Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald

[Barry Krusch]

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.

Thanks, Paul. Let me know what you think of the book.

[Paul Baker]

Thanks, Paul. Let me know what you think of the book.

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

[Barry Krusch]

Paul, I don't have any problem answering your questions. Based on the data you have shown, it would appear that the outcome for both events is equally likely. The key there is the "same" coin.

Now, if you think that answer is germane to the issue at hand, I would suggest you read my analysis of this in the forthcoming Volume 3.

Edited May 8, 2012 by Barry Krusch

[Paul Baker]

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.

[Paul Baker]

Paul, I don't have any problem answering your questions. Based on the data you have shown, it would appear that the outcome for both events is equally likely.

Now, if you think that answer is germane to the issue at hand, I would suggest you read my analysis of this in the forthcoming Volume 3.

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

[Paul Baker]

Once again from the Warren report: "Soon after the three empty cartridges were found, officials at the scene decided three shots were fired, and that conclusion was widely circulated by the press. The eyewitness testimony may be subconsciously colored by the extensive publicity given the conclusion that three shots were fired." (R111)

Paul, did "75%" of witnesses say they heard 3 shots before the extensive publicity to which the commission referred?

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.

[Barry Krusch]

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.

If you really believe that, Paul, you should take either the JFK challenge or the JFK mini-challenge. This is being extensively discussed right now on the jfkassassinationforum. I should advise you that all of the people who really know what is going on, including David Von Pein, have shrunk from these challenges like vampires from the sun. But maybe you are different.

[Paul Baker]

If you really believe that, Paul, you should take either the JFK challenge or the JFK mini-challenge. This is being extensively discussed right now on the jfkassassinationforum. I should advise you that all of the people who really know what is going on, including David Von Pein, have shrunk from these challenges like vampires from the sun. But maybe you are different.

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.

[Barry Krusch]

If you really believe that, Paul, you should take either the JFK challenge or the JFK mini-challenge. This is being extensively discussed right now on the jfkassassinationforum. I should advise you that all of the people who really know what is going on, including David Von Pein, have shrunk from these challenges like vampires from the sun. But maybe you are different.

I've just downloaded volume 1 of your book, so I'll see how I feel after reading that.

I am guessing that you won't be feeling too good about it.

[Paul Baker]

I am guessing that you won't be feeling too good about it.

[B. A. Copeland]

Thanks Mr D, lol. This topic needed that, since unfortunately Baker seems to be honestly trolling given the overwhelmng evidence contrary to his own position.

[David Josephs]

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.

You do realize there is a HUGE difference between HEARING 3 shots and there actually being more shots fired, right?

And I'm not talking silencers which, on rifles in 1963, were r4eally supression devices, not silencing ones...

In any case.. 3 teams, all with Collins Radios..

FIRE is spoken into the radio

3 shooters fire at the same time

1 SOUND = 3 SHOTS

A FLURRY of shells enter the limo....

THREE shots cannot account for all the damage done in DP in those few seconds....

let alone that one bullet can account for what the autopsy said happened to his head and one more for his back and throat...

Why do you suppose Homer McMahon, a photo anlysis EXPERT, would say he saw 6-8 shots from 3 directions... if he didn't? When at the same time the FBI/SS is INSISTING to witnesses and government analysist alike that there was only 3 shots, and there will always only ever be THREE shots..

[Paul Baker]

Then there is the further evidence that the photo we have of the shells today was created by Fritz. When the first photographer got there, he said the shells were arranged in such a short length that one could span them with one hand. Which is hard to buy from a manual bolt action rifle. Fritz then picked them up and tossed them. Then the police took their photos.

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!

[Paul Baker]

Thanks Mr D, lol. This topic needed that, since unfortunately Baker seems to be honestly trolling given the overwhelmng evidence contrary to his own position.

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

[Paul Baker]

So tell me how reliable these witnesses are again on the details of the shooting?

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