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
 


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 JFK assassination , Kennedy conspiracies

Reply
Old 10th August 2017, 10:48 AM   #1161
Imhotep
Critical Thinker
 
Imhotep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 492
Originally Posted by OKBob View Post
Only incidentally. It's chiefly a reference to a logical fallacy that has often been discussed in this thread and related threads.
Okay thanks.
Imhotep 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 10th August 2017, 10:50 AM   #1162
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Somewhere between the central U.S. and Hades
Posts: 11,373
Originally Posted by Imhotep View Post
Some more rampant speculation

On 11/22/63 at 12:30 pm, Kennedy was shot. At 12:43 pm, a sighting was reported and it immediately went out over the police radio. The description was similar to the 10/10 memo sent to the Mexico City station: A man who was “5 foot 10 and 165 pounds” was seen firing from the Texas School Book Depository.

If you estimated someone's weight, would you use a number like 165 or round it? Also, Oswald was 5'9 and 140 pounds. Also curious is that the height and weight were the only part of this description, no clothing was mentioned. Finally I should add, how do you estimate someone's height when you see them (partially) through a window?

Memo:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc....24&relPageId=2
Just an aside, I'd most often give a weight estimate based on the weight of someone I knew who looked about the same size. Significant margin for error there, and rounding to 5 or 10 wouldn't be unusual. Heck, I round my own weight ot the nearest 5, when asked.
Hellbound 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 10th August 2017, 11:01 AM   #1163
Imhotep
Critical Thinker
 
Imhotep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 492
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
Just an aside, I'd most often give a weight estimate based on the weight of someone I knew who looked about the same size. Significant margin for error there, and rounding to 5 or 10 wouldn't be unusual. Heck, I round my own weight ot the nearest 5, when asked.
Alright.

My post doesn't come close to proving anything conspiratorial on its own. I'll try to find some time to post some related details that start to at least form a pattern with a little more weight to it.
Imhotep 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 10th August 2017, 01:17 PM   #1164
Imhotep
Critical Thinker
 
Imhotep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 492
The Phone Call

Selected excerpts from State Secret by Bill Simpich

An hour after Oswald left the Soviet consulate on the 28th, we have a wiretap transcript of a call on the Soviet line made by Silvia Duran from the Cuban consulate to the Soviet consulate. When Duran put Oswald on the line, he said that he had given the Soviet consulate the wrong address, and that he had returned to the Cuban consulate to obtain the proper address that he had left with them because he had forgotten it. The Soviet officer invited him to come back over and give them the right address. Oswald said that he would. The Soviets said that he did not return.

The Mexican reports about this September 28 call are intriguing. Sylvia Duran, a Mexican national, told the DFS officers who arrested her after the assassination that she never saw Oswald again after the 27th. Her family members said she told them the same thing. Duran’s statements to the Mexican police after the assassination were mis-translated. Her original statement given immediately after JFK’s assassination has never been released, and that even the original transcript of her interrogation may still be in the hands of the Mexican government.

What we do have is a February 1964 translation where Duran says that after September 27th “he never called again”. The Mexico City station’s Cuba desk chief David Phillips arranged for the translation of Duran’s statements at interrogation, and the final translation of the same statement is outrageous. Created in May 1964 and used as a Warren Commission exhibit, the final translation has Duran stating that “she does not recall whether Oswald subsequently called her or not.” A review of these translations reveals that they differ in many other striking ways.

The CIA admitted that the only hard evidence they had of the Oswald visit to Duran on the 28th was the wiretap. That meant that no one at the consulate was able to verify Oswald’s visit, including Duran herself. Her denial is the best available evidence.

We even see that the CIA told the Warren Commission that “we deduce” that Oswald visited the Cuban consulate on September 28, but added “we cannot be certain of this conclusion”. Why wouldn’t the CIA trust its own evidence that Oswald called the Soviet consulate? Such a statement hardly inspires confidence.

The last time Anne Goodpasture (CIA) was interrogated about this phone call, her interrogator referred to the caller on September 28 as “Oswald or an Oswald substitute”. Goodpasture didn’t even argue with him. She herself had referred in the past to “the man calling himself Oswald”, and “the ‘alleged’ Oswald”.

It was reported that two of the monitors said that the American in the Sept 28 call spoke broken Russian and broken English.

Oswald’s Russian was very good. Dallas translator Peter Gregory had written a recommendation for Oswald months earlier, verifying that Oswald was qualified to be a Russian translator and an interpreter. Gregory’s skills were considerable, and he was used by the Secret Service after the assassination.
Imhotep 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 10th August 2017, 01:32 PM   #1165
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,019
Originally Posted by Imhotep View Post
Is this a Dr. Seuss reference?
Perhaps might now be a good time to recommend you read the thread in its entirety and its predecessor threads.

Or do you think we should recover a lot of ground just because you just got here?

Hank

Hint: Try reading the prior page for starters.
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
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 10th August 2017, 01:45 PM   #1166
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,019
Originally Posted by Imhotep View Post
Some more rampant speculation

On 11/22/63 at 12:30 pm, Kennedy was shot. At 12:43 pm, a sighting was reported and it immediately went out over the police radio. The description was similar to the 10/10 memo sent to the Mexico City station: A man who was “5 foot 10 and 165 pounds” was seen firing from the Texas School Book Depository.

If you estimated someone's weight, would you use a number like 165 or round it? Also, Oswald was 5'9 and 140 pounds. Also curious is that the height and weight were the only part of this description, no clothing was mentioned. Finally I should add, how do you estimate someone's height when you see them (partially) through a window?

Memo:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc....24&relPageId=2
You guys will quibble about anything pretty much, won't you?

Officer Marion Baker saw Oswald on the second floor of the Depository within about 90 seconds of the assassination, right? Is that something beyond dispute?

I trust so, because it destroys your silly argument.

Here's his affidavit.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htm

Note the age, height, & weight he estimated Oswald at:
The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket.

What does this establish, except conspiracy theorists quibble over ever little item, mostly for no good reason?

Baker saw Oswald, and estimated his weight at 165lb. The witness saw Oswald in the window and estimated his weight at 165. Someone else saw Oswald and estimated his weight at 165 (as reflected in the cable you cite). You're right, your argument proves nothing, except how desperate you are to have an argument that establishes conspiracy, when all it establishes is Oswald looked like he was about 165 pounds.

What's your source for Oswald's weight being 140? Do you even have one, or is that just your personal favorite guess?

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 10th August 2017 at 02:16 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 10th August 2017, 01:59 PM   #1167
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,019
Originally Posted by Imhotep View Post
The Phone Call

Selected excerpts from State Secret by Bill Simpich

An hour after Oswald left the Soviet consulate on the 28th, we have a wiretap transcript of a call on the Soviet line made by Silvia Duran from the Cuban consulate to the Soviet consulate. When Duran put Oswald on the line, he said that he had given the Soviet consulate the wrong address, and that he had returned to the Cuban consulate to obtain the proper address that he had left with them because he had forgotten it. The Soviet officer invited him to come back over and give them the right address. Oswald said that he would. The Soviets said that he did not return.

The Mexican reports about this September 28 call are intriguing. Sylvia Duran, a Mexican national, told the DFS officers who arrested her after the assassination that she never saw Oswald again after the 27th. Her family members said she told them the same thing. Duran’s statements to the Mexican police after the assassination were mis-translated. Her original statement given immediately after JFK’s assassination has never been released, and that even the original transcript of her interrogation may still be in the hands of the Mexican government.

What we do have is a February 1964 translation where Duran says that after September 27th “he never called again”. The Mexico City station’s Cuba desk chief David Phillips arranged for the translation of Duran’s statements at interrogation, and the final translation of the same statement is outrageous. Created in May 1964 and used as a Warren Commission exhibit, the final translation has Duran stating that “she does not recall whether Oswald subsequently called her or not.” A review of these translations reveals that they differ in many other striking ways.

The CIA admitted that the only hard evidence they had of the Oswald visit to Duran on the 28th was the wiretap. That meant that no one at the consulate was able to verify Oswald’s visit, including Duran herself. Her denial is the best available evidence.

We even see that the CIA told the Warren Commission that “we deduce” that Oswald visited the Cuban consulate on September 28, but added “we cannot be certain of this conclusion”. Why wouldn’t the CIA trust its own evidence that Oswald called the Soviet consulate? Such a statement hardly inspires confidence.

The last time Anne Goodpasture (CIA) was interrogated about this phone call, her interrogator referred to the caller on September 28 as “Oswald or an Oswald substitute”. Goodpasture didn’t even argue with him. She herself had referred in the past to “the man calling himself Oswald”, and “the ‘alleged’ Oswald”.

It was reported that two of the monitors said that the American in the Sept 28 call spoke broken Russian and broken English.

Oswald’s Russian was very good. Dallas translator Peter Gregory had written a recommendation for Oswald months earlier, verifying that Oswald was qualified to be a Russian translator and an interpreter. Gregory’s skills were considerable, and he was used by the Secret Service after the assassination.
Have you researched and verified the above, or are you just taking Simpich at his word for all that?

And if you haven't verified any of it, why are your posting it? And why should we bother with it, exactly?

Is it your intent to argue for a conspiracy by simply quoting conspiracy sites repeatedly?

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 10th August 2017 at 02:07 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 10th August 2017, 02:02 PM   #1168
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,019
Originally Posted by Imhotep View Post
Alright.

My post doesn't come close to proving anything conspiratorial on its own. I'll try to find some time to post some related details that start to at least form a pattern with a little more weight to it.
Well, not much more than 165lbs, I trust.

After all, mistaken estimates should always be deemed to prove conspiracy, right?

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
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 10th August 2017, 02:13 PM   #1169
Imhotep
Critical Thinker
 
Imhotep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 492
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Have you researched and verified the above, or are you just taking Simpich at his word for all that?

And if you haven't verified any of it, why are your posting it? And why should we bother with it, exactly?

Is it your intent to argue for a conspiracy by simply quoting conspiracy sites repeatedly?

Hank
No I'll probably just stop and leave you in peace.

Too much sarcasm and nastiness. Later. (Yes I get that you made some valid points amid the sarcasm/nastiness)

I'll just suggest that interested readers check out State Secret for themselves including the footnoted references that I didn't include here. Cheers all.

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret.html

Last edited by Imhotep; 10th August 2017 at 02:16 PM.
Imhotep 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 10th August 2017, 02:28 PM   #1170
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,019
Originally Posted by Imhotep View Post
No I'll probably just stop and leave you in peace.

Too much sarcasm and nastiness. Later. (Yes I get that you made some valid points amid the sarcasm/nastiness)

I'll just suggest that interested readers check out State Secret for themselves including the footnoted references that I didn't include here. Cheers all.

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret.html
So we can conclude it was your intent to argue for a conspiracy by citing Simpich's 'research' [cough] without validating any of it?

And you realize you were totally wrong about making a big deal of the estimate of the shooter as 165lbs, as Simpich does, given that a total stranger who we know saw Oswald within 90 seconds of the shooting also gave that same precise weight estimate? Did Simpich happen to mention Baker's estimate at any time in his free e-book, by the way? Or did he withhold that info from his readers, including you?

Yeah, and you won't argue any of these points because of my "sarcasm and nastiness"?

Why, because I asked you a few questions and told you to read the thread in its entirety?

Saw that one coming a mile away.

You should realize many of us are old hands at this. I myself have been debating the JFK assassination online for 25 years or so, going back to the old Prodigy and AOL systems in the early 1990's. You're not going to move the needle by quoting some nonsense from a conspiracy site that you read and believed and offer nothing of your own.

We've seen plenty of that. Tell us why you find Simpich convincing, especially if you haven't validated any of his claims by examining the original materials. Have you even read the Warren Report, for starters?

Here's an intro into my background into the case: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3433

What's your story?

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 10th August 2017 at 02:53 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 10th August 2017, 03:06 PM   #1171
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 27,971
Originally Posted by Imhotep View Post
No I'll probably just stop and leave you in peace.

Too much sarcasm and nastiness. Later. (Yes I get that you made some valid points amid the sarcasm/nastiness)

I'll just suggest that interested readers check out State Secret for themselves including the footnoted references that I didn't include here. Cheers all.

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret.html
I have a suggestion. Start with your comprehensive hypothesiis for how the assassination occurred. Then we can examine all of the evidence and see that it all fits your comprehensive hypothesis.

I've yet to find a CT who will make that mistake more than once. Is this your first time?
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 10th August 2017, 07:14 PM   #1172
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,976
Originally Posted by Imhotep View Post
Alright.

My post doesn't come close to proving anything conspiratorial on its own. I'll try to find some time to post some related details that start to at least form a pattern with a little more weight to it.
I wasted 28 years of my life as a JFK CTist. Let me save you some time by listing the facts that changed my mind, and make a large, convoluted conspiracy impossible:

1. It was an EASY shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD. I went to Dallas on vacation, stood in front of the building, and was godsmacked at how close everything is.

2. The Carcano is a capable weapon. Not the best in the world, but accurate up to 1,000 yards. The 6.5x52mm round was larger than standard rifle bullets, and had amazing penetration capability, and devastating effect on a human target. No other round could do the damage done to JFK and Connally. The 6.5x52mm was propitiatory to the Carcano, no other rifle fired it.

3. Oswald owned the Carcano that fired the bullets, he worked in the TSBD on the 6th floor, he fled the scene of the crime, murdered Tippet, and almost murdered a second DPD officer during his arrest.

4. Oswald was a hack. His behavior suggests either bipolar, or Asperger's Syndrome, maybe both. This explains why he could teach himself Russian, but not hold a job, and had unrealistic expectations about the outcomes of his life-choices.

5. Intelligence services are all the same as far as recruiting locals for dirty work. No spy agency in the world would have risked working with Oswald.

My personal view is that Oswald did it all by himself. JFK was nothing more than a target of opportunity. The motorcade passed right under his workplace. He'd already taken a shot at General Walker, and as far as I can tell, the only reason Oswald - a man living paycheck to paycheck, no car, city dweller - would buy a rifle at all was to kill someone.

It might be possible that one other person knew what Oswald was going to do, but that person was just a regular schmoe, and not some spy master/mob fixer/whatever. The reason I hold the door open for this possibility is that someone drove Oswald to those shooting ranges, and that person has never been identified. In fact, the whole shooting range aspect in the weeks leading up to the assassination seemed to be under explored by law enforcement and the Warren Commission. On the other hand I don't think this mystery person is all that important. I've had friends who liked to run their mouths about things they'd like to do, and my guess is that the guy driving Oswald around felt that Oswald - if he said anything at all - was talking out of his butt. Certainly this person would have panicked when he saw Oswald on TV after the assassination out of fear of prosecution, or shame for driving him to the range to sharpen his skills to kill JFK, or both.

Either way, it's not important. All that matters is that Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD with his Carcano when JKF passed in the street below.
__________________
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 11th August 2017, 07:26 AM   #1173
Imhotep
Critical Thinker
 
Imhotep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 492
I guess I should have introduced myself properly, explained my level of knowledge and where I stand as far as what I believe happened.

1. I believe Oswald shot Kennedy and was the only active shooter
2. I don't believe Oswald was recruited or paid by any organization to do the deed
3. I think Oswald may have received encouragement to do the deed while in Mexico
4. This encouragement may have been coordinated or just happenstance
5. I think there may have been foreknowledge of the assassination by people connected to the CIA

I find the language used in JFK assassination discussions deplorable. Kooks, idiots, morons. We traditionally would have researchers discussing different possibilities, not this sort of football match. Maybe it's a symptom of the internet. But I don't want anything to do with this brand of discourse and that's why I won't be engaging Hank any more.
Imhotep 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 11th August 2017, 10:51 AM   #1174
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,019
Originally Posted by Imhotep View Post
I guess I should have introduced myself properly, explained my level of knowledge and where I stand as far as what I believe happened.

1. I believe Oswald shot Kennedy and was the only active shooter
2. I don't believe Oswald was recruited or paid by any organization to do the deed
3. I think Oswald may have received encouragement to do the deed while in Mexico
4. This encouragement may have been coordinated or just happenstance
5. I think there may have been foreknowledge of the assassination by people connected to the CIA

I find the language used in JFK assassination discussions deplorable. Kooks, idiots, morons. We traditionally would have researchers discussing different possibilities, not this sort of football match. Maybe it's a symptom of the internet. But I don't want anything to do with this brand of discourse and that's why I won't be engaging Hank any more.
I see nothing about your level of knowledge, only what you believe or think. How long have you been reading about the case, what got you started, and the question I asked previously, have you ever read the Warren Report?

If you have any problem with my level of discourse, you could report any of my posts to the moderators (it's the little exclamation point button on the bottom left). Maybe you should quote me calling anyone a 'kook', 'idiot' or 'moron'. Especially report those posts, should you find any (you won't). Indeed, the only time the word 'kook' was used in this thread was in relation to a religious zealot, and it wasn't used by me. So your professed reason for not engaging me is less than accurate. And we both know that.

All I did was ask you to read the entire thread (including the predecessor threads to familiarize yourself with the arguments already raised so we don't have to repeat ourselves, ask if you were going to be debating this via conspiracy site quotes (and with the implied assumption that if we don't refute every link you provide, they must be true). I've seen that expectation before in my 25 years debating this online, so I asked if you have that expectation.

I also pointed out why Simpich's argument about the CIA / FBI documentation from 1960 being the source of the reported weight of the gunman was nonsense -- a police officer who indisputably saw Oswald in the second floor lunchroom within about 90 seconds of the shooting also estimated Oswald's weight as 165 pounds. He filed his report on 11/22/63, so unless you're going to argue Baker is now part of the conspiracy, that cuts Simpich (and your) argument right off at the legs.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htm

Simpich also pretends there is some mystery about who this witness is that reported this weight of 165 pounds. There isn't. It was Howard Brennan.

Mr. BELIN. Could you describe the man you saw in the window on the sixth floor?
Mr. BRENNAN. To my best description, a man in his early thirties, fair complexion, slender but neat, neat slender, possibly 5-foot 10.
Mr. BELIN. About what weight?
Mr. BRENNAN. Oh, at--I calculated, I think, from 160 to 170 pounds.
Mr. BELIN. A white man?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what kind of clothes he was wearing?
Mr. BRENNAN. Light colored clothes, more of a khaki color.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember the color of his hair?
Mr. BRENNAN. No.
Mr. BELIN. Now, I believe you said that after the last shot you jumped off this masonry structure on which you were sitting. Why did you jump off?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, it occurred to me that there might be more than one person, that it was a plot which could mean several people, and I knew beyond reasonable doubt that there were going to be bullets flying from every direction.
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do after that? Or what did you see?
Mr. BRENNAN. I observed to my thinking that they were directing their search towards the west side of the building and down Houston Street.
Mr. BELIN. When you say "they", who do you mean?
Mr. BRENNAN. Law-enforcement officers.
Mr. BELIN. By the west side of the building, you mean towards the underpass or railroad tracks?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. After you saw that, what did you do?
Mr. BRENNAN. I knew I had to get to someone quick to tell them where the man was. So I ran or I walked--there is a possibility I ran, because I have a habit of, when something has to be done in a hurry, I run. And there was one officer standing at the corner of the Texas Book Store on the street. It didn't seem to me he was going in any direction. He was standing still.
[The position of the white car at the corner in this image shows where Brennan spoke with the officer]:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfki...bits/ce477.jpg
Mr. BELIN. What did you do or what did you say to him?
Mr. BRENNAN. I asked him to get me someone in charge, a Secret Service man or an FBI. That it appeared to me that they were searching in the wrong direction for the man that did the shooting.
And he was definitely in the building on the sixth floor.
I did not say on the sixth floor. Correction there.
I believe I identified the window as one window from the top.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Mr. BRENNAN. Because, at that time, I did not know how many story building it was.
Representative FORD. But you did say to the policeman it was a window on the second floor from the top?
Mr. BRENNAN. Right.
Mr. BELIN. And then what happened?
Mr. BRENNAN. He --
The CHAIRMAN. May I ask there. By the second floor from the top, do you mean the one directly underneath the top floor?
Mr. BRENNAN. Underneath the top floor, excluding the roof, yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. And then what happened, sir?
Mr. BRENNAN. He said, "just a minute." And he had to give some orders or something on the east side of the building on Houston Street. And then he had taken me to, I believe, Mr. Sorrels, an automobile sitting in front of the Texas Book Store.
Mr. BELIN. And then what happened there?
Mr. BRENNAN. I related my information and there was a few minutes of discussion, and Mr. Sorrels had taken me then across the street to the sheriff's building.
Mr. BELIN. Did you describe the man that you saw in the window?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes; I believe I did.


Sorrels confirms Brennan was already known to the police as an eyewitness by the time he arrived back at the Depository (about 20-25 minutes after the assassination):
Mr. STERN - Then you got inside the building and what did you do?
Mr. SORRELS - I asked for the manager, and I was directed to Mr. Truly. He was standing there.
I went up and identified myself to him. I said, "I want to get a stenographer, and we would like to have you put down the names and addresses of every employee of the building, in the building."
And I then walked on out the front door and asked, "Did anyone here see anything?"
And someone pointed to Mr. Brennan.
Mr. STERN - What was your purpose in asking for a list of the employees of the building?
Mr. SORRELS - Because I knew that they would have to be interviewed. I was trying to establish at that time without any delay, who all was in that building or was employed there, because I knew they would have to be talked to later.
In other words, I was looking for someone that saw something.
Mr. STERN - You were looking for potential witnesses?
Mr. SORRELS - Yes, sir.
Mr. STERN - And at that time you had no basis for suspecting any employee might be involved one way or the other?
Mr. SORRELS - No, sir; and I did not know at that time that the shots came from the building.
When I was--when Mr. Brennan was pointed out to me, I went up and told him who I was and asked him if he saw anything. And he told me what he had seen. And, at that time, that is the first time that I knew definitely that any shots had come from the building.
Mr. STERN - Now, what precisely did Mr. Brennan tell you?
Mr. SORRELS - Mr. Brennan said that he was standing across the street, watching the parade, and that he, of course, was looking in the direction where the President was, and he heard a sound which he thought at first was a backfire of an automobile. And that shortly afterwards there was another sound, and that he thought that somebody might be throwing firecrackers out of the building.
And he glanced up to the building, and that he saw a man at the window on the right-hand side, the second floor from the top.
And he said, "I could see the man taking deliberate aim and saw him fire the third shot," and said then he just pulled the rifle back in and moved back from the window, just as unconcerned as could be.
Mr. STERN - How did you happen to talk to Mr. Brennan?
Mr. SORRELS - I asked--I don't know who, someone there "Is there anyone here that saw anything?" And someone said, "That man over there."
He was out in front of the building and I went right to him.
Mr. STERN - Did Mr. Brennan tell you anything else?
Mr. SORRELS - I asked him whether or not he thought he could identify the person that he saw, and he, of course, gave me a description of him, said that he appeared to be a slender man, he had on what appeared to be a light jacket or shirt or something to that effect, and that he thought he could identify him--said he was slender build. Because I was definitely interested in someone that had seen something that could give us some definite information.


Sawyer confirms he was out front when a witness reported the sighting of the man in the window to him shortly after the assassination:

Mr. BELIN. Now after you got down and you issued these orders, then what did you do?
Mr. SAWYER. I set up a command post in front. The various officers were bringing up different witnesses who had seen various things, and I saw that this was quite an involved situation. It was so many of these people that had information, that I knew I didn't have time to take this information down, and by this time several deputy sheriffs were standing there, and one of them, I think he was a supervisor, I had his name at one time, I can't think of it now, was there, and he offered the use of an interrogation room of Sheriff Decker's office, I think he said, for interrogating these people.
Mr. BELIN. That is located down the street a little bit there?
Mr. SAWYER. Well, it is catty-corner across the street.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Mr. SAWYER. It is southeast across the street from the Texas School Book Depository, at least from the corner, and so we set up a group of officers and deputy sheriffs who were to take charge of the witnesses and take them over to see that affidavits were taken from them. They were more or less an escort service so the witness wouldn't get away.
And then as our detectives began to show up, I sent them over to the Sheriff's Office to assist in taking these depositions or affidavits.
Mr. BELIN. How many witnesses were there around there during this period of time that you talked to?
Mr. SAWYER. Well, during the entire period of time that I was there, I would venture to say between 25 to 50 different people had come up with information of one kind or another.
...
Mr. BELIN. Now the next time that No. 9 appears [#9 is Sawyer's call number in the police radio log] is at what time?
Mr. SAWYER. Immediately after 12:43 and before 12:45.
Mr. BELIN. What did you say then?
Mr. SAWYER. "The wanted person in this is a slender white male about 30, 5 feet 10, 165, carrying what looks to be a 30-30 or some type of Winchester."
Mr. BELIN. Then the statement is made from the home office, "It was a rifle?"
Mr. SAWYER. I answered, "Yes, a rifle."
Mr. BELIN. Then the reply to you, "Any clothing description?"
Mr. SAWYER. "Current witness can't remember that."
Mr. BELIN. Then the statement is made sometime before 12:45 p.m., and after the 12:43 p.m., call, "Attention all squads, description was broadcast and no further information at this time."
Does that mean the description you made was rebroadcast?
Mr. SAWYER. I rebroadcast that description. That is what that means.
...
Mr. BELIN. We will call this Sawyer's Deposition Exhibit B.
I see here that you go on at 12:45 p.m., with this statement by your No. 9. You want to read it?
Mr. SAWYER. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. "From this building it is unknown if he is still there or not. Unknown if he was there in the first place."
Mr. BELIN. Then it reads back here, "All the information we have received, indicates it did come from the fifth or fourth of that building." That is the central headquarters back to you, is that it?
Mr. SAWYER. That's right.
Mr. BELIN. That is at least after 12:45 p.m., and before 12:48 p.m.?


Simpich (and you, by citing him) remark on Sawyer's questioning of the witness, finding it perculiar that Sawyer would say "Unknown if he was there in the first place." In context, Sawyer was saying, "I have this eyewitness report, but given that witnesses are often wrong in one or more particulars, I cannot personally vouch for the correctness of any of this information I was passed and am reporting here."

And the dispatcher tells him he's getting info from other sources, and those sources are also indicating an upper floor of the Depository as the source of the shots, and ergo, your witness appears to be reporting information we can corroborate.

How much of that info did Simpich share to aid his readership in making up their mind, or did he simply conceal all that information from his readers to make his 'mysterious witness' appear more sinister, as if it wasn't just a normal citizen reporting what he saw and instead was part of a CIA operation to frame Oswald?

Simpich shared none of the info that makes it appear less sinister, and none of the info about Brennan, except in a footnote, and then only to dismiss it.

There is so much wrong with Simpich's chapter six alone it would take a book to refute it.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 11th August 2017 at 11:05 AM.
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 11th August 2017, 11:09 AM   #1175
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,271
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Can you give an interesting source that talks about brothels using the dollar bill trick? If it's how you describe, it doesn't explain why Oswald had a whole, torn dollar in his pocket. You've already conceded that the dollar bills are significant in some way, can't go back to coincidence theorizing now.
Simple explanation: LHO was a fantasist. Not much different from the clowns in this video:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


There is a whole subculture of people who make false claims wrt their background, experience and qualifications. It is nothing new. LHO fits that bill to a T.
__________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong 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 11th August 2017, 11:34 AM   #1176
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,385
Originally Posted by Imhotep View Post
No I'll probably just stop and leave you in peace.

Too much sarcasm and nastiness. Later. (Yes I get that you made some valid points amid the sarcasm/nastiness)
Wow. Simply disagreeing is somehow sarky and nasty.

Get a grip. Had your claims any traction, you would be able to dismiss any counter claims on the basis of facts and evidence. As things stand, you resort to insult.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon 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 11th August 2017, 11:55 AM   #1177
Imhotep
Critical Thinker
 
Imhotep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 492
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Wow. Simply disagreeing is somehow sarky and nasty.

Get a grip. Had your claims any traction, you would be able to dismiss any counter claims on the basis of facts and evidence. As things stand, you resort to insult.
I really don't want to go on an ignore spree here. So you missed where he used sarcasm, and missed where he was nasty?

Let's test out our viewpoints here.

Do you think "Get a grip" is nasty?

My claims do have traction, most of what I posted can be linked straight to the evidence archive at the Mary Ferrell site. I would have taken the time to provide those if it was requested in a normal, polite way.

I should have posted them right away.

Let me ask you this also. If we were having this discussion right now at say a coffee shop, would you say to me in person, "Get a grip"?
Imhotep 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 11th August 2017, 11:56 AM   #1178
Imhotep
Critical Thinker
 
Imhotep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 492
I'm going to do my best to create an environment here that's conducive to good discussion. So let's move past this stuff if we can.
Imhotep 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 11th August 2017, 03:01 PM   #1179
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,271
Originally Posted by Imhotep View Post
Some more rampant speculation

On 11/22/63 at 12:30 pm, Kennedy was shot. At 12:43 pm, a sighting was reported and it immediately went out over the police radio. The description was similar to the 10/10 memo sent to the Mexico City station: A man who was “5 foot 10 and 165 pounds” was seen firing from the Texas School Book Depository.

If you estimated someone's weight, would you use a number like 165 or round it? Also, Oswald was 5'9 and 140 pounds. Also curious is that the height and weight were the only part of this description, no clothing was mentioned. Finally I should add, how do you estimate someone's height when you see them (partially) through a window?


Memo:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc....24&relPageId=2
It's commonly referred to as SWAG - scientific wild-ass guess.

Folks use all sorts of descriptive tools and terms when estimating age/height/weight and in many cases get things wrong, sometimes horribly so.

I can't tell you how many times there would be a criminal incident where security camera footage was eventually made available and that footage directly contradicted the accounts of witnesses - mismatched color or type of clothing being very common.

You'd think that somebody interviewed by an officer within minutes of an incident would be able to accurately describe a suspect, but in many cases they'd be way off from the evidence shown on camera.
__________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong 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 11th August 2017, 08:33 PM   #1180
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,976
Take an honest look at Oswald, and what the Russians and Cubans would have made out of him when he dropped into their respective embassies talking about immigrating, or asylum in their countries.

First, the Russians already knew Oswald from his defection. They knew he was a mental case, they knew he was a sad-sack, and they sure as heck didn't want him back.

The Cubans would have called the Russians, or vice versa. They are looking at a guy with limited Spanish ability and NO SKILLS to offer them. Had he been a doctor, mechanic, engineer he would have been welcomed with a visa.

The CIA station wouldn't have known Oswald. They would have heard him say his name at either embassy, and then put it on a list to send back to Langley to cross reference with their files there, and maybe the FBI. If they thought he was important they'd have sent a priority cable asking for ID and background. I doubt that happened.

So why would anyone fake phone conversations pretending to be Oswald? Who else knew he was in Mexico City? If such fake phone conversations occurred then what was the motive? To warn the US? To frame Cuba for the assassination?

Let's take the last one first:

Say some anti-Castro Cuban had posed as a pro-Castro guy, and had sold Oswald on the wonders of Cuba, and all he had to do was kill JFK, and he would live like the Marxist rebel he pretended to be. This mystery man calls friends in Mexico City to alert them of LHO's visit, and they plan their fake phone calls for the CIA to record...why stop there? Why not plant evidence in his room linking him to Castro? Why not wire money into his bank account on 11/22/63 from a Mexico City bank the Cubans also used?

A fake phone call for the benefit of CIA eavesdroppers is not enough.

Now, if the fake phone calls were a way for the Cubans to warn the US, the fact is the better move would have been to call the US State Department and warn them directly. The side benefit would have been an easing of tensions between the Kennedys and Cuba (maybe).

Remember, the world was only 13 months past the Cuban Missile Crisis. Nobody wanted to go through that again, not the Soviets, not the Cubans, and not the US. However, had a direct link between Oswald and Cuba or the Soviets been established it would have meant war.
__________________
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 11th August 2017, 09:50 PM   #1181
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,019
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
It's commonly referred to as SWAG - scientific wild-ass guess.

Folks use all sorts of descriptive tools and terms when estimating age/height/weight and in many cases get things wrong, sometimes horribly so.

I can't tell you how many times there would be a criminal incident where security camera footage was eventually made available and that footage directly contradicted the accounts of witnesses - mismatched color or type of clothing being very common.

You'd think that somebody interviewed by an officer within minutes of an incident would be able to accurately describe a suspect, but in many cases they'd be way off from the evidence shown on camera.
Imhotep's complaint (via Simpich), as I understand it, was that the 165 lb. estimate of Oswald's weight could only have come from the CIA or FBI because that's the weight they had in their records back in 1960.

They (Imhotep & Simpich) profess to not understand how anyone could estimate the guy in the window as 165 lbs. Ergo, their thought process apparently goes, it must have been a frame-up of Oswald by the CIA.

But then we have officer Baker, who stopped Oswald in the lunchroom roughly 90 seconds after the assassination, estimating the man he stopped -- whom we know was Oswald -- at 165 lbs. as well.

Therefore their thought process is wrong. Someone could look at Oswald and think he was 165 lbs, and ergo, the 165 lb. estimate for the shooter could have come from a civilian, a regular joe, and not from a CIA or FBI document from 1960, and there was no frame up of Oswald indicated by the 165 lb. estimate.

Curiously, though, after posting this argument of Simpich's and apparently crediting it, Imhotep goes on to say he thinks Oswald was the lone shooter, and not framed, which is in direct contradiction to everything Simpich concluded. He thinks Oswald was neither the shooter of JFK or Tippit, and Simpich thinks Oswald was framed for both.

So it makes no sense to me how Imhotep can think Simpich's logic and citations are rock solid ("My claims do have traction, most of what I posted [almost all of which came from Simpich - Hank] can be linked straight to the evidence archive at the Mary Ferrell site"), while at the same time reaching diametrically opposite conclusions to Simpich in such a key area as whether Oswald fired any shots during the assassination.

Simpich: "Although the rifle was found near the sixth floor crime scene, I don’t think the rifle was used to shoot the President. I think it was used as a throw-down weapon with throw-down shells to frame the man called Oswald who worked on the sixth floor."

Imhotep: "I believe Oswald shot Kennedy and was the only active shooter".

Simpich contradicts himself by first claiming that the 5-10, 165 lb. description couldn't be a legit description of Oswald at the window, then finishes up that section of chapter six by arguing "I believe that Sawyer was telling the truth. He was told that a man was carrying a Winchester rifle, and that he was 5 foot 10, 165, about 30, with a slender build. It wouldn’t take long to find out which book depository employee fit that rough description."

Clearly, Simpich is suggesting that Oswald would be the "book depository employee" that best "fit that rough description."

So on the one hand, he argues it can't be a legit description of Oswald because Oswald was an inch shorter and 25 lbs. lighter, and then on the other hand suggests that description of 5-10, 165 lbs. would best fit Oswald out of all the Depository employees.

Simpich also contradicts himself regarding where in the TSBD Oswald worked ("I think it was used as a throw-down weapon with throw-down shells to frame the man called Oswald who worked on the sixth floor"), but earlier in that chapter argued against that ("The sixth floor was not Oswald’s turf – as an order filler, he would only come up there when he needed some books ").

I walk away from arguments like this scratching my head, wondering if the writer even cares that he makes no sense, or if the only goal is to reach a conspiracy conclusion regardless of the knots they have to tie themselves into to get there.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 11th August 2017 at 09:59 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 12th August 2017, 09:04 AM   #1182
bknight
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 275
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
...

I walk away from arguments like this scratching my head, wondering if the writer even cares that he makes no sense, or if the only goal is to reach a conspiracy conclusion regardless of the knots they have to tie themselves into to get there.

Hank
It's all for the money.
bknight 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 12th August 2017, 10:06 AM   #1183
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,019
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
It's all for the money.
Well, that would make sense if Simpich is selling the book; but he's giving it away for free as an e-book here: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret.html

EDIT: Simpich also thinks Orenthal James Simpson was framed: "Even if you believe that Oswald was guilty – and I don’t – guilty men can also be framed. That’s what happened to O. J. Simpson, if you remember how the glove, sock and blood evidence contradicted the prosecution’s version of the facts in the criminal case. That’s why the jury acquitted him on that round."

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/St...onclusion.html

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 12th August 2017 at 10:29 AM.
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 12th August 2017, 10:18 AM   #1184
bknight
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 275
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Well, that would make sense if Simpich is selling the book; but he's giving it away for free as an e-book here: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret.html

Hank
Ah, I didn't know that and hadn't looked.

ETA:

Then it would be I (Simpich) am smarter/more clever than everyone else that has studied the case.

Last edited by bknight; 12th August 2017 at 10:23 AM. Reason: Added thought
bknight 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 12th August 2017, 01:25 PM   #1185
OKBob
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 127
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Then it would be I (Simpich) am smarter/more clever than everyone else that has studied the case.
My sense is that CT thinking is often more holier-than-thou than smarter-than-thou. Yes, they do think they have greater insight, but often they claim that everyone could see what they see if only we all opened our eyes, minds, and hearts, if we just stripped off the blinders and exercised our common sense. There's a displaced religious and political impulse here. Ultimately, I think that a confused form of ideological hatred lies behind much CT thinking (apart from the money motive that, as you point out, does drive some CT). They reflexively challenge authority, whether governmental authority or what they deem "official" and coopted storytellers. (Their instinctive hatred for much established authority brings them temperamentally quite close to Oswald himself.) This is why most CTs, in my view, don't really want to solve the JFK assassination, as they claim, because that would put finis to their war against officialdom, or, rather, would create a new officialdom that must be opposed straightaway. I return to my idea, offered a few days ago, that CTs instrumentalize Oswald. In the guise of sleuthing, they exonerate or minimize the wretched waif in order to carry on a hate campaign against abstract authority. In truth, a murderer has humanity--a twisted humanity, granted--but CTs, in pursuing their religio-political agenda, are not interested in autonomous human depravity. They mostly treat human agency and individuals as pretexts for railing against "them," the mysterious, faceless cabal that has sought to control our thinking since at least 1963.

Last edited by OKBob; 12th August 2017 at 03:11 PM.
OKBob 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 12th August 2017, 04:57 PM   #1186
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,976
Originally Posted by OKBob View Post
My sense is that CT thinking is often more holier-than-thou than smarter-than-thou. Yes, they do think they have greater insight, but often they claim that everyone could see what they see if only we all opened our eyes, minds, and hearts, if we just stripped off the blinders and exercised our common sense. There's a displaced religious and political impulse here. Ultimately, I think that a confused form of ideological hatred lies behind much CT thinking (apart from the money motive that, as you point out, does drive some CT). They reflexively challenge authority, whether governmental authority or what they deem "official" and coopted storytellers. (Their instinctive hatred for much established authority brings them temperamentally quite close to Oswald himself.) This is why most CTs, in my view, don't really want to solve the JFK assassination, as they claim, because that would put finis to their war against officialdom, or, rather, would create a new officialdom that must be opposed straightaway. I return to my idea, offered a few days ago, that CTs instrumentalize Oswald. In the guise of sleuthing, they exonerate or minimize the wretched waif in order to carry on a hate campaign against abstract authority. In truth, a murderer has humanity--a twisted humanity, granted--but CTs, in pursuing their religio-political agenda, are not interested in autonomous human depravity. They mostly treat human agency and individuals as pretexts for railing against "them," the mysterious, faceless cabal that has sought to control our thinking since at least 1963.
I agree with this, and need to point out that every CT is about changing guilt from the actual perpetrator(s) to the target of a specific political or social enemy. This is why you've seen everyone from the Mafia, CIA, LBJ, Hunt Oil, Castro, or the Soviets being charged as the true culprits behind JFK's death.

The JFK Assassination was prime real estate for a conspiracy right off the bat. It took place at a time before live TV was common place, and though it was caught on 8mm and 16mm film, the public wouldn't see these films for 13 years. What America did see was Lee Oswald murdered on live TV, where they see a bland, scrawny little man shot. It became a CT built on space and time. People had doubts based on gossip, the government of the 1960's had secrets to keep (Cuba, Vietnam, etc), and the counter-culture began to bloom into an era where EVERYTHING was questioned. Soon the assassination became folklore, and as the lies from Southeast Asia grew it reinforced the belief in conspiracy in the minds of more and more people.

By the time Nixon resigned from the White House a conspiracy behind JFK's death was palpable.

Moving into the 1980's we saw the rise of cable TV where there were thousands of hours of air-time to fill, and CT's found a new home in the form of "documentaries". The JFK assassination lead the way.

This gave the JFK-CT a 25 year-old foundation supported by an industry of books and VHS tapes.

Today, thanks to the internet and YouTube, there is a mountain of bad information out there for a growing population of non-critical thinkers to absorb. On the bright side, the internet brings a lot of people into play, and while CT's still pop-up they get torn apart fairly quickly leaving only fringe-types spouting off.
__________________
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 12th August 2017, 05:24 PM   #1187
OKBob
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 127
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
This is why you've seen everyone from the Mafia, CIA, LBJ, Hunt Oil, Castro, or the Soviets being charged as the true culprits behind JFK's death.
I think your social and historical comments about JFK-CT hit the nail on the head. I'd stress the point that it's typically malign collectivities, such as those you cite above, that are fingered as suspects by CTs. You almost never see a CT say, "Not Oswald but this other disaffected individual killed JFK." When the HSCA credited last-minute acoustic evidence (misinterpreted, as we know) with uncovering a shot from the Grassy Knoll, G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel to the HSCA, concluded that it showed the hand of the Mafia, not simply another antisocial individual, conspiring or coincidental, with Oswald's act.
OKBob 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 13th August 2017, 12:16 AM   #1188
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,976
And Blakey is part of the problem.

Here's the thing; the evidence can't point in 20 directions.

So you start at the crime scene and work backward in time.

Here's what you get:

JFK is struck from behind by two 6.5x52mm bullets, one in the back that passes through his body and strikes Gov. Connally, and the other round striking him in the back of the head to dramatic effect.

Witnesses point to the 6th floor of the TSBD, and there the police find a sniper's nest, spent 6.5x52mm shell casings, and a Carcano rifle of the same caliber. * Witnesses also directed cops to other locations where they thought they saw or heard something, but no evidence of a gunman was found at these locations.*

The Carcano belongs to Lee Oswald, a TSBD employee, who has fled the building. Oswald later shoots officer Tippet, killing him, and later attempts to shoot a second officer during his apprehension at a movie theater. The gun in Owald's hand is the gun used to kill Tippet, and was also owned by Oswald.

This right here is enough to put Oswald in the electric chair.

From here we look at Oswald to see if there were other conspirators. While there are a few interesting people in his life (depending on how far back you want to go) the fact is that there isn't anyone where you could build a solid case of being a co-conspirator - AND PEOPLE HAVE TRIED AND FAILED (you know, Jack Ruby, David Ferrie, Guy Banister, the Lambchop puppet, etc).

Oswald wasn't a guy with a lot of friends, and none of them were dangerous.

The last place they would focus on is Oswald's trip to Mexico City, and while there are a few colorful stories emerging about where he went, and whom he talked to while he was there in the end nobody can point to anything concrete linking him to Cuba, Russia, or the CIA.

So that brings us back to Dealey Plaza and Oswald...all by himself.

I spent 25 years of my life as a JFK CTist, not one of the theories is strong enough to override the facts of the case as we know it. Oswald was given a target of opportunity on 11/22/63, and he snuck his Carcano into the building, and shot JFK. It was an easy shot.

It's just that simple.
__________________
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 13th August 2017, 10:52 AM   #1189
bknight
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 275
While CT's may be attempting to shift guilt to "them", I guess I'm referring to CT's in general not just the JFK. Flat Earth, Apollo, 9/11, or you pick the theory contains the CT's that believe they are "smarter/more clever than everyone" and or "critical thinkers" that have government/top official in charge of fantasy frauds that the CT's believe/support.
bknight 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 13th August 2017, 11:48 AM   #1190
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,928
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
You're absolutely right of course, but let's dissect MicahJava's pointless noise for the fun of it.


Can you name another employee "...to flee the building after the assassination"? No. There were no others. That leaves Oswald as the only one known to have fled. And remember, he's also the only one who left his rifle behind in the building. Surely those two facts, in concert, count for more than each alone, don't you think?


This is more of what DiEugenio does, taking claims out of context and quibbling about minor points. In point of fact, it was Roy Truly, Oswald's supervisor, who noticed him missing and reported that fact to the police. Truly's testimony on that point:
Mr. TRULY. Then in a few minutes--it could have been moments or minutes at a time like that--I noticed some of my boys were over in the west corner of the shipping department, and there were several officers over there taking their names and addresses, and so forth.
There were other officers in other parts of the building taking other employees, like office people's names. I noticed that Lee Oswald was not among these boys.
So I picked up the telephone and called Mr. Aiken down at the other warehouse who keeps our application blanks. Back up there.
First I mentioned to Mr. Campbell--I asked Bill Shelley if he had seen him, he looked around and said no.
Mr. BELIN. When you asked Bill Shelley if he had seen whom?
Mr. TRULY. Lee Oswald. I said, "Have you seen him around lately," and he said no.
So Mr. Campbell is standing there, and I said, "I have a boy over here missing. I don't know whether to report it or not." Because I had another one or two out then. I didn't know whether they were all there or not. He said, "What do you think"? And I got to thinking. He said, "Well, we better do it anyway." It was so quick after that.
So I picked the phone up then and called Mr. Aiken, at the warehouse, and got the boy's name and general description and telephone number and address at Irving.
Mr. BELIN. Did you have any address for him in Dallas, or did you just have an address in Irving?
Mr. TRULY. Just the address in Irving. I knew nothing of this Dallas address. I didn't know he was living away from his family.
Mr. BELIN. Now, would that be the address and the description as shown on this application, Exhibit 496?
Mr. TRULY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Did you ask for the name and addresses of any other employees who might have been missing?
Mr. TRULY. No, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Why didn't you ask for any other employees?
Mr. TRULY. That is the only one that I could be certain right then was missing.


Now, whether you want to quibble and call the police taking the names of the employees for the record as a 'roll call' is relatively meaningless. What is pertinent is Truly was the genesis for the police knowing they were seeking an employee named Lee Harvey Oswald for questioning. When a person of the same name was arrested in the Texas Theatre as a suspect in the killing of a police officer after the assassination, it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out this "Lee Harvey Oswald" character might be involved in both murders.


You apparently started one thought here and abandoned it.


Nobody ever suggested it did, so this argument reduces to a strawman argument raised by Rose merely to knock down. Truly's noticing Oswald was not present, and confirming Shelley hadn't seen him, was enough to get Oswald reported to the police as 'missing'. The roll call wasn't why Oswald was arrested in any case, so why do you think this minor incident is even worth discussing? You don't say, except, of course, conspiracy theorists apparently must quibble about everything before breakfast, or they feel incomplete.


More quibbles. The fact of the matter is Truly noticed the police taking the names of the employees and thought that giving them Oswald's name might be important, as he was then not accounted for. The fact that Truly saw Oswald IN the building about 90 seconds after the assassination (with Officer Baker) could have entered into his determination that he should provide Oswald's name to the police.


Givens was outside the building at the time of the assassination, and was still outside at the time of Truly noticing Oswald wasn't present as the police were taking names. Truly also hadn't seen Givens about 90 seconds after the assassination, so Givens' name wasn't foremost in Truly's mind. And as it turned out, Givens neither left a rifle behind nor shot and killed a police officer in the ensuing 45 minutes. And, as Truly mentioned in his testimony, "That is the only one [Oswald] that I could be certain right then was missing."


What would be a more appropriate English word for the police segregating the workers and taking their names and addresses? I am open to suggestions. Got one? If not, then 'roll call' will have to do.


And in point of fact, NONE of them reported to Roy Truly, so he had no reason to recall their names or report them missing. And he hadn't seen any of them within the building in the 90 seconds immediately following the shooting, so, again, Truly had no reason to think their being outside his purview was significant. But Oswald? Oswald reported to Truly and Oswald was seen by Truly inside the building a short time before. And now Oswald wasn't around. Truly felt that significant enough to mention to the police. So Truly reported that. What's the big deal here? The word 'roll call' annoys you that much? Call it what you wish. Truly reported Oswald missing. That's the fact. And no amount of quibbling over what the proper English word is for this will ever change that fact. This is why conspiracy theorists have such a bad reputation... they ignore the wheat and concentrate on the chaff.


Or not. Beside which, there's no evidence these 'others' reported to Truly or were seen by him in the 90 seconds following the shooting, right? So why would Truly think of them, or report their names and addresses to the police, if he even knew these others? As you note, but appear to have a double-standard about, there were multiple businesses in the TSBD, and Truly was part of only one business. So why quibble over the others?


Well, now, this is just a change of subject from why Oswald was reported to the police. It's almost like you know your arguments about the putative roll call are worthless, and you're already lining up another point to argue in its stead.

Beyond that, it's important to note that there's no civil rights protection for someone who deliberately calls attention to himself during a police lineup. Having done so, you don't then get to suggest the lineups were invalid and should be disregarded because you called attention to yourself. Otherwise, every suspect would use this ploy every time they were in a lineup in an attempt to get the results of the lineups thrown out.

And beyond that, the lineups really don't matter. This is again another quibble by you. The weapon recovered from the Depository was Oswald's, he left his prints on the weapon in two places, there are photos of him with the weapon, it was determined on the afternoon of the assassination to be missing from its normal hiding place in the Paine garage, and the Kleins business records show it was shipped to his PO Box. The revolver pulled from his hand in the theatre was determined to be the one used to kill Officer Tippit, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. Ditto with his rifle used to killed President Kennedy.

Hank
Um, dude, don't you think anything Truly says should be taken with a grain of salt? He's not the most consistent witness, with himself or others. And can you recconcile your Truly quote with the information posted above? The role-call thing sounds like an exaggerated tale based on a fragment of time.
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 13th August 2017, 11:51 AM   #1191
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,928
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Why do you think Oswald had a whole, torn dollar bill in his pocket? It can't be to identify someone at the Texas Theatre, because that requires the other person to have the other half of the dollar bill, and Oswald has the whole dollar. So where's the whole dollar with a slight tear gain its significance?

How do you explain it? And do you have any direct *evidence* for your explanation?

And how do you explain the piece of paper about two other half dollars not linked to Oswald found in the archives? What's the *evidence* of their significance to this case?

Hank
The whole, partially torn dollar bill would be there to rip it completely and give the other half to somebody else. This is speculation based on an anomalous aspect of the case. This speculation is warranted because a mundane explanation is highly unlikely.
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 13th August 2017, 11:56 AM   #1192
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 27,971
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The whole, partially torn dollar bill would be there to rip it completely and give the other half to somebody else. This is speculation based on an anomalous aspect of the case. This speculation is warranted because a mundane explanation is highly unlikely.
Why?
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 13th August 2017, 01:30 PM   #1193
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,928
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
You guys will quibble about anything pretty much, won't you?

Officer Marion Baker saw Oswald on the second floor of the Depository within about 90 seconds of the assassination, right? Is that something beyond dispute?

I trust so, because it destroys your silly argument.

Here's his affidavit.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htm

Note the age, height, & weight he estimated Oswald at:
The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket.

What does this establish, except conspiracy theorists quibble over ever little item, mostly for no good reason?

Baker saw Oswald, and estimated his weight at 165lb. The witness saw Oswald in the window and estimated his weight at 165. Someone else saw Oswald and estimated his weight at 165 (as reflected in the cable you cite). You're right, your argument proves nothing, except how desperate you are to have an argument that establishes conspiracy, when all it establishes is Oswald looked like he was about 165 pounds.

What's your source for Oswald's weight being 140? Do you even have one, or is that just your personal favorite guess?

Hank
Patspeer.com has a great chapter on examining Oswald's clothing when and where.

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter4b%3A...ledevidence%22
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 13th August 2017, 01:36 PM   #1194
Elagabalus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,650
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The whole, partially torn dollar bill would be there to rip it completely and give the other half to somebody else. This is speculation based on an anomalous aspect of the case. This speculation is warranted because a mundane explanation is highly unlikely.
Oswald was involved, then? Is that what you are saying?
Elagabalus 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 13th August 2017, 01:46 PM   #1195
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,019
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The whole, partially torn dollar bill would be there to rip it completely and give the other half to somebody else.
Why does it need to be torn partially to start? Wouldn't a whole, untorn bill in his wallet suffice for the same purpose? Why are you assuming the partial tear is there by design? Didn't he have other, untorn, bills that would suffice?


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
This is speculation based on an anomalous aspect of the case.
What anomalous aspect of the case? The tear? Then you're arguing in a circle and begging the question.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
This speculation is warranted because a mundane explanation is highly unlikely.
Show us your math for how you calculated the likelihood of the mundane explanation vs the speculative explanation you favor. No math? Then you're just blowing smoke.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 13th August 2017 at 03:10 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 13th August 2017, 02:28 PM   #1196
OKBob
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 127
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
This speculation is warranted because a mundane explanation is highly unlikely.
Circular argument from personal incredulity. Doubly fallacious. A great number of JFK-CTs make just this argument. "The mundane explanation that an indignant, grieving Jack Ruby opportunistically murdered Oswald is highly unlikely." "Why do you say that?" "Because anybody with common sense couldn't believe it."
OKBob 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 13th August 2017, 02:48 PM   #1197
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,271
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The whole, partially torn dollar bill would be there to rip it completely and give the other half to somebody else. This is speculation based on an anomalous aspect of the case. This speculation is warranted because a mundane explanation is highly unlikely.
Might want to think about how your use of the word mundane contradicts your point.
__________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong 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 13th August 2017, 02:49 PM   #1198
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,019
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Patspeer.com has a great chapter on examining Oswald's clothing when and where.

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter4b%3A...ledevidence%22
Don't care what Pat Speer says. He's not here to debate this. You expect me to rebut everything you can find on the web to cut and paste? THAT isn't going to happen.

Right now the subject under discussion isn't Oswald's clothes, but his approximate weight. Imhotep raised that issue, suggesting the source of the 165 lbs. that went out over the DPD radio at about 12:45 pm on the day of the assassination was a mystery man repeating what was contained in a CIA document from 1960 (he quoted Bill Simpich, another conspiracy theorist about that). If you want to change the subject to Oswald's clothes, go right ahead, but at least understand that's a red herring and you are avoiding the topic your fellow CT brought up.

So right now we're discussing these points:

1. Did Baker see Oswald in the lunch room in the Depository about 90 seconds after the assassination, yes or no?

2. Did Baker execute a document later the same day saying the man he saw was about 165 lbs., yes or no?

3. Does Baker's estimate destroy entirely the argument Imhotep was advancing concerning the CIA being the source of the 165 lb. estimate for Oswald, given Baker didn't work for the CIA, saw Oswald only briefly, and likewise estimated Oswald weighed about 165 lbs.?

Now, what's your quibble (via Speers) about Oswald's clothes?

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 13th August 2017 at 02:51 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 13th August 2017, 02:57 PM   #1199
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,928
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Why?
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Why?
What would be the default "mundane explanation"?

1. Oswald was given three $1 bills at some point in time.

2. All three $1 bills have three-digit notations on them signifying that they were once on top of a grouped stack of currency.

3. Two of the $1 become so worn that the other half tears off, with their corresponding halves missing. Oswald keeps these useless items around his home.

4. One of the $1 bills becomes so worn that it partially tears. Oswald decides to keep this one in his wallet, along with $13 of other comparatively mundane currency, on the day of 11/22/1963.

?

Last edited by MicahJava; 13th August 2017 at 02:59 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 13th August 2017, 02:58 PM   #1200
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 27,971
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
What would be the default "mundane explanation"?

1. Oswald was given three $1 bills at some point in time.

2. All three $1 bills have three-digit notations on them signifying that they were once on top of a stack of currency.

3. Two of the $1 become so worn that the other half tears off, with their corresponding halves missing. Oswald keeps these useless items around his home.

4. One of the $1 bills becomes so worn that it partially tears. Oswald decides to keep this one in his wallet, along with $13 of other comparatively mundane currency, on the day of 11/22/1963.

?
Is there such a thing as a "default" mundane explanation? Which non-mundane one do you prefer?
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
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 06:41 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.