Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
Tom Sorensen, Steve Logan, Andrew Mason, Craig lamson and 9 Guests are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.  (Read 4586 times)

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2495
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #110 on: August 09, 2018, 08:50:55 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No surprise coming from the guy who continually writes checks that he can't afford, the above self serving guess of the Kleins / Crescent business relationship being a prime example.

How about the self-serving "it took them 8 months to get around to shipping an order"?  That is the extraordinary claim here.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #110 on: August 09, 2018, 08:50:55 PM »


Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1243
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #111 on: August 09, 2018, 09:00:24 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How about the self-serving "it took them 8 months to get around to shipping an order"?  That is the extraordinary claim here.

Again you're questioning how these businesses conducted their transactions and based on what, your intuition?

JohnM

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2495
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #112 on: August 09, 2018, 10:29:24 PM »
Says the guy who bases his conclusion that Oswald shot Kennedy on his intuition.

Online Andrew Mason

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 200
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #113 on: August 10, 2018, 01:43:32 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No you didn't "cover" them at all.  You just claimed that there was evidence that the MC was the murder weapon, that it
was fired on 22-11-63, and that it was fired from the SN without actually specifying what that evidence is.
The MC was found in the SN; a object looking like a gun barrel was seen protruding from the SN window during and seconds after the assassination; a bullet fired from that gun was found at Parkland where the wounded President and Governor were treated. That is more than enough evidence to conclude that C2766 was the murder weapon. That is evidence. You don't agree that the evidence supports the conclusion that it was the murder weapon. I am not sure whether you think it was just a lucky coincidence that somehow CE399 matches the striations on bullets fired by C2766 or that it was planted. You don't seem to want to explain how those facts can exist and C2766 not be the weapon that fired CE399 or how CE399 forms part of the evidence in this case if it was not connected with the assassination.

This discussion has become a silly argument of me providing and explaining the evidence and you say, "no you didn't".

Unless you can explain how it is that this evidence exists and not be connected to Oswald without there being an elaborate conspiracy involving the FBI, Dallas Police and dozens if not hundreds of witnesses, I don't think there is much point in continuing this debate. 

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2495
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #114 on: August 10, 2018, 04:42:20 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The MC was found in the SN; a object looking like a gun barrel was seen protruding from the SN window during and seconds after the assassination; a bullet fired from that gun was found at Parkland where the wounded President and Governor were treated. That is more than enough evidence to conclude that C2766 was the murder weapon. That is evidence. You don't agree that the evidence supports the conclusion that it was the murder weapon.

Right.  Your conclusion is based on assumptions and unwarranted leaps.  In my opinion.  But you're entitled to make whatever conclusions you like -- I can't make you be logical.  Just don't go stating as a fact that C2766 was the murder weapon.

Quote
This discussion has become a silly argument of me providing and explaining the evidence and you say, "no you didn't".

You're sidestepping the many unsupported and false claims that you made that are not a matter of opinion though.

You said Oswald was the only employee to leave the TSBD before an attendance check was made.  I quoted Truly's testimony that says this is false.

You said Oswald got his handgun at the rooming house and tried to claim that Earlene Roberts witnessed it.  She didn't.

You said that Oswald pulled a gun on the arresting officer when the arresting officer merely said that he "went for a gun" before he grabbed his hand.

You repeated Bugliosi's claim that Oswald told one provable lie after another.  Neither you or Bugliosi proved that any of these were lies.  You just used a circular argument to say that he was lying.

You claimed that there were prints (plural) on the rifle under the stock, when in reality there was one partial palmprint that showed up on an index card a week later and no trace of anything on the gun barrel.

You claimed that the envelope sent to Klein's was stamped by Kleins stating that the order was filled.  Klein's never stamped that envelope.

You claimed that Frazier never said that the bag from the SN was not the same bag.  I produced a memo written by FBI agent Anderton quoting Frazier saying exactly that.

You claimed that the rifle package from Klein's was picked up 5 days after it was sent when there is no evidence of it having been picked up at all.  Where did you get 5 days?

You claimed that a bullet ended up in the car, when there is no record anywhere of a bullet being found in the car.

You claimed that there was a Klein's shipping order that was initialed by the person who was responsible for shipping, but failed to show any document or testimony that shows that this is true.

You claimed that Marina said that Oswald bought a gun through the mail but failed to quote any document or testimony of her ever saying that.

Make whatever conclusions you like, but when you make statements of fact that are flat out false you're doing a disservice to everybody, and undermining your own credibility as well.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #114 on: August 10, 2018, 04:42:20 PM »


Online Andrew Mason

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 200
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #115 on: August 10, 2018, 07:48:12 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Right.  Your conclusion is based on assumptions and unwarranted leaps.  In my opinion.  But you're entitled to make whatever conclusions you like -- I can't make you be logical.  Just don't go stating as a fact that C2766 was the murder weapon.
I will continue to state as a fact that, in the absence of any evidence that there was a broad conspiracy to frame Oswald and plant evidence, the murder weapon was C2766.  You apparently do not understand the difference between reaching a conclusion based on evidence and a priori assumptions based on no evidence at all. You have yet to explain how it is that CE399 was found at Parkland and has nothing to do with the assassination despite it having been conclusively determined that it was fired by the rifle found in the TSBD. I will continue to maintain that it was either fired by C2766 during the assassination or it was planted as part of an elaborate conspiracy to frame Oswald.

Quote
You said Oswald got his handgun at the rooming house and tried to claim that Earlene Roberts witnessed it.  She didn't.
I never said that Earlene Roberts witnessed Oswald picking up his gun.  I said she observed that he was in a hurry.  We know from other evidence that he very likely picked up his gun there.

Quote
You said that Oswald pulled a gun on the arresting officer when the arresting officer merely said that he "went for a gun" before he grabbed his hand.
So why, exactly, do you think the arresting officer would have put Oswald's hand on the gun and pulled it out of his pants?  That is the only other possibility and it is inconsistent with the arresting officers' evidence.

Quote
You repeated Bugliosi's claim that Oswald told one provable lie after another.  Neither you or Bugliosi proved that any of these were lies.  You just used a circular argument to say that he was lying.
He lied about taking a long package to work because we can establish that he did through the evidence of Buell Frazier, Linnie Mae Randle, C2766 itself, the paper wrapper, and the gun missing from the Paines' garage. That may not convince you.  But it is a logical and reasonable conclusion that is based on evidence.

Quote
You claimed that there were prints (plural) on the rifle under the stock, when in reality there was one partial palmprint that showed up on an index card a week later and no trace of anything on the gun barrel.
Lt. Day noticed a palmprint near the end of the barrel about 3 inches under the wood-stock.  He also found prints or partial prints on the magazine housing. He could not make a positive identification of whose prints they were but they were consistent with Oswald's prints.  See Day's WC testimony at 4 H 260.

Quote
You claimed that the envelope sent to Klein's was stamped by Kleins stating that the order was filled.  Klein's never stamped that envelope.
So who do you think stamped the envelope and filled it in?:


Quote
Make whatever conclusions you like, but when you make statements of fact that are flat out false you're doing a disservice to everybody, and undermining your own credibility as well.
The statements of fact are conclusions based on the evidence.  If you can accept the evidence and reach different rational and reasonable conclusions that are not based on the existence of a broad conspiracy involving law enforcement and the WC, go ahead and try.  You seem reluctant to do that.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2018, 07:51:20 PM by Andrew Mason »

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2495
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #116 on: August 10, 2018, 08:32:01 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You apparently do not understand the difference between reaching a conclusion based on evidence and a priori assumptions based on no evidence at all.

You apparently don't understand that reaching a conclusion by assuming things that aren't in evidence doesn't make something a fact.

Quote
You have yet to explain how it is that CE399 was found at Parkland and has nothing to do with the assassination despite it having been conclusively determined that it was fired by the rifle found in the TSBD.

I'm not convinced that CE 399 was found at Parkland.  O.P. Wright said that the bullet he got from Tomlinson had a pointed tip, and neither Johnsen or Rowley could identify it as being the same bullet as CE 399.

Quote
I will continue to maintain that it was either fired by C2766 during the assassination or it was planted as part of an elaborate conspiracy to frame Oswald.

Of course you will.  But why is "an elaborate conspiracy" necessary to insert CE399 into the evidence stream?

Quote
We know from other evidence that he very likely picked up his gun there.

Do tell.  What "other evidence"?

Quote
So why, exactly, do you think the arresting officer would have put Oswald's hand on the gun and pulled it out of his pants?

That's what the officer himself said.  Why exactly do you think otherwise?

Quote
He lied about taking a long package to work because we can establish that he did through the evidence of Buell Frazier, Linnie Mae Randle, C2766 itself, the paper wrapper, and the gun missing from the Paines' garage.

Fritz didn't say that he denied taking any kind of long package to work.  Fritz said that he "denied that he had brought the long package described by Mr. Frazier and his sister."  But nobody knows exactly how Fritz represented the descriptions of Mr. Frazier and his sister.  C2766 being in the building doesn't tell you anything about whether Oswald lied about anything.  You have nothing to connect C2766 with the "paper wrapper" at all.

Quote
Lt. Day noticed a palmprint near the end of the barrel about 3 inches under the wood-stock.  He also found prints or partial prints on the magazine housing. He could not make a positive identification of whose prints they were but they were consistent with Oswald's prints.  See Day's WC testimony at 4 H 260.

Show me where Day says anything about "consistent with Oswald's prints".  He said he couldn't make positive identification of these prints.  You somehow spun that into "his prints were on the rifle under the stock".  The magazine housing isn't even under the stock.

Quote
So who do you think stamped the envelope and filled it in?:

Why do you think Klein's stamped this envelope at all?  Point to the part of the envelope you think that Klein's stamped.

Quote
The statements of fact are conclusions based on the evidence.

You're entitled to your own opinions.  You are not entitled to your own facts.

Quote
  If you can accept the evidence and reach different rational and reasonable conclusions that are not based on the existence of a broad conspiracy involving law enforcement and the WC, go ahead and try.  You seem reluctant to do that.

And for good reason.  I never claimed there was a broad conspiracy involving law enforcement and the WC.  That's your strawman.  That doesn't mean your conclusions just win by default.

Are you going to get around to addressing the even more blatant fallacious claims you made, like the package being picked up 5 days later, or Marina saying he bought a gun through the mail?  Are you at all concerned about propagating misinformation?

Online Andrew Mason

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 200
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #117 on: August 10, 2018, 10:07:01 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You apparently don't understand that reaching a conclusion by assuming things that aren't in evidence doesn't make something a fact.
There is a difference between 1. inferring a fact for which there is no direct evidence because it is the only reasonable conclusion that fits the rest of the evidence, and 2. assuming a fact without any such evidence at all.  If I get up in the morning and I see water all over my deck I can infer that it rained last night. I am not assuming it rained as a fact. I am inferring that it rained as a fact.

Quote
I'm not convinced that CE 399 was found at Parkland.  O.P. Wright said that the bullet he got from Tomlinson had a pointed tip, and neither Johnsen or Rowley could identify it as being the same bullet as CE 399.
Ok. You are not convinced CE399 was found at Parkland.  I am. There is evidence on which I base my conclusion so don't tell me I am assuming it.

Quote
Of course you will.  But why is "an elaborate conspiracy" necessary to insert CE399 into the evidence stream?
Think of the behind-the-scenes machinations that would be required to produce a bullet that had been fired by the gun that was found in the same floor of the building from which rifle shots were observed and heard when the President was killed. Then think of the efforts required to make people believe the bullet had been found in a place occupied by one of the victims of the shooting.  Then ask yourself, why did they carry out that plan so badly so that the bullet was almost not found or, could have been found in circumstances that did not tie it to the assassination?

Quote
Do tell.  What "other evidence"?


Show me where Day says anything about "consistent with Oswald's prints".  He said he couldn't make positive identification of these prints.  You somehow spun that into "his prints were on the rifle under the stock".  The magazine housing isn't even under the stock.
4 H 260:
Mr. BELIN. What other processing did you do with this particular rifle?
Mr. DAY. I took it to the office and tried to bring out the two prints I had seen on the side of the gun at the bookstore. They still were rather unclear. Due to the roughness of the metal, I photographed them rather than try to lift them. I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel that extended under the woodstock. I started to take the woodstock off and noted traces of a palmprint near the firing end of the barrel about 3 inches under the wood-stock when I took the woodstock loose.
Mr. BELIN. You mean 3 inches from the small end of the woodstock?
Mr. DAY. Right--yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. From the firing end of the barrel, you mean the muzzle?
Mr. DAY. The muzzle; yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Let me clarify the record. By that you mean you found it on the metal or you mean you found it on the wood?
Mr. DAY. On the metal, after removing the wood.
Mr. BELIN. The wood. You removed the wood, and then underneath the wood is where you found the print?
Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?
Mr. DAY. This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of the gun after I had removed the wood.
Mr. BELIN. Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?
Mr. DAY. It has the name "J. C. Day," and also "11/22/63" written on it in my writing off the underside gun barrel near the end of foregrip, C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. When you lift a print is it then harder to make a photograph of that print after it is lifted or doesn't it make any difference?
Mr. DAY. It depends. If it is a fresh print, and by fresh I mean hadn't been there very long and dried, practically all the print will come off and there will be nothing left. If it is an old print, that is pretty well dried, many times you can still see it after the lift. In this case I could still see traces of print on that barrel.
Mr. BELIN. Did you do anything with the other prints or partial prints that you said you thought you saw?
Mr. DAY. I photographed them only. I did not try to lift them.
Mr. BELIN. Do you have those photographs, sir? I will mark the two photographs which you have just produced Commission Exhibits 720 and 721. I will ask you to state what these are.
Mr. DAY. These are prints or pictures, I should say, of the latent--of the traces of prints on the side of the magazine housing of the gun No. C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. Were those prints in such condition as to be identifiable, if you know?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; I could not make positive identification of these prints.
Mr. BELIN. Did you have enough opportunity to work and get these pictures or not?
Mr. DAY. I worked with them, yes. I could not exclude all possibility as to identification. I thought I knew which they were, but I could not positively identify them.
Mr. BELIN. What was your opinion so far as it went as to whose they were?
Mr. DAY. They appeared to be the right middle and right ring finger of Harvey Lee Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. BELIN. At the time you had this did you have any comparison fingerprints to make with the actual prints of Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; we had sets in Captain Fritz' office. Oswald was in his custody, we had made palmprints and fingerprints of him.

Quote
Why do you think Klein's stamped this envelope at all?  Point to the part of the envelope you think that Klein's stamped.
Uh, it is the big stamp on the lower left side of the envelope that bears the heading in large letters: "Klein's" and has Klein's address.  If Klein's did not stamp it, who do you think did?


JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #117 on: August 10, 2018, 10:07:01 PM »


Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2495
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #118 on: August 10, 2018, 10:59:41 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There is a difference between 1. inferring a fact for which there is no direct evidence because it is the only reasonable conclusion that fits the rest of the evidence, and 2. assuming a fact without any such evidence at all.  If I get up in the morning and I see water all over my deck I can infer that it rained last night. I am not assuming it rained as a fact. I am inferring that it rained as a fact.

It's still an assumption.  Your neighbor might have thrown a bucket of water at your deck.

Quote

Ok. You are not convinced CE399 was found at Parkland.  I am. There is evidence on which I base my conclusion so don't tell me I am assuming it.

But what is the evidence and how much do you have to assume to make that conclusion?  How exactly did the bullet found by Tomlinson on an unrelated stretcher at Parkland get to Robert Frazier and verified that it was the same physical item each step along the way?

Quote
Think of the behind-the-scenes machinations that would be required to produce a bullet that had been fired by the gun that was found in the same floor of the building from which rifle shots were observed and heard when the President was killed.

What "behind the scenes machinations"?  All it would take is to fire the rifle into something relatively soft and collect the bullet.  That's why evidence that it actually went through JFK's body is a pretty important detail.

Quote
Then think of the efforts required to make people believe the bullet had been found in a place occupied by one of the victims of the shooting.

What "efforts required"?  The FBI said CE 399 was found at Parkland and you believe it.

Quote
  Then ask yourself, why did they carry out that plan so badly so that the bullet was almost not found or, could have been found in circumstances that did not tie it to the assassination?

oh, I'm sure that no matter what circumstances it had been found in, you would deduce that it was tied to the assassination -- merely because it was matched to the rifle that you think was the murder weapon.

Quote
4 H 260:

Did you miss the sentence above that where Day said "I could not positively identify them"?  By the way, neither could Sebastian Latona.  The fact that Day claimed they appeared to him to be Oswald's doesn't equate to "they were Oswald's".
 Otherwise they would have been positively identified.  So you call this "consistent with", which is another way of saying inconclusive.

Quote
Uh, it is the big stamp on the lower left side of the envelope that bears the heading in large letters: "Klein's" and has Klein's address.  If Klein's did not stamp it, who do you think did?

Sigh.  That's not a stamp, Andrew.  They overlaid the order coupon that was clipped out of a magazine on top of the envelope it was supposedly mailed in and took a microfilm picture of it.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2018, 11:03:14 PM by John Iacoletti »

Online Andrew Mason

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 200
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #119 on: August 11, 2018, 06:05:00 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's still an assumption.  Your neighbor might have thrown a bucket of water at your deck.
You really don't know the difference, do you? If I base my conclusion on evidence, it is no longer an assumption.

I assess the possible causes of water on my deck and I conclude that the only reasonably possible cause is rain.  If I was concerned that there might be some other cause (which has never occurred, but let's say that is a 1/100 possibility) I can easily look at other things, such as the street. Now you are going to say, ok, but a street sweeper could have washed the street. But that is only about 1/100 possibility. So the probability that both could have happened, conservatively, is now 1/100 x 1/100 = 1/10,000.  If I was still concerned about that possibility, I could look at the sidewalks and my lawn.  Oh, you would say, perhaps a neighbour hosed down the sidewalks too.  Ok, let's say that is about a 1/100 possibility.  Now to have all three occur together (all three being independent) is 1/1,000,000.  At that point even you would have to concede that it rained.

Now with Oswald, it is not that there is absolute proof from Klein's that the gun was picked up by Oswald. Klein's documents form part of the evidence. Let's say it is a 1/100 chance that one of Klein's orders is not processed properly and does not get to the destination.  We have the backyard photos that show a gun identical to the MC C2766 in Oswald's hands shortly after the guns should have arrived in Oswald's mailbox. We also have evidence of a long package being brought to the TSBD on the morning of the assassination. Then you have a palm print on the gun that cannot be excluded as coming from Oswald.  Then you have the fact that Oswald was not with anyone at the time of the assassination.  Then you have him leaving the TSBD. Then you have him hurrying home and then leaving quickly.  Then you have a person like him seen shooting Officer Tippit. Then you have him carrying a gun in the Texas Theater.  Then you have him saying "Well, it's all over now" as he is arrested.  Even if the probability that each of these events had innocent explanations was large, say 1/10, the probability that all innocent explanations occurred together becomes vanishingly small.  That is how proof beyond a reasonable doubt occurs.

The same thing occurs with DNA matching.  The standard DNA fingerprint in the FBI's CODIS system measures the length of 13 small sections of DNA from areas that are highly variable between individuals (plus one marker for sex). The length of tandem repeats in the regions of DNA being examined are not unique. They are actually quite common – some regions may have only 5 or 10 length variations so the chance of another individual chosen at random from the population having the same “bar” match for a particular marker may be as high as 20%. The key however, is the evidence that the lengths of these regions of DNA vary widely within the population AND that the length of DNA of one marker is independent of the length of another.  The probability that two people of the same sex will have the exact same lengths of DNA sequences at each locus is the product of 13 probabilities, each of which is about 1/5 to 1/20. That results in a very small number: in the order of 1/513 (1 in 1.2 billion) to 1/2013 (1 in 82 million billion).

Quote
But what is the evidence and how much do you have to assume to make that conclusion?  How exactly did the bullet found by Tomlinson on an unrelated stretcher at Parkland get to Robert Frazier and verified that it was the same physical item each step along the way?
One does not have to assume anything.  One just has to assess Frazier's evidence, along with all the other evidence and determine whether the possibility that Frazier was part of an elaborate conspiracy to hide the truth is reasonable.

Quote
What "behind the scenes machinations"?  All it would take is to fire the rifle into something relatively soft and collect the bullet.  That's why evidence that it actually went through JFK's body is a pretty important detail.

What "efforts required"?  The FBI said CE 399 was found at Parkland and you believe it.
For the FBI to say that as part of an elaborate conspiracy to frame Oswald and to execute that plan so flawlessly that it would withstand 55 years of scrutiny without anyone cracking, there would have to be a lot of planning and scheming.
Quote
Did you miss the sentence above that where Day said "I could not positively identify them"?  By the way, neither could Sebastian Latona.  The fact that Day claimed they appeared to him to be Oswald's doesn't equate to "they were Oswald's".
 Otherwise they would have been positively identified.  So you call this "consistent with", which is another way of saying inconclusive.
If it was a random print, even a small part of it would likely be easily distinguishable from Oswald's.

Quote
Sigh.  That's not a stamp, Andrew.  They overlaid the order coupon that was clipped out of a magazine on top of the envelope it was supposedly mailed in and took a microfilm picture of it.
Ok. But the point is the same:  who took a microfiche of that coupon and the envelope and what is the possibility, in light of all the rest of the evidence, that Oswald/Hidell's order did not make it through Klein's system?
« Last Edit: August 13, 2018, 06:15:32 PM by Andrew Mason »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #119 on: August 11, 2018, 06:05:00 AM »