The Lone-Gunman Theory Collapses without the Single-Bullet Theory

[Gerry Down]

Are you saying that the HSCA photo panel didn't understand how perspective works?

Well they thought bullets could travel back in time from 12:31pm on the dictabelt recording to 12:30pm in Dealey Plaza.

[John Iacoletti]

We are in the minority, but the rational minority. Just like the Abolitionists used to be in the minority. I don’t believe in God. And I don’t believe in the supernatural. But I can change my mind on either point given quality evidence.

And yet you believe that Oswald shot JFK without quality evidence.  Go figure.  Both are faith-based beliefs.

And wouldn’t mind in the slightest if belief in God remained the majority opinion as long as humans survive. I don’t see religion has doing much net harm.

http://whatstheharm.net/religiousfundamentalism.html

[John Iacoletti]

Well they thought bullets could travel back in time from 12:31pm on the dictabelt recording to 12:30pm in Dealey Plaza.

The photo panel examined the dictabelt recordings?  News to me.

Also, how do you know what exact time the impulses on the dictabelt recordings were recorded?

[Gerry Down]

And yet you believe that Oswald shot JFK without quality evidence.  Go figure.  Both are faith-based beliefs.

http://whatstheharm.net/religiousfundamentalism.html

BLM is a fundamentalist religion that has resulted in the deaths of its followers - Garrett Foster.

[Gerry Down]

Also, how do you know what exact time the impulses on the dictabelt recordings were recorded?

The sounds coincide with the phrase "Hold everything clear" on the recording which was Chief Jesse Currys order at 12:31pm after the shots had been fired.

[Bill Chapman]

Taking a break from your latest Flat Earth Society meeting? I'm honored. But how does any of this drivel relate to the facts discussed in the OP?

We have very strong evidence that the Zapruder film was altered. As many researchers have noted, the CIA technicians could only do so much editing with the technology and time they had available. The final product was still unacceptable, but it was not as damning and revealing as the original. That's why the film was suppressed for many years.

Did you just awake from a coma that began in the 1970s?

FYI, in 1979, just before your coma began, the last official federal investigation into the JFK case, the HSCA, concluded that there was a conspiracy, that four shots were fired, that Ruby lied about how he entered the DPD basement, that someone in the DPD helped Ruby enter the basement and unlocked the door near the stairway he took, that the DPD pulled security away from the door and stairwell that Ruby used shortly before he entered the basement, that someone was moving boxes in the sixth-floor window within 2 minutes of the shooting and at a time when Oswald could not have been there, that there was evidence indicating that someone was impersonating Oswald in the weeks leading up to the assassination, that the WC conducted a flawed investigation and overlooked important evidence, etc., etc., etc.

Those are the findings of the last, most recent formal federal investigation into the JFK case.

The ARRB, although it did not officially conduct an "investigation" into the assassination, turned up mountains of evidence of conspiracy and cover-up.

Heard of names such as Eugene Brading, Jack Ruby, Sergio Archaca-Smith, David Ferrie, Guy Bannister, David Sanchez Morales, Antonio Veciana, David Atlee Phillips (Maurice Bishop), Richard Case Nagell?

FYI, we have hard scientific evidence that there were two gunmen. We have the HSCA acoustical evidence, i.e., the DPD dictabelt, which contains at least four gunshot impulses. We have autopsy photo F8 and the OD measurements of the autopsy skull x-rays, which prove that part of the occipital bone was blown out. We have the high-quality prints of the Harper fragment, and the fragment has now been established as being occipital bone. We have hard scientific evidence that the autopsy skull x-rays were altered.

Again, feel free to point out the location and name of your second gunman. Feel free to name those in league with your man-with-no-name-after-57-years assassin.

[John Iacoletti]

The sounds coincide with the phrase "Hold everything clear" on the recording which was Chief Jesse Currys order at 12:31pm after the shots had been fired.

a) "Hold everything secure" was on channel 2, the impulses in question were from a stuck police radio on channel 1.
b) Channel 1 and channel 2 had different recording devices that were not continuous nor synchronized in any way, and had a tendency to skip their styluses backwards.
c) How do you even know that "hold everything secure" was said at 12:31?

Also:

http://www.whokilledjfk.net/hear_no_evil.htm

[Michael T. Griffith]

We are in the minority, but the rational minority.

Oh, I see. So everyone else, about 90% of the planet's population, is irrational. Got it.

Just like the Abolitionists used to be in the minority.

Atheists constitute a far smaller minority than did the Abolitionists. By the way, the vast majority of Abolitionists believed in God.

Before we continue, allow me to note that while you justifiably condemn slavery as inherently evil, I am guessing that you see nothing wrong with unrestricted elective abortion. If so, you are guilty of gross hypocrisy and inconsistency. Abortion apologists, as did slavery apologists, deny the humanity of the victim and seek to frame the argument as being all about the "rights" of the perpetrator. Slavery apologists did the same thing.

I don’t believe in God. And I don’t believe in the supernatural. But I can change my mind on either point given quality evidence. And wouldn’t mind in the slightest if belief in God remained the majority opinion as long as humans survive. I don’t see religion as doing much net harm. As long as freedom of religion is respected, it’s all good to me.

Well, I'm glad to see you believe that freedom of religion should be respected.

You’re not? How about this article you wrote below?

The Tariff and Secession: Statements on the Tariff as a Major Factor in Sectional Strife and Southern Secession
https://miketgriffith.com/files/tariffandsecession.htm

One of the principle arguments of the “Lost Cause” apologists, is that maintaining slavery was not the principle reason why the South seceded from the Union. That they also had higher motives. Like protecting ‘State Rights’. And because of the ‘High Tarriff’.

Okay, first of all, let's get basic English correct here: it is "principal reason," not "principle reason." Google it.

I am guessing that you did not bother to actually read the article, or else you would know that it does not argue that the tariff was the principal reason the Deep South or the Upper South seceded. Don't you ever get tired of embarrassing yourself by making utterly erroneous claims because you failed to read the other side before attacking it?

Only four states published an article on why they were seceding. [SNIP]

Oh my goodness, you are totally out to lunch. All 11 seceding states published some kind of document that explained why they were seceding. Some were formal ordinances of secession, while others were various forms of declarations.  

In not one instance, does the word “Tariff” appear in any of the lengthy documents. . . . [SNIP]

Your Civil War scholarship is as pitiful as your JFK scholarship. Three of the seven Deep South states included economic complaints, such as the tariff, in their declarations: Georgia, Texas, and Florida.

If you read newspaper editorials and minutes of debates leading up to secession, you will see dozens of references to the tariff and to other economic complaints. That being said, the seven Deep South states seceded mainly over slavery. The tariff was a secondary issue, but it was an important one. Money always is.

The four Upper South states rejected slavery as a reason for secession and did not join in the first wave of secession. They did not see complaints about slavery as sufficient cause to leave the Union. Those four states seceded because they virulently objected to the idea that the federal government had the right to use force to compel the Deep South states to rejoin the Union. That's why those four states did not secede until after Lincoln issued a callup for 75K troops right after the Confederacy foolishly and needlessly attacked Fort Sumter, and they made it clear that they were seceding because they objected to the federal government's use of force.

And of course, there were minimum reasons for seceding from the Union up through March 1861, because the Tariff was at its lowest level since 1816. By 1857 the South had gotten the low tariff it wanted,

You are again totally out to lunch. Clearly, you did not read my article on the tariff and the Civil War. I document that the tariff was a long-standing major issue that caused bitter debate for decades before the war. The 1857 tariff was *not* as low as the South wanted; rather, it was as low as the Southern members of Congress could get the Republicans and the Whigs to agree to support.

and this held until after 7 states and seceded from the Union. And the other 4 states that followed did not secede because of the new higher tariff passed in March 1861, but because of the firing on Fort Sumter and Lincoln’s call for each state to provide troops and allow passage to the South to suppress the rebellion.

I agree completely.

The “High Tariff” and “Defending State Rights” excuse didn’t become prominent until after the South was defeated, and the ‘Lost Cause’ apologists realized that they needed a more noble reason for secession than “To maintain the Institution of Slavery”.

Well, yes and no. I agree that after the war, many Southern apologists erroneously argued that the Deep South really seceded over the tariff and other economic complaints. But the tariff was a major reason for secession, second only to slavery, as far as the seven Deep South states were concerned.

You, Michael T. Griffith are not really a “Lost Cause” apologist?

Nope, and my comments above should put that false claim to rest. Part of the problem is that you clearly did not even bother to read my article on the tariff and the war. You might have skimmed over it very briefly, but you clearly did not learn anything from and did not process the numerous quotes from antebellum sources that prove that the tariff was a huge issue just before the war began and for decades before then.

And let me just give you a little school on Civil War scholarship: No "Lost Cause apologist" would publish numerous articles that defend Union generals George McClellan, George Thomas, John Fitz-Porter, etc. Nor would any "Lost Cause apologist" create a website that honors Abraham Lincoln and that defends and praises his Reconstruction policies. I have done all of these things. Just FYI.

I will not respond to further comments on the Civil War in this thread. If you want to start a Civil War thread in the Off Topic section, I might take a look and respond.

How about we get back to discussing the reasons that the lone-gunman theory collapses without the SBT?