Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The Tippit Shooting At 1:15-1:16, FACT
« Last post by Martin Weidmann on Yesterday at 10:35:57 PM »
Quote from: Lance Payette on Yesterday at 09:59:39 PM
I basically agree with this. The Tippit murder has really never interested me beyond the level of the broad questions: Where was Oswald going? Why did Tippit stop? Why did Oswald shoot him? All of the "problematical minutiae" has just never really interested me. The notion that this was some conspiratorial frame-up of Oswald just strikes me as so fantastically improbable that I've really never got past the threshold question, "What sense would that have made?" I read a great quote from a presentation that Paul Hoch gave in 1993: "We [CTers] have identified twelve of the three gunmen." I think this is the problem with much conspiracy thinking - there is just "too much" to be plausible. Hence my thread about focusing on plausibility, quality rather than quantity.

When you are interested in the JFK assassination, you can not ignore the Tippit murder. I have questions similar to yours and a few more of my own; how does it make sense that an alleged killer on the run finds himself walking down a go nowhere street like 10th street? 

The notion that this was some conspiratorial frame-up of Oswald just strikes me as so fantastically improbable that I've really never got past the threshold question, "What sense would that have made?"

Ever considered that part of the conspiracy to have people dismiss it as "fantastically improbable"? The mere fact that it doesn't make sense to you, doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense in a bigger scheme of things?

Do you know about Operation Mincemeat? To most people it wouldn't make sense to drop a dead body dressed up as an English officer in the Mediterranean with a fake letter about an invasion in Greece that went against all logic, but it convinced the Germans nevertheless. So it worked! If you limit you willingness to consider possibilities because you find something improbable you might just selling yourself short. In this crazy world there are far more things possible than anybody can or wants to comprehend.

Athur Conan Doyle had Sherlock Holmes say ""When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." To dismiss a possibility because you find in improbable will never get you to the truth!

12
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The Tippit Shooting At 1:15-1:16, FACT
« Last post by Martin Weidmann on Yesterday at 10:20:03 PM »
Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 09:31:06 PM
LNs do not rely on time stamps to prove Oswald shot Tippit. With what is known, we can only approximate that. There is ample proof Oswald killed Tippit. There is the forensic evidence of the discarded shells which were matched to the handgun Oswald had in his possession when arrested to the exclusion of all other firearms in the world. There are also plenty of witnesses who IDed Oswald either as the shooter or the man they saw fleeing the scene. On top of that, Oswald tried to shoot one of the arresting officers when confronted in the theater. Anyone who can look at that evidence and refuse to believe Oswald was the killer is not somebody who wants to know the truth. That is somebody who wants their beliefs to be true.

It is the CTs who try to fixate on the timing because they are the ones who need to prove we should not believe all that evidence that Oswald killed Tippit. To do that, THEY are the ones who have to prove Oswald could not have been at the scene of the crime when Tippit was shot. After 62 years of trying, they have failed miserably.

LNs do not rely on time stamps to prove Oswald shot Tippit.

I didn't say they did. I said they rely on the time stamps for the time that Tippit was killed.

There is ample proof Oswald killed Tippit.

Really? I think you mean to say that there is ample evidence that Oswald killed Tippit. But not all evidence is also proof.

There is the forensic evidence of the discarded shells which were matched to the handgun Oswald had in his possession when arrested to the exclusion of all other firearms in the world.

Too bad there isn't a conclusive chain of evidence to show that the revolver now in evidence is in fact the one that was taken from Oswald when he was arrested.

There are also plenty of witnesses who IDed Oswald either as the shooter or the man they saw fleeing the scene.

Says the guy who, in post after post, claims that he doesn't put much weight on witness testimony. Now suddenly witness testimony is reliable? Hilarious!

On top of that, Oswald tried to shoot one of the arresting officers when confronted in the theater.

There is no evidence for that.

Anyone who can look at that evidence and refuse to believe Oswald was the killer is not somebody who wants to know the truth. That is somebody who wants their beliefs to be true.

I have never excluded Oswald as a possible killer of Tippit, but I look at the actual (lack of) evidence and not the BS that you consider to be solid evidence. Once again, I couldn't care less if Oswald killed Kennedy and/or Tippit or if there was a conspiracy. All I am asking is to see authentic evidence that support what ever conclusion you want me to reach.

It is the CTs who try to fixate on the timing because they are the ones who need to prove we should not believe all that evidence that Oswald killed Tippit

Wrong again. It's not innocence that needs to be proven, it's guilt... so the ball is in your corner and the mere fact that you keep whining about this only tells me that you know that you don't really have the evidence to prove guilt.

To do that, THEY are the ones who have to prove Oswald could not have been at the scene of the crime when Tippit was shot. After 62 years of trying, they have failed miserably. 

If Tippit was killed around 1:10 PM, there is no way that Oswald could have made it to 10th and Patton, at least not by walking there. That's why the LNs are so desperate to rely on the DPD time stamps to push back the time of the shooting as much as they can. The problem, which they will never agree with, is that it doesn't add up with the known facts.
13
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The Tippit Shooting At 1:15-1:16, FACT
« Last post by Lance Payette on Yesterday at 09:59:39 PM »
Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 09:31:06 PM
LNs do not rely on time stamps to prove Oswald shot Tippit. With what is known, we can only approximate that. There is ample proof Oswald killed Tippit. There is the forensic evidence of the discarded shells which were matched to the handgun Oswald had in his possession when arrested to the exclusion of all other firearms in the world. There are also plenty of witnesses who IDed Oswald either as the shooter or the man they saw fleeing the scene. On top of that, Oswald tried to shoot one of the arresting officers when confronted in the theater. Anyone who can look at that evidence and refuse to believe Oswald was the killer is not somebody who wants to know the truth. That is somebody who wants their beliefs to be true.

It is the CTs who try to fixate on the timing because they are the ones who need to prove we should not believe all that evidence that Oswald killed Tippit. To do that, THEY are the ones who have to prove Oswald could not have been at the scene of the crime when Tippit was shot. After 62 years of trying, they have failed miserably.

I basically agree with this. The Tippit murder has really never interested me beyond the level of the broad questions: Where was Oswald going? Why did Tippit stop? Why did Oswald shoot him? All of the "problematical minutiae" has just never really interested me. The notion that this was some conspiratorial frame-up of Oswald just strikes me as so fantastically improbable that I've really never got past the threshold question, "What sense would that have made?" I read a great quote from a presentation that Paul Hoch gave in 1993: "We [CTers] have identified twelve of the three gunmen." I think this is the problem with much conspiracy thinking - there is just "too much" to be plausible. Hence my thread about focusing on plausibility, quality rather than quantity.
14
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The Wound In Gov. Connally's Back
« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 09:45:35 PM »
Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 07:18:13 PM
Ben is typical of he kinds of experts MTG likes to cite.

It's a perfect example of he blind leading he blind.

If you guys really had figured this all out, you would be able to answer the key questions of who, what, where , wand when. The WC answered all four of these quesstions. The where and the when are the easy parts. You guys trip all over yourselves trying to explain the who and the how.

Let me translate this drivel for any newcomers: You have no idea how to explain the facts I've pointed out about the size of Connally's back wound and the narrow nature of the wound track through his chest and about why those facts refute the SBT. But, since you have no objectivity and no interest in doing serious research, you're going to ignore those facts and do more of your usual ducking and dodging, coupled with your hilarious assertion that the WC figured out the four key questions about the assassination!

The WC solved the assassination, huh?! Sure they did! Umm, and never you mind that we now know that three of the seven WC members did not buy several of the WC's key conclusions, and never mind that the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded that the WC's investigation was biased and poorly conducted, that two gunmen were involved, that the first hit on JFK occurred when Oswald's view of JFK would have been obstructed by the oak tree, that Jack Ruby had significant Mafia ties, that someone was moving boxes around in the sixth-floor window shortly after the shooting when Oswald could not have been there, that anti-Castro Cubans were trying to frame Oswald for the shooting weeks before it occurred, etc., etc.

The percentage of people who believe the WC got everything right is about the same as the percentage of people who believe that Bush and Cheney knew about 9/11 in advance and allowed it to happen. Congrats.

Moving on, I should add that one of the more honest WC defenders, Jim Moore, does not deny that Connally's right shoulder is driven downward starting in Z238 (Conspiracy of One, 2018 edition, p. 119).



15
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Applying Logic and Critical Thinking to the JFK Assassination
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 09:37:06 PM »
Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 07:23:08 PM
A few follow-up points about the alleged shooting feat, zeroing the rifle, and Oswald's Marine Corps rifle scores:

-- Marine Corps rifle expert MSG Jamess Zahm explained to the WC why using the iron sights would have made the shooting feat harder:

Mr. SPECTER. Can you characterize the increased efficiency of a marksman in using a four-power scope as opposed to using only the iron sights?

Sergeant ZAHM. Well, with the iron sights you have more room for error in the fact that you have three variables. You have your targets, your front sight and your rear sight, and you have the possibility of an error in aligning the sights, and then you also have the possibility of an error in the sights on the targets, which we refer to as the sight picture. Looking through aperture or even the open buckhorn type sights, when you are concentrating on your sights, your targets tend to become blurred because of the close focus of your eye in aligning the sights. (11 H 307)

-- Not a single bullet was found in Oswald's possessions. In addition, no gun-cleaning equipment, no gun-cleaning oil, no spent cartridges, no nothing related to maintaining or using a rifle was found among his possessions.

-- The three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test failed to duplicate Oswald's alleged shooting feat, even though two of them took 6.45 to 8.0 seconds to fire their two sets of three shots. Moreover, they fired their most inaccurate shots on their second and third shots, i.e., the shots fired at the two farthest targets, the same two shots that Oswald allegedly nailed in 5.6 seconds. And they were firing from only 30 feet up, took as much time as they wanted for their first shot, and were allowed to fire practice shots before the test began.

-- Here's what FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier told the WC about the problems they discovered when he and other FBI technicians tried to sight-in (zero) the rifle with the scope:

When we attempted to sight in this rifle at Quantico, we found that the elevation adjustment in the telescopic sight was not sufficient to bring the point of impact to the aiming point. In attempting to adjust and sight-in the rifle, every time we changed the adjusting screws to move the crosshairs in the telescopic sight in one direction-it also affected the movement of the impact or the point of impact in the other direction. That is, if we moved the crosshairs in the telescope to the left it would also affect the elevation setting of the telescope.

And when we had sighted-in the rifle approximately, we fired several shots and found that the shots were not all landing in the same place, but were gradually moving away from the point of impact. This was apparently due to the construction of the telescope, which apparently did not stabilize itself--that is, the spring mounting in the crosshair ring did not stabilize until we had fired five or six shots.

We found in this telescopic sight on this rifle that this ring was shifting in the telescope tube so that the gun could not be sighted-in merely by changing the screws. It was necessary to adjust it, and then fire several shots to stabilize the crosshair ring by causing this spring to press tightly against the screws (3 H 405-406)

-- As for the specious suggestion that the supposed lone gunman would not have needed to zero the rifle in the weeks leading up to the shooting, WC staffer Wesley Liebeler addressed this issue in an internal WC memo:

There is a great deal of testimony in the record that a telescopic sight is a sensitive proposition. You can't leave a rifle and scope laying around in a garage underfoot for almost 3 months, just having brought it back from New Orleans in the back of a station wagon, and expect to hit anything with it, unless you take the trouble to fire it and sight the scope in.

This would have been a problem that should have been dealt with in any event, and now that it turns out that there actually was a defect in the scope, it is perfectly clear that the question must be considered. The present draft leaves the Commission open to severe criticism. Furthermore, to the extent that it leaves testimony suggesting that the shots might not have been so easy out of the discussion, thereby giving only a part of the story, it is simply dishonest. (11 HSCA 230)

-- Regarding the fact that Oswald barely qualified in the second of three rifle qualification categories in the Marine Corps, it would be helpful to note just how relatively easy the Marine Corps rifle qualification standards were when compared to the alleged shooting, keeping in mind, too, that Oswald was using a superb semi-automatic rifle (the M1):

In Stage One-Slow Fire, the person had 12 minutes (yes, minutes) to fire 10 rounds.

In Stage Two-Slow Fire, the person had 6 minutes (yes, minutes)   to fire 5 rounds.

In Stage Five-Rapid Fire, the person had 50 seconds to fire 10 rounds.

In Stage Six-Rapid Fire, the person had 50 seconds to fire 10 rounds.

Some sources say 60 seconds for the two rapid-fire phases, but I recently found a source that says 50 seconds, so I'll err on the side of caution and go with 50 seconds. That still means Oswald had 5 seconds per shot in the "rapid fire" phases.

All of your perceived faults with Oswald's rifle and/or scope are rendered moot by the fact the recovered bullets from the shooting were matched to Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other firearms in the world. It is painfully obvious to any thinking person that Oswald's rifle with that scope fired the shots that killed JFK. There is ample other forensic evidence establishing that Oswald was he one who fired those shots.

CTs refuse to accept that obvious conclusion which is why they make illogical arguments about the capabilities of Oswald and his rifle.
16
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The Tippit Shooting At 1:15-1:16, FACT
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 09:31:06 PM »
Quote from: Martin Weidmann on Yesterday at 08:53:13 PM
So, if we can't rely on clocks and thus time stamps, how can LNs say with any kind of certainty that Tippit was shot at around 1:14:30?

Even more so, as there is evidence that Tippit's ambulance arrived at the hospital at 1:15. This time is given for the time of D.O.A. and also confirmed by police officer Davenport who followed the ambulance.

Btw, Tippit's murder wasn't a federal crime, yet the F.B.I. pestered hospital employees for days about the time of D.O.A.. Why would the F.B.I. even be interested in that, when they could simply have accepted the time on the death certificate?

LNs do not rely on time stamps to prove Oswald shot Tippit. With what is known, we can only approximate that. There is ample proof Oswald killed Tippit. There is the forensic evidence of the discarded shells which were matched to the handgun Oswald had in his possession when arrested to the exclusion of all other firearms in the world. There are also plenty of witnesses who IDed Oswald either as the shooter or the man they saw fleeing the scene. On top of that, Oswald tried to shoot one of the arresting officers when confronted in the theater. Anyone who can look at that evidence and refuse to believe Oswald was the killer is not somebody who wants to know the truth. That is somebody who wants their beliefs to be true.

It is the CTs who try to fixate on the timing because they are the ones who need to prove we should not believe all that evidence that Oswald killed Tippit. To do that, THEY are the ones who have to prove Oswald could not have been at the scene of the crime when Tippit was shot. After 62 years of trying, they have failed miserably.
17
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Summary of Some of the Major Problems with the JFK Medical Evidence
« Last post by Paul J Cummings on Yesterday at 09:22:11 PM »
I don't come here for humor. What entails your research to dispute his? I've yet to see you do it or show it in this thread. I don't know why I'm responding because it appears you're just arrogant enough to feel like it's benneath you to counter. How about countering instead of the personal attacks? We should just assume everyone on this site is familiar with your research on this subject?

Definition of Research. Research is a systematic and intentional process of investigation designed to discover new knowledge, validate existing theories, or solve specific problems. It relies on structured methodologies to collect, analyze, and interpret data, ultimately contributing to a broader or generalizable understanding of a topic
18
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: CIA Wallets at Tenth and Patton
« Last post by Martin Weidmann on Yesterday at 09:05:58 PM »
Quote from: Lance Payette on Yesterday at 12:57:45 PM
Richard, you're just no fun. If you insist on thinking logically, what are we going to do with you? Take a week off, binge-watch Three Stooges episodes on YouTube, and get back to us when you're ready to think outside the box of rationality.

What would be a logical explanation for Bentley not mentioning Hidell when he took the wallet from Oswald in order to identify him. What is a logical explanation for the lack of a chain of custody for that wallet and how can it be logically explained that an - until this day - unidentified police officer ended up with a wallet, which he gave to Gus Rose, that did contain the Hidell ID? How did that officer even know it was Oswald's wallet?
19
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The Tippit Shooting At 1:15-1:16, FACT
« Last post by Martin Weidmann on Yesterday at 08:53:13 PM »
Quote from: Lance Payette on June 17, 2026, 11:01:09 PM
Well, sure. The whole "time thing" seems to me like a quest for certainty that just isn't possible.

So, if we can't rely on clocks and thus time stamps, how can LNs say with any kind of certainty that Tippit was shot at around 1:14:30?

Even more so, as there is evidence that Tippit's ambulance arrived at the hospital at 1:15. This time is given for the time of D.O.A. and also confirmed by police officer Davenport who followed the ambulance.

Btw, Tippit's murder wasn't a federal crime, yet the F.B.I. pestered hospital employees for days about the time of D.O.A.. Why would the F.B.I. even be interested in that, when they could simply have accepted the time on the death certificate?
20
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Summary of Some of the Major Problems with the JFK Medical Evidence
« Last post by Lance Payette on Yesterday at 08:35:54 PM »
Quote from: Paul J Cummings on Yesterday at 06:55:27 PM
You keep proving my point. Where is your research that counters his? He went into detail on it but I've yet to see you or anyone refute it. I'm done asking for the counters because It's multiple times with the same takes. Several people in here are more interested in a mob mentality of attacking the person instead of the content.

Because I am a kindly and patient sort, I will humor you and MTG to the tune of one more post. I have investigated some 20 or so nuggets of conspiracy gospel. My batting average is 1.000. Not one - not one - has withstood scrutiny. Exposing each of these has been an absurd amount of work, totally out of proportion to what it was worth. If I were billing at my hourly rate when I was a lawyer, each of these would have been a $15K project. Moreover, the exercise was entirely futile. Exposing the factoid changed nothing. It went right being a nugget of conspiracy gospel. By the fifth factoid or so, I accepted that I was doing this for my own self-amusement and mental exercise.

What MTG offers is neither "research" nor "facts." It's a bunch of conspiracy factoids supported by fallacious appeals to dubious CT "authorities." My normal factoid-busting procedure would be to take one of his nuggets and examine it closely to see if it withstands scrutiny. BUT I'M NOT GONNA DO IT. Why? Because MTG has established to my satisfaction that he is 33rd-degree CT nutcase. He is not worth the amount of time and effort that it takes to expose ONE LITTLE FACTOID. If you and MTG want to pretend that this means those of us who decline to engage with him are "hiding" and "avoiding" his "facts," I really don't give a steaming bowl of bat guano. I'm frankly mystified that anyone wastes time engaging with him; it just gives a veneer of credibility to his crap.

The stuff he raises here has been masturbated over ad nauseam. Here is one of many threads from the Ed Forum where these topics are discussed: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/ As usual, Pat Speer - who knows 100X more about the medical evidence than I do - ends up being the nemesis of those who, like MTG, think the autopsy x-rays and photos are either altered or fake. MTG insists the brain photos are not JFK's head. If that sounds plausible to you, fine. It doesn't sound to me like a factoid worth busting even if I had the medical expertise to do so. The one point Pat makes is precisely what I made above: there is virtually no area of the medical evidence as to which there is a consensus, so how would one go about "refuting" MTG's supposed "facts" even if one wanted to attempt to do so?

MTG's contributions are just one-dimensional CT screeds. As stated, his reliance on body-alteration fanatics like Mantik, Horne and Hornberger - whose stuff strikes me as pulp science fiction, unworthy of being taken seriously - should tell you something. A genuine contribution would be to carefully collect what everyone who has considered the autopsy x-rays and photos has had to say about them and perhaps have a new group of qualified experts consider the issue and try to make sense of the differing opinions. As a former lawyer, I can tell you that real research is a hell of a lot of work and not what MTG does. I once wrote a completely inconsequential law review article that ended up being published in the obscure Idaho Law Review; I took two weeks off of work to finish the silly thing and just about worked myself into a breakdown. MTG wouldn't know research if it bit him in the butt.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10