She also claims to have seen Jack Ruby running from the corner of the Texas School Book Depository, and he was at the office of the Dallas Morning News at the time.
If you don’t think it has been discredited, how do you account for the fact that the noises on the dictabelt coincide with statements that have been documented to have occurred about a minute after the shooting was over?
Apart from the photos showing Oswald holding the weapon, his palm print on the weapon, the documentation showing how he obtained the weapon, and the testimony of witnesses of Oswald bringing a long package to work that morning.
I notice that, with the Dictabelt, you accept the initial investigation’s conclusions and dismiss later work as “revisionist”. However, with the Walker bullet analysis, you now seem to be doing the opposite. Why is that?
Even if we disregard Hill’s claim, we are still left with police investigating the Grassy Knoll immediately after the murder, which Occam’s Razor would indicate they thought it was connected with the murder.
This is explained in the citation I already provided:
*The validity of acoustic evidence for a gunshot from the ‘Grassy Knoll’ was challenged on statistical grounds and on the basis of an anomaly on the Dallas police recordings. However, the assumptions underlying those criticisms were not in accord with evidence overlooked by the review panel. With a rigorous statistical analysis one arrives at a calculation for the probability that the recording contains a random pattern which by chance resembled the acoustic signature of a gunshot from the Grassy Knoll at no more than p= 0.037.
The NRC panel asserted that radio cross-talk indicated asynchroneity between the putative gunshots on channel one and the time of the assassination revealed by context on channel two. The NRC panel overlooked that an alternative synchronization arises from the radio cross-talk evidence because of the fact that the two identifiable cases of cross-talk were out of synch with one another.
The episodes are three minutes apart on one channel, but only two minutes apart on the other. Had the unambiguous instance of cross-talk been used, instead of the barely audible fragment of cross-talk, the supposed asynchroneity in the evidence would have been resolved. The unambiguous cross-talk evidence indicates that the gunshot-like sounds on channel one were recorded over the police radio at the precise instant in real time that the President was being assassinated by gunfire.
The order in the data, that is, the congruence between the acoustic evidence and the sequence of events derived from a reconstruction of the crime from video evidence is the major factor that led acoustic experts to conclude that there was a gunshot from the Grassy Knoll during the assassination. The critiques of the acoustic evidence by the NRC panel and the FBI laboratory failed to consider that evidence. There was a further incongruity in the arguments of the NRC panel, and perhaps irony, in that a broadcast over the police radio sent one minute after the assassination giving orders to search behind the Grassy Knoll for an assassin, was invoked as evidence that there was no assassin on the Grassy Knoll.*
So the alleged ‘debunking’ of the dictabelt evidence has been definitively debunked.
The so-called ‘back yard photos’ are an interesting study in themselves - another case of dubious ‘evidence’ touted as establishing some sort of undeniable ‘fact’.
I agree with Oswald’s statement that the photograph is a fake.
One thing that testifies to its rather shady provenance is that while Marina claims to have snapped one pose, different versions in different poses keep turning up. In addition, this was found among police files: http://i38.tinypic.com/6dssw5.jpg
So you’ll have to excuse me if I view this claim with common sense skepticism.
When examined, the chain of evidence supposedly tying Oswald to the murder seems to consist of nothing but weak links.
Actually, I was talking about the argument clinic sketch, not the Black Knight. But that’s neither here nor there. The point about the sketch is the customer says, “An argument is a connective series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition…it isn’t just contradiction.” (2:12 in the video) I see nothing in this debate but contradiction.
You’re then saying there’s no evidence for a conspiracy.
Who said anything about the CIA? And I don’t expect you personally to do it (although that would help, but actually I mean your side: the pro-conspiracy researchers and authors). But documents have been requested via FOIA, and I still say if anyone had proof of a conspiracy, it’s their duty to report the facts. I believe it could be obstruction of justice if a person knows who committed a crime, but doesn’t give the information to authorities.
Twisting my words. The reason I brought up the Apalachin meeting is that after that, Hoover could no longer deny the existence of the Mafia. From that point to this, it was out in the open. But that wasn’t the only evidence of the Mafia’s existence. There were other pieces (Valachi, for one) that confirmed it.
If that could happen, it seems logical that a conspiracy to kill Kennedy should be found somewhere as well. Be it tapes, evidence of meetings, discussions, etc. It should be actionable and legally binding in the eyes of a DA.
But since none of that has surfaced (indeed, what has surfaced has never been actionable, as no DA other than Garrison has ever followed through), we’re left with thinking either that the evidence thus far submitted isn’t worth a DA’s time, or every DA and law enforcement agency in the country capable of prosecuting conspiracists and murderers are in on the conspiracy. And if there’s another option, I’m open to hearing it.
I have time on my hands, and I like to be intellectually challenged.
Because I’m not convinced? I’m a nobody. A person posting on a message board. Whether or not I’m convinced is immaterial. Convince those who matter: DAs, the DOJ, you know, people who could prosecute murderers.
You keep bringing up items like the WC doubted their own findings, yet let them hang there. It’s a little like the clickbait headlines we’re seeing so often now: “This famous celebrity did what?!” Why not bring up something like the WC doubting, then expound on your point, instead of making us beg for scraps of information?
I’ll be honest. While I certainly accept the lone gunman theory, I’m certain there are those on this board who can argue that side better and more eloquently than I. So I’m pursuing a different angle: Trying to get you to be specific in your claims. You’re claiming a conspiracy; back up your claims with evidence. So far, all you’re doing is trying to knock down the lone shooter, but you’re not building anything else up. If Oswald didn’t do it, then who did?
I’m tired of the pro-conspiracy crowd saying, “It was a conspiracy!” but when asked for details, such as how did it and how, they say, “I can’t prove anything–but it was the Russians, the Cubans, the Mafia, LBJ, the military-industrial complex…” and so on. It’s not enough to simply claim there was a crime. I’m asking for proof of a conspiracy. The lone gunman side has mountains of evidence to back it up. Where’s the firm proof from the conspiracy side?
I can only go by the actual orders issued by the President, and the actions taken, in preference to statements he might have made to the press in the run up to an election campaign.
*
By 1963, as confirmed by Assistant Defense Secretary Roswell Gilpatric and Defense Department analyst John McNaughton, Kennedy had decided that he was going to use Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara as his point man to go ahead and implement a withdrawal from Vietnam. McNamara’s instructions to begin planning the withdrawal of U.S. military personnel had been relayed to Saigon in summer 1962.
At a key meeting in Hawaii in May 1963, McNamara was presented with an update on the planning for the withdrawal. He deemed the plans too slow and asked them to be speeded up. (James DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, pgs. 366-367) But the point was that the plan was in place. Kennedy activated it in October 1963 by signing National Security Action Memorandum 263, stating that the withdrawal would begin in December of 1963 and be completed in 1965.
In other words, Kennedy’s plan for a military withdrawal wasn’t just some vague notion or, as New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson recently wrote, a belief among his admirers “rooted as much in the romance of ‘what might have been’ as in the documented record.”
In a letter to the New York Times in response to Abramson’s JFK article, James K. Galbraith, a professor of government at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas and son of the late John Kenneth Galbraith, challenged Abramson’s characterization of Kennedy’s withdrawal plan.
Galbraith wrote, “The record shows that on Oct. 2 and 5, 1963, President Kennedy issued a formal decision to withdraw American forces from Vietnam. I documented this 10 years ago in Boston Review and Salon, and in 2007 in The New York Review of Books.
“The relevant documents include records of the Secretary of Defense conference in Honolulu in May 1963; tapes and transcripts of the decision meetings in the White House; and a memorandum from Gen. Maxwell Taylor to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Oct. 4, 1963, which states: ‘All planning will be directed towards preparing RVN [South Vietnamese government] forces for the withdrawal of all U.S. special assistance units and personnel by the end of calendar year 1965.’”*
“Marina Oswald has repeatedly lied to the [Secret] Service, the FBI, and this Commission on matters which are of vital concern to the people of this country and the world.” - Warren Commission attorney Norman Redlich
“Basically honest and intelligent persons who are suddenly exposed to a brief, unexpected event, especially one that involves an unfamiliar object, may be grossly inaccurate in trying to describe precisely what they have seen.”
Take out “unfamiliar object” and you have the Kennedy assassination. Certainly shots fired were brief and unexpected.
So just because people (including police) ran toward the grassy knoll isn’t proof that someone shot from there. People panic.
People aren’t always predictable when it comes to unexpected situations. Sometimes they run toward the danger, other times they run away, sometimes there’s chaos.
Just because people ran toward the grassy knoll isn’t proof there was a shooter there.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, no? You’ve questioned other posters’ motives and mental states repeatedly in this thread. However, everyone is subject to biases and motivated reasoning, as opposed to everyone but you. I was merely curious if you’d noticed this.
I have, citing a peer-review academic paper on two occasions…one that is more recent than the Thomas paper, even. I also made other reasoned arguments about the Dictabelt, with the caveat that I’m not an acoustic expert and thus can’t argue intelligently at the level of academic research.
When ballistics experts like these gentleman reproduce the shot, they find that a shot from the back causes the head to move to the back, due to the jet effect. Unintuitive, but scientifically demonstrated by multiple researchers on multiple occasions.
I love that CTers will loudly shoot down the parts of each others’ arguments that doesn’t work for them. It’s almost like they’re getting those particular facts from some special storehouse of reality.
That does seem to characterize many of the replies to my arguments.
No. That seems to be what you and the other denizens here are arguing. You seem to have gotten yourself all bollixed up about who’s who in this thread.
I mention the CIA because of all the suspects in this murder, they have the sort of skills and predilections for political assassination. And as you seem to imagine a paper trail is necessary, they are also a bureaucracy.
Just showing how your stance allows you to be hoist on your own petard. Conspiracies can exist even before you personally get some alleged papers in your hot little hands.
Suppose it was an organization like the CIA - how do you suggest I go about bugging their offices, obtaining minutes of their meetings, or securing documents from them they would prefer not be known to the public.
It should be obvious even to you that your expectations are on the grandiose side.
Certainly rational people are capable of inferring the existence of a conspiracy before they have the documentation necessary to secure a conviction in court. Indeed, no one would even start to look for the evidence you demand without a reasonable suspicion of such a thing.
Before we go all gung ho and leap into dismissing a considered judgement because of the lack of action on the part of local District Attorneys, it’s best in my opinion to take the initial steps before complaining ‘Are we there, yet?’
:rolleyes:
Well, you are the person who sees fit to blindly and blandly contradict my arguments.
Posters here seem to have a habit of ignoring my citations, but if you are asking (no begging needed - why get all dramatic about it?):
“They were trying to prove that the same bullet that hit Kennedy first was the one that hit Connally, went through him and through his hand, his bone, into his leg and everything else. … The commission believes that the same bullet that hit Kennedy hit Connally. Well, I don’t believe it.” - Senator Richard Russell
I thought all of this would be common knowledge among people claiming to know all about the JFK murder.
In this thread I started by knocking down the ‘Cuba did it’ theory by opposing it with a better theory - domestic interests are responsible for political reasons.
My method is to proceed methodically. If someone is fanatically wedded to their ideas about Castro, or Oswald, or the Mafia there’s little point in my trying to discuss anything the least bit complex with them.
Until we knock down the Lone Nut Theory, it makes no sense to proceed into other matters.
So far I have said many specific things, with citations, about several issues in the past few pages, yet some seem to prefer to pretend I haven’t made arguments or backed them up. There’s no point in my presenting arguments who deny I am presenting them.
If posters here continue to merely engage in abuse and contradiction, they can hardly complain they aren’t getting the argument they paid for.
To begin with, I am demonstrating this so-called ‘mountain of evidence’ for the Lone Nut Theory isn’t so formidable after all.
If you like an intellectual challenge, then it’s my intention to clear away all the rubbish before building something worthwhile. If that doesn’t suit you, that’s your choice.
This is rather like when I find myself among Creationists and start chipping away at their deeply held dogmas - it often turns out their ‘evidence’ for intelligent design isn’t so undeniable after all. But until they let go of that death grip to the things they already believe, they aren’t going to be interested in even considering anything else.
It’s evidence that people thought there was a shooter there.
I’m suggesting they had a reason to do so, as witnesses report a shooter in that area and police were dispatched to that area to look for assassins. Further confirmed by examination of the audio evidence.
This is a good exercise in the fanaticism exhibited by some posters who might claim ‘all the evidence points to Oswald’. No, not all the evidence.
You are confusing ‘proof’ available in mathematics with ‘evidence’ as would be valuable in a criminal case.
