|
Post by ka9q on Jan 16, 2012 4:22:28 GMT -4
ka9q WHAT? wake up ka9q you must be hallucinating Are your referring to the attached altgen photo? Yes, I am referring to Altgen's most famous photo, taken around Z-255 between Oswald's second and third shots. I guess I can blame this on your tiny version of the picture, because otherwise I would have to conclude there's something seriously wrong with your eyesight. I see both agents on the right running boards of the Secret Service followup car turned sharply to the right, looking back at the corner of the TSBD behind them. Another agent in the back seat of the followup car is also turned completely around. We later learn he's already grabbed the AR-15 rifle carried in that car. Now agents are supposed to continually scan the crowd, if not to turn completely around. So let's look at the spectators on the other (north) side of the street. They don't see JFK every day, and they came specifically to see him and Jackie (and presumably their governor and his wife too). So you'd certainly expect them to be looking at the limousine when their chance came. Instead we see at least five all turned sharply to their left, away from JFK/Jackie and back toward the corner of the building: a white man in a (hard?) hat leaning against a lamppost; three black women standing in front of the building facade who appear over Kellerman (right front seat) and JFK; and most conspicuously a black man in a fedora just to the left of the TSBD entrance. There may be others but these are the ones I can be sure of. And let's not forget that this picture is far from the only evidence that witnesses perceived the shot as coming from the TSBD. At least three people saw the rifle barrel sticking out of the window, including one who accurately described Oswald as the man firing it. What about JBC? Are you referring to his recognition of Oswald's first shot as a rifle shot? Have you ever heard a rifle? How subtle do you think they are? At least one other witness immediately recognized the shots for what they were: motorcycle cop Marrion Baker, following 7 cars back. He had just come back from deer hunting. He drove to the TSBD, entered and encountered Oswald in a lunch room 90 sec after the shots. Yes, it was.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jan 16, 2012 4:56:45 GMT -4
Goldberg. But all JFK conspiracy theories tend toward the Goldbergian. No one wants to go with "it was someone else in the shooter's nest," which is the most logical way to start your conspiracy theory. It always has to be angles ruled out by either ballistics or logic. Exactly. You should label this as "Gillianren's Principle" or something similar. These conspiracy theories are always unbelievably complex or even bizarre. To say nothing of simply uninformed by the evidence. Many people have thought about (and some have dramatized) Oswald's trial had he survived to face one. The job of any defense attorney, besides ensuring due process for his client, is to suggest alternate explanations for the evidence that at least one juror might consider to rise to the level of reasonable doubt. Suppose you're that defense attorney. You're about to become the second most despised person in America, but someone has got to do it -- it's the way our system works. Do you immediately let loose with dozens of wild fantasies about the CIA, FBI, organized crime, the Secret Service, RFK, LBJ, Fidel Castro, Jack Ruby and the Russians? Do you hypothesize unseen extra shooters firing from places where they'd surely be noticed -- who still miss? Of course not. You complain that the circus atmosphere in the Dallas Police Department that weekend made it impossible to give your client a fair trial. You file all sorts of procedural motions, trying to delay the trial date as long as possible. When that day does come, you raise all sorts of simple hypotheticals. You can't deny that the shooting used Oswald's rifle - the ballistics evidence is overwhelming - so you suggest that someone stole it. You argue that Howard Brennan, in his understandably upset state, could have seen someone other than Oswald in the window. And so on and so on. You don't really expect anyone to believe you, but all you have to do is to raise a doubt in one juror's mind...and it has happened...*cough*OJ*cough*... But then you also have to explain away the dozen or so witnesses who clearly saw your client shoot officer Tippit or running away immediately afterwards as he reloaded his revolver. So... you go to Oswald and ask him to seek a plea bargain, one that you know the District Attorney won't offer because they have an iron-clad case and they'll become the most despised people in America if they end the case -- in Texas! -- with anything less than a death sentence... Basically, you're screwed. But at least they don't hang the losing attorney too...
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 16, 2012 7:36:23 GMT -4
Ongoing failure to address the explanations for the 'anomalies' in the film noted.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Jan 16, 2012 8:44:42 GMT -4
It always struck me that if there was a conspiracy, and said conspiracy required more than one shooter in order to make sure of completing the job, but required only one shooter to pin the blame on, then the obvious solution was to place both of them in the same window of the TSBD. All shots would come from the same place, and the rate of fire could be effectively doubled.
Of course ballistics analysis would still indicate two separate rifles, but that is a problem wherever you place the shooters.
There is also the generally ignored principle that even if there was a conspiracy, that doesn't rule out Oswald being the only shooter.
Not that any of that should be taken as an indicator of my believing in a conspiracy. I haven't seen anything make me suspect that, and haven't done nearly enough research on it in any case. However, it does fall into the same area as Apollo in one sense.
We are now over 48 years on from Kennedy's assassination, and no one has been so overcome by guilt that they fessed up on their death bed, or left a note with their will, or in a bequeathed safety deposit box. Sure, there would be a small fraction of the number of people involved in Apollo, but they are still human beings.
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jan 16, 2012 8:45:14 GMT -4
And constant deliberate changing of the subject, along with a complete refusal to address comprehensively refuted earlier claims, also noted.
Just a reminder to folks unused to these tactics - try not to allow playdor to simply move on to new topics when he has not addressed and/or conceded previous claims.
It is the modus operandi of choice for those who would mislead.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Jan 16, 2012 10:31:11 GMT -4
Mr Gorsky - I would say that a number of people have "confessed". However, none of them have provided any supporting evidence that they are doing more than making a play for attention. And certainly none of them have followed up their "confession" by saying, "And I now plan to turn myself to the police and go on trial, since there is no statute of limitations on murder". They are all "And I'm now waiting for my publishing contract".
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jan 16, 2012 10:48:50 GMT -4
It always struck me that if there was a conspiracy, and said conspiracy required more than one shooter in order to make sure of completing the job, but required only one shooter to pin the blame on, then the obvious solution was to place both of them in the same window of the TSBD. Good point, but then (as you say) you'd make it very obvious that more than one person was involved. It still seems better to... Bingo. And even if you limit yourself to a single shooter to make a conspiracy less obvious, you could still do many things to increase his (and your) chances of success. You could give Oswald a better rifle; a better scope; more (and better) ammunition; more practice; a better escape plan; and so on. But these possibilities were intensely investigated and no evidence of any outside help to Oswald was found, either before or after the assassination. For a while I thought that the only credible deviation from the official, generally accepted "lone nut" story was that someone might have put Oswald up to it. But the more you learn about him and his upbringing, personality and past behavior, especially his prior attempt to kill General Walker in April 1963, it becomes obvious that he is the very last person you'd expect to take direction from anyone else. We'll never know, but I do think it possible that Oswald had vague notions of going back to the Cuban embassy in Mexico City after the assassination, announcing himself and asking what more he had to do for Uncle Fidel to finally give him a visa and welcome him into his glorious Revolution. I believe a few crazies have made non-credible claims to have been involved, but without any evidence to back them up.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 16, 2012 12:34:06 GMT -4
IF "you" could imagine this to be a conspiracy who would have been in a position to control and get away with it? the guy at the top after the assassination - LBJ also required 1)you would of course have to have both parties controlled then FBI and CIA and money : LBJ/Nixon/Hoover/big money/Dulles - yes 2)site you could control - Dallas Texas - yes 3)location suitable - Dealey plaza - yes 4)get SS to stand down - yes 5)army support to stand down - yes 5)extra police to stand down - yes 6)keep witnesses to a minimum in kill zone - yes 7)JFK could not be just wounded, he had to die - yes 8) multiple shooters long and short range - yes 9)diversions to keep from getting caught - yes 10)patsy to take the fall - Oswald 10)patsy must die -> Ruby - yes 11)control the media - yes 12)propaganda and misinformation to control the spin - yes 13)credible witnesses either killed or discredited or ignored. - yes 14)control the investigation - WC - yes Playdor, instead of all this vague and disjointed hypothesizing and "anomaly" hunting, why don't you tell us in a straightforward narrative, what you think happened. Then back it up with your interpretation of the information you have presented. Tell us, for example, what you think were the rolls of the army, military and police or at least who was controlling them to keep them from acting. Is that really too much to ask for?
|
|
|
Post by twik on Jan 16, 2012 12:35:05 GMT -4
You have been avoiding stating your position on Governor Connally like a cat avoiding swimming.
It does not matter when the bullet hit him to discuss this point. A bullet did hit him, and I presume that you have an idea in your own head when that was.
So, one more time - do you believe Governor Connally willingly took part in a conspiracy that involved him being shot with a high-powered rifle? If you do not answer this time, I will know that *you* know that this is such a ludicrous proposition that you cannot quite bring yourself to say that you believe it. However, you won't say you DON'T believe it, because that allows you to claim Connally was a conspirator when it suits your purposes, and deny it when it doesn't. That is not a position of intellectual honesty.
If you want to say, "I don't know, I'm still trying to figure that out," that would at least be honest, but you still have to address that, on the face of it, Connally's willingness to risk death or permanent disability would be very unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 16, 2012 16:08:30 GMT -4
echnaton the army has special units that are positioned in locations where the president is to go. they are an integral counterpart to SS job of protecting the president while in public The army was specifically told their presence were not required in Dallas. information is from the men who killed kennedy I worked on presidential transportation for GHW Bush. There was never any evidence of a military presence at any location he was in, aside from the aircraft used to transport him. All other workers were civilian. He moved about by helicopter to avoid causing traffic problems there were no military conveys moving about town to keep up with him. Only secret service and police "packages" to get the cars and support to the site in advance. I saw them come and go and sometimes talked with the staff working them. They were either police or SS in civilian dress or agency uniforms. There was no coordination with the military for any of GHW's unplanned movements, such as going to dinner at Otto's, his favorite BBQ joint. On those occasions the SS just came to the transportation staff and told us to get ready. Security was always handled by the SS and local police. When the economic summit was in Houston, I was in charge of transportation for the Italian delegation. There was no military presence at any activity or function. The drivers were were unarmed enlisted men and women from the Air Force, a sharp group of mostly technical people. The officer for my group was a Naval reserve guy. They were there to drive, not provide security. Based on my direct experience, I simply do not believe you know what you are talking about. Edited for clarification changes GW Bush to GHW Bush
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jan 16, 2012 17:09:04 GMT -4
IF "you" could imagine this to be a conspiracy who would have been in a position to control and get away with it? the guy at the top after the assassination - LBJ All completely irrelevant, because a claimed motive is not proof of anything.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 16, 2012 17:20:12 GMT -4
But then you also have to explain away the dozen or so witnesses who clearly saw your client shoot officer Tippit or running away immediately afterwards as he reloaded his revolver. Sure, and that's of course a problem with my "JFK conspiracy theory that makes sense" explanation. My solution? Make them separate crimes. Any defense attorney worth his salt would insist that the shooting of a police officer and the shooting of a President are not the same thing, especially given all the differences between the crimes. (Rifle vs. handgun, sniper vs. face-to-face, etc.) If I were Oswald's defense attorney, that would have been easy enough to deal with. It's all the other evidence which would have been more difficult. Even in my attempt at a conspiracy theory, I concede that Oswald shot Tippit, because you pretty much have to. Though of course some conspiracists don't believe he did it. Goldbergian thinking strikes again.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Jan 16, 2012 17:44:17 GMT -4
I think they're nonsense.
There is no through bullethole in the Altgen photo. There is a white patch, because there is something white in the background. Not a hole. Just background.
And your "analysis" of the reactions is totally unconvincing. Almost as unconvincing as your point that Governor Connally was willing to take a possibly fatal rifle shot to the back for the sake of the conspiracy. That's not "playing along," that's likely suicide.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jan 16, 2012 18:01:17 GMT -4
i have not been avoiding the discussion on JC but... One crucial factor is determining exactly when JC is injured. what i have been trying to illustrate to the board is that no one can determine when he actually is hit. Bullsh*t. I've told you several times exactly when JBC and JFK are both hit; JFK for the first time, JBC for the only time: Z-film frame 224, just as JFK emerges from behind the sign. You can even see both of them react simultaneously to the shot. JFK's shoulders jerk forward and his arms snap up to a level position. JBC's coat lapel momentarily flips up and his hat (held in his right hand) jumps. All these motions are near instantaneous, faster than either man could perform them voluntarily -- because Oswald's second shot had just struck them both. Experts testified to the Warren Commission and other investigators that it is not at all unusual for gunshot victims under extreme stress to go quite some time -- even minutes -- before realizing they've been shot. JBC was a victim of this shooting. So is it surprising that his precise memory of such a traumatic event might be off by a grand total of half a second? With such a small discrepancy between subjective and objective evidence, we go with the the objective evidence: Z-film frame 224. Wrong. He's well out of position by then. Wrong. Wrong. Well, he did end up in Nellie's lap after 290. But he was hit at 224. Just so this won't be a completely unproductive rehash of basic facts you refuse to accept, why don't we introduce a new one? Lee Harvey Oswald's own brother, Robert, says that if he had any information that his brother was innocent he'd be shouting it from the rooftops. But he has absolutely no doubt whatsoever that his brother did it. Alone. Since you like to put so much emphasis on the motives and statements of all the people connected to the principals, why don't we discuss this one? Is Robert railroading his own brother? This should be fun...
|
|
|
Post by twik on Jan 16, 2012 18:14:23 GMT -4
Really, if playdor can consider that the plot was to have the driver of the limousine give the final shot, in front of an entire plaza of people, I'm sure he can justify almost anything in his own mind. Presumably he'll tell us that Robert was bought off. Or had a raging case of sibling jealousy, so he'd happily defame his own brother.
|
|