JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Fred Litwin on January 31, 2025, 12:13:18 PM
-
It was a delight to interview Bill, who is about as knowledgeable about the murder of Officer J. D. Tippit as anyone.
fred
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/on-the-trail-of-delusion-episode-11-with-bill-brown (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/on-the-trail-of-delusion-episode-11-with-bill-brown)
-
It was a delight to interview Bill, who is about as knowledgeable about the murder of Officer J. D. Tippit as anyone.
fred
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/on-the-trail-of-delusion-episode-11-with-bill-brown (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/on-the-trail-of-delusion-episode-11-with-bill-brown)
This is a first rate attempt to reconstruct the shooting of Tippit, to put the pieces together. He goes minute by minute, step-by-step and tries to recreate what happened. The Oswald defenders would be smart to try to follow this method, to put together their account of what happened. A Dallas gang killed Tippit? An angry husband? What?
I would suggest the reason they don't is because their alternative reconstruction simply cannot stand, it's a house of conspiracy cards. Benavides didn't identify the shooter. The timeline suggest an earlier shooting. Good, that's a start but that's not a reconstruction of what took place. It's simply a series of "Whatabouts?" that you think clears Oswald. But this isn't a trial; it's an attempt to explain an event. Give us your reconstruction, please.
It might be interesting if Bill reads this for him to give a steelman argument for the event. That is the best possible version of the opponents of the "Oswald killed Tippit" explanation. I can't think of one other than a series of corrupt acts - witnesses coerced to lie; evidence planted and switched - the same old same old conspiracy dodge.
-
The only thing that Bill's "reconstruction" proves is that you can make any timeline "work" if you make a whole bunch of non-evidence-based assumptions that are specifically designed to make it work.
But "it's not absolutely impossible" does not equal "happened".
-
This is a first rate attempt to reconstruct the shooting of Tippit, to put the pieces together. He goes minute by minute, step-by-step and tries to recreate what happened. The Oswald defenders would be smart to try to follow this method, to put together their account of what happened. A Dallas gang killed Tippit? An angry husband? What?
I would suggest the reason they don't is because their alternative reconstruction simply cannot stand, it's a house of conspiracy cards. Benavides didn't identify the shooter. The timeline suggest an earlier shooting. Good, that's a start but that's not a reconstruction of what took place. It's simply a series of "Whatabouts?" that you think clears Oswald. But this isn't a trial; it's an attempt to explain an event. Give us your reconstruction, please.
It might be interesting if Bill reads this for him to give a steelman argument for the event. That is the best possible version of the opponents of the "Oswald killed Tippit" explanation. I can't think of one other than a series of corrupt acts - witnesses coerced to lie; evidence planted and switched - the same old same old conspiracy dodge.
Thanks Steve.
You're quite correct when you say an "alternative reconstruction simply cannot stand". That is why one has never been done.
-
I watched the Fred Litwin/Bill Brown video, and I very much enjoyed it. So much detailed information in there. And the graphics and the added video that was recorded in Oak Cliff are excellent....and very helpful. Thank you both.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xpEpHmcfwCU/YPnmE4x3zEI/AAAAAAABZCI/_-fE_QfbBhkGj9qEwO7wFfYvQsVKgSQ8gCLcBGAsYHQ/s1000/DVP-Quote-Regarding-Tippit-Murder.png)
-------------------------------------------------
"As time goes on, there are more and more conspiracy believers who seem to want to smear just about everyone connected with the Kennedy assassination except the person to whom all of the evidence leads---Lee H. Oswald.
Ruth Paine, Michael Paine, J.D. Tippit, Buell Frazier, Linnie Randle, Roy Truly, Marrion Baker, Will Fritz, Gerald Hill, Captain Westbrook, and many others are branded with the label of "suspicious" by many CTers. While Lee Harvey Oswald, who was the owner of both of the 11/22/63 murder weapons (which is a provable fact no matter what any conspiracy theorist today wants to believe), is considered by many to be merely an innocent "patsy" in BOTH of those Nov. 22 murders, despite the pile of evidence that exists against him.
The logic of such thinking completely escapes me."
-- David Von Pein; July 14, 2022
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
-
The only thing that Bill's "reconstruction" proves is that you can make any timeline "work" if you make a whole bunch of non-evidence-based assumptions that are specifically designed to make it work.
But "it's not absolutely impossible" does not equal "happened".
As a retired lawyer, I would point out the distinction between "non-evidence-based assumptions" (i.e., pure speculation) and "reasonable inferences" from the actual evidence. In regard to the Tippit shooting, there is a mountain of actual evidence from which inferences can be drawn. Reasonable inferences, IMO, point decisively toward Oswald. This doesn't mean there are no discrepancies or loose ends - there almost always are, in every crminal case. IMO, however, there are no discrepancies or loose ends that point decisively away from Oswald, or from which reasonable inferences pointing decisively away from Oswald can be drawn.
I'm always kind of amused at the extent to which conspiracy theorists seem to feel compelled to play the role of defense counsel for Oswald. In my life as a lawyer, I used to always say that defense counsel (including some of my best friends) seem to live in some alternate universe where unreasonable inferences and raw speculation are vastly preferred to actual evidence and reasonable inferences.
Your statement But "it's not absolutely impossible" does not equal "happened'" reflects the defense counsel mentality: "If my unreasonable inferences and raw speculation are not absolutely impossible, you must acquit my ciient." Uh, no. If the actual evidence and reasonable inferences point decisively to Oswald, we are free to reject the alternate universe of his innocence.
-
As a retired lawyer, I would point out the distinction between "non-evidence-based assumptions" (i.e., pure speculation) and "reasonable inferences" from the actual evidence. In regard to the Tippit shooting, there is a mountain of actual evidence from which inferences can be drawn. Reasonable inferences, IMO, point decisively toward Oswald. This doesn't mean there are no discrepancies or loose ends - there almost always are, in every crminal case. IMO, however, there are no discrepancies or loose ends that point decisively away from Oswald, or from which reasonable inferences pointing decisively away from Oswald can be drawn.
I'm always kind of amused at the extent to which conspiracy theorists seem to feel compelled to play the role of defense counsel for Oswald. In my life as a lawyer, I used to always say that defense counsel (including some of my best friends) seem to live in some alternate universe where unreasonable inferences and raw speculation are vastly preferred to actual evidence and reasonable inferences.
Your statement But "it's not absolutely impossible" does not equal "happened'" reflects the defense counsel mentality: "If my unreasonable inferences and raw speculation are not absolutely impossible, you must acquit my ciient." Uh, no. If the actual evidence and reasonable inferences point decisively to Oswald, we are free to reject the alternate universe of his innocence.
Well said, thanks! Yes, reasonable inferences are a part of the process. The key word being reasonable.
-
I watched the Fred Litwin/Bill Brown video, and I very much enjoyed it. So much detailed information in there. And the graphics and the added video that was recorded in Oak Cliff are excellent....and very helpful. Thank you both.
Thanks David. Much appreciated, buddy.
-
As a retired lawyer, I would point out the distinction between "non-evidence-based assumptions" (i.e., pure speculation) and "reasonable inferences" from the actual evidence. In regard to the Tippit shooting, there is a mountain of actual evidence from which inferences can be drawn. Reasonable inferences, IMO, point decisively toward Oswald. This doesn't mean there are no discrepancies or loose ends - there almost always are, in every crminal case. IMO, however, there are no discrepancies or loose ends that point decisively away from Oswald, or from which reasonable inferences pointing decisively away from Oswald can be drawn.
I'm always kind of amused at the extent to which conspiracy theorists seem to feel compelled to play the role of defense counsel for Oswald. In my life as a lawyer, I used to always say that defense counsel (including some of my best friends) seem to live in some alternate universe where unreasonable inferences and raw speculation are vastly preferred to actual evidence and reasonable inferences.
Your statement But "it's not absolutely impossible" does not equal "happened'" reflects the defense counsel mentality: "If my unreasonable inferences and raw speculation are not absolutely impossible, you must acquit my ciient." Uh, no. If the actual evidence and reasonable inferences point decisively to Oswald, we are free to reject the alternate universe of his innocence.
Well said, Lance. I would like to quote you in the two Facebook groups I Moderate, if that'd be okay with you. Proper credit given, of course.
-
Lance, I am equally amused at the extent to which the LN-faithful seem to feel compelled to play the role of prosecuting counsel for Oswald instead of objectively looking at the evidence. Reliable inferences cannot be made from unreliable evidence, or (the vast majority of the arguments in this case) pure speculation. It's not about "acquitting" anybody. It's about "just the facts, ma'am".
The only thing "decisive" here is the wishful thinking of the faithful and their chosen scapegoat.
-
And, of course, John Iacoletti gets to decide if the evidence qualifies as "reliable" or not.
And, naturally, he has decided that ALL of the evidence against Oswald should be labeled "unreliable" because....well....because....well....he gets to decide such things. Naturally.
-
And, of course, John Iacoletti gets to decide if the evidence qualifies as "reliable" or not.
And, naturally, he has decided that ALL of the evidence against Oswald should be labeled "unreliable" because....well....because....well....he gets to decide such things. Naturally.
And, of course, John Iacoletti gets to decide if the evidence qualifies as "reliable" or not.
Huh? I thought it was David von Pein who made those decisions
-
Well said, Lance. I would like to quote you in the two Facebook groups I Moderate, if that'd be okay with you. Proper credit given, of course.
Thanks, Bill. All my blatherings are public domain blatherings. Feel free to use them with or without attribution.
-
Lance, I am equally amused at the extent to which the LN-faithful seem to feel compelled to play the role of prosecuting counsel for Oswald instead of objectively looking at the evidence. Reliable inferences cannot be made from unreliable evidence, or (the vast majority of the arguments in this case) pure speculation. It's not about "acquitting" anybody. It's about "just the facts, ma'am".
The only thing "decisive" here is the wishful thinking of the faithful and their chosen scapegoat.
This is one of my little contributions at The Education Forum in 2019. It's my perspective on how the Conspiracy Game is played.
__________________________________________
John McAdams wrote a book called JFK Assassination Logic: How to Think About Claims of Conspiracy.
I bought the Kindle version but was disappointed. It was really more about “how to debate the evidence.”
I’ve been working on a manuscript that really would be about “How to Think About Claims of Conspiracy” (or perhaps “How to Understand the Conspiracy Game”).
Not just the JFK assassination, mind you, but conspiracies in all areas of what I fondly call “weirdness.”
As a parting observation, I offer the following outline. I'm under no illusion that many will read it. Those who have at least the glimmer of an open mind, take it for what it’s worth.
(Here we’ll call the event to be explained by a conspiracy theory the “Subject Event,” but you may mentally substitute the JFK assassination.)
1. In the Conspiracy Game, there is a distinct approach to the evidence. Say that three eyewitnesses report, respectively, a “purplish” car, a “red” car and a “maroon” car, or that three documents describe a knife wound in “the right shoulder,” “about 4” down from the neck” and “high up in the back.” In the Conspiracy Game, there are three distinct, highly selective approaches to this evidence:
a. There were three cars and three wounds on the body, if this will further your Conspiracy Theory.
b. There was one red car and one wound 4” down from the neck, if this will further your Conspiracy Theory. (The two eyewitnesses and documents that say otherwise may serve as further evidence of the conspiracy if you’re sufficiently creative!)
c. The car was actually black, the wound was actually in the side of the head, all the eyewitnesses are lying and all the documents are bogus, if this will best fit your Conspiracy Theory.
d. Choices “a”-“c” are made without regard to which eyewitnesses or documents are the most reliable according to the applicable legal standards or which explanation best fits the other evidence of the Subject Event. The choice is made solely on the basis of which one best fits your Conspiracy Theory. It becomes the Conspiracy Explanation.
2. As the Conspiracy Explanation – three cars and three wounds, for example – circulates throughout the conspiracy community and is repeated over and over, it pretty quickly hardens into Conspiracy Gospel. It’s extremely rude to go back to the original sources to see if the Conspiracy Gospel is supported by, consistent with, or the best explanation of the actual evidence.
3. If the Conspiracy Explanation is conclusively disproven – for example, photos or videos come to light that show the car was definitely red rather than black – the Conspiracy Theorist has one of three alternatives:
a. Claim that the new evidence is faked or altered, thereby preserving the black car dogma of Conspiracy Gospel.
b. Move the goal post. Move it as many times as necessary. There was a red car as well as a black one that doesn’t show up in the photos, perhaps. Or even if the car was red, this just shows that two of the supposed eyewitness were lying and involved in the conspiracy. Who were they, really, and what were they up to?
c. If the Conspiracy Explanation is hopelessly exposed beyond redemption, change the subject. This is the “Oh, yeah, well what about this over here?” gambit, an accepted move in the Conspiracy Game.
d. Choices “a” and “b” afford a Conspiracy Theorist almost endless opportunities for creativity, which is a big part of the fun of the Conspiracy Game. It thus is utterly futile to attempt to argue or reason with a dedicated Conspiracy Theorist.
4. All gaps in the narrative, whether evidentiary or logical, are filled with sinister speculation and sinister inferences. As your Conspiracy Theory expands like Topsy, as it inevitably will, it’s especially important to keep this principle in mind. It’s quite amazing the gaps you can fill with such speculation. In the hands of a Conspiracy Game master, a plausible Conspiracy Theory may be woven from almost nothing else.
5. In the Conspiracy Game, human nature is inoperative.
a. No one ever makes an innocent mistake, is ever simply careless or is ever honestly confused or forgetful. There is no bureaucratic ineptitude. Every inconsistency in the evidence and testimony has a sinister, conspiracy-furthering explanation.
b. The fact that the Subject Event is something as sudden and cataclysmic as 9/11 or the Kennedy assassination is irrelevant. Even in these circumstances, no one ever makes an innocent mistake or becomes honestly confused. There are no excuses.
c. No matter the circumstances of the Subject Event, all participants should have made their statements, written their reports and done everything else with one eye on “how it would look” to future generations of historians and conspiracy-seeking researchers. If they didn’t, too bad for them.
6. The actual life histories of the participants in the Subject Event are irrelevant in the Conspiracy Game except insofar as they further your Conspiracy Theory. If someone appears to be a young, garden-variety housewife and mother who attends church regularly, is active in community affairs and has lots of friends who vouch for her impeccable reputation, the Conspiracy Theorist has three choices:
a. Of course she is clean as a whistle – this is exactly what you would expect in a truly diabolical conspiracy such as we have here. These conspirators were no fools.
b. Dig, dig, dig for something, anything. Her second cousin twice removed was a secretary for the FBI? Well, there you go! Need we say more?
c. Make something up! Speculate! Everyone is fair game for defamation and character assassination. While these may be illegal or unethical in the real world, they are just part of the fun of the Conspiracy Game.
7. Even though real-world conspiracies tend to be as small, simple and focused as possible because this greatly enhances the odds of success and non-detection, no Conspiracy Theory can ever be too large or convoluted in the Conspiracy Game.
a. If necessary to preserve your Conspiracy Theory, the conspiracy net will be allowed to expand ever-wider until it has captured pretty much every participant in the subject event – unlikely people from all walks of life, unlikely agencies and organizations, whatever it takes. Be sure to keep in mind the rule about sinister speculation and inferences.
b. The fact that the Subject Event is “explained” by ten or more distinct and often competing Conspiracy Theories is irrelevant. With the exception of those who are actually deriving income from the Conspiracy Game, who can be quite defensive of their turf, the players in the Conspiracy Game are a fraternal brotherhood. By Conspiracy Logic, the existence of ten or more competing theories merely underscores that by God there was a conspiracy.
c. Similarly, the fact that a Conspiracy Theory requires the conspirators to have been diabolical geniuses at steps 1-3-5-7 and bumbling idiots at steps 2-4-6-8 is irrelevant. It’s rude even to point this out. Play nice.
8. Those who fail to see the conspiracy are never a problem. They either lack the vast arcane knowledge the Conspiracy Brotherhood possesses, are unwitting stooges of the very forces responsible for the conspiracy, or are disinformation agents bent on disrupting the Conspiracy Game.
a. No matter how sterling the academic and professional qualifications of a naysayer, no matter how exhaustive his research may appear to be, no matter how cogent his arguments may seem, he is either a dolt or a disinformation agent. We have no time to entertain naysayers in the Conspiracy Game.
b. As may be necessary or desirable, the “disinformation agent” label may be applied even to a fellow member of the Conspiracy Brotherhood when the competition gets fierce.
9. A certain naivete is beneficial when playing the Conspiracy Game.
a. Even though law enforcement in the real world is plagued by wannabes, tellers of tall tales, and even those who confess to crimes they didn’t commit for no apparent reason, this almost never occurs in the Conspiracy Game. Anyone whose tale will support your Conspiracy Theory is accorded instant credibility. Often this continues long after the tale has been exposed as fraudulent, its existence preserved by a vocal, cult-like following. (If the tale is inconvenient for one’s pet Conspiracy Theory, the “disinformation agent” label may be applied to the teller. As you can see, “disinformation agent” is sort of the trump card of the Conspiracy Game.)
b. Even though fast-buck artists and con men abound in every other field of human endeavor, they do not exist in the Conspiracy Game. Every owner of a large website, every active blogger, every speaker at conspiracy conferences, every purveyor of conspiracy books, CDs, DVDs and conspiracy paraphernalia quickly accumulates a cult-like following even if in the real world he is a cashier who dropped out of school in the ninth grade.
10. Common sense, logic and critical thinking are anathema in the Conspiracy Game. Conspiracy Logic is more like anti-logic (think Alice In Wonderland).
a. It’s exceedingly rude to ask, either about a Conspiracy Theory as a whole or any aspect if it, questions such as “How would that have made any sense at all?” or “Why would the conspirators have done that when they could have easily done this with far fewer participants and far less risk?” You’ll never get any substantive answers anyway.
b. To successfully play the Conspiracy Game, you must become utterly absorbed in, and indeed obsessed with, minutiae. The subject event must be examined with an electron microscope. The objective is to overwhelm the uninformed with such a mass of detail that they throw up their hands and admit “there must have been a conspiracy” just to shut you up. This will improve poll numbers, thereby causing your Conspiracy Theory to gain credibility. If you’re lucky, you can scream “70% of the American public believes this to be true!”
c. The tactic described in item “b” will help avoid inconvenient questions such as those described in item “a.” You want to keep the discussion at the 1000x electron microscope level, never the 30,000-foot “Does that make any sense?” level.
11. The likelihood that you’ll enjoy the Conspiracy Game hinges on a variety of factors.
a. It’s a great advantage if you have a preconceived notion about how the Subject Event “should” be explained. You’ll see that much of the Conspiracy Brotherhood is less concerned with arriving at the historical truth of the Subject Event than in fitting the event into some meta-narrative they carry in their heads as to how the world “works” and what dark forces are really “in control.” Freemasons, the Illuminati, the aliens, the CIA, whatever. Keep this in mind and you’ll be far less inclined to wonder “How could any sane person actually believe that?” If you are actually interested in historical truth, arrived at through standard methodologies, the Conspiracy Game may not be for you.
b. It’s likewise beneficial if you fit the profile that is now emerging, through serious, peer-reviewed studies in such fields as psychiatry, psychology and the social sciences, of the type of individual who is prone to conspiracy theorizing even in the face of better non-conspiratorial explanations. This doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with you, merely that you’re a natural and could go far in the Conspiracy Game.
c. At the fringes of the Conspiracy Game, of course, it helps if you’re exceedingly credulous and even bat-guano crazy. People who are this way seldom recognize or admit it, but you’ll notice that you quickly feel as though you’ve found a home among kindred spirits.
d. The Conspiracy Brotherhood is essentially a religion. All members are true believers. Many are extreme fundamentalists, others are more moderate. The various Conspiracy Theories are the equivalent of religious denominations, each with its own priests and deacons, its holy scriptures and sites, and whatnot. This is a very useful analogy to keep in mind. Tread lightly.
e. Leave your sense of humor at home. Participants in the Conspiracy Game do not regard themselves or their activities as humorous in the slightest. This is deadly serious stuff, being pursued by dedicated seekers of truth for the good of mankind. Stifle that urge to titter, chuckle and guffaw or else move along.
There ya go, my magnum opus. I think that’s pretty accurate, don’t you? I think it pretty well describes the dynamics of the Conspiracy Game, regardless of where one or one’s pet theory fits within the game.
Maybe someone can undertake a similar project for the Lone Nut Game, although I fear it would be rather dull since that game is more firmly grounded in the real world and seldom produces anything as, er, fascinating as Harvey & Lee, Best Evidence, Kennedys and King, Lee and Me, et al.
You’re welcome.
-
In return, I'll give you the standard script that all LN-evangelists follow.
- first they claim as a fact that Oswald did it
- then when challenged to prove it, they regurgitate the official made-up narrative
- when asked what their evidence is that the narrative is true, they say “see the Warren Commission Report”
- when you point out that “see the Warren Report” is not evidence, but rather an appeal to authority, they then trot out the usual laundry list of non-evidence and false, misleading, and unsubstantiated claims about the evidence by cutting and pasting quotes from Bugliosi, Posner, McAdams, Von Pein, or Myers.
- when it’s pointed out to them that claims are not evidence, that the evidence does not support the claims, and what all the discrepancies, contradictions, and authenticity issues there are that are endemic to the case, they then trot out “oh yeah, then you have to prove that I’m wrong or prove that somebody else did it”.
- when you point out that shifting the burden is a logical fallacy and that the person making the claim has the burden of proof, and that an inability to prove something different does absolutely nothing to prove their claim that Oswald did it, then they insult you and/or block you and declare victory.
And that’s the best-case scenario. Usually they just jump right to the insult.
-
And, of course, John Iacoletti gets to decide if the evidence qualifies as "reliable" or not.
And, naturally, he has decided that ALL of the evidence against Oswald should be labeled "unreliable" because....well....because....well....he gets to decide such things. Naturally.
When you say "ALL of the evidence against Oswald", you're talking about ridiculous crap like "why did he leave his wedding ring", right?
If you can come up with even one piece of evidence you think points to Oswald and is reliable, I'll be happy to explain why it isn't.
-
When challenged to prove [Oswald killed JFK], [LNs] regurgitate the official made-up narrative [the Warren Report].
What makes you think the Warren Report was made up?
How much of it do you think (sic) was made up?
All of it?
-
What makes you think the Warren Report was made up?
How much of it do you think (sic) was made up?
All of it?
What makes you think the Warren Report wasn't made up?
-
What makes you think the Warren Report wasn't made up?
What makes you think it was?
Because it concluded that a sharpshooting, psychologically disturbed, self-described Marxist killed JFK?
Do you think all three shots were fired in six seconds, or so?
LOL!
Would you much prefer that it found the evil, evil, evil CIA and/or the evil, evil, evil CIA and the evil, evil, evil Mafia killed him?
-
What makes you think it was?
Because it concluded that a sharpshooting, psychologically disturbed, self-described Marxist killed JFK?
Do you think all three shots were fired in six seconds, or so?
LOL!
Would you much prefer that it found the evil, evil, evil CIA and/or the evil, evil, evil CIA and the evil, evil, evil Mafia killed him?
What makes you think it was?
Where did I say that?
So, no answer to my question? Got it.... Thumb1:
-
What makes you think it was?
Where did I say that?
So, no answer to my question? Got it.... Thumb1:
You don't think any of it was "made up"?
-
You don't think any of it was "made up"?
This probably goes way over your head, but the best lie is the one that stays as close as possible to the truth.
So, no I don't think that "any of it" (whatever that means) was made up.
Physical evidence does not need to be made up when it can be manipulated in a highly circumstantial case like this one.
Let's see if you understand what I am trying to tell you. Marina said that Oswald wanted to get back together with her and she turned him down.
He then apparently gave her most of his money and left his wedding ring in a cup before leaving for the TSBD on Friday morning.
The benign explanation is that he understood his marriage was over but in a circumstantial case against him it suddenly becomes "evidence" that he killed Kennedy.
Can you explain to me why the circumstantial story has more merit than the benign explanation?
-
Marina said that Oswald wanted to get back together with her and she turned him down. He then apparently gave her most of his money and left his wedding ring in a cup before leaving for the TSBD on Friday morning. The benign explanation is that he understood his marriage was over but in a circumstantial case against him it suddenly becomes "evidence" that he killed Kennedy. Can you explain to me why the circumstantial story has more merit than the benign explanation?
Probably because multiple pieces of evidence turned up the next day to indicate that LHO had committed two murders.
Could that be it?
(Duh.)
-
Probably because multiple pieces of evidence turned up the next day to indicate that LHO had committed two murders.
Could that be it?
(Duh.)
No, not really....
It's supposition at best... for the circumstantial story to be true you have to ignore the testimony of Marina Oswald and Ruth Paine who both said they believed that Oswald had travelled to Irving to save his marriage.
And even then, the circumstantial story does not work, because another part of that same story claims that Oswald made a paper bag at the TSBD and took it to Irving on Thursday evening, which means his mind to collect the rifle that was alleged to be there was already made up. So, if you claim that he had already planned to kill Kennedy the next day, why would he try so hard to get Marina to come back to him. It doesn't make sense.
-
This probably goes way over your head, but the best lie is the one that stays as close as possible to the truth.
So, no I don't think that "any of it" (whatever that means) was made up.
Physical evidence does not need to be made up when it can be manipulated in a highly circumstantial case like this one.
Let's see if you understand what I am trying to tell you. Marina said that Oswald wanted to get back together with her and she turned him down.
He then apparently gave her most of his money and left his wedding ring in a cup before leaving for the TSBD on Friday morning.
The benign explanation is that he understood his marriage was over but in a circumstantial case against him it suddenly becomes "evidence" that he killed Kennedy.
Can you explain to me why the circumstantial story has more merit than the benign explanation?
Marina?
Marina Oswald, née Prusakova?
The Soviet woman (and former KGB "swallow" in Saint Petersburg) whom true KGB defector Pyotr Deriabin (1954) said a couple of days after the assassination had to be, at the very least, a low-level KGB informant to be permitted to marry her Handsome Prince Charming and leave The Worker's Paradise with him?
That Marina?
-
Marina?
Marina Oswald, née Prusakova?
The Soviet woman (and former KGB "swallow" in Saint Petersburg) whom true KGB defector Pyotr Deriabin (1954) said a couple of days after the assassination had to be, at the very least, a low-level KGB informant to be permitted to marry her Handsome Prince Charming and leave The Worker's Paradise with him?
That Marina?
Hilarious..... :D
Yes, the same Marina you rely on for the alleged presence of a rifle, wrapped in a blanket, in Ruth Paine's garage.
And never mind that Ruth Paine said the same thing, right?
How did you become so desperate so quickly?
Care to try again?
-
Hilarious..... :D
Yes, the same Marina you rely on for the alleged presence of a rifle, wrapped in a blanket, in Ruth Paine's garage.
And never mind that Ruth Paine said the same thing, right?
How did you become so desperate so quickly?
Care to try again?
I was just commenting on Marina's overall reliability.
Hint: The best double agents tell 98% truth and 2% lies.
Questions:
Did the short-rifle have fibers on it that matched the fibers of the blanket, or were those fabricated / planted, too?
Did the short-rifle have Oswald's prints on it, or were those fabricated / planted, too?
-
Did the short-rifle have fibers on it that matched the fibers of the blanket, or were those fabricated / planted, too?
Did the short-rifle have Oswald's prints on it, or were those fabricated / planted, too?
There is no such thing as fibers matching. At best fibers can be similar which is hardly conclusive.
What prints are you talking about? The FBI lab in Washington examined the rifle found at the TSBD and found no prints on it at all.
And how does a rifle found at the TSBD automatically becomes a rifle that was allegedly stored in Ruth Paine's garage?
-
I was just commenting on Marina's overall reliability.
Hint: The best double agents tell 98% truth and 2% lies.
Questions:
Did the short-rifle have fibers on it that matched the fibers of the blanket, or were those fabricated / planted, too?
Did the short-rifle have Oswald's prints on it, or were those fabricated / planted, too?
I was just commenting on Marina's overall reliability.
How convenient. Marina is reliable until she isn't.
IMO that woman told so many lies that anything she said should have been disregarded in the first place, but that would have destroyed the case against Oswald.
Nobody has ever explained why an immigration officer was flown in to have a meeting with Marina?
Mr. RANKIN. Did you see anyone from the Immigration Service during this period of time?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you know who that was?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember the name. I think he is the chairman of that office. At least he was a representative of that office.
Mr. RANKIN. By "that office" you mean the one at Dallas?
Mrs. OSWALD. I was told that he had especially come from New York, it seems to me.
Mr. RANKIN. What did he say to you?
Mrs. OSWALD. That if I was not guilty of anything, if I had not committed any crime against this Government, then I had every right to live in this country. This was a type of introduction before the questioning by the FBI. He even said that it would be better for me if I were to help them.
Mr. RANKIN. Did he explain to you what he meant by being better for you?
Mrs. OSWALD. In the sense that I would have more rights in this country. I understood it that way.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you understand that you were being threatened with deportation if you didn't answer these questions?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, I did not understand it that way.
You see, it was presented in such a delicate form, but there was a clear implication that it would be better if I were to help.
Btw, why do you keep asking me dumb questions, when all you need to do to shut me up is provide conclusive evidence to demonstrate Oswald's guilt?
Could it be you haven't got any?
-
The FBI lab in Washington examined the rifle found at the TSBD and found no prints on it at all.
Wasn't Oswald's palm print found on the short-rifle by the DPD (or was it planted there by the bad guys who lifted off of Oswald's corpse at the morgue?), and weren't some fingerprints detected by the DPD on the trigger guard area, photographed by the DPD, and later determined by a fingerprint expert from said photographs to be Oswald's?
-
IMO Marina told so many lies that anything she said should have been disregarded in the first place, but that would have destroyed the case against Oswald.
Given the fact that Oswald was seen shooting at JFK by Howard Brennan, that he left the TSBD without permission within 3 minutes of the shooting, that his prints were found on two (or was it three?) boxes in the Sniper's Nest and on the paper bag and on his short-rifle, etc. etc., how would the case against the sharpshooting, psychologically disturbed, self-described Marxist have been destroyed if everything his little KGB-agent wife said about him and his short-rifle, etc., had been disregarded?
-
Wasn't Oswald's palm print found on the short-rifle by the DPD (or was it planted there by the bad guys who lifted off of Oswald's corpse at the morgue?), and weren't some fingerprints detected by the DPD on the trigger guard area, photographed by the DPD, and later determined by a fingerprint expert from said photographs to be Oswald's?
Wasn't Oswald's palm print found on the short-rifle by the DPD
Was it?
There was a print on an evidence card which Lt Day claimed to have taken from the rifle on 11/22/63, but he didn't produce that card until a week later.
Can you imagine a solid reason for the DPD to hold back evidence that ties Oswald to the rifle for a week?
Besides, when the FBI examined the rifle they could not find any trace of a print, so how did Day manage to remove that print 100% without a trace?
and weren't some fingerprints detected by the DPD on the trigger guard area, photographed by the DPD, and later determined by a fingerprint expert from said photographs to be Oswald's?
I have no idea. I am aware of some fingerprint expert who, years after the assassination, was given some photos of prints allegedly taken from the rifle and some prints allegedly taken from Oswald who claimed there was a match.
What I am not aware of is a formal investigation or testimony by an expert under oath.
What seems to be a common thread in this entire investigation is that somebody is giving an expert or a witness some document or photo claiming to be authentic and asking for a comparision with some other piece of evidence that is claimed to be authentic.
-
Wasn't Oswald's palm print found on the short-rifle by the DPD?
Was it?
There was a print on an evidence card which Lt Day claimed to have taken from the rifle on 11/22/63, but he didn't produce that card until a week later.
Can you imagine a solid reason for the DPD to hold back evidence that ties Oswald to the rifle for a week?
Besides, when the FBI examined the rifle they could not find any trace of a print, so how did Day manage to remove that print 100% without a trace?
and weren't some fingerprints detected by the DPD on the trigger guard area, photographed by the DPD, and later determined by a fingerprint expert from said photographs to be Oswald's?
I have no idea. I am aware of some fingerprint expert who, years after the assassination, was given some photos of prints allegedly taken from the rifle and some prints allegedly taken from Oswald who claimed there was a match.
What I am not aware of is a formal investigation or testimony by an expert under oath.
What seems to be a common thread in this entire investigation is that somebody is giving an expert or a witness some document or photo claiming to be authentic and asking for a comparision with some other piece of evidence that is claimed to be authentic.
Once again, how many bad guys do you figure were involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up?
Couple hundred?
Thousands?
-
Given the fact that Oswald was seen shooting at JFK by Howard Brennan, that he left the TSBD without permission within 3 minutes of the shooting, that his prints were found on two (or was it three?) boxes in the Sniper's Nest and on the paper bag and on his short-rifle, etc. etc., how would the case against the sharpshooting, psychologically disturbed, self-described Marxist have been destroyed if everything his little KGB-agent wife said about him and his short-rifle, etc., had been disregarded?
Given the fact that Oswald was seen shooting at JFK by Howard Brennan,
Was he?
that he left the TSBD without permission within 3 minutes of the shooting
Did somebody see him leave the TSBD within 3 minutes of the shooting? If so, name that that person!
that his prints were found on two (or was it three?) boxes in the Sniper's Nest
The man worked on that floor and part of his job was to get books out of boxes..... Is this the best you've got?
and on the paper bag
On what paper bag? The one the WC claimed was in the sniper's nest, but couldn't provide an in situ photograph for? And the one Buell Frazier was shown on Friday evening and said it wasn't the one Oswald had carried to the TSBD?
how would the case against the sharpshooting, psychologically disturbed, self-described Marxist have been destroyed if everything his little KGB-agent wife said about him and his short-rifle, etc., had been disregarded?
If you have to ask this question, it only shows how little you understand about this case and how much you are out of your league.
-
Once again, how many bad guys do you figure were involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up?
Couple hundred?
Thousands?
Stop showing your desperation and start providing conclusive evidence that demonstrates Oswald's guilt.
-
Given the fact that Oswald was seen shooting at JFK by Howard Brennan . . .
Was he?
Jeez, I thought you knew that.
... that he left the TSBD without permission within 3 minutes of the shooting ...
Did somebody see him leave the TSBD within 3 minutes of the shooting? If so, name that that person!
What time did he get on McWatters' bus? What time did he get into or out of Whaley's taxi?
... that his prints were found on two (or was it three?) boxes in the Sniper's Nest ...
The man worked on that floor and part of his job was to get books out of boxes..... Is this the best you've got?
Prints don't last very long on cardboard. What are the chances of finding Oswald's prints on even two strangely positioned boxes in the Sniper's Nest?
... and on the paper bag ...
On what paper bag? The one the WC claimed was in the sniper's nest, but couldn't provide an in situ photograph for? And the one Buell Frazier was shown on Friday evening and said it wasn't the one Oswald had carried to the TSBD?
The paper bag that was made from the same roll of paper that was in the 1st floor's wrapping department, and which had his prints on it and fibers that matched the fibers of his blanket in it.
... how would the case against the sharpshooting, psychologically disturbed, self-described Marxist have been destroyed if everything his little KGB-agent wife said about him and his short-rifle, etc., had been disregarded?
If you have to ask this question, it only shows how little you understand about this case and how much you are out of your league.
If you can't answer them, I totally understand.
-
Stop showing your desperation and start providing conclusive evidence that demonstrates Oswald's guilt.
How many?
Tens of thousands?
Gasp . . . the whole freakin' "Deep State" / "National Security State"?
LOL!
-
Given the fact that Oswald was seen shooting at JFK by Howard Brennan . . .
Was he?
Jeez, I thought you knew that.
Knew what? All I know is that Brennan couldn't identify Oswald at the line up, that the WC lied about where he was actually sitting on the wall and that video evidence showed that Brennan was looking at the motorcade when the shots were fired.
... that he left the TSBD without permission within 3 minutes of the shooting ...
Did somebody see him leave the TSBD within 3 minutes of the shooting? If so, name that that person!
What time did he get on McWatters' bus? What time did he get into or out of Whaley's taxi?
So, there's nobody who saw Oswald leave the TSBD within three minutes after the shooting? Got it...
... that his prints were found on two (or was it three?) boxes in the Sniper's Nest ...
The man worked on that floor and part of his job was to get books out of boxes..... Is this the best you've got?
Prints don't last very long on cardboard. What are the chances of finding Oswald's prints on even two strangely positioned boxes in the Sniper's Nest?
I don't know. There were other prints on the boxes which could not be identified. What are the chances that only Oswald's prints were found on those boxes and none of the others could be identified?
... and on the paper bag ...
On what paper bag? The one the WC claimed was in the sniper's nest, but couldn't provide an in situ photograph for? And the one Buell Frazier was shown on Friday evening and said it wasn't the one Oswald had carried to the TSBD?
The paper bag that was made from the same roll of paper that was in the 1st floor's wrapping department, and which had his prints on it and fibers that matched the fibers of his blanket in it.
... how would the case against the sharpshooting, psychologically disturbed, self-described Marxist have been destroyed if everything his little KGB-agent wife said about him and his short-rifle, etc., had been disregarded?
You are aware of the fact that DPD officers made a paper bag at the TSBD on friday afternoon, right?
Are you also aware that the paper bag was photographed at the FBI lab, laying next to the blanket taken from Ruth Paine's garage?
And what about the fact that the WC claimed the bag was found folded up, but when it was brought out of the TSBD it was photographed unfolded, but no prints were found of anybody who unfolded it?
Btw, when the bag was brought out of the TSBD it was upside down, it makes you wonder how fibers would not have fallen out, right?
If you have to ask this question, it only shows how little you understand about this case and how much you are out of your league.
If you can't answer them, I totally understand.
The only one who is answering questions is me... You seem to come up short at every question I asked you.
-
How many?
Tens of thousands?
Gasp . . . the whole freakin' "Deep State" / "National Security State"?
LOL!
Thank you for demonstrating so clearly that you can not provide a shred of conclusive evidence of Oswald's guilt.
You are just a waste of time....
-
Wasn't Oswald's palm print found on the short-rifle by the DPD (or was it planted there by the bad guys who lifted off of Oswald's corpse at the morgue?), and weren't some fingerprints detected by the DPD on the trigger guard area, photographed by the DPD, and later determined by a fingerprint expert from said photographs to be Oswald's?
We know for a fact that Oswald touched the rifle;
1)The FBI took a lift of Oswald's rifle and Day's first day lift showed the exact same random defects. To have 1 random matching point could be a wild coincidence, but as more and more points were discovered the chances of discovering each additional point increases by an order of magnitude, therefore Oswald touched the rifle!
The FBI evidence.
(https://i.postimg.cc/3wWJtT7N/palm-rifle-print-match.jpg)
And here I made an alternating GIF showing the exact matches and if you look closely there are other matches.
(https://i.postimg.cc/05GTLBVC/fbi-rifle-1.gif)
2) In 1993 Vincent Scalice examined original photographs of the trigger guard prints which were taken at different exposures and in comparing these photos Scalice discovered many more ridge matches than were required for a positive result.
3) Also the absurd excuse that Oswald's dead palm touched the rifle can be equally discounted because dead men don't sweat and on the Sunday evening long before the FBI allegedly visited Oswald, the Dallas County Officials had already disclosed that a Palm print was discovered on the rifle.
(https://img.newspapers.com/img/img?user=10766&id=374790272&clippingId=23469458&width=820&height=1192&crop=0_0_5602_8149&rotation=0)
JohnM
-
We know for a fact that Oswald touched the rifle;
1)The FBI took a lift of Oswald's rifle and Day's first day lift showed the exact same random defects. To have 1 random matching point could be a wild coincidence, but as more and more points were discovered the chances of discovering each additional point increases by an order of magnitude, therefore Oswald touched the rifle!
The FBI evidence.
(https://i.postimg.cc/3wWJtT7N/palm-rifle-print-match.jpg)
And here I made an alternating GIF showing the exact matches and if you look closely there are other matches.
(https://i.postimg.cc/05GTLBVC/fbi-rifle-1.gif)
2) In 1993 Vincent Scalice examined original photographs of the trigger guard prints which were taken at different exposures and in comparing these photos Scalice discovered many more ridge matches than were required for a positive result.
3) Also the absurd excuse that Oswald's dead palm touched the rifle can be equally discounted because dead men don't sweat and on the Sunday evening long before the FBI allegedly visited Oswald, the Dallas County Officials had already disclosed that a Palm print was discovered on the rifle.
(https://img.newspapers.com/img/img?user=10766&id=374790272&clippingId=23469458&width=820&height=1192&crop=0_0_5602_8149&rotation=0)
JohnM
1)The FBI took a lift of Oswald's rifle
No they didn't.
Day's first day lift showed the exact same random defects.
Day only produced an evidence card with a print on it when the evidence had to be turned over to the FBI, several days after the assassination.
2) In 1993 Vincent Scalice examined original photographs of the trigger guard prints which were taken at different exposures and in comparing these photos Scalice discovered many more ridge matches than were required for a positive result.
And how do we know for sure that Vincent Scalice was given "original photographs of the trigger guard prints"? Or, for that matter, how did he obtain the prints of Oswald he compared them with?
3) Also the absurd excuse that Oswald's dead palm touched the rifle
Who claimed that it did?
-
1)The FBI took a lift of Oswald's rifle
No they didn't.
Day's first day lift showed the exact same random defects.
Day only produced an evidence card with a print on it when the evidence had to be turned over to the FBI, several days after the assassination.
2) In 1993 Vincent Scalice examined original photographs of the trigger guard prints which were taken at different exposures and in comparing these photos Scalice discovered many more ridge matches than were required for a positive result.
And how do we know for sure that Vincent Scalice was given "original photographs of the trigger guard prints"? Or, for that matter, how did he obtain the prints of Oswald he compared them with?
3) Also the absurd excuse that Oswald's dead palm touched the rifle
Who claimed that it did?
So the FBI manufactured their lift of the rifle?
So Day manufactured the date and his lift of the rifle?
So Scalice didn't have original photographs of Oswald's rifle and used manufactured photo's?
Hahahahahaha!
(https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.2141700120.3489/st,small,507x507-pad,600x600,f8f8f8.u1.webp)
Otherwise you won't accept it because "it's possible" it was manufactured.
What piece of evidence did I claim was manufactured? Be precise.... just show me a link to one of my posts or shut up!
BTW Martin, don't ever stop being you, because from just 1 post you again prove that you are just so damn entertaining! :D
JohnM
-
Thank you for demonstrating so clearly that you can not provide a shred of conclusive evidence of Oswald's guilt.
You are just a waste of time....
Hundreds of thousands?
Holy Xxxx!
Rhymes with muck.
-
So the FBI manufactured their lift of the rifle?
So Day manufactured the date and his lift of the rifle?
So Scalice didn't have original photographs of Oswald's rifle and used manufactured photo's?
Hahahahahaha!
(https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.2141700120.3489/st,small,507x507-pad,600x600,f8f8f8.u1.webp)
BTW Martin, don't ever stop being you, because from just 1 post you again prove that you are just so damn entertaining! :D
JohnM
So the FBI manufactured their lift of the rifle?
What lift?
So Day manufactured the date and his lift of the rifle?
I don't know what Day did or did not do. All I know is that IMO his story lacks credibility.
The mere fact that he claims to have left a crucial piece of evidence in his drawer for nearly a week is beyond belief.
But I can't determine if it was sheer incompetence or if there was something else going on.
So Scalice didn't have original photographs of Oswald's rifle and used manufactured photo's?
Did I say that? All I did was ask a question which you seem to be unable to answer.
The question is justified because all the original evidence was and still is locked away at the National Archives.
So, where did those photos and a set of finger prints come from?
Oops.. I did it again. What am I thinking to ask yet another question John Mytton can't or won't answer?
I feel sorry for you, John. It's too bad that you can't distinguish between a simple question being asked and making claims.
Your inability to answer any of my questions is duly noted. So, keep on making dubious claims that you can not back up with evidence!
Btw, did you miss the part in the video where they said that a former high ranking FBI expert found the prints not clear enough to make any identification?
Which justifies the question why you would accept at face value what Scalise said, not under oath, mind you, but in a documentary?
Oops, there I go again asking questions that John will never answer..... Go figure!
-
Did the short-rifle have fibers on it that matched the fibers of the blanket, or were those fabricated / planted, too?
No, it did not.
Try again.
-
Given the fact that Oswald was seen shooting at JFK by Howard Brennan,
LOL.
Mr. McCLOY. Could you see that he had discharged the rifle?
Mr. BRENNAN. No. For some reason I did not get an echo at any time. The first shot was positive and clear and the last shot was positive and dear, with no echo on my part.
Mr. McCLOY. Yes. But you saw him aim?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. McCLOY. Did you see the rifle discharge, did you see the recoil or the flash?
Mr. BRENNAN. No.
Mr. McCLOY. But you heard the last shot.
Mr. BRENNAN. The report; yes, sir.
And LOL.
(https://i.vgy.me/ZOffBl.jpg)
that he left the TSBD without permission
As did Charles Givens and several other employees.
within 3 minutes of the shooting,
Like you know when he left.
that his prints were found on two (or was it three?) boxes in the Sniper's Nest
His job was literally getting books out of boxes.
and on the paper bag
The one you can't prove was even found on the "sniper's nest" floor, much less ever contained a rifle? That bag?
and on his short-rifle
You mean on an index card?
What else you got?
-
We know for a fact that Oswald touched the rifle;
Indistinct smudges with numbers added to them are so compelling...
-
And how do we know for sure that Vincent Scalice was given "original photographs of the trigger guard prints"? Or, for that matter, how did he obtain the prints of Oswald he compared them with?
"Mytton" is blowing smoke, as usual. We don't know how many "ridge" matches there were, or where they were located. Scalice didn't publish his work.
Some photos with no provenance whatsoever were pulled out of a briefcase 30 years later. Latona examined the actual prints on the actual rifle and said they were insufficient for purposes of effecting identification.
-
Indistinct smudges with numbers added to them are so compelling...
Sorry John, there's nothing indistinct about the perfectly matching points of the random defects discovered on Day's first day lift from Oswald's rifle and the FBI lift from Oswald's rifle.
But nice try, Bro! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
The FBI evidence.
(https://i.postimg.cc/3wWJtT7N/palm-rifle-print-match.jpg)
And here I made an alternating GIF showing the precise matches and if you look closely there are other matches.
(https://i.postimg.cc/05GTLBVC/fbi-rifle-1.gif)
JohnM
-
What am I looking at? A Rorschachtest?
-
What am I looking at? A Rorschachtest?
A lift from Oswald's rifle, what do you expect a lift from bare metal with random defamations to look like?? :D
JohnM
-
A lift from Oswald's rifle, what do you expect a lift from bare metal with random defamations to look like?? :D
JohnM
Well, that's the point of a Rorschachtest, isn't it. Show the same image to ten people and ten people will see something different.
I wouldn't know what a lift from bare metal looks like, but if you say that's what it is I'm sure there is a shrink out there somewhere who will have an opinion about that?
-
Well, that's the point of a Rorschachtest, isn't it. Show the same image to ten people and ten people will see something different.
I wouldn't know what a lift from bare metal looks like, but if you say that's what it is I'm sure there is a shrink out there somewhere who will have an opinion about that?
Well, that's the point of a Rorschachtest, isn't it. Show the same image to ten people and ten people will see something different.
A pointless analogy, show ten people the same lift from the same area which has 5 random matching points across both samples, then ten people ALL see the same thing, thanks for playing!
JohnM
-
A pointless analogy, show ten people the same lift from the same area which has 5 random matching points across both samples, then ten people ALL see the same thing, thanks for playing!
JohnM
Well, if that's the level of your confusion, I'd better agree with you before you have another psychotic breakdown.
I recently flew over a sparsely populated area of the alps at night, and it looked just like the gif you have posted.....
(https://i.postimg.cc/05GTLBVC/fbi-rifle-1.gif)
darkness and a couple of street lights......
And you know what? The shrink I don't have, in my mind, agreed with me. Go figure!
-
Well, if that's the level of your confusion, I'd better agree with you before you have another psychotic breakdown.
I recently flew over a sparsely populated area of the alps at night, and it looked just like the gif you have posted.....
(https://i.postimg.cc/05GTLBVC/fbi-rifle-1.gif)
darkness and a couple of street lights......
And you know what? The shrink I don't have, in my mind, agreed with me. Go figure!
I recently flew over a sparsely populated area of the alps at night, and it looked just like the gif you have posted.....
Thanks Martin that's a useful analogy, the exact same points of light when observed at night perfectly correspond to the cities below and the chances that any set of lights could be mistaken for any other city is nil! BRAVO!
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/cb/ff/4b/cbff4be2cba55c8ea0915bac02a2f5c0.gif)
And you know what? The shrink I don't have, in my mind, agreed with me. Go figure!
WOW, your psychiatrist would have to spend an eternity trying to decipher what you just said?
JohnM
-
Thanks Martin that's a useful analogy, the exact same points of light when observed at night perfectly correspond to the cities below and the chances that any set of lights could be mistaken for any other city is nil! BRAVO!
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/cb/ff/4b/cbff4be2cba55c8ea0915bac02a2f5c0.gif)
WOW, your psychiatrist would have to spend an eternity trying to decipher what you just said?
JohnM
Thanks Martin that's a useful analogy, the exact same points of light when observed at night perfectly correspond to the cities below
I wasn't talking about cities, but I am glad you agree with me that those dots you are pointing to in your gif could easily be a couple of street lights. Thumb1:
Isn't a Rorschachtest just a marvelous tool to see what you want to see?
-
Thanks Martin that's a useful analogy, the exact same points of light when observed at night perfectly correspond to the cities below
I wasn't talking about cities, but I am glad you agree with me that those dots you are pointing to in your gif could easily be a couple of street lights. Thumb1:
Isn't a Rorschachtest just a marvelous tool to see what you want to see?
Huh?
As usual, every time you open your mouth you dig a deeper hole, but do keep it up because you make this so easy!
JohnM
-
Huh?
As usual, every time you open your mouth you dig a deeper hole, but do keep it up because you make this so easy!
JohnM
What's up, John?
Running out of things to say, so it's on to insults? It's getting old, John.... really old!
-
What's up, John?
Running out of things to say, so it's on to insults? It's getting old, John.... really old!
How on Earth can you say my kind words in any way constitute an insult, you first attempted to ridicule the JFKA evidence and in your haste you only reinforced my presented evidence, again thanks for playing! Thumb1:
JohnM
-
How on Earth can you say my kind words in any way constitute an insult, you first attempted to ridicule the JFKA evidence and in your haste you only reinforced my presented evidence, again thanks for playing! Thumb1:
JohnM
I don't think you even understand what it is your are trying to say here....
In any event, I apologize for not speaking or understanding gobbledygook.
-
Sorry John, there's nothing indistinct about the perfectly matching points of the random defects discovered on Day's first day lift from Oswald's rifle and the FBI lift from Oswald's rifle.
Sorry, "Mytton", but there is nothing that "perfectly matches" an indistinct smudge. And if you look closely, the John Hunt photo of the index card print (which you ripped off without attribution) has "defects" that the Hoover smudge does not. As if you even know that spots on a photograph are "defects".
Nice try, though.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
-
Sorry, "Mytton", but there is nothing that "perfectly matches" an indistinct smudge. And if you look closely, the John Hunt photo of the index card print (which you ripped off without attribution) has "defects" that the Hoover smudge does not. As if you even know that spots on a photograph are "defects".
Nice try, though.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
You can't make this up, so what you claim is an "indistinct smudge" can actually be closely inspected to reveal "defects", WOW, Thanks for your compliance!
JohnM
-
You can't make this up, so what you claim is an "indistinct smudge" can actually be closely inspected to reveal "defects", WOW, Thanks for your compliance!
You imagination is not an "inspection".