Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Why classify information?  (Read 17700 times)

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10815
Re: Why classify information?
« Reply #80 on: January 29, 2022, 10:04:06 PM »
Advertisement
Jack's arguments are a sight to behold as he attempts to completely blur the line between fact and assumption.

- When did Barnett ever say he watched the back door for 3 minutes?
- How do you know how long it took him to get "20 foot past the building still on Houston" (however you want to interpret that), and why couldn't Adams and Styles have exited before then?
- Why do you assume that CE142 was the bag that Frazier and Randle saw when Frazier said on 11/22 that it was not, and Randle described a different bag in her testimony?
- Why would Bookhout's second-hand account of what Randle said trump what she said directly?
- Why do you make an issue of Garner's "6 month later recollection", but then accept without question (your interpretation of) Barnett's eight month later recollection?
- Why do you never justify your assumption that CE567 and CE569 were fired during the assassination?
- A list of names that Frazier cobbled together after the fact does not constitute a chain of custody.  Each party must sign off on any transfer of possession, which is why the FBI so desperately went around months later trying to get the various parties to identify the objects they had handled.
- Why do you not understand the simple concept that Canning's trajectory conclusions are only as good as his input assumptions (which need to be justified, no matter how good his analysis may be)?
« Last Edit: January 29, 2022, 10:06:19 PM by John Iacoletti »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Why classify information?
« Reply #80 on: January 29, 2022, 10:04:06 PM »


Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7444
Re: Why classify information?
« Reply #81 on: January 29, 2022, 10:57:36 PM »
Jack's arguments are a sight to behold as he attempts to completely blur the line between fact and assumption.

- When did Barnett ever say he watched the back door for 3 minutes?
- How do you know how long it took him to get "20 foot past the building still on Houston" (however you want to interpret that), and why couldn't Adams and Styles have exited before then?
- Why do you assume that CE142 was the bag that Frazier and Randle saw when Frazier said on 11/22 that it was not, and Randle described a different bag in her testimony?
- Why would Bookhout's second-hand account of what Randle said trump what she said directly?
- Why do you make an issue of Garner's "6 month later recollection", but then accept without question (your interpretation of) Barnett's eight month later recollection?
- Why do you never justify your assumption that CE567 and CE569 were fired during the assassination?
- A list of names that Frazier cobbled together after the fact does not constitute a chain of custody.  Each party must sign off on any transfer of possession, which is why the FBI so desperately went around months later trying to get the various parties to identify the objects they had handled.
- Why do you not understand the simple concept that Canning's trajectory conclusions are only as good as his input assumptions (which need to be justified, no matter how good his analysis may be)?

He already told us! He knows


I know Oswald is the assassin, Adams and Styles left at about 12:35,  Barnett was watching the back of the TSBD, Linnie Mae was right about the bag being 3 feet 6 inches long, Canning was spot on with his analysis, and the FBI matched the shells, bullet, and fragments to the rifle to the exclusion of all other rifles.


He just can't explain in a credible way how he knows nor can he back up his so-called "knowledge" with verifiable evidence or even sound reasoning. He can't even explain how he "knows" nor can he answer any reasonable question, so don't expect any answers soon. But he "knows". Now isn't that just amazing?

It looks like you're just going to have to accept the word of somebody who is gullible enough to believe without questioning what he is being told and then claims he "knows".
« Last Edit: January 30, 2022, 11:55:24 AM by Martin Weidmann »

Offline Jack Nessan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 993
Re: Why classify information?
« Reply #82 on: January 30, 2022, 05:55:00 PM »
There were only two shots fired that day. That is the answer to the JFK Assassination. The WC and the HSCA both allude to it in their conclusions stating the media heavily influenced the witnesses into inflating the number of shots. That information completely changes the perception of the assassination. Single Bullet Theory is the only answer.  A large amount of eyewitness testimony verifies it.

Fritz retained one shell to be used in the search for the source of the ammunition. The casing was later sent to the FBI.

WC Conclusion: "It is possible that the assassin carried an empty shell in the rifle and fired only two shots, with the witnesses hearing multiple noises made by the same shot. Soon after the three
Page 111
empty cartridges were found, officials at the scene decided that 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. Nevertheless, the preponderance of the evidence, in particular the three spent cartridges, led the Commission to conclude that there were three shots fired"
---------------

HSCA:  "'While recognizing the substantial number
of people who reported shots originating from the knoll the committee
also believed the process of collecting witness testimony was such
that it would be unwise to place substantial reliance upon it. The
witnesses were interviewed over a substantial period of time some of
them several days even weeks after the assassination By that time
numerous accounts of the number and direction of the shots had been
published. The committee believed that the witnesses memories and
testimony on the number, direction, and timing of the shots may have
been substantially influenced by the intervening publicity
concern
ing the events of November 22 1963"   HSCA Final Report- pg 87





JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Why classify information?
« Reply #82 on: January 30, 2022, 05:55:00 PM »


Offline Jack Nessan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 993
Re: Why classify information?
« Reply #83 on: January 30, 2022, 06:20:37 PM »
Jack's arguments are a sight to behold as he attempts to completely blur the line between fact and assumption.

- When did Barnett ever say he watched the back door for 3 minutes?
- How do you know how long it took him to get "20 foot past the building still on Houston" (however you want to interpret that), and why couldn't Adams and Styles have exited before then?
- Why do you assume that CE142 was the bag that Frazier and Randle saw when Frazier said on 11/22 that it was not, and Randle described a different bag in her testimony?
- Why would Bookhout's second-hand account of what Randle said trump what she said directly?
- Why do you make an issue of Garner's "6 month later recollection", but then accept without question (your interpretation of) Barnett's eight month later recollection?
- Why do you never justify your assumption that CE567 and CE569 were fired during the assassination?
- A list of names that Frazier cobbled together after the fact does not constitute a chain of custody.  Each party must sign off on any transfer of possession, which is why the FBI so desperately went around months later trying to get the various parties to identify the objects they had handled.
- Why do you not understand the simple concept that Canning's trajectory conclusions are only as good as his input assumptions (which need to be justified, no matter how good his analysis may be)?
All good questions, John.  Every question has pro and con that are supported by some statement. Always asking a question is not the same as providing an answer or alternative answer.

Feel free to elaborate on who really did the murder and with what weapon. I know what was determined and agree with it. If you have better analysis by all means share it so I can change my opinion.

If the assassination rifle is not LHO's Carcano, what weapon and then by whom. Provide chain of custody with your proof that the rifle was fired during the assassination.

---------------------

Was Barnett looking for an escaping assassin behind the TSBD or not? What is to be believed is he had parameters on how he was doing it? Martin's problem is he ignorantly referenced Barnett without realizing what Barnett stated.

 Barnett would have seen A & S emerge, especially given Garner's statement she was at her desk during the assassination and then that they don't leave until sometime after she goes to the window.

Garner was at her desk during the assassination and only later moved to the window to stand by A & S. After that her math does not work. If A & S were ahead of Oswald, LHO would have run by Garner standing by the stairs because she claims to have seen Baker and Truly . If they were  behind Oswald they would have been witnesses to the encounter or encountered Baker and Truly on the stairs. Garner states she saw Baker and Truly after their departure.

------------------------

Linnie Mae Randle's account of the bag being long enough to almost touch the ground was repeated in her WC Testimony.

Randle: "I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it."

Colin noted the Carcano could not be disassembled, or it would have fallen out. I think he is right.

What went through Frazier's mind when he realized he brought the assassin to the TSBD and had witnessed him carrying the rifle into the building. He has attempted to distance himself from the rifle and bag since.

---------------------------------

Canning's analysis is completely supported by his interpretations of the position of the car's occupants. It is all in his testimony. He makes allowances for interpretations. That is the reason he has an oval around the window. At no point in time is he stating it is a perfect pin point line.




Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7444
Re: Why classify information?
« Reply #84 on: January 30, 2022, 06:45:09 PM »
All good questions, John.  Every question has pro and con that are supported by some statement. Always asking a question is not the same as providing an answer or alternative answer.

Feel free to elaborate on who really did the murder and with what weapon. I know what was determined and agree with it. If you have better analysis by all means share it so I can change my opinion.

If the assassination rifle is not LHO's Carcano, what weapon and then by whom. Provide chain of custody with your proof that the rifle was fired during the assassination.

---------------------

Was Barnett looking for an escaping assassin behind the TSBD or not? What is to be believed is he had parameters on how he was doing it? Martin's problem is he ignorantly referenced Barnett without realizing what Barnett stated.

 Barnett would have seen A & S emerge, especially given Garner's statement she was at her desk during the assassination and then that they don't leave until sometime after she goes to the window.

Garner was at her desk during the assassination and only later moved to the window to stand by A & S. After that her math does not work. If A & S were ahead of Oswald, LHO would have run by Garner standing by the stairs because she claims to have seen Baker and Truly . If they were  behind Oswald they would have been witnesses to the encounter or encountered Baker and Truly on the stairs. Garner states she saw Baker and Truly after their departure.

------------------------

Linnie Mae Randle's account of the bag being long enough to almost touch the ground was repeated in her WC Testimony.

Randle: "I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it."

Colin noted the Carcano could not be disassembled, or it would have fallen out. I think he is right.

What went through Frazier's mind when he realized he brought the assassin to the TSBD and had witnessed him carrying the rifle into the building. He has attempted to distance himself from the rifle and bag since.

---------------------------------

Canning's analysis is completely supported by his interpretations of the position of the car's occupants. It is all in his testimony. He makes allowances for interpretations. That is the reason he has an oval around the window. At no point in time is he stating it is a perfect pin point line.

The same song and dance routine as before.

Let's go through John's question one by one;

- When did Barnett ever say he watched the back door for 3 minutes?

No answer. Just evasion.

- How do you know how long it took him to get "20 foot past the building still on Houston" (however you want to interpret that), and why couldn't Adams and Styles have exited before then?

No direct answer, just some vague BS comments about Dorothy Garner, which basically confirms what we already knew; that the girls went downstairs before she saw Truly and Baker come up.

- Why do you assume that CE142 was the bag that Frazier and Randle saw when Frazier said on 11/22 that it was not, and Randle described a different bag in her testimony?

No direct answer. Just some ramblings about Randle seeing Oswald carrying the package next to his body and holding it at the top, which seemed to be folded, and not touching the ground. Unless Oswald had legs that were larger than 35" a 34,8" package would have touched to ground! Nessan doesn't even understand that Randle's description destroys his argument completely!

- Why would Bookhout's second-hand account of what Randle said trump what she said directly?

No answer

- Why do you make an issue of Garner's "6 month later recollection", but then accept without question (your interpretation of) Barnett's eight month later recollection?

No answer

- Why do you never justify your assumption that CE567 and CE569 were fired during the assassination?

No answer He can't justify it

- A list of names that Frazier cobbled together after the fact does not constitute a chain of custody.  Each party must sign off on any transfer of possession, which is why the FBI so desperately went around months later trying to get the various parties to identify the objects they had handled.

No comment or reply Likely because he hasn't seen a cop show yet where chain of custody was an issue.

- Why do you not understand the simple concept that Canning's trajectory conclusions are only as good as his input assumptions (which need to be justified, no matter how good his analysis may be)?

Because he simply doesn't understand it.

Canning's analysis is completely supported by his interpretations of the position of the car's occupants.

He said it himself and he still doesn't understand it. He goes on to say;

At no point in time is he stating it is a perfect pin point line.

Yet only a few posts ago he said;


I know Oswald is the assassin, Adams and Styles left at about 12:35,  Barnett was watching the back of the TSBD, Linnie Mae was right about the bag being 3 feet 6 inches long, Canning was spot on with his analysis, and the FBI matched the shells, bullet, and fragments to the rifle to the exclusion of all other rifles. I sleep very well.


How Canning can be "spot on with his analysis" when that analysis is the result of "his interpretations of the position of the car's occupants" and does not result "a perfect pin point line" is yet another question Jack Nessan will likely never answer.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2022, 07:23:56 PM by Martin Weidmann »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Why classify information?
« Reply #84 on: January 30, 2022, 06:45:09 PM »


Offline Jack Nessan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 993
Re: Why classify information?
« Reply #85 on: January 31, 2022, 04:42:20 PM »
Martin Weidmann:  "Oh yes it's goodbye."

I thought you weren't going to waste any more time on me. Among many other things you are not a man of your word. Not an admirable trait but not surprising.

Good bye again Martin.

Offline Jack Nessan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 993
Re: Why classify information?
« Reply #86 on: January 31, 2022, 04:47:23 PM »
Kellerman's "flurry of shots" evolved during his testimony into the second shot was the headshot. Zapruder thought there was only two shots.

Mr. ZAPRUDER - Well, as the car came in line almost--I believe it was almost in line. I was standing up here and I was shooting through a telephoto lens, which is a zoom lens and as it reached about--I imagine it was around here--I heard the first shot and I saw the President lean over and grab himself like this (holding his left chest area).
Mr. LIEBELER - Grab himself on the front of his chest?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Right---something like that. In other words, he was sitting like this and waving and then after the shot he just went like that.
Mr. LIEBELER - He was sitting upright in the car and you heard the shot and you saw the President slump over?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Leaning--leaning toward the side of Jacqueline. For a moment I thought it was, you know, like you say, "Oh, he got me," when you hear a shot--you've heard these expressions and then I saw---I don't believe the President is going to make jokes like this, but before I had a chance to organize my mind, I heard a second shot and then I saw his head opened up and the blood and everything came out and I started--I can hardly talk about it [ the witness crying].


Mr. ZAPRUDER - I thought I heard two, it could be three, because to my estimation I thought he was hit on the second--I really don't know. The whole thing that has been transpiring--it was very upsetting and as you see I got a little better all the time and this came up again and it to me looked like the second shot, but I don't know. I never even heard a third shot.
Mr. LIEBELER - You didn't hear any shot after you saw him hit?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - I heard the second--after the first shot--I saw him leaning over and after the second shot--it's possible after what I saw, you know, then I started yelling,

---------------------------

You mentioned Gov Connally. He thought he was hit by a shot he never heard. He describes being struck by the first as did Nellie and Jackie.

Governor CONNALLY
.....I immediately, when I was hit, I said, "Oh, no, no, no." And then I said, "My God, they are going to kill us all." Nellie, when she pulled me over into her lap----

Mrs. CONNALLY. -----------------------------------As the first shot was hit, and I turned to look at the same time, I recall John saying, "Oh, no, no, no." Then there was a second shot…..
 
-----------------------------

Mrs. KENNEDY. You know, there is always noise in a motorcade and there are always motorcycles, besides us, a lot of them backfiring. So I was looking to the left. I guess there was a noise, but it didn't seem like any different noise really because there is so much noise, motorcycles and things. But then suddenly Governor Connally was yelling, "Oh, no, no, no."
Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any recollection of whether there were one or more shots?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Well, there must have been two because the one that made me turn around was Governor Connally yelling……… And it used to confuse me because first I remembered there were three and I used to think my husband didn't make any sound when he was shot. And Governor Connally screamed………. And then I read the other day that it was the same shot that hit them both. But I used to think if I only had been looking to the right I would have seen the first shot hit him, then I could have pulled him down, and then the second shot would not have hit him…….. But I heard Governor Connally yelling and that made me turn around, and as I turned to the right my husband was doing this [indicating with hand at neck]. He was receiving a bullet. And those are the only two I remember. And I read there was a third shot. But I don't know. Just those two.

Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7444
Re: Why classify information?
« Reply #87 on: January 31, 2022, 06:35:11 PM »
Martin Weidmann:  "Oh yes it's goodbye."

I thought you weren't going to waste any more time on me. Among many other things you are not a man of your word. Not an admirable trait but not surprising.

Good bye again Martin.

I thought you weren't going to waste any more time on me.

It isn't the first time that you were wrong. You do understand that whatever you think is far removed from my word, right?

I said goodbye to you in one particular conversation at your own request;


I guess this is Good Bye Martin.


and I did so when it became clear to all you had left to offer were the same BS debunked arguments over and over again.

It seems you are the one who is not very good at keeping his word!

I will respond to any piece of crap you produce on the forum whenever I like. Deal with it!
« Last Edit: January 31, 2022, 06:57:11 PM by Martin Weidmann »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Why classify information?
« Reply #87 on: January 31, 2022, 06:35:11 PM »