Paul Baker

Yes Lee, I live in a fantasy world called Bakerville, where all the hard physical evidence supports 'the biggest pile of BS ever committed to paper'. Clearly things are different in Farley-on-the-Wold, where space, time and reality are all out of kilter.

If one can assume that: All timepieces (watches, clocks, etc.) used by the witnesses that assigned a time to an event were synchronised during the passage of those events. Each witness who assigned an absolute time to an event recorded that time accurately. No absolute times were estimated. Each witness that gave an elapsed rather than an absolute time, calculated it using an accurately recorded start and end time. No elapsed times were estimated. Then Jim and Lee's arguments become more feasible. I say "Bravo, Jim!", and "Good work as always, Lee!" Paul.

I wonder what planet David's on. I hope it's not this one.

David, We see a certain number of postings about film alteration here. Mostly from people who have less than a fundamental grasp of photography and / or physics. Let's put aside the numerous interpretations of photos and films downloaded from the Internet, with their assorted jumble of compression artifacts that no doubt look suspicious to the untrained eye. Jack White - bless him - was the master of that line of research. Just look at his chapter in that God-awful book Murder In Dealey Plaza. Ok, here we go ... ... standby for the bleeding obvious. Sit down. If the photographic record was altered, then it must have been altered in its entirety. Otherwise inconsistencies would prove interference. How then was the entire photographic record of the assassination screened and altered where neccessary? It's absolutely ridiculous to suppose that would even be possible. By all means post something that is a little more than idle curiosity and stop wasting everyone's time. Paul.

Hi Steve, These are CDs that have video files on them? If so, your Mac should be able to read the CDs, regardless of whether it can play the video files on them. It may be possible to copy the files from the CDs onto your Mac's hard drive, then convert them to something it can play using some third party utility. Do you know the format of the files? Paul.

Do I detect a hint of sarcasm in there somewhere?

Pure, pathetic and laughable nonsense. Of course you won't be the only one to believe it. Why didn't those clever conspirators simply arrange for a shot to be fired from the rifle that they'd placed up there in order to frame Oswald? Because, obviously, that would have been just plain stupid. It made much more sense to launch a firecracker using a pipe-like device which would hopefully be mistaken for the barrel of a rifle just like the one that those clever conspirators had placed there in order to frame Oswald. Luckily for them, no-one noticed that "Oswald" was busy launching a firecracker from a pipe-like device when, according to the WC, he should have been busy shooting the President.

Hi Barry, The fact that no-one has accepted any of your challenges doesn't add any weight to your argument. I was asking if this is logically sound: '... [it] is easier to conceive of a proposition in terms of confidence level rather than that of doubt (e.g. “80% confident that it will rain” is easier to conceptualize than “20% doubtful that it will not rain,” since the latter utilizes a double negative), even though the two statements are essentially the same ...' (Kindle Locations 1096-1098) Is "80% confident that it will rain" equivalent to "20% doubtful that it will not rain"? I think these are essentially opposite statements. So, even if it is possible to quantify reasonable doubt and analyse this problem in a mathematical way, I have to wonder whether you're qualified to do that.

Hi Barry, I've been reading your book on my Kindle. I think there are assorted flaws in your argument, but the biggest is your dependency on being able to quantify reasonable doubt. We can say with near certainty that after JFK's head exploded, Lee Harvey Oswald left the Texas School Book Depository (a building which overlooks the spot where JFK's head exploded, and into which he took his rifle earlier that day), then went home to get his revolver, which he used to murder a policeman before being captured. I fail to see how your pernickety analysis of a tiny proportion of the available documentary evidence negates this. I also think your reasoning is a little flimsy, exemplified by this passage: '... [it] is easier to conceive of a proposition in terms of confidence level rather than that of doubt (e.g. “80% confident that it will rain” is easier to conceptualize than “20% doubtful that it will not rain,” since the latter utilizes a double negative), even though the two statements are essentially the same ...' (Kindle Locations 1096-1098) I believe this is incorrect. Is it, or am I being stupid here? It happens ... Paul.

Let's ignore all witness testimony then. Enough evidence remains to convict Oswald.

You seem somewhat confused, B.A. This forum is for people interested in the JFK assassination.

Oh dear ... An earwitness directly below Oswald in the TSBD heard three objects hitting the floor during the shooting. Was that the sound of someone placing the shells, Jim? In addition, if more than three shots were fired, and there was a cover-up, why were only three shells placed on the sixth floor? Sometimes those clever conspirators did the most stupid things!

I do really believe that. Just look at all the posts on this forum, and ask yourself how much closer any one of them has moved your average conspiracy theorist towards reality. I heard about the challenge, but not the mini challenge. Like Mr Von Pein, I reckon that the biggest challenge would be to find an unbiased arbitrator. Have you heard the McAdams - DiEugenio debate on Black Op Radio? I can listen to that and it's quite clear who has the upper hand. Yet, incredibly, most people here will side with Jimbo. The bleeding obvious doesn't seem to be applicable in the realm of the JFK assassination! I've just downloaded volume 1 of your book, so I'll see how I feel after reading that.

It's a fair point to make. However, all of the contemporary radio and tv broadcasts that I have seen and heard state that three shots were fired, before there was a possibility of introduced bias.

So you're here to promote your books. Fine. I could say that my sequence of flips is more likely, simply because Brian is imaginary, but I won't

Martin, Approximately 75% of witnesses said they heard three shots. Why is there such an obvious consensus if, as you imply, witness opinion is worthless? If witness opinion is generally unreliable, fine, let's ignore all of it. So what are we left with? Hard evidence which points unequivocally to one perpetrator. Lee Harvey Oswald. QED. Paul.

Barry, is there a particular reason you can't answer my questions?

Barry, do you give a monkey's toss about the truth, or are you just here to promote your books? Let's try once more. Let's see if a conspiracy theorist can answer a fairly straightforward question. I've edited it, just for you: Your 'deductive proof' seems to require that at least five shots were fired in Dealey Plaza on that day [22 November 1963]. You talk of the one-in-a-million chance of flipping an unbiased coin 20 times and getting 20 heads. What are the odds then, in your opinion, of three quarters of witnesses hearing three shots when there were in fact at least five? Here's something else for you. Me and my pal Brian each flipped the same coin 20 times. Brian is an invention, and I imagined that he flipped 20 heads: T, T, T, T, T, T, T, T, T, T, T, T, T, T, T, T, T, T, T, T I actually flipped a coin 20 times and got this result: T, T, H, H, T, H, T, H, T, T, H, H, H, T, T, H, T, H, T, T That's 11 tails and 9 heads. Which outcome is more likely? Now I'm going to buy the Kindle edition of your book. With Kind Regards, Paul Baker.

Barry, I've just listened to your spot on Black Op Radio, recorded yesterday. Your 'deductive proof' seems to require that five shots were fired in Dealey Plaza on that day. You talk of the one-in-a-million chance of flipping an unbiased coin 20 times and getting 20 heads. What are the odds then, in your opinion, of three quarters of witnesses hearing three shots when there were in fact five? Kind Regards, Paul.

David, What are you talking about? Are there fifty witnesses that saw a shooter on the Grassy Knoll? No. Are there are RESULTS in DP that point to well more than just 3 shots? Who knows? That's just jibberish. Does your image show an avulsed wound at the back of JFK's head? No. Would you consider dabbling with reality for a while, David? Probably not. Paul.

The only shooter was seen, and heard, up in that sixth floor window of the TSBD (although, true to form, you maintain that no shots were fired from that window). Please, please don't bring up Jean Hill, Gordon Arnold or Ed Hoffman. Most witnesses heard three shots. I'm not aware of a single contemporary news report that said there were more, and I've seen and heard quite a few of those. The Zapruder film doesn't show a large and avulsed wound at the back of JFK's head.

Thanks Jim, you always crack me up. 400 words which we could probably comfortably distil down to 10 without appreciable data loss. And I haven't gone anywhere. I'm just in a different time zone. I have heard of cavitation as it happens, Jim. I would be interested to know how it is relevant in the context of JFK's movement following the headshot, as I'm too dumb to work that out for myself. I would tend to believe that the presence of a cloud of blood and brain matter in front of JFK's head at frame Z313 would indicate that the bullet entered from behind. Otherwise, how is it being driven out of the front of his head, which Z313 clearly shows? Oh, cavitation. I see. So can your phenomenon of cavitation account for the solid fragments of bone which can be seen flying out at high speed in the same direction in the same frame? No doubt it can. Jim, I think your version of your debate with John McAdams only exists inside your head. Listen to it, it's still there in the Black Op archive, and clear the fog: Debate Part 1 Debate Part 2 Debate Part 3 Debate Part 4 You'll need RealPlayer for these. Paul.

Not much of an assumption, given that the sum total of credible evidence for a second (or third, etc.) shooter is ziltch. Patronise me some more if it makes you happy.

I'm certain that this is the case, and why it was never questioned when Robert Groden asserted that the head movement showed a bullet from the right front. Most people think that's what happens. In Hollywood, shot bodies can fly across a room in the direction of the bullet sometimes! I'm also pretty sure that 99% of the people watching Goodnight America instantly believed that someone shot JFK from the front after seeing the Z film for the first time. They should look out of the window instead of watching TV, maybe they'll see a real murder or two