JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Brian Walker on April 08, 2018, 02:54:30 AM
-
1- I now a lot of CT's believe that nobody could have made the shot from the 6th floor with that rifle. If they really believe that why not build the exact setup from 6th floor to car and challenge people to try it. If Ct's honestly believe that it could not be done then this is a sure fire way to prove a conspiracy.
-
1- I now a lot of CT's believe that nobody could have made the shot from the 6th floor with that rifle. If they really believe that why not build the exact setup from 6th floor to car and challenge people to try it. If Ct's honestly believe that it could not be done then this is a sure fire way to prove a conspiracy.
Paul can easily do this by building a sniper?s nest with boxes too big to shoot around.
If need be, he could build one without windows, showing the shots could not have been made.
To be honest, if the CTers did build an ?exact replica? of the sixth floor sniper?s nest, from where the shots could not be replicated by anyone. I would suspect the ?extra replica? was not really an exact replica.
In any case the conspirators did seem to be a curious lot.
** They framed an ex-Marine who couldn?t shoot straight.
** They planted a rifle and made fake documents to connected to Oswald, but the type of rifle could not actually be used.
** They fired shots in a pattern which could have been made by one rifle, but not the type of rifle they planted.
** They setup a fake sniper?s nest from which the shots could not have been made, with any rifle, because the boxes were placed in the wrong positions.
** They ended up killing the President by firing form a different direction then the direction they wanted everyone to think the shots came from.
** The failed to get Oswald to be at the sniper?s nest during the shooting.
This is just a partial list, just off the top of my head. I?m sure I left a lot off.
It seems that in every possible way, the conspirators messed up when they tried to frame Oswald.
-
1- I now a lot of CT's believe that nobody could have made the shot from the 6th floor with that rifle. If they really believe that why not build the exact setup from 6th floor to car and challenge people to try it. If Ct's honestly believe that it could not be done then this is a sure fire way to prove a conspiracy.
Problem is you can't prove a negative. Just because no one else can do it doesn't prove Oswald couldn't have done it. The onus is on the LNers to show that it could have been done, even using a wonky scope. That won't prove that Oswald did it, only that it was possible. So far no one has shown it was even possible. Does this mean it was unlikely?
-
1- I now a lot of CT's believe that nobody could have made the shot from the 6th floor with that rifle. If they really believe that why not build the exact setup from 6th floor to car and challenge people to try it. If Ct's honestly believe that it could not be done then this is a sure fire way to prove a conspiracy.
Buy a 1985 DeLorean.
-
Buy a 1985 DeLorean.
Jack I appreciate you posted that the onus is on the prosecution of Oswald to prove this You raise a generally valid point that just because no one else can repeat a certain feat does not mean it is impossible The word impossible is generally loaded if we wish to get technical However our legal system is supposedly based on reasonable doubt towards the proof against the accused not a limitless a panoply of "could be's" in terms of how a person may have transcended the seemingly impossible
-
Paul can easily do this by building a sniper?s nest with boxes too big to shoot around.
If need be, he could build one without windows, showing the shots could not have been made.
To be honest, if the CTers did build an ?exact replica? of the sixth floor sniper?s nest, from where the shots could not be replicated by anyone. I would suspect the ?extra replica? was not really an exact replica.
In any case the conspirators did seem to be a curious lot.
** They framed an ex-Marine who couldn?t shoot straight.
** They planted a rifle and made fake documents to connected to Oswald, but the type of rifle could not actually be used.
** They fired shots in a pattern which could have been made by one rifle, but not the type of rifle they planted.
** They setup a fake sniper?s nest from which the shots could not have been made, with any rifle, because the boxes were placed in the wrong positions.
** They ended up killing the President by firing form a different direction then the direction they wanted everyone to think the shots came from.
** The failed to get Oswald to be at the sniper?s nest during the shooting.
This is just a partial list, just off the top of my head. I?m sure I left a lot off.
It seems that in every possible way, the conspirators messed up when they tried to frame Oswald.
And "they" framed a (real or "legend") pro-Castro person to blame Havana and justify an invasion of Cuba but then put together a fake investigation (the Warren Commission) which CLEARED Cuba and Castro of any involvement.
So they went through all of this crazy stuff - two Oswalds, fake films, fake autopsy, planted evidence - to frame Castro (through Oswald) and then said he wasn't involved.
Yes they did.
But I suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect and don't understand how all of this makes complete sense. Yes, I'm the one who needs to think clearly.
-
1- I now a lot of CT's believe that nobody could have made the shot from the 6th floor with that rifle. If they really believe that why not build the exact setup from 6th floor to car and challenge people to try it. If Ct's honestly believe that it could not be done then this is a sure fire way to prove a conspiracy.
build the exact setup from 6th floor to car and challenge people to try it.
Mr Walker....That was one of the first hings I did , many yes ago..... I built a a scale model of the scene and found that I could not see JFK at the time of the murder.
Sighting down from that SE corner window while using a soda straw as a sighting tube I found that there was a tree between me and JFK at the time of the murder.....And using that same straw as a sighting tube while attempting to fire down onto elm street from inside the TSBD proved that the bullet would have struck the concrete ledge beneath the window.....
That's why I'm an avowed CT...... The feat attributed to Lee Oswald by LBJ's Special Blue Ribbon Cover Up committee is not possible....
-
Problem is you can't prove a negative. Just because no one else can do it doesn't prove Oswald couldn't have done it. The onus is on the LNers to show that it could have been done, even using a wonky scope. That won't prove that Oswald did it, only that it was possible. So far no one has shown it was even possible. Does this mean it was unlikely?
If you can show nobody else can do it then you would prove to almost everyone that there was a conspiracy. I don't believe that Oswald could do what nobody else can do.
-
build the exact setup from 6th floor to car and challenge people to try it.
Mr Walker....That was one of the first hings I did , many yes ago..... I built a a scale model of the scene and found that I could not see JFK at the time of the murder.
.
Between that and Martin's laser Case Closed.
-
Problem is you can't prove a negative. Just because no one else can do it doesn't prove Oswald couldn't have done it. The onus is on the LNers to show that it could have been done, even using a wonky scope. That won't prove that Oswald did it, only that it was possible. So far no one has shown it was even possible. Does this mean it was unlikely?
...even using a wonky scope.
How do you know for sure that the scope was used?
-
Between that and Martin's laser Case Closed.
Indeed.
-
How do you know for sure that the scope was used?
That's irrelevant ...... It makes no difference what sight was used.....Unless it was a sight that could see through a tree....
-
This means Walker can't show that LHO did it so he is shifting the burden.
My post was intended for people who claim that nobody could make the shots. There is a way right there to prove a conspiracy. If they honestly believe that they what are they waiting for?
There is no incentive to prove Oswald could have made the shots and basically no way to prove it. You can only show that the shots were doable and that has already been done.
-
If Marine Carlos Hathcock could have made the shots of duplication as Oswald was said to have done , then you would have heard him say " I made those shots , so it can be done" ! Several people with arms expertise could not make the shots . If anyone would have made those shots , there is a very good chance that we would have heard about it . As Hale Boggs would say " We have not been told the truth about Oswald". Boggs said that " LBJ lied his eyes out to the Commission" before his plane disappeared in Alaska. CT's don't have to prove anything. What the Parkland Staff said about the blasted out back of the head of JFK got the truth going until Bethesda did their work on the President. Parkland had no reason to lie , where as Bethesda did a chop job to fit their needs. A very sad state of affairs. These people were so cheap that they couldn't even throw down a good rifle to be found. They throw down a piece of spombleprofglidnoctobuns Carcano . We have more than just a few things that can prove a Conspiracy !!!!!!!!!!!
-
If Marine Carlos Hathcock could have made the shots of duplication as Oswald was said to have done , then you would have heard him say " I made those shots , so it can be done" ! Several people with arms expertise could not make the shots . If anyone would have made those shots , there is a very good chance that we would have heard about it . As Hale Boggs would say " We have not been told the truth about Oswald". Boggs said that " LBJ lied his eyes out to the Commission" before his plane disappeared in Alaska. CT's don't have to prove anything. What the Parkland Staff said about the blasted out back of the head of JFK got the truth going until Bethesda did their work on the President. Parkland had no reason to lie , where as Bethesda did a chop job to fit their needs. A very sad state of affairs. These people were so cheap that they couldn't even throw down a good rifle to be found. They throw down a piece of xxxx Carcano . We have more than just a few things that can prove a Conspiracy !!!!!!!!!!!
Can I find any reliable evidence that Hathcock could not make the shots?
Who did Boggs say that to?
-
If Marine Carlos Hathcock could have made the shots of duplication as Oswald was said to have done , then you would have heard him say " I made those shots , so it can be done" ! Several people with arms expertise could not make the shots . If anyone would have made those shots , there is a very good chance that we would have heard about it . As Hale Boggs would say " We have not been told the truth about Oswald". Boggs said that " LBJ lied his eyes out to the Commission" before his plane disappeared in Alaska. CT's don't have to prove anything. What the Parkland Staff said about the blasted out back of the head of JFK got the truth going until Bethesda did their work on the President. Parkland had no reason to lie , where as Bethesda did a chop job to fit their needs. A very sad state of affairs. These people were so cheap that they couldn't even throw down a good rifle to be found. They throw down a piece of xxxx Carcano . We have more than just a few things that can prove a Conspiracy !!!!!!!!!!!
Seems Oswald was a better shot than the testers, then.
;)
-
My post was intended for people who claim that nobody could make the shots. There is a way right there to prove a conspiracy. If they honestly believe that they what are they waiting for?
There is no incentive to prove Oswald could have made the shots and basically no way to prove it. You can only show that the shots were doable and that has already been done.
Sorry I am dropping in on the thread ,but where has it already been shown those shots have been replicated?
-
How do you know for sure that the scope was used?
Why else would Oswald keep the scope on the MC if he dissembled/reassembled it when he knew he'd be using the iron sights instead?
-
Problem is you can't prove a negative. Just because no one else can do it doesn't prove Oswald couldn't have done it. The onus is on the LNers to show that it could have been done, even using a wonky scope. That won't prove that Oswald did it, only that it was possible. So far no one has shown it was even possible. Does this mean it was unlikely?
How do you know for sure that the scope was used?
Since it was not taken off the rifle, how do you know that it wasn't used?
I don't know whether or not the scope was used. Why does Jack Trojan pretend to know that it was?
-
If Marine Carlos Hathcock could have made the shots of duplication as Oswald was said to have done , then you would have heard him say " I made those shots , so it can be done" ! Several people with arms expertise could not make the shots . If anyone would have made those shots , there is a very good chance that we would have heard about it . As Hale Boggs would say " We have not been told the truth about Oswald". Boggs said that " LBJ lied his eyes out to the Commission" before his plane disappeared in Alaska. CT's don't have to prove anything. What the Parkland Staff said about the blasted out back of the head of JFK got the truth going until Bethesda did their work on the President. Parkland had no reason to lie , where as Bethesda did a chop job to fit their needs. A very sad state of affairs. These people were so cheap that they couldn't even throw down a good rifle to be found. They throw down a piece of xxxx Carcano . We have more than just a few things that can prove a Conspiracy !!!!!!!!!!!
First, you have nothing at all which proves a conspiracy. Period.
Second, if that Carcano was such a bad weapon, am I to assume that you'd have no problem standing eighty-eight yards away from someone who was aiming that exact rifle at you and ready to squeeze the trigger? Yeah right.
-
Why else would Oswald keep the scope on the MC if he dissembled/reassembled it when he knew he'd be using the iron sights instead?
My opinion is that Oswald used the scope for the badly missed first shot and then, realizing that the scope was misaligned, used the iron sights for the second and third shots.
-
Between that and Martin's laser Case Closed.
Ever tried the laser experiment, Brian?
Or do you just prefer ignorance to be bliss?
-
My opinion is that Oswald used the scope for the badly missed first shot and then, realizing that the scope was misaligned, used the iron sights for the second and third shots.
So Oswald truly was a superhuman marksman then? I'd like to see someone match that feat exactly how you describe it. Expert marksmen couldn't even do it with a sighted scope. So after Oswald's 1st shot, he realized his scope was wonky, so he switched to the iron sights to score a 2 for 2, all in under 10 secs? :D You keep telling yourself that. But if he was such a super-marksman, then surely he would have known the scope would be useless and removed it from the rifle before smuggling its parts into the TSBD in a paper bag, correct?
BTW, the fact that it took 3 shims to realign the scope before the FBI could even hit the target means the scope was never sighted-in. No way. Which means Oswald must have practiced with the rifle with the wonky scope and didn't bother to sight it in or else he never shot the rifle. WTF? Otherwise, there is no way an unpracticed shooter could have possibly pulled off a 2 for 2 on that day, the way you describe it.
How come Oswald didn't take the 1st shot as the limo turned onto Elm? Sitting duck served up on a silver platter. It didn't get any better than that.
-
So Oswald truly was a superhuman marksman then?
LOL! It took him three tries before he actually hit the target. You call that superhuman marksmanship? You kooks crack me up.
-
Numerous people and groups far more qualified than LHO failed in recreations over the years.
Name them.
-
If it wasn't going to be used, why would it have been left on the rifle then?
Perhaps Oswald didn't know he was going to use the irons until after he fired the first shot while looking through the scope.
-
Perhaps Oswald didn't know he was going to use the irons until after he fired the first shot while looking through the scope.
There was no reason to have ever removed the scope mount in the 1st place. The so called 38" bag that was never photographed where it allegedly was found at the SN, was 8" width flat and 6" diameter. The scope could have been left attached after barrel removed from stock and stil fit in that bag:
(http://www.maedafamily.com/ansatu/paper/bunkai.jpg)
-
LOL! It took him three tries before he actually hit the target. You call that superhuman marksmanship? You kooks crack me up.
Huh? Didn't the MB and the head shot hit the target? Isn't that 2 for 2 using the iron sights after missing the 1st shot thru the wonky scope? You're bloody right that's superhuman marksmanship. Has anyone replicated it? You dumasses crack me up.
-
There was no reason to have ever removed the scope mount in the 1st place. The so called 38" bag that was never photographed where it allegedly was found at the SN, was 8" width flat and 6" diameter. The scope could have been left attached after barrel removed from stock and stil fit in that bag:
(http://www.maedafamily.com/ansatu/paper/bunkai.jpg)
The reason to exclude the scope was because it was more than useless. It was in the way. Why include it when you know you aren't going to use it? Give Oswald some credit. The scope was never sighted in so he was either an expert marksman that kept a useless scope on the rifle and used the iron sights or he was a patsy that never even took a shot and the scope was left on the rifle to match the BYPs as part of his sheep-dipping. Since no one has duplicated this feat, I lean toward the latter.
-
Perhaps Oswald didn't know he was going to use the irons until after he fired the first shot while looking through the scope.
Come on. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? Oswald knew the scope wasn't sighted in and therefore useless. In which case, why even take the 1st shot looking thru the scope? Damned impressive recovery, however, to bolt in the next 2 rounds and score twice after switching to the iron sights in 5 secs flat. Any honest military marksman would confirm that.
-
The reason to exclude the scope was because it was more than useless. It was in the way. Why include it when you know you aren't going to use it? Give Oswald some credit. The scope was never sighted in so he was either an expert marksman that kept a useless scope on the rifle and used the iron sights or he was a patsy that never even took a shot and the scope was left on the rifle to match the BYPs as part of his sheep-dipping. Since no one has duplicated this feat, I lean toward the latter.
No.
The scope was not in the way.
-
The reason to exclude the scope was because it was more than useless. It was in the way. Why include it when you know you aren't going to use it? Give Oswald some credit. The scope was never sighted in so he was either an expert marksman that kept a useless scope on the rifle and used the iron sights or he was a patsy that never even took a shot and the scope was left on the rifle to match the BYPs as part of his sheep-dipping. Since no one has duplicated this feat, I lean toward the latter.
The scope was never sighted in so he was either an expert marksman that kept a useless scope on the rifle and used the iron sights or he was a patsy that never even took a shot
The fact that the worthless scope was on the rifle is also an indication that Lee was set up.... That scope lent credence to the tale that was immediately broadcast that the arch villain Lee Harrrrrvey Osssssswald (Booooo Hisssss !) was crack shot with a high powered and highly accurate rifle that was equipped with a "telescopic Sight".
We now know that the "telescopic sight" was nothing but a stage prop to trick us into accepting the tale that was being presented. There are still many suckers who refuse to accept the FACT that they were duped, and the scope was used to sell them the lie......
-
Perhaps Oswald didn't know he was going to use the irons until after he fired the first shot while looking through the scope.
Perhaps Oswald didn't know he was going to use the irons until after he fired the first shot while looking through the scope.
This statement reveals that the author is a ignoramus and a real dumbass...... Only someone with an impaired ability to reason would propose such a dumbass theory....
-
Perhaps Oswald didn't know he was going to use the irons until after he fired the first shot while looking through the scope.
This statement reveals that the author is a ignoramus and a real dumbass...... Only someone with an impaired ability to reason would propose such a dumbass theory....
Don't simply state that I'm a dumbass. Explain how so.
-
The reason to exclude the scope was because it was more than useless. It was in the way. Why include it when you know you aren't going to use it? Give Oswald some credit. The scope was never sighted in so he was either an expert marksman that kept a useless scope on the rifle and used the iron sights or he was a patsy that never even took a shot and the scope was left on the rifle to match the BYPs as part of his sheep-dipping. Since no one has duplicated this feat, I lean toward the latter.
How do you know the condition of the scope during the assassination? You only know the condition after the fact. The rifle had been placed between boxes by then. Perhaps dropped there. I also recall some indication that the scope had been removed to test for prints. A bald face assertion that it was "useless" to Oswald is not very compelling. Regardless, the totality of evidence confirms that Oswald's rifle was used to assassinate JFK. The probabilities of something occurring (i.e. Oswald making the shot with this rifle) are rendered moot by the event happening. We know it can be done because it was. In fact, that is the best evidence that it was not impossible. If you want to attribute the shots to luck or skill it matters not a whit.
-
Don't simply state that I'm a dumbass. Explain how so.
"Perhaps Oswald didn't know he was going to use the irons until after he fired the first shot while looking through the scope."
Really Billy Boob??...You really don't know how utterly stupid this proposed theory is??
Do you know ANYTHING about firing a rifle??
If Lee had been a sniper he would have had his rifle sighted in and on target before ever setting out on a mission....No sane person ever goes into the field on a fire mission ( be it sport hunting or military ) without knowing where the bullet will impact at a given range ( commonly 100 yards)
That's the crux of your ignorance....do you now understand?
-
1- I now a lot of CT's believe that nobody could have made the shot from the 6th floor with that rifle. If they really believe that why not build the exact setup from 6th floor to car and challenge people to try it. If Ct's honestly believe that it could not be done then this is a sure fire way to prove a conspiracy.
How about the "Oswald Did It" crowd actually prove that Oswald did it? Then we can worry about evidence for a conspiracy...
-
My opinion is that Oswald used the scope for the badly missed first shot and then, realizing that the scope was misaligned, used the iron sights for the second and third shots.
Except what exactly is your evidence for this "badly missed first shot"?
-
LOL! It took him three tries before he actually hit the target. You call that superhuman marksmanship? You kooks crack me up.
You kooks crack me up! How do you know what the target was?
-
Regardless, the totality of evidence confirms that Oswald's rifle was used to assassinate JFK.
In fact no evidence confirms that Oswald's rifle was used to assassinate JFK. Or even that the C2766 Mannlicher Carcano was Oswald's rifle.
-
How do you know the condition of the scope during the assassination? You only know the condition after the fact. The rifle had been placed between boxes by then. Perhaps dropped there. I also recall some indication that the scope had been removed to test for prints. A bald face assertion that it was "useless" to Oswald is not very compelling. Regardless, the totality of evidence confirms that Oswald's rifle was used to assassinate JFK. The probabilities of something occurring (i.e. Oswald making the shot with this rifle) are rendered moot by the event happening. We know it can be done because it was. In fact, that is the best evidence that it was not impossible. If you want to attribute the shots to luck or skill it matters not a whit.
One could not ask for a more blatant and seemingly enthusiastic flaunting of the begging the question fallacy
-
To quote Bill Brown -- "I have numerous times already. Why waste my time doing it again just so you'll ignore it again?"
No.
I've never said those words.
-
"Perhaps Oswald didn't know he was going to use the irons until after he fired the first shot while looking through the scope."
Really Billy Boob??...You really don't know how utterly stupid this proposed theory is??
Do you know ANYTHING about firing a rifle??
If Lee had been a sniper he would have had his rifle sighted in and on target before ever setting out on a mission....No sane person ever goes into the field on a fire mission ( be it sport hunting or military ) without knowing where the bullet will impact at a given range ( commonly 100 yards)
That's the crux of your ignorance....do you now understand?
You're assuming Oswald was both a "sniper" and "sane".
I say again, since you failed the first time... Don't simply state that I'm a dumbass. Explain how so.
-
My opinion is that Oswald used the scope for the badly missed first shot and then, realizing that the scope was misaligned, used the iron sights for the second and third shots.
Except what exactly is your evidence for this "badly missed first shot"?
I've formed an educated opinion over the years. My opinion certainly doesn't require your approval. Are you really that arrogant?
-
You're assuming Oswald was both a "sniper" and "sane".
I say again, since you failed the first time... Don't simply state that I'm a dumbass. Explain how so.
You're assuming Oswald was both a "sniper" and "sane".
I'm assuming nothing ... I'm stating simple commonsense.....And it's obvious that you are completely devoid of commonsense.
-
Why else would Oswald keep the scope on the MC if he dissembled/reassembled it when he knew he'd be using the iron sights instead?
Macho, macho man
Lee wants to be a macho man...
-
You're assuming Oswald was both a "sniper" and "sane".
I'm assuming nothing ... I'm stating simple commonsense.....And it's obvious that you are completely devoid of commonsense.
Oswald got lucky... probably
;)
-
Where is the educated part?
Not anywhere near you
-
Oswald got lucky... probably
;)
"Perhaps Oswald didn't know he was going to use the irons until after he fired the first shot while looking through the scope."
Dear Chappy Dumbster.... Nobody with an iota of knowledge about firing a rifle would propose a theory as stupid as Billy Boob Brown proposes.
First off the idea is utterly insane because after just one shot there is no way a gunman could know in three seconds that the scope was out of alignment.... It takes a second man (a spotter) who is watching to see where the bullet strikes to enable a rifleman to know how he must adjust his aim before firing his second shot......
After a single shot a sniper would have no idea if the scope was misaligned or if a bit of rust or dirt in the barrel, or a malfunctioning cartridge, caused the bullet to miss the target .... After a single shot there would be no reason to switch from the scope to the iron sights..... ( The brief time period of six seconds would have prohibited switch from scope to iron)
-
How about the "Oswald Did It" crowd actually prove that Oswald did it? Then we can worry about evidence for a conspiracy...
They already have. I know John to you the only proof would be if they had a video of Oswald doing it.
The point here is there is a way to prove nobody could make those shots. That would prove a conspiracy and back up the CT's who make that claim.
-
They already have. I know John to you the only proof would be if they had a video of Oswald doing it.
The point here is there is a way to prove nobody could make those shots. That would prove a conspiracy and back up the CT's who make that claim.
The onus is on the prosecution of the supposed guilty That is a standard our country is based upon
-
The onus is on the prosecution of the supposed guilty That is a standard our country is based upon
This is not a court case. Showing that someone can do it does not prove Oswald did it. Showing nobody can do it proves Oswald did not.
Why the push back?
-
Since you LNers claim that Oswald did it alone, prove it or at least present circumstantial evidence that he did. Instead you obfuscate that the CT argument is null and void because CT=kook. Gettin' old!
-
I've formed an educated opinion over the years. My opinion certainly doesn't require your approval. Are you really that arrogant?
Nope, you answered my question. Thanks.
-
They already have.
Who's "they"?
I know John to you the only proof would be if they had a video of Oswald doing it.
That's a copout to make up for your lack of compelling evidence. You're basically saying that people should accept your opinion for no good reason by inventing a strawman of what it would take to convince the people who disagree with you. When every bit of what little evidence you have is full of reasonable doubt.
The point here is there is a way to prove nobody could make those shots. That would prove a conspiracy and back up the CT's who make that claim.
It's pretty much impossible to prove a negative. You can't even seem to prove a positive!
-
This is not a court case. Showing that someone can do it does not prove Oswald did it. Showing nobody can do it proves Oswald did not.
Why the push back?
And what would be the reason that the general standard should change? I find it odd that there would not be agreement, or even enthusiasm, for exploring ideas that are significant in providing evidence Trying to pin the onus on one side seems more of a polemic than a joint effort towards evidence
Further it seems like a dangerous precedent, especially in the assassination of a President, that we would lower the standard simply because a suspect is killed One cannot easily deny that an assassination where the prime suspect is killed should be a potential cause to create suspicion instead of time to relax To lower the the threshold of certainly in such cases should indeed encourage those governments, or elites of a given society, to utilize such a strategy since, as you suggest, the standard of evidence should be lowered, or as you imply reversed for proving any given suspect guilty
Maybe you might want to consider this argument in terms of a third world country Would you really want to suggest it is the interest of such societies to allow assassination subjects to be killed, and then to lower the standard of evidence tha tthe given suspected killer was actually guilty? Would you say the case is different since other governments can be known to be more prone to corruption than our own?
-
Who's "they"?
That's a copout to make up for your lack of compelling evidence. You're basically saying that people should accept your opinion for no good reason by inventing a strawman of what it would take to convince the people who disagree with you. When every bit of what little evidence you have is full of reasonable doubt.
It's pretty much impossible to prove a negative. You can't even seem to prove a positive!
"every bit of what little evidence you have is full of reasonable doubt."
Actually a KEY piece of evidence is negated and provably false..... Several witnesses on the street saw a man who was wearing LIGHT COLORED clothing on the sixth floor before and during the shooting.....
Lee Oswald was NOT wearing light colored clothing.......
-
And what would be the reason that the general standard should change? I find it odd that there would not be agreement, or even enthusiasm, for exploring ideas that are significant in providing evidence Trying to pin the onus on one side seems more of a polemic than a joint effort towards evidence
Further it seems like a dangerous precedent, especially in the assassination of a President, that we would lower the standard simply because a suspect is killed One cannot easily deny that an assassination where the prime suspect is killed should be a potential cause to create suspicion instead of time to relax To lower the the threshold of certainly in such cases should indeed encourage those governments, or elites of a given society, to utilize such a strategy since, as you suggest, the standard of evidence should be lowered, or as you imply reversed for proving any given suspect guilty
Maybe you might want to consider this argument in terms of a third world country Would you really want to suggest it is the interest of such societies to allow assassination subjects to be killed, and then to lower the standard of evidence tha tthe given suspected killer was actually guilty? Would you say the case is different since other governments can be known to be more prone to corruption than our own?
I don't know why this is so difficult for some.
This is not a courtroom. IF someone believes that nobody could do the shooting then that is something that is provable obviously. They could set it up and prove that it cannot be done. IF they could do this the case is closed and they win.
There is no benefit to proving that someone could do the shooting. That does not close the case. Why would LN bother with that? IF there was a shooting exhibition that could prove Oswald did it, it would have been done long ago,.
The pushback makes no sense. There is a group of people who's life work is basically to prove a conspiracy and if they believe the shots could not be made then they have a way to end the debate. What are they waiting for?
-
Do we have film of Ruby shooting Oswald? Where is it? I'd like to see it.
Tim has a habit of being deliberately obtuse and making false equivalencies because he can't actually prove who killed JFK.
-
This is not a courtroom.
Then why are you guys always on about how you think some questionable piece of evidence or other would still be admitted in court?
IF someone believes that nobody could do the shooting then that is something that is provable obviously.
Why do you think this is even provable? But who in the world ever claimed that "nobody could do the shooting"? Obviously somebody somewhere did some shooting.
-
I don't know why this is so difficult for some.
This is not a courtroom. IF someone believes that nobody could do the shooting then that is something that is provable obviously. They could set it up and prove that it cannot be done. IF they could do this the case is closed and they win.
There is no benefit to proving that someone could do the shooting. That does not close the case. Why would LN bother with that? IF there was a shooting exhibition that could prove Oswald did it, it would have been done long ago,.
The pushback makes no sense. There is a group of people who's life work is basically to prove a conspiracy and if they believe the shots could not be made then they have a way to end the debate. What are they waiting for?
The point was for the general case. It was not about Oswald in particular Apparently you are unwilling to go there
As for no benefit for the LN, Examination of the verfiability of evidence is not based on whether it benefits a particular 'side'
If it meaningless why did CBS spend so much effort on it It comes up as one of the main questions but one you somewhat idiosyncratically consider unimportant
-
I don't know why this is so difficult for some.
This is not a courtroom. IF someone believes that nobody could do the shooting then that is something that is provable obviously. They could set it up and prove that it cannot be done. IF they could do this the case is closed and they win.
There is no benefit to proving that someone could do the shooting. That does not close the case. Why would LN bother with that? IF there was a shooting exhibition that could prove Oswald did it, it would have been done long ago,.
The pushback makes no sense. There is a group of people who's life work is basically to prove a conspiracy and if they believe the shots could not be made then they have a way to end the debate. What are they waiting for?
What are they waiting for?
A government that will conduct an honest investigation......
-
It will never happen.
Are you saying that Americans lack the courage of Russians?
Why are there monuments to Hoover and LBJ in the US? ....But no monuments to Lenin or Stalin in Russia? ..or Hitler in Germany... or Saddam Hussein in Iraq
The Russians faced the facts that Stalin was simply a brutal mass murderer and removed any monument.... Do we Americans lack the brains and guts to face reality?
-
The government is never going to run an honest investigation. I don't think they know how to.
Do we really need "government experts" ( at blowin smoke) to tell us what we can see with our own eyes? ie;.. That the Warren report is one of the biggest crocks in history.
Any person who has the guts to face the facts and can be honest with himself doesn't need government "experts" to think for him.
-
The point was for the general case. It was not about Oswald in particular Apparently you are unwilling to go there
As for no benefit for the LN, Examination of the verfiability of evidence is not based on whether it benefits a particular 'side'
If it meaningless why did CBS spend so much effort on it It comes up as one of the main questions but one you somewhat idiosyncratically consider unimportant
I guess you are just not going to grasp it. Will try one more time.
There are Ct who think that the shooting that Oswald did was actually not doable. No all they have to do is set up the condition and show that. If they do then they have proven a conspiracy.
Now don't bother wondering off into courtroom issues or even LN issues. What a posted her is simple and plain to see. I am telling them how to prove they are correct.
-
You lose track of what you say, don't you? *You* said that we were waiting for an honest government investigation to the question by another poster.
I was simply commenting on your comment. If you can't figure out what I think of the WC's conclusion then you are even more confused than I thought.
*You* said that we were waiting for an honest government investigation to the question by another poster.
Yes.....That's true.... And I think you have shown that you agree that we Americans ( as a group) are a bunch of gutless gullible suckers who have put government rule over God's rule ...... Thus we are awaiting our beloved government to deliver a "truth" that we all can be comfortable with..... Perhaps now that there is no longer a Castro in control in Cuba our beloved government will enlighten us and show us "proof" that the evil Fidel Castro was the villain mastermind behind the murder of John Kennedy....That would silence all but a small minority of us who believe LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover were the primary culprits.
-
They won't reveal even a little bit of the truth for another 50 years at the least as they have invested too much into the big lie already.
Sadly, most Americans don't really care enough to do anything about it.
As long as "Big Brother" can continue to dole out tax payers dollars to the suckers who think they are are getting a free lunch the suckers will not bite their hand.
-
Absent those persons who have already given testimony that they were involved in a conspiracy, such as John Martino, or were approached to be involved, such as Loran Hall, then the CT will have to just continue to point out things that seem to defy random coincidence that may indicate certain people involved:
For example
1. LBT not getting shot at, during the JFK shooting, nor at any time during his administration, yet Malcolm X, MLK and RFK, all got assassinated during LBJs time in office.
2. Many of LBJ's political opponent got killed, one of whom was found dead by 5 shots fired by a bolt action rifle, which was ruled "suicide"
3. Malcolm Wallace, LBJs confidant, found guilty of murder, overturned by LBJ, who got the judge to nullify jury verdict.
4. LBJs own former personal attorney described LBJ as a psychopath.
5. LBJ mistress story of secret meeting dav before the assassination, and LBJ said "after tomorrow those S.O.B.'s will never embarrass me again - that's no threat - that's a promise.'"
6. LBJ reverses JFK Vietnam foreign policy 3 days after JFK assassinated, plans for 180K army invasion of Vietnam, stages the Gulf of Tonkin false flag event in Aug 1964.
7. LBJ awards contract for A7 Corsairs aircraft that will be used in Vietnam War, to his good friend, Harold Byrd, owner of the TSBD during time that Oswald was employee. Harold Byrd removed window frame from TSBD which he thought was the SN window, and hung it in his own home with the other big game trophy heads on a wall.
-
Now don't bother wondering off into courtroom issues or even LN issues. What a posted her is simple and plain to see. I am telling them how to prove they are correct.
No you're not. You're setting up a false challenge and pretending like it means something.
-
I am not a conspiracy theorist.
I just don't believe the governments report.
One aspect of staging and phoniness is evident in the timeline of activity....
On another post I pasted some of the timeline events [according to the Report]
January 28, 1962: LHO orders a .38 caliber Smith and Wesson revolver by mail.
March 12, 1963: Ruth Paine visits Marina at the new apartment. Also that day, LHO
orders a rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago.
March 20, 1963: The rifle and the revolver are shipped.
March 25, 1963: LHO picks up the weapons.
http://jfkassassination.net/parnell/chrono.htm
Does anyone else notice anything strange about the timing of these events?
Did it take 14 months for the pistol to get shipped?...and it arrives the same day as the rifle??
How efficient is that!?
Oswald goes and 'picks up the weapons'...Even in 1963 one had to sign for firearms received through the USPS.
There are no records of this that I have ever seen.
How did Oswald 'transport' the guns from the post office?
Doesn't it matter he didn't drive there?
What about ammunition? The Report mentions nothing about the police finding any other bullets anywhere that Oswald had stayed. Just the loaded guns...go figure that one ???
JF
-
I am not a conspiracy theorist.
I just don't believe the governments report.
One aspect of staging and phoniness is evident in the timeline of activity....
On another post I pasted some of the timeline events [according to the Report]http://jfkassassination.net/parnell/chrono.htm
Does anyone else notice anything strange about the timing of these events?
Did it take 14 months for the pistol to get shipped?...and it arrives the same day as the rifle??
How efficient is that!?
Oswald goes and 'picks up the weapons'...Even in 1963 one had to sign for firearms received through the USPS.
There are no records of this that I have ever seen.
How did Oswald 'transport' the guns from the post office?
Doesn't it matter he didn't drive there?
What about ammunition? The Report mentions nothing about the police finding any other bullets anywhere that Oswald had stayed. Just the loaded guns...go figure that one ???
JF
Mr Freenan.....All of your points are reasonable and valid.... But why do you deny being a CT?
If you don't believe the government's BS then surely someone had to conspire to cover up the truth....
-
If you don't believe the government's BS then surely someone had to conspire to cover up the truth....
But then that wouldn't be a 'theory'...it would be a fact ;)
-
But then that wouldn't be a 'theory'...it would be a fact ;)
I believe that you'll agree that the officially US Government approved tale is bull stuff.....so since that THEORY is so unrealistic and loony ....then those that believe the official US government theory should be referred to as "loonatics", don't you agree?
-
In regards to the sixth floor, what exactly has happened at the sixth floor S/E window of the TSBD? Both photos appear to be taken shortly after the assassination, but things have been rearranged. By whom? And would Roy Truly and the officer be in the building by this time? Or, has one of these photos been faked?
(http://i67.tinypic.com/x1n320.jp)
-
In regards to the sixth floor, what exactly has happened at the sixth floor S/E window of the TSBD? Both photos appear to be taken shortly after the assassination, but things have been rearranged. By whom? And would Roy Truly and the officer be in the building by this time? Or, has one of these photos been faked?
(http://i67.tinypic.com/x1n320.jp)
The color photo was taken by a US intelligence agent ( James Powell) BEFORE the coup d e'tat..... The B&W photo was taken by Tom Dillard DURING the shooting......Notice that BR Williams and Harold Norman are not even alarmed yet...in the B&W photo. ( That indicates there has been no shooting yet, at the time the photo was snapped....)
Notice that BR Williams is alone in the window in the color photo....That's because Jarman and Norman have not yet arrived to join him on the fifth floor ( which means the photo was taken prior to 12:27)
I'm sure you will find this information incredulous.....I'd love to answer your questions.....Just keep em civil.
-
Thanks Walt,
I try enhancing these photos, but there is just so much you can do with them. Alleged sniper's nest shortly after the assassination. Look's like Will Fritz with his white had and tie standing in the background of the left window. But then again they all wore those white hats in those days in homicide.
BB
(http://i68.tinypic.com/spw0hw.jpg)
-
That window is only open exactly 12 inches. Not much to work with. And the alleged sniper's nest isn't much better to maneuver around in. Along with very low window sills.
BB
(http://i66.tinypic.com/2lwaphh.jpg)
-
Thanks Paul, I will check your thread out.
BB
-
That window is only open exactly 12 inches.
(http://i66.tinypic.com/2lwaphh.jpg)
A couple of things.
That is a Linker rod he is holding. The measurements are not in inches but in decimal 1/10s of a foot.
[A little different ...1 inch= .083 feet]
That's not all that much and not what bothers me.
What puzzles me is that in the picture...looking past the OLD courthouse there is a building that has the fire escape....I thought that is where the new courthouse was under construction.
The above picture seems to show the old hotel that was there [then torn down] before the construction began.
So where/when did that picture come from?
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/i/151345493844-0-1/s-l1000.jpg)
(http://www.sweethaven02.com/BldgConst/Bldg02/fig0410.jpg)
(http://abcnews.go.com/assets/static/interactives/jfk-zoom/img/thumb4.jpg?v=2)
Above photo is straight from the Report.
See the construction? Point #7
(http://abcnews.go.com/assets/static/interactives/jfk-zoom/img/thumb9.jpg?v=2)
The caption for the above photo reads....
Employee Lee Harvey Oswald stood on the sixth floor of the building and used a rifle to shoot President Kennedy.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/generalContent?id=20953305&type=html&v169&iframeSource=offsiteEmbed
Finally...we are always hearing about the 6th floor.
When those shots rang out....
What and perhaps who was on the 7th I wonder?
-
Jerry,
Your right. That building was under construction at the time. Don't know what phase it was in at the time, but indeed under construction. For some reason, I recall the new steel framework up by that time.
BB
-
Thanks Walt,
I try enhancing these photos, but there is just so much you can do with them. Alleged sniper's nest shortly after the assassination. Look's like Will Fritz with his white had and tie standing in the background of the left window. But then again they all wore those white hats in those days in homicide.
BB
(http://i68.tinypic.com/spw0hw.jpg)
An excellent photo Bruce ...Of particular interest is the fact that Detective Studebaker is very obviously taking a photo of SOMETHING on the floor in the exact spot where the "gun case shaped" paper bag was found.
WHAT ??? could he be focusing on if not the paper bag??
Why have we never seen that photo?? Could it be that the photo revealed that the "gun case shaped" paper sack was waaaaay to small to have been used to conceal the carcano, and therefore it was destroyed.....
-
The color photo was taken by a US intelligence agent ( James Powell) BEFORE the coup d e'tat..... The B&W photo was taken by Tom Dillard DURING the shooting.
Walt Fabrications #1 and #23
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,99.0.html (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,99.0.html)
-
In regards to the sixth floor, what exactly has happened at the sixth floor S/E window of the TSBD? Both photos appear to be taken shortly after the assassination, but things have been rearranged. By whom? And would Roy Truly and the officer be in the building by this time? Or, has one of these photos been faked?
(http://i67.tinypic.com/x1n320.jp)
Bruce....You clearly have the ability to enhance and clarify photos. Is it possible to clean up the Powell and Dillard photos so the detail of the fire escape on the east side of the TSBD is clearly shown?
-
In the color picture it looks like 'the Oswald window' it is so blocked with stuff that no one could squirm in through there with a rifle.
the detail of the fire escape on the east side of the TSBD is clearly shown?
Curious....Why do we need to see the fire escape?
-
Curious why the boxes in the upper window look so different in the two different pictures
-
Curious why the boxes in the upper window look so different in the two different pictures
John Mytton has a graphic that explains it.
-
And there is a figure in the upper part of the left window
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1550&bih=819&ei=nJfoWrX1MKTKjwTfxJyoDA&q=dillard+photograph+enhancement+JFK&oq=dillard+photograph+enhancement+JFK&gs_l=img.12...2811.15888.0.18586.36.22.0.14.0.0.199.2351.0j20.20.0....0...1ac.1.64.img..2.19.2241.0..0j35i39k1j0i8i30k1j0i8i10i30k1j0i24k1.0.FwtDaVG9ZjA#imgrc=UVo5rkEwohmK3M:
Sorry I do not know how to post photos without a link
-
In the color picture it looks like 'the Oswald window' it is so blocked with stuff that no one could squirm in through there with a rifle.Curious....Why do we need to see the fire escape?
Because the sun had past it's zenith when the photos were taken....however there were not taken at the same time.
The photo that was taken first will show the shadow of the TSBD roof edge lower on the fire escape handrail than the second photo. I've long maintained that James Powell too his photo BEFORE the shooting and therefore his photo as taken before the Dillard photo.
-
Look and learn boys, it's a simple matter of perspective the boxes are just set back from the window.
(https://s18.postimg.cc/hemnx344p/Powell_Dillard2.gif)
The left hand side of the end of the lower tier of boxes can clearly be seen in Dillard.
(https://s18.postimg.cc/4oifjxjax/ernisnitemare.jpg)
JohnM
Wow, you really don't have a clue. Do yourself a favor and stop with the blended gifs and do a bloody re-enactment, like you did with my laser experiment. Blended gifs tell you nothing and worse, they trick you into thinking interpolated frames are real and in this case that the box arrangement was just a change in perspective, which is BS. It would take you less effort to re-enact those 2 photos showing us what you're claiming versus creating a blended gif that shows us the exact opposite. Lose lose for you.
-
Because the sun had past it's zenith when the photos were taken....however there were not taken at the same time.
The gif [or whatever] picture that rotates around....that was all very clever.
However...the guys in the window below do not move around like it shows above ???
-
The gif [or whatever] picture that rotates around....that was all very clever.
However...the guys in the window below do not move around like it shows above ???
That seems like a really good point Just to ad Paul also made it earlier and I missed it
-
Wow, you really don't have a clue. Do yourself a favor and stop with the blended gifs and do a bloody re-enactment, like you did with my laser experiment. Blended gifs tell you nothing and worse, they trick you into thinking interpolated frames are real and in this case that the box arrangement was just a change in perspective, which is BS. It would take you less effort to re-enact those 2 photos showing us what you're claiming versus creating a blended gif that shows us the exact opposite. Lose lose for you.
they trick you into thinking interpolated frames are rea
That's what the liar intends.....
-
I believe that you'll agree that the officially US Government approved tale is bull stuff.....so since that THEORY is so unrealistic and loony ....then those that believe the official US government theory should be referred to as "loonatics", don't you agree?
Not necessarily..but there are some here that appear to become very deeply disturbed when they are disagreed with. I am pleased to see that posts with ugly remarks and name calling are removed as this contributes nothing to a discussion.
-
What and perhaps who was on the 7th I wonder?
There was a 7th floor was there not?...And a roof?