< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 157 OF 157 ·
|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
|May-02-16|| ||optimal play: <morfishine> May I ask what exactly would convince you?|
|May-02-16|| ||morfishine: Here's proof that not only did Oswald and Ruby know each, for awhile, they actually played in a band together:|
|May-02-16|| ||morfishine: <optimal play> Convince me of what? That the "Fob-Job" titled the Warren Commission Report or more accurately title "Warren Omission" is actually accurate? Or the follow up books by Posner and Bugliosi are even worthy of critical review?|
Please stop patronizing me. What you have posted so far is speculation on your part or just plain garbage
So far, you have demonstrated that you are way out of your league here. If you are really interested in discussing seriously with a view to finding out what really happened, then let that be your guide post.
|May-02-16|| ||chancho: Oh God...
I actually laughed at this picture:
|May-02-16|| ||morfishine: <chancho> I had to interject a little humor. Arguments can become heated over what actually happened. I'm past all that but glad you have some interest here, its nice sometime to find another subject besides chess to circle around|
|May-02-16|| ||morfishine: Do I agree with what this person states? No, not in the totality...but he does raise some interesting questions: http://theshotsindealeyplaza.com/?p...|
|May-02-16|| ||optimal play: <morfishine: <optimal play> Convince me of what? That the "Fob-Job" titled the Warren Commission Report or more accurately title "Warren Omission" is actually accurate? Or the follow up books by Posner and Bugliosi are even worthy of critical review? Please stop patronizing me. What you have posted so far is speculation on your part or just plain garbage.|
So far, you have demonstrated that you are way out of your league here.
If you are really interested in discussing seriously with a view to finding out what really happened, then let that be your guide post.
Umm ... ok ... well, uh, thanks anyway for the "discussion"
Maybe next you can expose how they faked the moon landing?
|May-03-16|| ||morfishine: <optimal play> Its easy disproving the "Lone Gunman Theory". All it takes is one extra bullet, one extra bullet mark, one less casing, one extra bullet wound, etc., and the whole argument collapses.|
You know there is at minimum 4 bullet impact points above and beyond the 3 attributed to the "snipers nest", right? And all it takes is 1 extra bullet strike and the Lone Gunman theory is kaput. Here are the four:
(1) Bullet strike mark on concrete encircling manhole cover south side of Elm. Bullet strike lines up with Records building, not TSBD. This was photographed along with Police Officer Roger Craig recovering fragments of this bullet in the grass near the strike point
(2) Bullet hole through the limo windshield from the front. This was photographed and was smooth from the front and jagged from the rear indicating a frontal entry
(3) Bullet mark/dent on chrome on inside of windshield near rear view mirror. This dent mark was photographed
(4) Wound to Kennedy's back caused by shot from the rear. This wound was well below the throat wound so could not have been entry point for the "magic bullet" (a shot coming from the TSBD would have to impact high in the neck to exit low in the throat due to downward angle). This wound was photographed and matches up with holes in the shirt and jacket.
The apologist's argument trying to disprove event (4) is the weakest of all because they don't have any entrance wound in the rear to match up with the throat "exit" wound (which was an entry wound in any case, but we won't get into that now). So the apologist's have no other recourse than to just magically move this wound up into the neck area.
Incredible, we have the "magic bullet", "magic bullet casings" and now a "magic bullet wound". Thats a lot of hocus pocus going on
|May-03-16|| ||User not found: Interesting discussion. I've always thought the bullet that tore Kennedy's head open came from the front but when you look deeper into it all then it's gotta be Oswald acting alone. He ran from the book depository (why leave?) and killed officer Tippet. He's then found in the cinema of all places! Why would you leave your place of work in a hurry when the POTUS has just been shot right outside, only to go watch a film!? He'd already tried killing someone else who was a General in the army or something weeks previously. He was obviously a screwball. I think the Warren report got a lot of things wrong, I know a lot of people would have wanted JFK dead, but all the evidence points to Oswald IMO.|
|May-03-16|| ||User not found: And the so called MBT isn't magic at all when you see these ballistic experts explain it away. The only thing I don't understand is why Kennedy's head went backwards! That's the only thing I find hard to believe, even when a ballistics expert explains it. Unless they were 2 shooters taking shots at Kennedy on the same day and they were <completely> unconnected then I think it was Oswald acting alone. Maybe he told someone he was going to do it which then makes it a conspiracy, I just don't know 100% but if I had to put my own life on it I'd go with Oswald as the lone gunman.|
|May-03-16|| ||perfidious: Good afternoon: I come with a message from George McGann, late husband of the Babushka Lady.|
|May-03-16|| ||User not found: Let's not forget "Badger man!". I have a great book on the JFK assassination if anyone wants it, just pay for the package and posting because I've read it about 5 times anyway. I love all this conspiracy theory stuff, I find it all really interesting, I just have a hard time believing it.|
|May-03-16|| ||perfidious: Some links of interest may be found here:
|May-03-16|| ||User not found: <morfishine: Here's proof that not only did Oswald and Ruby know each, for awhile, they actually played in a band together:
Morf. That's a spoof! Lee Harvey Oswald never played in a band with Jack Ruby, lol. Interesting stuff but just a lot of disinformation out there mate.
|May-03-16|| ||User not found: Good link Perf. I'll have a good look at that later mate, there's a lot of stuff to look at. I just can't get my head around 3 gunmen! Cmo'n? It's just 9/11 kinda stuff, Elvis is alive, 2pac's in Cuba, etc etc .. I guess we'll never know what happened and I don't have time to debate it to death but I'm still really interested in this stuff.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 157 OF 157 ·
Times Chess Twitter Feed