JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots

[profmunkin]

Yes, indeed it is interesting. And yes indeed, a good lawyer -- anyone, for that matter -- can

Brilliant sketch of the court system.
I have not finished your post, I will read the rest..

Three things
1) Official inquiries followed "many" of the rules, agreed, but "they" didn't follow all of the rules and that is the difference.

2) The FACT that logical, believable cases have been built with alternate narratives should be a cause for doubt.

3) The FACT that the WC Report can be "cherry-picked" into infinitum by testimony from it's own proceedings should be the ultimate cause for concern and patriotic doubt in the WC report conclusions.

[profmunkin]

But when it comes to informal examinations of the case by private individuals producing books, magazine articles, movies, radio talk shows, interviews, documentaries, Internet blogs, etc, none of these rules apply. Thanks to our First Amendment freedoms of the press and speech (and I wouldn't have it any other way) almost anything goes short of direct threats, incitement to imminent violence or libel. And in the United States (but not in many other countries, notably the UK) a plaintiff who is also a public figure must work very hard to win a libel case.

So when you write your book alleging that JFK was killed by a massive conspiracy involving the CIA, FBI, Secret Service, the Dallas Police Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Mafia, Vice President Johnson, Cuban Intelligence, General Motors, the Soviet KGB, and local Boy Scout Troop 340, you don't have to give both sides of the story. It's your book; say whatever you want. Pick and choose the witnesses that support your case and ignore the rest. Quote only that which helps you and ignore the rest, like the bits that completely change the meaning of what you quoted or reveal the witness to be as nutty as a fruitcake. When discussing the flood of information that came out so haphazardly soon after the assassination, with much of it being 'corrected' later, insist that conspiracies never make 'mistakes'. They only cover things up.

Very nicely done, BRAVO

The government must be answerable to the people.
A government can not decide when this case is closed, nor a President a Chief Justice a committee or the media has the power or authority to tell the American Public when this case is closed.
This is a case of conspiracy of the highest sort.

If every question concerning the WC Report is answered with hocus pocus, smoke and mirrors, plausibles, impossibles, would you believes and they just made an error, you had better start doubting this fiction youself.

The way this coup succeeded was with general support from all of the power structures.

[profmunkin]

That is pretty much exactly what I mean.  I don't think it's ever accurate, but the idea that the death of JFK must have been caused by a conspiracy is not an inherently irrational one; while the majority of both assassinations and assassination attempts in the US have been of the lone-nut variety, there have been a few conspiracies.  (Oddly, hardly anyone seems aware that John Wilkes Booth didn't act alone!)  I think the choices, however, are ignorant and irrational, and the majority are simply ignorant.  They've heard a few "facts" that they think indicate that it has to have been a conspiracy, claims that the Warren Commission has failed in some way, and they simply don't know that those claims are not based on evidence.  It's not irrational, because it's not denying evidence.  It is ignorant, because it's unaware of evidence.

Lone nuts, really?

Why is it the people that are attempting to actively change the system the ones that get killed by the lone nut?

When does the lone nut, kill the guy that is entrenced in the system?

[ka9q]

Very nicely done, BRAVO

You do realize I was being sarcastic, do you not?

This is a case of conspiracy of the highest sort.

This is a simple murder case with overwhelming evidence of the single perpertrator. It would have been open and shut if not for all the opportunists who came along looking for fame and fortune by shouting "conspiracy", and all the nutcases who give them an audience and money.

If every question concerning the WC Report is answered with hocus pocus, smoke and mirrors, plausibles, impossibles, would you believes and they just made an error, you had better start doubting this fiction youself.

If you really think it's hocus pocus to demand that any alternative theory of the assassination be a better explanation of all the evidence, not just your tiny, cherry-picked subset, then you had better start doubting your own sanity. Or at least your own rationality.

If you really think it was impossible for a severely malajusted crackpot with a history of violence to take his rifle to work and shoot an easily identifiable man slowly riding by in an open car, then you really need to adjust your concept of what's possible.

[ka9q]

1) Official inquiries followed "many" of the rules, agreed, but "they" didn't follow all of the rules and that is the difference.

They couldn't follow all of the rules because a criminal proceeding requires the presence of a live, mentally competent defendant working with legal counsel in his own defense. And there was no live criminal defendant in the JFK/Tippit case after November 24, 1963.

2) The FACT that logical, believable cases have been built with alternate narratives should be a cause for doubt.

WHAT "logical, believable cases"? What "alternate narrative"? We keep asking you to provide one, and you never do! All we get from you is a hodge-podge of attacks on the Warren Commission report based on your own personal incredulity plus various bits of cherry-picked evidence. And sometimes even your selective quotes aren't correct, much less in their proper context.

3) The FACT that the WC Report can be "cherry-picked" into infinitum by testimony from it's own proceedings should be the ultimate cause for concern and patriotic doubt in the WC report conclusions.

What? Do you even understand what "cherry picking" means? It appears not.

[BazBear]

Yes, indeed it is interesting. And yes indeed, a good lawyer -- anyone, for that matter -- can

Brilliant sketch of the court system.
I have not finished your post, I will read the rest..

Three things
1) Official inquiries followed "many" of the rules, agreed, but "they" didn't follow all of the rules and that is the difference.

2) The FACT that logical, believable cases have been built with alternate narratives should be a cause for doubt.

3) The FACT that the WC Report can be "cherry-picked" into infinitum by testimony from it's own proceedings should be the ultimate cause for concern and patriotic doubt in the WC report conclusions.

Actually the troubling part is those who can't see theforest through the trees. I also find it hard to believe patriotism has anything to do with your BS and ignorance of FACTS.

[profmunkin]

You do realize I was being sarcastic, do you not?

If you really think it was impossible for a severely malajusted crackpot with a history of violence to take his rifle to work and shoot an easily identifiable man slowly riding by in an open car, then you really need to adjust your concept of what's possible.

I thought it was done very well, Bravo!

I think that none of that is true when it comes to Oswald.

[profmunkin]

They couldn't follow all of the rules because a criminal proceeding requires the presence of a live, mentally competent defendant working with legal counsel in his own defense. And there was no live criminal defendant in the JFK/Tippit case after November 24, 1963.

2) The FACT that logical, believable cases have been built with alternate narratives should be a cause for doubt.

What? Do you even understand what "cherry picking" means? It appears not.

We dont need a criminal proceeding, what gave you that idea?
This needs to be a proceeding to determine if a coup occurred or not!
And certainly the government has the previlige of presenting its case and narrative, but at the same time an elected independent defense team must have equal input to secure adequate checks and balance to the evidence and conclusions.

The American people still can demand this to be so.

What is cherry picking?

[profmunkin]

WHAT "logical, believable cases"? What "alternate narrative"? We keep asking you to provide one, and you never do! All we get from you is a hodge-podge of attacks on the Warren Commission report based on your own personal incredulity plus various bits of cherry-picked evidence. And sometimes even your selective quotes aren't correct, much less in their proper context.3) The FACT that the WC Report can be "cherry-picked" into infinitum by testimony from it's own proceedings should be the ultimate cause for concern and patriotic doubt in the WC report conclusions.

Try Daniel Sheehan narrative, he brings in all the elements.
I would concede that it may have been plausible that JFK may have been shot from the tsbd if you agree it was a conspiracy, because ultimately it only matters that they assassinated the President.

[profmunkin]

Actually the troubling part is those who can't see theforest through the trees. I also find it hard to believe patriotism has anything to do with your BS and ignorance of FACTS.

Just arrogance.

Why do you think the state of Texas started an inquiry into the assignation?
Why do you think the congress started an inquiry into the assignation?
Why do you think the senate started an inquiry into the assignation?
Why do you think the warren commisssion started an inquiry into the assignation?
Why do you think the city of new orleans started an inquiry into the assignation?
Why do you think the Hsc started an inquiry into the assignation?
Why do you think the Arrb started an inquiry into the assignation?

Because we never believed and still do not believe Oswald did it or did it alone.

[profmunkin]

Let me put it this way
Dan Rather looked America in the face, told us he had seen the Z film and stated the Presidents head was thrown violently forward from a shot hitting him from the rear, in the back of the head. This statement was not disputed. We trusted the news, we trusted Time Life,  we trusted Walter and we trusted Dan.
 
Essential evidence for the wounds, the Z film was hidden from the view of America.

Americans find out only through the Shaw Trial that the Z film actually shows that the Presidents head moved violently to the left and back, revealing the official story that JFK's head moved violently forward a blatant lie.
To patch this official lie, the Government and media then presented a "scientific" case that it is normal to move in this manner when struck in the head with a bullet.
But the question remained, then why did the government and media lie to us about JFK's head moving violently forward in the first place, when "they" knew the Z film showed JFK's head moving violently left and back?

[Jason Thompson]

I am willing to learn.

No you are not. You have repeatedly failed to demonstrate any willingness to learn. Or, more precisely, you have failed to demonstrate any willingness to set aside your own preconceptions as to how the world and people work and admit to the possibility of other factors existing. Page after page after page you were told that the wounds on Kennedy and Connally had been duplicated using a Carcano at the same distance and elevation as the sixth floor window of the TSBD, and you refused to even acknowledge it. When you finally did you dismissed it as an irrelevance. That is not willing to learn, that is stubbornly refusing to accept reality.

Please explain how the science of acoustics accounts for 10 out of 11 people on the grassy knoll who's testimony included direction of the shots stating the reports came from directly behind them, if the shots came from the 6th floor TSBD window say 100-200 feet away?

It doesn't matter if the majority heard it from the knoll if they were all capable of being deceived by the echoes, and they were. Majority consensus does not provide a pointer to truth in all cases.

Then explain to me why there was not testimony that claimed shots coming from Dal-Tex, the Police, the Court or the Terminal Annex building to the south.

Explain why there should be.

I do not know the precise details of the acoustic charcter of Dealye Plaza, nor a detailed plan of exactly what sound waves went where. I do know from personal experience, however, that localising the sound of something like a rifle report is very difficult in a built up area. That is why I discount the people saying they heard the shot from the knoll as being reliable evidence: not because of prejudice, not because of a blind faith in the reality of the Warren Commission's findings, not because of anything other than the knowledge from my own experience that such reports ARE unreliable, and that therefore there needs to be more than just a number of people saying they heard something from there.
 

Or how Williams, Norman or Jarmin with warehouse windows open, could not tell that the shots came from the next floor up, 12 feet away or why Victoria Adams /&/Sandra Styles (No testimony) /&/ Elsie Dorman (No testimony) /&/ May Garner (No testimony) on the 4th floor, 3rd set of windows over said the shots came from the knoll.

Really? you can't conceive of how a sound would have an easier path to travel unobstructed from the window and back to another open window than to travel through the structure of the building one or two floors? People in the depository would have heard the sound of the shot from inside and from the echo outside, and that would have confused them as to its origin. Again, I have personal experience of being in a building looking out the window and hearing sounds that appeared to come from outside when they actually came from another window in the same building.

However, quieter sounds that were not so likely to echo clearly around the plaza, such as the action of the rifle bolt and the sound of spent shells hitting the floor, would have been clearly heard and localised as coming from within the building. There is testimony to that effect. Why do you disregard it?

How did the acoustics fool the "50" police that rushed to the knoll and rail yards where as no police went to the TSBD except Baker who went there only because of Pigeons flying off the roof.

Why should police be any less likely to be fooled by the echo than spectators? Do you think they have super-sensitive hearing or something?

Get a little tired of this scientific rhetoric being used as a shield against every measure of reasonable sense.

Naturally. You don't understand the science, so you dismiss it as rhetoric.. Perosnally, I am getting a little tired of your continued refusal to address little details like the corroborating evidence of there being a sniper in the building, such as the sound of a rifle bolt and of spent shells hitting the floor, and the fact that several witnesses saw a sniper in the sixth floor window.

[Jason Thompson]

I would concede that it may have been plausible that JFK may have been shot from the tsbd if you agree it was a conspiracy,

Why should anyone agree it was a conspiracy, and why should anyone agreeing to that be grounds for you conceding it was possible he was shot from the TSBD? You have been given reams of evidence to the plausibility of that scenario.

You're not interested in the truth, only in perpetuating your belief.

[ka9q]

Dan Rather looked America in the face, told us he had seen the Z film and stated the Presidents head was thrown violently forward from a shot hitting him from the rear, in the back of the head. This statement was not disputed.

Did he say that? Because if he did, he was absolutely correct! JFK's head was thrown violently forward by a shot hitting him in the back of the head. You can see it very easily by flipping between frames Z312 (just prior to the third bullet impact) and Z313 (just after). JFK's head moves forward several inches in just one frame, just the amount he should have moved.

Essential evidence for the wounds, the Z film was hidden from the view of America.

On the contrary, the Z film is one of the best and clearest demonstrations that both shots came from behind. Anyone who says otherwise is simply ignorant.

In fact, some of the conspiracy nuts who used to claim that the Z film absolutely proved a "grassy knoll" shot, once they understood what it really showed, turned 180 degrees and began to claim that the Z film had been tampered with to "prove" shots from the rear! They had absolutely no evidence of tampering, of course, but for the fact that the film demolished their pet conspiracy theory so it had to be bogus. They think just like you do.

Americans find out only through the Shaw Trial that the Z film actually shows that the Presidents head moved violently to the left and back, revealing the official story that JFK's head moved violently forward a blatant lie.

No, after Z313 Americans see a much slower left-and-back effect that was caused not by a bullet hitting from the front, but from a massive neuromuscular spasm in JFK's body when his brain was destroyed. This effect has been duplicated in the laboratory by shooting goats.

This is what happens when incompetent know-it-alls like you pretend they don't need to listen to the scientists who actually know something about physics and physiology through training and experience.

To patch this official lie, the Government and media then presented a "scientific" case that it is normal to move in this manner when struck in the head with a bullet.

And that case is indeed scientific and correct, whether you believe it or not.

But the question remained, then why did the government and media lie to us about JFK's head moving violently forward in the first place, when "they" knew the Z film showed JFK's head moving violently left and back?

Because, they didn't lie. As I explained above, JFK's head does move violently forward before it moves left and back. In fact, this forward motion is much quicker and far more violent, as it all happens in just one frame. After Z313, the bullet was long gone before the back-and-to-the-left motion even starts. So how could it possibly have pushed his head in that direction even if it had enough momentum to do so, which it didn't?

Don't forget that Connally was also hit by a bullet. Did you see him violently thrown around the limousine as JFK was? Think about that.

Whether you like it or not, profmunkin, these are not mere personal opinions. They are scientific facts, backed up with both solid theory and actual laboratory tests. If you aren't willing to understand what's actually happening here, then you have absolutely no business being here. The world works the way it works, and it doesn't give a rat's ass for how you think it ought to work. Either you understand it correctly or you don't. And right now, you don't.

[ka9q]

Why do you think the state of Texas started an inquiry into the assignation?
Why do you think the congress started an inquiry into the assignation?
Why do you think the senate started an inquiry into the assignation?
Why do you think the warren commisssion started an inquiry into the assignation?
Why do you think the city of new orleans started an inquiry into the assignation?
Why do you think the Hsc started an inquiry into the assignation?
Why do you think the Arrb started an inquiry into the assignation?

Because we never believed and still do not believe Oswald did it or did it alone.

That may indeed be the reason all those entities started their inquiries. Conspiracy theories have a powerful appeal to the simple minded and paranoids among us. They persist like zombies even when there's no evidence whatsoever to support them. When someone comes up with a so-called "anomaly" that is fully explained, they simply ignore the explanation and continue to tout the "anomaly" as though it were still unanswered. The "anomalies" and conspiracy theories just won't die as they should have, long ago.

And since democratic governments are designed to respond to the will of the people, even when the people are totally wrong, they opened up these additional inquiries. Yet when they're done properly, they keep coming to the very same basic conclusions that the Warren Commission did. Just how many more inquiries will it take to convince you of this? Or will logic, reason and facts ever convince you? I'm beginning to doubt it.