JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[Sandy McCroskey]

Show me the evidence.

We have more hard, physical evidence nailing Oswald than is ever brought forth to win most murder convictions; all the circumstantial evidence also points directly at Ozzie. Rather than my rehashing the most salient aspects of the case, of which you are surely already aware, and probably inspiring the zombie resurrection of yet another long-debunked CT myth about how evidence was faked, it might be more productive if you told me first exactly what kind of evidence you would demand before you could be convinced that Oswald fired those shots.

 

[manifesto]

Surely this is not a new line of argument to you. There is lots of information about this at your fingertips on the web. If you don't know by now, you simply don't want to know.

[...]

I want to know on what grounds you are making your statement. The last time I checked there were no photographic film, still or moving, that showed the actual spots the mc/microphone should have occupied in order to register the rifle shots as shown by the HSCA acoustics analysis. That said, HSCA, and later Don Thomas, has convincingly shown by inference that McLain had to be exactly on spot and had his stuck microphone in the right position to make the recordings.

There are a couple of researchers opposing this, but you have to put forward YOUR arguments with proper references for me to see in order to discuss this with you.

I'm not a mind reader.

No, it's sufficient. But it's not necessary, as there are other ways we know the Dictabelt recording is not relevant.

What "ways"?

Here the topic was audible gunshots. I neglected to repeat "audible." Sorry that you lost the thread of the convo.

Ok, fair enough. You are arguing that BB&N and W/A did a misstake interpreting the five proposed echo-sequences as being from five rifle shots.

Why?

In this response, you repeatedly ask for references, where it should be quite clear, as I provided a link, that I was quoting directly from Bolt, Beranek and Newman's own study.

The parts between the quotemarks. That's their report, their reasoning. Their own report proves that they proceeded exactly as I said they did.

Your link goes to their report to the HSCA. Still, you have to cite the specific part and argue specifically from that in order for me to have an opinion on what you are trying to put forth.

Could you do that?

(Remember, you are the one arguing that the two world leading teams, BB&N and W/A, did not know how to properly analyse and test the DPD dictabelt recording, not me.)

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

No, it is a reasonable answer to your question. Why ask a nuclear scientist to head an investigation of … acoustics analysis?

Is there any hint in there to an answer to my question of why NRC’s acoustics panel did not contain a single expert on acoustics analysis?

Are you sure that is true? I called that into question by mentioning John C. Feggeler of Bell Telephone Laboratories. Here's another one of his patents:
http://www.google.com/patents/US4748639

On the BBN panel sat James E. Barger, Scott P. Robinson, Edward C. Schmidt, and Jared J. Wolf.
Panel head James E. Barger has a degree in Mechanical Engineering.
Compare this synopsis of his areas of immersion with Feggeler's evident life interests.
http://www.engr.uconn.edu/alumni/acadprofile.php?id=6

"Acoustics analysis" is simply an application of physics. You can't get a degree in "acoustic analysis." Acoustic engineering, say, yes. But not "acoustic analysis."

The BBN team was in this case trying something for the first time—which also appears to have been the last.

The circumstances were unprecedented and the specific methods had never been tested under remotely similar conditions. Their work had not been even lightly touched by any sort of peer review when the results were presented to the public as rock-solid science. Some people on the HSCA were too smart to bite, but they were in the minority. So it goes.

 

[manifesto]

We have more hard, physical evidence nailing Oswald than is ever brought forth to win most murder convictions; all the circumstantial evidence also points directly at Ozzie. Rather than my rehashing the most salient aspects of the case, of which you are surely already aware, and probably inspiring the zombie resurrection of yet another long-debunked CT myth about how evidence was faked, it might be more productive if you told me first exactly what kind of evidence you would demand before you could be convinced that Oswald fired those shots.

Ok, fair enough. In the case of Oswald buying and owning the proposed murder weapon (CE-139) there are a multitude of problems with the evidence put forward by the FBI and the WC:


1. Most important. All the documents put forward by the FBI are copies of film of the originals, not the original documents. The originals are these days nowhere to be found.

2. The order is not for the model archived in NARA (CE-139), it's for a Mannlicher Carcano 36" Carbine with a mounted scope. The CE-139 is a Mannlicher Carcano 40" Short Rifle with a mounted scope, which was not on sale at the time of the proposed purchase.

3. The HSCA hand writing experts could not make a definitive ID on Oswalds proposed handwritten text's because copies of photographs of originals are missing sufficient properties for this to be made.

4. Oswald was at work both when supposed to go to the Dallas down town post office for the money order, and when supposed to pick up the package from the same office. This in spite of a detailed time chart showing him working with material from seven different customers the day of the proposed purchase.

5. The proposed money order are not stamped with the three obligatory bank stamps showing that it has went through the federal reserve banking system necessary for the purchase to go through.

6. No regulated forms for selling and receiving fire arms through the USPS are signed and on record.

7. The "part three" of Oswalds post-box application were missing in spite of regulations saying it must be archived at least two years after closing the account. "Part three" is were other individuals are named as allowed entrance to the post-box.

8. An internal memo from the Dallas FBI to D.C. HQ that says that no "A. Hidell" is named on the "part three" which indicate that Postal Inspector Harry Holmes was lying when testifying that "part three" had been routinely destroyed.

9. Postal regulations doesn't allow for third party (A. Hidell) to pick up post/packages without being on "part three" of the post-box application. H. Holmes was lying in this instance too.

10. The money order serial number were not in order, it should have been sent ca 1,5 years later given the rate of outgoing money orders from Dallas USPS.

11. The money order stub, found by the notorious Mr H. Holmes, disappeared and were nowhere to be found.

12. The money order were found by an to this day unknown NARA employee in D.C., not in Kansas City where it should have been.


There's much more to it but I stop here for now. Now, tell me on what grounds you are asserting that Oswald/A. Hidell bought and owned the proposed murder weapon, CE-139.

Plz.

 

[manifesto]

Mostly by noticing the motorbike is not featured in the photographs, or film, at the moments it would need to be, for the claim to be substantiated.

There are no known photographs, or film, of the five areas in question during the shooting. Are you saying that you can infer from the existing photographs or/and film that the mc/mic couldn't have been there at the critical time sequences?

It is however one factor that adds to the weight of evidence.

Either it's viable or it's not. Which is it?

When you consider how the selected impulses are indistinguishable from impulses not selected,

According to what research and to whom? Be specific.

that there are sounds simply not explained (whistles, bells, etc, that do not match the route),

Be specific, with reference to relevant material.

that the engines idle when they should be racing,

When and where and according to whom?

and such forth, then, rightly, the HSCAs findings were refuted by subsequent enquiry.

What subsequent enquiry? The NRC acoustics panel? Be specific with reference to your relevant material.

I have no idea about any thespians who failed to refute the HSCA. But historians,

Name one and on what grounds.

scientists,

Name one and on what grounds.

and investigators

Name one and on what grounds.

seemed to have been incredibly successful.

How, and according to whom?

Once again, perhaps if you read the discussion so far you would be in a better place to comment.

It is even better if you cite and reference your sources. I'm not a mind reader.

By nuclear scientist, do you mean physicist?

Nuclear physicist, yes. I bet you actually knew that.

Acoustics is a branch of physics

Everything is a branch of physics.

So that would be a good start.

Yes. An even better start would be someone who knew anything about acoustics analysis.

Is he experienced at heading a team of scientists, and collating the results of their experiments into a report? In which case his own expertise are secondary to managing and guiding the specialists called in to design and run the experiments to analyse the recordings.

I agree, this is important too. No experts in acoustics analysis has been known to posses this kind of qualities? And how about exactly nil acoustics experts was employed in the panel or in their "evaluation" of the HSCA acoustical evidence?

Perhaps if you explained what experience and expertise you expect to qualify, we can answer. It would seem that most people think experienced physicists qualify to carry out the analysis. I for one don't see why you should assume they are not capable.

So, there is no need for expertise in the scientific field of acoustics analysis? Ramsey could have invented the sonar systems to the US Navy's nuclear submarines by himself together with a couple of graduate students on a coffee break?

Or more correctly they identified five impulses they believed may have been gunshots.

No. They identified five possible echo-patterns within the time frame of the actual shooting. After that, they performed a series of test shootings on the ground at Dealey Plaza and detected an almost perfect match with the same echo-patterns, in the exact correct order. P=1/100 000 for it to be something else imitating the five rifle shots by chance. After this, Weiss&Aschkenasy came to the same conclusion and performed additional sonar research confirming the shot from grassy knoll to a 96% certainty.

However these impulses are not distinguishable from others recorded on the track. They were selected due to their apparent timing, which is itself a flawed assumption. Later experiments have proven that, yes, a gunshot can create such an impulse. But it has not established they were gunshots, because other sources can also create these impulses.

What sources, according to whom? Be specific with references to your sources.

There is no viable reason to distinguish those impulses alone as gunshots, while discounting others.

Why, and according to whom?

 

[Tomtomkent]

This is maybe a photograph of Oswald, maybe holding the maybe murder weapon in his hand, it's not evidence for him buying it or own it though.

Yes it is.

Is evidence of the man who carried false ID, holding the weapon bought using the false ID. Exactly what other conclusion is it reasonable to reach?

 

[Tomtomkent]

No. The right rear. That is, posterior. Behind the ear. Some of the witnesses from Bethesda did report an extension forward from the rear, but everyone are talking of the right rear.

And yet we know from their testimony the wound must have been visible while JFK lay on his back. He was not lifted or rolled over.

It is an ongoing discussion. If you know of a good argument already been made in this or other threads, cite it and provide a link.

It IS an ongoing discussion. Which is why it would be polite for you to read what has been said, instead of expecting people to repeat the same arguments, or go searching for links.

In the case of the autopsy photos and x-ray-photos there is some very interesting critique, yes, and the photographers who supposedly made them doesn’t recognise them, not according to the ARRB-hearings.

No. She pointed out there were more than one set taken, and the ones being shown to her were not the set she took. Her testimony is quite clear on that matter. She goes to further detail about the difference between the sets.

Correct, but nowhere have I made such a statement. I’m stating that photographs are easy to fake and that this fact should be duly recognised when weighting the evidence and witness testimony. A massive majority of the expertise who saw the head wounds first hand are on the record stating that there was a gaping wound at the right rear of the head.

That photographs 'could' be faked is a statement there is no need to weigh, or even mention, unless you can provide evidence they were faked.

The experts at the time stated on the rear of the right hand side. The autopsy documents agree. The photographs conclude.

Some doctors remembered differently later, in published memoirs. They also went into great (and wrong) details of important events. Which is understandable. Human memory is flawed. We fool ourselves with memories every day.

Which is why we turn to physical evidence. Unless you think the body was changed, altered, or swapped, between hospitals, we have TWO photographic records of the autopsy.

Oh, sorry, I did not know that. Do you have evidence to back up this remarkable statement?

You could try reading the Warren Commission report. Oswald was still carrying the fake ID he used to buy the rifle when arrested. He had photographs of himself taken with the rifle.

Oh, sorry, I did not know that. Says who? Marina?

Yes. When she heard about the shooting she went to see if it was in the garage. Her suspicions raised because Oswald had visited during the week instead of a weekend. She thought the blanket it was kept in was undisturbed, but when the police turned up, she opened the blanket and it was gone. She also admitted to Oswald having owned the rifle from around the time it was purchased, and taking the photographs of him with both his murder weapons.

Once again. It would have been polite to check what people had already said on this. There really is no reason to expect answers to questions that have already been discussed at length. Please be polite enough to read previous threads.

Did she? According to whom? Her self? Have you read WC's and HSCA's internal memo's concerning Marinas reliability as a witness? "It reads like a nightmare", etc.

Which is why we look at other evidence. Given the photographs were taken on her property, seemingly from her camera, and match her statement, she seems to have been honest on this matter.

Ah, did he? Says who? The baron?

Got a better explanation of how people were in possession of his photograph having been signed?

If so, you should have no problem to cite and link to relevant discussion, should you?

You want links to four threads, one of which you are already posting in? Just go read the discussion. Get a feel for what has already been said, and find out where the rest of us are coming from. You are joining the conversation, it would be polite to have taken a look.

But not Marinas or the barons?

Please quote me making exceptions.

You can not make blanket statements like that.

I certainly can. Witness statements are not a reliable source of evidence. They are heavily flawed. We think our minds are like cameras, recording everything we see. The truth is they record only a few details. And those details are pliable, and will change over time.

Look at a practical example. You are making much of the witnesses who think shots came from the grassy knoll. But what of all the people who disagree. Of people who heard a different number of shots, or shots from different locations.

They were not lying. They were giving honest evidence, accurate to their memories. But they are only human. And we are flawed. Our memories more so.

If you have any interest in history, or investigation, you should always have this in mind. The one constant in witness testimony will be contradiction.

You have to argue every single testimony. Is the person trustworthy. Is the person an expert witness. How long between the testimony and the event. Independent corroborating testimony. What kind of event … get it?

You also have to consider the limitations of ANY human memory. You also have to understand why other forms of evidence is given higher priority. No evidence is perfect, but physical evidence can be tested. It is not limited by the ability to be described, or subjective interpretation.

Three bullets. No, one almost pristine bullet (CE-399), two big fragments from one bullet, small fragments from n bullet/s.

At the time there was one bullet from the gurney. One bullet in pieces. I personally include the third bullet because of evidence found on the lighting gantry a few years ago. So three bullets consistent with the one rifle we know with any certainty to be fired that day. As further evidence we have the three spent shell casings.

If you want to speculate for any other bullets, or any other sources of bullets, then supply some physical evidence of either the weapon, or the bullets.

No. At least three bullet wounds in JFK, four in Connally and one from a fragment in Tauge. That makes it eight bullet wounds.

And yes, those are all consistent with LHO's shots. But I am happy to clarify that I meant the wounds we could say with certainty after the autopsy, documented in evidence. Of course, this takes into account at least one exit wound being obscured by an attempt to keep JFK breathing.

The totality of the ballistics evidence is crap, and you know it.

The totality of the ballistics evidence if absolutely fine. Unfortunately I do not share the unrealistic expectations of forensic science, or witnesses, that conspiracy theory books indulge in.

So, you have tracked down the chain of custody on the palm print? Plz tell us!

I'm sorry? Other than conspiracy-innuendo, what exactly was in question?

Medium latent?

Yes. A latent print. Lifted with a powder medium. So a print left by residue of skin contact, lifted by being dusted. Which also lifts the surrounding markings.

Word to the wise; A lot of CT books make a big deal about how later inspections of the rifle found no prints. Those are because the prints have been physically lifted from the rifle. They are no longer there to be studied.

Correct. But if the evidence is severely compromised and the vittnes testimony from three different hospitals in unison say something completely different

No. Witness testimony is measured against the physical evidence. Not vice versa.

, you are still putting your miljon dollars on the iffy evidence, knowing that DPD was one of the most corrupt police departments in the US anno 1963.

Please show me evidence of how the physical evidence was faked. Otherwise refrain from CT innuendo.

No. from the evidence available we can infer that someone tried to interfere with the evidence.

Great. Show me how the physical evidence was interfered with. Start with the "iffy" prints. Show me how a latent print, lifted in a powder medium, is faked.

The question is why.

You don't get to ask why evidence was altered, or interfered with, until you prove that the evidence was tampered with.

At the moment you are playing Conspiracy Innuendo. Saying people could have, or might have, or that it is iffy. None of which is enough to show evidence was altered.

If you want me to believe your interpretation of the medical testimony is correct, then show me evidence that the photographic record of the autopsy was altered. Explain how a wound crept from the back of the head to the back of the side of the head.

If you want to suggest there is something wrong with the prints, explain how one can fake a latent print lifted by a powder medium.

If you want to call the ballistics crap, then explain each and every piece of ballistics evidence.

But first, go read what has already been said.

Even though no residues was found on his cheeks? No one saw him or anyone that looked like him with a rifle in his hands that day? There is simply no evidence for it. Ask chief Curry.

A residue test failing to lift residue does not mean a gun was not fired. HAD residue been lifted it would have strengthened the case, but one major misunderstanding by laymen is that every time a gun is fired there will be residue to recover. How well the residue sticks, how long it lingers, is a variable.

And there is indeed at least one witness who described a man of Oswalds build and height, quite accurately, in the TSBD window, before his arrest was made public.

But we DON'T NEED a witness to have seen him.
We have his rifle.
We have his prints.
We have his shell casings.
We have them in his location at the time.
We have bullets.
We have filmed footage.
We have autopsy records and photographs.
We have his prior attempt to murder, with the same rifle.
We have him photographing himself with the murder weapons.

By any reasonable assessment, we have a weight of physical evidence against Oswald.

So far you have offered innuendo suggesting there is something wrong with the evidence. You won't show us how the evidence was altered, faked, or flawed. Just vague notions of it not being trustworthy.

Even though no one from the DPD, FBI or anyone else remembered to look inside the barrel to check this out?

Yes. Even though.
Do you have evidence of another rifle that can reasonably be inferred to have been fired?

No, you have no evidence for anything you have stated so far.

Why not read the thread and find out?

Show me the evidence.

The evidence has already been shown. Please by all means, read the threads. But I do not have time to sit here linking every single relevant post. Nor do I have time to repeat every single post.

 

[manifesto]

You are leaving out a lot of background that would be necessary for anyone who wanted to see the point of your argument, if you have one.

Tell me what you need and I post it. Ok?

Some will even wonder, What two tapes?

Including you? The two DPD recordings, one of the cha-1 and and one of the cha-2.

since the crosstalk is far from the only thing that tells me the recording does not cover the time of the assassination.

What are these other things?

But if you wanted to support this line of argument, you should address the objections that have been brought forth, such as the article by Michael O'Dell referred to here earlier. O'Dell thinks crosstalk was misinterpreted as a shot from the knoll.

Could you please quote relevant parts of his studies and put forth a good argument for it being sufficient?

No, they found fault with other aspects of the methodology as well.
You should read the report.

Yes, there are a surprisingly great amount of actors and activity over the years, trying to debunk the HSCA acoustics evidence, but even more surprising is the total lack of success.

What “other aspects of the methodology”?

That's just the conspiracy theorist in you talking.

No, it is a reasonable answer to your question. Why ask a nuclear scientist to head an investigation of … acoustics analysis?

So you really don't know. My own question was merely rhetorical.


[...]

Is there any hint in there to an answer to my question of why NRC’s acoustics panel did not contain a single expert on acoustics analysis?

I don't think you understood what I was saying, which is that BB&N claimed that no shots were audible on the recording because of the noise limiter on the police microphone. I went on to assert that this hypothesis was never tested nor verified.

Do you have any references on this?

Mine, of course, is that the recording was not made at the time of the gunshots.

Yes I know, but were is your evidence for that assertion?

They compared apples and oranges.

In what sense?

See above.

The allegation that a noise limiter on a police microphone would prevent gunshots from being recorded on a Dictabelt has not been substantiated. Certainly not by BB&N.

References? The gunshots has been recorded, but they are not detectable by the human ear. That is why HSCA employed the two world leading research teams in acoustics analysis, BB&N and W/A, to see if there were any recordings beneath the level of human hearing capabilities.

Wrong. Their report...
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/jfk8/sound1.htm
...says "15 correlation coefficients exceeded the detection threshold value of 0.6."

Yes, but 0.5 was = no correlation. Between 0.5 and < 0.6 is a grey area and > 0.6 shows undisputable significance.

It's instructive, by the way, to see the grounds laid out on which specific patterns were disqualified. For example,

"l. The fourth entry in Table II that occurred at 137.70 sec is a false alarm, because it represents a rifle shot fired from the knoll at Target 4 near the triple underpass at a time when the limousine was near the position seen in frame 171. Thus, this shot was fired in a direction opposite to that of the logical target.

References for your critique?

"2. The entry in Table II that occurred at 140.32 sec is a false alarm, because it occurred only 1.05 sec later than earlier correlations also obtained from the TSBD. The rifle cannot be fired that rapidly. Since there are three correlations plausibly indicating the earlier shot, the one occurring 1.05 sec later must be a false alarm.

I agree, and so do Donald Thomas, BB&N and W/A. The reason this shot got discarded is because head of the HSCA, Robert Blakey employed circular reasoning: It has to be a false positiv because Oswald could not have reload and shoot this fast with the Carcano rifle and since we know that Oswald killed the president it has to be a false positive.

Blakey also did move the grassy knoll shot time wise relative to the Z-film in order to say that this shot did not hit anybody, and with the same flawed reasoning, that it was Oswald alone who killed JFK. When confronted with this he argued that the five shot scenario which indicates more than one shooter from behind and a killing shot from the grassy knoll would be politically impossible to sell to the HSCA’s political (Congress) overseers.

This is why you have to read the actual research data and not only the HSCA presentation.

(“Misstakes made by the HSCA”): https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Acoustics_Overview_and_History_-_part_2.html

"3. The fourth entry in Table II that occurred at 139.27 sec is a false alarm, because the motorcycle would have had to travel 130 ft in 1.6 sec (55 mph) to gain that position."

References?

Now, if their vaunted methodology was so solid, what it found could not be thrown out on extraneous grounds. If the science is rock-solid and it says a shot was fired from somewhere, or at a certain time, then a shot was fired then. If it had to have been another shooter besides Oswald, then you're stuck with that.

No, as I said, the final report is a “political compromise” authored by Robert Blakey in order to sell a fourth shot from the grassy knoll, not a truthful summary of the actual findings.

But BB&N did not depend on their own science, so the principle of consilience is entirely lacking in their conclusion. Essentially (the crazy missing shot from the knoll aside), they depended on making their data appear to match with what could be assumed or plausibly supposed from the solid evidence that already existed.

References?

See above. The data itself shows no difference between the patterns selected as shots and the other identical patterns. So they arrived at the distinction from extra-experimental considerations.

I am not an expert on acoustics analysis, that is why I need your references in order to see what the experts I’m consulting says. Do you have any references?

It should take you more than a few seconds to seriously read my critique, although it is far from comprehensive.

I agree, it is far from it and most of it is old rehash of old arguments. Doesn’t take long to read and comprehend.

BB&N said there were only four. That doesn't indicate that you have very much faith in them, after all.

I have reasoned faith in science, not political animals like Robert Blakey, no.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Exactly. Were is the garbage? Be specific.

That you haven't read Reclaiming History, nor will ever read it, is exactly what I would have expected.

I’ve read most of it and it is mostly crap. Sorry.

Here is Donald B. Thomas review of Bugliosi’s crap: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Rewriting_History_-_Bugliosi_Parses_the_Testimony.html

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

Have you seen this, Manifesto?
http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/acoustics.htm
I'm quoting now...
"This research paper documents the use of computer technology, epipolar geometry, and nine amateur 8mm films of the assassination to construct a synchronized photographic record of the shooting and determine the validity of the HSCA’s acoustic evidence of conspiracy.

"The result is a definitive photographic record of the last 40-seconds of President Kennedy’s life that demonstrates that no police motorcycles – including, Officer H.B. McLain’s – were near the area designated by the HSCA’s acoustic experts, and consequently, the committee’s acoustic evidence of a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination is invalid."

Your link goes to their report to the HSCA. Still, you have to cite the specific part and argue specifically from that in order for me to have an opinion on what you are trying to put forth.

That's what I did.
If you have trouble finding the parts I quoted in the report, please do a search for a key phrase.
And my argument is very simple. The BBN team did not determine which impulse patterns represented gunshots from the data itself but relied on extra-experimental factors, i.e., supposed correlation with the Zapruder film and a plausible timing for the shots. Their own explanation of how "false positives" were eliminated spells that out very clearly. There was nothing I needed to add.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

Ok, fair enough. In the case of Oswald buying and owning the proposed murder weapon (CE-139) there are a multitude of problems with the evidence put forward by the FBI and the WC:


1. Most important. All the documents put forward by the FBI are copies of film of the originals, not the original documents. The originals are these days nowhere to be found.

2. The order is not for the model archived in NARA (CE-139), it's for a Mannlicher Carcano 36" Carbine with a mounted scope. The CE-139 is a Mannlicher Carcano 40" Short Rifle with a mounted scope, which was not on sale at the time of the proposed purchase.

3. The HSCA hand writing experts could not make a definitive ID on Oswalds proposed handwritten text's because copies of photographs of originals are missing sufficient properties for this to be made.

4. Oswald was at work both when supposed to go to the Dallas down town post office for the money order, and when supposed to pick up the package from the same office. This in spite of a detailed time chart showing him working with material from seven different customers the day of the proposed purchase.

5. The proposed money order are not stamped with the three obligatory bank stamps showing that it has went through the federal reserve banking system necessary for the purchase to go through.

6. No regulated forms for selling and receiving fire arms through the USPS are signed and on record.

7. The "part three" of Oswalds post-box application were missing in spite of regulations saying it must be archived at least two years after closing the account. "Part three" is were other individuals are named as allowed entrance to the post-box.

8. An internal memo from the Dallas FBI to D.C. HQ that says that no "A. Hidell" is named on the "part three" which indicate that Postal Inspector Harry Holmes was lying when testifying that "part three" had been routinely destroyed.

9. Postal regulations doesn't allow for third party (A. Hidell) to pick up post/packages without being on "part three" of the post-box application. H. Holmes was lying in this instance too.

10. The money order serial number were not in order, it should have been sent ca 1,5 years later given the rate of outgoing money orders from Dallas USPS.

11. The money order stub, found by the notorious Mr H. Holmes, disappeared and were nowhere to be found.

12. The money order were found by an to this day unknown NARA employee in D.C., not in Kansas City where it should have been.


There's much more to it but I stop here for now. Now, tell me on what grounds you are asserting that Oswald/A. Hidell bought and owned the proposed murder weapon, CE-139.

Plz.

Sources? Who told you these things, or told you these things are significant?

I'm rather amazed that in 2015 somebody is still arguing that Oswald didn't own the rifle that killed President Kennedy. This is one of those zombie theories I referred to earlier. Yawn.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

Tell me what you need and I post it. Ok?

[...]

Here is Donald B. Thomas review of Bugliosi’s crap: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Rewriting_History_-_Bugliosi_Parses_the_Testimony.html

How did this get reposted? I already replied to this: on page 12, message #472.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

We have more hard, physical evidence nailing Oswald than is ever brought forth to win most murder convictions; all the circumstantial evidence also points directly at Ozzie. Rather than my rehashing the most salient aspects of the case, of which you are surely already aware, and probably inspiring the zombie resurrection of yet another long-debunked CT myth about how evidence was faked, it might be more productive if you told me first exactly what kind of evidence you would demand before you could be convinced that Oswald fired those shots.

Ok, fair enough. In the case of Oswald buying and owning the proposed murder weapon (CE-139) there are a multitude of problems with the evidence put forward by the FBI and the WC: [...]

Why did you say "Fair enough," but then do not comply with my request: which was to tell us "exactly what kind of evidence you would demand before you could be convinced that Oswald fired those shots."

Instead, you do what I predicted you would do, i.e., you invoke "the zombie resurrection of yet another long-debunked CT myth about how evidence was faked."

Or do you really mean to imply that if all the paperwork involving the money order was still intact, that's what it would take to convince you Oswald fired those shots?

 

[Tomtomkent]

There are no known photographs, or film, of the five areas in question during the shooting. Are you saying that you can infer from the existing photographs or/and film that the mc/mic couldn't have been there at the critical time sequences?

You asked a question about the methodology another poster was using. I suggested one.

Are you now claiming that you can't substantiate the assumed locations of the microphone?

Uh oh.

Are you now suggesting that identifying locations of the various personnel from when they are visible in the photographic record and extrapolating is not good enough?

Double uh-oh.

So... we have recordings, that contain several anomalies that don't match the bike that may have recorded something of use (engines idling instead of racing, bells, etc) that can't be confirmed, by the film that used to identify impulses as significant...

That is looking pretty shaky.

No. They identified five possible echo-patterns within the time frame of the actual shooting. After that, they performed a series of test shootings on the ground at Dealey Plaza and detected an almost perfect match with the same echo-patterns, in the exact correct order. P=1/100 000 for it to be something else imitating the five rifle shots by chance. After this, Weiss&Aschkenasy came to the same conclusion and performed additional sonar research confirming the shot from grassy knoll to a 96% certainty.

Five they considered significant. How did they determine significance from other impulses?

And no, the probability given assumes that only rifles can produce those impulses. Only rifles were tested. Considering that there are other impulses, not deemed significant, indistinguishable from those deemed significant, the probability does not stand scrutiny.

 

[manifesto]

Yes it is.

Is, What?

Is evidence of the man who carried false ID,

Yes, dropped one wallet with a false ID at the Tippit murder scene, and carried one identical wallet with identical false ID when arrested at the Texas Theater. Oswald was very thorough when it came to incriminate himself.

holding the weapon bought using the false ID.

Exactly. He used one wallet + false ID when ordering the pistol and one wallet + false ID when ordering the rifle and, to be absolutely sure, he left a third wallet + wedding ring back at the Paines to incriminate himself further. He left nothing to chance.

Exactly what other conclusion is it reasonable to reach?

Oswald being framed for the murder of president John F. Kennedy, "... to through the public of" (Joseph Milteer in Miami).

 

[manifesto]

Are you sure that is true? I called that into question by mentioning John C. Feggeler of Bell Telephone Laboratories. Here's another one of his patents:
http://www.google.com/patents/US4748639

On the BBN panel sat James E. Barger, Scott P. Robinson, Edward C. Schmidt, and Jared J. Wolf.
Panel head James E. Barger has a degree in Mechanical Engineering.
Compare this synopsis of his areas of immersion with Feggeler's evident life interests.
http://www.engr.uconn.edu/alumni/acadprofile.php?id=6

"Acoustics analysis" is simply an application of physics. You can't get a degree in "acoustic analysis." Acoustic engineering, say, yes. But not "acoustic analysis."

Hence the word "expert". Is there any hint in your link to the probability that someone in the NRC panel was an expert in (ballistic) acoustics analysis?

The BBN team was in this case trying something for the first time—which also appears to have been the last.

Be specific, what part of the investigation was for the first time, and why has it any bearing on the quality of the research?

The circumstances were unprecedented and the specific methods had never been tested under remotely similar conditions. Their work had not been even lightly touched by any sort of peer review when the results were presented to the public as rock-solid science.

So, why did not the NRC panel perform their own testing? They had unlimited time and unlimited funding.

Some people on the HSCA were too smart to bite, but they were in the minority. So it goes.

And you are sufficiently "smart" to make that distinction?

 

[manifesto]

And yet we know from their testimony the wound must have been visible while JFK lay on his back. He was not lifted or rolled over.

Not in Parkland, no, but if you read the testimonies the wound was visible from behind the gurney.

It IS an ongoing discussion. Which is why it would be polite for you to read what has been said, instead of expecting people to repeat the same arguments, or go searching for links.

I've read some of it but not all of it. Have you?

No. She pointed out there were more than one set taken, and the ones being shown to her were not the set she took. Her testimony is quite clear on that matter. She goes to further detail about the difference between the sets.

She? Who?

That photographs 'could' be faked is a statement there is no need to weigh, or even mention, unless you can provide evidence they were faked.

If the alternative is to discard all the expert witnesses from the Parkland-, Methodist- and Bethesda hospitals you have to consider the possibility that some of the photographs are fake, yes.

The experts at the time stated on the rear of the right hand side. The autopsy documents agree. The photographs conclude.

No, the words used was: "occipital", "posterior" and "occipital-parietal" this translates to the vernacular "rear" as in the back of the head.

Some doctors remembered differently later, in published memoirs.The first impressions has precedence.


They also went into great (and wrong) details of important events. Which is understandable. Human memory is flawed. We fool ourselves with memories every day.

Agree. That is why the earliest recollections are the most vital.

Which is why we turn to physical evidence.

Agree. Uncompromised physical evidence is always the best evidence, yes.

Unless you think the body was changed, altered, or swapped, between hospitals, we have TWO photographic records of the autopsy.

Two? The body is the best evidence, that is why the concept of chain of custody is extra ordinary important when it comes to secure it before being compromised. The Secret Service used fire arms when stealing the body from the Parkland autopsy team, breaking the law and the chain of custody. Destroying the evidence.

You could try reading the Warren Commission report.

I've read the report, yes, and a lot of the 26 volumes, yes again.

Oswald was still carrying the fake ID he used to buy the rifle when arrested.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11026298&postcount=484

He had photographs of himself taken with the rifle.

Marina was and is not a trustworthy witness.

Yes. When she heard about the shooting she went to see if it was in the garage. Her suspicions raised because Oswald had visited during the week instead of a weekend.

The reason was that the Paines children had a birth day party that weekend and Oswald was not invited, i.e. thursday 21 nov was his only chance in two weeks to see his family. This had happened before.

She thought the blanket it was kept in was undisturbed, but when the police turned up, she opened the blanket and it was gone. She also admitted to Oswald having owned the rifle from around the time it was purchased, and taking the photographs of him with both his murder weapons.

Marina was and is not a reliable witness, period.

Once again. It would have been polite to check what people had already said on this. There really is no reason to expect answers to questions that have already been discussed at length. Please be polite enough to read previous threads.

As I said I've read some of it, but the threads are massive, and besides, no one is forcing you. Do what you want.

Which is why we look at other evidence. Given the photographs were taken on her property, seemingly from her camera, and match her statement, she seems to have been honest on this matter.

Where you see evidence lots of people see obvious tampering with the evidence. The camera in question (Imperial Reflex) was not found until a month after the murder in spite of two DPD search parties to the Paines residence. When asked by the WC on exactly how she hold the camera when taking the picture/s (1, 2 , 3 , 4, ...) she hold it in front of her eyes, not knowing it was a box camera.

Marina has lied and given contradictory testimony so many times that her "testimony" is completely worthless.

Got a better explanation of how people were in possession of his photograph having been signed?

Only one of the three hand writing experts said he could positively identify the english part of the hand writing as Oswalds. The russian part is to this day (also) unknown.

You want links to four threads,

No, I want your sources in case I am not certain you are correct in any given case.

one of which you are already posting in? Just go read the discussion. Get a feel for what has already been said, and find out where the rest of us are coming from. You are joining the conversation, it would be polite to have taken a look.

As I said, I have read some of it.

Please quote me making exceptions.

I asked you.

I certainly can. Witness statements are not a reliable source of evidence. They are heavily flawed. We think our minds are like cameras, recording everything we see. The truth is they record only a few details. And those details are pliable, and will change over time.

I've read a lot of witness psychology and I insist that there are a lot of factors conditioning the memory. One, and usually the most important, is the length in time between an event and the recollection.

Look at a practical example. You are making much of the witnesses who think shots came from the grassy knoll. But what of all the people who disagree. Of people who heard a different number of shots, or shots from different locations.

Are there any witnesses reporting hearing shots from, lats say, the southern grassy knoll?

They were not lying. They were giving honest evidence, accurate to their memories. But they are only human. And we are flawed. Our memories more so.

Are you saying we should disregard all witness testimony as flawed? Notes taken during surgery for example?

If you have any interest in history, or investigation, you should always have this in mind. The one constant in witness testimony will be contradiction.

So, when everyone who saw the back of JFK's head are reporting a big gaping wound, they are contradicting each other?

You also have to consider the limitations of ANY human memory. You also have to understand why other forms of evidence is given higher priority. No evidence is perfect, but physical evidence can be tested. It is not limited by the ability to be described, or subjective interpretation.

That is why I told you that blanket proclamations concerning witness testimony is impossible to make, you have to take in to account the unique conditions in every single case before making any judgement on its veracity.

At the time there was one bullet from the gurney. One bullet in pieces. I personally include the third bullet because of evidence found on the lighting gantry a few years ago. So three bullets consistent with the one rifle we know with any certainty to be fired that day. As further evidence we have the three spent shell casings.

There is no chain of custody either on the CE-399 or the empty casings.

If you want to speculate for any other bullets, or any other sources of bullets, then supply some physical evidence of either the weapon, or the bullets.

I do not have to speculate in alternative scenarion in order to discard the official one. Fortunately.

No. At least three bullet wounds in JFK, four in Connally and one from a fragment in Tauge. That makes it eight bullet wounds.

And yes, those are all consistent with LHO's shots.

Still not replicated, though.

But I am happy to clarify that I meant the wounds we could say with certainty after the autopsy, documented in evidence. Of course, this takes into account at least one exit wound being obscured by an attempt to keep JFK breathing.

There is no way to prove this was an exit wound before probing the body.

The totality of the ballistics evidence if absolutely fine. Unfortunately I do not share the unrealistic expectations of forensic science, or witnesses, that conspiracy theory books indulge in.

I'm perfectly aware of real life conditions vs idealised situations but you can't explain away everything with that as a blanket statement, again, you have to look carefully att every little instance before tentatively asses the material.

I'm sorry? Other than conspiracy-innuendo, what exactly was in question?

The chain of custody. Is there any?

Yes. A latent print.

An "old" palm print, possibly Oswalds. And, remember, fingerprints are seldom undisputed as in the case of hand writing. It is more of an art than a science.

Lifted with a powder medium. So a print left by residue of skin contact, lifted by being dusted. Which also lifts the surrounding markings.

The point is that it was not fresh and therefore could have been taken from a dead Oswald. There were detectives in the morgue on the evening of Oswalds murder, taking fingerprints from the dead body. It would have been easy to bring the barrel and mark it with a hand print from the body.

As I said, Lt. Carl Day refused to sign the deposition and the whole affair stinks of tampering, and no, no proven chain of custody. The fix was in.

Word to the wise; A lot of CT books make a big deal about how later inspections of the rifle found no prints. Those are because the prints have been physically lifted from the rifle. They are no longer there to be studied.

Word to the wise. Do not underestimate your opponent.

No. Witness testimony is measured against the physical evidence. Not vice versa.

As I said, it depends.

Please show me evidence of how the physical evidence was faked. Otherwise refrain from CT innuendo.

I have no access to the physical evidence, but judging from the documentation there are no strait forward evidence unequivocally proving Oswald did it and did it alone.

This is remarkable, considering the vast quantity of it.

Great. Show me how the physical evidence was interfered with. Start with the "iffy" prints. Show me how a latent print, lifted in a powder medium, is faked.

An "old print" can be taken from a dead body, pressing the object on the fingers or the palm of the hand. And, "prints" have been vastly overestimated as "proof" of this and that, just as in the case of hand writing and nitrate testing for gun residues. To name a few outdated forensic techniques and traditions.

You don't get to ask why evidence was altered, or interfered with, until you prove that the evidence was tampered with.

Most of it says it was tampered with. Ca 95% certainty.

At the moment you are playing Conspiracy Innuendo. Saying people could have, or might have, or that it is iffy. None of which is enough to show evidence was altered.

No, I'm weighing probabilities. So are you.

If you want me to believe your interpretation of the medical testimony is correct, then show me evidence that the photographic record of the autopsy was altered. Explain how a wound crept from the back of the head to the back of the side of the head.

David Mantik has been at the NARA nine times with the permission of the Kennedy family to investigate the autopsy photos and the x-ray photos. He is certain that the photo of the back of JFK's head is a forgery, using a stereoscope. He is also certain that the photos of the x-ray are forgeries for different reasons.

Is this proof? Of course not. Is it incriminating evidence? Certainly.

If you want to suggest there is something wrong with the prints, explain how one can fake a latent print lifted by a powder medium.

An "old" print = dead body part against the barrel.

If you want to call the ballistics crap, then explain each and every piece of ballistics evidence.

One step at the time. Lets start with the CE-399 and the chain of custody, ok?

But first, go read what has already been said.

I'll do that if you read all the books and articles I've read om the subject the last four years.

A residue test failing to lift residue does not mean a gun was not fired. HAD residue been lifted it would have strengthened the case, but one major misunderstanding by laymen is that every time a gun is fired there will be residue to recover. How well the residue sticks, how long it lingers, is a variable.

i agree to a certain degree. Traditional testing for nitrates is now disregarded 100% by trained forensic experts. Neutron activation is better but only a couple of hours after the shooting. Oswald tested a bit too late to make a definitive judgement and therefore we can not say for sure. My point is, though, that no residue was detected = no evidence of shooting a rifle (or a pistol) that day.

And there is indeed at least one witness who described a man of Oswalds build and height, quite accurately, in the TSBD window, before his arrest was made public.

Who? Brennan? Come on! He couldn't identify Oswald in the line up.

But we DON'T NEED a witness to have seen him.
We have his rifle.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11026298&postcount=484

We have his prints.

See above.

We have his shell casings.

No chain of custody and missing engravings.

We have them in his location at the time.

No one have positioned Oswald at the sixth floor during the shooting.

We have bullets.

No chain of custody, no engravings.

We have filmed footage.

Of what?

We have autopsy records and photographs.

Which are mutually exclusive, yes.

We have his prior attempt to murder, with the same rifle.

Ah, you mean Gen. Walker? Or, Nixon (lol)? I beg to differ, and so do all the evidence and witnesses, except ... Marina.

We have him photographing himself with the murder weapons.

Marina ...

By any reasonable assessment, we have a weight of physical evidence against Oswald.


So far you have offered innuendo suggesting there is something wrong with the evidence. You won't show us how the evidence was altered, faked, or flawed. Just vague notions of it not being trustworthy.

See above.

Yes. Even though.
Do you have evidence of another rifle that can reasonably be inferred to have been fired?

Is it Texas custom not to look inside the barrel of a suspect murder weapon? To see if it has been recently fired?

Why not read the thread and find out?

If you do not want to discuss the murder of JFK , no one is forcing you, and certainly not me.

The evidence has already been shown. Please by all means, read the threads. But I do not have time to sit here linking every single relevant post. Nor do I have time to repeat every single post.

I'm afraid you have to name your sources and if disputed, provide a link if possible. As do I.

 

[Axxman300]

There's much more to it but I stop here for now. Now, tell me on what grounds you are asserting that Oswald/A. Hidell bought and owned the proposed murder weapon, CE-139.

Plz.

He posed for photographs taken by his wife ("photographs" is the plural form of the word meaning more than one). She tried to hide these pictures too, BTW.

The paperwork you dispute was in order by early 1960s standards.

Dozens of people saw him with the rifle at the range that his neighbor would drive him to and from. That neighbor confirmed the rifle was Oswald's.

The fact that Oswald could only afford a cheap rifle has become the most damning part of the evidence against him. The Carcano 91/38 was the only rifle powerful enough to inflict the wounds on the POTUS and Governor of Texas, and had he instead bought a standard .306 hunting rifle the CT community might have a leg to stand on. The 6.5x52mm round was what made the Carcano an exceptional battle rifle due to it's ability to pass through multiple bodies with ample killing power.

The 91/38's bolt action was designed to cycle smooth and fast without forcing the shooter to move his head, thus keeping the weapon on target. Oswald was fast enough with his weapon to have fired all of his rounds, but he took his time between the 2nd and 3rd shots like a good Marine.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

Hence the word "expert". Is there any hint in your link to the probability that someone in the NRC panel was an expert in (ballistic) acoustics analysis?

Yes, that was my point. There is indeed more than a hint that the panel was qualified to judge the analysis of the BBN team, who was using a kind of "acoustic analysis" that had never been tried before, and has never been tried since.

Be specific, what part of the investigation was for the first time,

Determining that gunshots that cannot be heard in a recording are nevertheless detectable there in graphed "impulse patterns" that are similar to graphs of patterns that were recorded by a different means and preserved in a different medium.

and why has it any bearing on the quality of the research?

Come on, now. How could it not have any bearing?

The first peer review this work was subjected to did not occur until long after the results were announced with so much fanfare.

So, why did not the NRC panel perform their own testing? They had unlimited time and unlimited funding.

But it would have been stupid to do more "testing" (like any real "testing" was done in the first place!), once the true nature of the Dictabelt recording had already been revealed beyond the shadow of a doubt.

It would be like taking the time to detail all the things that are wrong with every one of Jack White's ridiculous photo "analyses" that "prove" a fake moon landing.. as if there was still maybe some chance he was right! Some people have the time to argue with kooks over things like that, but the taxpayer's money would be better spent.

And you are sufficiently "smart" to make that distinction?

Yes.
I can also tie my own shoelaces.

 

[Tomtomkent]

This thread is once again becoming a prime example of why CTs fail to convince sceptics.

Humans are not perfect. They make mistakes. But the CT always sees the sinister instead of inept, and sees good evidence as being too good.

We have good evidence of LHO using false ID. So of course it was faked.

If you can't explain the latent print lifted from the rifle, or the shell casings, jump on a minor issues instead. Read too much into people looking down a barrel (or not), or marks on the shell casings. It doesn't matter if the are other methodologies, or if other evidence was collected, look for innuendos of conspiracy that mean nothing.

Apparently we should be suspicious of the autopsy photos because they don't match what some people think the doctors described, or remembered years later? No. We should be Suspicious of the photos if there is any evidence they were faked. As there is none, no artefact or feature to suggest fakery, then surely it is the photographs that prove what the doctors saw. The photos don't change over time, and are objective.

And guess what? If the wound was visible by standing at the head of the gurney, while JFK lay on his back, unmoved, it is because the wounds match the photographs. As it doesn't matter where you stand, unless you can see through the gurney, you weren't going to see the back of his head. There we have it rear portion, right of the head, reaching the occipital bone behind the ear. Just as the doctors described at the tine, as the autopsy described, and the photos show. Not as the CT needs to believe.

That is the thing. You can complain Maria is not a reliable witness. But that does not change the photographs she took. Or the documents that support the purchase of the rifle. It is because human beings are not always reliable that we use other forms of evidence. We can not assume witnesses are perfect when they support a ct. You could have a thousand people seeing a rifle on the grassy knoll, smelling smoke, or hearing the shot. Unless you can provide evidence to support the claims, it is worthless. And unfortunately the dictabelt is flawed evidence. There was no bike to record the shot.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So, let us look at a few of the Conspiracy Innuendos that have been brought up again.

There are chain of custody issues for the rifle?

Okay. So Oswald turns up for work on the sixth floor of the TSBD with his "curtain rods" where a rifle just so happens to be found. And at some point between discovery and final storage there is a gap in the chain of custody.

What seems the most likely.

That we do not have all the documents that tracked it between DPD and FBI?

That not all the documents tracking it between DPD and FBI were completed.

That the rifle was substituted for another, which happened to have Oswald's prints on it, and match the bullets, bullet fragments, and shell casings?

That the rifle was in some way altered?

You see... this is what confuses me. If Oswald's rifle was there to be found, why alter the evidence?

If Oswald was not the shooter, then why was he in a snipers nest with his rifle and spent shell casings?

If they were planted, why is there a need for a deliberate hole in the custody chain later?

Why did Oswald have pictures of himself taken with the rifle?

Why did Oswald try and attempt at least one other murder with the rifle?

And if the evidence was somehow substituted or altered, then how was it substituted or altered? How does one fake the evidence retrieved from the rifle? And where exactly is the evidence of fakery or substitution.

CT advocates fail to differentiate between reasons to suspect tampering, and evidence of tampering. They often tell us why they are suspicious that evidence could be faked or altered, but remain unable to show it was. Or even that it could be.

Maria is not a good witness? Well Oswald still posed with two murder weapons for his photograph. Want to suggest otherwise? Fine. Show me how the photographs were altered, without leaving a mark in the emulsion or other photo-artefact.

You want to claim some doctors saw a different wound on JFK? Fine. Show me how the photographs of the autopsy were faked. Or how the body was altered. Or how the back of the head, resting on the gurney, was visible.

The closest we have had to actual evidence of this is the photographer stating the photos she was presented were not the set she took. CT books miss out the rest of her testimony where she explains she took a sanitised set after the body was cleaned up, for potential public consumption, and she was being shown the set taken before sanitisation. No comment on the wounds. No suggestion of alteration.

The dictabelt recordings? Sure, assume they recorded five gunshots. As those there identified outside of the experiment, how do we know the identical impulses were not also gunshots? That all five were gunshots?