Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
I find it odd that you pretend to know how a cold blooded killer is going to act before he commits the deed.
This is not just any cold blooded killer that we know little if anything about. This is Oswald, someone that we have an understanding of, of what made him tick, of how he acted. I probably know more about his life than any other non-family member (that's pathetic admittedly).

As Marina pointed out in that passage I cited, before making any major decisions in his life he planned things out, showed nervousness during that stage, acted erratically, e.g., beating her, having anxiety/panic attacks in his sleep. There's a record of how he acted. The defection to the USSR, the return to the US, the Walker attempt, the Mexico City trip. Simply choose one: the Walker attempt vs. the JFK assassination.

In the assassination we don't see anything resembling that pattern.
12
Dear Comrade Storing,

I "get it" that your MYSTO "ABANDONED" GETAWAY CAR was parked a little bit behind the "Signal Light Pole" / "No Parking Pole" in Hughes and Martin clips. I'm just saying that from the perspective of the Couch-Darnell and Wiegman films, the front of the very same car is visible to us to the right of the "Signal Light Pole" / "No Parking Pole," and that the reason we can't see it in the latter is because the gaggle of spectators is hiding it from view.

(If it's the same car that's in the National Geographic video, it's a 1958 Pontiac)



Question: Do you think the way James spliced together two half-second-apart Wiegman frames in his Couch-Darnell / Wiegman overlap montage was devious or misleading?

Ya gotta scroll down to it:

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4597.40.html

-- Tom


    CORBETT - You claim the "getaway" car was "RELEASED" by DPD. I continue waiting for your Proof of this claimed, DPD "RELEASE".
13
A "bias toward the truth." BWAHAHA!!! That is about as non-introspective as I've ever heard.  :D :D :D

Sort of like "my greatest fault is that I'm just so honest and humble and kind that I'm sometimes my own worst enemy."

I recognize that I have a strong affinity for, and confirmation bias toward, weirdness of all varieties. To some extent, I share the conspiracy-prone mindset. This cuts across all varieties of weirdness in which I have been heavily involved - religion, UFOs, psychical research, the JFKA and numerous others.

The only thing I do to stay on the side of rationality is to try to be relentlessly critical and skeptical. I am the 180-degree opposite of the Gee Whiz True Believer in every area. This is true even of my own paranormal experiences. My first reaction to every super-duper UFO tale or Near-Death Experience is "Bullsh*t."

That's all I know to do - recognize the direction in which your confirmation biases point and then be relentlessly critical and skeptical of everything that feeds into them. When a UFO case or Near-Death Experience or other Tale of Weirdness now survives my filter - and some do - I am satisfied it's a piece of evidence that is worthy of being factored into my belief system.

The other danger is being so aware of your confirmation biases and so viligant that this becomes a confirmation bias of its own - because by God you aren't going to fall prey to your confirmation biases, you swing too far in the other direction.

I was on a few disciplinary panels for other lawyers. My biases tended to be personal - I either liked the attorney on trial and felt affinity or sympathy or didn't like him or her and felt the opposite. Here as well, all I could do was try be honest with myself and not let this bias affect my evaluation of the evidence or the discipline too much. Also not to let my role as a judge lure me into playing ego/power games. I always tried to put myself in the attorney's shoes and err on the side of compassion if I reasonably could.


Lance, it currently looks like the three members (including me) of our Disciplinary Committee may not be able to reach a unanimous decision. I am not trying to compare our committee to the Supreme Court. But I was reading how they operate and have a question I am hoping you might be able to explain to me. I can grasp most of the different opinions (majority, dissenting, & concurring) the Supreme Court can issue. But this last one is proving to be difficult for me.

“Fractured Decisions: Sometimes no single rationale commands a majority of the Court. In these rare "plurality" decisions, the controlling precedent is determined by the opinion that concurred in the judgment on the narrowest grounds.”

I just need a little help understanding what that means. Please give it a try if you are interested. Thanks.
14
In my quest, I reviewed the WC testimony of Sorrels, Brennan and Euins - really nothing helpful. Brennan and Euins both said "high-powered rifle." Nothing specifically suggesting a 30-30 or Winchester. Hard to believe Sawyer would just substitute that phrase for "high-powered rifle." And where did "carrying" come from? And then we have the fact that the rifle was omitted (I believe) from the description that was then transmitted more widely.

Brennan did say that he told Sawyer that those officers running toward the knoll and railroad yard were "running in the wrong direction." Could this be the source of confusion that the assassin was running out the rear of the TSBD?

I did discover at Ken Rahn's site a lengthy excerpt from Brennan's 1987 book, Eyewitness to History. https://kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html.

If we can believe him - a big if - he observed Oswald at considerable length before any shots were fired, so this could explain why he seemed to have a better description than we might expect. He also goes on at length about a mystery Oldsmobile with a white driver that was parked oddly and illegally on Houston Street near the side entrance at the rear of the TSBD before the JFKA. Even though it was parked oddly and illegally - and, Brennan obviously thinks, suspiciously - he saw a policeman approach the car and laugh with the driver. After the JFKA, Brennan immediately noticed the mystery car was gone.

One might think that this might account for the confusion about a mystery man with a rifle running from the rear of the TSBD - but, alas, Brennan never reported the illegally parked Oldsmobile.

Here is DVP's stuff on Brennan: https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/howard-brennan.html. He suggests Sawyer's conversation with Brennan had to be considerably after Sawyer's. However, the FBI report I linked seemed to have Sawyer saying Sorrels was present.

And on it goes. I see no basis for anyone, including Sawyer, actually having said a man was running from the rear of the TSBD with a Winchester. It all just sounds like understandable chaos and confusion.
15
I favor earwitnesses whose accounts are supported by other evidence. That is a lot different from your bogus claim that I "insist traumatic incidents turn people into vegetables.". I never said anything remotely like that. I do recognize that both eye and earwitness evidence is suspect by nature because it is very common for witnesses to get some things right and some things wrong. That is the norm, not the exception.
Of course I am. That is what the evidence clearly iindicates.
That is unadulterated BS. There is a clear consensus among the earwitnesses that there were three shots. Some heard two. Some heard four. The vast majority said three and there is forensic evidence to support that. From page 110 of the WCR:

"The consensus among the witnesses at the scene was that three shots were fired. However, some heard only two shots, while others testified that they heard four and perhaps as many as five or six shots. The difficulty of accurate perception of the sound of gunshots required careful scrutiny of all of this testimony regarding the number of shots.".
More BS. There were three shells recovered.
You obviously haven't been following what I have said numerous times in numerous threads. I find eye and ear witnesses to be the least compelling form of evidence available to us. I only trust witnesses accounts that can be verified by hard evidence. The three shot scenario is supported by the consensus of earwitnesses AND the three spent shells. If you don't want to buy that, it's your right. But don't tell us that the only evidence of three shots is earwitnesses.

JC  “The three shot scenario is supported by the consensus of earwitnesses AND the three spent shells.”

The three shot narrative does not work at all in any scenario. That is why Holland and Meyers created a shot with absolutely no evidence associated with it and still decided it was better than the alternative. You know Andrew Mason. Didn't they ever inform you of this important piece of information?

Amazing though, this post sounds so profound and professional, unfortunately the reality is it is all about you advancing an early missed shot narrative that does not work and a complete lack of evidence supporting it.

No three shells does not mean three shots. All the evidence points to two shots. Even the shells.  Not one of your witnesses stated there was an early missed shot. Max Hollandand and Dale Meyers both knew this when the theory was first proposed. Why do you think it became necessary to have a child running down a sidewalk as proof, with not a single adult anywhere supporting the early missed shot.

There is no difference between you and Andrew. He was supposedly just following the evidence too. You both followed it into a dead end alley. At least Andrew is trying to make sense of the information as opposed to an early missed shot. No evidence supports it. Holland and Meyers knew that why don't you?

You have predetermined that the early missed shot was correct without any evidence. Everything else is just pretending you are somehow unbiased but in reality, you are looking for anything that supports your personal belief. Just like Holland and Meyers. Holland eventually proved to himself that he was wrong and Meyers focused on SBT.

You have decided the earwitnesses are correct and in turn somehow bolster this early missed shot nonsense. They do not. The eyewitnesses state where the first shot took place in relationship to where they were standing and what JFK’s reaction was to the shot. That is real life evidence. But go ahead and go with a child's actions, so much better.
16
The evidence is conclusive that JBC had been hit roughly a half second before Z230. The fact that you refuse to see that doesn't change that fact.
Thank-you for demonstrating my point that “LNs have convinced themselves that JBC is reacting to his torso wound by z230 without looking at the evidence first - just by watching the zfilm.”
17
More Corbett BS:

Gas prices frequently hovered around or dropped below \(\$3.50\) per gallon during various periods of Joe Biden’s presidency.
 - it was as high $5.02 because of Surging Post-Pandemic Demand

Now, if President "Rapist" doesn't do something soon, it will be at or above $5 after Memorial Day with no end in sight.
He is the causin' of it all

If he prevents Iran from getting a nuclear warhead and the means to deliver it to the US, it will all be worth it.
18

Anyone who is unable to acknowledge that Oswald's behavior was rather odd and puzzling for someone who was going to shoot the President in a matter of hours strikes me as closed-minded to an extreme. I can acknowledge the evidence clearly pointing to him while also acknowledging "This is a huge piece that just doesn't seem to fit."

I find it odd that you pretend to know how a cold blooded killer is going to act before he commits the deed.
19

I've seen some persuasive arguments that Oswald was wearing his white T-shirt when he was shooting from the 6th floor and then Oswald put on his brown shirt when seen by Baker and then it makes sense that Oswald who would have been a bit apprehensive after being seen by the Law, simply wrapped his shirt around his waist when seen by Reid, much like the following image and to be honest, at first I didn't even notice the shirt around her waist! ;)


Howard Brennan indicated Oswald was wearing a white t-shirt when he saw him fire the final shot. The problem with that is it doesn't explain the fibers on the butt plate of the rifle which matched the shirt Oswald was wearing when he was arrested. My belief based on the varying descriptions of what Oswad was wearing from the time he fired the shots to the time he was arrested, is that Oswald was wearing his tan shirt but that it was unbuttoned and completely open. That might explain why some witnesses, (Brennan, Reid) remember seeing him in a white t-shirt. I find it much easier to believe they just didn't notice the unbuttoned tan shirt than Oswald was putting that shirt on and off numerous times during his journey from the sniper's nest to the Texas Theater.
20
Anyone who is unable to acknowledge that Oswald's behavior was rather odd and puzzling for someone who was going to shoot the President in a matter of hours strikes me as closed-minded to an extreme. I can acknowledge the evidence clearly pointing to him while also acknowledging "This is a huge piece that just doesn't seem to fit."

Dear F.P.R.,

If long-iron-wieldin' assassins are supposed to be all nervous and fidgety and everything before The Big Event, how in the world could they hit anything while sweatin' and twitchin' so dog-gone much?

-- Tom
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10