gun piece of evidence that nails Oswald as a lone nut assassin. So where is that smoking gun? Instead you seem to think that the kooky CTs must prove a conspiracy or concede to the wacky LNer hypothesis, which is only supported by the WC defenders. It would help if you learn some critical thinking skills or at least learn how to play chess.
-
Does anyone understand this?
*If your goal is to explain everything, forget about it.* (Was half-awake when typing, so there?s probably more grammatical errors).
-
Please. You were always a LNer. Your avoidance of the actual evidence proves this.
CT books aren?t evidence, and you can?t explain events in the world without understanding it with science. The facts are as the are:
? CT books neglect honest coverage of Oswald (or ?official? stories of him), but instead look only and assign unnecessary weight to fringe, unsupported facts and wacko interpretations of his actions. Without a knowledge of both actual testimony and psychiatry, you probably wouldn?t know that people who were close to LN gave descriptions of his personality that literally match psychopathic attributes ? his negative background is consistent with this pattern.
? CT books scarcely even cover the shooting in DP, and do so with little or incomplete knowledge of relevant science. The fact remains that all damage can be explained by three bullets ? many possible variations on what each shot did exist, however, 3 shots from the 6th floor are all you need. Shallow back wounds aren?t even physically possible with any bullet (hence why Wecht doesn?t believe in it).
? Relying on fragile witness memories to build your shoddy case is to be arrogantly ignorant of the fact that scientists have made careers out of studying memory ? from molecules to social influences ? all of whom can testify as to how easy it is to manipulate (it actually evolved to be plastic and malleable).
-
Without a knowledge of both actual testimony and psychiatry, you probably wouldn?t know that people who were close to LN gave descriptions of his personality that literally match psychopathic attributes ? his negative background is consistent with this pattern.
Which tells you exactly nothing about who shot JFK.
? CT books scarcely even cover the shooting in DP, and do so with little or incomplete knowledge of relevant science. The fact remains that all damage can be explained by three bullets ? many possible variations on what each shot did exist, however, 3 shots from the 6th floor are all you need.
Just because something is possible, it doesn?t follow that it?s true.
Shallow back wounds aren?t even physically possible with any bullet
BS:
It depends on the bullet, what fired it, and the distance it traveled.
? Relying on fragile witness memories to build your shoddy case is to be arrogantly ignorant of the fact that scientists have made careers out of studying memory ? from molecules to social influences ? all of whom can testify as to how easy it is to manipulate (it actually evolved to be plastic and malleable).
Exactly. Howard Brennan, anyone? Marina Oswald, anyone?
-
Please. You were always a LNer. Your avoidance of the actual evidence proves this.
Give us one bit of your 'actual evidence'
-
Which tells you exactly nothing about who shot JFK.
Balance of probability.
Just because something is possible, it doesn?t follow that it?s true.
Occam?s Razor.
BS:
It depends on the bullet, what fired it, and the distance it traveled.
No it doesn?t. I?ve explained this and even done the calculations on this forum multiple times. Low velocity missiles are more likely to traverse due to their limited fragmentation. High velocity missiles are less likely due to increased probability ? a word that CTs need to get used to ? of fragmentation. The physics of a missile which actually reaches Kennedy, makes a normal hole in his back but just stops dead is something that needs explaining ? that is, produce the sums; ante up or STFU.
Exactly. Howard Brennan, anyone? Marina Oswald, anyone?
Balance of probability. Psychopathic gentleman firing three bullets at the motorcade versus many coordinated gunmen in a cover-up conspiracy. There are many things which will be left unexplainable, however, none of it takes away from the general theory. Nobody can conclusively 100% put LHO in the sixth-floor ? something nobody can do win anyone in almost any crime, so we need a model which best explains the evidence. Tink Thompson and Don Thomas thus far have been the only CTs to even attempt this feat.
The LNer model still holds up. Arguing that there?s no certainty in it doesn?t work. There?s no certainty in anything (hence why the phrase, cogito ergo sum exists). Having been a CT for many years, I known how game is played. You present an alteration be model or try to pick apart the fine details of the other, but never is there any real attempt to demonstrate that no 3 bullet scenario can account for the shooting.
-
Balance of probability.
?I think the guy was a psychopath, therefore he killed the president? is not a balance of probability.
Occam?s Razor.
Occam?s razor doesn?t justify the fallacy that if something is possible, therefore it?s true. The SBT is not an explanation requiring the fewest assumptions.
No it doesn?t. I?ve explained this and even done the calculations on this forum multiple times.
Bull. Your explanations made assumptions like the back wound being caused by a rifle, or coming from the TSBD, or not hitting anything else first. If shallow wounds are impossible, then how the hell did Connally get one in his thigh?
The LNer model still holds up. Arguing that there?s no certainty in it doesn?t work
The threshold isn?t certainty, it?s reasonable doubt. The SBT + ?I think the guy was a psychopath? does not equal ?Oswald did it?.
Having been a CT for many years, I known how game is played. You present an alteration be model or try to pick apart the fine details of the other, but never is there any real attempt to demonstrate that no 3 bullet scenario can account for the shooting.
It?s not necessary to demonstrate that no 3 bullet scenario can account for the shooting. But it?s false to suggest that Thompson and Thomas are the only ones to posit more shots. There?s Mars, there?s Groden, there?s the HSCA...
-
:D Thanks for the psychoanalysis. So how much more time do you LNers need to checkmate this thing? You do realize that the onus is on you to prove the fringe LNer hypothesis not the other way round? It certainly isn't the default position if a conspiracy can't be proven.
Surely after 56 years the WC and your lot would have come up with at least 1 smoking gun piece of evidence that nails Oswald as a lone nut assassin. So where is that smoking gun? Instead you seem to think that the kooky CTs must prove a conspiracy or concede to the wacky LNer hypothesis, which is only supported by the WC defenders. It would help if you learn some critical thinking skills or at least learn how to play chess.
The "onus" is not on anyone outside a criminal trial context in which the rights of even the guilty are protected. The fact that CTers want to circle back to this bogus burden of proof claim is just another example of the weakness of their case. Oswald either pulled the trigger or he did not. One or the other is a fact and no burden of proof impacts that. But there literally is a "smoking gun" in this case. In fact there are two. Oswald's rifle found at the crime scene along with bullet casings fired from his rifle and the pistol that he had on him when arrested (along with two brands of ammo that match those used at the Tippit scene). It would be difficult to envision how there could be much more evidence in this case.
-
The "onus" is not on anyone outside a criminal trial context in which the rights of even the guilty are protected. The fact that CTers want to circle back to this bogus burden of proof claim is just another example of the weakness of their case. Oswald either pulled the trigger or he did not. One or the other is a fact and no burden of proof impacts that. But there literally is a "smoking gun" in this case. In fact there are two. Oswald's rifle found at the crime scene along with bullet casings fired from his rifle and the pistol that he had on him when arrested (along with two brands of ammo that match those used at the Tippit scene). It would be difficult to envision how there could be much more evidence in this case.
?Oswald?s rifle?. LOL
?Pistol that he had on him when arrested?. LOL
-
CT books aren?t evidence, and you can?t explain events in the world without understanding it with science. The facts are as the are:
? CT books neglect honest coverage of Oswald (or ?official? stories of him), but instead look only and assign unnecessary weight to fringe, unsupported facts and wacko interpretations of his actions. Without a knowledge of both actual testimony and psychiatry, you probably wouldn?t know that people who were close to LN gave descriptions of his personality that literally match psychopathic attributes ? his negative background is consistent with this pattern.
? CT books scarcely even cover the shooting in DP, and do so with little or incomplete knowledge of relevant science. The fact remains that all damage can be explained by three bullets ? many possible variations on what each shot did exist, however, 3 shots from the 6th floor are all you need. Shallow back wounds aren?t even physically possible with any bullet (hence why Wecht doesn?t believe in it).
? Relying on fragile witness memories to build your shoddy case is to be arrogantly ignorant of the fact that scientists have made careers out of studying memory ? from molecules to social influences ? all of whom can testify as to how easy it is to manipulate (it actually evolved to be plastic and malleable).
Who said anything about CT books beside you? The actual evidence in the twenty-six volumes proves that there was a conspiracy. The best CT books use this evidence that you ignore.
Cite your evidence that supports the WC's claims and conclusion.
-
Who said anything about CT books beside you? The actual evidence in the twenty-six volumes proves that there was a conspiracy. The best CT books use this evidence that you ignore.
Cite your evidence that supports the WC's claims and conclusion.
Dude, your only knowledge of the volumes comes from your CT books :D
My evidence is literally front and centre of those volumes: despite the CT moaning about poorly matching dates on documents etc, there hasn?t been a serious, evidence-based rebuttal to any of the following claims:
? Oswald owned the rifle and pistol
? 6.5 rifle and 3 shells were found on the 6th floor
? Bullet fragments recovered from the limo matched Oswald?s gun
? CE-399 matched Oswald?s gun
? Oswald, by all the accounts that you consistently miss when reading the volumes, was a classic psychopath
? Etc, etc, etc
How about you cite some credible evidence suggesting some of this data isn?t to be trusted? Let?s start with just one: the bullet fragments, how did they get from LHO?s weapon on the sixth floor to the limousine, with human tissue attached them? Or do we agree they came from a bullet striking somebody in that car fired from that window?
-
Any explanation will do ? as long as you ignore the parts that don?t fit.
You?ll never explain how anything works if you consider the fart of every passing fly as anomalies that need accounted for.
Take a page from any academic field?s textbook and you?ll find that data/evidence on its own is useless: you need some framework/model (or, dare I say: theory) to interpret it, understand it, and make hypotheses to confirm it.
There?s always abnormalities. Dealing with uncertainty is part of the epistemological process. One day we might be able to explain everything, but that?s unlikely.
The lone-shooter model fits. Despite almost 60 years of rambling, it remains standing: all accusations of its key components being false are made from a scientifically illiterate perspective that fails to consider the more complicated elements of this case.
Nothing is as simple as CTs would like it.
-
My evidence is literally front and centre of those volumes: despite the CT moaning about poorly matching dates on documents etc, there hasn?t been a serious, evidence-based rebuttal to any of the following claims:
? Oswald owned the rifle and pistol
There is no serious evidence-based argument that Oswald owned the rifle and pistol.
? 6.5 rifle and 3 shells were found on the 6th floor
Or a Mauser rifle and 2 shells.
? Bullet fragments recovered from the limo matched Oswald?s gun
Correction: bullet fragments that were allegedly recovered from the limo by a secret service agent and a Navy corpsman, with no documented chain of evidence which were mutilated were matched to a rifle allegedly belonging to Oswald by Robert Frazier lining up marks in his mind after they didn't line up under the microscope.
? CE-399 matched Oswald?s gun
So what if CE-399 matches the gun you think is Oswald's? There's no evidence that CE399 had anything to do with the assassination or even was the bullet that Tomlinson found on an unrelated stretcher at Parkland Hospital.
? Oswald, by all the accounts that you consistently miss when reading the volumes, was a classic psychopath
According to whom?
? Etc, etc, etc
"Etc" must be that "mountain of evidence" we keep hearing about.
-
There is no serious evidence-based argument that Oswald owned the rifle and pistol.
The documents presented in evidence are false then?
Or a Mauser rifle and 2 shells.
The Mauser BS was disputed in the 60s (see Six Seconds). 7.65 gun with 2 6.5 shells? How does that work? Couldn?t be that the 7.65 and 6.5 guns look similar, could it? And I guess photographs of three shells is just smoke and mirrors?
Correction: bullet fragments that were allegedly recovered from the limo by a secret service agent and a Navy corpsman, with no documented chain of evidence which were mutilated were matched to a rifle allegedly belonging to Oswald by Robert Frazier lining up marks in his mind after they didn't line up under the microscope.
Yes, those ones. Forgot to mention they had human tissue on them.
So what if CE-399 matches the gun you think is Oswald's? There's no evidence that CE399 had anything to do with the assassination or even was the bullet that Tomlinson found on an unrelated stretcher at Parkland Hospital.
Bullet found at hospital with shooting victims. Bullet comes from gun found at the scene of this very shooting. You?re right, I see no connection here. What possible connection could those things have? Why would anybody think they were associated? Are you a professor?
Also that stretcher thing is guesswork: nobody knows which one it was, and it doesn?t matter.
According to whom?
Robert Oswald, the folks who didn?t like Oswald for hitting Marina, and a few others. It should go without saying nobody said he was a psychopath: they described one: shallow affect, pathological lying, manipulative, grandiosity, etc.
"Etc" must be that "mountain of evidence" we keep hearing about.
Was much too bored to cite anything else (been neglecting the case in favour of my main interests).
-
How is that appeal to ridicule?
"if you consider the fart of every passing fly as anomalies that need accounted for"
That is most definitely an appeal to ridicule.
No, no it isn?t. If you a theory that says a shot came from the front, you get the hypothesis that there is evidence of a frontal shot.
This sentence doesn't really parse, but if you're saying that people who propose a frontal shot (like for example Sherry Fiester) have the burden of showing evidence for a frontal shot, then I agree.
I?m afraid that?s fallacy no 2 for you: false equivalence.
You mean like flies farting?
Proposing models to explain data is not that same thing is deciding a priori what data is valid and what isn?t.
Propose what you like. There's no model in the world that will tell you who pulled the trigger. Proposing a model that all the wounds were created by one bullet because you decide a priori that Oswald had to be a lone shooter is putting the cart before the horse.
Models fail in the absence of support.
And when you have to move wound locations and fudge people's seating locations to make your a prioi assumption work, then your model is a failure out of the starting gate.
Cherry-picking isn?t the same as only using those data which successfully integrate into a coherent model and ignoring all the weirdness that creates confusion and uncertainty.
And by "weirdness that creates confusion and uncertainty", you mean data that doesn't fit your model. This is most certainly cherry-picking.
Unexplainable facts exist. As science marches forward, more things may become explainable. For now, let?s use what limited knowledge our species has accrued and try to make sense of things, cool?
I have no problem "trying to make sense of things". What I have a problem with is pretending that "I don't know" really means "I do know, and it's my contrived cherry-picked model that explains everything, and you would see it too if you only ignored the right things".
-
The documents presented in evidence are false then?
The documents presented in evidence do not demonstrate ownership.
The Mauser BS was disputed in the 60s (see Six Seconds).
Three deputies described a Mauser on 11/22. Nobody described a Carcano.
7.65 gun with 2 6.5 shells? How does that work?
What do you mean, "how does that work?" Who says that shells on the floor must have been fired by a weapon found in the same building?
Couldn?t be that the 7.65 and 6.5 guns look similar, could it?
Here's we go again with "possible therefore true".
And I guess photographs of three shells is just smoke and mirrors?
According to Tom Alyea, yes it was smoke and mirrors.
Yes, those ones. Forgot to mention they had human tissue on them.
What do you think this demonstrates, exactly?
Bullet found at hospital with shooting victims. Bullet comes from gun found at the scene of this very shooting. You?re right, I see no connection here. What possible connection could those things have? Why would anybody think they were associated? Are you a professor?
Do you have any good reason to believe that CE399 was found at Parkland?
Also that stretcher thing is guesswork: nobody knows which one it was, and it doesn?t matter.
Nobody knows better than the guy who found it.
Robert Oswald, the folks who didn?t like Oswald for hitting Marina, and a few others.
And all this time I thought Robert Oswald was a salesman, not a clinical psychologist.
Was much too bored to cite anything else
Of course you are.
-
If we boil down all the banter, arguing, and posturing that goes on, the bottom line is this:
You think that "Oswald did it, and did it alone" is the conclusion that best fits the evidence, by ignoring the anomalies, discrepancies, and contradictory evidence.
I think that the conclusion that best fits the evidence is "indeterminate" by considering the anomalies, discrepancies, and contradictory evidence.
I know that humans always want to have an answer for everything -- even if they have to make one up -- but sometimes there just isn't one.
-
My evidence is literally front and centre of those volumes: despite the CT moaning about poorly matching dates on documents etc, there hasn?t been a serious, evidence-based rebuttal to any of the following claims:
There can be no serious, evidence-based rebuttal to a LNer claim because they have made up their minds and closed shop.
? Oswald owned the rifle and pistol
This is a conclusion, not evidence. Where's the beef?
? 6.5 rifle and 3 shells were found on the 6th floor
A rifle without a single print of Oswald's on it and 3 hulls that Fritz found in a tight group near the SN window, which he picked up with his bare hands and later tossed on the floor in a more scattered arrangement so he could take a more credible photo of the crime scene.
? Bullet fragments recovered from the limo matched Oswald?s gun
Correction: bullet fragments that were allegedly recovered from the limo by a secret service agent and a Navy corpsman, with no documented chain of evidence which were mutilated were matched to a rifle allegedly belonging to Oswald by Robert Frazier lining up marks in his mind after they didn't line up under the microscope.
? CE-399 matched Oswald?s gun
- There isn't a bullet trajectory from the 6th floor window into JFK's back at the T1 vertebrae and out his throat at the C7 vertebrae, otherwise, prove it sucka.
- CE-399 had no blood, bone or tissue on it after causing 7 wounds and smashing thru bones.
- CE-399 was pristine (>95% intact) after causing 7 wounds and smashing thru 3 bones.
- CE-399 was planted on the wrong gurney.
Conclusion: CE-399 was either magic or shot into a swimming pool then planted at Parkland.
? Oswald, by all the accounts that you consistently miss when reading the volumes, was a classic psychopath
And being a classic armchair psychoanalyst, you should know.
? Etc, etc, etc
More of the same? Bring it.
How about you cite some credible evidence suggesting some of this data isn?t to be trusted? Let?s start with just one: the bullet fragments, how did they get from LHO?s weapon on the sixth floor to the limousine, with human tissue attached them? Or do we agree they came from a bullet striking somebody in that car fired from that window?
Again, your false premise that the bullet fragments were linked to the rifle result in GIGO. You haven't even linked Oswald to the rifle with credible evidence. In fact, all the evidence you cite supports Oswald being a sheep-dipped patsy and not a lone nut assassin.
-
Dude, your only knowledge of the volumes comes from your CT books :D
My evidence is literally front and centre of those volumes: despite the CT moaning about poorly matching dates on documents etc, there hasn?t been a serious, evidence-based rebuttal to any of the following claims:
? Oswald owned the rifle and pistol
? 6.5 rifle and 3 shells were found on the 6th floor
? Bullet fragments recovered from the limo matched Oswald?s gun
? CE-399 matched Oswald?s gun
? Oswald, by all the accounts that you consistently miss when reading the volumes, was a classic psychopath
? Etc, etc, etc
How about you cite some credible evidence suggesting some of this data isn?t to be trusted? Let?s start with just one: the bullet fragments, how did they get from LHO?s weapon on the sixth floor to the limousine, with human tissue attached them? Or do we agree they came from a bullet striking somebody in that car fired from that window?
How could you possibly know this? This is McAdams 101 stuff.
I see NO evidence. I see a bunch of UNSUPPORTED claims made by the WC. Then you expect people to believe that you were a CTer. Please.
-
It is obvious the opinions of the thread author and those posting in support of his opinions
do not consider what usually happens in reaction to the historical S.O.P., the "hail mary play"
triggered by the "what have we got to lose?" moment of recognition.
"The Fix" is the "hail mary play". In the Oswald example, we will probably never know if "The Fix"
was put in initially because Hoover and LBJ knew by Saturday morning, discussing "the tapes" from
Mexico City Hoover's agents familiar with Oswald's voice Hoover described to Johnson in late morning on 11/23, or if it was put in after Oswald was assassinated while surrounded by DPD, or put in in reaction to the combination of both. The American people were kept unaware of attempt by Dallas FBI
to compare tapes of Oswald's voice recorded in Mexico City with their memories of Oswald's real time
voice...listening to tapes since officially denied to have existed by November, 1963.
Some history of the case and another example of putting in the fix...a big news story in our own
current events.
This convo in late afternoon, Nov. 24 between Moyers in DC and Rostow in New Haven describes
"The Fix". It was described at exactly the same time the innermost viscera in Oswald's corpse had
cooled to room temperature.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/lbjlib/phone_calls/Nov_1963/pdf/LBJ_11-24-63_Moyers-Rostow.pdf
(http://jfkforum.com/images/RostowMoyerCallNovember24postOswald.jpg)
In hindsight, considering what the later developed evidence indicates, was "the Fix" aka the Warren Commission, sorely in need of a "magic bullet" from the moment "the Commission" was concocted (less than 30 hours after JFK died...) as the "hail mary play".
Didn't Nixon turn out to be Nixon and Tom Dooley a CIA asset run by Paul Hellmuth?
On 8/29/2012 at 4:49 AM, Tom Scully said:
....I did not even get into the history of Paul Hellmuth and Dr. Tom Dooley. John A. Bross and Eli Whitney Debevoise both were assistant counsels to the HICOG at about the same time. McCloy took Debevoise's father's place as John D. Rockefeller, Jr.'s attorney when Debevoise's father, Thomas, retired. Eli Whitney Debevoise's law partner was Francis Plimpton, Plimpton's brother was appointed by McCloy as president of Amherst U. Plimpton's son George (with Cass Canfield's stepson and Peter Matthiessen) was part of what the Tom Dooley propaganda / espionage Op was about, steering and controlling young hearts and minds. Francis Plimpton was implicated with Houghton at the Met. Museum, along with Paul Hellmuth and David B. Stone in the CIA funding of student Orgs ...... Hellmuth, Stone, and Weston Howland, Jr., a cousin who was one of the less than 20 named with Michael Paine as shareholders of Naushon Island were founders of the New England Aquarium and served on the board and or funded the Woods Hole Institute....
On 8/4/2012 at 10:50 PM, Tom Scully said:
......a group of Woods Hole Institute trustees including Thomas J Devine and a Mr. Howland, former OSS who was linked to the CIA's Paul Hellmuth and David Stone of the NE Aquarium and (Howland and his sisters) was one of less than two dozen named along with Michael Paine bequeathed shares in Naushon Island. .....
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=958&relPageId=147&search=backyard_photos%20first
(http://jfkforum.com/images/BYPhscaReportPg141.jpg)
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1138&relPageId=222&search=wright_and%20path%20of%20the%20bullet
(http://jfkforum.com/images/CE399opWrightAskedParklandDoctorsPathBullet.jpg)
Harrison Livingston (https://books.google.com/books?id=LD8TUAGSuMoC&pg=PA90&lpg=PA90&dq=patrick+dean+op+wright&source=bl&ots=353hEzbqXl&sig=ACfU3U2907ykEqNMXZNVLCDkpE9IZb7vRg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjV4PO6-sPhAhWOna0KHaz1BHUQ6AEwAnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=patrick%20dean%20op%20wright&f=true)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/Ce399OPwrightPatrickDeanLivingstonBook.jpg)
https://obits.dallasnews.com/obituaries/dallasmorningnews/obituary.aspx?n=shirley-wright-dean&pid=147489016
Dean, Shirley Wright 76 went to be with her family in Heaven on December 27, 2010. Preceded in death by husband Patrick Trevore Dean, parents O.P. "Pokey" Wright and Joe Madeline Kerr Wright and grandson ?.. Survived by daughter Tivilla ?.
"The Fix" 1992 - 2019
Essay; 1st Global Political Scandal - The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/12/opinion/essay-1st-global-political-scandal.html
Nov 12, 1992 - By WILLIAM SAFIRE NOV. ... Coverup-General Barr and Mr. Mueller were instrumental in appointing the lawyer for the American subsidiary of ?
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Appendix%20to%20Barr%20QFR%20Responses3.pdf
APPENDIX TO THE QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD WILLIAM P. BARR NOMINEE TO BE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL Letter from William P. Barr, nominee to be Attorney General of the United States, to Chairman Lindsey Graham, Senate Committee on the Judiciary (January 14, 2019)
...In 2017 and 2018, much of the news media was saturated with commentary and speculation about various obstruction theories that the Special Counsel may have been pursuing at the time, including theories under section 1512(c). I decided to weigh in because I was worried that, if an overly expansive interpretation of section 1512(c) were adopted in this particular case, it could, over the longer term, cast a pall over the exercise of discretionary authority, not just by future Presidents, but by all public officials involved in administering the law, especially those in the Department. I started drafting an op-ed. But as I wrote, I quickly realized that the subject matter was too dry and would require too much space. Further, my purpose was not to influence public opinion on the issue, but rather to make sure that all of the lawyers involved carefully considered the potential implications of the theory. I discussed my views broadly with lawyer friends; wrote the memo to senior Department officials; shared it with other interested parties; and later provided copies to friends. I was not representing anyone when I wrote the memorandum, and no one requested that I draft it. I wrote it myself, on my own initiative, without assistance, and based solely on public information.
You requested that I provide you with additional information concerning the lawyers with whom I shared the memorandum or discussed the issue it addresses. As the media has reported, I provided the memorandum to officials at the Department of Justice and lawyers for the President. To the best of my recollection, before I began writing the memorandum, I provided ...
?.
Dillon, can you understand why it is reasonable to regard your thread and Barr's 19 page unsolicited
memo to DOJ officials in mid-2018 as solutions seeking problems?
-
"if you consider the fart of every passing fly as anomalies that need accounted for"
That is most definitely an appeal to ridicule.
It?s a broad statement which notes the confounding effect of errant data, not an argument.
Your biggest failure in all your responses is this failure to disengage from ?argument mode? and focus on things in the real world; reality is not a logical syllogism waiting for you to debunk.
This sentence doesn't really parse, but if you're saying that people who propose a frontal shot (like for example Sherry Fiester) have the burden of showing evidence for a frontal shot, then I agree.
It means that different models of understanding the shooting come with associated predictions about the state of the evidence (i.e., Kennedy was shot in the front entails that this must be possible given the available data; we?ll return to your failure to grasp this point next).
Propose what you like. There's no model in the world that will tell you who pulled the trigger. Proposing a model that all the wounds were created by one bullet because you decide a priori that Oswald had to be a lone shooter is putting the cart before the horse.
Basic understanding of epistemology and philosophy of science is needed.
Models are proposed explanations which are tested against the evidence
? rule out the impossible ones and your left with a handful, and the whole reason Occam?s razor is a thing should tell you which one you side with until further evidence shows up.
If a model proposes (as in Phantom Shot) that the shooting was executed with only two bullets, we expect find evidence to support that this even possible ? there isn?t, so it?s false.
Despite what CT/mister lawyer-men tell you, you can?t use induction until the ?truth? appears. There?s bullet evidence, a weapon, victims, etc. Models are a way of finding order in that chaos, and their specific hypotheses is what rule them out. The LN model remains standing.
And when you have to move wound locations and fudge people's seating locations to make your a prioi assumption work, then your model is a failure out of the starting gate.
The shot works at T-1. The voodoo of the ideologues isn?t relevant to the evidence. I?m sure there?s a fallacy named for this style of discussion
And by "weirdness that creates confusion and uncertainty", you mean data that doesn't fit your model. This is most certainly cherry-picking.
No, I don?t. Again, I?m sure there?s a fallacy named after this. Errant data is meaningless sh*t like ?dead SS agents,? ?gunsmoke? on the knoll, etc.
I have no problem "trying to make sense of things". What I have a problem with is pretending that "I don't know" really means "I do know, and it's my contrived cherry-picked model that explains everything, and you would see it too if you only ignored the right things".
Some facts are more relevant than others, and terms like ?noise in the data? don?t exist for nothing. Order in the data that happens to conform to one model (the LN) is highly, highly unlikely to occur by chance. (Statisticians even have a way showing this ? the p-value.)
-
The documents presented in evidence do not demonstrate ownership.
Three deputies described a Mauser on 11/22. Nobody described a Carcano.
What do you mean, "how does that work?" Who says that shells on the floor must have been fired by a weapon found in the same building?
Here's we go again with "possible therefore true".
Weitzman?s honest mistake is more plausible than ?all the photographs were altered.? He even admitted that his reasoning for saying Mauser was that the Carcano has a bolt resembling a Mauser ? in fact; it was designed to mimic the Mauser, and was less commonly known.
According to Tom Alyea, yes it was smoke and mirrors.
That?s a unique conclusions to jump to. Last I checked there?s a rifle and shells.
What do you think this demonstrates, exactly?
Bullet fragments with human tissue found in limousine in which people were shot? Yeah, I can see where you might have difficulty understanding the proposal: it really gets the noggin joggin.
Do you have any good reason to believe that CE399 was found at Parkland?
Order in that data, mainly. Of course, the only reason you doubt it is because you?re fualty views on human memory ? a subject of intense scientific study (Nobel prizes and everything) which have revelaed that it?s malleable by design (of evolution).
Nobody knows better than the guy who found it.
His guess done from memory is your evidence? Even if he?s right, who cares? It?s possible that evil conspiracy people planted it and never uttered a word, but totally impossible for someone to have saw something on the floor and put it on a stretcher, and said nothing afterward? Who cares?
And all this time I thought Robert Oswald was a salesman, not a clinical psychologist.
I described that multiple people gave descriptions of Oswald that consist of psychopathic personality traits.
-
How could you possibly know this? This is McAdams 101 stuff.
I see NO evidence. I see a bunch of UNSUPPORTED claims made by the WC. Then you expect people to believe that you were a CTer. Please.
You?re like a broken record with that citations gibberish. I once cited a bibliography and you said I didn?t cite once source. You don?t even read posts and copy your entire shtick from CT books ? Presumed Guilty, was it?
If you?d read that post you?d understand I wasn?t citing evidence, I was listing conclusions, hence why that?s what?s there. You?d also have noticed my challenge at the bottom.
-
There can be no serious, evidence-based rebuttal to a LNer claim because they have made up their minds and closed shop.
This is a conclusion, not evidence. Where's the beef?
What?s with you CTs? Rob did this as well. I?m not listing citations I?m listing conclusions, hence why there are conclusions instead of citations.
A rifle without a single print of Oswald's on it and 3 hulls that Fritz found in a tight group near the SN window, which he picked up with his bare hands and later tossed on the floor in a more scattered arrangement so he could take a more credible photo of the crime scene.
No citation, I see :D So three shells were still found beneath the window, yes?
- There isn't a bullet trajectory from the 6th floor window into JFK's back at the T1 vertebrae and out his throat at the C7 vertebrae, otherwise, prove it sucka.
This is just outdated BS. Bullets don?t travel in straight lines, and there is no measurement saying the exit was at C-7 (that?s one claim about the entrance).
- CE-399 had no blood, bone or tissue on it after causing 7 wounds and smashing thru bones.
So? It was also in drawers, pockets, under stretchers, etc. Last I checked, blood isn?t superglue.
- CE-399 was pristine (>95% intact) after causing 7 wounds and smashing thru 3 bones.
Pristine is a subjective judgement. Mild visual deformity is apparent and the equations all clearly suggest that it could have emerged in its condition from that feat. The world is never as simple you lot would like it to be.
- CE-399 was planted on the wrong gurney.
That?s a claim for which I see no citation! It?s on a gurney, doesn?t matter which one. Also, these conspirators seem even less intelligent than the CTs :D Aranging the shells perfectly side-by-side like nobody would notice, leaving the Mauser they used instead of the Carcano, planting the to-good-to-be-true 399 on the wrong stretcher, etc. Seriously, what handicaps are we dealing with here?
Conclusion: CE-399 was either magic or shot into a swimming pool then planted at Parkland.
Again, you lot are priceless. Demand citations from us then never give them for highly specific, laughable claims.
And being a classic armchair psychoanalyst, you should know.
Somebody doesn?t know what a psychoanalyst is :D
They described a set of traits which are on the list of psychopathic traits. It?s not an professional analysis, its moving my eyes from page to the next.
Again, your false premise that the bullet fragments were linked to the rifle result in GIGO. You haven't even linked Oswald to the rifle with credible evidence. In fact, all the evidence you cite supports Oswald being a sheep-dipped patsy and not a lone nut assassin.
Again with this citation stuff. Nothing supports LHO being a ?sheep-dipped patsy? for if there were, I?d have been all over it in my CT days.
-
It?s a broad statement which notes the confounding effect of errant data, not an argument.
Bull. It's an appeal to ridicule in order to make a case for not examining the evidence too closely.
Your biggest failure in all your responses is this failure to disengage from ?argument mode? and focus on things in the real world; reality is not a logical syllogism waiting for you to debunk.
The charge to "focus on things in the real world" is an excuse for having insufficient evidence for your conclusion.
It means that different models of understanding the shooting come with associated predictions about the state of the evidence (i.e., Kennedy was shot in the front entails that this must be possible given the available data; we?ll return to your failure to grasp this point next).
I didn't "fail to grasp that". I agree with it.
? rule out the impossible ones and your left with a handful, and the whole reason Occam?s razor is a thing should tell you which one you side with until further evidence shows up.
What "impossible ones" do you think you've ruled out? As already discussed, Occam's Razor doesn't apply when your argument is "this unlikely thing is possible, therefore it happened".
If a model proposes (as in Phantom Shot) that the shooting was executed with only two bullets, we expect find evidence to support that this even possible ? there isn?t, so it?s false.
Says who?
Despite what CT/mister lawyer-men tell you, you can?t use induction until the ?truth? appears. There?s bullet evidence, a weapon, victims, etc. Models are a way of finding order in that chaos, and their specific hypotheses is what rule them out. The LN model remains standing.
Remains? When has it ever stood? All you can make an argument for is that you can't rule it out. Some models say you can. Models all involve some degree of unproven or unprovable assumptions -- some more justified than others.
The shot works at T-1.
Great. Do you just ignore all evidence that it was lower because the assumed shot no longer works?
Errant data is meaningless sh*t like ?dead SS agents,? ?gunsmoke? on the knoll, etc.
That's easy for you to say.
Some facts are more relevant than others, and terms like ?noise in the data? don?t exist for nothing. Order in the data that happens to conform to one model (the LN) is highly, highly unlikely to occur by chance. (Statisticians even have a way showing this ? the p-value.)
Feel free to elaborate on this order and why you think that it must either be true or "occur by chance".
-
Weitzman?s honest mistake is more plausible than ?all the photographs were altered.?
Who said the alternative was "all the photographs were altered"? What photographs?
He even admitted that his reasoning for saying Mauser was that the Carcano has a bolt resembling a Mauser ? in fact; it was designed to mimic the Mauser, and was less commonly known.
Yes, and how do you evaluate whether this is true or not? You examine the details given in the description and compare it to the claim that it was identified "at a glance". You look at statements from others. You look at the fact that he didn't just say "looks like a Mauser", he said that it was a 7.65 Mauser -- a very specific thing. Then you consider that false recantations are not an extraordinary occurrence.
That?s a unique conclusions to jump to. Last I checked there?s a rifle and shells.
Yes there are a rifle and shells presented as evidence. So what? Whether they were photographed as discovered is disputed. Whether there were 2 shells or 3 shells is ambiguous in the documentary evidence. When the shells were fired (or even if they were fired in one case) cannot be known.
Bullet fragments with human tissue found in limousine in which people were shot? Yeah, I can see where you might have difficulty understanding the proposal: it really gets the noggin joggin.
Depends on how much basis you have for "found in the limousine", which is not much. Also, "human tissue" doesn't mean a whole lot. Skin cells are "human tissue". Any reason to think that this "human tissue" came from Kennedy's head or brain?
Order in that data, mainly. Of course, the only reason you doubt it is because you?re fualty views on human memory ? a subject of intense scientific study (Nobel prizes and everything) which have revelaed that it?s malleable by design (of evolution).
Again, I don't know who you're arguing with, but I agreed with that. The problem for you is that the "Oswald did it" model relies on faulty human memory.
His guess done from memory is your evidence? Even if he?s right, who cares? It?s possible that evil conspiracy people planted it and never uttered a word, but totally impossible for someone to have saw something on the floor and put it on a stretcher, and said nothing afterward? Who cares?
I care. If you're going to claim that CE399 was at all related to the shooting at Houston and Elm, you need more than, "well some kind of bullet was found by a hospital technician somewhere". Who said anything about "evil conspiracy people planting it and never uttering a word"? Who said "it's impossible for someone to have seen something on the floor and put it on a stretcher"? Possible does not equal Happened.
I described that multiple people gave descriptions of Oswald that consist of psychopathic personality traits.
...and this is evidence of what?
-
If you?d read that post you?d understand I wasn?t citing evidence, I was listing conclusions
Some people prefer conclusions that actually follow from the evidence.
-
So? It was also in drawers, pockets, under stretchers, etc. Last I checked, blood isn?t superglue.
Great. So is there any reason to think that CE399 ever went through any human body?
That?s a claim for which I see no citation! It?s on a gurney, doesn?t matter which one. Also, these conspirators seem even less intelligent than the CTs :D Aranging the shells perfectly side-by-side like nobody would notice, leaving the Mauser they used instead of the Carcano, planting the to-good-to-be-true 399 on the wrong stretcher, etc. Seriously, what handicaps are we dealing with here?
This is "Richard Smith's" trademark "the vast and perfect conspiracy that I imagine would never do X, therefore there was no conspiracy" argument.
-
Great. So is there any reason to think that CE399 ever went through any human body?
There?s no direct evidence linking it to any wound, however, what evidence does exist strongly indicated it could have been the SBT. Saying ?this is plausible given the evidence? is not the same as saying ?possible = true.? I understand that anything not framed within the context of a fallacies 101 course is confusing to you, so you?ll just have to take my word for it.
This is "Richard Smith's" trademark "the vast and perfect conspiracy that I imagine would never do X, therefore there was no conspiracy" argument.
It could have been a group of the most humbling, inefficient, low IQ spoons ever assembled and I?m sure they?d still understand that placing these 3 shells right next to each other would look suspect, or that leaving a ?pristine? bullet for a perfect match might raise some eyebrows.
if anything is fallacious here, it?s your hilariously out-of-touch way of defending bad ideas. It seems like something out of a movie ? so comedically obvious that it?s a plant, but apparently nobody else thought so.
-
There?s no direct evidence linking it to any wound, however, what evidence does exist strongly indicated it could have been the SBT. Saying ?this is plausible given the evidence? is not the same as saying ?possible = true.? I understand that anything not framed within the context of a fallacies 101 course is confusing to you, so you?ll just have to take my word for it.
It could have been a group of the most humbling, inefficient, low IQ spoons ever assembled and I?m sure they?d still understand that placing these 3 shells right next to each other would look suspect, or that leaving a ?pristine? bullet for a perfect match might raise some eyebrows.
if anything is fallacious here, it?s your hilariously out-of-touch way of defending bad ideas. It seems like something out of a movie ? so comedically obvious that it?s a plant, but apparently nobody else thought so.
I wouldn't put it past any shooter to place the shells in a perfect row. A kind of 'in-your-face' gesture.
-
Bull. It's an appeal to ridicule in order to make a case for not examining the evidence too closely.
Am I distracting the truther squad from ?the police began chasing an unknown gunman up a grassy hill??
The charge to "focus on things in the real world" is an excuse for having insufficient evidence for your conclusion.
It?s attempt to get you understand the balance of probability; the relationships things tend to have in the actual real world outside of a logic textbook.
Remains? When has it ever stood? All you can make an argument for is that you can't rule it out. Some models say you can. Models all involve some degree of unproven or unprovable assumptions -- some more justified than others.
That?s he whole idea ? the assumptions of certain models can be indirectly tested, however. The LN model posits that Oswald didn?t alone, yet you can?t disporve a conspiracy. You can see whether or not the evidence lines up with that model, which it does.
Assumptions and uncertainty are things which characterise all of epistemology (for the last time: cogito ergo sum!), and the reason CTs get laughed at is their relentless pursuit of certainty which isn?t possible.
Great. Do you just ignore all evidence that it was lower because the assumed shot no longer works?
What evidence? Bennett?s report? Burkley?e brief observation?
I?d cite the x-day showing excess radiolucency at T-1 but you?d probably ask how I know it?s not JFK from an alternate reality following an infraction.
-
There?s no direct evidence linking it to any wound, however, what evidence does exist strongly indicated it could have been the SBT.
What evidence strongly indicates that it could have been the SBT?
Saying ?this is plausible given the evidence? is not the same as saying ?possible = true.? I understand that anything not framed within the context of a fallacies 101 course is confusing to you, so you?ll just have to take my word for it.
I'm not confused at all, but you seem to be. If your conclusions depend on CE 399 being involved in the assassination, then that's something you need to actually demonstrate. If all you are claiming is that it's "plausible" that CE 399 was involved in the assassination, then fine. It's also "plausible" that it wasn't.
Either way, it doesn't tell you who shot JFK.
It could have been a group of the most humbling, inefficient, low IQ spoons ever assembled and I?m sure they?d still understand that placing these 3 shells right next to each other would look suspect, or that leaving a ?pristine? bullet for a perfect match might raise some eyebrows.
Is this hypothetical musing supposed to be evidence of anything?
if anything is fallacious here, it?s your hilariously out-of-touch way of defending bad ideas. It seems like something out of a movie ? so comedically obvious that it?s a plant, but apparently nobody else thought so.
More appeal to ridicule. That a pity, because that's what arrogant people do when they don't actually have a good argument.
What's "comedically obvious" is that you're actually arguing that if it looks obviously planted , it must be genuine. Personally, I don't care if it was planted (intentionally or accidentally) or not, or even if it was ever at Parkland Hospital, given that there is no way to determine when, where, or by whom CE399 was fired.
-
Am I distracting the truther squad from ?the police began chasing an unknown gunman up a grassy hill??
No idea what this means.
It?s attempt to get you understand the balance of probability; the relationships things tend to have in the actual real world outside of a logic textbook.
This is Chapmanism. Just declare something to be "probable" and it is.
That?s he whole idea ? the assumptions of certain models can be indirectly tested, however. The LN model posits that Oswald didn?t alone, yet you can?t disporve a conspiracy. You can see whether or not the evidence lines up with that model, which it does.
That's not particularly useful for determining what happened though, because the evidence also lines up with Oswald doing it not alone, or somebody who is not Oswald doing it alone, or with others. In other words, it's not enough to show that your conclusion isn't impossible in order to show that it is correct or even likely to be correct.
Assumptions and uncertainty are things which characterise all of epistemology (for the last time: cogito ergo sum!), and the reason CTs get laughed at is their relentless pursuit of certainty which isn?t possible.
And LNers get laughed at because they pretend a level of certainty that just isn't there.
What evidence? Bennett?s report? Burkley?e brief observation?
Yes, among other things. And yes, I'm familiar with all of the excuses for why those things should be discounted in favor of the opinions of people who never examined the body, just as you are familiar with all of the excuses for why the official x-rays can't be trusted.
I?d cite the x-day showing excess radiolucency at T-1 but you?d probably ask how I know it?s not JFK from an alternate reality following an infraction.
You really love appeals to ridicule, don't you?
-
No idea what this means.
This is Chapmanism. Just declare something to be "probable" and it is.
That's not particularly useful for determining what happened though, because the evidence also lines up with Oswald doing it not alone, or somebody who is not Oswald doing it alone, or with others. In other words, it's not enough to show that your conclusion isn't impossible in order to show that it is correct or even likely to be correct.
And LNers get laughed at because they pretend a level of certainty that just isn't there.
Yes, among other things. And yes, I'm familiar with all of the excuses for why those things should be discounted in favor of the opinions of people who never examined the body, just as you are familiar with all of the excuses for why the official x-rays can't be trusted.
You really love appeals to ridicule, don't you?
Thumb1: Bravo Mr Iacoletti.... You're doing a fine job of attempting to help Mr Rankine extract his head.....
-
No citation, I see :D So three shells were still found beneath the window, yes?
No, Fritz did not toss the hulls under the window. Weren't you paying attention?
This is just outdated BS. Bullets don?t travel in straight lines, and there is no measurement saying the exit was at C-7 (that?s one claim about the entrance).
I never said bullets traveled in straight lines. You LNers contend that a shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD entered JFK's back and exited his throat then tumbled into Connally's armpit in a straight line. It certainly didn't zig-zag.
Ok smart guy, find a pencil and figure out the parabolic arc of a FMJ bullet fired from a MC with a muzzle velocity of 2297 ft/sec fired at a -17 downward angle, 265 ft from the target then tell me if it makes any goddamned difference. Hint: it doesn't.
Show me CE-399's trajectory with a re-enactment and 2 lasers.
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/2lasers.jpg)
So? It was also in drawers, pockets, under stretchers, etc. Last I checked, blood isn?t superglue.
Grovel much?
Pristine is a subjective judgement. Mild visual deformity is apparent and the equations all clearly suggest that it could have emerged in its condition from that feat. The world is never as simple you lot would like it to be.
Maybe you can cite some of those "equations" that clearly suggest whatever it is you are trying to say.
That?s a claim for which I see no citation! It?s on a gurney, doesn?t matter which one. Also, these conspirators seem even less intelligent than the CTs :D Aranging the shells perfectly side-by-side like nobody would notice, leaving the Mauser they used instead of the Carcano, planting the to-good-to-be-true 399 on the wrong stretcher, etc. Seriously, what handicaps are we dealing with here?
Too conclusive for you? You are either a CT (Coincidence Theorist) or you chalk up all these anomalies to magic. Duly noted.
Again, you lot are priceless. Demand citations from us then never give them for highly specific, laughable claims.
It's called logic. You should give it a go sometime.
Somebody doesn?t know what a psychoanalyst is :D
Yeah, you. Didn't you diagnose Oswald as a classic psychopath? Or does it take one to know one?
They described a set of traits which are on the list of psychopathic traits. It?s not an professional analysis, its moving my eyes from page to the next.
Even if he was a psychopath, which I highly doubt, how does that make him a lone nut assassin? I doubt the actual assassin(s) were psychos either.
Again with this citation stuff. Nothing supports LHO being a ?sheep-dipped patsy? for if there were, I?d have been all over it in my CT days.
In your CT days you probably lacked the critical thinking skills to evaluate the evidence so it was easier being a LNer. And there you wallow.
-
I never said bullets traveled in straight lines. You LNers contend that a shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD entered JFK's back and exited his throat then tumbled into Connally's armpit in a straight line. It certainly didn't zig-zag.
Yeah, Dale Myers worked really hard to turn it into a straight line. Somebody should have told him.
-
Who said the alternative was "all the photographs were altered"? What photographs?
Well, gee, I couldn?t possibly be talking about the ones showing the weapon being found and taken out of the building, could I?
Yes, and how do you evaluate whether this is true or not? You examine the details given in the description and compare it to the claim that it was identified "at a glance". You look at statements from others. You look at the fact that he didn't just say "looks like a Mauser", he said that it was a 7.65 Mauser -- a very specific thing. Then you consider that false recantations are not an extraordinary occurrence.
Saying 7.65 Mauser doesn?t change anything. 7.65 was a common calibre of Mauser rifles and doesn?t mean anything. Grossing at straws.
Yes there are a rifle and shells presented as evidence. So what? Whether they were photographed as discovered is disputed. Whether there were 2 shells or 3 shells is ambiguous in the documentary evidence. When the shells were fired (or even if they were fired in one case) cannot be known.
What are you talking about? People on the sixth floor: 3 shells. Photographs and films show 3 shells. Yet one document says 2 and all the sudden it?s ?disputed.? How come nobody questions the validity of the document given that it is detached from the rest of the data? Couldn?t be a (naughty word warning) bias, could it?! Surely not! Not our honest, truth-seeking CTs who transcend the evolutionary pitfalls of normal human cognition. They would never selectively attend to any more confirming data.
Depends on how much basis you have for "found in the limousine", which is not much. Also, "human tissue" doesn't mean a whole lot. Skin cells are "human tissue". Any reason to think that this "human tissue" came from Kennedy's head or brain?
There?s no direct evidence linking it to any particular region. What it shows is that the broke bullet ? which was found in the limousine ? struck human tissue. Now, you can hit out with your usual pitch of how we can?t be certain those who found it didn?t prick their finger BS, or you could refer to my statements about trying understand these events in terms of global models or balance of probability.
Again, I don't know who you're arguing with, but I agreed with that. The problem for you is that the "Oswald did it" model relies on faulty human memory.
It relies mostly on physical evidence and documents. Eyewitness data is merely an addendum.
I care. If you're going to claim that CE399 was at all related to the shooting at Houston and Elm, you need more than, "well some kind of bullet was found by a hospital technician somewhere". Who said anything about "evil conspiracy people planting it and never uttering a word"?
Half the people on this forum.
Who said "it's impossible for someone to have seen something on the floor and put it on a stretcher"?
Possible does not equal Happened.
No one said it did. Again, this ?baby?s intro to logical fallacies? stuff pulls you down. I didn?t say X is a possible explanation, therefore X is true. All I have told you repeatedly is that we can?t know anything for certain, but that doesn?t preclude us from having some level of understanding. I suggested a possible scenario to help explain a possible event (nobody really knows what stretcher the bullet was on) and you respond as though I?m making truth claims.
...and this is evidence of what?
That he?s a psychopath. What does that suggest: many things, incl. that the psychophysiological symptoms of anxiety would not have impaired his shooting ability (given that they?d have been absent) and that?d he?d look calm when confronted with Baker et al, among many other interesting things.
The fact it doesn?t completely certainly prove 100% that he did it is about the only response I expect.
-
This is Chapmanism. Just declare something to be "probable" and it is.
Is this you saying a planted bullet (for example) is equally as probable as a bullet discovery after a shooting? (Gun found near victim shooting, bullet from gun found in same hospital of victims).
That's not particularly useful for determining what happened though, because the evidence also lines up with Oswald doing it not alone, or somebody who is not Oswald doing it alone, or with others. In other words, it's not enough to show that your conclusion isn't impossible in order to show that it is correct or even likely to be correct.
What evidence tags anyone as being involved. The link between Oswald and the shooting comes from his weapon being used, fired from a building he worked in, followed by him shooting a cop (which the physical evidence strongly suggests). I say this because the inevitable red-herring thrown up by CTs is ?what?s the evidence Oswald did it??
And LNers get laughed at because they pretend a level of certainty that just isn't there.
Agreed.
Yes, among other things. And yes, I'm familiar with all of the excuses for why those things should be discounted in favor of the opinions of people who never examined the body, just as you are familiar with all of the excuses for why the official x-rays can't be trusted.
Bennet and Burkley?s brief observations versus an x-ray. Balance of probability ? what?s more likely to be false (hint: starts with ?w? ends with ?itnesses?).
You really love appeals to ridicule, don't you?
You?d be amazed what I?ve been asked to demonstrate regarding that one x-ray in the past.
-
Well, gee, I couldn?t possibly be talking about the ones showing the weapon being found and taken out of the building, could I?
Do you always answer questions with other questions?
How does a photo of a weapon outside the building tell you what was found on the 6th floor?
How do the reconstructed police photos that were taken after the crime scene was disturbed tell you what was found in the undisturbed scene?
How does the low resolution Alyea film uniquely identify the rifle that Carl Day picks up and hands to Fritz as a Carcano?
How does any of this preclude that a Mauser was found and just not photographed?
Saying 7.65 Mauser doesn?t change anything. 7.65 was a common calibre of Mauser rifles and doesn?t mean anything. Grossing at straws.
Says you.
M1898 German 7.92?57mm
M1902, M1912, M1924 & M1936 Mexican 7?57mm
M1903 Turkish 7.65x53mm
M1904 & M1912 Chilean 7?57mm
M1912 Colombian 7?57mm
M1904 Portuguese 6.5?58mm Vergueiro
M1906 Swedish 6.5?55mm
M1908 Brazilian 7x57mm
M1908 Uruguayan 7x57mm produced by the Deutsche Waffen und Munitionsfabriken
M1909 Argentine 7.65?53mm
M1910 Serbian 7?57mm
M1924 Chinese 7.92?57mm
M1935 Belgian 7.65x53mm
M1943 Spanish short 7.92?57mm
Interestingly, some of the Argentine 7.65 Mausers were stamped as such:
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SPvnQLdlCi8/V3juRTm1LoI/AAAAAAAABgE/KuK3sp50ZMIoIOh-EIAYbM5il27rgytiQCLcB/s1600/7%2Bpoint%2B65%2Bmauser%2Bstamped%2Bon%2Bbarrel.jpg)
What are you talking about? People on the sixth floor: 3 shells. Photographs and films show 3 shells. Yet one document says 2 and all the sudden it?s ?disputed.?
Whoa, slow down there, Nelly. I said "whether they were photographed as discovered is disputed". The document showing 2 shells is just yet another example of dodgy evidence handling.
There?s no direct evidence linking it to any particular region. What it shows is that the broke bullet ? which was found in the limousine
You forgot the "allegedly". That's the problem with the mishandling of evidence. There's no way to verify that those mangled fragments came out of the limousine.
? struck human tissue.
Woah again. There's no basis for "struck".
Now, you can hit out with your usual pitch of how we can?t be certain those who found it didn?t prick their finger BS, or you could refer to my statements about trying understand these events in terms of global models or balance of probability.
When you have a pre-vested interest in your model, you interpret the evidence accordingly. Eg. "struck".
It relies mostly on physical evidence and documents.
I'll bite. What "physical evidence" and "documents" tell you who pulled the trigger? What "physical evidence" and "documents" even tell you what the murder weapon was?
Half the people on this forum.
Well then it should be easy for you to quote even one of them saying "evil conspiracy people planted CE 399 and never uttered a word".
No one said it did. Again, this ?baby?s intro to logical fallacies? stuff pulls you down.
If it's such a "baby's intro to logical fallacies" why do you keep committing them?
I didn?t say X is a possible explanation, therefore X is true.
That's your argument though. How else do you get from "a lone shooter can account for the ballistic evidence" to the conclusion "a lone shooter committed the crime"
All I have told you repeatedly is that we can?t know anything for certain, but that doesn?t preclude us from having some level of understanding. I suggested a possible scenario to help explain a possible event (nobody really knows what stretcher the bullet was on)
Tomlinson didn't express any lack of knowledge despite Specter's best attempt to talk him out of it.
and you respond as though I?m making truth claims.
I apologize. So we're in agreement that there no way to know if it is true that CE 399 was related to the assassination?
That he?s a psychopath. What does that suggest: many things, incl. that the psychophysiological symptoms of anxiety would not have impaired his shooting ability (given that they?d have been absent) and that?d he?d look calm when confronted with Baker et al, among many other interesting things.
Could there be other things that would account for looking calm when confronted by Baker other than he was a psychopath who just shot the president? Like...I don't know...not having shot the president? Particularly when it's just your layman opinion that he was a psychopath?
-
You?re like a broken record with that citations gibberish. I once cited a bibliography and you said I didn?t cite once source. You don?t even read posts and copy your entire shtick from CT books ? Presumed Guilty, was it?
If you?d read that post you?d understand I wasn?t citing evidence, I was listing conclusions, hence why that?s what?s there. You?d also have noticed my challenge at the bottom.
Of course LNers like you hate being asked for supporting citations because you don't have any! You have never provided a supporting cite for your claims. Never. All you present is your biased psycho-babble opinion.
This is classic LNer behavior. No person who appeals to science like you have over the years could be so inept at providing supporting citations as you have been. The evidence in this case does NOT support the claims in the WCR. Any honest person can see this. What evidence converted you to supposedly becoming a LNer (of course you were always one)?
You won't cite it as no supposed convert ever does.
-
Of course LNers like you hate being asked for supporting citations because you don't have any! You have never provided a supporting cite for your claims. Never. All you present is your biased psycho-babble opinion.
This is classic LNer behavior. No person who appeals to science like you have over the years could be so inept at providing supporting citations as you have been. The evidence in this case does NOT support the claims in the WCR. Any honest person can see this. What evidence converted you to supposedly becoming a LNer (of course you were always one)?
You won't cite it as no supposed convert ever does.
😂😂😂😂 Just found an old gem: one of my old posts which had a bibliography of sources contains the phrase ?Rob Caprio will likely claim these citations don?t exist: guess who showed in the comments, totally oblivious to that part because he hasn?t even read the post?
BTW, here?s posts I?ve made since the forum got restarted which contain sources and a bibliography:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1120.msg25836.html#msg25836 (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1120.msg25836.html#msg25836)
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1123.msg26169.html#msg26169 (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1123.msg26169.html#msg26169)
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1167.msg26905.html#msg26905 (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1167.msg26905.html#msg26905)
My posts usually focus on the science of the case. That?s where I make my citations. My comments are usually shorter and not meant to be in depth. Recently, I?ve done some ?philosophical?/abstract or reflective posts which I suppose you take to be ?psycho-babble opinions.?
My increasing knowledge of the actual evidence turned me from a die-hard CT to LNer. One example: Understanding ballistics and how knowing the velocity and other properties of the carcano bullets, with the range and supposed feat of 399, the equations and experiments show that a bullet could have looked like 399.
-
My posts usually focus on the science of the case. That?s where I make my citations. My comments are usually shorter and not meant to be in depth. Recently, I?ve done some ?philosophical?/abstract or reflective posts which I suppose you take to be ?psycho-babble opinions.?
I think Rob means citations for evidence that converted you to being an ODIA-er.
-
Inject points to ponder, rinse, repeat...
From Crossfire by Jim Marrs (https://books.google.com/books?id=7U8PAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT282&lpg=PT282&dq=white+became+convinced+that+harrelson+was+the+youngest&source=bl&ots=wi3ON6u8KY&sig=ACfU3U388YuqShu_nMg2F6fWUe56N-mFOw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwikw6aX28bhAhUDn-AKHfE_BNkQ6AEwAHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false) (details easily verified from other sources, consolidated for brevity)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/BledsoeUncleJewellRDmatthewsCrossfire.jpg)
1958:
(http://jfkforum.com/images/MaryBledsoeUncleJRgermanyObit1958.jpg)
(Mary Bledsoe's aunt, America Webb, was the widow of Joe Webb, of the same Webb family
of Tennessee and Ennis, TX, as Clarice Marie Webb Campbell, wife of O.V. Campbell.)
Isn't this the marriage of Mary Bledsoe's youngest uncle?
(http://jfkforum.com/images/ThomasAbsalomGermanSon1919marriage.jpg)
Isn't this 1930 census entry proof RD Matthews and his mother were living with her sister,
Adelaide Germany and her son with Mary Bledsoe's uncle, Jewell Ralston Germany?
(http://jfkforum.com/images/ThomasAbsalomBledsoe1930census.jpg)
-
😂😂😂😂 Just found an old gem: one of my old posts which had a bibliography of sources contains the phrase ?Rob Caprio will likely claim these citations don?t exist: guess who showed in the comments, totally oblivious to that part because he hasn?t even read the post?
BTW, here?s posts I?ve made since the forum got restarted which contain sources and a bibliography:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1120.msg25836.html#msg25836 (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1120.msg25836.html#msg25836)
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1123.msg26169.html#msg26169 (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1123.msg26169.html#msg26169)
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1167.msg26905.html#msg26905 (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1167.msg26905.html#msg26905)
My posts usually focus on the science of the case. That?s where I make my citations. My comments are usually shorter and not meant to be in depth. Recently, I?ve done some ?philosophical?/abstract or reflective posts which I suppose you take to be ?psycho-babble opinions.?
My increasing knowledge of the actual evidence turned me from a die-hard CT to LNer. One example: Understanding ballistics and how knowing the velocity and other properties of the carcano bullets, with the range and supposed feat of 399, the equations and experiments show that a bullet could have looked like 399.
😂😃😃
This LNer, and he was always a LNer, claims the official evidence converted him! This is "comedy gold" to quote Richard Smith and David Von Pein. The study of the official evidence makes anyone who is honest realize a conspiracy took place, but Rankine says it made him realize that LHO acted alone. Sure.
He is so sure of it that he ignored my request for him to cite what evidence made him see the light. They always do this because none exists.
-
I think Rob means citations for evidence that converted you to being an ODIA-er.
That is what I meant John and I'm sure he knows it, but what could he cite?
-
Please. You were always a LNer. Your avoidance of the actual evidence proves this.
You have NO clue about the actual evidence. None. You gleam from conspiracy literature like the parrot you are you spew it out when called upon. Let?s you and I debate for the forum?s education. Any area of the event. You game or a coward?
-
Shallow back wounds aren?t even physically possible with any bullet (hence why Wecht doesn?t believe in it).
While conspiracy theorists debate who pulled that trigger, there's another culprit that often goes unmentioned: Kennedy's lifelong struggle with back pain.
It was his habit of wearing a tightly laced back brace that may have kept him from recoiling to the floor of his car after the assassin's first bullet to the neck, setting him up for the kill shot.
"The brace was a firmly bound corset, around his hips and lower back and higher up," said Dr. Thomas Pait, a spinal neurosurgeon who co-authored a paper about Kennedy's failed back surgeries. "He tightly laced it and put a wide Ace bandage around in a figure eight around his trunk. If you think about it, if you have that brace all the way up your chest, above your nipples, and real tight, are you going to be able to bend forward?"
https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/22/health/jfk-assassination-back-pain/index.html
Because someone doesn't believe in the official report [like it is some sort of religious conviction] they are branded as a conspiracy theorist ...something akin to a cad or a demon ...a kook or buffoon. An unbeliever in the Warren Report findings is an unworthy heretic that should not even be allowed to breath. What would you do with them?
Or...what if I declare that I am but a humble researcher that retains elements of reasonable doubt...and there is always reasonable doubt-- as the sole answer to his [if any] part in the JFK action was himself silenced?
-
It is obvious the opinions of the thread author and those posting in support of his opinions
do not consider what usually happens in reaction to the historical S.O.P., the "hail mary play"
triggered by the "what have we got to lose?" moment of recognition.
"The Fix" is the "hail mary play". In the Oswald example, we will probably never know if "The Fix"
was put in initially because Hoover and LBJ knew by Saturday morning, discussing "the tapes" from
Mexico City Hoover's agents familiar with Oswald's voice Hoover described to Johnson in late morning on 11/23, or if it was put in after Oswald was assassinated while surrounded by DPD, or put in in reaction to the combination of both. The American people were kept unaware of attempt by Dallas FBI
to compare tapes of Oswald's voice recorded in Mexico City with their memories of Oswald's real time
voice...listening to tapes since officially denied to have existed by November, 1963.
Some history of the case and another example of putting in the fix...a big news story in our own
current events.
This convo in late afternoon, Nov. 24 between Moyers in DC and Rostow in New Haven describes
"The Fix". It was described at exactly the same time the innermost viscera in Oswald's corpse had
cooled to room temperature.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/lbjlib/phone_calls/Nov_1963/pdf/LBJ_11-24-63_Moyers-Rostow.pdf
(http://jfkforum.com/images/RostowMoyerCallNovember24postOswald.jpg)
In hindsight, considering what the later developed evidence indicates, was "the Fix" aka the Warren Commission, sorely in need of a "magic bullet" from the moment "the Commission" was concocted (less than 30 hours after JFK died...) as the "hail mary play".
Didn't Nixon turn out to be Nixon and Tom Dooley a CIA asset run by Paul Hellmuth?
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=958&relPageId=147&search=backyard_photos%20first
(http://jfkforum.com/images/BYPhscaReportPg141.jpg)
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1138&relPageId=222&search=wright_and%20path%20of%20the%20bullet
(http://jfkforum.com/images/CE399opWrightAskedParklandDoctorsPathBullet.jpg)
Harrison Livingston (https://books.google.com/books?id=LD8TUAGSuMoC&pg=PA90&lpg=PA90&dq=patrick+dean+op+wright&source=bl&ots=353hEzbqXl&sig=ACfU3U2907ykEqNMXZNVLCDkpE9IZb7vRg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjV4PO6-sPhAhWOna0KHaz1BHUQ6AEwAnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=patrick%20dean%20op%20wright&f=true)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/Ce399OPwrightPatrickDeanLivingstonBook.jpg)
"The Fix" 1992 - 2019
Dillon, can you understand why it is reasonable to regard your thread and Barr's 19 page unsolicited
memo to DOJ officials in mid-2018 as solutions seeking problems?
Fascinating nobody comments
-
Inject points to ponder, rinse, repeat...
From Crossfire by Jim Marrs (https://books.google.com/books?id=7U8PAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT282&lpg=PT282&dq=white+became+convinced+that+harrelson+was+the+youngest&source=bl&ots=wi3ON6u8KY&sig=ACfU3U388YuqShu_nMg2F6fWUe56N-mFOw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwikw6aX28bhAhUDn-AKHfE_BNkQ6AEwAHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false) (details easily verified from other sources, consolidated for brevity)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/BledsoeUncleJewellRDmatthewsCrossfire.jpg)
1958:
(http://jfkforum.com/images/MaryBledsoeUncleJRgermanyObit1958.jpg)
(Mary Bledsoe's aunt, America Webb, was the widow of Joe Webb, of the same Webb family
of Tennessee and Ennis, TX, as Clarice Marie Webb Campbell, wife of O.V. Campbell.)
Isn't this the marriage of Mary Bledsoe's youngest uncle?
(http://jfkforum.com/images/ThomasAbsalomGermanSon1919marriage.jpg)
Isn't this 1930 census entry proof RD Matthews and his mother were living with her sister,
Adelaide Germany and her son with Mary Bledsoe's uncle, Jewell Ralston Germany?
(http://jfkforum.com/images/ThomasAbsalomBledsoe1930census.jpg)
Again.......
-
You have NO clue about the actual evidence. None. You gleam from conspiracy literature like the parrot you are you spew it out when called upon. Let?s you and I debate for the forum?s education. Any area of the event. You game or a coward?
:D
I'll rise to your challenge, Mr May--------see you on the thread discussing the 2 curtain rods submitted for testing for Mr Oswald's fingerprints on 15 May. I'm sure you know the thread I'm talking about---why, you ran away from it, clutching your skirts in panic, some days back! Thumb1:
-
:D
I'll rise to your challenge, Mr May--------see you on the thread discussing the 2 curtain rods submitted for testing for Mr Oswald's fingerprints on 15 May. I'm sure you know the thread I'm talking about---why, you ran away from it, clutching your skirts in panic, some days back! Thumb1:
Hi Alan. Good to see you back. I ignore May as his act is boring after many years. He won't debate you as I have seen him get the basics of this case wrong for many years. He is just here to harass those who don't accept the WC's claims straight away.
-
😂😃😃
This LNer, and he was always a LNer, claims the official evidence converted him! This is "comedy gold" to quote Richard Smith and David Von Pein. The study of the official evidence makes anyone who is honest realize a conspiracy took place, but Rankine says it made him realize that LHO acted alone. Sure.
He is so sure of it that he ignored my request for him to cite what evidence made him see the light. They always do this because none exists.
Look at you ignoring me calling you out!! 😂😂
Those kinks are replete with citations and there you are again saying I don?t have any!
It?s brilliant how I said ?the actual evidence? and you respond by saying ?he was convinced by offices evidence;? Freudian slip there? 😂😂
Seriously, dude, start reading what you respond to; it?ll make you look less hopelessly unintelligent ? though I do tend to think that one who has dedicated years of his life to copy-pasting CT literature on online forums without any understanding is a wee bit too far down that rabbit hole.
-
Look at you ignoring me calling you out!! 😂😂
Those kinks are replete with citations and there you are again saying I don?t have any!
It?s brilliant how I said ?the actual evidence? and you respond by saying ?he was convinced by offices evidence;? Freudian slip there? 😂😂
Seriously, dude, start reading what you respond to; it?ll make you look less hopelessly unintelligent ? though I do tend to think that one who has dedicated years of his life to copy-pasting CT literature on online forums without any understanding is a wee bit too far down that rabbit hole.
The same charge that Paul May always made. You guys need new material.
Now, cite the evidence that made you believe LHO acted alone.
Of course I skim your replies as they are full of gobbledygook and reading all of it would be a waste of my time.
-
The same charge that Paul May always made. You guys need new material.
Now, cite the evidence that made you believe LHO acted alone.
Of course I skim your replies as they are full of gobbledygook and reading all of it would be a waste of my time.
Your lack of discernment disqualifies you, but here you are! (Zanghetti matches Caprio's description, but was murdered by his wife in.....1975!)
?...
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/20900540/
Location: Lawton, Oklahoma Issue Date: Sunday, June 16, 1963
.....COOK NEEDED. .FOR STEVE-A-RENOS SUPPER CLUB Highway 44, South of Lone WolL Real Opportunity for Right Man. We Specialize in Steaks, Sea Food Italian Foods. Good Working Conditions and Pay. Call Steve Zanghetti, TI6-9156, Lone Wolf, Oklahoma tor Appointment, alter 6 P.M. Looking for Permanent Man, N'o Transits.....
??..
?..
Was Jack Zangretti Off Base Or Not?
? on: August 02, 2010, 05:42:36 PM
He was a Chicago mobster who worked as a manager of a modular motel complex near Lake Lugert, OK. He will tell friends of his that "three other men -- NOT Oswald-- killed the president." He also tells them that a "man named Ruby will kill Oswald tomorrow (11/24/63)."
Sounds pretty convincing to me but of course LNers have said this is not the truth and they have tried to show he was off base. Two things make me believe him (and being a CT kook is NOT one of them). Firstly, he also mentioned this tidbit: "...and in a few days a member of Frank Sinatra's family will be kidnappd just to take some of the attention away from the assassination." Now even Kreskin couldn't predict this wild stuff accurately, but it did happen. Frank Sinatra Jr. was kidnapped and here is the story:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Frank Sinatra had as many mob ties as Ruby (maybe more) so this makes sense to me.
The second thing that makes me believe him is the fact he found floating in a swimming pool with bullet holes in his chest a few weeks after saying these things. Witnesses will say it looked like he was "floating" for at least a week, but maybe two (meaning he could have been killed shortly after making these statements. Being killed as a way of validating what you say in my book.
? Last Edit: June 17, 2017, 11:53:52 PM
by Rob Caprio ?
?.
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1527744/zanghetti-v-state/
(http://jfkforum.com/images/CaprioZanghettiGlassHouse.jpg)
-
Your lack of discernment disqualifies you, but here you are! (Zanghetti matches Caprio's description, but was murdered by his wife in.....1975!)
??..
?.
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1527744/zanghetti-v-state/
(http://jfkforum.com/images/CaprioZanghettiGlassHouse.jpg)
You should have done research for Culto, Tom. His real name was Edwin. Won't tell you his last name or his car tag # (lol) though. Oh, for the glory days of Jack Kennedy Assassination Research on the Internet ! Sigh, those times are gone like the wind, the wind that keeps unfolding unto itself.....
-
You have NO clue about the actual evidence. None. You gleam from conspiracy literature like the parrot you are you spew it out when called upon. Let?s you and I debate for the forum?s education. Any area of the event. You game or a coward?
Paul, you should challenge instead of embarrassing yourself when the only thing you have to offer is to act as though you are above it all. Maybe you just can't help yourself but you sure do like to project.
Any area of the event
You already lost with a statement like that. You can't even prove a few important parts, I bet you would like to debate the direction and the speed of the wind that day