JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Ross Lidell on February 22, 2020, 10:40:23 AM
-
As far back as 1967 a brilliant historian explained the Conspiracy "mentality".
He predicted that another investigation (or 3 or 4) of the JFK Assassination would not convince doubters because they possess the "conspiracy mentality". It's persists 52 years later... right here.
This is from the 1967 CBS News Inquiry - the Warren Report.
... The conspiracy theory, the conspiracy mentality will not accept ordinary evidence ..... There’s some psychological requirement: It forces them to reject the ordinary and find refuge in the extraordinary...
-
"Brilliant historian" :D This is a joke right?
-
"Brilliant historian" :D This is a joke right?
Aren't all LNer's a "joke"? But not a funny joke.... I doubt that prior to 1964 you can find any talking head on the TV using the term "conspiracy Theorist". But since then the Major Media routinely uses the term in a derogatory manner. In their elitist attitude of "I'm so smart that nobody could fool me", they sneer at those who would point out huge flaws in their beliefs.
-
Conjecture, supposition, and handwaving does not constitute “ordinary evidence”.
-
What was unthinkable to men like Commager was that the first investigation was not an actual investigation. Earl Warren, they thought, would not put his name on a cover-up. Historians, in general, took at face value the forensic evidence dished up by Specter and the eyewitness evidence dished up by Ball and Belin, without realizing the evidence avoided and the short-cuts taken. To this day, in fact, one encounters those who dismiss any complaint about the forensic evidence or witness evidence as digging through minutiae. And I know this because I have engaged members of the WC staff and supposedly prominent thinkers of the Oswald did-it belief in discussions of the single-bullet theory, where they ran for the hills once I showed them the trajectory was doubtful and that Canning's study for the HSCA was a fraud. And they all told me the same thing--something they picked up from some blow-hard like Commager--that you can not get to the truth by looking closely at the evidence, that you must instead surrender to some general feeling that the evidence points in Oswald's direction. Well...why? Has anyone done a detailed study of criminal cases and discovered how much counter-evidence exists in cases where there is slam-dunk evidence (let's say a video-tape, 10 eyewitnesses, and a confession)? I mean, beyond that most suspects don't get killed before reaching trial, do palm prints on a weapon routinely show up in the record after the suspect's death? And what about eyewitnesses? Do eyewitnesses who refuse to make a positive ID routinely come forward after the suspect's death, and after the FBI has paid a visit to their house? And what about the shirt fibers? Are fibers to a shirt worn when a suspect was arrested routinely found on the presumed murder weapon by the FBI (when they went unnoticed by the officer first inspecting the weapon), and how often does it later come out that the suspect had claimed he'd worn a different shirt at the time of the murder? And that the shirt he'd claimed to have been wearing was in fact collected by the police and studied by the FBI, but inaccurately described in their records so that no one would know this was the shirt he'd said he'd been wearing?
I mean, at what point, when one studies the evidence, should this "general feeling" Oswald acted alone turn to a "general feeling" the case against him was in large part a frame-up? And, perhaps more importantly, in the words of Commager, is there a "psychological force" that prevents one from changing one's "general feeling" once that "feeling" has taken root?
-
What was unthinkable to men like Commager was that the first investigation was not an actual investigation. Earl Warren, they thought, would not put his name on a cover-up. Historians, in general, took at face value the forensic evidence dished up by Specter and the eyewitness evidence dished up by Ball and Belin, without realizing the evidence avoided and the short-cuts taken. To this day, in fact, one encounters those who dismiss any complaint about the forensic evidence or witness evidence as digging through minutiae. And I know this because I have engaged members of the WC staff and supposedly prominent thinkers of the Oswald did-it belief in discussions of the single-bullet theory, where they ran for the hills once I showed them the trajectory was doubtful and that Canning's study for the HSCA was a fraud. And they all told me the same thing--something they picked up from some blow-hard like Commager--that you can not get to the truth by looking closely at the evidence, that you must instead surrender to some general feeling that the evidence points in Oswald's direction. Well...why? Has anyone done a detailed study of criminal cases and discovered how much counter-evidence exists in cases where there is slam-dunk evidence (let's say a video-tape, 10 eyewitnesses, and a confession)? I mean, beyond that most suspects don't get killed before reaching trial, do palm prints on a weapon routinely show up in the record after the suspect's death? And what about eyewitnesses? Do eyewitnesses who refuse to make a positive ID routinely come forward after the suspect's death, and after the FBI has paid a visit to their house? And what about the shirt fibers? Are fibers to a shirt worn when a suspect was arrested routinely found on the presumed murder weapon by the FBI (when they went unnoticed by the officer first inspecting the weapon), and how often does it later come out that the suspect had claimed he'd worn a different shirt at the time of the murder? And that the shirt he'd claimed to have been wearing was in fact collected by the police and studied by the FBI, but inaccurately described in their records so that no one would know this was the shirt he'd said he'd been wearing?
I mean, at what point, when one studies the evidence, should this "general feeling" Oswald acted alone turn to a "general feeling" the case against him was in large part a frame-up? And, perhaps more importantly, in the words of Commager, is there a "psychological force" that prevents one from changing one's "general feeling" once that "feeling" has taken root?
Well said, Pat.....
"And, perhaps more importantly, in the words of Commager, is there a "psychological force" that prevents one from changing one's "general feeling" once that "feeling" has taken root?"
I don't know about you, or how many others...But I originally was a LNer..... Because I was naive and a sucker for believing the authorities and the news media. Now I look back and wonder how any intelligent person could believe the Warren Report.
And, perhaps more importantly, in the words of Commager, is there a "psychological force" that prevents one from changing one's "general feeling" once that "feeling" has taken root?
-
"Brilliant historian" :D This is a joke right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Steele_Commager
-- MWT ;)
-
What was unthinkable to men like Commager was that the first investigation was not an actual investigation. Earl Warren, they thought, would not put his name on a cover-up. Historians, in general, took at face value the forensic evidence dished up by Specter and the eyewitness evidence dished up by Ball and Belin, without realizing the evidence avoided and the short-cuts taken. To this day, in fact, one encounters those who dismiss any complaint about the forensic evidence or witness evidence as digging through minutiae. And I know this because I have engaged members of the WC staff and supposedly prominent thinkers of the Oswald did-it belief in discussions of the single-bullet theory, where they ran for the hills once I showed them the trajectory was doubtful and that Canning's study for the HSCA was a fraud. And they all told me the same thing--something they picked up from some blow-hard like Commager--that you can not get to the truth by looking closely at the evidence, that you must instead surrender to some general feeling that the evidence points in Oswald's direction. Well...why? Has anyone done a detailed study of criminal cases and discovered how much counter-evidence exists in cases where there is slam-dunk evidence (let's say a video-tape, 10 eyewitnesses, and a confession)? I mean, beyond that most suspects don't get killed before reaching trial, do palm prints on a weapon routinely show up in the record after the suspect's death? And what about eyewitnesses? Do eyewitnesses who refuse to make a positive ID routinely come forward after the suspect's death, and after the FBI has paid a visit to their house? And what about the shirt fibers? Are fibers to a shirt worn when a suspect was arrested routinely found on the presumed murder weapon by the FBI (when they went unnoticed by the officer first inspecting the weapon), and how often does it later come out that the suspect had claimed he'd worn a different shirt at the time of the murder? And that the shirt he'd claimed to have been wearing was in fact collected by the police and studied by the FBI, but inaccurately described in their records so that no one would know this was the shirt he'd said he'd been wearing?
I mean, at what point, when one studies the evidence, should this "general feeling" Oswald acted alone turn to a "general feeling" the case against him was in large part a frame-up? And, perhaps more importantly, in the words of Commager, is there a "psychological force" that prevents one from changing one's "general feeling" once that "feeling" has taken root?
Well, Pat, Mark "Paid By KGB To Debunk The Warren Report" and KGB Counterintelligence Lieutenant-Colonel Vladimir Putin (and his ilk) were certainly glad the shift eventually occurred, aren't you?
LOL
-- MWT ;)
PS THE COLD WAR IS OVER AND WE WON!
(not)
-
"Brilliant historian" :D This is a joke right?
As HCS said: "... rejecting the ordinary and finding refuge in the extraordinary".
-
As HCS said: "... rejecting the ordinary and finding refuge in the extraordinary".
The followup responses to the video show Commager's prescience.
It's been more than half a century since the Warren Commission issued its report. Since then we've had followup investigations by the government directly into the assassination, i.e., the HSCA, and indirectly, e.g., the Church Committee hearings. In addition we've had numerous investigations by major news media such as CBS and PBS, ABC, the Washington Post, et cetera. And other investigations by independent reporters. Add to this the works of people like Robert Caro who has spent more than twenty years studying LBJ's life. Other major figures such as Hoover and agencies like the CIA or SS have been reported on, e.g., Tim Weiner on the CIA. Toss in the tens of millions of pages of government documents that were released.
And all of those subsequent studies and investigations and works support the WC conclusions that Oswald alone killed JFK. Yes, the HSCA said there was "probably" a conspiracy; but that was largely based on now discredited police tapes. And yes, there are still some ancillary questions about how much the CIA was watching Oswald and whether they were delinquent in warning about him, e.g., Joannides and the DRE.
But the response to all of this fifty plus years of study - the assassination is the most studied event in America history - is, as Commager predicted, dismissal. These are simply, to the conspiracists, examples of more coverups and evidence of more conspiracies. In conspiracy world there's always a conspiracy going on to prevent the exposure of the original conspiracy. And every investigation that determines there was no conspiracy is responded to by saying the conspiracy continues and ANOTHER investigation is needed.
And one note on the Warren Commission: the claim that Earl Warren (??!) ordered or signed off on a coverup is ridiculous. Who did the coverup? The staffers? And then they stayed quiet for the rest of their lives? Rankin and Redlich and Specter and Liebeler and Belin? Some are still alive: Willens and Slawson. So they continue to this day to cover up what happened? It's just an example of what Commager said: conspiracists only have one response to the evidence that Oswald killed JFK: the evidence that he did is evidence of a conspiracy!
-
And all of those subsequent studies and investigations and works support the WC conclusions that Oswald alone killed JFK.
BS:
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Steele_Commager
-- MWT ;)
HSC wrote a great deal about Earl Warren - quite the advocate for the Chief Justice. Certainly affected his judgement /bias regarding the Warren report.
Also, Lincoln was killed by a conspiracy. (And that's not a theory.)
I have no "theory", just a skeptical view of the WR.
-
What was unthinkable to men like Commager was that the first investigation was not an actual investigation. Earl Warren, they thought, would not put his name on a cover-up. Historians, in general, took at face value the forensic evidence dished up by Specter and the eyewitness evidence dished up by Ball and Belin, without realizing the evidence avoided and the short-cuts taken. To this day, in fact, one encounters those who dismiss any complaint about the forensic evidence or witness evidence as digging through minutiae. And I know this because I have engaged members of the WC staff and supposedly prominent thinkers of the Oswald did-it belief in discussions of the single-bullet theory, where they ran for the hills once I showed them the trajectory was doubtful and that Canning's study for the HSCA was a fraud. And they all told me the same thing--something they picked up from some blow-hard like Commager--that you can not get to the truth by looking closely at the evidence, that you must instead surrender to some general feeling that the evidence points in Oswald's direction. Well...why? Has anyone done a detailed study of criminal cases and discovered how much counter-evidence exists in cases where there is slam-dunk evidence (let's say a video-tape, 10 eyewitnesses, and a confession)? I mean, beyond that most suspects don't get killed before reaching trial, do palm prints on a weapon routinely show up in the record after the suspect's death? And what about eyewitnesses? Do eyewitnesses who refuse to make a positive ID routinely come forward after the suspect's death, and after the FBI has paid a visit to their house? And what about the shirt fibers? Are fibers to a shirt worn when a suspect was arrested routinely found on the presumed murder weapon by the FBI (when they went unnoticed by the officer first inspecting the weapon), and how often does it later come out that the suspect had claimed he'd worn a different shirt at the time of the murder? And that the shirt he'd claimed to have been wearing was in fact collected by the police and studied by the FBI, but inaccurately described in their records so that no one would know this was the shirt he'd said he'd been wearing?
I mean, at what point, when one studies the evidence, should this "general feeling" Oswald acted alone turn to a "general feeling" the case against him was in large part a frame-up? And, perhaps more importantly, in the words of Commager, is there a "psychological force" that prevents one from changing one's "general feeling" once that "feeling" has taken root?
The Warren Commission consisted of seven committee members including Warren, a general counsel (Lee Rankin), and more than two dozen staffers. Along with this were dozens of assisstants and others who helped conduct the investigation which was largely done by the staffers. And yes, the FBI's agents conducted interviews and studies.
Among the staffers were/are: John Hary Ely who was one of most cited constitutional scholar in American history; Norman Redlich, the chief author of the report who went on to head the NYU law school; Wesley Liebeler who went to to teach law for more than two decades at UCLA. Two of the staffers, David Slawson and Howard Willens are still alive.
If there was a coverup then all of these individuals - including the still living Slawson and Willens - carried it out. And kept quiet about it for the next roughly 50 years. Why? Why would they do this? All of them were corrupt? Evil? Bought off? What?
Anyone who thinks this happened proves Henry Steele Commager's statement that conspiracists won't accept anything that doesn't show their conspiracy. Not only won't they accept anything else you prove that your response is not that Warren and these others were wrong, not that they erred, not that they were misled but they conspired to cover it up. And then kept quiet for the remainder of their lives. Think about what you're claiming. You think that's remotely possible? Really?
Conspiracies here and conspiracies there - conspiracies everywhere.
-
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/11/the-kennedy-assassination-47-years-later-what-do-we-really-know/66722/
"...Popular belief in a conspiracy was widespread within a week of Kennedy's murder. Between November 25 and 29, 1963,
University of Chicago pollsters asked more than 1,000 Americans whom they thought was responsible for the president's
death. By then, the chief suspect, Oswald -- a leftist who had lived for a time in Soviet Union -- had been shot dead
while in police custody by Jack Ruby, a local hoodlum with organized crime connections.
While the White House, the FBI, and the Dallas Police Department all affirmed that Oswald had acted alone, 62 percent
of respondents said they believed that more than one person was involved in the assassination. Only 24 percent thought
Oswald had acted alone. Another poll taken in Dallas during the same week found 66 percent of respondents believing that
there had been a plot. There were no JFK conspiracy theories in print at that time..."
==================
"...many senior U.S. officials concluded that there had been a plot but rarely talked about it openly.
Kennedy's successor, Lyndon Johnson, publicly endorsed the Warren Commissions conclusion that Oswald acted alone. Privately,
LBJ told many people, ranging from Atlantic contributor Leo Janos to CIA director Richard Helms, that he did not believe the
lone-gunman explanation.
The president's brother Robert and widow Jacqueline also believed that he had been killed by political enemies, according to
historians Aleksandr Fursenko and Tim Naftali. In their 1999 book on the Cuban missile crisis, One Hell of a Gamble: Khrushchev,
Castro, and Kennedy, 1958-1964, they reported that William Walton -- a friend of the First Lady -- went to Moscow on a previously
scheduled trip a week after JFK's murder. Walton carried a message from RFK and Jackie for their friend, Georgi Bolshakov, a
Russian diplomat who had served as a back-channel link between the White House and the Kremlin during the October 1962 crisis:
RFK and Jackie wanted the Soviet leadership to know that "despite Oswald's connections to the communist world, the Kennedys
believed that the president was felled by domestic opponents."
In the Senate, Democrats Richard Russell of Georgia and Russell Long of Louisiana both rejected official accounts of the assassination.
In the executive branch, Joseph Califano, the General Counsel of Army in 1963 and later Secretary of Health Education and Welfare,
concluded that Kennedy had been killed by a conspiracy.* In the White House, H.R. Haldeman, chief of staff to President Richard Nixon,
wanted to reopen the JFK investigation in 1969. Nixon wasn't interested.
Suspicion persisted in the upper echelons of the U.S. national security agencies, as well. Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, chief of Pentagon
special operations in 1963 (and later an adviser to Stone), believed that there had been a plot.
Winston Scott, chief of the CIA's station in Mexico City at the time of Kennedy's murder and an ultra-conservative Agency loyalist,
rejected the Warren Commission's findings about a trip that Oswald had taken to Mexico six weeks before the assassination. Scott
concluded in an unpublished memoir that Oswald had, indeed, been just a patsy.
None of these figures was a paranoid fantasist. To the contrary, they constituted a cross section of the American power elite in 1963.
Neither did they talk about a JFK conspiracy for public consumption; they talked about it only reservedly, in confined circles..."
-
Chief Justice Warren:
"Now I think our job here is essentially one for the evaluation of evidence as distinguished from being one of gathering
evidence, and I believe at the outset at least we can start with the premise that we can rely upon the reports of the
various agencies that have been engaged in investigation of the matter, the FBI, the Secret Service, and others that I may
know about at the present time"
Gerald Ford:
"The FBI, and I use them as an example, undertook a very extensive investigation. I don't recall how many agents, but they had
a massive operation to investigate everything. The commission with this group of lawyers and some additional staff people, then
drew upon this information which was available, and we, if my memory serves me accurately, insisted that the FBI give us
everything they had. Now that is a comprehensive order from the Commission to the Director and to the FBI. I assume and I think
the Commission assumed that that order was so broad that if they had anything it was their obligation to submit it. Now if they
didn't, that is a failure on the part of the agencies, not on the part of the Commission.".
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/JFK_Assassination
-
LBJ and Russell September 9,1964:
RUSSELL: No, no, They're trying to prove that the same bullett that hit Kennedy first was the one that hit Connally,
went through him and through his hand, his bone and into his leg... I couldn't hear all the evidence and cross-examine
all of 'em. But I did read the record...I was the only fellow there that...suggested any change whatever in what the
staff got up. This staff business always scares me. I like to put my own views down. But we got you a pretty good report.
LBJ: Well, what difference does it make which bullet got Connally?
RUSSELL: Well, it don't make much difference. But they said that...the commission believes that the same bullet that
hit Kennedy hit Connally. Well I don't believe it.
LBJ: I don't either
RUSSELL: And so I couldn't sign it. And I said that Govenor Connally testified directly to the contrary and I'm not
gonna approve of that. So I finnally made 'em say there was a difference in the commission,in that part of 'em believed
that that wasn't so. And 'course if a fellow was accurate enough to hit Kennedy right in the neck on one shot and knock
his head off in the next one-and he's leaning up against his wife's head-and not even wound her-why, he didn't miss
completely with that third shot. But according to their theory, he not only missed the whole automobile, but he missed
the the street! Well, a man that's a good enough shot to put two bullets right into Kennedy, he didn't miss that whole
automobile.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=4271&relPageId=27
-
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/11/the-kennedy-assassination-47-years-later-what-do-we-really-know/66722/
"...Popular belief in a conspiracy was widespread within a week of Kennedy's murder. Between November 25 and 29, 1963,
University of Chicago pollsters asked more than 1,000 Americans whom they thought was responsible for the president's
death. By then, the chief suspect, Oswald -- a leftist who had lived for a time in Soviet Union -- had been shot dead
while in police custody by Jack Ruby, a local hoodlum with organized crime connections.
While the White House, the FBI, and the Dallas Police Department all affirmed that Oswald had acted alone, 62 percent
of respondents said they believed that more than one person was involved in the assassination. Only 24 percent thought
Oswald had acted alone. Another poll taken in Dallas during the same week found 66 percent of respondents believing that
there had been a plot. There were no JFK conspiracy theories in print at that time..."
==================
"...many senior U.S. officials concluded that there had been a plot but rarely talked about it openly.
Kennedy's successor, Lyndon Johnson, publicly endorsed the Warren Commissions conclusion that Oswald acted alone. Privately,
LBJ told many people, ranging from Atlantic contributor Leo Janos to CIA director Richard Helms, that he did not believe the
lone-gunman explanation.
The president's brother Robert and widow Jacqueline also believed that he had been killed by political enemies, according to
historians Aleksandr Fursenko and Tim Naftali. In their 1999 book on the Cuban missile crisis, One Hell of a Gamble: Khrushchev,
Castro, and Kennedy, 1958-1964, they reported that William Walton -- a friend of the First Lady -- went to Moscow on a previously
scheduled trip a week after JFK's murder. Walton carried a message from RFK and Jackie for their friend, Georgi Bolshakov, a
Russian diplomat who had served as a back-channel link between the White House and the Kremlin during the October 1962 crisis:
RFK and Jackie wanted the Soviet leadership to know that "despite Oswald's connections to the communist world, the Kennedys
believed that the president was felled by domestic opponents."
In the Senate, Democrats Richard Russell of Georgia and Russell Long of Louisiana both rejected official accounts of the assassination.
In the executive branch, Joseph Califano, the General Counsel of Army in 1963 and later Secretary of Health Education and Welfare,
concluded that Kennedy had been killed by a conspiracy.* In the White House, H.R. Haldeman, chief of staff to President Richard Nixon,
wanted to reopen the JFK investigation in 1969. Nixon wasn't interested.
Suspicion persisted in the upper echelons of the U.S. national security agencies, as well. Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, chief of Pentagon
special operations in 1963 (and later an adviser to Stone), believed that there had been a plot.
Winston Scott, chief of the CIA's station in Mexico City at the time of Kennedy's murder and an ultra-conservative Agency loyalist,
rejected the Warren Commission's findings about a trip that Oswald had taken to Mexico six weeks before the assassination. Scott
concluded in an unpublished memoir that Oswald had, indeed, been just a patsy.
None of these figures was a paranoid fantasist. To the contrary, they constituted a cross section of the American power elite in 1963.
Neither did they talk about a JFK conspiracy for public consumption; they talked about it only reservedly, in confined circles..."
Lyndon Johnson, publicly endorsed the Warren Commissions conclusion that Oswald acted alone. Privately,
LBJ told many people, ranging from Atlantic contributor Leo Janos to CIA director Richard Helms, that he did not believe the
lone-gunman explanation.
LBJ was just being the sly old fox..... He knew damned well that there had been a conspiracy...because He and Hoover had endorsed the plot.
-
This is the general "the government killed JFK" conspiracy argument:
Earl Warren and the commission and all of the staffers - some still alive - covered up the assassination.
The HSCA covered it up. The various other smaller investigations - the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission, the Church Committee - also covered it up. All of the men and women involved covered it up.
The news media's investigations - the Washington Post, the New York Times, CBS, ABC, PBS - all covered it up.
Independent investigators - a Posner, a Bugliosi - all covered it up. Various historians and other scholars like Robert Caro who found no conspiracy have covered it up. I guess we can add the very liberal Henry Steel Commager to the list (he was a vehement critic of LBJ and condemned the CIA for, in his view, acting illegally and unconstitutionally).
Fifty plus years of coverups. NOT that all of the people were wrong. Maybe they were. I don't think so. But perhaps they were misled, perhaps a sort of "groupthink" affected them. They just got it wrong. Okay. But that is not the claim. The conspiracy claim is they deliberately covered up the assassination. Why would they do that? It's never explained. They just did.
Commager was right: to the conspiracist believer nothing will dissuade them of their fixation. Every subsequent investigation that shows no conspiracy is part of the conspiracy. If we created a time machine that sent people back to observe the assassination and they found no conspiracy - Oswald acted one - that too would be said to be part of the coverup.
-
This is the general "the government killed JFK" conspiracy argument:
Earl Warren and the commission and all of the staffers - some still alive - covered up the assassination.
The HSCA covered it up. The various other smaller investigations - the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission, the Church Committee - also covered it up. All of the men and women involved covered it up.
The news media's investigations - the Washington Post, the New York Times, CBS, ABC, PBS - all covered it up.
Independent investigators - a Posner, a Bugliosi - all covered it up. Various historians and other scholars like Robert Caro who found no conspiracy have covered it up. I guess we can add the very liberal Henry Steel Commager to the list (he was a vehement critic of LBJ and condemned the CIA for, in his view, acting illegally and unconstitutionally).
Fifty plus years of coverups. NOT that all of the people were wrong. Maybe they were. I don't think so. But perhaps they were misled, perhaps a sort of "groupthink" affected them. They just got it wrong. Okay. But that is not the claim. The conspiracy claim is they deliberately covered up the assassination. Why would they do that? It's never explained. They just did.
Commager was right: to the conspiracist believer nothing will dissuade them of their fixation. Every subsequent investigation that shows no conspiracy is part of the conspiracy. If we created a time machine that sent people back to observe the assassination and they found no conspiracy - Oswald acted one - that too would be said to be part of the coverup.
Steve M.,
>>> S A R C A S M . A L E R T <<<
True JFK Assassination researchers KNOW the reason Lyndon Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover and and Earl Warren, et al., had to cover it up wasn't because the Ruskies, through triple-agents Aleksei Kulak and Ivan Obyedkov, et al., had put a WW III Virus in Oswald's CIA file, but because ... gasp ... evil, evil, evil James Angleton had done so by contriving to make it look as though Oswald had been in contact with putative "Department 13" Valeriy Kostikov, ... except ... hmm ... Kostikov had been made "radioactive" by the KGB, itself, and the Soviet embassy security guard, Ivan Obyedkov, who "volunteered" Kostikov's name to Oswald or an Oswald impersonator over a sure-to-be-tapped-by-CIA phone line was a triple-agent (i.e., a KGB officer whom CIA thought was working for CIA but in reality was still loyal to the KGB).
Hmm ...
-- MWT ;)
-
BS:
What about a reasoned response to Mr Galbraith's comment? Like providing "supporting evidence" rather than a rude reply?
-
As far back as 1967 a brilliant historian explained the Conspiracy "mentality".
He predicted that another investigation (or 3 or 4) of the JFK Assassination would not convince doubters because they possess the "conspiracy mentality". It's persists 52 years later... right here.
This is from the 1967 CBS News Inquiry - the Warren Report.
... The conspiracy theory, the conspiracy mentality will not accept ordinary evidence ..... There’s some psychological requirement: It forces them to reject the ordinary and find refuge in the extraordinary...
Mr Commager's most undeniably accurate insight is: "...the conspiracy mentality will not accept ordinary evidence".
Ordinary evidence like:
-- Oswald fled from the place where shots were fired (TSBD) that killed President Kennedy.
-- Oswald lied about his superior informing him that there would be no more work (at the TSBD) due to the assassination.
Subsequently:
-- Oswald returned to his residence to fetch a revolver.
-- Oswald was identified as using a pistol to kill Officer JD Tippit.
-- Oswald was identified as the man seen running away from the scene of the Tippit murder holding a pistol in his hand.
-- Oswald attempted to shoot Officer N.M. McDonald with a revolver as he (Oswald) was about to be arrested.
That's circumstantial evidence which cannot logically be attributed to framing by cunning conspirators. Oswald acted independently without guidance or manipulation by others.
The conspiracy "mentality" denies all that "interlocking guilty behavior" and elevates suspicion, speculation and conjecture as superior.
-
What about a reasoned response to Mr Galbraith's comment? Like providing "supporting evidence" rather than a rude reply?
Supporting evidence of what? Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The idea that the various TV specials somehow “support” the conclusion that Oswald did it and acted alone is absurd. At best they supported the notion that it could have happened that way.
-
Supporting evidence of what? Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The idea that the various TV specials somehow “support” the conclusion that Oswald did it and acted alone is absurd. At best they supported the notion that it could have happened that way.
Oswald's movements and actions--after the assassination shots were fired from the TSBD--are evidence.
Explain why this piece of evidence is not, in your opinion, evidence:
-- Lee Harvey Oswald attempted to shoot officer Nick McDonald with his (Oswald's) revolver when about to be arrested.
-
Supporting evidence of what? Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The idea that the various TV specials somehow “support” the conclusion that Oswald did it and acted alone is absurd. At best they supported the notion that it could have happened that way.
Iacoletti,
Rhetorical question: Do you define the term "evidence" narrowly or broadly?
Depends on whether it tends to incriminate Oswald or exonerate him?
LOL
-- MWT ;)
-
Oswald's movements and actions--after the assassination shots were fired from the TSBD--are evidence.
Explain why this piece of evidence is not, in your opinion, evidence:
-- Lee Harvey Oswald attempted to shoot officer Nick McDonald with his (Oswald's) revolver when about to be arrested.
Ross,
You need to realize that Iacoletti believes several hundred people participated in the assassination and/or the coverup, and that Officer McDonald was just one of them.
-- MWT ;)
-
Ross,
You need to realize that Iacoletti believes several hundred people participated in the assassination and/or the coverup, and that Officer McDonald was just one of them.
-- MWT ;)
Thomas,
Appreciate your comments. Nothing against John... but it's difficult to understand his stance other than he derives devilish glee from being totally obstinate towards reality.
-
Thomas,
Appreciate your comments. Nothing against John... but it's difficult to understand his stance other than he derives devilish glee from being totally obstinate.
Ross,
He's a hair-splitter extraordinaire (when it suits his purposes), and an incredibly gullible Oswald defender who believes that hundreds of people were involved in the framing of poor Lee, the assassination itself, and the all-important cover up.
-- MWT ;)
-
Oswald's movements and actions--after the assassination shots were fired from the TSBD--are evidence.
Explain why this piece of evidence is not, in your opinion, evidence:
-- Lee Harvey Oswald attempted to shoot officer Nick McDonald with his (Oswald's) revolver when about to be arrested.
Because claims aren’t evidence. The claim that Oswald attempted to shoot McDonald is nothing but an assumption based on some people hearing a click in the theater during a struggle in which many hands were on a gun. I don’t know how you determine intent from that.
But let’s say that it was irrefutable that Oswald tried to shoot McDonald. That would tell you exactly nothing about who killed Kennedy.
-
You need to realize that Iacoletti believes several hundred people participated in the assassination and/or the coverup, and that Officer McDonald was just one of them.
You need to realize that Graves makes up false crap like this and states it as a fact, purely for the purpose of disrupting conversations.
Just like he takes his own wild-ass guesses about who is who in blurry photos and states those as facts.
Get a life, Graves.
-
Appreciate your comments. Nothing against John... but it's difficult to understand his stance other than he derives devilish glee from being totally obstinate towards reality.
Ross, it’s equally difficult for me to understand how you automatically equate assumptions and conjecture with reality.
-
Ross, it’s equally difficult for me to understand how you automatically equate assumptions and conjecture with reality.
What is reality? ...... A mutually agreed on solution to a problem? .... The Lner's accept the solution offered by LBJ's "Special Select Blue Ribbon Committee of Honorable and venerated men. ( aka The warren Report) Is that reality??
-
What is reality? ...... A mutually agreed on solution to a problem? .... The Lner's accept the solution offered by LBJ's "Special Select Blue Ribbon Committee of Honorable and venerated men. ( aka The warren Report) Is that reality??
No, that would be the ad populum fallacy. A claim doesn’t become true just because a bunch of people have the same opinion about it.
-
You need to realize that Graves makes up false crap like this and states it as a fact, purely for the purpose of disrupting conversations.
Just like he takes his own wild-ass guesses about who is who in blurry photos and states those as facts.
Get a life, Graves.
Iacoletti,
How ironic, coming from a guy who either has poor eyesight and can't tell three skirt-and-raincoat-wearing women from "Bermuda shorts wearing men" in a film which was shot on a cool late-November day during a presidential motorcade in conservative 1963 Dallas, or can but prefers not to admit it because doing so would contradict his misconceived, irrational, stubbornly disingenuous "position" regarding the identities of that trio, as well as their location during the assassination.
LOL
-- MWT ;)
-
Steve M.,
>>> S A R C A S M . A L E R T <<<
True JFK Assassination researchers KNOW the reason Lyndon Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover and and Earl Warren, et al., had to cover it up wasn't because the Ruskies, through triple-agents Aleksei Kulak and Ivan Obyedkov, et al., had put a WW III Virus in Oswald's CIA file, but because ... gasp ... evil, evil, evil James Angleton had done so by contriving to make it look as though Oswald had been in contact with putative "Department 13" Valeriy Kostikov, ... except ... hmm ... Kostikov had been made "radioactive" by the KGB, itself, and the Soviet embassy security guard, Ivan Obyedkov, who "volunteered" Kostikov's name to Oswald or an Oswald impersonator over a sure-to-be-tapped-by-CIA phone line was a triple-agent (i.e., a KGB officer whom CIA thought was working for CIA but in reality was still loyal to the KGB).
Hmm ...
-- MWT ;)
So the WC covered it up. The HSCA covered it up. The other investigations covered it up? The Washington Post investigated the shooting and determined Oswald killed JFK. Hugh Aynesworth investigated it and said the evidence for him was that Oswald shot JFK. PBS investigated the event - "Who was Lee Harvey Oswald" - and they concluded Oswald alone killed JFK. Bugliosi said Oswald acted alone. Posner said Oswald acted alone.
All of this was a coverup? The people who covered it up for the government - some still alive like Slawson and Willens - are still covering it up?
As Commager pointed out, conspiracists won't accept anything that doesn't show their conspiracy. In fact, anything that shows there was no conspiracy is another conspiracy designed to coverup the original conspiracy.
It's like a bizarre religious cult.
-
What about a reasoned response to Mr Galbraith's comment? Like providing "supporting evidence" rather than a rude reply?
He can't. Not won't, he simply cannot. He has to make things up. And deny all of the evidence against Oswald. Not most of it, not some of it: all of it. Every single piece of evidence implicating Oswald in any way is dismissed. Out of hand.
All of the evidence against Oswald in every single one of the above investigations I mentioned is dismissed by characterizing it as just a claim. What does that tell you about how he looks a this? It's simply a fanatical objection to facts and events. It's a "No, no, no."
For example, the HSCA photographic experts say the rifle in the BYP was the rifle found in the sniper's nest. Were they wrong in their analysis? They could be. Experts can be wrong. But one has to show how and why. He can't. He just says they were wrong. He can't show where they were wrong. He knows he can't. But he just dismisses it.
Forensic experts, ballistics experts, fingerprint experts, wound experts, photographic experts - he dismisses out of hand all of their conclusion. For him they are just claims.
This is really easy to do. Just say any and every piece of evidence in any event is just an assumption, a piece of speculation, a claim. Of course he doesn't do this when it comes to all conspiracy claims. Pat Speers above made a conspiracy allegation. Did he dismiss it? Of course not.
As I said, one can argue that all of this is wrong; all of these investigations got it wrong. Fine. Point out where they were. But the conspiracists argument (the main one) is that all of this was a coverup of what happened. A deliberate lie and not a failure or screwup.
The WC was a lie. The HSCA was a lie. The other investigations were lies. All of this. For half a century.
It's absolute paranoid nonsense.
-
No, that would be the ad populum fallacy. A claim doesn’t become true just because a bunch of people have the same opinion about it.
Reality....that which can be proven by immutable law of physics..... ie; water will always flow from a higher elevation or pressure to a lower elevation or pressure....
or daylight and darkness are opposites.
-
So the WC covered it up. The HSCA covered it up. The other investigations covered it up? The Washington Post investigated the shooting and determined Oswald killed JFK. Hugh Aynesworth investigated it and said the evidence for him was that Oswald shot JFK. PBS investigated the event - "Who was Lee Harvey Oswald" - and they concluded Oswald alone killed JFK. Bugliosi said Oswald acted alone. Posner said Oswald acted alone.
All of this was a coverup? The people who covered it up for the government - some still alive like Slawson and Willens - are still covering it up?
As Commager pointed out, conspiracists won't accept anything that doesn't show their conspiracy. In fact, anything that shows there was no conspiracy is another conspiracy designed to coverup the original conspiracy.
It's like a bizarre religious cult.
So the WC covered it up.....
That's right....They thought they were doing the right thing. They realized that there are many weak individuals who live in Fantasy Land who can't handle the truth. So in the name of national stability and security they created the big lie.
Perhaps they were right.... If we had known that Hoover and Johnson were at the pinnacle of the conspiracy, who could predict what action the stupid piss ants would take..... They lied to us for our own good....
Many Lner's accept their perfidy ..... It just makes me mad as hell.
-
Mr Commager's most undeniably accurate insight is: "...the conspiracy mentality will not accept ordinary evidence"
Ordinary evidence
'Ordinary' equates with 'sinister' in conspiracy-monger territory
Oswald fled from the place where shots were fired (TSBD) that killed President Kennedy
Little Prick#1 had a movie to catch
Oswald lied about his superior informing him that there would be no more work (at the TSBD) due to the assassination
Sociopaths don't have superiors. Additionally, Oswald (AKA Dirty Harvey/Alex Hidell/O.H.Lee) said it, so it must be true
Oswald returned to his residence to fetch a revolver
It's what boys do
Oswald was identified as using a pistol to kill Officer JD Tippit
He was only firing warning shots, but missed. Poor dumb cop.
Oswald was identified as the man seen running away from the scene of the Tippit murder holding a pistol in his hand
Oh-oh..
Oswald attempted to shoot Officer N.M. McDonald with a revolver as he (Oswald) was about to be arrested
Nope. He was only attempting to give up his revolver. After all, he said he wasn't resisting arrest, so it must be true
That's circumstantial evidence which cannot logically be attributed to framing by cunning conspirators. Oswald acted independently without guidance or manipulation by others
Wrong: Oswald had help:
1) Alex Hidell was in charge of armament procurement
2) O.H. Lee was in charge of safe-house procurement
3) Dirty Harvey was in charge of making Oswald a somebody
-
So the WC covered it up.....
That's right....They thought they were doing the right thing. They realized that there are many weak individuals who live in Fantasy Land who can't handle the truth. So in the name of national stability and security they created the big lie.
Perhaps they were right.... If we had known that Hoover and Johnson were at the pinnacle of the conspiracy, who could predict what action the stupid piss ants would take..... They lied to us for our own good....
Many Lner's accept their perfidy ..... It just makes me mad as hell.
Yes, most of the WC thought they were doing the right thing in covering up the truth. But not Allen Dulles. He was the architect of the Big Event. Why else was he even on the WC? Warren himself was a stooge and their job was to NOT implicate the Rooskies for fear of WW III. They had already averted the Cuban Missile Crisis and blaming Khrushchev for the Big Event was not an option. That was the whole reason behind the "lone nut" narrative.
Otherwise, Johnson was compliant, Hoover was more involved because the FBI was the backbone of the Big Event. Dulles' good bud James Angleton used the compromising photo of Hoover to bring him into the fold, but he was already "in" since he was as corrupt as they came. To all you LNers who think that Dulles, Angleton, Johnson and Hoover were too noble and righteous to pull off a coup, get real. Hoover was the defacto mob boss back then and Johnson is rumored to have offed his own sister. Wake up and smell the coffee and stop with the "crazy conspiracy theories" bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns. Was the HSCA a bunch of crazy CTs? The LN hypothesis is the fringe theory. You need to stop ignoring damning evidence and live with the facts.
-
So the WC covered it up. The HSCA covered it up. The other investigations covered it up? The Washington Post investigated the shooting and determined Oswald killed JFK. Hugh Aynesworth investigated it and said the evidence for him was that Oswald shot JFK. PBS investigated the event - "Who was Lee Harvey Oswald" - and they concluded Oswald alone killed JFK. Bugliosi said Oswald acted alone. Posner said Oswald acted alone.
Oh brother....
What “investigation” did Hugh Aynesworth do? I think you’re confusing taking other people’s word for things with investigation.
Which is what the WC did to begin with.
-
For example, the HSCA photographic experts say the rifle in the BYP was the rifle found in the sniper's nest.
This is blatantly false. You don’t help your argument any by spreading misinformation.
-
This is blatantly false. You don’t help your argument any by spreading misinformation.
"the rifle in these photographs can be positively identified as the same rifle that is presently in the custody of the National Archives."
(Report of HSCA photographic panel, HSCA, VI Appendix D, PP 240)
This is from Kirk and McCamy's testimony:
"Mr. FITHIAN. Then I take it, it is your testimony that the chip or the defect is sufficiently unique, with the corners or whatever, that spotting it in each of the pictures at least gives you the confidence that that rifle you are holding is the rifle that was photographed?
Sergeant KIRK. When I match that up with the scientific data Mr. McCamy has obtained from measuring it, this has to tilt the scales in the direction, yes, indeed it is the same rifle"
"Sergeant KIRK. As a random pattern. You can expect this weapon, just as you can expect all those TV cameras, to receive certain amounts of damage when it is handled. If you were to examine those cameras, even though they are the same, you would not find dents and chips out of the surface in precisely the same area.
Just as the chances of a tire running over the same pieces of glass to cut the tread would be exactly the same. We have examined this chip out of the forestock and we have determined it is quite old, some attempt is made to sand it down, and it was finished the same color as the stock.
It was probably damaged in one of two ways. It received a shock on the top of the forestock that knocked off the chip, which means the top forestock has been replaced, or the stock was damaged as it was taken apart.
It is my opinion that this is unique and unto itself. As you can see here, we photographed the duplicate weapon that was purchased from the distributor of this rifle, the one who allegedly sent it to Dallas, which is photographed here on the top, and it does not show any of the damage that the second photograph does.
I have made a photographic enlargement of the chip out of the forestock.
We have here a United Press International photograph taken of the rifle being displayed outside of the homicide office in the Dallas police department headquarters. A photographic enlargement shows the same chip out of the stock in precisely the same location, going in the same direction, and same dimensions." [dropped the wrong quote in here, fixed]
-
Like so often happens in this case, the conclusion stated in the report doesn’t follow from the underlying hearings and exhibits. Read Cecil Kirk’s testimony again.
Mr. FITHIAN. Then I take it, it is your testimony that the chip or the defect is sufficiently unique, with the corners or whatever, that spotting it in each of the pictures at least gives you the confidence that that rifle you are holding is the rifle that was photographed?
Sergeant KIRK. When I match that up with the scientific data Mr. McCamy has obtained from measuring it, this has to tilt the scales in the direction, yes, indeed it is the same rifle.
This is far from a positive identification to the exclusion of any other rifle.
And the panel report made it clear that Kirk was the only one on the 22 person panel to even go this far.
“the Panel's forensic photographic specialist considered this mark to be a random patterning sufficient to warrant a positive identification.”
-
So the WC covered it up.....
That's right....They thought they were doing the right thing. They realized that there are many weak individuals who live in Fantasy Land who can't handle the truth. So in the name of national stability and security they created the big lie.
Perhaps they were right.... If we had known that Hoover and Johnson were at the pinnacle of the conspiracy, who could predict what action the stupid piss ants would take..... They lied to us for our own good....
Many Lner's accept their perfidy ..... It just makes me mad as hell.
McCarthyism, from the Left.
-
Like so often happens in this case, the conclusion stated in the report doesn’t follow from the underlying hearings and exhibits. Read Cecil Kirk’s testimony again.
Mr. FITHIAN. Then I take it, it is your testimony that the chip or the defect is sufficiently unique, with the corners or whatever, that spotting it in each of the pictures at least gives you the confidence that that rifle you are holding is the rifle that was photographed?
Sergeant KIRK. When I match that up with the scientific data Mr. McCamy has obtained from measuring it, this has to tilt the scales in the direction, yes, indeed it is the same rifle.
This is far from a positive identification to the exclusion of any other rifle.
And the panel report made it clear that Kirk was the only one on the 22 person panel to even go this far.
“the Panel's forensic photographic specialist considered this mark to be a random patterning sufficient to warrant a positive identification.”
Sorry "Iacoletti", but jumping on a slip of the tongue which is clarified in the same breath is oh so typical of a hardcore religious Kook!
Mr. FITHIAN. Then I take it, it is your testimony that the chip or the defect is sufficiently unique, with the corners or whatever, that spotting it in each of the pictures at least gives you the confidence that that rifle you are holding is the rifle that was photographed?
Sergeant KIRK. When I match that up with the scientific data Mr. McCamy has obtained from measuring it, this has to tilt the scales in the direction, yes, indeed it is the same rifle.
JohnM
-
Like so often happens in this case, the conclusion stated in the report doesn’t follow from the underlying hearings and exhibits. Read Cecil Kirk’s testimony again.
Mr. FITHIAN. Then I take it, it is your testimony that the chip or the defect is sufficiently unique, with the corners or whatever, that spotting it in each of the pictures at least gives you the confidence that that rifle you are holding is the rifle that was photographed?
Sergeant KIRK. When I match that up with the scientific data Mr. McCamy has obtained from measuring it, this has to tilt the scales in the direction, yes, indeed it is the same rifle.
This is far from a positive identification to the exclusion of any other rifle.
Let's do the remedial English here:
Steve Galbraith: "For example, the HSCA photographic experts say the rifle in the BYP was the rifle found in the sniper's nest."
John Iacoletti: "This is blatantly false. You don’t help your argument any by spreading misinformation."
And here you quote Sgt Kirk, which ends with "...yes, indeed it is the same rifle." Which part of "it is the same rifle" do you not understand?
Steve is correct. The HSCA photographic panel really did conclude that CE139 is the rifle found in the TSBD and the rifle seen in the backyard photos. If you want to quibble about how they got there, quibble away --but that doesn't change the fact that they got there in the first place.
-
Sorry "Iacoletti", but jumping on a slip of the tongue which is clarified in the same breath is oh so typical of a hardcore religious Kook!
“Slip of the tongue”. LOL.
-
And here you quote Sgt Kirk, which ends with "...yes, indeed it is the same rifle." Which part of "it is the same rifle" do you not understand?
Which part of “tips the scales in the direction of” do you not understand?
-
For example, the HSCA photographic experts say the rifle in the BYP was the rifle found in the sniper's nest. Were they wrong in their analysis? They could be. Experts can be wrong. But one has to show how and why. He can't. He just says they were wrong. He can't show where they were wrong. He knows he can't. But he just dismisses it.
Exactly, the HSCA provided conclusive proof that the backyard rifle was the same rifle that was sent to Oswald's PO box and here we are 40 years later and not one CT has presented any scientific evidence to contradict their findings.
(https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/photos/HSCA-EXHIBITS/Photo_hsca_ex_206.jpg)
JohnM
-
Which part of “tips the scales in the direction of” do you not understand?
I understand that figure of speech well enough to know that "this has to tilt the scales in the direction" does not change or modify the meaning of, "yes, indeed it is the same rifle."
-
Exactly, the HSCA provided conclusive proof that the backyard rifle was the same rifle that was sent to Oswald's PO box
BS:
We have Cecil Kirk’s scales and moon craters.
Who do you think you’re fooling? You can’t even prove that rifle was sent to that PO Box.
-
I understand that figure of speech well enough to know that "this has to tilt the scales in the direction" does not change or modify the meaning of, "yes, indeed it is the same rifle."
If you also think that one guy’s “tilt the scales” is conclusive, then you’re as phony as “Mytton’s” screen name.
-
BS:
We have Cecil Kirk’s scales and moon craters.
"Iacoletti" you've had over 40 years to find a photographic expert to refute the HSCA's visual evidence that the backyard rifle was the same rifle that Oswald ordered from Kleins and we're still waiting. YAWN!
(https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/photos/HSCA-EXHIBITS/Photo_hsca_ex_206.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f1/61/94/f16194fb03829f449ba428e855d7af4c.png)
JohnM
-
I understand that figure of speech well enough to know that "this has to tilt the scales in the direction" does not change or modify the meaning of, "yes, indeed it is the same rifle."
Fithian could have said something to the effect that the damage to the rifle's stock is so similar to the damage visible in the photographs as to indicate that it must be the same Carcano rifle.
But that, of course, would not be "good enough" for John Iacoletti.
If I had truly murdered someone and been arrested and charged with same, I would be very grateful, indeed, if John Iacoletti could weasel his way through the voire dire process (especially if I was a flaming Leftist -- lol) and be appointed foreman of the jury at my trial, for it would be certain to end up, after weeks of deliberations, as a "hung jury" case, with just one juror refusing to find me guilty - John Iacoletti.
I can hear him yelling in the deliberation room now, "The prosecutor didn't prove jack spombleprofglidnoctobuns! He made it all up!"
LOL
-- MWT ;)
-
"Iacoletti" you've had over 40 years to find a photographic expert to refute the HSCA's visual evidence that the backyard rifle was the same rifle that Oswald ordered from Kleins and we're still waiting. YAWN!
There’s nothing to refute. You have a “tip the scales in the direction of” from one guy out of 22.
Make that 23.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I compared the actual rifle with the photograph, Exhibit 133A, and with the photographs that I prepared from Exhibit 133A, as well as the other simulated photograph and the photograph of the rifle, attempting to establish whether or not it could be determined whether it was or was not the
I found it to be the same general configuration. All appearances were the same. I found no differences. I did not find any really specific peculiarities on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of all other rifles of the same general configuration.
I did find one notch in the stock at this point that appears very faintly in the photograph, but it is not sufficient to warrant positive identification.
-
Fithian could have said something to the effect that the damage to the rifle's stock is so similar to the damage visible in the photographs as to indicate that it must be the same Carcano rifle.
He could have, but he didn’t.
If I had truly murdered someone and been arrested and charged with same, I would be very grateful, indeed, if John Iacoletti could weasel his way through the voire dire process (especially if I was a flaming Leftist -- lol) and be appointed foreman of the jury at my trial, for it would be certain to end up, after weeks of deliberations, as a "hung jury" case, with just one juror refusing to find me guilty - John Iacoletti.
Blah, blah, blah, whine, whine, whine.
If all the prosecution had was ridiculous whiny rhetoric like this, the jury should acquit.
-
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I compared the actual rifle with the photograph, Exhibit 133A, and with the photographs that I prepared from Exhibit 133A, as well as the other simulated photograph and the photograph of the rifle, attempting to establish whether or not it could be determined whether it was or was not the
I found it to be the same general configuration. All appearances were the same. I found no differences. I did not find any really specific peculiarities on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of all other rifles of the same general configuration.
I did find one notch in the stock at this point that appears very faintly in the photograph, but it is not sufficient to warrant positive identification.
Oops!
Sergeant KIRK. ...I might add, in all candor, with respect to the FBI, they did not have 133-A DeMohrenschildt. They did not have 133-A Stovall. They did not have 134 or did not recognize 134 as being first generation print.
JohnM
-
BS:
We have Cecil Kirk’s scales and moon craters.
Who do you think you’re fooling? You can’t even prove that rifle was sent to that PO Box.
..Mt Iacoletti said, trying to change the subject.
Just to put things back on point, and for reference, I jumped into this based on this exchange between you and Galbraith, where you clipped this bit out of a Galbraith post :
"For example, the HSCA photographic experts say the rifle in the BYP was the rifle found in the sniper's nest."
then replied:
"This is blatantly false. You don’t help your argument any by spreading misinformation."
To which I pointed out that Steve's statement was, in fact, correct. The HSCA photography panel did conclude that "a comparison of the relative lengths of parts of the alleged assassination rifle that is in the National Archives with corresponding parts of what purports to be that rifle as shown in various photographs taken in 1963 indicates that the dimensions of the rifle(s) depicted are entirely consistent. b. A comparison of identifying marks that exist on the rifle as shown in photographs today with marks shown on the rifle in photographs taken in 1963 indicates both that the rifle in the Archives is the same weapon that Oswald is shown holding in the backyard picture and the same weapon, found by Dallas police, that appears in various postassassination photographs." [HSCA VI PP196]
As I've said, if you want to quibble with how or why they got to that conclusion, go ahead. But don't sit there and try to claim that the HSCA panel did anything other than conclude that the CE133* rifle is the same rifle recovered from the TSBD is CE139. That's simply what they said they found.
-
Oops!
Sergeant KIRK. ...I might add, in all candor, with respect to the FBI, they did not have 133-A DeMohrenschildt. They did not have 133-A Stovall. They did not have 134 or did not recognize 134 as being first generation print.
Who says they didn’t have 134? It’s a Warren Commission exhibit. Who even made CE134 and where is the negative it was made from?
In all candor, Kirk had no friggin idea what Shaneyfelt looked at.
-
b. A comparison of identifying marks that exist on the rifle as shown in photographs today with marks shown on the rifle in photographs taken in 1963 indicates both that the rifle in the Archives is the same weapon that Oswald is shown holding in the backyard picture and the same weapon, found by Dallas police, that appears in various postassassination photographs." [HSCA VI PP196]
Page 196 doesn’t say anything remotely similar to this. This is on page 66.
But Kirk’s “tips the scales” testimony and the “moon crater” justification on page 106 (with only Kirk’s name on it) belies the claim the this was a conclusion of the entire panel. For other matters, such as opinions on what Zapruder frames indicated bullet strikes, the panel voted, and the report indicated what the vote counts were.
But in the end it doesn’t really matter, because there is no actual analysis provided that shows that the rifle in the CE 133* photos can be uniquely identified and how.
As I've said, if you want to quibble with how or why they got to that conclusion, go ahead. But don't sit there and try to claim that the HSCA panel did anything other than conclude that the CE133* rifle is the same rifle recovered from the TSBD is CE139. That's simply what they said they found.
[/quote]
-
Page 196 doesn’t say anything remotely similar to this. This is on page 66.
But Kirk’s “tips the scales” testimony and the “moon crater” justification on page 106 (with only Kirk’s name on it) belies the claim the this was a conclusion of the entire panel. For other matters, such as opinions on what Zapruder frames indicated bullet strikes, the panel voted, and the report indicated what the vote counts were.
But in the end it doesn’t really matter, because there is no actual analysis provided that shows that the rifle in the CE 133* photos can be uniquely identified and how.
As I've said, if you want to quibble with how or why they got to that conclusion, go ahead. But don't sit there and try to claim that the HSCA panel did anything other than conclude that the CE133* rifle is the same rifle recovered from the TSBD is CE139. That's simply what they said they found.
Iacoletti,
What kind of "analysis" do you think they should have done?
-- MWT ;)
-
In all candor, Kirk had no friggin idea what Shaneyfelt looked at.
Huh? the HSCA Expert Photographic Panel examined first generation prints and 133-A DeMohrenschildt and 133-A Stovall were not examined in 1964 by the FBI and that's a fact Jack!
(http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/LHO/IV-15-HSCA.jpg)
Anyway time to focus, the HSCA didn't hide their findings and their analysis has been available for over forty years and after all this time not even 1 photographic expert has refuted their findings but maybe you can find some photo expert to support your layman doubts, go for it and finally put your money where your mouth is.
(https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/photos/HSCA-EXHIBITS/Photo_hsca_ex_206.jpg)
JohnM
-
What kind of "analysis" do you think they should have done?
Something that would actually show that the gouge Kirk thought he saw in the photo was identical in every respect to a gouge on CE 139.
This has got to be the most unscientific “analysis” of evidence in the entire JFK canon (other than large chunks of Bugliosi).
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/kirk.gif)
Moon craters? Really?
-
Something that would actually show that the gouge Kirk thought he saw in the photo was identical in every respect to a gouge on CE 139.
This has got to be the most unscientific “analysis” of evidence in the entire JFK canon (other than large chunks of Bugliosi).
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/kirk.gif)
Moon craters? Really?
Distinctive and probative, like a tire impression on a muddy road, a tool mark in soft metal, and yes -- when looked at in the context of the placement, shape and size of the other craters around it -- a crater on the moon.
-- MWT ;)
-
This topic has been hijacked.
When discussing evidence: Please do so by referring to the aggregate rather than a single aspect that requires a separate topic.
-
This topic has been hijacked.
When discussing evidence: Please do so by referring to the aggregate rather than a single aspect that requires a separate topic.
Well, the problem is that a sweeping generalization like “the conspiracy mindset won’t accept ordinary evidence” cannot be addressed without defining specifically what you think constitutes ordinary evidence.
Unless the topic was just created to insult people.
-
Well, the problem is that a sweeping generalization like “the conspiracy mindset won’t accept ordinary evidence” cannot be addressed without defining specifically what you think constitutes ordinary evidence.
Unless the topic was just created to insult people.
Then you must explain why the evidence is ordinary or extraordinary. No-one is doing that.
-
Then you must explain why the evidence is ordinary or extraordinary. No-one is doing that.
Depends on what you consider to be evidence.
-
Depends on what you consider to be evidence.
Aye, there's the rub. (Or should I say rube?)
Evidently (pardon the pun) circumstantial and photographic and documentary don't qualify as far as you're concerned, especially when collected or handled by any of the hundreds (if not thousands!) of evil, evil, evil frame-up / cover-up participants.
LOL
-- MWT ;)
-
We are all quite aware, Tommy, that you consider your creative blob interpretation to not only constitute evidence, but established fact.
-
Good job of avoiding the points I made, Iacoletti.
You have yet to make a valid point. You’re here to disrupt.
-
Page 196 doesn’t say anything remotely similar to this. This is on page 66.
But Kirk’s “tips the scales” testimony and the “moon crater” justification on page 106 (with only Kirk’s name on it) belies the claim the this was a conclusion of the entire panel. For other matters, such as opinions on what Zapruder frames indicated bullet strikes, the panel voted, and the report indicated what the vote counts were.
But in the end it doesn’t really matter, because there is no actual analysis provided that shows that the rifle in the CE 133* photos can be uniquely identified and how.
Paragraph 196, not page 196. Congressional stuff tends to be numbered by paragraph, and I find it more useful in hunting a particular word, phrase or sentence. I didn't feel like escaping the paragraph symbol and used an old typing class standby. Page, I think, is still abbreviated with a lower-case p, pp if its multiple pages.
That being said, you need to explain to the rest of the world as to what you would accept as proper analysis .
And, Steve Galbraith is still right. The photo panel did determine that CE139 was the rifle in the BY photos and the rifle removed from the TSBD. :P I suspect that what you wrote wasn't quite what you'd intended to get across, but you're too proud to admit to dropping such a clunker.
[Edit] There were HSCA staffers who dissented to the views expressed in the reports of the various panels. The Committee allowed them to publish their objections as appendices to the panels' reports, and even to testify. Cyril Wecht and Robert Groden immediately come to mind here. If any other FPP member had an objection to McCamy and Kirk, then we should see it in the record.
-
Who says they didn’t have 134? It’s a Warren Commission exhibit. Who even made CE134 and where is the negative it was made from?
In all candor, Kirk had no friggin idea what Shaneyfelt looked at.
IIRC, Shaneyfeldt testified as to what he was using, and that was CE133A and B, but mainly CE133A. He never mentions CE134.
-
That being said, you need to explain to the rest of the world as to what you would accept as proper analysis .
Were the characteristics of this alleged gouge in the CE 133* photos measured in any way? If so, the analysis is missing from any of the HSCA documents. Kirk's analysis is nothing but hand waving. There is nothing that actually shows that they are "identical in every respect".
And, Steve Galbraith is still right. The photo panel did determine that CE139 was the rifle in the BY photos and the rifle removed from the TSBD.
No, Cecil Kirk claimed that CE139 was the rifle in the BY photos -- there was no "determination" done. In contrast, the panel report actually showed measurements and analysis for their claim that the rifle shown in the police station photos matches CE 139.
-
IIRC, Shaneyfeldt testified as to what he was using, and that was CE133A and B, but mainly CE133A. He never mentions CE134.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
-
You think all of your opinions are "obvious". Now stop hijacking the thread.
-
Commager was right: to the conspiracist believer nothing will dissuade them of their fixation.
That seems to work with any fixation. Yours included.
Iacoletti, You may have never said that you're trying to prove Oswald innocent, but it's obvious to everybody here that you are.
Tommy...You know that is not how it works. Technically, Oswald remains innocent of shooting people because he was never found guilty [beyond a reasonable doubt] That doubt is stated all over this forum.
-
You think all of your opinions are "obvious". Now stop hijacking the thread.
Iacoletti,
This thread is about evidence, and how it is used properly, how it is used improperly, or is how it is improperly ignored (as you are all too often wont to do in your desperate attempt to cast Oswald in an innocent light) in JFK assassination "research" and argumentation.
-- MWT ;)
-
That seems to work with any fixation. Yours included.
Tommy...You know that is not how it works. Technically, Oswald remains innocent of shooting people because he was never found guilty [beyond a reasonable doubt] That doubt is stated all over this forum.
I have no fixation. I don't post here day after day after day. I average about .5 posts a day. I go for numerous days without posting. I am not a member of a conspiracy group. I don't attend conspiracy conferences. I don't obsess over this event.
The evidence for me is that Lee Oswald took his rifle and shot the president. If you think he had curtain rods in his bag and that he left the building shortly after the shooting because he wanted to see a movie and believe there were two Oswalds and a double and all of the documents are faked and on and on then feel free to believe this absurdity. It's absurd. It didnt' happen.
All of the alternate explanations don't make sense. It's been more than half a century since the assassination. There have been multiple investigations - both public/government and private/news media. We can add the millions and millions of pages of documents that were released. Add in the investigations by reporters and journalists and historians like Caro and others. There's nothing there. But as Commager predicted: nothing will persuade the conspiracist that he's wrong. In fact, investigations that show no conspiracy are, for you people, further evidence of the conspiracy. It's conspiracy after conspiracy after conspiracy. Who is obsessed over this again?
People have doubts about all sorts of events. That the Holocaust happened. That 9/11 was done by Islamic terrorists. That the world is round. People expressing doubts is meaningless. Paranoid unstable people express doubts all of the time. That doesnt' mean we should take them seriously.
I certainly don't.
-
There have been multiple investigations - both public/government and private/news media. We can add the millions and millions of pages of documents that were released.
Doesn't it kinda matter whether or not these millions and millions of pages of documents contain evidence as to who killed Kennedy?
Add in the investigations by reporters and journalists and historians like Caro and others.
I'll bite: exactly what investigation did Caro do to determine who killed Kennedy? I thought he was LBJ's biographer.
People have doubts about all sorts of events. That the Holocaust happened. That 9/11 was done by Islamic terrorists. That the world is round. People expressing doubts is meaningless. Paranoid unstable people express doubts all of the time. That doesnt' mean we should take them seriously.
Along the same lines, people all of the time believe stories that are spoon-fed to them by authorities and based on faith. That doesn't mean those stories are true.
-
Were the characteristics of this alleged gouge in the CE 133* photos measured in any way? If so, the analysis is missing from any of the HSCA documents. Kirk's analysis is nothing but hand waving. There is nothing that actually shows that they are "identical in every respect".
No, Cecil Kirk claimed that CE139 was the rifle in the BY photos -- there was no "determination" done. In contrast, the panel report actually showed measurements and analysis for their claim that the rifle shown in the police station photos matches CE 139.
You're down to trying to argue that Cecil Kirk could not have concluded or determined anything because he didn't use a methodology that you approve of then. That's just a ridiculously silly, and quite possibly megalomaniacal, argument. By the way, human beings have very good pattern recognition abilities. If you see someone you know, even under circumstances in which you don't expect to see them, you recognize them instantly without the need to formally measure any part of them. Don't think that we wouldn't be able to recognize the same gouge in different photographs.
Also, you are incorrect about the use of the photography panel's measurements. They used a series of "identifying marks" --dings, dents, divots, and scratches, labelled "A" through "W"-- for specific identification. Those marks are listed in Table 7 in the report, and they are what that the panel used to determine that the CE139 rifle in the archives is the same rifle shown in the Alyea film, 11/22/63 news photos, and photos of the TSBD rifle taken by the DPD. Those marks were not measured. The photography panel did make a set of measurements of the relative locations of certain parts of the rifle along the length of the rifle. However, those were used to show that a line of argument used by Jack White was based on fallacious reasoning and weren't used to identify a specific rifle.
Oh, also by the way, you apparently didn't notice this bit from that portion of the report: "significantly, the largest and most prominent mark, mark S, a gouge mark that appears on the backyard picture, also appears in the gun as it is portrayed in the Alyea movie sequence and in three other postassassination photographs of the rifle as well. See table 7."
-
You're down to trying to argue that Cecil Kirk could not have concluded or determined anything because he didn't use a methodology that you approve of then.
My approval is irrelevant. He didn't use a methodology, period.
By the way, human beings have very good pattern recognition abilities. If you see someone you know, even under circumstances in which you don't expect to see them, you recognize them instantly without the need to formally measure any part of them. Don't think that we wouldn't be able to recognize the same gouge in different photographs.
You mean the way Seth Kantor recognized Jack Ruby at Parkland?
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/rifle-gouge3.jpg)
Also, you are incorrect about the use of the photography panel's measurements. They used a series of "identifying marks" --dings, dents, divots, and scratches, labelled "A" through "W"-- for specific identification. Those marks are listed in Table 7 in the report, and they are what that the panel used to determine that the CE139 rifle in the archives is the same rifle shown in the Alyea film, 11/22/63 news photos, and photos of the TSBD rifle taken by the DPD. Those marks were not measured. The photography panel did make a set of measurements of the relative locations of certain parts of the rifle along the length of the rifle. However, those were used to show that a line of argument used by Jack White was based on fallacious reasoning and weren't used to identify a specific rifle.
Right. They were examining the effect of perspective on the apparent length of the rifle in the backyard photos and they showed their work. When it came to "mark S" (the only one claimed to be "visible" in CE133A, Kirk regressed to handwaving.
Oh, also by the way, you apparently didn't notice this bit from that portion of the report: "significantly, the largest and most prominent mark, mark S, a gouge mark that appears on the backyard picture, also appears in the gun as it is portrayed in the Alyea movie sequence and in three other postassassination photographs of the rifle as well. See table 7."
No, I didn't miss it. Now, if you can even find it in CE 133A, show how it is "identical in every respect", and not just roughly in the same area. Cecil Kirk certainly didn't.
-
Mitch Todd: IIRC, Shaneyfeldt testified as to what he was using, and that was CE133A and B, but mainly CE133A. He never mentions CE134.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Absence of evidence is absence of evidence. Shaneyfelt testified as to which images he used: CE133A and B. If you want to argue that he used anything else, it's up to you to demonstrate that.
In the larger picture, you've claimed that "In all candor, Kirk had no friggin idea what Shaneyfelt looked at." Isn't it up to you to show that Kirk had 'no friggin idea'? And wouldn't Shaneyfelt's own testimony be evidence otherwise?
-
Absence of evidence is absence of evidence. Shaneyfelt testified as to which images he used: CE133A and B. If you want to argue that he used anything else, it's up to you to demonstrate that.
I didn't argue that he used anything else. Mytton argued (with no evidence) that he didn't use CE134, even though the HSCA panel admitted that it was just an assumption. And damn the luck: the negative allegedly used to produce CE134 is "missing".
-
I have no fixation. I don't post here day after day after day. I average about .5 posts a day. I go for numerous days without posting.
Who cares?
-
Exactly, the HSCA provided conclusive proof that the backyard rifle was the same rifle that was sent to Oswald's PO box...
No it didn't. Do you mean CE 139? Do you mean Hidell's rifle? Show me the serial number of that rifle in the back-yard picture.
Same old Mytton...proof by declaration. Guilt by accusation.
-
Absence of evidence is absence of evidence. Shaneyfelt testified as to which images he used: CE133A and B. If you want to argue that he used anything else, it's up to you to demonstrate that.
In the larger picture, you've claimed that "In all candor, Kirk had no friggin idea what Shaneyfelt looked at." Isn't it up to you to show that Kirk had 'no friggin idea'? And wouldn't Shaneyfelt's own testimony be evidence otherwise?
His method is to characterize any evidence that implicates Oswald in the assassination as "claims" or "speculation" and then it can be dismissed. He "deconstructs" accounts until they essentially disappear.
But he gets to make all sorts of speculation and "claims" and theories about evidence, about the motivations of people who identified Oswald or implicated him.
It's cheap and easy - we can do this with any event - and fundamentally disingenuous.
I noted above all of the fifty plus years of investigations, directly or indirectly, into the assassination and that concluded that Oswald alone killed JFK. Government investigations, news media investigations, investigative reporters, historians, biographers. This is the most studied event in US history.
His response to all of this was to label it "BS" and dismiss it. Even though he doesn't know what all of this revealed (neither do I; it's a lot of material: but I do know what they concluded). Whatever evidence is found will be dismissed by him. Simply by waving it off as "claims" or "speculation." Ballistics, forensics, fingerprints, photographic analysis, handwriting analysis, eyewitnesses, documents - whatever is present he will wave off.
-
I didn't argue that [Shaneyfelt] used anything else [but CE133A]. Mytton argued (with no evidence) that he didn't use CE134, even though the HSCA panel admitted that it was just an assumption.
What you actually said was, "in all candor, Kirk had no friggin idea what Shaneyfelt looked at." But Kirk explicitly mentioned Shaneyfelt's testimony. Shaneyfelt explicitly mentioned using CE133A and B. Shaneyfelt never mentions using CE134, not mentioning it at all in his discussion of the back yard photographs. That's a a pretty good indication that he didn't use CE134.
It all adds up to one thing: Kirk did have at least "a friggin idea" that Shaneyfelt didn't use CE134. And, no, Kirk and McCamy did more than just assume that Shaneyfelt only kept to CE133A & B.
And damn the luck: the negative allegedly used to produce CE134 is "missing".
..And, failing all else, you now you try to change the subject again, this time betting the house on a wisp of cheap insinuation. How quickly falls the "Mr Rational" facade you try so hard to maintain.
-
But he gets to make all sorts of speculation and "claims" and theories about evidence, about the motivations of people who identified Oswald or implicated him.
I did? When?
I noted above all of the fifty plus years of investigations, directly or indirectly, into the assassination and that concluded that Oswald alone killed JFK. Government investigations, news media investigations, investigative reporters, historians, biographers. This is the most studied event in US history.
That’s a false appeal to authority or popularity, and fundamentally flawed. It actually matters what these conclusions are based on.
His response to all of this was to label it "BS" and dismiss it. Even though he doesn't know what all of this revealed (neither do I; it's a lot of material: but I do know what they concluded).
Speak for yourself, dude. So you don’t know what evidence actually shows that Oswald killed Kennedy, but you believe it because that’s what they concluded?
-
His method is to characterize any evidence that implicates Oswald in the assassination as "claims" or "speculation" and then it can be dismissed. He "deconstructs" accounts until they essentially disappear.
But he gets to make all sorts of speculation and "claims" and theories about evidence, about the motivations of people who identified Oswald or implicated him.
It's cheap and easy - we can do this with any event - and fundamentally disingenuous.
I noted above all of the fifty plus years of investigations, directly or indirectly, into the assassination and that concluded that Oswald alone killed JFK. Government investigations, news media investigations, investigative reporters, historians, biographers. This is the most studied event in US history.
His response to all of this was to label it "BS" and dismiss it. Even though he doesn't know what all of this revealed (neither do I; it's a lot of material: but I do know what they concluded). Whatever evidence is found will be dismissed by him. Simply by waving it off as "claims" or "speculation." Ballistics, forensics, fingerprints, photographic analysis, handwriting analysis, eyewitnesses, documents - whatever is present he will wave off.
Well, I think he'd like to call it "hand waving" ;) Really, he tries to create an impossible standard of proof whereby if it can't be shown to him to a metaphysical certainty it must be part of the coverup. Which is just a variation of moving the goal posts by trying to rewrite the rules. This time around, he made a couple of gross overstatements and his ego won't let him walk them back. God forgive me, but watching his performance as he tries to squirm and twist himself out of the mess he got himself into is getting pretty entertaining.
-
What you actually said was, "in all candor, Kirk had no friggin idea what Shaneyfelt looked at." But Kirk explicitly mentioned Shaneyfelt's testimony. Shaneyfelt explicitly mentioned using CE133A and B. Shaneyfelt never mentions using CE134, not mentioning it at all in his discussion of the back yard photographs. That's a a pretty good indication that he didn't use CE134.
No it’s not. Testimony is the answering of questions put to you. Did they ask him for an exhaustive list of everything he looked at? Why wouldn’t an investigator look at whatever was provided? Unless you’re saying that CE 134 may not have actually been provided when and how they said it was. After all, the negative mysteriously disappeared.
What’s interesting is that you seem to be more interested in quibbling over my word choices than in examining the quality of the evidence.
-
WOW! Ralphie's photo-presentation style lives on!
As does CT#OswaldAs I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.'es' desparate quest to be somebodies...
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/rifle-gouge3.jpg)
-
WOW! Ralphie's photo-presentation style lives on!
As does CT#OswaldAs I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.'es' desparate quest to be somebodies...
Awesome rebuttal, bro!
-
Awesome rebuttal, bro!
OMG
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Steele_Commager
For more than 40 years I have studied, researched and taught about the Kennedy assassination. Because so much of the evidence about this case has never been released, I still do not know the answer to the most fundamental question of all – who killed President Kennedy? We deserve to know the answer.....
Michael Kurtz---- Professor of history at Southeastern Louisiana University, and the author of The JFK Assassination Debates. The third edition of his book, Crime of the Century: The Kennedy Assassination From a Historian’s Perspective, was published earlier this month.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_L._Kurtz
-
Michael Kurtz---- Professor of history at Southeastern Louisiana University, and the author of The JFK Assassination Debates. The third edition of his book, Crime of the Century: The Kennedy Assassination From a Historian’s Perspective, was published earlier this month.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_L._Kurtz
Jerr-wee, Jerr-wee, Jerr-wee ...
Your boy Kurtz must be "The Absent-Minded Professor".
-- MWT ;)
-
Your boy Kurtz must be "The Absent-Minded Professor".
Why?
Seems more on top of the subject than that other guy who wrote nothing about his study of the assassination because he doubtfully did any :-\
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41k8Jv7tkIL._SX321_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71kt1Jsr4uL._AC_UL160_.jpg)
Everybody has an opinion and quite often sits on that opinion in the restroom.
-
Why?
Seems more on top of the subject than that other guy who wrote nothing about his study of the assassination because he doubtfully did any :-\
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41k8Jv7tkIL._SX321_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71kt1Jsr4uL._AC_UL160_.jpg)
Everybody has an opinion and quite often sits on that opinion in the restroom.
Iirc, Kurtz writes about a "massive hole near the front of JFK's head that could only have been caused by a shot from the Grassy Knoll."
Really?
LOL
-- MWT ;)
PS Ahhh, here we are ... from his 1982 book Crime of the Century
"The huge, gaping hole in the right front of President Kennedy's head was almost certainly caused by an exploding bullet fired from the knoll. The rapid backward and leftward movement of Kennedy's head, as well as the backward and left-ward spray of brain tissue, skull bone, and blood are very strong indicators of a shot from the right front. "
In which he overlooks the possibility that the hole was caused by an exiting bullet, that JFK lurched backwards because every neuron in his brain fired off, causing the muscles in his legs to contract and his spine to bend violently and throw him backwards, and not realizing that a fine mist of blood, bone and cerebral matter can be seen shooting forward over JFK's head in the Nix film (when digitally enhanced and played in slow motion).
-- MWT ;)
-
In which he overlooks the possibility that the hole was caused by an exiting bullet, that JFK lurched backwards because every neuron in his brain fired off, causing the muscles in his legs to contract and his spine to bend violently and throw him backwards, and not realizing that a fine mist of blood, bone and cerebral matter can be seen shooting forward over JFK's head in the Nix film (when digitally enhanced and played in slow motion).
he overlooks the possibility that the hole was caused by an exiting bullet
So..there was a possibility that it was an exiting bullet but does this not include the same possibility that it was an entry bullet?
There were histoical conspiracies to execute a political, military or cultural leader ---
Julius Ceaser....Jesus Christ...Adolf Hitler...Abraham Lincoln
There have been conspiracies to revolt against the power of rulers.
There was a 9/11 conspiracy initiated by zealots who believed there was/is a world wide conspiracy against them.....Conspiracy nuts :-\
-
JFK lurched backwards because every neuron in his brain fired off, causing the muscles in his legs to contract and his spine to bend violently and throw him backwards,
LOL. You really believe that “neuromuscular reaction” crap?
-
LOL. You really believe that “neuromuscular reaction” crap?
Some folks will believe ANYTHING..... Maybe they believe that JFK was electrocuted.
-
So..there was a possibility that it was an exiting bullet but does this not include the same possibility that it was an entry bullet?
There were histoical conspiracies to execute a political, military or cultural leader ---
Julius Ceaser....Jesus Christ...Adolf Hitler...Abraham Lincoln
There have been conspiracies to revolt against the power of rulers.
There was a 9/11 conspiracy initiated by zealots who believed there was/is a world wide conspiracy against them.....Conspiracy nuts :-\
Jerr-wee, Jerr-wee, Jerr-wee,
<sigh>
I'm sure that evil, evil, evil Alan Dulles and evil, evil, evil James Angleton and evil, evil, evil [fill in the blank] hated JFK so doggone much that they were willing to risk being fried to death in "Old Sparky".
NOT!
-- MWT ;)
-
Is this the same Historian who told Mr. ' Reclaiming History ' Vince Bugliosi , that his 1600 page plus , fiction , was the whole truth and nothing but the truth , so help me ..........? Vince tried to make it 26 volumes , BUT .......
-
One of the great frustrations about this case is the SLOW SLOW pace at which un-contestable facts seep in.
Here's an un-contestable fact from 2014. Michael Kurtz is not to be relied upon. He repeatedly changed stories about his own connection to the case, and ultimately cited a bunch of interviews with people who were dead at the time. This is demonstrated here:
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter-19c-lost-in-the-jungle-with-kurtz
And here's one from 2009. Vincent Bugliosi wasn't much better. He spent a large chunk of his book claiming he wouldn't deceive his audience, and would root his book in the historical record, and then presented a narrative grossly at odds with the statements of the witnesses cited in his footnotes. This is demonstrated here:
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter9b%3Areclaiminghistoryfromreclaimin2
-
One of the great frustrations about this case is the SLOW SLOW pace at which un-contestable facts seep in.
Here's an un-contestable fact from 2014. Michael Kurtz is not to be relied upon. He repeatedly changed stories about his own connection to the case, and ultimately cited a bunch of interviews with people who were dead at the time. This is demonstrated here:
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter-19c-lost-in-the-jungle-with-kurtz
And here's one from 2009. Vincent Bugliosi wasn't much better. He spent a large chunk of his book claiming he wouldn't deceive his audience, and would root his book in the historical record, and then presented a narrative grossly at odds with the statements of the witnesses cited in his footnotes. This is demonstrated here:
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter9b%3Areclaiminghistoryfromreclaimin2
Bugliosi's " Book for the ages"....has become the joke of the ages.
-
the mind of Conspiracy Nuts
A little side issue....What about Jeffery Epstein's "suicide" or was homicide just another wild nutty conspiracy theory?
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/08/jeffrey-epstein-dies-by-suicide-report.html
-
the mind of Conspiracy Nuts
A little side issue....What about Jeffery Epstein's "suicide" or was homicide just another wild nutty conspiracy theory?
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/08/jeffrey-epstein-dies-by-suicide-report.html
Don't you know, Jerr-wee?
We wivv in nuh wevil, wevil, wevil, Deep State!
We will-we, will-we do!
-- MWT ;)
-
I have no fixation. I don't post here day after day after day. I average about .5 posts a day. I go for numerous days without posting. I am not a member of a conspiracy group. I don't attend conspiracy conferences. I don't obsess over this event.
The evidence for me is that Lee Oswald took his rifle and shot the president. If you think he had curtain rods in his bag and that he left the building shortly after the shooting because he wanted to see a movie and believe there were two Oswalds and a double and all of the documents are faked and on and on then feel free to believe this absurdity. It's absurd. It didnt' happen.
All of the alternate explanations don't make sense. It's been more than half a century since the assassination. There have been multiple investigations - both public/government and private/news media. We can add the millions and millions of pages of documents that were released. Add in the investigations by reporters and journalists and historians like Caro and others. There's nothing there. But as Commager predicted: nothing will persuade the conspiracist that he's wrong. In fact, investigations that show no conspiracy are, for you people, further evidence of the conspiracy. It's conspiracy after conspiracy after conspiracy. Who is obsessed over this again?
People have doubts about all sorts of events. That the Holocaust happened. That 9/11 was done by Islamic terrorists. That the world is round. People expressing doubts is meaningless. Paranoid unstable people express doubts all of the time. That doesnt' mean we should take them seriously.
I certainly don't.
Well said Steve. Great intellect. Makes me think: Are you the son of John Kenneth?
-
I'm sure that evil, evil, evil Alan Dulles and evil, evil, evil James Angleton and evil, evil, evil [fill in the blank] hated JFK so doggone much that they were willing to risk being fried to death in "Old Sparky".
NOT!
Exactly. How many people on here hate Trump. Alot. But would they be willing to get life in prison, or the death penalty, i think not.
Dulles and Angelton were never going to risk that just to kill someone who would be out of office soon enough anyway.
-
Exactly. How many people on here hate Trump. Alot. But would they be willing to get life in prison, or the death penalty, i think not.
Dulles and Angelton were never going to risk that just to kill someone who would be out of office soon enough anyway.
Exactly. How many people on here hate Trump. Alot. But would they be willing to get life in prison, or the death penalty, i think not
With this "logic" nobody would ever commit a murder.... and yet they still happen, every day!
Dulles and Angelton were never going to risk that just to kill someone who would be out of office soon enough anyway.
And how would they know that, exactly? Kennedy could have been re-elected for a second term!
-
Dulles and Angelton were never going to risk that just to kill someone who would be out of office soon enough anyway.
And how would they know that, exactly? Kennedy could have been re-elected for a second term!
Instead his vice President, Johnson, was in office until 1968. What exactly did Dulles and Angelton have to achieve by killing Kennedy only making a martre out of him and a devil out of anyone JFK apparently didn't like, like Dulles.
-
NSAM 273?
-
Bugliosi's " Book for the ages"....has become the joke of the ages.
Why don't you write a book Walt on what you think happened on Nov 22nd 1963?
-
Why don't you write a book Walt on what you think happened on Nov 22nd 1963?
I could write a book about what I KNOW happened that weekend.....that is contrary to the official fairy tale book, the Warren Report.
But I'd rather just lay out the facts and let those who have the brains, and the guts to face reality, decide for themselves......