Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: A straight line  (Read 111912 times)

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
Re: A straight line
« Reply #272 on: March 06, 2018, 09:51:56 PM »
Advertisement
Remember they say Oswald never owned that rifle. That's what he said too.

All planted.

So the same rifle they say Oswald never had is in the picture of him with that rifle. And oh yeah, he really truly did bring curtain rods to work that day. The ones never found? The ones he didn't bring with him when he left the building right after the shooting? The ones he absolutely needed to bring to his room. Yeah, those rods.

That's called conspiracy logic. It doesn't have to make sense; it just has to clear Oswald.

Yes, the top CIA agent Oswald who never had a car, never had a phone, never had a house, lived on unemployment checks and apparently went on his top secret missions using a bus.

In cloud cuckoo land that makes sense. Everywhere else it's absurd.

Can you prove that Oswald owned that rifle?  Or that that specific rifle is the one in the backyard photos?  That's LN logic.  Make up conclusions that you can't prove and state them as facts.  It doesn't have to make sense, it just has to convict Oswald.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A straight line
« Reply #272 on: March 06, 2018, 09:51:56 PM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
Re: A straight line
« Reply #273 on: March 06, 2018, 09:54:11 PM »
The WC findings were the results of an investigation, not the results of a trial.

And by "investigation" you mean making a bunch of wild-ass guesses based on insufficient, contradictory, and tainted evidence.

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
Re: A straight line
« Reply #274 on: March 06, 2018, 10:01:19 PM »
There have been numerous investigations, of course, into the assassination. The conspiracy crowd fixates on the Warren Commission Report and ignores the other investigations that have been done (the HSCA, the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission (granted, this was pretty slipshod), et cetera). This includes those done by news organizations - CBS, ABC, PBS - as well as investigations by private journalists like Tim Weiner on the CIA and other reporters. We can add the works of historians like those by Caro and Dallek to the mix.

They were all slipshod.  The problem with investigations like this is that they feel like they're required to come up with some answer and then rationalize it rather than just admitting that they don't know.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A straight line
« Reply #274 on: March 06, 2018, 10:01:19 PM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
Re: A straight line
« Reply #275 on: March 06, 2018, 10:14:11 PM »
Ray, I do agree with their conclusions.  Do you?

Tim, you agree that "John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy"?

 :o

Online Andrew Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1229
    • SPMLaw
Re: A straight line
« Reply #276 on: March 08, 2018, 05:25:32 PM »
Can you prove that Oswald owned that rifle?  Or that that specific rifle is the one in the backyard photos?  That's LN logic.  Make up conclusions that you can't prove and state them as facts.  It doesn't have to make sense, it just has to convict Oswald.
It is really not essential to the case that Oswald owned the gun. If the ownership of gun found on the 6th floor could not be tied to Oswald (ie. suppose Klein's had a fire and lost all its records), the case would not fall apart.  In any event, one does not have to prove all facts separately beyond a reasonable doubt in order to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Having said that, proof" is accomplished by persuading a trier of fact that the evidence meets the standard of proof. That's all. The evidence may not persuade you. But I would venture to say that if you picked any jury and asked them, based on the evidence, whether it had been proven that Oswald owned the gun, they would find that it had.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2018, 08:47:30 PM by Andrew Mason »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A straight line
« Reply #276 on: March 08, 2018, 05:25:32 PM »


Offline Jack Trojan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 833
Re: A straight line
« Reply #277 on: March 08, 2018, 07:42:08 PM »
Just to remind the LNers, re the simple, cheap experiment that will convince them of the path of the MB thru JFK.

Here is what you need: 2 cheap leveling lasers (2 x $20), a protractor to set the angle of trajectory and a camera tripod. That's it! Set it all up as shown below:



With the 2 lasers pointed at one another, sit in the chair so that the low laser strikes your throat at C6. Does the high laser strike your back at T1? No? Bend forward so that it does. How bent forward are you? Was JFK bent forward to the same degree?  The lasers simulate the bullet's straight line trajectory thru your body. To my knowledge no one has formally done this simple experiment which anyone can do, which renders all the CGI models moot. No one buys CAD drawings, but who can deny a deadly accurate re-enactment?

Good luck!

ps why haven't any of the LNers posted their results showing the MB did indeed enter JFK at T1 and exit at C6 showing the MB was feasible? (rhetorical)

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1824
Re: A straight line
« Reply #278 on: March 08, 2018, 08:53:37 PM »
Just to remind the LNers, re the simple, cheap experiment that will convince them of the path of the MB thru JFK.

ps why haven't any of the LNers posted their results showing the MB did indeed enter JFK at T1 and exit at C6 showing the MB was feasible? (rhetorical)

Why would any LNs try to show that the Single Bullet entered at T1 and exited at C6?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A straight line
« Reply #278 on: March 08, 2018, 08:53:37 PM »


Online Jerry Organ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2277
Re: A straight line
« Reply #279 on: March 08, 2018, 09:23:46 PM »
Just to remind the LNers, re the simple, cheap experiment that will convince them of the path of the MB thru JFK.

ps why haven't any of the LNers posted their results showing the MB did indeed enter JFK at T1 and exit at C6 showing the MB was feasible? (rhetorical)



If the slump is severe enough, I suppose it's possible to make a portion of C6 go below a portion of T1. But don't worry, the bullet didn't enter at T1 and didn't exit at C6 anyway.

If you're going to try this experiment, effect a less pronounced slouch and have the bullet enter over from the C7 bump at the back of the neck. Since the body in the experiment is parallel to the laser paths, the 17? ground laser should strike the front of the neck at a level equal to a point above the jugular notch, as shown below.



That's if you've managed to mimic the posture of the President's neck at the time he was wounded. But at least you tried.

Critics don't want it to work and they will cite the 99% of the time when it doesn't work. A sensible margin of error of 10% would cut the failure rate considerably. But you notice Trojan didn't offer it.