Yet another Harvey & Lee factoid that doesn't withstand scrutiny?

[Cliff Varnell]

42 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

And after listening to your One Trick Pony act for many unbearable years, the only proper response to your non-stop barrage of Clothing Crap® is  ----->  .

 

Yes, the truth is unbearable for the nutter frauds who post here.

[David Andrews]

BTW, to all -- How are we certain that an "Oswald" defector cut his wrist in Moscow and was conveniently rescued?

BTW -- Who marries such a guy?

BTW -- Why wasn't such a guy put in a straitjacket and shipped back to Finland?

[Ron Bulman]

Uh, guy's, and gal's occasionally, the sound experts for the HSCA identified at least Five or Six shots on the dictabelt.   Blakey said he could only "sell" four.

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

...the sound experts for the HSCA identified at least Five or Six shots on the dictabelt. Blakey said he could only "sell" four.

What difference does it make how many alleged "shots" were found on the Dictabelt tape? The fact will always remain that the timing will always be off for any and all "shots" heard on the Dictabelt, because there was no motorcycle at the corner of Elm and Houston at the operative time when the HSCA said a cycle needed to be there. (Not to mention Steve Barber's 1979 "Hold everything secure" discovery.)

I guess the question that remains for me is:

How many wooden stakes through the heart does it take to kill the vampire known as "The Dictabelt Evidence"?

~shrug~

http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/acoustics.htm

 

Edited August 21, 2019 by David Von Pein

[Cliff Varnell]

2 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Uh, guy's, and gal's occasionally, the sound experts for the HSCA identified at least Five or Six shots on the dictabelt.   Blakey said he could only "sell" four.

When inferior proofs of conspiracy are advanced the nutters get off the hook.

Why make an argument that requires an advanced college degree to verify when you can argue for a proof of conspiracy that takes an advanced pre-schooler to verify?

Edited August 21, 2019 by Cliff Varnell

[Ron Bulman]

19 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

What difference does it make how many alleged "shots" were found on the Dictabelt tape? The fact will always remain that the timing will always be off for any and all "shots" heard on the Dictabelt, because there was no motorcycle at the corner of Elm and Houston at the operative time when the HSCA said a cycle needed to be there. (Not to mention Steve Barber's 1979 "Hold everything secure" discovery.)

I guess the question that remains for me is:

How many wooden stakes through the heart does it take to kill the vampire known as "The Dictabelt Evidence"?

~shrug~

http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/acoustics.htm

 

Wooden stakes and vampires don't fly.    The Fact's you and any other lone nutter Warren Omission single bullet conspiracy theorist can't change or hide behind is the Last Official Proclamation on JFK's Murder by our Government is that it Was a Conspiracy.  Four Shots.  And Our Government's chosen replacement for the director of the HSCA, Blakey said he couldn't "sell" Our Governments expert's at least 5 or 6 shots 

[David Von Pein]

5 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

the Last Official Proclamation on JFK's Murder by our Government is that it Was a Conspiracy.  Four Shots.

Keep clinging to that bad information, Ron. Conspiracists are good at doing that.

 

Edited August 21, 2019 by David Von Pein

[Ron Bulman]

4 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Keep clinging to that bad information, Ron. Conspiracists are good at doing that.

 

Bad Info?  That's Our Government, official sources, You trust regarding the Warren Omission.  On a re examination of the Fact's, Four Shot's, Conspiracy, Blakey couldn't sell what they really said, At Least Five or Six Shot's.

[David Von Pein]

You really should watch this video, Ron....

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DZp-ylhUZVpuyuzHRJjeX0FJFY_mIz4s/view

 

[Cory Santos]

3 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Keep clinging to that bad information, Ron. Conspiracists are good at doing that.

 

So David  you admit the Hsc final conclusion was wrong.  Certainly I would expect you to admit it was a government investigation.  Therefore, you admit a government investigation can be wrong.  Yes or no?

So, would you admit that the Warren Conmision-a government investigation- could be wrong?   Yes or no?

Logically, in any aspect, could you admit that there was even a 1% chance on some WC  finding it was wrong? Or, in your opinion,  is there a zero percent chance, that the WC was wrong on any of its findings?

Edited August 21, 2019 by Cory Santos

[Steve Thomas]

6 hours ago, David Andrews said:

BTW, to all -- How are we certain that an "Oswald" defector cut his wrist in Moscow and was conveniently rescued?

 

David,

 

Have you ever read the doctor's report from Russia?

I think it's in that batch of documents in CE 985.

If I remember right, it's kind of revealing. Only a couple of stitches and no tendons or ligaments were cut. I think he was suspicious of Oswald's language ability and whether he could or could not understand Russian.

 

Steve Thomas

[Paul Baker]

11 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

LN's: The conspiracy theorists aren't moving the needle of history one iota!

Jim Hargrove: We don't need to. The majority of people already believe there was a conspiracy, and always have since 1963.

LN's: The number of Americans who think there was a conspiracy is completely, utterly irrelevant!

lol.

When you've stopped lolling, could you explain to me why you consider the fact that 'most people believe there was a conspiracy' is relevant? It doesn't add any weight at all to the largely vacuous arguments posited by many conspiracy theorists. Indeed, if you ask one of these people whether or not there was a conspiracy, the conversation would typically go like this:

'Do you think there was a conspiracy to kill JFK?'

'Of course there was.'

'Why do you think that?'

'Well, it's obvious isn't it?'

'Why is it obvious?'

'It just is.'

I've had many such conversations (that die fairly quickly). Anytime anything big happens, it's impossible for there to be a simple, straightforward answer. Most people's initial reaction to the news of JFK's death was in all likelihood to jump to the 'obvious' conclusion that the crime was an organised conspiracy. It's instinctive, right? 'They're going to kill us all!' 

The JFK assassination is only an obvious conspiracy to the uninformed.

Edited August 21, 2019 by Paul Baker

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Tracy Parnell writes:

Quote

We know that most Americans will not read Bugliosi's book or Posner's book or even browse through the Warren Report. Their opinions are based on what they have heard from conspiracy books and websites which dominate the "market."

I'm not sure about that. Since 1963, almost everyone has got their information about the subject almost entirely from sources such as newspapers, magazines, radio and television. Only a small proportion of the population takes the effort to delve further, and even then much of what they are now able to find on the web is the online equivalent of the old media, promoting the official line.

For obvious institutional reasons, the established media has for more than half a century overwhelmingly promoted the official line, beginning even before the New York Times published and promoted a paperback edition of that well-known pro-conspiracy tome, the Warren Report. Of course, the occasional piece of critical information does make it through the ideological barrier. Probably the main factors which have created popular doubt about the official line were the broadcast of the Zapruder film in 1975, with its prima facie evidence of a shot from the front, and Oliver Stone's JFK, which alerted people to many of the flaws in the official account.

Even though some of the early critical books sold well, they didn't get a lot of positive coverage in the established media, and they only reached a relatively tiny proportion of the population. Of the books that have been actively promoted by the established media, almost all have defended the lone-nut theory, Bugliosi's  and Posner's books being two of the prime examples. There is one notable exception: Lifton's Best Evidence, which was presumably chosen because its thesis is so outrageous that it would serve to discredit sensible criticism of the official line. In keeping with the subject of this thread, we can thank [insert name of preferred deity] that they didn't choose Harvey and Lee! Think of the damage it would cause if people started thinking that the only alternative to the lone-nut fantasy is a theory that was debunked two decades before the book was published and that was partly invented by someone who believed the moon landings were faked.

Paul Baker writes:

Quote

The dictabelt 'evidence' has been thoroughly debunked. It ... was the only justification for the 'probably assassinated as the result of a conspiracy' outcome.

I'll see your dictabelt and raise you a neutron activation analysis. Vincent Guinn's interpretation of his NAA tests of the bullet fragments appears to have been debunked at least as thoroughly as the dictabelt evidence. See, for example:

- Gary Aguilar, 'Is Vincent Bugliosi Right that Neutron Activation Analysis Proves Oswald's Guilt?' at http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Is_Vincent_Bugliosi_Right_that_Neutron_Activation_Analysis_Proves_Oswalds_Guilt .
- James DiEugenio, 'Death of NAA' at https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/death-of-the-naa-verdict .
- Erik Randich and Patrick M. Grant, 'Proper Assessment of the JFK Assassination Bullet Lead Evidence from Metallurgical and Statistical Perspectives,' Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol.51 no.4 (July 2006), pp.717-28 at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00165.x (abstract) and http://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/337848.pdf (full text).
- Cliff Spiegelman, William A. Tobin, William D. James, Simon J. Sheather, Stuart Wexler and D. Max Roundhill, 'Chemical and Forensic Analysis of JFK Assassination Bullet Lots: Is a Second Shooter Possible?', The Annals of Applied Statistics, vol.1 no.2 (2007), pp.287-301 at http://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.2150 .

Guinn's NAA of the bullet fragments was the main reason the HSCA concluded that no more than two bullets hit JFK and Connally. Without that evidence, the main foundation of the single-bullet theory collapses. If the scientists' facts or analyses are wrong, I'd (genuinely) like to know why.

One aspect of Vincent Guinn's NAA tests does seem to stand up, however: his NAA of paraffin casts produced by volunteers who fired a rifle similar to the sixth-floor weapon. Guinn's work helped to demonstrate that Oswald had almost certainly not fired a rifle, as I explain here: http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2049-oswald-s-paraffin-casts.

Incidentally, the NAA of the bullet fragments may not be the only piece of debunked scientific support for the lone-nut fantasy. I recall reading somewhere that Luis Alvarez's melon-shooting experiment was, to use the proper scientific term, a deliberately misleading piece of junk, as he had fired various types of bullets at various objects but only melons produced the desired jet effect. He had (to continue the fruit-based theme) cherry-picked his evidence. Is my recollection correct? Does anyone have a source for this?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

37 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

In keeping with the subject of this thread, we can thank [insert name of preferred deity] that they didn't choose Harvey and Lee!

Some good points here Jeremy and nice to see you here.

[Jim Hargrove]

Peter Dale Scott and John Newman on Two Oswalds:

https://youtu.be/AhrZXO_p4QY

 

Above clip from 3 March, 2018 "Spy Wars" Conference, San Francisco, Part 2.

Speakers in this clip are:

Bill Simpich--BS
Peter Dale Scott – PDS
John Newman – JN

At approximately the 37:12 mark in the YouTube clip above:

BS: There’s two different genuses of false phone calls. 
PDS: Yeah, exactly.  One was a call with a lie in it, the other was an alleged call that did not, in fact, take place.
JN: The Tuesday call didn’t take place?
PDS: No, the Tuesday call did take place by a man, I’m sure, was not the Oswald we think of….
JN: Right
PDS: ... and then, by the way… this is just a question… are you absolutely convinced that the man who was “Lee Harvey Oswald” in Russia was, in fact, the man picked up in Dallas in 1963?
JN: Not at all.  And I’ve gone over to the view that in Mexico City that, maybe it’s him, maybe it’s not. So I’m not going to be dogmatic about it. He could have been there and impersonated or could have been not there at all.
PDS: ... There is a fragment of a release that says that the man who made the phone calls spoke horrible Russian AND English!  So, I do not think that was the man in Dallas….  This is completely anecdotal but I once had an hour long conversation with Marina where I was trying my hardest not to bring up the assassination.  We were talking about literature and I said did she like Henry James and she said she had never heard of Henry James, who was Henry James and I said, “Oh, he’s sort of like the American Turgenev.  And she said, “Oh, Turgenev, Alek really loved Turgenev.”  The man who checked out books from the New Orleans Public Library was not a lover of Turgenev.