Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
No one has an obligation to disprove what you have never proven, only asserted.

Classic LN  BS:

I asked a question and clowns like you can't come up with a plausible answer. If you could, you would have provided it, if only for the purpose to point out an error made by one of those evil CTs!

At the same time you and people like you make up all sorts of BS claims, based on no and/or misrepresented evidence, which you then expect to be disproven. And you don't even see understand the contradiction!

So, while it is true that nobody has an obligation to disprove anything (which also applies to your bogus claims), I'll nevertheless will consider the lack of an answer as an admission of your inability to provide a plausible explanation for the clear discrepancy in the factual evidence.
2
The first image comes from the HSCA analysis and they have the SBF happening at about Z190 but modern Scholars have the SBF occurring as Kennedy emerges from behind the Stemmons sign from Zapruder's POV.











JohnM

  ".....modern Scholars"?  :D
3
And so far no LN has come up with an answer and all I have gotten from you is denial.

No one has an obligation to disprove what you have never proven, only asserted.
4
There is no evidence provided in the zfilm that is inconsistent with JBC not reacting to his chest wound before z255. His actions are quite consistent with the rest of the evidence, which is that there has only been one shot to that point.  We have Altgens who was there and took the picture and confirms that. The problem is not with the zfilm. The problem is that the zfilm alone cannot tell you where the second shot occurred.

It tells people with good eyesight and a functioning brain when the second shot was fired that hit both JFK and JBC.
5
If this isn't sufficient for you, there WAS NO "Problem Analysis Branch" in the Office of Research and Development. It was called the Analysis Division. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB54/st33.pdf. A history of the Analysis Division written in the 1970s said the Chief (name redacted) was appointed in 1968 and remained Chief "throughout its history" to the date of writing. https://www.governmentattic.org/27docs/HistCIAofcRandDvols1-6.pdf.

Just to beat this to death, the Office of Research and Development was reorganized following the issuance of an Inspector General's report in 1972 (3-4 years after O'Toole had left). One of the major divisions was called the Program Analysis Staff. I could find no reference to a Problem Analysis Branch or a Chief thereof, either before or after O'Toole's period of employment, nor could I find any reference to O'Toole in any official document other than the one I linked. It's clear he was a CIA employee, and GS-14 is a fairly high grade reflecting technical expertise, but it definitely seems he enhanced and glamorized his role more than a bit. (The GS schedule is the federal white collar pay scale. In 1969, there were 18 grades. I was a GS-11 Public Information Specialist in an Arizona office of the Department of Interior before I went to law school, and I was definitely no big deal. The analyst position for which O'Toole was originally hired was typically GS-11 to 13.)
6
The best evidence we have is the Z-film and any witness statement that conflicts with that should be dismissed. Because won't do that, you reach the ridiculous conclusion that JBC wasn't hit until Z270 and that the reason his is doubled over and dipping hard to his right is because he was trying to see JFK. I suppose you could have come up with a sillier interpretation of the Z-film, but it is hard to imagine how.
There is no evidence provided in the zfilm that is inconsistent with JBC not reacting to his chest wound before z255. His actions are quite consistent with the rest of the evidence, which is that there has only been one shot to that point.  We have Altgens who was there and took the picture and confirms that. The problem is not with the zfilm. The problem is that the zfilm alone cannot tell you where the second shot occurred.
7
You haven't actually made a case. That's my point. You've just made some unsupported assertions, then demanded that I investigate them for you.

Again the same BS I've become accustomed to from you.

I'll give this one more try; Bentley, Carroll, Hill and Walker brought Oswald to the homicide bureau at City Hall and left him there with some uniformed officers. They went to the personnel office where some officers initialed the S & W revolver and a gray jacket. According to Hill, in his WC testimony, this happened at around 4:00 PM but in his report to Chief Curry of 3 December 1963 he gave the time as 3:15 PM.

Paul Bentley, wrote in his report to Chief Curry of 2 December 1963: "On the way to City Hall I removed the suspect's wallet and obtained his name. Not a word about finding a Hidell ID! He also wrote: Sgt. Jerry Hill had the S&W 38 cal pistol with six (6) shells in his possession on the way to the City Hall. This pistol was initialed by me and turned over to Lt. Baker and Captain Fritz by Sgt. Hill. I turned his identification over to Lt. Baker. I then went to Westbrook's Office to make a report of the arrest.

The information of Hill and Bentley combined justifies IMO the conclusion that the revolver and Oswald's identification were turned over to Lt. Baker at some time after 3:15 PM which matches with 3:25 PM time on the receipt of the evidence room, where the wallet, the revolver and several personal items of Oswald were submitted by traffic officer Bardin.

If you wish to argue that Bentley turned in the wallet/identification to Lt Baker earlier, you will not find any evidence for that. 

But even if Bentley did hand in the wallet/identification to Lt. Baker just after leaving Oswald with the uniformed officers at the Homicide Bureau it still does explain how C.T. Walker could claim that he had the Hidell identification and it most certainly doesn't explain how Detective Guy Rose was given a wallet in which he found the Hidell ID. Rose arrived at City Hall just after Oswald was brought in and when he got to the Homicide Bureau an unidentified person gave him a wallet and said it belonged to Oswald.

All I said was;


I don't see how the wallet in both stories could be the same one. So, what's a possible explanation? If we disregard the obvious contradiction of the revolver's chain of custody, and only focus on the wallet; it needs to be considered that C.T. Walker was at the Tippit crime scene. The only way I can fit Bentley's wallet story and Walker's wallet story in one narrative is by concluding that Bentley did in fact take a wallet from Oswald, which did not contain the Hidell ID, and kept it until turning it over to Lt Baker at around 4:00 PM, and Walker had the wallet found at the Tippit scene which he brought into City Hall where it was given to Guy Rose and subsequently was submitted to the evidence bureau at 3:35 PM.

If anybody can come with with another plausible explanation to square the two stories, I would love to hear it!

And so far no LN has come up with an answer and all I have gotten from you is denial.
8
I wouldn't stoop to reply, but this is CLASSIC of what MTG does. Reality simply cannot penetrate the CT bubble in which he lives.

The ABSOLUTELY SCATHING review of O'Toole's book that I cited and quoted from was from the PROFESSIONAL JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN POLYGRAPH ASSOCIATION. Hello?

Forty years later, Sean DeGrilla and his highly professional VSA cohorts ABSOLUTELY SHREDDED O'Toole's work and demonstrated the gross error that he had either incompetently or fraudulently committed.

The issue is not the accuracy of VSA. The issue is the incompetence and lack of ethics of O'Toole. Correctly done VSA by DeGrilla and peer-reviewed by world-class VSA experts showed Oswald as LYING.

No, he was not the chief of anything during his less than three years with the CIA. His PRECISE POSITIONS that I quoted were from a CIA DOCUMENT describing his employment. This was not a document attempting to minimize O'Toole or his CT views. It was simply a document briefly describing each of the principals of the Committee to Investigate Assassinations: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/THE%20COMMITTEE%20TO%20INVESTIG%5B16506075%5D.pdf.

I repeat: "He was employed as a Digital Computer Systems Analyst in March 1966. He resigned 24 January 1969 from a position as a Research Officer, GS-14, ORD/DDS&T" (Office of Research and Development, Directorate of Science and Technology).

He was not an "ex-CIA agent." He was not a "bureau chief." He was not "Chief of the Problem Analysis Branch." These are all titles that O'Toole either misappropriated or allowed to be attached to his name because what he actually was didn't sound sufficiently impressive. You will also see him referred to as a "case officer."

If this isn't sufficient for you, there WAS NO "Problem Analysis Branch" in the Office of Research and Development. It was called the Analysis Division. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB54/st33.pdf. A history of the Analysis Division written in the 1970s said the Chief (name redacted) was appointed in 1968 and remained Chief "throughout its history" to the date of writing. https://www.governmentattic.org/27docs/HistCIAofcRandDvols1-6.pdf.

This is what MTG does, again and again. His crap is exposed, reamed, steamed and drycleaned - AND HE FLAT DOESN'T CARE. In the SAME THREAD in which it's been exposed, he repeats it all over again! There is something seriously wrong with this guy.

Once again, you make so much more sense when you are wearing your LN cap. It makes me wonder why you want to keep switching caps. Those CT caps you don must be so tight that are restricting blood flow to your brain. That doesn't seem to be a problem when you have your LN cap on.
9
And here we go, round and round again...

Still no explanation of what is wrong with the case I have presented. Only a waste of time...
You haven't actually made a case. That's my point. You've just made some unsupported assertions, then demanded that I investigate them for you. 
10
I wouldn't stoop to reply, but this is CLASSIC of what MTG does. Reality simply cannot penetrate the CT bubble in which he lives.

I'd bet good money you haven't even read O'Toole's book, and thus you don't know that he presents an extensive discussion on studies on the reliability of VSA (aka PSE) polygraphs. Dr. David Scheim, who holds a doctorate in mathematics from MIT, has said the following about VSA/PSE polygraphs:

. . . the Psychological Stress Evaluator (PSE), a lie-detector device that measures stress by voice pattern analysis. Demonstrated reliable in several tests, it is used by hundreds of U.S. law enforcement agencies and accepted as evidence i more than a dozen states. (Contract on America, 1988, p. 160)

The ABSOLUTELY SCATHING review of O'Toole's book that I cited and quoted from was from the PROFESSIONAL JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN POLYGRAPH ASSOCIATION. Hello?

Forty years later, Sean DeGrilla and his highly professional VSA cohorts ABSOLUTELY SHREDDED O'Toole's work and demonstrated the gross error that he had either incompetently or fraudulently committed.

The issue is not the accuracy of VSA. The issue is the incompetence and lack of ethics of O'Toole. Correctly done VSA by DeGrilla and peer-reviewed by world-class VSA experts showed Oswald as LYING.

Quote
Finally, a word about George O'Toole himself. As usual, since O'Toole reached the conclusion that JFK was killed by a conspiracy, Lance Payette seeks to minimize his qualifications, describing him as "a CIA computer specialist." Actually, he was a bit more than a computer specialist, although that in itself is a valid, relevant qualification. O'Toole served as the chief of the CIA's Problem Analysis Branch.

No, he was not the chief of anything during his less than three years with the CIA. His PRECISE POSITIONS that I quoted were from a CIA DOCUMENT describing his employment. This was not a document attempting to minimize O'Toole or his CT views. It was simply a document briefly describing each of the principals of the Committee to Investigate Assassinations: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/THE%20COMMITTEE%20TO%20INVESTIG%5B16506075%5D.pdf.

I repeat: "He was employed as a Digital Computer Systems Analyst in March 1966. He resigned 24 January 1969 from a position as a Research Officer, GS-14, ORD/DDS&T" (Office of Research and Development, Directorate of Science and Technology).

He was not an "ex-CIA agent." He was not a "bureau chief." He was not "Chief of the Problem Analysis Branch." These are all titles that O'Toole either misappropriated or allowed to be attached to his name because what he actually was didn't sound sufficiently impressive. You will also see him referred to as a "case officer."

If this isn't sufficient for you, there WAS NO "Problem Analysis Branch" in the Office of Research and Development. It was called the Analysis Division. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB54/st33.pdf. A history of the Analysis Division written in the 1970s said the Chief (name redacted) was appointed in 1968 and remained Chief "throughout its history" to the date of writing. https://www.governmentattic.org/27docs/HistCIAofcRandDvols1-6.pdf.

This is what MTG does, again and again. His crap is exposed, reamed, steamed and drycleaned - AND HE FLAT DOESN'T CARE. In the SAME THREAD in which it's been exposed, he repeats it all over again! There is something seriously wrong with this guy.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10