JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots

[Chew]

Now, do you wish to retract your claim that the 3 tramps were never identified?

Looks like might have to, I would like to do some digging first.
Thanks for the links.

Check out this Youtube video it you haven't already
Ed Lansdale in Dealey Plaza Nov 22 1963
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=5ATbhCUZxjQ

Prouty is a crackpot. He was a colonel when he retired and was awarded a Commendation Medal for his retirement. A colonel being awarded a Commendation Medal for his retirement is a slap in the face. It is the equivalent of saying, "Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out." If he had been any thing other than an office boy who fetched coffee for the general he would have received at least a Meritorious Service Medal.

[ka9q]

profmunkin, please please buy or steal a copy of Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History.

Yes, it's huge at over 1,600 pages...not counting the notes CD-ROM. That's why I only asked you to get a copy, not necessarily to read the whole thing from cover to cover. Just keep and use it as a reference.

Why is it so big? Because it starts with an amazingly detailed moment-by-moment chronology of the assassination and its aftermath. Then it continues with an amazingly detailed biography of Lee Harvey Oswald. And then, having barely gotten warmed up, Bugliosi spends most of his massive book exhaustively documenting, examining and thoroughly debunking every JFK conspiracy theory known to man. Yes, he ridicules them too. Why not? They fully deserve it.

Bugliosi's book is so huge precisely because people like JFK assassination theories. They like them so much that they've invented thousands of 'em, nearly every one in direct contradiction to all the others. So if you're going to keep regurgitating each of these thousands of theories to us the moment you first learn about it, do yourself (and us) a favor. See if Bugliosi has already analyzed and totally demolished it. Chances are that he has.

I mean, this is really getting tedious. Nearly all of the important evidence in the JFK assassination was developed within days of the event. In fact, much of it was known within hours. If not for the importance of the victim, it would have been an open-and-shut case. The evidence has withstood almost 50 years of intense scrutiny, but some people -- like you -- are still either largely ignorant of it or simply don't want to believe it really could be so simple.

After nearly 50 years, it's long past time to just give up and accept the facts.

[Jason Thompson]

I've been doing a little digging around this myself. The large hole in Kennedy's head is on the right hand side towards the rear of his head. In this whole 'back and to the left' business about where his head went when it was shot, have you, prof, made any note of where his head was before he was shot through it? He was leaning, head down and turned towards Jackie's shoulder. That position appears to have put the rear right of his head almost facing slightly forward in relation to the car. Such an explosion of brain and skull as occurred on being shot would therefore definitely have pushed his head to the left, and maybe slightly back too.

I notice also that the report profmunkin cites mentions attempts at shooting 10 skulls and only being able to replicate the kind of wound seen in Kennedy's in one case. Given the huge variability in skulls and the significant effects even a slight change in bullet direction or wind or whatever can have, the fact that he managed a 10% success is pretty impressive in itself. The report suggests that the fact it only happened once shows it could not have been the case in the assassination, but the scientific conclusion from this is that, nonetheless, he was able to produce a wound similar to Kennedy's by shooting a bullet through a skull in the manner suggested by the autopsy report, therefore it is possible to create such a wound with a bullet fired from where oswald was.

[gillianren]

Sorry I am not any good at this.

Your first step should be to acknowledge responses to your claims.  The best way to do this would be to read what is said and actually think about it, not just link to denials from CT websites.  You might also consider that we have heard all of this before and found it unconvincing.  Not for ideological reasons but simply because nothing the conspiracist side presents meets the burden of evidence in a court of law.

[profmunkin]

Not for ideological reasons but simply because nothing the conspiracist side presents meets the burden of evidence in a court of law.

Exactly what is the burden of evidence in a court of law?

Since no one here has most likely been in direct contact with any original evidence, everything is hearsay  (hearsay here meaning; what the WC published), controlling what sources are permissible as evidence, controls the outcome of the conversation and so far the only thing I have seen is that government sources are a prerequisite to be acceptable.

"nothing the conspiracist side presents meets the burden of evidence in a court of law"  this illustrates just high biased this forum is and it indicates how foolish it is to post on this forum any information not in total support of government findings.

It is sad that journalism, historically our societies partner and imperative to our freedom in keeping in check our government, institutions and businesses, seems to be held in utter disdain, disregard and mistrust on this Forum. 

It is a shame that the term 'conspiracy' has turned into a buzz word to prevent any real dialog from taking place, is used as a hammer to prevent questions from being addressed and prevents many to even dare to look at issues.

I am going to be out of communication for a few weeks, so I AM NOT IGNORING posts, I just won't be in a position to monitor, ask or answer posts.

[Echnaton]

"nothing the conspiracist side presents meets the burden of evidence in a court of law"  this illustrates just high biased this forum is and it indicates how foolish it is to post on this forum any information not in total support of government findings.

Complete Bart Sibrel

The first problem is not just the information but the interpretation of the information.  I have asked you over and over again why your interpretation is better than others and you have failed to answer every time.   You just respond by throwing random links and videos at us as if that alone provided sufficient proof.

We ask you again and again to improve your presentation so that we may better understand your claims and why you think your interpretation and conclusion better fit all the evidence than other studies.  It is like pulling teeth to get you to make any actual claim.  If you feel foolish, don't blame us.

It is sad that journalism, historically our societies partner and imperative to our freedom in keeping in check our government, institutions and businesses, seems to be held in utter disdain, disregard and mistrust on this Forum.

If "journalism" your standard of proof then why do you ignore requests to read Reclaiming History.  It is arguably the finest piece of writing on the topic.  Maybe you can read it while on hiatus.

It is a shame that the term 'conspiracy' has turned into a buzz word to prevent any real dialog from taking place, is used as a hammer to prevent questions from being addressed and prevents many to even dare to look at issues.

You are the one who touts conspiracy and does not answer question. 

I am going to be out of communication for a few weeks, so I AM NOT IGNORING posts, I just won't be in a position to monitor, ask or answer posts.

Have a nice break, wherever it takes you. 

[JayUtah]

Exactly what is the burden of evidence in a court of law?

Here's a good start.  http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre

Since no one here has most likely been in direct contact with any original evidence, everything is hearsay...

Hair-split.  The conspiracy authors consider the available materials suitable to draw their conclusions.  Therefore it's disingenuous to suggest that the critics of those conclusions would be hobbled when working with the same material.

Further, access to the primary evidence is not needed in some cases to refute the conspiracy theorists.  I am a trained, published, and reasonably skilled photographic analyst, as part of my training and profession in forensic engineering.  I can look at the "analysis" put forward by some of the JFK conspiracy theorists regarding the evidentiary photos, and I can see no end of amateur errors and pitfalls in it.  No higher fidelity in the evidence will compensate for their egregiously mistaken methods.  That doesn't affirm the lone gunman hypothesis, but it certainly dooms theirs.

...this illustrates just high biased this forum is and it indicates how foolish it is to post on this forum any information not in total support of government findings.

You keep making this accusation every time someone says your argument is insufficient.  Has it ever occurred to that we're not brainwashed robots, and that your argument really is insufficient?

It is sad that journalism...

Conspiracism is not journalism.

It is a shame that the term 'conspiracy' has turned into a buzz word to prevent any real dialog from taking place

Regurgitating long-debunked claims is not a dialog.  Similarly, simply telling your critics that they're hopelessly biased is not very conducive to dialogue either.

[gillianren]

I would also add that I'm not sure I have yet seen a conspiracist who is capable of the necessary synthesis to see how different disciplines work together to present a single, cohesive narrative that fits all the facts.  Many of them think that all you need to do is show that one thing doesn't fit and the entire thing collapses like a house of cards--and, notably, the only thing left to replace it is their version of events.  However, many of them don't ever present a version of events to take the place of the "official" story.  Journalism at least has to answer the "W" questions, which Profmunkin hasn't bothered doing yet.

[Jason Thompson]

Since no one here has most likely been in direct contact with any original evidence, everything is hearsay

So how does that differ from your arguments? Have you been in direct contact with any original evidence? Why is it fine for you but inadequate for us to use such materials?

so far the only thing I have seen is that government sources are a prerequisite to be acceptable.

Rubbish. It's a handy screen for you to hide behind, but it is not a true representation of this debate. All you do is dismiss government publications because you already 'know' it was faked. You are as obliged to deal with the material contained therein as anyone when discussing this subject.

this illustrates just high biased this forum is and it indicates how foolish it is to post on this forum any information not in total support of government findings.

And this illustrates just how blinkered conspiracy theorists are. When it comes to disagreeing with you we can only be doing so out of blind faith in what 'the government' tells us, according to you. You have not actually addressed the substance of any of it. I have already pointed out to you on several occasions the number of times that the notion of a head (or other object) being blown back along the path of the bullet by the force of the ejected material from the exit wound has been duplicated, and explained how it works. You have not so far deigned to respond to that at all.

It is sad that journalism, historically our societies partner and imperative to our freedom in keeping in check our government, institutions and businesses, seems to be held in utter disdain, disregard and mistrust on this Forum.

They are subject to every check and examination that every other piece of material is subject to. When we find them wanting it is not because of blind faith or mistrust, it is because they objectively fail to be persuasive.
 

I am going to be out of communication for a few weeks, so I AM NOT IGNORING posts, I just won't be in a position to monitor, ask or answer posts.

Well enjoy whatever it is you are doing.

[twik]

What exact sort of journalism does profmunkin claim we have contempt for? I've not noticed, for example, the NYT claiming that a conspiracy is a proven thing, and Americans are living under a coup.

On the other hand, conspiracy claims are often made by the sort of journalists who claim that Elvis is alive, and Batboy is developing a cure for cancer. Putting things in writing does not automatically make you a reliable source.

[JayUtah]

Conspiracy theorists often call themselves "investigative journalists" despite that they have no journalist credentials, training, or experience.  Hence conspiracism is often promoted to "journalism."

[Tanalia]

Usually with a very loose interpretation of what "investigation" means as well.

[twik]

It's unfortunate the good professor had to take a break, because I think we got off track from his thread title - that there were three shooters from different locations, and six shots in total. He never really followed up on that; I was curious as to what proof he had of a third location, and where all those shots went. A diagram of locations and shot angles would have been quite interesting.

[Chew]

Good reading about the "earwitnesses": http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm

[Echnaton]

It was Mrs. Peacock in the drawing room with a pistol.  Case Closed!