Paz Marverde Posted May 16, 2018 Share Posted May 16, 2018 If, as we are told, Oswald was the lone assassin, where is the issue of national security? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted May 16, 2018 Share Posted May 16, 2018 Who is Russell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paz Marverde Posted May 16, 2018 Author Share Posted May 16, 2018 10 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: Who is Russell? The philosopher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted May 16, 2018 Share Posted May 16, 2018 The national security issue abounds, Paz. There are some things we just don't need to know or mustn't know, whether from 55 years ago or 100. Imagine how upset the conspirators must have been when the WC included in its exhibits a study of the teeth of Jack Ruby's mother. Once published, it was too late to suppress it. So it was best ignored, just like the WC's medical exhibits on the hole in the back of JFK's head. Of course it's possible that Jim Garrison was right about the teeth study when he said, "Even if Jack Ruby had intended to bite Oswald to death, that still would not have been relevant." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paz Marverde Posted May 16, 2018 Author Share Posted May 16, 2018 5 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said: "Even if Jack Ruby had intended to bite Oswald to death, that still would not have been relevant." I love Garrison's sense of humor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Hume Posted May 16, 2018 Share Posted May 16, 2018 "16 Questions on the Assassination", by Bertrand Russell: http://22november1963.org.uk/bertrand-russell-16-questions-on-the-assassination Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddy Bainbridge Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 I fear one can make an argument for National Security which gives little succour to anyone seeking the truth. If the Intelligence Agencies have any culpability in the assassination or any culpability in its cover up, then it demonstrates there is a severe weakness in American Democracy. A severe weakness in Governance is a threat to National Security. Perhaps its better not to reveal such a weakness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 Eddy... People make these decisions and perform these action... not institutions.. If there has been a form of governance that accounts for the Tragedy of the Commons and safeguards against it... please show us.... the weakness is part of the human condition... in small enough groups it can be overcome... But like so many things... scaling up causes these weaknesses to go longer and longer unchecked... It's a mindset which allows for too much wiggle room related to morality.... so if you have a few years... we can discuss it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. A. Copeland Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 What I'd like to know is, what or how exactly, is Buell Wesley Frazier's polygraph exam considered a national security risk as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddy Bainbridge Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 22 hours ago, David Josephs said: Eddy... People make these decisions and perform these action... not institutions.. If there has been a form of governance that accounts for the Tragedy of the Commons and safeguards against it... please show us.... the weakness is part of the human condition... in small enough groups it can be overcome... But like so many things... scaling up causes these weaknesses to go longer and longer unchecked... It's a mindset which allows for too much wiggle room related to morality.... so if you have a few years... we can discuss it Hi David , I don't understand your post. I am interested in understanding it, but rather than explain I would greatly appreciate your help in another area. Would you be willing to provide a guide to the work of Chris (math rules) Davidson. I have asked him to explain his thread and I suspect you are one of the few people who understand what he has done. You have shown great skill with explanatory diagrams and unravelling complex issues (Oswald's Mexico travel for example) and I suspect he is on to something very significant. He doesn't however seem to have a desire to appeal to the masses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 (edited) On 5/18/2018 at 12:52 PM, Eddy Bainbridge said: Hi David , I don't understand your post. I am interested in understanding it, but rather than explain I would greatly appreciate your help in another area. Would you be willing to provide a guide to the work of Chris (math rules) Davidson. I have asked him to explain his thread and I suspect you are one of the few people who understand what he has done. You have shown great skill with explanatory diagrams and unravelling complex issues (Oswald's Mexico travel for example) and I suspect he is on to something very significant. He doesn't however seem to have a desire to appeal to the masses. LOL... My point above is only that PEOPLE are the problem, not the institutions/agencies. Google "Tragedy of the Commons" - basically it's the concept that a for shared resource among a community where shared and equal use returns the best yields, the "Tragedy" is that PEOPLE will be motivated to use more of the "Commons" than is prudent since there is no explicit rule against it, on the altruism of the community... --- Regarding the work Chris - and to some extent I - have been working thru... Tom Purvis was given the original survey data by Robert West... this data directly conflicts with the end results of the WCR yet corroborates the earlier surveys... the shots where WEST and the first 3 surveys put them changes over time for a variety of reasons... It started with a premise that I grabbed onto and ran with - that the Zfilm was taken at 48fps not the 16fps setting available... that the 18.3fps was a number that worked for what the FBI did to the data and a number that turned out to be the exact rise and run of Elm Street's decline... 1 vertical foot equals 18.3 horizontal feet as you move down Elm... you'll notice too that the curved lines on the survey plat are 9 feet apart... makes the math and reposition of key locations easier... The FBI used "variable levers" of measurement to do what they needed to... so the rifle in the window changes elevation as needed, JFK's head changes, the stand-in limo is too tall yet the adjustments for that difference do not account for the difference... the final "lever" of movement was the path of the limo itself... SHANEYFELT took West's measurements and moved the spots south 1' on Elm..... the divergence of paths begins at 2+50 to account for the real possibility that the limo did turn very wide onto Elm and did pass thru POSITION A as marked below... When one places the limo at the spot WEST marks as 166 and another limo where Shaneyfelt puts 171 (the CE884 switch from 168-171 to 161-166) the yellow line of sight from Zapruder shows both JFK's in a straight line... from Zapruder's camera's POV the limo and JFK would appear in the same place at FBI171 as WEST's 166... (this is also why Tom Wilson's work showed a problem lining things up based on the info given... the info given is designed NOT to work.) Now understanding that the measurements are not accurate or representative... it's fairly easy to being using the math to see how elevations and station #'s were used to confuse the issue. Z313 was originally the 2nd shot... and it was "around" z313... (A NOTE here: there were more than 3 shots fired... yet if orchestrated by a "Fire" command over walkie-Talkie, 2-3 shots can sound like 1... yet the 6th floor would only have 3 shells so there was only 3 shots... #1 hit JFK in the throat, #2 hits JC and #3 - down by Altgens at the Steps near Station 5+00... THAT was agreed upon... Well before TAGUE comes along EISENBERG and others figure out that the info from these Surveys shows a shot well past z313... for which there is indeed good evidence... The SBT has been cooking for some time now... On April 14 and 21, two conferences were held at the Commission to determine when, exactly, the president and governor were struck. Assistant counsel Melvin Eisenberg wrote in a memorandum dated April 22 on the first conference that the consensus of those attending was, among other issues, that Kennedy was struck by frames 225–6 and that “the velocity of the first bullet [which struck Kennedy] would have been little diminished by its passage through the President. Therefore, if Governor Connally was in the path of the bullet it would have struck him and caused the wounds he sustained in his chest cavity.. By the end of April 1964, the Commission had its working theory, the single-bullet theory, to account for the apparent timing discrepancies found in the Zapruder film and the lack of any damage to the limousine from a high-velocity bullet exiting the president's throat This is Eisenberg's drawing to determine the lead needed... yet another LEVER to adjust based on what was needed. This turn also includes the Dale Myers Townsend film charade.... so when I suggested that they simply changed the frame numbers to line up with 133... Chris ran with that and found it to be correct... That the jump fromz132 to z133 was really a splice... add in another 33 frames and we have the infamous z166.... None of the camera speeds was correct. The speed difference for MYERS' Towner camera amounts to 33 frames worth or 1.8 seconds between a speed of 22 and change and 18.3... the removal of those 33 frames allows the REAL frame 166 to be z133.... Remember, the frame numbers starting at z133 are completely arbitrary... by removing those 33 frames from both films... the shot down by 5+00 was effectively moved to Z313... or thereabouts. This will help somewhat too Edited June 18, 2018 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Bojczuk Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 Eddy Bainbridge writes: "Would you be willing to provide a guide to the work of Chris (math rules) Davidson. I have asked him to explain his thread .... He doesn't however seem to have a desire to appeal to the masses." For the benefit of Eddy and everyone else who is confused by that neverending parade of cryptic equations, there is a clear explanation here: http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1744-skunk-smells-math-sucks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 7 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said: Eddy Bainbridge writes: "Would you be willing to provide a guide to the work of Chris (math rules) Davidson. I have asked him to explain his thread .... He doesn't however seem to have a desire to appeal to the masses." For the benefit of Eddy and everyone else who is confused by that neverending parade of cryptic equations, there is a clear explanation here: http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1744-skunk-smells-math-sucks Jeremy thanks for posting this as you actually beat me to it. That's one of the funniest posts I've ever read and the folks there hit it out of the park. Since Towner is mentioned above here's another unintentionally funny post. It's now up to over 700 views and not a single person has replied to it... https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?16860-TOWNER-s-background-grows-as-the-foreground-recedes#.WwCFURkpA0M It's absolutely amazing to me how the person who made that post is considered a "well respected" researcher on this kinder and gentler EF forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 (edited) 47 minutes ago, Michael Walton said: Jeremy thanks for posting this as you actually beat me to it. That's one of the funniest posts I've ever read and the folks there hit it out of the park. Since Towner is mentioned above here's another unintentionally funny post. It's now up to over 700 views and not a single person has replied to it... https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?16860-TOWNER-s-background-grows-as-the-foreground-recedes#.WwCFURkpA0M It's absolutely amazing to me how the person who made that post is considered a "well respected" researcher on this kinder and gentler EF forum. First of all, Although it was made clear by moderators that dissent, opposing opinions, and disinformation are necessily tolerated in an open debate, does that mean that mocking and ridiculing of the forum hosts and their wishes for a standard of etiquette needs to be tolerated? Does that toleration extend to a mocking and ridiculing of the members and content of this forum from off site parties, by means of links and URL' s to such mocking and ridicule need to be tolerated? ---------------------------- 8 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said: Eddy Bainbridge writes: "Would you be willing to provide a guide to the work of Chris (math rules) Davidson. I have asked him to explain his thread .... He doesn't however seem to have a desire to appeal to the masses." For the benefit of Eddy and everyone else who is confused by that neverending parade of cryptic equations, there is a clear explanation here: http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1744-skunk-smells-math-sucks . ----------------------------- Secondly, To what webpage is Michael Walton trying to link us? https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?16860-TOWNER-s-background-grows-as-the-foreground-recedes#.WwCFURkpA0M That is clearly not even close to the correct link.... https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?16860-TOWNER-s-background-grows-as-the-foreground-recedes What kind of junk URL is Michael Walton trying to create? Is it deliberately corrupted by him? Would trying to fix it to make a valid URL cause problems for a user? He often posts URL's that don't show-up in the valid blue text and format. What is he up to? Are Jeremy's and Michael's links or attempts to link members to off site mock and ridicule, with no valid or relevant content, acceptable? Are the admins and moderators OK with Michael Walton persistently mocking your rules of etiquette? Reported to moderators.... Edited May 19, 2018 by Michael Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 On 5/16/2018 at 2:14 PM, Paz Marverde said: If, as we are told, Oswald was the lone assassin, where is the issue of national security? It's a good rhetorical question, Paz; and good on you for raising it again. The answer is that at least there was negligence in protecting President; but that only goes so far if one even does believe in LHO as the lone assassin. Second place for an answer goes to the "benign cover-up" for a lone-nut scenario. But, as most of us believe, the obvious answer is that there was a criminal conspiracy involving people in power who had the means to both kill JFK and managed the cover-up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now