< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 156 OF 156 ·
|Apr-29-16|| ||OhioChessFan: <tga; For example, <you have some really strange views>. Well, how many countless times have you been the target of that?>|
If they are countless, I can't know how many.
<So hurry up and be the first to say it, that way you can pretend it must be true, since you posted it first! (that must make it true, right?)>
Sort of like your repeated bait shop comments?
<And how many countless times have you ducked someone?>
If they are countless, I can't know how many.
< So, hurry, before <tga> accuses you, quickly accuse him of not "putting up">
You're right here, responded to me how many times, and still haven't addressed the primary point first raised.
<Oh, you got it in first! So you must be right, right? This despite the fact that I wasn't even talking to you - I was talking to <morfishine>.>
Oh, well, then. If you're talking to someone else, you can't be called out on something you said. You are massively weird.
<Look, just because you obnoxiously insinuate yourself into the conversation doesn't mean that I am under obligation to start discussing it with you.>
I accept your concession speech.
< You see how that works? Just because I don't want to argue the topic with you, it doesn't mean you won any argument. >
"argue"? It would take someone 30 seconds to answer. Any of the regulars on the Stumpers page could, too. The fact remains, there is no way the backwards head snap of Kennedy was caused by a bullet. QED.
<The truth is, it eats at you that you had to admit you were wrong on <jessicafischerqueen>'s forum, and you have been chasing me around on cg.com ever since, trying to start an argument in the vain hope that you can win it (or even get me to participate).>
Whew, dude, you have some issues. I think you are sometimes a pretty decent kibiitzer, and sometimes off the rail crazy. Right now, you're in crazy mode.
<You don't want to call it cyberstalking? Fine, whatever, call it what you will, but you are still doing it.>
You're very strange.
|Apr-29-16|| ||thegoodanarchist: <OhioChessFan>
It is sad how many of your cg.com interactions spiral into crazy. I really feel sorry for you.
Go back to imagining you got a concession out of me - apparently that is more comforting to you than reality.
<Whew, dude, you have some issues.>
I am not the one following someone around trying to start arguments. You do that frequently to me - on the Rogoff page, on <jessicafischerqueen>'s forum and now <morfishine>'s, and probably other pages where I never went back to read a response to a post.
This means that <you> are the one with the issue. For some reason you are obsessed with following me around on cg.com to try and bait me into arguing.
Sorry for the bad news, but you're used to receiving that kind of feedback here on cg.com so you know how to deal with it.
|Apr-29-16|| ||thegoodanarchist: Anyway, <OCF>, since you just want to follow me around, try to start arguments, and then insult me, and then try to claim that I am the one with the problem, when really it is you, I see no point in keeping you off my ignore list.|
|Apr-29-16|| ||OhioChessFan: <tga: I am not the one following someone around trying to start arguments. You do that frequently to me - on the Rogoff page, on <jessicafischerqueen>'s forum and now <morfishine>'s, and probably other pages where I never went back to read a response to a post.>|
Paranoid much? I have posted 32,000 times on this site, but you are taking it personally? You really aren't that important in my life.
<Anyway, <OCF>, since you just want to follow me around, try to start arguments, and then insult me, and then try to claim that I am the one with the problem, when really it is you, I see no point in keeping you off my ignore list.>
Yeah, I regret now taking you off mine but I'll put you back there, where you belong. I don't say this as a figure of speech, but literally, you have some psychological problems.
|Apr-29-16|| ||morfishine: Well, you all can duke it out, doesn't matter much
Oswald didn't do it
|Apr-29-16|| ||optimal play: I can sort of understand why even after all this time there are still people who chase after conspiracy theories surrounding the Kennedy assassination.|
<OhioChessFan> is correct when he describes these wild goose chases as "emotion driven".
I mean, the idea that someone as unimportant and insignificant as Oswald could single-handedly kill the most important person in the world is not something that is easy to come to terms with.
People instinctively react against something like that -- they just can't believe it could happen!
Nevertheless, the evidence that Oswald did indeed single-handedly kill the president has been comprehensively confirmed many times over by numerous investigators.
Each and every "objection" has been emphatically refuted time and again.
Oswald, acting as a lone gunman, killed Kennedy.
There was no conspiracy!
Now ... what about those aliens at Roswell?
|Apr-30-16|| ||morfishine: <optimal play> There's just too many unexplained questions and too many coincidences. For example, you are aware the US was running a program in the late 1950's where servicemen would fake their own defection in order to enter the Soviet Union to gain information on a variety of subjects or industries. Oswald was no doubt part of this program. So was a certain Robert Webster|
Here's the incredible coincidence: Webster stayed at a boarding house in Leningrad early in his sojourn. (Oswald was in Minsk, hundreds of miles away). Guess who the landlord of the boarding house Webster was staying in? Marina Oswald's Uncle!
Now this isn't the crazed ravings of lunatic conspiracy theorists, but a fact unearthed by old fashioned investigative work...and certainly not just another coincidence
Here's an article I just found and hadn't read til today, though I'd read much about Webster in the past: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/S...
|Apr-30-16|| ||morfishine: <OhioChessFan> Its been an interesting 35 years reading about the Kennedy assassination. One of the most difficult things is discerning who's credible and who's on the lunatic fringe. For example a fairly recent book claims a 'James Files' was the shooter. I don't believe this for a second but I can see how books like this hurt the effort to find out what happened. |
One writer/researcher I admire is Josiah Thompson. He wrote 'Six Seconds in Dallas' (I own a first edition copy 1967). In the following video, he admits a mistake in his original analysis. One has to admire his base honesty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgH...
|Apr-30-16|| ||OhioChessFan: < There's just too many unexplained questions and too many coincidences. >|
If the underlying main point is resolved, it doesn't matter what questions are asked, and how, or even if, they are answered. Vince Bugliosi does a wonderful job distilling that out in Reclaiming History.
|Apr-30-16|| ||thegoodanarchist: <morfishine: <optimal play> There's just too many unexplained questions and too many coincidences....>|
<...Its been an interesting 35 years reading about the Kennedy assassination....>
OK, I don't want to spend 35 years looking into this, so bottom line - in your view, who killed JFK?
|Apr-30-16|| ||morfishine: <OhioChessFan> Its a mistake to state: < it doesn't matter what questions are asked, and how, or even if, they are answered> If the "underlying main point is resolved" is based on planted evidence or negligent investigative work, then nothing is truly resolved. |
In "Crime of the Century" by Michael L. Kurtz, the author presents a detailed yet concise analysis of the 3 bullet casings found in the "snipers nest". This portion of the book takes place from pages 50 - 54. The 3 cases were labeled Commission exhibits 543, 544 & 545. Kurtz concludes "There is strong and compelling evidence that only one of the cases, 544, could possibly have played a role in the assassination". Both 543 & 545 could not have done so. Only 544 had markings from the bolt of Oswald's rifle, while 543 & 545 only had markings from the magazine follower, which only marks the last cartridge in the clip. The last cartridge could not have been either 543 or 545 since a live cartridge was found in the clip.
Also, 543 had a unique dent in the lip which was too large to have contained a bullet, thus ruling it out as even being possibly fired from Oswald's rifle.
544 & 545 bear no markings from the firing pin but through other markings, both were loaded into the firing chamber, 544 was ejected through bolt action while 545 was not.
Of the 3 cases, 543 can be positively, eliminated as playing a role in the assassination. 543 not only could not have held a bullet, it was never in the firing chamber of this rifle (at least with a bullet in it). 543 was clearly planted.
545 had been inside the firing chamber but lacked the bolt marks. Its primer cap did bear the mark of a firing pin but lacked the deep dent seen on 543, so we can conclude one of two things: (1) 545 had been fired from Oswalds rifle but somehow managed to be ejected without being marked by the bolt or (2) it was fired from another rifle from which it had been loaded and ejected. In either case, there's no evidence 545 was fired from Oswald's rifle
Only 544 could possibly held a bullet fired from Oswald's rifle (although it bore markings indicating it had been loaded and ejected from another rifle)
Clearly, the Warren Commission was terribly deficient in examining the bullet cases, simply concluding in most elementary fashion, "well here's 3 cases, there must've been 3 bullets fired". Really pathetic
So yes, questions do need to be asked and answered correctly; and investigations need to be thorough, efficient, non-negligent and unbiased before anything is resolved
|Apr-30-16|| ||chancho: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/headwnd....
|Apr-30-16|| ||morfishine: <OhioChessFan> BTW: I've read numerous reviews on Bugliosi's book. Here is one of my favorites: |
"If you ever want to witness a crime with your own eyes, you need only look at certain pages of the official record on the murder of John F. Kennedy. The crime is perjury. But unless you know a great deal about the case, you may not recognize it. There is, however, another crime scene you can visit that is easier to evaluate. Here, the crime is fraud, six pounds of it: “Reclaiming History,” by Vincent Bugliosi.
This book is infested with fraud from cover to cover, but you might never know it unless you were to compare (a) the actual record with (b) what Bugliosi says is on record. You would also need to know (a) what else is on record that is relevant and significant, and (b) whether Bugliosi included this information.
This essay contains only a few samples of Bugliosi’s highly selective, and sometimes outright false reporting on the medical-ballistics in this case."
Here's a link of the full essay where Mary Ferrell does a beautiful job of destroying Bugliosi's book: http://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Es...
While Bugliosi's book "Helter Skelter" was excellent, "Reclaiming History" is a distorted, misleading, pile of junk better named "Re-Framing Oswald"
|Apr-30-16|| ||morfishine: <chancho> Thanks for dropping by, the mcadams page has always been one of my favorites over the years. and thanks for the other link, be careful what you read!|
|Apr-30-16|| ||optimal play: <morfishine> Coincidences occur everywhere and all the time, and are particularly noticeable surrounding momentous events. I'm sure you've heard of all those strange Lincoln-Kennedy coincidences.|
Of course not all conspiracy theorists are lunatics...
<There’s a reason so many serious people started to reinvestigate the Kennedy assassination in the mid-1970s: that was when Sen. Frank Church’s committee unveiled a long dark history of CIA conspiracies — coups, killings, and other black-bag jobs — that only extremists had ever before imagined possible. What other extreme theories might turn out to be true?>
Not everything is a conspiracy and not nothing is a conspiracy; but after more than 50 years, Oswald as the lone gunman still fits as the only logical explanation.
|May-01-16|| ||morfishine: <optimal play> On your comment: <...but after more than 50 years, Oswald as the lone gunman still fits as the only logical explanation> You obviously didn't read what I posted on the 3 bullet casings. Two of the casings have been ruled out as possibly playing a role in the assassination. That leaves only one bullet casing which means that rifle could have fired a maximum one shot. So where did all the other shots come from? (It doesn't matter that the only casing that could possibly have played a role in the assassination, exhibit 544, also had markings on it that showed it showing it was loaded and ejected from a different rifle, thus its possible all three casings were plants. Eliminating just one case, and that was proven with casing 543, is enough to prove there had to be another rifle or weapon involved). |
I can accept that there's a class of people who are satisfied with the simple, stock answer if that makes them sleep better at night. I can also accept that some people are just not interested in certain specific subjects related to the assassination, for example firearms, enough to take the time to learn and understand what an expert is talking about.
I am in neither class and believe that if one does not take the time to learn about a specific subject, that person is not in any position to dismiss or ignore evidence related to that subject
|May-01-16|| ||OhioChessFan: Before I address Mary Ferrell's take on Bugliosi, what do you think of my take on Vickie Adams?|
|May-01-16|| ||morfishine: <OhioChessFan> The way the WC handled Vickie Adams is pretty much in line with their standard procedure in dismissing other people's testimony: Just dismiss the testimony or the person as mistaken or inaccurate. In this case, the WC just assumed she was mistaken and that the girls dawdled in the office longer than they remembered, thus giving Oswald enough time to descend ahead of them. |
This trend/response by the WC happened repeatedly.
Also, numerous other witnesses, good blue-collar working folk, took time off to travel to Washington to give testimony, only to be harassed, pressured and interrogated by Commission lawyers into changing their answers so it fit what the lawyers wanted to hear. Also, on more than one occasion, witnesses state their deposition as printed was not what they signed off on.
Going back to Adams, her testimony on the timing is corroborated by Office Supervisor Dorothy Ann Garner who in fact had the girls leaving earlier than they admitted. Garner's testimony, combined with Adams would've formed an impenetrable barrier due to the corroboration.
But the WC chose the only route that fit their needs: Dismiss the intern Adams and ignore entirely the Supervisor. You see, the WC realized it would've been much harder to dismiss a Supervisor's statement vs a lowly intern. Using the analogy of the military, its much harder to dismiss the comments of the Commanding General vs some lowly private. So the WC just ignored Garner entirely and didn't even take her testimony!?! Her testimony was given to private researchers
Garner was just one witness, and there were a lot, that the WC ignored because their testimony would've ran counter to their pre-determined conclusion.
One trend I've noticed over the years is when any snippet of evidence surfaces, the person's credibility is immediately attacked by WC apologist's. While this predictable mode has become quite tiresome to endure, I've pretty much trained myself to tune the attacks out: The replies are so automatic and scripted these tend to undermine their own credibility. So my recommendation is for people to do the hard research before making up one's mind; In other words, think for yourself
|May-01-16|| ||morfishine: <OhioChessFan> Dorothy Ann Garner: http://www.whokilledjfk.net/another...|
|May-01-16|| ||morfishine: <thegoodanarchist> I don't know|
|May-01-16|| ||OhioChessFan: <The way the WC handled Vickie Adams is pretty much in line with their standard procedure in dismissing other people's testimony: Just dismiss the testimony or the person as mistaken or inaccurate. In this case, the WC just assumed she was mistaken and that the girls dawdled in the office longer than they remembered, thus giving Oswald enough time to descend ahead of them.
This trend/response by the WC happened repeatedly. >|
I think the conspiracy side cherry picks out witnesses and dismisses witnesses who debunk them. The time of the police radio transmission alone, a truly objective bit of evidence, is strongly against Adams' timeline. How do the conspiracists and you address that? By ignoring it. You're free to think that your above statement is true, but I shan't waste any more time discussing this matter.
|May-01-16|| ||morfishine: <OhioChessFan> You know she fled Dallas fearing for her life? And I assume you also know she said what was printed in the WC final report was not what she stated during the deposition. |
Here's the author Barry Ernest who wrote "The Girl on the Stairs" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szQ...
|May-01-16|| ||morfishine: <OhioChessFan> I hope you don't dismiss the impact of Garner's testimony which fully corroborates what Adam's stated. I could care less what happened outside the TSBD. With reference to Adams and Garner, all that matters is what happened, or didn't happen, inside the TSBD, thats the critical point: Adams and Sandra Styles went down the stairwell. Dorothy Ann Garner followed close behind. Garner testified she could hear the girls voices below her on the stairwell. Both the girls and Garner stated Oswald did not pass them on the stairs. With Garner a floor or two above and behind the girls, this cements the fact that Oswald was already in the 2nd floor lunchroom and did not run from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor lunchroom ahead of the girls. Apologist's hate this fact, but too bad: Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunchroom drinking a coke when the president was shot. |
You can't argue with facts
You know, in Baker's original report he stated he confronted the individual (Oswald) "who was standing in front of the soda machine drinking a coke"
Specter, in the Warren Report, conveniently 'crossed out' mention of drinking a coke.
Why? Because that would establish that Oswald had time to amble over to the machine, peruse the choices of beverages, fumble around in his pocket to find the necessary change, insert the change into the machine, select his beverage, retrieve the beverage, maneuver the bottle of coke into the top remover and remove the metallic cap, observe his handiwork, then take a sip of cool, delicious Coke.
All this just adds precious time onto the already very tight time-line for Oswald to run to lunchroom and be there before Baker shows up, not to mention being ahead of Adams & Styler
Nice try, it just doesn't add up
|May-01-16|| ||optimal play: <morfishine: ... Eliminating just one case, and that was proven with casing 543, is enough to prove there had to be another rifle or weapon involved ...>|
<543 had a unique dent in the lip which was too large to have contained a bullet, thus ruling it out as even being possibly fired from Oswald's rifle.>
<543 can be positively, eliminated as playing a role in the assassination.>
<543 not only could not have held a bullet, it was never in the firing chamber of this rifle (at least with a bullet in it).>
<543 was clearly planted.>
But 543 was in fact proven to have been fired from Oswald's rifle!
"[F]ound in the same vicinity were three 6.5×52mm brass cartridges later proven to have been fired from Oswald's rifle. One of the empty cartridges, CE 543, was dented in the area of the neck. Ballistic experts testified to the HSCA that this likely occurred when the rifle was rapidly fired and the cartridge was ejected. When four test bullets were fired from the rifle, one of the four cartridges had a dented neck, similar to CE 543."
|May-02-16|| ||morfishine: <optimal play> LOL, first we were treated to the "magic bullet" now the show stars the "magic bullet casing" |
Sorry, you'll have to do better than this
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 156 OF 156 ·
Advertise on Chessgames.com