• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here you go, Mr. Harris: Eric Lipton was the recipient of the 2015 Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting. I can only imagine how much he'd welcome another prize on his mantle, thanks in large part to your fine work. You can reach him by calling The New York Times at (212) 556-1234.

I can provide you other names with equivalent credentials and notoriety if you like. Just ask!

Thanks Reg, I will try to email him first, but my experience with most publications is that they have no interest in JFK assassination theories, mainly because they have been bombarded with everything imaginable and then accused of being CIA assets when they reject the articles.

You may not believe this, but my greatest enemy has not been you guys; it has been the worst of the JFK conspiracy advocates.
 
You may not believe this, but my greatest enemy has not been you guys; it has been the worst of the JFK conspiracy advocates.

That is well known for in all religious style belief the greatest hate is reserved for heretics within the faith not those outside of it.
 
In fairness, I used it as a synonym for "doubtful."

I knew a guy named Skye Tictik and he was called 'skeptic'. He was some strange Slavic dude and his English ability wasn't up to understanding the joke.
 
So you've said.



Does your line of thinking in drawing that conclusion include location(s) of other shooter(s)?.

Of course it does.

Your continued fighting the question .

Fighting the question?? I have even gone so far as to offer you this presentation in tiny, 10 minute bites, after you complained that it was too long.

Your demand for a partial analysis makes no sense at all. If you genuinely seek the truth, you should be eager to get the whole story.

leads me to believe your reasoning does not include this particular point and there is no reason to watch the video to look for an answer. If that is true, then fine, please just say so and I'll stop asking you.

All of the evidence combines to form a coherent analysis, which supports the fact that Oswald didn't act alone. Of course, that includes the possible sniper locations, which are discussed throughout the presentation.
 
Going to take a break.

I do want to thank turingtest for at least discussing issues associated with the case (sort of). I hope more of you will do the same.

Those of you who have trouble getting a response from me, may send me a PM. Perhaps we can work it out.
 
I will say this again:

DEALEY PLAZA is a giant echo chamber

Oliver Stone's own sound tech even complained about it while they were filming "JFK". What people heard that day depended on where they were standing.

The assertion that the third shot came too fast after the second has been around for years, and is undermined by the nasty echo in this location. The people who continue to make the claim have never been in Dealey Plaza and certainly have not done tests on how the echo would effect sounds of gunfire from the 6th floor.

The confusion on the nature (quality) of the sounds of rifle shots and the number of shots heard fired all can be traced back to the echo in this location.
 
I will say this again:

DEALEY PLAZA is a giant echo chamber

Oliver Stone's own sound tech even complained about it while they were filming "JFK". What people heard that day depended on where they were standing.

The assertion that the third shot came too fast after the second has been around for years, and is undermined by the nasty echo in this location. The people who continue to make the claim have never been in Dealey Plaza and certainly have not done tests on how the echo would effect sounds of gunfire from the 6th floor.

The confusion on the nature (quality) of the sounds of rifle shots and the number of shots heard fired all can be traced back to the echo in this location.

I guess that explains all those witnesses who heard four early shots, eh?

Seriously though, I really appreciate that you are willing to actually discuss the case, rather than me. That's not the most popular strategy around here.

The HSCA people who tested the same model rifle in DP, had no problem separating the shots from the echoes. Echoes don't really sound the same as gunshots. They sound much more like echoes.

That fact is confirmed by the large consensus of witnesses who only heard a single shot, prior to the very end. Obviously, if they were confused by echoes, most of them would have heard more than one.

Perhaps more importantly, the 285 reactions preceded 313. And I can demonstrate to you that most, if not all witnesses never heard the 223 shot. So the reactions at issue, could not have been to an echo.

Ok this time, I really am going to take a break and immediately turn the computer off. Thanks again for making a relevant argument.
 
So you've said.



Does your line of thinking in drawing that conclusion include location(s) of other shooter(s)? Your continued fighting the question leads me to believe your reasoning does not include this particular point and there is no reason to watch the video to look for an answer. If that is true, then fine, please just say so and I'll stop asking you.

Well, that's the nice thing about CTism, the characteristic it shares with creationism that makes it so impervious to reason- it's never necessary to go into the mechanics of what amounts to a miracle, where the shots came from or how exactly all those world-wide animals found their way to the ark, it's only needful to assert the effect. Miracles, by their nature, explain themselves; to delve into the details would spoil the effect. Then where are you? Back with the mundane...how boring.
 
Please PM me when you decide to seriously discuss this stuff.

Please PM me when you decide to seriously discuss this stuff?

Why did you agreed to a debate and by my rules if you are going to run away?

Hey on the 2nd of July I posted my rules: in post 2177 is it my fault you didn't read it? I don't think so

However here are my rules that you agreed to:

1. I will debate one person at a time, as long as you wear a oil can on your head with the name Dealey Plaza written on it with crayon

2. I will debate no one whose mother eats oatmeal

3. I may presume that I am right - because I am!

4. I will debate anyone whose theory agrees with me or is willing to admit defeat prior to the debate

5. You will also agree not to say anything until I complete reading from my script - then see #4

You seemed to have conceded so I will skip my portion of #5 and go directly to $4 and it's now up to you to admit to your defeat.

That is if you are a man of honour and will stand by your given word?

Will you? Are you? Let us see eh, lol
 
Oh, and cmikes, thank you for posting that stuff earlier re: startle reactions. That was what I was attempting to bring up way back when, but without the references. Then the thread just kept moving...
:)

No problem, as I said in my post, it's not my first (or my second or my hundredth) exposure to Robert's theory. That was pretty much the reason I stopped following alt.assassination.jfk, it's devolved into four or five CTs simply reposting their theories over and over and over again no matter how many times they're shown to be incorrect.

But yeah, the two major flaws in Robert's theory are Alvarez's jiggle analysis not supporting his theory even though he cites it as doing so and the fact that he constantly conflates involuntary startle reactions with people ducking or turning their heads. He tries to argue that Jackie's and Nellie Connally's continuing their motions to turn to look at their husbands and Greer's turn to look into the back of the limo were completely involuntary reactions that they had no control over, thereby showing that they must have occurred within 1/3 of a second of a shot.

Of course, none of the sources he cites as supporting his theory actually say what he claims they do.


As a side note: ****, this thread moves fast. I don't check in one day and I'm seven pages behind?:eye-poppi
 
Murder in organized crime in Sicily was eminently pragmatic. No, staging a hail of gunfire in a public place was never the preference. Most judges, for example, were gunned down while coming/going from home and work, by lone assassins wielding handguns and disappearing quickly into the urban melee. As with any aspect of their "business," keeping a low profile and avoiding unnecessary scrutiny or complications were just common sense.

Thank you for your response. The paragraph above states very well what I was trying to get at in my post. I think it's fairly obvious that the Mafia would never be able to survive if there was a large, concentrated, sustained effort to to get rid of their organization. Their entire "business model" seems to depend on their not attracting to much attention or heat to themselves.

Undoubtedly, Carlos Marcello was extremely angry at RFK for enforcing his deportation order and I'm sure he shed no tears at the JFK assassination, but I find it hard to believe that he would expose himself and his business in such a way, especially trusting someone like Oswald to never talk. Of course, people, particularly criminals, do illogical things all the time, so it's impossible to say one way or the other. Just a personal observation, since there's no hard evidence that Marcello even contemplated a hit on JFK of course.
 
It has taken me weeks of reading this thread but I've finally caught up. Major disappointment to see there aren't pages and pages still to read. Kinda like reading a really good book and, when getting to the last page, finding out it's only volume one and realizing l have to wait for the following chapters to be written.
 
It has taken me weeks of reading this thread but I've finally caught up. Major disappointment to see there aren't pages and pages still to read. Kinda like reading a really good book and, when getting to the last page, finding out it's only volume one and realizing l have to wait for the following chapters to be written.

I posted links to numerous articles and presentations. Did you examine them all?

This one in particular, is quite comprehensive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE
 
If that were true, you would be able to cite my blunders, verbatim...

People have cited your blunders verbatim via quotation and highlighting, by reference, and by analogy. The form and scope of the rebuttal has absolutely no apparent effect on whether you will answer it. You ignore them indiscriminately, sometimes with great relish.

You made and then attacked assertions that I never said. And just now, you claimed that I evaded some phantom issue that you will not describe specifically.

Heal thyself. Let's examine how you have categorically ignored (again with great ad hominem relish) what I and a few others have said in response to your claims, including the definition of the "phantom issue" you don't understand and now wish to sweep under the carpet.

When compelled by the nature of the forum software to see my answer to your question regarding consilience, you categorically dismissed it. But before you did, you cherry-picked a few words and phrases from it and out of them concocted a vitriolic train wreck of a response that demonstrated how little you actually read and comprehend your critics' posts. The way you represented my statements wasn't even in the same county as what I actually said.

If you are unfamiliar with the tools that humanity has used for thousands of years to test ideas for reliability and strength, that is your deficiency and we will not be held in contempt simply because you fervently wish the world to be colored with fewer crayons. You may choose to remain in ignorance, but then don't count much on continued indulgence of your subsequent bullying.

You claim to hold in high regard some men who have, in our time, embraced those "phantom" principles and carried them forward to great acclaim. But your arguments show utter contempt for everything they have tried to accomplish. You don't even know what they say, for the most part. And the parts you do know, you wield clumsily in ham-fisted ignorance of what they are meant to do.

If you wish to be regarded as a deep thinker and a skilled researcher, you must master these concepts. For your critics certainly have. Pooh-poohing the accumulated wisdom of humankind simply because you can't be bothered to learn it is not a way to achieve your goals.

You need to...

No, no one needs to do anything you say. You're not even attempting to conceal your brazen efforts to direct the debate like a play, instead of participating it like an meaningful test of the claims you've made.

I posted links to numerous articles and presentations. Did you examine them all?

At least you seem to be owning your Gish gallop.
 
Thank you for your response. The paragraph above states very well what I was trying to get at in my post. I think it's fairly obvious that the Mafia would never be able to survive if there was a large, concentrated, sustained effort to to get rid of their organization. Their entire "business model" seems to depend on their not attracting to much attention or heat to themselves.

Undoubtedly, Carlos Marcello was extremely angry at RFK for enforcing his deportation order and I'm sure he shed no tears at the JFK assassination, but I find it hard to believe that he would expose himself and his business in such a way, especially trusting someone like Oswald to never talk. Of course, people, particularly criminals, do illogical things all the time, so it's impossible to say one way or the other. Just a personal observation, since there's no hard evidence that Marcello even contemplated a hit on JFK of course.

How exactly do we procure "hard evidence" of what Marcello contemplated? I don't think the Psychic Hotline was in business yet.

As for your other opinion, even if you were right, it would only matter if Marcello got caught, and obviously, he didn't. And you can rest assured that J. Edgar, "what mafia?" Hoover wasn't about to catch him.

Anthony Summers and other researchers found considerable support for the likelihood that Hoover was gay and that the mob had photos that could destroy him and the reputation of the FBI. Back then sociopathic killers were respected slightly more than gays.

You know of course, that Katzenbach's infamous declaration that "the pubic must be convinced.." that Oswald acted alone, was actually a regurgitation of what Hoover told him, don't you?
 
My understanding is that the mafia had very few rules, beyond the one that said the last man standing is in charge.

Do you have documentation to confirm that such rules existed?

Last man standing? So your claim is that Marcello could have stood against all the forces of government if Oswald had talked? And no, I don't have confirmation, which was kind of the point of the post. Some of us don't know everything and request information from other, better informed people. I'm pretty sure you don't qualify.

So, your source is what you "had always heard"?

My source is Carlos Marcello. I think that trumps your source.

Again, hence my question. Reading for comprehension is not really your strong suit, is it? I stipulate that I am not any kind of expert or even well informed on Mafia culture of the mid-Twentieth Century. Most of what I know of mob culture I learned from old movies and reading The Godfather.

True enough. In fact, Marcello told Laningham that Oswald was crazy. But they didn't want him for his shooting skills. They wanted him for his communist/Castro legend. There is nothing the mob wanted more than to regain the lucrative casino business in Cuba, which Castro took from them.

If they could put the blame on Oswald, then they hoped the US would retaliate by taking Castro out of power. I believe the mistake that many of my fellow conspiracy advocates make is in thinking Oswald was an innocent patsy. He was a patsy, but he wasn't innocent.

But he knew who hired him, right? How could Marcello know that Oswald wouldn't immediately turn him in exchange for taking the death penalty off the table? Even if Oswald didn't know about Marcello, he could have turned in Jim Braden or David Ferrie or whoever recruited him in your theory which you won't tell anyone. Which would, of course, have led straight to Marcello. Sounds like Marcello was putting a lot of faith in an unstable, not to bright loner like Oswald. And how was Oswald recruited? Every bit of testimony we have indicates that Oswald didn't talk or have any significant contact with anyone other than the Paines and his wife and daughter. How did Marcello even know anything about Oswald? How did Marcello know that the JFK motorcade would go past the building where Oswald had happened to get a job? And on and on.

Maybe it would be easier if you laid out your theory beginning to end and see if it answers any of these questions?

It is not a matter of "style". Marcello's primary motivation was hate and his desire for vengence. Killing JFK in such a public manner was a way of humiliating Bobby and flaunting his power over them.

What power? Again, is your claim that Marcello, a mob boss, actually had enough power to stand up to the government? He could have avoided arrest, trial, and execution if Oswald spilled his guts? How so?

After Bobby quite literally kidnapped Marcello and dumped him in the jungles of Guatemala, there was probably no one on the planet who hated the Kennedys more than him. He swore he would get revenge and he said he would do it by killing JFK rather than Bobby.

Lots of people had motives to hate Kennedy. Only Oswald actually shot him, though.

He later confessed (unwittingly) to an FBI informant that he did exactly that. He also told mafia attorney, Frank Ragano essentially the same thing.

You mean the story that even the FBI dismissed as jailhouse bragging?
 
Hoover, not Katzenbach

Nicholas Katzenbach has always taken the heat for writing the infamous memo which outlined the government's future policy of handling the JFK assassination investigation. This was on the Sunday following the assassination:

"The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial.".

What is not so widely known however, is that Katzenbach was only parroting the words of the man who would be in charge of the investigation - J. Edgar Hoover.

This is from the HSCA interview of David Slawson.

"Mr. CORNWELL. ...it has been reported to us by our research staff that in the L.B.J. Library in Austin there is a memo prepared by, or reflecting a conversation between, Mr. Hoover and the White House, Walter Jenkins. The conversation reflects that Hoover made the following statement:

"The thing I am most concerned about, and Mr. Katzenbach, is having something issued so that they can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin,"

the conversation occurring November 24, 1963, 2 days after the assassination.

(unquote)

It is incredibly important that anyone researching this case, understand Hoover's policy. Over and over and over again, the FBI did everything in it's power to squelch or coverup evidence of conspiracy. Perhaps, the most outrageous thing they did, was replace the bullet that actually wounded John Connally and probably JFK, with one they produced themselves. This article explains in detail:

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html




Robert Harris
 
I think it's fairly obvious that the Mafia would never be able to survive if there was a large, concentrated, sustained effort to to get rid of their organization.

The Maxiprocesso attempted to satisfy two of those goals. One of the rather understated effects of it was police reform. But the spree of judicial assassinations that followed are what turned public sentiment in Sicily finally against the mob. It lost quite a lot of its power after that.

Their entire "business model" seems to depend on their not attracting to much attention or heat to themselves.

Yes, but in a more subtle way that people's Hollywood perceptions of organized crime don't often grasp. Organized crime lives and flourishes best in a climate of corruption, which means it's often very unclear for those of us (especially displaced Americans) who are the good and bad guys, and whom to trust. The reason the triumvirate of mob, government, and church held sway was an intricate system of checks and balances and the certainty that no one leg was entirely trustworthy or fit the stereotypes of good or evil.

As I said, the mafia in Sicily, when I was there, took a major hit when they lashed out ferociously and made the public see them more as criminals. That was hard to do before, because they were your uncles, cousins, and brothers-in-law, or there was some association like that.

...especially trusting someone like Oswald to never talk.

As I said, I was friends with some of these people, and I never earned much of their trust except toward ordinary friendly ends. I would certainly have never been let into any sort of inner circle, introduced to any of the capi, or given any knowledge of any actual illegal activity. If the mafia is going to assassinate a head of state, they're not going to involve some outsider.

Of course, people, particularly criminals, do illogical things all the time, so it's impossible to say one way or the other.

Well, they do and they don't. Criminals can also act logically within the context of their assumptions, conditions, and expectations. Since these are what vary dramatically in many cases from what we as comfortable first-world professionals endure, some of their contemplated actions seem illogical when reasoned from our sphere.

This is what separates organized crime from petty criminals. There is a semblance of organization -- rules and order that seem abhorrent and brutal to us, but which are as developed as any others and punish indiscriminate, unilateral action. Cf. also historical pirates. So no, it is quite difficult to believe in a hypothesis that requires mafiosi to play their dutiful Hollywood roles as unprincipled, simplistic thugs.

Yes, individual criminals often to illogical and irrational things, such as shoot the President from a nearby building.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom