JFK Assassination Forum

Photographic Film Video & Audio Discussion & Debate => Photographic Film Video & Audio Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: John Mytton on January 06, 2018, 11:38:27 PM

Title: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Mytton on January 06, 2018, 11:38:27 PM

A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.




JohnM
Title: Re: the Single Bullet Theory: Real Autopsy Photo, vs. Myers' drawing.
Post by: Susan Wilde on May 26, 2018, 10:26:26 PM
(https://ibb.co/fRLZi8)

https://ibb.co/fRLZi8 (Real autopsy photo on left; Myers drawing on right)

As can be clearly seen at the link given above,  when anatomically scaled the same, the  real  JFK back entrance wound location  documented in the  real  autopsy photo was then  drawn  by Myers very incorrectly,  very deliberately,  misleadingly  wrong, and  not  matched by the  C.A.D.-drawing that  Myers  created.

IOW,  Myers  flat-out  lied
Title: Re: the Single Bullet Theory: Real Autopsy Photo, vs. Myers' drawing.
Post by: Tim Nickerson on May 27, 2018, 02:40:42 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
(https://ibb.co/fRLZi8)

https://ibb.co/fRLZi8 (Real autopsy photo on left; Myers drawing on right)

As can be clearly seen at the link given above,  when anatomically scaled the same, the  real  JFK back entrance wound location  documented in the  real  autopsy photo was then  drawn  by Myers very incorrectly,  very deliberately,  misleadingly  wrong, and  not  matched by the  C.A.D.-drawing that  Myers  created.

IOW,  Myers  flat-out  lied


Myers never lied about anything. In the autopsy photo, Kennedy's  shoulders are vastly elevated over the normal position and fixed there due to rigor mortis. Myers' graphic has the shoulders in the normal position. Marsh did not take that into consideration.
Title: Re: the Single Bullet Theory: Real Autopsy Photo, vs. Myers' drawing.
Post by: Susan Wilde on May 28, 2018, 02:11:53 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In the autopsy photo, Kennedy's  shoulders are vastly elevated over the normal position

That is a  demonstrably incorrect statement.

For the  real, authentic  autopsy photo,  the majority of persons already know that President Kennedy's body was still laying on the autopsy table,  then, the autopsy doctors simply rolled it onto its left side,  then the photo was captured. (IOW, they did not sit-up his upper torso, and therefore both shoulders were  not 
"vastly elevated over the normal position" as Tim o-pined and tried to spin.

I was first surprised for a split-second  (but not surprised upon further reflection's)  that Tim  - obviously, a  "loone nut"-swallower -  has never been aware of the documented, real orientation of the body for that specific photo.
Title: Re: the Single Bullet Theory: Real Autopsy Photo, vs. Myers' drawing.
Post by: Tim Nickerson on May 28, 2018, 05:25:10 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That is a  demonstrably incorrect statement.

For the  real, authentic  autopsy photo,  the majority of persons already know that President Kennedy's body was still laying on the autopsy table,  then, the autopsy doctors simply rolled it onto its left side,  then the photo was captured. (IOW, they did not sit-up his upper torso, and therefore both shoulders were  not 
"vastly elevated over the normal position" as Tim o-pined and tried to spin.

I was first surprised for a split-second  (but not surprised upon further reflection's)  that Tim  - obviously, a  "loone nut"-swallower -  has never been aware of the documented, real orientation of the body for that specific photo.


Susan, was the body in a state of rigor mortis when the autopsy photos were taken? Yes or no.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 28, 2018, 11:00:05 PM
And by "scientific" Mytton means that Myers started with the assumption that there was a single bullet fired from the SE 6th floor window of the TSBD and then created a model by assuming where the wounds were located and moving the models around until the assumed wounds sort of line up.

In other words, not scientific at all.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Bill Chapman on June 08, 2018, 09:33:52 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And by "scientific" Mytton means that Myers started with the assumption that there was a single bullet fired from the SE 6th floor window of the TSBD and then created a model by assuming where the wounds were located and moving the models around until the assumed wounds sort of line up.

In other words, not scientific at all.

So get someone to do something better—more accurate in your opinion—if you believe that.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Bill Chapman on June 09, 2018, 02:47:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.




JohnM

Good one.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on June 21, 2018, 07:52:58 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.




JohnM
How "scientific" is the statement "Zapruder film shows simultaneous reactions"?  This statement is based on an assumption that is not obvious to an unbiased observer: i.e that JFK's hand positions in z223 are not the result of a reaction to being shot through the neck prior to that point.  It is also not at all obvious that there is a clear path from JFK's neck exit wound to JBC's right armpit that misses JFK's hands, but that is a minor point.

Unbiased scientists share their data. They do not avoid showing us the data used in order to protect a copyright. Myers refuses to disclose the angles and distances (eg. what is the horizontal angle used; how far inboard JBC is and where this comes from).

How scientific is it to ignore 60+ witnesses who said the first shot struck JFK and/or that there was only one shot before the midpoint between the first and third (i.e. one shot before at least z240)?

I would submit that someone who adheres to basic principles of science would approach the problem this way:

1. what are the range of possibilities as to what the bullet through JFK hit, based on all the evidence?

2. which of those possibilities is the best fit with all the evidence.
Title: Re: the Single Bullet Theory: Real Autopsy Photo, vs. Myers' drawing.
Post by: Michael Capasse on June 21, 2018, 12:55:28 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Myers' graphic has the shoulders in the normal position.


"...er-ra Kellerman - would you-ah hand me back my shawl"
 :D

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/DSBXW1-VGmM/hqdefault.jpg)
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Bill Chapman on June 22, 2018, 07:05:51 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How "scientific" is the statement "Zapruder film shows simultaneous reactions"?  This statement is based on an assumption that is not obvious to an unbiased observer: i.e that JFK's hand positions in z223 are not the result of a reaction to being shot through the neck prior to that point.  It is also not at all obvious that there is a clear path from JFK's neck exit wound to JBC's right armpit that misses JFK's hands, but that is a minor point.

Unbiased scientists share their data. They do not avoid showing us the data used in order to protect a copyright. Myers refuses to disclose the angles and distances (eg. what is the horizontal angle used; how far inboard JBC is and where this comes from).

How scientific is it to ignore 60+ witnesses who said the first shot struck JFK and/or that there was only one shot before the midpoint between the first and third (i.e. one shot before at least z240)?

I would submit that someone who adheres to basic principles of science would approach the problem this way:

1. what are the range of possibilities as to what the bullet through JFK hit, based on all the evidence?

2. which of those possibilities is the best fit with all the evidence.

In the Zfilm, JFK reacts just as he emerges from behind the sign. Given that it would likely take a split second* to react to the pain, it seems to me the bullet struck before he emerges from behind the sign. His hands are just starting to rise as he appears, indicating that the missile has traversed the neck before his hands rise to neck level.


* Every time I stub my toe while barefooted, It takes a two-count for the pain to be felt.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Michael Capasse on June 22, 2018, 11:42:54 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In the Zfilm, JFK reacts just as he emerges from behind the sign. Given that it would likely take a split second* to react to the pain, it seems to me the bullet struck before he emerges from behind the sign. His hands are just starting to rise as he appears, indicating that the missile has traversed the neck before his hands rise to neck level.


then he's shot in the back

(http://www.jfkennedy.it/Immagini/Leprovedelcomplotto/nelfilmdiZapruder/backhit.gif)

Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Bill Chapman on June 22, 2018, 05:52:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
then he's shot in the back

(http://www.jfkennedy.it/Immagini/Leprovedelcomplotto/nelfilmdiZapruder/backhit.gif)

By whom, and from where... and show us your phantom* back wound.


* And name your phantom shooter. Hey, just toss a coin; you have 48 shooters to choose from
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Mytton on June 23, 2018, 12:30:07 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
then he's shot in the back

(http://www.jfkennedy.it/Immagini/Leprovedelcomplotto/nelfilmdiZapruder/backhit.gif)



 Thumb1:

Thanks for reinforcing the back shot as Kennedy emerges from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign!



JohnM
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on June 23, 2018, 07:22:56 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In the Zfilm, JFK reacts just as he emerges from behind the sign. Given that it would likely take a split second* to react to the pain, it seems to me the bullet struck before he emerges from behind the sign. His hands are just starting to rise as he appears, indicating that the missile has traversed the neck before his hands rise to neck level.


* Every time I stub my toe while barefooted, It takes a two-count for the pain to be felt.
Oh, sorry. I thought you wanted to use a science approach.

I can't tell when JFK started to react because I can't see that he is not already reacting before he emerges from behind the sign. I would need evidence that he is not already reacting. But the zfilm shows significant change in both hand positions betwen z200 and z222. There are many witnesses who observed that JFK changed his hand positions in response to the first shot. And there is quite a bit of evidence that the first shot was after z186.

I would also need evidence to show that JFK's dramatic reaction seen from z226 and following wa necessarily the immediate initial reaction. It could be a gagging reaction due the difficulty in breathing resulting from the damage to his airway. We do know that humans normally take about 12 to 20 breaths per minute so a gagging reaction could start a couple of seconds after sustaining the injury.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Steve Barber on June 23, 2018, 01:56:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


 Thumb1:

Thanks for reinforcing the back shot as Kennedy emerges from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign!



JohnM

  Thumb1:

 
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Steve Barber on June 23, 2018, 02:02:32 PM
If everyone could just look CLOSELY at where President Kennedy's hands go to...

 The hands are never at "neck level", they never go near the throat, and he never "clutched his throat".  Sadly, this entire idea seems to stem from no one having made blow ups of the Z frames for a cursory examination of the film to examine exactly what happened, before 1966 when John Connally examined blown up frames trying to determine when he was shot.  Life Magazine is responsible for claiming that the President "clutched his throat" in its October 1964 edition, in one of the captions for the Zapruder frames they published in that issue.

 The right hand is the first to go into position in a cupped fashion, over the mouth.  The left hand comes up, every finger except for the index finger are curled. The index finger is slightly curled but in a near straight position as the hand forms into a semi-fist and comes up against the bottom the right hand.  It looks like he could very well be dry heaving after the bullet that ripped through his back exited the throat.   As he starts to turn his head to his left, his right hand--now in a semi-cupped position-is now at cheek level as his head turns and the hand remains in the upward position.  He doesn't start to bring the left hand/arm down until after Mrs. Kennedy grasps his left arm and pulls him slightly downward and toward her.  His right hand then moves from cheek level down to chest level where it remains until the fatal shot is fired. 
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Michael Capasse on June 23, 2018, 03:41:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Thanks for reinforcing the back shot as Kennedy emerges from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign!

JohnM

 Thumb1: "....below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out the neckband of the shirt, in front. So that how it could turn and ......" 
(Warren Commission Executive Session Jan. 27, 1964)
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Royell Storing on June 23, 2018, 03:45:19 PM
       "...ripped THROUGH his back......". This statement is Incorrect. Humes probed JFK's BACK Wound and the depth of said wound ended at the first knuckle on his finger. The location of the BACK Wound is corroborated by: (1) The JFK Autopsy Face Sheet, (2) JFK Autopsy Photo, (3) JFK Dress Shirt, & (4) JFK Suit Coat. The JFK BACK Wound had absolutely Nothing to do with the Neck Wound or the movement of his hands during the assassination. 
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Steve Barber on June 23, 2018, 04:09:39 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
       "...ripped THROUGH his back......". This statement is Incorrect. Humes probed JFK's BACK Wound and the depth of said wound ended at the first knuckle on his finger. The location of the BACK Wound is corroborated by: (1) The JFK Autopsy Face Sheet, (2) JFK Autopsy Photo, (3) JFK Dress Shirt, & (4) JFK Suit Coat. The JFK BACK Wound had absolutely Nothing to do with the Neck Wound or the movement of his hands during the assassination.

  Since that is what you believe, Storing, go for it.   I will use common sense and accept the fact that bullet that entered the back exited the throat,  based on the evidence.   You go ahead and continue to live in denial, and base your case on flimsy, conspiracy tripe.  You haven't read everything on the back wound, or you would know why the wound only went as far as the first knuckle, so I take your reasoning with the usual grain of salt.  Oh, and yes, the movement of his arms and hands DID have everything to do with the back wound.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on June 24, 2018, 01:04:16 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If everyone could just look CLOSELY at where President Kennedy's hands go to...

 The hands are never at "neck level", they never go near the throat, and he never "clutched his throat".  Sadly, this entire idea seems to stem from no one having made blow ups of the Z frames for a cursory examination of the film to examine exactly what happened, before 1966 when John Connally examined blown up frames trying to determine when he was shot.  Life Magazine is responsible for claiming that the President "clutched his throat" in its October 1964 edition, in one of the captions for the Zapruder frames they published in that issue.

 The right hand is the first to go into position in a cupped fashion, over the mouth.  The left hand comes up, every finger except for the index finger are curled. The index finger is slightly curled but in a near straight position as the hand forms into a semi-fist and comes up against the bottom the right hand.  It looks like he could very well be dry heaving after the bullet that ripped through his back exited the throat.   As he starts to turn his head to his left, his right hand--now in a semi-cupped position-is now at cheek level as his head turns and the hand remains in the upward position.  He doesn't start to bring the left hand/arm down until after Mrs. Kennedy grasps his left arm and pulls him slightly downward and toward her.  His right hand then moves from cheek level down to chest level where it remains until the fatal shot is fired.
I don't think it matters precisely where he put his hands. What matters is why his hands moved from the position they are seen in z193 to the position they are in at z223 and why his facial expression seen when he appears from behind the Stemmons sign is so different from that in z193. Many witnesses said his facial expression changed like that and his hand positions changed like that in respon4se to the first shot.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Steve Barber on June 24, 2018, 03:08:30 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't think it matters precisely where he put his hands. What matters is why his hands moved from the position they are seen in z193 to the position they are in at z223 and why his facial expression seen when he appears from behind the Stemmons sign is so different from that in z193. Many witnesses said his facial expression changed like that and his hand positions changed like that in respon4se to the first shot.


Well, maybe it doesn't make any difference to you, but to me, it does.  If people are going to point things out in the Zapruder film--or any of the photographic evidence--they need to interpret it  it correctly.  People are constantly using the position of his hands as they "see" them as an excuse to say that a bullet entered the throat from the front as their "proof", when his hands don't go anywhere near his throat.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on June 24, 2018, 07:30:03 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Well, maybe it doesn't make any difference to you, but to me, it does.  If people are going to point things out in the Zapruder film--or any of the photographic evidence--they need to interpret it  it correctly.  People are constantly using the position of his hands as they "see" them as an excuse to say that a bullet entered the throat from the front as their "proof", when his hands don't go anywhere near his throat.
Ok. That's a fair point. The hands are not an indication of the precise location of this throat wound. In any event, the hands do not tell us whether the bullet entered from the front or the back. The autopsy tells us that it entered from the back.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Steve Barber on June 25, 2018, 01:47:39 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ok. That's a fair point. The hands are not an indication of the precise location of this throat wound. In any event, the hands do not tell us whether the bullet entered from the front or the back. The autopsy tells us that it entered from the back.

Absolutely agreed.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 10, 2018, 06:00:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ok. That's a fair point. The hands are not an indication of the precise location of this throat wound. In any event, the hands do not tell us whether the bullet entered from the front or the back. The autopsy tells us that it entered from the back.

The autopsy doesn't tell us anything of the kind about the throat wound.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on July 11, 2018, 03:47:13 AM
Not sure why you say that. The autopsy report summary, p. 6, refers to the throat wound as the exit wound from the bullet that entered in the upper back:

"The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax above the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular and the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right, side of the neck. This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal pleura and of the apical portion of the right Yupper lobe of the lung. The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony structures in its path through the body."
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 11, 2018, 04:58:11 PM
"The second wound presumably of entry is that described above in the upper right posterior thorax. Beneath the skin there is ecchymosis of subcutaneous tissue and musculature. The missile path through the fascia and musculature cannot be easily proved. The wound presumably of exit was that described by Dr. Malcolm Perry of Dallas in the low anterior cervical region."
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on July 12, 2018, 06:25:56 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"The second wound presumably of entry is that described above in the upper right posterior thorax. Beneath the skin there is ecchymosis of subcutaneous tissue and musculature. The missile path through the fascia and musculature cannot be easily proved. The wound presumably of exit was that described by Dr. Malcolm Perry of Dallas in the low anterior cervical region."
That does not mean that they were unable to prove the missile path through the fascia and muscles.  It was proven to their satisfaction. Just not easily . They explained how the wounds were connected:

"The third point of reference in connecting these two wounds is in the apex (supra-clavicular portion) of the right pleural cavity. In this region there is contusion of the parietal pleura and of the extreme apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. In both instances the diameter of contusion and ecchymosis at the point of maximal involvement measures 5 cm. Both the visceral and parietal pleura are intact overlying these areas of trauma."
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 13, 2018, 08:39:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That does not mean that they were unable to prove the missile path through the fascia and muscles.  It was proven to their satisfaction. Just not easily . They explained how the wounds were connected:

"The third point of reference in connecting these two wounds is in the apex (supra-clavicular portion) of the right pleural cavity. In this region there is contusion of the parietal pleura and of the extreme apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. In both instances the diameter of contusion and ecchymosis at the point of maximal involvement measures 5 cm. Both the visceral and parietal pleura are intact overlying these areas of trauma."

I think by "proven" you mean speculation.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on July 17, 2018, 07:44:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think by "proven" you mean speculation.
No. I meant "proven" in the sense of: a rational conclusion based on evidence.   

The three autopsy doctors reached these conclusions based on the evidence they had. 

First of all, there was abundant evidence that the head shot had entered from the back. This was evident from the examination of the hole in the back of the skull: "Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull." (Autopsy report: CE387 at p. 4). They also observed in the xrays metal particles behind the President's right eye (Humes: 2 H 353).

They observed a similar size hole in the upper back.  They were informed that there had been the tracheostomy done in the same location where there was already a wound in the throat.

There was evidence that the internal damage ("contusion of the parietal pleura and of the extreme apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung.) aligned with the two external wounds in the upper back and throat (Humes: 2 H 369) :


Xrays of this area showed no bullet remained in the President.

The angle to the neck wound was downward. There was no evidence presented to them that there was a shot fired in an upward direction from somewhere in front of the President. There was evidence before them that a similar sized bullet had been fired from the rear and struck him in the head.

That is part of the body of evidence that persuaded all three doctors that the bullet had entered the upper back and exited the throat.

Although you may disagree with their conclusions, they reached their conclusions based on the evidence before them.  So it was not speculation.  If there is other evidence that was not before them that would call into question their conclusions, I have not seen it. 

To suggest that such evidence might exist and, if available, would call into question their conclusions would be speculation.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 18, 2018, 09:44:36 PM
No, "proven" would be if they had actually tracked the missile path through the body.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on July 18, 2018, 10:21:03 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No, "proven" would be if they had actually tracked the missile path through the body.
That might be what you would require in order to be convinced.  But most people would conclude that the path has been established from the evidence that there were two bullet holes in the body and internal damage on a line between the two but no bullet in the body.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 19, 2018, 10:58:25 PM
"Convinced" isn't the same as "proven".  But you'll forgive me if I don't recognize you as a spokesperson for "most people".
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on July 20, 2018, 01:54:55 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"Convinced" isn't the same as "proven".  But you'll forgive me if I don't recognize you as a spokesperson for "most people".
One cannot divorce the concept of "proven" from the process of convincing human beings. 

In science, theories are never "proven".  In law, proving cases is all about convincing people.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 20, 2018, 04:28:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
One cannot divorce the concept of "proven" from the process of convincing human beings. 

In science, theories are never "proven".  In law, proving cases is all about convincing people.

Then why did you claim that "the missile path through the fascia and muscles" was "proven"?

Fair enough, though.  I'm not at all convinced that there was one path through the body from the alleged "neck wound" to the alleged throat wound.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on July 20, 2018, 09:51:35 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Then why did you claim that "the missile path through the fascia and muscles" was "proven"?
The evidence persuaded the three autopsy physicians.  And it persuaded the WC, the HSCA, and many CTers, including Cyril Wecht (who rejects the SBT but - at least in his HSCA dissent - does not take issue with the path of the bullet through JFK's neck).   It is only a relatively small group who cannot, for some reason, accept that a bullet was fired from the SN into JFK's upper back and exited his throat.  In fact, there is no evidence that indicates otherwise. There is only doubt in the minds of some who do not accept the evidence that exists and postulate the existence of some other evidence that no one has yet found.

Quote
Fair enough, though.  I'm not at all convinced that there was one path through the body from the alleged "neck wound" to the alleged throat wound.
That's fine. The evidence that has persuaded many others does not persuade you.  But that does not mean that bodies responsible for making determinations of fact in this case were wrong to conclude, reasonably and on evidence, that a bullet passed through JFK entering his upper back and exiting his throat.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 20, 2018, 11:58:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The evidence persuaded the three autopsy physicians.  And it persuaded the WC, the HSCA, and many CTers, including Cyril Wecht (who rejects the SBT but - at least in his HSCA dissent - does not take issue with the path of the bullet through JFK's neck).   It is only a relatively small group who cannot, for some reason, accept that a bullet was fired from the SN into JFK's upper back and exited his throat.  In fact, there is no evidence that indicates otherwise. There is only doubt in the minds of some who do not accept the evidence that exists and postulate the existence of some other evidence that no one has yet found.

Of course there is evidence that indicates otherwise.  It all depends on exactly where the back wound was located.  As you know, there seems to be some dispute about that.  And of course, even if there was the bullet path through the body that you are assuming, that tells you nothing about what building the bullet originated from.

Quote
That's fine. The evidence that has persuaded many others does not persuade you.  But that does not mean that bodies responsible for making determinations of fact in this case were wrong to conclude, reasonably and on evidence, that a bullet passed through JFK entering his upper back and exiting his throat.

I just take issue with your use of the word "proven" to mean persuaded.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on July 21, 2018, 02:48:32 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Of course there is evidence that indicates otherwise.  It all depends on exactly where the back wound was located.  As you know, there seems to be some dispute about that.  And of course, even if there was the bullet path through the body that you are assuming, that tells you nothing about what building the bullet originated from.
Well, it tells you the origin was behind, above and to the right.  There is evidence of only one location that was behind, above and to the right where a gun was fired.

Quote
I just take issue with your use of the word "proven" to mean persuaded.
In legal proceedings, "proof" refers to evidence that persuades the trier of fact that of a set of facts is correct i.e. "proven".  What do you mean by "proof" or "proven"?
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 21, 2018, 04:22:13 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, it tells you the origin was behind, above and to the right.  There is evidence of only one location that was behind, above and to the right where a gun was fired.

Depending on where the back wound was actually located.

By the way, what's the evidence that a gun was fired from that particular location?

Quote
In legal proceedings, "proof" refers to evidence that persuades the trier of fact that of a set of facts is correct i.e. "proven".  What do you mean by "proof" or "proven"?

I don't think "proof" makes any sense in legal proceedings -- it's a mathematical construct..  Anything that requires speculation, assumptions, or conjecture is not "proof".
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on July 22, 2018, 05:29:11 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Depending on where the back wound was actually located.   
Well, in order to conclude that it was not in the location shown on the autopsy photos one would have to conclude that the wound location observations and autopsy photos were faked by all three doctors.  Is that a reasonable conclusion?  Based on what?  The location of the hole in the shirt?

Quote
By the way, what's the evidence that a gun was fired from that particular location?
For starters, Norman, Williams and Jarman.  Also Jackson and Mrs. Cabell and Amos Euins. Then there are the pigeons seen flying from the TSBD roof at the time of the shots.  Do you think they were all part of the conspiracy too?

Quote
I don't think "proof" makes any sense in legal proceedings -- it's a mathematical construct..  Anything that requires speculation, assumptions, or conjecture is not "proof".
In any fact-finding process (courts, commissions of inquiry or other fact-finding bodies such as NTSB accident investigations) "proof" is another term for evidence upon which people base conclusions of fact.  There is nothing absolute about proof.

The only absolute proof is found in mathematics. But proof in mathematics simply shows that an assumption or set of assumptions are logically equivalent to some other statement or set of statements. The assumptions do not have to be true in "reality". 
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 22, 2018, 07:09:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, in order to conclude that it was not in the location shown on the autopsy photos one would have to conclude that the wound location observations and autopsy photos were faked by all three doctors.  Is that a reasonable conclusion?  Based on what?  The location of the hole in the shirt?

That's one discrepancy that hasn't been sufficiently accounted for, yes.  Along with the autopsy face sheet and Burkley's death certificate.  But the location shown on the autopsy photos isn't even indisputable -- it's a matter of interpretation.

Quote
For starters, Norman, Williams and Jarman.  Also Jackson and Mrs. Cabell and Amos Euins. Then there are the pigeons seen flying from the TSBD roof at the time of the shots.  Do you think they were all part of the conspiracy too?

This is what I mean about misrepresenting the evidence.  Jackson and Cabell didn't see any rifle being fired.  And pigeons aren't as selective about location as you pretend.  Williams originally reported hearing 2 shots from somewhere above him.  Nothing is as clear cut as you try to present it.

Quote
In any fact-finding process (courts, commissions of inquiry or other fact-finding bodies such as NTSB accident investigations) "proof" is another term for evidence upon which people base conclusions of fact.  There is nothing absolute about proof.

Then it's not "proof" in the general case, and certainly not proof in this specific case as it's completely reliant on several subjective assumptions and conjectures.  Every bit of it.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on July 22, 2018, 09:05:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That's one discrepancy that hasn't been sufficiently accounted for, yes.  Along with the autopsy face sheet and Burkley's death certificate.  But the location shown on the autopsy photos isn't even indisputable -- it's a matter of interpretation.
If you have a bullet hole in the clothing that does not quite match the hole in the skin you would not conclude that that clothing had moved? How else can itbeexplained? What is uncertain about the autopsy photo?

Quote
This is what I mean about misrepresenting the evidence.  Jackson and Cabell didn't see any rifle being fired.  And pigeons aren't as selective about location as you pretend.  Williams originally reported hearing 2 shots from somewhere above him.  Nothing is as clear cut as you try to present it.
Individually these witnesses may not be conclusive, but together they provide overwhelming evidence that a gun was fired from the SN. Norman, Williams, Jarman heard what sounded like a gun in the SN and Jackson Cabell and Euins saw what looked like a gun barrel stickinv out the SN window. If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck....

Quote
Then it's not "proof" in the general case, and certainly not proof in this specific case as it's completely reliant on several subjective assumptions and conjectures.  Every bit of it.
It is not subjective to reach reasoned a conclusion based on all the evidence. It is not a conclusion based on assumption or conjecture. It is based on independent objective evidence . Again, what do you think constitutes "proof"?
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 23, 2018, 05:02:04 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If you have a bullet hole in the clothing that does not quite match the hole in the skin you would not conclude that that clothing had moved? How else can itbeexplained? What is uncertain about the autopsy photo?

What about a hole in the skin that moves?  For one thing, which spot on the alleged autopsy photo is a wound?

Quote
Individually these witnesses may not be conclusive, but together they provide overwhelming evidence that a gun was fired from the SN. Norman, Williams, Jarman heard what sounded like a gun in the SN and Jackson Cabell and Euins saw what looked like a gun barrel stickinv out the SN window. If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck....
It is not subjective to reach reasoned a conclusion based on all the evidence. It is not a conclusion based on assumption or conjecture. It is based on independent objective evidence . Again, what do you think constitutes "proof"?

Of course it's conjecture to think that something seen sticking out a window "must have" been a rifle that fired shots.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on July 23, 2018, 06:52:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What about a hole in the skin that moves?  For one thing, which spot on the alleged autopsy photo is a wound?
The spot on the skin was identified by the autopsy doctors as a bullet hole.  There is no evidence that the bullet hole moved.  Unless there was a broad conspiracy involving at least all three autopsy doctors and the autopsy photographer plus some unidentified photo touch-up artist who had skills that were 50 years ahead of his peers, that photo tells you where the bullet entered JFK's back.

Quote
Of course it's conjecture to think that something seen sticking out a window "must have" been a rifle that fired shots.
Why would you call a conclusion based on actual evidence a conjecture?

Amos Euins said (statement to Sheriff, 22Nov63, CE 2003, 24 H 2017):

(FBI statement 29Nov63, Commission Document 205 at p. 10):

(FBI report 14Dec63, Commission Document 205 at p. 12):

But even without Euins, one could conclude from all the other evidence that rifle shots were fired from the SN.  The evidence (not conjecture) is that a loud noise that many identified as a rifle shot preceded Cabell's observation of a pipe projecting from the SN window, and that 3 such loud sounds preceded Jackson's similar observation.  There was clear evidence that a bullet fired from the rifle found on the sixth floor fired one of the bullets that ended up in the President's car.  Norman heard what sounded to him like bullet shells hitting the floor after each loud sound. He heard what sounded like the a rifle bolt action after each of the three loud sounds. All three men heard the loud sounds and thought they were coming from the room directly above them.

To suggest that a conclusion based on this evidence is just a guess is preposterous.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 23, 2018, 07:48:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The spot on the skin was identified by the autopsy doctors as a bullet hole.  There is no evidence that the bullet hole moved.  Unless there was a broad conspiracy involving at least all three autopsy doctors and the autopsy photographer plus some unidentified photo touch-up artist who had skills that were 50 years ahead of his peers, that photo tells you where the bullet entered JFK's back.

Which spot on the photo you are talking about did the autopsy doctors identify as a bullet hole and when?

Quote
Why would you call a conclusion based on actual evidence a conjecture?

Because it is.  Just because somebody saw something sticking out of a window, it doesn't just follow that it was a rifle being discharged.  None of them (except arguably Euins) saw a rifle being fired.  You're just assuming that what they saw was a rifle that had been fired.  But if you're going to take Euins' word for it, then you have to deal with the bald spot and the fact that he initially told a reporter that the shooter was black.  Under your standard where a conclusion based on evidence is automatically "proof" you would have to concede that it's proven that Oswald was not holding the rifle in question.

Quote
But even without Euins, one could conclude from all the other evidence that rifle shots were fired from the SN.  The evidence (not conjecture) is that a loud noise that many identified as a rifle shot preceded Cabell's observation of a pipe projecting from the SN window, and that 3 such loud sounds preceded Jackson's similar observation.

Ok, but that doesn't tell you where the loud sounds originated.  It's just your assumption that the loud sounds must have originated from Mrs. Cabell's "projection".  There's no evidence of that.

Quote
  There was clear evidence that a bullet fired from the rifle found on the sixth floor fired one of the bullets that ended up in the President's car.

Unfortunately that doesn't tell you when the fragments allegedly found in the President's car were fired.  And like so much of the evidence in this case, there is no solid documented chain of custody for these fragments between their alleged discovery in the limo and Robert Frazier.  Furthermore, Frazier took these mangled fragments and lined up the markings "in his mind" because they didn't line up under the microscope.  There's nothing "clear" about any of it.

Quote
Norman heard what sounded to him like bullet shells hitting the floor after each loud sound. He heard what sounded like the a rifle bolt action after each of the three loud sounds.

Yes he did eventually say that.  That raises lots of questions though like why didn't he hear the guy's necessary mad dash to the stairwell which would have been necessary had it been Oswald up there or why he and the others lollygagged looking out the western windows of the 5th floor in view of the staircase if they had any inkling of a shooter upstairs.

Quote
All three men heard the loud sounds and thought they were coming from the room directly above them.

To suggest that a conclusion based on this evidence is just a guess is preposterous.

I didn't say it was just a guess, but it does have several built-in assumptions that are not evidence-based.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Richard Smith on July 23, 2018, 08:27:45 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The spot on the skin was identified by the autopsy doctors as a bullet hole.  There is no evidence that the bullet hole moved.  Unless there was a broad conspiracy involving at least all three autopsy doctors and the autopsy photographer plus some unidentified photo touch-up artist who had skills that were 50 years ahead of his peers, that photo tells you where the bullet entered JFK's back.
Why would you call a conclusion based on actual evidence a conjecture?

Amos Euins said (statement to Sheriff, 22Nov63, CE 2003, 24 H 2017):
    "I saw a man in a window with a gun and I saw him shoot twice. He then stopped back behind some boxes.  I could tell the gun was a rifle and it sounded like an automatic rifle the way he was shooting.  I just saw a little bit of the barrel, and some of the trigger housing.  This was  a white man, he did not have on a hat.  I just saw this man for a few seconds.

(FBI statement 29Nov63, Commission Document 205 at p. 10):
    "He stated since he could no longer see the Preddent's car, he happened to glance up and noticed what appeared to be the barrel of a rifle protruding froa the window near the top of the Texas School Book Depodtory Building. He stated he saw a man's band on what appeared to be the rifle stock and that he knew it was rifle becauae he heard the shots fired.  He stated he could not tell anything about the aan and that he never anything other than what appeared to be his hand on the stock."

(FBI report 14Dec63, Commission Document 205 at p. 12):
    "..he noticed a rifle in the window and saw the second and third shots fired. He stated he saw a man's hand on what apeared to be the trigger housing and he could also see a bald spoint on the man's head. He stated he did not see the face of this individual and could not identify him.  He said he was sure this man was white, because his hand extended outside the window on the rifle."

But even without Euins, one could conclude from all the other evidence that rifle shots were fired from the SN.  The evidence (not conjecture) is that a loud noise that many identified as a rifle shot preceded Cabell's observation of a pipe projecting from the SN window, and that 3 such loud sounds preceded Jackson's similar observation.  There was clear evidence that a bullet fired from the rifle found on the sixth floor fired one of the bullets that ended up in the President's car.  Norman heard what sounded to him like bullet shells hitting the floor after each loud sound. He heard what sounded like the a rifle bolt action after each of the three loud sounds. All three men heard the loud sounds and thought they were coming from the room directly above them.

To suggest that a conclusion based on this evidence is just a guess is preposterous.

You are arguing with someone who suggests that just because witnesses confirmed a rifle was pointing in the direction of JFK's motorcade an instant after the shots were fired that doesn't mean they saw him shot by that rifle.  LOL.  Not to mention that there were the fired bullet casings found by that window.  Forget logical inferences.  By John's pedantic standard, for example, no one saw John Wilkes Booth shoot Lincoln.  They just heard a bang and looked in that direction to see Booth pointing a pistol at Lincoln's head.  Perhaps someone else in Ford's Theatre actually fired the shot.  Maybe it was suicide and Booth had the misfortune of picking up the pistol off the ground.  He panicked and fled!  It's possible - right?  That's the best he can manage.  And I will bet if you look at the historical record, you can find some witness who got a minor detail wrong about Booth's appearance, clothes or height etc.  And maybe no one can confirm with certainty where he bought his ammo.  Why would a famous person like Booth throw away his good fortune by committing murder where he was sure to recognized?  Surely he wouldn't have done it.  Thus we can disregard the mountain of evidence that links Booth to that crime.  Mission accomplished for the lazy contrarian.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 23, 2018, 08:46:37 PM
The best "Richard Smith" can manage is a false equivalence to Lincoln, when nobody can place Oswald anywhere near that window at that time with that rifle.

He talks about mountains of evidence, but never seems to get around to enumerating what that mountain of evidence consists of.  I wonder why that is?  Could it be because all he has is his empty rhetoric?
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Richard Smith on July 24, 2018, 03:11:29 PM
I am just highlighting the absurdity of John's contrarian approach to this case by applying it to other situations.  By his idiotic standard, no one actually saw Lincoln shot by Booth.  They just heard a shot, immediately looked in that direction and saw Booth pointing a pistol at Lincoln's head.  Thus, John would take issue with anyone characterizing that as seeing Booth shoot Lincoln.  Implying that someone else could be the responsible party.  He has made that absurd argument in the Tippit situation as well.  It is very humorous to see him dance like a circus monkey at the absurdity of his own logic when applied outside his fantasy JFK narrative.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Royell Storing on July 24, 2018, 04:12:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I am just highlighting the absurdity of John's contrarian approach to this case by applying it to other situations.  By his idiotic standard, no one actually saw Lincoln shot by Booth.  They just heard a shot, immediately looked in that direction and saw Booth pointing a pistol at Lincoln's head.  Thus, John would take issue with anyone characterizing that as seeing Booth shoot Lincoln.  Implying that someone else could be the responsible party.  He has made that absurd argument in the Tippit situation as well.  It is very humorous to see him dance like a circus monkey at the absurdity of his own logic when applied outside his fantasy JFK narrative.

         Brush up on your history. There were other people/eyewitnesses inside the booth that did see Booth, the gun, etc. Major Rathbone even grappled with Booth and received a serious slashing during their altercation which occurred before Booth bailed from the balcony.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 24, 2018, 04:37:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I am just highlighting the absurdity of John's contrarian approach to this case by applying it to other situations.  By his idiotic standard, no one actually saw Lincoln shot by Booth.

That's not my idiotic standard, that your idiotic false equivalence.  Nobody heard a shot and saw Oswald with a gun pointing at JFK's head.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Richard Smith on July 24, 2018, 09:03:26 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
         Brush up on your history. There were other people/eyewitnesses inside the booth that did see Booth, the gun, etc. Major Rathbone even grappled with Booth and received a serious slashing during their altercation which occurred before Booth bailed from the balcony.

History goes out the window with John.  Follow along.  No one saw Booth pull the trigger.  There is overwhelming evidence that he did so - just as in the case of Oswald.  But using John's idiotic logic no one witnessed Booth shoot Lincoln.  They heard a gun shot.  Looked in that direction and saw Booth with a gun.  That doesn't rule out possibilities like Lincoln committing suicide and Booth picking up the gun or a shot being fired elsewhere in Ford's Theatre (or whatever else can be dreamed up with a contrarians license to imply baseless ad hoc explanations to counter the obvious conclusion).  John takes issue with the logical inference that this factual scenario can be characterized as someone witnessing Booth shoot Lincoln.  Just as he takes issue with characterizing witnesses as having seen Oswald shoot Tippit when they see Oswald holding a gun an instant after the shots were fired.  He also takes issue with characterizing anyone as having witnessed shots being fired with the rifle in the 6th floor window even though witnesses saw a rifle pointed at the JFK motorcade just an instant after hearing the shots (i.e. because they were not looking at the rifle at the exact moment it was fired).  I believe that scenario is sufficient to accurately characterize that situation as witnessing a shooting.  John does not although he apparently has a dimwitted recognition of the absurdity of his "logic" as applied to other contexts since he dances away from it like a circus monkey when it doesn't fit his desired conclusion.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 24, 2018, 09:22:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
History goes out the window with John.  Follow along.  No one saw Booth pull the trigger.  There is overwhelming evidence that he did so - just as in the case of Oswald.  But using John's idiotic logic no one witnessed Booth shoot Lincoln.  They heard a gun shot.  Looked in that direction and saw Booth with a gun.

So who looked in that direction and saw Oswald with a gun, "Richard"?  Who did Oswald then immediately grapple with and stab?  Who saw Oswald leap down from the window and yell "Sic Semper Tyrannis"?  If you don't understand the difference then you're hopeless.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on July 26, 2018, 07:26:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So who looked in that direction and saw Oswald with a gun, "Richard"?  Who did Oswald then immediately grapple with and stab?  Who saw Oswald leap down from the window and yell "Sic Semper Tyrannis"?  If you don't understand the difference then you're hopeless.
So what you are saying is that a case based on circumstantial evidence can never be made out.  Unless you have multiple surviving eyewitnesses to a murder or a video of the murder, no one can ever determine who the murderer was.  That is not something reasonable people would ever agree on.

In this case, the circumstantial evidence against Oswald, which includes what he did after the assassination, is overwhelming.  Even without the evidence that Oswald attempted to kill General Walker (which would almost certainly be admitted as similar-fact evidence) the evidence leads to only one reasonable conclusion.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 26, 2018, 07:34:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So what you are saying is that a case based on circumstantial evidence can never be made out.

I didn't say never.  But not when there is just a small amount of circumstantial evidence that is all weak and tainted, no.

Quote
In this case, the circumstantial evidence against Oswald, which includes what he did after the assassination, is overwhelming.

All I can say is, you're easily overwhelmed.

Quote
  Even without the evidence that Oswald attempted to kill General Walker (which would almost certainly be admitted as similar-fact evidence)

Let's talk about that evidence.  You have a secondhand report of something he supposedly told Marina, some photos of Walker's house, and an unsigned undated note in Russian that doesn't even mention General Walker.  What else?

Quote
the evidence leads to only one reasonable conclusion.

I completely agree.  The one reasonable conclusion is "undetermined".
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Bill Chapman on July 28, 2018, 08:02:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I didn't say never.  But not when there is just a small amount of circumstantial evidence that is all weak and tainted, no.

All I can say is, you're easily overwhelmed.

Let's talk about that evidence.  You have a secondhand report of something he supposedly told Marina, some photos of Walker's house, and an unsigned undated note in Russian that doesn't even mention General Walker.  What else?

I completely agree.  The one reasonable conclusion is "undetermined".

'undetermined'
You're getting warmer...
 8)

'The one reasonable conclusion'..
42 groups, 84 shooters, 214 conspirators await your blessing...
:'(
 
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Bill Chapman on July 28, 2018, 08:06:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So what you are saying is that a case based on circumstantial evidence can never be made out.  Unless you have multiple surviving eyewitnesses to a murder or a video of the murder, no one can ever determine who the murderer was.  That is not something reasonable people would ever agree on.

In this case, the circumstantial evidence against Oswald, which includes what he did after the assassination, is overwhelming.  Even without the evidence that Oswald attempted to kill General Walker (which would almost certainly be admitted as similar-fact evidence) the evidence leads to only one reasonable conclusion.

Mr. Oswald: I'm innocent
Mr. Iacoletti: Okay, you can go.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on July 30, 2018, 04:44:40 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I didn't say never.  But not when there is just a small amount of circumstantial evidence that is all weak and tainted, no.
Well, there is a large amount of circumstantial evidence. Each piece of evidence may not be persuasive. But that does not mean much. It is the cumulative effect of all the evidence that you have to consider.  You seem to be looking at each piece individually and rejecting each piece because you don't consider it to establish guilt or you think it may be tainted somehow.  No court or investigative body would ever do that. 

Quote
All I can say is, you're easily overwhelmed.
You cannot deny that the evidence actually exists. There is evidence that:
 
That is a lot of evidence.  You just think that it was all fabricated by persons unknown who conspired and arranged before hand to set up the "perfect" assassination and covered up by every FBI investigator and every member of the the WC and HSCA who looked into it.  It is either that, or the evidence is correct but it was set up as part of an elaborate plan by conspirators who wanted JFK dead and chose a buiilding next across from the Dallas police headquarters to do it.  Of course, the conspirators needed Oswald as a "patsy" to deflect the investigation into who really was behind it.  Oswald's murder was part of that plot to frame the patsy.  That murder, of course, was planned and executed flawlessly by Jack Ruby who on the morning of executing this flawless plan went down to the telegraph office at the time Oswald was supposed to be transferred, leaving his dog in the car, and sent $25 to one of his employees.  Then without any possibility of knowing that Oswald was going to be over an hour late in being moved, wandered down into the basement of the Dallas police building.

So let's not talk about the amount of circumstantial evidence being miniscule. What you really need to talk about is the theory that all the circumstantial evidence is either false because of an elaborate conspiracy involving Dallas police, FBI, doctors, ballistics experts, Parkland hospital staff, and the Warren Commission to fabricate and suppress evidence; or was part of an elaborate frame-up of their patsy Oswald, perfectly planned and executed by conspirators who then had Oswald silenced.  Where is the evidence of either?


Quote
Let's talk about that evidence.  You have a secondhand report of something he supposedly told Marina, some photos of Walker's house, and an unsigned undated note in Russian that doesn't even mention General Walker.  What else?
What is your explanation of the "note" left by Oswald for Marina?

Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 30, 2018, 06:12:00 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Mr. Oswald: I'm innocent
Mr. Iacoletti: Okay, you can go.

That was BS the first hundred times you made that lame joke, and still is.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 30, 2018, 07:16:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, there is a large amount of circumstantial evidence. Each piece of evidence may not be persuasive. But that does not mean much. It is the cumulative effect of all the evidence that you have to consider.  You seem to be looking at each piece individually and rejecting each piece because you don't consider it to establish guilt or you think it may be tainted somehow.

Evidence that is weak or tainted when combined is still weak and tainted.

 
Quote
the MC was the murder weapon

This is an assumption based solely on two mutilated fragments allegedly found in the limo, and the marks on them being lined up in Robert Frazier's mind, because they didn't line up under the microscope.  There's no evidence that these fragments ever caused a person's death or indeed ever went through any human being.

Quote
that it was fired on 22-11-63

No evidence of that.

Quote
that it was fired from the SN

Weak evidence of that.  The claim that any rifle was fired from the SN relies completely on Euins' claim to have seen a rifle being fired, and Norman's assumption that shots were not only above, but directly above.

Quote
that Oswald owned the MC

No evidence of that whatsoever.  At best you have unscientific handwriting "analysis" of two block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order blank that offers the opinion that he filled out the coupon.

Quote
that he took a large longish package to work that day that he told Buell Frazier was curtain rods

That's not evidence of murder or indeed of any crime.  Furthermore, the only the people who saw the "longish package" said it was a length that would have been too short to contain the alleged murder weapon.  So this is a complete bust as far as evidence is concerned.

Quote
that Oswald's palm print was on the MC and the boxes in the SN

You mean a partial palm print attributed to Oswald was found on an index card a week later.  And fingerprints on boxes is unremarkable given that his job was to get books out of boxes.

Quote
that Oswald was last seen before the assassination on 6th floor of the TSBD

That's not even true.  Carolyn Arnold said she saw him at either 12:15 or 12:25 in the second floor lunchroom.

Quote
that Oswald left the TSBD within minutes of the assassination without telling anyone and without permission

That's not evidence of murder.  It's not even evidence that he left without permission if he overheard Shelley saying something about there being no more work that day.

Quote
that Oswald was the only employee to leave the TSBD before an attendance check was made
that he was in such a hurry to get to his room that he took a taxi when the bus seemed to be taking too long

All these things dealing with Oswald's "behavior" are highly speculative, and not evidence of anything.  He also offered his cab to another person, which could be interpreted as not being in a hurry.

Quote
that he asked the taxi driver to let him off well past his rooming house and he than walked back to the house

Any conclusion based on this is speculative, and not evidence of anything.

Quote
that he seemed to be in a hurry and left quickly after getting his handgun and a jacket

There's no evidence that he "got his handgun" -- that's another one of many assumptions.  As for being in a "hurry", Earlene Roberts said she looked out the window and saw him just standing there at the bus stop.

Quote
that he shot Officer Tippit for no apparent reason when stopped on the street

Well now you're using your assumption that he shot someone as "evidence" that he shot someone else.

Quote
that he went into the Texas Theater without paying

Another assumption.  Julia Postal said that she wasn't sure if he bought a ticket or not.  I'm not sure how that's evidence of murder though.

Quote
that he said "Well, it's all over now"

Nobody else present at the theater heard him say that.

Quote
and reached for his gun out when being arrested

"Reaching" for a gun is a subjective assessment of one's hand movements.  Furthermore, they had no legal grounds for searching him or arresting him when they approached him in the theater.

Quote
that no curtain rods were ever found in the TSBD or in his room

That's not evidence of murder.

Quote
that fibres consistent with the green blanket in which Marina said that Oswald's rifle had been stored were found in the paper package found in the SN;

All "consistent with" means is that they could have come from that blanket.  Equally true is that they could not have come from that blanket.  Marina peeked in the end of that rolled up and tied up blanket and saw part of a wooden stock that she took to be a rifle about 6 weeks earlier.

Quote
and that according to Marina and corroborated by the handwritten note left by Oswald for Marina on the evening of April 10, 1963, Oswald had used the MC to attempt to assassinate General Walker by hiding himself in a place where he could shoot him in the head, then ditched the rifle and got away.

This is all speculative.  The unsigned undated note in Russian that doesn't mention Walker doesn't corroborate anything.  The bullet retrieved from Walker's house was described by the police as steel-jacketed, and Walker himself said that the mutilated fragment they later purported to be from his house was not the same one.  Also, Michael Paine testified that the Oswalds were having dinner at his house on the evening of April 10.

Quote
That is a lot of evidence.

It's a big list of things.  That doesn't make the things evidence of murder, or in many cases even true statements.

Quote
  You just think that it was all fabricated by persons unknown who conspired and arranged before hand to set up the "perfect" assassination and covered up by every FBI investigator and every member of the the WC and HSCA who looked into it.

When did I claim that anything on your list was "fabricated by persons unknown who conspired and arranged before hand to set up the "perfect" assassination and covered up by every FBI investigator and every member of the the WC and HSCA who looked into it"?

Quote
It is either that, or the evidence is correct but it was set up as part of an elaborate plan by conspirators who wanted JFK dead and chose a buiilding next across from the Dallas police headquarters to do it.

No, it's not either that or the other thing.  The evidence either conclusively shows that Oswald committed the crime in question or it does not.  And it does not.  One does not have to appeal to any kind of "elaborate plan" in order to point out that your evidence is weak, circumstantial and tainted.

Quote
  Of course, the conspirators needed Oswald as a "patsy" to deflect the investigation into who really was behind it.  Oswald's murder was part of that plot to frame the patsy.  That murder, of course, was planned and executed flawlessly by Jack Ruby who on the morning of executing this flawless plan went down to the telegraph office at the time Oswald was supposed to be transferred, leaving his dog in the car, and sent $25 to one of his employees.  Then without any possibility of knowing that Oswald was going to be over an hour late in being moved, wandered down into the basement of the Dallas police building.

I'm not sure how making up a story and putting "of course" in front of it somehow makes a different story actually true.

Quote
So let's not talk about the amount of circumstantial evidence being miniscule.

No, actually let's do talk about that, because that's what you are basing your entire argument upon.

Quote
What you really need to talk about is the theory that all the circumstantial evidence is either false because of an elaborate conspiracy involving Dallas police, FBI, doctors, ballistics experts, Parkland hospital staff, and the Warren Commission to fabricate and suppress evidence; or was part of an elaborate frame-up of their patsy Oswald, perfectly planned and executed by conspirators who then had Oswald silenced.  Where is the evidence of either?

Why do I have to talk about a theory that I never postulated or claimed was true?  Just so you can avoid talking about how weak your case is?

Quote
What is your explanation of the "note" left by Oswald for Marina?

My explanation?  I don't think an unsigned, undated note that doesn't mention Walker explains much of anything at all.  Nor do I think that unscientific handwriting "analysis"  -- particularly done by examiners who aren't familiar with the Russian language or the Cyrillic alphabet -- is particularly meaningful in the first place.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on July 31, 2018, 01:36:51 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ignorant claims do not constitute evidence, like
  • that he took a large longish package to work that day that he told Buell Frazier was curtain rods;
Frazier's testimony is evidence whether you or not you agree with it. It does not cease to be evidence because you think he was fabricating it. In any event, what evidence is there that he was lying?
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on July 31, 2018, 03:57:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
OK, I thought you had actual evidence of what Oswald said.

People lie to get out of trouble, you didn't know that?

$o all you have is an uncorroborated claim by Frazier who was in big trouble. Got it.
Well, the fact that Oswald carried a long wide package is corroborated by Linnie Mae Randle (LMR) and by the package itself found in the SN.  I suppose you are going to say that LMR was told that there was 3' x 6" package found in the TSBD before she made up her story of seeing Oswald with a 3' x 6" package in order to protect her brother??!!   I don't think the evidence supports such speculative finding or that it was even possible, given that LMR was questioned by the FBI on 22-Nov-63 a few hours after the assassination.

LMR also said that she asked Frazier why he was bringing Oswald home on a week night and she told the FBI that Frazier said it was because Oswald was fixing up his place and needed curtain rods. How does that help Frazier get out of the "big trouble" he was in. No one thought Frazier was in "big trouble" on 22-Nov-63 when her statement was taken.  It was only afterward when the FBI accused Frazier of having been an accomplice of Oswald's that he would have had any sense of being in trouble.

In any event, how does Frazier's evidence help him get out of "trouble" ie. being accused of helping Oswald?  If he is just making up a story and there really was no package, his story makes it worse because he was aware that Oswald took a large package to the TSBD.  Besides, Frazier was only "in trouble" if he thought he was guilty of something and the only thing he could be guilty of was helping Oswald murder JFK - which would only be the case if Oswald himself was guilty.  So this "consciousness of guilt" argument only works if Oswald was guilty.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 31, 2018, 04:41:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, it is corroborated by Linnie Mae Randle (LMR) and by the package itself found in the SN.

What makes you think that the bag that Frazier and Randle saw is the same bag as CE 142?  They both specifically said it was not.  Besides, there isn't any good reason to think that CE 142 was even in the "SN" when the "SN" was first discovered.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on July 31, 2018, 05:46:48 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Evidence that is weak or tainted when combined is still weak and tainted.
Being weak and/or tainted gives it a less than 100% chance of being accurate. Let's suppose there was a 50-50 chance that each piece of evidence might not be accurate.  There are over 50 individual facts that point to Oswald.  The chance that all of them are wrong is 250. Even if 50% of the evidence was wrong, that still leaves 25 pieces of evidence that point to Oswald. How is even that possible if Oswald was not guilty?  The only way that could be reasonably possible is if there was a broad conspiracy either to fabricate and suppress evidence or a conspiracy of the perpetrators to frame Oswald.  It is simply not possible for that much evidence to randomly point to an innocent Oswald

 
Quote
This is an assumption based solely on two mutilated fragments allegedly found in the limo, and the marks on them being lined up in Robert Frazier's mind, because they didn't line up under the microscope.  There's no evidence that these fragments ever caused a person's death or indeed ever went through any human being.

No evidence of that.

Weak evidence of that.  The claim that any rifle was fired from the SN relies completely on Euins' claim to have seen a rifle being fired, and Norman's assumption that shots were not only above, but directly above.

No evidence of that whatsoever.  At best you have unscientific handwriting "analysis" of two block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order blank that offers the opinion that he filled out the coupon.

That's not evidence of murder or indeed of any crime.  Furthermore, the only the people who saw the "longish package" said it was a length that would have been too short to contain the alleged murder weapon.  So this is a complete bust as far as evidence is concerned.

You mean a partial palm print attributed to Oswald was found on an index card a week later.  And fingerprints on boxes is unremarkable given that his job was to get books out of boxes.

That's not even true.  Carolyn Arnold said she saw him at either 12:15 or 12:25 in the second floor lunchroom.

That's not evidence of murder.  It's not even evidence that he left without permission if he overheard Shelley saying something about there being no more work that day.

All these things dealing with Oswald's "behavior" are highly speculative, and not evidence of anything.  He also offered his cab to another person, which could be interpreted as not being in a hurry.

Any conclusion based on this is speculative, and not evidence of anything.

There's no evidence that he "got his handgun" -- that's another one of many assumptions.  As for being in a "hurry", Earlene Roberts said she looked out the window and saw him just standing there at the bus stop.

Well now you're using your assumption that he shot someone as "evidence" that he shot someone else.

Another assumption.  Julia Postal said that she wasn't sure if he bought a ticket or not.  I'm not sure how that's evidence of murder though.

Nobody else present at the theater heard him say that.

"Reaching" for a gun is a subjective assessment of one's hand movements.  Furthermore, they had no legal grounds for searching him or arresting him when they approached him in the theater.

That's not evidence of murder.

All "consistent with" means is that they could have come from that blanket.  Equally true is that they could not have come from that blanket.  Marina peeked in the end of that rolled up and tied up blanket and saw part of a wooden stock that she took to be a rifle about 6 weeks earlier.

This is all speculative.  The unsigned undated note in Russian that doesn't mention Walker doesn't corroborate anything.  The bullet retrieved from Walker's house was described by the police as steel-jacketed, and Walker himself said that the mutilated fragment they later purported to be from his house was not the same one.  Also, Michael Paine testified that the Oswalds were having dinner at his house on the evening of April 10.

It's a big list of things.  That doesn't make the things evidence of murder, or in many cases even true statements.

When did I claim that anything on your list was "fabricated by persons unknown who conspired and arranged before hand to set up the "perfect" assassination and covered up by every FBI investigator and every member of the the WC and HSCA who looked into it"?

No, it's not either that or the other thing.  The evidence either conclusively shows that Oswald committed the crime in question or it does not.  And it does not.  One does not have to appeal to any kind of "elaborate plan" in order to point out that your evidence is weak, circumstantial and tainted.

I'm not sure how making up a story and putting "of course" in front of it somehow makes a different story actually true.

No, actually let's do talk about that, because that's what you are basing your entire argument upon.

Why do I have to talk about a theory that I never postulated or claimed was true?  Just so you can avoid talking about how weak your case is?

My explanation?  I don't think an unsigned, undated note that doesn't mention Walker explains much of anything at all.  Nor do I think that unscientific handwriting "analysis"  -- particularly done by examiners who aren't familiar with the Russian language or the Cyrillic alphabet -- is particularly meaningful in the first place.
Again, all you are doing in suggesting that each of these bodies of evidence is wrong is to make the case that there was a conspiracy either to fabricate or suppress evidence by law enforcement and the WC or by conspirators to frame Oswald for the assassination.  It is impossible, as you suggest, that this evidence is all wrong by random chance.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on July 31, 2018, 05:54:52 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What makes you think that the bag that Frazier and Randle saw is the same bag as CE 142?  They both specifically said it was not.  Besides, there isn't any good reason to think that CE 142 was even in the "SN" when the "SN" was first discovered.
The probability that they randomly made up a story that was consistent with the physical evidence found at the scene is so miniscule that it is simply impossible in real life.  So we can be confident that they saw a longish paper package being carried by Oswald.  Whether they could identify this particular package is a separate issue and does not mean they did not see what they said they saw: i.e. even though they did not think CE142 was the package they saw Oswald carry, they still maintained they saw Oswald carry a longish package that morning.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 31, 2018, 06:08:31 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Being weak and/or tainted gives it a less than 100% chance of being accurate. Let's suppose there was a 50-50 chance that each piece of evidence might not be accurate.  There are over 50 individual facts that point to Oswald.

 BS:

If you think there are 50 individual facts that point to Oswald being the killer of JFK, then name them.  As we saw in your last post, many of the things you listed weren't evidence of anything other than your own speculation.  And the rest are conclusions that aren't well supported by the actual evidence.  It's not a matter of the evidence not being accurate, it's a matter of your conclusions about the evidence not being justified.  For example you claimed that there is evidence that the C2766 rifle was fired on Nov 22, 1963 but provided no evidence to support this claim.  No conspiracy is necessary to point out that your argument is fallacious.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 31, 2018, 06:11:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The probability that they randomly made up a story that was consistent with the physical evidence found at the scene is so miniscule that it is simply impossible in real life.  So we can be confident that they saw a longish paper package being carried by Oswald.  Whether they could identify this particular package is a separate issue and does not mean they did not see what they said they saw: i.e. even though they did not think CE142 was the package they saw Oswald carry, they still maintained they saw Oswald carry a longish package that morning.

That doesn't answer the question.  What makes you think that the bag that Frazier and Randle saw is the same bag as CE 142?
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Bill Chapman on July 31, 2018, 06:53:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That was BS the first hundred times you made that lame joke, and still is.

Boo-hoo
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Bill Chapman on July 31, 2018, 07:03:43 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That doesn't answer the question.  What makes you think that the bag that Frazier and Randle saw is the same bag as CE 142?

 ::)

What makes you think BWF and LMR didn't 'forget' what CE 142 looked like? Bueller delivered the prime suspect to work, FFS.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 31, 2018, 07:33:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
::)

What makes you think BWF and LMR didn't 'forget' what CE 142 looked like? Bueller delivered the prime suspect to work, FFS.

In other words, you have no reason to think that the bag that Frazier and Randle saw is the same bag as CE 142, other than that you want it to be.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on July 31, 2018, 08:50:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
BS:

If you think there are 50 individual facts that point to Oswald being the killer of JFK, then name them.  As we saw in your last post, many of the things you listed weren't evidence of anything other than your own speculation.  And the rest are conclusions that aren't well supported by the actual evidence.  It's not a matter of the evidence not being accurate, it's a matter of your conclusions about the evidence not being justified.  For example you claimed that there is evidence that the C2766 rifle was fired on Nov 22, 1963 but provided no evidence to support this claim.  No conspiracy is necessary to point out that your argument is fallacious.
There are actually at least 52 points as pointed out by Vincent Bugliosi. 

When you argue, for example, that the C2766 did not belong to Oswald because the evidence is weak, you have to challenge at least half a dozen individual pieces of evidence that all point to Oswald, including the fact that he had the AJ Hidell ID card on his person when arrested, the evidence that it was mailed to A. Hidell to the post box that Oswald is connected to, that it arrived before the attempt on Gen. Walker, that it was identical to the rifle seen in the backyard photos, that it was found on the floor on which Oswald was last seen etc.  It is impossible that those facts just happened by chance to point to a totally innocent Oswald. If Oswald was innocent, there must have been an enormous conspiracy to frame him.

So, absent such a conspiracy, C2766 belonged to Oswald and C2766 fired CE399.  Either draw the obvious and only conclusion on that evidence or find evidence of the enormous conspiracy.  It is that simple. 

And that is just one point.  There are another 51 of those points.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 31, 2018, 09:33:26 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There are actually at least 52 points as pointed out by Vincent Bugliosi. 

I said "evidence", not "points".

Quote
When you argue, for example, that the C2766 did not belong to Oswald because the evidence is weak

I'm saying that you haven't established through evidence that C2766 belonged to Oswald.

Quote
, you have to challenge at least half a dozen individual pieces of evidence that all point to Oswald,

But you don't have half a dozen individual pieces of evidence that C2766 belonged to Oswald.

Quote
including the fact that he had the AJ Hidell ID card on his person when arrested,

But did he?  What's your evidence for that?  Nobody is on record of ever mentioning the Hidell ID until after the Klein's order turned up.

Quote
the evidence that it was mailed to A. Hidell to the post box that Oswald is connected to, that it arrived before the attempt on Gen. Walker,

What are you talking about?  There's no evidence that any rifle was mailed to that PO Box or that it ever arrived there, or that it was picked up by Oswald or anyone else.

Quote
that it was identical to the rifle seen in the backyard photos,

Identical?  No evidence of that.

Quote
that it was found on the floor on which Oswald was last seen etc.

I already pointed out to you that this was not where Oswald was last seen.  What's the point of discussing anything with someone who ignores every response and just repeats the misinformation?

Quote
  It is impossible that those facts just happened by chance to point to a totally innocent Oswald.

You're getting ahead of yourself.  How do any of these "facts" show that Oswald killed somebody?

Quote
So, absent such a conspiracy, C2766 belonged to Oswald and C2766 fired CE399.

Ok, since you have been unable to show that C2766 belonged to Oswald, let's see your evidence that CE 399 had anything to do with the assassination.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on August 01, 2018, 01:54:29 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I said "evidence", not "points"
I'm saying that you haven't established through evidence that C2766 belonged to Oswald.
Well, you said "facts" and I said "facts".  A fact may be established by several pieces of evidence.  If you want to show that a conclusion of fact should not be drawn, you have to show that many if not all of those pieces of evidence are wrong. 

Bugliosi refers to such things as: Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was the murder weapon;  Oswald was the only employee at the Book Depository Building who fled the building after the assassination;  Forty-five minutes later, he shoots and kills Officer J. D. Tippit, Dallas Police Department; that murder bore the signature of a man in desperate flight from some awful deed; thirty minutes later at the Texas Theater he resists arrest, pulls a gun on the arresting officer; during his interrogation, Oswald told one provable lie after another, showing a consciousness of guilt.   Each of these facts are established by many pieces of evidence.
Quote
But you don't have half a dozen individual pieces of evidence that C2766 belonged to Oswald.
Yes I do.  I have the BY photos, the Klein's purchase records and shipping records; the post office records, the evidence of Marina; the green fibres in the paper bag, his palm prints on the stock; the fact that no other MC rifle was ever found in Oswald's possessions.  And that requires more than just 7 pieces of evidence.  For example, there is a whole lot of evidence just to establish that the BY photos were taken by Marina and were not altered. And that is not all.  You also have the evidence that he fired his MC at Gen. Walker and the bullets from Walker's home are consistent with the riflings on bullets fired by C2766.   All this evidence together establishes that C2766 belonged to Oswald.  One has to ask: how does all of this evidence fit together so consistently if they are all wrong?  And that is just one point.

Quote
But did he?  What's your evidence for that?  Nobody is on record of ever mentioning the Hidell ID until after the Klein's order turned up.

What are you talking about?  There's no evidence that any rifle was mailed to that PO Box or that it ever arrived there, or that it was picked up by Oswald or anyone else.

Identical?  No evidence of that.
Sure there is.  The order was in an envelope from A. Hidell with a return address of Box 2915 Dallas Texas and the envelope was stamped by Kleins stating that the order was filled and shipped to that address.  It was done in the ordinary course of business for Kleins. Business records are admissible for the purpose of establishing those facts. Do you think that in the ordinary course of business someone at Klein's is going to remember actually putting postage on that parcel and putting it in the mail?

Quote

You're getting ahead of yourself.  How do any of these "facts" show that Oswald killed somebody?

Ok, since you have been unable to show that C2766 belonged to Oswald, let's see your evidence that CE 399 had anything to do with the assassination.
The evidence is that it was found on Connally's stretcher. In any event, it was found by a Parkland nurse.  So it was either part of the assassination or part of a huge conspiracy. Unless you have evidence of the conspiracy, the evidence that it was fired by c2766 leads inexorably to the conclusion that it fired by C2766 as one of the three shots that were made during the assassination.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 01, 2018, 06:38:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, you said "facts" and I said "facts".  A fact may be established by several pieces of evidence.  If you want to show that a conclusion of fact should not be drawn, you have to show that many if not all of those pieces of evidence are wrong.

No, all I have to do is show that the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the evidence.  It's a fact that Oswald left his wedding ring behind.  It's not a fact that he did so because he was planning to shoot the president.
 
Quote
Bugliosi refers to such things as: Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was the murder weapon;

You're already off the rails when you say "Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano rifle".  That's an assumption, not a fact.

Quote
  Oswald was the only employee at the Book Depository Building who fled the building after the assassination;

Define "fled".  That's a value judgment, not a fact.  He certainly left and didn't return, which is true for other employees as well.

Quote
  Forty-five minutes later, he shoots and kills Officer J. D. Tippit, Dallas Police Department;

Again, you're assuming that he killed somebody else to demonstrate that he killed JFK.  That doesn't follow.

Quote
that murder bore the signature of a man in desperate flight from some awful deed;

"bore the signature"?  What on earth does that mean?  You could also say that Tippit's murder "bore the signature" of a professional hit man -- rapid shooting from the hip.

Quote
thirty minutes later at the Texas Theater he resists arrest,

They had no grounds for arrest, nor did they tell him he was under arrest, hence he could not by definition have "resisted arrest".  Also the arrest report box for "resisted" was not even checked.

Quote
pulls a gun on the arresting officer;

That's flat out false.  Even by McDonald's account, he merely "went for it".  Whatever that means.  What does this have to do with Kennedy anyway?

Quote
during his interrogation, Oswald told one provable lie after another,

Really?  Name them.  Along with your proof that they are lies.

Quote
   Each of these facts are established by many pieces of evidence.Yes I do.  I have the BY photos,

How do the backyard photos tell you who killed Kennedy?

Quote
the Klein's purchase records and shipping records;

There are no shipping records.  How do  Klein's purchase records tell you who killed Kennedy?

Quote
the post office records,

What post office records?

Quote
the evidence of Marina;

What evidence of Marina?

Quote
the green fibres in the paper bag,

What do these fibers that can't even be tied to any specific item tell you about who killed Kennedy?

Quote
his palm prints on the stock;

You're confused.  There were no discernible prints on any stock.

Quote
the fact that no other MC rifle was ever found in Oswald's possessions.

How does that fact tell you who killed Kennedy?  The clothing in the backyard photos were never found either.  Does that mean he never had them?

Quote
  And that requires more than just 7 pieces of evidence.  For example, there is a whole lot of evidence just to establish that the BY photos were taken by Marina and were not altered.

You mean the same Marina who said she took one photo with a camera that you hold up to your face?  No wait, I guess it was 2 photos.  No, three.

But lets say that Marina took all the photos and they were not altered.  How does that tell you who killed Kennedy?

Quote
And that is not all.  You also have the evidence that he fired his MC at Gen. Walker

What is your evidence that Oswald fired an MC at Gen. Walker?

Quote
and the bullets from Walker's home are consistent with the riflings on bullets fired by C2766.

What bullets?  You mean the mutilated steel-jacketed bullet that the police said they found there?

Quote
   All this evidence together establishes that C2766 belonged to Oswald.

Actually none of it establishes that C2766 belonged to Oswald.

Quote
  One has to ask: how does all of this evidence fit together so consistently if they are all wrong?

Who said they're all wrong?  I'm asking you how any of this demonstrates that Oswald killed Kennedy.

Quote
Sure there is.  The order was in an envelope from A. Hidell with a return address of Box 2915 Dallas Texas and the envelope was stamped by Kleins stating that the order was filled and shipped to that address.

It was?  Show me that stamped envelope.

Quote
  It was done in the ordinary course of business for Kleins. Business records are admissible for the purpose of establishing those facts.

What "business record" shows that a package ever went through the US mail to this address?  Klein's would have had to pay postage for this shipment, right?  Where is the record of that payment?

Quote
Do you think that in the ordinary course of business someone at Klein's is going to remember actually putting postage on that parcel and putting it in the mail?

How do you know it went through the mail then?

Quote

The evidence is that it was found on Connally's stretcher.

The guy who found it disagrees with you.

Quote
In any event, it was found by a Parkland nurse.

No it wasn't.  I don't think you're familiar with the evidence in this case very well at all.

Quote
  So it was either part of the assassination or part of a huge conspiracy.

How does that follow?  A bullet with a pointed tip was found on an unrelated stretcher at Parkland Hospital.  What reason do you have for assuming it was related to the assassination of JFK?  Why does it take a "huge conspiracy" for an unrelated bullet to be found at a hospital?

Quote
Unless you have evidence of the conspiracy, the evidence that it was fired by c2766 leads inexorably to the conclusion that it fired by C2766 as one of the three shots that were made during the assassination.

You don't actually know that any of the shots in Dealey Plaza were fired by C2766.  That's an assumption too.  Given that you can't demonstrate that CE399 was the bullet found on the stretcher or that CE399 ever went through Kennedy, Connally, or any human body at any time, your assumption that it was involved in the assassination is completely without merit.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on August 01, 2018, 10:21:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
False claim: fact. Get back when you understand "fact". You mean the bag in the evidence photos?
I mean the bag that LMR and Frazier both said they saw.  They both said they did not pay much attention to the details.  Frazier never said that the bag from the SN was not the same bag. He just thought there were some differences.  But when he says things like this it is not surprising that he could not identify the bag:

(2 H 229): "Mr. FRAZIER. Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn’t pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn’t pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn’t pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.
(2 H 239): "Mr. FRAZIER. Well, like I say, I didn’t notice that much about it as I didn’t see it. very much.
(2 H 239): "Mr. FRAZIER. Well, you know, like I was saying, when I glanced at it, but I say from what I saw I didn’t see very much of it, I say the bag wasn’t open or anything like it where you can see the contents.

And if you can figure out what Frazier meant by this exchange, be my guest:

(2 H 240): "Mr. BALL. The color of this bag, the colored bag, has not been treated. Take a look at it. Is that similar to the color of the bag you saw in the back seat of your car that morning?
Mr. FRAZIER. It would be, surely it could have been, and it couldn’t have been. Like I say, see, you know this color, either one of these colors, is very similar to the type of paper that. you can get out of a store or anything like that, and so I say it could have been and then it couldn’t have been.

Quote
You supposed wrong.
So what is the matter with their evidence (LMR and Frazier saying they saw Oswald with a long paper package)?

Quote
Good, that's not what I speculate.
Ok. So what do you speculate?  I prefer evidence.

Quote
Hearsay. Frazier's claim uncorroborated.
It is not hearsay that Oswald said the package contained curtain rods.  It is actual evidence that he said it.  If the purpose of presenting that evidence was to prove that the package contained actual curtain rods, it would be hearsay and inadmissible for that purpose. Somehow, I don't think the FBI wanted to use his statement to prove that the package contained curtain rods - unless perhaps Oswald really meant curtain rods in the sense of a certain WWI vintage 40" Italian metal/wood variety that could also be used for shooting bullets. Frazier's claim that Oswald told him it was curtain rods is not corroborated by independent evidence, but if you are suggesting that he was lying because he was under pressure from the police or FBI, that suggestion is rebutted by his previous statement to LMR that Oswald told him it was curtain rods that morning, before anything had happened.  So the question is: why would he lie about it to his sister?

Quote
Your IQ in the two digit range? LHO was arrested. Who supplied the rifle? If LHO didn't bring the rifle to work after his visit to Irving who might have supplied that rifle? However, if LHO brought a long package with him in the car...
I guess it must be because I can't figure out what you are getting at. Who are you suggesting supplied the rifle? And how did they get it to the TSBD and how did they get the only rifle that could be tied to Oswald, which happened to be one that was purchased and shipped 8 months earlier?
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 01, 2018, 10:59:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Frazier never said that the bag from the SN was not the same bag.

Yes he did.

(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/frazier-anderton-memo.png)

Quote
Ok. So what do you speculate?  I prefer evidence.

No you don't.  You're just speculating that the bag Frazier saw is CE 142.

Quote
Frazier's claim that Oswald told him it was curtain rods is not corroborated by independent evidence, but if you are suggesting that he was lying because he was under pressure from the police or FBI, that suggestion is rebutted by his previous statement to LMR that Oswald told him it was curtain rods that morning, before anything had happened.  So the question is: why would he lie about it to his sister?

Does anyone else find this story the slightest bit plausible?

Mr. BALL. Well, did you mention to Wesley that night or did you ask Wesley that night how Lee happened to come home on Thursday?
Mrs. RANDLE. I might have asked him.
Mr. BALL. Do you remember anything about curtain rods?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes.
Mr. BALL. What do you remember about that?
Mrs. RANDLE. He had told Wesley--
Mr. BALL. Tell me what Wesley told you.
Mrs. RANDLE. What Wesley told me. That Lee had rode home with him to get some curtain rods from Mrs. Paine to fix up his apartment.
Mr. BALL. When did Wesley tell you that?
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, that afternoon I suppose I would have had to ask him, he wouldn't have just told me.
Mr. BALL. You mean that night?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. After he came home?
Mrs. RANDLE. I was on my way to the store. So I probably asked him when I got back what he was doing riding home with him on Thursday afternoon.
Mr. BALL. You think that was the time that Wesley told you-
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; after I got back home.
Mr. BALL. That Lee had come home to get some curtain rods?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, I am sure he told me that.

Why would she have wanted to know the specific reason Lee was with him on Thursday?  And why is she waffling so much about it?
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on August 01, 2018, 11:33:45 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No, all I have to do is show that the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the evidence.  It's a fact that Oswald left his wedding ring behind.  It's not a fact that he did so because he was planning to shoot the president.
 
You're already off the rails when you say "Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano rifle".  That's an assumption, not a fact.

Define "fled".  That's a value judgment, not a fact.  He certainly left and didn't return, which is true for other employees as well.

Again, you're assuming that he killed somebody else to demonstrate that he killed JFK.  That doesn't follow.

"bore the signature"?  What on earth does that mean?  You could also say that Tippit's murder "bore the signature" of a professional hit man -- rapid shooting from the hip.

They had no grounds for arrest, nor did they tell him he was under arrest, hence he could not by definition have "resisted arrest".  Also the arrest report box for "resisted" was not even checked.

That's flat out false.  Even by McDonald's account, he merely "went for it".  Whatever that means.  What does this have to do with Kennedy anyway?

Really?  Name them.  Along with your proof that they are lies.

How do the backyard photos tell you who killed Kennedy?

There are no shipping records.  How do  Klein's purchase records tell you who killed Kennedy?

What post office records?

What evidence of Marina?

What do these fibers that can't even be tied to any specific item tell you about who killed Kennedy?

You're confused.  There were no discernible prints on any stock.

How does that fact tell you who killed Kennedy?  The clothing in the backyard photos were never found either.  Does that mean he never had them?

You mean the same Marina who said she took one photo with a camera that you hold up to your face?  No wait, I guess it was 2 photos.  No, three.

But lets say that Marina took all the photos and they were not altered.  How does that tell you who killed Kennedy?

What is your evidence that Oswald fired an MC at Gen. Walker?

What bullets?  You mean the mutilated steel-jacketed bullet that the police said they found there?

Actually none of it establishes that C2766 belonged to Oswald.

Who said they're all wrong?  I'm asking you how any of this demonstrates that Oswald killed Kennedy.
None of it does individually, just like one piece of 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle doesn't give you the picture. But altogether they establish a crystal clear portrait of Oswald pressing the trigger of the MC at JFK. Maybe there are a few pixels missing, but that picture still is unmistakeably Oswald.

Quote
It was?  Show me that stamped envelope.
Here it is: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo2/jfk4/4p332f504.gif (http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo2/jfk4/4p332f504.gif)

Quote
What "business record" shows that a package ever went through the US mail to this address?  Klein's would have had to pay postage for this shipment, right?  Where is the record of that payment? How do you know it went through the mail then?
It is established by the evidence from Kleins of their system for processing orders.  According to that system, mail orders were processed and the ordered item(s) were shipped by mail to the address stated on the order.   The evidence of the order and Kleins' stamp on it (showing the order was processed in the normal course) establishes that it went through that process. We also know that the package was shipped because it arrived at the Dallas post office and was picked up 5 days later.   Are you serious about this or just making up arguments for the sake of being argumentative?

Quote
How does that follow?  A bullet with a pointed tip was found on an unrelated stretcher at Parkland Hospital.  What reason do you have for assuming it was related to the assassination of JFK?  Why does it take a "huge conspiracy" for an unrelated bullet to be found at a hospital?
You seem to be overlooking that a rifle was found in the TSBD and CE399 was a bullet that was fired from that rifle. CE399 either ended up in the President's car that was shot and was discovered later on Connally's stretcher at Parkland or it was planted by a conspirator at Parkland (or flawlessly fabricated by persons connected with the investigation).  Unless it was planted or fabricated (please provide at least a scintilla of evidence of that) it had to have been fired during the assassination.

Quote
You don't actually know that any of the shots in Dealey Plaza were fired by C2766.  That's an assumption too.  Given that you can't demonstrate that CE399 was the bullet found on the stretcher or that CE399 ever went through Kennedy, Connally, or any human body at any time, your assumption that it was involved in the assassination is completely without merit.
You don't seem to want to apply common sense to objective facts.  The bullet CE399 was found in Parkland. It had been fired by C2766. What is your explanation as to how that could occur if it was not part of the assassination or if it was not planted as part of an elaborate conspiracy.  When I said "could occur" I mean in the real world, not some make-believe fantasy.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 01, 2018, 11:57:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
None of it does individually, just like one piece of 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle doesn't give you the picture. But altogether they establish a crystal clear portrait of Oswald pressing the trigger on the MC. Maybe there are a few pixels missing, but that picture still is unmistakeably Oswald.

So you keep claiming.  But if none of the jigsaw pieces fit then you get no picture at all.

Quote
It is established by the evidence from Kleins that their system for processing orders.  According to that system, mail orders were processed and the ordered item(s) were shipped to the address stated on the order by mail.

The "system" (at least as expressed by the VP who never actually performed any of the steps in "the system") said nothing about how packages were delivered to the post office, postage paid, or any documentation of when this was done.  You would think the post office would also have a paper trail for packages that entered their system.  Otherwise, what would they do if a package was claimed lost or stolen?

Quote
   The evidence of the order and Kleins' stamp on it (showing the order was processed in the normal course)

I'm still trying to figure out what envelope or order you think has a Klein's stamp on it.  Please post a picture of it.

[edit:  I see you edited your post to add a link to a picture of CE 773.  Where do you see a "Klein's stamp showing that the order was processed" anywhere in that picture?  I don't think you really understand what you are looking at.]

Quote
We also know that the package was shipped because it arrived at the Dallas post office and was picked up 5 days later.

We do?  Do you have anything at all that demonstrates that this package arrived at the Dallas post office and was picked up 5 days later?  I seriously don't know where you're getting this stuff.

Quote
You seem to be overlooking that a rifle was found in the TSBD and a bullet that was fired from that rifle ended up in the car that was shot at.

I'm not overlooking anything.  How exactly do you know that "a bullet" (sic) ended up in the car, and how do you know it was fired from that rifle?  Be specific.  And let's say for the sake of argument that this is all completely true without any doubt.  How does that tell you who pulled the trigger?

Quote
You don't seem to want to apply common sense to objective facts.

"Common sense" is what people appeal to when they don't have real evidence.

Quote
  The bullet CE399 was found in Parkland.

That's a matter of dispute among the people who actually handled the bullet found at Parkland.

Quote
It had been fired by C2766. What is your explanation as to how that could occur if it was not part of the assassination

This is the beginning of a circular argument.  CE 399 was part of the assassination because it was fired by C2766, and C2766 was the murder weapon because it fired CE 399.

Quote
  When I said "could occur" I mean in the real world, not some make-believe fantasy.

Your entire narrative is a make-believe fantasy, disguised as "common sense".
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 02, 2018, 05:30:11 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In other words, you have no reason to think that the bag that Frazier and Randle saw is the same bag as CE 142, other than that you want it to be.

Keep your 'in other words' to yourself
You clearly want that to be.

BWF clearly did not rule CE 142 out as the one he saw Dirty Harvey carrying
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 02, 2018, 05:41:47 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So you keep claiming.  But if none of the jigsaw pieces fit then you get no picture at all.

The "system" (at least as expressed by the VP who never actually performed any of the steps in "the system") said nothing about how packages were delivered to the post office, postage paid, or any documentation of when this was done.  You would think the post office would also have a paper trail for packages that entered their system.  Otherwise, what would they do if a package was claimed lost or stolen?

I'm still trying to figure out what envelope or order you think has a Klein's stamp on it.  Please post a picture of it.

[edit:  I see you edited your post to add a link to a picture of CE 773.  Where do you see a "Klein's stamp showing that the order was processed" anywhere in that picture?  I don't think you really understand what you are looking at.]

We do?  Do you have anything at all that demonstrates that this package arrived at the Dallas post office and was picked up 5 days later?  I seriously don't know where you're getting this stuff.

I'm not overlooking anything.  How exactly do you know that "a bullet" (sic) ended up in the car, and how do you know it was fired from that rifle?  Be specific.  And let's say for the sake of argument that this is all completely true without any doubt.  How does that tell you who pulled the trigger?

"Common sense" is what people appeal to when they don't have real evidence.

That's a matter of dispute among the people who actually handled the bullet found at Parkland.

This is the beginning of a circular argument.  CE 399 was part of the assassination because it was fired by C2766, and C2766 was the murder weapon because it fired CE 399.

Your entire narrative is a make-believe fantasy, disguised as "common sense".

'But if none of the jigsaw pieces fit then you get no picture at all'

Duh. Of course they don't fit for you, Sherlock. Certainly not the way you lot twist, mangle, bend, and chew on the individual pieces like two-year-old children.

 :D :D :D
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 02, 2018, 05:50:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Keep your 'in other words' to yourself
You clearly want that to be.

BWF clearly did not rule CE 142 out as the one he saw Dirty Harvey carrying

Yes he did.  Did you even look at the Anderton memo?
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 02, 2018, 05:51:37 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
'But if none of the jigsaw pieces fit then you get no picture at all'

Duh. Of course they don't fit for you, Sherlock. Certainly not the way you lot twist, mangle, bend, and chew on the individual pieces like two-year-old children.

 :D :D :D

Is this empty rhetoric supposed to prove your case?
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 02, 2018, 07:23:02 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes he did.  Did you even look at the Anderton memo?

Yeah

I also read Frazier saying under oath that it could or couldn't be the the sack he saw Oswald carrying. He didn't rule it out. Of course you lot ignore that which is inconvenient to your pet theories.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 02, 2018, 07:29:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Is this empty rhetoric supposed to prove your case?

Are your constant attempts to separate the pieces from the whole somehow supposed to prove something, other than that you are constantly attempting to separate the pieces from the whole?
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 02, 2018, 09:09:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are your constant attempts to separate the pieces from the whole somehow supposed to prove something, other than that you are constantly attempting to separate the pieces from the whole?

You have yet to explain how combining things that aren't evidence somehow turn into evidence.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 02, 2018, 09:14:43 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yeah

I also read Frazier saying under oath that it could or couldn't be the the sack he saw Oswald carrying. He didn't rule it out. Of course you lot ignore that which is inconvenient to your pet theories.

That's an interesting claim.  Would you care to quote where you think that Frazier said under oath that it could or couldn't be the the sack he saw Oswald carrying?
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 04, 2018, 06:39:27 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You have yet to explain how combining things that aren't evidence somehow turn into evidence.

You have yet to explain how ignoring context somehow proves anything other than that you ignoring context.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 06, 2018, 10:37:44 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You have yet to explain how ignoring context somehow proves anything other than that you ignoring context.

I'm not ignoring anything.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on August 07, 2018, 03:03:27 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Straw man, your "finding" does not exist. The evidence simply shows that LMR volunteered sighting of a long bag, invented or not.
And how is it that she could have invented her story about seeing Oswald with a long bag? 
Are you saying she already knew that the police had found a long bag in the SN with Oswald's palm prints on it?  Because that is the only reasonable possibility if she invented the story. 

Quote
Oh, and since you prefer evidence over speculation....how and when did the bag from the TSBD make it to Irving?
We don't have evidence of that, but it is obvious that he took it there.  Let's figure it out. Could Oswald not have cut some paper, folded it up and taken it with him to Irving on 21-Nov-63? Maybe hidden under his jacket  or shirt? Why not?

Quote
You´re confused again. Anything from LMR about what supposedly Oswald said is hearsay. Anything in evidence about curtains rods originate from Frazier and is uncorroborated.
LMR's evidence of what Oswald said is hearsay. But Frazier's evidence isn't.  And if you are going to accuse Frazier of making up his story, then the evidence of LMR of Frazier's previous consistent statement becomes admissible to rebut the imputation of a recent concoction.

Quote
But since you´re so interested in evidence:

Mr. BALL. Did you talk to Wesley about the fact that he had brought Lee home on this night?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir.

So who is lying?
Read all of LMR's evidence. She admitted later that she must have asked him because she did remember Frazier saying that Oswald told him about the curtain rods.

Quote
No problem you don´t get it.

John I. already dealt with your unsupported claim that Oswald owned C2766.

It´s obvious by now that you have NFI about the Klein´s evidence.
So how do you explain the documentation provided by Klein's showing that the order was processes and shipped? How do you explain the Klein's shipping order with the shipping date (20-Mar-63) and the initials showing it was sent?  Was that made up? How did it get on Klein's microfilm?
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on August 07, 2018, 02:46:17 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No, all I have to do is show that the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the evidence.  It's a fact that Oswald left his wedding ring behind.  It's not a fact that he did so because he was planning to shoot the president.
There is evidence that he was planning to shoot the President (i.e. the evidence that he shot the President and the evidence that it was obviously planned). Marina could only find one reason that he would do that: that he was not planning on ever returning (her 2013 letter that accompanied the sale of the ring).  It is not difficult to connect those dots.

Quote
You're already off the rails when you say "Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano rifle".  That's an assumption, not a fact.
You seem to use the word "assumption" for "evidence based conclusion".  There is evidence that he ordered C2766, that it was shipped to  Oswald's mail box, that it was not returned, that Oswald had his photo taken in the back yard shortly after the gun was shipped, and that Oswald used that rifle to shoot Gen. Walker.  That is sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to conclude that Oswald owned the MC.  You may not draw that conclusion. But your reluctance to conclude what other reasonable people would does not make it an assumption.

Quote
Define "fled".  That's a value judgment, not a fact.  He certainly left and didn't return, which is true for other employees as well.

Again, you're assuming that he killed somebody else to demonstrate that he killed JFK.  That doesn't follow.

"bore the signature"?  What on earth does that mean?  You could also say that Tippit's murder "bore the signature" of a professional hit man -- rapid shooting from the hip.

They had no grounds for arrest, nor did they tell him he was under arrest, hence he could not by definition have "resisted arrest".  Also the arrest report box for "resisted" was not even checked.

That's flat out false.  Even by McDonald's account, he merely "went for it".  Whatever that means.  What does this have to do with Kennedy anyway?

Really?  Name them.  Along with your proof that they are lies.
Bugliosi's words.

Quote
How do the backyard photos tell you who killed Kennedy?
Just one piece in the puzzle.

Quote
There are no shipping records.  How do  Klein's purchase records tell you who killed Kennedy?
Well, there is the shipping order that was initialed by the person who was responsible for shipping. What makes you think it was not shipped as the document says?

Quote
You're confused.  There were no discernible prints on any stock.
Well, there were prints that were consistent with Oswald's on a part of the gun covered by the stock.


Quote
What is your evidence that Oswald fired an MC at Gen. Walker?
Oswald's statements to Marina.

Quote
What bullets?  You mean the mutilated steel-jacketed bullet that the police said they found there?
Are you aware of some metallurgical analysis was conducted on the Walker bullet showing that it was steel?  You seem to require an awful lot of detailed evidence to support one little tiny fact in the narrative of Oswald's guilt but seem to be able to reach firm conclusions of contrary facts without any evidence at all.

Quote
Actually none of it establishes that C2766 belonged to Oswald.
Not to you.  But to other reasonable people, there is more than enough evidence to reach that conclusion.

Quote
What "business record" shows that a package ever went through the US mail to this address?  Klein's would have had to pay postage for this shipment, right?  Where is the record of that payment? How do you know it went through the mail then?
There is evidence that it was mailed 20-Mar-63 and there is evidence  from the post office that it would normally have arrived in Dallas the next day.   According to the post office system, a notice would have been placed in Oswald's box (2915).  Marina says Oswald bought a gun through the mail at about that time and took a picture of Oswald with the gun that is identical to the C2766 MC.  That is how we know it went through the mail.

Quote
How does that follow?  A bullet with a pointed tip was found on an unrelated stretcher at Parkland Hospital.  What reason do you have for assuming it was related to the assassination of JFK?  Why does it take a "huge conspiracy" for an unrelated bullet to be found at a hospital?
There is evidence that the bullet found at Parkland was CE399.  If someone who saw the bullet thought it was pointed, they were wrong.

Quote
You don't actually know that any of the shots in Dealey Plaza were fired by C2766.  That's an assumption too.  Given that you can't demonstrate that CE399 was the bullet found on the stretcher or that CE399 ever went through Kennedy, Connally, or any human body at any time, your assumption that it was involved in the assassination is completely without merit.
It is a conclusion based on evidence made by reasonable people, which you do not happen to agree with. That does not make it an assumption.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 07, 2018, 10:01:39 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And how is it that she could have invented her story about seeing Oswald with a long bag? 
Are you saying she already knew that the police had found a long bag in the SN with Oswald's palm prints on it?  Because that is the only reasonable possibility if she invented the story.


That's not the only reasonable possibility.  Nobody (including the police) knew that "the police had found a long bag in the SN with Oswald's palm prints on it".  Nobody knows that even now.

But BWF could have talked to LMR about the bag he saw between the time he left work and before he went to the hospital to visit his abusive stepfather.  And she could have decided to corroborate his story for whatever reason without having actually seen the bag in question.  At a minimum she embellished the account of seeing him put the bag in the bag seat of the car on the other side of the enclosed carport.

Quote
We don't have evidence of that, but it is obvious that he took it there.

LOL.  How is it "obvious" that LHO took CE 142 (or any other bag) from the TSBD to Irving?  Just because you think he did?

Quote
  Let's figure it out. Could Oswald not have cut some paper, folded it up and taken it with him to Irving on 21-Nov-63? Maybe hidden under his jacket  or shirt? Why not?

How did you leap from "it's possible" to "it's obvious"?

Quote
Read all of LMR's evidence. She admitted later that she must have asked him because she did remember Frazier saying that Oswald told him about the curtain rods.

So she had no idea how or when she got that information, but somehow that's evidence that she knew about the "curtain rods" the night before?

Quote
So how do you explain the documentation provided by Klein's showing that the order was processes and shipped?

There is no documentation showing that the order was shipped.

Quote
How do you explain the Klein's shipping order with the shipping date (20-Mar-63) and the initials showing it was sent?  Was that made up? How did it get on Klein's microfilm?

How does "PP" circled on a copy of an "order blank" show that a package ever actually went through the postal service?  And how do you know what is on Klein's microfilm?  It's "missing"!
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 07, 2018, 10:34:27 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There is evidence that he was planning to shoot the President (i.e. the evidence that he shot the President and the evidence that it was obviously planned).

Let's hear your "evidence that he shot the President" and "evidence that it was obviously planned" without any appeals to assumption.

Quote
Marina could only find one reason that he would do that: that he was not planning on ever returning (her 2013 letter that accompanied the sale of the ring).

Speculation is speculation no matter who is doing it.  Incidentally, I spent some time looking for the full text of this letter and was unable to find it.  Since you apparently have read it in order to summarize its contents, I would appreciate a link to it.  It's not that I don't trust your summaries.  Actually it IS that I don't trust your summaries.

Quote
  It is not difficult to connect those dots.

No, not when you have a predetermined conclusion and view every action through that filter.

Quote

You seem to use the word "assumption" for "evidence based conclusion".

No, I use "assumption" when the conclusion doesn't actually follow from the evidence.

Quote
  There is evidence that he ordered C2766,

Unscientific handwriting "analysis" of two block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2 inch order coupon from microfilm that is now "missing".

Quote
that it was shipped to  Oswald's mail box,

There's no evidence of any particular package being shipped to "Oswald's mail box".  And even if there was, you have no evidence that Oswald ever picked up such a package.

Quote
that it was not returned,

What's your evidence that it was not returned?  What's your evidence that it was actually delivered anywhere?

Quote
that Oswald had his photo taken in the back yard shortly after the gun was shipped,

How does a photo with an unidentifiable rifle tell you anything about that particular rifle?

Quote
and that Oswald used that rifle to shoot Gen. Walker.

Does C2766 shoot steel-jacketed bullets?

Quote
That is sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to conclude that Oswald owned the MC.

Everybody thinks his own conclusions are "reasonable".

Quote
  You may not draw that conclusion. But your reluctance to conclude what other reasonable people would does not make it an assumption.

No, what makes it is an assumption is that you are assuming that rifle got delivered to PO Box 2915.  You are assuming that Oswald picked it up.  You are assuming that it's that rifle in the photo, and you are assuming that Oswald shot at General Walker with that rifle.  There is no evidence for any of these assumptions.

Quote
Bugliosi's words.

That is your evidence that Oswald told "provable lies"?   :D

Quote
Just one piece in the puzzle.

The correct answer is that the backyard photos tell you nothing about who killed Kennedy.

Quote
Well, there is the shipping order that was initialed by the person who was responsible for shipping.

Really?  Whose initials do you think you see on the "shipping order"?  And what shipping order?  You ever wonder why that person wasn't called up to testify?

Quote
What makes you think it was not shipped as the document says?

What I think is irrelevant.  What is your evidence that such a package went through the postal service?

Quote
Well, there were prints that were consistent with Oswald's on a part of the gun covered by the stock.

No, there actually were not.  You really should learn the evidence so that you don't keep misrepresenting it.

Quote
Oswald's statements to Marina.

Marina said a lot of things.  Is that the only evidence you have that he shot at Walker?  Do you also believe he took a gun to see Nixon on a day that Nixon wasn't even in the area?

Quote
Are you aware of some metallurgical analysis was conducted on the Walker bullet showing that it was steel?

Are you aware of any evidence prior to 11/22/63 that claimed it was copper-jacketed?  Does anyone think this looks like steel?

(https://catalog.archives.gov/OpaAPI/media/305152/content/arcmedia/media/images/33/34/33-3339a.gif?download=true)

Walker said it wasn't the same bullet.  Why is "Marina said so" good enough for you, but not "Walker said so" or "Van Cleave & McElroy said so"? Special pleading?

Quote
Not to you.  But to other reasonable people, there is more than enough evidence to reach that conclusion.

But you haven't shown any evidence that he owned that rifle -- just a lot of handwaving.

Quote
There is evidence that it was mailed 20-Mar-63

There's no evidence that it was mailed at all.

Quote
and there is evidence  from the post office that it would normally have arrived in Dallas the next day.

What is this evidence?

Quote
   According to the post office system, a notice would have been placed in Oswald's box (2915).

Ok, where's the notice?

Quote
  Marina says Oswald bought a gun through the mail at about that time

Please cite.

Quote
and took a picture of Oswald with the gun that is identical to the C2766 MC.

On what basis did you decide that it's "identical"?

Quote
That is how we know it went through the mail.

Actually what we know is that you just made a bunch of unsupported claims.

Quote
There is evidence that the bullet found at Parkland was CE399.

What is this evidence?

Quote
  If someone who saw the bullet thought it was pointed, they were wrong.

Or you are.

Quote
It is a conclusion based on evidence made by reasonable people, which you do not happen to agree with. That does not make it an assumption.

No, it's a assumption because you haven't provided any supporting evidence that CE399 was involved in the assassination.  You are just assuming that it was because it fits your conclusion.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 08, 2018, 08:41:28 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
C2766 was shipped to Klein's by the supplier in February 1963.

Really?  The supplier disagrees with you.

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QhiWATIhMQk/T8-q6XpGM4I/AAAAAAAAAT0/XgsuPF9C0RE/s1600/63-10.jpeg)
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 08, 2018, 08:58:15 PM
Just once I'd like to see Andrew Mason acknowledge even one of the unsupported or outright false statements he has made in the course of this one forum thread.  So far I count 23.

1. There is evidence that the MC was the murder weapon
2. There is evidence that it was fired on 22-11-63
3. There is evidence that it was fired from the SN
4. There is evidence that Oswald owned the MC
5. Oswald was last seen before the assassination on 6th floor of the TSBD
6. Oswald was the only employee to leave the TSBD before an attendance check was made
7. Oswald left the rooming house quickly after getting his handgun and a jacket
8. The rifle was mailed to A. Hidell to the post box that Oswald is connected to,
9. It arrived before the attempt on Gen. Walker,
10. It was identical to the rifle seen in the backyard photos
11. At the Texas Theater Oswald resists arrest
12. pulls a gun on the arresting officer
13. During his interrogation, Oswald told one provable lie after another
14. Oswald's palm prints were on the stock
15. The envelope was stamped by Kleins stating that the order was filled
16. CE 399 was found on Connally's stretcher.
17. CE 399 was found by a Parkland nurse
18. Frazier never said that the bag from the SN was not the same bag.
19. C2766 arrived at the Dallas post office and was picked up 5 days later.
20. A bullet that was fired from that rifle ended up in the car that was shot at
21. There is the shipping order that was initialed by the person who was responsible for shipping
22. There were prints that were consistent with Oswald's on a part of the gun covered by the stock
23. Marina says Oswald bought a gun through the mail at about that time
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on August 09, 2018, 12:35:16 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Just once I'd like to see Andrew Mason acknowledge even one of the unsupported or outright false statements he has made in the course of this one forum thread.  So far I count 23.

1. There is evidence that the MC was the murder weapon
2. There is evidence that it was fired on 22-11-63
3. There is evidence that it was fired from the SN
4. There is evidence that Oswald owned the MC
Already covered. You just don't accept the evidence.

Quote
5. Oswald was last seen before the assassination on 6th floor of the TSBD
Already covered. He was sighted by two workers on either the fifth or sixth floor at about 11:55. Howard Brennan said he saw a man that he later identified as Oswald on the sixth floor seconds before the shots were fired and then saw the rifle being fired.  Carolyn Arnold said she thought she may have seen Oswald on the second floor 15 minutes before the shooting but I don't find her evidence very persuasive: "she stated she thought she caught a fleeting glimpse of LEE HARVEY OSWALD standing in the hallway between the front door and the double doors leading to the warehouse, located on the first floor. She could not be sure that this was OSWALD, but said she felt it was and believed the time to be a few minutes before 12:15 PM."  FBI statement 26-Nov-63

Quote
6. Oswald was the only employee to leave the TSBD before an attendance check was made
Truly did a roll call just before 1:00 pm and noticed that Oswald was the only TSBD employee missing. He reported to the Dallas Police that Oswald was missing.  Who else do you think was missing?
Quote
7. Oswald left the rooming house quickly after getting his handgun and a jacket
Earlene Roberts was there. You weren't. She thought he was in an unusual hurry (6 H 438):

"Mrs. ROBERTS. I had better back up a minute-he came home that Friday in an unusual hurry.
Mr. BALL. And about what time was this?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, it was after President Kennedy had been shot and I...and I just looked up and I said, “Oh, you are in a hurry.” He never said a thing, not nothing. He went on to his room and
stayed about 3 or 4 minutes."

Quote
8. The rifle was mailed to A. Hidell to the post box that Oswald is connected to,
What do you think the Klein's shipping order says?  It is pretty obvious that it says that the order was filled with C2766 and a scope shipped to Box 2915 Dallas, Texas.  That was Oswald's box. What is it, exactly, that makes you think it was shipped somewhere else or not shipped at all?
Quote
9. It arrived before the attempt on Gen. Walker,
The shipping order says it was shipped on March 20, 1963 and the post office official said it took a day to get from Chicago to Dallas.  Oswald's back-yard photos were taken in late March or early April, according to Marina Oswald.  The attempt on General Walker took place on April 10, 1963.
Quote
10. It was identical to the rifle seen in the backyard photos
In the sense that there is absolutely no feature of C2766 that is inconsistent with the rifle held by Oswald in the backyard photos.
Quote
11. At the Texas Theater Oswald resists arrest
12. pulls a gun on the arresting officer
What would you call reaching for your gun, holding it in your hand with your finger on the trigger, saying "Well, it's all over now" and struggling with the arresting police officer?

Quote
13. During his interrogation, Oswald told one provable lie after another
Well, for starters, that he didn't own a rifle; that he didn't carry a long package to work; and that he didn't have anything to do with the assassination of JFK or murder of Officer Tippit.
Quote
14. Oswald's palm prints were on the stock
I corrected that. They were on the part of the barrel covered by the stock, so he handled it when it was disassembled.
Quote
15. The envelope was stamped by Kleins stating that the order was filled
What do you think the envelope and the shipping order indicate? That the order was ignored and not filled?
Quote
16. CE 399 was found on Connally's stretcher.
It was found on a stretcher. The WC concluded from all the evidence, that it was Connally's stretcher.
Quote
17. CE 399 was found by a Parkland nurse
Sorry, I thought Tomlinson was a nurse.  He was a maintenance worker.
Quote
18. Frazier never said that the bag from the SN was not the same bag.
Already dealt with. Where do you think he said the bag was not the same bag. Being unable to identify the bag shown by the investigator as the bag he saw is not the same as saying it was not the same bag. Why do you think he would be able to identify something that he admitted he didn't pay much attention to?
Quote
19. C2766 arrived at the Dallas post office and was picked up 5 days later.
That's an estimate that is based upon post office transportation and processing times.
Quote
20. A bullet that was fired from that rifle ended up in the car that was shot at
CE399 was either on that stretcher because it was brought in by someone in the President's limo or it was planted.  There is no evidence that it was planted.  The grooves on CE399 conclusively match grooves on bullets fired by the C2766 rifle.
Quote
21. There is the shipping order that was initialed by the person who was responsible for shipping
The document speaks for itself. Or are you suggesting that it was not made in the ordinary course of processing Oswald's order?
Quote
22. There were prints that were consistent with Oswald's on a part of the gun covered by the stock
You think the prints belonged to someone else? They were consistent with Oswald's prints. What are the chances that someone else put prints that were consistent with Oswald's on a gun that belonged to Oswald that was brought to the TSBD in a disassembled position in a bag that was consistent with the bag that Oswald was seen by two people to have been in his possession that morning of the assassination? (that's a rhetorical question).  That is enough to conclude that they were Oswald's prints.
Quote
23. Marina says Oswald bought a gun through the mail at about that time
I believe the Russian newspapers that he held were shown to be dated March 11 and March 24, 1963.  Marina was not sure when she took the photos when she met with the WC and said she didn't pay much attention to them. But later, to the FBI she said the photos were taken in late March or early April 1963 and were taken on a Sunday.  That puts it likely at March 31 or possibly April 7, 1963.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Mytton on August 09, 2018, 02:02:35 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Just once I'd like to see Andrew Mason acknowledge even one of the unsupported or outright false statements he has made in the course of this one forum thread.  So far I count 23.

1. There is evidence that the MC was the murder weapon
2. There is evidence that it was fired on 22-11-63
3. There is evidence that it was fired from the SN
4. There is evidence that Oswald owned the MC
5. Oswald was last seen before the assassination on 6th floor of the TSBD
6. Oswald was the only employee to leave the TSBD before an attendance check was made
7. Oswald left the rooming house quickly after getting his handgun and a jacket
8. The rifle was mailed to A. Hidell to the post box that Oswald is connected to,
9. It arrived before the attempt on Gen. Walker,
10. It was identical to the rifle seen in the backyard photos
11. At the Texas Theater Oswald resists arrest
12. pulls a gun on the arresting officer
13. During his interrogation, Oswald told one provable lie after another
14. Oswald's palm prints were on the stock
15. The envelope was stamped by Kleins stating that the order was filled
16. CE 399 was found on Connally's stretcher.
17. CE 399 was found by a Parkland nurse
18. Frazier never said that the bag from the SN was not the same bag.
19. C2766 arrived at the Dallas post office and was picked up 5 days later.
20. A bullet that was fired from that rifle ended up in the car that was shot at
21. There is the shipping order that was initialed by the person who was responsible for shipping
22. There were prints that were consistent with Oswald's on a part of the gun covered by the stock
23. Marina says Oswald bought a gun through the mail at about that time

 :D

(https://s15.postimg.cc/lhlhvdji3/Iacoletti_s_World.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Mytton on August 09, 2018, 03:49:57 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Really?  The supplier disagrees with you.

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QhiWATIhMQk/T8-q6XpGM4I/AAAAAAAAAT0/XgsuPF9C0RE/s1600/63-10.jpeg)

 BS:

How on Earth do you know how Crescent and Kleins conducted their business?

The rifles were purchased in June 1962 and some months later Kleins received the stock, what's the problem?

JohnM
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 09, 2018, 04:56:39 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Already covered. You just don't accept the evidence.

No you didn't "cover" them at all.  You just claimed that there was evidence that the MC was the murder weapon, that it
was fired on 22-11-63, and that it was fired from the SN without actually specifying what that evidence is.

Quote
Already covered. He was sighted by two workers on either the fifth or sixth floor at about 11:55.

No, now we see the misrepresentation in action.  "Fifth or sixth floor" becomes "sixth floor", and Carolyn Arnold is ignored.

Quote
Howard Brennan said he saw a man that he later identified as Oswald on the sixth floor seconds before the shots were fired and then saw the rifle being fired.

Howard Brennan failed to identify Oswald on 11/22/63, even after seeing him on television and in the rigged lineup.  And he said he did not see the rifle discharge.  Oops, there's another false claim.

Quote
  Carolyn Arnold said she thought she may have seen Oswald on the second floor 15 minutes before the shooting but I don't find her evidence very persuasive:

Of course you don't.  How about Piper seeing Oswald on the first floor at noon, or Shelley seeing Oswald on he first floor by the telephone at 10 or 15 minutes before 12, or Givens' original report of seeing Oswald reading the newspaper in the domino room at 11:50?

So when we actually deconstruct it, your claim that "Oswald was last seen before the assassination on 6th floor of the TSBD" is just flat out wrong.

Quote
Truly did a roll call just before 1:00 pm and noticed that Oswald was the only TSBD employee missing.

Not only does Truly not mention a roll call -- he doesn't even say that Oswald was the only one missing.  Your statement is patently false.

Mr. BALL. Now, you recall that in your testimony before the Commission you told them that at some time after the shooting, you advised Captain Fritz of the name of Lee Oswald and his address in Irving?
Mr. TRULY. Yes, I did.
Mr. BALL. And in order to place the time of it, was it before or after the rifle had been found on the sixth floor?
Mr. TRULY. I wouldn't know. I think it must have been around the rifle was found, because I was not on the sixth floor at that time, but when told--let's go back a few minutes--pardon me--I told Chief Lumpkin a good many minutes after we came down from the roof and he went ahead and gave some orders to two or three policemen surrounding him and then said, "Let's go up and tell Captain Fritz."
Mr. BALL. Now, what did you tell Chief Lumpkin when you came down from the roof of the building?
Mr. TRULY. When I noticed this boy was missing, I told Chief Lumpkin that "We have a man here that's missing." I said, "It my not mean anything, but he isn't here." I first called down to the other warehouse and had Mr. Akin pull the application of the boy so I could get--quickly get his address in Irving and his general description, so I could be more accurate than I would be.
Mr. BALL. Was he the only man missing?
Mr. TRULY. The only one I noticed at that time. Now, I think there was one or two more, possibly Charles Givens, but I had seen him out in front walking up the street just before the firing of the gun.
Mr. BALL. But walking which way?
Mr. TRULY. The last time I saw him, he was walking across Houston Street, east on Elm.
Mr. BALL. Did you make a check of your employees afterwards?
Mr. TRULY. No, no; not complete. No, I just saw the group of the employees over there on the floor and I noticed this boy wasn't with them. With no thought in my mind except that I had seen him a short time before in the building, I noticed he wasn't there.
Mr. BALL. What do you mean "a short time before"?
Mr. TRULY. I would say 10 or 12 minutes.
Mr. BALL. You mean that's when you saw him in the lunchroom?
Mr. TRULY. In the lunchroom.

Quote
He reported to the Dallas Police that Oswald was missing.  Who else do you think was missing?

What other TSBD employees were missing after the shooting?  Jack Charles Cason, Gloria Jean Holt, Sharon Simmons Nelson, Bonnie Richey, Carolyn Arnold, Mrs. Donald Baker, Judy Marie Johnson, Stella Mae Jacob, Charles Givens, Virginia H. Barnum, Vida Lee Whately, Warren Caster, Spaudlin Jones, Herbert L. Junker, Mrs. Helen Palmer, Franklin Kaiser, Vickie Davis, Dottie Lovelady, Mrs. Rudell Parsons, Joe Bergen, Maury Brown, John Langston

Quote
Earlene Roberts was there. You weren't. She thought he was in an unusual hurry (6 H 438):

You said "after getting his handgun".  Are you claiming Earlene Roberts reported him getting his handgun?

Quote
What do you think the Klein's shipping order says?

There is no "shipping order".  I think you're referring to an "order blank".

Quote
  It is pretty obvious that it says that the order was filled with C2766 and a scope shipped to Box 2915 Dallas, Texas.

Where do you see the word "shipped" on your order blank?

Quote
and the post office official said it took a day to get from Chicago to Dallas.

Did you also read the part where your (FBI informant) post office official said "I have no idea when it was mailed there".  If the post office had any record of shipment he would have had an idea.

Quote
In the sense that there is absolutely no feature of C2766 that is inconsistent with the rifle held by Oswald in the backyard photos.

Your claim was that they were "identical".  All this means is that they could be the same weapon.

Quote
What would you call reaching for your gun, holding it in your hand with your finger on the trigger,

What is your evidence that Oswald held it in his hand with his finger on the trigger?

Quote
saying "Well, it's all over now"

Why did not another single person in the theater hear this?

Quote
and struggling with the arresting police officer?

What probable cause did they have to arrest him for murder?

Quote
Well, for starters, that he didn't own a rifle;

Circular.  You're assuming that he owned a rifle and using that as a basis to claim he lied.

Quote
that he didn't carry a long package to work;

Fritz claimed that he "denied that he had brought the long package described by Mr. Frazier and his sister".  First of all, how did Fritz describe this package to Oswald?  Or did he just show him CE 142?  Who knows?

Quote
and that he didn't have anything to do with the assassination of JFK or murder of Officer Tippit.

Also circular.  You said "provable lies".  Or at least you repeated Bugliosi saying that.

Quote
I corrected that. They were on the part of the barrel covered by the stock, so he handled it when it was disassembled.

No you actually didn't correct that.  It's still not correct.  What do you mean "they"?  What "prints" do you think were found?

Quote
What do you think the envelope and the shipping order indicate?

You said that the envelope that the order coupon was supposedly mailed in was "stamped by Kleins stating that the order was filled".  Show me the stamp.

Quote
It was found on a stretcher. The WC concluded from all the evidence, that it was Connally's stretcher.

What evidence?  Tomlinson said it was the other stretcher.  They just claimed he was mistaken.  Their conclusion was just an assumption.  Like yours are.

Quote
Already dealt with. Where do you think he said the bag was not the same bag.

Did you read the Anderton memo that I helpfully posted 8 days ago?  Or are you just going to ignore everything and continue to repeat the same false claims?

Quote
Being unable to identify the bag shown by the investigator as the bag he saw is not the same as saying it was not the same bag.

He said it was definitely not the one he had observed in the possession of Oswald.

Quote
That's an estimate that is based upon post office transportation and processing times.

Bull.  You said the package was picked up 5 days later.  Post office transportation and processing times tell you nothing about when a package is picked up.  You invented that out of whole cloth.

Quote
CE399 was either on that stretcher because it was brought in by someone in the President's limo or it was planted.

You can't even prove that CE 399 was ever in the hospital at all.

Quote
The grooves on CE399 conclusively match grooves on bullets fired by the C2766 rifle.

So what?  That doesn't show that it was involved in the shooting at 12:30 on 11/22/63.  But you said "a bullet that was fired from that rifle ended up in the car that was shot at".  Do you think CE399 ended up in the car?

Quote
The document speaks for itself.

No it doesn't.  Show me where on that document you think you see the initials of "the person who was responsible for shipping", and identify that individual.

Quote
You think the prints belonged to someone else? They were consistent with Oswald's prints.

Again, what prints do you think were "on a part of the gun covered by the stock"?

Quote
What are the chances that someone else put prints that were consistent with Oswald's on a gun that belonged to Oswald that was brought to the TSBD in a disassembled position in a bag that was consistent with the bag that Oswald was seen by two people to have been in his possession that morning of the assassination? (that's a rhetorical question).

Obviously.  Since you have NFI that a gun was brought to the TSBD in a disassembled position in that bag that those two people said wasn't even the same bag.

Quote
  That is enough to conclude that they were Oswald's prints. I believe the Russian newspapers that he held were shown to be dated March 11 and March 24, 1963.  Marina was not sure when she took the photos when she met with the WC and said she didn't pay much attention to them. But later, to the FBI she said the photos were taken in late March or early April 1963 and were taken on a Sunday.  That puts it likely at March 31 or possibly April 7, 1963.

What does that have to do with your claim that "Marina says Oswald bought a gun through the mail at about that time"?  When did Marina say that he bought a gun through the mail at about that time?
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 09, 2018, 04:57:33 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
:D

Welcome to Planet Kook

Cool rebuttal, bro.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 09, 2018, 04:58:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The rifles were purchased in June 1962 and some months later Kleins received the stock, what's the problem?

LOL.  Whatever it takes...
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Mytton on August 09, 2018, 06:53:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
LOL.  Whatever it takes...

No worries, then I'm sure you can tell us the usual time it took for Kleins orders to be dispatched from Crescent?

JohnM
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Mytton on August 09, 2018, 06:55:55 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Cool rebuttal, bro.

Thanks

Btw Andrew Mason is kicking your ass.

JohnM
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 09, 2018, 07:21:30 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Thanks

Btw Andrew Mason is kicking your ass.

No surprise that the guy who always makes false claims about the evidence approves of another guy who makes false claims about the evidence.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Mytton on August 09, 2018, 08:17:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No surprise that the guy who always makes false claims about the evidence approves of another guy who makes false claims about the evidence.

No surprise coming from the guy who continually writes checks that he can't afford, the above self serving guess of the Kleins / Crescent business relationship being a prime example.

JohnM
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 09, 2018, 08:50:55 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No surprise coming from the guy who continually writes checks that he can't afford, the above self serving guess of the Kleins / Crescent business relationship being a prime example.

How about the self-serving "it took them 8 months to get around to shipping an order"?  That is the extraordinary claim here.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Mytton on August 09, 2018, 09:00:24 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How about the self-serving "it took them 8 months to get around to shipping an order"?  That is the extraordinary claim here.

Again you're questioning how these businesses conducted their transactions and based on what, your intuition?

JohnM
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 09, 2018, 10:29:24 PM
Says the guy who bases his conclusion that Oswald shot Kennedy on his intuition.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on August 10, 2018, 01:43:32 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No you didn't "cover" them at all.  You just claimed that there was evidence that the MC was the murder weapon, that it
was fired on 22-11-63, and that it was fired from the SN without actually specifying what that evidence is.
The MC was found in the SN; a object looking like a gun barrel was seen protruding from the SN window during and seconds after the assassination; a bullet fired from that gun was found at Parkland where the wounded President and Governor were treated. That is more than enough evidence to conclude that C2766 was the murder weapon. That is evidence. You don't agree that the evidence supports the conclusion that it was the murder weapon. I am not sure whether you think it was just a lucky coincidence that somehow CE399 matches the striations on bullets fired by C2766 or that it was planted. You don't seem to want to explain how those facts can exist and C2766 not be the weapon that fired CE399 or how CE399 forms part of the evidence in this case if it was not connected with the assassination.

This discussion has become a silly argument of me providing and explaining the evidence and you say, "no you didn't".

Unless you can explain how it is that this evidence exists and not be connected to Oswald without there being an elaborate conspiracy involving the FBI, Dallas Police and dozens if not hundreds of witnesses, I don't think there is much point in continuing this debate. 
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 10, 2018, 04:42:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The MC was found in the SN; a object looking like a gun barrel was seen protruding from the SN window during and seconds after the assassination; a bullet fired from that gun was found at Parkland where the wounded President and Governor were treated. That is more than enough evidence to conclude that C2766 was the murder weapon. That is evidence. You don't agree that the evidence supports the conclusion that it was the murder weapon.

Right.  Your conclusion is based on assumptions and unwarranted leaps.  In my opinion.  But you're entitled to make whatever conclusions you like -- I can't make you be logical.  Just don't go stating as a fact that C2766 was the murder weapon.

Quote
This discussion has become a silly argument of me providing and explaining the evidence and you say, "no you didn't".

You're sidestepping the many unsupported and false claims that you made that are not a matter of opinion though.

You said Oswald was the only employee to leave the TSBD before an attendance check was made.  I quoted Truly's testimony that says this is false.

You said Oswald got his handgun at the rooming house and tried to claim that Earlene Roberts witnessed it.  She didn't.

You said that Oswald pulled a gun on the arresting officer when the arresting officer merely said that he "went for a gun" before he grabbed his hand.

You repeated Bugliosi's claim that Oswald told one provable lie after another.  Neither you or Bugliosi proved that any of these were lies.  You just used a circular argument to say that he was lying.

You claimed that there were prints (plural) on the rifle under the stock, when in reality there was one partial palmprint that showed up on an index card a week later and no trace of anything on the gun barrel.

You claimed that the envelope sent to Klein's was stamped by Kleins stating that the order was filled.  Klein's never stamped that envelope.

You claimed that Frazier never said that the bag from the SN was not the same bag.  I produced a memo written by FBI agent Anderton quoting Frazier saying exactly that.

You claimed that the rifle package from Klein's was picked up 5 days after it was sent when there is no evidence of it having been picked up at all.  Where did you get 5 days?

You claimed that a bullet ended up in the car, when there is no record anywhere of a bullet being found in the car.

You claimed that there was a Klein's shipping order that was initialed by the person who was responsible for shipping, but failed to show any document or testimony that shows that this is true.

You claimed that Marina said that Oswald bought a gun through the mail but failed to quote any document or testimony of her ever saying that.

Make whatever conclusions you like, but when you make statements of fact that are flat out false you're doing a disservice to everybody, and undermining your own credibility as well.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on August 10, 2018, 07:48:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Right.  Your conclusion is based on assumptions and unwarranted leaps.  In my opinion.  But you're entitled to make whatever conclusions you like -- I can't make you be logical.  Just don't go stating as a fact that C2766 was the murder weapon.
I will continue to state as a fact that, in the absence of any evidence that there was a broad conspiracy to frame Oswald and plant evidence, the murder weapon was C2766.  You apparently do not understand the difference between reaching a conclusion based on evidence and a priori assumptions based on no evidence at all. You have yet to explain how it is that CE399 was found at Parkland and has nothing to do with the assassination despite it having been conclusively determined that it was fired by the rifle found in the TSBD. I will continue to maintain that it was either fired by C2766 during the assassination or it was planted as part of an elaborate conspiracy to frame Oswald.

Quote
You said Oswald got his handgun at the rooming house and tried to claim that Earlene Roberts witnessed it.  She didn't.
I never said that Earlene Roberts witnessed Oswald picking up his gun.  I said she observed that he was in a hurry.  We know from other evidence that he very likely picked up his gun there.

Quote
You said that Oswald pulled a gun on the arresting officer when the arresting officer merely said that he "went for a gun" before he grabbed his hand.
So why, exactly, do you think the arresting officer would have put Oswald's hand on the gun and pulled it out of his pants?  That is the only other possibility and it is inconsistent with the arresting officers' evidence.

Quote
You repeated Bugliosi's claim that Oswald told one provable lie after another.  Neither you or Bugliosi proved that any of these were lies.  You just used a circular argument to say that he was lying.
He lied about taking a long package to work because we can establish that he did through the evidence of Buell Frazier, Linnie Mae Randle, C2766 itself, the paper wrapper, and the gun missing from the Paines' garage. That may not convince you.  But it is a logical and reasonable conclusion that is based on evidence.

Quote
You claimed that there were prints (plural) on the rifle under the stock, when in reality there was one partial palmprint that showed up on an index card a week later and no trace of anything on the gun barrel.
Lt. Day noticed a palmprint near the end of the barrel about 3 inches under the wood-stock.  He also found prints or partial prints on the magazine housing. He could not make a positive identification of whose prints they were but they were consistent with Oswald's prints.  See Day's WC testimony at 4 H 260.

Quote
You claimed that the envelope sent to Klein's was stamped by Kleins stating that the order was filled.  Klein's never stamped that envelope.
So who do you think stamped the envelope and filled it in?:
(https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0351a.jpg)

Quote
Make whatever conclusions you like, but when you make statements of fact that are flat out false you're doing a disservice to everybody, and undermining your own credibility as well.
The statements of fact are conclusions based on the evidence.  If you can accept the evidence and reach different rational and reasonable conclusions that are not based on the existence of a broad conspiracy involving law enforcement and the WC, go ahead and try.  You seem reluctant to do that.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 10, 2018, 08:32:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You apparently do not understand the difference between reaching a conclusion based on evidence and a priori assumptions based on no evidence at all.

You apparently don't understand that reaching a conclusion by assuming things that aren't in evidence doesn't make something a fact.

Quote
You have yet to explain how it is that CE399 was found at Parkland and has nothing to do with the assassination despite it having been conclusively determined that it was fired by the rifle found in the TSBD.

I'm not convinced that CE 399 was found at Parkland.  O.P. Wright said that the bullet he got from Tomlinson had a pointed tip, and neither Johnsen or Rowley could identify it as being the same bullet as CE 399.

Quote
I will continue to maintain that it was either fired by C2766 during the assassination or it was planted as part of an elaborate conspiracy to frame Oswald.

Of course you will.  But why is "an elaborate conspiracy" necessary to insert CE399 into the evidence stream?

Quote
We know from other evidence that he very likely picked up his gun there.

Do tell.  What "other evidence"?

Quote
So why, exactly, do you think the arresting officer would have put Oswald's hand on the gun and pulled it out of his pants?

That's what the officer himself said.  Why exactly do you think otherwise?

Quote
He lied about taking a long package to work because we can establish that he did through the evidence of Buell Frazier, Linnie Mae Randle, C2766 itself, the paper wrapper, and the gun missing from the Paines' garage.

Fritz didn't say that he denied taking any kind of long package to work.  Fritz said that he "denied that he had brought the long package described by Mr. Frazier and his sister."  But nobody knows exactly how Fritz represented the descriptions of Mr. Frazier and his sister.  C2766 being in the building doesn't tell you anything about whether Oswald lied about anything.  You have nothing to connect C2766 with the "paper wrapper" at all.

Quote
Lt. Day noticed a palmprint near the end of the barrel about 3 inches under the wood-stock.  He also found prints or partial prints on the magazine housing. He could not make a positive identification of whose prints they were but they were consistent with Oswald's prints.  See Day's WC testimony at 4 H 260.

Show me where Day says anything about "consistent with Oswald's prints".  He said he couldn't make positive identification of these prints.  You somehow spun that into "his prints were on the rifle under the stock".  The magazine housing isn't even under the stock.

Quote
So who do you think stamped the envelope and filled it in?:

Why do you think Klein's stamped this envelope at all?  Point to the part of the envelope you think that Klein's stamped.

Quote
The statements of fact are conclusions based on the evidence.

You're entitled to your own opinions.  You are not entitled to your own facts.

Quote
  If you can accept the evidence and reach different rational and reasonable conclusions that are not based on the existence of a broad conspiracy involving law enforcement and the WC, go ahead and try.  You seem reluctant to do that.

And for good reason.  I never claimed there was a broad conspiracy involving law enforcement and the WC.  That's your strawman.  That doesn't mean your conclusions just win by default.

Are you going to get around to addressing the even more blatant fallacious claims you made, like the package being picked up 5 days later, or Marina saying he bought a gun through the mail?  Are you at all concerned about propagating misinformation?
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on August 10, 2018, 10:07:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You apparently don't understand that reaching a conclusion by assuming things that aren't in evidence doesn't make something a fact.
There is a difference between 1. inferring a fact for which there is no direct evidence because it is the only reasonable conclusion that fits the rest of the evidence, and 2. assuming a fact without any such evidence at all.  If I get up in the morning and I see water all over my deck I can infer that it rained last night. I am not assuming it rained as a fact. I am inferring that it rained as a fact.

Quote
I'm not convinced that CE 399 was found at Parkland.  O.P. Wright said that the bullet he got from Tomlinson had a pointed tip, and neither Johnsen or Rowley could identify it as being the same bullet as CE 399.
Ok. You are not convinced CE399 was found at Parkland.  I am. There is evidence on which I base my conclusion so don't tell me I am assuming it.

Quote
Of course you will.  But why is "an elaborate conspiracy" necessary to insert CE399 into the evidence stream?
Think of the behind-the-scenes machinations that would be required to produce a bullet that had been fired by the gun that was found in the same floor of the building from which rifle shots were observed and heard when the President was killed. Then think of the efforts required to make people believe the bullet had been found in a place occupied by one of the victims of the shooting.  Then ask yourself, why did they carry out that plan so badly so that the bullet was almost not found or, could have been found in circumstances that did not tie it to the assassination?

Quote
Do tell.  What "other evidence"?


Show me where Day says anything about "consistent with Oswald's prints".  He said he couldn't make positive identification of these prints.  You somehow spun that into "his prints were on the rifle under the stock".  The magazine housing isn't even under the stock.
4 H 260:
Mr. BELIN. What other processing did you do with this particular rifle?
Mr. DAY. I took it to the office and tried to bring out the two prints I had seen on the side of the gun at the bookstore. They still were rather unclear. Due to the roughness of the metal, I photographed them rather than try to lift them. I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel that extended under the woodstock. I started to take the woodstock off and noted traces of a palmprint near the firing end of the barrel about 3 inches under the wood-stock when I took the woodstock loose.
Mr. BELIN. You mean 3 inches from the small end of the woodstock?
Mr. DAY. Right--yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. From the firing end of the barrel, you mean the muzzle?
Mr. DAY. The muzzle; yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Let me clarify the record. By that you mean you found it on the metal or you mean you found it on the wood?
Mr. DAY. On the metal, after removing the wood.
Mr. BELIN. The wood. You removed the wood, and then underneath the wood is where you found the print?
Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?
Mr. DAY. This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of the gun after I had removed the wood.
Mr. BELIN. Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?
Mr. DAY. It has the name "J. C. Day," and also "11/22/63" written on it in my writing off the underside gun barrel near the end of foregrip, C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. When you lift a print is it then harder to make a photograph of that print after it is lifted or doesn't it make any difference?
Mr. DAY. It depends. If it is a fresh print, and by fresh I mean hadn't been there very long and dried, practically all the print will come off and there will be nothing left. If it is an old print, that is pretty well dried, many times you can still see it after the lift. In this case I could still see traces of print on that barrel.
Mr. BELIN. Did you do anything with the other prints or partial prints that you said you thought you saw?
Mr. DAY. I photographed them only. I did not try to lift them.
Mr. BELIN. Do you have those photographs, sir? I will mark the two photographs which you have just produced Commission Exhibits 720 and 721. I will ask you to state what these are.
Mr. DAY. These are prints or pictures, I should say, of the latent--of the traces of prints on the side of the magazine housing of the gun No. C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. Were those prints in such condition as to be identifiable, if you know?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; I could not make positive identification of these prints.
Mr. BELIN. Did you have enough opportunity to work and get these pictures or not?
Mr. DAY. I worked with them, yes. I could not exclude all possibility as to identification. I thought I knew which they were, but I could not positively identify them.
Mr. BELIN. What was your opinion so far as it went as to whose they were?
Mr. DAY. They appeared to be the right middle and right ring finger of Harvey Lee Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. BELIN. At the time you had this did you have any comparison fingerprints to make with the actual prints of Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; we had sets in Captain Fritz' office. Oswald was in his custody, we had made palmprints and fingerprints of him.

Quote
Why do you think Klein's stamped this envelope at all?  Point to the part of the envelope you think that Klein's stamped.
Uh, it is the big stamp on the lower left side of the envelope that bears the heading in large letters: "Klein's" and has Klein's address.  If Klein's did not stamp it, who do you think did?

Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 10, 2018, 10:59:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There is a difference between 1. inferring a fact for which there is no direct evidence because it is the only reasonable conclusion that fits the rest of the evidence, and 2. assuming a fact without any such evidence at all.  If I get up in the morning and I see water all over my deck I can infer that it rained last night. I am not assuming it rained as a fact. I am inferring that it rained as a fact.

It's still an assumption.  Your neighbor might have thrown a bucket of water at your deck.

Quote

Ok. You are not convinced CE399 was found at Parkland.  I am. There is evidence on which I base my conclusion so don't tell me I am assuming it.

But what is the evidence and how much do you have to assume to make that conclusion?  How exactly did the bullet found by Tomlinson on an unrelated stretcher at Parkland get to Robert Frazier and verified that it was the same physical item each step along the way?

Quote
Think of the behind-the-scenes machinations that would be required to produce a bullet that had been fired by the gun that was found in the same floor of the building from which rifle shots were observed and heard when the President was killed.

What "behind the scenes machinations"?  All it would take is to fire the rifle into something relatively soft and collect the bullet.  That's why evidence that it actually went through JFK's body is a pretty important detail.

Quote
Then think of the efforts required to make people believe the bullet had been found in a place occupied by one of the victims of the shooting.

What "efforts required"?  The FBI said CE 399 was found at Parkland and you believe it.

Quote
  Then ask yourself, why did they carry out that plan so badly so that the bullet was almost not found or, could have been found in circumstances that did not tie it to the assassination?

oh, I'm sure that no matter what circumstances it had been found in, you would deduce that it was tied to the assassination -- merely because it was matched to the rifle that you think was the murder weapon.

Quote
4 H 260:

Did you miss the sentence above that where Day said "I could not positively identify them"?  By the way, neither could Sebastian Latona.  The fact that Day claimed they appeared to him to be Oswald's doesn't equate to "they were Oswald's".
 Otherwise they would have been positively identified.  So you call this "consistent with", which is another way of saying inconclusive.

Quote
Uh, it is the big stamp on the lower left side of the envelope that bears the heading in large letters: "Klein's" and has Klein's address.  If Klein's did not stamp it, who do you think did?

Sigh.  That's not a stamp, Andrew.  They overlaid the order coupon that was clipped out of a magazine on top of the envelope it was supposedly mailed in and took a microfilm picture of it.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on August 11, 2018, 06:05:00 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's still an assumption.  Your neighbor might have thrown a bucket of water at your deck.
You really don't know the difference, do you? If I base my conclusion on evidence, it is no longer an assumption.

I assess the possible causes of water on my deck and I conclude that the only reasonably possible cause is rain.  If I was concerned that there might be some other cause (which has never occurred, but let's say that is a 1/100 possibility) I can easily look at other things, such as the street. Now you are going to say, ok, but a street sweeper could have washed the street. But that is only about 1/100 possibility. So the probability that both could have happened, conservatively, is now 1/100 x 1/100 = 1/10,000.  If I was still concerned about that possibility, I could look at the sidewalks and my lawn.  Oh, you would say, perhaps a neighbour hosed down the sidewalks too.  Ok, let's say that is about a 1/100 possibility.  Now to have all three occur together (all three being independent) is 1/1,000,000.  At that point even you would have to concede that it rained.

Now with Oswald, it is not that there is absolute proof from Klein's that the gun was picked up by Oswald. Klein's documents form part of the evidence. Let's say it is a 1/100 chance that one of Klein's orders is not processed properly and does not get to the destination.  We have the backyard photos that show a gun identical to the MC C2766 in Oswald's hands shortly after the guns should have arrived in Oswald's mailbox. We also have evidence of a long package being brought to the TSBD on the morning of the assassination. Then you have a palm print on the gun that cannot be excluded as coming from Oswald.  Then you have the fact that Oswald was not with anyone at the time of the assassination.  Then you have him leaving the TSBD. Then you have him hurrying home and then leaving quickly.  Then you have a person like him seen shooting Officer Tippit. Then you have him carrying a gun in the Texas Theater.  Then you have him saying "Well, it's all over now" as he is arrested.  Even if the probability that each of these events had innocent explanations was large, say 1/10, the probability that all innocent explanations occurred together becomes vanishingly small.  That is how proof beyond a reasonable doubt occurs.

The same thing occurs with DNA matching.  The standard DNA fingerprint in the FBI's CODIS system measures the length of 13 small sections of DNA from areas that are highly variable between individuals (plus one marker for sex). The length of tandem repeats in the regions of DNA being examined are not unique. They are actually quite common – some regions may have only 5 or 10 length variations so the chance of another individual chosen at random from the population having the same “bar” match for a particular marker may be as high as 20%. The key however, is the evidence that the lengths of these regions of DNA vary widely within the population AND that the length of DNA of one marker is independent of the length of another.  The probability that two people of the same sex will have the exact same lengths of DNA sequences at each locus is the product of 13 probabilities, each of which is about 1/5 to 1/20. That results in a very small number: in the order of 1/513 (1 in 1.2 billion) to 1/2013 (1 in 82 million billion).

Quote
But what is the evidence and how much do you have to assume to make that conclusion?  How exactly did the bullet found by Tomlinson on an unrelated stretcher at Parkland get to Robert Frazier and verified that it was the same physical item each step along the way?
One does not have to assume anything.  One just has to assess Frazier's evidence, along with all the other evidence and determine whether the possibility that Frazier was part of an elaborate conspiracy to hide the truth is reasonable.

Quote
What "behind the scenes machinations"?  All it would take is to fire the rifle into something relatively soft and collect the bullet.  That's why evidence that it actually went through JFK's body is a pretty important detail.

What "efforts required"?  The FBI said CE 399 was found at Parkland and you believe it.
For the FBI to say that as part of an elaborate conspiracy to frame Oswald and to execute that plan so flawlessly that it would withstand 55 years of scrutiny without anyone cracking, there would have to be a lot of planning and scheming.
Quote
Did you miss the sentence above that where Day said "I could not positively identify them"?  By the way, neither could Sebastian Latona.  The fact that Day claimed they appeared to him to be Oswald's doesn't equate to "they were Oswald's".
 Otherwise they would have been positively identified.  So you call this "consistent with", which is another way of saying inconclusive.
If it was a random print, even a small part of it would likely be easily distinguishable from Oswald's.

Quote
Sigh.  That's not a stamp, Andrew.  They overlaid the order coupon that was clipped out of a magazine on top of the envelope it was supposedly mailed in and took a microfilm picture of it.
Ok. But the point is the same:  who took a microfiche of that coupon and the envelope and what is the possibility, in light of all the rest of the evidence, that Oswald/Hidell's order did not make it through Klein's system?
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 13, 2018, 06:18:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You really don't know the difference, do you?

You don't know the difference.  An assumption is still an assumption, whether you think it's justified or not.

Quote
It's easy. One just has to find that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, Frazier was not part of an elaborate conspiracy to hide the truth.

Who said he was?

Quote
For the FBI to say that as part of an elaborate conspiracy to frame Oswald and to execute that plan so flawlessly that it would withstand 55 years of scrutiny without anyone cracking, there would have to be a lot of planning and scheming.

Who's claiming that there was an elaborate conspiracy to frame Oswald and to execute that plan so flawlessly that it would withstand 55 years of scrutiny without anyone cracking?  I asked you how you knew CE399 was the bullet found at Parkland.

Quote
If it was a random print, even a small part of it would likely be easily distinguishable from Oswald's.

Where does this assumption come from?  Did you just make it up?

Quote
Ok. So who took a microfiche of that coupon and the envelope?

Here's where you say, "you're right, that's not something Klein's stamped on the envelope to indicate that the order had been processed.  Silly me.  I don't want to spread misinformation.  Also, I have no clue where I got the idea that Marina said Lee bought a gun through the mail or why I thought the package was picked up 5 days later.  Sorry for wasting everybody's time spreading all this nonsense!"
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on August 14, 2018, 02:11:40 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You don't know the difference.  An assumption is still an assumption, whether you think it's justified or not.
So, in your world, if a conclusion is based on evidence that demonstrates a high probability that the conclusion is correct, that conclusion is still an assumption? So when is a conclusion based on evidence not an assumption?

Quote
Who said he was?
Who's claiming that there was an elaborate conspiracy to frame Oswald and to execute that plan so flawlessly that it would withstand 55 years of scrutiny without anyone cracking?  I asked you how you knew CE399 was the bullet found at Parkland.
What other reasonable conclusion is there? Either CE399 was the bullet found at Parkland or it was not. If it was not, then the FBI's evidence that it was from Parkland was made up.  The bullet fired from the C2766 rifle could not have been "accidentally" made up and then "accidentally" thought to have originated from being found at Parkland and the real bullet found by Tomlinson then misplaced and never found. Why would the FBI fabricate evidence unless they were part of some plan to frame Oswald? What other explanation do you offer if CE399 was not found at Parkland?

Quote
Where does this assumption come from?  Did you just make it up?
It has been long established in forensic science that finger and palm prints are highly variable between individuals.  I didn't say that a conclusive match would be made - just that it would be improbable for some other random partial palm print to have no characteristics that would distinguish it from Oswald's.

Quote
Here's where you say, "you're right, that's not something Klein's stamped on the envelope to indicate that the order had been processed.  Silly me.
You're right. That is not something stamped on the envelope. It is the coupon with Oswald's handwriting clipped to the envelope and then put on microfilm by Klein's, along with the shipping order prepared by Klein's, to record the fact that C2766 was used to fill the order and the date that it was was processed. Silly me.

Quote
I don't want to spread misinformation.  Also, I have no clue where I got the idea that Marina said Lee bought a gun through the mail or why I thought the package was picked up 5 days later.  Sorry for wasting everybody's time spreading all this nonsense!"
Marina identified Oswald's handwriting on the coupon for the gun ordered and shipped from Seaport Traders (CE135) to Oswald's PO Box 2915.  That was for the handgun.  According to Klein's records, Oswald's order for the rifle was postmarked March 12.  It was received March 13 and processed by Klein's and shipped on March 20. According to the post office, it would have taken a day to travel to Dallas by train so the earliest it physically arrived in the Dallas post office would be late on March 21. A card would have been placed in Oswald's box the next day, March 22 at the earliest, which was a Friday. March 25 was the following Monday. It is possible that he picked it up March 22  - or the 23rd if the post office was open Saturday.  In any event, he would likely would have picked it up by Monday, March 25. Sorry for wasting your time trying to persuade you that this is a reasonable conclusion to be drawn from this evidence.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 14, 2018, 11:20:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So, in your world, if a conclusion is based on evidence that demonstrates a high probability that the conclusion is correct, that conclusion is still an assumption? So when is a conclusion based on evidence not an assumption?

Well, setting aside that you haven't demonstrated that your conclusions have a "high probability" of being correct, if your conclusion depends on anything that hasn't been proven, then it's an assumption.

assumption
1. a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

Quote
What other reasonable conclusion is there? Either CE399 was the bullet found at Parkland or it was not. If it was not, then the FBI's evidence that it was from Parkland was made up.

What FBI evidence?  Somebody handed Robert Frazier a bullet and said "hey, this was found at Parkland".

As the story goes, Tomlinson found a bullet on an unrelated stretcher at Parkland.  He gave it to O.P. Wright, his personnel officer, who gave it to Richard Johnsen of the Secret Service.  Either Johnsen or SS agent Gerald Behn (their stories differ) then gave it to James Rowley of the Secret Service, who gave it to FBI agent Elmer Lee Todd, who gave it to FBI agent Robert Frazier for analysis.

None of these transfers were documented with any paper trail or signed for in any way.  None of these people initialed the object except for Todd and Frazier.  None of these people except Todd and Frazier could positively identify CE 399 as the same bullet that they handled.  O.P. Wright said the bullet he saw had a pointed tip.  An elevator repairman named Nathan Pool told the HSCA that he actually found the stretcher bullet (which he also described as pointed) and gave it to Tomlinson.  Also, there's the story that Secret Service agent Sam Kinney supposedly told his friend Gary Loucks that he found a bullet in the limo and set it on a stretcher at Parkland.

Quote
It has been long established in forensic science that finger and palm prints are highly variable between individuals.  I didn't say that a conclusive match would be made - just that it would be improbable for some other random partial palm print to have no characteristics that would distinguish it from Oswald's.

Doesn't that depend on the size of the partial and how many points of identity there are?  Besides, since the circumstances of how this print was allegedly lifted and delivered to the FBI are so dodgy, there's really no way to know if it was ever actually on the C2766 rifle or not.

Quote
That is not something stamped on the envelope. It is the coupon with Oswald's handwriting

Subjective and unscientific handwriting "analysis" of 2 block letters on a photo of a microfilm image of a 2 inch order coupon.

Quote
clipped to the envelope and then put on microfilm by Klein's, along with the shipping order prepared by Klein's, to record the fact that the order was processed as written.

Processed, yes.  Shipped?  Who knows?  Picked up by Oswald?  Who knows?

Quote
Marina identified Oswald's handwriting on the coupon for the gun ordered and shipped from Seaport Traders (CE135) to Oswald's PO Box 2915.

Here we go again.  When did Marina identify Oswald's handwriting?

Quote
  According to Klein's records, Oswald's order was shipped on March 20.

Again, Klein's records say nothing of the kind.

Quote
A card would have been place in Oswald's box a day later, March 22 which was a Friday. March 25 was the following Monday. It is possible that he picked it up March 22 but more likely March 25.

Great.  Where's the card?  And how do you know how often that box was checked and by whom?

Quote
Sorry for wasting your time trying to persuade you that this is a reasonable conclusion to be drawn from this evidence.

That's not what I said was wasting time.  What's wasting time is all the misinformation you're propagating that requires correction, like the "Klein's stamp" on the envelope or Marina's supposed handwriting identification.

But your "reasonable conclusion" is that Oswald picked up a rifle from the post office on March 22 or March 25 when there is absolutely ZERO evidence that he did.  ZERO.

And besides, since the FBI was monitoring his mail at this time, wouldn't they have known about this rifle package from Klein's if one was ever actually shipped?
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on August 15, 2018, 02:37:13 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, setting aside that you haven't demonstrated that your conclusions have a "high probability" of being correct, if your conclusion depends on anything that hasn't been proven, then it's an assumption.
So when my deck is all wet in the morning, there is not a high probability that it rained?  What alternate universe do you live in?

Quote
What FBI evidence?  Somebody handed Robert Frazier a bullet and said "hey, this was found at Parkland".

As the story goes, Tomlinson found a bullet on an unrelated stretcher at Parkland.  He gave it to O.P. Wright, his personnel officer, who gave it to Richard Johnsen of the Secret Service.  Either Johnsen or SS agent Gerald Behn (their stories differ) then gave it to James Rowley of the Secret Service, who gave it to FBI agent Elmer Lee Todd, who gave it to FBI agent Robert Frazier for analysis.

None of these transfers were documented with any paper trail or signed for in any way.  None of these people initialed the object except for Todd and Frazier.  None of these people except Todd and Frazier could positively identify CE 399 as the same bullet that they handled.
So you really are saying that they made all those transfers up?

Quote
Doesn't that depend on the size of the partial and how many points of identity there are?  Besides, since the circumstances of how this print was allegedly lifted and delivered to the FBI are so dodgy, there's really no way to know if it was ever actually on the C2766 rifle or not.
The only thing that depends on the size of the print and the number of points identified is the level of confidence. One point of difference is an exclusion.  It was on the rifle as examined by an officer who had expertise in comparing prints.  There were no points that excluded Oswald. While that may not be sufficient to make a positive match, it is consistent with it being Oswald's. That, in light of the rest of the evidence (including the evidence that show was the gun shipped to Oswald's mail box, that he took a long package to work) is probative of Oswald having recently handled the rifle.

Quote
Subjective and unscientific handwriting "analysis" of 2 block letters on a photo of a microfilm image of a 2 inch order coupon.

Processed, yes.  Shipped?  Who knows?  Picked up by Oswald?  Who knows?
We know because we can see how improbable it is that all this evidence, if completely false, would fit together randomly by accident.

Quote
Here we go again.  When did Marina identify Oswald's handwriting?
During her WC testimony.

Quote
Again, Klein's records say nothing of the kind.

Great.  Where's the card?  And how do you know how often that box was checked and by whom?
Why would Oswald keep the card?  Does that mean it never existed?

Quote
But your "reasonable conclusion" is that Oswald picked up a rifle from the post office on March 22 or March 25 when there is absolutely ZERO evidence that he did.  ZERO.
Wrong. He was photographed with an identical rifle a few days later. I can connect those dots quite easily. I am sorry you can't.

Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 15, 2018, 05:39:51 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So when my deck is all wet in the morning, there is not a high probability that it rained?  What alternate universe do you live in?

If the only information you have is that your deck is wet, then no.  You would have no basis for your "high probability" declaration.

Quote
So you really are saying that they made all those transfers up?

No.  Where did you get that idea?  I'm asking you how you know the bullet that Todd handed Frazier is the same bullet that Tomlinson found.

Quote
The only thing that depends on the size of the print and the number of points identified is the level of confidence. One point of difference is an exclusion.

Granted.  But one point of similarity is an "unable to identify".

Quote
  It was on the rifle as examined by an officer who had expertise in comparing prints.

When did Carl Day ever attempt to match the print that he "found"?  All he did was send an index card to Washington several days later with a print on it and claim that he "didn't have time" to photograph it or cover it with cellophane like he did with the other prints, and that he "forgot" to give it to, or even to mention it to the FBI agent he gave all the evidence to.

It boggles my mind that you don't find any of that to be the slightest bit suspicious.

Quote
  There were no points that excluded Oswald. While that may not be sufficient to make a positive match, it is consistent with it being Oswald's.

That's an overstatement.  Day just said that the unidentifiable trigger guard prints "appeared to be the right middle and right ring finger of Harvey Lee Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald".  He didn't say what he based that impression on.

Quote
That, in light of the rest of the evidence (including the evidence that show was the gun shipped to Oswald's mail box,

For the umpteenth time, there is no evidence that shows the gun was shipped anywhere.

Quote
that he took a long package to work) is probative of Oswald having recently handled the rifle.

How does holding a package tell you anything about a rifle?

Quote
We know because we can see how improbable it is that all this evidence, if completely false, would fit together randomly by accident.

Who's "we"?  The only thing that makes this evidence "fit together" is the assumptions you make in order to make it fit.  And please, dispense with your strawman that anyone thinks all the evidence (such as it is) is false.  The evidence is what it is.  It's the conclusions you make from the evidence that either are or are not justified.

Quote
During her WC testimony.

Please quote Marina ever saying anything in her WC testimony about identifying Oswald's handwriting on the Seaport Traders coupon.

Quote
Why would Oswald keep the card?  Does that mean it never existed?

What is your evidence that there ever was such a card?

Quote
Wrong. He was photographed with an identical rifle a few days later. I can connect those dots quite easily. I am sorry you can't.

You have no basis for your assumption that the rifle in the photo is "identical".  You also don't know that the photo was taken "a few days later".  You're connecting dots that you don't even have.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on August 16, 2018, 01:24:06 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If the only information you have is that your deck is wet, then no.  You would have no basis for your "high probability" declaration.
I cannot ever recall my deck being wet from some other source other than rain.  So when it is wet, there is a high probability that it rained.  If you do not see that as a reasonable conclusion, I want you on my next jury.

Quote
No.  Where did you get that idea?  I'm asking you how you know the bullet that Todd handed Frazier is the same bullet that Tomlinson found.
Because the evidence of how it got to Frazier from Parkland satisfies me, in the absence of conspiracy evidence, that that is how it got from Parkland to Frazier.

Quote
Granted.  But one point of similarity is an "unable to identify".

When did Carl Day ever attempt to match the print that he "found"?  All he did was send an index card to Washington several days later with a print on it and claim that he "didn't have time" to photograph it or cover it with cellophane like he did with the other prints, and that he "forgot" to give it to, or even to mention it to the FBI agent he gave all the evidence to.

It boggles my mind that you don't find any of that to be the slightest bit suspicious.


That's an overstatement.  Day just said that the unidentifiable trigger guard prints "appeared to be the right middle and right ring finger of Harvey Lee Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald".  He didn't say what he based that impression on.
It is only suspicious if Day was part of a plan to frame Oswald.

Quote
For the umpteenth time, there is no evidence that shows the gun was shipped anywhere.
Ok. You can't connect the dots. I can.  MC with s/n C2766 is found on the 6th floor.  It is indistinguishable from the gun held by Oswald that Marina identifies as Oswald's in the backyard photos. In those photos Oswald holds two communist newspapers that were determined to be issues dated March 11 and March 24, 1963 that were mailed out March 7 and March 21 respectively.  Records from Klein's show that C2766 was used to fill a fully paid order from Oswald a.k.a. A. Hidell showing a shipping address of Oswald's Dallas post box no. 2915. The order was recorded by Klein's as having been received March 13, 1963 and processed on March 20.  Oswald was arrested after a brief struggle in the Texas Theater carrying a selective service card with his photo and the name "Alek James Hidell". That is enough to explain how Oswald came to own the C2766 rifle.   If you refuse to draw that conclusion, it must be because you think someone made all that evidence fit together.  If you really think that, we are wasting out time trying to carry the discussion much further.  BTW, each piece of evidence will rarely be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by itself.  The conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt comes from examination of all the evidence.

Quote
How does holding a package tell you anything about a rifle?

Who's "we"?  The only thing that makes this evidence "fit together" is the assumptions you make in order to make it fit.  And please, dispense with your strawman that anyone thinks all the evidence (such as it is) is false.  The evidence is what it is.  It's the conclusions you make from the evidence that either are or are not justified.
In order for Oswald's rifle to get to the TSBD it had to have been brought there from somewhere else.  If he hadn't brought anything to work you would be arguing that was in favour of Oswald, which it would be.  But it works both ways: the evidence that he carried a long object to work that morning is another piece of evidence against Oswald.

Quote
Please quote Marina ever saying anything in her WC testimony about identifying Oswald's handwriting on the Seaport Traders coupon.
1 H 118:
Mr. THORNE. Exhibit No. 135 purports to be a clipping from a newspaper. It is a clipping of an advertisement, a mail coupon.
Mrs. OSWALD. I don’t know what that is.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recognize the handwriting on it?
Mrs. OSWALD. Lee’s handwriting.
Mr. RANKIN. I offer in evidence Exhibit 135

Here is the mail coupon CE135 (https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0268a.htm)

Quote
What is your evidence that there ever was such a card?
Because that was the evidence of the post office's system that post office employees were instructed to follow and there is no evidence that the system was not followed.  There is no evidence that the order was cancelled.

Quote
You have no basis for your assumption that the rifle in the photo is "identical".  You also don't know that the photo was taken "a few days later".  You're connecting dots that you don't even have.
Ok. It is indistinguishable from C2766. Does that make you feel better?
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Mytton on August 16, 2018, 02:46:17 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Subjective and unscientific handwriting "analysis" of 2 block letters on a photo of a microfilm image of a 2 inch order coupon.


-sigh-

(https://s15.postimg.cc/cklyciix7/cadigan_ex3a.jpg)

Mr. EISENBERG. You can refer to your photographs.
Mr. CADIGAN. The enlarged photograph, Cadigan Exhibit No. 3-A, contains both handwriting and hand printing which was compared with the known standards, Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 4 through 10. I compared both the handwriting and the hand printing to determine whether or not the same combination of individual handwriting characteristics was present in both the questioned and the known documents. I found many characteristics, some of which I would point out.
On the order blank, in the "A. Hidell" and in the wording "Dallas Texas" which constitutes a part of the return address, the letter "A" in Cadigan Exhibit No. 3 is made in the same manner as the capital letter "A" on Cadigan Exhibit No. 10. The letter is formed with a short straight stroke beginning about halfway up the left side. The top of it is peaked or pointed. The right side is straight, and is shorter than the initial stroke. The capital letter "D" in Dallas is characterized by a staff or downstroke slanting at about a 30° angle. The lower loop in some instances is closed. In the word "Dallas" the loop is closed, and the body of the letter ends in a rounded loop formation. The same characteristic I found in Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 4, 5, and 6 as well as other exhibits. The word "Texas" on Cadigan Exhibit No. 3-A is characterized with the letter "x" made in an unusual manner in that the writer, after completing the body of the letter, makes an abrupt change of motion to the following letter "a." This same characteristic I observed in the known standard on Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 6, 9, and 4.
In the address portion of the envelope, Cadigan Exhibit No. 3-A, appears the word "Dept." I noticed here, again, the same formation of the capital "D." In addition, the entire word "Dept" appears in the known standards on Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 5, 6, and 7. The characteristics I would point out here are in the letter "p" in Cadigan Exhibit No. 3, where the letter is made with a relatively long narrow staff, and the body of the letter is a rounded shape which projects above the staff. The letter "t" ends abruptly in a downstroke. In the hand-printing appearing in the exhibit marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 3--A, the wording "Dallas, Texas" contains a number of the same characteristics as Cadigan Exhibit No. 5, where the same wording appears, and on Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 7 and 8. The writer uses a script-type "D," and prints the other letters in the word "Dallas." The "A " again is made in a similar way to the "A" in "A. Hidell," with a beginning of the downstroke approximately three-quarters of the way up the left side of the stroke. The letter is relatively narrow, and the right-hand side of the letter is straight. In the double "L" combinations there is a curve in the lower portion of the letter. The "S" has a flat top, slanting at approximately a 30-degree angle. In the word "Texas" in Cadigan Exhibit No. 3-A the writer has used a small "e" following the letter "T." The same characteristics will be noted on Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 5, 7, and 8.
Additionally, I noted that in addition to the shape of the letters themselves, the relative heights of the letters, the spacing between the letters, the slant of the letters in both the know and questioned documents are the same.
On Cadigan Exhibit No. 3-A, in the portion for address, appears the notation "P.O. Box 2915," and this same wording appears on Cadigan Exhibit No. 5, and on No. 7 and No. 8 except for the "P.O." portion. Here, again, I observed the same formation of the individual letters; the spacing, the style, the slant of the writings in both questioned and known were observed to be the same.
The tail of the "5" is made with a relatively long stroke and the same characteristic appears in the known standards. In the hand printed name "A. Hidell," on Cadigan Exhibit No. 3-A, another characteristic I noted was the very small-sized "i" in the name "Hidell." The writer makes this letter very short in contrast to the other letters in the name. This same characteristic I observed on Cadigan Exhibit No. 10, the passport application. With reference to the "1" dot on Cadigan Exhibit No. 3 in the name "Hidell," in the return portion, the dot is relatively high and between the body of the letter and the following letter "d." In the portion of the word "Chicago"---of the name "Chicago"--in the address portion on Cadigan Exhibit No. 3, the "i" dot is between the "o" and the "g" in "Chicago" and is well above the line of writing. On Cadigan Exhibit No. 4 I observed the same displacement of the "i" dot. In some instances, it is slightly to the right of the body of the letter, as in the word "citizenship" in the sixth line from the bottom, whereas in the word "direct" in the ninth line from the bottom the "i" dot is displaced one and a half letters to the right.
Based upon the combination of these individual characteristics which I have pointed out, as well as others, I reached the opinion that the handwriting and handprinting on Cadigan Exhibit No. 3-A were written by Lee Harvey Oswald, the writer of the known standards, Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 4 through 10.


(https://s15.postimg.cc/oj6cskx3f/cadigan_exhibit_4.jpg)

(https://s15.postimg.cc/8m7kw7cij/cadigan_ex_5.jpg)

(https://s15.postimg.cc/h3736r6t7/cadigan_ex_6.jpg)

(https://s15.postimg.cc/v9mu1z9yj/cadigan_ex_7.jpg)

(https://s15.postimg.cc/yghdlkzjf/cadigan_ex_8.jpg)

(https://s15.postimg.cc/en59t5ot7/cadigan_ex_9.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 16, 2018, 08:56:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
-sigh-

Sigh, indeed.  Who filled out that envelope is irrelevant.  There's nothing to tie that envelope with that particular order coupon or any particular Klein's item.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Mytton on August 16, 2018, 09:42:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Sigh, indeed.  Who filled out that envelope is irrelevant.  There's nothing to tie that envelope with that particular order coupon or any particular Klein's item.

Double -sigh-

For a start, attempting to isolate a single piece of Kleins evidence is kinda silly and rather pointless but hey being dishonest is quickly becoming your trademark..

Secondly, the coupon and the envelope both have the same name and return address which rules out a clerical mix up.

(https://s15.postimg.cc/cklyciix7/cadigan_ex3a.jpg)

Thirdly, the envelope is directed to Dept358 and the coupon has an amount written of $19.95 and guess what the only item for $19.95 in the Kleins ad is for,... an Italian Carcano. Da Dahh!

(https://s15.postimg.cc/vk8mxkwh7/Kleins_feb_ad.jpg)

(https://s15.postimg.cc/y449rv78b/Kleins_ad_358.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 16, 2018, 11:54:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Double -sigh-

For a start, attempting to isolate a single piece of Kleins evidence is kinda silly and rather pointless but hey being dishonest is quickly becoming your trademark..

Says the guy who was caught doing at least 3 dishonest things just today.

Quote
Secondly, the coupon and the envelope both have the same name and return address which rules out a clerical mix up.

Who said there was a clerical mixup?  I said it's irrelevant who filled out the envelope as there is no way to know that this coupon actually arrived in this envelope.

Quote
Thirdly, the envelope is directed to Dept358 and the coupon has an amount written of $19.95 and guess what the only item for $19.95 in the Kleins ad is for,... an Italian Carcano. Da Dahh!

You mean the 36" Italian Carbine?  I don't see the word "Carcano" there.  Too bad they couldn't find a money order for $19.95 though, huh?
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Mytton on August 17, 2018, 12:18:57 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Says the guy who was caught doing at least 3 dishonest things just today.

Who said there was a clerical mixup?  I said it's irrelevant who filled out the envelope as there is no way to know that this coupon actually arrived in this envelope.


Quote
Says the guy who was caught doing at least 3 dishonest things just today.

Yet another Iacoletti deception.

Quote
Who said there was a clerical mixup?  I said it's irrelevant who filled out the envelope as there is no way to know that this coupon actually arrived in this envelope.

This doesn't even make sense, the exact coupon amount for an Italian Carcano in the name of Hidell with Oswald's PO box is directly linked to the Envelope in the name of Hidell with Oswald's PO box number, the dept number on the Envelope specifically references the Kleins ad with an Italian Carcano which costs 19.95, precisely the same as the coupon.

Btw I understand your reluctance to insinuate that this is just more "faked" evidence because you don't want to add too many more conspirators to your massive cast. LMAO!

JohnM






Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 17, 2018, 09:41:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This doesn't even make sense, the exact coupon amount for an Italian Carcano in the name of Hidell with Oswald's PO box is directly linked to the Envelope in the name of Hidell with Oswald's PO box number, the dept number on the Envelope specifically references the Kleins ad with an Italian Carcano which costs 19.95, precisely the same as the coupon.

This entire paragraph is a "Mytton" deception.  There's no ad for an "Italian Carcano" and there's nothing "directly linking" that particular coupon to that particular envelope other than them being photographed next to each other.  That coupon could have been filled out at any time.

Quote
Btw I understand your reluctance to insinuate that this is just more "faked" evidence because you don't want to add too many more conspirators to your massive cast. LMAO!

Add another one to the ever growing list of "Mytton" lies.  I have no "massive cast" of conspirators.  You can't conclusively show that Oswald ever ordered anything so you try to divert by inventing strawmen to argue against.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on August 27, 2018, 05:09:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This entire paragraph is a "Mytton" deception.  There's no ad for an "Italian Carcano" and there's nothing "directly linking" that particular coupon to that particular envelope other than them being photographed next to each other.  That coupon could have been filled out at any time.

Add another one to the ever growing list of "Mytton" lies.  I have no "massive cast" of conspirators.  You can't conclusively show that Oswald ever ordered anything so you try to divert by inventing strawmen to argue against.
The question is not whether a jury would necessarily conclude that Oswald was guilty. By that standard, OJ Simpson and El Sayyid Nosair were not responsible for murder. We know they were.  Juries can get hung up on an issue that they can't get past: like "did the gloves fit"? Some wingnut juror could get hung up on whether Oswald ever ordered a gun from Klein's and somehow convince themself that all the other evidence did not matter. 

The questions are: 1. is there evidence on which a successful prosecution could be made that Oswald murdered of JFK? and 2. is there is any evidence that anyone else was involved in planning and/or carrying it out? The answers have to be: 1. Yes and 2. No.  That is as far as anyone can go in this case.

The issue that this thread raised, initially: "a scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory", was whether the SBT can withstand scientific scrutiny.  In my view, it cannot.  But that does not in any way change the overwhelming case against Oswald. And, when all the evidence is examined, without the SBT there is still no evidence that anyone else was involved.  The evidence shows that the SBT is not needed to support the conclusion that Oswald murdered JFK and that he acted alone.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 27, 2018, 07:56:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The question is not whether a jury would necessarily conclude that Oswald was guilty. By that standard, OJ Simpson and El Sayyid Nosair were not responsible for murder. We know they were.

What do you mean, "we"?

Quote
  Juries can get hung up on an issue that they can't get past: like "did the gloves fit"? Some wingnut juror could get hung up on whether Oswald ever ordered a gun from Klein's and somehow convince themself that all the other evidence did not matter. 

Your biases are showing.  People who refuse to make the same leaps as you are "wingnuts"?

Quote
The questions are: 1. is there evidence on which a successful prosecution could be made that Oswald murdered of JFK? and 2. is there is any evidence that anyone else was involved in planning and/or carrying it out? The answers have to be: 1. Yes and 2. No.  That is as far as anyone can go in this case.

You can't answer question 1 without it actually having been done.  It's just a matter of conjecture how a trial would go.  Yes, there have been a couple of mock trials, but they weren't all that authentic for various reasons.  Question 2 is irrelevant to a finding of guilt or not for Oswald.

Quote
The issue that this thread raised, initially: "a scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory", was whether the SBT can withstand scientific scrutiny.  In my view, it cannot.  But that does not in any way change the overwhelming case against Oswald.

SBT or not, there just isn't an "overwhelming case against Oswald".  It requires too many leaps of faith.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Mytton on August 27, 2018, 09:15:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
and there's nothing "directly linking" that particular coupon to that particular envelope

Yeah, only the name and the return address. LOL!

JohnM
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on August 27, 2018, 10:03:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What do you mean, "we"?
You and me (and everyone else who followed the evidence)..... unless you think OJ and Nosair were framed....

Quote
Your biases are showing.  People who refuse to make the same leaps as you are "wingnuts"?
No. Just those for whom a doubt on a single piece of evidence makes them ignore all the rest of the evidence.  Sometimes a perverse verdict is all an accused can hope for. 

Quote
You can't answer question 1 without it actually having been done.  It's just a matter of conjecture how a trial would go.  Yes, there have been a couple of mock trials, but they weren't all that authentic for various reasons.
There can't be a trial. The question is whether evidence exists that is capable of convincing 12 reasonable persons that Oswald committed the murder.  The answer to that question is "Yes".

Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on August 27, 2018, 10:06:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yeah, only the name and the return address. LOL!

JohnM
And the handwriting!
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Mytton on August 27, 2018, 10:27:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Some wingnut juror could get hung up on whether Oswald ever ordered a gun from Klein's and somehow convince themself that all the other evidence did not matter. 

Clever but I don't think Iacoletti saw the connection.

JohnM
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 28, 2018, 12:19:10 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Clever but I don't think Iacoletti saw the connection.

What I see is that people who don't have a good argument just insult the person with an opposing view and hope that people can't tell the difference.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 28, 2018, 12:20:22 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yeah, only the name and the return address. LOL!

Is that supposed to prove that that particular coupon was ever in that particular envelope?
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 28, 2018, 12:24:24 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No. Just those for whom a doubt on a single piece of evidence makes them ignore all the rest of the evidence.

When what little real evidence there is, is weak and circumstantial, and it's all questionable, arguable, impeachable, or tainted in some way then it's not ignoring anything to call it unreliable.  This isn't a single piece of evidence -- it's every piece of evidence.

Quote
The question is whether evidence exists that is capable of convincing 12 reasonable persons that Oswald committed the murder.  The answer to that question is "Yes".

Is this just a guess based on what it takes to convince you of something?
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Mytton on August 28, 2018, 12:42:34 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Is that supposed to prove that that particular coupon was ever in that particular envelope?

Hilarious talk about desperate, not only are you trying to separate each piece of evidence against Oswald now you're separating each piece of individual evidence into something which has no alternate narrative and no real world equivalence.

JohnM
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on August 28, 2018, 01:43:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
When what little real evidence there is, is weak and circumstantial, and it's all questionable, arguable, impeachable, or tainted in some way then it's not ignoring anything to call it unreliable.  This isn't a single piece of evidence -- it's every piece of evidence.
Ok. So let's say there is a finite probability that the microfilm showing the envelope and coupon together is not evidence that the coupon was in the envelope. Let's say that probability is x. Then you have the order sheet prepared by Klein's showing that C2766 was used to fill an order to be sent to Box 2915 Dallas.  Let's say that the probability that C2766 was NOT used to fill such an order is x.  etc.etc. Are you saying at the end of the day you have a probability of x that Oswald never purchased C2766?
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 28, 2018, 03:43:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hilarious talk about desperate, not only are you trying to separate each piece of evidence against Oswald now you're separating each piece of individual evidence into something which has no alternate narrative and no real world equivalence.

What's desperate is you trying to pile an envelope onto your supposed "mountain" that cannot be connected to any particular Klein's order or any particular weapon.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 28, 2018, 03:51:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ok. So let's say there is a finite probability that the microfilm showing the envelope and coupon together is not evidence that the coupon was in the envelope. Let's say that probability is x. Then you have the order sheet prepared by Klein's showing that C2766 was used to fill an order to be sent to Box 2915 Dallas.  Let's say that the probability that C2766 was NOT used to fill such an order is x.  etc.etc. Are you saying at the end of the day you have a probability of x that Oswald never purchased C2766?

Anyone can make up a value of x -- that isn't particularly useful.  What I'm saying is that none of these things show that Lee Oswald ever had possession of C2766.  At best, the unscientific and biased handwriting "analysis" of 2 block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon, if accurate, just shows that Oswald filled out an order coupon for a 36-inch Italian carbine.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on August 29, 2018, 01:34:52 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What's desperate is you trying to pile an envelope onto your supposed "mountain" that cannot be connected to any particular Klein's order or any particular weapon.
The point is that if the probability that each of two independent events occurred is x, the probability that both events occurred is x2.  And since x is always less than 1, the probability of all events actually occurring keeps going down exponentially as the number of events increases. You do not seem to appreciate this.

So you have a doubt that Oswald filled out the Klein's coupon and the envelope with his Dallas post box, even though it appears very similar to his handwriting and to the handwriting on the coupon he filled out to purchase the handgun that Marina herself as Oswald's.  Then you say you have a doubt that Klein's filled that order at all, despite the shipping order that was prepared showing that C2766 was used to fill the order. Then you say that you doubt that Oswald or anyone took out a money order to pay for this order.  Let's say that the probability of each doubts being fulfilled is x = .1 (I am being generous: that would mean that, contrary to their documents, 1 in 10 of Klein's orders were not ordered;  a 1 in 10 chance that items were not shipped; and a 1 in 10 chance that they would indicate that an order had been paid when payment had not been received). 

In order for Oswald not to have received the gun, all three doubts must be fulfilled. The probability of fulfilling all three doubts (i.e. for someone other than Oswald to have filled out the coupon rifle AND for Klein's not to have processed the order despite producing paperwork to that effect AND to have done so without being paid and falsely entering that payment had been made) is x3 or 1/1000.

Then you have a rifle photographed in Oswald's hands within a week of when the rifle would most likely have arrived in Oswald's post box. Then that rifle shows up in the very building that Oswald worked in and has prints that are not inconsistent with Oswald's prints and Oswald is seen carrying a long package to work that morning etc. The probability becomes exponentially lower.  Even if you put a probability of each piece being false at .5 the probability that ALL of this evidence being false becomes extremely small as the evidence mounts.  That is the problem with your position.

Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 29, 2018, 08:18:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The point is that if the probability that each of two independent events occurred is x, the probability that both events occurred is x2.  And since x is always less than 1, the probability of all events actually occurring keeps going down exponentially as the number of events increases. You do not seem to appreciate this.

The reason I don't appreciate it is because you're just making up probabilities.  And none of these things are independent events.

Quote
So you have a doubt that Oswald filled out the Klein's coupon and the envelope with his Dallas post box, even though it appears very similar to his handwriting

Correct.  Handwriting "analysis" is biased and unscientific and thus unreliable.  Especially in this case where even the supposed standards of the practice aren't met (tiny sample that's a copy).

Quote
and to the handwriting on the coupon he filled out to purchase the handgun that Marina herself as Oswald's.

On what basis could Marina have possibly differentiated one handgun from another?  Marina by her own account knew nothing about guns.  "You men. That is your business."

Quote
  Then you say you have a doubt that Klein's filled that order at all, despite the shipping order that was prepared showing that C2766 was used to fill the order.

There is no shipping order.  And there is nothing to tie that "order blank" that you erroneously call a shipping order with that particular order coupon.  For example, the coupon could have been made after the fact to match the "order blank".  The handwritten serial number could have been added to the "order blank" after the fact as well.  Did any of the other Klein's orders have "order blanks" with handwritten serial numbers on them?  Did any of the other Klein's orders have copies of the order coupons and envelopes, but not money orders?  No way to tell because the original microfilm disappeared.  Darn the luck.  I guess we just have to have faith.

Quote
Then you say that you doubt that Oswald or anyone took out a money order to pay for this order.

Even though his timesheet says he was at work all day?  So since we're invoking probabilities here, what are the odds that he snuck away from work walked over a mile away to the post office and back to buy and mail a money order and nobody noticed?

Quote
  Let's say that the probability of each doubts being fulfilled is x = .1 (I am being generous: that would mean that, contrary to their documents, 1 in 10 of Klein's orders were not ordered;  a 1 in 10 chance that items were not shipped; and a 1 in 10 chance that they would indicate that an order had been paid when payment had not been received).

As long as we're just making up numbers here, let's say x = .95.

But the thing is that these are not independent events.  All it takes is for the handwriting to be misidentified and the rest of the stuff doesn't matter.  What are the odds that a biased and unscientific process with no standards or controls on a tiny sample size on a copy would give you unreliable results?  Pretty darn high.

Quote
In order for Oswald not to have received the gun, all three doubts must be fulfilled.

Even if a gun did get shipped by Klein's to PO box 2915 (and there no evidence of such), and was not intercepted by the FBI who was monitoring his mail (what are the odds of that?), you still have the hurdle of showing that Oswald picked it up.

Quote
Then you have a rifle photographed in Oswald's hands within a week of when the rifle would most likely have arrived in Oswald's post box.

You have no idea when this "would most likely have arrived", because you don't actually have anything that shows when it would have been shipped.  That's like saying that the Seaport Traders revolver would most likely have arrived in January.  But instead it supposedly arrived on the same day as the rifle (what are the odds of that?).

Quote
Then that rifle shows up in the very building that Oswald worked in and has prints that are not inconsistent with Oswald's prints

"not inconsistent with Oswald's prints"?  LOL.  Is that what we're calling them now?

Quote
and Oswald is seen carrying a long package to work that morning etc.

You keep forgetting the part about "too short to hold the C2766 rifle".

Quote
The probability becomes exponentially lower.  Even if you put a probability of each piece being false at .5 the probability that ALL of this evidence being false becomes extremely small as the evidence mounts.  That is the problem with your position.

The problem with your rebuttal is it is not necessary for ALL of what you mentioned to be false in order to come to a false conclusion.  In fact none of it has to be false -- just incorrectly interpreted.

Even if you were able to prove that C2766 actually went through the mail and was picked up by Oswald, you still have to get it  in Oswald's hands at 12:30 shooting at the president.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on August 29, 2018, 09:32:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The reason I don't appreciate it is because you're just making up probabilities.  And none of these things are independent events.
I am not making up probabilities so much as I am putting an upward limit on the probability.  But in the end, it doesn't really matter what the probabilities are if there are enough independent events. 

I would agree that the converse of these events are NOT independent, but errors (i.e the source of your doubts) are IF there was no broad conspiracy to frame Oswald. 

For example, an order coupon comes in with Oswald's box number and there is also an envelope on which Oswald's box number is written and Klein's also records that it received a money order to pay for the item in the coupon.  These events would seem on the fact to be connected i.e Oswald sent in the order in the envelope with payment.  They are not independent if they are connected.

But you say they are not connected.  You say there are big doubts: the envelope may not have contained the coupon; Ok. That means that the envelope arrived for some reason completely unrelated to the coupon arrival.  And they arrived at about the same time and were processed in a way that caused Klein's to put them together.  eg. Klein's has to lose the envelope that accompanied the coupon and it has to misplace the coupon or whatever was in the envelope AND then some employee has to put the coupon and envelope together.  These events would seem to be independent.  So there you have 2 independent events that must occur in order for the coupon and envelope to be unrelated yet photographed together.  Unless you can conceive of a reason those two unrelated events would occur (a coupon with Oswald's box no appearing at Klein's and an envelope with Oswald's box no. appearing at Klein's but not together and both being unconnected to Oswald and then someone at Klein's putting them together rather than with the envelope/coupon that accompanied them) then they would seem to be random and independent.

Quote
Correct.  Handwriting "analysis" is biased and unscientific and thus unreliable.  Especially in this case where even the supposed standards of the practice aren't met (tiny sample that's a copy).
So if you are correct, someone else placed an order and put Oswald's box no. on it.  How do you explain that if there was no conspiracy operating in March 1963?

Quote
On what basis could Marina have possibly differentiated one handgun from another?  Marina by her own account knew nothing about guns.  "You men. That is your business."

There is no shipping order.  And there is nothing to tie that "order blank" that you erroneously call a shipping order with that particular order coupon.  For example, the coupon could have been made after the fact to match the "order blank".  The handwritten serial number could have been added to the "order blank" after the fact as well.  Did any of the other Klein's orders have "order blanks" with handwritten serial numbers on them?  Did any of the other Klein's orders have copies of the order coupons and envelopes, but not money orders?  No way to tell because the original microfilm disappeared.  Darn the luck.  I guess we just have to have faith.
Ok. And each of those independent events is improbable i.e. the probability that someone unrelated to Oswald sent in a blank envelope but with Oswald's box number and that it contained payment in the exact amount of a MC and scope. 

Quote
Even though his timesheet says he was at work all day?  So since we're invoking probabilities here, what are the odds that he snuck away from work walked over a mile away to the post office and back to buy and mail a money order and nobody noticed?
Most U.S. Post offices were open on Saturday. Did Oswald work on Saturday, March 23?

Quote
As long as we're just making up numbers here, let's say x = .95.
If the probability that Klein's mixed up orders they way you suggest was 95% they would have been out of business long before 1963.

Quote
But the thing is that these are not independent events.  All it takes is for the handwriting to be misidentified and the rest of the stuff doesn't matter.  What are the odds that a biased and unscientific process with no standards or controls on a tiny sample size on a copy would give you unreliable results?  Pretty darn high.
But it is not just the handwriting that ties it to Oswald.  The address was Oswald's.  These two events: the handwriting looking very much like Oswald's but not being Oswald's and a person with that handwriting accidentally putting a wrong address on their order and have it turn out to be Oswald's address - are independent.  And then there is the money order being tied to Oswald. And a similar gun in the hands of Oswald a few days after C2766 would have arrived in Dallas is also independent of whose handwriting it was on the coupon and envelope. These are independent events that have to occur in order for your doubts to materialize as fact.

Quote
Even if a gun did get shipped by Klein's to PO box 2915 (and there no evidence of such), and was not intercepted by the FBI who was monitoring his mail (what are the odds of that?), you still have the hurdle of showing that Oswald picked it up.
What hurdle is that?  He was shown a few days later holding a very similar - indistinguishable - gun.

Quote

Even if you were able to prove that C2766 actually went through the mail and was picked up by Oswald, you still have to get it  in Oswald's hands at 12:30 shooting at the president.
That is a much easier task since C2766 would then be Oswald's rifle.  His conduct after the assassination provides additional evidence that Oswald was involved.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 30, 2018, 12:05:15 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
But you say they are not connected.  You say there are big doubts: the envelope may not have contained the coupon; Ok. That means that the envelope arrived for some reason completely unrelated to the coupon arrival.  And they arrived at about the same time and were processed in a way that caused Klein's to put them together.  eg. Klein's has to lose the envelope that accompanied the coupon and it has to misplace the coupon or whatever was in the envelope AND then some employee has to put the coupon and envelope together.

I'm just saying that we don't know what we don't know.  All we have is a print allegedly from a single microfilm frame and the testimony of a vice-president who didn't process the orders.  Could there have been more than one order that day for the same item?  If you believe the deposit slip dated February 15 was actually supposed to be March 15 (why does every piece of evidence have some discrepancy associated with it?  What are the odds?), and the accompanying material then there was another $21.45 payment deposited that day.  What was that order?  We don't know because the microfilm is "missing".

Quote
Ok. And each of those independent events is improbable i.e. the probability that someone unrelated to Oswald sent in a blank envelope but with Oswald's box number and that it contained payment in the exact amount of a MC and scope. 

But now you have another discrepancy as the supposed order coupon says that $19.95 is enclosed.  Also, if this was ordered with a scope, why did Dial Ryder have to mount a scope on a rifle for "Oswald"?

Quote
Most U.S. Post offices were open on Saturday. Did Oswald work on Saturday, March 23?

Well, if you believe the stamp on the money order that was found in Virginia, it was purchased on Tuesday, March 12, 1963.

Quote
But it is not just the handwriting that ties it to Oswald.  The address was Oswald's.  These two events: the handwriting looking very much like Oswald's but not being Oswald's and a person with that handwriting accidentally putting a wrong address on their order and have it turn out to be Oswald's address - are independent.

Are you suggesting that only Oswald could possibly have received mail at PO box 2915?  Well, it would be nice to at least see who was authorized to receive mail there.  But, guess what?  MISSING!  If you believe the FBI, then they must have had the authorization card because they said that nobody else was authorized.  But Holmes jumped through a lot of verbal hoops to try to say that pretty much anybody could have gone to the window and picked up a package, authorized or not.  So why did it have to be Oswald?  And the question still remains, did a package ever actually arrive there?  The FBI was monitoring his mail.  Nobody remembers giving what would have been an unusually large package to a PO box holder.

Quote
  And then there is the money order being tied to Oswald.

Tied how?  Handwriting "analysis" again?

Quote
And a similar gun in the hands of Oswald a few days after C2766 would have arrived in Dallas is also independent of whose handwriting it was on the coupon and envelope.

Is "similar" good enough?  Some people think so.

Quote
His conduct after the assassination provides additional evidence that Oswald was involved.

Yeah, I know.  He wasn't chatty with the cab driver.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on August 30, 2018, 01:54:21 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm just saying that we don't know what we don't know.  All we have is a print allegedly from a single microfilm frame and the testimony of a vice-president who didn't process the orders.  Could there have been more than one order that day for the same item?
All you need is an officer from Klein's to say that the records were produced in the ordinary course of business and they are admissible as business records. The law recognizes that human beings are not expected to remember dealing with all the records they handle every day.

Quote
If you believe the deposit slip dated February 15 was actually supposed to be March 15 (why does every piece of evidence have some discrepancy associated with it?  What are the odds?), and the accompanying material then there was another $21.45 payment deposited that day.  What was that order?  We don't know because the microfilm is "missing".
I don't understand your point. We have the actual money order (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0352a.htm) with Oswald's handwriting on it in the amount of $21.45 and date stamped March 12, 1963 by the Dallas post office. It is payable to Klein's Sporting Goods and is stamped on the back by Klein's for deposit to their bank. This money order did not exist on February 15, 1963.

Quote
But now you have another discrepancy as the supposed order coupon says that $19.95 is enclosed.  Also, if this was ordered with a scope, why did Dial Ryder have to mount a scope on a rifle for "Oswald"?
$19.95 was enclosed - with an additional $1.50 for shipping. 

Do you mean the Dial Ryder who worked on a rifle from a person named Oswald but couldn't remember what he did and couldn't be sure of how much he charged but he could have charged for a bore sighting? 
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 30, 2018, 04:04:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Do you mean the Dial Ryder who worked on a rifle from a person named Oswald but couldn't remember what he did and couldn't be sure of how much he charged but he could have charged for a bore sighting?


Hilarious. Trolletti is willing to accept the Ryder claim without the need for verification through time-travel or movie-film footage.

Andrew, do you think defense attorneys and wrapped-up-in-a-neat-package ("CSI effect") TV shows have some bearing on the expectation (by increasing numbers of people, it would seem) that there's some "absolute" standard-of-proof that must be met?
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 30, 2018, 06:08:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
All you need is an officer from Klein's to say that the records were produced in the ordinary course of business and they are admissible as business records.

I don't care what's "admissible".  I care about what can be demonstrated to be actually true.

Quote
I don't understand your point.  We have the actual money order (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0352a.htm) with Oswald's handwriting on it

We've already talked about the problems with declaring this to be "Oswald's handwriting".

Quote
in the amount of $21.45 and date stamped March 12, 1963 by the Dallas post office. It is payable to Klein's Sporting Goods and is stamped on the back by Klein's for deposit to their bank. This money order did not exist on February 15, 1963.

So when did Klein's deposit this particular money order (if they ever did)?

But my point if you'll recall is how did Oswald buy this money order when he was at work all day long (on a Tuesday, not a Saturday as you surmised)?

Quote
$19.95 was enclosed - with an additional $1.50 for shipping. 

Then why doesn't the alleged order coupon say $21.45 enclosed?  And how do you even know what was enclosed?

Quote
Do you mean the Dial Ryder who worked on a rifle from a person named Oswald but couldn't remember what he did and couldn't be sure of how much he charged but he could have charged for a bore sighting?

Yes, that Dial Ryder.  Was he yet another one of the LN cavalcade of lying / mistaken witnesses?  Or was there another Oswald in Dallas who happened to have an Italian rifle?  Seems like that would have been something to follow up on...
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 30, 2018, 06:53:48 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Is namecalling really necessary?  Who are you, Richard Smith?


Perfect nickname. You're being recognized for all the effort you put in here.

Quote

Hilarious.  Jerry is more than willing to accept the claims of people who support his narrative without any verification.


What--other than time travel--would verify it enough in your eyes?

Quote

Ryder never said his customer was "our" Oswald, but I find it interesting that LNers aren't even curious to investigate anything that could be relevant to the case to look for an explanation.  They already have their "answer".


Andrew took an isolated cherry-pick that you casually threw his way and provided more detail and context. Like most LNers who bother to respond to your unrelenting nasty, provocative trolls.

Quote

Also hilarious:  Jerry thinks that weak, circumstantial and tainted evidence should just be accepted as true because there's no time travel.


So the lack of time-travel boosters your case.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on August 30, 2018, 11:22:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't care what's "admissible".  I care about what can be demonstrated to be actually true.
The reason that business records - records made in the ordinary course of business - are admissible is because courts have determined that they meet the threshold of "reliability".  For example, bank tellers routinely stamp deposits when they are deposited to the bank. We do not need to find the bank teller who stamped a deposit in order for the stamped deposit slip to be evidence that the deposit occurred.  The fact is, the bank teller will rarely remember the deposit. The best evidence is the documentation itself. 

Quote
We've already talked about the problems with declaring this to be "Oswald's handwriting".
And so far as I can tell, no reputable handwriting analyst has said it is not Oswald's handwriting.

Quote
So when did Klein's deposit this particular money order (if they ever did)?
Obviously after March 12, 1963. Why does the actual date matter?

Quote
But my point if you'll recall is how did Oswald buy this money order when he was at work all day long (on a Tuesday, not a Saturday as you surmised)?
Maybe he purchased it before work. Do we know that the post office was not open before 8:00 am?

Quote
Then why doesn't the alleged order coupon say $21.45 enclosed?
I think it may. There is some writing to the right of the $19.95 on the coupon.
Quote
And how do you even know what was enclosed?
Because the order was recorded as having been paid.  Why would anyone send payment separately?

Quote
Yes, that Dial Ryder.  Was he yet another one of the LN cavalcade of lying / mistaken witnesses?  Or was there another Oswald in Dallas who happened to have an Italian rifle?  Seems like that would have been something to follow up on...
Dial Ryder's evidence has little probative value either way.  The only value would be to explain why the C2766 rifle was not sighted perfectly. But even if Ryder did sight the scope in early November 1963, the dismantling and reassembly of the rifle could easily explain why it was out a little.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 30, 2018, 11:56:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Andrew took an isolated cherry-pick that you casually threw his way and provided more detail and context. Like most LNers who bother to respond to your unrelenting nasty, provocative trolls.

I understand that LNers don't like their bad or invalid arguments exposed, but that doesn't make me nasty or a troll.  It's patently obvious who's doing the namecalling here and it's not me.

But by all means, feel free to demonstrate where I have been nasty, and I'll be happy to apologize.  Maybe you can do better than "Richard" who thought that "cool use of JFK reloaded" was uncivil.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 31, 2018, 12:06:50 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The reason that business records - records made in the ordinary course of business - are admissible is because courts have determined that they meet the threshold of "reliability".  For example, bank tellers routinely stamp deposits when they are deposited to the bank. We do not need to find the bank teller who stamped a deposit in order for the stamped deposit slip to be evidence that the deposit occurred.  The fact is, the bank teller will rarely remember the deposit. The best evidence is the documentation itself. 

Fair enough.  Would you agree that in addition to a stamp (which could be done by anybody), that a bank deposit slip or a bank statement showing when the deposit was made would also exist in the ordinary course of business?

Quote
And so far as I can tell, no reputable handwriting analyst has said it is not Oswald's handwriting.

As so far as I can tell, no reputable handwriting analyst has said it is not Genghis Kahn's handwriting either.

Quote
Obviously after March 12, 1963. Why does the actual date matter?

Wouldn't documentation of such help demonstrate that such an instrument was actually deposited by Klein's?

Quote
Maybe he purchased it before work. Do we know that the post office was not open before 8:00 am?

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=102294#relPageId=34 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=102294#relPageId=34)

(https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/102/102294/images/img_102294_34_300.png)
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on August 31, 2018, 05:06:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Fair enough.  Would you agree that in addition to a stamp (which could be done by anybody), that a bank deposit slip or a bank statement showing when the deposit was made would also exist in the ordinary course of business?
A deposit slip prepared by Klein's should exist. According to Klein's deposit records, a payment for $21.45 was included on the deposit slip for 3-13-63.  The bank statement is only going to show the total deposit amount. There should have been a deposit slip for the deposit marked 3-13-63. It may not show the same date as the date on which the deposit slip was prepared may be prior to the date on which the deposit was processed by the bank.

Quote
As so far as I can tell, no reputable handwriting analyst has said it is not Genghis Kahn's handwriting either.
True. But no handwriting analyst ever said it was Genghis Khan's.  No panel of handwriting experts, such as that convened by the HSCA (https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0114a.htm), suggested that the handwriting was Genghis Khan's.  They all thought it was Oswald's. There were no dissenting opinions.

Quote
Wouldn't documentation of such help demonstrate that such an instrument was actually deposited by Klein's?

(https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/102/102294/images/img_102294_34_300.png)
So maybe he was a tad late for work on March 12, 1963.  Maybe he bought it late on March 11 and they date stamped it the following day - just like banks do. The fact is that a money order for $21.45 bearing what experts have said is Oswald's handwriting was purchased with a date stamp of March 12, 1963 and used to pay for a rifle that Klein's records show was C2766, which was later shipped to Oswald's post office box in Dallas.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 31, 2018, 08:18:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A deposit slip prepared by Klein's should exist. According to Klein's deposit records, a payment for $21.45 was included on the deposit slip for 3-13-63.  The bank statement is only going to show the total deposit amount. There should have been a deposit slip for the deposit marked 3-13-63. It may not show the same date as the date on which the deposit slip was prepared may be prior to the date on which the deposit was processed by the bank.

How did they prepare the deposit slip on February 15 for a deposit that included a money order sent on March 12?

Quote
True. But no handwriting analyst ever said it was Genghis Khan's.  No panel of handwriting experts, such as that convened by the HSCA (https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0114a.htm), suggested that the handwriting was Genghis Khan's.  They all thought it was Oswald's. There were no dissenting opinions.

Maybe we should consult a panel of astrology experts to see if Oswald's moon was in Jupiter that day.  And see if there are any dissenting opinions.  That would be good evidence.

One of the things that HSCA expert Purtell said though merits inclusion here if you're going to base your opinion on his expertise:

"Document examiners only render a qualified or conditional opinion when working from copies. They stipulate that they have to examine the original before a definite opinion will be made."

Quote
So maybe he was a tad late for work on March 12, 1963.

Mr. JENNER. Was he regular in his arrival at work?
Mr. GRAEF. Yes.
Mr. JENNER. Were his work habits in that connection satisfactory?
Mr. GRAEF. Yes. I would say he was very punctual in his arrival to work.

Quote
  Maybe he bought it late on March 11 and they date stamped it the following day - just like banks do.

Possible I suppose, but quite a stretch.  He worked until from 8:00-5:15 and had no car.  And the alleged envelope has a 10:30 am postmark.

Quote
The fact is that a money order for $21.45 bearing what experts have said is Oswald's handwriting

Mr. FAUNTROY - All right, thank you. The second question has to do with the Hunt letter there. Assuming that that is a forgery, how would you put together such a forgery? Is it possible for a person to so analyze the writing of another person as to reproduce it in reasonable facsimile?
Mr. MCNALLY - Oh, yes. As a matter of fact, we had a famous case some years ago where there was pages and pages of writing reproduced in the so-called Irving-Hughes situation back in the seventies. It was very difficult at that time to determine whether it was good or bad.
Mr. FAUNTROY - What is the peculiar capability required to do that? Are there persons who are particularly skilled at forgery in that kind of detail, that kind of length?
Mr. MCNALLY - Yes, there are. As a matter of fact, they exist all over. You have them in the criminal field where, let's say with a quick study you could turn out something like this, particularly since Oswald's general writing pattern is simple and tends to be rather legible, and to turn out something like that would be not particularly difficult.

Quote
was purchased with a date stamp of March 12, 1963 and used to pay for a rifle that Klein's records show was C2766, which was later shipped to Oswald's post office box in Dallas.

Where is the postal record of shipment?  Where is the receipt for the postage paid?  Where is the signature of the person who picked it up? Why did the FBI who was monitoring his mail not notice a package from a gun store?  Why didn't any postal employee remember a 5 foot box being picked up?
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Mytton on August 31, 2018, 11:20:21 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't care what's "admissible".  I care about what can be demonstrated to be actually true.

Where does all your speculation go, in 54 years there is still no alternative narrative CT's suggest forgery and planting yet don't provide any evidence, btw a clerical error or something equally as irrelevant does not make a case.

But what does make a case is the following corroborated evidence.

Oswald ordered the rifle.

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lBbF8H1R3sc/UePWFAvjvMI/AAAAAAAAvKY/5A611hBQNwQ/s1600/Rifle-Documents.jpg)

Oswald possessed the rifle.

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HPQnsOqQfnY/Tmel8ssSYOI/AAAAAAAAhTc/hQBiAfX1ZpA/s1600/Oswald-Backyard-Photos.jpg)

Oswald's rifle was found at Oswald's work with Oswald's prints.

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/SsnIeaAWFfo/hqdefault.jpg)

(https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0158b.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 31, 2018, 11:27:29 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
But what does make a case is the following corroborated evidence.

sigh....

Quote
Oswald ordered the rifle.

That picture doesn't demonstrate that Oswald ordered a rifle.  And neither does unscientific handwriting "analysis" of two block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a two-inch order coupon.

Quote
Oswald possessed the rifle.

That picture doesn't demonstrate that Oswald possessed that particular rifle, because the rifle in that photo has not been uniquely identified.

Quote
Oswald's rifle

LOL

Quote
was found at Oswald's work

A lot of people worked there.

Quote
with Oswald's prints.

No, some prints were found near the trigger guard which were useless for identification purposes, and a partial palmprint was found on an index card a week later.

How any of this is supposed to prove that Oswald shot JFK is anyone's guess.  The only thing it proves is that you think repeating "Oswald's rifle" over and over again somehow makes it true.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Mytton on August 31, 2018, 11:34:37 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

One of the things that HSCA expert Purtell said though merits inclusion here if you're going to base your opinion on his expertise:

"Document examiners only render a qualified or conditional opinion when working from copies. They stipulate that they have to examine the original before a definite opinion will be made."

Mr. JENNER. Was he regular in his arrival at work?
Mr. GRAEF. Yes.
Mr. JENNER. Were his work habits in that connection satisfactory?
Mr. GRAEF. Yes. I would say he was very punctual in his arrival to work.

Possible I suppose, but quite a stretch.  He worked until from 8:00-5:15 and had no car.  And the alleged envelope has a 10:30 am postmark.

Mr. FAUNTROY - All right, thank you. The second question has to do with the Hunt letter there. Assuming that that is a forgery, how would you put together such a forgery? Is it possible for a person to so analyze the writing of another person as to reproduce it in reasonable facsimile?
Mr. MCNALLY - Oh, yes. As a matter of fact, we had a famous case some years ago where there was pages and pages of writing reproduced in the so-called Irving-Hughes situation back in the seventies. It was very difficult at that time to determine whether it was good or bad.
Mr. FAUNTROY - What is the peculiar capability required to do that? Are there persons who are particularly skilled at forgery in that kind of detail, that kind of length?
Mr. MCNALLY - Yes, there are. As a matter of fact, they exist all over. You have them in the criminal field where, let's say with a quick study you could turn out something like this, particularly since Oswald's general writing pattern is simple and tends to be rather legible, and to turn out something like that would be not particularly difficult.

Where is the postal record of shipment?  Where is the receipt for the postage paid?  Where is the signature of the person who picked it up? Why did the FBI who was monitoring his mail not notice a package from a gun store?  Why didn't any postal employee remember a 5 foot box being picked up?

Quote
One of the things that HSCA expert Purtell said though merits inclusion here if you're going to base your opinion on his expertise:

"Document examiners only render a qualified or conditional opinion when working from copies. They stipulate that they have to examine the original before a definite opinion will be made."

Mr. MCNALLY - These are blowups of the original photo reproduction. In the case of this particular blowup here, this is an enlargement of JFK exhibit F-504, and this enlargement of the postal money order in an enlargement---
Mr. KLEIN - Is that the money order?
Mr. MCNALLY - Yes, F-504, and the money order is F-509.
Mr. KLEIN - Are these blowups fair and accurate representations of the documents examined by the panel?
Mr. MCNALLY - They are.
Mr. KLEIN - Using the blowups, would you explain why the panel reached its conclusion?
Mr. MCNALLY - We examined and compared the writings on the microfilm reproduction with the original postal money order issued as payable to Klein's Sporting Goods. The same process, of course, was involved, an examination and comparison of the general writing characteristics which appear on this microfilmed reproduction, versus the writing which appears on the U.S. postal money order. The writing pattern on both of these documents is the same, the same degree of skill, the same slant pattern. The writing has a continuity and a cohesion, a continuous flow in the formation of "Hidell", "Dallas, Texas," "Klein's," "Chicago, Illinois." It flows right along in the same manner, as we have in the writing flow on the postal money order. The individual letter designs that occur in the writing of the name and the address and the names and addresses on the microfilm reproduction and the writing of the various letters on the postal money order correspond. In both instances on the microfilmed reproduction here we have a parallel, the writing of "Hidell" here in the top of the microfilm and the "A. Hidell," which occurs over here on the postal money order. The writing construction in both instances is the same, just a slight variation in the "H" in "Hidell" in the microfilm reproduction, but the rest of the writing conforms to the writing "A. Hidell" on the U.S. postal money order. In the writing of "Dallas, Texas," this particular writing pattern here in the upper left-hand corner agreed with the writing of "Dallas, Texas," over here on the U.S. postal money order. The variation occurring here is that in the return address on the postal money order a small "t" has been used versus a capital "T" utilized down here. In this "Texas" here in the writing of the "x-a-s" right in this portion here just following the "x" there is a slight hitch almost like a small undotted "i". That same information occurs over here just before the "a" here a little hitch in the writing pattern. The overall writing on both the microfilm and on the postal money order correspond to the extent that we came to the conclusion both were written by the same individual, again with that caveat that this is a reproduction. As a matter of fact, this if from a microfilm, and it has been blown up from the microfilm itself so that it lacks clarity and detail. But the impression gotten from examining this particular document and comparing it with the writing of the original document, the postal money order, is that the writing flows. The line quality of that on this document and that on the postal money order corresponds; the letter designs correspond. There is no significant difference between the writing on the microfilm and the writing we have in the money order or the writing we have here, for instance, on the employment application. Further, the hand printing on this particular form here, which was laid over the envelope when it was recorded, this hand printing, "A. Hidell, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Texas," corresponds to that which we have in this employment application and also a letter which backed up this employment application, specifically some writing in the lower left-hand corner of that letter. We did conclude again (with that slight caveat) that the writing of the microfilm in both the script writing here and the hand print here were written by the same individual who wrote out the postal money order and the employment application.


Quote
Mr. JENNER. Was he regular in his arrival at work?
Mr. GRAEF. Yes.
Mr. JENNER. Were his work habits in that connection satisfactory?
Mr. GRAEF. Yes. I would say he was very punctual in his arrival to work.

Possible I suppose, but quite a stretch.  He worked until from 8:00-5:15 and had no car.  And the alleged envelope has a 10:30 am postmark.

Oswald's arrival at work isn't the problem because Oswald was known to disappear from work.

There were occasions from time to time when I was unable to locate Oswald in and about the premises and learned that he was in the habit of absenting himself from the premises without leave and visiting a service station establishment adjacent to the Reily Coffee Company known as Alba's Crescent City Garage. Furthermore, Oswald had become quite indifferent to the performance of his duties. I spoke with him from time to time about his absences and his indifferences, all to no avail. Ultimately I recommended to my superiors that Oswald be discharged. My request was granted and he was discharged on July 19, 1963.

Mr. BALL. Did you at anytime after the President was shot see Oswald in the building?
Mr. SHELLEY. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you at anytime after the President was shot tell Oswald to go home?
Mr. SHELLEY. No, sir.


Quote
Mr. FAUNTROY - All right, thank you. The second question has to do with the Hunt letter there. Assuming that that is a forgery, how would you put together such a forgery? Is it possible for a person to so analyze the writing of another person as to reproduce it in reasonable facsimile?
Mr. MCNALLY - Oh, yes. As a matter of fact, we had a famous case some years ago where there was pages and pages of writing reproduced in the so-called Irving-Hughes situation back in the seventies. It was very difficult at that time to determine whether it was good or bad.
Mr. FAUNTROY - What is the peculiar capability required to do that? Are there persons who are particularly skilled at forgery in that kind of detail, that kind of length?
Mr. MCNALLY - Yes, there are. As a matter of fact, they exist all over. You have them in the criminal field where, let's say with a quick study you could turn out something like this, particularly since Oswald's general writing pattern is simple and tends to be rather legible, and to turn out something like that would be not particularly difficult.

This is your problem John and why you only commit yourself to some bolded testimony, you shy away from admitting a massive conspiracy because as soon as you admit any one part then your whole house of cards comes tumbling down. The simple act of forgery in itself requires a cast of many from organisers, writers to collectors which creates even more problems but hey don't let that stop you.

Quote
Why didn't any postal employee remember a 5 foot box being picked up?

Hahaha.

(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/postal-workers-sorting-packages-in-a-post-office-usa-picture-id85905045)

JohnM
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Mytton on August 31, 2018, 11:48:28 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
sigh....

That picture doesn't demonstrate that Oswald ordered a rifle.  And neither does unscientific handwriting "analysis" of two block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a two-inch order coupon.

That picture doesn't demonstrate that Oswald possessed that particular rifle, because the rifle in that photo has not been uniquely identified.

LOL

A lot of people worked there.

No, some prints were found near the trigger guard which were useless for identification purposes, and a partial palmprint was found on an index card a week later.

How any of this is supposed to prove that Oswald shot JFK is anyone's guess.  The only thing it proves is that you think repeating "Oswald's rifle" over and over again somehow makes it true.

Quote
That picture doesn't demonstrate that Oswald ordered a rifle.  And neither does unscientific handwriting "analysis" of two block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a two-inch order coupon.

Do you have a rubber stamp that you wheel out every time you confront this evidence? Yaaawn!

Quote
That picture doesn't demonstrate that Oswald possessed that particular rifle, because the rifle in that photo has not been uniquely identified.

Well maybe when we see you present an expert refutation of the HSCA's photographic panel's conclusion then you may have something but till then any internet photoexpert wannabe's opinion who has never examined the original HSCA's evidence is worthless.

Quote
A lot of people worked there.

Too bad Oswald was the only person who was directly connected with the murder weapon.

Quote
How any of this is supposed to prove that Oswald shot JFK is anyone's guess.

Hello, Oswald's rifle was the murder weapon.

Johnm

Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 01, 2018, 12:10:18 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
[BLAH BLAH BLAH]

1. Too bad the envelope and the money order found in Virginia don't mention what item is being purchased with them.

2. What do his work habits at other jobs have to do with whether he disappeared from work at J-C-S?  Nothing -- it's a red herring.

3. Your amusing stock photo might be relevant if it was a post office pickup window.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Mytton on September 01, 2018, 12:15:16 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Fair enough.  Would you agree that in addition to a stamp (which could be done by anybody), that a bank deposit slip or a bank statement showing when the deposit was made would also exist in the ordinary course of business?

As so far as I can tell, no reputable handwriting analyst has said it is not Genghis Kahn's handwriting either.

Wouldn't documentation of such help demonstrate that such an instrument was actually deposited by Klein's?

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=102294#relPageId=34 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=102294#relPageId=34)

(https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/102/102294/images/img_102294_34_300.png)

Quote
Would you agree that in addition to a stamp (which could be done by anybody)

Wow, so to make your conspiracy work on top of your forgers, organisers and collectors, we now have a Kleins stamp being forged so again we add people to make your fake stamps and someone who has to collect the template, Waldmann who validated microfilms must also be involved so your list just from these minor events is already increasing exponentially. It's no wonder you shy away from admitting anything because even you must realize that what you propose is just too ridiculous and would be laughed out of any court.

This thread is very enlightening as your answers of what has to happen for this not to be just Oswald leads to a MASSIVE conspiracy and let's not forget this is only a mere fraction of the overall evidence.

JohnM
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 01, 2018, 12:16:22 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Do you have a rubber stamp that you wheel out every time you confront this evidence? Yaaawn!

Yeah.  It's right next to your rubber stamp that says "Oswald's rifle".

Quote
Well maybe when we see you present an expert refutation of the HSCA's photographic panel's conclusion

The panel concluded nothing.  Cecil Kirk was the only one of the 22 panel members who gave an opinion on the matter and even he said in his testimony only that it tips the scale in the direction of it being the same rifle.

So, you're spouting unadulterated  BS:

Quote
Hello, Oswald's rifle was the murder weapon.

How do you know what the murder weapon was?
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 01, 2018, 12:20:05 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Wow, so to make your conspiracy work on top of your forgers, organisers and collectors, we now have a Kleins stamp being forged so again we add people to make your fake stamps and someone who has to collect the template,

More BS.  You can't prove the authenticity of your evidence so you make up strawman conspirators, and try to shift the burden.  As usual.

Quote
Waldmann who validated microfilms

LOL.  Waldman never saw or processed the original orders.  This "validated" microfilm just happens to conveniently disappear.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Mytton on September 01, 2018, 12:21:03 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
1. Too bad the envelope and the money order found in Virginia don't mention what item is being purchased with them.

2. What do his work habits at other jobs have to do with whether he disappeared from work at J-C-S?  Nothing it's a red herring.

3. Your amusing stock photo might be relevant if it was a post office pickup window.

1. C20-T750

2. Oswald had provable identical behavioural patterns.

3. What's amusing about it?, postal workers deal with parcels and to expect anyone to remember any 1 particular from more than half a year before is just a desperate argument.

JohnM
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 01, 2018, 12:21:56 AM
Anyone notice that every time people get into a reasonable discussion about the details of the evidence, "Mytton" comes along and does his pigeons playing chess routine?
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 01, 2018, 12:23:20 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oswald had provable identical behavioural patterns.

More LOLs.  "Mytton" knows more about Oswald's work pattern at J-C-S than Oswald's supervisor at J-C-S.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Mytton on September 01, 2018, 12:29:03 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
More BS.  You can't prove the authenticity of your evidence so you make up strawman conspirators, and try to shift the burden.  As usual.

LOL.  Waldman never saw or processed the original orders.  This "validated" microfilm just happens to conveniently disappear.

Quote
More BS.  You can't prove the authenticity of your evidence so you make up strawman conspirators, and try to shift the burden.  As usual.

Why are you running John, it was you who highlighted the passages in the McNally testimony regarding ease of forging and it was you who said anybody could stamp the paperwork, only a coward would make these suggestions and then try to back away, you're not a coward are you John?

Quote
LOL.  Waldman never saw or processed the original orders.

Waldmann gave the microfilm from Klein records, so how deep into Kliens is your conspiracy?

Quote
This "validated" microfilm just happens to conveniently disappear.

Your forgers already forged what was on the microfilm and could have simply forged all the records on the microfilm, so again where does this go?

JohnM
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Mytton on September 01, 2018, 12:30:16 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
More LOLs.  "Mytton" knows more about Oswald's work pattern at J-C-S than Oswald's supervisor at J-C-S.

Oswald has a history of disappearing from different workplaces.

JohnM
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Mytton on September 01, 2018, 12:31:44 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Anyone notice that every time people get into a reasonable discussion about the details of the evidence, "Mytton" comes along and does his pigeons playing chess routine?

Well if you can't handle the evidence, then that's your problem.

JohnM
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 01, 2018, 12:36:09 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why are you running John, it was you who highlighted the passages in the McNally testimony regarding ease of forging and it was you who said anybody could stamp the paperwork, only a coward would make these suggestions and then try to back away, you're not a coward are you John?

I'm not backing away from anything.  You seem to think that "Oswald's handwriting" is some solid fact.  It's not.

Quote
Waldmann gave the microfilm from Klein records, so how deep into Kliens is your conspiracy?

Actually the FBI confiscated it.  Then somebody "lost" it.  Too bad.  But they're from the government so they can be trusted.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 01, 2018, 12:36:59 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oswald has a history of disappearing from different workplaces.

But not Jaggars Chiles Stovall.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Mytton on September 01, 2018, 01:39:00 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm not backing away from anything.  You seem to think that "Oswald's handwriting" is some solid fact.  It's not.

Actually the FBI confiscated it.  Then somebody "lost" it.  Too bad.  But they're from the government so they can be trusted.

Quote
I'm not backing away from anything.

You're doing it again, your long lists of refuting each piece of individual evidence must go somewhere, why are you people so afraid to reap what you sow?

Quote
You seem to think that "Oswald's handwriting" is some solid fact.  It's not.

Either Oswald wrote it in a style and composition that he usually did or we can go down the path in this being just another part of evidence that needed to be manufactured for this rifle order.

Quote
Actually the FBI confiscated it.  Then somebody "lost" it.  Too bad.  But they're from the government so they can be trusted

Wow, besides your paranoia being embarrassingly on full display the above is just silly, in a case where your defence primarily relies on fakery of all sorts the ability to manufacture another microfilm would have been childs play and considering that both the WC and the HSCA came to the conclusion that the writing was Oswald's, what's next?

JohnM 
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Mytton on September 01, 2018, 02:16:15 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
But not Jaggars Chiles Stovall.

You can make as many assertions as you like but "Oswald has a history of disappearing from different workplaces."

JohnM
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 02, 2018, 12:38:41 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You're doing it again, your long lists of refuting each piece of individual evidence must go somewhere, why are you people so afraid to reap what you sow?

Where it goes is that the "evidence" that you think is so solid is not.

Quote
Either Oswald wrote it in a style and composition that he usually did or we can go down the path in this being just another part of evidence that needed to be manufactured for this rifle order.

No, either Oswald wrote it or he did not write it.  The evidence that he did write it (like so much of the evidence in this case) is weak, biased, and questionable.

Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 02, 2018, 12:40:10 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You can make as many assertions as you like but "Oswald has a history of disappearing from different workplaces."

Jaggars Chiles Stovall was where he was working when this money order was allegedly purchased.  His boss there said nothing of the sort.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on September 03, 2018, 03:14:25 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Jaggars Chiles Stovall was where he was working when this money order was allegedly purchased.  His boss there said nothing of the sort.
The handwriting of Oswald, the name "Hidell",  the date stamp, the amount (being the exact amount of the MC + scope + shipping) tell you that Oswald purchased this money order and sent it with the coupon and envelope addressed to Klein's.  There is no other reasonable explanation.  His defence counsel would have conceded that because all you would do is alienate the jury if you seriously disputed it.

Why is it that I think that if they had Oswald on film purchasing this money order you would still be coming up with excuses why it wasn't him?
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 04, 2018, 10:43:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The handwriting of Oswald, the name "Hidell",  the date stamp, the amount (being the exact amount of the MC + scope + shipping) tell you that Oswald purchased this money order and sent it with the coupon and envelope addressed to Klein's.  There is no other reasonable explanation.  His defence counsel would have conceded that because all you would do is alienate the jury if you seriously disputed it.

This isn't a trial.

The handwriting "analysis" is easily disputed on several grounds.  And without that, the rest doesn't matter.

Quote
Why is it that I think that if they had Oswald on film purchasing this money order you would still be coming up with excuses why it wasn't him?

Because when people can't argue the validity of the evidence, they strawman the opposing view and hope nobody notices the difference.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on September 05, 2018, 04:00:50 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This isn't a trial.
It isn't a trial. But you missed my point. There would never be a trial of that issue. It would be conceded.

Look. If Oswald ordered a rifle from Klein's his handwriting would likely be on the envelope. But even if you had evidence that it was not Oswald's handwriting (which you don't) it would not change anything. One does not need to prove that it is his handwriting to prove that a rifle was ordered from Klein's to be sent to Oswald's PO box and Klein's filled that order with C2766.  It would be interesting if someone could show that it was not Oswald's writing. But it would not change the evidence that Klein's received a paid order with Oswald's address, that it recorded C2766 as filling that order to send to Oswald's box no.  and that Oswald held a rifle that cannot be distinguished from C2766 a few days after it should have arrived at the Dallas Post office if it had been sent as Klein's records showed.

You seem to think that Klein's records have no evidentiary value.  I suspect that if Klein's records showed that C2766 was used to fill an order for a rifle to be sent to a PO Box belonging to a CIA agent, you would be insisting that Klein's records provided very good evidence (which, of course, would be true). They don't say that. They say that it was used to fill an order to be sent to Oswald's PO Box.

Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 05, 2018, 03:53:31 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It would be interesting if someone could show that it was not Oswald's writing.

You can show whatever it is you're biased to show with handwriting "analysis".

Quote
But it would not change the evidence that Klein's received a paid order with Oswald's address, that it recorded C2766 as filling that order to send to Oswald's box no.

Since there is no evidence of such a package ever being shipped through the postal service or actually delivered to that post office in Dallas or actually picked up by Oswald or anybody else, then it's nothing but an assumption that he ever did.

Quote
  and that Oswald held a rifle that cannot be distinguished from C2766 a few days after it should have arrived at the Dallas Post office if it had been sent as Klein's records showed.

The rifle in the photo "cannot be distinguished" from lots of potential rifles.  That means absolutely nothing.

Quote
You seem to think that Klein's records have no evidentiary value.

It depends what it  is you're trying to use them as evidence for.  They don't tell you, for example, who shot the president.

Quote
  I suspect that if Klein's records showed that C2766 was used to fill an order for a rifle to be sent to a PO Box belonging to a CIA agent, you would be insisting that Klein's records provided very good evidence (which, of course, would be true).

I suspect that making up strawman arguments is a poor method of argumentation.

Quote
They don't say that. They say that it was used to fill an order to be sent to Oswald's PO Box.

And you're also implicitly assuming that Lee Oswald was necessarily the only person with physical access to PO Box 2915.  Even if it was delivered there (and there's no evidence of such), that doesn't mean Lee Oswald picked it up.
Title: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Anastasia de Lisy on September 06, 2018, 04:52:17 PM
The single bullet theory is completely false and a lie on the part of Arlen Specter and the Warren Commission.

One only has to look at the reports of forensic doctors and the FBI to realize that, in truth, a bullet came out of Kennedy's back after a cardiac massage. President Kennedy was wounded in the throat by a shot from in front. Then by a shot to the back, between the right shoulder blade and the spine at the level of the third thoracic vertebrae. The shot came from Saul, from the 2nd floor of the County Records Building. The reports available at The National Archives contradict the single bullet theory.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Nicholas Turner on September 06, 2018, 09:51:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The single bullet theory is completely false and a lie on the part of Arlen Specter and the Warren Commission.

One only has to look at the reports of forensic doctors and the FBI to realize that, in truth, a bullet came out of Kennedy's back after a cardiac massage. President Kennedy was wounded in the throat by a shot from in front. Then by a shot to the back, between the right shoulder blade and the spine at the level of the third thoracic vertebrae. The shot came from Saul, from the 2nd floor of the County Records Building. The reports available at The National Archives contradict the single bullet theory.


Don't think so.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on September 10, 2018, 06:19:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The single bullet theory is completely false and a lie on the part of Arlen Specter and the Warren Commission.
I agree with the first part - that the SBT is false, but Arlen Specter and others acted in good faith in putting the theory forward.  They were convinced partly by what they saw in the zfilm and by the FBI (Robert Frazier) that Gov. Connally was reacting to being hit by the bullet that struck him in the back/armpit by z240 but probably more convinced because they could find no other explanation for where the bullet that passed through JFK's neck went after it exited JFK's throat.  There was no evidence that it struck inside the car, so they concluded it had to have hit Gov. Connally.  That was a reasonable conclusion.  The first shot SBT is a plausible theory and that does appear to be the version favoured by the WC.  Since the WC, however, the SBT has evolved into "certainty" that it was the first shot that missed and the second shot that struck both JFK and Gov. Connally.  That theory is at odds with large bodies of consistent evidence (the evidence of 20+ witnesses that the first shot struck JFK as he reacted immediately to it as if he was hit by it (no smiling and waving for several seconds afterward); that the second shot was after the midpoint between 1 and 3 and, therefore, only one shot before z250; that the first shot was after z186 and before z202; that the second shot was just before Greer turned around for the first time (he turns around from z276-280).   As a result, the only shot that could have passed through JFK and struck Gov. Connally is the first shot.

Quote
One only has to look at the reports of forensic doctors and the FBI to realize that, in truth, a bullet came out of Kennedy's back after a cardiac massage. President Kennedy was wounded in the throat by a shot from in front. Then by a shot to the back, between the right shoulder blade and the spine at the level of the third thoracic vertebrae. The shot came from Saul, from the 2nd floor of the County Records Building. The reports available at The National Archives contradict the single bullet theory.[/font][/size][/color]
Apart from the virtual impossibility that JFK's neck could have stopped that bullet, there is absolutely no evidence that the bullet CE399 came from the stretcher or table on which JFK was placed.  There is evidence that it came from the stretcher used by Gov. Connally.  The evidence puts Connally's stretcher in the same second floor location of the stretcher on which CE399 was found (it fell to the floor after the stretcher was moved). JFK's stretcher was never taken to the second floor). If you conclude that it had to be on one of those two stretchers (which, in my view, absent evidence that it was planted, is the only reasonable conclusion), then it came from Gov. Connally.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 11, 2018, 12:22:59 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The evidence puts Connally's stretcher in the same second floor location of the stretcher on which CE399 was found (it fell to the floor after the stretcher was moved). JFK's stretcher was never taken to the second floor). If you conclude that it had to be on one of those two stretchers (which, in my view, absent evidence that it was planted, is the only reasonable conclusion), then it came from Gov. Connally.

Or the unrelated stretcher that Tomlinson said the bullet came from.  A bullet which may or may not have been CE 399.
Title: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Anastasia de Lisy on September 11, 2018, 03:25:05 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Don't think so.

You have zero argument. So I take your answer and put it directly in the garbage :)
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Anastasia de Lisy on September 11, 2018, 03:50:27 AM
« I agree with the first part - that the SBT is false, but Arlen Specter and others acted in good faith in putting the theory forward.  They were convinced partly by what they saw in the zfilm and by the FBI (Robert Frazier) that Gov. Connally was reacting to being hit by the bullet that struck him in the back/armpit by z240 but probably more convinced because they could find no other explanation for where the bullet that passed through JFK's neck went after it exited JFK's throat.  There was no evidence that it struck inside the car, so they concluded it had to have hit Gov. Connally.  That was a reasonable conclusion.  The first shot SBT is a plausible theory and that does appear to be the version favoured by the WC.  Since the WC, however, the SBT has evolved into "certainty" that it was the first shot that missed and the second shot that struck both JFK and Gov. Connally.  That theory is at odds with large bodies of consistent evidence (the evidence of 20+ witnesses that the first shot struck JFK as he reacted immediately to it as if he was hit by it (no smiling and waving for several seconds afterward); that the second shot was after the midpoint between 1 and 3 and, therefore, only one shot before z250; that the first shot was after z186 and before z202; that the second shot was just before Greer turned around for the first time (he turns around from z276-280). As a result, the only shot that could have passed through JFK and struck Gov. Connally is the first shot. »
>
Yes, I fully agree with you. So I misspoke and I apologize. You are absolutely right.

« Apart from the virtual impossibility that JFK's neck could have stopped that bullet, there is absolutely no evidence that the bullet CE399 came from the stretcher or table on which JFK was placed.  There is evidence that it came from the stretcher used by Gov. Connally.  The evidence puts Connally's stretcher in the same second floor location of the stretcher on which CE399 was found (it fell to the floor after the stretcher was moved). JFK's stretcher was never taken to the second floor). If you conclude that it had to be on one of those two stretchers (which, in my view, absent evidence that it was planted, is the only reasonable conclusion), then it came from Gov. Connally. »
>
On the other hand, you're a little off topic here. Nevertheless, I can add the fact that in reality, exhibit CE-399 is actually the last projectile fired at Dealey Plaza. It was fired from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository by Lee Harvey Oswald. His bullet hit the concrete next to the sewer plate, then ricocheted and fell back into the grass of Dealey Plaza. (Z-401 & Z-402). The bullet will then be recovered by the investigators. So it has absolutely nothing to do with Kennedy and Connally's injuries.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on September 11, 2018, 04:29:00 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
On the other hand, you're a little off topic here.
Most of this thread is "off topic". But the issue of where CE399 came from is actually related to the SBT.  The SBT says that CE399 was the single bullet that caused all of JFK's and Gov. Connally's non-fatal injuries (ie. all the damage except the head shot).  If it came from JFK's back, that would eliminate the possiblity that it also struck Gov. Connally.
Quote

Nevertheless, I can add the fact that in reality, exhibit CE-399 is actually the last projectile fired at Dealey Plaza. It was fired from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository by Lee Harvey Oswald. His bullet hit the concrete next to the sewer plate, then ricocheted and fell back into the grass of Dealey Plaza. (Z-401 & Z-402). The bullet will then be recovered by the investigators. So it has absolutely nothing to do with Kennedy and Connally's injuries.
If a pristine 6.5 mm rifle bullet travelling at anything close to 2000 feet/sec. struck concrete and deflected and then slowed down enough to land on the grass in Dealey Plaza, it must have deposited most of its energy in the concrete that it struck and in deforming itself.  Both the concrete and the bullet would show this. The pressure on the nose of the bullet striking the concrete would be far greater than the copper jacket and lead core could withstand and the bullet nose would yield to that pressure and show obvious signs of the impact. There are no such signs on the bullet.  There is no evidence of a strike on the concrete either.  There is rather strong evidence that the head shot was the last of three shots.  There is evidence that a fragment from the second shot struck James Tague.  He was standing about 300 feet from the limo at the time of the third shot and directly in line with the 6th floor sniper's nest and the limo.  So the evidence is against CE399 being the second or third shot. CE399 is consistent with a shot passing through JFK and then striking something that did not immediately slow or stop it but allowed it to come to a more gradual stop (such as a glancing strike, butt-first striking something hard enough to dent the base and penetrating enough flesh/muscle sufficient to stop it over some distance).
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Nicholas Turner on September 11, 2018, 10:04:32 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You have zero argument. So I take your answer and put it directly in the garbage :)

Feel free.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Susan Wilde on October 27, 2018, 09:49:57 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oh, sorry. I thought you wanted to use a science approach.

I can't tell when JFK started to react because I can't see that he is not already reacting before he emerges from behind the sign. I would need evidence that he is not already reacting. But the zfilm shows significant change in both hand positions betwen z200 and z222. There are many witnesses who observed that JFK changed his hand positions in response to the first shot. And there is quite a bit of evidence that the first shot was after z186.

I would also need evidence to show that JFK's dramatic reaction seen from z226 and following wa necessarily the immediate initial reaction. It could be a gagging reaction due the difficulty in breathing resulting from the damage to his airway. We do know that humans normally take about 12 to 20 breaths per minute so a gagging reaction could start a couple of seconds after sustaining the injury.

Yes, correct Mr. Mason.

For persons who have the best, clearest Zapruder frames for study (I do), it is easy to see that JFK, very suddenly, superfast snaps his head  90 to 100 degrees  within only  3  Zapruder frames
 (equaling a superfast 0.16 second), from his looking  90 degrees to his direct right @ Z-203,  to his looking directly forward/a bit left of center by Z-206.

That same JFK  superfast head snap reaction (equaling a head snap superfast speed of 549 to 610 degrees per second)  that started @ Z-203/204 is,  without question,  JFK's first superfast response to his being first impacted with a bullet, at the latest,  @ Z-198/199.

Additionally, the WC documented for us that @ Z-198/199,  JFK was  still hidden by the large oak tree,  still  hidden out of the targeting view,  to  anyone  in the WC's, supposed, lone nut snipers lair!

That shot that first impacted JFK by Z-198/199  was triggered by another assassin who fired from a location where the large oak tree did  not block JFK..
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on October 31, 2018, 02:40:04 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Additionally, the WC documented for us that @ Z-198/199,  JFK was  still hidden by the large oak tree,  still  hidden out of the targeting view,  to  anyone  in the WC's, supposed, lone nut snipers lair!

That shot that first impacted JFK by Z-198/199  was triggered by another assassin who fired from a location where the large oak tree did  not block JFK..
[/b]
The WC was wrong on that point. JFK was clear of the oak tree when he was mid-way between the lamppost and the Thornton freeway sign on the north side of Elm St. :
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/SS_Dec1963_3_TFSign.BMP)


The zfilm shows he was at that point at z195. (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/SS_1963_stills1.pdf)

The WC should have paid attention to the Secret Service film made in early December 1963 which shows the tree as it appeared to Oswald in the SN. The spring foliage and additional branch growth shown in the  FBI re-enactment made in May 1964 was not there in November/63. The Secret Service film also shows that JFK was visible and easily tracked while passing under the tree (watch as the car passes in front of the TSBD and down Elm at 10:20-30:



Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Jerry Organ on November 01, 2018, 12:18:59 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The WC was wrong on that point. JFK was clear of the oak tree when he was mid-way between the lamppost and the Thornton freeway sign on the north side of Elm St. :

The zfilm shows he was at that point at z195. (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/SS_1963_stills1.pdf)

The WC should have paid attention to the Secret Service film made in early December 1963 which shows the tree as it appeared to Oswald in the SN. The spring foliage and additional branch growth shown in the  FBI re-enactment made in May 1964 was not there in November/63. The Secret Service film also shows that JFK was visible and easily tracked while passing under the tree (watch as the car passes in front of the TSBD and down Elm at 10:20-30:


(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/mason/misc/mason-claim-ss-film-jfk-position-z195.jpg)

You ought to get your eyes checked. The Z190s occur between the two orange lines above.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/firstshot/WCR-Exh888.jpg)  (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/_/rsrc/1517881397542/firstshot/WCR-Exh890.jpg)



(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/RrFggjmDR3s/hqdefault.jpg)  (https://www.wdwinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/vampirina_still_embed.jpg)
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Jerry Organ on November 01, 2018, 12:29:24 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes, correct Mr. Mason.

For persons who have the best, clearest Zapruder frames for study (I do), it is easy to see that JFK, very suddenly, superfast snaps his head  90 to 100 degrees  within only  3  Zapruder frames
 (equaling a superfast 0.16 second), from his looking  90 degrees to his direct right @ Z-203,  to his looking directly forward/a bit left of center by Z-206.

That same JFK  superfast head snap reaction (equaling a head snap superfast speed of 549 to 610 degrees per second)  that started @ Z-203/204 is,  without question,  JFK's first superfast response to his being first impacted with a bullet, at the latest,  @ Z-198/199.

Sorry. No head turn to full-forward, left alone one to the President's left.

(http://i57.tinypic.com/hwd8jq.jpg)

Compare JFK's hairline in Z206 to Z225. No change.

(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z200-z249/z206.jpg)  (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z200-z249/z225.jpg)
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on November 01, 2018, 03:16:49 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You ought to get your eyes checked. The Z190s occur between the two orange lines above.
There are other ways to relate the Secret Service film to the zfilm.  You can time the car as it moves down Elm. You can relate the position to the painted road lane lines to the car position in both films. Or you can develop your own 3D model. In all cases the president is between the lamppost and the Thornton sign at z190 to z200. Using lane lines, in the SS film still that shows JFK visible to the SN, the position of JFK is opposite the end of the of the left lane line dash (third dash from the corner). That lane dash end point is just past a point that is directly opposite the lamppost (ie. on a line from the lamppost perpendicular to the curb).  So JFK is between the lamppost and the Thornton sign.  Projecting that onto a scale map of Dealey Plaza as I have done (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/SS_1963_stills1.pdf) shows that JFK was at that point at z195.

Your lines are not perpendicular to the street curb.  The car is following the street direction so the parts of the car that are perpendicular to the car's direction (eg. the front, back, windshield) are perpendicular to the curbs:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/JFK_clear_perpendicular_lines.jpg)

Since the road-perpendicular line from the back of JFK's position in the photo crosses the lamp post at a point that is higher above the ground than the line is above the car, this means that the back of JFK is AHEAD of the lamp post.  Since it crosses below the foot of the Thornton Freeway sign, it is before that sign.  The road-perpendicular line from the front of the car crosses the Thornton sign at about the foot of the sign post, so the front of the car is just behind the Thornton Freeway sign (i.e. the line which passes just above the top of the hood crosses the sign at a point that is lower in relation to the sign).  The distance from the front of that car to JFK's position is likely about 10 feet. JFK, therefore, is ahead of the lamp post and at least 10 feet from the sign.