JFK -- Here we go again

Kenneth,

first welcome.

Second, not to try and run you off somewhere else, but if you want a bit of fun, they have an active JFK forum at http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showforum=126

I know that Jack White posts there on Apollo a lot, though I'm not sure if he posts much in the JFK section. Still you might find it interesting, or maddening, or something.
 
Kenneth A. Rahn said:
As for James Tague, there is pretty strong evidence that he was hit by a fragment from the third shot, not the second shot as he had claimed. The first shot would have hit the street at such a steep angle that it would have disintegrated, to say nothing of having a wrong horizontal angle.
Click to expand...

Assuming that it wasn't deflected by something, like tree branches.

I thought that given the timing of the first shot that it looked like it was obscured by a tree in the way?
 
pgwenthold said:
Assuming that it wasn't deflected by something, like tree branches.

I thought that given the timing of the first shot that it looked like it was obscured by a tree in the way?
Click to expand...
I think the first shot could have happened at a time when the live oak tree was partially obscuring the view, but it doesn't seem to me that the tip of a live oak branch would have deflected the bullet all the way over to where James Tague was standing. Posner put that theory forward, but it seemed to me like he was reaching. Especially since the third shot has the right angles.
 
Corsair 115 said:
All he needs to do next is claim that the Apollo moon landings were faked and he'll have the triple play!
Click to expand...


Or that Pearl Harbor was an "inside job." . :rolleyes: I have noticed, however, that some "truthers" who otherwise never met a conspiracy theory they didn't like, are hesitant to embrace the idea that FDR LIHOP, because he's an ideological hero of theirs.
 
Gee I bet someone will soon accuse me of faked moon landings as a way of dismissing me. This shows the quality of most of your arguments. Maybe you guys can find some bullets lying around parkland somewhere still to help with your problems counting.
 
Non Believer said:
Gee I bet someone will soon accuse me of faked moon landings as a way of dismissing me. This shows the quality of most of your arguments. Maybe you guys can find some bullets lying around parkland somewhere still to help with your problems counting.
Click to expand...

Do you have a theory about who killed JFK?

Do you think Oswald was innocent or part of a conspiracy?

I think Oswald acted alone. I think arguments resting on ballistics are shaky, but there is a huge amount of evidence supporting Oswald's guilt.

In many years, nothing solid has come of the conspiracy theories, that I know of. What's your theory?
 
Non Believer said:
Gee I bet someone will soon accuse me of faked moon landings as a way of dismissing me. This shows the quality of most of your arguments. Maybe you guys can find some bullets lying around parkland somewhere still to help with your problems counting.
Click to expand...
No, you pretty much dismiss yourself. Your arguments are lame.

So, anybody have some good recipes they'd like to share?
 
Non Believer said:
Gee I bet someone will soon accuse me of faked moon landings as a way of dismissing me. This shows the quality of most of your arguments. Maybe you guys can find some bullets lying around parkland somewhere still to help with your problems counting.
Click to expand...

Never mind that, what's your response to Ken's rebuttal of the OP article? It's easy to cry "ad hom" and go off in a sulk, but where's your actual argument?
 
calebprime said:
Do you have a theory about who killed JFK?

Do you think Oswald was innocent or part of a conspiracy?

I think Oswald acted alone. I think arguments resting on ballistics are shaky, but there is a huge amount of evidence supporting Oswald's guilt.

In many years, nothing solid has come of the conspiracy theories, that I know of. What's your theory?
Click to expand...
The basic ballistics/NAA argument is stronger than often portrayed. It goes like this: (1) Five fragments with lead (including two large ones) were recovered from the assassination. (2) Both large ones were traced ballistically (striations, etc.) to Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other rifles. (3) The three smaller fragments fell into two clear chemical groups with the two larger ones, each group containing one of the large fragments. (4) With the large ones going back to Oswald's rifle ballistically and the small ones going to the large ones chemically, all recovered fragments go to Oswald's rifle (to 97% to 98%).

But we can't put Oswald's finger on the trigger at this level of probability, and probably never will be able to. That's where the big web of circumstantial evidence comes in, against him and no one else.

Ken Rahn
 
Kenneth A. Rahn said:
The basic ballistics/NAA argument is stronger than often portrayed. It goes like this: (1) Five fragments with lead (including two large ones) were recovered from the assassination. (2) Both large ones were traced ballistically (striations, etc.) to Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other rifles. (3) The three smaller fragments fell into two clear chemical groups with the two larger ones, each group containing one of the large fragments. (4) With the large ones going back to Oswald's rifle ballistically and the small ones going to the large ones chemically, all recovered fragments go to Oswald's rifle (to 97% to 98%).

But we can't put Oswald's finger on the trigger at this level of probability, and probably never will be able to. That's where the big web of circumstantial evidence comes in, against him and no one else.

Ken Rahn
Click to expand...

thank you.

non-experts (like me) need exactly this kind of summary.
 
Non Believer said:
Gee I bet someone will soon accuse me of faked moon landings as a way of dismissing me.
Click to expand...
No, you're not being accused of believing the moon landings were faked. Instead, we'll wait while you yourself state what you believe about that particular issue.

Just be aware that if you come down on the side of the landings having been faked, you will have many posts appearing demonstrating the error of such a belief.
 
How is it going with replicating the single bullet? I know discovery times tried an did an embarrising job.
 
Non Believer said:
How is it going with replicating the single bullet? I know discovery times tried an did an embarrising job.
Click to expand...


In addition to all the other evidence, Dale Myers has created a computer reconstruction that conclusively supports the SBT. This reconstruction was featured in the ABC News documentary Peter Jennings Reporting: The Kennedy Assassination--Beyond Conspiracy. Myers' findings about the SBT are summarized here. And here is a report from a leading forensic animation company hired by ABC to evaluate Myers' work. Their conclusion: " . . . the thoroughness and detail incorporated into [Myers'] work is well beyond that required to present a fair and accurate depiction."

BTW, Myers is a former conspiracy theorist. :p

And speaking of embarrassing, Non Believer, are you going to admit that you were wrong about the limo's being destroyed, and the bullet holes in the windshield?
 
SpitfireIX said:
In addition to all the other evidence, Dale Myers has created a computer reconstruction that conclusively supports the SBT. This reconstruction was featured in the ABC News documentary Peter Jennings Reporting: The Kennedy Assassination--Beyond Conspiracy. Myers' findings about the SBT are summarized here. And here is a report from a leading forensic animation company hired by ABC to evaluate Myers' work. Their conclusion: " . . . the thoroughness and detail incorporated into [Myers'] work is well beyond that required to present a fair and accurate depiction."

BTW, Myers is a former conspiracy theorist. :p
Click to expand...

Yeah, but Cyril Wecht used a pool cue and a limo to show that a single bullet couldn't do it.

Of course, we can ignore the fact that he had the people sitting in the wrong spots and in the wrong positions (he had them sitting at the same level, sitting along the doors, and all facing forward...)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom