Glenn Nall

Obviously, he does not know the difference. I can see DVP as part of a lynch mob.

"Well, he shore looks guilty! String him up!"

I'm fairly "shore" that if all juries consisted of "JFK Internet CTers", all guilty defendants would be set free. You'd find SOME evidence that you could pretend was fake.

Most Internet CTers can't even find it within themselves to string Oswald up for Officer Tippit's murder, let alone JFK's. And the Tippit murder can easily be solved by any first grader with a learning disability. And yet the CTers are stumped by it. Go figure.

Most Internet CTers can't even find it within themselves to string Oswald up for Officer Tippit's murder, let alone JFK's. And the Tippit murder can easily be solved by any first grader with a learning disability. But fortunately they don't let first graders with learning disabilities on juries. They require people with normal brains and reasoning ability. I'll bet you haven't been on any juries lately, have you DVP? There is no more evidence to convict anyone for JDT than for JFK. Exactly none for either. No one has ever put LHO near where JDT was killed at the time of the shooting, LHO was already in the Texas Theatre.

And the Tippit murder can easily be solved by

This tells you all you need to know. He's equating murder conviction with basic reasoning ability. The switch isn't making. There's a short.

and i thought he was making such progress earlier. damn.

i asked a simple, relevant question - can DVP define "proof" - with the qualifier that if he doesn't reply then the assumption is that he can't.

he has not replied.

ergo...

(this is an example of logic. it's what we call in my line of work an "If else" statement. IF this, then this, ELSE this. it's the stuff that runs computers and human minds - well, some of them...

assuming a given set of parameters, IF x replies with the correct answer, then he knows the correct answer, ELSE - again, given a set of parameters - he does not know the answer.

it's really that simple. i LOVE this stuff. it works the same way with spent shell casings and nearby rifles, too. neato, huh?)

Obviously, he does not know the difference. I can see DVP as part of a lynch mob.

"Well, he shore looks guilty! String him up!"

I'm fairly "shore" that if all juries consisted of "JFK Internet CTers", all guilty defendants would be set free. You'd find SOME evidence that you could pretend was fake.

Most Internet CTers can't even find it within themselves to string Oswald up for Officer Tippit's murder, let alone JFK's. And the Tippit murder can easily be solved by any first grader with a learning disability. And yet the CTers are stumped by it. Go figure.

yeah, i know, silly us, requiring something so trivial as evidence to decide a man's life.

how dumb and silly.

and dumb.

good thing you aren't the one being accused. with the likes of us as a jury, you'd be - um... well, you know...

and you ducked another question. I challenged you to POSITIVELY put the assumed errant bullet IN C2766.

You didn't even try. How come?

I can put the third BULLET SHELL CASING in C2766. And THREE shots were fired (based on the preponderance of evidence and the witness accounts). So the math isn't too difficult here.

But, you see Glenn, I'm using some of that "common sense and deductive reasoning" I was talking about before. And THAT is taboo in your world, isn't it?

If you can put the third shell casing in C2766, can you prove what day it was fired on? Anyone can fire a bullet somewhere else and leave the shell casing on the 6th floor as "evidence". Prove it was fired on 22/11/63.

this is exactly the connection he's not willing to make, of course. it's like it doesn't compute to him. and frankly i'm afraid to ask him lest he prove his own density, which i really doubt he has. I believe he's smarter than that, just unwilling to go there.

perhaps he lacks the freedom. (i'm picturing the FBI agents from the autopsy, or their sons, standing over him telling him what to type)

not the shell casing. the bullet. you said you can prove the BULLET came from the gun. I'm asking how. you're ducking the question, or you're not reading it slowly enough.

and you've never served on a criminal jury have you. you've never read any kind of jury instruction from a criminal case before. if you had, you'd know the difference. the judge will fairly well specifically TELL the jury that NO MATTER what their gut tells them (think Michael Jackson trial in LA) that the ONLY thing that they can base their decision on is the... EVIDENCE.

Not "my world" - The world of American Jurisprudence. That would be YOUR world, Dave, because it is THIS set of standards to which you are unavoidably and irrevocably attached to, whether you accept that or not. IF you broke a law, and IF a policeman saw you do so, there's NO AMOUNT of DVP Reasoning that will get you out of it. It will be the EVIDENCE that provides the outcome.

So - you can put the - oh - "put" in this context means "show this as fact", which means "prove such and such" - you're saying that you can "put" the casing that once owned the third bullet IN the gun. (Even though what i actually challenged you with is completely different from that. I asked for you to put any of those bullets in that gun, but you ducked.)

My heart is aflutter in anticipation of this revelatory event.

Show me, Dave.

Therefore, given the above starting points, please explain to me why I should NOT conclude that ALL of the shots fired on 11/22/63 (three in number) came from the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle?

1 - three spent shell casings do NOT prove that three bullets were fired from that gun. On 11/22/63 or ANY day. (deductive reasoning is NOT evidence)

2 - there's no forensic or ballistic evidence that POSITIVELY connects CE567 and CE569 with C2766. (deductive reasoning is NOT evidence)

3 - whether planted OR NOT, there's NO evidence that POSITIVELY puts CE399 INSIDE C2766.

4 - the 5th starting point has NOTHING to do with the ballistic connection between ANY bullet on the planet and C2766. NONE. (deductive reasoning is NOT evidence)

IF you find a way to show me you know the definition of the word proof, then i challenge you to refute any of these statements. By refute, I mean SHOW me where exactly they're wrong, not TELL me how YOUR opinion differs from these statements. These statements are NOT opinion. According to the definition of the word "proof", they are FACT.

and although I'm sure you're not able to rise to the challenge, that is what that is - a challenge to prove, POSITIVELY, an error in those statements FOR WHICH YOU ASKED.

and you ducked another question. I challenged you to POSITIVELY put the assumed errant bullet IN C2766.

You didn't even try. How come?

David, a straight up serious question for you, that, if you duck, I'll accept that you have no the answer.

DO YOU understand the definition of the word "proof?" I don't mean pasting and copying it from Dictionary.com, I mean know it...

DO you?

yeah -- THAT's why I used the word "proof", Dave, errantly thinking that you'd have by now learned the difference.

see, "plain ordinary common sense and deductive reasoning" doesn't work in a courtroom, Davey, and the charges you've submitted require proof.

there's nothing in Common Law or US Federal Law or ANY State Law that holds that a jury can decide a defendant's fate if he's guilty up to and including plain, old common sense and deductive reasoning.

it didn't work in England hundreds of years ago, and it doesn't apply now.

try to understand: Guilt requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There IS NO room for "plain ordinary common sense and deductive reasoning".

Period.

A domestic coup by LBJ w/CIA, MI, TX oil.

MI = Military Industrial complex?

yes, i can see this. It falls in line with Carl Oglesby's Yankee/Cowboy theory, which is one of the books i was weaned on.

and now i'm going slowly through R Bartholomew's UT stuff - and THAT circle of shiny people - Dulles, Paines, et al. (the Cubans and Sturgis, Loran Hall...), I'm thinking that this flows pretty well with LBJ's interests.

it's a blast working through all this.

Wow, Oglesby is quite the place to start one's study. Count yourself very lucky to have found this wonderful book. Carl was my very first conspiracy friend (1973) and we remained very close until his sad death in 2011. My copy of his book is falling apart but I will never part with it. (lots of mushy stuff written on the inside makes it extra special). It really connected a lot of dots and is beautifully written. Carl was the only person I have ever known who actually spoke the same way he wrote: with brilliance and elegance. It's still hard for me to believe I can't just pick up the phone and discuss the state of the case, or our kids, or today's marriage equality decision.

And Richard B was my first Austin conspiracy friend. His manuscript is full of info but needs a road map to keep all of the names straight. I have not read it in a very long time. Sad that the Rambler is lost, just in case it did have a connection. All the stuff in the backseat certainly suggests some connection to 11/22/63, even if not Ruth Paine's car. And who- and why- ripped out all the pages at the Liab? This case has more mystery than any novel could ever contrive. You can literally lose decades of your life studying it.

Dawn

Dawn, I'm so glad you you responded - I remember that I had seen in another thread that someone here knew Carl personally, and I've been dying to remember who it was (without coming out and asking).

I've sent you a PM if you don't mind, as I left topic a bit in my ramblings of Carl Oglesby. ---

A domestic coup by LBJ w/CIA, MI, TX oil.

MI = Military Industrial complex?

yes, i can see this. It falls in line with Carl Oglesby's Yankee/Cowboy theory, which is one of the books i was weaned on.

and now i'm going slowly through R Bartholomew's UT stuff - and THAT circle of shiny people - Dulles, Paines, et al. (the Cubans and Sturgis, Loran Hall...), I'm thinking that this flows pretty well with LBJ's interests.

it's a blast working through all this.

"But from the limited POV of Bullets being found inside the limousine that can be tied to the C2766 rifle, ---"

which is what's known as proof, as opposed to not proven

"---I am, of course, forced to stop at just ONE bullet POSITIVELY being pumped into the car by that rifle, because I believe Oswald's first shot missed the whole car and therefore could not be recovered at all, and CE399 was found outside the automobile--in the hospital."

all of this being my point exactly, of course.

unless you can tell me how a bullet that could not be recovered at all can be shown to have been POSITIVELY shot AT the limo from C2766, then you cannot say that the three shells POSITIVELY contained the bullets that are found in the limo. (aside from CE399)

all you did was inadvertently agree with logic. i know it was an accident, but you did it.

and THIS CTer has never once implied that he thinks everything is fake. I'm of a minimalist philosophy - the fewer moving parts, the more likely.

wow. i agree - it DID seem to me that this guy has done a LOT of work. The LBJ, HLHunt, Murchison group, et al, seems to be more in line with what I'm thinking - not convinced of, just thinking.

"overthrow the government"? that part is new to me, but - wow. certainly not impossible to think of LBJ, that's for sure.

The clip wasn't initially found at the scene, was it? That meant manual loading of each round.

This reminds me of another point - that there was a 4th live round in the chamber - and that if this was indeed manually loaded, seems kind of odd to me that a person who'd just shot AT the president 3X would take the time to load the 4th if he was done shooting and needing to be on the 2nd floor for his date with the coke machine in, what, 2 and a half minutes? 15 minutes? can't remember.

Still...

nicely put, Dave - some reasoning I can agree with.

"put at least one bullet into JFK's car on 11/22/63"

which is contrary to your assertion that three empty shells virtually proved three shots were fired from the 6th floor, and is exactly the argument I used in rebuttal.

while i still hold that there's no proof putting CE399 in the limo, I feel that you've made great progress and am looking forward to more in our next session.

i think this MCarcano was a bolt-action...? clip...? what clip?

OH. never mind. i was thinking auto... silly me.

i LIKE that idea. easy to know if you've missed something with a rifle if you haven't fired one.

check.

"hit the tree" ... ? what have I missed? first I've heard of any tree getting hit (i saw where some filmmakers 'proved' a shot from 6th floor hit the green (now) street light right outside the window by finding a bullet hole in it - did ya'll see that...?)

what's the evidence of a tree getting shot?

i agree, tho, that that theory is less nuts the most nutters' theories.

But I saw a question above that hasn't been answered. How did he know the shot had missed?

I've shot lots of things with rifles, none of them alive - I can almost always tell when i hit my target (it invariably moves). I'd imagine it would be QUITE hard NOT to know if you hit a human being. I think he would know if he missed because of that. It wasn't a paper target at 100 yards --- i'm just thinking this from my experience.

It all fits perfectly with a missed shot being fired BEFORE the "SBT" shot.

And it fits just as perfectly to the first shot hit K and the 2nd shot (or another shot) hit C in a "non-SBT" scenario.

"hit the tree" ... ? what have I missed? first I've heard of any tree getting hit (i saw where some filmmakers 'proved' a shot from 6th floor hit the green (now) street light right outside the window by finding a bullet hole in it - did ya'll see that...?)

what's the evidence of a tree getting shot?

i agree, tho, that that theory is less nuts the most nutters' theories.

1 - so the idea is that they'd kill a bunch of people in the name of preventing bunches of people getting killed. hhmmm...

2 - this ... (with lots of REAL hesitation) ... "almost" ... ... ... sounds conceivable; i won't believe that our a faction of our government - or the power elite MIComplex - would resort to that. god.

I don't understand the "staged event" angle used in these claims of false flag operations. Cold-blooded or psychopathic government operatives are perfectly capable of shooting 20 children and teachers in a schoolhouse or 9 people in a churchhouse using a "lone nut" or patsy (just like they're perfectly capable of killing a planeload of innocent people to rub out one particular person). Why in the world would they go to the unbelievably complicated trouble of faking the deaths?

They wouldn't, which is why the stuff Jones and Fetzer are putting out is so crazy. I do believe a lot of terrible things about the powers that be but I don't think the Sandy Hook shooter was a "Patsy" nor was the church shooter. In my opinion.

well, this is Certainly one of my least familiarized subjects. What is the idea behind a "staged event"? what in the world would the govt., any oligarchy, hope to accomplish by something like this?

what do they say the motive would be behind faking Sandy Hook or actually causing 9/ internally?

regarding the report of BBC reporting 9/11 early - I remember one of the very first things i ever read about the JFK conspiracy being that some newspapers in Australia had actually printed the news predated to some extent or the other - by a few hours or something.

"on the other hand, my question is, if the heavies just set up having the scope mounted in order to create a 'prop', why would they have mounted such a POS...? if the whole idea was for the rifle to be found and attached to the "killer", they had to know that the POS scope would be an issue, right?"

How many people on this forum knew that this scope belonged on a pellet rifle before I pointed this out to everyone?

To the majority of the population, it was a sporty looking rifle with a SCOPE mounted on it, so it MUST have been capable of doing the job.

In the final analysis, it was likely decided not to give Oswald anything this chronically unemployable man could not afford. More questions would have been asked if this low wage earner had acquired an expensive rifle and scope.

i think it's somewhat known among the community that it was cheap and misaligned, but that's about it.

good point - makes sense that they'd ensure his choice of scopes was 'realistic'.

my thoughts exactly. in fact, those are the same two words that I thought. well, one of those words.

seriously, this is a stupid mistake to pretend he didn't know how cheap and misaligned the scope was - AND no one who plans on using a rifle and scope the next day will do so without sighting the scope in beforehand; AND if the situation in fact DOES call for the rifle to be broken down and "bagged up" and then reassembled, the scope would have to be assumed to be off at that point anyway. So either LHO knew what he was doing with a rifle or he didn't. I don't think the nutters have reached a solid stance on that.

on the other hand, my question is, if the heavies just set up having the scope mounted in order to create a 'prop', why would they have mounted such a POS...? if the whole idea was for the rifle to be found and attached to the "killer", they had to know that the POS scope would be an issue, right?

They had a good plan for hiding the evidence and controlling the investigation. They knew they would be able to fool many (known as Lone Nutters)

it's good to know your market (PT Barnum?). i think they were hoping for a larger number of suckers, tho.

and I think the idea was to paralyze the gophers with a poison pellet/dart fired from a hunting umbrella first so that 15 yards wouldn't seem such an enormous distance with that scope.