Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
I have a bias toward the truth, which means I let the evidence tell me what happened. That approach requires one to be able to weigh evidence for probative value, because in some instances, the evidence is conflicting. For example, we have a large group of earwitnesses who thought the shots all came from the GK and another large group that thought all the shots came from the TSBD. Unless one wants to accept the ridiculous proposition that the GK earwitnesses couldn't hear the TSBD shots and the TSBD earwitnesses couldn't hear the GK shots, the only conclusion is that one of those groups has to be wrong. It is theoretically possible they could both be wrong, but it is not possible both could be right. So how should we determine which group got it right. It's very simple. You let other forms of evidence tell us which group got it right. We have eyewitnesses who SAW a gunman firing from the TSBD and pointed out the window they saw him at. There were no eyewitnesses to a GK gunman. Spent shells were found by the window the eyewitnesses pointed out and a rifle was found elsewhere on the sixth floor that was positively matched to both the spent shells found by the window and the only two recovered bullets. This additional evidence makes it a very easy call as to where the shots came from.

I have been on both sides of the conspiracy question at different times in my life. I would be more than happy to admit there was a conspiracy to kill JFK if somebody could provide any compelling evidence of such. I have challenged CTs for over 3 decades to provide me with credible evidence that someone other than Oswald was complicit in the crime. I have begged them for such evidence. Every time I do, I get a dial tone. After six decades it's safe to say there is no such evidence. It would be totally unrealistic to expect new evidence to show up now given that an army of researchers has looked in vain for such evidence for six decades.

The time to be open minded about the possibility Oswald could be innocent expired a long time ago. There is zero doubt he fired the shots that killed JFK. Anyone who can't accept that is only fooling themselves. If that means I have a confirmation bias, so be it. There is a theoretical possibility that Oswald fired the shots but had accomplices for which no evidence has ever surfaced. The likelihood of that being the case comes down to how many zeros there should be to the right of the decimal point. If I were the oddsmaker on that question, I would say that there is about a .001% chance that is the case. If that makes me closed minded, I am very comfortable with that. I know who killed JFK and it baffles me how so many people can't figure it out.
I don't understand how you can say you were on both sides - that is, you were once a conspiracy believer - and then say you are "baffled that so many people can't figure it out." You can't remember what led you to the conspiracy side?

I too was a conspiracist but clearly remember what led me to that conclusion. So I can understand why others make the same mistakes I did. E.g., the SBT, timing of the shots, Zapruder film and JFK's reaction. I can add that I had a belief that history can't be changed so easily and that great events need a great cause. And Oswald with a $20 rifle could not be that cause. Now I know that even a nobody like Oswald can alter history by himself.
22
I have a bias toward the truth, which means I let the evidence tell me what happened. That approach requires one to be able to weigh evidence for probative value, because in some instances, the evidence is conflicting. For example, we have a large group of earwitnesses who thought the shots all came from the GK and another large group that thought all the shots came from the TSBD. Unless one wants to accept the ridiculous proposition that the GK earwitnesses couldn't hear the TSBD shots and the TSBD earwitnesses couldn't hear the GK shots, the only conclusion is that one of those groups has to be wrong. It is theoretically possible they could both be wrong, but it is not possible both could be right. So how should we determine which group got it right. It's very simple. You let other forms of evidence tell us which group got it right. We have eyewitnesses who SAW a gunman firing from the TSBD and pointed out the window they saw him at. There were no eyewitnesses to a GK gunman. Spent shells were found by the window the eyewitnesses pointed out and a rifle was found elsewhere on the sixth floor that was positively matched to both the spent shells found by the window and the only two recovered bullets. This additional evidence makes it a very easy call as to where the shots came from.

I have been on both sides of the conspiracy question at different times in my life. I would be more than happy to admit there was a conspiracy to kill JFK if somebody could provide any compelling evidence of such. I have challenged CTs for over 3 decades to provide me with credible evidence that someone other than Oswald was complicit in the crime. I have begged them for such evidence. Every time I do, I get a dial tone. After six decades it's safe to say there is no such evidence. It would be totally unrealistic to expect new evidence to show up now given that an army of researchers has looked in vain for such evidence for six decades.

The time to be open minded about the possibility Oswald could be innocent expired a long time ago. There is zero doubt he fired the shots that killed JFK. Anyone who can't accept that is only fooling themselves. If that means I have a confirmation bias, so be it. There is a theoretical possibility that Oswald fired the shots but had accomplices for which no evidence has ever surfaced. The likelihood of that being the case comes down to how many zeros there should be to the right of the decimal point. If I were the oddsmaker on that question, I would say that there is about a .001% chance that is the case. If that makes me closed minded, I am very comfortable with that. I know who killed JFK and it baffles me how so many people can't figure it out.


Thank you John. I think that many of the people that “can’t figure it out” haven’t studied the evidence with an open mind. (Which is what I was doing at first with the investigation at the club.) And some of the people who  “can’t figure it out” haven’t really studied the evidence at all.
23
https://triviavault.co.in/play.php?slug=jfk-assassination-facts-myths-conspiracy-theories

Most JFKA buffs will find these 15 questions to be no brainers. The general public would be lucky to get half of them right. The only one I had to even think about was how many wounds the single bullet caused.
24
   The DPD did immobilize what I believe was an intended "getaway" car. After doing that, a DPD Officer with a shotgun was standing guard over it. This in the face of your claiming, "...neither the DPD nor the FBI thought that car had ANY Relevance"? You continue exposing how extremely little JFK Assassination Research you actually do. Stop "blowing off" and actually do some research.

If the DPD thought the car had any relevance, why did they release it?
25
There is no iron clad proof Oswald was there at 12:30, even Chief Curry conceded that.

That was early in the investigation. Discovery of further evidence and tests on what was found erased all doubt of Oswald's guilt.
26
No, a strawman argument is not right. You definitely favor the earwitnesses.

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.
Quote

You argue against two shots making you a three shot proponent.

Of course I am. That is what the evidence clearly iindicates.
Quote


The eyewitnesses are predominantly two shots, basically the first shot struck JFK, the second shot was then headshot with some stating a shot after the headshot.

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.".
Quote
   

The three shot witnesses were predominantly earwitnesses. There is not a single piece of physical evidence; bullets, shells, medical, trajectory, indicating there were three shots.

More BS. There were three shells recovered.
Quote


That just leaves earwitnesses as the source of your storyline. If the earwitnesses had stated there were four shots then you would be scouring the Zapruder Film for a fourth shot. Maybe another child running on the sidewalk.

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.
27
I have no problem with paying high prices at the pump for the short term. Since I was a child, I read the stories of how much previous generations had to sacrifice during WWII for almost four years. Staples were rationed including food, fuel, rubber, tires, shoes, sugar, coffee, meats and dairy products just so our fighting men would not have to go without. Now we have people who are getting the shorts in a bunch because gasoline has gotten more expensive. Have we become a nation of whiny bitches? Apparently so. Suck it up, buttercups.
28
While I am convinced Oswald took the shot at Walker, it is a moot question regarding whether he fired the shots that killed JFK. If the investigators had never connected Oswald to the Walker shooting, the case against him in the JFKA would be no less compelling. Oswald was the assassin and there is zero doubt about that. If someone want to make the case he had accomplices, show us your evidence.
29
I have a bias toward the truth, which means I let the evidence tell me what happened. That approach requires one to be able to weigh evidence for probative value, because in some instances, the evidence is conflicting. For example, we have a large group of earwitnesses who thought the shots all came from the GK and another large group that thought all the shots came from the TSBD. Unless one wants to accept the ridiculous proposition that the GK earwitnesses couldn't hear the TSBD shots and the TSBD earwitnesses couldn't hear the GK shots, the only conclusion is that one of those groups has to be wrong. It is theoretically possible they could both be wrong, but it is not possible both could be right. So how should we determine which group got it right. It's very simple. You let other forms of evidence tell us which group got it right. We have eyewitnesses who SAW a gunman firing from the TSBD and pointed out the window they saw him at. There were no eyewitnesses to a GK gunman. Spent shells were found by the window the eyewitnesses pointed out and a rifle was found elsewhere on the sixth floor that was positively matched to both the spent shells found by the window and the only two recovered bullets. This additional evidence makes it a very easy call as to where the shots came from.

I have been on both sides of the conspiracy question at different times in my life. I would be more than happy to admit there was a conspiracy to kill JFK if somebody could provide any compelling evidence of such. I have challenged CTs for over 3 decades to provide me with credible evidence that someone other than Oswald was complicit in the crime. I have begged them for such evidence. Every time I do, I get a dial tone. After six decades it's safe to say there is no such evidence. It would be totally unrealistic to expect new evidence to show up now given that an army of researchers has looked in vain for such evidence for six decades.

The time to be open minded about the possibility Oswald could be innocent expired a long time ago. There is zero doubt he fired the shots that killed JFK. Anyone who can't accept that is only fooling themselves. If that means I have a confirmation bias, so be it. There is a theoretical possibility that Oswald fired the shots but had accomplices for which no evidence has ever surfaced. The likelihood of that being the case comes down to how many zeros there should be to the right of the decimal point. If I were the oddsmaker on that question, I would say that there is about a .001% chance that is the case. If that makes me closed minded, I am very comfortable with that. I know who killed JFK and it baffles me how so many people can't figure it out.
30
A CIA spook dressed like a policeman?
Radio in his hand to check with the 3 tramp CIA spooks and that CIA spook dressed like an SS agent flashing a fake badge on the GK? Checks with the CIA spook Umbrella man and the CIA spook DC man( he had a radio too).

So the 2 guys driving the stylish car were probably CIA also. They got the whole area covered.

Not sure though if they were part of the JFKA. Could be just Spooks present having concerns due to the month earlier attempt by another USMC  Thomas Arthur Vallee in Chicago.

Or they were managing their MK Ultra mind controlled shooter to escape.

   Whoever said the Bogus Motorcycle Cop was carrying a "radio"? Not me. I mentioned a "signaling" device and You immediately knee-jerk and believe I mean "radio". Not true!
   Do you believe that the Only way in 1963 to communicate whether you were a "friend or foe" was via a "radio"? Are you familiar with WW 2? Do you know that in Europe during WW 2, the soldiers on the ground used hand held "clickers" to signal their being an approaching "friendly"? "Clickers" that sounded somewhat like "crickets". And this was the "Military" doing this back in the 1940's.   
  Try to open your mind. Your extremely narrow thought process is exactly why this case remains Unsolved after 62+ yrs. Your narrow thought process is the result of what you have been consistently exposed to over the course of your lifetime. This is not your fault, but if you permit it to continue, THEN it IS Your Fault.
  Study history. Seriously do the JFK Assassination Research. This does take time, but accumulating knowledge will permit your mind to understand/grasp concepts that you are currently pooh-poohing. It all starts with steadily gaining knowledge. One fact at a time.   
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10