Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10
51
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: CIA Wallets at Tenth and Patton
« Last post by Martin Weidmann on Yesterday at 09:31:28 PM »
Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 07:23:02 PM
WTF???!!!

I figured that would be over your head. You may not like it but a solid chain of custody is an absolute requirement to determine if a piece of evidence is authentic. That's why the revolver and the jacket were marked by several officers, including some who could not have been part of the chain of custody to begin with. That's also why the WC asked the FBI to reconfirm the chain of custody for all sorts of items, including CE 399. LNs frequently claim that the revolver is authentic and the chain of custody is valid because Hill identified his marking on the weapon during his testimony.

Now let's examine what really happened. Bob Carroll, who drove the car from the Texas Theater to City Hall, gave Gerald Hill a revolver which he said it belonged to the suspect and was taken from him inside the theater. But according to Carroll's testimony, that's not what really happend

Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir; and then when I got up close enough, I saw a pistol pointing at me so I reached and grabbed the pistol and jerked the pistol away and stuck it In my belt, and then I grabbed Oswald.
Mr. BALL. Who had hold of that pistol at that time?
Mr. CARROLL. I don't know, sir. I just saw the pistol pointing at me and I grabbed it and jerked it away from whoever had it and that's all, and by that time then the handcuffs were put on Oswald.

So, here we have the first problem: Carroll can not positively confirm who the person was that held the revolver when he jerked it away from him.

The second problem is that C.T. Walker, who also was in the car, says in his testimony that he had the revolver, when Oswald was brought into City Hall.

And the third problem is that patrolman Bardin delivered a S.W. revolver to the evidence room at 3:25 PM, but Hill claims he marked the revolver and gave it to Lt Baker about half an hour later.

How anybody can call the chain of custody solid is beyond me.

Quote
The WC dealt with that an gave a very reasonable answer for that. It isn't known whether any of Oswald's  shots missed and it isn't known that all the shells were recovered. His S&W Model 10 had a six round cylinder so he could have fired 5 or 6 shots before reloading. With only 4 bullets and 4 shells recovered, it's very possible there could be a mismatch between the shells and the bullets as to the make of each.

Yeah, a very convenient story and one of many the WC came up with. The problem is that there isn't a shred of evidence for it. If they really believe there was a fifth shot (not a single witness said there was) they could easily have searched the Tippit crime scene for the bullet and shell. The reality is that they never bothered!

Quote
Why would you assume Frazier would remember such a detail? Marina IDed the jacket as belonging to her husband.

I don't assume anything. Frazier said it in his WC testimony. And yes Maria did identify the jacket as one of two owned by Lee. Now, I will freely admit that Frazier's testimony about the gray jacket is somewhat strange in as much as that he talks about a "more or less flannel, wool-looking type of jacket" which is an odd way to describe CE 162. However, as Marina confirmed that Lee only had two jackets and Frazier said that on Friday morning Oswald was waring the jacket with big sleeves, I would suggest that he was talking about CE 163, which only leaves the gray jacket CE 162 as the one Oswald would have worn on Thursday afternoon.

Quote
That was the statement of the arresting officer. is that what you consider "jumping to conclusions"
Are you saying that all of these witnesses erroneously IDed Oswald and by a remarkable coincidence, they wrongfully IDed the same guy who had possession of the gun that had fired the shells found at the scene of the crime.

If you are talking about McDonalds, the answer is that he never made that statement in official documents. In his WC testimony, he didn't even know for sure that the revolver was pointed at him.

Mr. BALL - Was the pistol out of his waist at that time?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Do you know any way it was pointed?
Mr. McDONALD - Well, I believe the muzzle was toward me, because the sensation came across this way. To make a movement like that, it would have to be the cylinder or the hammer.
Mr. BALL - Across your left palm?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir. And my hand was directly over the pistol in this manner. More or less the butt. But not on the butt.

Only later he started to add on to his story and sensationalized it.

Quote
It's amazing the things CTs are willing to convince themselves of in order to argue for Oswald's innocence.

And it's amazing to me that LN die hards are so easily fooled. Most of the Henry Wade cases that were overturned by the innocence project involved false identifications and witness manipulation.

Quote
Yes you did.  And I pointed out how lame your answers were.

Well, as you are one of the most fanatical zealots in the LN clan I never was under any illusion that you would be willing to accept or even consider anything I have said. That doesn't mean that what I have said is wrong. It just means that you are to narrow minded and superficial to deal with it honestly.

Quote
I am very comfortable with my beliefs. I don't have to invent cockamamie excuses for not accepting the evidence of Oswald's guilt.

And still here you are on a daily bases inventing all sorts of pathetic reasons to connect dots that in reality aren't there. Go figure!
52
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: CIA Wallets at Tenth and Patton
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 07:23:02 PM »
Quote from: Martin Weidmann on Yesterday at 02:44:31 AM
I really don't give a shit what you focus on. I just find it silly.

Of course you do... just like I think you're a fanatical zealot full of BS.

Problems. What problems would that be? Are you denying the shells recovered at the scene could only have been fired by the revolver had in his possession when he tried to shoot the arresting officer?

Let's see if I can mess with your narrow minded brain for a bit! No I don't doubt that the shells recovered were matched to the revolver now in evidence. The problem is that there is no chain of custody for the revolver!

WTF???!!!
Quote

Are you denying Oswald had the same two makes of bullets that were recovered from Tippit's body?

I can't deny or confirm that. What I do know is that Tippit was shot four time by two different bullets and that the shells found at the scene did not match up with the bullets.

The WC dealt with that an gave a very reasonable answer for that. It isn't known whether any of Oswald's  shots missed and it isn't known that all the shells were recovered. His S&W Model 10 had a six round cylinder so he could have fired 5 or 6 shots before reloading. With only 4 bullets and 4 shells recovered, it's very possible there could be a mismatch between the shells and the bullets as to the make of each.
Quote

Are you denying Oswald's jacket was found on his escape route?

What jacket are you talking about? The jacket found by officers under a car, described as being white, or the gray jacket that Buell Wesley Frazier said Oswald was wearing during the trip to Irving on Thursday afternoon?

Why would you assume Frazier would remember such a detail? Marina IDed the jacket as belonging to her husband.
Quote

Are you denying Oswald tried to shoot the arresting officer?

I wasn't present when it allegedly happened. Neither were you, yet you seem to be willing to jump to conclusions without knowing the actual facts.

That was the statement of the arresting officer. is that what you consider "jumping to conclusions"
Quote

Are you denying that numerous witnesses IDed Oswald?

No, that's a fact. I just wonder about the way the line ups were conducted. In my experience it is just about impossible that all the witnesses at a line up identify the same person. There mere fact that none of the witnesses was even reluctant makes the whole line up questionable. This, by far, would be the most interesting part of a trial against Oswald for me. I would have loved to observe these witnesses on the stand being questioned by a defense lawyer.

Are you saying that all of these witnesses erroneously IDed Oswald and by a remarkable coincidence, they wrongfully IDed the same guy who had possession of the gun that had fired the shells found at the scene of the crime.

It's amazing the things CTs are willing to convince themselves of in order to argue for Oswald's innocence.
Quote

Just which of the items that I listed do you have problems with?

I have just told you.

Yes you did.  And I pointed out how lame your answers were.
Quote

OK, you go ahead and investigate it and report back to us what you find.

There is no need to report back to you because you will never ever accept any of it. You are not in a cult for nothing.

I am very comfortable with my beliefs. I don't have to invent cockamamie excuses for not accepting the evidence of Oswald's guilt.
53
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The Huge Gates Theory
« Last post by Lance Payette on Yesterday at 07:02:09 PM »
Your Black Object is most certainly not "entirely Black." Zoom in on it and you can pretty clearly see a face, although it's possible this is pareidolia : https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1813359032244661&set=gm.1221491097890220.

You can also see it clearly here: https://www.jfk.org/collections-archive/photograph-of-the-exterior-of-the-texas-school-book-depository-3/. Those wacky conspirators left it up days after the JFKA was over.

The reality is, (1) you are addicted to mentally masturbating over your nonsense; (2) you can't stand to allow one of your nonsensical threads to die a well-deserved death, so you keep bringing them to the front page with yet more nonsense; and (3) the mysterious "long term JFK Assassination researchers" you keep mentioning are completely imaginary. Isn't that about right?
54
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Reasonable Doubts?
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 07:00:27 PM »
Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 06:45:31 PM
HUH? Did you miss the statements below in the passages I quoted about Dr. Gregory's interview, or did you just not understand them? Let's read them again:

We mentioned to Dr. Gregory that we had looked forward to talking with Dr. Shaw but that he was unavailable. Dr. Gregory said he and Shaw had talked about the wounding of Connally, and both believed that Connally and Kennedy had been hit by separate shots. Why? Because of the character of Connally’s back wound, Gregory explained. It was small and elliptical in shape. But most importantly, it had very clean edges. No fibers had been carried into Connally’s back wound, while his wrist wound was fouled with numerous fibers from his wool suit.

Do you understand now? The projectile that hit Connally's wrist carried with it numerous fibers from his wool suit into the wrist wound, but Connally's back wound had no fibers in it. If the bullet that hit Connally's back had just torn through four layers of JFK's clothing, it would have carried fibers from that clothing into Connally's back wound, but Connally's back wound had no fibers in it.

This is one of the reasons that both Dr. Gregory and Dr. Shaw concluded that the bullet that hit Connally's back had not hit anything else first. 

Seriously? I'm sure Dr. Gregory didn't think that years later someone who doesn't even know the basics about the wounds in the case would question why he said the wound was elliptical.

He said the wound was elliptical because . . . it was elliptical. Dr. Shaw, the guy who operated on it, said it was elliptical: "The wound entrance was an elliptical wound" (6 H 95).

It was elliptical because it was elliptical??? Is that supposed to be an answer. If ever there was a case of circular logic, this was it. I would bet a forensic pathologist would come to a very different conclusion about the elliptical wound. In fact the FPP panel did reach a very different conclusion. With one dissent, the panel concluded that the bullet that hit JBC in the back had first passed through JFK's torso. 
55
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: When Was JFK Hit?
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 06:53:25 PM »
Quote from: Lance Payette on Yesterday at 05:42:16 PM
HSCA report: "The panel noted that at approximately Zapruder frame 200 the President's movements suddenly freeze, as his right hand seemed to stop abruptly in the midst of a waving motion. Then during frames 200-202, his head moves rapidly from right to left. The sudden interruption of the president's hand-waving motion, coupled with his rapid head movements, was considered by the photographic panel as evidence of President Kennedy's reaction to some 'severe external stimulus.'"

HSCA photographic panel: "By a vote of 12 to 5, the Panel determined that President Kennedy first showed a reaction to some severe external stimulus by Zapruder frame 207, as he is seen going behind a sign that obstructed Zapruder's view. ... At approximately Zapruder frame 200 , Kennedy's movements suddenly freeze; his right hand abruptly stops in the midst of a waving motion and his head moves rapidly from right to his left in the direction of his wife. Based on these movements, it appears that by the time the President goes behind the sign at frame 207 he is evidencing some kind of reaction to a severe external stimulus."

I have no more than a neutered pug in the fight, but on one side we have (1) the HSCA photographic panel, folks like Orr and any number of others who have studied the matter intensively, and the lying eyes of women who were standing right smack there at the time, versus (2) what John thinks he sees in the Z film. Ho-kay ... Maybe the severe external stimulus was Jackie's cheap French perfume.

I wonder if this illustrious panel considered that the reason JFK stopped waving could be that the crowd on the north side of Elm St. was starting to thin out.. I also wonder what the qualifications were to be on this panel. The fact that the vote was 12 to 5 indicates that this analysis was not exactly a science. More of a in-the-eye-of-the-beholder exercise. The low resolution of the film also makes such interpretations quite dubious.
56
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Reasonable Doubts?
« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 06:45:31 PM »
Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 05:25:35 PM
As usual, the people you cite don't say why they reached their conclusion.

HUH? Did you miss the statements below in the passages I quoted about Dr. Gregory's interview, or did you just not understand them? Let's read them again:

We mentioned to Dr. Gregory that we had looked forward to talking with Dr. Shaw but that he was unavailable. Dr. Gregory said he and Shaw had talked about the wounding of Connally, and both believed that Connally and Kennedy had been hit by separate shots. Why? Because of the character of Connally’s back wound, Gregory explained. It was small and elliptical in shape. But most importantly, it had very clean edges. No fibers had been carried into Connally’s back wound, while his wrist wound was fouled with numerous fibers from his wool suit.

Do you understand now? The projectile that hit Connally's wrist carried with it numerous fibers from his wool suit into the wrist wound, but Connally's back wound had no fibers in it. If the bullet that hit Connally's back had just torn through four layers of JFK's clothing, it would have carried fibers from that clothing into Connally's back wound, but Connally's back wound had no fibers in it.

This is one of the reasons that both Dr. Gregory and Dr. Shaw concluded that the bullet that hit Connally's back had not hit anything else first. 

Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 05:25:35 PM
Does Gregory say why he thinks the wound on JBC's back was elliptical?

Seriously? I'm sure Dr. Gregory didn't think that years later someone who doesn't even know the basics about the wounds in the case would question why he said the wound was elliptical.

He said the wound was elliptical because . . . it was elliptical. Dr. Shaw, the guy who operated on it, said it was elliptical: "The wound entrance was an elliptical wound" (6 H 95). 

57
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The Huge Gates Theory
« Last post by Royell Storing on Yesterday at 06:21:43 PM »

    I have spotted a BLACK OBJECT sitting ATOP the (R) HUGE GATE. It is directly above the (R) Huge Gate and sits tightly between the point where the Texas School Book Depository ends and the (R) Huge Gate begins. It looks to be about the size of a home stereo speaker and is entirely Black. I have asked several other long term JFK Assassination researchers as to the identity/purpose of this object. Nobody positively knows what it is or what it is doing there. It's been speculated that this might be a "sign" of some kind, but nobody knows what that alleged sign might be for. You could Not see this possible sign if you were traveling either direction on the Elm St Extension. It would Not be within your field of vision. Plus, there appears to be absolutely No Printing or differing color anywhere on it. Based on the images we see of it, it is Completely Black. For the time being, I am referring to this object as "The Black Box".
   Being that the Black Box is situated down the Elm St Extension, there are few images showing it, and even these images only show portions of it. I believe the Best view of this object can be seen on this Forum's, "PHOTO RESEARCH GALLERY". It is on "KIMBROUGH PHOTO #7". If anyone knows the possible purpose of this "Black Box", please let me know. Whatever that Black Box is, it looks entirely out of place.
58
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: When Was JFK Hit?
« Last post by Lance Payette on Yesterday at 05:42:16 PM »
Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 05:15:25 PM
I would say John Orr has either a very active imagination or very poor eyesight.
I'd love to know what they see that tells them that. I see JFK calmly lowering his right hand after having been waving to the few remainin spectators on Elm St.
Oh, brother. Another so-and-so said argument. It is completely at odds with what I see in the Z-film. I see JFK acting very calmly lowering his right hand while turned toward the spectators. I'm not going to bother looking it up but I seem to remember somebody on this forum saying those women indicated JFK smiled at them. That doesn't seem to dovetail with a "severe external stimulus".

HSCA report: "The panel noted that at approximately Zapruder frame 200 the President's movements suddenly freeze, as his right hand seemed to stop abruptly in the midst of a waving motion. Then during frames 200-202, his head moves rapidly from right to left. The sudden interruption of the president's hand-waving motion, coupled with his rapid head movements, was considered by the photographic panel as evidence of President Kennedy's reaction to some 'severe external stimulus.'"

HSCA photographic panel: "By a vote of 12 to 5, the Panel determined that President Kennedy first showed a reaction to some severe external stimulus by Zapruder frame 207, as he is seen going behind a sign that obstructed Zapruder's view. ... At approximately Zapruder frame 200 , Kennedy's movements suddenly freeze; his right hand abruptly stops in the midst of a waving motion and his head moves rapidly from right to his left in the direction of his wife. Based on these movements, it appears that by the time the President goes behind the sign at frame 207 he is evidencing some kind of reaction to a severe external stimulus."

I have no more than a neutered pug in the fight, but on one side we have (1) the HSCA photographic panel, folks like Orr and any number of others who have studied the matter intensively, and the lying eyes of women who were standing right smack there at the time, versus (2) what John thinks he sees in the Z film. Ho-kay ... Maybe the severe external stimulus was Jackie's cheap French perfume.
59
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Reasonable Doubts?
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 05:25:35 PM »
Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 05:15:35 PM

Dr. Gregory pointed out that he’d been a field surgeon during the Korean War and later had made a study of gunshot injuries, examining more than five hundred gunshot wounds. It was his opinion, supported by Dr. Shaw, that the small, clean and elliptical wound in Connally’s back had come from a projectile that had hit nothing else first. (Last Second in Dallas, pp. 157-158)[/font]

As usual, the people you cite don't say why they reached their conclusion.

Does Gregory say why he thinks the wound on JBC's back was elliptical?
60
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Understanding the JFK Assassination Conspiracy Cover-Up
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 05:20:22 PM »
Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 04:32:21 PM

The fact of the matter is that most WC apologists are simply not interested in credible evidence of conspiracy, and they will look for any excuse, no matter how lame and vacuous, to dismiss such evidence.

I'd be very interested in such evidence if I ever saw any.
Quote

Yes, I've read the replies of Lance Payette and John Corbett in this thread. I don't think they're worth answering.


If I had made a statement like that, you'd accuse me of dodging.
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10