|
Post by twik on Dec 20, 2011 9:20:58 GMT -4
twik the house inquiry was not the same as the warren commission, in that they did not conclude who did it, just the opposite they excluded who didn't do it. secondly but more importantly that the assassination was most probably a conspiracy. If any thing it was an indictment against the findings of the warren commission. The warren commission was in effect Oswald's trial, he had been presented to the public as guilty on day one, now the powers behind the conspiracy needed to convict Oswald in the court of public opinion, which would greatly solidify their position. Two purposes for the warren commission would have been to build a case against Oswald and prevent other independent investigations by the house or senate. the warren commission was a trial in every respect, except there was not anyone present for the defense of Oswald. Specter was free to create and frame his arguments unencumbered from an adversary challenging any of his positions or evidence submitted, altered, neglected or denied. Specters job function was to make up a story that could be believable, a story that could be sold to the American people. why would you want to broaden my statements concerning the warren commission to encompass inquiries in general, this is just a distraction from the point about the purpose of the warren commission and its stooges. so the house of Representatives validate the assassination investigation and agree that most probably this was a coup d etat while basing this conclusion exclusively on a single piece of evidence, an audio tape...not likely for a group of lawyers to hang their reputations and credibility on a single piece of evidence. you keep coming back to the audio evidence as being primary to house conclusion about the probability of being a conspiracy. prove that the audio was the primary evidence to form the conclusions, then prove the house interpretations of the audio were discredited and then show me the retraction or alteration of the house conclusions on JFK assassination report. Well, if the only result from the House Committee was that they "excluded who DIDN'T do it," what other evidence, besides the audio, did they use to prove a conspiracy? How could they say, "We proved X didn't engage in conspiracy, Y didn't engage in conspiracy, Z didn't conspire on anything. Therefore, we conclude there was a conspiracy."? All reasonable people conclude it was 3 shots. The House Committee was misled by misinterpreted evidence to conclude there was another one, although they (rather hilariously) concluded that the extra marksman had not actually hit anything, and that the ONLY evidence of his existence was the audio. When that was discredited, all evidence of conspiracy disappeared.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 20, 2011 10:39:00 GMT -4
echnaton thank you for the thoughtful honest advise why am i proceeding with presenting this evidence inappropriately? or how can i frame this evidence so that it would be acceptable? The problem is not the framing of your evidence, it is that what your present is not really evidence. Overturning the accepted thesis in the Kennedy assassination is a daunting task. It has been investigated and examined numerous times by professional investigators who have come to the same conclusion. Conspiracy mongers may call themselves "researchers," but they are not professional investigators. Here is a brief on how successful investigators work. Start with an thorough understanding of the work that you wish to dispute. In this case, The Warren Report. This should include an examination of how the Commission came to its conclusion. That is you need to demonstrate why the Commission thought they were right. Present any evidence that the Commission missed or misinterpreted and explain its significance. Then present an alternate hypothesis that takes into account your analysis of the parts of the Commissions report you accept and the new information you have brought forward. You, on the other hand, have started form the conclusion of a conspiracy and try to cherry pick whatever scraps of information you can find to fit into your predetermined hypothesis. This is the opposite of investigation. And this predisposition of yours leads you to think that everyone else also starts from an accepted conclusion and either strives to support it or is willingly blind to contradictory evidence. This assumption leads to your obvious frustration at not being taken seriously.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Dec 20, 2011 11:39:44 GMT -4
The program in question was dropped by the History Channel because their legal staff pointed out that it was such gross libel that they'd be sued into bankrupcy if they ran it. That's hardly an endorsement. Nor is it evidence of behind the scenes conspiracy.
The "badgeman" photograph, to me, is high comedy. There is nothing there! It takes someone tracing out the supposed outline, AND a lot of imagination, to see anything at all, let alone confidently identify it as someone firing a gun.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Dec 20, 2011 11:44:39 GMT -4
Then please feel free to explain to us at any time how a gunshot wound from the front causes blood and brains to spray out back along the path of the bullet. Bullets are designed to penetrate, deform and damage on their way through. Entry wounds tend to be neat while exit wounds are not. The spray of blood and brains from a gunshot wound to the head comes from the exit wound, therefore Kennedy must have been shot in the head from behind.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Dec 20, 2011 13:43:17 GMT -4
many people have dedicated large portions of their lives and resources in the search for the truth, it is a better use of my time to listen to what they have been able to uncover. Here's one example of someone who's done a great deal of research. mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 20, 2011 14:26:13 GMT -4
many people have dedicated large portions of their lives and resources in the search for the truth, it is a better use of my time to listen to what they have been able to uncover.You don't seem to be pretty one sided in who you uncritically listen to. Why is that? the only important question Americans need to have answered definitively is whether or not the JFK assassination was a conspiracy and if so, who was behind it...We have the answer to the best of anyone's ability to discern it. Oswald was the shooter and he acted alone. All the casting of doubt on that answer by conspiracy mongers under the pretense of looking for the truth has not added to our knowledge. because if it was, this nation was taken over by an unelected group of elite thugs and we are essentially living their lie. This is another typical attribute of conspiracy proponents that has worked its way into your writing. The jumping to some serious but entirely hypothetical effects of the contention as the need continue an "investigation" before establishing even a preliminary basis for the contention. Mush less establishing that in this case there was a conspiracy. This is also a typical smear tactic used by politicians.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Dec 20, 2011 15:50:18 GMT -4
twik i don't disagree with you about trying to interpret this enhanced Polaroid photograph. The question should be, whether or not there are people with the technical skills to resolve accurately, hidden details within photographs. If it is possible, it then becomes a question of trusting what they have uncovered. The images just can't be dismissed because the evidence it portrays has been corroborated with dozens of witnesses. The until recent unknown witness uncovered within the enhanced Polaroid corroborated the authenticity of what was claimed to be within the enhanced images. Himself, badge man shooter and RR worker with a hard hat. see this series. What person with the "technical skill" has done that? Do you mean (pardon my hysterical laughter here) Jack White? We should trust someone whose only credential is that he says he knows what he's doing? The unknown witness has absolutely no evidence to back up his story as to what he supposedly saw. And there is hard physical evidence (that people can actually go to see to this day), that a "shooter" could not have stood where your witness said he did, without been seen. Oh, and needing a stepladder as well.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 20, 2011 16:07:33 GMT -4
For heaven's sake, Jack White appeared before Playdor's precious subcommittee--and they ignored him. They found out he didn't even know what "photogrammetry" means, and they said, "Thank you for coming." I'd also note that he hasn't seen the movie Blow-Up, because if he had, he'd know about film grain and the hazards of enlarging things too much. The "hidden details" are impossible. The grain of the film is too large and the supposed details are too small.
|
|
|
Post by Ranb on Dec 20, 2011 18:01:30 GMT -4
.....Dallas police constable that identified the rifle at the school book depository was also a gun buff and sporting shop owner, he identified the rifle as a mauser on site, and this was confirmed on site by a stamp on the barrel identifying rifle as "7.65 Mauser" Where in your linked photo (in reply #81) does it say anything about a "stamp on the barrel"? Why are you using such a tiny portion of the affidavit anyway? Why not link to the full document? Is this the document that you are referring to? jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0433-001.gifNowhere does it say anything about markings on the barrel. Got anything else to support your claim that anyone said they saw 7.65 Mauser markings on the rifle barrel? Ranb
|
|
|
Post by twik on Dec 20, 2011 18:06:21 GMT -4
One wonders why the PTB can be so brilliant in some things (have an assassin in hiding shoot his victim from a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ANGLE than the supposed patsy, and yet leave no physical traces of this), and so stupid that they can't supply the right mass-produced rifle to leave as evidence.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 20, 2011 19:08:23 GMT -4
It's the necessary selective stupidity required by all major conspiracist plots. They have to be good enough to fool experts but stupid enough to leave obvious failures for the uneducated to find.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 20, 2011 19:31:57 GMT -4
One wonders why the PTB can be so brilliant in some things (have an assassin in hiding shoot his victim from a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ANGLE than the supposed patsy, and yet leave no physical traces of this), and so stupid that they can't supply the right mass-produced rifle to leave as evidence. The problem is not that they are stupid. It is that they are arrogant. That leads to thinking they are untouchable and therefore not to be as thorough as possible. It is the ability to control the subsequent investigation and limit the media access to information that ultimately makes them successful. And of course the mindlessness of the sheeple living a hum-drum life. This leaves only the dogged "researcher" to see between the cracks in the wall of conspiracy and uncover the truth. It may be a thankless task but it's a living.
|
|
|
Post by Tanalia on Dec 20, 2011 21:32:06 GMT -4
Those interested may want to dig through Secrets of a Homicide for some computer-assisted analysis of the films, photos, and audio of the assassination.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Dec 21, 2011 14:17:07 GMT -4
It's sort of like the conspiracists about 9/11 try arguing that parts of the wreckage are from different aircraft types than the ones that actually impacted.
Really - any Evil Geniuses who can pull off these incredibly complex conspiracies cannot think, "Hmm, I want to plant evidence. I really should order myself the right parts for the job."?
Apparently, in conspiracy world, the perps drop a Mauser, then find out, "Hey, Oswald had a Carcano!" Is this not something that any sensible conspirator would have checked in advance?
|
|
|
Post by chew on Dec 21, 2011 15:48:58 GMT -4
It's sort of like the conspiracists about 9/11 try arguing that parts of the wreckage are from different aircraft types than the ones that actually impacted. Really - any Evil Geniuses who can pull off these incredibly complex conspiracies cannot think, "Hmm, I want to plant evidence. I really should order myself the right parts for the job."? Apparently, in conspiracy world, the perps drop a Mauser, then find out, "Hey, Oswald had a Carcano!" Is this not something that any sensible conspirator would have checked in advance? ;D And along with the planted 7.65 mm rifle they plant 6.5 mm shell casings???
|
|