Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.  (Read 17110 times)

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4750
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #60 on: July 31, 2018, 06:11:01 PM »
The probability that they randomly made up a story that was consistent with the physical evidence found at the scene is so miniscule that it is simply impossible in real life.  So we can be confident that they saw a longish paper package being carried by Oswald.  Whether they could identify this particular package is a separate issue and does not mean they did not see what they said they saw: i.e. even though they did not think CE142 was the package they saw Oswald carry, they still maintained they saw Oswald carry a longish package that morning.

That doesn't answer the question.  What makes you think that the bag that Frazier and Randle saw is the same bag as CE 142?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #60 on: July 31, 2018, 06:11:01 PM »


Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1901
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #61 on: July 31, 2018, 06:53:07 PM »
That was BS the first hundred times you made that lame joke, and still is.

Boo-hoo

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1901
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #62 on: July 31, 2018, 07:03:43 PM »
That doesn't answer the question.  What makes you think that the bag that Frazier and Randle saw is the same bag as CE 142?

 ::)

What makes you think BWF and LMR didn't 'forget' what CE 142 looked like? Bueller delivered the prime suspect to work, FFS.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #62 on: July 31, 2018, 07:03:43 PM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4750
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #63 on: July 31, 2018, 07:33:09 PM »
::)

What makes you think BWF and LMR didn't 'forget' what CE 142 looked like? Bueller delivered the prime suspect to work, FFS.

In other words, you have no reason to think that the bag that Frazier and Randle saw is the same bag as CE 142, other than that you want it to be.

Offline Andrew Mason

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 427
    • SPMLaw
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #64 on: July 31, 2018, 08:50:22 PM »
BS:

If you think there are 50 individual facts that point to Oswald being the killer of JFK, then name them.  As we saw in your last post, many of the things you listed weren't evidence of anything other than your own speculation.  And the rest are conclusions that aren't well supported by the actual evidence.  It's not a matter of the evidence not being accurate, it's a matter of your conclusions about the evidence not being justified.  For example you claimed that there is evidence that the C2766 rifle was fired on Nov 22, 1963 but provided no evidence to support this claim.  No conspiracy is necessary to point out that your argument is fallacious.
There are actually at least 52 points as pointed out by Vincent Bugliosi. 

When you argue, for example, that the C2766 did not belong to Oswald because the evidence is weak, you have to challenge at least half a dozen individual pieces of evidence that all point to Oswald, including the fact that he had the AJ Hidell ID card on his person when arrested, the evidence that it was mailed to A. Hidell to the post box that Oswald is connected to, that it arrived before the attempt on Gen. Walker, that it was identical to the rifle seen in the backyard photos, that it was found on the floor on which Oswald was last seen etc.  It is impossible that those facts just happened by chance to point to a totally innocent Oswald. If Oswald was innocent, there must have been an enormous conspiracy to frame him.

So, absent such a conspiracy, C2766 belonged to Oswald and C2766 fired CE399.  Either draw the obvious and only conclusion on that evidence or find evidence of the enormous conspiracy.  It is that simple. 

And that is just one point.  There are another 51 of those points.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #64 on: July 31, 2018, 08:50:22 PM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4750
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #65 on: July 31, 2018, 09:33:26 PM »
There are actually at least 52 points as pointed out by Vincent Bugliosi. 

I said "evidence", not "points".

Quote
When you argue, for example, that the C2766 did not belong to Oswald because the evidence is weak

I'm saying that you haven't established through evidence that C2766 belonged to Oswald.

Quote
, you have to challenge at least half a dozen individual pieces of evidence that all point to Oswald,

But you don't have half a dozen individual pieces of evidence that C2766 belonged to Oswald.

Quote
including the fact that he had the AJ Hidell ID card on his person when arrested,

But did he?  What's your evidence for that?  Nobody is on record of ever mentioning the Hidell ID until after the Klein's order turned up.

Quote
the evidence that it was mailed to A. Hidell to the post box that Oswald is connected to, that it arrived before the attempt on Gen. Walker,

What are you talking about?  There's no evidence that any rifle was mailed to that PO Box or that it ever arrived there, or that it was picked up by Oswald or anyone else.

Quote
that it was identical to the rifle seen in the backyard photos,

Identical?  No evidence of that.

Quote
that it was found on the floor on which Oswald was last seen etc.

I already pointed out to you that this was not where Oswald was last seen.  What's the point of discussing anything with someone who ignores every response and just repeats the misinformation?

Quote
  It is impossible that those facts just happened by chance to point to a totally innocent Oswald.

You're getting ahead of yourself.  How do any of these "facts" show that Oswald killed somebody?

Quote
So, absent such a conspiracy, C2766 belonged to Oswald and C2766 fired CE399.

Ok, since you have been unable to show that C2766 belonged to Oswald, let's see your evidence that CE 399 had anything to do with the assassination.

Offline Andrew Mason

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 427
    • SPMLaw
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #66 on: August 01, 2018, 01:54:29 AM »
I said "evidence", not "points"
I'm saying that you haven't established through evidence that C2766 belonged to Oswald.
Well, you said "facts" and I said "facts".  A fact may be established by several pieces of evidence.  If you want to show that a conclusion of fact should not be drawn, you have to show that many if not all of those pieces of evidence are wrong. 

Bugliosi refers to such things as: Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was the murder weapon;  Oswald was the only employee at the Book Depository Building who fled the building after the assassination;  Forty-five minutes later, he shoots and kills Officer J. D. Tippit, Dallas Police Department; that murder bore the signature of a man in desperate flight from some awful deed; thirty minutes later at the Texas Theater he resists arrest, pulls a gun on the arresting officer; during his interrogation, Oswald told one provable lie after another, showing a consciousness of guilt.   Each of these facts are established by many pieces of evidence.
Quote
But you don't have half a dozen individual pieces of evidence that C2766 belonged to Oswald.
Yes I do.  I have the BY photos, the Klein's purchase records and shipping records; the post office records, the evidence of Marina; the green fibres in the paper bag, his palm prints on the stock; the fact that no other MC rifle was ever found in Oswald's possessions.  And that requires more than just 7 pieces of evidence.  For example, there is a whole lot of evidence just to establish that the BY photos were taken by Marina and were not altered. And that is not all.  You also have the evidence that he fired his MC at Gen. Walker and the bullets from Walker's home are consistent with the riflings on bullets fired by C2766.   All this evidence together establishes that C2766 belonged to Oswald.  One has to ask: how does all of this evidence fit together so consistently if they are all wrong?  And that is just one point.

Quote
But did he?  What's your evidence for that?  Nobody is on record of ever mentioning the Hidell ID until after the Klein's order turned up.

What are you talking about?  There's no evidence that any rifle was mailed to that PO Box or that it ever arrived there, or that it was picked up by Oswald or anyone else.

Identical?  No evidence of that.
Sure there is.  The order was in an envelope from A. Hidell with a return address of Box 2915 Dallas Texas and the envelope was stamped by Kleins stating that the order was filled and shipped to that address.  It was done in the ordinary course of business for Kleins. Business records are admissible for the purpose of establishing those facts. Do you think that in the ordinary course of business someone at Klein's is going to remember actually putting postage on that parcel and putting it in the mail?

Quote

You're getting ahead of yourself.  How do any of these "facts" show that Oswald killed somebody?

Ok, since you have been unable to show that C2766 belonged to Oswald, let's see your evidence that CE 399 had anything to do with the assassination.
The evidence is that it was found on Connally's stretcher. In any event, it was found by a Parkland nurse.  So it was either part of the assassination or part of a huge conspiracy. Unless you have evidence of the conspiracy, the evidence that it was fired by c2766 leads inexorably to the conclusion that it fired by C2766 as one of the three shots that were made during the assassination.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #66 on: August 01, 2018, 01:54:29 AM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4750
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #67 on: August 01, 2018, 06:38:23 PM »
Well, you said "facts" and I said "facts".  A fact may be established by several pieces of evidence.  If you want to show that a conclusion of fact should not be drawn, you have to show that many if not all of those pieces of evidence are wrong.

No, all I have to do is show that the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the evidence.  It's a fact that Oswald left his wedding ring behind.  It's not a fact that he did so because he was planning to shoot the president.
 
Quote
Bugliosi refers to such things as: Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was the murder weapon;

You're already off the rails when you say "Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano rifle".  That's an assumption, not a fact.

Quote
  Oswald was the only employee at the Book Depository Building who fled the building after the assassination;

Define "fled".  That's a value judgment, not a fact.  He certainly left and didn't return, which is true for other employees as well.

Quote
  Forty-five minutes later, he shoots and kills Officer J. D. Tippit, Dallas Police Department;

Again, you're assuming that he killed somebody else to demonstrate that he killed JFK.  That doesn't follow.

Quote
that murder bore the signature of a man in desperate flight from some awful deed;

"bore the signature"?  What on earth does that mean?  You could also say that Tippit's murder "bore the signature" of a professional hit man -- rapid shooting from the hip.

Quote
thirty minutes later at the Texas Theater he resists arrest,

They had no grounds for arrest, nor did they tell him he was under arrest, hence he could not by definition have "resisted arrest".  Also the arrest report box for "resisted" was not even checked.

Quote
pulls a gun on the arresting officer;

That's flat out false.  Even by McDonald's account, he merely "went for it".  Whatever that means.  What does this have to do with Kennedy anyway?

Quote
during his interrogation, Oswald told one provable lie after another,

Really?  Name them.  Along with your proof that they are lies.

Quote
   Each of these facts are established by many pieces of evidence.Yes I do.  I have the BY photos,

How do the backyard photos tell you who killed Kennedy?

Quote
the Klein's purchase records and shipping records;

There are no shipping records.  How do  Klein's purchase records tell you who killed Kennedy?

Quote
the post office records,

What post office records?

Quote
the evidence of Marina;

What evidence of Marina?

Quote
the green fibres in the paper bag,

What do these fibers that can't even be tied to any specific item tell you about who killed Kennedy?

Quote
his palm prints on the stock;

You're confused.  There were no discernible prints on any stock.

Quote
the fact that no other MC rifle was ever found in Oswald's possessions.

How does that fact tell you who killed Kennedy?  The clothing in the backyard photos were never found either.  Does that mean he never had them?

Quote
  And that requires more than just 7 pieces of evidence.  For example, there is a whole lot of evidence just to establish that the BY photos were taken by Marina and were not altered.

You mean the same Marina who said she took one photo with a camera that you hold up to your face?  No wait, I guess it was 2 photos.  No, three.

But lets say that Marina took all the photos and they were not altered.  How does that tell you who killed Kennedy?

Quote
And that is not all.  You also have the evidence that he fired his MC at Gen. Walker

What is your evidence that Oswald fired an MC at Gen. Walker?

Quote
and the bullets from Walker's home are consistent with the riflings on bullets fired by C2766.

What bullets?  You mean the mutilated steel-jacketed bullet that the police said they found there?

Quote
   All this evidence together establishes that C2766 belonged to Oswald.

Actually none of it establishes that C2766 belonged to Oswald.

Quote
  One has to ask: how does all of this evidence fit together so consistently if they are all wrong?

Who said they're all wrong?  I'm asking you how any of this demonstrates that Oswald killed Kennedy.

Quote
Sure there is.  The order was in an envelope from A. Hidell with a return address of Box 2915 Dallas Texas and the envelope was stamped by Kleins stating that the order was filled and shipped to that address.

It was?  Show me that stamped envelope.

Quote
  It was done in the ordinary course of business for Kleins. Business records are admissible for the purpose of establishing those facts.

What "business record" shows that a package ever went through the US mail to this address?  Klein's would have had to pay postage for this shipment, right?  Where is the record of that payment?

Quote
Do you think that in the ordinary course of business someone at Klein's is going to remember actually putting postage on that parcel and putting it in the mail?

How do you know it went through the mail then?

Quote

The evidence is that it was found on Connally's stretcher.

The guy who found it disagrees with you.

Quote
In any event, it was found by a Parkland nurse.

No it wasn't.  I don't think you're familiar with the evidence in this case very well at all.

Quote
  So it was either part of the assassination or part of a huge conspiracy.

How does that follow?  A bullet with a pointed tip was found on an unrelated stretcher at Parkland Hospital.  What reason do you have for assuming it was related to the assassination of JFK?  Why does it take a "huge conspiracy" for an unrelated bullet to be found at a hospital?

Quote
Unless you have evidence of the conspiracy, the evidence that it was fired by c2766 leads inexorably to the conclusion that it fired by C2766 as one of the three shots that were made during the assassination.

You don't actually know that any of the shots in Dealey Plaza were fired by C2766.  That's an assumption too.  Given that you can't demonstrate that CE399 was the bullet found on the stretcher or that CE399 ever went through Kennedy, Connally, or any human body at any time, your assumption that it was involved in the assassination is completely without merit.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2018, 06:42:33 PM by John Iacoletti »

Offline Andrew Mason

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 427
    • SPMLaw
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #68 on: August 01, 2018, 10:21:11 PM »
False claim: fact. Get back when you understand "fact". You mean the bag in the evidence photos?
I mean the bag that LMR and Frazier both said they saw.  They both said they did not pay much attention to the details.  Frazier never said that the bag from the SN was not the same bag. He just thought there were some differences.  But when he says things like this it is not surprising that he could not identify the bag:

(2 H 229): "Mr. FRAZIER. Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn’t pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn’t pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn’t pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.
(2 H 239): "Mr. FRAZIER. Well, like I say, I didn’t notice that much about it as I didn’t see it. very much.
(2 H 239): "Mr. FRAZIER. Well, you know, like I was saying, when I glanced at it, but I say from what I saw I didn’t see very much of it, I say the bag wasn’t open or anything like it where you can see the contents.

And if you can figure out what Frazier meant by this exchange, be my guest:

(2 H 240): "Mr. BALL. The color of this bag, the colored bag, has not been treated. Take a look at it. Is that similar to the color of the bag you saw in the back seat of your car that morning?
Mr. FRAZIER. It would be, surely it could have been, and it couldn’t have been. Like I say, see, you know this color, either one of these colors, is very similar to the type of paper that. you can get out of a store or anything like that, and so I say it could have been and then it couldn’t have been.

Quote
You supposed wrong.
So what is the matter with their evidence (LMR and Frazier saying they saw Oswald with a long paper package)?

Quote
Good, that's not what I speculate.
Ok. So what do you speculate?  I prefer evidence.

Quote
Hearsay. Frazier's claim uncorroborated.
It is not hearsay that Oswald said the package contained curtain rods.  It is actual evidence that he said it.  If the purpose of presenting that evidence was to prove that the package contained actual curtain rods, it would be hearsay and inadmissible for that purpose. Somehow, I don't think the FBI wanted to use his statement to prove that the package contained curtain rods - unless perhaps Oswald really meant curtain rods in the sense of a certain WWI vintage 40" Italian metal/wood variety that could also be used for shooting bullets. Frazier's claim that Oswald told him it was curtain rods is not corroborated by independent evidence, but if you are suggesting that he was lying because he was under pressure from the police or FBI, that suggestion is rebutted by his previous statement to LMR that Oswald told him it was curtain rods that morning, before anything had happened.  So the question is: why would he lie about it to his sister?

Quote
Your IQ in the two digit range? LHO was arrested. Who supplied the rifle? If LHO didn't bring the rifle to work after his visit to Irving who might have supplied that rifle? However, if LHO brought a long package with him in the car...
I guess it must be because I can't figure out what you are getting at. Who are you suggesting supplied the rifle? And how did they get it to the TSBD and how did they get the only rifle that could be tied to Oswald, which happened to be one that was purchased and shipped 8 months earlier?
« Last Edit: August 01, 2018, 10:28:36 PM by Andrew Mason »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #68 on: August 01, 2018, 10:21:11 PM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4750
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #69 on: August 01, 2018, 10:59:09 PM »
Frazier never said that the bag from the SN was not the same bag.

Yes he did.



Quote
Ok. So what do you speculate?  I prefer evidence.

No you don't.  You're just speculating that the bag Frazier saw is CE 142.

Quote
Frazier's claim that Oswald told him it was curtain rods is not corroborated by independent evidence, but if you are suggesting that he was lying because he was under pressure from the police or FBI, that suggestion is rebutted by his previous statement to LMR that Oswald told him it was curtain rods that morning, before anything had happened.  So the question is: why would he lie about it to his sister?

Does anyone else find this story the slightest bit plausible?

Mr. BALL. Well, did you mention to Wesley that night or did you ask Wesley that night how Lee happened to come home on Thursday?
Mrs. RANDLE. I might have asked him.
Mr. BALL. Do you remember anything about curtain rods?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes.
Mr. BALL. What do you remember about that?
Mrs. RANDLE. He had told Wesley--
Mr. BALL. Tell me what Wesley told you.
Mrs. RANDLE. What Wesley told me. That Lee had rode home with him to get some curtain rods from Mrs. Paine to fix up his apartment.
Mr. BALL. When did Wesley tell you that?
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, that afternoon I suppose I would have had to ask him, he wouldn't have just told me.
Mr. BALL. You mean that night?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. After he came home?
Mrs. RANDLE. I was on my way to the store. So I probably asked him when I got back what he was doing riding home with him on Thursday afternoon.
Mr. BALL. You think that was the time that Wesley told you-
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; after I got back home.
Mr. BALL. That Lee had come home to get some curtain rods?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, I am sure he told me that.

Why would she have wanted to know the specific reason Lee was with him on Thursday?  And why is she waffling so much about it?

 

Mobile View