The Prosecution of GW BUSH for MURDER - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-10-2008, 12:01 PM   #46
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,953
Local Time: 01:24 AM
So again, if he's a marksmen, why did he miss the target twice, and even any car once ? From what I read the snipers practice at bigger ranges than Oswald had between himself and JFK's car.

And it seems the only slapping is your little "enjoy, I like physics" mocking.
__________________

__________________
U2girl is offline  
Old 07-10-2008, 12:17 PM   #47
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 01:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2girl View Post
No I haven't - should everyone with an opinion on the murder be at Dealy Plaza ?

And if there was one shooter, how do you account not just the five that heard it from that direction, but the 35 that heard the shots in front of the President ?
This is one thing I really don't understand. Everyone knows from experience that noice is reflected by objects in the area, like buildings, walls, tunnel, trees, just everything.
Everyone has experienced hearing noise, like fireworks or whatever, from one direction though the source of the noise was located somewhere else.
Echoes and so on are really something every little child learns about just by leaving the house. Now when it comes to conspiracy theories about the assassination suddenly people seem to just forget about that and keep insisting the bang was heard from other directions.
__________________

__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 07-10-2008, 01:11 PM   #48
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2girl View Post
So again, if he's a marksmen, why did he miss the target twice, and even any car once ? From what I read the snipers practice at bigger ranges than Oswald had between himself and JFK's car.

And it seems the only slapping is your little "enjoy, I like physics" mocking.

I give, I explained as best I know how. When I began my research on the assassination approximately twenty years ago, I believed the myth that he was a lousy shot. At the time, looking for MOTIVE, I could find none. I had read in the Warren Commission report that Marina, Oswald's wife, thought he had a grudge against Connaly. This would fit if her were a lousy shot.

Through research and in looking at evidence, I can safely say, he was not a lousy shot. At worst he was average. The original theory that I explored with an open mind, that Connaly was the target, does not fit the evidence so I have changed my opinion.

As I said earlier, it was a THEORY that I had years ago.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-10-2008, 01:17 PM   #49
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2girl View Post
You don't at least consider the official autopsy may have been tempered with ? Why are there official documents waiting to be revealed in this case if it's all that clear and simple ?

washingtonpost.com: Study Backs Theory of 'Grassy Knoll'
Sure, I consider it, and I say gee, this would mean there would have to be so many people involved it reaches the point of absurdity that no single person has ever come forward to say we tampered with the evidence. Exactly how many people do you think covered this up.

Most of the official documents involving the autopsy have been released.

Oswald ran in intelligence circles. If you are the governement and trying to protect other agents, you classify things. It is alleged that Oswald was an FBI informant paid $200 a month and was given the informant number S-172. He had contact with the FBI while in New Orleans and in Dallas.

Why would the governement withhold documents that prove them innocent/guilty of anything? Why not destroy them. The sealed documents, as many of them have since the AARB was formed in 1993, completely debunked the old conspiracy theory. My bet, the release of any firther documents will debunk even more.

Put the autopsy aside - did you look at the link to the video? I do not see the back of his head blown off. I see from the ear to the forehead.

Now for the article you linked to......

A well written article that presents two sides to the dictabelt. Within the last few years (Your Article was 2001) there was a scientific analysis of the recording. Through the use of technology, they are able to place where the motorcyle had to have been in order for the recording to have been of the assasination. When you cue up the tape, with the Zapruder film, and other films taken of the motorcade, there is no motorcycle or other vehicle with a radio to have recorded the assasination. It could not have been made of the assasination.

The House Select Committe on Assasinations conducted research on the recording described in your article. Until the dictabelt recording which was one of the last pieces of evidence brought before the committee, the committee completely supported the findings of the Warren Commission saying Oswald was the only shooter up until this piece of evidence.

I am sure you have researched the dictabelt recording referenced in your article and have reached your conclusion, however, the article you present also demonstrates that the scientific community has disagreed on the validity of the recording.

There have been more current analysis and evidence presented that prove that police officer McClain, whom the House Committee concluded had the open mike, disagreed that his mike was open. The only officer, who apparently had an open mike at the time, who has admitted it to Vinccent Bugliosi, was at the Trade Mart, not Dealy Plaza.

All of the analysis done on the tape since your 2001 article, supports that the open mike recording was not of Dealy Plaza.

I would refer you to more recent studies refuting the 2001 evidence:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/odell/
http://www.rd.com/can-technology-sol...le26805-3.html
Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, endnotes pp. 184–190.
Posner, Gerald (1993). Case Closed. Random House. ISBN 0-679-41825-3. (pp. 238-242, unraveling of acoustic evidence in JFK conspiracy finding)

In the readers digest article - it cites Harvard researchers who found fault with the 2001 conclusions.

All in all, I think there is something recorded, but my understanding is that the recording is invalidated due to the fact that it is a recording of two transmissions over each other due to the microphone picking up the other transmission.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-10-2008, 02:13 PM   #50
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,953
Local Time: 01:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Vega View Post
This is one thing I really don't understand. Everyone knows from experience that noice is reflected by objects in the area, like buildings, walls, tunnel, trees, just everything.
Everyone has experienced hearing noise, like fireworks or whatever, from one direction though the source of the noise was located somewhere else.
Echoes and so on are really something every little child learns about just by leaving the house. Now when it comes to conspiracy theories about the assassination suddenly people seem to just forget about that and keep insisting the bang was heard from other directions.
Then is there such a thing as a definite earwitness ?

If those 5/35 people are not reliable, does the rest of them not have trouble with echoes ?

Dreadsox: so who do you belive ? You don't believe a doctor that saw JFK's wound, earwitnesses, snipers re-creating the event according to Warren Comitee (well, aside tempering with evidence, what about the investigation overlooking things and/or making mistakes? you said yourself they may have the timing wrong, for example) and audio researchers.
__________________
U2girl is offline  
Old 07-10-2008, 02:26 PM   #51
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2girl View Post
Dreadsox: so who do you belive ? You don't believe a doctor that saw JFK's wound, earwitnesses, snipers re-creating the event according to Warren Comitee (well, aside tempering with evidence, what about the investigation overlooking things and/or making mistakes? you said yourself they may have the timing wrong, for example) and audio researchers.

1. The Dr.'s at parkland mistook JFK's throat wound for an entrance wound instead of an exit wound. They make mistakes and misjudgements in the heat of trying to save someone's life. I do not have my medical testimony in front of me, but I will gladly respond when I have had the time to research exactly who you are quoting.

2. I have explained earwitnesses. It's called ECHO.

3. Again, if the Snipers were trying to recreate what the Warren Commission felt were shots and when they occured, all it does is prove the Warren Commission has the shot timing wrong. It does not refute any shred of physical evidence that all of the shots came from behind.

4. You site the audio research as a certainty. I have given you four sources and now a fifth (the fifth is an award winning computer generated analysis of the Zapruder film and the Dictabelt recording0. At best, the evidence is inconclusive. There is enough analysis on it since 1978 to show that it more than likely is not valid.

SECRETS OF A HOMICIDE: JFK ASSASSINATION - Project Home

I would also again ask, did you view the link I provided to the Zapruder film?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-10-2008, 02:42 PM   #52
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,953
Local Time: 01:24 AM
1. Surely a doctor knows a difference between the exit and entrance wound ?

2. All earwitnesses face the echo. I think that's a tad solid ratio of earwitnesses to be attributed to echo alone. Anyway...

3. Maybe not just the timing. I think that is the main point of that re-creation.

4. It's just a link, and another point to consider. It's not a certainty, and like you said it argues both sides, the Comitee and Thomas.
__________________
U2girl is offline  
Old 07-10-2008, 03:32 PM   #53
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 01:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2girl View Post
Then is there such a thing as a definite earwitness ?
I guess not. It's similar with eyewitnesses. It's not certain that what they later recall of having seen or heard really is what happened. Sometimes you have to rely on them, but it's not unusual that their mind is playing tricks. Just yesterday I've read about a study that found how our "inner eye" can make us believe of seeing things that are just not there, like you have seen an ugly spider, are afraid of spiders, and suddenly in every dark corner you think you see a spider.
There is also in German legal language the so called "Knallzeuge" (bang witness). E.g. a car accident happened and the person didn't see it, but heard the bang behind him. He turns around imediately and what he sees then he connects with what he believes just has happened. Later when asked what happened he is 100% sure of having seen exactly how the two cars bumped into another when in fact he didn't. His mind makes him believe he did.

With noise it's even more complicated. Could you exactly locate each and every noise you hear. I'm sure it happened to you that you heard something, looked where you hear the noise coming from but there just isn't anything. Echoes can be very misleading, hence you always have to be careful taking earwitnesses into account. In a situation like Kennedy's assassination where people are standing there and suddenly shots occur and the president is hit would you really think the people can concentrate on where the shots are coming from, or differentiate between the actual bang and a reflection of that? Neither the five, the thirtysfive or the fiftythree people have to be right about what they think the noise was coming from.
However, if you put all these things together and look at all the research done not only by official institutions but also by independent ones and so on it's quite a compelling argument that in the end it really was just that one shooter from that library window. And believe me, when I was younger I heard a lot about the conspiracy theories and like most I know was convinced there was more truth to that then to what the government tells us. Then I saw different documentaries etc. where one theory after another got debunked quite succesfully. So, until convinced of the contrary I would side with dreadsox or A_Wanderer as I believe in actual research more than in theories often based just on basic understandings.

Same goes for conspiracy theories regarding 9/11. Often you see that reality is much more complex and difficult than basic theories of things make you believe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by U2girl View Post
1. Surely a doctor knows a difference between the exit and entrance wound ?
Why would he? A physician knows a lot about illnesses, the body, and, at especially in the US I would guess, quite probably has seen gun shot wounds. However, this doesn't make him an expert on how exactly entrance and exit wounds etc. look like.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 07-10-2008, 03:44 PM   #54
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 07:24 PM
No, I think most ER physicians can tell the difference. Not that I necessarily find this suspicious (in the heat of the moment, he might have made the wrong call), but you don't really need to be an "expert" in order to tell the difference between the wounds.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 07-10-2008, 04:04 PM   #55
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 01:24 AM
Well, that's right, didn't consider him an ER physician at the moment. Yeah, you problably often can tell whether it's an entrance or exit wound, though it would be interesting in the case of Kennedy's wounds nevertheless.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 07-10-2008, 06:08 PM   #56
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2girl View Post
1. Surely a doctor knows a difference between the exit and entrance wound ?
I am not sure what to say to this. It is clear you have an interest in the assasination and I applaud you for that. The Dr.'s at parkland hospital performed a tracheotomy on President Kennedy. They used the wound to President Kennedy's neck to perform the traech. They described it as an entrance wound. It was proven by the physical evidence to be an exit wound. The wound through the throat also exited through President Kennedy's knot in his tie. All of the fibers that the bullet tore through, point away from the body meaning the wound that the Dr.'s at Parkland hospital widened, was an exit wound. This is but one example of why you have the Dr.'s at Parkland, doing their job, which was to save his life, not autopsy, examine the body, ect. to determine what happened. That is why the autopsy report trumps the Dr.'s at Parkland.

Quote:
A logical approach to the origin of Kennedy's throat wound

Draft, 21 February 2000

There has been altogether too much discussion on the origin of JFK's throat wound (that is, whether it came from a frontal hit). It was a wound of exit, as the logic below shows. Given the simplicity and directness of the evidence, we almost don't need to use this course's pattern of reasoning [problem or question —> all possible hypotheses —> evidence —>strong evidence —> all hypotheses consistent with strong evidence —> simplest hypothesis consistent with strong evidence], but we will for sake of consistency with other logical topics under "Issues and Evidence."

The question:

From what direction did the bullet come that caused Kennedy's throat wound?

Possible answers

1. From the front or right front (wound of entrance).
2. From the rear (wound of exit).

Strong, validated evidence

1. JFK's body had two wounds on it, one in the front (throat) and one in the back (neck).
2. His body contained no bullets.
3. Therefore one of the wounds was for entrance and the other was for exit.
4. The wound in his back (neck) was an entrance wound (fibers around holes in shirt and jacket were bent forward).
5. Therefore, the throat wound had to be an exit wound.
6. The throat wound was small and regular, much like an entrance wound.
7. Ballistic tests on an artificial "neck" showed that because of the neck's small size and lack of hard structures, the exit wound looked much like the entrance wound, being only a little bigger and more irregular.
8. The throat wound was connected to the entrance wound in the rear neck by a line of internal damage to the right strap muscles, the upper right lung, and the right pleura.
9. Near the throat wound, the fibers of the slits in the two sides of the shirt were both bent forward.
10. The doctors at Parkland Hospital first thought the throat wound was one of entrance because they were not aware of the entrance wound in the back and the lack of a bullet in the body.
11. After discussing the back wound with Dr. Humes in Bethesda, Dr. Malcolm Perry of Parkland agreed that the throat wound was one of exit.

Hypotheses consistent with this evidence

1. The throat wound was one of exit, and the bullet came from the rear. (No other hypothesis possible.)

Simplest (and only) hypothesis consistent with this evidence

1. The throat wound was one of exit, and the bullet came from the rear.

As always, this answer must be considered provisional and subject to challenge by additional evidence.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-10-2008, 06:48 PM   #57
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,451
Local Time: 06:24 PM
Dreadsox - you still haven't answered this question...
What was Jack Ruby's motive for killing Lee Harvey Oswald???
He had mob connections and didn't even like the Kennedy's.
Why on earth would he kill the man who killed a person he didn't even like.
It simply does not make sense. There had to be more to the story!!!
__________________
Harry Vest is offline  
Old 07-10-2008, 06:57 PM   #58
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Vest View Post
Dreadsox - you still haven't answered this question...
What was Jack Ruby's motive for killing Lee Harvey Oswald???
He had mob connections and didn't even like the Kennedy's.
Why on earth would he kill the man who killed a person he didn't even like.
It simply does not make sense. There had to be more to the story!!!
I believe I did.

1) He was either a nut and acted spontaneously or
2) He was ordered to do it.

The belief that Jack Ruby acted under orders does not change a shred of physical evidence that there was one shooter.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-10-2008, 07:04 PM   #59
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:24 PM


If the shot came from the side, why did his brain blow forward in a moving vehicle?

Oh, and notice the forward head motion that nobody on the grassy knoll side wants to acknowlege.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-10-2008, 07:28 PM   #60
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,451
Local Time: 06:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadsox View Post
I believe I did.

1) He was either a nut and acted spontaneously or
2) He was ordered to do it.

The belief that Jack Ruby acted under orders does not change a shred of physical evidence that there was one shooter.

No. But if "he was ordered to do it" is proof of a conspiracy is it not???
Never mind the lone gunman theory or any of the other sometimes crazy sounding theories...IF JACK RUBY" WAS ORDERED TO DO IT" MEANS THAT SOMEONE ORDERED HIM TO DO IT...THUS A CONSPIRACY!!!
__________________

__________________
Harry Vest is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com