Glenn Nall Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) DJ - First, I admire your attempts to elicit civility from DVP in your genuine interest in some things he may have to say. I lost both a while back. "...the "Why would they..." & "it's just not possible that..." type of statements..." As I'm sure you're aware these are but two of a group of what're known as logical fallacies ("everybody knows that..." or "what with LNers believing in the exact opposite") - a tendency many people have, to different degrees, to avoid reason and facts when engaging in civil debate. DVP is a walking, living, breathing case study in logical fallacies that serve nothing better than to insult his opponent and destroy his own credibility. There is conflict and then there's conflict. He doesn't understand the difference so he cannot avoid using insult and logical fallacy in order to salvage what little he has left of a theory and his dignity. I haven't read up on these fallacies in a long time - I'm constantly reminded of them, and how much fun they are, in here... the frustration is in trying to convince someone why, for instance, the opinions of a Supreme Court Justice have nothing to do with evidence that can or cannot place a person on the 6th floor of a particular building pulling the trigger of a certain gun at 12.30 on a given day. this is why i posted in my signature the snippet from The Gun That Doesn't [or Didn't] Smoke about evidence. I fully agree with you in regards to authenticating evidence; my purpose in this blurb is to simply clarify the different kinds of evidence and how one kind can be so much better than another kind depending upon its relevance and competence. People have a tendency to believe that "eyewitness" evidence is the good stuff and circumstantial evidence is useless, when this is far from the truth. The three bullet casings appear to be solid evidence to some people, but actually carry very little weight in and of themselves. They prove nothing. I think this is what you're referring to when you presented to us the idea of "closed loop corroboration"...? Evidence that stands (or doesn't stand) on its own...? I've been meaning to get back and ask you if you'd give me a good example of what you mean by this; the fingerprint(s) found on the gun are completely dependant upon about a thousand other factors lining up like the planets never will in a million more years. this is what's NOT a - may I? - CLC. you're right in that this case is full of real evidence - the problem is (well, the FIRST problem is) in assigning a proper and realistic value to each bit of evidence. the 3 shells are real evidence. the gun is real evidence. this doesn't make it good evidence. because of the destroyed chain of custody these things are hardly competent to the point of being almost irrelevant. CE399? Assuredly incompetent and probably inadmissible. I honestly believe Henry Wade would not have taken this to court on what evidence became available to the Warren Commission. I don't know, though. That outcome might just as well have been prearranged like Shaw was. I'm of the utter and confident stance that enough circumstantial evidence can decide the thing. Eventually, that is. It's all we have. To me, the HSCA proved that there is ample circumstantial evidence by the fact that, try as they did not to, they were forced to find that there was probably a conspiracy. There was no direct evidence available as far as i know, or else everyone would be convinced that LHO had help. Circumstantial evidence led that group of people to admit collusion, and that in and of itself lays reasonable doubt of LHO's sole guilt at your feet. anyway. you're right. i just wanted to refresh some memories of the difference between kinds of evidence, and what kind of evidence things like those damn shell casings are - and the rifle, for that matter. "it's critical if understanding the evidence for what it is, is desired..." there are two kinds of JFK enthusiasts in the world: those who desire to understand the evidence of its own accord, and the Lone Nutters. Edited July 31, 2015 by Glenn Nall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Kenneth... go back and look at my composite... look carefully at the shadows of the people compared to the shadow of the mike on the wall... why aren't the shadows at the people's feet headed toward that wall instead of directly behind them...? Flash? There is an overhead light in the center of that 'vestibule'/hallway coming out. the shadow from the mike seems about right for that. need to look at a larger pic where the light is included, then it might fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 This is the link I referred to above about Ruby shooting LHO. I got it from this forum: http://forum.assassinationofjfk.net/index.php? and it is: The Oswald Shooting by Edward L Chiarini Jr. Kenneth, You provided my forum's link as the source for this trash. That is unfortunate. The individual who made the YouTube is not even a member of my forum. The individual who posted a link to that YouTube on my forum has since been banned form participation on the forum. Had I viewed the YouTube when it was first posted to my forum, I would have deleted the post. JFK's Jimmy Carter? Really? Boy Carter sure looks great for a guy turning 100 years old in less than two years! Joe Kennedy, JR. is really George H. W. Bush? Really? Did you notice that Jack Ruby was wearing shoes by Gino Magli, too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 so that means that Ruby and OJ were knew each other!! coincidence? i think not... [cue spooky music] [oh, and more fodder for DVP to show that we are, in fact, idiots] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted July 31, 2015 Author Share Posted July 31, 2015 People have a tendency to believe that "eyewitness" evidence is the good stuff and circumstantial evidence is useless, when this is far from the truth. The three bullet casings appear to be solid evidence to some people, but actually carry very little weight in and of themselves. They prove nothing. I think this is what you're referring to when you presented to us the idea of "closed loop corroboration"...? Evidence that stands (or doesn't stand) on its own...? I've been meaning to get back and ask you if you'd give me a good example of what you mean by this; the fingerprint(s) found on the gun are completely dependant upon about a thousand other factors lining up like the planets never will in a million more years. this is what's NOT a - may I? - CLC. I'm tired of fighting and of being annoyed... that's whya few posts back I wrote to Steve what I did. Like getting mad at the sun for setting. DVP and LNers in general really have no other choice. ------------- As for CLC (as if the world needs another 3 letter acronym) - I like it What I meant that to mean is a set of evidence that only corroborates each other. The VC# assigned by Klein's to C2766 has only 3 pieces of evidence from which to corroborate it... 1) the 2 page VC# list of the 100 rifles 2) the Crescent packing slip #3620 for carton #3376 with C2766 in it and 3) the Order Blank with C20-T750 wherethe VC# and Serial # is written in. If I only show you only those three documents it APPEARS that VC836 = C2766 = what HIDELL was shipped As long as we never see other VC# = Serial #'s pages As long as we never see what happened to the other 99 rifles As long as we are never shown what Klein's shipped for other C20-T750 orders... This evidence corroborates itself. Yet in the paper CTKA is putting up shortly, I prove how these items are FBI frauds and why the FBI steered clear of any other records which showed what Klein's did inthenormal course of business... all we get is OSWALD's business docs... ---------------- As for your fingerprint comment... I don't think that's what I posted... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22128&page=3#entry310335 and no, the fingerprints cannot be CLC unless the fingerprint card it is compared to and the finger prints on evidence were never checked against Oswald's actual fingerprints. By stating that the fingerprints on the rifle match "this" fingerprint card which we claim is Oswald's can only stay closed-loop if we were neer allowed to authentically take his fingerprints and compare them. I am NOT saying this happened.. here me DVP, NOT... just an example of how fingerprints could qualify for a CLC. ---- Hope that made sense. Most CLC is used to authenticate evidence for which we should have recourse tro but don't. The Klein's microfilm is yet another. I asked DVP about this and he's never addressed it. WCD7 pages 187-188-189 show two teribbly conflicting reports with virtually all the same info except that in one Waldman keeps the microfilm and in the other FBI SA DOLAN takes the film with him. Since the film is now missing from the archives and the copy which Dolan claims he gave Waldman has not turned up, there is no way to corroborate that ORDER BLANK as authentic... the Closed Loop Corroboration is the FBI reports claiming what they say was on the film, was... Same page? DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 People have a tendency to believe that "eyewitness" evidence is the good stuff and circumstantial evidence is useless, when this is far from the truth. The three bullet casings appear to be solid evidence to some people, but actually carry very little weight in and of themselves. They prove nothing. I think this is what you're referring to when you presented to us the idea of "closed loop corroboration"...? Evidence that stands (or doesn't stand) on its own...? I've been meaning to get back and ask you if you'd give me a good example of what you mean by this; the fingerprint(s) found on the gun are completely dependant upon about a thousand other factors lining up like the planets never will in a million more years. this is what's NOT a - may I? - CLC. I'm tired of fighting and of being annoyed... that's whya few posts back I wrote to Steve what I did. Like getting mad at the sun for setting. DVP and LNers in general really have no other choice. ------------- As for CLC (as if the world needs another 3 letter acronym) - I like it What I meant that to mean is a set of evidence that only corroborates each other. The VC# assigned by Klein's to C2766 has only 3 pieces of evidence from which to corroborate it... 1) the 2 page VC# list of the 100 rifles 2) the Crescent packing slip #3620 for carton #3376 with C2766 in it and 3) the Order Blank with C20-T750 wherethe VC# and Serial # is written in. If I only show you only those three documents it APPEARS that VC836 = C2766 = what HIDELL was shipped As long as we never see other VC# = Serial #'s pages As long as we never see what happened to the other 99 rifles As long as we are never shown what Klein's shipped for other C20-T750 orders... This evidence corroborates itself. Yet in the paper CTKA is putting up shortly, I prove how these items are FBI frauds and why the FBI steered clear of any other records which showed what Klein's did inthenormal course of business... all we get is OSWALD's business docs... ---------------- As for your fingerprint comment... I don't think that's what I posted... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22128&page=3#entry310335 and no, the fingerprints cannot be CLC unless the fingerprint card it is compared to and the finger prints on evidence were never checked against Oswald's actual fingerprints. By stating that the fingerprints on the rifle match "this" fingerprint card which we claim is Oswald's can only stay closed-loop if we were neer allowed to authentically take his fingerprints and compare them. I am NOT saying this happened.. here me DVP, NOT... just an example of how fingerprints could qualify for a CLC. ---- Hope that made sense. Most CLC is used to authenticate evidence for which we should have recourse tro but don't. The Klein's microfilm is yet another. I asked DVP about this and he's never addressed it. WCD7 pages 187-188-189 show two teribbly conflicting reports with virtually all the same info except that in one Waldman keeps the microfilm and in the other FBI SA DOLAN takes the film with him. Since the film is now missing from the archives and the copy which Dolan claims he gave Waldman has not turned up, there is no way to corroborate that ORDER BLANK as authentic... the Closed Loop Corroboration is the FBI reports claiming what they say was on the film, was... Same page? DJ "As for your fingerprint comment... I don't think that's what I posted." My fault - i did not mean to imply that you were saying that. I was pointing out how, even though some people (no names, please) think that those prints are gospel, their values actually depend upon a multitude of things; that they are an example of what's NOT a closed loop corroboration, if i understand it right, because of this dependency. sorry about the misunderstanding. btw, D. seems to feel that we CTers don't believe in any evidence, according to his reply to my response to his post in the Lane thread - so please try to discourage him from reading this thread if you can, lest he see us discussing the plethora of evidence that we seem to think exists. I'd hate for him to come across some evidence contrary to one of his millions of statements of absolute fact. there's going to come a day when his wall of denial suffers a crack and i don't want to be the cause of it or be there when it happens. it could be messy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted July 31, 2015 Author Share Posted July 31, 2015 LOL... D. seems to feel that we CTers don't believe in any evidence Yes, that's his backup argument... "you mean ALL the evidence is not believeable?" [incredulity shining thru] The book I am writing, "The Evidence IS the Conspiracy" will explain in detail this exact thing. (like I did for Mexico City and that pile of steaming evidence created a discarded repeatedly by the FBI even though they KNEW he was never down there... in fact I think they KNEW he was at Odio's and is the reason the reports on Oswald don't pick up again until Nov 1) So to LNers, no, the evidence we are offered in the WCR and HSCA is not authentic. none of it. It does not illustrate the event, it illustrates what the FBI, CIA, SS, I&NS and a handful of others compiled which says just about everything in the world but that Oswald killed JFK alone. It doesn't even show that he did it as part of conspiracy. The Evidence IS the Conspiracy... so when DVP or other LNers want to refer to any Evidence during their arguments, have them AUTHENTICATE IT. Prove it's provenance, Prove that a court of law would accept it as admissible... Since that never happens... and they build their arguments on facts made of pixie dust... well, you know the rest. It's all they've got Glenn. The number of things that can be said for certain from that day is woefully small. That can be proven, even smaller. The WCR and HSCA report are some of the greatest works of Fiction this world has ever seen... and they include the facts which prove it. Peace DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 This is the link I referred to above about Ruby shooting LHO. I got it from this forum: (deleted by Kenneth Drew)link to video deleted by Kenneth Drew and it is: The Oswald Shooting by Edward L Chiarini Jr. Note: I deleted the link to the video and to the forum where It was originally posted because it seems to be a 'fraudulent' video. This was a video I had not seen before and seemed to be legit, though far fetched. It now seems as if it is not legit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 This is the link I referred to above about Ruby shooting LHO. I got it from this forum: http://forum.assassinationofjfk.net/index.php? and it is: The Oswald Shooting by Edward L Chiarini Jr. Kenneth, You provided my forum's link as the source for this trash. That is unfortunate. The individual who made the YouTube is not even a member of my forum. The individual who posted a link to that YouTube on my forum has since been banned form participation on the forum. Had I viewed the YouTube when it was first posted to my forum, I would have deleted the post. JFK's Jimmy Carter? Really? Boy Carter sure looks great for a guy turning 100 years old in less than two years! Joe Kennedy, JR. is really George H. W. Bush? Really? Did you notice that Jack Ruby was wearing shoes by Gino Magli, too? Greg, I went back to my original posting and deleted the reference to your forum and the link to the video. Sorry for the inconvenience, it,, at least, seemed reasonable, but once a 'good look' is taken, it has far too many faults. if you edit the links out above in this post, that should be all of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Kenneth... I had not seen this before either, and probably for good reason. While I will look more deeply into the microphone in some images andnot in others... did you check out his other work? He claims Gerald Posner is actually Carrot Top... that a Bush brother is Larry Harris JFK author... that JFK is Jimmy Carter based on the veins in his hands! That Jim Reeves played Oswald in the faked movies.... he's got tons of these "famous actor who looks like the news story person" slides... Jane Fonda is Nancy Pelosi? He attempts to use junk science to claim that you can perform biometric measurements on the 2d representation of a 3d image without photogrammetry... which is not possible. 95% BS mixed with 5% truth can sound like truth to many... the microphone anomolie is worth a second look... yet I feel there is probably a realistic explanation for it.... We'll see... yet it sure does seem hard to argue that the mic should be there in the top right image David, I've gone back and deleted my links to this video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 (edited) "But why on Earth would anyone, even a conspiracy theorist, make a big deal out of this "March 12 vs. March 20" date thing?" What's the big deal between a few millimeters in ballistics, anyway...? We're only talking about a very tiny difference in terms, here - Edited August 1, 2015 by Glenn Nall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 (edited) LOL... D. seems to feel that we CTers don't believe in any evidence Yes, that's his backup argument... "you mean ALL the evidence is not believeable?" [incredulity shining thru] The book I am writing, "The Evidence IS the Conspiracy" will explain in detail this exact thing. (like I did for Mexico City and that pile of steaming evidence created a discarded repeatedly by the FBI even though they KNEW he was never down there... in fact I think they KNEW he was at Odio's and is the reason the reports on Oswald don't pick up again until Nov 1) So to LNers, no, the evidence we are offered in the WCR and HSCA is not authentic. none of it. It does not illustrate the event, it illustrates what the FBI, CIA, SS, I&NS and a handful of others compiled which says just about everything in the world but that Oswald killed JFK alone. It doesn't even show that he did it as part of conspiracy. The Evidence IS the Conspiracy... so when DVP or other LNers want to refer to any Evidence during their arguments, have them AUTHENTICATE IT. Prove it's provenance, Prove that a court of law would accept it as admissible... Since that never happens... and they build their arguments on facts made of pixie dust... well, you know the rest. It's all they've got Glenn. The number of things that can be said for certain from that day is woefully small. That can be proven, even smaller. The WCR and HSCA report are some of the greatest works of Fiction this world has ever seen... and they include the facts which prove it. Peace DJ "The Evidence IS the Conspiracy" --- that's very interesting. I'm developing my own thoughts (and a project) from a belief that the abundance of circumstance - the conspiracy - IS the Evidence, and will ultimately win out. which i think is not contrary to your thesis. at least I guess it's not... just as absolute, rightful convictions can be obtained with no direct evidence but on circumstantial alone, so can enough circumstantial evidence, eventually, gain the attention necessary to reopen the case, or at least prove conspiracy in the public eye. but that wouldn't be enough, would it. hhmmm. that brings to my mind the next question. what do I want out of this, finally? vindication? for the bad guys to suffer (many are already dead)? for this "other" form of government to fall...? to regain the america we once had...? am i effin' crazy? Edited August 1, 2015 by Glenn Nall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 "But why on Earth would anyone, even a conspiracy theorist, make a big deal out of this "March 12 vs. March 20" date thing?" What's the big deal between a few millimeters in ballistics, anyway...? We're only talking about a very tiny difference in terms, here - What's the big deal between a few millimeters in ballistics, anyway...? We're only talking about a very tiny difference in terms, here - tiny little difference: TLD and you do know Glenn that DVP says a TLD is not worth mention. (see his quote in my signature) like whether LHO was firing from the 2nd floor lunchroom or the 6th floor Sniper's nest is Very Little Difference, and why would it matter? or even if there was a shooter on the grassy knoll, that's 'very little difference' from the 'official story' so why even talk about it. It doesn't 'really matter' does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 (edited) [redacted. Kenneth, i may have misread your post - i was certainly making fun of his TLD approach, in any case. i WAS referring to your signature.] Edited August 1, 2015 by Glenn Nall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted August 1, 2015 Author Share Posted August 1, 2015 that brings to my mind the next question. what do I want out of this, finally? vindication? for the bad guys to suffer (many are already dead)? for this "other" form of government to fall...? to regain the america we once had...? am i effin' crazy? Uh, yup, I'd say you're crazy... There was never "the america we once had"... never existed Glenn. The evils we all accept today were much better hidden - but they were still there and running things... So I'm not sure to what you refer. When the decision was made to sacrifice people and planet for profit... or people and planet for control... I fail to see the ability to stop that slide. My other project has to do with the history of nation owning and how the intelligence services arose from the wealthy private sector... What I'm saying is that even in Plato's days, the rich were controlling the strings. Property rights and sovereignty related to the Tragedy of the Commons remains, imo, the root of humanity's problems. There are always people who feel that if they do not exploit the Commons, they in turn we be exploited. Kant wrote about it in "Perpetual Peace" I think what we do here is to increase the awareness base. And turn the tide a millimeter at a time. That 911 can happen and be so in your face about the lies just shows we've made no progress since 1964... in fact the progress is in the wrong direction, now they don't even bother hiding much... The reply is "so what, deal with it"... And we do. 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