JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[manifesto]

He posed for photographs taken by his wife

No, you can not trust Marinas testimony in any sense of a known definition of the word "trust". Ask WC and HSCA. "Her testimony reads like a nightmare" - Internal memo. And, she did not know how ti use a box-camera, taking sight with camera to her eye instead of looking down in it, when questioned by the WC.

("photographs" is the plural form of the word meaning more than one).

Yes. First, she swore that she had not taken any photo, never ever. Second, she swore had taken one at Oswald posing withe rifle (backyard photo), but only one. Third, she swore she had taken two, but only two. Fourth, she swore she had taken three, but thats all. Would you trust a person like that?

She tried to hide these pictures too, BTW.

No, she burned one photo showing Oswald holding his Russian shotgun over his head with straight arms up in the air in ... Minsk, on hunting trip in the Soviet Union.

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

Was it? Source?

Dozens of people saw him with the rifle at the range

Yes, but the WC concluded those witnesses had to be misstaken, because Oswald was provable with Marin&children and the Paines having dinner att exactly the same day and hours. But I agree, it is incriminating for those who framed Oswald, having someone lookalike posing like him in incriminating situations all over the place leading up to the JFK assassination.

that his neighbor would drive him to and from. That neighbor confirmed the rifle was Oswald's.

What? What neighbour?

The fact that Oswald could only afford a cheap rifle has become the most damning part of the evidence against him.

Yes. Strange though that he went through all this trouble when he could get a much better weapon for the same amount of money just about anywhere in Dallas in those days. And not having to ID himself.

Instead, he is making a false photo ID, order a weapon to his regular post-box rented in his real name, leaving a clear paper trail to the weapon and his falsified secret (lol) alias. It is almost funny when you contemplate the train of thought behind this frame. How were they thinking?

The Carcano 91/38 was the only rifle powerful enough to inflict the wounds on the POTUS and Governor of Texas.

What? Are you serious?

and had he instead bought a standard .306 hunting rifle the CT community might have a leg to stand on.

Are there only to rifle models in the hole wide world? You have got to be kidding me?!

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.

So, that is why it was called the "humanitarian rifle" by the Italian soldiers of WWII?

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.

Kidding? Have you read the comments from the military experts who actually tried to replicate the proposed shooting? At first, they refused to test shoot because they feared it would blow up in their face. After thoroughly renovate it, they still couldn't replicate the shooting. These were expert marksmen belonging to the very top in the army.

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.

So, he was a better sniper than the creme de la creme in US army? You are trying to be funny, yes?

 

[HSienzant]

Manifesto?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11021731&postcount=470

My points therein still unaddressed.

We'll await your response.

 

[HSienzant]

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.

Why are the normal Kleins business records - (which were stored on microfilm and the originals discarded in the normal course of business and which suffice for everyday disputes) - not sufficient for YOU?

Because they point to Oswald?

Do you still get your original checks returned to you by your bank? Or do you get copies, which are sufficient to establish what you wrote and who you wrote it to? If you go to your bank and argue you didn't write that check and they can't prove it because there's no original, do you think you'd get very far? But that's the silly argument you're advancing here. Only microfilm copies of the orders were retained by Kleins. Those microfilm copies were their business records. They are perfectly acceptable - unless the accused name is Oswald, for some reason.

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.

That's correct, but meaningless. The 36" rifle was what Oswald ordered, it is not what Kleins records shows was shipped. The 36" Carbine was being phased out by Kleins and they were shipping the 40" Short Rifle instead. Within a few months, they updated their advertisement to reflect the change. Big deal.

3. The HSCA handexperts 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.

That's not what my copy of the HSCA volumes says.

First, here's the microfilm record in question (also see your point one):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0169b.htm

It is item #30.

Item #29 is the postal money order. It is here (and the next page):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0168b.htm

Here's McNally's (handwriting expert) opinion concerning document #30 (the microfilm record of the order form:
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0119b.htm

See item III on that list... he says everything below was done by the same person... and that includes #30, which is the Kleins order form.

In item II on his list, he says #29 (the money order) is also in the same handwriting as the known examples of Oswald.

Here's the conclusions of Scott, another handwriting expert, concerning items #29 (money order) and #30 (order form):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0125b.htm

He too is of the opinion that the same person who wrote the known exemplars wrote those two items. Your claim isn't correct.

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.

You provide nothing here to verify your allegations. Nor do you show why the work records are the overriding factor above all else. People have been known to slip out and perform errands without punching out. Sometimes they might even - nowadays - check the internet and write responses to someone while they are supposed to be doing something else (shhh, don't tell). You haven't established there is anything out of the norm here.

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.

Another claim without any documentation nor substantiation. Or as you put it in another post, "Since when is it mine or anyone else's homework trying to find sources to support your grandiose proclamations?"

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

Another undocumented claim... you haven't shown there was any such need for such. Or as you put it in another post, "Since when is it mine or anyone else's homework trying to find sources to support your grandiose proclamations?"

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.

Oswald's PO Box 30061 did show A.J.Hidell was allowed to receive mail at that PO Box.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0362a.htm

Now, this is his New Orleans PO box, which he opened after he received the rifle and then moved to New Orleans. But it shows the A.J.Hidell alias on that form, establishing the connection between Oswald and that alias, and the use of that alias on his PO Box.

He is also known to have distributed leaflets in New Orleans with A.J.Hidell stamped on them:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0427b.htm
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0419b.htm


He is also known to have alleged Hidell was an associate of his, for instance, after his arrest in New Orleans.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0426b.htm

Oswald is provably linked to that Hidell alias by numerous documentation executed BEFORE the assassination.

You are taking two documents, both of which appear to mutually confirm each other, and making it appear they contradict by selectively quoting from the record.

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.

Yes, and since Oswald is KNOWN to have used that alias on his PO Box 30061, then why should we assume he didn't use it on his PO Box 2915, since that portion for others allowed to receive mail is missing as the box was closed? Holmes merely said that Oswald wouldn't normally be asked for ID, as the person who produced the notice could have obtained that notice only through the PO Box, and that would be sufficient to establish they had access to the PO Box.

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.

There are, of course, assumptions built into this claim. Perhaps you would care to delineate them and establish how you eliminated other possibilities.

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.

Hello! The original money order was part of the Warren Commission records. It was retained in the National Archives - in Washington, D.C - along with the other Warren Commission documents and exhibits. The NARA is the National Archives, isn't it? Why would you expect the original to be in Kansas City, anyway?

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 provably ordered it (order form in his hand). He provably paid for it (money order in his hand). He provably had it shipped to his PO box (Kleins business records). He provably possessed it (photos of him with it, as well as his palmprint on the underside of the barrel and his fingerprints on the trigger guard).

If you are alleging that is not sufficient to establish his ownership of the weapon, then I intend to back a truck up to your home and empty the contents of that home into the truck, and sell everything on eBay. If Oswald didn't own the rifle, you don't own anything in your home. It's really that simple. Can you prove you own that computer you wrote your last post on, for instance? What would you use to establish that?

Hank

 

[manifesto]

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."[...]] if you told me first exactly what kind of evidence you would demand before you could be convinced that Oswald fired those shots

... and I asked you to explain how you are turning around my 12 points of severe problems with the Oswald_bought_the_rifle-evidence to 12 points of hard evidence for Oswald actually buying and owning the proposed murder weapon (CE-139).

Understand?

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."

Good. Explain the 12 points, one at the time.

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?

No, I mean to imply that the paperwork (documents) that the FBI said was proof of Oswald buying and owning CE-139 is PROVEN bogus and as such proof of FBI with WC complicity, tampering with evidence in order to incriminate Oswald in the public eye, and to fool the public into believing Oswald did it, and did it all by his lonesome.

 

[manifesto]

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."

No he doesn't. There are to many uncertainties in Myers calculations and animations in order to make any definitive conclusion. Remember, Myers have to show with a greater certainty than P = 1/100 000 for the five impuls-patterns on the dictabelt being something else than five typical rifle shots on Dealey Plaza, that his "research" is correct."

Considering Myers well known distortions of reality on other aspects of the case it's not far fetched to deduce the same in this one too:

LoL: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter12c:animania

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.

These are the five a priori criteria a suspect impulse pattern has to fulfil in order to qualify for a possible rifle shot. BB&N found five patterns fulfilling these criteria which made them convinced that a test shooting on Dealey Plaza was a necessary next step in the investigation (Donald B. Thomas, 2010):

Firstly, the echo pattern of a gunshot in Dealey Plaza would be expected to have around ten prominent echoes.

Secondly, because of the dimensions of Dealey Plaza, about 500 ft wide, and the speed of sound, around 1100 ft/ sec, any echo pattern emanating from the set of buildings in the immediate vicinity would have an expected duration of around one-quarter to one-half second, again with the exact duration depending on the position of the microphone relative to the buildings.

Thirdly, there would have to be at least three separate suspect patterns, representing at least three gunshots.

Fourthly, the suspect patterns would have to fall in a sequence of no less than four-and-a-half seconds (the minimum time that the Oswald rifle could be fired, cycled and refired three times) and no more than 15 seconds (the total time that the presidential limousine was on Elm Street). Fifthly, any such sequence of suspect patterns would have to occur within one minute either side of 12: 30 p.m. by the dispatcher's clock, as that was how close the clocks were supposed to be synchronized.

Fifthly, any such sequence of suspect patterns would have to occur within one minute either side of 12: 30 p.m. by the dispatcher's clock, as that was how close the clocks were supposed to be synchronized.

Do you see any problems with this, or is it so far so good?

 

[manifesto]

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?

1. Armstrong: http://harveyandlee.net/Guns/Guns.html

The FBI never produced a single document that shows the date C2766 was delivered to Klein's (sold by Crescent on June 18, 1962) nor the identity and address of the person who purchased that rifle from Klein's. All original records from Crescent Arms (Louis Feldsott's company) and the Klein's microfilm disappeared while in FBI custody. Only "photographs" of documents were given to the WC, and are now at the National Archives.

2. Gil Jesus: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15318

THE RIFLE "HIDELL" ORDERED WAS THE 36" RIFLE
Waldman Exhibit 8 is a copy of the order blank used by "A.Hidell " to
order the rifle from Klein's. On that order form, taken from the
February, 1963 edition of American Rifleman, one can see that Oswald
ordered catalog # C20-T750,

http://www.history-m...Vol21_0364b.htm

which is the 36" rifle as advertised.

http://i46.tinypic.com/15p0k7k.jpg

One can also see that the 40" rifle had a different catalog number,
C20-750.

http://i45.tinypic.com/1z6gjnb.jpg

3. HASCA Handwriting Panel Summary: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0119a.htm

(Jim DiEugenio: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22447&page=2 )

(27) With therestrictions and reservations*stated in each panel member's final report,* the members conclude, generally, that the signatures and handwriting purported to be by Oswald are consistently that of one person . Because of the poor condition of the historical diary, they are unable to conclude firmly whether it was written at one or more than one sitting. On balance, it appears to have been written at one or a few sittings.
*In particular, members noted that not all documents were available in their original . It is standard practice in the profession of questioned document examination to make definitive conclusions only about documents examined in their original.*Thus the panel members gave only tentative opinions for items provided them in some type of facsimile.
*
*
In other words, if the item examined is a copy, conclusions can only be tentative opinions instead of through scientific analysis and a statement of fact.* Items #29 and #30 are the only two related to the ordering of the rifle which the experts used to determine if Oswald had written them.* Yet as expected, these two items were both provided to the HSCA experts as COPIES, not Original documents.
*
Items #29 and #30 were retrieved from the Archives.
http://jfkassassinat...ll/hscahand.htm
*
29. March 12, 1963.*U.S. postal money order*No. 2,202,130,462 bearing handwritten fill-ins as follows: Klein's Sporting Goods, A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915. Dallas, Tex. Blue ink, ballpoint pen. Location: Archives. (CE 788; JFK exhibit F-509A and 509B.)*Note: Item #29 is acknowledged as a*XEROX COPY*made from the microfilm copy
*
30. March 12, 1963.*Enlargement of microfilm*reproduction*of Klein's order form for rifle from A. Hidell,superimposed on envelop (sic), postmarked March 12, 1963, addressed to Klein's, Dept. 358, 227 W. Washington Street, Chicago 6, Ill., with return address: A. Hidell. P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Tex. Location: Archives. (CE 773: Cadigan's exhibit 1; JFK exhibit F-504.)

And so on …



4. Oswald's time sheet on Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1139#relPageId=637


5. Three banking stamps missing = no purchase: http://harveyandlee.net/Guns/Guns.html

[IMGw=300]http://harveyandlee.net/Guns/Money%20Order.jpg[/IMGw]
(This is a smoking gun)


6. I'll confess that this is still hotly debated. That is, no one can seem to find the full copy of the regulations regarding trade with fire arms through USPS 1963. Expert stands against expert I guess and we have to wait.

The pistol purchase on the other hand, was legislated by the Texas "Vernon Act", saying a sale through postal money order had to document a signed guarantee of "good character" of the buyer from a Texas county Judge. No such document has been found, showing that Oswald bought the pistol that he supposedly used when supposedly killed DPD polisman J.D. Tippit.


7. Stewart Galanor:http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,6422.msg162774.html#msg162774

That was a lie. The postal regulation required that the box application ( parts 2 & 3 ) be kept for a period of 2 years after the box was closed.

In 1966, author Stewart Galanor decided to write to the US Post Office and ask two questions. The first was regarding the post office box application and how long the record was to be kept. The second question regarded what happened to mail that was addressed to someone NOT on the box application part 3. In response to the first question, the post office replied that in March of 1963, postal regulation 846.53h required that all box applications, including part 3, be kept for a period of 2 years after the box was closed.

8. http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=6422.1230;wap2

In a memo to
Mr. Conrad* FBI official W.D. Griffith wrote, "It should be noted that
although Oswald used the name "A. Hidell" in placing the order for the
murder weapon, this name *does not appear* on his application for the
P.O. Box to which the gun was shipped."

9. Stewart Galanor: http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=6422.1230;wap2

In 1966, author Stewart Galanor decided to write to the US Post Office and ask two questions. The first was *regarding the post office box application and how long the record was to be kept. The second question regarded what happened to mail that was addressed to someone NOT on the box application part 3. In response to the first question, the post office replied that in March of 1963, postal regulation 846.53h required that all box applications, including part 3, be kept for a period of 2 years after the box was closed.

10. Armstrong: http://harveyandlee.net/Guns/Guns.html

These serial numbers show that some 1200 money orders per week were purchased at the downtown post office in Dallas. At this rate we see that Oswald's alleged purchase of a money order on March 12, 1963 should have been numbered 2,202,011,935. But the serial number of the money order published in the Warren Volumes was more than 118,000 numbers higher. At the rate of 1200 money order per week, this money order should have been purchased in late 1964 or early 1965. In other words, this money order could easily have been pulled from a stack of fresh, unsold money orders by a postal official in Dallas, sometime after the assassination, and then given to the FBI.

11. Armstrong: http://harveyandlee.net/Guns/Guns.html



12. Armstrong: http://harveyandlee.net/Guns/Guns.html


I could come upp with 12 more points just from the top of my head, but I stop there for now.

I'm rather amazed that in 2015 somebody is still arguing that Oswald didn't own the rifle that killed President Kennedy.

But, now when you are informed that Oswald could not possibly have bought the rifle that killed the president, you are not that rather amazed anymore?

This is one of those zombie theories I referred to earlier. Yawn.

I expect you to counter my twelve points of evidence that Oswald couldn’t have bought the CE-139, or I will call you a … zombie.

 

[manifesto]

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

What?

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

No. I'm claiming it can't be substantiated with a sufficient amount of certainty to refute the core acoustical findings.

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?

No, I'm suggesting it's not good enough to exclude the possibility of the mc/mic/McLain being on the right spots at the right instances of time to pick up the rifle fire, no.

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.


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.

See my latest answer to Sandy McCroskey on this issue and take it from there.

 

[Tomtomkent]

What?

Well. That proves something. LOL. Try scrolling back when you respond to a post, so you understand what is being responded to.

No. I'm claiming it can't be substantiated with a sufficient amount of certainty to refute the core acoustical findings.

The burden of proof would be to CONFIRM the claims.
Seeing as how the claims of where the bike should be located are the only qualification that made the impulses significant.

You just scuppered the evidence you were relying on....

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

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."[...]] if you told me first exactly what kind of evidence you would demand before you could be convinced that Oswald fired those shots

... and I asked you to explain how you are turning around my 12 points of severe problems with the Oswald_bought_the_rifle-evidence to 12 points of hard evidence for Oswald actually buying and owning the proposed murder weapon (CE-139).

Understand?

Yes, I understand that you said my question was "Fair enough," and then proceeded to dodge it and go into a Gish gallop of CT bunkum.

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."

Good. Explain the 12 points, one at the time.

No, your reply is a non sequitur. Fair is fair, so don't dodge my question. (In any case, I see that Hank has already explained your 12 points, one at a time, and quite effectively.)

My question again: What kind of evidence would you ever accept as proof that Oswald fired those shots?

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

No he doesn't. There are to many uncertainties in Myers calculations and animations in order to make any definitive conclusion. Remember, Myers have to show with a greater certainty than P = 1/100 000 for the five impuls-patterns on the dictabelt being something else than five typical rifle shots on Dealey Plaza, that his "research" is correct."

No, there were fifteen virtually identical impulse patterns on the DictaBelt recording, in a period of only some seconds. There is nothing remarkable about BBN being able to plausibly match five of them with a plausible timing for the three known shots (plus the wild-card extra).

Considering Myers well known distortions of reality on other aspects of the case it's not far fetched to deduce the same in this one too:

LoL: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter12c:animania

But that is what I would say about Pat Speer.

These are the five a priori criteria a suspect impulse pattern has to fulfil in order to qualify for a possible rifle shot. BB&N found five patterns fulfilling these criteria which made them convinced that a test shooting on Dealey Plaza was a necessary next step in the investigation (Donald B. Thomas, 2010)o you see any problems with this, or is it so far so good?

No, as I have already quoted the BBN report itself explaining in some detail that there were fifteen matching impulse patterns and how the four, not five, were selected as gunshots based on extra-experimental considerations.

You are merely quoting the entomologist D.B. Thomas. I quoted the original source. You quote Thomas himself, though, saying that BBN was looking for three patterns, at least, that fit the three known shots. Over at alt.assassination.jfk, we have someone who likes to say that the so-called "acoustic evidence" proves three shots from the Texas School Book Depository Building. He has it exactly backwards. The fact is that BBN first tried to make the evidence at hand fit a plausible timing for the three known shots (since we can never know the exact timing).

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

1. Armstrong: http://harveyandlee.net/Guns/Guns.html

John Armstrong!
Of "two Oswalds" fame!
Wowza!

2. Gil Jesus: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15318

Gil Jesus!
Say no more!

3. HASCA Handwriting Panel Summary: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0119a.htm

(Jim DiEugenio: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22447&page=2 )


And so on …

Indeed!

[...]

I could come upp with 12 more points just from the top of my head, but I stop there for now.

I have no doubt about that. And each one will be a similar gem.

But, now when you are informed that Oswald could not possibly have bought the rifle that killed the president, you are not that rather amazed anymore?

It's rather remarkable that these clowns have managed to convince you of that.

I expect you to counter my twelve points of evidence that Oswald couldn’t have bought the CE-139, or I will call you a … zombie.

You can call me anything you like, Manifesto, but Hank Sienzant debunked your points before you even revealed your illustrious sources.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

10. Armstrong: http://harveyandlee.net/Guns/Guns.html

I will just quote David Von Pein on this one, which Hank did not go into in detail.
http://www.amazon.com/forum/history?cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdPage=21&cdThread=Tx35GPE9K7Q8H23

"Does John Armstrong really think that the Dallas post office had an unlimited supply of money orders on hand at all times? How silly.

"At some point, the supply of money orders would run low and the Dallas post office would replenish its stock. And when they do get fresh stock, the serial numbers are, of course, going to be much higher than the ones they just ran out of, since they are 'U.S. POSTAL MONEY ORDERS' with unique serial numbers attached to each one and are being continuously supplied to post offices and other institutions all around the entire country, not just the Main Post Office branch in Dallas, Texas."

So that's one you can check off your list, Manifesto.

 

[Axxman300]

No, you can not trust Marinas testimony in any sense of a known definition of the word "trust". Ask WC and HSCA. "Her testimony reads like a nightmare" - Internal memo. And, she did not know how ti use a box-camera, taking sight with camera to her eye instead of looking down in it, when questioned by the WC.

First off, you can't quote the Warren Commission on one thing, but then ignore its findings. That's absurd.

Second, she took other photos too.

Yes. First, she swore that she had not taken any photo, never ever. Second, she swore had taken one at Oswald posing withe rifle (backyard photo), but only one. Third, she swore she had taken two, but only two. Fourth, she swore she had taken three, but thats all. Would you trust a person like that?

Depends on how good the interpreter was, I suspect the FBI had problems in this area.

No, she burned one photo showing Oswald holding his Russian shotgun over his head with straight arms up in the air in ... Minsk, on hunting trip in the Soviet Union.

Nope, the morning of the assassination she took the two photos, folded them and hid them in her shoe.

Yes, but the WC concluded those witnesses had to be misstaken, because Oswald was provable with Marin&children and the Paines having dinner att exactly the same day and hours.

Oswald was confirmed shooting at the Sportsdome Gun Range in Grand Prairie, TX on 26 October, 9 or 10 November, and 17 November, 1963. On the 17th, Garland Slack was in the next stall to Oswald. LHO engaged his target and those of others which pissed everyone off (that's why they remember him, and it's a sign he wasn't planning to ever come back).

In fact, if you were actually looking for conspiracy material it might be found in these shooting range stories. Dr. Sterling Wood told PBS's Frontline "This guy, if he was Oswald, and I think he was, was an incredible shot with that old junky rifle - incredible!". The FBI traumatized Wood's son, Sterling, so badly that he refuses to this day to talk about Oswald or the man who was with him.

Later on the night of the 17th LHO was seen in the Alright Parking Garage in Dallas by the night manager, Hubert Morrow. LHO asked Morrow if Main Street was visible from the roof. Morrow said LHO was carrying "an item as long as a rifle. But it was wrapped up in a brown paper or canvas sack...only the muzzle was sticking out of the end."

But I agree, it is incriminating for those who framed Oswald, having someone lookalike posing like him in incriminating situations all over the place leading up to the JFK assassination.

Except there never was a lookalike.

What? What neighbour?

Buell Wesley Fraizier, the 19 year-old brother of Ruth Payne's neighbor, his co-worker at the Texas Schoolbook Depository, and the guy who drove LHO to work on the morning of the assassination. Frazier was(probably) the man who drove LHO to the rifle range. He doesn't do many interviews today, and keeps a low profile, but the FBI missed an opportunity to get a clearer picture of Oswlad by not better interviewing this man. Fraizer owned a British Enfield

Yes. Strange though that he went through all this trouble when he could get a much better weapon for the same amount of money just about anywhere in Dallas in those days. And not having to ID himself.

Not really. Oswald thought he was being clever, and at the time of the purchase he didn't know who he was going to kill yet. JFK just fell into his lap.

Are there only to rifle models in the hole wide world? You have got to be kidding me?!

This is where you and others like you fail. If there was an actual conspiracy then all of the weapons would have to be identical. So why go to the trouble of buying a strange duck like the MC when an M-1 Garand could have been bought for $2 more. The M-1 was a common cheapo rifle in 1963.

So, that is why it was called the "humanitarian rifle" by the Italian soldiers of WWII?

This is a lie.

The Italian Army used it for over 50 years. At the turn of the century the MC was the weapon of choice for those competing in 1000-yard shooting competitions. It was also prized by big game hunters in Africa because of it's penetration capability, it could drop an elephant with a single head-shot.

Kidding? Have you read the comments from the military experts who actually tried to replicate the proposed shooting?

Have you?

https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/lee-harvey-oswalds-carcano-rifle-shooting-it-today/

Mike Yardley is intersting because he's a JFK CTist too, but he admits the MC could have done the job:

http://www.positiveshooting.com/kennedyassassinationlatest.html

Then there's the AR-15 Forum message boards on the subject. The thing that separates that forum from this one is that guns don't lie, and a good shooter can sniff out BS faster than anyone posting on a Bigfoot thread here can:

https://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=1555787

Plus these:

http://gunssavelives.net/gun-profiles/gun-profile-carcano-model-9130-the-rifle-that-killed-kennedy/

http://www.chuckhawks.com/mannlicher-carcano_rifle.htm

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/05/28/reconsidering-carcano/

Then there is this comprehensive history of the weapon:

http://gunsmagazine.com/web-blast-italys-mannlicher-carcano/

There are a few videos on YouTube as well. It's not an M-16A2, but it got the job done.

At first, they refused to test shoot because they feared it would blow up in their face.

This is another lie.

There is no documentation of the MC ever blowing up in someone's face, or at least nobody has ever reported this to the manufacturer.

After thoroughly renovate it, they still couldn't replicate the shooting. These were expert marksmen belonging to the very top in the army.

Again, another lie.

Honestly, with a few hours on a firing range just about anybody could have made those shots, maybe even landing all six rounds into the President.

So, he was a better sniper than the creme de la creme in US army? You are trying to be funny, yes?

Yes.

Oswald was a U.S. Marine, which automatically made him better than U.S. Army soldiers of the time. Why? For a Marine shooting is not just a skill, it is a religious act. Even today the Marines receive better instruction on marksmanship than the US Army provides at the basic training level. More over it is a point of pride with every US Marine to be the master of his weapon, be it an M-16A4, a Springfield, or a sharp stick. He or she will kill with it better than anyone else can.

More importantly, Oswald had a history of accurate long range shooting. When he was a boy living in NYC he used to target the fruit stand of the market across the street with his pellet gun.

You have so much to learn.

 

[manifesto]

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,

Well, spell it out then?!

An interesting side note. Before asking Ramsey to head the NRC panel, the AG asked Luis Alvarez, also of Nobel fame. He said no, but agreed to be on the panel as an ordinary member, suggesting his pal Ramsey as head instead.

Who is Alvarez and why did the AG ask him?

who was using a kind of "acoustic analysis" that had never been tried before, and has never been tried since.
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.

This was and is done on a daily basis in real time on submarines, to name one example.

Bats are doing it as a way of life, to name another.

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.

You are not considering Weiss and Aschkenasy peers to the BB&N team?

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.

Reveald by whom? The drummer from O-HI-O?

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.

Yes it is good to know the Pentagons nuclear submarines sonar systems and their real time sniper detection system are invented by "kooks". Makes the Russians happy.

Yes.
I can also tie my own shoelaces.

On both shoes?

 

[Loss Leader]

After a long period of good behavior in this thread, the team is taking it off moderation. All aspects of the JFK assassination should be discussed in this thread and this thread only. Of course, the mod team expects an exemplary level of civility in keeping with the Membership Agreement. Thank you.

Posted By: Loss Leader

 

[HSienzant]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11029591#post11029591

Still awaiting a response.

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

So I have some questions:

If the Parkland doctors saw a large exit wound on the back of JFKs head, why does the Zappruda film not show a large amount of ejecta from the back of the head?
Why does the Zappruda film show large amounts of ejecta from the side of the head?
Why do (both sets of) the autopsy photos show a wound to the side of the head?

Moving on: Regardless of if Mariana is a reliable witness or not, we have photographic evidence of Oswald holding the murder weapons in the back yard.
If it was not Oswald who ordered the rifle, why was he photographed holding it?
If Mariana's testimony is wrong, how who photographed Oswald in the back yard?
And, knowing what is implied by the innuendo, how could the photograph have been faked, without leaving any traces, emulsion discrepancies, or signs of being a composite?

 

[manifesto]

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

Far from all of it, I’m afraid. I am still awaiting your answer on the following:

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.

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. Some will even wonder, What two tapes? Now, it's been a while since I read about the attempts to synchronize the recordings from Channels 1 and 2, and I find this all rather moot, since the crosstalk is far from the only thing that tells me the recording does not cover the time of the assassination. 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.

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

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

What "ways"?

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”?

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.

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?

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?

Garbage in, garbage out.

Exactly. W[h]ere is the garbage? Be specific.


When I ask for references I want specific quotes of relevant material, and if you feel that you have already answered this or that it has been properly answered somewhere else in the thread, please explain how it has been so and provide a link to relevant material.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

Far from all of it, I’m afraid. I am still awaiting your answer on the following:

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.

The spots the mic would have to be to have caught the impulse patterns are specified by the conditions of BBN's testing. This sentence is nonsensical:

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.

The motorcycle with the microphone that supposedly recorded the impulse patterns would (conditional) have had to be exactly on the spots postulated by the BBN team's calculations FOR the calculations themselves to have any significance. It wasn't, and they don't.

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.



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


What "ways"?


What are these other things?


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

[...]

What “other aspects of the methodology”?


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


In what sense?


References? [...]

References for your critique?

[...]

References?


References?


Exactly. W[h]ere is the garbage? Be specific.


When I ask for references I want specific quotes of relevant material, and if you feel that you have already answered this that it has been properly answered somewhere else in the thread, please explain how it has been so and provide a link to relevant material.

Groundhog Day!

I'm sorry you didn't like the answers I gave you the first time, but you aren't getting any others by reposting the same words over and over again.

This can only be called a fringe reset. Here you are "again," repeatedly interrupting one undivided quoted passage, to which I gave you the link and whose source was named—it's the BBN report—to ask for the "reference"!

I very patiently took the trouble to explain (again) where you would find the words I quoted, and now I've just done it yet again. I've also explained how these words back up my opinion that BBN's data is garbage. Please reread my previous posts. It seems you missed the point the first time.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

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,

Well, spell it out then?!

Meaning that scientists on the panel had sufficient background in relevant fields. I asked you to compare one panel member's work in particular, the fellow who worked at Bell Telephone Laboratories, with the head of BBN's team for this job, Barger, who had a degree in mechanical engineering.

You can't get a degree in "acoustic analysis," and as far as I know, nobody on either panel had a degree with the word "acoustic" in it.

But we could compare credentials, for what it's worth, if you can just come back with a list of what degrees were held by the other members of the BBN team (who were not B, B or N; do you know their names?) and a list of the degrees held by the members of the National Academy of Sciences panel.

An interesting side note. Before asking Ramsey to head the NRC panel, the AG asked Luis Alvarez, also of Nobel fame. He said no, but agreed to be on the panel as an ordinary member, suggesting his pal Ramsey as head instead.

Who is Alvarez and why did the AG ask him?

Cue the spooky music!

who was using a kind of "acoustic analysis" that had never been tried before, and has never been tried since.
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.

This was and is done on a daily basis in real time on submarines, to name one example.

Bats are doing it as a way of life, to name another.

Nothing remotely like "it," in either case. There are only vague and remote resemblances.

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.

You are not considering Weiss and Aschkenasy peers to the BB&N team?

I am saying that W&A did not do a critical review of the experiment. They only attempted to refine the calculations they were given, the experiment's supposed results.

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.

Reveald by whom? The drummer from O-HI-O?

Back to square one, eh?
No, Stephan Barber's discovery is only one of the proofs that the Dictabelt recording is irrelevant.
I thought we went over that!