can you factor in acceleration? If the limo was STILL or less than 3mph at 313... yet covered that ground in that # of frames (which I believe is where we lose the argument as we have no idea the actual # of frames that were there before alteration....) it would have to accelerate to what speed in order to average the 13 and change you mention... and the 2nd shot is closer to 375 than 391...
Phil -
thanks... while this thread remains about LEE/HARVEY.. I was making minutia points for CS... to juxtapose FACTS and OFFICIAL DOCS
CS...
As I reread your posts I fail to find much evidence of any kind in them at all... you refute DVP with opinions and questions of credulity... whereas I showed you why Brennan for example is a strong witness FOR the defense of Oswald's innocence... that when you address DVP's statement about Brennan's ID, it takes you, a thinking and interested JFK researcher completely away from discussing the FACTS and instead DVP now has set the tone and direction of the discussion.
Quote:I do not seek to defend the other side, but to point out that reasonable doubt as a legal standards carry more weight than endless points about the minutiae of the case
---------------
I find evidence not bias to be more enduring
Please CS, let's be done with this... POST the unbiased EVIDENCE of which you speak. I for one am very interested in the nuggets others find.
Are you saying that REASONABLE DOUBT is the primary reason Oswald can be judged innocent... that the prosecution could not prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt"?
If so, then I see our problem - the only thing the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt is the existence of the conspiracy including the form and actions involved.. the detailed proof is IN THE EVIDENCE, in the minutia. So you can see, defending reasonable doubt of Oswald's guilt let's you suppose Oswald was at all guilty within the conspiracy to begin with... THAT is what we are waiting for from you CS...
Which evidence do YOU see proves Oswald was involved IN the conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. For THAT remains one of the keys in understanding the deeper aspects of the killing.
Reasonable Doubt A standard of proof that must be surpassed to convict an accused in a criminal proceeding.
Reasonable doubt is a standard of proof used in criminal trials. When a criminal defendant is prosecuted, the prosecutor must prove the defendant's guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. If the juryor the judge in a bench trialhas a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt, the jury or judge should pronounce the defendant not guilty. Conversely, if the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty
If I have lost my way with this discussion I apologize. I simply wish to understand what CS here means by REASONABLE DOUBT and what he is applying it to...
Stating that there is REASONABLE DOUBT in FRAUDULENT EVIDENCE completely scrambles my mind...
DJ
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
26-09-2013, 02:20 AM (This post was last modified: 26-09-2013, 02:42 AM by C. Savastano.)
No evidence? Do the nineteen pieces of it in the article seem like not enough. Please offer me some evidence thus far its been opinion. Brennan was in my article and his uselessness is documented by the Commission despite their findings. Indeed I am saying that reasonable doubts (multiple) exist, thus he would be found innocent if he could have received a trial. I have posted the evidence its in the article, if you find one that is not true please let me know. Another questions what is your intent in the repeated questions? If you wish to end the conversation why do you keep making requests? Now why don't you answer a question what can you prove I am incorrect about, otherwise its just speculation, repeating that you do not find unbiased facts in my work and offering no work or sources of your own to support your point is not a reasonable way to debate. You also did not address the automatic dismissal you seem to have those who do not agree with you, however I assume this oversight was intended.
Among the things I believe prove that Lee Harvey Oswald could not have committed the crime are the Carcano was possibly defective and the company who bought the Lot Oswald's weapon later emerged from was suing its supplier, the Carcano took at least two seconds to aim and fire with any accuracy, the Carcano was the second gun reported in the case by officials, the Carcano was a notoriously unpredictable weapon that would misfire, the Carcano was from WWII stock, the bullets were also at least a decade old, if Oswald were the sharpshooter some claim he chose the worst kind of weapon and ammunition to undertake his crime. That is one of the reasons I believe reasonable doubt exists, However, no series of facts about most evidence proves the overall claim of conspiracy, but if its one of many considered, it overwhelmingly creates doubts in the minds of reasonable people. In my view there are hundreds of these facts and supporting pieces of evidence that can prove a conspiracy occurred. When considered together and with reasonable connections supported even by official documents, the governments case will be reduced to ashes. So what do you think an unassailable fact is?
Your second paragraph above presents the Mannlicher Carcano as a "defective", "unpredictable", "worst kind of weapon"--
--but are you not aware of the work of George Michael Evica, Gil Jesus and John Armstrong in establishing that Lee Oswald never owned such a weapon?
You are merely speculating that Oswald would exhibit the good judgment to eschew an inferior weapon--
--when his very ownership of such a weapon has not and cannot be established.
Do you require proof, convincing, being led to these sources?
Your sole pronouncement on Lee Oswald and the alleged murder weapon begins with one of the primary false premises of the frame-up:
namely, that Lee Oswald ever owned such a weapon.
Neither owned, nor ordered, paid for, picked up, practiced with, stored, transported, delivered, used, hid such a weapon.
An entire chain of allegations failing at every link.
It is far more compelling exculpatory evidence than your speculating Lee Oswald would have chosen a superior weapon.
I indeed characterize those who cling to the lone-nut/magic-bullet theory as cognitively impaired or complicit.
The meaning of those clauses: 1) they are not thinking effectively; 2) they are promoting propaganda.
The latter class operates from the a priori premise Lee Oswald and only Lee Oswald.
In the former class, I have, as you have, convinced the incomplete thinking persons to follow me in the easy disproof of Lee Oswald's agency in the assassination, and it is always a priority--and a pleasure.
When we see Lee Oswald never owned such a weapon we proceed to the magic bullet CE 399 with its single bullet trajectory which did not occur, further demonstrating conspiracy.
The official explanation relies upon Lee Oswald with the Mannlicher Carcano shooting three and only three bullets one of them being Commission Exhibit 399 which caused seven wounds in two men.
The destruction of the single bullet theory has been done by several researchers.
A veritable Riverdance of refutation has been performed.
Now, I do agree with you that the Mannlicher Carcano was junk, but did you know it was used by the right-wing Senator Dodd in his committee work?
Looking at YouTube, you can see videos of Carcano rifles being fired that are pretty decent weapons (I have a feeling they have been refurbished), their bolt actions are smooth and fast, etc. And the people who post these videos are inevitably LNers who say, "See what a great rifle it is?" And I leave comments saying, "YOUR rifle may be in good shape, but the one found in the TSBD was in crappy shape, and was probably recovered from some North African battlefield where it had been laying for who knows how long."
Yes, I've seen some pretty slick items--and we know the prop "discovered" in the Depository was a collection of problems
It was necessary to shim the scope
The bolt was so stiff, reacquisition was problematic
The argument supporting the quality of the Mannlicher Carcano is a fallacy of generalization
As well as being a specific declaration of FACT from our FBI:
From the 12/9/63 FBI report:
Tests of Rifle
By actual tests It has been demonstrated by the FBI that a skilled person
can fire three accurately aimed shots with this weapon in five seconds.
To complete the FBI circle... only a few paragraphs later we have their determination - AFTER the autopsy report has been prepared yet relying on the Sibert/O'Neil report for accuracy:
Immediately after President Kennedy and Governor Connally were admitted to
Parkland Memorial Hospital, a bullet was found on one of the stretchers. Medical examination of the President's body revealed that one of the
bullets had entered just below his shoulder to the right of the spinal
column at an angle of 45 to 60 degrees downward, that there was no point of
exit, and that the bullet was not in the body. An examination of this
bullet by the FBI Laboratory determined that it had been fired from the
rifle owned by Oswald. (Exhibit 23)
"An examination of this bullet" - if the bullet did not exit and was not found in the body... WHICH bullet are they referring to here which ALSO was fired from the Oswald rifle?
I urge anyone who has not read thru this report to do so... you will learn everything there is to know about LHO, EXCEPT the means, motive and opportunity to perform either killing...
or how THAT becomes this when Adm Galloway woudl not allow the autopsy doctors to dissect the back, neck or upper chest. Dureing the Y incision and removal of organs, Connor and others tell us that abullet was removed from the intercostal muscles of the ribs/back on the right side of the body... a bullet among other debris for which Dennis David created a receipt...
The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax above
the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular and
the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the neck.
This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal pleura
and of the apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. The
missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck,
damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of
the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony
structures in its path through the body.
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
26-09-2013, 10:56 PM (This post was last modified: 26-09-2013, 11:03 PM by C. Savastano.)
(To P. Dragoo and D. Joesphs)
The study you refer to is based on the expertise of the those conducting it. Just repeating the work of others is not any deeper than someone reading a book and repeating what is says. All this various facts about the Carcano even with the additional items you present does not prove Oswald never fired it, nor does it prove it has to be a conspiracy. You do not respond to my questions and still seem determined to prove that I am wrong about some item you believe is relevant. I have done all I could to be reasonable, I have not insulted or determined your work speculation even despite your many claims without any official sources. A single study does not prevail, no matter how believable or trusted their results for example the Warren Commission. It also takes not just many disqualifying pieces of evidence from the Carcano but the entire case. So if you wish to have a conversation I am happy to, however repeated criticism without presenting repeated items of official evidence is just using sources you deem superior. This does not prove your claims, and is not the standard for investigation. You seem to want things only you find acceptable, a standard I find unreasonable and irrelevant to determine the actual events. While I believe in a conspiracy it is from studying evidence from both sides of the debate. The facts speak for themselves they do not require personal approval from anyone.
There are even more fundamental problems with the case against Oswald as assassin. His shooting skills in the USMC actually declined between his first and last tests. In the Soviet Union, he joined a hunting club and had difficulty hitting small game with a shotgun. His interests were politics, reading (he was quite the Sci-Fi fan) and photography. He shows no sign of being a genuine gun nut. We have no verified case of him using a rifle after leaving the Marines. Without constant practice, his already poor shooting skills would only get worse.
How and when did Oswald construct the paper bag, and how did he get it to the Paine house without anyone seeing it? Troy Eugene West never left his station at the wrapping desk, even at lunch or when the President drove by. He never saw Oswald around there. The tape was dispensed wet, which means it had to be used immediately. How did Oswald handle this tape without leaving his prints all over it?
27-09-2013, 12:20 AM (This post was last modified: 27-09-2013, 01:27 AM by C. Savastano.)
Indeed Tracy, I agree the many inconsistencies in the official case are staggering, the Commission's lack of jurisdictional authority, the tainting of all medical evidence when it was stolen from the Dallas Authorities at Parkland. I often see people discussing Bethesda inconsistencies and believe that is a waste of energy, based on basic principals of law, the evidence was tainted before it arrived. The sea burial of the Copper coffin the president was initially placed inside, the quick transport and cleaning of the president's car, ignoring every medical expert at Parkland and all original medical evidence. If you read the President's Warren Commission Executive transcripts you find that even the Commissioners believed the CIA and FBI had possible complicity in the President's death. That almost half the Commission did not agree with the findings. That Earl Warren,Richard Russell, Hale Boggs, and John McCloy all doubted the information they were given, but Warren demanded a unanimous finding. The official record is filled with these inconsistencies. I feel they are more persuasive than a single aspect of the case belabored. When those who are undecided see the problems and doubts even officials had doubt becomes all too reasonable.
