JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[TheRedWorm]

Right, as I'm not seeing any reason to follow some kind of schedule laid down by a single Conspiracy Advocate, I'm going to ask outright:

Is there any piece of evidence of there being a second shooter at all?

The "evidence" most people point to is the piece of film showcased in the Oliver Stone film where JFK jerks back and away. What this fictionalised version of Garrison fails to notice is the body mass being ejected from Kennedys head at that moment. Basic innertia states if something like a body jettisons mass in one direction it will have a reaction in the opposite direction. Something like a rifle bullet with a small entry wound and devestating exit wound will throw the body backwards.

So where is the evidence of there being a second shooter?

I've seen this effect myself using a .22 Mag, and a plastic bottle filled with water. Counter-intuitive as hell, but it does happen.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Where can I find this law called "Basic Inertia?"

Well, at school level physics. Possibly named "Conservation of Momentum", "Newtonian Physics" or "Newtons Laws of Motion".

A body is struck, the exit wound ejects mass. That is a force, so there isan equaland opposite reaction from the body. Or are you now arguing a base fundamental of science?

 

[Robert Prey]

The photos were taken in the late afternoon of March 31, 1963 and Oswald probably developed them and made prints at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, the photo lab where he was employed and where he probably made up his A.J. Hidell ID. Oswald was proud of the pictures. He showed them off. He sent one to The Militant. Was he was he trying to frame himself before the assassination?

There are mysteries aplenty regarding the B/Y photos, but a reasonable theory might be that there were indeed photos taken, but the cover-uppers decided to improve on them by perhaps adding a pistol, and some ridiculous commie literature. Marina, under pressure to tell the FBI what they wanted to hear or face deportation, first said she took them, later, she didn't take them, later she took some, but not those in evidence. It's a conundrum, but a fair minded person cannot deny the specific anomalies pointed out in the videos heretofore presented, and if you could deny them, I'd presume you would instead of retreating into your stale ad hominem attacks.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I've seen this effect myself using a .22 Mag, and a plastic bottle filled with water. Counter-intuitive as hell, but it does happen.

Yep, if I wasnt using my phone to post this i would link examples such as the water bottle, fruit, and others being shot. But its how rockets work too. An explosion downwards from the thruster doesn't drag the rocket with it, it launches the rocket upwards.

 

[Tomtomkent]

There are mysteries aplenty regarding the B/Y photos, but a reasonable theory might be that there were indeed photos taken, but the cover-uppers decided to improve on them by perhaps adding a pistol, and some ridiculous commie literature. Marina, under pressure to tell the FBI what they wanted to hear or face deportation, first said she took them, later, she didn't take them, later she took some, but not those in evidence. It's a conundrum, but a fair minded person cannot deny the specific anomalies pointed out in the videos heretofore presented, and if you could deny them, I'd presume you would instead of retreating into your stale ad hominem attacks.

Oh look. No citations or evidence... is there an explanation of why we should suppose the photos are faked? No. Evidence they were faked? That there was pressure by theFBI, or to tell the fbi? No. Evidence for any allegation? Nope. How about those other photos shared out by LHO? No?

So why exactly should we take this post seriously? Because it ironically makes an ad hominem accusing others of ad hominem?

Why on earth would anybody continue to spout rubbish when they could just accept the burden of proof and supply one bit of evidence?

 

[TheRedWorm]

Yep, if I wasnt using my phone to post this i would link examples such as the water bottle, fruit, and others being shot. But its how rockets work too. An explosion downwards from the thruster doesn't drag the rocket with it, it launches the rocket upwards.

Yep. But don't forget: if it disagrees with the conspiracy peddlers' position, it must be wrong, regardless of how many times it's been shown to be right.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Yep. But don't forget: if it disagrees with the conspiracy peddlers' position, it must be wrong, regardless of how many times it's been shown to be right.

Well, to be fair, I have no idea about what eductation RP or any other poster has. I assume that posters are adult and basically educated and as capable as any other adult. If however a poster has not completed their education, or for some other reason is unable to recognise the third law of motion from their physics lessons on inertia / momentum/ newtonian theory or which ever name their exam board called it, then it could explain why they may fall for logical fallacies or be unaware of critical methodology.

This has often been the case with 9/11 truthers who struggle to differentiate between heat and temperature, or potential energy. It isn't about being thick, or ignorant, or blinkered. They are simply unaware of information that their theories should be tested against.

Take the photo of LHO as an example. Some people are told the shadow is impossible and must be fake, and accept that because they just know any other explanation. Same goes for moonlanding photos. Or "impossible" shadows that are meant to be ghosts.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Now why don't you try to attack his evidence, or is that too much to ask?

The "evidence" you've provided has been thoroughly smashed all to flinders. No doubt you've seen the same thing happen on other conspiritard sites and still rehash the same tired, totally discredited and debunked garbage that you already know to be false.

Now, perhaps you could provide some evidence that would falsify the null hypothesis that Oswald fired the shots from the TBD. Do you have anything new that hasn't already been totally debunked? Still waiting for your Final parting shot, tail between your legs running away irrefutable evidence post.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Walter, I'm going to have to once again call you out for more of your fallacious reasoning, in this case it would be ad hominem attack in place of a reasoned analysis of the evidence Jack White presents. I just know you can do better.
The use of epithets such as as "Loon" and "Wacktard" do not help your position.
Now why don't you try to attack his evidence, or is that too much to ask?

Could you please present your strongest single piece of evidence that Jack White is not a "Loon" and (not or... and) "Wacktard"? The man is on the cover of Loon and Wacktard Monthly at least five times a year since 1975 and in 2008 was given their prestigious Jim Fetzer Lifetime Achievement Award (after having barely lost out the two previous years to Elwood P. Dowd(2007) and Daffy Duck(2006).

 

[Tomtomkent]

There is an irony to RP accussing others of fallacious logic after his uses of logical fallacies and odd refusing to prove anything with anything remotley resembling evidence, or making excuses for not answering any direct question.

He falsley accuses others of not meeting standards he refuses to meet himself.

 

[kookbreaker]

. His palmprint was on the rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD and he was in possession of the handgun when arrested./QUOTE]

ZZZzzz. This is retracing old ground.

Yes it is, because you are not paying attention

"There is evidence that suggests the palm print was obtained from Oswald's dead body at the morgue, or later at the funeral home (Lifton 354-356 n; cf. Meagher 120-127). So suspicious was the palm print that even the WC privately had doubts about the manner in which it was obtained (Garrison 113; Marrs 445; cf. Lane 153-158). "

Utter nonsense:

1) The dead don't sweat to place finger or palm prints.
2) The 'evidence' consists of pictures of a guy with a box outside the funeral home
3) Garrison's claims about the WC comes from Mark Lane who misrepresents the fact that the WC got conclusive and complete answers.

Tell you what, find me a technique for getting a fingerprint or palmprint off a corpse that could be used in the 1960's. Then explain why any DPD officer would risk a mistrial by faking evidence when at the very minimum Oswald was going to get the chair for shooting Tippet.

Go ahead. Start explaining.

 

[kookbreaker]

Could you please present your strongest single piece of evidence that Jack White is not a "Loon" and (not or... and) "Wacktard"? The man is on the cover of Loon and Wacktard Monthly at least five times a year since 1975 and in 2008 was given their prestigious Jim Fetzer Lifetime Achievement Award (after having barely lost out the two previous years to Elwood P. Dowd(2007) and Daffy Duck(2006).

Indeed, White is the guy who holds rulers up to photos and cries 'fake' at ever turn. In every field he gets schooled and humiliated - from JFK, to the Moon Landing to his Pentagon 911 photos. He is shameless and uneducatable. Even though people explain to him that measuring 3D distances with a 2D image isn't going to work he keeps on insisting he is right. And that is the least cranky of his antics.

 

[chran]

Where can I find this law called "Basic Inertia?"

High School?

Ok, so I was beaten to it, but it's still funny

 

[kookbreaker]

There are mysteries aplenty regarding the B/Y photos, but a reasonable theory might be that there were indeed photos taken, but the cover-uppers decided to improve on them by perhaps adding a pistol, and some ridiculous commie literature.

And the evidence for this is? Didn't think so.

Marina, under pressure to tell the FBI what they wanted to hear or face deportation, first said she took them, later, she didn't take them, later she took some, but not those in evidence.

And yet with no pressure on her today, and with a wholehearted belief in the JFK conspiracy (thanks to decades of CTers whispering nonsense in her ear) she still says she took the photos.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So about those laws of inertia:

How about this:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xlb53j_newton-s-laws-of-motion-simplified_tech

And put them in action, notice one of the bottles here falls in the oposite direction to the others...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zzTkxIFfvI

A big exit wound will knock the person away from the direction of travel of the bullet, exactly as seen in the JFK video.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Well, to be fair, I have no idea about what eductation RP or any other poster has. I assume that posters are adult and basically educated and as capable as any other adult. If however a poster has not completed their education, or for some other reason is unable to recognise the third law of motion from their physics lessons on inertia / momentum/ newtonian theory or which ever name their exam board called it, then it could explain why they may fall for logical fallacies or be unaware of critical methodology.

This has often been the case with 9/11 truthers who struggle to differentiate between heat and temperature, or potential energy. It isn't about being thick, or ignorant, or blinkered. They are simply unaware of information that their theories should be tested against.

Take the photo of LHO as an example. Some people are told the shadow is impossible and must be fake, and accept that because they just know any other explanation. Same goes for moonlanding photos. Or "impossible" shadows that are meant to be ghosts.

Completely agree. I was more referring to the posters who insist that any explanation given is wrong no matter how many different sources confirm it. I understand that some of the physics involved are complicated and difficult, and I just wish that some of the conspiracy peddlers would acknowledge that.

 

[Garrison]

Yep, if I wasnt using my phone to post this i would link examples such as the water bottle, fruit, and others being shot. But its how rockets work too. An explosion downwards from the thruster doesn't drag the rocket with it, it launches the rocket upwards.

The CT's have adopted Hollywood physics where bullet hits send the victim hurtling in the direction the bullet was travelling. Now as you mentioned in another post if people haven't been exposed to the proper science its fair enough for them to make that mistake; its when they're given the real science and still choose to believe the myth that the problems arise.

 

[I Ratant]

.
Back and to the left...
Our boy is using Ollie Stone as a source?
Ollie uses Marrs.
No examples of intelligence and a desire to find the fact in the trio.
"Back and to the left"... riiiiiiiiiiiiiight!
The man's body moves "back and to the left" long after the bullet has passed to hit the windshield chrome.
The body spasm is due to the tension brought on by the back wound, and the reaction of the legs when the CNS is destroyed by the bullet.
I asked Lifton how that itty-bitty bullet moved that big man around the way he claims, and he had no answer.
Those of us that shoot things see no significant motion to a fragile target such as milk jugs, melons, and in this case a head, to the bullet's passage.
The targets don't leap off what they're on and chase the bullet.
Melon shooting... the melon does nothing long after the bullet passes, then slowly rolls off the mount.
And me shooting my Carcano.
.
.
Jim Marrs, who never met a conspiracy he didn't like...

 

[Tomtomkent]

I mentioned the home film as the only source i know of evidence that claims a second sniper. If anybody has a better source i will review it. But we have a film that appears to show three shots from LHOs possition.

 

[Walter Ego]

Could you please present your strongest single piece of evidence that Jack White is not a "Loon" and (not or... and) "Wacktard"? The man is on the cover of Loon and Wacktard Monthly at least five times a year since 1975 and in 2008 was given their prestigious Jim Fetzer Lifetime Achievement Award (after having barely lost out the two previous years to Elwood P. Dowd(2007) and Daffy Duck(2006).

White didn't fare to well under questioning by the HSAC.

Jack White gave extensive testimony to the House Select Committee about supposed "discrepancies" in the backyard photos, and various photos of Oswald's rifle, he was grilled about his expertise by HSCA counsel Mickey Goldsmith. The following is from volume II of the House Select Committee.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. I see that you have taken a ruler and placed it by Oswald's body and also by his rifle; is that correct?

Mr. WHITE. Yes.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, do you believe that an object photographed can be measured simply by placing a ruler against the image in the photograph?

Mr. WHITE. No.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. When you measured the object in this photograph, what did you do beyond using the ruler?

Mr. WHITE. This is strictly a two-dimensional measurement. Obviously I did not take into consideration any perspective which might exist or any other considerations. It is just a mere measurement of the body from the weightbearing foot to the top of the head in each case and of the rifle from the muzzle to the butt.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Without giving any account to other factors?

Mr. WHITE. That is true. I am not a physicist or any sort of a scientist who could determine anything relating to the perspective. We don't know how close the rifle is to his body. We don't know how close the camera is to the subject, so it would be virtually impossible for just a plain citizen like me to interpret the perspective of this photograph.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Have you had any training in analytical photogrammetry?
Mr. WHITE. No.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Have you had any formal training in forensic photography?
Mr. WHITE. No.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/experts.htm

According to Posner in Case Closed (Random House 1993, p. 108), White had a cottage industry going for many years peddling videos and booklets and giving lectures about the "faked" backyard photos.