The JFK case - another approach

Who else knows what we know, Jerry?
bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10648
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Nov 05, 2015 9:29 pm

RH--"a billion to one shot...." //// Thats your "lack of balance" right there.

Ha, ha. Just read what your post as if it wasn't from you?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7493
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby TJrandom » Thu Nov 05, 2015 10:19 pm

Robert Harris wrote:TJrandom,

Very seriously. If by some crazy, billion to one shot, suppose I am right. Would you prefer to not know about it? Don't you think it would be important to American history?

And what if rogue members of government were involved? What if J Edgar Hoover, who has already earned a despicable reputation as a racist and blackmailer, went to outrageous lengths to cover up evidence of the conspiracy?

Would you prefer to remain ignorant of that? Would you attack those who try to present that information, urging them to shut up about it?


Great question – but I am not trying to shut you up. Just prodding at your belief that your `evidence` proves that someone else was involved, and that anyone who doesn`t see it must be ignorant. Polygraphs, startle reactions – hardly solid evidence. Collaboratory at best. But then you would need something solid. So my best guess is that you are tilting at windmills and probably making a buck off of it. Nothing wrong with that – but it does place you in the same category of other CTers who are doing the same.

As for my lack of enthusiasm – I don`t see that I (or anyone else, for that matter) will be affected one way or the other. IMO, this is close to being in the same category of Columbus` mass murder of Native Americans, or what happened to Jimmy Hoffa. Not likely to ever be adequately addressed; not affecting anyone today; and most likely to never make the history books. But I am still hoping that one day, those history books will be updated.

Robert Harris
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:45 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Fri Nov 06, 2015 6:41 am

TJrandom wrote:
Robert Harris wrote:TJrandom,

Very seriously. If by some crazy, billion to one shot, suppose I am right. Would you prefer to not know about it? Don't you think it would be important to American history?

And what if rogue members of government were involved? What if J Edgar Hoover, who has already earned a despicable reputation as a racist and blackmailer, went to outrageous lengths to cover up evidence of the conspiracy?

Would you prefer to remain ignorant of that? Would you attack those who try to present that information, urging them to shut up about it?

Great question – but I am not trying to shut you up. Just prodding at your belief that your `evidence` proves that someone else was involved, and that anyone who doesn`t see it must be ignorant. Polygraphs, startle reactions – hardly solid evidence. Collaboratory at best. But then you would need something solid. So my best guess is that you are tilting at windmills and probably making a buck off of it. Nothing wrong with that – but it does place you in the same category of other CTers who are doing the same.

As for my lack of enthusiasm – I don`t see that I (or anyone else, for that matter) will be affected one way or the other. IMO, this is close to being in the same category of Columbus` mass murder of Native Americans, or what happened to Jimmy Hoffa. Not likely to ever be adequately addressed; not affecting anyone today; and most likely to never make the history books. But I am still hoping that one day, those history books will be updated.

You you will not be "affected" by a conspiracy to kill Kennedy. Nothing in our history books will affect us directly. I happen to find history fascinating however, and even today, millions of Americans and others around the world, care about the JFK case. If you don't, then why bother posting in this thread?

As for your claim that startle reactions are not significant evidence, you couldn't be more wrong. Startle reactions to 130 or more, decibel gunshots are involuntary. They must occur within no more than a third of a second, as they obviously did, following 285 and 313.

Three people simultaneously dropped their heads in the same 1/6th of one second, that Greer began to spin around so rapidly that some people thought his turn was humanly impossible, and simultaneous with his slowdown of the limousine, an act that would curse him as a Judas for the rest of his life. Also during that same 1/6th of one second, Zapruder exhibited startle reactions that were identified by Drs. Alvarez and Stroscio.

Of course they were startled. The same people who reacted, SAID they were hearing a "flurry" of shots or near simultaneous shots then - the only exception being John Connally, who was about to lose consciousness in the next few seconds.

Tell me something, please. Were these people startled by a loud noise? Or is the evidence too weak for you to form a conclusion?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSXjbiDD0rY

How about this guy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQ2LwB4mo1A

Now look at Kellerman. Watch him drop his head as he simultaneously shields his ear for less than a third of a second and raise his shoulders, also for a fraction of a second, which is a textbook startle reaction as confirmed by Landis and Hunt, whom I cite in this short presentation.

http://www.jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif
Last edited by Robert Harris on Fri Nov 06, 2015 10:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

Robert Harris
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:45 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Fri Nov 06, 2015 10:06 am

TJrandom,

Here's something interesting - a very slow motion animation of the Atlanta bombing in 1996. In this one, let it run a few times, paying particular attention to the lady in black on the right side of the screen. Watch her shield her ear for a fraction of a second as she simultaneously drops her head and hunches her shoulders upward. In real time, those reactions were not just the same as Kellerman's, they also were carried out in almost identical time frames.

http://jfkhistory.com/atlanta1996.gif

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7493
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby TJrandom » Fri Nov 06, 2015 11:00 am

Robert Harris wrote: ... You you will not be "affected" by a conspiracy to kill Kennedy. Nothing in our history books will affect us directly. I happen to find history fascinating however, and even today, millions of Americans and others around the world, care about the JFK case. If you don't, then why bother posting in this thread?


Of course I care - just as I care about what happened to Amelia, Jimmy, and the non-Christian Native Americans. But since you don`t write history books, or change the minds of skeptics - with less than solid evidence, why do you post here? Exactly what is it you hope to gain?

I am still waiting for the history books....

Robert Harris
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:45 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Fri Nov 06, 2015 7:16 pm

TJrandom wrote:
Robert Harris wrote: ... You you will not be "affected" by a conspiracy to kill Kennedy. Nothing in our history books will affect us directly. I happen to find history fascinating however, and even today, millions of Americans and others around the world, care about the JFK case. If you don't, then why bother posting in this thread?


Of course I care - just as I care about what happened to Amelia, Jimmy, and the non-Christian Native Americans. But since you don`t write history books, or change the minds of skeptics - with less than solid evidence, why do you post here? Exactly what is it you hope to gain?

I am still waiting for the history books....

IC, so you need to wait for someone to tell you?

And why do you pretend that the evidence I present is "less than solid"? If that were true, you wouldn't have needed to evade every question I asked you, would you? At the very least, you would have tried to explain why you think this evidence is insufficient, rather than just blurting out that it is.

Asking me why I choose to share what I have learned is an incredibly stupid question. Thousands of historians and researchers share what they have learned. I expect to "gain" nothing from this, other than an education about how narrow minded people can be.

Instead of making silly pretenses that my evidence is weak, why don't you address it SPECIFICALLY and prove that it is. You can start by addressing the questions that you just deleted.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29270
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Gord » Sat Nov 07, 2015 2:47 am

Robert Harris wrote:
Gord wrote:
Robert Harris wrote:
Gord wrote:
Robert Harris wrote:Gord,

You lied when you claimed that I have been refuted. If you disagree, then simply describe one of those refutations.

No, you lied when you said you hadn't been. I posted the link to another website where many of your claims were refuted.

No you didn't.

Yes I did.

You posted a link which contained no rebuttals at all.

Gord wrote:It contains many rebuttals.

Then describe one of them.

Or are you just trying to spare my feelings :mrgreen:

I linked to all of them. Pick one yourself.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

Robert Harris
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:45 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Sat Nov 07, 2015 5:32 pm

Gord wrote:
Robert Harris wrote:
You posted a link which contained no rebuttals at all.

Gord wrote:It contains many rebuttals.

Then describe one of them.

Or are you just trying to spare my feelings :mrgreen:

I linked to all of them. Pick one yourself.

What was the best one Gord?

Don't be bashful, amigo :lol:

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7493
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby TJrandom » Sun Nov 08, 2015 10:27 am

Robert Harris wrote: ... And why do you pretend that the evidence I present is "less than solid"? If that were true, you wouldn't have needed to evade every question I asked you, would you? At the very least, you would have tried to explain why you think this evidence is insufficient, rather than just blurting out that it is.


Startle reactions, IMO – are not solid evidence by themselves. Provide bullet fragments from your second gunman, a confession that is supported by forensics evidence, etc., and you may have a case. But startle reactions, blurry photos, polygraphs – by themselves will only convince the naive – because it is not solid evidence, IMO.

Robert Harris
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:45 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Sun Nov 08, 2015 5:39 pm

TJrandom wrote:
Robert Harris wrote: ... And why do you pretend that the evidence I present is "less than solid"? If that were true, you wouldn't have needed to evade every question I asked you, would you? At the very least, you would have tried to explain why you think this evidence is insufficient, rather than just blurting out that it is.


Startle reactions, IMO – are not solid evidence by themselves.

You continue to blurt out that assertion without any kind of justification or explanation. The infinitely better way to discuss this, is to provide honest answers to the questions you've been evading, which prove that startle reactions are not only legitimate evidence, but can be conclusive proof. Let me repeat them for you,

As for your claim that startle reactions are not significant evidence, you couldn't be more wrong. Startle reactions to 130 or more, decibel gunshots are involuntary. They must occur within no more than a third of a second, as they obviously did, following 285 and 313.

Three people simultaneously dropped their heads in the same 1/6th of one second, that Greer began to spin around so rapidly that some people thought his turn was humanly impossible, and simultaneous with his slowdown of the limousine, an act that would curse him as a Judas for the rest of his life. Also during that same 1/6th of one second, Zapruder exhibited startle reactions that were identified by Drs. Alvarez and Stroscio.

Of course they were startled. The same people who reacted, SAID they were hearing a "flurry" of shots or near simultaneous shots then - the only exception being John Connally, who was about to lose consciousness in the next few seconds.

Tell me something, please. Were these people startled by a loud noise? Or is the evidence too weak for you to form a conclusion?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSXjbiDD0rY

How about this guy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQ2LwB4mo1A

Now look at Kellerman. Watch him drop his head as he simultaneously shields his ear for less than a third of a second and raise his shoulders, also for a fraction of a second, which is a textbook startle reaction as confirmed by Landis and Hunt, whom I cite in this short presentation.

http://www.jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7493
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby TJrandom » Sun Nov 08, 2015 9:13 pm

I looked for `startle reactions` having been accepted in court cases - and found none. But then, maybe I am a poor researcher. However, since you base your case upon it - maybe you have a list of court cases where startle reactions were used as the key evidence to convict, where there was a lack of physical evidence?

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29270
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Gord » Sun Nov 08, 2015 10:03 pm

Robert Harris wrote:
Gord wrote:
Robert Harris wrote:
You posted a link which contained no rebuttals at all.

Gord wrote:It contains many rebuttals.

Then describe one of them.

Or are you just trying to spare my feelings :mrgreen:

I linked to all of them. Pick one yourself.

What was the best one Gord?

Don't be bashful, amigo :lol:

I linked to them. Go for it.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Flash
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6001
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Flash » Sun Nov 08, 2015 11:01 pm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3308941/Mob-hitman-James-Files-stands-claims-man-responsible-President-John-F-Kennedy-s-assassination-prepares-release.html
A former Mafia hitman claims he shot Kennedy.
James Files claims in the documentary I Killed JFK that he was the man who killed President John F. Kennedy
Files was moved from a high security jail to a less secure one in Illinois as he prepares for his release next spring after 36 years behind bars
Files says he was standing on the grassy knoll in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963 and fired the shot that killed Pres. Kennedy
He also claims that Lee Harvey Oswald never fired a single shot, and that his boss Charles 'Chuckie' Nicoletti was in the book depository
Files claims that the CIA turned against Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs Invasion and plotted with the mafia to kill the president


WTF??? :shock:
When I feel like exercising, I just lie down until the feeling goes away. Paul Terry

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby djembeweaver » Sun Nov 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Flash wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3308941/Mob-hitman-James-Files-stands-claims-man-responsible-President-John-F-Kennedy-s-assassination-prepares-release.html
A former Mafia hitman claims he shot Kennedy.
James Files claims in the documentary I Killed JFK that he was the man who killed President John F. Kennedy
Files was moved from a high security jail to a less secure one in Illinois as he prepares for his release next spring after 36 years behind bars
Files says he was standing on the grassy knoll in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963 and fired the shot that killed Pres. Kennedy
He also claims that Lee Harvey Oswald never fired a single shot, and that his boss Charles 'Chuckie' Nicoletti was in the book depository
Files claims that the CIA turned against Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs Invasion and plotted with the mafia to kill the president


WTF??? :shock:


Just another example of the many twists and turns down this warren of rabbit holes. Howard Hunt (one of the Watergate burglars and an ex-CIA man who was involved in the Bay of Pigs invasion) also claimed that it was a CIA conspiracy linked to the Bay of Pigs and Iran Contra.

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby supervitor » Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:24 am

djembeweaver wrote:
Flash wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3308941/Mob-hitman-James-Files-stands-claims-man-responsible-President-John-F-Kennedy-s-assassination-prepares-release.html
A former Mafia hitman claims he shot Kennedy.
James Files claims in the documentary I Killed JFK that he was the man who killed President John F. Kennedy
Files was moved from a high security jail to a less secure one in Illinois as he prepares for his release next spring after 36 years behind bars
Files says he was standing on the grassy knoll in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963 and fired the shot that killed Pres. Kennedy
He also claims that Lee Harvey Oswald never fired a single shot, and that his boss Charles 'Chuckie' Nicoletti was in the book depository
Files claims that the CIA turned against Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs Invasion and plotted with the mafia to kill the president


WTF??? :shock:


Just another example of the many twists and turns down this warren of rabbit holes. Howard Hunt (one of the Watergate burglars and an ex-CIA man who was involved in the Bay of Pigs invasion) also claimed that it was a CIA conspiracy linked to the Bay of Pigs and Iran Contra.


He's obviously right. Iran-Contra being an affair of the 1980's, it stands to reason that it's linked to a CIA conspiracy to kill JFK.

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby djembeweaver » Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:32 am

He's obviously right. Iran-Contra being an affair of the 1980's, it stands to reason that it's linked to a CIA conspiracy to kill JFK.


I obviously mis-remembered that bit. The point is that many people have claimed involvement, and many of the claims seem to contradict each other.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29270
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Gord » Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:40 am

djembeweaver wrote:
He's obviously right. Iran-Contra being an affair of the 1980's, it stands to reason that it's linked to a CIA conspiracy to kill JFK.

I obviously mis-remembered that bit.

Why "obviously"? It seems like a reasonable remembrance.

Observe: http://www.rense.com/general76/hunt.htm

The April 5 issue of Rolling Stone features the deathbed confession of CIA operative and key Bay of Pigs/Watergate/Nixon administration figure E. Howard Hunt, The Last Confession of E. Howard Hunt by Erik Hedegaard....

...The Dallas-Watergate-Iran-Contra connection has been thoroughly documented by the key JFK researchers, and in particular, in the work of Peter Dale Scott, one of the very first to show the deep political continuity across three decades. Daniel Hopsicker's Barry and the Boys goes into even more detail on the players....
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

Robert Harris
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:45 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Tue Nov 10, 2015 9:12 pm

TJrandom wrote:I looked for `startle reactions` having been accepted in court cases - and found none. But then, maybe I am a poor researcher. However, since you base your case upon it - maybe you have a list of court cases where startle reactions were used as the key evidence to convict, where there was a lack of physical evidence?

I doubt that you will find a case involving startle reactions. Their only value is in identifying relatively loud noises in silent films - not exactly a common mystery in criminal investigation.

But that doesn't matter. What matters is whether identifying multiple, simultaneous, startle reactions is a valid method for identifying loud noises. And of course it is. I have linked several examples in which it is ridiculously obvious that we are seeing people react to a loud noise. You probably won't find a court case in which there is a need to differentiate between a dog and a cow either, but that doesn't mean it isn't easy to do.

The question we are asking is simple. Were these people startled by a gunshot?

http://jfkhistory.com/ducking.gif

Here are the relevant facts:

1. Those same people said they were hearing closely bunched shots at the end of the attack, which is when we see the reactions.

2. Most people in Dealey plaza, also said they heard closely bunched shots at the end of the attack.

3. The reactions of five people in the limo, which included three of them ducking, aka dropping their heads, all began in the same 1/6th of one second.

4. The Nobel prize winning physicist, Dr. Luis Alvarez determined that Zapruder and Greer reacted to a loud noise, at exactly the same instant that the passengers reacted.

5. Roy Kellerman dropped his head, in perfect unison with the others, as he simultaneously raised his hand for 5/18ths of a second, to shield his ear, and hunched his shoulders upward, a classic startle reaction as confirmed by Hunt & Landis as well as other experts.

Are there any of those statement you wish to challenge??

I shouldn't have to debate about this. It is outrageously obvious. How can anyone have even the slightest doubt about what is going on in that film segment?

User avatar
Austin Harper
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4836
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit
Contact:

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Austin Harper » Tue Nov 17, 2015 5:32 pm

McSweeney's wrote:Rebunking Conspiracy Theories:
The Assassination of John F. Kennedy

by Keaton Patti

On Friday November 22nd, 1963, John F. Kennedy was assassinated, something that would have probably gone unnoticed except for one small fact: he was the President of the United States. The truth regarding the killer (or killers?) and the motive (or motives?) has been argued over by conspiracy theorists and conspiracy debunkers ever since that fateful day in Dallas (or San Antonio?).

The conspiracies dealing with the assassination are plentiful and varied, much like the number of Kennedy family summer homes. I’ll shine a light on several theories, because truth is much like the honest moth: It cannot help but be attracted to the light of logic and discovery, and it has a lifespan of about a week, longer in the winter.

Read more
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29270
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Gord » Tue Nov 17, 2015 11:46 pm

Austin Harper wrote:
McSweeney's wrote:...Kennedy was assassinated, something that would have probably gone unnoticed....

That's true. Nobody ever notices when I get assassinated, for instance.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

Tom Palven
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4807
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Tom Palven » Thu Nov 26, 2015 2:24 pm

If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3185
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby ElectricMonk » Thu Nov 26, 2015 2:50 pm

JFK shot first, no matter what George Lucas says ...
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

Robert Harris
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:45 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Tue Dec 01, 2015 4:37 pm

Austin Harper wrote:
McSweeney's wrote:Rebunking Conspiracy Theories:
The Assassination of John F. Kennedy

by Keaton Patti

On Friday November 22nd, 1963, John F. Kennedy was assassinated, something that would have probably gone unnoticed except for one small fact: he was the President of the United States. The truth regarding the killer (or killers?) and the motive (or motives?) has been argued over by conspiracy theorists and conspiracy debunkers ever since that fateful day in Dallas (or San Antonio?).

The conspiracies dealing with the assassination are plentiful and varied, much like the number of Kennedy family summer homes. I’ll shine a light on several theories, because truth is much like the honest moth: It cannot help but be attracted to the light of logic and discovery, and it has a lifespan of about a week, longer in the winter.

Read more


Nothing in that article addresses the facts and evidence I presented in creating this thread. Nor does it address the fact that Carlos Marcello confessed to an FBI informant that he ordered the assassination.

Lone nut advocates never address the most important evidence; they instead, pretend that only the bad arguments support the case for conspiracy. In this case, the author addresses arguments that have been debunked for decades, even fabricating one that never existed, claiming that conspiracy advocates said, "There weren’t any shooters at all".

The demonstrable facts are:

1. That shots were fired which were too close to one another, for both to have come from Oswald' rifle.

2. That none of the early shots were loud enough to provoke the kind of startle reactions we see, following the final shots.

3. That CE399, the bullet which was fired from Oswald's rifle, was NOT the one that wounded John Connally and probably JFK. It was certainly fired from Oswald's rifle, but not on 11/22/63. That fact was proven by John Connally himself, District attorney Henry Wade, and officer Bobby Nolan. This article explains in detail.

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html

Countless arguments and theories have been presented over the last 50 years. Cherry picking only the worst of them, is not a valid method for making one's case. Address the BEST evidence, much of which I have presented at the top of this thread.

User avatar
Austin Harper
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4836
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit
Contact:

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Austin Harper » Tue Dec 01, 2015 5:21 pm

Robert Harris wrote:Nothing in that article addresses the facts and evidence I presented in creating this thread. Nor does it address the fact that Carlos Marcello confessed to an FBI informant that he ordered the assassination.

Of course it doesn't. It's satire making fun of idiots like you.
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

Robert Harris
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:45 pm

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Robert Harris » Wed Dec 02, 2015 11:16 am

Austin Harper wrote:
Robert Harris wrote:Nothing in that article addresses the facts and evidence I presented in creating this thread. Nor does it address the fact that Carlos Marcello confessed to an FBI informant that he ordered the assassination.

Of course it doesn't. It's satire making fun of idiots like you.


The idiots are the those who evade the evidence - believing in gods, fortune tellers and the JFK lone nut theory.

Tom Palven
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4807
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Tom Palven » Fri Feb 05, 2016 8:47 am

List of secret documents related to the Kennedy case released by US government:
http://whowhatwhy.org/2016/02/04/breaki ... documents/
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19698
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Fri Feb 05, 2016 3:15 pm

"I'm right. Now to find things that show that."

"I may be right. Is there anything that proves or disproves that?"

You can see the problem.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

Tom Palven
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4807
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Tom Palven » Fri Feb 05, 2016 4:21 pm

Everyone involved in the Kennedy murder investigation is dead now, so who are some powers-that-be trying to protect by keeping documents secret? They must be trying to protect an organization, no?

Imho the Warren Commission report was correct, that Oswald acted alone.

However, if Oswald was employed by Cuba and/or Russia, and the CIA or FBI, wouldn't the public relations departments of that organization, at least, continue to want that to remain secret?
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

Tom Palven
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4807
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Tom Palven » Sat Dec 17, 2016 8:28 am

Latest on the release of the Kennedy murder documents:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/12/jac ... ght-trump/
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

Tom Palven
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4807
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Tom Palven » Sun Aug 06, 2017 11:38 am

If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

Tom Palven
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4807
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: The JFK case - another approach

Postby Tom Palven » Sat Sep 30, 2017 7:20 am

Now the remaining CIA/FBI Kennedy murder documents are scheduled to be released Oct. 26 except for those that mysteriously went missing recently:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... apers.html
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire


Return to “Conspiracies”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest