single bullet theory is not true says Soily

[Soily]

Paraffin tests don't prove squat. They are about as useful if not less than a lie detector test. It is simply untrue that that paraffin tests do not produce false negatives. To rely upon the least reliable evidence and to ignore very good evidence is absurd. What do you think about the three construction workers on the 5th floor who heard the shells hit the ground right above their heads? What about the witnesses who saw a man sitting in the window with a rifle. Then there is all the physical evidence. Palm prints, finger prints, clothing fibers matched to the shirt Oswald was wearing, the fact that it was Oswald's rifle, the matching of the bullets to Oswald's gun to the exclusion of all other weapons. etc.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ptest.txt
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm

This is completely wrong, the tests they did on the cast are still used today. They did spectographic and neutron activation analysis tests, both of which strongly suggest he hadn't fired a rifle that day. Try reading Pat Speers excellent chapter on this rather than using the one sided Mcadams site for everything.

 

[Soily]

On the contrary, we know to an almost absolute certainty that Oswald fired the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle killing President Kennedy.

You know that. We don't know it at all. You can't prove he was on the 6th floor and you can't prove he fired a rifle that day. Indeed, the evidence points against those 2 statements.

This is a red herring fallacy. The question isn't whether the test picks up on nitrates that are on the skin but whether someone firing the rifle would get nitrates on their cheek.

I don't care if its a pink salmon fallacy, it doesn't make the tests showing Oswald probably hadn't fired a rifle go away.

Except for where they are discussed in detail in Appendix 10 pages 561-562 in the Report. I specifically direct you to a test done by the FBI:

Pretty definitively you can fire a rifle and not get powder residue on your cheek.

Sorry but that just is not true. The FBI and American Jurisprudence did tests with the same rifle, and on every occasion there was plently of gunpower residue on the cheeks of the shooter. Harold Weisberg found the documents through a freedom of information requests and Pat Speer has those and other documents which definitely show this on his website.

 

[RoboTimbo]

No we do not know it for sure. You can quote Frazier's story about the cutain rods if you like, but he was also adamant the bag he glanced at that day was much too small to hold the disassembled rifle. Forgotten witness Essie Mae Williams was actually the first *to see oswald that day as he arrived at Wesley Frazier's house. She noticed no bag. Jack Dougherty who saw Oswald arrive at the TSBD noticed no bag. The crime scene photos right were the bag should be...there is no bag. The investigating offers who supposedly found the bag offer nothing but a hopelessly*confused miasma of contradictory statements about it's discovery. The paper photographed been taken out of the TSBD appears to be a different size and shape from the one in evidence. The bag in evidence contained no signs of there ever been anything in it, scratches, abrasions, oil, grease, dirt etc. This is despite it having several bits of a disassembled rifle rattling about in it for 5 miles on the back of Fraziers car.*

And let's just back up for a second and remember something. This bag was huge. just shy of 3 foot in length, it was more than half Oswald's own height. Oswald simply would not have been able to carry such a large package without it been incredibly conspicuous. It'd either go right over his head or be scraping along the floor. If someone was carrying such a weirdly large bag, causing them to struggle to carry it people would notice it. Yet he strolls into the TSBD, past witnesses, and nobody notices or remembers it. And Frazier himself could not see such a conspicuously enormous bag and mistake it for a smaller one, as he still maintains to this day.*

Then you deny that the murder weapon belonging to Oswald was in the building at all since nobody could have carried it in unnoticed?

Sorry but we just don't know what happened with any certainty. It was a melée, punches were flying, a tangled mess of bodies. Understandably the witness statements tell many different stories and are just not reliable. The pysical evidence shows there was no misfire, everything else is conjecture, so the statement that oswald*tried to shoot a policeman at the theatre is tendentious nonsense. *

To deny it is tendentious nonsense. Oswald had already murdered Kennedy and Tippit. He pulled the revolver from his waistband while going on the attack. How can you possibly deny that he was going to fire it?

Sorry there are plenty of ifs about that. There are all sort of problems with the case against oswald in the tippit murder, but on balance i think he probably did shoot Tippit. I can't have my gunshot residue evidence that is excuplary of Oswald shooting Kennedy if I don't also accept that that same evidence shows he fired a handgun that day. But as a case, there are so many problems with it I think you would struggle if it had ever gone to court.*

Quite the opposite. With the evidence so mountainous against your client, you would be looking for any way to plea bargain your way out. But sorry, the prosecution is taking this airtight case all the way.

 

[riptowtan]

Sorry for being late to the party, I don't normally monitor CT. Did I miss anything good?

We went over the chain of custody for CE399, and spent a little bit of time arguing whether Dale Myers' video helps out in this or not.

 

[Soily]

Oh yeah, I couldn't let the shirt fiber point go. Yes fibers from the shirt Oswald had on when he was arrested were found in the rifle butt. Unfortunately virtually all the witnesses suggest Oswald was wearing a different shirt at the TSBD. Whoops.

 

[RoboTimbo]

You know that. We don't know it at all. You can't prove he was on the 6th floor and you can't prove he fired a rifle that day. Indeed, the evidence points against those 2 statements.

You are quite right. I can't prove it. It's just all that circumstantial evidence that points to only that one inescapable conclusion.

I don't care if its a pink salmon fallacy, it doesn't make the tests showing Oswald probably hadn't fired a rifle go away.

I even provided the quote from the Warren Commission report for you and told you exactly which appendix and what page.

Sorry but that just is not true. The FBI and American Jurisprudence did tests with the same rifle, and on every occasion there was plently of gunpower residue on the cheeks of the shooter. Harold Weisberg found the documents through a freedom of information requests and Pat Speer has those and other documents which definitely show this on his website.

See above.

To deny it is to deny, literally, reality. Oswald's rifle, Oswald's revolver, Oswald carrying the rifle broken down wrapped in a bundle that he carried into the TSBD, Oswald's palmprint on an inner surface of the rifle where it could only be if the rifle were broken down, Oswald leaving after he assassinated the President, Oswald changing clothes, Oswald murdering Tippit, Oswald attempting to take more police officers with him when they finally had him cornered.

Who do you think fired the rifle and killed the President from the sixth floor window?

 

[riptowtan]

No we do not know it for sure. You can quote Frazier's story about the cutain rods if you like, but he was also adamant the bag he glanced at that day was much too small to hold the disassembled rifle. Forgotten witness Essie Mae Williams was actually the first *to see oswald that day as he arrived at Wesley Frazier's house. She noticed no bag. Jack Dougherty who saw Oswald arrive at the TSBD noticed no bag. The crime scene photos right were the bag should be...there is no bag. The investigating offers who supposedly found the bag offer nothing but a hopelessly*confused miasma of contradictory statements about it's discovery. The paper photographed been taken out of the TSBD appears to be a different size and shape from the one in evidence. The bag in evidence contained no signs of there ever been anything in it, scratches, abrasions, oil, grease, dirt etc. This is despite it having several bits of a disassembled rifle rattling about in it for 5 miles on the back of Fraziers car.*

So again you are relying upon someone's memory, over physical evidence. Its reasonable to say that she was mistaken by some inches.

And let's just back up for a second and remember something. This bag was huge. just shy of 3 foot in length, it was more than half Oswald's own height. Oswald simply would not have been able to carry such a large package without it been incredibly conspicuous. It'd either go right over his head or be scraping along the floor. If someone was carrying such a weirdly large bag, causing them to struggle to carry it people would notice it. Yet he strolls into the TSBD, past witnesses, and nobody notices or remembers it. And Frazier himself could not see such a conspicuously enormous bag and mistake it for a smaller one, as he still maintains to this day.*

So first the bag was too small, now its too big? Could it be that the bag could have been folded or tucked in? They found fibers from the bag in the Mannlicher Carcano rifle. And the bag had Oswald's fingerprints and palm prints on it. We can rule out eyewitness testimony hear as probably being mistaken since we have tons of physical evidence that contradict it.

Sorry there are plenty of ifs about that. There are all sort of problems with the case against oswald in the tippit murder, but on balance i think he probably did shoot Tippit. I can't have my gunshot residue evidence that is excuplary of Oswald shooting Kennedy if I don't also accept that that same evidence shows he fired a handgun that day. But as a case, there are so many problems with it I think you would struggle if it had ever gone to court.*

Why do you think Oswald rushed home to get his revolver? Why would he shoot Tippit?

A few questions for Soily:
Why did Oswald take off his wedding ring before leaving for work that morning? (First Time)
Where did his rifle go? Or should I say how was it found in the Book Depository if he didn't bring it in? (Marina found the rifle bag empty)
Do you really think Oswald brought curtain rods to work? If so, why did he bring them in?
And where did the curtain rods go?

*Hint (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/room1.htm)

 

[RoboTimbo]

We went over the chain of custody for CE399, and spent a little bit of time arguing whether Dale Myers' video helps out in this or not.

That Dale Myers video is about the last dozen nails in the coffin on all the CT theories about the assassination.

 

[riptowtan]

Oh yeah, I couldn't let the shirt fiber point go. Yes fibers from the shirt Oswald had on when he was arrested were found in the rifle butt. Unfortunately virtually all the witnesses suggest Oswald was wearing a different shirt at the TSBD. Whoops.

Which witnesses? He was wearing two shirts. When he got home he took off his blue shirt (the one with the fibers) and had a white shirt on underneath.

 

[Soily]

I even provided the quote from the Warren Commission report for you and told you exactly which appendix.

Pat Speer has got the actual test results on his website, which show that the rifle could not be fired without depositing gunshot residue on the cheek of the shooter http://www.patspeer.com/chapter4e%

So it really doesn't matter what the Warren commission say.

Indeed one of these tests was conducted by Vincent guinn himself, who lone nuts trust implicty on everything else.

 

[riptowtan]

Pat Speer has got the actual test results on his website, which show that the rifle could not be fired without depositing gunshot residue on the cheek of the shooter http://www.patspeer.com/chapter4e%

So it really doesn't matter what the Warren commission say.

Indeed one of these tests was conducted by Vincent guinn himself, who lone nuts trust implicty on everything else.

Who is Pat Speer, and why should I take his word? Is he a scientist? Does he specialize in ballistics? Like I've said, paraffin tests are a joke and do not prove anything. Address the very clear evidence I've presented you and try to answer some of the questions about the curtain rods i raised.

"Dr. Rachel Fortun, a forensic pathologist from the University of the Philippines (UP), told GMA news Friday night that experts debunked the paraffin test decades ago, saying other advanced countries currently use other methods.

The Supreme Court (SC), on the other hand, has repeatedly ruled that paraffin tests are inconclusive and cannot be solely used as basis in determining whether or not the subject in question actually fired a weapon."
http://archives.sunstar.com.ph/cebu/sc-finds-limited-value-paraffin-tests-evidence

 

[Soily]

Which witnesses? He was wearing two shirts. When he got home he took off his blue shirt (the one with the fibers) and had a white shirt on underneath.

You're confused. The fibers were from the shirt he was arrested in. Which according to key LN witnesses like Brennan, Marion Baker and Bledsoe was not the shirt he had on when they saw him. Indeed Oswald himself said he changed his shirt when he got home, a story which appears to check out. So how on earth did those fibres get on that gun?

 

[Soily]

Who is Pat Speer, and why should I take his word? Is he a scientist? Does he specialize in ballistics? Like I've said, paraffin tests are a joke and do not prove anything. Address the very clear evidence I've presented you and try to answer some of the questions about the curtain rods i raised.

"Dr. Rachel Fortun, a forensic pathologist from the University of the Philippines (UP), told GMA news Friday night that experts debunked the paraffin test decades ago, saying other advanced countries currently use other methods.

The Supreme Court (SC), on the other hand, has repeatedly ruled that paraffin tests are inconclusive and cannot be solely used as basis in determining whether or not the subject in question actually fired a weapon."
http://archives.sunstar.com.ph/cebu/sc-finds-limited-value-paraffin-tests-evidence

You've not been paying attention have you? These were not the 'paraffin test'. These were different tests, spectrographic and naa tests, which were also exculpatory of Oswald. These tests are still used today and have none of the false positive flaws of the traditional paraffin test.

 

[riptowtan]

You're confused. The fibers were from the shirt he was arrested in. Which according to key LN witnesses like Brennan, Marion Baker and Bledsoe was not the shirt he had on when they saw him. Indeed Oswald himself said he changed his shirt when he got home, a story which appears to check out. So how on earth did those fibres get on that gun?

The blue/brown shirt he was wearing at the book depository was taken off and put in his drawer. He told the cops that he put his dirty clothes there. Again you are taking the eyewitnesses word as fact. We're focusing too much on these tiny details. Address the hard evidence. The fibers were on his gun because he brought the gun into the building. Do you really think he brought curtain rods into the building?

 

[riptowtan]

You've not been paying attention have you? These were not the 'paraffin test'. These were different tests, spectrographic and naa tests, which were also exculpatory of Oswald. These tests are still used today and have none of the false positive flaws of the traditional paraffin test.

Specifically where were these tests done? The link you sent was broken. You are not making yourself clear. Are you talking about Speer's tests? What background does he have in science?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Pat Speer has got the actual test results on his website, which show that the rifle could not be fired without depositing gunshot residue on the cheek of the shooter http://www.patspeer.com/chapter4e%

So it really doesn't matter what the Warren commission say.

Indeed one of these tests was conducted by Vincent guinn himself, who lone nuts trust implicty on everything else.

I'm more than half way through that page and so far, it's saying that there was residue on the cast of Oswald's right cheek. It looks like he wants to lead the reader to believe that it proves Oswald can't have fired a rifle but the evidence and testimony he is presenting isn't backing that up. Can you just cite the exact passage where it says that it was impossible for Oswald to have fired a rifle and the evidence/testimony?

 

[Soily]

The blue/brown shirt he was wearing at the book depository was taken off and put in his drawer. He told the cops that he put his dirty clothes there. Again you are taking the eyewitnesses word as fact. We're focusing too much on these tiny details. Address the hard evidence. The fibers were on his gun because he brought the gun into the building. Do you really think he brought curtain rods into the building?

A key piece of evidence is hardly a tiny detail. The Warren Commission report said the fibers matched the shirt he had on when he was arrested, yet it seems highly likely he changed shirts when he got home.

And of course I don't think he brought curtain rods in with him. As I posted earlier, the whole bag story has more holes in it than a Swiss cheese. It's actually laughable.

 

[RoboTimbo]

A key piece of evidence is hardly a tiny detail. The Warren Commission report said the fibers matched the shirt he had on when he was arrested, yet it seems highly likely he changed shirts when he got home.

And of course I don't think he brought curtain rods in with him. As I posted earlier, the whole bag story has more holes in it than a Swiss cheese. It's actually laughable.

Perhaps that was the shirt he was wearing when he attempted to assassinate General Walker with the same rifle.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Soily, would you be so kind as to take up the torch where roundhead/7forever dropped it in this thread? 7forever seems to have fled the building again, leaving holes in his argument that Freightliners have been using as parking space.

 

[JohnG]

In his testimony before the Warren Commission, Mr. Frazier said the brown paper package Oswald carried that morning was too short to contain a rifle. Oswald cupped the package in his hand, he said, and it fit under his armpit.

No we do not know it for sure. You can quote Frazier's story about the cutain rods if you like, but he was also adamant the bag he glanced at that day was much too small to hold the disassembled rifle.

Wait a second, what was Frazier actually saying? That the package was too small to contain an assembled rifle or a disassembled rifle? If it really was the latter, was he knowledgeable enough on the subject of rifles (the Mannlicher Carcano in particular) to accurately make that kind of assessment? Had he ever seen what that rifle looks like when disassembled? Saying the package was cupped in Oswald's hand and that it fit under his armpit seems a little vague, but assuming that he meant that the package's length was essentially the same length as Oswald's arm, is that roughly equivalent to the length of a package containing a disassembled Mannlicher Carcano rifle?