Denny Zartman

Imho, I don't think it's one answer that applies to all participants. Prior to the assassination, for the upper echelon the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Bay of Pigs probably made the case for them that JFK was a "danger." After the assassination, I think many of them that weren't involved ahead of time went along with it believing it was a Soviet/Cuban plot, and that by assisting in covering it up they were helping the world avoid nuclear war.

You claim there are very simple and easy fixes to prevent AI from making up a false answer to a question, yet the answer it gave to a very simple question was still false. Why should we trust AI if the programmers can't already program in what you describe as simple and easy fail-safes that would say "I don't know" in a circumstance where it doesn't know an answer? According to you, the fix is so simple and easy that you can dismiss concerns about it in two sentences, and what I'm guessing are a few lines of code. Yet these fixes were not implemented. Are the programmers stupid? Is that really it? If code to avoid false answers is as simple and easy as you claim, why wasn't it already there? More importantly: Why is avoiding false answers not already a priority for AI? I'm no AI expert, but I fail to see how false answers help anyone. And you're not really inspiring confidence in overall AI programming if there exist super simple fixes that apparently didn't even occur to the programmers to add. In my opinion, false answers are just going to lead to more confusion, uncertainty, and wasted time. If we ask AI a complex question for which we can't independently verify the answer, how can we trust any answer that it gives? We just have to trust that the programmer got the programming right? Or do we have to comb through the code ourselves?

It's clear you want to believe in the potential of AI. I can't stop you. It will inevitably be used in research anyway. But the question asked on Saturday "Has Sunday's game been played yet?" is not a difficult one at all. Yet, the AI said three things: The game had been played already, the 49ers won it, and the exact score of the game. All three wrong. Not just wrong, but coming up with imaginary facts like the final score to support the incorrect answer. What if someone asks an AI to calculate the trajectory of a bullet and since it doesn't know, it just makes up an answer, including impressive extraneous information? Then we'll have people like us arguing over it for years because we assume the AI is better at complex calculations than we are, so it must likely be right. As I see it, AI wants to please. If it doesn't have an answer, it will try to give you one anyway. If AI is asked to scan a photo of the fence line for human looking figures, how do we know for certain it won't make them up, since it knows that's what we're looking for?

Do you have any medical experience of your own in observing and treating gunshot wounds in person? These people saw and treated gunshot wounds every day, and, in my opinion, it's a bit insulting to them to imply that they couldn't tell a bullet entrance wound from a fragment exit wound. And I'll never in my life understand why so many people on this forum are willing to believe the autopsy photos and x-rays. How many problems with them need to be pointed out before we reasonably start treating them with skepticism instead of the reflexive "I'm going to trust these over the witnesses observations" attitude that I seem to see here every day?

This is a very important damning account from two witnesses in the motorcade, and in my view strongly supports the assertion that there were shots fired from in front of presidential limousine.

The day before Superbowl 58, someone asked an AI chatbot for a prediction. The AI said it couldn't predict the game because, according to the AI, it had already been played, and that San Francisco won. It even gave the final score. I'm one of those people who thinks a wrong answer is worse than no answer, and it certainly seems that if AI doesn't know the correct answer to a question, it does it's level best to give you an answer anyway, regardless of accuracy - or even possibility.

"...and a large wound to the head, in the right posterior area." I'm sure Dr. Perry meant to say "top of the head" didn't he? I mean, a doctor who was there saying wildly inaccurate stuff like the large wound to the head was in the right posterior area... people might get the totally inaccurate idea that the large wound to the head was in the right posterior area. That would be silly. I sure hope someone who wasn't there and had no medical experience will correct the record and tell us all that Dr. Perry didn't say what he said and that he didn't see what he saw.

I don't think it's Jack White's work, but there's some discussion & photos of the C 2766 font discrepancy halfway at the link from where I sourced the original images of the rifle: http://www.freehomepage.com/jfkresearch/c2766.html

Regarding the Mannlicher Carcano in question, serial number C 2766. My research indicates the black and white images are from C 2766, indicating "MADE ITALY" and "CAL 6.5". "CAL 6.5" image should be attached below. The color image is not of C 2766. It is the same model. This is where I sourced the images: http://www.freehomepage.com/jfkresearch/c2766.html https://www.recoilweb.com/carcano-kennedy-assassination-rifle-161186.html Additionally, on July 2, 1964, Attorney Mark Lane testified to the Warren Commission after examining C 2766. "I told the Commission that, while not a rifle expert, I was able to see that it was a 6.5 Italian rifle because stamped clearly on the rifle were the words 'MADE ITALY' and 'CAL 6.5'" Mark Lane, "Rush To Judgment", Pg 96 Regarding the Mauser in question: you're not going to find any other specifics about that exact rifle, because they made it disappear. So I did research and searched for all images of Mauser rifles that would have been available in 1963 and then looked for any engravings on those rifles. That second collage is the result.

To believe they didn't find a Mauser is to believe the cops couldn't read.

Good article, thanks for sharing. I hadn't heard about the possible connection to Ohio. That was interesting.

Like evading apprehension by sitting motionless in a public place?

You're going to have to produce some evidence for that. You can't just make it up out of thin air. Why do you do that?

I hear you on the frustration. You have a lot more patience than I do, and I appreciate you and @Gil Jesus bringing the receipts and doing an exemplary job of it. There's no argument that hasn't already been made to them a dozen times over, so the entire effort is futile imho. If an Lone Nut theorist ever conceded a crucial point, they would then be forced into a position of having to explain why they ignored all the other tell-tale signs of conspiracy over the years. That's never going to happen. It's easier for them to just stare straight up in the sky at noon and swear that it's really midnight. It's extra frustrating knowing that they are essentially allowing the killers of Kennedy and Tippit to go free and for history to remain distorted with falsehoods. But they choose to profess they believe Oswald was up there in the sixth floor window shooting at JFK, despite evidence to the contrary.

Oh, I'm sure Oswald's nerves were steady as steel, especially after running up four flights of stairs and the length of the sixth floor. Isn't that why they do decathlons? I'm sure a rapid heart rate helps riflepersons be more accurate. And exactly why did that first shot miss, anyway? Is it because it was deflected by tree branches, as the Lone Nut theorists claim? I wonder if switching sights while shooting at a moving target through an obstruction makes the shot easier or harder? Probably easier. Otherwise the LN's would have to explain why Oswald would, using the scope, not only miss the target but the entire limousine as well.

Great work on this thread, @Sandy Larsen and @Gil Jesus .

It looks to be a quite interesting book on a neglected aspect of the case. I'm looking forward to checking it out and reading everyone's takes when it comes out this October. Thanks for all your work, @Vince Palamara .

Pull the other one, it has bells on it

.

It's simply impossible for you to be fair, isn't it? 🙄

Worthy of note. Thanks, @Sean Coleman Others have also mentioned that they see more of a similarity between Roscoe's squareish chin and the chin in the backyard photo than Oswald's more pointed chin in other photos. Of course it's well known that among the people who argue the backyard photos were faked that there is an apparent faint line just below the mouth. I've seen discussions where people have remarked about Oswald's odd leaning in the backyard photo. I had never really considered it unusual, but I guess it is distinctive with almost all his weight on the right leg like that. And there's no doubt the stance in the Roscoe beach photo is the same.

As cited in "Admitted Assassin", Pierre Lafitte’s date book for 1963 (see the 2021 book “Coup In Dallas” by H.P. Albarelli) apparently has two entries where the name/word “White” is mentioned. I have “Coup In Dallas”, but I have not been able to confirm this yet. Perhaps @Leslie Sharp might be able to help clarify this?