Discussion:
Head Shot: A Physicist Examines the Kennedy Assassination
(too old to reply)
Tesla
2010-10-23 20:59:35 UTC
Permalink
Head Shot by G. Paul Chambers is aptly titled because the author hones
in on the fatal head shot and proves, through painstaking application of
the laws of physics, that the bullet must have come from the right-front
of Kennedy, specifically the Grassy Knoll. And Chambers is aptly
qualified to make such an assessment, having a Ph.D. in Physics and
Engineering and a career as an experimental physicist with the US Navy.
However, I wish he had done a similar analysis of the other shots, which
he doesn't, and that was a letdown. However, overall, Head Shot is an
excellent treatise by an intellectual heavyweight. Warren Commission
apologists will be quite rattled by his book, and I expect they will
ignore it. I doubt any of them will want to go mano-o-mano against G.
Paul Chambers.

Even though the narrow focus of the book was a little disappointing, I
still think it has many merits. He gives an excellent analysis of the
Warren Commission as to their methods and motives. He explains the
mindset and political group-think that guided and propelled them. And it
was based on the idea that unless they found Oswald guilty as the lone
assassin, the Soviets would be implicated, and World War 3 would result.
Then, 45 million Americans would die in a nuclear holocaust. That is
exactly what LBJ told Earl Warren. So, in order to save the 45 million,
they had to incriminate Oswald. And the decision to incriminate Oswald
was definitely made before they began their investigation. From the
start, they assigned a team of investigators to identify Oswald's motive
for killing Kennedy. They hadn't even determined that he had done it yet!

Chambers points out that everyone appointed to the Warren Commission was
a lifelong political hack. There were no physicists, no other
scientists, no weapons or ballistics experts, no forensic medicine
experts or other technical experts: just lawyers and politicians. And
consider: Gerald Ford arbitrarily changed the location of the back wound
from the back to the neck. He did it openly. And he justified doing it
on the grounds that he wasn't lying but rather "clarifying." Amazing! He
blatantly altered evidence! But, the fact that he could do it – and
apparently with the utter conviction that he was acting properly –
proves the extent to which American politics warps the mind and corrupts
the soul.

Chambers reviews the attempts to duplicate Oswald's alleged
marksmanship. It has never been done. Most shooters could not get off 3
shots in 5.6 seconds – at all – never mind hit any targets. Finally, the
WC produced a marksman who got the three shots off in 5 seconds, but he
missed all his targets and some by a wide margin. Also, he was given
unlimited time to set up the very first shot (a luxury Oswald did not
have); he was given stationary not moving targets (again, a luxury
Oswald did not have) and he was allowed to use metal shims to compensate
for the inaccuracies in the telescopic sight (again, a luxury Oswald
lacked). It was a grotesque fabrication – the sham of all shams.

Chambers reviews the eyewitness testimony, and you'd be surprised how
many people identified the Grassy Knoll shooter by sight, sound, and the
whir of a bullet flying overhead. We're talking about 50 people. Of
course, the Warren Commission ignored all of their testimony. Chambers
covers the allegations that Kennedy's body was altered, citing Lifton's
work and others, and including relevant photos. In his coverage of the
HSCA hearings, he focused mainly on the acoustical evidence which
pointed to a grassy knoll shooter. The House Subcommittee concluded that
there "probably" was a conspiracy, and they recommended that the Justice
Department pursue it, which of course never happened. But as an aside,
let's examine why.

When the HSCA released its findings and recommendations, the year was
1979, and Jimmy Carter was President. Consider that he was the first
President who was not directly involved with the Kennedy assassination.
LBJ, without a doubt, managed the cover-up, but many researchers believe
he was directly involved in the assassination itself. I recommend Blood,
Money, and Power: How LBJ Killed JFK by Barr McClellan, who was a law
partner of LBJ's attorney, Ed Clark. Note that Barr McClellan is also
the father of Scott McClellan, the former Press Secretary of George W.
Bush. Amazing, isn’t it, that W hired a man to speak for him whose
father accuses LBJ of murdering Kennedy? It goes to show how callous
American politics has become. Ah, it was a long time ago, so who really
cares, right? Also consider reading LBJ: The Mastermind of JFK's
Assassination by Phillip F. Nelson.

Following LBJ was Nixon. I can't present all the evidence linking Nixon
to the assassination, but I will point out that it's widely believed
that the whole Watergate scandal stemmed from Nixon's involvement in the
JFK assassination. At the time of the burglary, Nixon was way ahead of
McGovern in the polls. So why did he need to break into Democratic
headquarters? Certainly not to win the election, which was firmly in the
bag. It was because he was concerned about "that Bay of Pigs thing"
(code for the assassination) and what the Democrats might do out of
desperation. Read H.R. Haldeman's The Ends of Power. Also, do an online
search for Dirty Politics: Nixon, Watergate, and the JFK Assassination
by Mark Tracy.

Then came Gerald Ford, who, as I said, blatantly falsified crucial
evidence in the Warren Report in order to support the Single Bullet
Theory. And then came Jimmy Carter who surely played no role in the
assassination, before or afterwards. So why didn't he do something when
the HSCA recommended action? All I can surmise is that although Carter
was a Democrat like Kennedy, he was also a member of the Trilateral
Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, and he was keenly aware
that the Kennedy assassination was off-limits – to him or any President.
And, my own view is that the HSCA was really just Warren Commission II.
They did their work and made their recommendations, but it was all for
show. They just wanted to quell the unrest and throw the rabble-rousers
a bone. Nobody in government wanted to reveal the truth about Kennedy‘s
murder – not then and not now. It's not a matter of the guilt or
innocence of any individuals. The whole moral authority of the
government is at stake, and that's what they're trying to protect.

But returning to Head Shot, the chapter addressing Vincent Bugliosi's
2500-page tome Reclaiming History was my favorite. Chambers’ scientific
rebuttals to Bugliosi's fallacious arguments are decisive. To my
knowledge, Bugliosi has not responded to any of these attacks, and I
doubt that he will. As a lawyer, he knows that sometimes silence is the
best rejoinder. But, it's satisfying to know that Bugliosi can hardly be
comfortable in his own skin, having written the "last word" on the
assassination, self-described as "a book for the ages" only to have it
ripped to shreds by Chambers.

Although Chambers accepts the body alteration hypothesis, he rejects,
categorically, the charge that the Zapruder film was altered. His
arguments are based on the technological limits that existed at the time
and on the timeline, and he says all anomalies can be accounted for.
But, he never accounts for them. For instance, there is the speed of the
limousine. Many witnesses said that it practically stopped during the
shooting, and some said that it did, in fact, stop. But you don't see
anything close to that in the Zapruder film. Another odd thing is that
some of the bystanders seem to be looking in the wrong direction – as if
the limo hadn't reached them yet when it had. To review the anomalies in
the Zapruder film, see this video clip. I don't recall that Chambers
addressed any of these anomalies.



The climax of the book is his analysis of the fatal head shot. He claims
to have figured out which weapon was used, a Winchester .220 Swift rifle
using small-caliber (.224) frangible bullet. He explains how this rifle
stacks up against the "hard math of momentum conservation" when
analyzing Kennedy's head recoil in the Zapruder film. The math is rather
dizzying, but here is the conclusion:

"It doesn't matter if anyone saw or heard shots coming from the Grassy
Knoll. It doesn't matter if anyone saw a shooter in this location or
not. Application of the incontrovertible Laws of Physics establishes
that the bullet came from the direction of this site. The angle of
recoil of Kennedy's head was 45 degrees with respect to the axis of the
limousine body. The direction of the momentum of the incoming round must
have been the same angle – relative to the limousine body. A bullet
fired at an angle of 45 degrees to the limo axis traces back to the
infamous Grassy Knoll. That is where the fatal head shot originated."

Chambers is less clear about the origin of the other shots. He thinks
the throat wound was an entrance wound, probably fired from the Grassy
Knoll, but perhaps from another forward location. He's not sure how many
shots struck Connally or their origin. He accepts that one or more shots
were fired from the 6th floor window of the Book Depository, but he did
no ballistics analysis like that of Orlando Martin. And one omission in
Chambers work seems inexplicable to me: He concedes that a bullet
entered Kennedy's back at a downward angle of 45 to 60 degrees
(according to the autopsy doctors) but a 6th floor Depository shooter
would have been at an angle of only 17 degrees to the motorcade. So, how
does that compute? Doesn't that rule out such a shooter? Ballistics
expert Orlando Martin says so, but Chambers does not address it,

It seems that Chambers considered his work finished in proving the
origin of the fatal head shot. It proved conspiracy, so the rest doesn't
matter very much. That was my distinct impression of his attitude.

Finally, I wish he would have defended Oswald more vigorously. He did
state that the negative paraffin test proved that Oswald did not fire a
rifle that day, and that such evidence is court-admissable. But
elsewhere, he seemed to equivocate, leaving open the very slight
possibility that Oswald was a shooter. That didn't set well with me. If
you read JFK: Analysis of a Shooting by Orlando Martin and JFK and the
Unspeakable by Jim Douglass, you will be completely convinced of
Oswald's innocence. Of course, nobody knows what Oswald knew. Nobody
knows what his handlers told him. Maybe he did think that something was
going to go down that day. What he told Dallas Police investigators has
never been released; we have only his public statements. But, if you
read the above-mentioned books, you will know beyond all doubt that
Oswald did not kill Kennedy, nor did he kill Officer Tippit. Oswald was
just what he said he was: a patsy.

So, although Head Shot is never going to be my favorite book on the
assassination, it is still a valuable and important work with some very
unique elements. G. Paul Chambers has made a lasting contribution to the
assassination literature.

October 23, 2010



Source:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/cinque4.1.1.html
betweentheeyes
2010-10-23 21:02:39 UTC
Permalink
"Tesla" wrote in message news:i9vibj$i2h$***@speranza.aioe.org...


Head Shot

what is your point?
RD Sandman
2010-10-23 21:16:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tesla
Head Shot
what is your point?
His head.
--
Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman)

Old aunts used to come to me at weddings, poking me
in the ribs, cackling, and telling me, "You're next!"

They stopped after I started doing the same thing to
them at funerals.
SaPeIsMa
2010-10-25 03:37:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by RD Sandman
Post by Tesla
Head Shot
what is your point?
His head.
The big or little one ?
RD Sandman
2010-10-25 17:27:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by SaPeIsMa
Post by RD Sandman
Post by Tesla
Head Shot
what is your point?
His head.
The big or little one ?
I have no idea.....I could say the one the brains in it, but in his case
I don't know which one that would be either.
--
Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman)

Old aunts used to come to me at weddings, poking me
in the ribs, cackling, and telling me, "You're next!"

They stopped after I started doing the same thing to
them at funerals.
Carl
2010-10-23 21:28:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tesla
Head Shot
what is your point?
Every 50 years, another conspiracy theorist comes along who thinks they've
outdone the conspiracy theorists of the past. Let me go spin the propeller
on my tin foil cap now.
billzz
2010-10-24 02:12:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl
Post by Tesla
Head Shot
what is your point?
Every 50 years, another conspiracy theorist comes along who thinks they've
outdone the conspiracy theorists of the past.  Let me go spin the propeller
on my tin foil cap now.
47 years. I was a captain in the US Army commanding a unit, at Fort
Benning, GA, that had just returned from Florida waiting to invade
Cuba, which did not happen. When the word about the shooting of the
President came, we were already on edge, but the word went out that it
was a solitary shooter, no alert.

Many years later I was talking to a detective and he said that one way
to solve a case is to see what the people involved did after the act.
What did Lee Harvey Oswald do after the act? He dropped the gun,
without caring if his prints were on it, and walked out the door to go
to the Texas Theater. Why would anyone, who has just shot at the
President, go to a theater. Because spies like to meet there. The
handler comes in first, sits in a row and the spy comes in and sits
behind and tells all.. The one leaves and goes to the men's room and
then to another place, and everyone leaves, at the same time, through
the many different doors.

And who owned the Texas Theater? Howard Hughes, who had a series of
theaters built and who had a line of credit from the government.

So the big unanswered question is, why would someone, who just shot at
the president, go to a theater?

Think about it. He didn't go to Love Field. He didn't go home. He
didn't drive a car somewhere. He went to the Texas Theater.

Not that it makes any difference now. Maybe it was something that was
supposed to happen. I don't care, one way or the other.
Gray Ghost
2010-10-24 18:42:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by billzz
Post by Carl
Post by Tesla
Head Shot
what is your point?
Every 50 years, another conspiracy theorist comes along who thinks
they've outdone the conspiracy theorists of the past.  Let me go spin
the propeller on my tin foil cap now.
47 years. I was a captain in the US Army commanding a unit, at Fort
Benning, GA, that had just returned from Florida waiting to invade
Cuba, which did not happen. When the word about the shooting of the
President came, we were already on edge, but the word went out that it
was a solitary shooter, no alert.
Many years later I was talking to a detective and he said that one way
to solve a case is to see what the people involved did after the act.
What did Lee Harvey Oswald do after the act? He dropped the gun,
without caring if his prints were on it, and walked out the door to go
to the Texas Theater. Why would anyone, who has just shot at the
President, go to a theater. Because spies like to meet there. The
handler comes in first, sits in a row and the spy comes in and sits
behind and tells all.. The one leaves and goes to the men's room and
then to another place, and everyone leaves, at the same time, through
the many different doors.
And who owned the Texas Theater? Howard Hughes, who had a series of
theaters built and who had a line of credit from the government.
So the big unanswered question is, why would someone, who just shot at
the president, go to a theater?
Think about it. He didn't go to Love Field. He didn't go home. He
didn't drive a car somewhere. He went to the Texas Theater.
Not that it makes any difference now. Maybe it was something that was
supposed to happen. I don't care, one way or the other.
Um, he was a dumbass who didn't really think it through and it seemed like a
good place to hide, to a dumbass.
--
Democrat donkey pontificating:

Americans only oppose Obama because they are racist....
Americans were against the stiumulus because they are uneducated....
Americans oppose socialism because they are greedy....
Americans are against Obamacare because they are stupid....
Americans are opposed to the Ground Zero mosque because they are bigots....
I just can't figure why Americans are opposed to us.

Maybe 'cuz we're racist, uneducated, greedy, stupid bigots.
Or maybe it's 'cuz you morons sound like Nazis talking about Jews in the
1930s.
Tesla
2010-10-24 19:57:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by billzz
Post by Carl
Post by Tesla
Head Shot
what is your point?
Every 50 years, another conspiracy theorist comes along who thinks they've
outdone the conspiracy theorists of the past. Let me go spin the propeller
on my tin foil cap now.
47 years. I was a captain in the US Army commanding a unit, at Fort
Benning, GA, that had just returned from Florida waiting to invade
Cuba, which did not happen. When the word about the shooting of the
President came, we were already on edge, but the word went out that it
was a solitary shooter, no alert.
Many years later I was talking to a detective and he said that one way
to solve a case is to see what the people involved did after the act.
What did Lee Harvey Oswald do after the act? He dropped the gun,
without caring if his prints were on it, and walked out the door to go
to the Texas Theater. Why would anyone, who has just shot at the
President, go to a theater. Because spies like to meet there. The
handler comes in first, sits in a row and the spy comes in and sits
behind and tells all.. The one leaves and goes to the men's room and
then to another place, and everyone leaves, at the same time, through
the many different doors.
And who owned the Texas Theater? Howard Hughes, who had a series of
theaters built and who had a line of credit from the government.
So the big unanswered question is, why would someone, who just shot at
the president, go to a theater?
Think about it. He didn't go to Love Field. He didn't go home. He
didn't drive a car somewhere. He went to the Texas Theater.
Not that it makes any difference now. Maybe it was something that was
supposed to happen. I don't care, one way or the other.
If anything, I don't think Oswald was the shooter. I always felt he was
being honest when he said, "I didn't shoot anybody, no Sir."

I actually think Oliver Stone, in his film, "JFK", painted a fairly
accurate picture of how Oswald was likely involved, as well as how he
eventually ended up in the Texas Theater.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_(film)

In light of all of the available evidence, I have no doubt that Oswald
was exactly what he said he was . . . a patsy.


Just as compelling to this view is the fact that the A&E documentary,
"The Men Who Killed Kennedy - The Final Chapter" was not only banned
from television after being shown only once, it has also been removed
from YouTube over a copyright claim by A&E, even though the YouTube
presentation was clearly "fair use" in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
Section 107 of the US Copyright Law.



This examination of the latest theories about the J.F.K. assassination
and cover-up was shown once in November, 2003, and quickly suppressed,
due mainly to outrage and threat of a lawsuit by family and former
associates of L.B.J. who is targeted in the documentary as being a lead
conspirator in the Kennedy assassination plot and other murders as well.

The banned, "Final Chapter" of the more extensive documentary series,
"The Men Who Killed Kennedy" was presented in three, one hour segments:

Part 1 - "The Smoking Gun"

Part 2 - "The Love Affair"

Part 3 - "The Guilty Men"

If you have never seen it, you would do yourself a favor to make a point
of finding any available copy to view.

More information about this series can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Men_Who_Killed_Kennedy
a425couple
2010-10-25 13:52:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tesla
Post by billzz
Post by Carl
Post by betweentheeyes
what is your point?
Every 50 years, another conspiracy theorist comes along who thinks they've
outdone the conspiracy theorists of the past. Let me go spin the propeller
on my tin foil cap now.
Many years later I was talking to a detective and he said that one way
to solve a case is to see what the people involved did after the act.
What did Lee Harvey Oswald do after the act?
If anything, I don't think Oswald was the shooter. I always felt he was
being honest when he said, "I didn't shoot anybody, no Sir."
How do you account for the issue that quite a number of people
saw Oswald shoot and kill Officer J.D. Tippit?
Tesla
2010-10-25 17:09:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by a425couple
Post by Tesla
Post by billzz
Post by Carl
Post by betweentheeyes
what is your point?
Every 50 years, another conspiracy theorist comes along who thinks they've
outdone the conspiracy theorists of the past. Let me go spin the
propeller
on my tin foil cap now.
Many years later I was talking to a detective and he said that one way
to solve a case is to see what the people involved did after the act.
What did Lee Harvey Oswald do after the act?
If anything, I don't think Oswald was the shooter. I always felt he
was being honest when he said, "I didn't shoot anybody, no Sir."
How do you account for the issue that quite a number of people
saw Oswald shoot and kill Officer J.D. Tippit?
Oswald was never positively identified as the Tippit gunman. A number of
witnesses, who were ignored by the Warren Commission, gave differing
descriptions of the man they saw running from the scene. There are also
inconsistencies in regard to the physical evidence that were obscured or
left out of the official report. As Oswald never made it to trial, these
inconsistencies and contradictions never saw the light of day.

The fact that he was never tried for the allegations against him, as
well as the well documented series of official efforts to obscure and
quash any questions of his guilt in the minds of the public are
sufficient to support the position that he was never actually proven
guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Therefore, Oswald remains innocent.
RD Sandman
2010-10-25 21:11:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tesla
Post by a425couple
Post by Tesla
Post by billzz
Post by Carl
Post by betweentheeyes
what is your point?
Every 50 years, another conspiracy theorist comes along who thinks they've
outdone the conspiracy theorists of the past. Let me go spin the
propeller
on my tin foil cap now.
Many years later I was talking to a detective and he said that one way
to solve a case is to see what the people involved did after the act.
What did Lee Harvey Oswald do after the act?
If anything, I don't think Oswald was the shooter. I always felt he
was being honest when he said, "I didn't shoot anybody, no Sir."
How do you account for the issue that quite a number of people
saw Oswald shoot and kill Officer J.D. Tippit?
Oswald was never positively identified as the Tippit gunman. A number of
witnesses, who were ignored by the Warren Commission, gave differing
descriptions of the man they saw running from the scene. There are also
inconsistencies in regard to the physical evidence that were obscured or
left out of the official report. As Oswald never made it to trial, these
inconsistencies and contradictions never saw the light of day.
The fact that he was never tried for the allegations against him, as
well as the well documented series of official efforts to obscure and
quash any questions of his guilt in the minds of the public are
sufficient to support the position that he was never actually proven
guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Therefore, Oswald remains innocent.
Nope. He remains unconvicted. Big difference.
--
Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman)

Old aunts used to come to me at weddings, poking me
in the ribs, cackling, and telling me, "You're next!"

They stopped after I started doing the same thing to
them at funerals.
Tesla
2010-10-25 21:25:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by RD Sandman
Post by Tesla
Post by a425couple
Post by Tesla
Post by billzz
Post by Carl
Post by betweentheeyes
what is your point?
Every 50 years, another conspiracy theorist comes along who thinks they've
outdone the conspiracy theorists of the past. Let me go spin the
propeller
on my tin foil cap now.
Many years later I was talking to a detective and he said that one
way
Post by Tesla
Post by a425couple
Post by Tesla
Post by billzz
to solve a case is to see what the people involved did after the
act.
Post by Tesla
Post by a425couple
Post by Tesla
Post by billzz
What did Lee Harvey Oswald do after the act?
If anything, I don't think Oswald was the shooter. I always felt he
was being honest when he said, "I didn't shoot anybody, no Sir."
How do you account for the issue that quite a number of people
saw Oswald shoot and kill Officer J.D. Tippit?
Oswald was never positively identified as the Tippit gunman. A number
of
Post by Tesla
witnesses, who were ignored by the Warren Commission, gave differing
descriptions of the man they saw running from the scene. There are also
inconsistencies in regard to the physical evidence that were obscured
or
Post by Tesla
left out of the official report. As Oswald never made it to trial,
these
Post by Tesla
inconsistencies and contradictions never saw the light of day.
The fact that he was never tried for the allegations against him, as
well as the well documented series of official efforts to obscure and
quash any questions of his guilt in the minds of the public are
sufficient to support the position that he was never actually proven
guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Therefore, Oswald remains innocent.
Nope. He remains unconvicted. Big difference.
Incorrect. He was "convicted" by and within the Warren Report.

He remains innocent, nonetheless.

His murder was merely a ploy to shield those who were truly guilty.
RD Sandman
2010-10-25 21:29:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tesla
Post by RD Sandman
Post by Tesla
Post by a425couple
Post by Tesla
Post by billzz
Post by Carl
Post by betweentheeyes
what is your point?
Every 50 years, another conspiracy theorist comes along who
thinks
Post by Tesla
Post by RD Sandman
Post by Tesla
Post by a425couple
Post by Tesla
Post by billzz
Post by Carl
they've
outdone the conspiracy theorists of the past. Let me go spin the
propeller
on my tin foil cap now.
Many years later I was talking to a detective and he said that one
way
Post by Tesla
Post by a425couple
Post by Tesla
Post by billzz
to solve a case is to see what the people involved did after the
act.
Post by Tesla
Post by a425couple
Post by Tesla
Post by billzz
What did Lee Harvey Oswald do after the act?
If anything, I don't think Oswald was the shooter. I always felt he
was being honest when he said, "I didn't shoot anybody, no Sir."
How do you account for the issue that quite a number of people
saw Oswald shoot and kill Officer J.D. Tippit?
Oswald was never positively identified as the Tippit gunman. A number
of
Post by Tesla
witnesses, who were ignored by the Warren Commission, gave differing
descriptions of the man they saw running from the scene. There are also
inconsistencies in regard to the physical evidence that were obscured
or
Post by Tesla
left out of the official report. As Oswald never made it to trial,
these
Post by Tesla
inconsistencies and contradictions never saw the light of day.
The fact that he was never tried for the allegations against him, as
well as the well documented series of official efforts to obscure and
quash any questions of his guilt in the minds of the public are
sufficient to support the position that he was never actually proven
guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Therefore, Oswald remains innocent.
Nope. He remains unconvicted. Big difference.
Incorrect. He was "convicted" by and within the Warren Report.
Not incorrect. The Warren Commission is not a court of law.
Post by Tesla
He remains innocent, nonetheless.
He remains 'innocent' not innocent. No one really knows if he is truly
innocent or simply unconvicted in a court of law.
Post by Tesla
His murder was merely a ploy to shield those who were truly guilty.
Oh, shit......tinfoil hat again. Oh, well, you should hang out with the
truthers and the birthers.
--
Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman)

Old aunts used to come to me at weddings, poking me
in the ribs, cackling, and telling me, "You're next!"

They stopped after I started doing the same thing to
them at funerals.
Tesla
2010-10-25 22:19:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tesla
Post by Tesla
Post by RD Sandman
Post by Tesla
Post by a425couple
Post by Tesla
Post by billzz
Post by Carl
Post by betweentheeyes
what is your point?
Every 50 years, another conspiracy theorist comes along who
thinks
Post by Tesla
Post by RD Sandman
Post by Tesla
Post by a425couple
Post by Tesla
Post by billzz
Post by Carl
they've
outdone the conspiracy theorists of the past. Let me go spin the
propeller
on my tin foil cap now.
Many years later I was talking to a detective and he said that one
way
Post by Tesla
Post by a425couple
Post by Tesla
Post by billzz
to solve a case is to see what the people involved did after the
act.
Post by Tesla
Post by a425couple
Post by Tesla
Post by billzz
What did Lee Harvey Oswald do after the act?
If anything, I don't think Oswald was the shooter. I always felt he
was being honest when he said, "I didn't shoot anybody, no Sir."
How do you account for the issue that quite a number of people
saw Oswald shoot and kill Officer J.D. Tippit?
Oswald was never positively identified as the Tippit gunman. A number
of
Post by Tesla
witnesses, who were ignored by the Warren Commission, gave differing
descriptions of the man they saw running from the scene. There are
also
Post by Tesla
Post by RD Sandman
Post by Tesla
inconsistencies in regard to the physical evidence that were obscured
or
Post by Tesla
left out of the official report. As Oswald never made it to trial,
these
Post by Tesla
inconsistencies and contradictions never saw the light of day.
The fact that he was never tried for the allegations against him, as
well as the well documented series of official efforts to obscure and
quash any questions of his guilt in the minds of the public are
sufficient to support the position that he was never actually proven
guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Therefore, Oswald remains innocent.
Nope. He remains unconvicted. Big difference.
Incorrect. He was "convicted" by and within the Warren Report.
Not incorrect. The Warren Commission is not a court of law.
Which is why "convicted" was contained within quotation marks.
Post by Tesla
Post by Tesla
He remains innocent, nonetheless.
He remains 'innocent' not innocent. No one really knows if he is truly
innocent or simply unconvicted in a court of law.
Persons accused of murder, especially in 1963, are considered to be
innocent until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

In the case of Oswald, there is more than a sufficient amount of
reasonable doubt. Allegations of his guilt have never been proven, in or
out of court beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, he remains innocent.
Post by Tesla
Post by Tesla
His murder was merely a ploy to shield those who were truly guilty.
Oh, shit......tinfoil hat again. Oh, well, you should hang out with the
truthers and the birthers.
Appeals to prejudice are some of the weakest, immature, and most
deceitful of all logical fallacies.

I refuse to "argue" with those who employ them.

Goodbye.
RD Sandman
2010-10-25 22:28:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tesla
Post by Tesla
Post by Tesla
Post by RD Sandman
Post by Tesla
Post by a425couple
Post by Tesla
Post by billzz
Post by Carl
Post by betweentheeyes
what is your point?
Every 50 years, another conspiracy theorist comes along who
thinks
Post by Tesla
Post by RD Sandman
Post by Tesla
Post by a425couple
Post by Tesla
Post by billzz
Post by Carl
they've
outdone the conspiracy theorists of the past. Let me go spin the
propeller
on my tin foil cap now.
Many years later I was talking to a detective and he said that one
way
Post by Tesla
Post by a425couple
Post by Tesla
Post by billzz
to solve a case is to see what the people involved did after the
act.
Post by Tesla
Post by a425couple
Post by Tesla
Post by billzz
What did Lee Harvey Oswald do after the act?
If anything, I don't think Oswald was the shooter. I always felt he
was being honest when he said, "I didn't shoot anybody, no Sir."
How do you account for the issue that quite a number of people
saw Oswald shoot and kill Officer J.D. Tippit?
Oswald was never positively identified as the Tippit gunman. A number
of
Post by Tesla
witnesses, who were ignored by the Warren Commission, gave
differing
Post by Tesla
Post by Tesla
Post by Tesla
Post by RD Sandman
Post by Tesla
descriptions of the man they saw running from the scene. There are
also
Post by Tesla
Post by RD Sandman
Post by Tesla
inconsistencies in regard to the physical evidence that were obscured
or
Post by Tesla
left out of the official report. As Oswald never made it to trial,
these
Post by Tesla
inconsistencies and contradictions never saw the light of day.
The fact that he was never tried for the allegations against him, as
well as the well documented series of official efforts to obscure and
quash any questions of his guilt in the minds of the public are
sufficient to support the position that he was never actually proven
guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Therefore, Oswald remains innocent.
Nope. He remains unconvicted. Big difference.
Incorrect. He was "convicted" by and within the Warren Report.
Not incorrect. The Warren Commission is not a court of law.
Which is why "convicted" was contained within quotation marks.
Fair enough.
Post by Tesla
Post by Tesla
Post by Tesla
He remains innocent, nonetheless.
He remains 'innocent' not innocent. No one really knows if he is truly
innocent or simply unconvicted in a court of law.
Persons accused of murder, especially in 1963, are considered to be
innocent until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Which doesn't mean that they are which is my point.
Post by Tesla
In the case of Oswald, there is more than a sufficient amount of
reasonable doubt. Allegations of his guilt have never been proven, in or
out of court beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, he remains innocent.
;)
Post by Tesla
Post by Tesla
Post by Tesla
His murder was merely a ploy to shield those who were truly guilty.
Oh, shit......tinfoil hat again. Oh, well, you should hang out with the
truthers and the birthers.
Appeals to prejudice are some of the weakest, immature, and most
deceitful of all logical fallacies.
I refuse to "argue" with those who employ them.
Goodbye.
Promise?
--
Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman)

Old aunts used to come to me at weddings, poking me
in the ribs, cackling, and telling me, "You're next!"

They stopped after I started doing the same thing to
them at funerals.
Scout
2010-10-25 23:53:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tesla
Post by RD Sandman
Post by Tesla
Post by a425couple
Post by Tesla
Post by billzz
Post by Carl
Post by betweentheeyes
what is your point?
Every 50 years, another conspiracy theorist comes along who thinks they've
outdone the conspiracy theorists of the past. Let me go spin the
propeller
on my tin foil cap now.
Many years later I was talking to a detective and he said that
one way to solve a case is to see what the people involved did
after the act. What did Lee Harvey Oswald do after the act?
If anything, I don't think Oswald was the shooter. I always felt
he was being honest when he said, "I didn't shoot anybody, no
Sir."
How do you account for the issue that quite a number of people
saw Oswald shoot and kill Officer J.D. Tippit?
Oswald was never positively identified as the Tippit gunman. A
number of witnesses, who were ignored by the Warren Commission,
gave differing descriptions of the man they saw running from the
scene. There are also inconsistencies in regard to the physical
evidence that were obscured or left out of the official report. As
Oswald never made it to trial, these inconsistencies and
contradictions never saw the light of day. The fact that he was never
tried for the allegations against him, as
well as the well documented series of official efforts to obscure
and quash any questions of his guilt in the minds of the public are
sufficient to support the position that he was never actually proven
guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Therefore, Oswald remains innocent.
Nope. He remains unconvicted. Big difference.
Incorrect. He was "convicted" by and within the Warren Report.
He remains innocent, nonetheless.
His murder was merely a ploy to shield those who were truly guilty.
<yawn>

and why do I suspect you will never actually get around to proving this
assertions?
Tesla
2010-10-26 02:45:19 UTC
Permalink
you all realize that the official final word from the "warren commision"
said kennedy was only hit by one bullet.. right? the the members that
are unfortunatley still alive stick to that lie ...
watch the film of kennedy getting shot. a bullet hits him in the
throat,his ebows go up as he chockes,then he slumps over into his wifes
lap,then BOOM another bullet explodes his head.. the warren commision
says this never happened, even though you can plainly see that it did.
this means the warren commision committed a criminal act and covered up
the fats in a murder case. we can prove this now that we can show the
truth to millions of americans because of the internet.
I believe you are mistaken.

The Warren Commission did not say that Kennedy was struck by only one
bullet.

What they said was that one bullet struck Kennedy in the back of the
neck, exited Kennedy's throat just above the knot of his tie, then went
on to strike Texas Governor John Connally in the back, transversed his
chest cavity, splintering a rib, then exited Connally's chest, struck
him in the right wrist, shattering his bone, exited his wrist, embedded
itself in his left thigh, and finally fell out of his thigh onto a
Parkland Hospital gurney where it was later found in a nearly "pristine
condition", meaning that it appeared almost as a bullet that had hit
nothing at all.

This theory came to be known as "The Single Bullet Theory", or "The
Magic Bullet Theory", and was devised and presented to the Warren
Commission by Warren Commission staffer Arlen Specter, in order to
explain away and dispel the contemporaneous controversy surrounding the
claims by a number of witnesses to the event who said that more than
three shots were fired at the limousine. If this was not done, the
Commission would have been forced to admit that there was more than one
gunman, and, ergo, a conspiracy to kill the president.

This was unacceptable to those involved for reasons which have been
discussed ad infinitum elsewhere, so the Magic Bullet Theory was
adopted, and any testimony given by witnesses which indicated that four,
five, or six shots were fired was summarily dismissed, ignored, or
surreptitiously altered.

That is where the controversy . . . um . . . lies.

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...