| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Brian Ambrose
|
|
 |
|
If the bullet direction were "clear enough", we wouldn't need you to tell us it's so clear.
To me, its clear the bullet came from the rear (very clear in the restored zapruder film). |
So Kennedy moves backwards at high acceleration and you conclude he was hit from the opposite direction. OK, but which version of unproven hypotheses do you think explains this (as Chad said) improbable motion? The official nerve-spasm one, the puff of mist which blows him backwards one, or some other? In the link I posted a top forensic scientist states his unequivocal view that the shot came from the front. I hope you'll look at it - quite apart from this specific issue it has a lot of excellent information in it.
In the meantime I've been looking at other videos. I was surprised by the strength of evidence that the Zapruder film was definitely tampered with, and possibly entirely fabricated. The following link gives a flavour of the arguments (there's another which is highly technical and goes on and on), but don't miss the interview at the end which gives an entirely plausible account from a French investigator with insider connections, and corroborates and explains the reason why the road sign in the Zapruder film was altered.
http://www.mashpedia.com/videoplayer.php?q=XCigDMyHisE
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
You have fallen into The Infinite Evidence Pit, Bri. Remember, AE says that evidence accrues proportionately to the number of people looking for it and there are more people looking for Kennedy Conspiracy evidence than there are grains of sand on Brighton Beach. So when you say
| a top forensic scientist states his unequivocal view that the shot came from the front |
We do not answer, "Ah-ha, we've got twenty top forensic scientists who say it came from the back" because actually that is not true. There are only a handful of such experts -- the ones bought and paid for by the FBI, the Warren Commission et al -- whereas the Conspiracy Industry has bought and paid for dozens.
You are of course entitled to claim that the evidence is sufficiently equivocal that top forensic scientists are divided on the question but that is all. And that, by the way, is the AE position. It is nowhere near sufficient for an AE-ist to therefore subscribe to a frontal bullet.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
But Mick, I thought I had made it clear that I am not basing my opinion on expert opinion (which may or may not be equivocal); I base it on the evidence of my own eyes, knowledge, and experience, which I cannot help but believe is sufficient until I am convinced otherwise.
In of itself, my or your or the experts' opinion about the direction of the fatal shot is of no great matter, especially to John F. Kennedy - except that it seems a shot from the front is apriori unnacceptable to the current AE position.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Good grief, Brian, I had no idea you think of yourself as a top forensic scientist. It is true that AE encourages us to take a personal interest in the evidence but surely you can see that your eyes are only seeing what your Conspiratorial Cast of Mind is making you see. You'll be telling us that your "own eyes, knowledge, and experience" have led you to become a Christian next.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
|
Like I said Mr. Pot, unlike you I don't have a position to defend, only that the physics of that shot seem obvious to me - although I'll grant that I haven't yet got round to experimenting with shooting live presidents travelling in motor cars. As always, when you have an actual argument to make I'll be pleased to hear it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Brian Ambrose wrote: | | So Kennedy moves backwards at high acceleration and you conclude he was hit from the opposite direction. |
Yup.
| OK, but which version of unproven hypotheses do you think explains this (as Chad said) improbable motion? The official nerve-spasm one, the puff of mist which blows him backwards one, or some other? |
I'm not going to watch that disturbing film again but the restored zapruder film shows an unmistakable blast of blood and brains exiting forward of Kennedy's head. The ejection was not visible on any version of the film I had seen previously.
But I was convinced of the silliness of all the conspiracy stuff absent this evidence.
As we can see from your case, your conspirators chose to execute the president of the United States in full view of dozens of cameras -- both still and film -- positioning themselves in a locale where they could have been easily seen and clearly photographed and, indeed, according to the conspirators themselves, were indistinctly photographed (and only by luck avoided a more damning image).
They also chose to use a bullet and firing angle that could not have been reconciled with the position and weapon of their chosen "patsy" without the prearranged cooperation of everyone from the investigating coroners to the members of the senate investigation.
No Epistemologist could ever join the conspiracy theorists.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Brian Ambrose wrote: | | In the link I posted a top forensic scientist states his unequivocal view that the shot came from the front. |
And I can show you top engineers who state that in their unequivocal view, the twin towers were brought down by controlled demolition.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Brian Ambrose wrote: | | I was surprised by the strength of evidence that the Zapruder film was definitely tampered with, and possibly entirely fabricated. |
So this would mean that the conspiracy theorists themselves manufactured the very evidence you point to as proving the existence of a conspiracy.
For 50 years we have heard that "back and to the left" proved the existence of a second gunman. And yet now you entertain the notion that the film was made or modified by the men who sent that gunman, to assassinate the president of the united states in the most conspicuous of circumstances.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
| I'm not going to watch that disturbing film again but the restored zapruder film shows an unmistakable blast of blood and brains exiting forward of Kennedy's head. The ejection was not visible on any version of the film I had seen previously. |
OK, that's a reasonable observation (although I think you're referring to the other film, not Zapruder's). I have a couple of views on this, first that what I see is a very brief (freeze framed), fine mist that of itself could not possibly accelerate Kennedy in the direction he moves, leaving the question of what did accelerate him backwards and to the left unanswered (unless you accept the nerve-spasm hypothesis). The moment you refer to could be the reaction to the entry of the bullet. More importantly, there is no question that most of Kennedy's bits end up behind him. The exit (largest) wound is at the back, not the front where it would be if the bullet exited there. It seems to me that only a frontal shot can explain this (even the exploding bullet hypothesis doesn't, but I assume we can discard that).
As we can see from your case, your conspirators chose to execute the president of the United States in full view of dozens of cameras -- both still and film -- positioning themselves in a locale where they could have been easily seen and clearly photographed and, indeed, according to the conspirators themselves, were indistinctly photographed (and only by luck avoided a more damning image). |
This was not the first attempt to assassinate the president in public - as a matter of record, there was a prior attempt which utilized all the same techniques but which was thwarted because of an alert landlady - on that occasion, the motorcade was cancelled. Really, what better opportunity for an assassination than when the president gets paraded as a sitting duck?
They also chose to use a bullet and firing angle that could not have been reconciled with the position and weapon of their chosen "patsy" without the prearranged cooperation of everyone from the investigating coroners to the members of the senate investigation. |
Well, I'm not arguing for a conspiracy (although the frontal bullet seems to insist upon it), but if I did I'd say whoever did it (the mob and/or the CIA?) thought they could get away with it but their plan A failed. As the events which followed the assassination showed, even you (I think) accept the possibility that there may have been a cover up.
| No Epistemologist could ever join the conspiracy theorists. |
Then no amount of logic or scientific evidence or even a full disclosure will convince you.
| And I can show you top engineers who state that in their unequivocal view, the twin towers were brought down by controlled demolition. |
If their argument is that the twin towers could only be brought down by controlled demolition, you'd have to consider that view. However, as I said to Mick, in this case I am not relying on expert evidence (which according to Mick is equivocal and I bow to his superior knowledge), but on what I see with my own eyes.
So this would mean that the conspiracy theorists themselves manufactured the very evidence you point to as proving the existence of a conspiracy.
For 50 years we have heard that "back and to the left" proved the existence of a second gunman. And yet now you entertain the notion that the film was made or modified by the men who sent that gunman, to assassinate the president of the united states in the most conspicuous of circumstances. |
Ish, it is scientifically proven that the Zapruder film was doctored. One frame which was printed in Life Magazine at the time is so sharp that it could not possibly have been taken by Zapruder's camera. One woman who took a photograph after stepping onto the road (her position is provable from the resultant photograph) is shown in Zapruder in the wrong place and on the grass. The most significant tampering affects the speed of the vehicle at the time of the fatal shot, which from other evidence shows it to be almost stationary (my own idea is that the deceleration may be the reason Kennedy moves forward before the final bullet hits). However, I don't think they had the technology to do much about the physics of the fatal shot, although they could certainly have added splodges of colour here and there.
Now if I was a conspiracist-theory believer, the question is, is all this evidence of things that are just wrong all the result of too many people looking too hard, as Mick says? Or evidence that something actually is wrong, and that as the years pass and that with better technology and more evidence becoming available, the truth is finally emerging? Even back in the 70's a senate committee which investigated the case concluded that there was a conspiracy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
Since Ishmael brought up the subject of 9/11, I thought I'd check out some of the crazy stuff about that too. I already knew about the widespread incredulity of engineers at the collapsing buildings, but some of the other theories (there were no planes, etc.) are bizzare, although they make a plausible case. This may be old hat to some or all of you, but I came across this presentation by a genuine CIA 'asset' who was a key part of the American/Iraqi interface in the time leading up to 9/11. I'd be interested to know if
a. you find her to be a credible witness, and
b. you think she brings anything more than circumstantial evidence to the table
In any case, she has a fascinating story to tell.
http://www.mashpedia.com/videoplayer.php?q=68LUHa_-OlA
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tilo Rebar
In: Sussex
|
|
|
|
Trouble with this and other major events is that there is little or no reliable evidence - rather a just huge mass of often erroneous and conflicting witness statements and camera footage which swamps those who are after the truth. It is usually broad enough in both content and context to support multiple theories of what, how and why the event happened.
Regarding the JFK assassination, although the 'official' version is compelling, Oswald is almost too good to be true and is the perfect patsy for the crime - US marine super-sniper who loved communist Russia and a cop killer to boot.
Then there is the amazing Jack Ruby shooting of Oswald right in front of loads of police and secret service men, which ensured he would never be able to give his version of events in court. Convenient that.
I also find it weird that 1979 a guy named Raymond Lee Harvey was arrested by the Secret Service for being involved in a plot with four others to kill President Jimmy Carter. Can you believe one of his co-conspirators was called Osvaldo Espinoza Ortiz. You couldn't make this up!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Well actually, Tilo, you can. Remember that AE says that evidence is generated proportional to the people looking, so it is only a matter of time that (quite genuinely) another Lee, another Harvey and another Oswaldo is going to turn up. In some combination or other, in some context or another.
You mark my words, a Jack and a Ruby are just waiting to enter stage left and a Mr Warren Commission is going to die in mysterious circumstances sometime in the years 2013 - 2026.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
Susan Lindauer (born 17 July 1963) is an American journalist, and antiwar activist.
In 2003 she was arrested and charged with conspiring to act as an unregistered agent for the Iraqi Intelligence Service....She was freed on bail in 2006. Citing expert testimony from both defense and prosecution witnesses that Lindauer suffered from paranoia and delusions of grandeur.... a second judge also said Lindauer was not fit for trial because she was "unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against her or to assist properly in her defense."
....
...Judge Michael B. Mukasey...noted that the severity of Lindauer's mental illness, which he described as a "lengthy delusional history", weakened the prosecution's case. In his decision he wrote, "Lindauer ... could not act successfully as an agent of the Iraqi government without in some way influencing normal people .... There is no indication that Lindauer ever came close to influencing anyone, or could have.
--Wikipedia
Well Brian. If you are "normal", you've proven the Judge wrong. On the other hand....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
So they didn't let her testify! Typical.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
N R Scott
In: Middlesbrough
|
|
|
|
| Brian Ambrose wrote: | a. you find her to be a credible witness, and
b. you think she brings anything more than circumstantial evidence to the table
|
She seems perfectly credible to me. The evidence supporting the 'inside job' theory is overwhelming, this just adds to it.
The footage of Building 7 falling makes it impossible to support the official version, doesn't it?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
