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 18497 times)

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Not This Member!
    Thumbs Up
    This Member Has Made
    A Forum Donation!

  • Posts: 2120
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #80 on: August 04, 2018, 06:39:27 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You have yet to explain how combining things that aren't evidence somehow turn into evidence.

You have yet to explain how ignoring context somehow proves anything other than that you ignoring context.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #80 on: August 04, 2018, 06:39:27 AM »

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Not This Member!
    Thumbs Up
    This Member Has Made
    A Forum Donation!

  • Posts: 5075
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #81 on: August 06, 2018, 10:37:44 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You have yet to explain how ignoring context somehow proves anything other than that you ignoring context.

I'm not ignoring anything.

Online Andrew Mason

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 456
    • SPMLaw
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #82 on: August 07, 2018, 02:46:17 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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.
There is evidence that he was planning to shoot the President (i.e. the evidence that he shot the President and the evidence that it was obviously planned). Marina could only find one reason that he would do that: that he was not planning on ever returning (her 2013 letter that accompanied the sale of the ring).  It is not difficult to connect those dots.

Quote
You're already off the rails when you say "Oswald?s Mannlicher-Carcano rifle".  That's an assumption, not a fact.
You seem to use the word "assumption" for "evidence based conclusion".  There is evidence that he ordered C2766, that it was shipped to  Oswald's mail box, that it was not returned, that Oswald had his photo taken in the back yard shortly after the gun was shipped, and that Oswald used that rifle to shoot Gen. Walker.  That is sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to conclude that Oswald owned the MC.  You may not draw that conclusion. But your reluctance to conclude what other reasonable people would does not make it an assumption.

Quote
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.

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

"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.

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.

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?

Really?  Name them.  Along with your proof that they are lies.
Bugliosi's words.

Quote
How do the backyard photos tell you who killed Kennedy?
Just one piece in the puzzle.

Quote
There are no shipping records.  How do  Klein's purchase records tell you who killed Kennedy?
Well, there is the shipping order that was initialed by the person who was responsible for shipping. What makes you think it was not shipped as the document says?

Quote
You're confused.  There were no discernible prints on any stock.
Well, there were prints that were consistent with Oswald's on a part of the gun covered by the stock.


Quote
What is your evidence that Oswald fired an MC at Gen. Walker?
Oswald's statements to Marina.

Quote
What bullets?  You mean the mutilated steel-jacketed bullet that the police said they found there?
Are you aware of some metallurgical analysis was conducted on the Walker bullet showing that it was steel?  You seem to require an awful lot of detailed evidence to support one little tiny fact in the narrative of Oswald's guilt but seem to be able to reach firm conclusions of contrary facts without any evidence at all.

Quote
Actually none of it establishes that C2766 belonged to Oswald.
Not to you.  But to other reasonable people, there is more than enough evidence to reach that conclusion.

Quote
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? How do you know it went through the mail then?
There is evidence that it was mailed 20-Mar-63 and there is evidence  from the post office that it would normally have arrived in Dallas the next day.   According to the post office system, a notice would have been placed in Oswald's box (2915).  Marina says Oswald bought a gun through the mail at about that time and took a picture of Oswald with the gun that is identical to the C2766 MC.  That is how we know it went through the mail.

Quote
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?
There is evidence that the bullet found at Parkland was CE399.  If someone who saw the bullet thought it was pointed, they were wrong.

Quote
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.
It is a conclusion based on evidence made by reasonable people, which you do not happen to agree with. That does not make it an assumption.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2018, 02:50:56 PM by Andrew Mason »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #82 on: August 07, 2018, 02:46:17 PM »

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Not This Member!
    Thumbs Up
    This Member Has Made
    A Forum Donation!

  • Posts: 5075
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #83 on: August 07, 2018, 10:01:39 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And how is it that she could have invented her story about seeing Oswald with a long bag? 
Are you saying she already knew that the police had found a long bag in the SN with Oswald's palm prints on it?  Because that is the only reasonable possibility if she invented the story.


That's not the only reasonable possibility.  Nobody (including the police) knew that "the police had found a long bag in the SN with Oswald's palm prints on it".  Nobody knows that even now.

But BWF could have talked to LMR about the bag he saw between the time he left work and before he went to the hospital to visit his abusive stepfather.  And she could have decided to corroborate his story for whatever reason without having actually seen the bag in question.  At a minimum she embellished the account of seeing him put the bag in the bag seat of the car on the other side of the enclosed carport.

Quote
We don't have evidence of that, but it is obvious that he took it there.

LOL.  How is it "obvious" that LHO took CE 142 (or any other bag) from the TSBD to Irving?  Just because you think he did?

Quote
  Let's figure it out. Could Oswald not have cut some paper, folded it up and taken it with him to Irving on 21-Nov-63? Maybe hidden under his jacket  or shirt? Why not?

How did you leap from "it's possible" to "it's obvious"?

Quote
Read all of LMR's evidence. She admitted later that she must have asked him because she did remember Frazier saying that Oswald told him about the curtain rods.

So she had no idea how or when she got that information, but somehow that's evidence that she knew about the "curtain rods" the night before?

Quote
So how do you explain the documentation provided by Klein's showing that the order was processes and shipped?

There is no documentation showing that the order was shipped.

Quote
How do you explain the Klein's shipping order with the shipping date (20-Mar-63) and the initials showing it was sent?  Was that made up? How did it get on Klein's microfilm?

How does "PP" circled on a copy of an "order blank" show that a package ever actually went through the postal service?  And how do you know what is on Klein's microfilm?  It's "missing"!

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Not This Member!
    Thumbs Up
    This Member Has Made
    A Forum Donation!

  • Posts: 5075
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #84 on: August 07, 2018, 10:34:27 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There is evidence that he was planning to shoot the President (i.e. the evidence that he shot the President and the evidence that it was obviously planned).

Let's hear your "evidence that he shot the President" and "evidence that it was obviously planned" without any appeals to assumption.

Quote
Marina could only find one reason that he would do that: that he was not planning on ever returning (her 2013 letter that accompanied the sale of the ring).

Speculation is speculation no matter who is doing it.  Incidentally, I spent some time looking for the full text of this letter and was unable to find it.  Since you apparently have read it in order to summarize its contents, I would appreciate a link to it.  It's not that I don't trust your summaries.  Actually it IS that I don't trust your summaries.

Quote
  It is not difficult to connect those dots.

No, not when you have a predetermined conclusion and view every action through that filter.

Quote

You seem to use the word "assumption" for "evidence based conclusion".

No, I use "assumption" when the conclusion doesn't actually follow from the evidence.

Quote
  There is evidence that he ordered C2766,

Unscientific handwriting "analysis" of two block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2 inch order coupon from microfilm that is now "missing".

Quote
that it was shipped to  Oswald's mail box,

There's no evidence of any particular package being shipped to "Oswald's mail box".  And even if there was, you have no evidence that Oswald ever picked up such a package.

Quote
that it was not returned,

What's your evidence that it was not returned?  What's your evidence that it was actually delivered anywhere?

Quote
that Oswald had his photo taken in the back yard shortly after the gun was shipped,

How does a photo with an unidentifiable rifle tell you anything about that particular rifle?

Quote
and that Oswald used that rifle to shoot Gen. Walker.

Does C2766 shoot steel-jacketed bullets?

Quote
That is sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to conclude that Oswald owned the MC.

Everybody thinks his own conclusions are "reasonable".

Quote
  You may not draw that conclusion. But your reluctance to conclude what other reasonable people would does not make it an assumption.

No, what makes it is an assumption is that you are assuming that rifle got delivered to PO Box 2915.  You are assuming that Oswald picked it up.  You are assuming that it's that rifle in the photo, and you are assuming that Oswald shot at General Walker with that rifle.  There is no evidence for any of these assumptions.

Quote
Bugliosi's words.

That is your evidence that Oswald told "provable lies"?   :D

Quote
Just one piece in the puzzle.

The correct answer is that the backyard photos tell you nothing about who killed Kennedy.

Quote
Well, there is the shipping order that was initialed by the person who was responsible for shipping.

Really?  Whose initials do you think you see on the "shipping order"?  And what shipping order?  You ever wonder why that person wasn't called up to testify?

Quote
What makes you think it was not shipped as the document says?

What I think is irrelevant.  What is your evidence that such a package went through the postal service?

Quote
Well, there were prints that were consistent with Oswald's on a part of the gun covered by the stock.

No, there actually were not.  You really should learn the evidence so that you don't keep misrepresenting it.

Quote
Oswald's statements to Marina.

Marina said a lot of things.  Is that the only evidence you have that he shot at Walker?  Do you also believe he took a gun to see Nixon on a day that Nixon wasn't even in the area?

Quote
Are you aware of some metallurgical analysis was conducted on the Walker bullet showing that it was steel?

Are you aware of any evidence prior to 11/22/63 that claimed it was copper-jacketed?  Does anyone think this looks like steel?



Walker said it wasn't the same bullet.  Why is "Marina said so" good enough for you, but not "Walker said so" or "Van Cleave & McElroy said so"? Special pleading?

Quote
Not to you.  But to other reasonable people, there is more than enough evidence to reach that conclusion.

But you haven't shown any evidence that he owned that rifle -- just a lot of handwaving.

Quote
There is evidence that it was mailed 20-Mar-63

There's no evidence that it was mailed at all.

Quote
and there is evidence  from the post office that it would normally have arrived in Dallas the next day.

What is this evidence?

Quote
   According to the post office system, a notice would have been placed in Oswald's box (2915).

Ok, where's the notice?

Quote
  Marina says Oswald bought a gun through the mail at about that time

Please cite.

Quote
and took a picture of Oswald with the gun that is identical to the C2766 MC.

On what basis did you decide that it's "identical"?

Quote
That is how we know it went through the mail.

Actually what we know is that you just made a bunch of unsupported claims.

Quote
There is evidence that the bullet found at Parkland was CE399.

What is this evidence?

Quote
  If someone who saw the bullet thought it was pointed, they were wrong.

Or you are.

Quote
It is a conclusion based on evidence made by reasonable people, which you do not happen to agree with. That does not make it an assumption.

No, it's a assumption because you haven't provided any supporting evidence that CE399 was involved in the assassination.  You are just assuming that it was because it fits your conclusion.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2018, 08:46:17 PM by John Iacoletti »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #84 on: August 07, 2018, 10:34:27 PM »

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Not This Member!
    Thumbs Up
    This Member Has Made
    A Forum Donation!

  • Posts: 5075
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #85 on: August 08, 2018, 08:41:28 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
C2766 was shipped to Klein's by the supplier in February 1963.

Really?  The supplier disagrees with you.


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Not This Member!
    Thumbs Up
    This Member Has Made
    A Forum Donation!

  • Posts: 5075
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #86 on: August 08, 2018, 08:58:15 PM »
Just once I'd like to see Andrew Mason acknowledge even one of the unsupported or outright false statements he has made in the course of this one forum thread.  So far I count 23.

1. There is evidence that the MC was the murder weapon
2. There is evidence that it was fired on 22-11-63
3. There is evidence that it was fired from the SN
4. There is evidence that Oswald owned the MC
5. Oswald was last seen before the assassination on 6th floor of the TSBD
6. Oswald was the only employee to leave the TSBD before an attendance check was made
7. Oswald left the rooming house quickly after getting his handgun and a jacket
8. The rifle was mailed to A. Hidell to the post box that Oswald is connected to,
9. It arrived before the attempt on Gen. Walker,
10. It was identical to the rifle seen in the backyard photos
11. At the Texas Theater Oswald resists arrest
12. pulls a gun on the arresting officer
13. During his interrogation, Oswald told one provable lie after another
14. Oswald's palm prints were on the stock
15. The envelope was stamped by Kleins stating that the order was filled
16. CE 399 was found on Connally's stretcher.
17. CE 399 was found by a Parkland nurse
18. Frazier never said that the bag from the SN was not the same bag.
19. C2766 arrived at the Dallas post office and was picked up 5 days later.
20. A bullet that was fired from that rifle ended up in the car that was shot at
21. There is the shipping order that was initialed by the person who was responsible for shipping
22. There were prints that were consistent with Oswald's on a part of the gun covered by the stock
23. Marina says Oswald bought a gun through the mail at about that time

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #86 on: August 08, 2018, 08:58:15 PM »

Online Andrew Mason

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 456
    • SPMLaw
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #87 on: August 09, 2018, 12:35:16 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Just once I'd like to see Andrew Mason acknowledge even one of the unsupported or outright false statements he has made in the course of this one forum thread.  So far I count 23.

1. There is evidence that the MC was the murder weapon
2. There is evidence that it was fired on 22-11-63
3. There is evidence that it was fired from the SN
4. There is evidence that Oswald owned the MC
Already covered. You just don't accept the evidence.

Quote
5. Oswald was last seen before the assassination on 6th floor of the TSBD
Already covered. He was sighted by two workers on either the fifth or sixth floor at about 11:55. Howard Brennan said he saw a man that he later identified as Oswald on the sixth floor seconds before the shots were fired and then saw the rifle being fired.  Carolyn Arnold said she thought she may have seen Oswald on the second floor 15 minutes before the shooting but I don't find her evidence very persuasive: "she stated she thought she caught a fleeting glimpse of LEE HARVEY OSWALD standing in the hallway between the front door and the double doors leading to the warehouse, located on the first floor. She could not be sure that this was OSWALD, but said she felt it was and believed the time to be a few minutes before 12:15 PM."  FBI statement 26-Nov-63

Quote
6. Oswald was the only employee to leave the TSBD before an attendance check was made
Truly did a roll call just before 1:00 pm and noticed that Oswald was the only TSBD employee missing. He reported to the Dallas Police that Oswald was missing.  Who else do you think was missing?
Quote
7. Oswald left the rooming house quickly after getting his handgun and a jacket
Earlene Roberts was there. You weren't. She thought he was in an unusual hurry (6 H 438):

"Mrs. ROBERTS. I had better back up a minute-he came home that Friday in an unusual hurry.
Mr. BALL. And about what time was this?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, it was after President Kennedy had been shot and I...and I just looked up and I said, ?Oh, you are in a hurry.? He never said a thing, not nothing. He went on to his room and
stayed about 3 or 4 minutes."

Quote
8. The rifle was mailed to A. Hidell to the post box that Oswald is connected to,
What do you think the Klein's shipping order says?  It is pretty obvious that it says that the order was filled with C2766 and a scope shipped to Box 2915 Dallas, Texas.  That was Oswald's box. What is it, exactly, that makes you think it was shipped somewhere else or not shipped at all?
Quote
9. It arrived before the attempt on Gen. Walker,
The shipping order says it was shipped on March 20, 1963 and the post office official said it took a day to get from Chicago to Dallas.  Oswald's back-yard photos were taken in late March or early April, according to Marina Oswald.  The attempt on General Walker took place on April 10, 1963.
Quote
10. It was identical to the rifle seen in the backyard photos
In the sense that there is absolutely no feature of C2766 that is inconsistent with the rifle held by Oswald in the backyard photos.
Quote
11. At the Texas Theater Oswald resists arrest
12. pulls a gun on the arresting officer
What would you call reaching for your gun, holding it in your hand with your finger on the trigger, saying "Well, it's all over now" and struggling with the arresting police officer?

Quote
13. During his interrogation, Oswald told one provable lie after another
Well, for starters, that he didn't own a rifle; that he didn't carry a long package to work; and that he didn't have anything to do with the assassination of JFK or murder of Officer Tippit.
Quote
14. Oswald's palm prints were on the stock
I corrected that. They were on the part of the barrel covered by the stock, so he handled it when it was disassembled.
Quote
15. The envelope was stamped by Kleins stating that the order was filled
What do you think the envelope and the shipping order indicate? That the order was ignored and not filled?
Quote
16. CE 399 was found on Connally's stretcher.
It was found on a stretcher. The WC concluded from all the evidence, that it was Connally's stretcher.
Quote
17. CE 399 was found by a Parkland nurse
Sorry, I thought Tomlinson was a nurse.  He was a maintenance worker.
Quote
18. Frazier never said that the bag from the SN was not the same bag.
Already dealt with. Where do you think he said the bag was not the same bag. Being unable to identify the bag shown by the investigator as the bag he saw is not the same as saying it was not the same bag. Why do you think he would be able to identify something that he admitted he didn't pay much attention to?
Quote
19. C2766 arrived at the Dallas post office and was picked up 5 days later.
That's an estimate that is based upon post office transportation and processing times.
Quote
20. A bullet that was fired from that rifle ended up in the car that was shot at
CE399 was either on that stretcher because it was brought in by someone in the President's limo or it was planted.  There is no evidence that it was planted.  The grooves on CE399 conclusively match grooves on bullets fired by the C2766 rifle.
Quote
21. There is the shipping order that was initialed by the person who was responsible for shipping
The document speaks for itself. Or are you suggesting that it was not made in the ordinary course of processing Oswald's order?
Quote
22. There were prints that were consistent with Oswald's on a part of the gun covered by the stock
You think the prints belonged to someone else? They were consistent with Oswald's prints. What are the chances that someone else put prints that were consistent with Oswald's on a gun that belonged to Oswald that was brought to the TSBD in a disassembled position in a bag that was consistent with the bag that Oswald was seen by two people to have been in his possession that morning of the assassination? (that's a rhetorical question).  That is enough to conclude that they were Oswald's prints.
Quote
23. Marina says Oswald bought a gun through the mail at about that time
I believe the Russian newspapers that he held were shown to be dated March 11 and March 24, 1963.  Marina was not sure when she took the photos when she met with the WC and said she didn't pay much attention to them. But later, to the FBI she said the photos were taken in late March or early April 1963 and were taken on a Sunday.  That puts it likely at March 31 or possibly April 7, 1963.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #87 on: August 09, 2018, 12:35:16 AM »

Online John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1833
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #88 on: August 09, 2018, 02:02:35 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Just once I'd like to see Andrew Mason acknowledge even one of the unsupported or outright false statements he has made in the course of this one forum thread.  So far I count 23.

1. There is evidence that the MC was the murder weapon
2. There is evidence that it was fired on 22-11-63
3. There is evidence that it was fired from the SN
4. There is evidence that Oswald owned the MC
5. Oswald was last seen before the assassination on 6th floor of the TSBD
6. Oswald was the only employee to leave the TSBD before an attendance check was made
7. Oswald left the rooming house quickly after getting his handgun and a jacket
8. The rifle was mailed to A. Hidell to the post box that Oswald is connected to,
9. It arrived before the attempt on Gen. Walker,
10. It was identical to the rifle seen in the backyard photos
11. At the Texas Theater Oswald resists arrest
12. pulls a gun on the arresting officer
13. During his interrogation, Oswald told one provable lie after another
14. Oswald's palm prints were on the stock
15. The envelope was stamped by Kleins stating that the order was filled
16. CE 399 was found on Connally's stretcher.
17. CE 399 was found by a Parkland nurse
18. Frazier never said that the bag from the SN was not the same bag.
19. C2766 arrived at the Dallas post office and was picked up 5 days later.
20. A bullet that was fired from that rifle ended up in the car that was shot at
21. There is the shipping order that was initialed by the person who was responsible for shipping
22. There were prints that were consistent with Oswald's on a part of the gun covered by the stock
23. Marina says Oswald bought a gun through the mail at about that time

 :D



JohnM
« Last Edit: August 09, 2018, 06:59:34 AM by John Mytton »

Online John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1833
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #89 on: August 09, 2018, 03:49:57 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Really?  The supplier disagrees with you.



 BS:

How on Earth do you know how Crescent and Kleins conducted their business?

The rifles were purchased in June 1962 and some months later Kleins received the stock, what's the problem?

JohnM

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #89 on: August 09, 2018, 03:49:57 AM »

 

Mobile View