PDA

View Full Version : JFK Assassination/Example of Theory



SolusLupus
2005-Oct-18, 08:56 PM
Okay. I've wanted to post this for a long time. I wasn't sure if this was the right place to do it, as this is supposed to be devoted for Astronomy. However, here goes.

The JFK Assassination - Could there be a Conspiracy Involved?

I say yes, the possibility of a conspiracy is definitely there. However, I'm going to use this as (hopefully a GOOD) example of the varying types of argument. Now, I don't have a lot of proof to up and give, and I'm not really interested in going into every single little detail, but bear with me nonetheless.

There are to me, three different types of "claims".

The first is speculative. You speculate, without having any evidence. For instance: I say that JFK was not only killed, he was killed by aliens. There is no proof for this, however, so this is rather silly speculation. However, if I also say that every Republican was in on it, then it's just as silly of speculation - there's no evidence of it, and it's too generic and wide-sweeping of a statement for any evidence of the physical crime to even imply it.

The second is a Theory. There is evidence behind it, but it doesn't necessarily "prove" it conclusively. For instance: JFK was killed not just by Oswald, but also the Mafia and/or FBI. There is evidence that this is a possibility - J. Edgar Hoover was someone that had his position for way too long, and was documented to have abused it several times. Also, JFK was big on ticking off the Mafia, and the Mafia is a huge conspiracy group (they went under the nose of law enforcement for a long time, until those few police officers happened to stumble upon them). There is also some physical evidence that implies that there may have been multiple shooters.

The third is conclusive fact. <Edit> I would say that Kennedy being shot by a firearm to be conclusive fact. (Earlier I said that I would consider Kennedy being shot by Oswald to be fact - but, instead, this would be more befitting)

Now, take all this and apply it to other things.

Then, you have to view the various types of CLAIMS.

A claim is a statement of fact. Let's say there was a theft in my school, and I suspect the janitor...

Should I say, "The janitor is guilty", straight out? I sure as heck hope not! I may very well accuse an innocent man of an action without having any evidence. So if I said that I thought he was guilty, that's speculation.

If I said that I KNEW he was guilty... well, either I'm lying or deluding myself, to put it rudely. To put it less rudely, I'm making a /claim/. I'm claiming a fact based on nothing.

Add in some evidence that points the way, and it becomes a theory. Even as a theory, however, a claim of fact is usually false. You CAN be right, of course - there is a truth in there somewhere. However, just because a man has opportunity or motive doesn't immediately make him 100% guilty and ensure that he committed the act.

Bah, I hope this was coherent and/or correct. If not, I'll just delete the post if I can.

(Edited some content)

Gillianren
2005-Oct-18, 09:36 PM
Remember, though, in both science and law, there is no fact. In science, things are never "proven"; in law, they're considered proven "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is not intended to be beyond all doubt. (For the record, I think Oswald would definitely have been convicted if he lived, and I think that would have been the right thing.)

Wolverine
2005-Oct-18, 11:30 PM
Lonewulf, you might find Kenneth Rahn's page (http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html) quite interesting. He has a couple of sections devoted to what you mention, including this (http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Critical_thinking/Intro_to_critl_thinking.html).

SolusLupus
2005-Oct-19, 12:16 PM
Gillian, you're right. What I SHOULD have said is that it was a fact that Kennedy was shot. There have to be facts, though, in science - the sun rises and sets, that's a fact. Computers turn on when you push the little button, that's a fact. And if it doesn't turn on, there's a problem.

See what I mean? What exactly do you mean by no facts in science?

Thanks for the link, Wolverine. Good to see you weasel-like creatures that are known for visciousness are good for something! (That was a joke on you name, not an insult :) ) I saved it to favorites and will give it a look-through in a bit.

My post was very much basically an attempt to try to show a lot of the "conspiracy theorists" that come onto here the difference between speculation and claim. A lot of the more annoying types that come here seem to think that if they speculate without fact, that makes it fact based on the fact it was speculated.

peteshimmon
2005-Oct-19, 05:57 PM
Anyone know if Oswalds handgun was definitely
connected to the officer Tippit tragedy? My
old copy of Mark Lanes Rush to Judgement
indicated not. I thought I was going to get a
definite answer to something but no. Ballistics
is supposed to be solid evidence!

publiusr
2005-Oct-19, 06:39 PM
Give me a revolver and a file, let me shoot, file, shoot file, etc. You will get different results everytime.

Gillianren
2005-Oct-19, 08:10 PM
Gillian, you're right. What I SHOULD have said is that it was a fact that Kennedy was shot. There have to be facts, though, in science - the sun rises and sets, that's a fact. Computers turn on when you push the little button, that's a fact. And if it doesn't turn on, there's a problem.

See what I mean? What exactly do you mean by no facts in science?

Well, for one thing, the sun doesn't rise and set every day; the Earth revolves around the sun so that the sun appears to rise and set.

In science, there are data. However, nothing is proven, so nothing is considered truly "fact" as most people think of it. It is entirely possible that things will show all our theories wrong. The more data we collect, and the more we refine those theories using that data, the less likely it is that we are wrong, but nothing is truly proven.

(Oh, and yes, the gun Oswald used was connected ballistically to the Tippit shooting. See http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm for more information than you really want about the evidence against Oswald.)

jimD
2005-Oct-19, 08:37 PM
The JFK Assassination - Could there be a Conspiracy Involved?

" ----- I say yes, The third is conclusive fact. I would use "Oswald killed Kennedy", but this MAY just still fall under a very strong theory. Nonetheless, it seems to me that the physical evidence all points to Oswald being there, and pulling the trigger -----"-

Common sense demands that Oswald was, as he himself declared, "A Patsy!".

First off, the cached rifle was not good enough to hit the target at that distance.
Secondly, Someone was shooting from the knoll, and what about the bullet on the stretcher?
Thirdly, Oswald was put away to close the case.
Fourthly and lastly, collusion was everywhere evident even where accredited investigators were employed. - I rest my case.

Wolverine
2005-Oct-19, 08:42 PM
Anyone know if Oswalds handgun was definitely
connected to the officer Tippit tragedy? My
old copy of Mark Lanes Rush to Judgement
indicated not. I thought I was going to get a
definite answer to something but no. Ballistics
is supposed to be solid evidence!

See here (http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-10.html#revolver) for more (emphasis mine):


Four bullets were recovered from the body of Officer Tippit. In Nicol's opinion one of the four bullets could be positively identified with test bullets fired from V510210 revolver, and the other three could have been fired from that revolver. In Cunningham's opinion all four bullets could have been fired from the V510210 revolver, but none could be positively identified to the revolver--that is, in his opinion the bullets bore the revolver's rifling characteristics, but no conclusion could be drawn on the basis of microscopic characteristics. Cunningham did not conclude that the bullets had not been fired from the revolver, since he found that consecutive bullets fired in the revolver by the FBI could not even be identified with each other under the microscope. The apparent reasons for this was that while the revolver had been rechambered for a .38 Special cartridge, it had not been rebarreled for a .38 Special bullet. The barrel was therefore slightly oversized for a .38 Special bullet, which has a smaller diameter than a .38 S. & W. bullet. This would cause the passage of a .38 Special bullet through the barrel to be erratic, resulting in inconsistent microscopic markings.

aurora
2005-Oct-19, 08:51 PM
I rest my case.

Not a very good case, composed mostly of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

To get back to the original subject, I think you've provided a good example of one of the first two descriptions.

Wolverine
2005-Oct-19, 08:55 PM
Common sense demands that Oswald was, as he himself declared, "A Patsy!"
I disagree. It would be most sensible to examine all available evidence on the matter rather than parroting Oswald's own words or the claims of conspiracy theorists. The sum of the best available evidence indicates LHO was the perpetrator.


First off, the cached rifle was not good enough to hit the target at that distance.
That's incorrect. See here (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/firearms.htm).


Secondly, Someone was shooting from the knoll, and what about the bullet on the stretcher?
See here (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dealey.htm) and here (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm).


Thirdly, Oswald was put away to close the case.
I strongly disagree (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ruby.htm).


Fourthly and lastly, collusion was everywhere evident even where accredited investigators were employed.
According to whom, and based upon what evidence? It'd be prudent to present a much more cogent case before attempting to rest upon the threadbare assertions presented above.

Gillianren
2005-Oct-19, 09:05 PM
The Discovery Channel tested Oswald's shot. Luckiest shot in the history of ballistics? Oh, quite possibly, though I suspect the late, lamented Colonel Sedgwick would disagree. However, they managed to reproduce it several times. Using the exact type of gun as Oswald, at the exact distance as Oswald and the exact angle of Oswald. They also recreated the so-called "magic bullet," and yes, it came out looking relatively unscathed.

SolusLupus
2005-Oct-19, 09:49 PM
Well, this has presented quite a bit of interesting facts.

It seems odd to me to claim that data aren't facts, though. I mean, yes, the earth rotates in a way that makes it seem like the sun rises and falls (semantics! Bah!), but nonetheless, isn't that still a "fact" as we know it? It isn't quite a theory. I mean, it might be possible that something might come along and change it, yes - such as a large celestial body hitting our planet and changing the orbit/rotation. Nonetheless, that just means that it's a theory that we'll be keeping this rotation/revolution for a while, but it doesn't change the fact that the earth does indeed rotate in a way that makes sunset/sunrise occur.

Anyways, that's just a nitpick of mine. As for the whole JFK thing, I'm starting to lean more towards lack of conspiracy.

(By the way, read quite a bit of that link you showed me, Wolverine. I liked it, but there's WAY too much to read x.x Gave me a bit of a headache sometimes trying to digest it. Thanks again, though)

publiusr
2005-Oct-19, 10:12 PM
A couple of things to chew on. I remember an old CBS real crime program called TOP COPS IIRC. In one episode, a woman was accused of murder. She said that an assailant had shot her husband--the bullet passing through a window.

Shards of glass were found outside the window, on the grass. Cops initially suspected that she had shot her husband from inside, and the bullet travelled through him and hit the window, breaking it inside out.

They were wrong.

One cop shot at a replaced window at a certain angle, and the glass jumped right in his face--even though he was outside.

In the show MONSTER: A PORTRAIT OF STALIN IN BLOOD, we saw the excecutioner behind a prisoner standing in the near end of his own grave that he had just dug. The idea was that the bullet would hit him and he would just fall over like a wooden plank. He arced back from a muscle spasm and the gunmen all but dropped his pistol to catch the corpse as it collapsed about the knees. He pushed with all his might and he still fell into a ball.

The killer actually had to get in the grave with his victim to stretch him out.

Execution is a hard job comrade!

So things don't always work they way you'd think. If the 'other' gunman had been on the Grassy Knoll the exit wound would have been the other side of JFKs head.

I do seem to remember the Cronkite narrated NOVA special that spoke about the dictabell (dictabelt?) and it showed possible paths that lined up if the figures were sitting a certain way. One possible path led to the base of and to one side of the Schoolbook Depository--where no conspiracy theorist had ever made a claim.

If there was a second gunman--he'd have been there.

Look, you really don't need a magic bullet. With the way folks sat, a straight path looks snake-y if you replicate the scene with ramrod straight Buster dummies sitting in too good a posture. If I am bent over, a bullet shot down into me will look different if you plot the same path thru a sitting dummy. It will look like a midget shot from below and behind and the bullet 'rose' up.

Same here.

They also filled a skull full of gel and it lept backwards when hit.

Anyone who plays pool knows that you can hit a ball and make it go anywhere you want it by putting enough english into it.

Gillianren
2005-Oct-19, 10:24 PM
I do seem to remember the Cronkite narrated NOVA special that spoke about the dictabell (dictabelt?) and it showed possible paths that lined up if the figures were sitting a certain way. One possible path led to the base of and to one side of the Schoolbook Depository--where no conspiracy theorist had ever made a claim.

Dictabelt. It was a recording device on the belt of Dallas police officers. Supposedly, the Dictabelt on the belt of one of the officers in the motorcade was stuck on and recorded the whole thing, which supposedly proved that there were four shots.

However, for a whole huge list of reasons, it didn't.

As for the lining up, sure, if you assume that everyone was sitting straight up and in a straight line facing straight ahead, the path of the bullet had all sorts of weird twists in it. However, if you assume that everyone is sitting the way the Zapruder film shows them sitting, the only thing straight is the path of the bullet.

peteshimmon
2005-Oct-19, 10:57 PM
Thanks Wolverine, that ties up with what I read.
Its all a case of truth being stranger than
fiction sometimes. I sometimes wonder if Dallas
policemen have to move on people with metal
detectors and trowels looking for bullets down
from the picket fence!

Wolverine
2005-Oct-19, 11:15 PM
Thanks Wolverine, that ties up with what I read.
Its all a case of truth being stranger than
fiction sometimes. I sometimes wonder if Dallas
policemen have to move on people with metal
detectors and trowels looking for bullets down
from the picket fence!
Actually it's really not strange. Oswald's revolver was also originally equipped with a 5" barrel which was shortened to 2¼", most likely for ease of concealment. While this combination of factors made a conventional ballistic fingerprint unattainable, the test results were consistent with what would be expected from such a revolver. This minor issue amounts to a red herring, as multiple eyewitnesses were present at the incident and positively identified Oswald as Tippit's killer.

SolusLupus
2005-Oct-19, 11:18 PM
Y'know, talking about how the bullet hit JFK and how JFK jerked forward, this brings up some Bad Movie Physics.

In almost any movie (and according to many individual's "common sense"), a bullet hits a man, and the man flies back. This is especially overdone in things like the movie Sin City (Probably emulating the comic book, and was supposed to be very "pulp" in the first place, so I don't really care in that case). There are many movies where, say, a little 9mm pistol causes a man to fly back into a windowpane, or in some cases, a pool of water.

There's a problem with this: It just doesn't happen in real life! Gun physics are entirely different IRL than in many hollywood movies. In most cases of movement, it has to do with muscle spasms and twitches of pain. In fact, one man used a physics equation to determine the miles per hour movement of a man that would be shot with a Desert Eagle (I'm not sure if it's with it loaded with a .44 or .50 AE round, though, he doesn't specify the round used).

If anyone's interested in the actual work done, I'll try to look at it (it's somewhere in the comic Casey and Andy), but the end result was about .1-.2 MPH, I believe.

I bring this up 'cause a friend of mine is a big guns enthusiast, and we've had rather interesting discussions involving such things.

Gillianren
2005-Oct-20, 03:00 AM
The MythBusters tested it a while back. Lo and behold, their dead pig just kind of fell down.

Fans complained. No! Surely the test was flawed, and the pig ought to've flown back!

So. They retested on the first episode of the new season. Result? Their crash test dummy just kind of fell down. They cheerfully explained Newtonian physics that proved it impossible.

I'm sure they'll still get complaints. Some people just aren't acquainted with Mr. Logic.

PhantomWolf
2005-Oct-20, 03:07 AM
I saw the gunshot causes the guy to fly done on Mythbusters while I was in the States in May. They used everything from a .22 Colt, a .44 Magumn, an uzi and finally a shotgun. The only weapon to have any affect was the shotgun which moved the pig carcass they were shooting enough that it fell off the hook, a distance of about about 2cm.

aurora
2005-Oct-20, 03:07 PM
The MythBusters tested it a while back. Lo and behold, their dead pig just kind of fell down.

Fans complained. No! Surely the test was flawed, and the pig ought to've flown back!

So. They retested on the first episode of the new season. Result? Their crash test dummy just kind of fell down. They cheerfully explained Newtonian physics that proved it impossible.

I'm sure they'll still get complaints. Some people just aren't acquainted with Mr. Logic.

Yup. If a gunshot was strong enough to cause a pig or dummy or person to go flying when it struck, then Mr. Newton would have something to say about what would happen to the person that shot the gun.

Artillery has to worry about recoil for just that reason. So if the Mythbusters had used a howitzer... well, the pig would probably have disintegrated.

WHarris
2005-Oct-20, 04:07 PM
The Discovery Channel tested Oswald's shot. Luckiest shot in the history of ballistics? Oh, quite possibly, though I suspect the late, lamented Colonel Sedgwick would disagree. However, they managed to reproduce it several times. Using the exact type of gun as Oswald, at the exact distance as Oswald and the exact angle of Oswald. They also recreated the so-called "magic bullet," and yes, it came out looking relatively unscathed.


I saw a special on the History Channel on the JFK assassination, hosted by Peter Jennings. In it, they created a 3D model of Dealy Plaza and integrated the motorcade into it based on the footage available at that time. This way they were able to look at the various events from multiple point of view.

At the time Kennedy was first shot, they were able to trace a straight line from Connelly's wrist, through his chest and through JFK's neck all the way back to the window at the Texas Schoolbook Depository were Oswald was.

SolusLupus
2005-Oct-20, 04:31 PM
Hmmm...

Well, is there any possibility of a conspiracy still happening? I mean, let's say that Oswald shot Kennedy... let's say that he was the only one there...

What is the possibility that there still was a secretive group that A) Pushed Oswald into doing it (not necessarily forced, just convinced), and B) Let him take all the credit for it (which might explain the "I'm a patsy!" claim without assuming he's necessarily lying - which is still a likelihood anyways, I admit).

I'm curious as to views in this regard.

Gillianren
2005-Oct-20, 08:20 PM
Hmmm...

Well, is there any possibility of a conspiracy still happening? I mean, let's say that Oswald shot Kennedy... let's say that he was the only one there...

What is the possibility that there still was a secretive group that A) Pushed Oswald into doing it (not necessarily forced, just convinced), and B) Let him take all the credit for it (which might explain the "I'm a patsy!" claim without assuming he's necessarily lying - which is still a likelihood anyways, I admit).

I'm curious as to views in this regard.

Oswald had quite a lot of time (relatively speaking, of course) in custody to rat anyone he chose out. He didn't. Further, no evidence has every been presented (by anyone but Jim Garrison, whose theories were, shall we say, unreliable) that Oswald was part of a conspiracy. However, if one studies Oswald's political beliefs, it becomes apparent that he thought he had reasons enough to kill Kennedy. (And the "patsy" quote can just as easily be explained as him playing to an audience.)

SolusLupus
2005-Oct-20, 08:28 PM
Hmm. Maybe the Oliver Stone film "JFK" had a stronger influence me than I had previously thought.

Not that I want it to have much of an influence on me. The fact that he tried to point to the Republican Party and Nixon being partly responsible (in the movie Nixon, of course) kinda made me go "ehhh..."

Astronot
2005-Oct-20, 08:38 PM
Dictabelt. It was a recording device on the belt of Dallas police officers. Supposedly, the Dictabelt on the belt of one of the officers in the motorcade was stuck on and recorded the whole thing, which supposedly proved that there were four shots.

From the LBJ library (http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/Dictabelt.hom/dictahist.htm)
The Dictaphone Corporation referred to their belts as "Dictabelt Records," and the recordings were created on Dictaphone equipment which cut a groove in the belt with a needle. Most Dictabelts are made of a blue transparent plastic material, although a few early belts are red. The company described the process as "the sound you can see" and printed "Dictabelt Visible Record" along the edge of some of the belts.

They were generally not portable and required 120 V electrical current to be operated, although it is possible some might have been designed to work off a large battery. I remember these from my youth as I was allowed to play with recording my voice on old belts. They were superceded by magnetic cassette tape recorders.

As I recall the Dictaphone recording in question was made at the police dispatchers office where the DPD used the machine to record radio conversations. This particular recording was an accident because one officer had an inadvertently open microphone.

Wolverine
2005-Oct-20, 09:11 PM
Hmm. Maybe the Oliver Stone film "JFK" had a stronger influence me than I had previously thought.

You may find this (http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.html) informative.

SolusLupus
2005-Oct-20, 11:20 PM
Yes. Yes I would.

Thanks again, Wolverine. You're my hero. I wanna be like you when I grow up. <3

Joe Durnavich
2005-Oct-21, 02:35 AM
Common sense demands that Oswald was, as he himself declared, "A Patsy!".

Oswald's full statement to the press that night was:


4th REPORTER: Did you shoot the President?

LEE HARVEY OSWALD: No. They've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy.
Oswald defected to the Soviet Union for a while and came back to the States after he realized life over there wasn't the communist paradise he thought it would be. The FBI kept tabs on him wherever he moved, often stopping by his house to talk to him or his wife. He felt that was he was being harassed because he defected.

Seen in that light, his "I'm a patsy" statement suggests that he was telling the press that he was being falsely accused of the assassination because of his political views.

SolusLupus
2005-Oct-21, 03:01 AM
Seen in that light, his "I'm a patsy" statement suggests that he was telling the press that he was being falsely accused of the assassination because of his political views.

See, this is an important note for anyone and everything:

MAKE SURE A QUOTE IS IN CONTEXT. I'm saying this in all-caps because, quite frankly, this is VERY IMPORTANT.

There's a "conspiracy theory" flying around that JFK not only was part of the Illuminati, but he also declared it. The reason why? Because of his statement of a "New World Order". Three words. Three words, continually and horribly misquoted from the point of the speech they were said in.

It was quoted out of context... LOTS of people are quoted out of context. One of the most, quite frankly, malpractical things reporters do is interview someone for 60 minutes, then take out 45 seconds out from those minutes that say the exact opposite of what the main point surrounding that statement. It's unethical and slanderous. (Note: I'm not saying that all reporters do that, or even most. The unethical ones do. I don't have figures so I can't make much of a claim on how many overall reporters are unethical).

publiusr
2005-Oct-21, 07:36 PM
"Oswald defected to the Soviet Union for a while and came back to the States after he realized life over there wasn't the communist paradise he thought it would be."

Too true! They weren't Marin County types. They may have five guys on a site to do what two could do--but they expected you to work.

"...his "I'm a patsy" statement suggests that he was telling the press that he was being falsely accused of the assassination because of his political views."

In much the same way that every thief and murderer called himself a 'political prisoner' during the same time period.

Sam5
2005-Oct-21, 08:24 PM
The JFK Assassination - Could there be a Conspiracy Involved?

" ----- I say yes, The third is conclusive fact. I would use "Oswald killed Kennedy", but this MAY just still fall under a very strong theory. Nonetheless, it seems to me that the physical evidence all points to Oswald being there, and pulling the trigger -----"-

Common sense demands that Oswald was, as he himself declared, "A Patsy!".

He also called himself a "Marxist". In Russia, in the United States, and at the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City.



First off, the cached rifle was not good enough to hit the target at that distance.

Not so. The maximum distance was only about 265 feet. The rifle and bullets were designed for targets as far away as 1,500 meters.

SolusLupus
2005-Oct-21, 09:04 PM
Wait... JimD - 265 feet? A high-powered rifle not good enough to hit 265 feet? WHOA, I didn't even think to talk about that. That's a hilarious claim!

Man. Please, Sam5, give me an example of a single rifle that cannot hit at that range. Heck, name me some pistols that can't (and can) as well, if you want.

Sam5
2005-Oct-21, 09:37 PM
The rifle was designed with the old pre-WW I combat idea in mind: Shoot accurately for a long distance, and keep your soldiers out of danger. That’s why the Carcano bullet was so long, so it would go a long distance without tumbling. But, they finally realized that most people can’t hit anything as far away as 1,500 meters.

Now the modern theory is to shoot a lot of bullets at closer range. Hit ‘em with a barrage of a lot of bullets from a rapidly-repeating rifle.

Oswald’s rifle was of the old type and thus it was very accurate. His telescopic sight wasn’t very good, but he could have used the “iron sight”, the rifle’s regular sight. Also, he might not have been aiming at the head. He was taught in the Marines to aim at the center of the silhouette, then the bullet could be as much as 18 inches off target and still score a hit. But everyone jumped to the conclusion that since he hit the head, he must have been aiming at the head. But if he had accidentally hit the heart, everyone would have assumed that he was aiming at the heart.

SolusLupus
2005-Oct-22, 12:51 AM
The idea of hitting with a barrage of bullets, with the exception of machine guns, is falling a bit out of favor, since more ammunition is being wasted than accuracy is being increased. They're teaching soldiers to just shoot straighter (this is what I've heard from an instructor, at least)

I might add, Sam, that I'm not disagreeing with you and I'm not skeptical. I'm just surprised that anyone can claim that you can't accurately hit someone with a high-powered rifle from 256 feet.

Sam5
2005-Oct-22, 01:09 AM
I might add, Sam, that I'm not disagreeing with you and I'm not skeptical. I'm just surprised that anyone can claim that you can't accurately hit someone with a high-powered rifle from 256 feet.

Over the past 42 years, there have been people who have similar political beliefs to what Oswald had, and they have tried to promote the conspiracy concept in a specific attempt to try to take the blame off of him and place it on their political enemies. Young people come along, read their propaganda, and they often fall for it. A lot of people don’t know much about guns or shooting distances.

SolusLupus
2005-Oct-22, 02:48 AM
Sounds almost like you're calling it a commie plot. *Chuckles*

I can't agree or disagree with something of which I have no knowledge of, so I make no claims of such. However, it seems to me that those that agree with Oswald might not necessarily have been involved. If you ask me, fans of JFK and those that entirely disagree with LBJ, Vietnam, etc., might have a reason to desire to believe in a conspiracy.

SolusLupus
2005-Oct-22, 12:16 PM
I have, practically, read the entire site of 100 things wrong with Oliver Stone's "JFK".

I have one thing to say:

I now have NO respect for Oliver Stone. While he may be good at drama, the fact that he distorted facts, made up situations that didn't exist, and then tried to survive on pure conjecture, and THEN claim that this is the truth (as the movie was pretty big on), is not only ridiculous - it is insulting to the intelligence of the American people.

As well, when a movie usually does that bit with white letters, you expect it to tell something rather truthful, since that's the POINT of it. However, all it did was further lies and distorting the truth. Oliver Stone, Jim Garrison, and a lot of Conspiracy Theorists are no better than their imaginary conspiracies - they distort the truth to convince us that the government distorts the truth. Heh.

(NOte that I didn't say ALL conspiracy theorists. Somewhere out there, there are a couple of conspiracy theorists that actually love facts... I hope)

Anyone got a link on his other movies? Like Nixon? I want to see what he messed up on that, too.

Sam5
2005-Oct-22, 03:28 PM
Sounds almost like you're calling it a commie plot. *Chuckles*


No, not at all. It’s like this... if a right-wing guy shoots someone who is liberal or leftist, a lot of other right-wing guys try to blame it on leftists. Nowadays, if a right-wing guy attacks some government facility, other right-wing guys try to accuse the government of committing the act and framing the right-wing guy. Likewise, if a leftist guy shoots someone, a lot of other leftist try to blame the crime on right-wingers or on the government or on right-wingers in the government.

I know this from years of experience in the news business. Like in the South in the old days, whenever there was a right-wing murder of a civil rights worker, all the local right-wingers would blame the other civil rights workers and accuse them killing their own people just so the right-wing would be blamed for the crime. Back in the late ‘60s, whenever a leftist killed someone, such as in an explosion at an ROTC building or at an Army recruitment center, all the other leftists would accuse right-wingers or the government of doing it in an attempt to frame the leftists.

There is nothing new about this. Political people have been blaming their political enemies for each other’s crimes for hundreds of years.

SolusLupus
2005-Oct-22, 03:35 PM
No, not at all. It’s like this... if a right-wing guy shoots someone who is liberal or leftist, a lot of other right-wing guys try to blame it on leftists. Nowadays, if a right-wing guy attacks some government facility, other right-wing guys try to accuse the government of committing the act and framing the right-wing guy. Likewise, if a leftist guy shoots someone, a lot of other leftist try to blame the crime on right-wingers or on the government or on right-wingers in the government.

My head hurts. x.x But I see your point.

Sam5
2005-Oct-22, 03:56 PM
My head hurts. x.x But I see your point.

Look at it this way: You’ve got two basketball teams on the court. Both teams dislike each other and they get into a big fight. Both teams blame the other team for starting the fight.

SolusLupus
2005-Oct-22, 04:03 PM
Nono, I don't need that example, I got what you were saying. It was quite obvious :)

But my head still hurts with how you put it. I understood it, at least :P

Sam5
2005-Oct-22, 04:07 PM
Ok.

jimD
2005-Nov-01, 01:28 AM
The big big problem that the Warren Committee had was that they had too many vectors to cope with. I would say that the Committee's credibility was lost time and again. - JimD.

Sam5
2005-Nov-01, 02:25 AM
The big big problem that the Warren Committee had was that they had too many vectors to cope with. I would say that the Committee's credibility was lost time and again. - JimD.

The main problem with the Warren Commission was that they had only about 8 months to conduct their complex investigation and write their long Report. Everyone else has had the past 42 years to study the case.

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-01, 02:35 AM
Everyone else has had the past 42 years to study the case.

...Yeah. Right. "Study". *cough cough* I'm sure that's what the majority of people do... *cough*

At least, the majority of people I've met and talked to on the subject. Especially those that believe in the conspiracy - either they express a belief with no evidence, or express faulty evidence.

Sam5
2005-Nov-01, 02:41 AM
...Yeah. Right. "Study". *cough cough* I'm sure that's what the majority of people do... *cough*

At least, the majority of people I've met and talked to on the subject. Especially those that believe in the conspiracy - either they express a belief with no evidence, or express faulty evidence.

Yes, you are correct. Most people I've talked to about it who believe in a "conspiracy" have read only one or two commercial conspiracy books and they call that "studying" the case.

Perhaps I should have said that all of us -- collectively -- have had the past 42 years to study the case, while the Warren Commission had only about 8 months.

But nothing has turned up during the past 42 years that reveals anyone other than Oswald fired the three shots.

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-01, 02:44 AM
Yeah, I understand, and I agree. I just found the wording amusing.

Eoanthropus Dawsoni
2005-Nov-05, 06:39 AM
Oswald's shooting was good but not what I would consider remarkable. As far as the distance goes, it was an easy shot. The only real challenge was getting off accurate multiple shots in the given time. The rifle he used was fairly accurate, but the operation of a bolt action rifle makes target acquisition a bit problematic when firing rapidly. However with practice a competent shooter can pull that off without too much trouble. The people who make the claim that Oswald's shots were impossible are obviously not experienced with rifles. And Oswald was a Marine. Even a bad shot by Marine Corps standards is still a damn good rifleman.

Sam5
2005-Nov-06, 01:50 AM
Oswald's shooting was good but not what I would consider remarkable. As far as the distance goes, it was an easy shot. The only real challenge was getting off accurate multiple shots in the given time. The rifle he used was fairly accurate, but the operation of a bolt action rifle makes target acquisition a bit problematic when firing rapidly. However with practice a competent shooter can pull that off without too much trouble. The people who make the claim that Oswald's shots were impossible are obviously not experienced with rifles. And Oswald was a Marine. Even a bad shot by Marine Corps standards is still a damn good rifleman.

It was a common belief among the professional investigators and the press that Oswald was aiming for the head. If that’s the case, then it was a difficult shot. But if he was aiming for the center of the silhouette, the center of JFK's upper back, as he had been taught in the Marines, then it wasn’t such a difficult shot, since the theory of aiming for the center of the silhouette is that the aim can be several inches off target, even up to a foot or more, and still score a hit. You can look up some of his old Marine targets and see that they were silhouette targets, and he fired on them at distances up to 300 yards. His head shot in Dallas was about 265 feet.

peteshimmon
2005-Nov-06, 11:50 AM
Incidentally, I never did read anywhere if the
parafin test on Oswald was positive! (Stands
well back!!)

Gillianren
2005-Nov-07, 08:51 PM
Incidentally, I never did read anywhere if the
parafin test on Oswald was positive! (Stands
well back!!)

Paraffin tests are unreliable, giving negative results for people who fired guns in front of the people doing the test and positive results for people who haven't fired a gun. And, yes, this was well known in 1963.

peteshimmon
2005-Nov-07, 09:39 PM
Yeah Yeah, I just wish there was something
positive in physical evidence I could hang on
to and be saisfied. Perhaps he dragged a
flannel across his face when he got to his
rooming house. Still, there is something of
negative logical indication in the picture of
folks at the entrance to the book depository.
If it shows all the employees, then Oswald
is strangely missing!

Peter B
2005-Nov-07, 10:24 PM
Peteshimmon said:
Still, there is something of negative logical indication in the picture of folks at the entrance to the book depository.
If it shows all the employees, then Oswald is strangely missing!

Which photo? When was it taken? Why should it show all the employees?


I just wish there was something positive in physical evidence I could hang on to and be saisfied.

Well, it would be nice, but presumably Oswald was doing what he could to avoid being caught.

PhantomWolf
2005-Nov-08, 02:37 AM
Perhaps if they had, had the Foresics of today that case would be more conclusive, but unfortuntely they didn't and much of the evidence was deliberately harmed by Oswald to prevent detection anyways (eg. the filing of the barrel of his pistol.) However there were eyewittnesses that saw him in the window firing the gun, so that in itself puts him on the spot and at least shoting, from there one just has to look to the evidence for his ability to hit, and the evidence of other shooters.

Tolls
2005-Nov-08, 09:20 AM
If it had gone to trial, that is Ruby hadn't shot him, it would have been a quick conviction...there's simply far too much evidence against Oswald and, quite frankly, nothing that any defense lawyer would have been able to build on to get him acquitted.

Sam5
2005-Nov-09, 12:25 AM
If it had gone to trial, that is Ruby hadn't shot him, it would have been a quick conviction...there's simply far too much evidence against Oswald and, quite frankly, nothing that any defense lawyer would have been able to build on to get him acquitted.

I agree. Also, many of the "mysteries" that some CT writers talk about would have been cleared up long ago. The way it is now, the Warren Commission had about 6-8 months to do their investigation, write their report, and present their case for the prosecution, then all the hundreds of conspiracy guys working for the defense have had the past 42 years to present their "case", with the prosecutors not being able to cross-examine or say anything at all for the past 42 years. Real trials don't work that way. They don't give the prosecution just 6 months to present its case and then give the defense 42 years to present its side.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2005-Nov-09, 02:25 AM
Oswald's shooting was good but not what I would consider remarkable. As far as the distance goes, it was an easy shot. The only real challenge was getting off accurate multiple shots in the given time. The rifle he used was fairly accurate, but the operation of a bolt action rifle makes target acquisition a bit problematic when firing rapidly. However with practice a competent shooter can pull that off without too much trouble. The people who make the claim that Oswald's shots were impossible are obviously not experienced with rifles. And Oswald was a Marine. Even a bad shot by Marine Corps standards is still a damn good rifleman.
Far Weirder ...

Even By Marine Corps Standards, Oswald was, a Damn Good Rifleman; Didn't he Have a Marksmanship Certification, Or Something?

In Fact, If he Was Aiming, Instead, At The So-Called Sniper's Triangle, From the Point of The Nose to The Tip of Each Collar Bone, he Would have Been, Even MORE Likely, To Make The Shots, Attributed To him!!!

:think:

jimD
2006-Jun-09, 08:52 PM
Lee Harvey Oswald, one man in isolation, could not possibly have put things together in such a way as to shoot the President of the U.S. of A. There would have been too many parameters and vectors to be considered. Say 20 off.
Then, the execution of this remarkable bit of work would have imposed a probability of accuracy of 1 in 3 at best.
Also, the conception of the event would have been far too much for L.H.O.
We could rate L.H.O. as a 1 in 20 x 3 probability of being the killer of J.F.K.
What about the orchestrated effects that were evident after the event? -
- JimD.

jt-3d
2006-Jun-09, 09:06 PM
Then, the execution of this remarkable bit of work would have imposed a probability of accuracy of 1 in 3 at best.


Or in this case 2 in 3. He got lucky plus he was pretty good to begin with thanks to the Marines plus he most likely practiced with the rifle.

Sam5
2006-Jun-09, 09:14 PM
Lee Harvey Oswald, one man in isolation, could not possibly have put things together in such a way as to shoot the President of the U.S. of A. There would have been too many parameters and vectors to be considered. Say 20 off.

That’s not the way to look at it.

The way to look at it is that a lot of guys have wanted to kill presidents, governors, presidential candidates, and even movie stars. Many try, but only in a few situations do all the circumstances come together that allow them to succeed.

The biggest chance event that helped Oswald was the lucky break (for him) that had the President riding past his workplace in an open limousine at a time in his life when Oswald was angry at everybody.

As far as Oswald “putting things together” goes, all he had to do was take his rifle into the Book Depository broken down inside a large paper wrapper. All he had to “put together” was his rifle.

Sam5
2006-Jun-09, 09:20 PM
Far Weirder ...

Even By Marine Corps Standards, Oswald was, a Damn Good Rifleman; Didn't he Have a Marksmanship Certification, Or Something?

In Fact, If he Was Aiming, Instead, At The So-Called Sniper's Triangle, From the Point of The Nose to The Tip of Each Collar Bone, he Would have Been, Even MORE Likely, To Make The Shots, Attributed To him!!!

:think:

The Warren Commission published his old Marine targets. They were upper body silhouette targets. The score range was centered on the upper chest area. The top of the head area was considered “off target”. This type of training allowed shooters to be off-target by many inches and still score a hit and a kill. I don’t think he was aiming for the head at all, just the upper body.

Gillianren
2006-Jun-10, 12:00 AM
Lee Harvey Oswald, one man in isolation, could not possibly have put things together in such a way as to shoot the President of the U.S. of A.

Why? What makes him different from Charles Guiteau?

twinstead
2006-Jun-10, 12:01 AM
Why? What makes him different from Charles Guiteau?

Yea, but the Illuminati killed Garfield too. Don't you know that?

PhantomWolf
2006-Jun-10, 03:23 AM
I don’t think he was aiming for the head at all, just the upper body.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if he was leading the target under the assumption the driver might accerate with the gunshots.

Sam5
2006-Jun-10, 03:52 AM
I don’t think he was aiming for the head at all, just the upper body.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if he was leading the target under the assumption the driver might accerate with the gunshots.

That's quite possible.

Gillianren
2006-Jun-10, 08:42 PM
Yea, but the Illuminati killed Garfield too. Don't you know that?

Congratulations! You knew who Charles Guiteau was! You win!

twinstead
2006-Jun-10, 10:40 PM
Congratulations! You knew who Charles Guiteau was! You win!

LOL what do I win?

SpitfireIX
2006-Jun-11, 03:26 AM
LOL what do I win?

A gold star, of course, and a chance to continue on to the bonus round. For your next question, can you tell us who Leon Czolgosz was? :)

twinstead
2006-Jun-11, 03:44 AM
A gold star, of course, and a chance to continue on to the bonus round. For your next question, can you tell us who Leon Czolgosz was? :)

Well, just one of my favorite anarchist/assassins ever, as a matter of fact!

Andre
2006-Jun-11, 04:50 PM
Jim Files shot Kennedy. (http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/index1.htm) while Oswald was a mere CIA sucker and framie who believed that he was there to prevent the assassination. He was supposed to get shot while running. The murder operation was not less than a overthrow and marked the day that democracy died in the USA ccording to the writer here.

Unbelievable? But how do all those loose ends get ited all of a sudden.

PhantomWolf
2006-Jun-11, 08:50 PM
Jim Files shot Kennedy.

Previously discussed here (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=41093). Previously Debunked here (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKfiles.htm)

SpitfireIX
2006-Jun-11, 10:19 PM
Jim Files shot Kennedy. (http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/index1.htm) while Oswald was a mere CIA sucker and framie who believed that he was there to prevent the assassination. He was supposed to get shot while running. The murder operation was not less than a overthrow and marked the day that democracy died in the USA ccording to the writer here.

Unbelievable? But how do all those loose ends get ited all of a sudden.

What is your evidence for any of these claims?

Andre
2006-Jun-12, 07:34 AM
What is your evidence for any of these claims?

Oh no...we're lost, it's the Chewbacca defence (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=75144&cid=6727721)

Tog
2006-Jun-12, 07:35 AM
On Files' claimes regarding the weapon he said he used.

I've had some experience with the XP-100 in various calibers. The shooting position normally used with it in the matches I've done involves laying on your back, feet on the ground, knees raised and touching. The non firing hand is used to support the head, and the gun rests on the outside of the leg, on the calf muscle. The gun is fired with one hand. The .221 Fireball described on that site can be an accurate gun (but that plastic stock has to go). It's recoil is minimal, about the same a 9mm when fired in a single shot pistol. I know from personal experiece that a 7 year old with really scrawny arms can fire one well over 40 times in a day with no difficulties. It does NOT kick like a high powered rifle as one person suggested. If it were a .222, the recoil would have been more but still quite manageable for one hand. However...

Handguns can have scopes mounted to them, but these scopes have to have a very long eye relief. Nearly 2 feet in many cases. Because of this, nearly any movement of the relative eye/scope position will make the scope impossible to see through. Files implied he was standing when he fired. Nearly any recoil, even the small amount from this pistol will make the scope/eye angle shift enough to 'black out' the image. There is practically no way that he could have seen the bullet impact through the scope as he described it.

The claim that the spent 222 casing was part of the assassination and proves Files' story true doesn't hold up either. There is no reason to remove the case from the gun, which must be done manually unless the shooter needs to follow up. In this case, the shooter would need to fire the first shot, tip the over 90 to the left to operate the bolt (unless he's left handed). Raise the bolt handle and slide it back. Take the new round, presumably in the left hand and slide it into the chamber and close the bolt. The time to do this would be around 2 seconds for someone well practiced at it. But why do it at all? He said there would be no chance for a second shot. The XP is definately NOT a combat handgun. If he thought he might need to shoot his way out, dropping it in a breifacase and pulling out a more suitable gun would have made much more sense. There would have been no reason at all to eject the spent casing (leaving evidence of his position and involvement). Something someone of his claimed military background would have known.

BTW, I do see a reason for Oswald to have reloaded right after shooting Tippet. It was a combat handgun (sort of) and it was no longer fully loaded. With a revolver especially, you reload when you can, as often as you can.

SpitfireIX
2006-Jun-12, 01:14 PM
Oh no...we're lost, it's the Chewbacca defence

In other words, you don't have any real evidence, so you are reduced to insinuating that your interpretation is so blindingly obvious that anyone who doesn't agree is either a "sherson" or a paid disinformation agent. :rolleyes:

Andre
2006-Jun-12, 05:44 PM
Oh no...we're lost, it's the Chewbacca defence

In other words, you don't have any real evidence:

Are there trees in the forest? Does a light shop sell lamps? Is there water in the sea? Is there air in the atmosphere? Do you ever click links or just use the Chewbacca defense.

Sigma_Orionis
2006-Jun-12, 06:21 PM
Are there trees in the forest? Does a light shop sell lamps? Is there water in the sea? Is there air in the atmosphere? Do you ever click links or just use the Chewbacca defense.

I'm afraid I don't follow you, do you have any evidence for your claims or not?

JimTKirk
2006-Jun-12, 06:33 PM
Sounds like Andre is using the Chewbacca defense...

Sigma_Orionis
2006-Jun-12, 07:27 PM
In my book that is usually known as the "Non-Sequitur" or Ionescu Defense :rolleyes:

Eta C
2006-Jun-12, 08:59 PM
Are there trees in the forest? Does a light shop sell lamps? Is there water in the sea? Is there air in the atmosphere? Do you ever click links or just use the Chewbacca defense.

I think what he means is that he's read the links (or ones like them) before and that what you're bringing up is nothing new. Do you have anything to provide but a link or do you have some input of your own? Have you read Phantom Wolf's links to the previous discussions of this issue on this board? What are your responses to the criticisms presented there of those who dispute the claim that Files' shot Kennedy?

Nicolas
2006-Jun-12, 10:38 PM
That's quite possible.

How fast does a bullet travel? Wouldn't the first bullet reach the car before the gunshot sound does? In that case, he does not need to take accelerations into account for his first shot it appears to me? He'd only have to take the current traveling speed of the car into account. I don't know to how much forward aiming that boils down from that distance and car speed. (because I don't have the numbers; my dynamics are good enough to tackle that problem :D)

PhantomWolf
2006-Jun-13, 12:32 AM
How fast does a bullet travel? Wouldn't the first bullet reach the car before the gunshot sound does? In that case, he does not need to take accelerations into account for his first shot it appears to me?

Wasn't talking about the first shot, was talking about the third.

Gillianren
2006-Jun-13, 01:55 AM
A gold star, of course, and a chance to continue on to the bonus round. For your next question, can you tell us who Leon Czolgosz was? :)


Czolgosz, working man
Born in the middle of Michigan
Picked up his gun and away he ran
To the Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo!

Because only Sondheim would bring us a musical about the history of political assassination in America. (He's a lone-gunman theorist, sort of.)

Sam5
2006-Jun-13, 02:15 AM
How fast does a bullet travel? Wouldn't the first bullet reach the car before the gunshot sound does? In that case, he does not need to take accelerations into account for his first shot it appears to me? He'd only have to take the current traveling speed of the car into account. I don't know to how much forward aiming that boils down from that distance and car speed. (because I don't have the numbers; my dynamics are good enough to tackle that problem :D)

I think the general consensus was that the Carcano bullets traveled a little faster than sound, about 2,000 fps.

My opinion about what he did was try to aim for the center of the visible silhouette, and he was high and to the right on the last two shots.

Photon
2006-Jun-13, 03:49 AM
My opinion about what he did was try to aim for the center of the visible silhouette, and he was high and to the right on the last two shots

As long as he wasn't back and to the left.

I seem to remember something about a lot of material witnesses in the case dying within a short space of time. Is this true or more legend.

Sam5
2006-Jun-13, 04:04 AM
As long as he wasn't back and to the left.

I seem to remember something about a lot of material witnesses in the case dying within a short space of time. Is this true or more legend.

It is legend. No primary witnesses died right away that I can recall. What some conspiracy writers did was total up some deaths among some relatives of some people who were involved in the case in some way. That would be like counting up all the relatives of us Baut board posters who have died during the past 5 years and saying their deaths were the result of a conspiracy.

The major conspiracy theorists, who did the most damage to the government’s image, didn’t die for decades. Garrison for example. Mark Lane. Harold Weisberg.

The major conspiracy theories were invented in Moscow and published as propaganda in the Soviet media within days of the assassination. The basic plot of Mark Lane’s “Executive Action” book and movie was published in Russia within 3 days after the assassination. I tracked down copies of this Soviet stuff in the US Library of Congress back in the 1990s.

Gillianren
2006-Jun-13, 07:25 AM
The major conspiracy theorists, who did the most damage to the government’s image, didn’t die for decades. Garrison for example. Mark Lane. Harold Weisberg.

To be fair, I think Garrison could easily be called a disinformation agent by any CTer really looking at his case. Not that they do, to my knowledge.

What's even better about those lists of "mysterious" deaths is the sheer number of duplicates, senior citizens dying of heart attacks and strokes, and people who aren't dead yet. In fact, they feel happy and think they're going for a walk.

captain swoop
2006-Jun-13, 04:58 PM
Yea, but the Illuminati killed Garfield too. Don't you know that?


What that poor Lasagne eating cat?? but whyyy?

Sam5
2006-Jun-13, 05:55 PM
Garrison was an interesting case. The guy eventually developed delusions of grandeur, thinking that he was going to solve the JFK case and prosecute the conspirators. He loved the national media attention. He even liked it when the national media turned against him, because it made him feel more like a “robin hood” or that Gary Cooper character in “High Noon.”

When he first announced his investigation, several politically-left propaganda pros contacted him and offered their services as freelance “investigators”. They actually went to New Orleans to work for him free. They led him astray and turned him into a CT crackpot.

I know a guy who did a lot of research on Garrison and who found that he used some Communist propaganda that was published in an Italian Communist newspaper, and Garrison used that disinformation against Clay Shaw. He tried to make Shaw seem like a major CIA operative. I later found out the name of the guy who sent Garrison the information contained in the Communist newspaper. This guy is old now but he still runs a Marxist organization in the Berkeley area.

This particular CT case is a little unusual, in that it was basically started by leftists, Communists, Marxists, and Russian propagandists, and it was a purposeful cold-war era disinformation project. Within about 10 to 15 years of the original conspiracy writer’s constant propaganda, and with most people in the US not knowing about the background or leftist leanings of the original writers, a second generation of young US writers had fallen for their propaganda and the younger writers wrote a “second generation” of conspiracy books that were published in the 1970s. This generated interest in other people and in the ‘80s and ‘90s a third generation of conspiracy writers published books about the case.

It turns out that American publishers loved the conspiracy books because they all sold well, and the more outlandish the basic conspiracy story, the better they sold. The conspiracy books made a lot of money for the publishers. Anti-conspiracy books generally did not sell well, since all they could basically do was repeat most of what the Warren Commission had said, since the Warren Commission had been pretty much right, except for a few little details, such as the timing of the shots.

A lot of people today are not aware of the cold-war propaganda origins of the original JFK conspiracy theories.

Donnie B.
2006-Jun-13, 06:55 PM
I think Posner's Case Closed sold pretty well, for an anti-CT book. His approach was a solid debunking of the major CTs, not just a rehash of the Warren Commission findings.

Sam5
2006-Jun-13, 08:16 PM
I think Posner's Case Closed sold pretty well, for an anti-CT book. His approach was a solid debunking of the major CTs, not just a rehash of the Warren Commission findings.

Yes, it was very successful. That was one of the most successful of the anti-conspiracy books, and Posner was very good at promoting it on TV interview shows.

A couple of others were “Marina and Lee” of the late ‘70s and “Oswald’s Game” of the 1980s. Both of these examined Oswald’s mental state.

These three are about the only successful anti-conspiracy books.

Vince Bugliosi’s epic 2,500 page anti-conspiracy book is due out next year.

kookbreaker
2006-Jun-13, 08:19 PM
It turns out that American publishers loved the conspiracy books because they all sold well, and the more outlandish the basic conspiracy story, the better they sold.


Not automatically. Many CT books were flops simply because the national mood was not interested in them at the time. The ones that came out right after the HSCA report flopped badly. I think Posner actually does a chronology of the various books at the end of Case Closed.

kookbreaker
2006-Jun-13, 08:20 PM
Yes, it was very successful. That was one of the most successful of the anti-conspiracy books, and Posner was very good at promoting it on TV interview shows.

A couple of others were “Marina and Lee” of the late ‘70s and “Oswald’s Game” of the 1980s. Both of these examined Oswald’s mental state.

These three are about the only successful anti-conspiracy books.

Vince Bugliosi’s epic 2,500 page anti-conspiracy book is due out next year.

Wasn't there a book that was effectively anti-CT, but stuck entirely to the Tippet murder?

Gillianren
2006-Jun-13, 09:52 PM
Vince Bugliosi’s epic 2,500 page anti-conspiracy book is due out next year.

Well, that'll be worth picking up. You know, he once "proscuted" Lee Harvey Oswald on a BBC (I think) TV show. Proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and everything.

Sam5
2006-Jun-13, 11:14 PM
Well, that'll be worth picking up. You know, he once "proscuted" Lee Harvey Oswald on a BBC (I think) TV show. Proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and everything.

I saw that on PBS years ago. He did a great job.

Sam5
2006-Jun-13, 11:19 PM
Wasn't there a book that was effectively anti-CT, but stuck entirely to the Tippet murder?

I think so, but I don't remember much about it.

There was also a good book by a young guy in Ft. Worth titled something like "A Conspiracy of One," which said Oswald was the lone "conspirator."

SpitfireIX
2006-Jun-14, 04:14 AM
Wasn't there a book that was effectively anti-CT, but stuck entirely to the Tippet murder?
With Malice (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0966270975/sr=8-12/qid=1150257412/ref=sr_1_12/104-0795717-7957532?%5Fencoding=UTF8), by Dale K. Myers. Myers also created the computer animation (http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/intro.htm) that proves the Single Bullet Theory and was featured on the ABC special a few years ago.

c1team
2006-Jun-23, 06:45 PM
Watch this video

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2928756561478705121&q=JFK+II

SpitfireIX
2006-Jun-23, 07:22 PM
Watch this video

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2928756561478705121&q=JFK+II

I watched the first eleven minutes or so until it nauseated me too much to continue. Nothing but standard conspiracist crap (yes, I said crap) including repeatedly calling Peter Jennings a liar (because the ABC special edited out the part of a film where Kennedy's press secretary pointed to his right temple, and because Jennings correctly stated that the "back and to the left" movement does not indicate a shot from the right front), extensive use of mistaken initial reports, handwaving, appeals to common sense, and quotations from forensic pathologist and JFK crackpot Dr. Cyril Wecht. Complete garbage.

Sigma_Orionis
2006-Aug-11, 09:03 PM
Sorry for the bump, I just have a question for Spitfire. I watched some movie last week about Marita Lorenz and apparently she had spouted some nonsense about being involved indirectly in the Kennedy assasination attempt. Just out of curiosity have you got any info on her ramblings?

SpitfireIX
2006-Aug-16, 05:13 AM
I watched some movie last week about Marita Lorenz and apparently [s]he had spouted some nonsense about being involved indirectly in the Kennedy assasination attempt. Just out of curiosity have you got any info on her ramblings?

I'm sorry I didn't answer this sooner, but I was out of town last week, and it's taken me a couple of days to get somewhat caught up on posts.

Here (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/denial.htm#marita) is John McAdams' take on Marita Lorenz (he places her in the group of "tellers of tall tales").

I also found this article (http://www.jfk-online.com/lorenz.html) that casts even more doubt on Lorenz's credibility.

hello people
2006-Aug-16, 07:09 AM
Watch this video

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2928756561478705121&q=JFK+II

Interesting. It's very hard for the layperson to know either way.

Gillianren
2006-Aug-16, 07:46 AM
Interesting. It's very hard for the layperson to know either way.

I really don't agree. You see, I'm a total layperson. I don't have expertise in any Kennedy assassination-related field. Not a one. Not ballistics or sound reproduction or photography or anything. (Well, a little about psychology, but that only helps me understand that Lee Harvey Oswald was just the right kind of crazy for the job. I can only look at people on a case-by-case basis, and I'm very much an amateur in the field.) Still, I do have expertise in evaluating other people's research, because I went to a college that emphasized that sort of thing.

From my lay perspective, there isn't a doubt that Oswald did it. We're not talking reasonable doubt, either--I don't think there's any doubt at all unless you choose to rewrite some pretty pivotal concepts. (As in, maybe he was possessed by demons or maybe the whole thing was actually mass hysteria and Kennedy never even existed in the first place.) Every conspiracy theory I've heard is more full of holes than Connally ended up being.

hello people
2006-Aug-16, 08:01 AM
I don't think it's wise to pitch your tent on either side of the river

Tog
2006-Aug-16, 09:48 AM
I don't think it's wise to pitch your tent on either side of the river

How about the high ground then? Say... the Grassy Knoll :shifty:

Seriously though. Sonce joining this forum, any questions I may have ever had about the JFK assassination have been obliterated.

Oswald was the only shooter. He fired from the book despository. "Badge Man" and the other two shapes on the grassy knoll in that one blurry photo were not even human figures. The only thing left, to me, that could be a conspiracy is if some guy planted the idea in Oswald's head. And I don't mean som hypnotic thing. I mean some random guy in a bar that said something like, "You know, it wouldn't be hard to just pick him off when he comes to town next week". Something like that could also never be proven. I am 100% convinced that there was one shooter. In another thread I laid out the multiple shooter scenario and in got a bit silly, though it did pretty much account for all of the arguments against a lone shooter and both neck wounds being entry points.

Check out the various other JFK threads and look for posts made by SpitfireIX. Especially those from around February of this year.

SpitfireIX
2006-Aug-16, 11:33 AM
I don't think it's wise to pitch your tent on either side of the river

hello people, I suggest that you read through the JFK thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=8420) when you have time. Doing so might well change your opinion about fence-sitting.

AGN Fuel
2006-Aug-16, 12:53 PM
I don't think it's wise to pitch your tent on either side of the river

What a curious saying. The alternative would seem to be to pitch one's tent in the middle of the river. That wouldn't seem particularly sensible. :eh:

SolusLupus
2006-Aug-16, 05:50 PM
I don't think it's wise to pitch your tent on either side of the river

I think it's wise to evaluate the evidence, and point out the inconsistencies with arguments. The more you do so, the more the truth comes out to shine, and it seems that, with all the evidence available, the most likely explanation is that Oswald pulled the trigger, and acted alone.

What you basically seem to be saying is, "It's impossible for anyone to really know, so we should act as if all answers are possible"... which seems pretty silly to me.

Gillianren
2006-Aug-16, 06:02 PM
What a curious saying. The alternative would seem to be to pitch one's tent in the middle of the river. That wouldn't seem particularly sensible. :eh:

Exactly what I thought. You need to pitch your tent somewhere, or else you won't be able to sleep in it. Really, the tent metaphor doesn't strike me as at all useful.

What's so bad about going where the evidence leads? It all leads to one sad, crazy little man alone with a gun on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.

Sigma_Orionis
2006-Aug-16, 08:08 PM
I'm sorry I didn't answer this sooner, but I was out of town last week, and it's taken me a couple of days to get somewhat caught up on posts.

Here (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/denial.htm#marita) is John McAdams' take on Marita Lorenz (he places her in the group of "tellers of tall tales").

I also found this article (http://www.jfk-online.com/lorenz.html) that casts even more doubt on Lorenz's credibility.

Got it, thanks a lot and thanks for the correction :)

SpitfireIX
2006-Aug-16, 08:29 PM
Check out the various other JFK threads and look for posts made by SpitfireIX. Especially those from around February of this year.

Actually, the major "debate" (to use the term loosely) with Turbonium occurred mostly during April.

hello people
2006-Aug-16, 10:30 PM
What a curious saying. The alternative would seem to be to pitch one's tent in the middle of the river. That wouldn't seem particularly sensible. :eh:

It means I am the water

Gillianren
2006-Aug-16, 10:47 PM
If you are the water, why do you have a tent?

hello people
2006-Aug-16, 10:50 PM
I don't think it's wise to pitch your tent on either side of the river

I said 'your' tent.

Why would I need a tent?

I'm not gnashing my teeth for either side of any argument.

PhantomWolf
2006-Aug-17, 12:00 AM
Confucius say, "Man who sits on picket fence, should be very careful."

Gillianren
2006-Aug-17, 01:27 AM
Okay, now I'm really confused. What do the tent and the river have to do with anything?

Let me state a few facts that will explain why the majority around here (though not, sadly, much of anywhere else) accept the evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman in Dallas. (At least, the only one that fired a shot.)

The ballistic evidence shows that the bullet and bullet fragments recovered were fired by Oswald's weapon.

The forensic evidence shows that both Kennedy and Connally were shot from above and behind.

The majority of witnesses heard three shots coming from the general vicinity of the Depository. (Note that eyewitness testimony is far from infallible, but if a majority of witnesses say the same thing, it has a stronger likelihood of fact, especially if it corresponds with the remaining evidence.)

Oswald had method, means, and opportunity.

Every stated conspiracy theory has more holes than the Warren Commission's report, despite what conspiracy theorists want you to believe.

PhantomWolf
2006-Aug-17, 01:39 AM
What do the tent and the river have to do with anything?

Perhaps he's practicing to be an Irish Sea Scout?

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2006-Aug-17, 03:22 AM
Okay, now I'm really confused. What do the tent and the river have to do with anything?

Let me state a few facts that will explain why the majority around here (though not, sadly, much of anywhere else) accept the evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman in Dallas. (At least, the only one that fired a shot.)

The ballistic evidence shows that the bullet and bullet fragments recovered were fired by Oswald's weapon.

The forensic evidence shows that both Kennedy and Connally were shot from above and behind.

The majority of witnesses heard three shots coming from the general vicinity of the Depository. (Note that eyewitness testimony is far from infallible, but if a majority of witnesses say the same thing, it has a stronger likelihood of fact, especially if it corresponds with the remaining evidence.)

Oswald had method, means, and opportunity.

Every stated conspiracy theory has more holes than the Warren Commission's report, despite what conspiracy theorists want you to believe.
EXCELLENT List Gillian ...

If I May Add However:

Even If we Were Dealing With Psychologically Healthy Individuals, The Scenario Towards Which The Evidence Points, Would Allow for a Maximum of Two Conspirators, One to Obtain The Weapon and One to Fire it ...

This Would Be Done to Maximize Success, While Limiting The Trackability of The Ultimate Shooter; However, In Oswald's Mind he Imagined Being Hailed The Conquering Hero, Thus his Disdain of a Professional Assassin's Precautions, Makes Sense In Liight of his Mental Infirmity!

AGN Fuel
2006-Aug-17, 03:54 AM
What do the tent and the river have to do with anything?

Perhaps he's practicing to be an Irish Sea Scout?

Now, if you had a houseboat.....

SolusLupus
2006-Aug-17, 04:02 AM
I said 'your' tent.

Why would I need a tent?

I'm not gnashing my teeth for either side of any argument.

Judging from your signature, you seem to be of the belief that a person can't really "know" anything. If I'm wrong, please say so.

Going by this, are you claiming that a person can't know anything? No matter how much evidence there is that the knowledge is correct? No matter how many times it's been scientifically proven?

If the answer to all three questions is "yes", then I ask: Does mathematics work? Can courts of law ever be right? Do engineers really build buildings that are usually stable and don't randomly fall because they don't know anything?

I await your responce.

hello people
2006-Aug-17, 04:52 AM
Sometimes yes, sometimes no, sometimes maybe maybe

I suppose it depends on what angle a torch is shined on it.

SolusLupus
2006-Aug-17, 03:50 PM
Sometimes yes, sometimes no, sometimes maybe maybe

I suppose it depends on what angle a torch is shined on it.

So you're saying it's DEFINITELY maybe... and that you're ABSOLUTELY ambiguous... (always wanted to say that)... and that this "torch" you bring up is the end-all, be-all to knowing information?

If so, then what CAN you know?

SpitfireIX
2006-Aug-17, 05:29 PM
Sometimes yes, sometimes no, sometimes maybe maybe

We should lock him up in a room with Brumsen and let the two of them debate the existence or nonexistence of the universe. :D

Gillianren
2006-Aug-17, 05:36 PM
You know, some people might consider that "cruel and unusual punishment." But I say we must be bold enough to sacrifice CTs that way.

hello people
2006-Aug-18, 09:19 AM
So you're saying it's DEFINITELY maybe... and that you're ABSOLUTELY ambiguous... (always wanted to say that)... and that this "torch" you bring up is the end-all, be-all to knowing information?

If so, then what CAN you know?

Exactly, except for the torch...different people use different torches I suppose.

I can't really say. Who am I to say?

Kjeld
2006-Aug-24, 12:12 AM
I think it is wierd that Mr. Kennedy left Dallas wrapped in sheets in a expensive casket, but when he came to Bethesda he was in a cheap casket in a body bag!

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2006-Aug-24, 12:18 AM
I think it is wierd that Mr. Kennedy left Dallas wrapped in sheets in a expensive casket, but when he came to Bethesda he was in a cheap casket in a body bag!
Well, Look What Happened to Lincoln's Casket ...

They Wanted to Avoid a Huuge Public Throng ...

Isn't it The FAMILY'S Riight, to Have Some Privacy In their Bereavement?

:think:

SpitfireIX
2006-Aug-24, 03:51 AM
I think it is wierd that Mr. Kennedy left Dallas wrapped in sheets in a expensive casket, but when he came to Bethesda he was in a cheap casket in a body bag!

No. See here (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/wrone.htm).


David R. Wrone
Officials never lost contact with the casket, so the replacement of the allegedly altered corpse was impossible. General McHugh was always close to the coffin, never losing contact with it from the time it was unloaded from Air Force One until the ambulance parked at the mortuary jetty, where he assisted in its removal. In addition, FBI agents James W. Sibert and Francis X. O’Neill Jr. met the plane, watched the casket being removed and placed in the ambulance, followed it in the third car of the motorcade, kept the casket constantly in sight from the airport to the hospital, and then helped unload the casket and witnessed the autopsy. A key paragraph in their official report states as follows:

The president’s body was removed from the casket in which it had been transported and was placed on the autopsy table, at which time the complete body was wrapped in a sheet and the head area contained an additional wrapping which was saturated with blood. Following the removal of the wrapping, it was ascertained that the president’s clothing had been removed and it was also apparent that a tracheotomy had been performed, as well as surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull. All personnel with the exception of medical officers needed in the taking of photographs and x-rays were requested to leave the autopsy room and remain in the adjacent room.
Their comment regarding the body’s condition matched the description testified to by the Dallas nurses who placed him in the coffin, information also absent from Lifton’s account. Nurse Diana Bowron: “We wrapped some extra sheets around his head so it wouldn’t look so bad.” Nurse Margaret Henchliffe: “We . . . wrapped him up in sheets [and] he was placed in the coffin.” [citations omitted]

Gillianren
2006-Aug-24, 04:01 AM
See, that's what bothers me. So many of the "inconsistencies" of conspiracy theories, be it JFK, Apollo, 9/11, or whatever, are either not inconsistencies at all or are apparently fever dreams of whatever unsound mind came up with the conspiracy theory in the first place. However, most of those who cite said "inconsistencies" never bother to find out if they're true or not, so they pass them on, and we end up hearing about them over and over and over again.

SolusLupus
2006-Aug-24, 05:21 AM
Exactly, except for the torch...different people use different torches I suppose.

I can't really say. Who am I to say?

So then, nothing is knowable? Sorry, I can't follow that philosophy.

Staying in willful and constant ignorance is not my prerogative. I learn, I don't shrug my shoulders and ignore.

SpitfireIX
2006-Aug-24, 10:41 AM
So many of the "inconsistencies" of conspiracy theories, be it JFK, Apollo, 9/11, or whatever, are either not inconsistencies at all or are apparently fever dreams of whatever unsound mind came up with the conspiracy theory in the first place. However, most of those who cite said "inconsistencies" never bother to find out if they're true or not, so they pass them on, and we end up hearing about them over and over and over again.

As Mr. Miyagi says in The Karate Kid, Part II, "Hit nail on head." In this case, one witness evidently misremembered seeing a body bag and a gray shipping casket (having likely seen many other bodies arrive at Bethesda in that condition), and the faulty memory immeditately becomes a "fact" in conspiracy land.

Kjeld
2006-Aug-24, 12:00 PM
And what about the doctors who saw a big wound on the backside of his head? I don't think those people will lie about it, because on the autopsy photo's it doesn't show a large wound on the back of his head. A man named Billy Harper found the backside of his skull in the grass. Bobby Hargis a motorcycle cop and he drove trough a big cloud of brains of blood(he was behind the car).

Image (http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/backofheadcomposed.jpg)

that looks like a big wound on the back of his head.

Wolverine
2006-Aug-24, 01:09 PM
Hi Kjeld,

I replaced the image you hotlinked above with a URL; as noted in our forum rules (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=564845#post564845) (See #8), hotlinking is only allowed under very specific circumstances.

SolusLupus
2006-Aug-24, 02:59 PM
And what about the doctors who saw a big wound on the backside of his head? I don't think those people will lie about it, because on the autopsy photo's it doesn't show a large wound on the back of his head. A man named Billy Harper found the backside of his skull in the grass. Bobby Hargis a motorcycle cop and he drove trough a big cloud of brains of blood(he was behind the car).

Image (http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/backofheadcomposed.jpg)

that looks like a big wound on the back of his head.

Which is fully consistent with an exit wound made by a large caliber, hyper-velocity round.

The entry wound is usually small, the exit wound is usually very large.

jt-3d
2006-Aug-24, 03:11 PM
Bobby Hargis a motorcycle cop and he drove trough a big cloud of brains of blood(he was behind the car).


It's too late in the day for me to engage in yet another conspiracy but I'll point out that Kennedy's car was being followed by another car, not a motorcycle.

EDIT: I see you have seen a page such as this (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hargis.htm). Kennedy is hit, lots of blood and tissue flies all over and meets wind resistance and for all intents and purposes stops. (Spit some water out the window next time you're in a moving car.) Motorcycle cop rides through 'cloud' before he stops. Not really surprising to me.

SpitfireIX
2006-Aug-24, 05:01 PM
And what about the doctors who saw a big wound on the backside of his head? I don't think those people will lie about it, because on the autopsy photo's it doesn't show a large wound on the back of his head.

In 1988 the American Public Television science series NOVA took four of the doctors who treated Kennedy to the National Archives to view the autopsy photos. Their reactions (as recorded here (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/novadocs.htm)):


Dr. Richard Dulaney
I don't see evidence of any alteration of his wound in these pictures from what I saw in the emergency room.

Dr. Marion Jenkins
Nothing that I've seen would make me think it had been changed from what happened that day.

Dr. Robert McClelland
I find no discrepancy between the wounds as they're shown very vividly in these photographs and what I remember very vividly . . .

Dr. Paul Peters
Looking at these photos, they're pretty much as I remember President Kennedy at the time.
A man named Billy Harper found the backside of his skull in the grass.

The Harper Fragment (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/harper.htm) was most likely from Kennedy's parietal bone, on the top and side of his skull.

that looks like a big wound on the back of his head.

It's on the top and side, not the back. See here (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head.htm), and look at the House Select Committee drawing, which is the most accurate.

NEOWatcher
2007-May-17, 08:00 PM
Here we go again...
JFK: New study challenges one-gunman theory (http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=67945)


New science is now challenging the analysis over the details of President John F. Kennedy's assassination in 1963.
The Washington Post reports a former FBI scientist and two Texam A&M researchers question a government study that declared gunman Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.


Do I dare try to go to the WP story?

Grashtel
2007-May-17, 08:02 PM
So tell me, just how is a JFK assassination theory space and/or astronomy related?

NEOWatcher
2007-May-17, 08:04 PM
So tell me, just how is a JFK assassination theory space and/or astronomy related?
Arrg; I keep forgetting that rule changed here...

Fazor
2007-May-17, 08:52 PM
Well, in your defense this was an existing thread ;)
Hmm, I wonder if there's a website that's NOT woo-woo affiliated to discuss these kinds of conspiracies. Problem is, usually the people who don't fall in for such CT's don't waste time running a website (Thank's for breaking the mold Phil'n'Frasier). Sites like LC are just too woolific to get a decent conversation. OH well.

Grashtel
2007-May-17, 09:11 PM
http://www.apollohoax.net/ has a fairly active section for general conspiracies and despite the potentially misleading name is definitely non-woo (a lot of the people here also post there in fact).

SpitfireIX
2007-May-17, 09:13 PM
Here we go again...
JFK: New study challenges one-gunman theory (http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=67945)

This is being discussed on JREF in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=82445) if anyone is interested.

Tinaa
2007-May-18, 12:26 AM
Please carry on any discussion at JREF!

Closed