Those who demand that everyone "just ACCEPT that Oswald did it"...

[Ken Burch]

Are asking all of us, whether they realize it or not, to shut off our minds and stop thinking, stop questioning.

They are asking us to believe what we're told and to just get back in line.

They are asking us to return to the mindset that doomed us to Vietnam, Watergate, the Contra War, the Iraq War, and all of the rest of the madness the world has been subjected to since 11/22/63.

JFK was no saint. But that isn't the point.

Something happened that day that told us something.

And we have to keep searching to find what, exactly, we WERE and are being told.

[Warpy]

1. They are still left with one unconfortable fact

Oswald had no motive.

[Bolo Boffin]

5. Oswald had a motive. We'll never know what it was. That doesn't negate physical evidence. n/t

[Ace Acme]

18. Oswald had a motive, but you can't tell us what it was, and can provide no evidence?

You expect people to believe that?

[Bolo Boffin]

38. Well, of course he had a motive. He did do it. Something motivated him to do what he did.

The evidence surrounding the assassination of JFK as an event that happened in Dealey Plaza shows that Oswald did assassinate John F. Kennedy. That much we can say. There's no way to offer a definitive motive for him, because the evidence to state that isn't there.

That's how evidence works. You speak to it as you can, and you stop where it stops. Going beyond that is Calvinball.

[Ace Acme]

41. He did it, so he must have had a motive. That's how circular reasoning works.

Watching the clothes go round, Watching the clothes go round, Watching the clothes go round.,

[Bolo Boffin]

42. Having a motive follows from his doing it.

His doing it comes from the evidence. That's the opposite of circular reasoning.

[Ace Acme]

87. See what I mean? He had a motive because he did it. He did it because he had a motive. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

93. 2 + 2 = 4. 4 = 2 + 2.

But! 4 = 3 + 1. 4 = 4 + 0. 4 = 3.5 + 0.5. 4 = 2 x 2. 4 = 4 x 1.

Math is hard.

I am not resting my case for his having done it on his having a motive, Ace.

I am resting my case for his having done it on the evidence at the scene, from the autopsy, from Oswald's actions before and after his crime, etc.

Having established that he has done it, I then say he had a motive.

This is not circular reasoning. I can't say this any more plainly. Those are the smallest words I can use.

[Ace Acme]

95. Arithmetic is trivial.

You haven't established that he did it. Even if his gun did it, that doesn't prove he did it.

[Bolo Boffin]

101. Ace, I will allow that if establishing he did it means you accepting he did it

Then I will never be able to establish he did it. But that's not my personal standard and never will be.

[Ace Acme]

140. You're trying to make it my fault that you can't prove your case. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

150. I don't accept you as a judge of what's proven and what's not. n/t

[GoneFishin]

171. +1000. And LMFAO. n/t

[William Seger]

75. Nope, that's not how circular reasoning works

It would only be circular reasoning if you started with the premise that he did it because he had a motive and then conclude he must have had a motive because he did it. If you instead start with the premise that a large body of evidence says he did it, then it's logically valid to conclude that he had a motive.

On the other hand, pop quiz, what kind of reasoning is this: We don't know what his motive was, so he probably didn't do it.

[Ace Acme]

89. Pop quiz: argument from ignorance. Which is what you thrive on.

Why do you oppose new investigations and transparency?

[William Seger]

99. As I've said before...

... you have a peculiar way of dealing with being wrong.

[Ace Acme]

141. It must seem peculiar to you, as you never employ it.

When I'm wrong I admit it, and refine my position. I'm not surprised that seems peculiar to you.

[William Seger]

148. Either you were wrong about the meaning of "circular reasoning" ...

... or you were wrong about what BB was saying, take your pick, and your responses to him and me are right there for everyone to read, "Ace." In thread after thread after thread, you have demonstrated that either you have a gigantic blind spot to your own errors or you believe that if you just keep posting denials ad nauseam nobody will notice. Either way, it's a tiresome game.

[Ace Acme]

323. Empty assertions must have worked very well for you over the years, "William"

... but you've gotten very careless with them.

[sabrina 1]

146. I believe he probably did do it. But what was his motive? Generally speaking when someone commits a

crime, they do have a motive. Something drives them to do it.

So, starting from a presumption of guilt, what was his motive?

[Th1onein]

326. Good question, sabrina 1. And one that has never really been answered.

[The Midway Rebel]

329. This has much more explanatory power than speculation about the unknown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

Symptoms of this disorder, as defined by the DSM-IV-TR include:[1]
Expects to be recognized as superior and special, without superior accomplishments
Expects constant attention, admiration and positive reinforcement from others
Envies others and believes others envy him/her
Is preoccupied with thoughts and fantasies of great success, enormous attractiveness, power, intelligence
Lacks the ability to empathize with the feelings or desires of others
Is arrogant in attitudes and behavior
Has expectations of special treatment that are unrealistic
Other symptoms in addition to the ones defined by DSM-IV-TR include: Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends, has trouble keeping healthy relationships with others, easily hurt or rejected, appears unemotional, and exaggerating special achievements and talents, setting unrealistic goals for himself/herself [7]
Narcissistic personality disorder is characterized by dramatic, emotional behavior, and an overinflated sense of self importance which is in the same category as antisocial and borderline personality disorders.[8]
In addition to these symptoms, the person may display arrogance, show superiority, and seek power.[9] The symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder can be similar to the traits of individuals with strong self-esteem and confidence; differentiation occurs when the underlying psychological structures of these traits are considered pathological. Narcissists have such an elevated sense of self-worth that they value themselves as inherently better than others, when in reality they have a fragile self-esteem, cannot handle criticism, and will often try to compensate for this inner fragility by belittling or disparaging others in an attempt to validate their own self-worth. Comments and criticisms about others are vicious from sufferers of NPD, in an attempt to boost their own poor self esteem. [10]
Another symptom a narcissist will have is a lack of empathy. They are unable to relate, understand, and rationalize the feelings of others. Instead of behaving in a way that shows how they are feeling in the moment, they behave in the way that they feel they are expected to behave or what will give them the most attention. [11]

People who are overly narcissistic commonly feel rejected, humiliated and threatened when criticised. To protect themselves from these dangers, they often react with disdain, rage, and/or defiance to any slight criticism, real or imagined.[20] To avoid such situations, some narcissistic people withdraw socially and may feign modesty or humility. In cases where the narcissistic personality-disordered individual feels a lack of admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation, he or she may also manifest a desire to be feared and to be notorious (narcissistic supply).

Of course this definition of NPD was nearly booted out of DSM-V, however, it was not.

[Th1onein]

330. Sorry, that's not a motive.

It's a personality disorder, but not what you'd call a motive. Besides that, was Oswald ever actually DIAGNOSED with NPD?

[The Midway Rebel]

331. An undiagnosed disorder is not the absence of a disorder.

In fact his behaviors exhibit NPD fairly well and many criminals are not diagnosed until after they have been caught.

Not to mention prosecutors need not prove motive in a crime only intent. And LHO certainly intended to kill JFK when he fired his rifle at his head that day in Dealy Plaza.

[Th1onein]

334. But it's not evidence.

I know that prosecutors don't need to prove motive. No one said that. What YOU were saying, though, is that an UNDIAGNOSED disorder, which does not meet the level of evidence, is the motive. You are claiming motive and then saying that it doesn't matter.

[The Midway Rebel]

339. No, I said it NPD can explain motive, not that it was motive.

Forensic science is the evidence that proves LHO fired the shots. Do you have a problem with the forensic and ballistic evidence? Only LHO knew his motive.

[sabrina 1]

335. True, and every time I have asked it the response is usually 'he wanted attention, he was a miserabe

loser who want to go down in history for having done something important' or words to that effect.

But when I ask the next obvious question 'why did he deny it then, wouldn't have have been boasting about having succeeded in his goal'? There is no explanation.

[JDPriestly]

90. Motive, means, opportunity.

Actually, motive is one of the elements that prosecutors usually seek to explain to the jury in a murder trial.

In US Criminal law, means, motive, and opportunity is a popular cultural summation of the three aspects of a crime that must be established before guilt can be determined in a criminal proceeding. Respectively, they refer to: the ability of the defendant to commit the crime (means), the reason the defendant felt the need to commit the crime (motive), and whether or not the defendant had the chance to commit the crime (opportunity). Opportunity is most often disproved by use of an alibi, which can prove the accused was not able to commit the crime as he or she did not have the correct set of circumstances to commit the crime as it occurred. Motive is not an element of many crimes, but proving motive can often make it easier to convince a jury of the elements that must be proved for a conviction.

Establishing the presence of these three elements is not, in and of itself, sufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt; the evidence must prove that an opportunity presented was indeed taken by the accused and for the crime with which he or she is charged. For an example, consider this ruling in the case of a suspect accused of robbery and assault:

... evidence of motive, means, opportunity, and consciousness of guilt are not enough to establish guilt. Compare Commonwealth v. Mandile, 403 Mass. 93, 98 (1988) (evidence of motive, means, unexplained possession of property, and consciousness of guilt not enough to establish robbery). On this record the evidence is insufficient to permit a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the victim's assailant... Nothing in the record sufficiently links the defendant to the crime to permit the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the perpetrator.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means,_motive,_and_opportunity

Was Oswald paid? Did he think he would be paid? Was he doing a favor for someone? Had someone persuaded him that he could right some political wrong by shooting Kennedy? Was Oswald a political extremist of some sort?

Or was he just crazy? And if so, did anyone notice that he was consistently confused, paranoid, anxious or somehow mentally ill?

Who was Oswald anyway? World traveler, ex-Marine, political fanatic, attention-seeker? What made him tick? Why would he do what he is said to have done? Motive is the key. That is why it is important for those of us who remain uneasy about the explanations for the Kennedy assassination.

The question about Oswald's motive is legitimate. I'd like to know what it was.

People suggest that he had a difficult childhood . . . . So do a lot of other people. That doesn't cause them to kill a president.

Even if you utterly accept the idea that Oswald acted alone, in his mind, he had to have some reason for planning the murder so carefully. What was it? Ruby made sure that we will never know. Very strange.

[stopbush]

117. Wrong. Motive never needs to be established in US criminal law. Only intent needs to be established.

You shouldn't state things that aren't true.

It can help a prosecution if motive can be established, but the fact is one need only prove that a person committed the crime, not their motive for committing the crime.

[Ace Acme]

142. So what's your point? Do you think intent was established? How? nt

[brett_jv]

173. Um ... blurting out 'wrong' at people and telling them they shouldn't lie ... is kinda rude ...

Especially when you obviously misread what the person said.

Nowhere does JD say 'motive needs to be established in US Criminal Law'. S/He simply said: "In US Criminal law, means, motive, and opportunity is a popular cultural summation..."

Not at all the same thing as what ... you're saying s/he said.

[JDPriestly]

192. Sorry if I suggested that. Motive is not a necessary element, but a prosecutor

is more likely to get a conviction in cases in which there is some doubt about meeting the burden to prove guilt if the prosecutor shows a motive, the stronger and more believable the better.

It's easier to get a conviction in a case in which a jealous husband allegedly killed his wife if it can be proved that the husband believed the wife was unfaithful for example.

What we "know" about Oswald is so murky, so uncertain, that it is nearly impossible to know why he killed Kennedy assuming that he did. It looks like he did, but certainty is kind of a high standard if you don't have an adversarial trial in which evidence for both sides is presented. (And even then, there can be doubt as in the case of Zimmerman and as in so many other cases.)

[BlueStreak]

226. Exactly. And if you ever get a satisfactory answer re: Oswald, the same questions apply to Ruby.

The simple truth is that the physical evidence only fits the Warren theory if you make all sorts of twisted assumptions and suspend laws of physics. And there just isn't good reason why Oswald would do something like this alone.

If people are so sure that "the evidence proves Oswald did it alone", then let's unseal ALL the evidence right now. All of the central partied are long since deceased, and most of the second circle of this operation are also deceased, so whom are we we protecting by keeping the records secret?

It is complete chicken-s%%% to say " "The evidence shows" at the same time that most of the evidence remains sealed.

The only accurate statement here is that "The evidence released by the Warren Commission, which was appointed by the person who most directly benefited by LBJ's death, which contained not a single person supportive of JFK, Included Dulles to make sure that no CIA leads were pursued, and was directed from the start by J Edgar Hoover, suggests that Oswald was involved in the shooting, but is not convincing about much more than that."

[stopbush]

248. What laws of physics need to be suspended for the WC conclusions to work?

Please explain.

[BlueStreak]

257. Newton's first law

regarding the fact that the most of the material from the head kill ended up BEHIND Kennedy, which is not what Newton would tell us.

And the magic bullet seems to violate conservation of energy, It ends up almost entirely intact after an epic trip through bodies and bones, despite leaving fragments along the way. I will not respond further to people who just want to demagogue the issue and hurl insults at those of us who have evidently seen more of how the real world operates, and aren't so quick to accept everything the government feeds us at face value. It you want to have to have a serious discussion that reflects the fact that the government systematically suppresses evidence in order to achieve its ends through propaganda, then I'd be happy to do so.

I do allow the possibility that the Warren theory, as tortured as it is, has some probability of being the full truth. I think that is a very low probability because it is such fantastic tale in so many respects. But seriously, that is the only intelligent discussion -- i.e. what is the probability that the Warren theory is the full truth versus the probabilities that other theories are closer to the full truth.

If you want to have THAT discussion, I'm in. otherwise, I won't waste my time with any of you.

[BlueStreak]

258. Regarding the various probabilitiwes of the theories

Offhand, I'd put it something like this:

The Warren theory has a 2-5% probability of being the full and complete truth -- i.e. that Oswald acted entirely alone.

Re: the theory of a Cuban or Soviet hit, I'd put that at something like 5%. I don't see any evidence of that, other than Oswald's personal connections.

Re: the theory that it was "The Big Event" as described by Howard Hunt, involving at least a handful of characters from the CIA, possibly at the direction of LBJ, or possibly driven by others in government who felt threatened by the Kennedys, namely Dulles (and his CIA pals) and J Edgar Hoover, I'd give that something like a 10-20% probability. It has the motive for sure, but seems pretty sloppy for a CIA job. However, Hunt did describe it in some detail, and the CIA may not always be as clean as one might think.

Re: the idea that this was mainly a mob action, I'd give that more like 30-40% odds. That has a powerful motive because of the pressure that RFK was putting on the mob. The events certainly fit the style of the hit and also explains why Ruby became a principal.

The point is that IMHO, we don't have access to the evidence that would be conclusive on any of the scenarios, but of all of them, the Warren theory seems the LEAST plausible.

[The Midway Rebel]

261. But we do have the evidence. Let's start by ignoring what evidence is unknown.

Unknown evidence is not evidence at all.

The role of the Mafia, Cubans, CIA, LBJ, FBI in a conspiracy... all at that stuff is unknown. Not a single piece of hard evidence usable to a prosecutor in a court of law has turned up in 50 years. There has only been speculation. That is fact.

Next, start with is known. That which is testable and provable in a court of law. That which will not get you laughed out of the Organization of American Historians. Start with the forensic science. No offense intended, but you seem to have some misunderstandings of basic the facts of the crime.

Start here with this NOVA documentary, its a good place to get a understanding of how the Warren Commission reached its conclusions about just some of the forensic evidence.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/cold-case-jfk.html

After you understand the basic evidence, you might be able to make a good argument for a conspiracy. Good luck!

[BlueStreak]

262. That's the problem. You assume that suppressed or covered-up evidence never existed.

It is certainly civic-minded of you. I don't have the same trust in this part of our government, especially when so much power is at stake.

I'm not suggesting that anybody assume facts that are not supported by evidence. But I do think, given the government's (any government's) propensity to hide damaging information, we should challenge EVERYTHING they do put out very intensely. And when there is the slightest hint of something not being "quite right" we should assume that we are not dealing with the complete picture.

Ask yourself some basic questions. This is critical thinking 101.

1) If LBJ had a role in it as Hunt alleged, and LBJ appointed all commission members, what are the chances that they would put out a report that lays tracks to Johnson's office? Alternatively, what are the chances that they would do anything possible to concoct a case for it being just a simple "good boy gone bad with tragic results that saddens us all deeply" report?

2) If Dulles was on the committee (and he was) and some of his people were involved (either at the order of the CIA hierarchy or as rogue operators), what are the chances that Dulles would let that get exposed? Likewise for Hoover and the FBI. Hoover wasn't officially on the committee, but he controlled most of the investigative assets.

3) If it was a mob hit in reaction to the pressure that JFK and RFK were putting on the mob, how eager do you think the Warren people would be to pursue that, considering it just cost the President his life -- and later cost the AG his life in much the same way? We know for certain at least one member of the panel begged LBJ not to put him on the committee. Gee, why not?

Not considering these questions, to me, represents a very childish view of the world.

Were you alive at that time? I suggest you don't have an appreciation of just how powerful the mob was at that time, and just what a fight the Kennedy's had picked with the mob. Read this article in yesterday's Boston Globe and then tell me if you start to understand what that scene was like back then. This wasn't a pillow fight and very few politicians had the courage to stand up against the mob. I would suggest to you that there wasn't a single person on the Warren Commission with that kind of courage, and especially not Dulles who was in partnership with the mob when it suited both parties' needs.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/11/24/his-brother-keeper-robert-kennedy-saw-conspiracy-jfk-assassination/TmZ0nfKsB34p69LWUBgsEJ/story.html

[The Midway Rebel]

263. If. If. If. That is speculation. I won't play if we speculate about unknowns.

How about IF you watch the video I suggested and let's talk about the known material and the physical evidence they talked about in it so that at least you and I have that as a shared base of knowledge and facts. Otherwise, we seem to be talking right past one another.

[BlueStreak]

264. You need to demonstrate you understand something of the political climate of the time

Did you read that Boston Globe article? Every word of it?

Hopefully you were able to gain some appreciation of what was behind the scenes at the time.

Now think about exactly who was on that commission. Every one of them was appointed by Johnson, and Johnson hated the Kennedys. The most powerful personality and the one with the ability to hide the most information was Alan Dulles, whom Jack Kennedy had fired. The Democratic congressmen were from the South, and they deeply distrusted the Kennedys.

If a person wanted to put together a kangaroo court that was guaranteed to whitewash this, you couldn't come up with a better set of people than Johnson did.

So I really have no use at all for all your silly arguments about "the Commission looked into this" and "the commission determined that". This was the farthest possible thing from an objective panel, and they demonstrated this over and over by their choice of what to pursue and what NOT to pursue.

[The Midway Rebel]

265. OK, well I cannot and will not produce my academic credentials for you.

But they are sufficient to understand the political climate of the time. Have you read this thread about who appointed Dulles to be on the Warren Commission? If you think it was fishy, you should carry this debate over there.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024092517

Here in this sub thread, I am trying to get you to discuss the forensic science in that video. I'll read that Boston Globe piece again and you go watch the video and get back with me then.

[BlueStreak]

267. You are missing the point. It is called a cover-up

The stuff you refer to as "forensic science" is just what was allowed to be presented. When you have a kangaroo court like this, you can simply suppress any information that doesn't fit the conclusions you are charged with producing.

There is a clear record of bullying witnesses, altering evidence, and not pursuing important leads. That is the record of the Warren Commission.

If you are asking me to agree that the Warren Commission's report matches the fraction of the data that they cited in the report, I will stipulate that, after twisting, manipulating, and sometimes simply changing the evidence as Gerald Ford did, it sort of fits.

[The Midway Rebel]

268. Oh I see.

I have to go. A big black car keeps circling the block.

[stopbush]

269. So, let's discuss:

Let's take the second bullet shot first.

It was full metal jacket bullet, a bullet specifically designed to pass through the human body, rather than disintegrating and causing major internal injury. The bullet that struck JFK and Connally acted exactly as it was designed to act. It passed through tissue entering JFK and never hit bone while passing through him. Exiting JFK, the bullet began to yaw and entered Connally creating a elliptical entry wound. It struck Connally's rib in a glancing - not a head-on - fashion, exited his torso, glanced off his wrist (fracturing the bone in the process) and ended up barely entering his thigh as its energy had pretty much dissipated at that point. The bullet never "passed through bone." Most of its journey was through soft tissue. The bullet fragments that were left in Connally's body consisted of lead that was extruding from the back of the bullet as it passed through him.

BTW - characterizing the bullet's path as "an epic trip" simply ignores the design of this particular bullet, and of the design of the Carcano rifle, not to mention that the "trip" itself lasted about 1/18th of a second. The bullet itself was not tapered along its length as are other bullets. Tests show that the rifling in the Carcano barrel was able to grab onto the sides of this particular bullet and keep it from wavering as it exited the barrel. That alone helped to increase both the velocity and the trueness of the bullet's flight before it struck JFK. Muzzle velocity of the rifle was 2200-2400fps.

The Carcano rifle earned a reputation for inaccuracy due to the poor design and manufacture of Italian-made cartridges. Seals were not tight, and the smokeless powder used in them was often compromised by moisture breaching the seals. Chemicals used in the primers were corrosive, which led to firing pins piercing the primers, which caused blowback in the chamber.

But the cartridges used by Oswald were American-made by the Western Cartridge Company (which acquired the Winchester Repeating Arms Co. in 1931). These cartridges had no such defects and performed to a high level of accuracy and penetrating power.

I have seen numerous tests on TV using the same model rifle and ammo as Oswald used that come up with the exact same results, and with a bullet in the same relatively "pristine" shape as CE399. The recent NOVA program on this very issue had this bullet fired from a Carcano rifle penetrating almost 3 feet of pine boards without veering off course and with no visible damage to the bullet. The same bullet fired through ballistic jelly on that same program yawed as it exited the target that was set up to simulate JFK's body, entering the next surface (representing Connally) and leaving an elliptical entry wound.

On the Discovery Channel's program filmed in Australia, these same bullets acted remarkably as they did the day of the assassination, even down to one of the test bullets following the exact same path through the dummies set up to represent JFK AND Connally and bouncing off Connally's thigh. The dummies were filled with ballistic jelly and hard surfaces to simulate bone in these tests.

In short, there is nothing about the Western CC bullets fired from a Carcano rifle that defies any law of physics. I have seen the tests with my own eyes (filmed at 20,000 fps), and they prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the single bullet theory is, indeed, a single bullet fact.

As far your citing Newton, I'd ask you to check out this link: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/headwnd.htm, which compiles testimony about JFK's head wound given by ballistic experts who appeared before the HSCA and the Rockefeller Commission. Here's an excerpt from that link of testimony given to the RC:

"Before we move on to the HSCA and others, let's look at those portions of the Rockefeller Commission Medical Panel's reports which deal directly with the relationship between JFK's movements following z-313 and what it tells us about the source of the bullet.

"This panel is a fertile source of expert opinion because, instead of collaborating on one report, each of the five doctors filed their own report. The basic outline of each report consisted of addressing fourteen specific questions. Question number seven was: "Is the motion of the President's head and body following the fatal head shot consistent with the shot striking him from the rear? from the front? from the right front? from the right side?"

What follows are those portions of the medical reports which deal with this question.

1. Dr. Fred Hodges, Professor of Radiology (Neuroradiology), The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine: "7) The motion of the President's head as shown in the Zapruder film does not indicate the direction of the shot in my opinion, but the visible blow-out of tissue and bony fragments in frame 313 and subsequent frames do conclusively indicate the bullet came from behind. The head motion subsequently is interpreted as due to involuntary muscle extension and not due to the direction of the injury."

2. Alfred G. Oliver, DVM, Chief, Biophysics Division, Edgewood Arsenal: "7. The movement of the President's body would bear no relationship to the direction of the shot. As for the motion of the President's head, I would have to see precise measurements taken from the motion picture film, to make a final judgment here."

3. Robert R. McMeekin, MD, forensic pathologist, Chief, Division of Aerospace Pathology, AFIP: "7. The motion of the President's head is inconsistent with the shot striking him from any direction other than the rear."

4. Werner U. Spitz, M.D., forensic pathologist, Chief Medical Examiner, Wayne County, Michigan: "7. It is impossible to conclude from the motion of the President's head and body following the head shot, from which direction the shots came. There is no doubt that as soon as the President was struck in the head, death occurred. The President's body was thus limp, devoid of control and stability normally exerted by the cerebral centers. Nothing would keep the body up at this stage and a forward drop is likely to occur. The subsequent backward movement of the President's head can be explained by sudden decerebration. This position is well known as "decerebrate posture" and is characterized by opisthotonos, a tetanic spasm -- or seizure-like condition."

5. Richard Lindenberg, M.D., Director of Neuropathology and Legal Medicine, State of Maryland: "Immediately after the shot through the head the President took rather abruptly an almost erect position before slumping over to the left. This straightening is to be considered a sudden opisthotonic reflex movement due to decerebration."

As far as the WCC bullet that struck JFK in the head, it suffered great damage, even breaking apart, as it DID encounter the skull upon both entering and exiting JFK. Fragments of this bullet were found in the limo - they came from the same Western Cartridge lot of bullets as did CE399 (the WCC was able to trace Oswald's purchase of ammunition from them back to the exact lots from which the inventory was pulled).

I hope you find this helpful in pursuing a meaningful discussion.

Finally, I would ask one question: you say that you "aren't so quick to accept everything the government feeds us at face value." Well, aren't ALL investigations of murder in this country performed by the government at one level or another? Are you actually saying that you have no faith in any murder investigation conducted in the country, as they are all undertaken by government agencies?

[BlueStreak]

272. I agree. When there is a pre-determined set of conclusions, it is not hard to

arrange demonstrations and sign up witnesses that will support that position. The Warren Commission did a good job of that.

Have you ever been involved in a product liability trial, for example? There is no shortage of experts that are willing to testify to any position for a fee.

[stopbush]

273. That's it? That's your contribution to a serious discussion?

Huh.

You don't want to take a stab at addressing how scientific tests done 40+ years after the assassination confirm the scientific findings of the WC? You don't want to defend your claims about Newton's law and your comment about the "magic bullet" in response to the info I offered?

I guess you're not serious.

So I'm guessing I'm done here.

[BlueStreak]

274. I did. Your note showed that after 40 years

somebody was able to concoct experiments that produced results that align with the Warren theory. That doesn't change the fact that the physics of the theory are improbable at best. The fact that people are still trying to prove the plausibility of the Warren theory 50 years later is evidence of how unconvincing that theory is.

[stopbush]

275. Ever stop to think they wouldn't need to confirm and reconfirm the scientific findings

if people like you had a respect for science in the first place?

Your citing of Newton is kinda laughable in this instance. It's up there with people saying that the second law of thermodynamics contradicts the theory of evolution (it doesn't).

In other words, it's something you read at some CT-oriented website that you're regurgitating here without really having any idea what you're talking about.

As JFK conspiracy advocate Dr Cyril Wecht said as a witness during the trial of the Menedez brothers, "some of the Newtonian concepts are indeed applicable and relevant, but you have to then factor in the biological element, the entire neuromuscular system and so on, all of the voluntary and involuntary reflexive aspects of it. Sir Isaac Newton and others just never dealt with those things. That's just a very different situation."

Research done at the Western Australia School of Psychology found that belief in conspiracy theories significantly predicted a subject's rejection of scientific findings. You seem to fit that very common profile.

BTW - speaking of starting from a predetermined outcome and trying to fit the science to match said predetermined outcome: pot, meet kettle.

[struggle4progress]

290. Rather simple physics calculations will show that matter can travel both forwards and backwards

after a collision

I'll do a simple version of the calculation, choosing units so all masses are measured relative to the mass of the bullet and all velocities relative to the velocity of the bullet. In particular the bullet mass is 1, and we can choose a coordinate frame so the bullet vector velocity is j and the object (of mass M) that the bullet strikes is initially at rest in the coordinate frame

My main simplifying assumption is that the bullet impact produces, from the bullet and the object is strikes, exactly two objects of masses P and Q (so P + Q = M + 1) by conservation of energy and that these objects travel only forward or backward along the original trajectory of the bullet so the velocities are pj and qj. This corresponds to the simplest possible breakup of the bullet combined with the object of mass M, and it will lead to a simple equality

It is clear we cannot have both p < 0 and q < 0: both final objects moving backwards would violate conservation of momentum. So let's assume p > 0. Can we ever have q < 0?

By conservation of momentum: j = (pP + qQ)j which implies pP + qQ = 1

By conservation of energy (all being kinetic here): 1 = ppP + qqQ

Thus p - q = p(pP + qQ) - q(pP + qQ) = ppP - qqQ

So (1) + {p - q} = (ppP + qqQ) + {ppP - qqQ} = 2ppP

or q = 1 + p - 2ppP

Recall that P > 0 and that we assume p > 0

The quadratic f(p) = 1 + p - 2ppP has positive root r = {1 + SQRT(8P + 1)}/(4P)

So q < 0 whenever p > r

[BlueStreak]

294. I don't know about the math

But when you shoot something, most of it goes the same direction as the bullet.

THIS is exactly why most people doubt the Warren Commission theory. They take a while bunch of individual things that don't pass the common sense test, and try to reverse each one using the "baffle them with bullshit" routine.

I don't doubt that in a violent explosion, there can be interactions that would cause some of the material to kick back. But most of the material will go the same direction of the impact. Watch this video and then tell me about the matter going the opposite direction. Yes, some does, but clearly the majority goes away from the shooter. So much for your arithmetic.

This video doesn't "prove" that the bullet came from Kennedy's front, but it most certainly does not help the "kill shot from the rear" theory.

Then have a look at this recent article where one of the attending physicians talks explicitly about the wounds, bullying by the commission, and falsification of "evidence".
http://www.myplainview.com/canyon/news/article_f6555d0a-48c4-11e3-bbd1-001a4bcf887a.html

I'm sure you guys will attack this doctor now, or wait for the professional debunkers to do the deed.

[struggle4progress]

295. This is similar, but slow motion: the bullet comes from the left, and

plenty of material moves backwards

Here's another, with the bullet coming from the right, hits around 0:04: again, plenty of material moving backwards

[BlueStreak]

296. That's not what the author says

"Here's another, with the bullet coming from the right, hits around 0:04: again, plenty of material moving backward"

The author (or person who uploaded that video) says the bullet came from the left. Another poster says it came from the back and the left. I can't see the bullet. Two other people suggest it was a hollow point bullet, which would interact differently by design.

Clearly the big injury appears first on the right, and that is consistent with entry on the left. The normal pattern is that the entry wound is small and the exit wound is large. What is consistent in the Warren testimony of all the attending physicians is that Kennedy was lying on his back. The doctors saw the small (entry) wound on his forehead, but he was still breathing at the time and they didn't judge that wound to be necessarily fatal. The rushed with emergency procedures to allow air (tracheotomy) and to quickly infuse plasma via a leg artery. They had not seen the big wound in the back of his head, the exit wound. As soon as they saw the big wound, they knew it was over and discontinued their resuscitation.

It had to be that way. They all said he was on his back and they didn't see the back of his head at first. So the entry wound was what they were looking at. If they had seen the exit wound, they wouldn't have done any other procedures.

Really, you are defending an impossible position and nobody is buying it.

[struggle4progress]

297. It's very hard to see in the second video: I had to watch it with repeated stops

maybe a dozen times before I'd seen enough individual frames to be sure. The first indication of anything happening is a little misty ring moving to the right from the right end of the watermelon. Later, at the left end, a conical trail appears and maintains it's conical shape as it lengthens towards the left away from the watermelon

That initial ring puff is aerosol from the initial contact of the bullet with the rind on the right. The conical trail is the debris field of material from the exit point, trapped by the shock wave of the bullet. The watermelon explodes and shreds from right to left, because the pressure front created from the bullet is first seen at the entry point on the right side and continues to be created along the bullet trajectory as the bullet passes through the melon right to left. The total vector-momentum, of course, must be forward -- that is, to the left -- but the total momentum is the sum of the momenta of all individual bits and pieces, and quite a lot moves backwards towards the source of the bullet off-screen at the right

[stopbush]

362. Ridiculous. A-historic and non-scientific.

Let's start with the fact that emergency room doctors misidentify entry and exit wounds 52% of the time. That's one reason there are autopsies.

The entry wound to the back exterior of JFK's skull was smaller than the hole created as the bullet exited the interior of the back of the skull. That wound was beveled. End of story. The shot came from the back.

There is NO report of the Parkland doctors claiming there was a wound to JFK's forehead. Please provide your source for reporting this fantasy.

[BlueStreak]

363. Read the link I already provided

http://www.myplainview.com/canyon/news/article_f6555d0a-48c4-11e3-bbd1-001a4bcf887a.html

As he was beginning the cut-down procedure and another doctor was beginning the tracheotomy, a third doctor moved around to the president’s head and lifted it so he could examine the president for any wounds that were not visible from his position, lying on his back. As soon as the doctor lifted the president’ head, he said, “Stop resuscitation. This is not compatible with life.”

Obviously they saw a wound from the vantage point of JFK facing up. You are correct that the article doesn't specifically identify it as "the forehead", but the forehead, broadly speaking, is exactly what the docs would have seen when they were performing that trracheotomy. You sound like Arlen Specter, trying to bully people into not saying what they saw. I know why Specter did it. But why are you so interested in pushing that bogus lone gunman theory?

He detailed the membership of the Warren Commission and the intimidation tactics used by Arlen Specter, the counsel for the commission that interrogated him and the other medical staff, essentially forcing them into compromising their testimony to make it fit the “official version” that was essentially laid out by J. Edger Hoover, the director of the FBI and a Kennedy opponent, before the Warren Commission was organized.

And regarding the "autopsy"

He said that the photos he has seen from that source, showing major trauma to the top of Kennedy’s head, was not what he saw in the trauma room that day in Parkland Hospital.

Whom should I believe? A doctor who was in the operating room, is still alive and willing to talk openly about the whole ugly inquisition process, or the apparatchiks who carried out the cover-up?

[stopbush]

364. Well, at least you admit that you misspoke. That's more than one gets from most CTists.

That said, you've obviously misinterpreted the very text you've quoted in this post. Read it again. It's clearly saying that the doctor could not see the BACK of JFK's Head (JFK was "lying on his back&quot , and that the doctor "lifted the president's head" to "examine the president for any wounds that were not visible from his position, lying on his back."

How you construe that clear description into the doctor discovering an entry wound to JFK's forehead is beyond common sense.

As far as Arlen Specter goes, I suggest you read the actual testimony of the WCR. Specter hardly intimidates witnesses. He does ask them for more precision and detail in their answers. This was, after all, a murder investigation. This idea that Specter intimidated witnesses was covered recently in another JFK thread on DU. The fact that there was no sign of intimidation in the testimony led one JFK CTist to opine that the intimidation obviously took place off the record!!

Again, more idiocy that shows just how ridiculous you JFK CTists will go to protect your fantasies.

The lone gunman FACT fits the evidence in the case. That's why I believe it.

Who should you believe? Certainly not a doctor who was in the operating room, when his recollection of the wounds to JFK were disputed by many of the other doctors in the operating room. As usual, the CTists pick out the ONE doctor who seems to support their theory, when the intellectually honest thing to say is that different doctors at Parkland saw different things, things that contradicted what others saw.

Which is why there are autopsies.

[BlueStreak]

365. This witness clearly felt Specter bullied him and others. The process was set up for that.

This was not like a court case where there are advocates for both sides with the opportunity to cross-examine and challenge evidence -- or even to make objections when people go off half cocked with outlandish theories. It was more like a Grand Jury, which is only required to show some probable cause that a trial is justified. As they say, any prosecutor with half a pulse could bring in an indictment of your refrigerator.

Now, you haven't answered my question. Given a choice between a well-respected doctor who operated on JFK before he died, who was bullied by the Warren Commission, and who categorically contradicts the most crucial parts of the Warren theory

and some guy on the Internet who evidently has some reason to promote the lone gunman theory, whom should I believe?

[stopbush]

370. Sure - that doctor would be on his face a better witness than some guy on the internet.

But that doctor's recollections aren't being weighed against "some guy on the internet." They're being weighed against other eyewitnesses at Parkland who saw something completely different, who saw what was testified to and reported to the WC. That doctor's recollections are being weighed against the autopsy evidence - x-rays and photographs - that were attested to as being accurate by the doctors who operated on JFK at Parkland and testified as such to the HSCA.

Why you insist on framing questions the way you do is still a mystery. Stacking the deck by using terms like "well-respected," and "bullied" is such an obvious ploy to set up your doctor as the good knight and the WC as the evil cabal that it doesn't help your argument.

[BlueStreak]

371. I will never give any credence to a panel that had no adversary system

Zero credibility. It was a kangaroo court. No opportunity to object. No opportunity to challenge testimony. No opportunity to challenge evidence. No opportunity to introduce witnesses or evidence that didn't match the state's narrative. No opportunity to cross examine anybody.

Nothing that came out of that process should be trusted by any reasonable person without extraordinary INDEPENDENT verification. The fact that the vast majority of Americans don't trust those findings is the clearest indication that there has been no independent, impartial body that has produced persuasive evidence in support of the WC theory of events. It is all propaganda. Americans are not completely stupid.

[stopbush]

372. And yet, you give mega-credence to Oswald's statement that he was a patsy.

That assertion was never challenged in an adversarial system. Yet you take it at face value.

Why?

[BlueStreak]

373. Because he was murdered before the statement could be challenged

If he had not been knocked off, I would have expected him to stand trail, and have any of his assertions challenged rigorously.

But then, that's why he was murdered, wasn't it?

I don't take Oswald's claims at face value. There is ample reason to suspect that the assassination did not happen exactly as the WC described it. The security state is the group pushing that load of propaganda. They have the burden of proof because the average person simply does not believe that Oswald was a deranged lone nut in the mold of Hinkley, Adam Lanza, or even Tim McVeigh.

The fact that the public mostly accepts the government's explanation of those cases is a clear indication that the public is not naturally inclined to disbelieve the government in all cases. it is simply a case that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the Warren Commission had one whopper of an extraordinary claim.

And if this were a one-time even with rogue elements of the CIA, the American public could probably even look past that as a horrible distant tragedy. But Americans understand very clearly now that the security state has grown EVEN MORE POWERFUL than it was during the days of J. Edgar Hoover and Alan Dulles. And that is why people still insist that the government be brought to account on this issue.

[truedelphi]

178. Some people on this site would rather believe that

Kennedy's head spontaneously hemorrhaged, than to believe anything about conspiracies.

[Bolo Boffin]

189. What silly people!

Could you point them out?

Of course there are conspiracies. Bring me some evidence of one.

Do you know what they call conspiracy theories that have been proven to have happened? Conspiracies.

[Raksha]

184. Don't keep going around in circles with him. It's a waste of your time,

which of course is exactly what he wants.

[Bolo Boffin]

188. Hello!

Did you know you were using your outside voice?

[billhicks76]

186. Mary Pinchot Meyer

Why was she murdered? The wife of a senior CIA official and a mistress of JFK. I have no time for apologists who think Oswald wasn't a patsy. Ridiculous and counterproductive

[Bolo Boffin]

187. "I have no time for apologists who think Oswald wasn't a patsy."

Goodbye, then.

[brush]

276. What about all the deaths afterwards?

Try this link then see if you still "believe" the single, lone gunman theory.

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOpje8kixcV-skbCZOOiNIw/videos?view=0&sort=dd&live_view=500&flow=list

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

283. Thank God John Hinkley lived

Because do you really believe ANYONE would buy "He wanted to impress Jodie Foster" as a motive?

Maybe Oswald was nuts. But at the end of the day, even if it was a conspiracy, he had enough motive to be involved in some way shape or form in a plot to kill a President. As a phony shooter from the book factory or whatever....

[KurtNYC]

366. yet some people readily buy Ruby's stated motive: "to save Jackie Kennedy another trip to Dallas"

because it suits their "lone nut shot by another lone nut nothing to see here, move along" scenario.

Plenty is known about Ruby and Oswald. There is no need to guess about either of them.

[sabrina 1]

145. We've had 50 years to figure out a motive. Clearly by now it is clear that since there is no

evidence of a motive, that he had none.

[Bolo Boffin]

151. The man has been dead for fifty years.

He's the only one that could have spoken definitively about his motive. But not knowing his motive does not negate his having done it.

[sabrina 1]

152. No it doesn't, but knowing his motive would explain why he did it. His brother is still alive,

which he might have been also, had someone not silenced him forever.

Another strange thing, how easy it was to kill him before the country had a chance to hear from him.

So many coincidences that are favorable to a small segment of the population have occurred over the past several decades. One I could understand, but more than one makes you begin to wonder.

[pandr32]

183. He did speak

...and said that he didn't do it. He asserted that he was being used as "a patsy." He was silenced before he ever got the chance to go to trial--or before he could say any more. In the U.S. one is supposed to be "innocent" until proven guilty. The Warren Commission hardly suffices as a proper trial--even Robert Kennedy (Attorney General at the time his brother was assassinated) described the Warren Commission as a "shoddy investigation."
Not only did Oswald have no motive, but for someone that was considered a terrible shot (military record)--and with a notoriously inaccurate gun he "allegedly" learned how to get really good at it, but then forgot to plan an exit strategy, or to get rid of the rather obvious evidence of the gun he allegedly used to kill the President.

[Bolo Boffin]

185. OJ said he didn't do it, either. n/t

[pandr32]

197. That is a silly comparison

OJ murdered his wife after years of abusing her and getting away with it because of who he was (celebrity).

[Bolo Boffin]

198. So you admit that it is possible for a guilty person to pretend he or she is innocent?

All righty then.

[Ace Acme]

287. A guilty person might claim innocence, but a decompensated jealous nut-job who wants

... to establish his place in history can not reasonably be expected to deny his historic role.

[Bolo Boffin]

293. Yeah...

[Ace Acme]

299. Thanks for demonstrating that I left you speechless nt

[avebury]

333. Several years ago they conducted a mock

trial of Oswald with Vincent Bugliosi as the Prosecutor and Gerry Spence as the defense attorney. If what Gerry Spence presented for the defense was accurate then I was left with reasonable doubt as to Oswald's guilt.

[Ace Acme]

341. James DiEugenio says Spence did a terrible job on defense

Last edited Sun Dec 1, 2013, 04:12 PM - Edit history (1)

Said he spent only three months on research

[avebury]

343. Well I would have voted not guilty.

Whether or not people think that Spence did an adequate job in preparing for the mock trial, I thought that he did raise points that could lead to reasonable doubt.

[Spider Jerusalem]

9. Or he did have a motive.

Kennedy's, and the US government's, known anti-Castro actions for instance. Or there's Marina Oswald's testimony to the Warren Commission and HSCA of Oswald's antipathy to John Connally for Connally's not changing the status of his Marine Corps discharge to honorable. (Connally may have been Oswald's primary target.) Oswald's motives can't be known, but there's sufficient evidence of various kinds to infer one. And it's largely an irrelevancy given that all of the ballistic evidence says it was Oswald's rifle that fired the shots.

[RobertEarl]

45. He worked for the CIA

He was a patsy, and he knew, he told you that and they eliminated him.

That's all you know. Maybe you didn't, but now you do?

[RobertEarl]

51. Bush at the CIA

From "The Unauthorized Biography of George Bush"...

EXCERPT...

During the preparation of the present work, there was one historical moment
which more than any other delineated the character of George Bush. The
scene was the Nixon White House during the final days of the Watergate
debacle. White House officials, including George Bush, had spent the
morning of that Monday, August 5, 1974 absorbing the impact of Nixon's
notorious "smoking gun" tape, the recorded conversation between Nixon and
his chief of staff, H.R. Haldemann, shortly after the original Watergate
break-in, which could now no longer be withheld from the public. In that
exchange of June 23, 1972, Nixon ordered that the CIA stop the FBI from
further investigating how various sums of money found their way from Texas
and Minnesota via Mexico City to the coffers of the Committee to Re-Elect
the President (CREEP) and thence into the pockets of the "Plumbers"
arrested in the Democratic Party headquarters in the Watergate building.
These revelations were widely interpreted as establishing a "prima facie"
case of obstruction of justice against Nixon. That was fine with George,
who sincerely wanted his patron and benefactor Nixon to resign. George's
great concern was that the smoking gun tape called attention to a
money-laundering mechanism which he, together with Bill Liedtke of
Pennzoil, and Robert Mosbacher, had helped to set up at Nixon's request.
When Nixon, in the "smoking gun" tape, talked about "the Texans" and "some
Texas people," Bush, Liedtke, and Mosbacher were among the most prominent
of those referred to. The threat to George's political ambitions was great.

The White House that morning was gripped by panic. Nixon would be gone
before the end of the week. In the midst of the furor, White House
Congressional liaison William Timmons wanted to know if everyone who needed
to be informed had been briefed about the smoking gun transcript. In a
roomful of officials, some of whom were already sipping Scotch to steady
their nerves, Timmons asked Dean Burch, "Dean, does Bush know about the
transcript yet?"

"Yes," responded Burch.

"Well, what did he do?" inquired Timmons.

"He broke out into assholes and shit himself to death," replied Burch.

In this exchange, which is recorded in Woodward and Bernstein's "The Final
Days," we grasp the essential George Bush, in a crisis, and for all
seasons.

SOURCE: http://www.padrak.com/alt/BUSHBOOK_1.html

[Spider Jerusalem]

71. No, he didn't?

There's no evidence whatever that he was any sort of intelligence agent and his security clearance when in the Marines was of the absolute lowest level ("confidential", not "top secret&quot .

[RobertEarl]

76. That's what they told you

If they told you the Truth, that he was an agent, their whole plan was screwed. Guess what? They lied. He was an agent of the CIA. Now you know.

[Spider Jerusalem]

80. Who is "they"? Oswald was extensively investigated.

his whereabouts and contacts in the months up to the assassination are a matter of record. Kennedy's motorcade route wasn't finalised until 18 November. In the four days between 18 and 22 November Oswald didn't meet anyone. Didn't have any phone calls. Didn't get any letters or telegrams. There's absolutely zero evidence linking Oswald to any conspiracy; such evidence, in the limited time between the establishment of the motorcade route and Kennedy's visit, would be essential. Oswald also got the job at the TSBD through a friend of his wife's who told him they were hiring seven weeks before the assassination. Before Kennedy's route was planned. Before it was known he'd be passing that building. And could have been assigned to a completely different TSBD warehouse that would have left him in no position to assassinate Kennedy.

[RobertEarl]

84. He was a patsy

The investigators that investigated the stolen election of 2000 were same kind of the investigators of Oswald. They lied to you. Oswald was a patsy. He told you that. If he did it he would have told you that.

[Spider Jerusalem]

85. I see, you don't actually care what the conclusions of any investigation were.

Or what the evidence says.

[RobertEarl]

91. Sure I do

See, an agent of the CIA is never admitted to being an agent. Duh!

They do coverups to fool people, then guide investigations that make it look like they didn't use an agent as a patsy. Duh!

They are smarter than you ever imagined?

[Spider Jerusalem]

96. Except there's no evidence of that.

Where are the phone calls, letters, meetings, telegrams, or other communications between Oswald and his handlers in the four days between the determination of the motorcade route and the assassination, if he was an agent? Those aren't there; for Oswald to be part of any conspiracy? They would have to be. And all the ballistics and forensics says: it was Oswald's rifle that fired the shots. So if there was a conspiracy? Oswald was the gunman. Only there's nothing to connect him to any conspiracy. Absence of evidence is not evidence. You may as well say "the real killers were invisible!"

[RobertEarl]

98. Well

You can go on believing that they don't destroy evidence, that they forget to make sure no paper trails exist. If that's what you want, go for it. But it seems to me the crux of such reasoning goes totally against what the CIA is famous for: Covering their tracks. It's what they do. They covered their tracks with Oswald, duh!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

137. "an agent of the CIA is never admitted to being an agent."

I'm not an agent of the CIA.

[DiverDave]

134. +1

and the warren "investigation" was a whitewash.
I know when I am being lied to.
Oswald WAS a patsy.
I think Garrison in New Orleans was pretty close.
Else why would they try to destroy his investigation and his career?
The shots were NOT fired from the book depository, the photos of multiple people pointing to the "grassy knoll"
are a pretty clear indication where the shots came from.
The warren commission changed peoples testimony , forged signatures of witnesses.

Yeah, the "investigation" was top notch.

"They" murdered him, not some 'lone gunman'.
Follow the money, it leads right to who did it.

[GoneFishin]

172. +1.

Yep.

The rifle scope was misaligned. It would have been just as accurate with your eyes closed.

Oswald had no nitrate residue on his face.

The rifle originally did not have Oswald's print. The print did not appear on the rifle until after federal agents visited Oswald's dead body.

[stopbush]

249. So says Oliver Stone. The evidence in the case says something else.

[GoneFishin]

277. Yeah. What do facts know. Stupid, ignorant facts. n/t

[Warpy]

69. Hardly irrelevant

A man with no motive to commit a crime has to be supplied one.

[Spider Jerusalem]

72. Not really.

The fact that he's dead and didn't confess and his motives are unknown and unknowable doesn't mean he didn't have a motive. And it doesn't contradict all of the evidence that says he did it. It's a red herring.

[truedelphi]

179. Can I point out that to this day, we don't know what make and model Oswald used.

On Nov 22nd, 1963, a rifle of German make and model was photographed and shown on TV, yet several days later, a different rifle was named. I believe at the time it was shown on TV, it was being held by a man inside the Texas Book Depository.

One gun - the German model - had no paperwork associated with it. The other gun, by an Italian manufacturer, had supposedly been something that Oswald purchased through the mails and it was sent to him.

Why this discrepancy?

[Spider Jerusalem]

181. False.

The rifle photographed and filmed in the TSBD was Oswald's. It was initially misidentified as a "Mauser". This is an easy mistake to make; the Carcano has a Mauser-type action. The photographs are verifiably of Oswald's rifle.






Here's a comparison of a Mauser and a Carcano:

[truedelphi]

203. Except the Mannlicher-Carcano had its name embossed on it.

I would think that the expert on guns that was appearing on TV with the weapon would have noticed that name. After all, how often does any gun expert appear on TV? So something smells fishy.

[Spider Jerusalem]

206. It was filmed and photographed. It is Oswald's rifle and not a Mauser.

[truedelphi]

209. Again, the gun that was ultimately determined to be "Oswald's gun" was

A gun that had its Italian manufacturer embossed right on it.

And the original gun that was photographed had no such insignia.

[Spider Jerusalem]

212. Yes, it did

why do you insist on making things up? there are photos of the rifle. There is television film of the rifle. There is a police report of the rifle. It was the same rifle.

[Paolo123]

284. This frustrates me

I am a lone shooter skeptic, and it frustrates me how so many lone shooter skeptics get simple facts wrong. It makes all skeptics look like fools.

[Cha]

50. And, why is the government still burying

the reports?

[stopbush]

54. Bugliosi dedicates 16 pages of *Reclaiming History* to Oswald's motive.

He points out that from a legal perspective, motive is not the same as intent. Motive is the emotional urge or reason that induces someone to commit a crime. Motive is what prompts a person to act or fail to act. Intent is the state of mind with which the act is done.

As Bugliosi points out, "motive may aid you in determining what one's intent or state of mind was. While intent is an element of every serious crime, and a prosecutor has to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, motive is never an element of the corpus delicti of any crime. Therefore, the prosecution never has to prove motive. All it has to prove is that the defendant did, in fact, commit the crime with the requisite intent, not why."

Of course, Bugliosi then goes on to discuss possible motives, how the WC couldn't nail down a motive for Oswald, etc.

Excellent reading for any who are interested.

[Agschmid]

2. Eh... Oye.

[Awknid]

3. They are trying to hide the fact that the MIC runs the world

Because they don't think we could handle that truth. Gee thanks!

[Ace Acme]

19. Trying to hide it, or trying to demonstrate it?

The MIC can kill the President in broad daylight and nobody can do anything about it--except his brother, who would surely have been President had he lived, and could have convened new investigations just happened to get killed under equally suspicious circumstances.

[Bolo Boffin]

4. I'll speak for myself, thank you very goddamn much. n/t

[ReRe]

12. +1

[MrMickeysMom]

30. You will...

And the majority, who are the rest of us, will speak to the powers who think we can't handle the truth.

You're welcome, very goddamn much.

[Bolo Boffin]

40. Who said you couldn't speak to the powers who think we can't handle the truth?

Not me. Search my posts. Bring back the post where I say anything of the sort. Go on, do it, if you think I'm trying to stand in your way. Bring back the link to my post stating this right now. Next reply to me. Do it! I double dog fuckin dare you to try. It's not there. I never have.

Nobody is saying to stop speaking to the powers that be. Nobody.

[Ace Acme]

43. We can speak, but we can't be heard. Money swears so loud there's no point. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

47. The natural result of conspiratorial thinking - political pessimism. n/t

[Ace Acme]

83. The natural result of political coverups--political cynicism and despair nt

[MrMickeysMom]

44. Chill...

Your face is red. It's midnight here… Go relax with someone who supports your conspiracies.

[Bolo Boffin]

46. Couldn't find one post of mine saying anything of the sort.

Nothing I've ever said says anything like what the OP says. Nothing I've ever said says anything like what you said.

So you start with the Meta bullshit game. Enjoy it.

[MrMickeysMom]

52. Chill...

Your face is going to ignite. No wonder all your posts in CS are up in flames. Pretty soon every one of your posts are going to repeat the words, "meta and "bullshit".

Perhaps some good reading before bed… May I suggest some real history… http://realhistoryarchives.blogspot.com

[Bolo Boffin]

53. Still can't find a single post of mine where I've said anything of the sort?

Maybe you should stop digging.

[MrMickeysMom]

56. Quit trying to defend yourself and chill

This is a strange need to justify over and over what is beyond any point made in this thread.

You really should just take it easy with this insistence to defend your point of view on this stuff. You should also suck it up and realize that your hammering this subject into the ground doesn't have the effect anymore.

[Bolo Boffin]

58. A third post with nothing to back up your fucking stupid assertion about me and my motivations.

[MrMickeysMom]

59. I have nothing to say about "your fucking stupid assertions about me"...

[URL=http://www.sherv.net/emoticons.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Bolo Boffin]

60. Keep digging. n/t

[MrMickeysMom]

63. I think you're just lonely tonight...

No one around to share? Good luck...

[URL=http://www.sherv.net/emoticons.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Bolo Boffin]

64. Keep digging. n/t

[MrMickeysMom]

67. No, Bolo, no one's digging...

Try a conversation that doesn't end up with you doing this [URL=http://www.sherv.net/emoticons.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

Now, why don't you think up something clever to say that no one will respond to because it's meaningless.

[Bolo Boffin]

68. Keep digging. n/t

[eqfan592]

125. people clearly can't handle the truth, hence all the CT's.

Nt

[Kablooie]

6. If you apply Occam's razor what is the most likely?

Oswald and Jack Ruby were both loners that acted alone.

or

Oswald was part of a conspiracy and Jack Ruby, who had terminal cancer, was sent to silence him.


Which one is provides the smoother, more luxurious shave?

[ElboRuum]

7. Well since William of Ockham died in 1347...

...one may assume that proper care of his razor ended then. If any of it is left, it is most likely quite a rusty and brittle device.

In either application, I can expect either the razor to crumble into a pile of rust, but if any edge does remain, the most likely result is copious lacerations and possibly tetanus.

[Ace Acme]

20. Oh I see. The Pythagorean theorem has been superseded by entropic confusion.

Nice try.

[Missn-Hitch]

27. He he he...I was thinking it and you said it.

[ElboRuum]

164. Actually, it's been superseded by the whole Gillette vs. Barbasol debate.

But I could see how you'd miss it.

[Ace Acme]

165. Right. It can't be a triangle because two sides are much simpler. nt

Last edited Wed Nov 27, 2013, 08:32 PM - Edit history (1)

[ElboRuum]

168. Two sides are vexing.

Four sides are boring, 20 sides are brilliant. A close shave is a joy for about 24 hours. Cottage cheese is good with apple butter.

[Gravitycollapse]

39. If you spent as much time actually consider what Ockham said...

As you did writing that witty, yet pointless rejoinder, you might actually get it. But you didn't, so you don't.

[Kablooie]

113. If you've studied Ockham...

Is his razor better than Gillette or Shick?

What about Sweeny Todd? I'll bet his is better than any of them.

[Ace Acme]

143. The precision of a razor depends on the skill of its user. nt

[Kablooie]

147. Ah. Sweeney Todd then. Thanks.

[ElboRuum]

163. Well that was a needlessly spiky response to an attempt at humor.

Lighten up, Francis.

[stopbush]

57. Er, Ruby's cancer wasn't diagnosed until THREE YEARS AFTER HE KILLED OSWALD.

Oh, that's right - I forgot about the time machine that Ruby used in 1966 to go back and kill Oswald in 1963 after he was diagnosed with cancer in 1966.

Occam's razor, naturally.

Stupid CT bullshit, naturally.

[kentuck]

154. Here is more info:

http://my.firedoglake.com/pm247/tag/jack-ruby/

[dreamnightwind]

176. Wow, thanks, some new info for me

The second clip (

) has Ruby telling reporters, "The world will never know the true facts of what occurred, my motives. The people who had so much to gain, and had such an ulterior motive to put me in the position I am in, will never let the true facts come above board for the world." A reporter asks, "Are these people in very high positions, Jack?" to which he replies "Yes!"

Ruby desperately wanted away from the prison in Dallas, and he pleaded with the Warren Commission to have him transferred to Washington. Ruby said he would tell the whole story if they would get him to a safe facility. This was refused. Ruby told Earl Warren, "Well, you won’t see me again. I tell you that a whole new form of government is going to take over the country, and I know I won’t live to see you another time."

[stopbush]

210. That article is quite misleading, omitting information, providing half-quotes, etc.

Two points: Ruby's whole point of wanting to go to DC was to undergo a lie detector test to prove that he was not involved in any conspiracy to kill Oswald. His final word on the matter, spoken from his hospital bed on 12/19/66, was "there was no one else involved. I acted alone."

Second, I have personally known two people who have died within two months of being diagnosed with cancer. Why is that so hard to believe? The point is that these people had their cancer for some time, but waited so long to get diagnosed that they had little time left. Nothing changed about the disease. The disease doesn't care when you get diagnosed.

The article tries to make it appear that Ruby was in glowing health when suddenly, BAM! - he gets cancer and is dead within a couple of months of contracting the disease. Not true.

Sophistry at its best.

[Egalitarian Thug]

156. It's a valid statement that is typically true much more often than not, but that does not

make it a truth. Statistically, if you were to make a bet that every time I walk into a room, and using IQ as the standard, I am the smartest person in the room, you will win that bet nearly every time. However, when I walk into a party that my buddy at JPL throws, the odds shift dramatically and you would likely lose that particular bet.

Like statistics, generalities can be useful guides and/or tools, but they are not a substitute for fact.

I have no strong opinion either way on this particular issue, but the actions taken by our government demanded that this scenario come to be. It comes back to an obsession with secrecy that plagues our government, IMO.

[rhett o rick]

161. Occam's Razor basically says that the simpler theory is simpler.

I believe that most will concede that the "Oswald acted alone" theory is most likely. But it sure isnt the only theory.

[dreamnightwind]

177. Actually I'm pretty sure national polling says the opposite - eom

[grahamhgreen]

352. No. It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be

selected.

[rhett o rick]

359. I would agree if you add "to start your analysis". Occam didnt claim that the simpler

theory was the correct theory merely that was the place to start analysis. Many, as the post I was responding to, often misuse Occum's Razor to justify selecting the theory with the lest assumptions.

In the JFK assassination, the government wanted to "push" the simple theory that Oswald acted alone. But with tens of thousands of pieces of evidence still held secret, I dont know how we can settle for the government story.

[Spider Jerusalem]

8. No-one is demanding that, actually

what people are mostly doing as far as I can tell is making an argument based on the evidence. And asking that anyone convinced of a conspiracy consider that conviction in light of the evidence. You're entitled to your own beliefs, but not your own facts, as the saying goes.

[zeemike]

11. Yes consider the evidence.

But they ask that only their evidence be considered because all the other evidence is no good.
If you really consider all the evidence you would come to the conclusion that the Church committee did, that it was most likely a conspiracy and there was more than one shooter.

But that clashes with the official story and that makes some people nervious....so they pretend that only their evidence is valid...and tell you that you must be nuts if you believe anything else.

And armed with those tools people can get away with murder....and have IMO

[Spider Jerusalem]

14. The Church Committee found no such thing?

They criticised the investigation. They didn't say "there is evidence to suggest a conspiracy". The Church Committee's findings led to the House Select Committee on Assassinations' investigation.

The investigation of the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded that the major findings of the Warren Commission were correct, in that: all of the shots that struck Kennedy and Connally were fired from the Texas School Book Depository, were fired from Lee Oswald's 6.5mm Carcano rifle, and were fired by Lee Oswald. The HSCA investigation further confirmed the "single bullet theory". The HSCA's only evidence of "conspiracy" was a dictabelt recording from a Dallas Police motorcycle that was later shown fairly conclusively to be no evidence at all as it comes from a motorcycle that wasn't in the motorcade and the "impulses" taken for gunshots came too late to be gunshots. See here, here, and here.

[zeemike]

32. Then why did they say this?

I.C. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy

[DanTex]

62. They said that based on audio evidence that was later disproved.

Spider Jerusalem is 100% correct. The HSCA agreed with the major findings of the Warren Commission including:

The fact that there was no involvement from the "usual suspects" of conspiracy theories: CIA/FBI/KGB/Cuba/Mob/Anti-Castro.
The fact that the autopsy evidence is valid and conclusively shows that the wounds to the back and the back of the head were entry wounds, and thus the bullets were fired from behind by Oswald.
That the single bullet theory is correct.

On the basis of later disproved audio evidence, the HSCA mistakenly also concluded that there was an additional gunman on the grassy knoll who fired a single shot and then missed. The audio evidence used to draw this conclusion was later found to have actually taken place after the assassination, a finding which was supported by the National Academy of Sciences.

[zeemike]

78. Well it don't matter what evidence I present to you

You have a blow off for every one of them, whether it is logical or not, and once you blow it off then you insist there is no evidence and are as you say, 100% correct.
And you say the tape is the sole reason they came to that conclusion...really?...you think they jumped to a conclusion on a single piece of evedence?...when they looked at hundreds of pieces of evedence?...you really think they are that incompetent, or are you just trying to blow it off?

And you say as a "fact" that there was no involvement by any of the usual suspects....you are aware that Jack Ruby was part of the mod don't you? and that there is evidence that Oswald had connections with the CIA?
But again you will blow it all off as a CT, and there is 0 evedence...that is so convient...and works every time for you...but not for me.

[DanTex]

86. I'm just repeating the conclusions of HSCA.

Yes, the basis for the conclusion that there were multiple shooters was the audio evidence alone. And, yes, HSCA concluded that there was no evidence of involvement from the usual suspects. To say that Jack Ruby was part of the mob is greatly overstating his relationship, and there is certainly no evidence whatsoever that the mob had anything to with him shooting Oswald.

Likewise, if by "connections to the CIA" you mean that the CIA had a file on Oswald, then yes. But there is no evidence that the CIA had anything to do with him shooting JFK.

If you think I'm wrong about this, I'd be happy to see what evidence you have in mind. Hey, maybe I am wrong. The problem is that you haven't presented any evidence.

[zeemike]

100. Who told you it was based on the audio evidence alone?

But no, I will not provide you with any evedence...not that there is none, but you will do with it just what you have done with Ruby and Oswald ties...rationalize it away, and it is a waste of time, because your certainty about things tells me I am wasting my time with this...we will do nothing but run around in circles, you rationalizing it all away and me trying to keep up with it all.
Believe what you want, but don't expect me to believe it too, because I don't...and BTW, I was 20 when this happened and in South Texas and the locals all told me they believed LBJ had him whacked...and I watched the whole thing on TV including when Oswald was shot...I remember and will not forget, nor will I let the truth die just so some can feel comfortable.

[DanTex]

103. The HSCA report.

You can find it here.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=800

And sorry, I'm not buying the whole "I have evidence but I'm not going to tell you about it" gambit. I don't expect you to believe anything. I would, however, be interested in any evidence you might have to support your beliefs, particularly if it is evidence that I don't know about.

Pointing out that the HSCA's conclusions are based on audio evidence that was later discredited (the recording actually took place a minute after the assassination) is not "rationalizing it away".

[zeemike]

106. I know where to find the report...

I want you to point out to me in that report where it says they based it solely on the tape.

And yo can find the evidence you ask me for as easily as I can sense it is available on the internet...and you may well know about it but chose not to admit it exists, much like a Kangaroo court that only allows evidence in that supports the conclusion they want to believe.

I have done this all before, and it is a fools task to try to change a mind that is set in concrete.

[DanTex]

110. I'm not asking you to change my mind. I'm truly interested in the evidence you have.

The HSCA report concluded based on dictabelt evidence that there was a second gunman. And it didn't present any additional evidence besides the dictabelt supporting the second gunman theory. If you don't believe me you can scour the entire thing for any additional evidence, which you won't find, because it's not there.

Obviously, if you believe that there is other evidence besides the dictabelt, the burden is on you to find it. Similarly, if you think the HSCA concluded that the Loch Ness Monster is real, then the burden is on you to find that also. It would be pretty silly to insist that instead I need to find the part of the report that says "we did not find any evidence of the Loch Ness Monster".

[zeemike]

127. Nope I won't bite.

You are not interested in finding out the truth...and your last statement shows that...using hyperbole to discredit...this is not the Loch Ness monster conversation...and the evidence is not flimsy and non existent and you know it...but you have already dismissed it as some wild CT...and you will point out that if you believe this then you believe in the Loch Ness Monster...

No thank you ....been there done that...if you were truly interested you could find it all for yourself on Youtube or by doing a Google serch...what you are interested in is discrediting the idea itself,

[DanTex]

128. That's too bad. But not too surprising.

[zeemike]

129. Well here you go then.

Right here on DU...debunk it for us.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017160468

[DanTex]

130. Really? A funny youtube video? Hopefully you are joking.

Honestly, I was hoping that maybe you had some actual facts to present...

[Spider Jerusalem]

118. Right here:

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1b.html

[stopbush]

66. Er, because they made a mistake.

Not only that, but their mistake is falsified by their own criteria for believing the Dictabelt proved a fourth shot.

In short, the scientists who gave the Dictabelt testimony stated that the shot was recorded by a police motorcycle driven by Officer HB McLain, and that his motorcycle was located at the corner of Elm & Houston when the 4th shot was fired. The scientists averred that were McLain's motorcycle NOT in that position, it could not have recorded the supposed 4th shot. Officer McLain testified to the HSCA that he was NOT at that position when he was supposedly there. The HSCA chose to ignore his eyewitness testimony, and instead, accepted the theory of the scientists.

Since then, it has been proven beyond any doubt that in fact there were NO police motorcycles in the area that the Dictablet scientists said a motorcycle HAD to be to record the supposed 4th shot. The video evidence proves that Officer McLain himself was a few hundred feet BEHIND the designated area when the shot was supposedly recorded. Apparently, the testimony he gave to the HSCA that they chose to ignore was the absolute truth.

By syncing various video tapes taken from different perspectives, researchers have proved beyond any doubt that no motorcycle was in the position the Dictabelt scientists themselves said it had to be to record the shot, let alone being as specific as to identify McLain's motorcycle.

Therefore, their "evidence" has been completely and utterly falsified, and falsified by the HSCA's own criteria.

Unfortunately, the HSCA finding of a 4th shot being fired - which is based ENTIRELY on the now-falsified Dictabelt "evidence" - remains in the books until and unless the HSCA is reconstituted to issue a retraction...which probably won't be happening any time soon, as some of the HSCA members are long dead.

Fortunately, science doesn't need to wait around for politics to catch up with the revelation of scientific truth. As intelligent beings, we can either accept that science has now falsified the claims of the HSCA based on the HSCA's own criteria, OR, we can grab and the now-vaporized HSCA conclusion of a conspiracy and pretend that it means something. It doesn't.

[zeemike]

82. I am sorry, but your certainty about things is a red flag to me.

Because most people are not "completely and utterly...proven beyond any doubt" about things like this that they really don't know the facts of...unless you sat through the Warren court, and the House comity and heard it all.

It only makes me more sure that the truth has yet to be revealed...and that there are people who have more invested in this than they should.

[stopbush]

92. You don't have to sit through something when you can read their reports.

The HSCA and the WC both issued reports that give the reasoning behind the conclusions they reached. I encourage you to actually read the things before commenting on them.

Suppose you read a report that accused a person of being a rapist, and that that person was later cleared by DNA evidence proving they weren't the rapist. Would that send up a red flag to you that "only makes me more sure that the truth has yet to be revealed?" Would you think, "well, he STILL might be the rapist," even though the scientific evidence says he isn't?

Because that's basically the tack you're taking on the scientific evidence that disproves the HSCA findings.

[zeemike]

109. So that reasoning is as conclusive as DNA now?

Come on now, here we go round in circles....comparing this with DNA evidence is not right and you know it.

Like I said, this is a waste of time....but I do find it interesting that some people are so intent on upholding the official story of things that they will use all these devices to make it seem like the unquestionable truth and that anyone that does not believe is just nuts.

[zeemike]

88. Please link me to where the audio evidence was

"completely and utterly falsified"...and to who falsified it and was charged with the crime...and where it says that it was "based ENTIRELY on the now-falsified Dictabelt "evidence"

[DanTex]

97. Here's a link to the Natl Academy of Sciences report on the dictabelt evidence.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

At the time of the assassination of President Kennedy the Dallas police recorded sounds from an open microphone; these sounds have been previously analyzed by two research groups at the request of the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Both groups concluded with 95% probability that the recordings contained acoustic impulses which provide evidence for the existence of a shot from the grassy knoll area of Dealey Plaza. On the basis of these results and since shots definitely were fired from the Texas School Book Depository, the House Committee concluded that "scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy."

In response to a request from the Department of Justice, the National Research Council Committee on Ballistic Acoustics has over the past year studied these reports and the Dallas Police recording on which they are based.

Since the recorded acoustic impulses are similar to static, efforts to attribute them to gunshots have depended on echo analyses; but in these analyses desirable control tests were omitted, some of the analyses depended on subjective selection of data, serious errors were made in some of the statistical calculations, incorrect statistical conclusions were drawn and the analysis methods used were novel in some aspects and were untested at such high levels of background noise. Furthermore, some of the recorded background sounds, such as the delay in the sounds of police sirens, are not what one would expect if the open microphone had been in the motorcade. For these and other reasons discussed in the report, the Committee concluded that the previous acoustic analyses do not demonstrate that there was a grassy knoll shot. The Committee reached this conclusion prior to the availability of conclusive evidence (which we now describe) that the acoustic impulses were recorded on Channel I approximately one minute after the assassination.

Following a suggestion volunteered by Steve Barber of Mansfield, Ohio, that the acoustic impulses are overlapped by an almost unintelligible voice transmission on Channel I which might be identified as cross talk from Channel II, the Committee had sound spectrograms made of the appropriate portions of both channels. Copies of these sound spectrograms and analyses of them are included in Section IV of the report.

The sound spectrograms show conclusively that the portion of the Channel I recording with the acoustic impulses also contains a weak recording on Channel I of cross talk from Channel II of a message broadcast approximately one minute after the assassination. The Committee has examined the possibilities that the Channel II cross talk might have been overrecorded at a later time on top of the Channel I acoustic impulses or that the Dictabelt examined was a copy with cross talk superposed during copying. The Committee concluded that such scenarios not only are highly contrived and unlikely but also are contrary to physical and acoustic evidence, such as the effect of Channel I heterodyne tones in suppressing cross talk from Channel II. This identification of cross talk between Channels I and II shows conclusively that the previously analyzed sounds were recorded about one minute after the assassination and, therefore, too late to be attributed to assassination shots. A similar conclusion is reached independently by the analysis of the times of the acoustic impulses of intelligible cross talk between the two channels more than three minutes after the assassination. This analysis shows that the previously studied acoustic impulses were recorded after the motorcade was instructed to go to Parkland Hospital.

The Committee report lists a number of possible further studies of the Channel I recording and of related matters, but, because of the strength of the demonstration that the acoustical evidence for a grassy knoll shot is invalid, the Committee believes that the results to be expected from such studies would not justify their cost.

For these reasons and for others given in detail in the report, the National Research Council Committee on Ballistic Acoustics unanimously concludes that:

The acoustic analyses do not demonstrate that there was a grassy knoll shot, and in particular there is no acoustic basis for the claim of 95% probability of such a shot.
The acoustic impulses attributed to gunshots were recorded about one minute after the President had been shot and the motorcade had been instructed to go to the hospital.
Therefore, reliable acoustic data do not support a conclusion that there was a second gunman.

http://www.jfk-online.com/nas00.html

[zeemike]

104. So who falsified it?

And were they charged with the crime?

[DanTex]

105. It wasn't falsified, it was an error.

[stopbush]

114. Sigh...."falsifying" means disproving a claim.

You say the last you heard, I was still vacationing in Europe, I walk through the door and that falsifies your claim that I'm still in Europe.

Falsifying a theory is a basic tenet in scientific research. It's how you move a hypothesis to a theory. You test not only to prove and reprove, but to falsify, if possible.

[zeemike]

124. Well we are not talking about scientific theory here

we are talking about a crime, and when you say something is falsified in the context of a crime you are saying something diferent...
Like what would you think if someone said, the claims against Zimmerman were falsified?

My point was the language used in your denial...it is absolute...no room for error...100% correct...and evidence is not questionable but "falsified", implying a scientific certainty that is not appropriate in this and nowhere close to being accurate...and this is typical with this kind of discussion.

[stopbush]

132. Sorry, but you're just wrong on this.

It's not my fault nor that of the scientific method that you aren't familiar with the common terminology used in the field. But maybe this will get you started:

fal·si·fy
ˈfôlsəˌfī/
verb
1.
alter (information or evidence) so as to mislead.
2.
prove (a statement or theory) to be false.
"the hypothesis is falsified by the evidence"
synonyms: disprove, refute, debunk, negate, negative, invalidate, contradict, controvert, confound, demolish, discredit;

And, sorry again, be we are talking about science here, the science that disproves the HSCA hypothesis that there was a 4th bullet shot at JFK, a hypothesis that is itself based on what was believed to be sound science.

You are either grasping at straws, being willfully obtuse or simply unable to comprehend the language.

[zeemike]

133. I understand the language.

And I know words can be used in different ways, that is whey two meanings are used for that word not just one.

And criminal justice is not science...they may use science but it is not science itself, and you used that word to talk about crime like you would about a scientific theory.
And as usual, you imply I am stupid because I don't cave to your superior knoledge...condisending rhetoric is common in these discussions.

[stopbush]

211. Wrong again. I clearly used the language to discuss the scientific aspect of a criminal

investigation. In other words, I used the word "falsify" in exactly the way you apparently would want the word to be used in context of the scientific aspect of the case.

[zeemike]

213. So then

It would be right for me to say that the evidence against Zimmerman was falsified because we were taking about the scientific nature of the evidence?
I am not so sure you know how language works.

[stopbush]

215. No, wrong yet again. I was talking about scientific evidence. You changed the context

from a discussion of the scientific evidence to a discussion of altering evidence, which would - as you correctly point out - involve criminal culpability.

[zeemike]

218. I am sorry but this discussion IS about a criminal matter.

THAT is the subject not science...just as if I had said the scientific evidence proved that Zimmerman murdered Travon (0r vise versa) and you said it was falseified...that word would be inappropriate for the subject, unless you meant to say it was faked.
Evidence in a criminal case is not a scientific hypothesis or a theory.

[stopbush]

220. You're consistently wrong because you are not allowing for words to have different meanings

when used in different contexts.

Q: what's the definition of the word "can?" It means being able to do something, and it also means a tin container. No one in their right mind would insist that the definition of "can" being a tin container be used in the context of discussing whether one can or can't do something.

As far as your Zimmerman example, it's like this: if the police claimed that Zimmerman's gun killed Martin but the forensic evidence proved his gun didn't kill Martin, the police claim would have been falsified from a scientific perspective. Had the police claimed that they had Zimmerman's gun in custody and it turned out that they had planted a gun that wasn't Z's, they would be planting falsified evidence.

Same word, two different contexts.

Why you refuse to just admit that you weren't aware of the definition of the word "falsified" when used in a scientific context and move on is beyond me. You're sounding like the people who deride the theory of evolution by saying, "it's only a theory," ie: when the context of the word theory means "conjecture," when the word means "a body of facts/evidence" when used in a scientific context.

And your now trying to say that the discussion of the Dictabelt evidence (that is where all this started) was not a scientific discussion is just plain wrong, as I've pointed out in previous posts.

[zeemike]

222. Well the reason words have different meanings is because they are used in different subjects.

And that is my point.
And I don't understand your need to be right about everything and the need to make others wrong...but I accept that you feel that way.
But the dicta belt is not a scientific theory...it is a piece of physical evidence, and you can say it is misinterpreted or misunderstood, but to say it is falsified is saying that the physical evidence was tampered with....that is the context in which you used the word.

[stopbush]

227. Would the Dictabelt tape be considered physical evidence?

Last edited Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:21 AM - Edit history (1)

Physical evidence in a case would be hair samples, clothing etc.

I'd think that the supposed shot recorded ON the Dictabelt was the evidence in the case, not the Dictabelt itself. The Dictabelt itself is a 3"-wide plastic strip that rotates on a cylinder and has sound inscribed on it via a needle. There's nothing about the physical characteristics of a Dictabelt strip that had anything to do with its contents being entered as evidence.

Beyond, that, it was the scientific analysis of the recording made on the Dictabelt that constituted the "evidence" of a 4th shot by the HSCA.

Perhaps the Dictabelt itself was entered into evidence as "the tape that contains evidence of a 4th shot being fired." Don't know.

The Dictabelt would be physical evidence had it been used to strangle someone.

[zeemike]

229. Holey shit....you mean impressions left by a needle inscribed on a disk is not a physical thing?

And magnetic impressions on a tape are not a physical thing?...and the 1s and 0s in a computer program are not a physical thing?

Are you just pulling my leg?...or is this just some exercise you are undertaking to practice your rhetorical skills?

[stopbush]

231. They're not considered to be physical evidence in a legal sense. They're documentary evidence.

What is documentary evidence?

“Documentary evidence” is a type of evidence used at trial to show certain information to the jury.

Although the phrase “documentary evidence” is sometimes used only to refer to wills, trusts, or invoices, any type of evidence that presents recorded information in some way can be considered “documentary.” Written documents, photographs, videos, sound recordings, and printed e-mails or web pages are all examples of documentary evidence.

Documentary evidence is typically admitted at trial as an exhibit. In order to be admitted as an exhibit, the party presenting the documentary evidence must first lay a foundation that explains what the evidence is, where it came from, and that it follows the “best evidence rule.” Foundations are typically laid through testimony by a witness familiar with the item and what is in it. If the party trying to admit the evidence doesn’t create a proper foundation, the opposing party may object.

Documentary evidence should not be confused with real evidence. Real evidence, also known as “physical evidence,” is used to prove a fact that is based on the actual physical characteristics of the evidence, while documentary evidence is used to prove a fact that is included in the information the evidence offers.

http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/what-is-documentary-evidence/

What is “real evidence”? Is it the same thing as “physical evidence”?

The term “real evidence” describes any evidence that is a tangible object, as opposed or oral testimony or documentary evidence, which records information that is offered as evidence. “Real evidence” is often used interchangeably with “physical evidence” to describe objects that are used to prove or disprove arguments in trial or at a hearing. Real evidence is used to prove a fact based on the characteristics of all or part of an object.

http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/what-is-real-evidence-is-it-the-same-thing-as-physical-evidence/

I would hope that my providing you with the legal definitions of physical and documentary evidence will end this little dust-up.

Accept the facts and move on.

[zeemike]

236. Wow, you sure are a word wrangler.

You went to all this trouble to defend a poor choice of words...and it was a poor choice of words.
But whether it was documented or physical it cannot be said to be falsified without implying that someone changed it.
And this could have ended the first time by you just saying "no I did not mean it in that way"...that is what most people would have done.

Accept the facts and move on.

[stopbush]

244. Sadly, you're now displaying the kind of truculence that is typical of JFK CTists.

Last edited Mon Nov 25, 2013, 04:27 PM - Edit history (4)

Even though I have provided you with the dictionary definitions of the word "falsify" - which includes the scientific use of the word, the use I clearly intended in my OP on the matter - and the legal definitions of physical and documentary evidence, you continue to argue your point.

I didn't make a poor choice of words. I used a word (falsify) exactly the way it's supposed to be used. Your ignorance of the meaning of that word has led you into a self-inflicted position where your back is against the wall, and rather than take the normal and easy way out by admitting you made a simple and understandable mistake, you choose to defend the idiotic ad infinitum. You even continue to aver that the evidence on the Dictabelt tape - which was analyzed by scientists and which was presented to the HSCA as scientific evidence by scientists - is not scientific evidence.

As the final nails in your self-designed coffin, I offer this:

"Where it was available, the committee extensively employed scientific analysis to assist it in the resolution of numerous issues. The committee considered all the other evidence available to evaluate the scientific analysis. In conclusion, the committee found that the scientific acoustical evidence established a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John f. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence did not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President, but it did negate some specific conspiracy allegations." - Report of the Select Committee on Assassinations of the U.S. House of Representatives, Summary, pg 93; http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1b.html#other

And for the final nail, the words of HSCA Lead Counsel G Robert Blakey himself:

"If you could prove to me that there was no police officer in the place where he had to be, you would falsify (the acoustics evidence)." - G. Robert Blakey, Chief Counsel, HSCA, 2003

Good luck to you.

[zeemike]

251. And you are displaying arrogance and a condescending demeanor.

And just can't seem to help yourself and insult me.
And it sees to be deliberate and I can only guess why.

I suppose I am supposed to get angry, and say some rude things so you can alert on me....or perhaps you want me to alert on you...or get into some kind of emotional outburst for some reason....or it could just be that it makes you feel powerful...but I don't really know or care.

But sorry this is not my first rodeo. and what ever you intend I won't go there....you want to argue things I will oblige you, but the insults will not get to me I can promise you that.

[stopbush]

252. Arrogance? Citing dictionary definitions and facts is arrogance? Insulting you?

I'll avoid Round 2 of this by not launching into what the definition of "arrogance" is.

You know, you could have taken this entire exchange as a learning moment and walked away with a better idea of the JFK case. But you elect to feel hurt and insulted.

You'll have to excuse me for my "arrogance" in assuming I was having a discussion with a person who understood the language, and who was looking to have an actual discussion, rather than whining like a petulant child when their simple mistakes were exposed.

Sorry if you believe expressing knowledge is condescending. And not even you-need-a-doctorate-to-know-that-shit knowledge. We're talking about "take a second to look it up in an online dictionary" knowledge.

I think I'm done here.

Enjoy your victimhood.

[stopbush]

108. Here ya go:

"...if it can be shown that there was no vehicle or person with a police radio near the trajectory where I found it to be, then, that is impeaching evidence." - Dr. James Barger, Lead Scientist, BBN, 2001

"If you could prove to me that there was no police officer in the place where he had to be, you would falsify (the acoustics evidence)." - G. Robert Blakey, Chief Counsel, HSCA, 2003

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1b.html#dallas

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/acoustics.htm

The only evidence that HSCA had for a second shooter was the Dictabelt sound recording. Four of the twelve HSCA members dissented to the HSCA's conclusion of conspiracy based on the acoustic findings, and a fifth thought a further study of the acoustic evidence was "necessary"- HSCA Report pp. 483–499, 503–509; Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, 2007, ISBN 978-0-393-04525-3, endnotes pp. 202-3, citing the HSCA report, p. 84.;

"The acoustic evidence that was the sole objective, scientific support for the existence of a conspiracy in the HSCA investigation was debunked.", Sturdivan, The JFK Myths, 2005, p. 77

The Justice Department reviewed the HSCA report and the National Academy of Science's study of the acoustical evidence. It reported to the Judiciary Committee on March 28, 1988 and rebuked the HSCA's conclusion of a probable conspiracy. - Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, 2007, ISBN 978-0-393-04525-3, p. 379.

In 2003, an independent researcher named Michael O'Dell reported that both the National Academy and Dr. Thomas had used incorrect timelines because they assumed the Dictabelt ran continuously. When corrected, these showed the impulses happened too late to be the real shots even with Thomas's alternative synchronization. In addition, he showed that, due to a mathematical misunderstanding and the presence of a known impulse pattern in the background noise, there never was a 95% or higher probability of a shot from the grassy knoll. - http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/odell/

Richard Sprague, an expert on photographic evidence of the assassination and a consultant to the HSCA, noted that the amateur film the HSCA relied on showed that there were no motorcycles between those riding alongside the rear of the presidential limousine and H.B. McLain's motorcycle, and that other films showed McLain's motorcycle was actually 250 feet behind the presidential limousine when the first shot was fired, not 120 to 138 feet. No motorcycle was anywhere near the target area. - Letter, Richard E. Sprague to Harold S. Sawyer, March 3, 1979, pp. 1–2, Sprague Collection

"The more than six-hundred page draft was put aside, and a majority of the [HSCA] committee approved a preliminary nine-page "Summary of Findings and Recommendations" that concluded, based solely on the flawed acoustics findings, that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK involving a second gunman." ... "G Robert Blakey later told a journalist [Earl Golz], 'If the acoustics come out that we made a mistake somewhere, I think that would be the end of it.' " Posner, Case closed, 1993, p. 457

[Spider Jerusalem]

74. That's the HSCA. Not the Church Committee.

And the "evidence" of conspiracy has long since been discredited. The HSCA also found that Oswald was the shooter and that bullets from his rifle struck Kennedy and Connally.

[roamer65]

10. It was a coup d'état 50 years ago today.

But wait...we don't have those in America.

[seveneyes]

13. The pressure to advertise when Oswald was being transferred allowed Ruby to hit him

It should have been done at 3:00 AM without anyone else knowing.

[Spider Jerusalem]

16. Oswald was moved about an hour later than planned.

He held up the transfer because of his insistence on having a clean shirt (and the police delayed it with further questioning). If he'd been moved on schedule then it wouldn't have coincided with Ruby's visit to the Western Union office across the street. (It was in fact broadcast on the radio that Oswald was being moved around 10am.)

[roamer65]

17. Then Ruby starts to spill the beans a bit on cameras.

The "if Adlai Stevenson had been Vice President" comment from Ruby is very telling.

[stopbush]

253. How many coups d'état have we had in the USA in the past 50 years?

How many in our history?

coup d'état noun \ˌkü-(ˌ dā-ˈtä, ˈkü-(ˌ dā-ˌ, -də-\
: a sudden attempt by a small group of people to take over the government, usually through violence

[grahamhgreen]

353. Another with Bush/Gore 2000.

[struggle4progress]

15. Give me a coherent theory, supported by actual evidence -- instead of a big steaming heap

of little factoids, mostly connected by how-strange-it-is remarks and knowing nods and big lomng drool puddles of unsupported speculation -- and I'll sit up and take notice

Isn't it strange that this blurry picture of a bum kinda resembles E Howard Hunt? Um ... yada yada yada ...

Isn't it strange that GHW Bush said he couldn't remember where he was when JFK was killed? Yeah, it's damn strange. It sure reinforces my view that he's a self-centered jackass. Beyond that, it doesn't tell me anything about the assassination

Isn't it strange that the eyewitnesses don't all agree? Not really, no

Isn't it strange that Richard Nixon was in Dallas the day before the assassination? I'd love to be able to blame this on Tricky Dick! Really! He was a world-class jerk IMO. But maybe he just went to Dallas because it was a guaranteed attention-grabber to show there the day before the dude who beat him in 1960 did

Really. Nobody's told an alternative coherent story in the last fifty years. So why should I waste much time on it now?

[Ace Acme]

23. It is sufficient to point out the shortcomings of the official theory

when you are asking for new investigations.

A defense attorney need not prove that some party other than the defendant is guilty.

Your belief that there is no coherent alternative theory is silly. Other defenders of the official story claim (irrationally) that there are so many alternative theories that since they can't all be true, therefore none of them can be true.

[struggle4progress]

48. It would be sufficient to create reasonable doubt if LHO were on trial: that is a simple matter

of protecting the rights of the accused

LHO, however, is not on trial, for self-evident reasons, and there a different standard must prevail -- namely the one of arriving through evidence at what seems the most plausible explanation

In this case, a rifle owned by LHO and traceable by serial number to his purchase, which rather clearly is the same model shown in a photograph of Oswald posing with a rifle, was found on the sixth floor of the book depository, with three spent cartridges matchable to the rifle, shortly after a shooting, in which the majority of witnesses heard two or three shots

Repeated tests in the intervening years have shown that a number of people could get off three shots in the requisite time, often with two or three hits at the target moving at about the right speed and from about the proper distance, with about the right angle

Repeated forensic tests have shown that the appropriate bullet packs considerable punch, being able to penetrate nearly three feet of wood block without immediately visible damage, and have indicated that the bullet when fired follows a very stable trajectory until passing through material like human flesh, at which point the bullet will eventually begin to yaw and tumble, explaining the damage to the back of the governor's shirt, which closely approximates the shape of such a bullet

The so-called "magic bullet" was not actually pristine but was slightly flattened from the side, with lead being slightly squeezed at the back from inside its metal jacket, consistent with sideways entry into the governor's back, and small lead fragments with correspondingly removed from the governor's wrist

There has actually been a detailed attempt at anatomical recreation, involving model torsos built around simulated organs with appropriate simulated bone and tissue surrogates, showing that the so-called "magic bullet" produces appropriate damage to both surrogate torsos and is very nearly spent on emergence from the governor's wrist, consistent with the superficiality of the thigh wound, from which the so-called "magic bullet" allegedly fell onto a hospital stretcher

Since 1963, numerous questions have been raised about the WCR's conclusions -- in fact, many more questions than any defense attorney could have raised, had LHO been tried for the murder -- but no one in fifty years has produced a credible alternative theory connecting the known facts, so there is no credible alternative meeting any standard for historical interpretation

[Ace Acme]

94. Even if it's LHO's rifle, that doesn't prove he was the shooter. nt

[struggle4progress]

111. The task IMO is to provide a convincing alternative theory

LHO was employed at the school depository. Several witnesses testified LHO had carried a long paper bag, which he allegedly said contained curtain rods, into the depository on the morning of the shooting. Several employees at the depository said they had seen LHO on the sixth floor shortly before the shooting. JFK was shot at 12:30. Various witnesses on the ground saw a rifle pointing from the sixth floor depository corner window at the time of the assassination. Immediately after 12:30 LHO left the depository, and shortly thereafter LHO's rifle was found inside the depository near the sixth floor corner window with three spent cartridges, later dertermined to match the rifle. LHO meanwhile evidently returned to the Dallas neighborhood Oak Cliff (where he then lived in a rooming house), as arrested in the Texas Theater in Oak Cliff around 1:50 after sneaking into the movie theater without paying. He was in possession of a pistol, consistent with the weapon used in the murder of a police officer around 1:15, and various witnesses identified LHO as the shooter in that second shooting

These are largely independent assertions, substantiated by multiple lines of evidence, and the resulting story is coherent. To demolish the story, it is necessary to discredit most of the claims, not just to allege that one or two of them might simply be incorrect or could have other interpretations

[stopbush]

120. What evidence would you accept that proved Oswald was the shooter?

Because the evidence he did it is air-tight:

1. he owned the rifle. Serial number was traced back to the store he bought it from in Chicago, who shipped it to Oswald's post box. Handwriting on Oswald's gun order matched definitively to his handwriting
2. ammo cartridges used were purchased by Oswald from the Western Cartridge Company, who were even able to supply the FBI with cartridges from the same lot sold to Oswald to use in later tests of Oswald's rifle
3. rifle had Oswald's fingerprints and palm prints on it. Palm print was found on a place on the rifle where it could only have been placed when rifle was disassembled
4. no other fingerprints were found on Oswald's rifle but his
5. striations on bullet CE399 (stretcher bullet) matched to Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of every other firearm in the world
6. lead fragments recovered from Connally and bullet fragments recovered in limo from shot to JFK's head matched to Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other firearms in the world
7. 3 spent shells found in sniper's nest matched to Oswald's rifle to exclusion of all other weapons in the world
8. Oswald's fingerprints found in and around sniper's nest, including on boxes used to construct sniper's nest
9. Oswald positively identified as shooter by eyewitnesses on the street who saw him shooting the rifle
10. empty Dr Pepper bottle found near sniper's nest (Oswald drank a lot of DP)
11. Ear witnesses on 5th floor below sniper's nest heard shots and spent shells hitting the floor above them
12. paper bag used to bring rifle (curtain rods) to TSBD found on 6th floor. Paper bag was plainly seen by Frazier, who drove Oswald to work that day

I could go on.

So, we add all that up, and you say it doesn't prove Oswald was the shooter. I would guess that were any ONE of those things found to be true about any other person, you CTists would be shouting from the rooftops that you'd finally identified the "real shooter."

But in your conspiracy diseased mind, Oswald owned the rifle, built the sniper's nest, spent the entire day on the sixth floor of the TSBD, all the time waiting for someone else to come along and use his rifle to kill JFK, and without getting any of THEIR fingerprints on the rifle or the sniper's nest in the process. Then, Oswald takes the rifle from the real shooter, hides it behind some boxes, races down to the lunchroom - while the real shooter miraculously vanishes into thin air - and then flees the crime scene because he didn't just shoot JFK, it was someone else using his rifle.

Sounds logical.

[Ace Acme]

166. You never heard of surgical gloves? How droll.

[stopbush]

216. So, your imaginary shooter who showed up at the TSBD to fire Oswald's rifle

had the foresight to wear surgical gloves, when Oswald didn't.

Why not save the bus fare getting to the TSBD and instead call Oswald and tell him to be sure to wipe down his rifle the night before the shooting and wear surgical gloves himself while shooting the president?

But I appreciate your attempt at humor here, even if it's a bit wooden.

[Ace Acme]

217. Any fool can make up a nonsense scenario. It has nothing to do with the fact

... that even if it were Oswald's gun with Oswald's prints on it and no other prints on it, that does not prove that Oswald was the shooter.

If Oswald was the designated patsy, someone else could have taken his gun, brought it to the TSBD, and shot JFK with it.

[stopbush]

219. Except that we know it was Oswald who brought the gun to the TSBD and did the shooting.

[Ace Acme]

221. We don't know anything of the sort.

If he was a patsy he may have been ordered to bring a package of curtain rods to the TSBD, or even ordered to bring the gun.

Plus the paraffin test was negative.

You guys have not thought this thing through.

[stopbush]

232. More bullshit.

First off, the paraffin test to his cheek was negative. The paraffin test to his hands was positive.

But none of that means anything, because at the time Oswald was given the paraffin tests, the FBI had already determined that such tests were too inconsistent and gave too many false positives to be used as evidence in court.

Paraffin tests were performed to try to intimidate witnesses into believing the police had the goods on them. It's sad that the Dallas PD engaged in such tactics in this case, even though it was still SOP in many places back then, the same way lie detector tests are still given to suspects, even though the results of lie detector tests have been banned as evidence in military courts, while the SCOTUS has set standards that leave admission of lie detector test results to the discretion of the presiding judge in many cases.

The rest of your post is speculation, or CTist intellectual masturbation, to be more precise.

[Ace Acme]

241. The positive was on his palms, not the back of his hands.

Merely handling a weapon without firing it can leave nitrates on the hands.

It is well to consider all the possible explanations of the events. Do you dispute the proposition that if Oswald were an intelligence agent designated to be the patsy, that he might have been ordered to engage in behavior facilitating this role?

Why are you so emotional on these subjects?

[stopbush]

243. Your citing of the paraffin tests in your previous post is an excellent example

of the kind of BS the fact-based community has to deal with when CTists like yourself present your "facts."

First, you state that the test was negative. That's a lie. Only one of the tests was negative. You either didn't know there were tests done on Oswald's hands which were positive - which demonstrates ignorance of the evidence in the case on your part - or, you did know that there were positive tests on his hands but failed to mention that in your post - which shows a selective citing of the evidence to support your "point," whatever that was.

So, what was it, Ace? Ignorance or telling a half truth? I don't know which one is worse.

Overriding all this is the fact that - as I pointed out - the FBI back in 1963 had already discounted paraffin tests as being reliable, which means that your citing the paraffin tests in Oswald's case is entirely meaningless from the standpoint of proving innocence or guilt. Yet here your are again, going back to the paraffin tests as if they do prove something, only this time, you're trying to discount their incriminating Oswald because the "positive was on his palms, not the back of his hands."

So fucking what?

As far as what Oswald may or may not have done were he an intelligent agent ordered to kill JFK: you're welcome to bloviate about hypothetical situations as much as you wish. Of course, you'll never stop to consider that as an agent, Oswald could have just said "no" to the whole thing. But that would lead you down the rabbit hole of having to determine why he didn't say no, and in the process of making that determination, the gild is going to come off the Oswald lily in short order, leaving you with a very unsympathetic and cold-blooded killer. And that puts Oswald's labeling of himself as a patsy in the unctuous realm of self-serving spinelessness.

[Ace Acme]

279. The meaningless paraffin test was positive. For the palms of the hands. Not the backs.

The meaningful nitrate test was negative.

Your belief that an intelligence agent can "just say no" is very naive. And irrelevant.

[nyquil_man]

233. Okay, let's assume Oswald didn't fire a shot.

Let's go further still and assume he had no intention of firing a shot.

He's ordered at some point (presumably Thursday) to go to Irving and either retrieve his rifle or pick up a package which he thinks (or at least claims to Wesley Frazier) contains curtain rods.

In the first scenario, he's being blackmailed, brainwashed, or there's some other reason why he's bringing a gun, which he has no intention of using, to work on the day a President will be riding past his workplace. In the second scenario, he's being duped into thinking he's carrying something harmless. In either scenario, he's being ordered to put this package somewhere or to hand it off to someone else.

Of course, Oswald does deny shooting anyone. However, he also denies ordering and owning a rifle and denies carrying a package (other than his lunch) to work. Now, perhaps he's covering up for those who ordered him to bring the rifle. Maybe he's being the dutiful fall guy and letting the real assasins escape.

But why, then, is he declaiming that he's just a patsy and insisting on his innocence? Is he willing to risk a trip to the electric chair to cover up the facts? Perhaps. After all, he says "I hear it only takes a second to die" when he's first arrested.

[Ace Acme]

280. Maybe he was truly carrying curtain rods.

Last edited Tue Nov 26, 2013, 07:46 PM - Edit history (1)

Maybe he was carrying curtain rods because he was ordered to do so.

Maybe he's claiming he's a patsy because he's a patsy.

[nyquil_man]

282. Maybe he truly was carrying curtain rods.

Of course, he denied carrying curtain rods when the police asked him about them.

Still, what a mundane assignment. "Oswald, pick up some curtain rods and carry them to work Friday morning. But no matter what, even if you're accused of the murder of a president, deny knowledge of them."

Maybe he was ordered to eat the curtain rods...

[Ace Acme]

285. Maybe he was ordered to carry curtain rods.

When he learned that the president had been shot, he got a little bit paranoid and started denying stuff.

[nyquil_man]

286. I suppose it's possible.

Whoever gave him those orders was awfully clever in sensing that Oswald would never just say, "So-and-so told me to bring curtain rods today" and would, instead, deny all knowledge of curtain rods, thus implicating only himself and not others.

Of course, one could also argue that Wesley Frazier was an accomplice to the assassination, which would explain why he and Oswald's stories didn't match. After all, it's Frazier and Frazier alone who argues that Oswald claimed to have curtain rods.

[Ace Acme]

288. After the president was killed, LHO would see there was no point in talking about curtain rods. nt

[nyquil_man]

289. No? Even when directly asked about them by Captain Fritz?

Seems like the perfect moment to bring it up.

His response was to say he only brought his lunch.

[Ace Acme]

291. Of course any patsy recognizing he was the patsy would react in panic mode nt

[nyquil_man]

292. Of course. Any innocent person being framed will lie about the truth.

It's only natural.

It's much more natural than lying about carrying your rifle to work and then denying that you lied about it.

[Ace Acme]

298. A patsy recognizing that he's been manipulated into performing suspicious acts

... can reasonably be expected to go into panic mode and try to deny the facts.

And there's still the possibility that LHO was actually bringing curtain rods to the TSBD that day.

[nyquil_man]

300. Yes, like I said, innocent people always lie.

You're absolutely right.

[Ace Acme]

301. I didn't say innocent people always lie.

I said a patsy who sees he's being framed would be in panic mode.

[nyquil_man]

302. Yes, and in his panic mode he would scream "I'm just a patsy"

and then lie about something as mundane as curtain rods.

Was he in panic mode when he fled from the scene of the crime, too? What about when he pulled a gun on a cop in the Texas Theater?

I guess what I'm asking is this: At what point did he realize he was a patsy and slip into this panic mode?

[Ace Acme]

304. Yes, in panic mode he'd say "I'm just a patsy". Why would you think otherwise? nt

[nyquil_man]

305. As I've said, I think he would. I also think he'd lie over and over again.

Indeed, any person who was innocent would.

I think he'd tell Wesley Frazier that he was carrying curtain rods and then, when asked about it by the police, would claim that he wasn't carrying them. I think his panic would be such that he'd say the only thing he carried was his lunch.

I also think he'd flee the scene of the crime, shoot one cop, and attempt to shoot another, so great was his panic.

I also think that, in his panic, he would deny owning a rifle, which was traced to a PO box which Oswald owned and which was ordered by an alias he had on a fake ID at the time of his arrest, despite the fact that he had never fired a shot.

And I think he'd be in such a state of panic that not only police officers but also his brother and wife would comment on how calm and cool he appeared.

All of this behavior is consistent with his total innocence.

[Ace Acme]

306. I didn't say he was innocent. I said he may have been a patsy. nt

[nyquil_man]

307. So far, all you've accused Oswald of doing is carrying curtain rods to work.

I'm not totally up on the law in 1963 Texas, but I'm pretty sure that wasn't a crime.

Even with that, you say he was ordered to carry them to work. You won't even blame Oswald for that.

[Ace Acme]

308. I didn't say that. There's no point in discussing the issues with someone

... who is insensitive to epistemic nuance.

[nyquil_man]

309. The issue I'm discussing is your hypothesis that Oswald was a patsy.

Specifically:

If he was a patsy he may have been ordered to bring a package of curtain rods to the TSBD, or even ordered to bring the gun.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4088043

I hypothesized further that, if Oswald was being set up as a patsy, he would have no reason to deny bringing curtain rods to work. However, he did deny it.

You go on to cite, in the same post, the paraffin test on Oswald's cheek, which suggested that he hadn't fired a shot that day. I hypothesized that, if Oswald was being set up as a patsy when he hadn't fired a single shot, he would have no reason to deny owning a rifle. However, he did deny it.

In short, I found your hypothesis flawed and explained, over several posts, why I found it flawed. You are, of course, welcome to state a new hypothesis. Or you can deny that you made the hypothesis and blame its weaknesses on my perception.

It's all up to you.

On edit: Changed "we're" in the title to "I'm"

[Ace Acme]

310. Your assumption that Oswald would have no reason to deny bringing curtain rods

is silly.

After the assassination, he would realize that an arbitrary order that he bring curtain rods to work was part of a set-up.

He would have been in panic mode. You can't expect his actions and his statements to make sense.

[nyquil_man]

311. I expect an innocent person being set up to behave in a manner

consistent with innocence. I don't expect him to lie, panic or not.

Do you have anything new to say or are you just going to keep saying "panic mode" over and over again? Perhaps you could explain in what way you think Oswald wasn't innocent.

[Ace Acme]

312. I'll suppose that you have never been seriously unjustly accused.

I'll also suppose that you've never set yourself up for retribution by defecting to a foreign power and defending enemies of your country.

Your expectations are unreasonable.

If LHO were an intelligence agent, I would not regard him as "innocent". You might.

[nyquil_man]

313. And now we have a second hypothesis.

Last edited Thu Nov 28, 2013, 03:36 PM - Edit history (1)

Oswald, the panicky, lying, easily duped, curtain rod carrying Marxist, is an intelligence agent. I'll suppose that if you were accused of a crime you didn't commit, your response would be to lie. Over and over again. Panic mode! Or maybe you'd simply tell the truth as you knew it because you weren't properly trained in the fine art of covert ops.

And again, it's not your theory that's at fault. No no. It's my expectations.

How would a meeting of the conspirators have played out? "Okay, our shooter is ready. We've sent someone out to steal Oswald's rifle from the Paine garage. Do we have the curtain rods?... For Christ's sake! We'd better get those goddamned curtain rods or this whole conspiracy is going to fall apart! And we'd better make damned sure they vanish the moment the deed is done."

[Ace Acme]

314. What makes you think LHO wasn't trained in covert ops?

When you insist on making garbage assumptions, you guarantee you'll get garbage conclusions.

[nyquil_man]

315. Garbage assumptions?

That projection is so big it wouldn't fit on an IMAX screen.

You're so desperate to avoid implicating Oswald in the assassination of the President that you're willing to portray him as a moron who probably couldn't tie his own shoes without permission and then, when asked about it, would insist that he was wearing loafers.

But fine, he's an intelligence agent trained in covert ops. He screams that he's a patsy but then reveals nothing else. I'd expect a well-trained intelligence agent to scream "I'm a spy," too. Especially in panic mode.

[Ace Acme]

316. Garbage assumptions, garbage conclusions. nt

[nyquil_man]

317. Still projecting.

I'm sure Oswald would thank you once he was ordered to do so.

Of course, he'd panic and deny it later.

[Ace Acme]

318. Indeed, you are. You make no sense. TKO! nt

[nyquil_man]

319. That reminds me. Did you contact your representative yet? nt

[Ace Acme]

320. My representative is bought and paid for by the 1%

... and the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Media-Security-Lobbyist Complex.

[nyquil_man]

321. Yes, of course.

It's so much easier to not try. I understand.

Again, though, I'm flattered you've chosen to argue with me instead of doing something to get the case reopened.

Happy Thanksgiving.

[Ace Acme]

322. My Representative's raison d'être is to prove there's no point in trying.

Last edited Fri Nov 29, 2013, 03:51 PM - Edit history (3)

QED, LOL, etc. (Unless you've got a great big checkbook, of course, big enough for the whole pack of cronies.)

[nyquil_man]

325. You accept his 'proof' without challenge.

That's rather atypical of you. You argue with me in post after post, when I'm in no position to start a reinvestigation except through the same methods as you, and you do it with enormous conviction. But you shrink at the notion of even contacting your representative.

Okay, so you can't persuade him. Can you beat him? Has he got an opponent in 2014? Or do you accept his 'proof' that he can't be beaten, too?

I shudder to think of how many social movements would have floundered on the rocks if those involved had simply given up, on the premise that the forces arrayed against them couldn't be beaten.

Now, as far as money goes, you ignore the fact that there are people on your side of this debate who do have great big checkbooks. Oliver Stone and those who helped finance his film come to mind. Time Warner, which released the film, has spent nearly $3 million on lobbying in this year alone. Did they devote any of it to getting a new investigation, or were they all only in it for the profit?

Where are they?

[Ace Acme]

336. My Representative is Corrupt

Asking for anything is a waste of time. I'd get encouraged to death--all talk, no action.

I didn't accept any proof. I'm open to the possibility that Sen. Wellstone's death was an accident.
I simply said that the proposition that it was murder looks to be pretty well-supported on its face,
and seems worthy of investigation. I never even read the book.

I didn't say the corruption can't be beaten. I supported the Democratic primary challenger who ran
a $1000 campaign in 2012, and I will support him in 2014 if he runs again.

My Representative enjoys the support of all the local media and would get 70% of the vote no matter
what.

I don't know where Stone and Time Warner are. Were I in a position to know, I would probably know
better than to share my perceptions publicly. Carrot/stick, carrot/stick goes a long way in inhibiting
people.

[nyquil_man]

340. Senator Wellstone? Where the hell did that come from?

If you've brought up Paul Wellstone before this moment, it wasn't in a conversation with me.

You said that your representative's raison d'être is to prove that there's no point in trying. You've accepted that proof hook, line, and sinker. He "would get 70% of the vote no matter what." You seem utterly convinced of the hopelessness of your cause.

I just wonder how the hell you think there will be a new investigation if you don't do anything. Are you waiting for everybody else to do something?

[Ace Acme]

347. Re: Wellstone, I guess I got my threads mixed up

Re: proof, my Rep's long career is the proof. The local newspapers are part of the fix. There's no need to campaign when the platform is fat and happy complacence, cowardice, and sloth.

[Orsino]

235. So say the creationists.

[JVS]

21. You don't think they're just trolls?

[Cheap_Trick]

22. Just go back to sleep

Your government would never lie to you.

[bluetexas]

24. I don't know what really happened but the Warren Commission is a load of crap. n/t

[zappaman]

28. So I assume you read the WCR?

Or at least Bugliosi's book?

How else would you know "the Warren Commission is a load of crap."?

[bluetexas]

36. Exhibit One - The Magic Bullet

The most unbelievable theory that makes all the contradictions conveniently disappear.

[stopbush]

77. What was magic about the single bullet? Please explain.

[William Seger]

112. Magic bullets are what conspiricists propose as an alternative

... to the single bullet theory. One magic bullet entered JFK's back and disappeared, while another entered his throat and disappeared, and then a third materialized in the space between JFK and Connally, hit Connally in the back, wrist and thigh and then disappeared. Knowing that all the magic bullets had safely disappeared, the CIA planted a bullet from Oswald's gun on the stretcher at Parkland Hospital.

Makes perfect sense, no?

[duffyduff]

25. It's a fact Oswald acted alone, just as it is a fact the Holocaust happened.

There was a time when it could be understood why people believed there was a conspiracy involved because people were so shellshocked over the assassinations, Vietnam, Watergate, and so forth. It was a product of increased cynicism. I well know this because I, like many here, lived through it. But it has been FIFTY YEARS, and there has never been ANY credible evidence proving otherwise, and ALL of the evidence, forensic, eyewitness, physical, and circumstantial, show that LHO acted alone. Technological advances have made the case against Oswald even more airtight than ever before.

It really IS an open-and-shut case. The truth was known the minute Oswald was arrested. CTers look increasingly silly and even deranged given the more and more bizarre theories out there. CTs really need to be ridiculed, like the Onion has been doing, and the professional CTers need to be marginalized by society for the crackpots and con artists they are.

What is truly scary to me is that there are people here who actually believe the utter swill of Oliver Stone, who doesn't even pretend to tell the truth about the assassination, and think Jim Garrison, a totally deranged district attorney who DESERVED ridicule and shame until Stone dragged his name back out from the rock from which he came, as a hero. THAT is scary because it is NOT true.

In the end, it doesn't matter what you or I think. The truth is the truth. Oswald did it alone. So did Ruby. Period.

[PDJane]

26. You are correct that it doesn"t matter what i think

However, that doesn't mean that the truth is that Oswald did it alone, or that Ruby did it alone.

The common narrative doesn't make it true; it just makes it the common narrative.

[bluetexas]

29. We still don't know the truth. Exclamation Point.

A lot of evidence is still classified. Why?

[Ace Acme]

33. Wow! It's a fact! Stop the presses! An anonymous internet poster reveals the truth! nt

[MrMickeysMom]

35. Anyone who thinks there has never been any credible evidence proving Oswald didn't act alone...

… needs to do a bit of serious reading.

PERIOD.

[SolutionisSolidarity]

37. Of course, first it was as open and shut as the moon landing,

now not believing in the bullshit cover story is the same as being a holocaust denier. What an ass.

[scheming daemons]

49. ending a rant with "period." is the sign of a close-minded asswipe

That's what repugs do.

'PERIOD." My ass.

[Martin Eden]

149. It's a fact that a conspiracy has not been proven, but that does not prove Oswald acted alone.

The basllistics expert cited in the book Mortal Error pointed out that:

The bullet that passed through JKF's neck and into Connally was a full metal jacket (non-exploding) round that left a small exit wound, whereas the bullet that took out a chunk of JFK's skull was an exploding round. It's highly doubtful Oswald would have fired 2 different types of ammo, especially when the entrance would at the back of JFK's skull was smaller in diameter than the rounds that can be fired from Oswald's rifle.

This doesn't prove any specific conspiracy, but this ballistic & forensic evidence (unless fabricated) prove the bullets entering JFK were fired from 2 different guns. And it is impossible to fabricate the fact that the first bullet that struck the president left a small exit wound while the second left a tremendously explosive exit wound. This was certainly 2 different types of ammunition.

[Spider Jerusalem]

167. Nope.

It wasn't "an exploding bullet". The so-called "ballistics expert" apparently isn't that much of a ballistics expert, or he'd be aware that there have been tests of the effects of 6.5mm Carcano ammunition striking a human skull, with ballistic gelatin simulating the brain. What did these tests show? That the bullet separated into the copper jacket and the lead core.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/skull_bullets_lattimer.pdf

And the very slight fraction-of-a-millimetre difference in the diameter of the entry wound and the bullet? Live bone is slightly elastic, not completely rigid.

[cpwm17]

158. Well said

Yes, it's the most obvious fact in the world that Oswald killed JFK and there is no evidence that he had help. In fact, the evidence indicates that Oswald acted alone. There's lots of evidence to evaluate on your own. Nobody has to trust anyone of authority.

Some people don't understand what constitutes evidence. Alleged motive is not evidence. You start with evidence and after you get some evidence you then contemplate motive. CTers' wild imaginations decide who may have had the motive to kill JFK, and since real evidence is irrelevant to them, they then determine they've found their guilty party.

[oswaldactedalone]

271. I agree with this post. ^^^

Former conspiracy theorist here who gave it all up ~ 10 years ago. The evidence on Oswald is overwhelming. I saw the HSCA hearings on TV and saw the "scientists" present their evidence about a 4th shot. However, their theory has been disproven and, after that, the conspiracy theories go out the window.

Case Closed.

[BeatleBoot]

31. Have at it, by all means.

[SolutionisSolidarity]

34. The next thing you tell me is that the Gulf of Tonkin was merely a pretext for war.

Just accept it - JFK, RFK, and MLK were assassinated by three lone wolves. It is merely a coincidence that so many left wing leaders end up targeted by assassins, and anyone who suggests otherwise must logically also be anti-vaccination and pro-moon landing conspiracy.

[YOHABLO]

73. And Paul Wellstone

[Ace Acme]

81. Not to mention a holocaust denier. nt

[creeksneakers2]

55. Who demanded?

How can anybody "demand" that you accept a conclusion if you don't want to? Who would even try?

Who is asking you to get back in line?

[grantcart]

175. of course no one said anything like that, author's common strawman.

[indivisibleman]

61. It's plain that Oswald didn't do it.

The clincher for us is that he had no exit strategy. He suddenly knew he was going to be pegged as the shooter and his behavior matches that of a man without a plan.
A few other big indications that he didn't do it are that the line of sight from his supposed vantage point was blocked.
He wasn't that good of a shooter.
The supposed weapon was not a reliable one.
The continued push to try to convince us that he was the lone gunman makes one wonder if the powers that were then are still in power. I suspect they are.

[The Second Stone]

65. Oswald had all sorts of motives. There is now an article at Slate.com

that offers some new (to me at least) insights into his motives and how he might have been pushed. I found it an interesting read.

[dionysus]

70. thanks, Mulder

[Incitatus]

79. *IF* ony one person fired the shot, that doesn't mean others won't behind.

I'm not convinced either way, just saying.

[ZombieHorde]

102. I not very concerned if people believe Oswald was the sole shooter

for his own reasons or not. However, if the official version is false, I am not sure what good knowing the real version would do.

[cherokeeprogressive]

107. How many seconds did it take for Oswald to make those three shots?

[stopbush]

115. Anywhere from 6 to 11 seconds.

The thing to remember is that the rifle Oswald used had the cartridges loaded with the first cartridge already chambered and ready to be shot. That means that Oswald had only to use the bolt twice to eject the spent shell and chamber the second and third shots.

The clock starts ticking when Oswald fires the first shot. That gives him anywhere from 3 to 5.5 seconds PER SHOT to get off the second and third shots.

Considering that one test shooter got off all three shots with accuracy in 4.6 seconds in the WC tests, it's more than probable that a trained and practiced shooter like Oswald had no problem getting the three shots off in the timeframe mentioned above.

[Ace Acme]

169. Almost 24 years nt

[JustAnotherGen]

116. First post on this

Ive responded to these past few weeks. I have no skin in the game either way and avoid conspiracy talk because the conspiracy I believe in is so over the top it's not even appropo for DU.

But I enjoy reading perspectives on this. So I hope you guys don't stop.

[The Midway Rebel]

119. This has come full circle back to Richard Hofstadter

"The enemy is clearly delineated: he is a perfect model of malice, a kind of amoral superman—sinister, ubiquitous, powerful, cruel, sensual, luxury-loving. Unlike the rest of us, the enemy is not caught in the toils of the vast mechanism of history, himself a victim of his past, his desires, his limitations. He wills, indeed he manufactures, the mechanism of history, or tries to deflect the normal course of history in an evil way. He makes crises, starts runs on banks, causes depressions, manufactures disasters, and then enjoys and profits from the misery he has produced. The paranoid’s interpretation of history is distinctly personal: decisive events are not taken as part of the stream of history, but as the consequences of someone’s will. Very often the enemy is held to possess some especially effective source of power: he controls the press; he has unlimited funds; he has a new secret for influencing the mind (brainwashing); he has a special technique for seduction (the Catholic confessional)."

From "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" by Richard Hofstadter

[Raksha]

191. I have always said there is no such thing as "too paranoid,"

at least where the workings of the shadow government and its corporate allies are concerned. There actually ARE people who are so evil they fit Hofstadter's description of a paranoid fantasy. villain. They are known as psychopaths or sociopaths.

There are not many of them, but they are still the enemies of humanity. Their total lack of conscience means they often end up in positions of wealth and power. Unlike the rest of us, they have no scruples about doing whatever they need to do to end up on top.

The Bush family comes to mind in this context...

[CrawlingChaos]

121. They demand we suspend critical thinking

Critical thinking demands that we consider the source of information and evaluate it's credibility. We must ask ourselves which parties had the most to gain and who can likely be trusted to be truthful. We must look at the whole picture and cross-match pieces of information to judge their validity. We cannot know everything, obviously, but we can certainly make a reasonable judgment as to what not to believe.

Lone Nut theorists demand that we take the output of official propaganda machinery and swallow it whole. Everything in history tells us that is an irrational act.

[Paladin]

122. Hey, I'm not demanding anything from you.

Last edited Sat Nov 23, 2013, 10:15 AM - Edit history (1)

Truly, I don't give a flying fuck what you believe about the possible origins of JFK's assassination. I finally decided (after years of exposure to and review of various conspiracy theories) that Oswald did it alone, but I'm not demanding you believe as I do. Just grant me the same courtesy with regard to my beliefs and opinions. Fair enough?

[lonestarnot]

123. No, they are not asking.

They are telling us we have to and that is darkness.

[polichick]

126. Just like we're supposed to accept the inevitability of another Pres. Clinton...

Get in line and goose step, people!

[woo me with science]

139. +1

[Raksha]

193. Too bad, because I don't accept the "inevitability" of another Clinton presidency.

If it happens, it's going to happen without me.

[Enthusiast]

367. + A shit load!

[valerief]

131. They tell us Fredo died because he was a bad swimmer, too. After all, we weren't there, so...

[Rex]

135. I don't give in to demands.

nt.

[99Forever]

136. Who are...

..."Those who demand that everyone "just ACCEPT that Oswald did it"?

I honestly don't recall anyone ever saying that to me. I don't pretend to know all of the background of this tragedy, and while I do care, I have far more important current issues to worry about. I let it go a long time ago.

[TBF]

138. I keep hearing Cartman "OBEY MY AUTHORITY" ..

Typical authoritarian bullshit from those who do not like us to question our leaders. Too much of this on DU lately ...

[frogmarch]

144. I don't, just as I don't demand

that everyone just accept that the Earth revolves around the Sun, or that the Earth isn't flat.

To each his or her own, as long as they keep their wacky ideas out of politics.

[kentuck]

153. It would be interesting to see how many people that do not believe in any conspiracy...?

...were not even alive in 1963? Or were not old enough to filter the information they were receiving?

That would be even more disturbing than the conspiracy theorists - that so many now believe the government version and everyone else is nuts.

I was sixteen at the time and I had no reason to believe that Oswald did not act alone. However, when he was brought out into such an insecure area and was gunned down by Jack Ruby, I began to have doubts. Who was this Ruby fellow? Oh, he had criminal connections? And how Oswald had gone to Russia and then had returned to the US? And how no one knew where he was on that day? Then, we learn shortly thereafter that Jack Ruby had cancer and was dying? And how Bobby was cracking down on the crime families...etc...etc...

It was then that I started to question the single gunman theory. There was a lot of doubt. It was not cut and dried. The Warren Commission looked more like a cover-up than an investigation.

So, if you did not experience it, I don't think you have any qualifications to speak on it, except to give the government version.

[truedelphi]

182. As i was only

Eleven at the time, I really believed the lone gun man, crazy man theory. I believed it until 1975, when Mark Lane went around to Universities across the USA, with the Zapruder film.

Here's a youtube, with only audio, of Mark Lane debating the assassination way back in Dec 1964.

Very interesting record of what went on. I found it interesting that although the Warren Commission member that showed up to debate Lane said the Oswald theory was right, but then later goes on to say, (I am paraphrasing) "Well, you commie pinko leftists ought to be happy we lied about all of this, because the truth would have framed leftists, and many of you would have then been purged."

[notadmblnd]

155. I don't understand why it bothers the so much?

That people still have questions about it. I mean- if I have made my mind up about something, then to me the subject is exhausted and I move on to other interests. I don't stay behind to deride and ridicule those who do.

I wonder what it is that the people who continue to deride and ridicule those that do ask questions and speculate, get out of it. To me, it seems that they are just working too hard at shutting the discussion down for it to be for nothing.

[Egalitarian Thug]

157. A very good point indeed. n/t

[Ace Acme]

170. Exactly. They doth protest too much. nt

[Enthusiast]

368. And with too much anger.............nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

159. i think conspiracy theorists waste their time on bullshit but that is there choice to make

and ultimately hurts no one but themselves. unless they are anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists, in which case i have oodles of scorn for their utterly stupid and selfish ways.

(PS: i waste a lot of time on BS too: DU, FB, TV etc. )

[Gidney N Cloyd]

196. Lioness, your avatar seems a little ironic in the context of this post.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

202. its not a conspiracy that wars profit some people. there is nothing even hidden about it.

to me conspiracy theorist are those who try to uncover something they believe is hidden

Examples:
-obama was born in kenya
-oswald did not kill jfk or if he did he was not the lone shooter
-vaccines are a profit making enterprise by big pharma and cause autism

[appleannie1]

160. The second I saw Oswald being shot it pretty much cemented my feelings that he did not

work alone. Since then I have always felt that I, along with millions of other people, was a witness to someone being killed in order to shut them up. Sorry, no one is going to tell me I have to believe differently and 'get over it'.

[kentuck]

162. Until that moment...

I had never thought of a "conspiracy"... But I think that was the moment that planted the seed of doubt in my mind.

I thought LBJ showed a surprising lack of empathy when he said something like "let's get this plane in the air..." (paraphrasing) . It just seemed strange to me as a young kid.

I have been ambiguous about it over the years. I am not convinced there was a "conspiracy" but I am not convinced there wasn't either...

[Blue_In_AK]

194. Also mine.

[Raksha]

195. I saw it too, and my reaction was the same as yours.

It remains the same to this day. Oswald was killed to silence him permanently.

[roamer65]

224. Listen to the interview of Jack Ruby.

"If Adlai Stevenson had been VP..."

That will absolutely cement your belief Oswald was silenced.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

180. Oswald hired by Hoover

[RoccoR5955]

190. I was quite young when this happened...

And when I saw Oswald get shot, I did not think that he worked alone. I guess it was easy for an intelligent 8 year old kid to think that, but my mind has not changed one bit since then.
Yes, I watched them put a man on the moon, and the earth is round. These things I can believe. I saw the rocket launch, I have seen the curvature of the earth, but when someone is killed who is supposed to be a "lone gunman," I wonder. I don't care about the "evidence." Evidence can, and has been staged to make folks believe what those in power want them to believe. Kennedy had too radical an agenda for the REAL powers in the US to let him live. He wanted to change the country too fast for their liking, in ways that they didn't want. Kennedy had to be eliminated from their agenda, at any cost.
That's just my opinion. I have read some about the assassination, from both sides, and I still, to this day, do not believe that Oswald worked alone.
My theory, and it's just my gut feeling, is that the mob killed JFK, as they were asked to by the CIA. The CIA had been assassinating people around the world, but they could not assassinate a president, so they got the mob to do it for them, in exchange for something, what that was, I do not know. Like I said, it's just my gut feeling, and I'll stick with it. There are simply too many questions that remain unanswered.

[XRubicon]

199. Take a deep breath

Ok, ok how do you feel now?

Breath into this paper bag.

Do you have any scotch in the house?

[sarcasmo]

200. Kick!

[Niceguy1]

201. it was 50 years ago and the principal players

Are dead or on their way out. I really don't think it matters anymore. and if its just going to scandalize the country I just prefer not to know

[SpartanDem]

204. Funny that birthers use the same stupid logic

[TBF]

207. Many of us not normally into conspiracy theories -

do wonder what really happened to JFK. I don't know how old you are. I am in my late 40's so was born just after he was assassinated. There was something almost magical about JFK and the way people talked about him. He was a very young and modern president. I think of Princess Diana and how we all knew what we were doing when she died (I remember vividly) - and that's how it was for us (or our parents) with JFK.

Similar to the way Diana was the people's princess he was the people's president and he was NOT loved by the older establishment folks. Those of you who are young and see the intense racism and hatred towards your Obama - that is how we felt about Kennedy (he was Catholic remember - in those days that was a big deal to many bigoted Protestants).

I hope that helps a little to understand what we are going through as we remember JFK.

[absquatulatewithme]

205. "They are asking us to believe what we're told and to just get back in line."

No, we're asking you to look at the totality of evidence, make logical inferences, and come to a very obvious conclusion.

[gopiscrap]

208. welcome to DU

[Ken Burch]

214. problem is, the conclusion ISN'T obvious.

And what may sound like asking to some sounds like demanding to a lot of those who are being "asked".

There's simply no reason to try to end the discussion. Only those who support the status quo in all aspects benefit from that.

[Ace Acme]

223. Pervasive hopelessness, cynicism, and apathy benefits the 1%. nt

[truedelphi]

225. This author does just that:

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/was-the-kennedy-assassination-a-conspiracy-you-dont-have-to-be-crazy-to-thi/

The problem with those who don't want to hear form the pro-conspiracy crowd is that they don't understand that the Bill of Goods we were sold regarding the "official fact" that Lee Harvey Oswald, a loner and a nut case, acted alone does not seem all that plausible.

We aren't saying we can prove with any certainty exactly what did happen. But we can investigate, or read the works of those who have investigated, and realize that if Oswald did not act alone, then there was a conspiracy.

[Octafish]

237. Which is the Warren Commission's case against Oswald is BOGUS.

[BootinUp]

238. Have you watched the new NOVA Cold case special yet?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4032622

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/cold-case-jfk.html

[Octafish]

239. Why, no. Does it ''prove'' the Warren Commission's case?

Because that's all that I've seen broadcast on tee vee the last two weeks.

[BootinUp]

240. It uses modern methods instead of someones best guess in 1963

to determine whether WCR had it right or wrong. Definitely worth a look if you are interested in knowing more.

[Octafish]

242. I'll keep in mind the Koch Brothers fund Nova.

Not that they, or the commercial from Goldman Sachs leading the online broadcast, have anything to do with the show's accuracy. One can see immediately the show doesn't use the same vehicle to recreate the shooting:



NOVA's use of John McAdams as a source also is odd, as he is a known disinformationist.

[The Midway Rebel]

245. This crackpot is in the Cold Case JFK documentary too.

http://jfkfacts.org/tag/josiah-thompson/

I mean if we are going to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Octafish]

246. Yeah. They didn't let Josiah Thompson finish what he was saying.

Otherwise, he'd have shown where the Warren Commission was wrong.

PBS show on JFK assassination 'rigged' and 'biased,' author says

Peter Mucha
Philly.com Friday, November 15, 2013, 6:42 PM

In Wednesday's Nova special on the JFK assassination, private investigator Josiah Thompson is an avuncular presence, repeatedly explaining what happened on Nov. 22, 50 years ago in Dallas.

But Thursday the author of Six Seconds in Dallas said he was “outraged,” calling the program “rigged.”

He wasn’t accusing “Cold Case: JFK” of faking or staging any tests, but said the program failed to fully examine acoustic evidence that suggests four shots were fired that day, because doing so might have derailed the show’s conclusion, that Lee Harvey Oswald was probably the only gunman.

"It was very reminiscent of what CBS News did in defending the Warren Commission in 1968 and successive years," Thompson said. "... It was biased and cooked at the beginning."

SNIP...

That doesn’t contradict the main findings of “Cold Case: JFK,” that Oswald fired three times, hitting JFK and Texas Gov. John Connally with the shot made famous by “the single-bullet theory,” and landing another in the back of Kennedy’s head. Carcano bullets, like the ones fired from the Texas School Book Depository, were capable of both drilling through flesh and bone or making a skull explode, testing showed. Fracture patterns in the skull point to a shot from the rear, and no evidence was found of an exit wound in the back or left side of the head in line with the grassy knoll.

CONTINUED...

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/Novas_JFK_show_rigged_and_biased_author_says.html

What's more, Thompson also does't claim to know everything. He also is willing to admit a mistake. I heard him say so and explain why at Duquesne University in October. Where you there?

[The Midway Rebel]

247. Is he willing to admit he is not a forensic scientist though?

Because he has no physical evidence whatsoever of a shot from the front.

Silly of you to ask if I was there at your conspiracy convention as you know I cannot afford such a middle class hobby. Why should I go there when I can count on you to post his woo here at DU? For free.

[Spider Jerusalem]

255. Thompson still clinging to discredited acoustic "evidence".

Discredited extensively and repeatedly, first by the National Academy of Science in the '80's and more recently by a further extensive analysis, here. His contention that Nova failed to examine the evidence is a red herring; that evidence has already been extensively and repeatedly examined and found to not be evidence at all.

[Spider Jerusalem]

254. And?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

[stopbush]

256. Still making apologies for Oswald, the bastard who killed JFK.

You must feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

[Octafish]

260. No apology necessary. Even a douche deserves a fair trial.

What a douche needs to know is due process, a right by law.

I'm not surprised you don't know that.

[stopbush]

270. I agree with you that Oswald was douche, and that he deserved a fair trial.

I don't agree with you that he was patsy or possibly a hero in all this, as you have claimed on these boards.

[Ace Acme]

324. Oh I see, he doesn't deserve a reasonable doubt

Not even though he was never defended, never convicted.

Thanks for showing your lynch mob mentality.

[BootinUp]

328. You're fucking hilarious.

[Ace Acme]

337. Thanks for sharing nt

[stopbush]

338. He deserved to be considered innocent until proven guilty, but that ended when he was killed.

The evidence shows convincingly that Oswald killed JFK. That would be mountains of evidence. You could have a discussion over whether he would have received a fair trial, or been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but that's all just mental masturbation.

Your use of the term "reasonable doubt" is wrong and inappropriate for the argument you appear to be making - you seem to be arguing that a reasonable doubt still exists about whether Oswald did the killing. No such doubt exists:

Reasonable Doubt
A standard of proof that must be surpassed to convict an accused in a criminal proceeding.

Reasonable doubt is a standard of proof used in criminal trials. When a criminal defendant is prosecuted, the prosecutor must prove the defendant's guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. If the jury—or the judge in a bench trial—has a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt, the jury or judge should pronounce the defendant not guilty. Conversely, if the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.

Reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof used in court. In civil litigation the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. These are lower burdens of proof. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to be proved is true. The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that criminal trials can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or in the defendant's death, outcomes far more severe than occur in civil trials where money damages are the common remedy.

Reasonable doubt is required in criminal proceedings under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In in re winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 25 L. Ed. 2d 368 (1970), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the highest standard of proof is grounded on "a fundamental value determination of our society that it is far worse to convict an innocent man than to let a guilty man go free."

The reasonable doubt standard is not used in every stage of a criminal prosecution. The prosecution and defense need not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that every piece of evidence offered into trial is authentic and relevant. If a prosecutor or defendant objects to a piece of evidence, the objecting party must come forward with evidence showing that the disputed evidence should be excluded from trial. Then the trial judge decides to admit or exclude it based on a preponderance of the evidence presented. A similar procedure employing a preponderance standard is used when a party challenges a variety of evidence, such as coerced confessions, illegally seized evidence, and statements extracted without the furnishing of the so-called Miranda warning.

The reasonable doubt standard is inapplicable to still other phases of a criminal prosecution. Lower standards of proof are permissible in Parole revocation proceedings, proceedings to revoke Probation, and prison inmate disciplinary proceedings.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+Doubt

[Ace Acme]

342. He was never convicted. The Warren Commission started with the assumption of guilt. nt

[stopbush]

344. Wrong. The WC started with the mandate to discover the truth, not matter where it led.

It led to Oswald.

Sorry you can't accept that. Why you continue to carry water for the shit that killed JFK is beyond me.

[Ace Acme]

345. Whatever its stated mandate, the Warren Report started with a hasty FBI report.

Last edited Sun Dec 1, 2013, 04:57 PM - Edit history (1)

The 9/11 Commission started with Philip Zelikow's detailed outline down to chapter headings and subheadings.

The NIST report on the twin towers had the objective of explaining why and how the buildings collapsed, and
in 10,000 pages forgot to explain how. They even claimed they never analyzed the collapses.

[zappaman]

346. You better believe it, Abe! N/t

[stopbush]

348. Yes, the FBI issued a preliminary report within two weeks of the assassination.

It wasn't meant to be set in stone. In fact, the WC disagreed with the FBI's conclusion that all three of Oswald's shots hit their targets.

You have a penchant for making mountains out of mole hills if it serves your purpose.

AND...it looks like you're a truther as well.

[stopbush]

350. Not correct.

Either you're just fucking with me or you're ignorant on the subject.

And Obama is the same as Bush?

DU is a board for Democrats, not trolls.

[zappaman]

351. You just said that Obama is the same as Bush????

Good one, Abe!
Guess your new persona doesn't like being here either?

[Deep13]

228. Oh for Christ sake, he had the gun and everything. nt

[demosincebirth]

230. He did it, but not alone. Jack Ruby, was the key to the whole conspiracy theory. I beleive he

was sent, by threat of death, by whom? to kill Oswald.

[Warren DeMontague]

234. It was Larry Flynt, on the Grassy Knoll.

See? Now ALL of DU is happy!

[KamaAina]

250. Well, he most likely did do it.

But that's not the end of the conversation.

1) Was there another shooter or shooters?

2) If Oswald was the only shooter, who was behind him?

[jazzimov]

259. "Don't tell ME to sit down and shut up!"

"I'm a grown-up person, and I have questions!"

Yes, this is a discussion forum. A serious discussion forum.

So if someone tells you to just STFU, either they have no other reply (which means you won) or what you said was so stupid there is no rational reply (which means you lost).

In the minds of those who don't usually post, OPs such as this one just don't help your case.

Just sayin'

[MrMickeysMom]

266. Good observation...

I've basically placed persons through the years posting on this subject into two groups:

1) open to question based on the interest in science of this assassination, and...

2) those with an ideology and less interest to expand knowledge.

We'll never know why persons who argue with the first group are as adamant to dismiss them, insulting group, but lots of them are. They frequented DU-2's "9/11" forum and the left-overs like to do the same when posting to the topic, "creative speculation".

It makes sense to me to question why high government involvement has suppressed information that could even strengthen Oswald's connection as a lone shooter, but the government's reason to hide this information is one of "national security".

Whose security? And, who decides?

Recent to November 22nd, Oswald was in contact with elements of the government who were eager to frame him afterwards. Newspapers printed half way around the world produced background information about Oswald as the lone killer and pages about his motive before he was even booked with the crimes on Nov 22nd. Since then, personal information is suppressed in government archives because of what, exactly?

Why would a single person, a.k.a. "lone nut"'s personal records be so likely to risk national security? The absurdities of what is hidden away all this time, and extended to be kept from the public march on through time, and into perpetuity.

Why?

And for my asking why or anyone else, the second group runs around with their hair on fire. Imagine why that is, also. I don't spend too much time on that part anymore.

[Octafish]

278. For some reason, some DUers can't entertain the idea that the government would lie to the People.

Last edited Tue Nov 26, 2013, 10:49 PM - Edit history (2)

It's shocking, considering the way George H.W. Bush sold Saddam Hussein WMDs was discussed up and down by the talking heads all over the television screens not.

[grahamhgreen]

355. Gulf of Tonkin was a fabrication also.

[Octafish]

356. JFK would never have fallen for phony INTEL, after the Bay of Pigs thing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5501005

[warrprayer]

281. They had to get rid of him

... to pave the way for Nixon and Reagan.

[lostincalifornia]

303. Oswald did do it

Oswald Avery was the person who told us DNA is the material of which chromosomes are made

Yes, there were conspiritors with him, Colin MacLeod, and Maclyn McCarty, but he was the leader, the master mind

[Ken Burch]

358. I see what you did there.

[lostincalifornia]

361. Shhhhh

[defacto7]

327. 1000 times yes.

and I can name some commenters who are hot on the trail in every JFK post to make people shut up and get in line along with their groupies, but I won't call them out because they call themselves out.... and it's against DU rules.

[Major Hogwash]

332. Some.

I don't think Bugliosi had access to all of the evidence, even though he wrote a book about it.

[stopbush]

354. Nobody is "demanding you just accept" anything.

In fact, the reality based community is simply asking that JFK CTers take the time to actually read the WCR before bashing it, misquoting it and generally taking as gospel the shit that they've read about the WCR in all those CT books.

Most of the reality based crowd at DU spent any number of years believing all of the JFK CT BS themselves. That is, until they decided to read the WCR for themselves, at which point they realized that 98% of the CT books are full of fabrications, half-truths and outright lies.

Most people don't like being lied to, so there is quite naturally a strong reaction against liars like Mark Lane, Jim Garrison and others whose books are loaded with easily disproved lies.

[Pitagoras]

357. They argue that if you don't find the identity of the real killers then Oswald did it

It's that simple to them.

[uppityperson]

360. Oh pshaw. Maybe for some, but to simplify it down to that only is wrong.

[Enthusiast]

369. Most people do not believe the WC findings.

And with good reason. We have been subjected to government lies ever since.