View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

JFK 50TH Anniversary

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: JFK 50TH Anniversary

Postby SydneyPSIder » 31 May 2014, 07:24

Other analysts beg to differ based on other markers on the gun, position of mount points, etc. Once again, although there appears to be considerable photographic evidence that it was a different gun, LHO's behaviours and photo taking and so on still look a lot like he was manipulated to set up a back story. Why would he take pictures of himself holding two guns to 'send to the newspaper' unless someone told him it was a necessary thing to do in his amazing intel job, don't ask why, just do it. Why in particular would you take pains to hold up a newspaper to reference the date -- it's almost too obviously the makings of a frame up. He was clearly not a madman in the press coverage we see of him, he was being instructed to do these things to portray himself as unhinged -- the grooming of a patsy. As noted, this is exactly how the guys in Leeds were set up for 7/7.

What amazes me the most about wag's stance is that he actually believes the findings of a government enquiry into anything! I'm reviewing a couple of Senate enquiries into more innocuous topics here, and they're riddled with lies and obfuscation and arguments of convenience so as not to upset vested interests. In the case of the Warren Commission, it was stacked with Republicans and JFK's bitterest enemies who were spooks to boot and had a lot to hide. The CIA is known to have engineered a number of assassinations in the 60s of both international and domestic leaders, hence the necessary creation of a 'House Select Committee into Assassinations', not that you could expect great things from such an enquiry. In the domestic cases, a patsy was always found, a 'lone deranged gunman'. Funny how the rate seems to have gone down in recent times.

The House Select Committee on Assassinations Photographic experts found that in examining the photos, there were distinctive marks on the rifle in the DeMohrenschildt and CE 134 ( large photo, above ) BY photos that matched the Depository rifle. ( 2 HSCA 428 )

What about the difference in the sling mounts ?

It was never addressed.

It would seem that IF Oswald ordered a 36" rifle and received a 36" rifle, then the 40" Depository rifle was not his.

You can see more info on the difference in the sling mounts on this video from my youtube channel.


SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24






Re: JFK 50TH Anniversary

Postby SydneyPSIder » 31 May 2014, 10:55

Yet another hour long doco -- but a very interesting one. Note 'over 70% of the US public don't believe the official story, and they know the media had a hand in the cover-up'. What happened to the missing 7.65 Mauser rifle that was found at the scene by police? Apparently the deputy who reported it was fired, had several attempts on his life, and finally died of a 'suicide' shotgun wound in the early 70s. The report certainly made things difficult for the Warren Commission.

Paraffin tests showed LHO had fired no rifle, but the police quickly reversed the finding to say he HAD fired a rifle. Fingerprints on boxes in the sniper's nest showed many police fingerprints, one unknown man's fingerprints (later matched to Mac Wallace, LBJ's personal hitman) and NO fingerprints from LHO.

There is new information in that doco I haven't heard before that makes a lot of sense and brings the full spectrum of evidence together very convincingly. LHO had been sheep-dipped as a communist and Castro supporter because he was going to be sent to Cuba to assassinate Castro. Hence the films shot of him publicly praising socialism etc, handing out pro-Castro leaflets, along with his earlier trip to Russia, with the idea of getting him into Cuba on a visa as a 'sympathiser' from where he would take a potshot at Castro from a building window. Once that didn't eventuate, they decided to make him a patsy for the JFK hit with a strikingly similar scenario -- and the Company will happily cannibalise its own at any time when expedient. First of all after his arrest you see LHO being tight-lipped and evasive in his answers, seeking to protect his intelligence identity and the others involved -- in line with his training and loyalties up until then -- but as time progressed he woke up to what was happening and realised he'd been thrown under a bus -- already realising some time beforehand that his career wasn't 'progressing' in the Company, and that he might be being set up for something -- then started talking about getting legal representation, knew he'd been stitched up, finally claimed to the press he was a patsy, then shortly afterwards was eliminated by Jack Ruby. You see him getting more and more nervous as time went on and he knew he'd been betrayed and faced an uncertain future through the legal system in a concerted frame-up.

Then there is the further stuff about creating a cancer-causing virus tested and incubated in mice where the plan was to get the virus couriered into Cuba and injected into Castro using a sympathetic medical aide. The attempts at assassination never let up in the 60s. It goes hand in hand with US interference in several South and Central American countries at the time and for several decades following -- involving names like Allende, Pinochet, Noriega, Castro, Guevera, Chavez, and many more -- then there was the WHISC and SOA.

Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 31 May 2014, 17:47, edited 1 time in total.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: JFK 50TH Anniversary

Postby SydneyPSIder » 31 May 2014, 17:32

Here's a further refutation of profwag's claim that LHO shot at general Walker some time earlier -- something that was pinned on LHO posthumously on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, and in fact 2 men were seen leaving Walker's yard that night and getting into two cars and driving off. Neither man looked like LHO according to the witness, and LHO couldn't drive to boot.

LHO's wife, Marina, was threatened with deportation to Russia, and further was an unreliable witness as was Ruth Paine's testimony and who also magically produced various documents on demand.

Interestingly her claims that LHO cleaned and practised with his rifle were called into question: http://22november1963.org.uk/lee-harvey ... arpshooter

Did Lee Harvey Oswald Shoot at General Edwin Walker?

On the evening of 10 April 1963, Edwin Walker, a former Army general, was sitting in his study when a bullet entered his house through a window frame and struck the wall close to his head. Dallas police were unable to identify the gunman.

The crime remained unsolved until shortly after the assassination of President Kennedy, when the FBI’s report presumed that Lee Harvey Oswald was the culprit (see Warren Commission Document 1, pp.20–22). The Warren Commission, unable to determine Oswald’s motive for shooting JFK, seized on the attempted shooting of General Walker as evidence of Oswald’s murderous tendencies (see Warren Report, p.183).

Marina Oswald and the Handwritten Note

For more than two months after the JFK assassination, Marina Oswald was held at the Inn of the Six Flags in Arlington, near Fort Worth, where the Secret Service and the FBI interrogated her and threatened her with deportation to the Soviet Union (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.1, p.410).

She produced several statements incriminating her husband, including the claim that on the evening of the attempted assassination of General Walker, Lee Oswald had gone out, leaving a handwritten note which explained in Russian what she should do if he were arrested. When Lee returned, he admitted to Marina that he had shot at Walker (for Marina Oswald’s account, see Warren Report, pp.405f).

Marina Oswald’s Credibility

The Warren Commission was aware that many of Marina Oswald’s statements were contradictory and unreliable (see, for example, her evidence about Oswald cleaning and practising with his rifle). One of the Commission’s attorneys, Norman Redlich, wrote in a memo to J. Lee Rankin that “neither you nor I have any desire to smear the reputation of any individual. We cannot ignore, however, that Marina Oswald has repeatedly lied to the [Secret] Service, the FBI, and this Commission on matters which are of vital concern to the people of this country and the world” (HSCA Report, appendix vol.11, p.126).

Redlich expanded on this when testifying before the HSCA: “She may not have told the truth in connection with the attempted killing of General Walker. … I gave to Mr Rankin a lengthy document. … I indicated the testimony that she had given, the instances where it was in conflict” (ibid., p.127).

Ruth Paine Supplies Oswald’s Note

While Marina was producing this incriminating evidence, an interesting coincidence occurred. Ruth Paine, with whom Marina had been staying at the time of the assassination, sent her a Russian–language book. Tucked inside the book was the handwritten note (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.16, pp.1f [Commission Exhibit 1]).

This was not the only time Ruth Paine provided evidence helpful to the case against Oswald:
•A Minox spy camera had been found in her garage among Lee Oswald’s possessions, but Ruth Paine claimed that it actually belonged to her estranged husband; see Carol Hewett, ‘The Paines’ Participation in the Minox Camera Charade,’ Probe, vol.4 no.1 (November–December 1963).
•She claimed to have found another document in Oswald’s handwriting, this time a letter addressed to the Soviet Embassy, which linked Oswald to a KGB agent in Mexico City ; see Jerry Rose, ‘Gifts from Russia: Yeltsin and Mitrokhin,’ The Fourth Decade, vol.7 no.1 (November 1999), pp.3–8.

For more about the role of Ruth Paine in the JFK assassination, and her relationship with Marina Oswald, see the introduction to George de Mohrenschildt’s I Am a Patsy! I Am a Patsy!.

Was the Walker Note Authentic?

The note was undated, and did not mention General Walker or any reason why Oswald might find himself under arrest. There are several reasons to doubt the authenticity of the handwritten note:
•Ruth Paine’s home had been searched thoroughly on the afternoon of the assassination, and again the following day, when Paine claimed to have seen officers specifically looking for loose papers within books (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.3, p.87). The inventory of items discovered is 49 pages long, but does not mention the note (FBI HQ Oswald File, 105–82555–24).
•Although the FBI’s handwriting expert considered that the note was in Oswald’s handwriting (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.7, p.437), only one of the three experts who were consulted by the House Select Committee on Assassinations considered the note to be authentic (HSCA Report, appendix vol.8, pp.232–246).
•The Bureau’s fingerprint expert found seven sets of fingerprints on the note. None of them belonged to either Lee or Marina Oswald (FBI HQ JFK Assassination File, 62–109060–36).

Two Men Outside Walker’s House

There were no witnesses to the shooting itself, but one of Walker’s neighbours was alerted by the gunshot and saw two men leaving the scene. Each man got into a car and drove away. The witness, Walter Kirk Coleman, was able to give detailed descriptions of the men and their cars (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.26, pp.437–441 [Commission Exhibit 2958]). After the JFK assassination, Coleman was shown photographs of Oswald. He denied that Oswald resembled either of the men he had seen. In any case, Oswald could not drive.

Robert Surrey, an associate of General Walker, reported that he had seen two men acting suspiciously outside Walker’s house two days before the shooting. Neither man resembled Oswald (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.5, pp.446–9).

The Bullet and the Rifle

The bullet used in the attempted shooting of Walker was probably not the same type as those used in the JFK assassination. According to various newspaper accounts (e.g. ‘Walker Escapes Assassin’s Bullet’, New York Times, 12 April 1963, p.12), the Dallas police claimed that the bullet was a 30.06 calibre; the bullet shells from the Texas School Book Depository were 6.5mm. The Walker bullet was too severely deformed to allow a conclusive analysis of its pattern of grooves. A spectrographic examination by Henry Heilberger of the FBI laboratory found that the lead alloy in the bullet was different from that of bullet fragments found in President Kennedy’s car (FBI HQ JFK Assassination File, 62–109060–22).

Dr Vincent Guinn performed neutron activation analysis on the bullet fired at General Walker, as well as several bullet fragments associated with the JFK assassination. He claimed that the Walker bullet was “extremely likely” to be a fragment from the same type of bullet as those fired at President Kennedy (HSCA Report, appendix vol.1, p.502), but his methodology and results have since been refuted (see How Reliable is the Neutron Activation Analysis Evidence in the JFK Assassination?).

The Walker bullet had been fired from a rifle powerful enough to send it through brickwork, which the Mannlicher–Carcano rifle was not. There is no evidence that Oswald ever had access to such a rifle.

Not only did the bullet and rifle have no association with Lee Harvey Oswald, but Edwin Walker was adamant that Commission Exhibit 573, the bullet offered in evidence, was not the one he had examined at the time of the shooting; see Justice Department Criminal Division File 62–117290–1473 for Walker’s correspondence with the Justice Department on this matter.

Oswald’s Motive for Shooting Walker

Oswald’s supposed motive for shooting at Walker was political. Walker was well known for his very right–wing views. He had been forced to resign from the Army for indoctrinating his troops with the ideas of the John Birch Society and for announcing publicly that President Truman, among other prominent American politicians, was a communist sympathiser (see Walker’s obituary in the New York Times).

Although the alleged presidential assassin was officially supposed to have been a communist, the known facts of Lee Harvey Oswald’s career show that he was closely associated with one or more US intelligence agencies, and that his pro–communist public persona was highly likely to have been a fake.

With no plausible motive and no substantial grounds for believing that Oswald was involved in the attempted shooting of Walker, and no strong evidence that Oswald was guilty of the JFK assassination, it seems that the Walker shooting was attributed to Oswald by the FBI and the Warren Commission purely to support the notion that Oswald was a leftist malcontent with a propensity for violence.

http://22november1963.org.uk/did-lee-os ... win-walker
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: JFK 50TH Anniversary

Postby SydneyPSIder » 31 May 2014, 17:37

Responding to profwag's quote of marina's later testimony and recall of LHO doing rifle practice, it is noted she denied all of that in her first interviews. being grilled intensively in a hotel by the FBI and police for some 2 months, including being threatened with deportation to Russia, she started to remember that he practised at some time, although she never saw it first hand. This is the later testimony that profwag has conveniently quoted, whereas it looks as though she was coerced into making false testimony on any reasonable reading.

What we are seeing is profwag pulling the same trick that the FBI and the warren commission pulled in fooling the public:

When Did Oswald Last Use a Rifle?

The last occasion on which Oswald was tested in the Marines was in May 1959, four and a half years before the assassination. In addition to Marine duty, Oswald is known to have fired a weapon on other occasions:
•Lee Oswald and his brother Robert went on several hunting trips before Lee’s defection to the Soviet Union in 1959 (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.1, pp.325ff).
•In Russia, Oswald joined a hunting club, and used a shotgun, but not a rifle. There were “a half dozen” shooting expeditions, which appear to have been largely social occasions (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.2, p.466) and an excuse for Oswald to get into the countryside (Commission Document 344, p.21).

Oswald Had Not Practised with the Rifle

In several interviews with the FBI and the Secret Service in December 1963, Marina Oswald was adamant that her husband had not practised with a rifle since his return to the United States. For example:


MARINA said she had never seen OSWALD practice with his rifle or any other firearm and he had never told her that he was going to practice.

(Warren Commission Hearings, vol.22, p.763 [Commission Exhibit 1401])


She cannot recall that he [Oswald] ever practised firing the rifle either in New Orleans or in Dallas. She does not think he did practice in New Orleans because as a rule he stayed home when he was not working. When he did go out, she did not see him take the rifle.

(ibid., p.778 [Commission Exhibit 1403])


The reporting agent interviewed Marina Oswald as to whether she knew of any place or of a rifle range where her husband could do some practicing with a rifle, and whether she ever saw her husband taking the rifle out of the house. She said that she never saw Lee going out or coming in to the house with a rifle and that he never mentioned to her doing any practice with a rifle.

(ibid., p.785 [Commission Exhibit 1404])


Marina Oswald was asked if she ever saw her husband doing any dry practice with the rifle either in their apartments or any place else, and she replied in the negative.

(Warren Commission Hearings, vol.23, p.402 [Commission Exhibit 1789])

Marina Oswald Changes Her Mind

By the time she testified before the Warren Commission in 1964, however, her memory had improved:

Mr Rankin: Did you ever see him clean the rifle?Mrs Oswald: Yes. I said before I had never seen it before. But I think you understand. I want to help you, and that is why there is no reason for concealing anything. I will not be charged with anything.…Mr Rankin: Did you learn at any time that he had been practicing with the rifle?Mrs Oswald: I think he went once or twice. I didn’t actually see him take the rifle, but I knew he was practicing.Mr Rankin: Could you give us a little help on how you knew?Mrs Oswald: He told me. And he would mention that in passing … he would say, “Well, today I will take the rifle along for practice.”
(Warren Commission Hearings, vol.1, pp.14f)

She was equally helpful in an interview with the FBI in February 1964:


MARINA advised that OSWALD had told her after the WALKER incident that he had practiced with his rifle in a field near Dallas. She said further that in the beginning of January, 1963, at the Neely Street address, he on one occasion was cleaning his rifle and he said he had been practicing that day. …

She said [that] on an evening in March, 1963, … OSWALD left the house at about 6:00PM. OSWALD had his rifle wrapped up in a raincoat … When OSWALD returned about 9:00PM, he told her he had practiced with the rifle.

(Warren Commission Hearings, vol.22, p.197 [Commission Exhibit 1156])

Unfortunately, the rifle which Marina Oswald had apparently watched her husband clean early in January 1963 did not come into his possession until more than two months later, toward the end of March (Warren Report, p.119).

Informed of this discrepancy, she changed her story again:


She advised she had been mistaken on February 17, 1964, when she said she had recalled OSWALD cleaning his rifle at Neely Street, at which time he made the statement that he had been practicing. … On the other occasions of his cleaning the rifle … he did not say he had been practicing. MARINA deduced that he might have been practicing with the rifle.

(Warren Commission Hearings, p.785 [Commission Exhibit 1404])

The Warren Commission was aware that many of Marina Oswald’s statements were contradictory and unreliable, and that she was under pressure to tell the authorities what they wanted to hear. According to an internal Warren Commission document, which became public 15 years after it was written, “Marina Oswald has repeatedly lied to the [Secret] Service, the FBI, and this Commission on matters which are of vital concern to the people of this country and the world” (HSCA Report, appendix vol.11, p.126).

Nevertheless, the Warren Report quite dishonestly used only Marina Oswald’s later, incriminating testimony, some of which she herself had repudiated, and ignored her earlier evidence:


Marina Oswald testified that on one occasion she saw him take the rifle, concealed in a raincoat, from the house on Neely Street. Oswald told her he was going to practice with it. …

Marina Oswald testified that in New Orleans in May of 1963, she observed Oswald sitting with the rifle on their screened porch at night, sighting with the telescopic lens and operating the bolt.

(Warren Report, p.192)

http://22november1963.org.uk/lee-harvey ... arpshooter
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: JFK 50TH Anniversary

Postby ProfWag » 31 May 2014, 20:36

SydneyPSIder wrote:There were no witnesses to the shooting itself, but one of Walker’s neighbours was alerted by the gunshot and saw two men leaving the scene. Each man got into a car and drove away. The witness, Walter Kirk Coleman, was able to give detailed descriptions of the men and their cars (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.26, pp.437–441 [Commission Exhibit 2958]). After the JFK assassination, Coleman was shown photographs of Oswald. He denied that Oswald resembled either of the men he had seen. In any case, Oswald could not drive.

Just to show how conspiracy theorists embellish the facts, here is the real story about 15 year old, Walter Coleman. He saw 2 men casually leave from a church parking lot and they were in no hurry to leave. At least 6 other cars left the parking lot around the same time. Walter did not have a view of the alley behind Walker's house.
To summarize, Walter Coleman did not witness the Walker assassination attempt.

There really is no point going over anything else concerning JFK with Sydney. It is blatantly obvious that all he does is review conspiracy websites and posts their findings rather than search for the truth.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: JFK 50TH Anniversary

Postby Misha » 31 May 2014, 22:52

ProfWag wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:There were no witnesses to the shooting itself, but one of Walker’s neighbours was alerted by the gunshot and saw two men leaving the scene. Each man got into a car and drove away. The witness, Walter Kirk Coleman, was able to give detailed descriptions of the men and their cars (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.26, pp.437–441 [Commission Exhibit 2958]). After the JFK assassination, Coleman was shown photographs of Oswald. He denied that Oswald resembled either of the men he had seen. In any case, Oswald could not drive.

Just to show how conspiracy theorists embellish the facts, here is the real story about 15 year old, Walter Coleman. He saw 2 men casually leave from a church parking lot and they were in no hurry to leave. At least 6 other cars left the parking lot around the same time. Walter did not have a view of the alley behind Walker's house.
To summarize, Walter Coleman did not witness the Walker assassination attempt.

There really is no point going over anything else concerning JFK with Sydney. It is blatantly obvious that all he does is review conspiracy websites and posts their findings rather than search for the truth.


I disagree with your assessment of Sydney, ProfWag. I have read many of JFK books and much of what Syd has posted is not strictly relegated to "conspiracy websites." They are in fact in much of the JFK literature which has been printed over the years. It is up to you to pick up the books and cross reference what some of the Internet sites have put out. I have said in the past that Douglas P. Horne's books are insightful, factual and illuminating. "Inside the ARRB" sheds a lot of light on the assassination and coverup of the JFK assassination.

After reading yours and Sydney's post over the years I would have to conclude that Sydney is correct overall with his analysis of the assassination. Sydney understands the historical content and context through and through and we would be wise to read his posts lest we become poorer men and women. Well done, Sydney!
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: JFK 50TH Anniversary

Postby ProfWag » 01 Jun 2014, 01:02

Misha wrote:I disagree with your assessment of Sydney, ProfWag. I have read many of JFK books and much of what Syd has posted is not strictly relegated to "conspiracy websites." They are in fact in much of the JFK literature which has been printed over the years. It is up to you to pick up the books and cross reference what some of the Internet sites have put out. I have said in the past that Douglas P. Horne's books are insightful, factual and illuminating. "Inside the ARRB" sheds a lot of light on the assassination and coverup of the JFK assassination.

After reading yours and Sydney's post over the years I would have to conclude that Sydney is correct overall with his analysis of the assassination. Sydney understands the historical content and context through and through and we would be wise to read his posts lest we become poorer men and women. Well done, Sydney!

And I disagree with your assessment Misha. You have shown through your posts that you believe in nothing but conspiracy theories yourself. As such, you are not interested in seeking facts, but rather prefer to insist that nothing is as it seems.
I have read much on JFK myself so you are not alone. The difference is that in addition to the "theories," I have read and studied the evidence. And the evidence of those fateful minutes in Dealey Plaza has led to nothing but LHO being the lone gunman in Dealey Plaza. Now, if you want to discuss who may have prompted him, potential cover ups or attempts that didn't occur, then fine. We could even discuss if someone prompted him. That is a different subject altogether. But LHOs actions and evidence do not support a mass conspiracy of the actual assassination. Sorry, but you are terribly wrong and insensitive to the evidence.
Finally, Sydney does not understand the historical content. He has never once posted an original thought. Additionally, Sydney is from Australia and not the United States. The personal impact of a U.S. President's assassination is minimal to non-existent for him so how could you have concluded he understand the historical content? You would not recognize that Misha as you are a one-sided conspiracy theorist, through and through.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: JFK 50TH Anniversary

Postby Misha » 01 Jun 2014, 06:44

ProfWag wrote:
Misha wrote:I disagree with your assessment of Sydney, ProfWag. I have read many of JFK books and much of what Syd has posted is not strictly relegated to "conspiracy websites." They are in fact in much of the JFK literature which has been printed over the years. It is up to you to pick up the books and cross reference what some of the Internet sites have put out. I have said in the past that Douglas P. Horne's books are insightful, factual and illuminating. "Inside the ARRB" sheds a lot of light on the assassination and coverup of the JFK assassination.

After reading yours and Sydney's post over the years I would have to conclude that Sydney is correct overall with his analysis of the assassination. Sydney understands the historical content and context through and through and we would be wise to read his posts lest we become poorer men and women. Well done, Sydney!

And I disagree with your assessment Misha. You have shown through your posts that you believe in nothing but conspiracy theories yourself. As such, you are not interested in seeking facts, but rather prefer to insist that nothing is as it seems.
I have read much on JFK myself so you are not alone. The difference is that in addition to the "theories," I have read and studied the evidence. And the evidence of those fateful minutes in Dealey Plaza has led to nothing but LHO being the lone gunman in Dealey Plaza. Now, if you want to discuss who may have prompted him, potential cover ups or attempts that didn't occur, then fine. We could even discuss if someone prompted him. That is a different subject altogether. But LHOs actions and evidence do not support a mass conspiracy of the actual assassination. Sorry, but you are terribly wrong and insensitive to the evidence.
Finally, Sydney does not understand the historical content. He has never once posted an original thought. Additionally, Sydney is from Australia and not the United States. The personal impact of a U.S. President's assassination is minimal to non-existent for him so how could you have concluded he understand the historical content? You would not recognize that Misha as you are a one-sided conspiracy theorist, through and through.


"Conspiracy Theorist", Sigh..., label, label and more labeling by you. You don't know what I read, ProfWag. Like I said, Syd has done an excellent job presenting the facts. You on the other hand obfuscate, derail, label, misinform through strawman tactics and plain do not want to see the apparent truth on the assassination. Yes, I have no problem having a debate with "reasonable" people on the JFK assassination. However, with you I would rather stick needles in my eyes. On this subject I will pull up my stakes with you. Not worth my time. Good day, sir.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: JFK 50TH Anniversary

Postby ProfWag » 01 Jun 2014, 07:23

Misha wrote:"Conspiracy Theorist", Sigh..., label, label and more labeling by you. You don't know what I read, ProfWag. Like I said, Syd has done an excellent job presenting the facts. You on the other hand obfuscate, derail, label, misinform through strawman tactics and plain do not want to see the apparent truth on the assassination. Yes, I have no problem having a debate with "reasonable" people on the JFK assassination. However, with you I would rather stick needles in my eyes. On this subject I will pull up my stakes with you. Not worth my time. Good day, sir.

Conspiracy theorist is not a label, it's a belief system. And I'm sorry to say it's yours.
You say that Syd has done an excellent job presenting the facts. Really? Why do you say that? All he has done was take conspiracy laden websites and posted page after page after page of misrepresented information. None of his posts--and I mean none--have provided any valuable information and provide no references that help determine the source of the comment. He posts things such as the witness for the Walker assassination with no reference and then upon further review, the witness couldn't even see the house where Walker was shot. Please tell us all, Misha, how you can possibly give that misleading information an "excellent job" moniker? If you think that was "excellent" evidence, then I'll take those needles and stick them in my own eye.
You are a formidable debate opponent, Misha, and I would love to debate you. But I don't believe that you or any conspiracy theorist can take a single point and discuss it. Good day to you too.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: JFK 50TH Anniversary

Postby Misha » 01 Jun 2014, 16:47

ProfWag wrote:
Misha wrote:"Conspiracy Theorist", Sigh..., label, label and more labeling by you. You don't know what I read, ProfWag. Like I said, Syd has done an excellent job presenting the facts. You on the other hand obfuscate, derail, label, misinform through strawman tactics and plain do not want to see the apparent truth on the assassination. Yes, I have no problem having a debate with "reasonable" people on the JFK assassination. However, with you I would rather stick needles in my eyes. On this subject I will pull up my stakes with you. Not worth my time. Good day, sir.

Conspiracy theorist is not a label, it's a belief system. And I'm sorry to say it's yours.
You say that Syd has done an excellent job presenting the facts. Really? Why do you say that? All he has done was take conspiracy laden websites and posted page after page after page of misrepresented information. None of his posts--and I mean none--have provided any valuable information and provide no references that help determine the source of the comment. He posts things such as the witness for the Walker assassination with no reference and then upon further review, the witness couldn't even see the house where Walker was shot. Please tell us all, Misha, how you can possibly give that misleading information an "excellent job" moniker? If you think that was "excellent" evidence, then I'll take those needles and stick them in my own eye.
You are a formidable debate opponent, Misha, and I would love to debate you. But I don't believe that you or any conspiracy theorist can take a single point and discuss it. Good day to you too.


Again, labeling me in anyway is your prerogative, ProfWag. However, you don't know me and my belief system, period.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: JFK 50TH Anniversary

Postby ProfWag » 01 Jun 2014, 19:54

Misha wrote:Again, labeling me in anyway is your prerogative, ProfWag. However, you don't know me and my belief system, period.

You're right. I don't know you. I only know what you post and through the years, you've supported conspiracies involving everything from JFK and UFO's to 9/11 and the Holocaust (among many others). Not everything is a conspiracy and none of us should believe everything we read.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: JFK 50TH Anniversary

Postby SydneyPSIder » 01 Jun 2014, 20:50

ProfWag wrote:
Misha wrote:Again, labeling me in anyway is your prerogative, ProfWag. However, you don't know me and my belief system, period.

You're right. I don't know you. I only know what you post and through the years, you've supported conspiracies involving everything from JFK and UFO's to 9/11 and the Holocaust (among many others). Not everything is a conspiracy and none of us should believe everything we read.

Nothing wrong with that, if there's credible evidence to support those things.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: JFK 50TH Anniversary

Postby SydneyPSIder » 01 Jun 2014, 20:55

Oswald’s Rifle Skill: Begging the Question

In an internal Warren Commission memo, Wesley Liebeler criticised an early draft of the Warren Report, pointing out that “we should be more precise in this area [Oswald’s rifle practice], because the Commission is going to have its work in this area examined very closely”. He tacitly admitted the weakness of the evidence by begging the question: “the best evidence that Oswald could fire his rifle as fast as he did and hit the target is the fact that he did so”.

In 1967, following the publication of the earliest books refuting the Warren Commission’s case against Oswald, CBS broadcast a four–part series attempting to revive the lone–gunman hypothesis. Like the Warren Commission, CBS employed professional shooters to try to duplicate Oswald’s alleged feat. Again the experts used better–quality rifles in more favourable circumstances, and again they failed. The narrator of the series, Walter Cronkite, discarded the inconvenient evidence just as Liebeler had done:

There is no pat answer to the question of how fast Oswald’s rifle could be fired. In the first place, we did not test his own rifle. It seemed reasonable to say that an expert could fire that rifle in five seconds. It seems equally reasonable to say that Oswald under normal circumstances would take longer. But the circumstances were not normal. He was shooting at a president. So our answer is: probably fast enough.

In other words: although all the evidence indicates that Oswald could not have done what expert marksmen were unable to do, we will ignore this and conclude that he did it anyway.

Was Oswald a Good Enough Shot?

The Mannlicher Carcano rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD was in an unsatisfactory condition, with an inaccurate telescopic sight and an unpredictable trigger mechanism. To fire the rifle accurately, it was necessary to practise intensively. There is no credible evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald had fired a rifle of any sort for several years before the JFK assassination.

Even after correcting some of the sixth–floor rifle’s mechanical problems, and in conditions substantially easier than those that would have been faced by a hypothetical lone gunman, expert riflemen from the army and the FBI were unable to fire the rifle as accurately as Oswald was supposed to have done during the assassination (see Oswald’s Rifle and Paraffin Tests).

Even at his best, Oswald had never been as good a shot as the experts from the army and the FBI. Oswald’s most recent test score in the Marines was barely above the minimum qualifying level. He was officially “a rather poor shot” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.19, p.18) in 1959, and was hardly likely to have improved over the next four years.


Was Oswald the Lone Gunman?

Lee Harvey Oswald was almost certainly not a good enough marksman to fire three shots within six seconds at a moving target, scoring two hits out of three, with a rifle that was inaccurate and unreliable.

More Information

For a detailed account of Oswald’s shooting ability, and a critical account of the Warren Commission’s interpretation of it, see Howard Roffman, Presumed Guilty: How and Why the Warren Commission Framed Lee Harvey Oswald, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1975, pp.225–247 (available online at http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGchp9.html).

For a critical account of the CBS TV series, see Josiah Thompson, Six Seconds in Dallas: A Micro–Study of the Kennedy Assassination, Bernard Geis Associates, 1967, pp.292–5, from which the Walter Cronkite quotation is taken.

http://22november1963.org.uk/lee-harvey ... arpshooter
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: JFK 50TH Anniversary

Postby ProfWag » 01 Jun 2014, 21:16

SydneyPSIder wrote:
Lee Harvey Oswald was almost certainly not a good enough marksman to fire three shots within six seconds at a moving target, scoring two hits out of three, with a rifle that was inaccurate and unreliable.

So Misha, you state that Syd has done an excellent job in his research. Syd continues to post information that LHO was not a good enough marksman to fire 3 shots in 6 seconds. Do you agree with this 6 second time-frame or do you think this is a strawman argument since there is overwhelming evidence that it was closer to 9 seconds or more from the first shot to the 3rd? I would love to start a debate on the length of time between shots...
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: JFK 50TH Anniversary

Postby Misha » 02 Jun 2014, 00:06

SydneyPSIder wrote:
ProfWag wrote:
Misha wrote:Again, labeling me in anyway is your prerogative, ProfWag. However, you don't know me and my belief system, period.

You're right. I don't know you. I only know what you post and through the years, you've supported conspiracies involving everything from JFK and UFO's to 9/11 and the Holocaust (among many others). Not everything is a conspiracy and none of us should believe everything we read.

Nothing wrong with that, if there's credible evidence to support those things.


Yes, Syd, nothing wrong with that whatsoever. The evidence and preponderance of evidence when it comes to any event, whether it is a conspiracy or not, has to be weighed. However, when ProfWag takes a supercilious position by saying "not everything is a conspiracy and none of us should believe everything we read" is insulting to those members who have looked hard at the data. Yes, ProWag did say "us", but really I have to ask what is he really projecting? Statements like this tells more about the mindset of someone who has not evolved in critical thinking and exudes myopia. Moreover, do we really have to read such an innocuous statement as if it is some revelation which only third graders should hear? Frankly, I am way past that and I think you are too.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests