David Von Pein Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 (edited) Just what I thought---Barry won't admit he made an error in his book concerning his "Which one?" question re the boxes....which is a question that was fully answered in 1964. Therefore, Barry will continue to promote yet another of the hundreds of already-debunked CT myths associated with this case, as he continues to ask "Which one?", even though he already knows the answer. Nice. Edited April 13, 2012 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Krusch Posted April 13, 2012 Author Share Posted April 13, 2012 I already explained why it was no "error." But if you think I'm prone to error, you should accept the challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Kingsbury Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Dave you started to grasp the concept Barry is pursuing but only at the end of your post ,or are you being coy?. What you question is the need for the photos at all?. Whereas I question all of it. You do not feel the need to pursue your own "suspicions" on any element of evidence "In pocket" as you consider the evidence "proved"in your mind. What is really strange is I share your love of movies too and your reviews of some of the classics mirror my own even down to the emotions of watching a great film. I guess it's the choices we make that make us what we are rather than the people we meet on th way. Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Duffy Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Read the book, looking forward very much to the other volumes... Imagine if others actually READ it before making jump the gun comments?... What a crazy notion.... Best to your endeavor, Barry, I know that word of mouth is already creating some excitement.... Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Krusch Posted April 17, 2012 Author Share Posted April 17, 2012 Thanks, Steve. What did you think of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Krusch Posted April 17, 2012 Author Share Posted April 17, 2012 Saw the Amazon review, Steve . . . much appreciated, thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Krusch Posted April 20, 2012 Author Share Posted April 20, 2012 Just a reminder: the 22d is Sunday! Also: you don't need a Kindle to download, just an Amazon account . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 (edited) In your preview, Barry, you make much of the sniper's nest photos, in which the SN boxes are stacked in a different manner. I hope you understand that the DPD re-constructed the sniper's nest on the 25th to how they remembered it appearing when first viewed by them on the 22nd, and admitted as much in their testimony before the WC. And that CE 733 is a photo from this re-construction. And that CE 509 is a news photo from late on the afternoon of the 22nd, taken hours AFTER the boxes had first been viewed by the DPD, and dusted for prints. Well, it only follows then that there's no reason to believe these photos would present identical views of the boxes. There are a number of points where one might say the WC or DPD deliberately deceived the public, but this isn't one of them... Or am I missing something? P.S. I posted this after reading Barry's original post. I just went back and finished reading the thread and just now realized that this point was already made by David Von Pein. Sorry, Barry. I didn't mean to pile on. Edited April 20, 2012 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Just what I thought---Barry won't admit he made an error in his book concerning his "Which one?" question re the boxes....which is a question that was fully answered in 1964. Therefore, Barry will continue to promote yet another of the hundreds of already-debunked CT myths associated with this case, as he continues to ask "Which one?", even though he already knows the answer. Nice. you still posting here? ya know, if you want credibility you need to address the 45 questions as put forth both here and alt.conspiracy.jfk. .john mcadams ran from them, virtually every single lone nut-WCR supporter flees from them. Challenges have been made to your arch-hero Bugliosi and that boot anchor book Reclaiming History. Yet your not to be found, anywhere, anywhere posting regarding the immediate above. Your fondest dream is "debunked" theories. WHO debunked them? You, Mcadams, Reitzes? Surely you jest, afterall you only have 50,000 posts to various USNET JFK-assassination related boards, 20 websites (most you control), 15 blogs (all you own) and lord knows how many others under various aliases. And NOTHING lately to support your "hold his jockstrap" approach in supporting Bugliosi and what some have said his lies at worst, ignorance at best and horrible research....? Gonna blame that on Dale *look at my EMMY* Myers? (just curious You're grasping at lone nut straws, dude.... please keep coming back we need your arrogance.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Krusch Posted April 21, 2012 Author Share Posted April 21, 2012 In your preview, Barry, you make much of the sniper's nest photos, in which the SN boxes are stacked in a different manner. I hope you understand that the DPD re-constructed the sniper's nest on the 25th to how they remembered it appearing when first viewed by them on the 22nd, and admitted as much in their testimony before the WC. And that CE 733 is a photo from this re-construction. And that CE 509 is a news photo from late on the afternoon of the 22nd, taken hours AFTER the boxes had first been viewed by the DPD, and dusted for prints. Well, it only follows then that there's no reason to believe these photos would present identical views of the boxes. There are a number of points where one might say the WC or DPD deliberately deceived the public, but this isn't one of them... Or am I missing something? P.S. I posted this after reading Barry's original post. I just went back and finished reading the thread and just now realized that this point was already made by David Von Pein. Sorry, Barry. I didn't mean to pile on. This is addressed in the "non-preview." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Krusch Posted April 22, 2012 Author Share Posted April 22, 2012 Just got my first fake review . . . http://www.amazon.com/Impossible-Against-Harvey-Oswald-ebook/dp/B007TBWQ3W/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1335093292&sr=8-1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Krusch Posted April 22, 2012 Author Share Posted April 22, 2012 Ah, great background, Jim, thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Baker Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 (edited) 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. Edited May 4, 2012 by Paul Baker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Krusch Posted May 4, 2012 Author Share Posted May 4, 2012 (edited) 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. Discussed at the beginning of Volume 2. And when did I say there were five only? I said there had to be AT LEAST five. And your first paragraph is in error. Edited May 4, 2012 by Barry Krusch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Baker Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 Discussed at the beginning of Volume 2. And when did I say there were five only? I said there had to be AT LEAST five. And your first paragraph is in error. 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. 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