JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends II

Status
Not open for further replies.
I Ratant said:
.
No, those are the collected shooters from the CTwinkie books.. all of them 'proven', if the books are correct.
The list leaves off Jackie, who among all of them would have had the best reason to shoot JFK.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the correction.
 
HSienzant said:
You must be a newbie to this. The oak tree was proposed by the Warren Commission back in 1964:
Click to expand...

WHo said anything about an Oak tree. Not me! Did you actually READ my post, if not then read this... I SAID NOTHING ABOUT AN OAK TREE DEFLECTING THE BULLET.

Furthermore, I am not a newbie to this. I was 8 years old when Kennedy was shot (I doubt if you were even alive) and I have followed the story ever since I can remember.

For many years I believed that JFK was a victim of a conspiracy, that there was another gunman (if not more) in Dealey Plaza that day. I held those beliefs firmly until about 10 - 15 years ago, but after having read numerous books and seen numerous documentaries on the subject, I came slowly to understand that LHO was the only gunman.

A lone gunman is the simplest answer, and while there is some vague evidence that there could have been others, the overwhelming evidence is that Oswald acted alone. Most importantly, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that would prove the lone gunman scenario could not have happened.

I do not deny the possibility (however unlikely it might seem) that he may have been acting under orders, but there is no evidence of this, and no evidence indicating who might have given those orders.
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
You must be a newbie to this. The oak tree was proposed by the Warren Commission back in 1964:
Click to expand...

Yes but the theory being discussed in that post was the one from a documentary that did indeed propose the bullet bounced off the traffic lights. No need for the uncharacteristically snarky tone.
 
JayUtah said:
And also when you're trying to make an absolute argument in a relative context. As you note above, and as I've excerpted in my previous post, the fatal approach in conspiracism is to hold up one's conspiracy theory as the default that must prevail if the "official story" is sufficiently impeached.

Then one attempts that impeachment with words like "problematic" and "doubtful," which do little to actually probe the argument. The aim is to make the prevailing story look very shaky in a sort of absolute sense -- as if it had now fallen below some minimum standard of proof and must be discarded. Then the reader "must" believe in some kind of conspiracy theory because that's all that's left.

But of course the conspiracy theory is never put to the same level of rigorous scrutiny as the prevailing story. When others do -- and it fails even more dismally -- the proponent will try to shift the burden of proof back onto the prevailing theory (essentially just a replay of his case-in-chief), or he can argue that any "official" story necessarily must meet a higher standard of proof because it comes from sources "known" to be corrupt, deceptive, and extremely powerful.

What conspiracy theorists never seem to figure out is that skeptics almost always approach the problem using a relativist perspective. That's because Occam's Razor is our guiding cutlery, and that requires us to set each competing hypothesis at the same a priori level and see which finished first.

In that way of thinking, terms like "problematic" aren't a death knell for the prevailing view as long as it is the least problematic. No matter how "doubtful" is a ricochet hypothesis, for example, it's still far less doubtful than multiple hypothetical shooters and a vast web of conspiracy to support them, for which affirmative claim no author has yet been able to create a case that convinces even the majority of his peers.
This is the same tone I've taken with O'Rourke, our other present conspiracy theorist. No matter how hard you swing away, bashing competing theories without subjecting your own theory to a commensurate standard of proof simply has little probative value.
Click to expand...

If you go to that website taft keeps referring to (which I think is his own), you'll see that he goes to inordinate lengths to pick apart minutiae in support of his non-specified "theory" that "aconspiracydidit!" To me, this amount of effort is an implicit acknowledgement of the strength of the evidence, and its consilience, that points to the specified theory of Oswald's guilt. In contrast, his lack of either evidence or even a real theory means that his belief can be dismissed with about this much ----> <---- effort- that is to say, as much as it takes to come up with it.

I'll also note that all these arguments that "you can't recreate exactly what Oswald is supposed to have done, therefore he couldn't have done it!" strike me as childishly ridiculous; they're appeals to an impossible perfection that, in fact, Oswald didn't intend. There's no reason to demand that a recreation do more than Oswald was aiming to do- hit the President at given distances within given times. He certainly wasn't trying to hit Connally with the same "magic bullet" that hit JFK first, so there's nothing magic about it, and it's not necessary to prove by repetition what Oswald didn't achieve by intent. It's like arguing that a ballplayer who hits a home-run by knocking the ball out of the stadium and hitting a certain car in a certain spot in the parking lot can be proven to have never hit the home run because no recreation can hit that same exact spot in the lot.

Hitting Connally was as much an accident as hitting Tague; for that matter, hitting JFK exactly the way Oswald did owed as much to contingency (the president's position as he was hit, for example) as it did to Oswald's aim. Demanding, as taft does, that it be repeated down to every microscopic particular before it can be accepted as "likely" just looks lke a faith that everything is a matter of intent. It seems to me that ballistic modelling, whether by computer or otherwise, is perfectly adequate as a retrospective technique to arrive at conclusions about outcomes that weren't, in all details, arrived at by prospective intent.

Final note- I owe most of my thoughts in these directions to having read posts by you (JayUtah) and I Ratant. I'm a little clunky in expressing them, I guess- you could say that I'm doing so at my own inordinate length- but that's strictly on me.
 
Last edited:
Found this one.... amazing effort on JFk... and even more!
http://whokilledjohnfkennedy.blogspot.com/
.
My blogs

They found the Ark of the Covenant
Eve loses her virginity to the Devil.
End the FED, the JFK assassination.
The Illuminati, Skull and Bones
Johnson, Bush and Nixon kill John F. Kennedy.
The Men who killed John F. Kennedy.
Bush family Nazi connections, and the Black Pope!
Eve had Sex with the Devil.
The Serpent's Seed
Did Men and Dinosaurs live at the same time?
Satan's Fallen Angels Give Birth to Giants.
Did Dinosaurs and Men walk side by side? (spoiler..they did!!!!)
The American Holocaust. Homeless Disappear!
FEMA Camps For The Homeless!
Who killed John F. Kennedy?
Women, Sex, Angels, Giants, & Witchcraft.
FEMA Prison camps for welfare recipients and 99ers
 
BStrong said:
I could write a laundry list of marksmanship feats documented in every which way, no dispute of proof possible, and the fact that another shooter on another day (including the original shooter) can't duplicate the shot or the score doesn't negate the fact of the original shot.

Let's start with Billy Dixon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Dixon

To Tom Sarver:

http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2007/07/sarver-shoots-1403-group-at-1000-yards/

I've spent my life behind a rifle, and I couldn't ding a target at 1538 yds. with an open sighted BPCR rifle (which I own and shoot) and for sure can't shoot a five shot sub .15 MOA group at 1000 yds.

The fact I can't do it has -0- to do with what was done by Dixon and Sarver.

If you wish to read what a real world end user has to say about the GSW evidence wrt the JFK assassination, here's a good place to start

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/macpher.htm

You may also want to get a copy of the review of the ballistic evidence and the GSW evidence by Dr. Martin Fackler.

ETA: doesn't take much to find that in live fire testing using LHO's rifle, the results were duplicated:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0226b.htm
Click to expand...

JFK CT's make a lot of laughable claims, but the claim that the JFK assassination was some sort of impossible feat of marksmanship is one of the most laughable. It was, IIRC, less than 100 yards, at a target that, though moving was moving almost directly away from the shooter. It was, in fact, a fairly easy shot with a centerfire rifle with a telescopic sight. I've said it before in this thread, but every hunting season, hundreds, if not thousands, of deer hunters make considerably more difficult shots.
 
Last edited:
CORed said:
JFK CT's make a lot of laughable claims, but the claim that the JFK assassination was some sort of impossible feat of marksmanship is one of the most laughable. It was, IIRC, less than 100 yards, at a target that, though moving was moving almost directly away from the shooter. It was, in fact, a fairly easy shot with a centerfire rifle with a telescopic sight. I've said it before in this thread, but every hunting season, hundreds, if not thousands, of deer hunters make considerably more difficult shots.
Click to expand...

It's an example of individuals with -0- knowledge of the subject matter speaking as if they were individuals with first hand experience.

LHO went hunting with his older brother on many occasions before he enlisted in the Corps, and he hunted successfully. He had real world experience in hitting moving targets (game animals rarely cooperate by keeping still long enough for the shooter to set up the perfect shot)

Most of the folks that assert that LHO had somehow pulled off an impossible feat of marksmanship are simply repeating what some other no-nothing on the subject asserted earlier.

Here's a simple example of marksman (or in this case, woman) ship:

dsc00319kn.jpg


The above target was shot at 100 yds, using a SPR-type rifle I built using better than issue parts, but using a Trijicon ACOG 4X, red donut reticle rather than the issue Leupold MR/T 3 x 9 mildot scope.

This is my then-girlfriend, firing on that target:

dsc00316be.jpg


Her group is at 1 o'clock high above the center, her earlier group has the black paster. The group she shot is under 1" (1 MOA) The hits in and around the X are mine.

It was exactly her second time firing an AR platform rifle, and the first time she had even seen an ACOG, but she has a great amount of live fire experience with the .300 WinMag in hunting and has taken all sorts of large game animals in Alaska.

LHO didn't do anything that my ex couldn't do, and outside of my instruction she has never had professional training.
 
Last edited:
turingtest pretty much nailed it. The fallacy in amateur investigation is the assumption that all that's observable is ipso facto relevant and was intented. When you try to formulate hypotheses with those artificial constraints in mind, you'll never solve anything. You may not even have a testable hypothesis.

Every shot is a "trick shot" if you post-evaluate everything you can observe about the shot as somehow having been intended by the shooter. The classic joke is the "hillbilly bullseye" -- the shots are fired first and the target rings drawn around the bullet holes.
 
I Ratant said:
Found this one.... amazing effort on JFk... and even more!
http://whokilledjohnfkennedy.blogspot.com/
.
My blogs

They found the Ark of the Covenant
Eve loses her virginity to the Devil.
End the FED, the JFK assassination.
The Illuminati, Skull and Bones
Johnson, Bush and Nixon kill John F. Kennedy.
The Men who killed John F. Kennedy.
Bush family Nazi connections, and the Black Pope!
Eve had Sex with the Devil.
The Serpent's Seed
Did Men and Dinosaurs live at the same time?
Satan's Fallen Angels Give Birth to Giants.
Did Dinosaurs and Men walk side by side? (spoiler..they did!!!!)
The American Holocaust. Homeless Disappear!
FEMA Camps For The Homeless!
Who killed John F. Kennedy?
Women, Sex, Angels, Giants, & Witchcraft.
FEMA Prison camps for welfare recipients and 99ers
Click to expand...

Man, there is so much crazy (and just plain wrong) on that site that it's actually kind of impressive. The guy wastes no time telling us exactly who shot JFK:
It was Bush Sr. and all of his Nazi Illuminati buddies in the CIA, together with the help of the Italian Mafia that killed Kennedy. But they received their orders from the masterminds behind the conspiracy, which included George H. W. Bush, Nixon and Johnson.
Click to expand...
That's for a different value of "exactly," of course.
It reminds me irresistibly of the classic Simpsons bit:
Bart: So finally, we're all in agreement about what's going on with the adults. Milhouse?
Milhouse: Ahem. OK, here's what we've got: the Rand Corporation, in conjunction with the saucer people...
Bart: Thank you.
Milhouse: ...under the supervision of the reverse vampires...
Lisa: [sighs]
Milhouse: ...are forcing our parents to go to bed early in a fiendish plot to eliminate the meal of dinner. We're through the looking glass, here, people...
Click to expand...
 
The stupid, it hurts!
I can only look at a little of it anymore.
TWA 800, 911, JFK...
Wow!
 
When I saw a chapter titled "Grassy Noel", I expected to see a hymn dedicated to the Grassy Knoll...
But as is quite common in CT, it's just "Hukt on Fonix" once again.
 
I Ratant said:
When I saw a chapter titled "Grassy Noel", I expected to see a hymn dedicated to the Grassy Knoll...
But as is quite common in CT, it's just "Hukt on Fonix" once again.
Click to expand...

Considering my attack of dumbass to the brain above where I typed "no-nothing" when I meant "know-nothing," I'll reserve comment on risk of hypocrisy.
 
Forgive me for barging in, I was never one for formal introductions.

I would like, with your permission, to return to the Mac Wallace fingerprint issue, which surfaced briefly a couple of pages ago and was inadequately dealt with by both camps in this discussion.

Firstly, fingerprints (being made of grease) do not survive long on cardboard before being absorbed. So whoever it was who suggested that the prints could have arisen at any course during the box's handling was off-beam. The fingerprint was created quite soon before being lifted.

Secondly, the 'debunking' link that was provided by the nonspiracist camp (can't reproduce here due to n00b posting restrictions) is very far removed indeed from being the crushing final blow that the provider appeared to think it was.

a) The 'debunking' fingerprinter chides Darby for using photocopied fingerprints. Well, lacking access to the original, he had nothing else to work with. Not ideal, but there we go. The irony of that same debunker basing his argument on a digital reproduction (of unknown resolution) of that self-same photocopy is not, I hope, lost on anyone.

b) Fingerprinting is more akin to an art than an exact science, and if two fingerprint experts disagree, then all one can say is that the original ID has not been verified. That doesn't invalidate the original ID, it just fails to confirm it. Another expert might validate the first ID.

c) The 'debunking' expert gives two examples of supposed discrepancies, and implies he could list many more, without doing so. I doubt that such casual failure to provide total evidence would be accepted were it from a conspiracist source.

d) And most damningly, the fingerprint expert fails to uphold the FBI's own methodology for fingerprint matching, which is that three (or more) discrepancies do not constitute a negative result in the given presence of the required number of matching points. The 'debunker''s task, therefore, is to disprove the 14 existing points of correlation, not find other points that don't match, for which there could be any number of reasons. Thus rendering his current effort irrelevant. (If you doubt the FBI's approach, google <FBI "fingerprints do not lie"> the quoted phrase being the title of their position document; again, can't provide a link yet).

In any event, Darby revisited the 'Wallace print' after his affidavit, re-examined it and arrived at a 36-point match.

So, the task for the nonspiracists is therefore to calculate the odds of an unidentified individual whose fingerprints matched (to a court-admissible degree) those of a convicted murderer (Wallace) with a personal relationship with LBJ (the person who gained most from the murder in question), just happening to be around (with an innocent reason for being there) in order to touch key crime scene evidence at around the same time that the crime was happening.

Personally, I would hesitate to assign a numerical value to such odds, but I am willing to bet that they are sufficiently astronomical to make 'coincidence' seem a very very poor explanation indeed.

All that said, as far as I am aware the Wallace print ID has yet to be confirmed by another expert, which (to my mind at least) makes doing so the priority task for researchers.
 
Last edited:
And THAT is the proof of the conspiracy!
What about ALL the other discoveries that show there was none?
You have to disprove ALL of them as your assignment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom