Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
There is ample evidence that is far more reliable than divergent eye and earwitness accounts, starting with the best evidence of all, Zapruder's camera. Witness accounts are not without evidentiary value but given their inherent unreliability, they must be weighed against more reliable forms of evidence to determine their value.
The formula appears to be this:

1. No one can agree on what the Z film actually shows.
2. Eyewitness and earwitness evidence is unreliable.
3. Ergo, whatever I want to think happened is what happened and you can't prove it didn't.

Isn't that about it?
22
I just posted this on another thread. Mary Woodward's excellent 2015 interview for the Sixth Floor Museum. She was highly embarrassed by her participation in "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" and had thought she was participating in a serious historical BBC documentary.

23
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by Lance Payette on Today at 04:43:34 PM »
FWIW, yesterday I happened to watch Mary Woodward's entertaining 2015 interview at the Sixth Floor museum. She described the second and third shots as so close together that the sound from the second had not faded before the third was heard.

24
Lance, in my experience, you won't encourage the "53 words, max" reader to read and consider the points presented in longer forum posts
if short attention span readers or those prejudiced against you generally don't take kindly to your criticism.

As a former Ed Forum JFK Debate moderator and the 2015 - 2016 comments editor of jfkfacts.org, my main observation is that unsolvable topics like
Pitzer's death are much more popular than issues that are much more likely to be solved by putting in adequate research time and trial and error search strings.

If you're not tribal you tend to be dismissed by both sides. Verifiable facts are of little to no consequence if they conflict with preconceived notions influenced
by much earlier personalities attempting to achieve sufficient notoriety to make a buck off of JFKA. Two who come to mind were Penn Jones and Mark Lane.
Harold Weisberg attempted to straddle the middle, commercially successful book author and long laboring and suffering researcher complaining about his postage
expenses.

My sense that learning anything new is resented as least as often as it is appreciated is strengthened by anecdotal experience. A prime example is my success at finding
things. I'm in the 18th year of my search for JFKA answers and contradictions to "what everybody knows is what actually happened." I receive few enough requests to put my
research abilities to work to accept that most just do not want to know. This supports why "Oswald in the Doorway," an escape from reality much more than it is an
area of serious research, can be such a popular and enduring attention getter, right up there with "Oswald is Innocent!!!!"

A result is one with a common theme of US Crony Capitalism. Discourage asking who potentially had the most to lose if JFK had lived and who did benefit
the most politically or financially because he did not survive his first Presidential term. The answer to the first question was the largest holder of General Dynamics
stock in 1963, Henry Crown, and the two politicians, father and son, who post assassination, 1964 - 2009, "served" a combined 20 years as either VPOTUS or POTUS, despite the brothers Kennedy in possession of so much influence of appearance, position, political, and financial power earlier in November, 1963.

How much has been spent by so few to demonize progressive taxation, the IRS, actual Social Democratic political goals and resulting quality of life comparison, compared to print and electronic media coverage of "Buy, Borrow, Die" income tax avoidance strategy or the result of state legislated abortions being the poorest, least resourced women being almost exclusively the ones trapped in those jurisdictions to experience compulsory full term pregnancy and delivery or back alley abortion methods?

Try this, but read it after the first and second linked topics.
https://web.archive.org/web/20090517015211/http://www.manuscriptservice.com/Pitzer/opinion.html

Thanks, Tom. There is much wisdom in what you say. My "53 word" quip was prompted by a post by one of the Local Gods (in his own mind anyway), which was quickly removed by Duncan, characterizing me as a "pathetic dipshit" who "thinks he's the smartest guy in the room" and writes unreadable "books" that no one cares about.  :D And that was in response to a post of mine that had nothing to do with the JFKA! (If anyone wants to see what a "book" looks like, try reading Keven Hofeling's 20,000-word AI-generated posts at the Ed Forum. Yes, there is a point at which "this really doesn't belong on an internet forum.")

The problem with internet forums is that they are a hopeless mix of ages, educational levels, psychological quirks, emotional maturity levels, personal hot buttons, etc., etc. I always say it's like standing in the middle of a crowded Walmart and shouting "So, what does everyone think about Bayes theorem anyway?" - and expecting a productive discussion.

In addition, there is also a certain type who is likely to become a forum regular. I used to limit myself to a maximum of 300 posts on any forum precisely to avoid becoming one of "them." I've never accumulated anywhere near as many posts on any forum as I have here. That type - across all forums, even ones dealing with completely mundane, non-controversial subjects - tends to be ultra-assertive and always looking for a fight. He views the forum as his turf, and woe to you if you fail to acquiesce to his dominance. I have a friend who participates on several completely non-controversial (or so you would think) forums like those devoted to photography, and he says they are exactly the same way. Ditto with my experience on golf forums.

Most people just aren't into deep research or thought. Forums like this really are just 95% mental masturbation, little echo chambers to strut your stuff in 20-word (or less) bites and generate 20-word (or less) responses from those who cheer you on or call you a kook. It's just the reality. My participation is truly for an audience of one - me. It's just self-amusement and putting in writing what I think I've learned simply because I enjoy doing it. If someone actually gains something from it, so much the better - but I have no expectations and don't really care.

Now back to Pitzer: Thanks to one of Mark Ulrik's posts at the Ed Forum, I had seen and taken into consideration Allan Eaglesham's work that is still on the Wayback Machine. To his great credit, Eaglesham had the intellectual honesty to disavow "Dangerous Dan" Marvin after first buying into his schtick and to change his verdict on Pitzer from murder to suicide when the evidence demanded it. However, he seemed to have lost interest at that point. Kent Heiner's 2019 update of his excellent little e-book was the latest thinking I could find.

The notion that Pitzer was experiencing some sort of personal crisis at the time of his suicide just doesn't seem likely to me. He was about to retire at age 50 after a 30-year Navy career and take a low-key teaching position with a local junior college with which he'd been previously affiliated. His lady friend in Florida accepted the relationship for what it was and placed no demands on him. He had a 29-year marriage, including one son who was still a teenager, and no huge domestic problems. He left no note for anyone, and the letter to his lady friend written 90 minutes before his death indicated he would see her in a few months. His wife said he was "quite enthused" about his teaching position, and he in fact went into the office that Saturday ostensibly to work on a speech he would be giving at the junior college in a few days.

It's very difficult for me to find the vaguest inkling of a reason for a suicide in the above, which is what causes me to wonder "Could there have been something else? Could it have been related to what Dennis David described?"

By all accounts, including his lady friend and Eaglesham's work that you linked, Pitzer was a perfectionist and a dedicated "company (Navy) man" who took great pride in his work and career. He was about to retire with an unblemished reputation. Could something that threatened that reputation have sent him off the deep end? As I noted, Lifton first went to Liebeler with his body-alteration theory just days before Pitzer's suicide. The Kennedy family announced that the autopsy materials would be released to the National Archives at exactly the same time. Did Pitzer in fact know more about the autopsy than even David suggested and fear that it was all going to come crashing down after he was out of the Navy and no longer even in a position to contribute to damage control? Perhaps not - perhaps such speculation is 110% off-base. But such speculation doesn't seem preposterous to me in the context of a suicide that has no other plausible explanation.

This little exercise has also been useful to me in steering my thinking toward the possibility that perhaps there actually were autopsy-related shenanigans but that these were not related to the assassination per se but were simply in furtherance of what was seen as a patriotic, WW3-avoiding exercise in maintaining the lone nut explanation. This to me is not necessarily "likely" (although there is certainly evidence pointing in this direction) but is 1000% more likely than the Lifton/Horne-type scenarios where a huge, preplanned operation to alter the body was part and parcel of an almost comically complex conspiracy.

Voila, I've written another book!  :D
25

The question is the same. How about if you are not able to understand it or answer it, maybe just state why you won't. All of this make-believe information and supposed expert opinion from half-baked pseudo experts is pathetic, not impressive. Apparently not one of them could think past his nose and ask themselves the important question about JBC's wounding.

You want someone to ask you a question. How about just repeat to you the question you are dodging and afraid to answer.

Once again, the same old random nonsense and unbelievably loose with the facts. How do you explain Gov Connally's wounds if the bullet does not first pass through JFK?
26
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 03:13:22 PM »
And yet:

You choose to ignore 80% of the witnesses who reported a 3 shot pattern ie. those who put the last two closer together. And that 80% is corroborated by 100% of the witnesses who observed JFK’s reaction to the first shot and 100% of the witnesses whose evidence allows us to place the location of JFK at the time of the first shot ie. the time conflicts with an early first shot (before z186).

What is there to corroborate those witnesses? Oh, yeah. Other witnesses.
27

"Yawn" away - I don't care. "Kook" away - I don't care. You're just the JFKA counterpart to a religious fundie who responds to every substantive challenge with "You're going to hell anyway." At least I can understand why a religious fundie's beliefs are so vitally important to him or her. A LN fundie, however? That's a puzzle.

I guess we've seen so many other CTs go down so many other dead-end roads for any of us to get excited about one more. None of these has ever shed light on the question of whether Oswald had any accomplices when he killed JFK.

If any of you ever do actually bag a snipe, let us know.
28
You forgot the last part of your mantra: “unless it agrees with what I think happened, in which case the witness is reliable and accurate”.

There is ample evidence that is far more reliable than divergent eye and earwitness accounts, starting with the best evidence of all, Zapruder's camera. Witness accounts are not without evidentiary value but given their inherent unreliability, they must be weighed against more reliable forms of evidence to determine their value.
29
Oh my goodness. Once again you are decades behind the information curve. How, just how, can you not know that Guinn's 1977 NAA claims were refuted 20 years ago? How did you miss this news?

I guess MTG didn't bother to read my words, "I'll post the article and everyone can decide for themselves.". He automatically assumed I was promoting Dr. Guinn's findings as proof positive and then made his typical knee jerk reaction.
Quote

Guinn's NAA claims were first refuted in 2006 by two scientists, Erik Randich and Patrick Grant, in an article published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences. Several more scientists refuted Guinn's NAA claims the following year in an article published in The Annals of Applied Statistics.

Here are links to their articles:

"Chemical and Forensic Analysis of JFK Assassination Bullet Lots: Is a Second Shooter Possible?" (Spiegelman, Tobin,  James, Sheather, Wexler, and Roundhill) (2007)
https://share.google/dfrci1tNxtQrbGHTz

"Proper Assessment of the JFK Assassination Bullet Lead Evidence from Metallurgical and Statistical Perspectives" (Randich and Grant) (2006)
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc890664/m2/1/high_res_d/900118.pdf

Summary of Randich and Grant's article in the Journal of Forensic Sciences (2006)
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/death-of-the-naa-verdict

I quote from the Spiegelman-Tobin-James-Sheather-Wexler-Roundhill article:

Additionally, we show that one of the ten test bullets is considered a match to one or more assassination fragments. This finding means that the bullet fragments from the assassination that match could have come from three or more separate bullets."

In this paper we show that evidence used to rule out a second assassin is fundamentally flawed. This paper discusses new compositional analyses of bullets reportedly to have been derived from the same batch as those used in the assassination. The new analyses show that the bullet fragments involved in the assassination are not nearly as rare as previously reported.

We believe that there is no scientific basis from the fragment matching performed by Dr. Guinn to conclude that only two bullets were the sources of the assassination fragments.


FYI, a little bit about the scientists who debunked Guinn's NAA claims:

-- W. M. Tobin was a principal forensic engineer with Forensic Engineering International.

-- Clifford Spiegelman was a professor of statistics at Texas A&M University and a leader in statistical and environmental forensics.

-- Simon Sheather headed the Department of Statistics at Texas A&M and won the American Statistical Association's Statistics in Chemistry Award, and is now a visiting professor of statistics at the University of Kentucky.

-- William D. James was a professor of chemical analysis at Texas A&M University and published several studies on NAA testing in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

-- D. M. Roundhill was a chemist with Chemical Consulting and published several articles on chemistry in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

-- Erik Randich at the time was a forensics consultant and metallurgist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

-- Patrick Grant is an analytical chemist who has been a staff member at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory since 1983, has authored or coauthored more than 120 peer-reviewed scientific publications, and has been a fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences since 1999 and a member of the editorial board of the Journal of Forensic Sciences since 2003.

MTG just assumed I wasn't aware of the fact that Guinn's tests weren't proof positive that the fragments came from the recovered bullets. The fact that it was theoretically possible that the fragments could have come from different bullets doesn't change the fact the matching is still probative. It would have been far more significant if the fragments and bullets didn't match. But of course, that isn't the case. It would be a most amazing coincidence if the fragments and bullets had the  same metallurgical content if the bullets didn't come from the bullets they were compared to. CT fanatics never bother to ask themselves what the likelihood that the fragments matched the bullets if the fragments had not come from the recovered bullets but had come from other bullets that somehow disappeared and were never recovered. 99% probability isn't good enough for CT fanatics. If something isn't 100% conclusive, it has no evidentiary value. This is what happens when one refuses to apply common sense to the available evidence.

Yes, it is theoretically possible the fragments, by coincidence, could have matched the bullets even if they didn't come from the recovered bullets which is why I made the statement that people could judge the article for themselves. That would be a truly remarkable coincidence. Given the fact the metallurgical content of the fragments matched that of the recovered bullets and that no other bullets were recovered, a reasonable person would conclude the fragments came from the recovered bullets. Common sense is not a trait necessary to being a JFKA conspiracy fanatic. In fact, common sense is a detriment to their chosen beliefs.
30
"A theory whose 'evidence' consists mostly of eyewitness' and earwitness' statements about something that happened quicky, that was loud, that was startling, that was traumatic, and that happened in an echo chamber like Dealey Plaza ain't worth the paper it's written on." -- Thomas Graves
You forgot the last part of your mantra: “unless it agrees with what I think happened, in which case the witness is reliable and accurate”.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10