Newspeak?

[John Dolva]

Appearing in the segment was Gary Mack who said.....the fragments all came from Oswald's bullets

If Gary said this then he is guilty of going egregiously beyond the information given.

I have discussed with Gary whether he is entitled to refer to "Oswald's bullets" on the information available.

I pointed out some problems with proving this, to all of which Gary offered rebuttal. I suggested that the only basis would be that " his ownership can still be inferred because there is evidence (purchase order and palmprint plus Marina's testimony and the backyard photos) connecting him to the rifle, and ballistics tests indisputably link the rifle to the bullets. Thus we can legitimately refer to them as "Oswald's bullets."

Gary: Right. There is no evidence they came from any one else.

I cannot say I agree, but it will take the confluence of many diverse minds to get to the bottom of this case. Some of us will be proven wrong on some this, and wrong on that, yet right overall. Even our mistakes are valuable. I'm starting to sound like John Dolva.

Thank you Raymond, that gave me a good chuckle. Mistakes are things to learn from. The hope is that those who know better point them out. (In a polite way, if possible, is preferable). Nothing to be ashamed of. Win-Win. I mention such things to counter what I see as a consuming need always to be right that sometimes seems to blinker progress.

[Miles Scull]

Appearing in the segment was Gary Mack who said.....the fragments all came from Oswald's bullets

If Gary said this then he is guilty of going egregiously beyond the information given.

I have discussed with Gary whether he is entitled to refer to "Oswald's bullets" on the information available.

I pointed out some problems with proving this, to all of which Gary offered rebuttal. I suggested that the only basis would be that " his ownership can still be inferred because there is evidence (purchase order and palmprint plus Marina's testimony and the backyard photos) connecting him to the rifle, and ballistics tests indisputably link the rifle to the bullets. Thus we can legitimately refer to them as "Oswald's bullets."

Gary: Right. There is no evidence they came from any one else.

I cannot say I agree, but it will take the confluence of many diverse minds to get to the bottom of this case. Some of us will be proven wrong on some this, and wrong on that, yet right overall. Even our mistakes are valuable. I'm starting to sound like John Dolva.

Another experiment:

Two men (A & B) are in a house, which has a front and a back door. At the front of the house a window without a screen is open. At noon a third man (C) is walking by the front of the house along a street sidewalk. He is carrying a bag in his hand.

At noon A shoots one shot & kills B. The bullet passes through B, then hits a wall clock which consequently stops at noon. A then slips out the back door; he is seen by no one.

As A's shot rings out, C hears it, as do several neighbors. C runs to the open window & looks in. The neighbors look out of their windows to see C at the open window looking in. The neighbors then see C turn & run away down the side walk.

C is apprehended & found with nitrates on the palm of his hand. C claims the nitrates are from his picking up some spent shells the day before at a target range; but no witnesses are found who saw C at the target range. C is tried, convicted & hanged.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, a suspicious relative of B, suspecting a frame up & foul play, asks: "But no one actually saw C fire a gun, did they? You can't prove C shot a gun."

An "expert" replies: "That's true, BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE (HARD EVIDENCE) THAT ANYBODY ELSE SHOT A GUN. Therefore, C must be the shooter."

Is there something deeply wrong here?

Edited May 22, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Miles Scull]

Appearing in the segment was Gary Mack who said.....the fragments all came from Oswald's bullets

If Gary said this then he is guilty of going egregiously beyond the information given.

I have discussed with Gary whether he is entitled to refer to "Oswald's bullets" on the information available.

I pointed out some problems with proving this, to all of which Gary offered rebuttal. I suggested that the only basis would be that " his ownership can still be inferred because there is evidence (purchase order and palmprint plus Marina's testimony and the backyard photos) connecting him to the rifle, and ballistics tests indisputably link the rifle to the bullets. Thus we can legitimately refer to them as "Oswald's bullets."

Gary: Right. There is no evidence they came from any one else.

I cannot say I agree, but it will take the confluence of many diverse minds to get to the bottom of this case. Some of us will be proven wrong on some this, and wrong on that, yet right overall. Even our mistakes are valuable. I'm starting to sound like John Dolva.

Another experiment:

Two men (A & B) are in a house, which has a front and a back door. At the front of the house a window without a screen is open. At noon a third man (C) is walking by the front of the house along a street sidewalk. He is carrying a bag in his hand.

At noon A shoots one shot & kills B. The bullet passes through B, then hits a wall clock which consequently stops at noon. A then slips out the back door; he is seen by no one.

As A's shot rings out, C hears it, as do several neighbors. C runs to the open window & looks in. The neighbors look out of their windows to see C at the open window looking in. The neighbors then see C turn & run away down the side walk.

C is apprehended & found with nitrates on the palm of his hand. C claims the nitrates are from his picking up some spent shells the day before at a target range; but no witnesses are found who saw C at the target range. C is tried, convicted & hanged.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, a suspicious relative of B, suspecting a frame up & foul play, asks: "But no one actually saw C fire a gun, did they? You can't prove C shot a gun."

An "expert" replies: "That's true, BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE (HARD EVIDENCE) THAT ANYBODY ELSE SHOT A GUN. Therefore, C must be the shooter."

Is there something deeply wrong here?

A prominent assassination pundit, an expert (ID a secret), e-mailed me in private questioning my little experiment. Maybe a few added notes might help to elucidate:

In the experiment, let's add a few features.

Let's say that the real killer, A, devised a plot which incorporates a "patsy" as a red herring to throw off the police from finding A's spoor post the deed.

A hires a 4th man (call him D) to find a man to follow instructions. D finds C, a gullible young man in need of money. D instructs C to, at noon, carry a bag of curtain rods to an address adjacent to the house where the murder will be executed by A. Before giving this bag to C, D sprinkles it with nitrates.

A waits with B in the room with the open window. A smokes a pipe which causes puffs of smoke to drift out the open screenless window.

If C does not follow instructions & is late, etc., A will abort the mission. A gambles that the snooping little old ladies across the street will hear his shot's report & look out to see C, the patsy, in locus with nitrates on his hands. A gambles on events.

Finally, A makes his only mistake. After shooting B, A slips out the back door, but fails to shut & lock the back door. The door stands slightly ajar after A flees.

Sure enough the neighbors see C looking in the open window & notice a puff of smoke drifting about the window! They see C run away.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now under this scenario (code named JM/TheWrongMan), A escapes & C is convicted by circumstantial evidence & is sentenced to life without parole.

The JFK researcher says: "But the back door was left open by a fleeing CIA mechanic!"

The "expert" counters: "No. The back door could have been blown open by the wind. THERE IS NO HARD EVIDENCE THAT ANYONE ELSE WAS AT THE SCENE. THEREFORE, C (the Patsy) MUST HAVE DONE THE DEED. THERE IS NO OTHER REASONABLE EXPLANATION. PERIOD."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Moral of the Story?

See: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051207/

which was based on a true story.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origins_of_Totalitarianism

which was also based on a true story.

[Guest Mark Valenti]

In typical bad-guy fashion, A would mostly likely kill D too.

[Miles Scull]

In typical bad-guy fashion, A would mostly likely kill D too.

Actually, D, was rewarded with a promotion & assigned to Santiago in 1964 where he performed bagman ops. His code was XX/BundyBoy. See:

According to the declassified reports, covert support for Frei's Christian Democrats began in April 1962, at the suggestion of Kennedy aide Richard Goodwin and the U.S. Ambassador to Chile, with a series of secret payments on "a non-attributable basis"--meaning that the source of the funds was kept a secret from Frei and his party officials. In preparation for the 1964 campaign, in December 1963 the CIA's Western Hemisphere Division proposed a concrete "political action program in Chile" to bolster the Christian Democrats chances of winning. The CIA's Chief of Western Hemisphere Division, J.C. King, recommended that funds for the campaign "be provided in a fashion causing Frei to infer United States origin of funds and yet permitting plausible denial," so that the CIA could "achieve a measure of influence over [the] Christian Democratic Party."

The documents record that on March 26, 1964, Frei's campaign managers met with U.S. embassy officials to go over their campaign budget of $1.5 million for which the party only had $500,000. A memorandum recording the meeting noted that "The Chileans suggested that the U.S. government make up this difference which amounts to one million dollars for the period from now to election time." The "Special Group" which approved covert actions met on April 2 in the White House situation room and authorized CIA financing of the campaign and a compromise with the CIA in which the U.S. source of the secret funding "would be inferred" but with "no evidence of proof."

On May 14, the Special Group approved an increase in covert spending to $1.25 million to allow the Christian Democrats to "campaign at its full potential." On July 23, the Johnson administration approved another $500,000 for Frei to "maintain the pace and rhythm of his campaign effort." A secret memorandum to National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy from an aide noted that "we can't afford to lose this one, so I don't think there should be any economy shaving in this instance."

The CIA spent a total of $2.6 million directly underwriting the campaign. An additional $3 million was spent on anti-Allende propaganda activities designed to scare voters away from Allende's FRAP coalition.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20040925/index.htm

[Miles Scull]

pmub a legab

Edited May 22, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Guest Mark Valenti]

turn me on dead man

[Miles Scull]

turn me on dead man