JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots

[Jason Thompson]

In this case we know exactly what is meant by purport.
Since the photo is never defined by a source or which agency took the photo in addition it is not defined as how this photo is relevant or should be considered evidence.

Absolute rubbish. You conveniently (as you always do) overlook the fact that another definition of 'purport' is 'intend'. It is relevant because the photo is intended to show a bullet mark on a curb such as was seen in Dealey plaza. It was probably taken in Dealey Plaza, but there was insufficient information to explcitly state that it was that same mark.

But no, you insist as you always do that there must be some nefarious intent behind the use of the words.

If this is in Dealey Plaza, where is the FBI analysis of the bullet mark?

Perhaps you'll enlighten us as to what analysis precisely is supposed to have been done on a smear of lead on a curb? Wow us with your technical expertise....

There are times when just seeing the evidence is quite adequate. What additional information will be obtained from 'analysing' the curb mark?

[profmunkin]

I am constantly amused how CTists see evil intent in everything, even when it would be against the interests of the person doing it, assuming they had evil intent. The bad guys make bizarre admissions, when it would be clearly idiotic for them to do so.

Why would the Commission use the word "purported" to mean "false" when they were putting something on the record? It is clear from context that they were using the word simply to mean "assumed", or "not yet fully established". That is a legal term, and quite ordinary in its context.

Because what Liebeler inserted into the record had no evidentiary value to the assassination.
The Tague exhibit 1 was never defined as even being a mark on a curb in Dealey Plaza or specifically the mark on the curb that Tague could confirm as being "the mark on the curb" after the assassination.

Where is the testimony of Walthers or policeman (unidentified) as to corroborating the mark and the direction of the mark?
The FBI analysis?

This is nothing but fraud and deception, to understand that this "purported (false) evidence" is not fact and should NEVER have been allowed to be entered into the record without proper identification is necessary to understand how the WC framed the issues. This is one of the methods used through out the WC investigation, used to introduce non-sense into the record while giving the appearance that all of the issues were addressed.

Same as Liebeler asked Tague where the shots came from, Tague stated the picket fence
Same as Liebeler asked Tague direction of the mark, Tague stated the picket fence

Same as Liebeler asked Tague to conjecture if shots could have come from TSBD. When is this line of questioning allowed for a prosecution?

[Chew]

prof, when you stop lying to everybody about where Tague said the shots came from then maybe you'll stop lying to yourself. Lying to other people is bad enough but lying to yourself is just pathetic.

[Jason Thompson]

The Tague exhibit 1 was never defined as even being a mark on a curb in Dealey Plaza or specifically the mark on the curb that Tague could confirm as being "the mark on the curb" after the assassination.

So what? Tague was asked if it looked like what he saw, and he answered accordingly. The testimony clearly records the fact that neither Liebeler nor Tague can confirm that it was the actual mark. In fact neither of them can make too much sense of the image. Tague is not asked to initial it to confirm that it is the mark on the Dealey Plaza curb, but simply to indicate that he saw it and to confirm that the picture was the one used in the course of the interview.

The FBI analysis?

What analysis? Come on, we're all waiting for you to tell us exactly what analysis the FBI could and should have performed on that lead smear.

This is nothing but fraud and deception, to understand that this "purported (false) evidence" is not fact and should NEVER have been allowed to be entered into the record without proper identification is necessary to understand how the WC framed the issues.

No, what is necessary is to understand that the fact the image was not conclusively identified WAS RECORDED IN THE TESTIMONY. There is no deception there. The nature of the picture is very very clear.

Same as Liebeler asked Tague where the shots came from, Tague stated the picket fence
Same as Liebeler asked Tague direction of the mark, Tague stated the picket fence

Same as Liebeler asked Tague to conjecture if shots could have come from TSBD.

Yes, BECAUSE TAGUE HAD ALREADY DONE SO earlier in his statement. Tague was the first person in that testimony to mention the depository as a possible source of the shots. Liebeler did not lead him into that at all. As usual you rip one pice of testimony bleeding from its context and expect us to assess it on its own merits, but you have to discard a very significant piece of the testimony in order to do that.

When is this line of questioning allowed for a prosecution?

Is Tague's testimony part of a prosecution? As the commission is not a trial there can be no prosecution anyway. And in any case, Tague's testimony was a witness interview and not part of the commission proceedings.

[profmunkin]

Perhaps you'll enlighten us as to what analysis precisely is supposed to have been done on a smear of lead on a curb? Wow us with your technical expertise....

There are times when just seeing the evidence is quite adequate. What additional information will be obtained from 'analysing' the curb mark?

I do not know what evidence they could have attained from the mark on the curb, do you?
BUT
Tague stated that he was able to discern the mark was directed toward the picket fence.
Tague testified that it was his impression that D.S. Walthers was able to discern the mark was directed toward the picket fence.
Tague testified that it was his impression that the "unidentified" policeman was able to discern the mark was directed toward the picket fence.

We can't know what the FBI could have determined or did determine.
Fact is, there is no report available for consideration.
Fact is, there is not even photo evidence available for consideration.
Fact is, the WC did not even ask Tague what it was about the mark that caused him to believe shot came from the picket fence, or Walters or policeman, so we don't have anything worthy of consideration.
That's how we get conspiricied loonies attempting to introduce concepts like co-linear, when they have no f-----g concept of the nature of the mark.

The greatest crime investigation in the history of the world, neglected to determine how Tague and the ricochet bullet as evidence was significant.
The goal the WC was after was for Tague to put on record the opinion it was plausible that the shots could have come from the TSBD, "case closed".


It is not always just what they said, it is also just as important to understand what they didn't say.

[Echnaton]

I do not know....

That is the whole problem, isn't it.  From your admitted ignorance of investigative procedures and lack of interpretive skills, you want to cast doubt on the WC report.  Your entire approach is nothing more than FUD mongering. 

[Jason Thompson]

I do not know what evidence they could have attained from the mark on the curb, do you?

No, but I'm not the one insisting that there should have been some kind of analysis.

BUT
Tague stated that he was able to discern the mark was directed toward the picket fence.
Tague testified that it was his impression that D.S. Walthers was able to discern the mark was directed toward the picket fence.

Where exactly did he say that?

Fact is, the WC did not even ask Tague what it was about the mark that caused him to believe shot came from the picket fence, or Walters or policeman, so we don't have anything worthy of consideration.

No, what we have is his impression that the shots came from the picket fence and his suggestion that the book depository was a possible location he thought of at the time as a place the shots may have come from.

That's how we get conspiricied loonies attempting to introduce concepts like co-linear, when they have no f-----g concept of the nature of the mark.

The nature of the mark makes no differnce to the 'concept of colinear'. The only things we have described as roughly colinear are Oswald's location, the limo, the mark on the curb and Tague. They are all far more colinear than Tague, the limo, the mark and the knoll.

But no, true physics means nothing to you, does it?

The goal the WC was after was for Tague to put on record the opinion it was plausible that the shots could have come from the TSBD, "case closed".

Tague VOLUNTEERED that opinion early on in his testimony. he was NOT led to it, he was NOT co-erced to it, he was NOT misrepresented.

It is not always just what they said, it is also just as important to understand what they didn't say.

But it's a pretty good idea to start out by understanding what they did say, and so far you haven't actually demonstrated any ability to do that. In fact you have intentionally left bits of what was said out of your arguments. Why?

[gillianren]

You know, it wouldn't surprise me if the bits are getting left out because they simply don't appear in the source Profmunkin is using.  Because I don't really believe he's using the actual Warren Report.  I think he's using the pre-digested version which comes on some conspiracist site or another.  He seems awfully surprised every time information is given which shows that he's missing an important fact, and he digs in against it.  I take this to mean that someone he trusts is spoonfeeding him errors, and to question them would mean to question the person he trusts.  And since he has come to believe that you're either right about everything or a dirty, dirty liar, he cannot let himself disbelieve people he likes.

[profmunkin]

You know, it wouldn't surprise me if the bits are getting left out because they simply don't appear in the source Profmunkin is using.  Because I don't really believe he's using the actual Warren Report. 

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm

Good question, I have been using the above site to draw quotes from.

Maybe the mcadams site should not be used to draw evidence from.

[Echnaton]

You know, it wouldn't surprise me if the bits are getting left out because they simply don't appear in the source Profmunkin is using.  Because I don't really believe he's using the actual Warren Report. 

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm

Good question, I have been using the above site to draw quotes from.

Maybe the mcadams site should not be used to draw evidence from.

It is not evidence, it is testimony.  There is a difference. 

[Jason Thompson]

Good question, I have been using the above site to draw quotes from.

Maybe the mcadams site should not be used to draw evidence from.

Or maybe you should learn to read, or develop some kind of intellectual honesty when presenting your 'evidence'. That is the SAME place I looked at, and the SAME source for my statement that Tague is the first to mention the depository as a possible location for the shots, BEFORE Liebeler asks him if it is possible they came from there.

[gillianren]

For heaven's sake, that site is pro-Warren Report!  I am the one who pointed Profmunkin to it, and every single time he's cited it, it has been shown that he's taking things out of context and is ignoring evidence presented later on the page.  I know we're all supposed to be pretending that we don't think Profmunkin is a sock, but isn't this level of intellectual dishonesty itself cause for censure from LO?

[Echnaton]

You know, it wouldn't surprise me if the bits are getting left out because they simply don't appear in the source Profmunkin is using.  Because I don't really believe he's using the actual Warren Report. 

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm

Good question, I have been using the above site to draw quotes from.

Maybe the mcadams site should not be used to draw evidence from.

It is not evidence, it is testimony.  There is a difference. 

I am retracting this, because while there is a difference, testimony is one form of evidence, so profmunkin's statement of drawing evidence from the web site is correct. 

[SolusLupus]

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm

Good question, I have been using the above site to draw quotes from.

Maybe the mcadams site should not be used to draw evidence from.

Prof, I'm going to give a shot at this here.  Do you know what cherry picking is?

It's where you start with a conclusion and work backwards, trying to fit every piece of data you can find to support the conclusion, ignoring everything else that doesn't seem to support it.

This is a very easy trap to fall into, especially when you're more concerned with "winning" an argument than finding a satisfactory conclusion involving the data.  The problem with conspiracy theories is that they almost invariably involve an extreme form of this kind of thinking, often presenting things far from the truth, to the point of just being a complete fabrication at points  (just see this for an example:  http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.html).

You're looking into things to try to draw testimony into supporting your ideas, can't you see that?  You're not reading the testimony, you're reading snippets of the testimony and stopping when you see something that, when out of context (since you aren't reading for context), sounds suspicious.  You interpret every word to mean the most insidious possible definition of that word, every sentence to mean the most insidious meaning it can bear.

All the while, you aren't contributing anything.  You're saying, "Look at the suspicious things these people are saying", while not actually putting anything together.  Pointing out perceived discrepancies doesn't actually paint a convincing narrative.  In fact, the narrative you're going with, several shooters (even just two), seems highly unlikely, as it's extremely high risk for very little reward, by a party that you have yet to identify.

I really hope you someday learn to realize the problems with this.  It probably won't be in the lifespan of this thread, but I do hope you can take something away from this to make you think later on in your life.

[Mr Gorsky]

In many ways, what is going on in this thread is very similar to the stuff we see in the Apollo threads.

HB: Hey look at the anomaly in this picture.
AH: That isn't an anomaly, it is [scientific explanation]
HB: That's ridiculous, you are parroting the official story. Besides what about this anomaly in this other picture.
AH: *Facepalm*