JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Michael T. Griffith on August 26, 2020, 03:46:29 AM
-
The other day I was rather stunned when one of the Warren Commission (WC) apologists here claimed that the lone-gunman theory does not require the single-bullet theory (SBT). Before then, I had never personally encountered a WC apologist who made this claim, and I have participated in online discussions with dozens of WC apologists over the years. Perhaps it would be helpful to review some of the reasons that the lone-gunman theory collapses without the single-bullet theory.
Way back in 1966, legal scholar Alexander Bickel provided one reason that the lone-assassin story must have the SBT:
Now if the first shot that wounded President Kennedy did not go on to penetrate Governor Connally also, and if one accepts the Commission's conclusion that President Kennedy was not shot before frame 210 of the Zapruder film, and Governor Connally was not shot after frame 240, then two shots must have been fired in the time it took the Zapruder camera to run through the 30 frames from 210 to 240. That time, at 18.3 frames per second, is something over a second and a half. But tests prove that Oswald's rifle, having once been fired, cannot be fired again in less than 2.3 seconds—this being the minimum time needed merely to operate the rifle's bolt action, without aiming or otherwise hesitating or pausing. On the Commission's assumptions as to the timing of the shots, therefore, it was physically impossible for Oswald alone to inflict President Kennedy's first wound and also shoot Governor Connally, unless he did it with a single bullet. He could not possibly have done it by shooting twice. If there were two shots within this time-span, there were two assassins. Hence it was entirely “necessary” to the “essential findings of the Commission” to determine just which shot hit Governor Connally. . . . (Bickel, "The Failure of the Warren Report," Commentary, October 1966, https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/alexander-bickel/the-failure-of-the-warren-report/)
Lone-gunman theorists can't give their alleged single assassin more time immediately before Zapruder frame 210 because their single gunman's view of JFK would have been blocked by the oak tree from Z166 to Z210. Therefore, in order to plausibly give him more time, they must assume that he fired at and hit Kennedy before Z166, or they must assume that he fired at JFK but somehow missed not only JFK but the entire huge limousine with his first, closest, and easiest shot.
There is another problem with assuming a pre-Z166 hit on JFK, or even a pre-Z166 miss, to give the alleged lone gunman more time: In the Zapruder film, JFK clearly begins to react to a wound at around Z200, but shows no reaction of any kind before that point. Even the HSCA's photographic evidence panel (PEP) acknowledged this fact. At around Z200, JFK's movements suddenly freeze; his right hand abruptly stops in the middle of a waving motion; and he rapidly begins to turn his head toward Jackie. And during this same timeframe, Jackie makes a sudden sharp turn to the right, toward JFK. (A growing consensus among researchers is that JFK was reacting to the two non-fatal ricochet fragments that struck him in the back of the head early in the shooting sequence.)
The HSCA PEP threw a major monkey wrench into the SBT and into the lone-gunman scenario by concluding that JFK was first hit at Z188-190, during the time when the lone-gunman's view of JFK was blocked by the oak tree (Z166 to Z210). JFK would have come into the lone-gunman's view through an opening in the leaves for 1/18th/second at Z186, far, far too briefly for the human eye and brain to process the sight and respond to it by pulling the trigger. But the HSCA PEP did not feel they could ignore JFK's obvious reactions that start at Z200.
But the Zapruder film clearly shows that Connally was not hit before Z234. Starting at Z238, we see the visible results of the bullet's impact: Connally's right shoulder suddenly collapses; his cheeks and face puff; and his hair becomes disarranged. Connally himself, after carefully studying the Zapruder film, chose frame 234 as the actual moment of impact. When Life magazine showed Connally the Zapruder film and asked him about the frames leading up to and including frame 230, he replied, "there is no question about it. I haven't been hit yet." Dr. Robert Shaw, Connally's chest surgeon, studied the Zapruder film and concluded the bullet struck Connally at frame 236, "give or take 1 or 2 frames." Dr. Charles Gregory, Connally's wrist surgeon, opined that the hit occurred between Z234 and Z238.
There is no way that a Z188-190 SBT hit on JFK would not have pushed Connally's shoulder downward and caused his cheeks and face to puff until Z236. That would require us to believe that the SBT bullet hit Connally at Z191-192 but that it took over 2 seconds to push his shoulder downward and to cause his cheeks and face to puff. Connally himself, the man who experienced the wounding and the reactions, said he was certain he was not hit before Z230, and he identified Z234 as the moment of impact, which makes complete sense given his reactions that begin at Z236.
A further problem is that JFK even more clearly starts to react to a wound, almost certainly the back wound, at Z226, indicating he was hit by this bullet at around Z224. Beginning at Z226, Kennedy's body is visibly jolted sharply forward, and the position of his hands and elbows--particularly his elbows--changes dramatically, as they are flung upward and forward. The force and speed of these movements of his arms and elbows are quite startling when one compares Z226, where they are first discernible, to Z232 just 1/3rd/second later. Although the WC, and to a great extent the HSCA, ignored these movements, they are among the most dramatic and visible reactions on JFK's part in the entire Zapruder film, second only to his backward head snap that starts at Z313.
A hit on JFK at Z188-190, another hit at Z224, and another hit at Z313 destroys the lone-gunman theory because all WC apologists admit that one of the shots from their alleged lone gunman missed, which means that four shots were fired and that two gunmen were involved.
The lone-gunman theory's miss is yet another problem. According to the WC, this shot missed the entire huge limousine. The limousine was 21 feet long and 6.5 feet wide. How on earth could even a novice have missed such a huge target from just 140-170 feet away and from 60 feet up? It boggles the mind. And this is the same gunman who supposedly performed a shooting feat that the WC's Master-rated riflemen did not even come close to duplicating?
But the WC knew it needed a miss as a possible alternative explanation for the Tague wounding. The WC's other explanation--that a fragment from the head shot caused Tague's wound--is so absurd that even diehard WC apologists Gerald Posner and Jim Moore have rejected it. Tague was about 260 feet from the limo when the head shot occurred. A fragment from the head shot would have had to first clear the limo's windshield and roll bar and then travel 260 feet, against the wind, and strike the curb near Tague with enough velocity to chip the curb and to send a chip streaking toward him (or, even less likely, it would have had to strike him directly). (Yes, that is a nutty theory, but we have at least two WC apologists here who believe it.)
In summary, without the SBT, the lone-gunman theory has unsolvable timing problems with the shots and the Zapruder film. And without the SBT, the lone-gunman theory has no chance of plausibly explaining the Tague wounding. Even with the SBT, JFK's clear reactions to two different hits mean there were at least four shots and two gunmen. This is why lone-gunman theorists either deny JFK's first wound reactions or deny his second wound reactions.
-
The other day I was rather stunned when one of the Warren Commission (WC) apologists here claimed that the lone-gunman theory does not require the single-bullet theory (SBT). Before then, I had never personally encountered a WC apologist who made this claim, and I have participated in online discussions with dozens of WC apologists over the years. Perhaps it would be helpful to review some of the reasons that the lone-gunman theory collapses without the single-bullet theory.
Way back in 1966, legal scholar Alexander Bickel provided one reason that the lone-assassin story must have the SBT:
Lone-gunman theorists can't give their alleged single assassin more time immediately before Zapruder frame 210 because their single gunman's view of JFK would have been blocked by the oak tree from Z166 to Z210. Therefore, in order to plausibly give him more time, they must assume that he fired at and hit Kennedy before Z166, or they must assume that he fired at JFK but somehow missed not only JFK but the entire huge limousine with his first, closest, and easiest shot.
There is another problem with assuming a pre-Z166 hit on JFK, or even a pre-Z166 miss, to give the alleged lone gunman more time: In the Zapruder film, JFK clearly begins to react to a wound at around Z200, but shows no reaction of any kind before that point. Even the HSCA's photographic evidence panel (PEP) acknowledged this fact. At around Z200, JFK's movements suddenly freeze; his right hand abruptly stops in the middle of a waving motion; and he rapidly begins to turn his head toward Jackie. And during this same timeframe, Jackie makes a sudden sharp turn to the right, toward JFK. (A growing consensus among researchers is that JFK was reacting to the two non-fatal ricochet fragments that struck him in the back of the head early in the shooting sequence.)
The HSCA PEP threw a major monkey wrench into the SBT and into the lone-gunman scenario by concluding that JFK was first hit at Z188-190, during the time when the lone-gunman's view of JFK was blocked by the oak tree (Z166 to Z210). JFK would have come into the lone-gunman's view through an opening in the leaves for 1/18th/second at Z186, far, far too briefly for the human eye and brain to process the sight and respond to it by pulling the trigger. But the HSCA PEP did not feel they could ignore JFK's obvious reactions that start at Z200.
But the Zapruder film clearly shows that Connally was not hit before Z234. Starting at Z238, we see the visible results of the bullet's impact: Connally's right shoulder suddenly collapses; his cheeks and face puff; and his hair becomes disarranged. Connally himself, after carefully studying the Zapruder film, chose frame 234 as the actual moment of impact. When Life magazine showed Connally the Zapruder film and asked him about the frames leading up to and including frame 230, he replied, "there is no question about it. I haven't been hit yet." Dr. Robert Shaw, Connally's chest surgeon, studied the Zapruder film and concluded the bullet struck Connally at frame 236, "give or take 1 or 2 frames." Dr. Charles Gregory, Connally's wrist surgeon, opined that the hit occurred between Z234 and Z238.
There is no way that a Z188-190 SBT hit on JFK would not have pushed Connally's shoulder downward and caused his cheeks and face to puff until Z236. That would require us to believe that the SBT bullet hit Connally at Z191-192 but that it took over 2 seconds to push his shoulder downward and to cause his cheeks and face to puff. Connally himself, the man who experienced the wounding and the reactions, said he was certain he was not hit before Z230, and he identified Z234 as the moment of impact, which makes complete sense given his reactions that begin at Z236.
A further problem is that JFK even more clearly starts to react to a wound, almost certainly the back wound, at Z226, indicating he was hit by this bullet at around Z224. Beginning at Z226, Kennedy's body is visibly jolted sharply forward, and the position of his hands and elbows--particularly his elbows--changes dramatically, as they are flung upward and forward. The force and speed of these movements of his arms and elbows are quite startling when one compares Z226, where they are first discernible, to Z232 just 1/3rd/second later. Although the WC, and to a great extent the HSCA, ignored these movements, they are among the most dramatic and visible reactions on JFK's part in the entire Zapruder film, second only to his backward head snap that starts at Z313.
A hit on JFK at Z188-190, another hit at Z224, and another hit at Z313 destroys the lone-gunman theory because all WC apologists admit that one of the shots from their alleged lone gunman missed, which means that four shots were fired and that two gunmen were involved.
The lone-gunman theory's miss is yet another problem. According to the WC, this shot missed the entire huge limousine. The limousine was 21 feet long and 6.5 feet wide. How on earth could even a novice have missed such a huge target from just 140-170 feet away and from 60 feet up? It boggles the mind. And this is the same gunman who supposedly performed a shooting feat that the WC's Master-rated riflemen did not even come close to duplicating?
But the WC knew it needed a miss as a possible alternative explanation for the Tague wounding. The WC's other explanation--that a fragment from the head shot caused Tague's wound--is so absurd that even diehard WC apologists Gerald Posner and Jim Moore have rejected it. Tague was about 260 feet from the limo when the head shot occurred. A fragment from the head shot would have had to first clear the limo's windshield and roll bar and then travel 260 feet, against the wind, and strike the curb near Tague with enough velocity to chip the curb and to send a chip streaking toward him (or, even less likely, it would have had to strike him directly). (Yes, that is a nutty theory, but we have at least two WC apologists here who believe it.)
In summary, without the SBT, the lone-gunman theory has unsolvable timing problems with the shots and the Zapruder film. And without the SBT, the lone-gunman theory has no chance of plausibly explaining the Tague wounding. Even with the SBT, JFK's clear reactions to two different hits mean there were at least four shots and two gunmen. This is why lone-gunman theorists either deny JFK's first wound reactions or deny his second wound reactions.
I take it that you are not one of the conspiracy-monger crowd supporting an altered, contrived, faked or planted Zap film.
Feel free to point out the location and name of your second gunman. Feel free to name those in league with your man-with-no-name-after-57-years assassin.
-
I take it that you are not one of the conspiracy-monger crowd supporting an altered, contrived, faked or planted Zap film.
Taking a break from your latest Flat Earth Society meeting? I'm honored. But how does any of this drivel relate to the facts discussed in the OP?
We have very strong evidence that the Zapruder film was altered. As many researchers have noted, the CIA technicians could only do so much editing with the technology and time they had available. The final product was still unacceptable, but it was not as damning and revealing as the original. That's why the film was suppressed for many years.
Feel free to point out the location and name of your second gunman. Feel free to name those in league with your man-with-no-name-after-57-years assassin.
Did you just awake from a coma that began in the 1970s?
FYI, in 1979, just before your coma began, the last official federal investigation into the JFK case, the HSCA, concluded that there was a conspiracy, that four shots were fired, that Ruby lied about how he entered the DPD basement, that someone in the DPD helped Ruby enter the basement and unlocked the door near the stairway he took, that the DPD pulled security away from the door and stairwell that Ruby used shortly before he entered the basement, that someone was moving boxes in the sixth-floor window within 2 minutes of the shooting and at a time when Oswald could not have been there, that there was evidence indicating that someone was impersonating Oswald in the weeks leading up to the assassination, that the WC conducted a flawed investigation and overlooked important evidence, etc., etc., etc.
Those are the findings of the last, most recent formal federal investigation into the JFK case.
The ARRB, although it did not officially conduct an "investigation" into the assassination, turned up mountains of evidence of conspiracy and cover-up.
Heard of names such as Eugene Brading, Jack Ruby, Sergio Archaca-Smith, David Ferrie, Guy Bannister, David Sanchez Morales, Antonio Veciana, David Atlee Phillips (Maurice Bishop), Richard Case Nagell?
FYI, we have hard scientific evidence that there were two gunmen. We have the HSCA acoustical evidence, i.e., the DPD dictabelt, which contains at least four gunshot impulses. We have autopsy photo F8 and the OD measurements of the autopsy skull x-rays, which prove that part of the occipital bone was blown out. We have the high-quality prints of the Harper fragment, and the fragment has now been established as being occipital bone. We have hard scientific evidence that the autopsy skull x-rays were altered.
-
Taking a break from your latest Flat Earth Society meeting? I'm honored. But how does any of this drivel relate to the facts discussed in the OP?
Says the Zapruder alterationist, and Mormon "Golden Plates" and "Lost Cause" apologist.
Did you just awake from a coma that began ies n the 1970s?
You seem to always be bringing forth decades-old claims, albeit without the updated analysis. Here's an example from you: "someone was moving boxes in the sixth-floor window within 2 minutes of the shooting and at a time when Oswald could not have been there."
(https://i.ibb.co/y4sjtkd/dillard-powell-dissolve.gif)
Using a method not available in 1978, it shows the same boxes were visible in each photo, unmoved. The "box-shifting" finding was the only photographic finding that Robert Groden agreed with.
The ARRB, although it did not officially conduct an "investigation" into the assassination, turned up mountains of evidence of conspiracy and cover-up.
You obviously threw out the window the ARRB's caution:
"The deposition transcripts and other medical evidence that were released
by the Review Board should be evaluated cautiously by the public. Often
the witnesses contradict not only each other, but sometimes themselves.
For events that transpired almost 35 years ago, all persons are likely to
have failures of memory. It would be more prudent to weigh all of the
evidence, with due concern for human error, rather than take single
statements as "proof" for one theory or another."
-
Says the Zapruder alterationist, and Mormon "Golden Plates" and "Lost Cause" apologist.
Uh, did you still not get the news that we now know that the Zapruder film was altered, and that briefing boards were prepared on the two different versions of the film at NPIC? Plus, a number of physicists and photographic experts have identified clear evidence that the Zapruder film has been altered.
I get that you don't believe in God and so you mock an account of the supernatural discovery of an ancient religious record. I'll just note that atheists constitute a distinct minority of Earth's population.
And, no, I am not a "Lost Cause" apologist. Didn't I already correct you on this?
You seem to always bringing forth decades-old claims, albeit without the updated analysis.
LOL! Uh-huh. You are the one who continues to ignore dozens of important document disclosures, new witness accounts, and numerous new research developments over the last 10-20 years done by physicists, historians, medical doctors, ballistics experts, forensic pathologists, etc.
Here's an example from you: "someone was moving boxes in the sixth-floor window within 2 minutes of the shooting and at a time when Oswald could not have been there."
Using a method not available in 1978, it shows the same boxes were visible in each photo, unmoved.
And, pray tell, who were the photographic experts who produced your graphic? What are their names and qualifications? This might be a good time to read what the HSCA's photographic experts said about how they determined that the Dillard and Powell photos show boxes were being moved within 2 minutes after the assassination:
Examination of both the Dillard and Powell photographs of the sixth floor windows shows an open window with deep shadows in the region behind it. The deep shadows indicate the film was underexposed in these regions; that is, too little light reached the film or a clear recording of any details in the room behind the window.
A number of enhancement processes were applied to the photographs in order to bring out any details obscured within the underexposed regions. They were as follows:
(1) Photographic enhancement (using photo-optical and photochemical techniques) of the underexposed regions of the Dillard photograph undertaken at the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT).
(2) Autoradiographic enhancement of the underexposed regions of the Dillard photograph at Stanford Research Institute, Inc. (SRI).
(3) Computer enhancement of the underexposed regions of the Powell photograph at the University of Southern California and the Aerospace Corp.
In addition, the Dillard photographs were scanned and digitized for possible computer enhancement. Nevertheless, no such enhancement was performed because the Panel decided that the autoradiographic technique had more potential for success.
The photographic and computer processes made visible details that had been obscured in the underexposed regions of the photographs. Both the photographic enhancement by RIT and the autoradiographic enhancement by SRI revealed a feature in the fifth floor window immediately beneath the sixth floor window. Figure IV-1 (JFK exhibit F-153) shows one of the. original Dillard photographs, and figure IV-2 is an autoradiographic enhancement. The detail revealed by the processing appears to be a circular light fixture hanging from the ceiling of the fifth floor room, with a light bulb in the center of the fixture.
In the enhanced Powell photograph additional details became visible on the boxes in the windows. (See figure IV-3, JFK exhibit F157.) Nevertheless in neither photograph did the processing operations reveal any sign of a human face or form in the open sixth floor or adjoining windows.
The Panel concluded that the light fixture revealed in the fifth window served as a "benchmark" against which the sixth floor enhancement could be judged. . . .
Although human faces or forms were not visible in the enhanced photographs, inspection of figures IV-2 and IV-3 reveals a difference in the boxes visible through the sixth floor widow. in the Dillard photograph, only two boxes are immediately visible, one each to the left and right of the window frame. Nevertheless, the Powell photograph shows several additional boxes. There are two possible explanations for this difference:
(1) The Powell photograph may reflect only an apparent change in the boxes; the different angle from which Powell viewed the depository may have caused a different set of boxes within the room to be framed within the window;
(2) The boxes were moved during the time that elapsed between the Dillard and Powell photographs.
Since the precise positions of Dillard and Powell at the time of the photographs were unknown, it was not possible to calculate precisely the region within the sixth floor room that would have been visible to each photographer. In the Dillard photograph, the two to the left and right of the window frame appear to be in the full light of the Sun, with no shadows cast on them by the frame of the partially opened window. In the Powell photograph, it also appears that the boxes are in full sunlight, with no shadow cast on them by the window frame.
A simple trigonometric calculation shows that the two boxes at the left and right lie approximately 6 inches from the plane of the window (see appendix A). If full sunlight is falling on the additional boxes in question in the Powell photograph, they must also lie close to the plane of the window. For this reason, the panel concluded that the additional boxes visible in the Powell photograph were moved during the interval between the Dillard and Powell photographs. (6 HSCA 110-115)
By the way, are you aware that we know that the FBI buried evidence that a witness in a nearby building had seen "some boxes moving" in the sixth-floor window after the shots were fired (e.g., Lifton, Best Evidence, p. 367)? Just a coincidence, right?
The "box-shifting" finding was the only photographic finding that Robert Groden agreed with.
Actually, that's not true. But, don't let facts get in your way. Who said anything about Groden anyway?
You obviously threw out the window the ARRB's caution:
"The deposition transcripts and other medical evidence that were released
by the Review Board should be evaluated cautiously by the public. Often
the witnesses contradict not only each other, but sometimes themselves.
For events that transpired almost 35 years ago, all persons are likely to
have failures of memory. It would be more prudent to weigh all of the
evidence, with due concern for human error, rather than take single
statements as "proof" for one theory or another."
Once again you are quoting stuff that you have cherry-picked without knowing the whole story, without reading the entire document collection from which you are quoting. Anyone who has studied this case for more than a few months knows that in some instances a final report does not present or reflect all the evidence contained in the supporting volumes.
Yeah, the ARRB recognized that memories can sometimes be flawed; that's why they checked witness accounts against released documents when possible, and in several key cases they were able to confirm important witness accounts with released documents. That's why they hired three forensic experts to review the autopsy materials. Guess what they concluded?
* The AP skull x-ray shows substantial frontal bone missing. (Dr. Fitzpatrick, Dr. Ubelaker)
* The amount of missing frontal bone in the AP skull x-ray is inconsistent with the appearance of the forehead in the autopsy photos. (Dr. Ubelaker)
* The single-bullet theory is "very dubious." (Dr. Kirschner)
* There is no fragment in the back of the skull on the lateral skull x-rays that corresponds to the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-rays. (Dr. Fitzpatrick, Dr. Ubelaker)
* The damage pattern in the scalp and bone suggests a front-to-rear shot, with a shot coming from the front or right front. (Dr. Ubelaker)
* The photos of the back of the head support the EOP entry site, not the cowlick site. (Dr. Ubelaker)
* Autopsy photo F8 shows fatty tissue in the upper-left corner. (Dr. Kirschner) (This is crucial because F8 could not show that fatty tissue unless it had been taken from the back of the head.)
* Some of the dark areas on the skull x-rays are unusually dark, much darker than the dark areas on normal x-rays. (Dr. Ubelaker)
* The Clark Panel/HSCA cowlick entry wound does not appear on the skull x-rays. There is no radiographic evidence of a wound in that location. (Dr. Fitzpatrick, Dr. Ubelaker)
-
I get that you don't believe in God and so you mock an account of the supernatural discovery of an ancient religious record. I'll just note that atheists constitute a distinct minority of Earth's population.
We are in the minority, but the rational minority. Just like the Abolitionists used to be in the minority. I don’t believe in God. And I don’t believe in the supernatural. But I can change my mind on either point given quality evidence. And wouldn’t mind in the slightest if belief in God remained the majority opinion as long as humans survive. I don’t see religion has doing much net harm. As long as freedom of religion is respected, it’s all good to me.
And, no, I am not a "Lost Cause" apologist. Didn't I already correct you on this?
You’re not? How about this article you wrote below?
The Tariff and Secession: Statements on the Tariff as a Major Factor in Sectional Strife and Southern Secession
https://miketgriffith.com/files/tariffandsecession.htm (https://miketgriffith.com/files/tariffandsecession.htm)
One of the principle arguments of the “Lost Cause” apologists, is that maintaining slavery was not the principle reason why the South seceded from the Union. That they also had higher motives. Like protecting ‘State Rights’. And because of the ‘High Tarriff’.
Only four states published an article on why they were seceding. South Carolina, Mississippi, Texas and Georgia. I guess the other states were too ashamed to put down their reasons in an official document. These documents are known as the “Article of Secession” or the “Declaration of Causes”. In these declarations, these four states were emulating the original 1776 Declaration of Independence which listed the reasons why they were seceding from Great Britain.
One can read these Articles of Secession below:
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/declarations-causes (https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/declarations-causes)
In not one instance, does the word “Tariff” appear in any of the lengthy documents. There are quite a lot of complains about the North’s limitations on slavery, right from the beginning, starting in the 1780’s with the Northwest Ordinance. And these limitations have become more and more stringent over the years, making it clear that if they remained in the Union, slavery is doomed.
Also, they complained a lot about state laws which gave different rules, than Federal law, to be used to determine if a black person was an escape slave or not, if found within their state. This is strange, because one would think that a true advocate of state rights would hold that Vermont has every right to pass a state law that conflicts with Federal law, on how blacks should be judged within that state. And the states had good reason for doing so since Federal law, the Fugitive Slave act, effectively bribed the ‘judge’ in these cases to always rule that the person in question is an escaped slave and not a lawful freeman.
And of course, there were minimum reasons for seceding from the Union up through March 1861, because the Tariff was at its lowest level since 1816. By 1857 the South had gotten the low tariff it wanted, and this held until after 7 states and seceded from the Union. And the other 4 states that followed did not secede because of the new higher tariff passed in March 1861, but because of the firing on Fort Sumter and Lincoln’s call for each state to provide troops and allow passage to the South to suppress the rebellion.
The “High Tariff” and “Defending State Rights” excuse didn’t become prominent until after the South was defeated, and the ‘Lost Cause’ apologists realized that they needed a more noble reason for secession than “To maintain the Institution of Slavery”.
You, Michael T. Griffith are not really a “Lost Cause” apologist? If it floats like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.
-
Taking a break from your latest Flat Earth Society meeting? I'm honored. But how does any of this drivel relate to the facts discussed in the OP?
It doesn't. Chapman's quips never do.
-
Using a method not available in 1978, it shows the same boxes were visible in each photo, unmoved. The "box-shifting" finding was the only photographic finding that Robert Groden agreed with.
Are you saying that the HSCA photo panel didn't understand how perspective works?
-
I get that you don't believe in God and so you mock an account of the supernatural discovery of an ancient religious record. I'll just note that atheists constitute a distinct minority of Earth's population.
Jerry is guilty of a red herring fallacy, and Michael is guilty of an ad populum fallacy.
-
Are you saying that the HSCA photo panel didn't understand how perspective works?
Well they thought bullets could travel back in time from 12:31pm on the dictabelt recording to 12:30pm in Dealey Plaza.
-
We are in the minority, but the rational minority. Just like the Abolitionists used to be in the minority. I don’t believe in God. And I don’t believe in the supernatural. But I can change my mind on either point given quality evidence.
And yet you believe that Oswald shot JFK without quality evidence. Go figure. Both are faith-based beliefs.
And wouldn’t mind in the slightest if belief in God remained the majority opinion as long as humans survive. I don’t see religion has doing much net harm.
http://whatstheharm.net/religiousfundamentalism.html (http://whatstheharm.net/religiousfundamentalism.html)
-
Well they thought bullets could travel back in time from 12:31pm on the dictabelt recording to 12:30pm in Dealey Plaza.
The photo panel examined the dictabelt recordings? News to me.
Also, how do you know what exact time the impulses on the dictabelt recordings were recorded?
-
And yet you believe that Oswald shot JFK without quality evidence. Go figure. Both are faith-based beliefs.
http://whatstheharm.net/religiousfundamentalism.html (http://whatstheharm.net/religiousfundamentalism.html)
BLM is a fundamentalist religion that has resulted in the deaths of its followers - Garrett Foster.
-
Also, how do you know what exact time the impulses on the dictabelt recordings were recorded?
The sounds coincide with the phrase "Hold everything clear" on the recording which was Chief Jesse Currys order at 12:31pm after the shots had been fired.
-
Taking a break from your latest Flat Earth Society meeting? I'm honored. But how does any of this drivel relate to the facts discussed in the OP?
We have very strong evidence that the Zapruder film was altered. As many researchers have noted, the CIA technicians could only do so much editing with the technology and time they had available. The final product was still unacceptable, but it was not as damning and revealing as the original. That's why the film was suppressed for many years.
Did you just awake from a coma that began in the 1970s?
FYI, in 1979, just before your coma began, the last official federal investigation into the JFK case, the HSCA, concluded that there was a conspiracy, that four shots were fired, that Ruby lied about how he entered the DPD basement, that someone in the DPD helped Ruby enter the basement and unlocked the door near the stairway he took, that the DPD pulled security away from the door and stairwell that Ruby used shortly before he entered the basement, that someone was moving boxes in the sixth-floor window within 2 minutes of the shooting and at a time when Oswald could not have been there, that there was evidence indicating that someone was impersonating Oswald in the weeks leading up to the assassination, that the WC conducted a flawed investigation and overlooked important evidence, etc., etc., etc.
Those are the findings of the last, most recent formal federal investigation into the JFK case.
The ARRB, although it did not officially conduct an "investigation" into the assassination, turned up mountains of evidence of conspiracy and cover-up.
Heard of names such as Eugene Brading, Jack Ruby, Sergio Archaca-Smith, David Ferrie, Guy Bannister, David Sanchez Morales, Antonio Veciana, David Atlee Phillips (Maurice Bishop), Richard Case Nagell?
FYI, we have hard scientific evidence that there were two gunmen. We have the HSCA acoustical evidence, i.e., the DPD dictabelt, which contains at least four gunshot impulses. We have autopsy photo F8 and the OD measurements of the autopsy skull x-rays, which prove that part of the occipital bone was blown out. We have the high-quality prints of the Harper fragment, and the fragment has now been established as being occipital bone. We have hard scientific evidence that the autopsy skull x-rays were altered.
Again, feel free to point out the location and name of your second gunman. Feel free to name those in league with your man-with-no-name-after-57-years assassin.
-
The sounds coincide with the phrase "Hold everything clear" on the recording which was Chief Jesse Currys order at 12:31pm after the shots had been fired.
a) "Hold everything secure" was on channel 2, the impulses in question were from a stuck police radio on channel 1.
b) Channel 1 and channel 2 had different recording devices that were not continuous nor synchronized in any way, and had a tendency to skip their styluses backwards.
c) How do you even know that "hold everything secure" was said at 12:31?
Also:
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/hear_no_evil.htm (http://www.whokilledjfk.net/hear_no_evil.htm)
-
We are in the minority, but the rational minority.
Oh, I see. So everyone else, about 90% of the planet's population, is irrational. Got it.
Just like the Abolitionists used to be in the minority.
Atheists constitute a far smaller minority than did the Abolitionists. By the way, the vast majority of Abolitionists believed in God.
Before we continue, allow me to note that while you justifiably condemn slavery as inherently evil, I am guessing that you see nothing wrong with unrestricted elective abortion. If so, you are guilty of gross hypocrisy and inconsistency. Abortion apologists, as did slavery apologists, deny the humanity of the victim and seek to frame the argument as being all about the "rights" of the perpetrator. Slavery apologists did the same thing.
I don’t believe in God. And I don’t believe in the supernatural. But I can change my mind on either point given quality evidence. And wouldn’t mind in the slightest if belief in God remained the majority opinion as long as humans survive. I don’t see religion as doing much net harm. As long as freedom of religion is respected, it’s all good to me.
Well, I'm glad to see you believe that freedom of religion should be respected.
You’re not? How about this article you wrote below?
The Tariff and Secession: Statements on the Tariff as a Major Factor in Sectional Strife and Southern Secession
https://miketgriffith.com/files/tariffandsecession.htm (https://miketgriffith.com/files/tariffandsecession.htm)
One of the principle arguments of the “Lost Cause” apologists, is that maintaining slavery was not the principle reason why the South seceded from the Union. That they also had higher motives. Like protecting ‘State Rights’. And because of the ‘High Tarriff’.
Okay, first of all, let's get basic English correct here: it is "principal reason," not "principle reason." Google it.
I am guessing that you did not bother to actually read the article, or else you would know that it does not argue that the tariff was the principal reason the Deep South or the Upper South seceded. Don't you ever get tired of embarrassing yourself by making utterly erroneous claims because you failed to read the other side before attacking it?
Only four states published an article on why they were seceding. [SNIP]
Oh my goodness, you are totally out to lunch. All 11 seceding states published some kind of document that explained why they were seceding. Some were formal ordinances of secession, while others were various forms of declarations.
In not one instance, does the word “Tariff” appear in any of the lengthy documents. . . . [SNIP]
Your Civil War scholarship is as pitiful as your JFK scholarship. Three of the seven Deep South states included economic complaints, such as the tariff, in their declarations: Georgia, Texas, and Florida.
If you read newspaper editorials and minutes of debates leading up to secession, you will see dozens of references to the tariff and to other economic complaints. That being said, the seven Deep South states seceded mainly over slavery. The tariff was a secondary issue, but it was an important one. Money always is.
The four Upper South states rejected slavery as a reason for secession and did not join in the first wave of secession. They did not see complaints about slavery as sufficient cause to leave the Union. Those four states seceded because they virulently objected to the idea that the federal government had the right to use force to compel the Deep South states to rejoin the Union. That's why those four states did not secede until after Lincoln issued a callup for 75K troops right after the Confederacy foolishly and needlessly attacked Fort Sumter, and they made it clear that they were seceding because they objected to the federal government's use of force.
And of course, there were minimum reasons for seceding from the Union up through March 1861, because the Tariff was at its lowest level since 1816. By 1857 the South had gotten the low tariff it wanted,
You are again totally out to lunch. Clearly, you did not read my article on the tariff and the Civil War. I document that the tariff was a long-standing major issue that caused bitter debate for decades before the war. The 1857 tariff was *not* as low as the South wanted; rather, it was as low as the Southern members of Congress could get the Republicans and the Whigs to agree to support.
and this held until after 7 states and seceded from the Union. And the other 4 states that followed did not secede because of the new higher tariff passed in March 1861, but because of the firing on Fort Sumter and Lincoln’s call for each state to provide troops and allow passage to the South to suppress the rebellion.
I agree completely.
The “High Tariff” and “Defending State Rights” excuse didn’t become prominent until after the South was defeated, and the ‘Lost Cause’ apologists realized that they needed a more noble reason for secession than “To maintain the Institution of Slavery”.
Well, yes and no. I agree that after the war, many Southern apologists erroneously argued that the Deep South really seceded over the tariff and other economic complaints. But the tariff was a major reason for secession, second only to slavery, as far as the seven Deep South states were concerned.
You, Michael T. Griffith are not really a “Lost Cause” apologist?
Nope, and my comments above should put that false claim to rest. Part of the problem is that you clearly did not even bother to read my article on the tariff and the war. You might have skimmed over it very briefly, but you clearly did not learn anything from and did not process the numerous quotes from antebellum sources that prove that the tariff was a huge issue just before the war began and for decades before then.
And let me just give you a little school on Civil War scholarship: No "Lost Cause apologist" would publish numerous articles that defend Union generals George McClellan, George Thomas, John Fitz-Porter, etc. Nor would any "Lost Cause apologist" create a website that honors Abraham Lincoln and that defends and praises his Reconstruction policies. I have done all of these things. Just FYI.
I will not respond to further comments on the Civil War in this thread. If you want to start a Civil War thread in the Off Topic section, I might take a look and respond.
How about we get back to discussing the reasons that the lone-gunman theory collapses without the SBT?
-
The other day I was rather stunned when one of the Warren Commission (WC) apologists here claimed that the lone-gunman theory does not require the single-bullet theory (SBT). Before then, I had never personally encountered a WC apologist who made this claim, and I have participated in online discussions with dozens of WC apologists over the years. Perhaps it would be helpful to review some of the reasons that the lone-gunman theory collapses without the single-bullet theory.
Way back in 1966, legal scholar Alexander Bickel provided one reason that the lone-assassin story must have the SBT:
Lone-gunman theorists can't give their alleged single assassin more time immediately before Zapruder frame 210 because their single gunman's view of JFK would have been blocked by the oak tree from Z166 to Z210. Therefore, in order to plausibly give him more time, they must assume that he fired at and hit Kennedy before Z166, or they must assume that he fired at JFK but somehow missed not only JFK but the entire huge limousine with his first, closest, and easiest shot.
There is another problem with assuming a pre-Z166 hit on JFK, or even a pre-Z166 miss, to give the alleged lone gunman more time: In the Zapruder film, JFK clearly begins to react to a wound at around Z200, but shows no reaction of any kind before that point. Even the HSCA's photographic evidence panel (PEP) acknowledged this fact. At around Z200, JFK's movements suddenly freeze; his right hand abruptly stops in the middle of a waving motion; and he rapidly begins to turn his head toward Jackie. And during this same timeframe, Jackie makes a sudden sharp turn to the right, toward JFK. (A growing consensus among researchers is that JFK was reacting to the two non-fatal ricochet fragments that struck him in the back of the head early in the shooting sequence.)
The HSCA PEP threw a major monkey wrench into the SBT and into the lone-gunman scenario by concluding that JFK was first hit at Z188-190, during the time when the lone-gunman's view of JFK was blocked by the oak tree (Z166 to Z210). JFK would have come into the lone-gunman's view through an opening in the leaves for 1/18th/second at Z186, far, far too briefly for the human eye and brain to process the sight and respond to it by pulling the trigger. But the HSCA PEP did not feel they could ignore JFK's obvious reactions that start at Z200.
But the Zapruder film clearly shows that Connally was not hit before Z234. Starting at Z238, we see the visible results of the bullet's impact: Connally's right shoulder suddenly collapses; his cheeks and face puff; and his hair becomes disarranged. Connally himself, after carefully studying the Zapruder film, chose frame 234 as the actual moment of impact. When Life magazine showed Connally the Zapruder film and asked him about the frames leading up to and including frame 230, he replied, "there is no question about it. I haven't been hit yet." Dr. Robert Shaw, Connally's chest surgeon, studied the Zapruder film and concluded the bullet struck Connally at frame 236, "give or take 1 or 2 frames." Dr. Charles Gregory, Connally's wrist surgeon, opined that the hit occurred between Z234 and Z238.
There is no way that a Z188-190 SBT hit on JFK would not have pushed Connally's shoulder downward and caused his cheeks and face to puff until Z236. That would require us to believe that the SBT bullet hit Connally at Z191-192 but that it took over 2 seconds to push his shoulder downward and to cause his cheeks and face to puff. Connally himself, the man who experienced the wounding and the reactions, said he was certain he was not hit before Z230, and he identified Z234 as the moment of impact, which makes complete sense given his reactions that begin at Z236.
A further problem is that JFK even more clearly starts to react to a wound, almost certainly the back wound, at Z226, indicating he was hit by this bullet at around Z224. Beginning at Z226, Kennedy's body is visibly jolted sharply forward, and the position of his hands and elbows--particularly his elbows--changes dramatically, as they are flung upward and forward. The force and speed of these movements of his arms and elbows are quite startling when one compares Z226, where they are first discernible, to Z232 just 1/3rd/second later. Although the WC, and to a great extent the HSCA, ignored these movements, they are among the most dramatic and visible reactions on JFK's part in the entire Zapruder film, second only to his backward head snap that starts at Z313.
A hit on JFK at Z188-190, another hit at Z224, and another hit at Z313 destroys the lone-gunman theory because all WC apologists admit that one of the shots from their alleged lone gunman missed, which means that four shots were fired and that two gunmen were involved.
The lone-gunman theory's miss is yet another problem. According to the WC, this shot missed the entire huge limousine. The limousine was 21 feet long and 6.5 feet wide. How on earth could even a novice have missed such a huge target from just 140-170 feet away and from 60 feet up? It boggles the mind. And this is the same gunman who supposedly performed a shooting feat that the WC's Master-rated riflemen did not even come close to duplicating?
But the WC knew it needed a miss as a possible alternative explanation for the Tague wounding. The WC's other explanation--that a fragment from the head shot caused Tague's wound--is so absurd that even diehard WC apologists Gerald Posner and Jim Moore have rejected it. Tague was about 260 feet from the limo when the head shot occurred. A fragment from the head shot would have had to first clear the limo's windshield and roll bar and then travel 260 feet, against the wind, and strike the curb near Tague with enough velocity to chip the curb and to send a chip streaking toward him (or, even less likely, it would have had to strike him directly). (Yes, that is a nutty theory, but we have at least two WC apologists here who believe it.)
In summary, without the SBT, the lone-gunman theory has unsolvable timing problems with the shots and the Zapruder film. And without the SBT, the lone-gunman theory has no chance of plausibly explaining the Tague wounding. Even with the SBT, JFK's clear reactions to two different hits mean there were at least four shots and two gunmen. This is why lone-gunman theorists either deny JFK's first wound reactions or deny his second wound reactions.
"A further problem is that JFK even more clearly starts to react to a wound, almost certainly the back wound, at Z226, indicating he was hit by this bullet at around Z224. Beginning at Z226, Kennedy's body is visibly jolted sharply forward, and the position of his hands and elbows--particularly his elbows--changes dramatically, as they are flung upward and forward. The force and speed of these movements of his arms and elbows are quite startling when one compares Z226, where they are first discernible, to Z232 just 1/3rd/second later. Although the WC, and to a great extent the HSCA, ignored these movements, they are among the most dramatic and visible reactions on JFK's part in the entire Zapruder film, second only to his backward head snap that starts at Z313."
All very interesting, but the problem with a separate bullet having been fired into JBC's back is impossible with this scenario, JFK now has an even larger shadow over JBC than in the Z220's . If anything this just further proves JBC could not have been stuck by a separate bullet and was instead struck by the same bullet as JFK.
Dr Baden sums it up best:
....The only bullet path is the one through JFK's back/throat and it lines up with JBC's back entrance wound. This picture shows the alignment of JFK and JBC. A bullet leaving JFK's throat can only strike JBC.
Also, there was not a non fatal ricochet shot fired at Z whatever. JFK is still waving at the crowd at Z210 in the Willis photo. Hardly the act of a wounded man. The first shot struck JFK in the back/neck as stated by the eyewitnesses.
You are referencing the HSCA. Here is another conclusion by the HSCA:
HSCA Conclusion
"'While recognizing the substantial number
of people who reported shots originating from the knoll the committee
also believed the process of collecting witness testimony was such
that it would be unwise to place substantial reliance upon it. The
witnesses were interviewed over a substantial period of time some of
them several days even weeks after the assassination By that time
numerous accounts of the number and direction of the shots had been
published. The committee believed that the witnesses memories and
testimony on the number, direction, and timing of the shots may have
been substantially influenced by the intervening publicity concern
ing the events of November 22 1963" HSCA Final Report- pg 87
The HSCA believed what you believe and stated it in the conclusion. LHO only fired two shots.
-
Besides Zapruder which other films taken in Dealey Plaza were altered?
-
"A further problem is that JFK even more clearly starts to react to a wound, almost certainly the back wound, at Z226, indicating he was hit by this bullet at around Z224. Beginning at Z226, Kennedy's body is visibly jolted sharply forward, and the position of his hands and elbows--particularly his elbows--changes dramatically, as they are flung upward and forward. The force and speed of these movements of his arms and elbows are quite startling when one compares Z226, where they are first discernible, to Z232 just 1/3rd/second later. Although the WC, and to a great extent the HSCA, ignored these movements, they are among the most dramatic and visible reactions on JFK's part in the entire Zapruder film, second only to his backward head snap that starts at Z313."
All very interesting, but the problem with a separate bullet having been fired into JBC's back is impossible with this scenario, JFK now has an even larger shadow over JBC than in the Z220's. If anything this just further proves JBC could not have been stuck by a separate bullet and was instead struck by the same bullet as JFK.
I have already pointed out to you that Connally could have been hit by a bullet fired from the Dal-Tex Building or the County Records Building without hitting JFK first.
Dr Baden sums it up best:
....The only bullet path is the one through JFK's back/throat and it lines up with JBC's back entrance wound. This picture shows the alignment of JFK and JBC. A bullet leaving JFK's throat can only strike JBC.
But that's ridiculous, and easily debunked. Dr. Canning, the HSCA's trajectory expert, found that he could not get his vertical trajectory lines from JFK to Connally to match up when he considered the location of JFK's back wound as determined by Baden's panel--even that was too low. In order to make the horizontal trajectory work, Canning had to assume that Connally was positioned so far to the left that his right shoulder was practically in the middle of the jump seat. Frame 224 alone visibly refutes any attempt to move Connally that far to the left.
Dr. Baden made a number of other claims that have now been exposed as erroneous. He claimed that the triangular skull fragment was parietal bone. He claimed that the skull x-rays showed no missing frontal bone. He claimed that the rear head entry wound was in the cowlick. He claimed that the Harper fragment was parietal bone. He claimed that the Harper fragment and the triangular fragment joined to form one large, continuous fragment. All of these claims have long since been thoroughly debunked.
And shall we discuss the fact that we now have powerful evidence that the autopsy doctors determined with absolute certainty on the night of the autopsy that the back wound had no exit point? I notice that no WC apologists want to engage in such a discussion.
As far as I have seen, Organ is the only one who has ventured to offer any kind of explanation for this evidence, but his explanation--that "rigor mortise" [sic] would have prohibited the doctors from probing the wound--not only does not explain the evidence but fails to address the evidence, which includes the fact that autopsy doctors removed the chest organs to enable them to see where the probe was going at the other end of the wound, and that the doctors maneuvered JFK into numerous positions to facilitate the probing. They could see, and others could see, that the back wound's tract did not penetrate the chest cavity because they could see the end of the probe pushing against the chest lining.
One of these days, you guys are going to have to come to grips with the fact that the back wound had no exit point.
Also, there was not a non fatal ricochet shot fired at Z whatever. JFK is still waving at the crowd at Z210 in the Willis photo. Hardly the act of a wounded man. The first shot struck JFK in the back/neck as stated by the eyewitnesses.
This is simply wrong. JFK clearly begins to react to an external stimulus at around Z200. Even the HSCA PEP admitted this. We also see some people in the plaza appear to react to the sound of gunfire during this timeframe. This is also the timeframe when a strong blur episode occurs in the Zapruder film, i.e., when Zapruder jiggled his camera in an involuntary response to the sound of gunfire. There are at least four strong blur episodes in the Zapruder film.
You are referencing the HSCA. Here is another conclusion by the HSCA:
HSCA Conclusion
"'While recognizing the substantial number
of people who reported shots originating from the knoll the committee
also believed the process of collecting witness testimony was such
that it would be unwise to place substantial reliance upon it. The
witnesses were interviewed over a substantial period of time some of
them several days even weeks after the assassination By that time
numerous accounts of the number and direction of the shots had been
published. The committee believed that the witnesses memories and
testimony on the number, direction, and timing of the shots may have
been substantially influenced by the intervening publicity concern
ing the events of November 22 1963" HSCA Final Report- pg 87
Uh-huh, and the HSCA also said that the witness testimony of shots from the grassy knoll could not be dismissed as simply mistaken because of echoes. The HSCA also said that a gunman fired a shot from the grassy knoll. You might want to read the entire HSCA report and its accompanying volumes, instead of skimming through it to cherry-pick statements you like.
The HSCA believed what you believe and stated it in the conclusion. LHO only fired two shots.
No, the HSCA said that Oswald fired three shots, and that another gunman fired a shot from the grassy knoll. Again, you might want to read the entire HSCA report and the supporting volumes.
-
I have already pointed out to you that Connally could have been hit by a bullet fired from the Dal-Tex Building or the County Records Building without hitting JFK first.
But that's ridiculous, and easily debunked. Dr. Canning, the HSCA's trajectory expert, found that he could not get his vertical trajectory lines from JFK to Connally to match up when he considered the location of JFK's back wound as determined by Baden's panel--even that was too low. In order to make the horizontal trajectory work, Canning had to assume that Connally was positioned so far to the left that his right shoulder was practically in the middle of the jump seat. Frame 224 alone visibly refutes any attempt to move Connally that far to the left.
Dr. Baden made a number of other claims that have now been exposed as erroneous. He claimed that the triangular skull fragment was parietal bone. He claimed that the skull x-rays showed no missing frontal bone. He claimed that the rear head entry wound was in the cowlick. He claimed that the Harper fragment was parietal bone. He claimed that the Harper fragment and the triangular fragment joined to form one large, continuous fragment. All of these claims have long since been thoroughly debunked.
And shall we discuss the fact that we now have powerful evidence that the autopsy doctors determined with absolute certainty on the night of the autopsy that the back wound had no exit point? I notice that no WC apologists want to engage in such a discussion.
As far as I have seen, Organ is the only one who has ventured to offer any kind of explanation for this evidence, but his explanation--that "rigor mortise" [sic] would have prohibited the doctors from probing the wound--not only does not explain the evidence but fails to address the evidence, which includes the fact that autopsy doctors removed the chest organs to enable them to see where the probe was going at the other end of the wound, and that the doctors maneuvered JFK into numerous positions to facilitate the probing. They could see, and others could see, that the back wound's tract did not penetrate the chest cavity because they could see the end of the probe pushing against the chest lining.
One of these days, you guys are going to have to come to grips with the fact that the back wound had no exit point.
This is simply wrong. JFK clearly begins to react to an external stimulus at around Z200. Even the HSCA PEP admitted this. We also see some people in the plaza appear to react to the sound of gunfire during this timeframe. This is also the timeframe when a strong blur episode occurs in the Zapruder film, i.e., when Zapruder jiggled his camera in an involuntary response to the sound of gunfire. There are at least four strong blur episodes in the Zapruder film.
Uh-huh, and the HSCA also said that the witness testimony of shots from the grassy knoll could not be dismissed as simply mistaken because of echoes. The HSCA also said that a gunman fired a shot from the grassy knoll. You might want to read the entire HSCA report and its accompanying volumes, instead of skimming through it to cherry-pick statements you like.
No, the HSCA said that Oswald fired three shots, and that another gunman fired a shot from the grassy knoll. Again, you might want to read the entire HSCA report and the supporting volumes.
The grassy knoll shooter was Edgar Denton
Did you miss my recent investigative-spoof report?
It's on every CTer mind as they try to figure out what a spoof is.
Some grumpy old men find the concept completely incomprehensible.
-
The grassy knoll shooter was Edgar Denton
Did you miss my recent investigative-spoof report?
It's on every CTer mind as they try to figure out what a spoof is.
Some grumpy old men find the concept completely incomprehensible.
It's not enough that you behave like a complete idiot and pollute every thread?
Now you want recognition for it as well?
-
It's not enough that you behave like a complete idiot and pollute every thread?
Now you want recognition for it as well?
A little grumpy tonight, Martin?
-
The grassy knoll shooter was Edgar Denton
Did you miss my recent investigative-spoof report?
It's on every CTer mind as they try to figure out what a spoof is.
Some grumpy old men find the concept completely incomprehensible.
This is your answer to my response? You seem to follow a pattern: You make some invalid claims. The invalid claims are refuted. And then you reply by ignoring the refutation and changing the subject.
It is just a bit odd to see you sarcastically dismiss the conspiracy position when the last official federal investigation into the assassination concluded that there was a conspiracy, that the conspiracy might have involved elements of the Mafia and some anti-Castro Cubans, that four shots were fired, that two gunmen were involved, that two of the shots were less than 2 seconds apart, that Jack Ruby had considerable Mafia ties, that Ruby lied about why he shot Oswald, that Ruby lied about how he entered the basement, that Ruby had help getting into the basement, that the man who called the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City and who claimed to be Oswald spoke "terrible" Russian whereas Oswald was known to be native fluent in Russian, etc., etc.
You might also want to remember that every poll taken within the last few years shows that about 58-63% of the American people believe there was a conspiracy. 5-10% are undecided. About 30-35% agree with you. Given the established media's long-standing efforts to prop up the lone-gunman theory, it is revealing that the theory still has such limited support among the population.
-
This is your answer to my response? You seem to follow a pattern: You make some invalid claims. The invalid claims are refuted. And then you reply by ignoring the refutation and changing the subject.
Yep, that's our Chapman. He'll waste as much of your time as you let him. He's like a junior version of Thomas Graves with less personality.
He doesn't know anything about the case and isn't even interested in learning.
-
Yep, that's our Chapman. He'll waste as much of your time as you let him. He's like a junior version of Thomas Graves with less personality.
He doesn't know anything about the case and isn't even interested in learning.
Re any wasting of peoples' time I'm not the one hiding behind mile-long word salads. Way too much 'splain' goin' on there, Lucy.
All I need to know is that a nobody shot a somebody on 11.22.63 and that knee-taking Oswald-lovers defend the likely/probable killer of John F President.
-
I have already pointed out to you that Connally could have been hit by a bullet fired from the Dal-Tex Building or the County Records Building without hitting JFK first.
But that's ridiculous, and easily debunked. Dr. Canning, the HSCA's trajectory expert, found that he could not get his vertical trajectory lines from JFK to Connally to match up when he considered the location of JFK's back wound as determined by Baden's panel--even that was too low. In order to make the horizontal trajectory work, Canning had to assume that Connally was positioned so far to the left that his right shoulder was practically in the middle of the jump seat. Frame 224 alone visibly refutes any attempt to move Connally that far to the left.
Dr. Baden made a number of other claims that have now been exposed as erroneous. He claimed that the triangular skull fragment was parietal bone. He claimed that the skull x-rays showed no missing frontal bone. He claimed that the rear head entry wound was in the cowlick. He claimed that the Harper fragment was parietal bone. He claimed that the Harper fragment and the triangular fragment joined to form one large, continuous fragment. All of these claims have long since been thoroughly debunked.
And shall we discuss the fact that we now have powerful evidence that the autopsy doctors determined with absolute certainty on the night of the autopsy that the back wound had no exit point? I notice that no WC apologists want to engage in such a discussion.
As far as I have seen, Organ is the only one who has ventured to offer any kind of explanation for this evidence, but his explanation--that "rigor mortise" [sic] would have prohibited the doctors from probing the wound--not only does not explain the evidence but fails to address the evidence, which includes the fact that autopsy doctors removed the chest organs to enable them to see where the probe was going at the other end of the wound, and that the doctors maneuvered JFK into numerous positions to facilitate the probing. They could see, and others could see, that the back wound's tract did not penetrate the chest cavity because they could see the end of the probe pushing against the chest lining.
One of these days, you guys are going to have to come to grips with the fact that the back wound had no exit point.
This is simply wrong. JFK clearly begins to react to an external stimulus at around Z200. Even the HSCA PEP admitted this. We also see some people in the plaza appear to react to the sound of gunfire during this timeframe. This is also the timeframe when a strong blur episode occurs in the Zapruder film, i.e., when Zapruder jiggled his camera in an involuntary response to the sound of gunfire. There are at least four strong blur episodes in the Zapruder film.
Uh-huh, and the HSCA also said that the witness testimony of shots from the grassy knoll could not be dismissed as simply mistaken because of echoes. The HSCA also said that a gunman fired a shot from the grassy knoll. You might want to read the entire HSCA report and its accompanying volumes, instead of skimming through it to cherry-pick statements you like.
No, the HSCA said that Oswald fired three shots, and that another gunman fired a shot from the grassy knoll. Again, you might want to read the entire HSCA report and the supporting volumes.
"I have already pointed out to you"
"could have been hit by a shot from another building"
"I have already pointed out to you" ,"Could have been"? This is not an answer, just because you said so? A maybe? You have demanded a great deal more of the various experts on the various commissions but you yourself insinuate whatever and disproved absolutely nothing. You make a statement and suddenly that is Gospel?
Actually no it could not have been fired from the buildings you have stated and that is why this is all you can offer for an explanation. No proof , no evidence just a personal refusal to accept the truth. You believe there was only two shots fired from the SN and also offer absolutely no explanation for JBC's wounds other than SBT.
The only explanation for JBC's wound is a bullet passing through JFK.
"I have already pointed out to you that Connally could have been hit by a bullet fired from the Dal-Tex Building or the County Records Building without hitting JFK first."
No matter how many times it is stated this is an unfounded statement with zero proof. Other than state it and repeat not one piece if evidence has been provided to prove it. Basing a whole theory on an obviously flawed belief is an attempt to provided validity to the other parts of the same conspiracy theory. Part of this theory is JBC's statement of being struck at Z230+. A seperate shot coupled with JFK's physical reaction proves it never happened. JFK's reaction only further shadows the back of JBC it does not makes the location of the back wound more accessible for a wound other than the bullet that passed through JFK.
All of these conspiracy theories are a house of cards predicated on a seperate shot hitting JBC than the one hitting JFK, This one is no different. A little more elaborate and definitely more researched but in the end it ends up without a seperate shot to JBC the only assassinin was LHO.
======================
No not Cherry picked. The HSCA conclusion is the answer provided by the HSCA Report reduced to a summary. The exact same conclusion reached by the Sound Analysis.
Cherry picking is relying on the widely debunked dictabelt and ignoring all the other info in the HSCA Report. You should follow your own advice and read both WC and the HSCA reports. There is a lot of useful information in them.
5. CONCLUSIONS
Despite this uncertainty, two general remarks seem worthwhile one based on the test, the other on the statistical analysis. First, it is hard to believe a rifle was fired from the knoll. Such a shot would be extremely loud, even if silenced, and it would be hard to imagine anyone in the vicinity of the knoll missing such an event. An unsilenced pistol firing subsonic bullets also seems unlikely because this shot was the easiest to localize of all the shots fired. It produced the least reverberation. As an acoustic image, it was much sharper and less diffuse than that of the rifle, sounding much like a firecracker. It is, however, conceivable that had a pistol been fired from the knoll at about the same time a rifle was fired from the,TSBD, the pistol shot would have been less easily localized, or even completely masked from some vantage points. As an isolated shot, however, it is extremely easy to localize. Finally, if one accepts the hypothesis that a marksman fired from the knoll and that other shots were fired from some other location, then it seems most unlikely that only 4 of 178 witnesses would report a single location as the origin of the shots. Despite the various causes of confusion in the locus of any single shot, a second shot from a different location should be distinctive and different enough to cause more than four witnesses to report multiple origins for the shots .
"The buildings around the Plaza caused strong reverberations
or echoes that followed the initial sound by from 0.5 to 1.5 sec.
While these reflections caused no confusion to our listeners
who were prepared and expected to hear them they may well
inflated the number of shots reported by the suprised witnesses
during the assassination" HSCA Earwitness Analysis Report, pgs 135-137
-------------------------------------------
A jacketed bullet traveling at a velocity of 2000+ ft/sec does not magically stop in soft tissue.
Dr Ebersol was tasked with locating the bullet. Two different attempts did not locate it. They were then told the throat wound was the exit wound.
Dr Ebersole:...We were asked by the Secret Service agents present to repeat the films and did so Once again there was no evidence of a bullet. I assume you are familiar with portable X ray It is not the kind that gives a fine diagnostic but it is helpful in picking up metallic fragments. It would stand out like a sore thumb either intact or shattered.
The autopsy proceeded and at this point I am simply an observer. Dr. Humes in probing the wound of entrance found it to extend perhaps over the apex of the right lung bruising the pleura and appeared to go toward or near the midline of the lower neck.
Dr. EBERSOLE. The taking of the X rays again were stopped to the best of my remembrance once we had communication with Dallas and Dr. Humes had determined that there was a wounded exit in the lower neck anterior at the time that the President arrived at the hospital in Dallas. I think once that fact had been established that my part in the proceedings were finished.
Dr. PETTY. May I ask two questions further. One, did you see the wound in the neck and associate it with a bullet wound of exit after it had been pointed out that the tracheostomy had been through that area?
Dr. EBERSOLE. No, sir, I can't say that I did. After the dissection had started I saw the area that Dr. Humes was very interested in. He pointed out to us that this was a track running over the apex of the lung -- I think he used the term bruising the apex of the lung and pointed to the middle line. I remember the area was open and he was pointing this out to us. I cannot recollect if I saw this area again after that information was known to him.
--------------------------------------------------------
Mr Canning independently concluded the trajectory of both jFK's wounds and JBC's wounds could be traced to the 6rh floor window of the SN.
Mr. CANNING. Well, I want to be sure that I am responding to your question. I am not saying that the bullet's travel itself was affected. What I am saying is that our interpretation of the data tells us that if we were to determine one trajectory based on the two pieces of information, one the Governor's wound, and the President's neck wound, that that will give us one line.
The other wound, the other wound pair in the President, will give us a second line. Those two lines do not coincide simply
because of experimental error. We cannot expect to make all of the myriad of measurements such as wound location, body position and limousine position with absolute perfection. Therefore we expect slightly different answers. The two trajectories should be close enough so that they fall within a reasonable error of one another, which is what we found.
Dr Canning? Mr. Canning is a Staff Engineer with NASA.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Did you need any information about the location of the limousine?
Mr. CANNING. We needed to know the location of the limousine, and we needed to know the location of the people in the limousine, and, in two cases we needed to know the actual angular orientation of the people in the limousine.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. At this time I would ask that the witness be shown what has been marked for identification as JFK No. F-146.
Mr. Canning, I would ask you to read that exhibit and to indicate whether the prerequisites necessary to determining the trajectory of these bullets are accurately summarized on this chart.
Mr. CANNING. Yes, those are precisely what one needs to do the job.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Fine.
How was all of this information made available to you, sir?
Mr. CANNING. It was made available from a variety of sources. The forensic pathology panel supplied the wound information. The USGS survey map that we have on the right was another source, and then the photographic record made by the various amateur photographers in the plaza were used to supply most of the third.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. How many trajectories did you attempt to determine for the committee?
Mr. CANNING. Three.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. My understanding is, at least according to the present record, only two bullets struck the President and the Governor, one striking the Governor, two striking the President. Why is it that you determined three trajectories?
Mr. CANNING. We determined three trajectories in order to examine the validity of the single bullet theory that has received so much attention.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. What specific trajectories did you attempt to construct?
Mr. CANNING. A trajectory based on the two head wounds in the President, a second trajectory based on the two wounds, one in his upper back and the other near the center of his neck, and the third
trajectory was based on the hypothesis that the projectile which came out of Mr. Kennedy's neck passed into the back of Governor Connally.
======================
Dr Baden was one of 10 pathologists on a panel and relayed their conclusions.
------------------
Zapruder stated there was only two shots as did his assistant Marilyn Sitzman. Jiggle Analysis perfored on Zapruder indicated there was only two shots.
(e) Conclusion
81. 1. Two pronounced series of jiggles or blurs on the Zapruder film, one during frames 189-197, a time when other visual evidence suggests that President, Kennedy was first shot, (30) and another during the following impact of the head shot, may reasonably be attributed to the photographer's startle reaction to the sound of gunshots.
-
Re any wasting of peoples' time I'm not the one hiding behind mile-long word salads. Way too much 'splain' goin' on there, Lucy.
All I need to know is that a nobody shot a somebody on 11.22.63 and that knee-taking Oswald-lovers defend the likely/probable killer of John F President.
You don't know anything. And you have no basis for your "likely/probable" assertion. You can't even correctly articulate the evidence. Your "knowledge" is pure faith.
-
Actually no it could not have been fired from the buildings you have stated
Why could it not have been?
No matter how many times it is stated this is an unfounded statement with zero proof. Other than state it and repeat not one piece if evidence has been provided to prove it.
There's no evidence that proves the shot that hit Connally was fired from the TSBD either...
All of these conspiracy theories are a house of cards predicated on a seperate shot hitting JBC than the one hitting JFK, This one is no different. A little more elaborate and definitely more researched but in the end it ends up without a seperate shot to JBC the only assassinin was LHO.
Talk about flawed logic. Neither the number or origin of the shots tells you anything about who fired them.
A jacketed bullet traveling at a velocity of 2000+ ft/sec does not magically stop in soft tissue.
But how do you know that the bullet that hit Kennedy in the back was a jacketed bullet traveling at a velocity of 2000+ ft/sec?
-
You don't know anything. And you have no basis for your "likely/probable" assertion. You can't even correctly articulate the evidence. Your "knowledge" is pure faith.
All major investigative bodies pointed to Oswald as killer.
A damn solid basis in my estimation.
Your history of arrogantly dissing the way others express
themselves is firmly established here:
A) Brewer's 'looked funny' comment
B) Euins's 'bald spot' comment
C) Markham's offbeat way of expression
-
Didn't several WC members not agree with the conclusions of the WC? Seriously, the WC - even when it came out in Sept 64 - did not have a 100% agreement on the final conclusions.
Yet, here we are with plenty of people who continue on believing that the conclusions are rock solid.
Sure, sure.
-
Didn't several WC members not agree with the conclusions of the WC? Seriously, the WC - even when it came out in Sept 64 - did not have a 100% agreement on the final conclusions.
Yet, here we are with plenty of people who continue on believing that the conclusions are rock solid.
Sure, sure.
Feel free to name your... oh, never mind.
Been there, tried that.
-
All major investigative bodies pointed to Oswald as killer.
A damn solid basis in my estimation.
Your appeal to authority fallacy is noted.
Your history of arrogantly dissing the way others express
themselves is firmly established here:
A) Brewer's 'looked funny' comment
B) Euins's 'bald spot' comment
C) Markham's offbeat way of expression
There's nothing arrogant about pointing out that these things don't constitute evidence that Oswald shot JFK.
-
Feel free to name your... oh, never mind.
Sigh. Been there, tried that.
Yeah, because that does nothing to demonstrate that the WC conclusions are supported by the evidence. It's just shifting the burden of proof.
The WC said it, you believe it and that settles it.
-
Your appeal to authority fallacy is noted.
There's nothing arrogant about pointing out that these things don't constitute evidence that Oswald shot JFK.
Your LOLing Brewer/Euins/Markham means of expression remains noted.
Your posting history of isolating the single-from-the-whole remains noted.
-
Your LOLing Brewer/Euins/Markham means of expression remains noted
Back to the trademark incomprehensible gibberish.
I never "LOLed" anybody's "means of expression".
-
Back to the trademark incomprehensible gibberish.
I never "LOLed" anybody's "means of expression".
OMG
-
What I "LOL" is people who desperately want to make Euins' "bald spot" a receding hairline, Markham's 6 negative responses a "yes", and Brewer's "looked scared" a probable cause for a search and arrest for murder.
-
Yeah, because that does nothing to demonstrate that the WC conclusions are supported by the evidence. It's just shifting the burden of proof.
The WC said it, you believe it and that settles it.
Sounds like your (former) TAE mantra.
CTer standard of proof goalpost-shifting has yet to convince yours truly of anything other than that there's a whole lot of dodging goin' on in the CTer bubble.
-
Sounds like your (former) TAE mantra.
I didn't have a former TAE mantra. Yet another flawed Chapman babble.
CTer standard of proof goalpost-shifting has yet to convince yours truly of anything other than that there's a whole lot of dodging goin' on in the CTer bubble.
What "dodging"?
You've demonstrated that all it takes to "convince" you of something is for an authority to come to a conclusion and you don't care about the details.
-
What I "LOL" is people who desperately want to make Euins' "bald spot" a receding hairline, Markham's 6 negative responses a "yes", and Brewer's "looked scared" a probable cause for a search and arrest for murder.
Goody for you; being so sure about what other peoples' thoughts, intentions, and even reasons for being on this forum are.
-
Goody for you; being so sure about what other peoples' thoughts, intentions, and even reasons for being on this forum are.
Yet another empty claim. I never claimed to be sure about what other peoples' thoughts, intentions, and even reasons for being on this forum are. I do observe how you "contribute" here though.
-
I didn't have a former TAE mantra
Then (former) adherence to its tenets
Yet another flawed Chapman babble
Hey, what happened to 'incomprehensible'?
This 'babble' thing makes me feel cheapened is some way.
I'm really hurt. No, really.
What "dodging"?
The ducking behind the standard-of-proof goalposts, as you lot constantly shift them
You've demonstrated that all it takes to "convince" you of something is for an authority to come to a conclusion and you don't care about the details.
Holy crap!
And CTers sure do create a lot of 'details' (and pose them as 'new')
-
Yet another empty claim. I never claimed to be sure about what other peoples' thoughts, intentions, and even reasons for being on this forum are. I do observe how you "contribute" here though.
You have no idea how profoundly grateful I am that you would deign to take the time to observe my empty, know-nothing posts.
No, really.
-
I didn't have a former TAE mantra
Then (former) adherence to its tenets
No tenets. You really should quit while you're behind.
Yet another flawed Chapman babble
Hey, what happened to 'incomprehensible'?
Sometimes your babble is more comprehensible than other times.
This 'babble' thing makes me feel cheapend is some way.
I'm really hurt. No, really.
Well, maybe if you would treat people the way you want to be treated....
What "dodging"?
The ducking behind the standard-of-proof goalposts, as you lot constantly shift them
When have I ever shifted goalposts?
You've demonstrated that all it takes to "convince" you of something is for an authority to come to a conclusion and you don't care about the details.
Holy crap!
And CTers sure do create a lot of 'details' (and pose them as 'new')
There's not much new under the sun. LN apologists have been doing the same "WC said so" shtick for 56 years.
-
No tenets. You really should quit while you're behind.
>>> I'm cruising along in your backdraft, in the manner long-distance runners and Tour de France competitors conserve energy. No need to quit at the moment.
Sometimes your babble is more comprehensible than other times.
>>> Then I suggest you read between the lines more often
Well, maybe if you would treat people the way you want to be treated
>>> First of all, you'll have to prove you're not a spambot. Secondly, show us where I have ever indicated that I wanted to be treated in any particular way.
When have I ever shifted goalposts?
>>> Every time you attempt to isolate the individual parts from the whole.
There's not much new under the sun.
>>> Depends on one's perspective.
LN apologists have been doing the same "WC said so" shtick for 56 years.
>>> Holy crap!
Oswald: I'm innocent:
CT: You said it, so it must be true. You can go.
-
All I need to know is that a nobody shot a somebody on 11.22.63 and that knee-taking Oswald-lovers defend the likely/probable killer of John F President.
FYI, I view kneeling during the national anthem as repulsive conduct. If I had been the NFL commissioner when Colin Kaepernick started this disgraceful behavior, I would have banned him from the league that very day.
Being willing to acknowledge the enormous evidence that Oswald was framed and smeared does not constitute being an "Oswald-lover." Oswald was no Boy Scout, to be sure, but he was nothing like the loony ogre that WC apologists have painted him as being.
-
FYI, I view kneeling during the national anthem as repulsive conduct. If I had been the NFL commissioner when Colin Kaepernick started this disgraceful behavior, I would have banned him from the league that very day.
Being willing to acknowledge the enormous evidence that Oswald was framed and smeared does not constitute being an "Oswald-lover." Oswald was no Boy Scout, to be sure, but he was nothing like the loony ogre that WC apologists have painted him as being.
You're a fine example of why fascism is on the ticket come November.
You sound like you'd be a cop who would arrest someone for 'driving while black'
Your 'enormous evidence' has yet to show that anyone but the shooter knew an attempt was about to made on Kennedy that day.
-
You're a fine example of why fascism is on the ticket come November. You sound like you'd be a cop who would arrest someone for 'driving while black'.
So requiring people not to engage in political conduct while they are on the job and in company uniform is somehow "fascism"? If Colin Kaepernick wants to dishonor the national anthem and the flag, let him do it on his own time, not when he is on the job and in uniform. It's that simple. That has been a standard rule in the federal government and in the business community forever. It is not "fascism" to tell people that they cannot engage in political conduct while they are on the job.
Your 'enormous evidence' has yet to show that anyone but the shooter knew an attempt was about to made on Kennedy that day.
Actually, this is one of the strongest aspects of the multiple-gunmen position. There is strong evidence of foreknowledge of the assassination on the part of a number of people.
I just have to wonder how you can pretend to be a student of the JFK case and not know about this evidence.
-
So requiring people not to engage in political conduct while they are on the job and in company uniform is somehow "fascism"? If Colin Kaepernick wants to dishonor the national anthem and the flag, let him do it on his own time, not when he is on the job and in uniform. It's that simple. That has been a standard rule in the federal government and in the business community forever. It is not "fascism" to tell people that they cannot engage in political conduct while they are on the job.
Actually, this is one of the strongest aspects of the multiple-gunmen position. There is strong evidence of foreknowledge of the assassination on the part of a number of people.
I just have to wonder how you can pretend to be a student of the JFK case and not know about this evidence.
If Colin Kaepernick wants to dishonor the national anthem and the flag, let him do it on his own time, not when he is on the job and in uniform. It's that simple.
So, for you, it's merely a job requirement to honor the national athem and flag? How superficial and naive can you be?
And yes, it is in fact the beginning of fascism when you start telling people what they must do. Isn't this the land of the free anymore? Who has the right to tell people that - under certain circumstances, determined by others - they can not exercise their first amendment rights? Do you really think that all those people waving flags during mass demonstrations and parades in New Korea, China and Russia are doing so out of their own free will? Of course not, they are being told to. So how is that any different from what you are saying? The right is always talking about their all important freedom, but it seems they have no problem limiting that freedom for others!
That has been a standard rule in the federal government and in the business community forever. It is not "fascism" to tell people that they cannot engage in political conduct while they are on the job.
Really? So, a police union expressing support for Trump isn't political? And when the CEO of Goya foods supports Trump, that isn't political either?
-
If Colin Kaepernick wants to dishonor the national anthem and the flag, let him do it on his own time, not when he is on the job and in uniform. It's that simple.
So, for you, it's merely a job requirement to honor the national athem and flag? How superficial and naive can you be?
And yes, it is in fact the beginning of fascism when you start telling people what they must do. Isn't this the land of the free anymore? Who has the right to tell people that - under certain circumstances, determined by others - they can not exercise their first amendment rights? Do you really think that all those people waving flags during mass demonstrations and parades in New Korea, China and Russia are doing so out of their own free will? Of course not, they are being told to. So how is that any different from what you are saying? The right is always talking about their all important freedom, but it seems they have no problem limiting that freedom for others!
How sad and pathetic that you find your own country's national anthem and flag distasteful and dishonorable. Perhaps you should move.
I'm guessing you didn't protest when the NFL fined players who wore 9/11 memorial symbols on their uniforms, including Payton Manning, hey? Yeah, uh-huh. You're just fine with enforcing rules against wearing or expressing political symbols and views on the job when you don't like what the symbols/views support. But you think it's "fascism" to simply say that when you're on the job, you should not dishonor our flag and national anthem by kneeling during the anthem.
Really? So, a police union expressing support for Trump isn't political?
Oh, I see. So, let me guess: You have no problem with all the unions that endorse the Democratic nominee in election after election. That's okay, right? But you think it's outrageous that a police union endorses Trump. You really don't like freedom of speech, do you?
I bet if I did a search of your messages, I would see no message that protested all the times when liberal unions endorsed Obama and then Hillary in the last three elections. I'm guessing you did not say a single word in protest over those endorsements. You only want to muzzle a union if it endorses someone you don't like.
And when the CEO of Goya foods supports Trump, that isn't political either?
Uh-huh, here again, I'm guessing that if I did a search of your messages, I wouldn't find a single one that protested when liberal CEOs publicly endorsed Obama and then Clinton in the last three elections, which many of them did.
Do you know why Robert Unanue, Goya's CEO, publicly spoke favorably about Trump? He praised Trump after Trump signed an executive order that was targeted to help Hispanic-owned businesses, the Hispanic Prosperity Initiative. Gee, I thought you liberals were all about helping minorities.
You liberals always lecture everybody else on "tolerance" and "inclusion" but then you repeatedly try to bankrupt via boycotts any business whose leaders express views you don't like.
-
How sad and pathetic that you find your own country's national anthem and flag distasteful and dishonorable. Perhaps you should move.
I'm guessing you didn't protest when the NFL fined players who wore 9/11 memorial symbols on their uniforms, including Payton Manning, hey? Yeah, uh-huh. You're just fine with enforcing rules against wearing or expressing political symbols and views on the job when you don't like what the symbols/views support. But you think it's "fascism" to simply say that when you're on the job, you should not dishonor our flag and national anthem by kneeling during the anthem.
Oh, I see. So, let me guess: You have no problem with all the unions that endorse the Democratic nominee in election after election. That's okay, right? But you think it's outrageous that a police union endorses Trump. You really don't like freedom of speech, do you?
I bet if I did a search of your messages, I would see no message that protested all the times when liberal unions endorsed Obama and then Hillary in the last three elections. I'm guessing you did not say a single word in protest over those endorsements. You only want to muzzle a union if it endorses someone you don't like.
Uh-huh, here again, I'm guessing that if I did a search of your messages, I wouldn't find a single one that protested when liberal CEOs publicly endorsed Obama and then Clinton in the last three elections, which many of them did.
Do you know why Robert Unanue, Goya's CEO, publicly spoke favorably about Trump? He praised Trump after Trump signed an executive order that was targeted to help Hispanic-owned businesses, the Hispanic Prosperity Initiative. Gee, I thought you liberals were all about helping minorities.
You liberals always lecture everybody else on "tolerance" and "inclusion" but then you repeatedly try to bankrupt via boycotts any business whose leaders express views you don't like.
I have moved my answer to the Trump supporters thread, as this discussion has nothing to do with the lone gunman theory.
-
So requiring people not to engage in political conduct while they are on the job and in company uniform is somehow "fascism"? If Colin Kaepernick wants to dishonor the national anthem and the flag, let him do it on his own time, not when he is on the job and in uniform. It's that simple. That has been a standard rule in the federal government and in the business community forever. It is not "fascism" to tell people that they cannot engage in political conduct while they are on the job.
I attended K thru 12 with the same girl, Denise R. This was from 1967 to 1980, in Los Angeles. Every morning, the national anthem was played over the loudspeaker, the flag was raised on the outdoor flag pole - except for rainy days, Ithink, I'm not totally sure - and the pledge of allegiance was recited. All students stood for this. - in retrospect- rather strange, nationalistic oath taking...except for Denise. Now, it was explained to us youngsters, early on, that Denise R. was, gasp!, a Jehovah's Witness, and therefore not required to participate, on personal religious grounds.
Amazingly, life went on, I became - gasp!- friends with this Kaepernick of her time, as did many other children...because no one really cared about the whole fascist pageantry.
PS I think we children understood the Constitution better than most adult Americans do now.
-
No tenets. You really should quit while you're behind.
>>> I'm cruising along in your backdraft, in the manner long-distance runners and Tour de France competitors conserve energy. No need to quit at the moment.
No, you never made it out of the starting gate.
Sometimes your babble is more comprehensible than other times.
>>> Then I suggest you read between the lines more often
Incoherent babble read between the lines is still incoherent babble.
Well, maybe if you would treat people the way you want to be treated
>>> First of all, you'll have to prove you're not a spambot. Secondly, show us where I have ever indicated that I wanted to be treated in any particular way.
So you were sharing your hurt feelings merely as a means of self-reflection?
When have I ever shifted goalposts?
>>> Every time you attempt to isolate the individual parts from the whole.
So we can add "shifting the goalposts" to the long list of concepts that you do not correctly understand the meaning of.
LN apologists have been doing the same "WC said so" shtick for 56 years.
>>> Holy crap!
Oswald: I'm innocent:
CT: You said it, so it must be true. You can go.
You are however, quite adept at the strawman fallacy.
-
Your 'enormous evidence' has yet to show that anyone but the shooter knew an attempt was about to made on Kennedy that day.
Your "witty spoofs" have yet to show that Oswald shot anybody that day.
-
Your "witty spoofs" have yet to show that Oswald shot anybody that day.
Exactly. Proof-of-concept (feasibility) pursuits are not meant to prove anything.
And note that I used 'shooter' in my simple request for a list of those who knew a hit on Kennedy was on anybody else's bucket list that day. Just a nod to the anybody-but-Oswald contingent hereabouts, you understand.
-
No, you never made it out of the starting gate
No gates at the Tour de France starting point. Just a bunch of rude, anorexic French guys on 'roids and really expensive bikes. I didn't see you there. But a somebody later reported a guy with a bald spot stepping out of a really old Rambler and sneaking onto the course, asking directions to the finish line, a concept he and his grumpy conspiracy-crowd attack dogs have yet to come to terms with hereabouts.
Incoherent babble read between the lines is still incoherent babble.
My condolences for your reading-comprehension difficulties
So you were sharing your hurt feelings merely as a means of self-reflection?
I see you have Wikipedia bookmarked. And my feelings are reserved for my loved ones.
So we can add "shifting the goalposts" to the long list of concepts that you do not correctly understand the meaning of.
Your Wikipedia bookmark is getting dog-eared. Plus separating any given part from the whole is indeed giving one an advantage by dint of ignoring what could be a critical point that might keep level the playing field, or unfairly tilt it in one direction or another.
You are however, quite adept at the strawman fallacy.
Your 'strawman' is my tongue-in-cheek-cum-spoof
-
And note that I used 'shooter' in my simple request for a list of those who knew a hit on Kennedy was on anybody else's bucket list that day.
Who knows and who cares?
-
No, you never made it out of the starting gate
No gates at the Tour de France starting point. Just a bunch of rude, anorexic French guys on 'roids and really expensive bikes. I didn't see you there. But a somebody later reported a guy with a bald spot stepping out of a really old Rambler and sneaking onto the course, asking directions to the finish line, a concept he and his grumpy conspiracy-crowd attack dogs have yet to come to terms with hereabouts.
This must be more irrelevant incoherent babble, er I mean "reading between the lines".
I see you have Wikipedia bookmarked.
Huh?
And my feelings are reserved for my loved ones.
Well then this forum must be your "loved ones".
This 'babble' thing makes me feel cheapened is some way.
I'm really hurt. No, really.
Your Wikipedia bookmark is getting dog-eared. Plus separating any given part from the whole is indeed giving one an advantage by dint of ignoring what could be a critical point that might keep level the playing field, or unfairly tilt it in one direction or another.
I'm not sure why you keep referring to Wikipedia. You don't understand what "shifting the goalposts" means. It's not "separating any given part from the whole", whatever that means. If you're trying to pretend that several questionable, unsupported claims somehow combine to form a valid argument then you're going to have to invent a new term for that one. Chapman-logic, I guess.
You are however, quite adept at the strawman fallacy.
Your 'strawman' is my tongue-in-cheek-cum-spoof
Your "tongue-in-cheek spoofs" involve attributing things to "CT" that no CT has ever said. So, yes, normal people refer to that as a strawman argument, no matter how much it amuses you to make them.
-
Your "witty spoofs" have yet to show that Oswald shot anybody that day.
Point out where I ever said "witty spoofs"
-
Well then this forum must be your "loved ones"
WOW
You're a real piece of work, Tex.
But I do love this forum
@Duncan: Note that I have my brownnoser tie and butt-kisser suit on presently
I'm not sure why you keep referring to Wikipedia. You don't understand what "shifting the goalposts" means. It's not "separating any given part from the whole", whatever that means.
You don't understand what 'spoof' means. And see [the-forest-for-the-] 'trees' below for another teaching moment. It covers any questions you may have regarding my choice of MTG as a teaching aid.
If you're trying to pretend that several questionable, unsupported claims somehow combine to form a valid argument then you're going to have to invent a new term for that one. Chapman-logic, I guess.
No pretending required. Chapman already combines logic with conspiracy-crowd paranoia into a finding for the prosecution.
Logic in conspiracy-crowd, Oswald-lover territory means extracting one tree at a time and requiring proof that it came from a forest. This is why you lot remain eternally (aka 56 years & counting) stranded up the creek track with no paddle station in sight.
Your "tongue-in-cheek spoofs" involve attributing things to "CT" that no CT has ever said. So, yes, normal people refer to that as a strawman argument, no matter how much it amuses you to make them.
Firstly, spoofs are tongue-in-cheek in nature, so no need to put the two together (unless indicating the similarity between the two) in one phrase, professor. Additionally, my spoofs are generally meant as proof-of-concept efforts. Using Kennedy assassination lore, whether proving anything or not, is fair game in feasibility efforts whether you like it or not.
-
You don't understand what 'spoof' means. And see [the-forest-for-the-] 'trees' below for another teaching moment. It covers any questions you may have regarding my choice of MTG as a teaching aid.
What I understand is that your "spoofs" are neither clever, funny, relevant, or "teaching aids".
No pretending required. Chapman already combines logic with conspiracy-crowd paranoia into a finding for the prosecution.
If that's your strategy, then you are failing miserably. You've never advanced a single thing that would be a "finding for the prosecution".
Logic in conspiracy-crowd, Oswald-lover territory means extracting one tree at a time and requiring proof that it came from a forest. This is why you lot remain eternally (aka 56 years & counting) stranded up the track with no station in sight.
What little real evidence there is in this case is circumstantial and arguable, impeachable, questionable, or tainted in some way. If you disagree, then specify some evidence that isn't. But then you never discuss the actual evidence, because you don't know it. There is no "forest" and there never was.
-
What I understand is that your "spoofs" are neither clever, funny, relevant, or "teaching aids"
What I understand is that a certain grumpy old man has blown a gasket or two over nothing more than a little light-hearted tire-kickin'
If that's your strategy, then you are failing miserably. You've never advanced a single thing that would be a "finding for the prosecution".
See my interest in 'proof-of-concept'
And also in 'standard-of-proof'
What little real evidence there is in this case is circumstantial and arguable, impeachable, questionable, or tainted in some way. If you disagree, then specify some evidence that isn't. There is no "forest" and there never was
Thanks so much for the heads-up, No, really. Your posts are always so darned useful. And seeing an Oswald-lover in full rapture is always a bonus.
But then you never discuss the actual evidence, because you don't know it.
Um... does that mean I get an Oswald-style 'Ok, you can go?
-
I attended K thru 12 with the same girl, Denise R. This was from 1967 to 1980, in Los Angeles. Every morning, the national anthem was played over the loudspeaker, the flag was raised on the outdoor flag pole - except for rainy days, Ithink, I'm not totally sure - and the pledge of allegiance was recited. All students stood for this. - in retrospect- rather strange, nationalistic oath taking...except for Denise. Now, it was explained to us youngsters, early on, that Denise R. was, gasp!, a Jehovah's Witness, and therefore not required to participate, on personal religious grounds.
Amazingly, life went on, I became - gasp!- friends with this Kaepernick of her time, as did many other children...because no one really cared about the whole fascist pageantry.
PS I think we children understood the Constitution better than most adult Americans do now.
Its different now. Youngsters want socialism now. Denise i'm guessing probably didn't.