ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags assassinations , JFK assassination , John F. Kennedy , Kennedy conspiracies

Reply
Old 13th June 2018, 09:54 PM   #361
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 8,483
I expect manifesto will either ignore the following, or handwave it away. I have really only posted it for the benefit of lurkers so that when he fails to address each of these issues, those lurkers will see exactly the way in which dishonest and disingenuous JFK conspiracy theorists operate.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
1. The investigation shows that it was five, not four, impulse patterns that had a significant match with 0.6 or more binary correlation.

2. That the shot from the knoll was the fatal head shot and did not miss.

3. That the probability for the knoll-shot being random noise or static was 1/100 000, not ca 1/20.
Debunked by assassination researcher and sound engineer Steve Barber.
In July 1979, on listening to the recording, he was able to discern speech; ("Hold everything secure until the homicide and other investigators can get there") at the exact point on the recording where the HSCA had claimed the assassination shots were recorded. Those words were spoken by Sheriff Bill Decker about 90 seconds after the assassination, so the shots could not be when the HSCA claimed.
Here is Steve Barber talking about how he came to his conclusions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHWZLv3iuo8

If you disagree with Barber's conclusions, cite each point you disagree with, explain in detail why you disagree with it.

Debunked by the FBI's Signal Analysis Unit.
Their December 1, 1980 report concluded that the HSCA were unsuccessful in proving that there were gunshots on the recording, and also failed to prove that the recording was made in Dealey Plaza. In fact, using the techniques of the previous investigators, the FBI matched a gunshot recorded in Greensboro, NC in 1979 with the sound that was supposedly a shot from the grassy knoll – proving that the initial investigation's methods were statistically invalid.
Here is an analysis of the FBI's report.
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisb.../Item%2010.pdf

If you disagree with it, cite each point you disagree with, explain in detail why you disagree with it.

Debunked by the CBA.
On May 14, 1982, the panel of experts chaired by Harvard University's Norman Ramsey, released the results of their study. The NAS panel unanimously concluded 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.
Here is the CBA's report.
http://www.jfk-online.com/nas00.html

If you disagree with it, cite each and every point you disagree with, explain in detail why you disagree with it.

Debunked by Dale Myers.
In 2003, ABC News aired the results of its investigation on a program called Peter Jennings Reporting: The Kennedy Assassination: Beyond Conspiracy. Based on computer diagrams and recreations done by Dale K. Myers, it concluded that the sound recordings on the Dictabelt could not have come from Dealey Plaza, and that Dallas Police Officer H.B. McLain was correct in his assertions that he had not yet entered Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination.
Here is Myers' work on the acoustics.
http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/acoustics.htm

If you disagree with it, cite each and every point you disagree with, explain in detail why you disagree with it.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Your "arguments" consist of nothing more than handwaving, bare assertion and character attacks on those experts doing the work. Of course, this is all you can do, because you have nothing else; you cannot possibly argue from a position knowledge because you don't have any understanding of the technical details.

The reason you don't have any of the required understanding is that you don't research anything outside of your echo-chambers.

The reason I know you don't have any of the required understanding is that you have been asked several times to explain your understanding of the techniques the HSCA used to came to their conclusions, and you have failed to do so. You have refused all requests to tell us what you understand, so its clear that you simply don't.


I renew my offer to manifesto: Explain in detail, in your own words, (no copypasta from CT websites or the work of CT loons) how the HSCA Acoustic analysis was supposed to work, i.e. the scientific premise they based their analysis on, and I will explain in detail, the flaws in their thinking and in that premise, the limitations in equipment they used and the reason why later analysis, using more sophisticated equipment, was able to prove them wrong.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.

Last edited by smartcooky; 13th June 2018 at 11:29 PM.
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 01:53 AM   #362
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,066
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Oswald begins working at the TSBD on 16, October, 1963

The trip to Texas was confirmed on 4, November, 1963. Dallas Secret Service are alerted.

The Dallas Motorcade is confirmed on 16, November, 1963.

The Dallas Motorcade Route is published in the Dallas Morning News on 21, November, 1963.

There's your time-frame. What nobody would have known or controlled was the weather - there had been thunder storms in hours preceding JFK's arrival at Love Field, and there was a good chance that the limo would have had it's bubble-top put on had there been a threat of rain.

Bottom line: Oswald didn't even know if he was going to have a shot at the President that day.

When I come back I'll take a shot at your second question.
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
The point (I think) Yak is making is that, setting aside the claim that the paper trail was forged as maintained in CT fantasy world, the FACT remains that the 6.5 x 52 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle serial number C2766 (the exact rifle found in the 6th floor of the TSBD) WAS sold to "A Hidell" (in CT fantasy world, a fake ID used by the Alphabet Soup) on March 13, 1963 (with an order form in Oswald's handwriting), and picked up by the same person at the Dallas GPO on March 25. The evidence of this is irrefutable, the deposit of the payment, the shipping of the rifle by Klein's, the pickup from the Dallas GPO is all documented.

What was the purpose of buying the rifle and setting up Oswald by faking the paper trail (including forging the order form) in March 1963 at a time when no-one knew that JFK was even going to be in Texas, let alone driving through Dallas?
Exactly, smartcooky. In order for this conspiracy to succeed, the Evil Them would have had to have known that Oswald would start working in the TSBD before the President's route was fixed, and that the Carcano would be needed months before either of these two circumstances.
If Oswald hadn't got the job, if he had called in sick that day, if it had rained, if the motorcade had chosen a different route due to unexpected circumstances, etc. etc., the whole elaborate scheme would have come crashing down. To construct a plot so fragile, when the consequences of both success and failure would be so huge is surely the height of folly.
This is in addition to the amount of work needed after the act, to cover up the evidence.
I'm sailing close to 'If I Ran The Zoo', but I cannot see how such a scenario is even remotely plausible.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 04:30 AM   #363
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 852
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Originally Posted by manifesto
”Legitimate”? Who’s the chief arbiter, here?

Your mentor Mr. McA ... ?

The HSCA acoustical evidence: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=961

The actual investigation, not the politically contrived conclusions made by Robert Blakey.

1. The investigation shows that it was five, not four, impulse patterns that had a significant match with 0.6 or more binary correlation.

2. That the shot from the knoll was the fatal head shot and did not miss.

3. That the probability for the knoll-shot being random noise or static was 1/100 000, not ca 1/20.

I have argued for this in the following posts (among others):

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1338

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1367

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1412

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1482

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1536

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1541

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1587

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1594

Let me know if this is not enough and tell me what additional information you need to see, if any.

But, be specific. Cite. Explain.

Much as I hate to do this but, you have asked for this. Post 1338

Originally Posted by pgwenthold
The probability that there are 4 rifle shots being random noise is 1/10000 IF and only there is a motorcycle with a stuck mike in the correct position
.
[Originally posted by manifesto]
5 shots. Chief of HSCA, Blakey, desided that one shot from behind had to be excluded because Oswald couldn’t possible have made 4 shots in that timeframe. Which of cource is circular reasoning.

If you look att the real investigation, not edited by Blakey, the number of detected rifle shots were 5. 4 from behind and 1 from the picket fence at the knoll with P for random noise less than 1/100 000. Pretty much a slam dunk.

Quote: [pgwenthold]
If there is not a motorcycle with a stuck mike in that position, the probability that it is random noise is 100%
.
[manifesto]
IF your evidence of placing the microphone at the Trade Mart is of the same probability (P = 1/100 000) for being somewhere else, you have a case.

Quote: [phwenthold]
Therefore, in order to conclude they are gun shots, you first have to establish that the motorcycle is in the right position with a mike stuck open.

This is why the HSCA failed. They did not do that. They made the same error you did. Because they wanted it to be so.

[manifesto]
No. The chance of the 5 echo pulses-patterns being random noise is 1/100 000. So, you have to establish the same or bigger probability that the microphone was at the Trade Mart if you disprove the HSCA’s findings.

Quote: [pgwenthold]
So tell me, where was Officer McLain at the time the shots were made? Please answer this without referring to the recording, since you have not established that McLain is the source of the recording.

[manifesto]
You do not understand:

1. The recording show with next to 100% proof five rifle shots on it.

2. There is no photo or film showing the 5 areas where the microphone have to be in order to pick up the sound on the recording.

3. McLain is on photo and film before and after the shooting, making him the prime candidate for having the stuck microphone on said areas during the right time frame.

4. You have to show that the microphone instead was in the Trade Mart with a confidence of P < 1/100 000 for it being somewhere else.

Quote: [pgwenthold]
I'll give some help: He wasn't where he needed to be, and his mike wasn't stuck open.

[manifesto]
How do you know?

[pgwenthold]
Now lets dissect your evidence.

The first six paragraphs deal with the dicta-belt "evidence". It has been pointed out to you many times that this little bit of "evidence" you continue to cite has been de-bunked, and because you don't understand it, you continue to post this garbage. The 70's HSCA dicta-belt evidence has been refuted so many times it is funny to all of us but you. The last that I remember posted is
https://www.heliyon.com/article/e00603#Declarations
You have never stated anything about this report, because I doubt you have read it, or it is more advanced than you(no criticism intended). The only attempt you made is Myers' video. You don't understand this either as you keep calling it "eye-balling". Nothing could be further from the truth.

Then you continue on with this line of thought by attempting to place McClain in the correct location, which is impossible. Further the open mike location when listening to more of the belt than you wish we would listen to, one hears an officer whistling into the mike, then we hear the Doppler effect of sirens.
And you finish with more Officer McClain and the probability of the acoustic evidence being "P < 1/100 000" without submitting the limiting factors. That evidence is correct If and Only If the open mike is in the precise location, which it is NOT.

Now Tell us where your evidence is in ONLY the first entry. You fail miserably and won't have the courage to admit you are wrong.

No evidence is no evidence. I have asked politely for you to refrain from ad hominems I shall report this post.

Ok, first I cleaned up your post in order to sort out who is who saying what.

Second, my post (quoted by you at the top of this post) was a response to ”Hanks” claim that I had not provided evidence, explained it or argued for its veracity. It is now crystal clear that I have.

Third. That YOU do not like my evidence, explanations and arguments isn’t the same as me not having presented it. It’s there, like or not.

That is, you have to separate your opinion of my evidence, explanations and arguments, from the issue of me at all having presented such or not
.

Do do you think you can do that?

Btw, I firmly disagree with most of your arguments above, but I do not claim that you have not presented them. You certainly have.
As I pointed out, you have no evidence, as you fall back to citing the dicta-belt, which science has refuted. The only opinion of your "evidence" that I have is you have no evidence.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 06:57 AM   #364
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,486
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Second, my post (quoted by you at the top of this post) was a response to ”Hanks” claim that I had not provided evidence, explained it or argued for its veracity. It is now crystal clear that I have.

Third. That YOU do not like my evidence, explanations and arguments isn’t the same as me not having presented it. It’s there, like or not.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1594
Quote:
Evidence is so called evidence until proven being legitimate evidence. Calling something ”evidence” doesn’t magically make it so. You also have to show that this is the case.


Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
That is, you have to separate your opinion of my evidence, explanations and arguments, from the issue of me at all having presented such or not.
Quote:
Evidence is so called evidence until proven being legitimate evidence. Calling something ”evidence” doesn’t magically make it so. You also have to show that this is the case.
You yourself explained what the problem is.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 07:01 AM   #365
manifesto
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,876
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1594


You yourself explained what the problem is.

Hank
I’m not just posting links to ”evidence”, Hank. I’m citing relevant parts of it, explaning it to the best of my ability and arguing for its veracity.

THAT is the difference.

Last edited by manifesto; 14th June 2018 at 07:07 AM.
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 07:04 AM   #366
manifesto
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,876
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
As I pointed out, you have no evidence, as you fall back to citing the dicta-belt, which science has refuted. The only opinion of your "evidence" that I have is you have no evidence.
As I said, your opinion of said evidence is another issue, separate from the fact that I have provided it, explained it and argued for its veracity.

Try to stay focused, bknight.
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 07:54 AM   #367
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 852
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
As I said, your opinion of said evidence is another issue, separate from the fact that I have provided it, explained it and argued for its veracity.

Try to stay focused, bknight.
I am focused, as I have pointed out you have no evidence. The dicta-belt has been refuted by newer science research. smartcooky posted other sources that have refuted the findings back in the 70's.
Why do you continue to believe that it is correct?
If the only reason is to support your CT believe, then you have nothing as I posted earlier.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 11:46 AM   #368
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,074
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
I am focused, as I have pointed out you have no evidence. The dicta-belt has been refuted by newer science research. smartcooky posted other sources that have refuted the findings back in the 70's.
Why do you continue to believe that it is correct?
If the only reason is to support your CT believe, then you have nothing as I posted earlier.
He NEEDS it to be real, he NEEDS it all to be real. If it is all debunked then he has to go back to the drawing board. The problem with Manifesto and MJ is that they were late to the JFK-CT party, and are stuck with stale left-over CT's to chew on.

They don't understand how this conspiracy was created. They don't understand that most Americans read about the assassination, and later read about CT's without ever seeing any of the home movies made that day. Even when played on TV, the old CRT's didn't have the resolution, and most of the time the films were re-recorded by projecting them on a screen, and filming them with a video camera.

So in the void of visual evidence CT's grew and became established.

They were fed by the government in many ways as well. The sealing of documents for decades, the prohibition on viewing the autopsy materials, and RFK making off with his brother's brain to bury it with the body all clouded the issue.

Stories get retold, and with each retelling they become more extreme. There is money in CT's, and JFK will get a guy published with a nicer advance than five other CT's combined. Most of the research in the newer books is just quoting other CT books as if those authors did legitimate work - and many did not.

When I went to Dallas the first thing that struck me was HOW SMALL DEALEY PLAZA REALLY IS when compared to how it looks on film. This was a fact that I'd never seen stressed in any of the CT books I'd wasted my money and time reading. If those authors could overlook a basic fact then what else did they miss?

It was up-hill from there to now accepting the fact of Oswald's guilt. Some people can never admit they're wrong.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 12:17 PM   #369
traxy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 460
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
When I went to Dallas the first thing that struck me was HOW SMALL DEALEY PLAZA REALLY IS when compared to how it looks on film. This was a fact that I'd never seen stressed in any of the CT books I'd wasted my money and time reading. If those authors could overlook a basic fact then what else did they miss?
I had the same experience.

"This is it? Hell, I could throw a rock and hit a car from that distance".

The knoll provides absolutely no cover either. Zero chance someone could shoot from there and not be seen.
traxy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 12:23 PM   #370
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 852
Originally Posted by traxy View Post
I had the same experience.

"This is it? Hell, I could throw a rock and hit a car from that distance".

The knoll provides absolutely no cover either. Zero chance someone could shoot from there and not be seen.
Wait a moment, using invisible makeup, shooting invisible weapons firing magic bullets, it might be possible.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 12:41 PM   #371
Steve
Illuminator
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,790
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Wait a moment, using invisible makeup, shooting invisible weapons firing magic bullets, it might be possible.
Careful! Those are the first steps along the path to CTism.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 12:44 PM   #372
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,486
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Here's the 100 claims by Manifesto that he was asked to provide evidence for. He has yet to support any of them with legitimate evidence.

1 - Evidence?
Originally Posted by manifesto http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4152
Quote:
- I know that at least two shooters fired at least 5 rifle shots, four from behind the limo and one, the fatal headshot, from in front behind the picket fence on the knoll.


Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
I’m not just posting links to ”evidence”, Hank. I’m citing relevant parts of it, explaning it to the best of my ability and arguing for its veracity. THAT is the difference.
Bzzzt. What consolation prize do we have for our contestant, Jimmy?
Yes, Al. We have a fine five-piece matching luggage set from Armani for our loser.


Here's your original link where you listed the posts *supposedly* "citing relevant parts of it, explaning it to the best of [your] ability and arguing for its veracity" for the five shot scenario from the HSCA dictabelt study and for a frontal shot killing JFK. That's the first point (#1) you were called on to provide evidence for.
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
The HSCA acoustical evidence: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=961

The actual in investigation, not the politically contrived conclusions made by Robert Blakey.

1. The investigation shows that it was five, not four, impulse patterns that had a significant match with 0.6 or more binary correlation.

2. That the shot from the knoll was the fatal head shot and did not miss.

3. That the probability for the knoll-shot being random noise or static was 1/100 000, not ca 1/20.

I have argued for this in the following posts (among others):

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1338

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1367

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1412

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1482

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1536

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1541

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1587

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1594

Let me know if this is not enough and tell me what additional information you need to see, if any.

But, be specific. Cite. Explain.
Here's everything that's in that last link:

cmikes original points are in grey.
Your claims are indented.
[My points are in blue within brackets.]


This one: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1594
Quote:
[Originally Posted by cmikes]
OK, the specific claim is that Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John Kennedy, hitting him twice and causing the death of JFK.

The evidence for this is the Warren Commission report and the accompanying volumes of exhibits, the HSCA report*, the Clark report, the Rockefeller report, and the ARRB report.
Ok. My claim is that Pope Paul VI killed JFK with magic and the evidence of this is in the Vatican Library.

Go seek.
[COMMENT: You said you were familiar with the evidence. You shouldn't need your hand held when someone cites the Warren Report or the other reports. You should know this. No evidence, citations, or argument about the five shot HSCA dictabelt study above or about the head shot.]



Quote:
[Originally Posted by cmikes]
What evidence are you referring to as "SO CALLED"? Do you have any evidence supporting your claims, or is it the standard conspiracy theorist handwave of "If it doesn't support my belief, it must be fake!"?
Evidence is so called evidence until proven being legitimate evidence. Calling something ”evidence” doesn’t magically make it so. You also have to show that this is the case.

Example:

DPD’s Lt. Day said sworn under oath to the WC that he could see his initials on two of the cartridges allegedly found on the floor in the so called ”snipers nest”.

If I tell you that these initials are nowhere to be found on said cartridges, what are you conclusion from this?

Still evidence? For what?
[COMMENT: Change of subject. No evidence, citations, or argument about the five shot HSCA dictabelt study above or about the head shot.]



Quote:
[Originally Posted by cmikes]
Done and done by multiple posters. Just because you insist on sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" doesn't mean that other posters aren't reading and understanding the rebuttals to your claims.
What a strange comment. Are you sure that scientific scepticism is something you really want to pursue? It takes a little discipline and commitment to the truth.

Are you up to it?
[COMMENT: Hand-waving apparent. No evidence, citations, or argument about the five shot HSCA dictabelt study above or about the head shot.]



Quote:
[Originally Posted by cmikes]
*The HSCA is a particularity fascinating case because the Chief Counsel, Robert Blakey, was a committed conspiracy theorist
No he was not. He was chosen to replace Sprauge because they knew he would not stir up some dirt pointing to the CIA and US Security State.

When confronted with the results from the acoustical evidence he did this:

- He convinced Barger that in order for his Congressional overseers to bye a shot from the knoll = conspiracy, they had to do a little editing of the scientific findings. Exclude one of the four shots from behind as a ”false alarm” and move the knoll-shot from number 4 (of 5) to number 4 (of 4). Why? Because it did not threat the official mythology of Oswald as the killer of JFK.

This little maneauver created a tremendous confusion which still reins to day, 40 years later.

I’m here to set the record straight.
[COMMENT: Bald assertions. No evidence, citations, or argument about the five shot HSCA dictabelt study above or about the head shot.]



Quote:
[Originally Posted by cmikes]
of the "Mafia did it" faction
A completely harmless position visavi the US power elite, yes.
[COMMENT: Bald assertion. No evidence, citations, or argument about the five shot HSCA dictabelt study above or about the head shot.]



Quote:
[Originally Posted by cmikes]
and spent his entire tenure desperately driving his staff to find something, anything that pointed to a conspiracy.
Wrong. He spent his entire tenure to stear away from everything that pointed to the real culprits, the US power elite and their errand boys in the CIA.
[COMMENT: Bald assertions. No evidence, citations, or argument about the five shot HSCA dictabelt study above or about the head shot.]



Quote:
[Originally Posted by cmikes]
The fact that the best he could do with the full power of a Congressional investigation behind him was the quickly debunked acoustic evidence says volumes about the lack of any evidence showing a conspiracy. It's about as close as you can get to proving a negative.
You seem to know very little of what really happened inside HSCA before and after Blakey took over.

This is a good primer from the inside: https://www.amazon.com/Last-Investig..._&dpSrc=detail [a link to a book! - HANK]

I suggest you read it.
[COMMENT: Bald assertions. No evidence, citations, or argument about the five shot HSCA dictabelt study above or about the head shot.]

You cited the above post as something containing evidence, citations, and argument for your claim about the five shot dictabelt study and the head shot coming from the knoll. There's nothing in there but bald assertions, changes of subject and a link to a conspiracy book by a committed conspiracy author. Your link fails to live up to its billing. It contains none of what you said it contained.

None of that post supports your claim that you've provided evidence, citations, and arguments about the matter you offered it as proof of: the five-shot HSCA dictabelt study or about the head shot coming from the knoll. Instead, there was just a lot of handwaving, changing the subject, and ignoring the points made.

You can't just post any made-up claim here and expect not to get called on it.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 14th June 2018 at 01:16 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 01:32 PM   #373
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 8,483
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
When I went to Dallas the first thing that struck me was HOW SMALL DEALEY PLAZA REALLY IS when compared to how it looks on film. This was a fact that I'd never seen stressed in any of the CT books I'd wasted my money and time reading. If those authors could overlook a basic fact then what else did they miss?
Originally Posted by traxy View Post
I had the same experience.

"This is it? Hell, I could throw a rock and hit a car from that distance".

The knoll provides absolutely no cover either. Zero chance someone could shoot from there and not be seen.

I'll third that. When I visited the plaza back in the day, I struggled to reconcile what I saw with what I knew of the photographs and the films. It was MUCH, MUCH smaller than I had envisaged. That visit was another of the little "hints" reality was giving me that I was wrong about the alleged conspiracy to kill JFK.

And you're right traxy, any muggins with a small amount of training could have made that shot, even without a telescopic sight, especially if they got three attempts to make it.

Another thing that isn't apparent in the films is the degree of slope on the road between the TSBD and the Triple Underpass... it is very noticeably downhill; the implications of this is that the limousine's vertical movement was such that the shooter on the sixth floor did not have to track downwards as much as they would have to if the road had been flat.

I have stood (as any interested person would) on the plinth that Abraham Zapruder stood on when he shot his iconic few seconds of film. The view is fantastic, all the way around more than 180°. There is no way a shooter could have been there without Zapruder and all the other people there clearly seeing him.

Finally, not only is there no cover on the Grassy Knoll, there is almost no shot. While the Stemmens Freeway sign was long gone of course (removed in the late 1960's) it was easy to work out where it had been. In every reasonable place on the Knoll that you might set up for a shot, that sign would have obstructed the view of the motorcade's approach, giving a shooter little or not time to aim and track. Add to that the slope of the road I mentioned earlier, which would work against any shooter, because they would be side on; it would increase the degree to which a shooter would have to track down while tracking across. IMO, if you asked any sniper, they would tell you that the Grassy Knoll would be about the worst place in Dealey Plaza you could pick to take a shot at a moving target driving down Elm Street.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 01:39 PM   #374
manifesto
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,876
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Bzzzt. What consolation prize do we have for our contestant, Jimmy?
Yes, Al. We have a fine five-piece matching luggage set from Armani for our loser.


Here's your original link where you listed the posts *supposedly* "citing relevant parts of it, explaning it to the best of [your] ability and arguing for its veracity" for the five shot scenario from the HSCA dictabelt study and for a frontal shot killing JFK. That's the first point (#1) you were called on to provide evidence for.


Here's everything that's in that last link:

cmikes original points are in grey.
Your claims are indented.
[My points are in blue within brackets.]


This one: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1594



You cited the above post as something containing evidence, citations, and argument for your claim about the five shot dictabelt study and the head shot coming from the knoll. There's nothing in there but bald assertions, changes of subject and a link to a conspiracy book by a committed conspiracy author. Your link fails to live up to its billing. It contains none of what you said it contained.

None of that post supports your claim that you've provided evidence, citations, and arguments about the matter you offered it as proof of: the five-shot HSCA dictabelt study or about the head shot coming from the knoll. Instead, there was just a lot of handwaving, changing the subject, and ignoring the points made.

You can't just post any made-up claim here and expect not to get called on it.

Hank
You are changing the subject, Hank. You are claiming that I haven’t provided evidence, explained it and argued for its veracity.

You are conflating your somewhat odd and faulty opinion of the content of this, with the fact that I have certainly provided what you say I haven’t.

But that is a well documented and well known MO you are resorting to when shown to be wrong, lying and dishonest, Hank.

Continuing with this behaviour doesn’t promote your ’brand’ outside the Mighty Church, now Hank, does it.

Pathetic.

Btw, your ”comments” above are just crap as usual, but I do agree to that you have certainly provided them. Of course you have.

Last edited by manifesto; 14th June 2018 at 01:44 PM.
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 01:46 PM   #375
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 8,483
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Bzzzt. What consolation prize do we have for our contestant, Jimmy?
Yes, Al. We have a fine five-piece matching luggage set from Armani for our loser.


Here's your original link where you listed the posts *supposedly* "citing relevant parts of it, explaning it to the best of [your] ability and arguing for its veracity" for the five shot scenario from the HSCA dictabelt study and for a frontal shot killing JFK. That's the first point (#1) you were called on to provide evidence for.


Here's everything that's in that last link:

cmikes original points are in grey.
Your claims are indented.
[My points are in blue within brackets.]


This one: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1594



You cited the above post as something containing evidence, citations, and argument for your claim about the five shot dictabelt study and the head shot coming from the knoll. There's nothing in there but bald assertions, changes of subject and a link to a conspiracy book by a committed conspiracy author. Your link fails to live up to its billing. It contains none of what you said it contained.

None of that post supports your claim that you've provided evidence, citations, and arguments about the matter you offered it as proof of: the five-shot HSCA dictabelt study or about the head shot coming from the knoll. Instead, there was just a lot of handwaving, changing the subject, and ignoring the points made.

You can't just post any made-up claim here and expect not to get called on it.

Hank
Drilling down to it, the translation of all this is that manifesto seems to think his own proclamations are evidence.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 01:50 PM   #376
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 8,483
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
You are changing the subject, Hank. You are claiming that I haven’t provided evidence, explained it and argued for its veracity.

You are conflating your somewhat odd and faulty opinion of the content of this, with the fact that I have certainly provided what you say I haven’t.

But that is a well documented and well known MO you are resorting to when shown to be wrong, lying and dishonest, Hank.

Continuing with this behaviour doesn’t promote your ’brand’ outside the Mighty Church, now Hank, does it.

Pathetic.

Btw, your ”comments” above are just crap as usual, but I do agree to that you have certainly provided them. Of course you have.
Pot, meet kettle!
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 02:22 PM   #377
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,074
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I'll third that. When I visited the plaza back in the day, I struggled to reconcile what I saw with what I knew of the photographs and the films. It was MUCH, MUCH smaller than I had envisaged. That visit was another of the little "hints" reality was giving me that I was wrong about the alleged conspiracy to kill JFK.

And you're right traxy, any muggins with a small amount of training could have made that shot, even without a telescopic sight, especially if they got three attempts to make it.

Another thing that isn't apparent in the films is the degree of slope on the road between the TSBD and the Triple Underpass... it is very noticeably downhill; the implications of this is that the limousine's vertical movement was such that the shooter on the sixth floor did not have to track downwards as much as they would have to if the road had been flat.

I have stood (as any interested person would) on the plinth that Abraham Zapruder stood on when he shot his iconic few seconds of film. The view is fantastic, all the way around more than 180°. There is no way a shooter could have been there without Zapruder and all the other people there clearly seeing him.

Finally, not only is there no cover on the Grassy Knoll, there is almost no shot. While the Stemmens Freeway sign was long gone of course (removed in the late 1960's) it was easy to work out where it had been. In every reasonable place on the Knoll that you might set up for a shot, that sign would have obstructed the view of the motorcade's approach, giving a shooter little or not time to aim and track. Add to that the slope of the road I mentioned earlier, which would work against any shooter, because they would be side on; it would increase the degree to which a shooter would have to track down while tracking across. IMO, if you asked any sniper, they would tell you that the Grassy Knoll would be about the worst place in Dealey Plaza you could pick to take a shot at a moving target driving down Elm Street.
Oswald had the best location to shoot from. This is from his window on the 6th floor:

https://www.earthcam.com/usa/texas/d...am=dealeyplaza

It gives you an idea of scale, and you can see that Elm Street helped line up his shots. The limo was riding the center line of the street which made reacquiring the sight-picture a snap since all he had to do was keep his front sight on the yellow line, and raise the scope back into view for the next shot.

For a rifle with a 1,000 yard range, Dealey Plaza is almost point-blank.

And Zapruder and his assistant holding his legs would have been 15 feet away from the shooter, yet they never saw anything.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 02:26 PM   #378
manifesto
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,876
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Pot, meet kettle!
This is how you perpetuate the illusion of being shown right when shown wrong. Everyone comes running to ’save’ the member currently in deep trouble with hit and run comments with little or no substance on the subject actually being discussed.

Like all sectarian echo chamber hive minds, it is self perpetuating actually feeding on the contrary evidence as ’signs’ of it being right all along.

Pathetic.
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 02:31 PM   #379
Pope130
Master Poster
 
Pope130's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,684
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Oswald had the best location to shoot from. This is from his window on the 6th floor:

https://www.earthcam.com/usa/texas/d...am=dealeyplaza


For a rifle with a 1,000 yard range, Dealey Plaza is almost point-blank.
I agree. I've been to Dallas as well. I was also surprised about have small Dealey Plaza really is.

"Point Blank" for the 6.5 x 52 military load is about 200 yards. At that range the bullet is no more than two inches above or below the sight line.
Pope130 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 02:40 PM   #380
manifesto
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,876
Originally Posted by Pope130 View Post
I agree. I've been to Dallas as well. I was also surprised about have small Dealey Plaza really is.

"Point Blank" for the 6.5 x 52 military load is about 200 yards. At that range the bullet is no more than two inches above or below the sight line.
Ah, that explains why none of the expert rifle men who tried to recreate Oswalds alleged shots did not manage to do it.

In spite of:

- Half the height.

- Two attempts.

- Newly served and repaired rifle.

- No moving targets.

- Start the series whenever they felt ready.

- No life and death stress.

But I guess Oswald shooting just above the lowest possible points to remain an armed Marine in his last shooting test explains it all, doesn’t it?
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 02:56 PM   #381
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 29,211
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Ah, that explains why none of the expert rifle men who tried to recreate Oswalds alleged shots did not manage to do it.

In spite of:

- Half the height.

- Two attempts.

- Newly served and repaired rifle.

- No moving targets.

- Start the series whenever they felt ready.

- No life and death stress.

But I guess Oswald shooting just above the lowest possible points to remain an armed Marine in his last shooting test explains it all, doesn’t it?
Was it impossible for anyone? Or just Oswald?

LOL. Delusional and irrational denial.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 03:19 PM   #382
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,486
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Pot, meet kettle!
It's just a CT being a CT.

They have no evidence so they must pretend they do, and when cornered, pretend it was already provided.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 03:29 PM   #383
traxy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 460
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Ah, that explains why none of the expert rifle men who tried to recreate Oswalds alleged shots did not manage to do it.

In spite of:

- Half the height.

- Two attempts.

- Newly served and repaired rifle.

- No moving targets.

- Start the series whenever they felt ready.

- No life and death stress.

But I guess Oswald shooting just above the lowest possible points to remain an armed Marine in his last shooting test explains it all, doesn’t it?
This is patently false.

For the 1967 CBS recreation, attempting to shoot under an artificially shortened timeframe of 5.6 seconds, 7 of 11 shooters matched or bettered Oswald's performance. 4 of them did it on their first try. One went 3 for 3, all on the inner target in 5 seconds flat.
traxy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 03:37 PM   #384
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,585
Originally Posted by Pope130 View Post
I agree. I've been to Dallas as well. I was also surprised about have small Dealey Plaza really is.
As was I, which is why I typically ask conspiracy theorists if they've ever been there. Especially if they start out by saying what an "impossible" shot Oswald's would have been. If they say they've only seen pictures and video, or virtual tours, I don't really consider that they have a working knowledge of the site.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 03:46 PM   #385
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,074
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Ah, that explains why none of the expert rifle men who tried to recreate Oswalds alleged shots did not manage to do it.

In spite of:

- Half the height.

- Two attempts.

- Newly served and repaired rifle.

- No moving targets.

- Start the series whenever they felt ready.

- No life and death stress.

But I guess Oswald shooting just above the lowest possible points to remain an armed Marine in his last shooting test explains it all, doesn’t it?
Weird, here's what happened in the real world:

Quote:
The ammunition used by the assassin was manufactured by Western Cartridge Co. of East Alton, III. In tests with the Mannlicher-Carcano C2766 rifle, over 100 rounds of this ammunition were fired by the FBI and the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the U.S. Army. There were no misfires.796
Quote:
In an effort to test the rifle under conditions which simulated those which prevailed during the assassination, the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Research Laboratory had expert riflemen fire the assassination weapon from a tower at three silhouette targets at distances of 175, 240, and 265 feet. The target at 265 feet was placed to the right of the 240-foot target which was in turn placed to the right of the closest silhouette.797 Using the assassination rifle mounted with the telescopic sight, three marksmen, rated as master by the National Rifle Association, each fired two series of three shots. In the first series the firers required time spans of 4.6, 6.75, and 8.25 seconds respectively. On the second series they required 5.15, 6.45, and 7 seconds. None of the marksmen had any practice with the assassination weapon except for exercising the bolt for 2 or 3 minutes on a dry run. They had not even pulled the trigger because of concern about breaking the firing pin.798
So, not bad considering they were not familiar with the rifle...and then:

Quote:
The marksmen took as much time as they wanted for the first target and all hit the target.799 For the first four attempts, the firers missed the second shot. by several inches
Not practicing with the bolt was the issue here, but it gets better:

Quote:
Five of the six shots hit the third target where the angle of movement of the weapon was small.804 On the basis of these results, Simmons testified that in his opinion the probability of hitting the targets at the relatively short range at which they were hit was very high.
Uh oh, clean up on isle 9.

Quote:
Considering the various probabilities which may have prevailed during the actual assassination, the highest level of firing performance which would have been required of the assassin and the C2766 rifle would have been to fire three times and hit the target twice within a span of 4.8 to 5.6 seconds. In fact, one of the firers in the rapid fire test in firing his two series of three shots, hit the target twice within a span of 4.6 and 5.15 seconds. The others would have been able to reduce their times if they had been given the opportunity to become familiar with the movement of the bolt and the trigger pull.806 Simmons testified that familiarity with the bolt could be achieved in dry practice and, as has been indicated above, Oswald engaged in such practice.807 If the assassin missed either the first or third shot, he had a total of between 4.8 and 5.6 seconds between the two shots which hit and a total minimum time period of from 7.1 to 7.9 seconds for all three shots. All three of the firers in these tests were able to fire the rounds within the time period which would have been available to the assassin under those conditions.
Looks like someone didn't do their homework. But I'll keep going:

Quote:
Three FBI firearms experts tested the rifle in order to determine the speed with which it could be fired. The purpose of this experiment was not to test the rifle under conditions which prevailed at the time of the assassination but to determine the maximum speed at which it could be fired.
What big kids call "an important distinction"...:

Quote:
Although all of the shots were a few inches high and to the right of the target., this was because of a defect in the scope which was recognized by the FBI agents and which they could have compensated for if they were aiming to hit a bull's-eye.812 They were instead firing to determine how rapidly the weapon could be fired and the area within which three shots could be placed. Frazier testified that while he could not tell when the defect occurred, but that a person familiar with the weapon could compensate for it
And this is where the CT's scream that the FBI marksmen couldn't recreate the shots, and it is clear that in his section of the testing this was not the intention.

But wait, there's more!:

Quote:
Moreover, the defect was one which would have assisted the assassin aiming at a target which was moving away. Frazier said, "The fact that the crosshairs are set high would actually compensate for any lead which had to be taken. So that if you aimed with this weapon as it actually was received at the laboratory, it would not be necessary to take any lead whatsoever in order to hit the intended object. The scope would accomplish the lead for you." Frazier added that the scope would cause a slight miss to the right. It should be noted, however, that the President's car was curving slightly to the right when the third shot was fired.
Link:https://www.archives.gov/research/jf....html#accuracy

There is a vast difference between what Manifesto thinks is true, and what actually happened. And this just a DOCUMENTED TEST OF THE RIFLE, not some backroom dealings of conspiracy. If he can't get the simple facts straight why listen to him about anything?
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 03:46 PM   #386
traxy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 460
For anyone interested, here are the results of the 11 shooters that participated in the CBS recreation. The weapons they were using had a propensity to jam, and the shooters had no prep time with the weapon ahead of time. Contrast that with Oswald, who sat on his porch in New Orleans cycling and dry firing his weapon for hours, a weapon that almost never jammed according to the FBI weapons testers.

The target was a blue square with a smaller orange silhouette in the middle. Oswald would have put 2 shots in the orange silhouette with one complete miss in just over 8 seconds.

1. Al Sherman, Maryland State Trooper
5.0 seconds - 2 hits in orange silouhette, 1 blue low
6.0 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue high (1st 2 shots in 2.2 seconds)
NO TIME -- bolt jammed at third cartridge
5.2 seconds - 1 hit, two low
5.0 seconds - 1 hit, 2 upper left blue

2. Ron George, Maryland State Trooper
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 2nd shot; 3rd fired very late
NO TIME -- 3rd bullet jammed
4.9 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue upper right

3. John Concini, Maryland State Trooper
6.3 seconds -- number of hits unreported
5.4 seconds -- 1 hit in silhouette, 2 blues "just low"

4. Howard Donahue, weapons engineer
NO TIME -- second bullet jammed
NO TIME -- jam after first shot
5.2 seconds - 3 hits in orange silhouette grouped in head area (best
target)


5. William Fitchett, sporting goods dealder
6.5 seconds -- 3 borderline hits, low & left along silhouette border
6.0 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 low blue
6.1 seconds -- number of hits unreported

6. Somerset Fitchett, sportsman
NO TIME -- jammed at 3rd bullet
5.9 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 wide left
5.5 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 low


7. John Bollendorf, ballistics technician
6.8 seconds - 2 hits in silhouette, 1 blue low left
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
NO TIME -- jam again
6.5 seconds -- 1 orange hit, 2 near misses blue upper left

8. Douglas Bazemore, ex-paratrooper (Viet vet)
NO TIME -- stiff bolt action
NO TIME -- unable to work bolt fast enough
NO TIME -- just too stiff for him
NO TIME -- 2 shots in 5 seconds; 3 shots in 9 seconds; gives up

9. Carl Holden, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 1st shot
NO TIME -- jammed again
5.4 seconds -- tight group of 3 hits in blue high right

10. Sid Price, H.P. White employee
5.9 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 1 blue, 1 nowhere (missed target completely)
4.3 seconds -- no hits reported
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
4.1 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 complete misses (off blue)

11. Charles Hamby, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- jammed
NO TIME -- jammed
6.5 seconds -- 2 blues close to silhouette, 1 completely missed target
traxy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 04:26 PM   #387
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 8,483
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Ah, that explains why none of the expert rifle men who tried to recreate Oswalds alleged shots did not manage to do it.

In spite of:

- Half the height.

- Two attempts.

- Newly served and repaired rifle.

- No moving targets.

- Start the series whenever they felt ready.

- No life and death stress.

But I guess Oswald shooting just above the lowest possible points to remain an armed Marine in his last shooting test explains it all, doesn’t it?
FIRST: You're making the same mistake all CT loons make, not understanding the test they carried out.

SECOND: The testers had almost no practice with a Carcano, a firearm that none of them would have ever seen before, let alone fired. Oswald had six months practice with the Carcano. That is more than enough time to sight it in and become thoroughly familiar with it.

THIRD: Oswald was an ex-Marine, and as such, he would have undergone intensive weapons training. His Marine rating was "sharpshooter," and while that is only the mid-range of three levels of expertise, it is more than adequate to pull off a shot like this.

FOURTH: The basic mistake the LEO's made (and CT loons still don't understand this) is that the testers were trying to replicate EXACTLY what (they thought at the time) Oswald did.... fire the Carcano three times in 5.6 seconds and still hit the target. This is not what they should have been trying to do. Instead, they should simply have focused in what Oswald was TRYING to do... shoot JFK... that is all; i.e., they should simply have been trying to answer the question "could he have made the shot" NOT the question, "could he have made the shot in exactly the same way".

During the test, failure to fire all three shots within that 5.6 second time frame was counted as a fail. For one thing, we now know that the three shots were fired over a longer time frame than was previously thought. When you take the eye and ear witness testimony, the Zapruder film, and the testimony of James Tague, all into consideration, you come to realise that it was an even easier shot to make than previously thought.

The first shot missed JFK. It deflected off the traffic light at the corner of Elm and Houston, struck the ground, and either debris or bullet fragments hit James Tague. This shot was fired about 1.4 seconds before Zapruder restarted his camera at frame 133

The second shot struck JFK. It hit him in the back, and carried on through to hit Governor Connally (single bullet FACT). This bullet was fired at approximately Z224, 6.5 seconds after the first shot.

The third shot struck JFK. It hit him on the head (kill shot) and as we all know, this was at Z312/313. This was 4.9 seconds later (was 11.4 seconds after the first shot).

This matches the witness testimony that there was a noticeably bigger gap between shots one and two, than between shots two and three.

This matches the physical evidence of one cartridge to the south end of the sniper's nest, and two cartridges together to the north end, as Oswald needed to move between shots one and two because a tree blocked his line of fire.

This matches known features and evidence on the Zapruder Film (JFK's arms up, the flap on Connally's jacket, and the gruesome Z313 frame.

This matches the testimony of James Tague and those witnesses who saw something kick up off the road before JFK was struck.

Oswald fired his three shots in 11.4 seconds, at a slowly moving, human sized target less than 100m away and moving almost directly away from him, using a high-powered rifle; one that he was completely familiar with, and that was designed to hit a target ten times further away, and hit it with two out of three shots. That is no more than a cakewalk for even a part time shooter let alone an Ex-Marine of "sharpshooter" grade.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.

Last edited by smartcooky; 14th June 2018 at 04:28 PM.
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 04:35 PM   #388
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 8,483
I think that the last few posts (traxy, Axxman, myself et al) should be a salutary lesson to manifesto (and indeed any CT) that if you come onto a forum such as this, and pontificate about firearms when you have no knowledge regarding such, you WILL get your arse handed to you by people who do!
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.

Last edited by smartcooky; 14th June 2018 at 04:37 PM.
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 04:45 PM   #389
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 29,211
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I think that the last few posts (traxy, Axxman, myself et al) should be a salutary lesson to manifesto (and indeed any CT) that if you come onto a forum such as this, and pontificate about firearms when you have no knowledge regarding such, you WILL get your arse handed to you by people who do!
An honest person would now thank the people who corrected the lies he assumed to be true that are fed to the gullible from CT websites.

Those who are actually well-read will have checked the veracity of the garbage that CT sites spew.

Manifesto, did you double check to see if you were naively being fed lies?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 05:05 PM   #390
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,802
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
FIRST: You're making the same mistake all CT loons make, not understanding the test they carried out.

SECOND: The testers had almost no practice with a Carcano, a firearm that none of them would have ever seen before, let alone fired. Oswald had six months practice with the Carcano. That is more than enough time to sight it in and become thoroughly familiar with it.

THIRD: Oswald was an ex-Marine, and as such, he would have undergone intensive weapons training. His Marine rating was "sharpshooter," and while that is only the mid-range of three levels of expertise, it is more than adequate to pull off a shot like this.

FOURTH: The basic mistake the LEO's made (and CT loons still don't understand this) is that the testers were trying to replicate EXACTLY what (they thought at the time) Oswald did.... fire the Carcano three times in 5.6 seconds and still hit the target. This is not what they should have been trying to do. Instead, they should simply have focused in what Oswald was TRYING to do... shoot JFK... that is all; i.e., they should simply have been trying to answer the question "could he have made the shot" NOT the question, "could he have made the shot in exactly the same way".

During the test, failure to fire all three shots within that 5.6 second time frame was counted as a fail. For one thing, we now know that the three shots were fired over a longer time frame than was previously thought. When you take the eye and ear witness testimony, the Zapruder film, and the testimony of James Tague, all into consideration, you come to realise that it was an even easier shot to make than previously thought.

The first shot missed JFK. It deflected off the traffic light at the corner of Elm and Houston, struck the ground, and either debris or bullet fragments hit James Tague. This shot was fired about 1.4 seconds before Zapruder restarted his camera at frame 133

The second shot struck JFK. It hit him in the back, and carried on through to hit Governor Connally (single bullet FACT). This bullet was fired at approximately Z224, 6.5 seconds after the first shot.

The third shot struck JFK. It hit him on the head (kill shot) and as we all know, this was at Z312/313. This was 4.9 seconds later (was 11.4 seconds after the first shot).

This matches the witness testimony that there was a noticeably bigger gap between shots one and two, than between shots two and three.

This matches the physical evidence of one cartridge to the south end of the sniper's nest, and two cartridges together to the north end, as Oswald needed to move between shots one and two because a tree blocked his line of fire.

This matches known features and evidence on the Zapruder Film (JFK's arms up, the flap on Connally's jacket, and the gruesome Z313 frame.

This matches the testimony of James Tague and those witnesses who saw something kick up off the road before JFK was struck.

Oswald fired his three shots in 11.4 seconds, at a slowly moving, human sized target less than 100m away and moving almost directly away from him, using a high-powered rifle; one that he was completely familiar with, and that was designed to hit a target ten times further away, and hit it with two out of three shots. That is no more than a cakewalk for even a part time shooter let alone an Ex-Marine of "sharpshooter" grade.
SMartcooky, you should know that the Max Holland TV special contending a shot deflected off the traffic light is a proven fraud:


http://www.patspeer.com/chapter-9c-m...lossal-blunder

Holland himself admitted there was no hole in the traffic light. Also, he faked a demonstration of the single bullet theory.

Last edited by MicahJava; 14th June 2018 at 05:18 PM.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 05:06 PM   #391
traxy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 460
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
An honest person would now thank the people who corrected the lies he assumed to be true that are fed to the gullible from CT websites.

Those who are actually well-read will have checked the veracity of the garbage that CT sites spew.

Manifesto, did you double check to see if you were naively being fed lies?
I can't for the life of me figure out why these nonsense arguments won't die. During Warren Commission testimony they had 2 Marine Corps marksmanship experts review Oswald's shooting scores and the difficulty of the depository shots. Both agreed without reservation that Oswald would have been an excellent shot compared to most people, and the shots he fired from the depository were easy for someone with his training and with the weapon he had.
traxy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 05:07 PM   #392
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 8,483
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
SMartcooky, you should know that the Max Holland TV special contending a shot deflected off the traffic light is a proven fraud:

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter-9c-m...lossal-blunder

No. It isn't


In particular, I object to this bit....

Quote:
How likely is it that a bullet descending at such an angle--at 2,000 feet per second, no less--would change direction so dramatically after hitting a traffic mast 20 feet or so above the ground, that it would not hit the ground for another 327 feet or so? Not likely, I suspect. If the bullet hit the traffic mast flush, or nearly flush, it would lose nearly all its energy upon impact, and land in pieces nearby. And if it was barely deflected, whereby it still had the energy to fly 350 feet in a different direction, well, then, it would almost certainly have hit the street in the vicinity of the limo.
... because I have personal experience of just this sort of thing happening.

On a qualifying shoot about 25 years ago, we were shooting at the Woodbourne Air Force base near Blenheim. We were shooting FN-FAL 7.62mm SLR's at a range of 100m. About 15 minutes after we started, we see a provost vehicle (RNZAF Police) coming up the range access road at high speed, blue lights flashing, siren wailing. He stops us shooting, because bullets are passing through the targets, ricochetting off the sand bank behind the butts, and slamming into the roofs of a row of aircraft hangars TWO KILOMETRES AWAY.

Apparently (as we found out later) a contractor had replaced the sand behind the butts. They had used hard spoil dug up from a gravel road that had been resurfaced, and then covered it with the fine sand (so it looks OK). The bullets were passing through the thin layer of sand, striking stones and rocks just under the surface, and ricochetting over the back wall of the butts. The angles of these ricochets was at least 70% laterally either side of the firing line, and at least 60% in elevation.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.

Last edited by smartcooky; 14th June 2018 at 05:35 PM.
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 05:32 PM   #393
manifesto
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,876
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
FIRST: You're making the same mistake all CT loons make, not understanding the test they carried out.
Coming from a ”Looney” Nutter that somehow makes me kind of proud.

Quote:
SECOND: The testers had almost no practice with a Carcano, a firearm that none of them would have ever seen before, let alone fired. Oswald had six months practice with the Carcano. That is more than enough time to sight it in and become thoroughly familiar with it.
Had he? When, how and where did he practice with it? He couldn’t drive, had no drivers license and no car. No one is reported to have given him a lift anywhere in order to practice shooting. The only witness reporting that Oswald did some shooting at all with a rifle (without a scope) was Marina. According to her, Oswald hid the rifle inside his rain coat and went over to the neighborhood park shooting at ”leafs and stuff”. Rofl.

A park in a densely populated suburb, shooting with a big rifle?

Really? On leafs?

Quote:
THIRD: Oswald was an ex-Marine,
No, he was formally still a Marine.

Quote:
and as such, he would have undergone intensive weapons training. His Marine rating was "sharpshooter," and while that is only the mid-range of three levels of expertise, it is more than adequate to pull off a shot like this.
Wrong. After weeks of intensive shooting training he barely made it to ”sharpshooter” as did everybody else or higher. After this his high IQ score sent him to school to become a radar operator. As such he had so little practice in shooting that he barely qualified in the lowest category, Marksman, with a score of 191 where 190 was the lower limit for bearing arms at all.

That is pretty much as lousy you can get and still be an active Marine.

Quote:
FOURTH: The basic mistake the LEO's made (and CT loons still don't understand this) is that the testers were trying to replicate EXACTLY what (they thought at the time) Oswald did.... fire the Carcano three times in 5.6 seconds and still hit the target. This is not what they should have been trying to do. Instead, they should simply have focused in what Oswald was TRYING to do... shoot JFK... that is all; i.e., they should simply have been trying to answer the question "could he have made the shot" NOT the question, "could he have made the shot in exactly the same way".
They were trying to hit the head from behind. Just as a killer would have tried.

That said, nobody are claiming that Oswald could NOT have made the shots. The claim is that IF he did he had an almost miracoulus ’luck’ in doing it.

Possible? Yes.

Plausible? Lol.

Quote:
During the test, failure to fire all three shots within that 5.6 second time frame was counted as a fail. For one thing, we now know that the three shots were fired over a longer time frame than was previously thought. When you take the eye and ear witness testimony, the Zapruder film, and the testimony of James Tague, all into consideration, you come to realise that it was an even easier shot to make than previously thought.
The most important issue in all this is how the investigation (WC) handled the different relevant aspects.

1. They formulated the conditions of the tests (3 shots in ca 6 seconds).

2. They got the tests results and concluded that in spite of these results, it was three easy shots for Oswald.

That is, they drew the opposite conclusion than their tests results were suggesting.

That is fraud.

Quote:
The first shot missed JFK. It deflected off the traffic light at the corner of Elm and Houston, struck the ground, and either debris or bullet fragments hit James Tague.
Not if you ask James Tague. He reported being hit after one or more shots had been fired.

He was wrong? As all the witnesses was in every instance where their testimony refutes the official storyline?

How remarkable.


Quote:
This shot was fired about 1.4 seconds before Zapruder restarted his camera at frame 133
You do not know this. You are adapting your guesswork to fit your wishful thinking.

That’s all.

Quote:
The second shot struck JFK. It hit him in the back, and carried on through to hit Governor Connally (single bullet FACT). This bullet was fired at approximately Z224, 6.5 seconds after the first shot.
This even worse. Here we have both the Z-film and Mrs. and Mr. Connally telling a completely different story, saying that Connally was hit after the shot that allegedly hit both of JFK and Connally.

They never changed their testimony.

Quote:
The third shot struck JFK. It hit him on the head (kill shot) and as we all know, this was at Z312/313. This was 4.9 seconds later (was 11.4 seconds after the first shot).
Yes, it allegedly hit him in the back of the head with such a force that the head snappad violently, backwards?

Quote:
This matches the witness testimony that there was a noticeably bigger gap between shots one and two, than between shots two and three.
There is also testimonies that says that the last two shots was tightly spaced, like babang! Just as shown in the HSCA acoustic evidence where the last and fifth shot comes ca 0.7 seconds after the fourth shot from the knoll.

Quote:
This matches the physical evidence of one cartridge to the south end of the sniper's nest, and two cartridges together to the north end, as Oswald needed to move between shots one and two because a tree blocked his line of fire.
This kind of precision is mighty impressive and bares witness to a keen military mind.

I bet you’re a sergeant, aren’t you?

Quote:
This matches known features and evidence on the Zapruder Film (JFK's arms up, the flap on Connally's jacket, and the gruesome Z313 frame.
See above.

Quote:
This matches the testimony of James Tague and those witnesses who saw something kick up off the road before JFK was struck.
See above.

Quote:
Oswald fired his three shots in 11.4 seconds, at a slowly moving, human sized target less than 100m away and moving almost directly away from him, using a high-powered rifle; one that he was completely familiar with, and that was designed to hit a target ten times further away, and hit it with two out of three shots. That is no more than a cakewalk for even a part time shooter let alone an Ex-Marine of "sharpshooter" grade.
Bending reality in place is easy, yes.

A three year old can do that.

Cakewalk.
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 05:36 PM   #394
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 852
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
SMartcooky, you should know that the Max Holland TV special contending a shot deflected off the traffic light is a proven fraud:


http://www.patspeer.com/chapter-9c-m...lossal-blunder

Holland himself admitted there was no hole in the traffic light. Also, he faked a demonstration of the single bullet theory.
From Pat Speer's article:

Quote:
Note that in spite of Tague's objections, Holland and Newsweek claim it was this first bullet--this 'lost" bullet found by Holland--that kicked up the concrete and injured James Tague on the far side of the plaza. Now think about this for a second. Look at the angle. How likely is it that a bullet descending at such an angle--at 2,000 feet per second, no less--would change direction so dramatically after hitting a traffic mast 20 feet or so above the ground, that it would not hit the ground for another 327 feet or so?
Firstly, this is/was a theory that fit all the parameters, it doesn't have to be correct.
Secondly, it is not fraud to present a theory. It is only fraud to keep referring back to a theory that has been soundly refuted.
Thirdly Nobody including Pat has any idea what a bullet that may have hit the sign, or crossbar would change its trajectory. Pat may be right or he may be wrong. The scar was never found, but the municipal roadways had changed the sign in between the shooting and the investigation. Doesn't prove that it happened or that it didn't happen.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 05:36 PM   #395
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,486
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
No, he was formally still a Marine.
Add 'discharge' to the list of English words you don't understand.

Oswald was given an undesirable discharge (changed from his original hardship discharge) after his defection to Russia.

Look up that word. Get back to us with an apology.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 05:38 PM   #396
manifesto
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,876
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I think that the last few posts (traxy, Axxman, myself et al) should be a salutary lesson to manifesto (and indeed any CT) that if you come onto a forum such as this, and pontificate about firearms when you have no knowledge regarding such, you WILL get your arse handed to you by people who do!
Of course you do. Problem is, you’re wrong.

It is a sad expose of what happens when you are living in a well protected sectarian echo chamber hive mind for far too long.

It reinforces the delusion in a self perpetuating loop feeding on evidence to the contrary as signs of you actually being right.

Kind of creepy that way, looking in from the outside.
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 05:51 PM   #397
traxy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 460
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Coming from a ”Looney” Nutter that somehow makes me kind of proud.

Had he? When, how and where did he practice with it? He couldn’t drive, had no drivers license and no car. No one is reported to have given him a lift anywhere in order to practice shooting. The only witness reporting that Oswald did some shooting at all with a rifle (without a scope) was Marina. According to her, Oswald hid the rifle inside his rain coat and went over to the neighborhood park shooting at ”leafs and stuff”. Rofl.

A park in a densely populated suburb, shooting with a big rifle?

Really? On leafs?

No, he was formally still a Marine.

Wrong. After weeks of intensive shooting training he barely made it to ”sharpshooter” as did everybody else or higher. After this his high IQ score sent him to school to become a radar operator. As such he had so little practice in shooting that he barely qualified in the lowest category, Marksman, with a score of 191 where 190 was the lower limit for bearing arms at all.

That is pretty much as lousy you can get and still be an active Marine.

They were trying to hit the head from behind. Just as a killer would have tried.

That said, nobody are claiming that Oswald could NOT have made the shots. The claim is that IF he did he had an almost miracoulus ’luck’ in doing it.

Possible? Yes.

Plausible? Lol.

The most important issue in all this is how the investigation (WC) handled the different relevant aspects.

1. They formulated the conditions of the tests (3 shots in ca 6 seconds).

2. They got the tests results and concluded that in spite of these results, it was three easy shots for Oswald.

That is, they drew the opposite conclusion than their tests results were suggesting.

That is fraud.

Not if you ask James Tague. He reported being hit after one or more shots had been fired.

He was wrong? As all the witnesses was in every instance where their testimony refutes the official storyline?

How remarkable.


You do not know this. You are adapting your guesswork to fit your wishful thinking.

That’s all.

This even worse. Here we have both the Z-film and Mrs. and Mr. Connally telling a completely different story, saying that Connally was hit after the shot that allegedly hit both of JFK and Connally.

They never changed their testimony.

Yes, it allegedly hit him in the back of the head with such a force that the head snappad violently, backwards?

There is also testimonies that says that the last two shots was tightly spaced, like babang! Just as shown in the HSCA acoustic evidence where the last and fifth shot comes ca 0.7 seconds after the fourth shot from the knoll.

This kind of precision is mighty impressive and bares witness to a keen military mind.

I bet you’re a sergeant, aren’t you?

See above.

See above.

Bending reality in place is easy, yes.

A three year old can do that.

Cakewalk.
You still can't get your details straight.

Oswald was a more than competent shot. According to the 2 Marine Corps marksmanship experts, he was an excellent shot.

The shots from the depository were EASY for someone with Oswalds training. Again, that's not my opinion, that's straight from 2 Marine Corps marksmanship experts.

The shooting feat attributed to Oswald has been matched or bettered by many shooters many times over.
traxy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 05:53 PM   #398
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,486
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Of course you do. Problem is, you’re wrong.

It is a sad expose of what happens when you are living in a well protected sectarian echo chamber hive mind for far too long.

It reinforces the delusion in a self perpetuating loop feeding on evidence to the contrary as signs of you actually being right.

Kind of creepy that way, looking in from the outside.
No rebuttal. Just name-calling.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 05:53 PM   #399
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 8,483
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Of course you do. Problem is, you’re wrong.

It is a sad expose of what happens when you are living in a well protected sectarian echo chamber hive mind for far too long.

It reinforces the delusion in a self perpetuating loop feeding on evidence to the contrary as signs of you actually being right.

Kind of creepy that way, looking in from the outside.
BS noted... and dismissed
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 06:00 PM   #400
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,486
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
You are changing the subject, Hank. You are claiming that I haven’t provided evidence, explained it and argued for its veracity.
And I quoted a post you cited to prove you did. And it contained no evidence, no explanation and no argument for your first questioned claim on the list.



Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
You are conflating your somewhat odd and faulty opinion of the content of this, with the fact that I have certainly provided what you say I haven’t.
Point out in that post where you cited the evidence, explained the evidence, and argued for its veracity. It's nowhere to be found in the post you cited for that very purpose.



Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
But that is a well documented and well known MO you are resorting to when shown to be wrong, lying and dishonest, Hank.
And there's the ad hominem we all knew you would resort to when you couldn't rebut the point made.



Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Continuing with this behaviour doesn’t promote your ’brand’ outside the Mighty Church, now Hank, does it.
Well, it's clear you don't care for my pointing out the faults in your claims.



Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Pathetic.
Where's your rebuttal to the points I made? Name-calling doesn't cut it.



Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Btw, your ”comments” above are just crap as usual, but I do agree to that you have certainly provided them. Of course you have.
Where's your rebuttal to those 'crap' points I made? Name-calling doesn't cut it.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:13 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.