JFK Assassination Forum

Continuing our little epistemological exercise:

To move the needle of history would require (1) a central FACT for which the LN narrative simply cannot account, and (2) an explanation that convincingly accounts for that fact.

The needle of history will never be moved by a mass of "Oh, yeah, what about THIS?" sort of stuff in which MTG and many CTers specialize. That is simply "Oswald defense counsel" mental masturbation. It goes nowhere, except in the dark halls of Conspiracy World.

Cliff Varnell at the Ed Forum is on the right track with his claim that it is "impossible" for the LN theory to account for the alignment of the back and throat wounds and the holes in the jacket and shirt. The problems are that (1) the alignment, while highly problematical, has too many "ifs" to really qualify as flat-out impossible, and (2) Cliff's explanation (CIA-issued ice bullets) doesn't strike most people as convincing. But he's basically on the right track.

The critical FACT for which the LN narrative cannot account would almost surely have to relate to the physical evidence of Dealey Plaza. It's conceivable a startling document or two would do it, but documents have so many possible problems that it would be unlikely. (I happen to be reading a scholarly study of the Salamander Letter that rocked the Mormon Church in the 1980s but turned out to be a clever forgery.) It's possible that the technology available today could show that the bullet trajectories posited by the LN narrative are simply impossible and that at least one bullet had to have come from the Dal-Tex or County Records building, as John Orr is attempting to do - that would do it, although the defenders of the LN paradigm would kick and scream to the bitter end precisely as Thomas Kuhn described. Again, however, such work would have to show that the trajectories posited by the LN narrative are IMPOSSIBLE, not simply problematical.

Until then, the LN narrative will stand as the only explanation that qualifies as a legitimate theory.

I am enjoying your open discussion and consideration. Which brings me to this;

Continuing our little epistemological exercise:

To move the needle of history would require (1) a central FACT for which the LN narrative simply cannot account, and (2) an explanation that convincingly accounts for that fact.

One thing that has always bothered me about this case is the conflict/questions concerning the hole at the back of the President's head.
I find it ridiculous to even consider the notion that the top neurological team at Parkland only assumed there was a hole at the right rear.
Utter nonsense. Yet, pictures from Bethesda show the opposite. As we all know a large hole would be indicative of an exit wound from the front.

There are something like 40+ witnesses of dif backgrounds as well as drawings from a Parkland doctor. https://jfk.boards.net/post/7707/thread
An excellent website that explains a lot; https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong.htm
Paul O'Connor at the London Trial was an eye opener for me. or Tom Robinson the mortician that worked on the body; https://jfk.boards.net/post/7736

All with the utterly lame Gov excuse that the Parkland doctors missed it. and the only explanation I can give is Gov coverup of conflicting evidence in this case.

Continuing our little epistemological exercise:

To move the needle of history would require (1) a central FACT for which the LN narrative simply cannot account, and (2) an explanation that convincingly accounts for that fact.

The needle of history will never be moved by a mass of "Oh, yeah, what about THIS?" sort of stuff in which MTG and many CTers specialize. That is simply "Oswald defense counsel" mental masturbation. It goes nowhere, except in the dark halls of Conspiracy World.

Cliff Varnell at the Ed Forum is on the right track with his claim that it is "impossible" for the LN theory to account for the alignment of the back and throat wounds and the holes in the jacket and shirt. The problems are that (1) the alignment, while highly problematical, has too many "ifs" to really qualify as flat-out impossible, and (2) Cliff's explanation (CIA-issued ice bullets) doesn't strike most people as convincing. But he's basically on the right track.

The critical FACT for which the LN narrative cannot account would almost surely have to relate to the physical evidence of Dealey Plaza. It's conceivable a startling document or two would do it, but documents have so many possible problems that it would be unlikely. (I happen to be reading a scholarly study of the Salamander Letter that rocked the Mormon Church in the 1980s but turned out to be a clever forgery.) It's possible that the technology available today could show that the bullet trajectories posited by the LN narrative are simply impossible and that at least one bullet had to have come from the Dal-Tex or County Records building, as John Orr is attempting to do - that would do it, although the defenders of the LN paradigm would kick and scream to the bitter end precisely as Thomas Kuhn described. Again, however, such work would have to show that the trajectories posited by the LN narrative are IMPOSSIBLE, not simply problematical.

Until then, the LN narrative will stand as the only explanation that qualifies as a legitimate theory.

I dispute the initial premise. Even if someone were to come up with a fact that the LN narrative could not account for, it wouldn't move the needle. Just because no one knows the explanation for something, doesn't mean such an explanation does not exist. We've been down this road before. The CTs come up with something that at the time, no one had thought of the answer to, and the CTs say, "AHA, we've got you now.". Then somebody figures it out. For example when I first joined the online fray in the early 1990s, no one seemed to have an explanation for how CE399 could have caused 7 wounds and come out looking somewhat pristine. I'd bet that some people had figured it out but the answer wasn't widely known. I remember David Belin appeared on Geraldo Rivera's daytime talk show which was a Phil Donahue type audience participation program. Geraldo asked him to explain how CE399 could emerge the way it did and Belin replied, "I cannot". It wasn't long after the Gerald Posner's book Case Closed came out which had the answer. The bullet had tumbled. I doubt Posner was the first to propose the tumbling bullet explanation, but his book was the first explanation that got widely circulated. Later the Haag ballistics team demonstrated that a Carcano bullet will tumble upon exiting from soft tissue.

So if someone were to come up with another fact for which there is no apparent explanation, that is not going to invalidate the LN narrative. To do that, somebody is going to have to prove the LN narrative doesn't work. Nobody has done that for 62 years. I don't see that happening any time in the future.

Continuing our little epistemological exercise:

To move the needle of history would require (1) a central FACT for which the LN narrative simply cannot account, and (2) an explanation that convincingly accounts for that fact.

The needle of history will never be moved by a mass of "Oh, yeah, what about THIS?" sort of stuff in which MTG and many CTers specialize. That is simply "Oswald defense counsel" mental masturbation. It goes nowhere, except in the dark halls of Conspiracy World.

Cliff Varnell at the Ed Forum is on the right track with his claim that it is "impossible" for the LN theory to account for the alignment of the back and throat wounds and the holes in the jacket and shirt. The problems are that (1) the alignment, while highly problematical, has too many "ifs" to really qualify as flat-out impossible, and (2) Cliff's explanation (CIA-issued ice bullets) doesn't strike most people as convincing. But he's basically on the right track.

The critical FACT for which the LN narrative cannot account would almost surely have to relate to the physical evidence of Dealey Plaza. It's conceivable a startling document or two would do it, but documents have so many possible problems that it would be unlikely. (I happen to be reading a scholarly study of the Salamander Letter that rocked the Mormon Church in the 1980s but turned out to be a clever forgery.) It's possible that the technology available today could show that the bullet trajectories posited by the LN narrative are simply impossible and that at least one bullet had to have come from the Dal-Tex or County Records building, as John Orr is attempting to do - that would do it, although the defenders of the LN paradigm would kick and scream to the bitter end precisely as Thomas Kuhn described. Again, however, such work would have to show that the trajectories posited by the LN narrative are IMPOSSIBLE, not simply problematical.

Until then, the LN narrative will stand as the only explanation that qualifies as a legitimate theory.

How did Kamp get such amazing detail from such a degraded image?
Why can't this level of detail be recreated from a superior image?
You have swallowed down his identification of 'Lovelady' wholesale, without even bothering to contemplate these questions.
Even though you are now aware of this issue you still swallow it down.
You're so critical of Royell, but what does that make you? Gullible? Lazy?

Here's a thought for you to mull over - it is impossible to to get greater detail from the inferior image. Have a little think about this FACT.
So, the question remains, still unanswered - How did Bart Kamp create the Lovelady image?

PS: that you think this question doesn't need answering because Kamp is such an amazing researcher speaks volumes about your approach to uncovering the truth.

   Some lonely people have "idols". Sometimes to the extent of being a "crush". Payette thinks he was emailing with Kamp. It was probably more like he got in touch with a "poser" inna basement, onna keyboard, that was laughing his arse off. This is exactly why old people get fleeced. They take Everything at face value. This includes this claimed "Lovelady Image". You have asked a very simple question regarding a JFK Assassination Image. There is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong, is that the guy attacking you is probably sitting on a deed to the Brooklyn Bridge as his retirement "nest egg".

I am 100 to 0% that Oswald was the shooter. I'll generously make it 99.99 to 0.01% he was acting on behalf of anyone but himself.

You still have the problem of explaining how any plotters could have possibly known 6 weeks in advance that the TSBD was going to be a perfect location to kill JFK from.

How many times do I have to say they didn't have to know in advance? Did LN Oswald have to know 6 weeks in advance?

You seem to suggest that after recruiting Oswald, they got an unbelievable stroke of luck when the found out JFK's motorcade was going to ride right past Oswald's workplace. The were bringing the mountain to Mohammed. What are the odds?

What are the odds of many things in the JFKA? What are the odds of the SBT, the Magic Bullet, the Ruby hit, many other aspects of the LN narrative? In the LN scenario, what are the odds TSBD6 would just happen to be an ideal location? One could go on and on.

Having people who knew Oswald in New Orleans isn't going to be much of a help. Do you think anyone of those people were even aware of the fact Oswald had taken the job at the TSBD. Even if they did, so what? Would those people even know the motorcade was going past the TSBD.

If Oswald was actively on the radar screen of someone like Marcello through Murret, or in communication with pro- or anti-Castro types, they certainly could have known when JFK's trip to Dallas was announced that Oswald was in Dallas and then when he took the job at the TSBD.The job at least placed him in downtown Dallas. Oswald's apparent scouting of the Allright Parking Garage a mere week before the JFKA could suggest he was going to be used "somewhere" in Dallas.

Oswald getting his job at the TSBD was pure happenstance. It wasn't part of any plot. What if he had taken the job at the parking garage instead of the TSBD. What would these mysterious plotters have done then. I see no plausible scenario in which Oswald taking his job at the TSBD was part of any nefarious plot. There were other reasons I gave up on being a CT but this one was as important as any of them. In 35 years of posing this question to CTs on various forums, I have yet to see a plausible answer.

There is "outside the box" thinking, and then there is "so locked into the box that I don't even realize I'm in it" thinking. Yes, I agree, the TSBD was pure happenstance. That does not rule out a plot. Oswald never even filed an application with the Allright garage - he may have just been on an assignment to scout locations, or he may have done this entirely on his own as part of the LN scenario.

The debate will go on unless something definitively proves that the shots could not have been fired by one gunman.

I happened to notice this from Pat Speer at the Ed Forum today. Note that, as others described, two shots happened in such rapid succession that a bystander who was attributing the "first" shot to a firecracker could not even finish his sentence before the next two followed:

Robert Jackson, a Dallas Times Herald photographer, was sitting on the right rear seat of the car. (11-22-63 interview on KRLD radio, at approximately 3:15 P.M.) "We were just turning the corner and a gunman would have about a 45' angle from the buildings to the car. I looked to my left and I could see both cars in front speeding off, the President's car and the car behind him carrying the Vice President. They disappeared under the underpass. Then I could see a colored family covering up their child on the grass. A policeman was down on his knee. I couldn't tell if he were hit. I thought the child was dead or something. Then the negro parents picked up the boy and ran. (On the shots at Kennedy and Connally) As soon as I saw the rifle, I knew someone was trying to kill them, but it never entered my mind that he could be dead. I just couldn't believe it at first." (11-22-63 AP eyewitness account, sent over the teletype at 3:47 PM CST) “When we heard the first shot, the president had already turned the corner. We had not made the corner yet. Then we heard two more shots. As far as I know, three shots were all I heard...Since I was facing the building where the shots were coming from, I just glanced up and saw two colored men straining to look at a window just above them. As I looked up to the window above, I saw a rifle being pulled back in the window. It might have been resting on the window sill. I did not see a man. I didn't even see if it had a scope on it...The President's car was about halfway between Houston Street and the underpass.” (11-23-63 AP article found in the L.A. Times) "Bob Jackson, a photographer for the Dallas Times Herald, heard one shot, then two rapid bursts as he rode in an open convertible in the presidential motorcade." (11-23-63 FBI report based upon an 11-22-63 interview, CD5 p.15) “he advised the car in which he was riding was proceeding north on Houston Street…and the presidential car had already turned left on Elm Street…when he heard three loud reports which sounded like shots from a gun.  He stated that there was a “pause” after the first shot, followed by the second and third shots in rapid succession. Jackson advised that upon hearing the three shots, he looked upward and straight ahead at a window in the Texas School Book Depository…in time to see the barrel of a rifle being pulled inside the window.” (3-10-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 2H155-165) “I was in the process of unloading a camera and I was to toss it out of the car as we turned right onto Houston Street to one of our reporters…And that I did as we turned the corner…as I threw it out the wind blew it, caught it and blew it out into the street and our reporter chased it out into the street, and the photographers in our car, one of the photographers, was a TV cameraman whom I do not recall as his name , and he was joking about the film being thrown out and he was shooting my picture of throwing the film out… Well as our reporter chased that film out in the street, we all looked back at him and were laughing, and it was approximately that time that we heard the first shot, and we had already rounded the corner, of course, when we heard the first shot. We were approximately half a block on Houston Street…as we heard the first shot, I believe it was Tom Dillard from Dallas News who made some remark as to that sounding like a firecracker, and it could have been somebody else who said that. But someone else did speak up and make that comment and before he actually finished the sentence we heard the other two shots…We were still moving slowly, and after the third shot the second two shots seemed much closer together than the first shot, than they were to the first shot.” (Interview presented on the Capitol Records release The Controversy, 1967) (After the shooting) "We looked around and I just looked straight up ahead, and the first thing I saw was these two negro men in the window. And immediately my eyes just followed up to where they were looking. And that's when I saw the rifle. I saw no figure behind the rifle. All I could was about 3/4 of the rifle, maybe for no more than a second."