C. Savastano Wrote:I am not trying to force guilt before innocence, actually I am attempting the opposite. I am using reasonable doubt as my basis for proving Oswald likely did not commit the crime he accused of. I understand some here may disagree with my ideas or presented evidence, yet that does not invalidate it, opinions and unverified evidence is just speculation. I appreciate the support and constructive criticism, I respect everyone's right to conduct research and use what they consider reasonable standards, but they must offer proof from both sides if they hope to use legal standards. I have also used a majority of official evidence to prove Oswald's likely innocence, evidence which critics cannot refute with facts because its the very documents they use to craft their unreasoned arguments. If one of my sources is incorrect or my claims can be invalidated with evidence I invite its presentation, otherwise its just speculation.
In regard to the Movie theater, I agree, it makes no sense for him to remain in Dallas at all after JFK's or Tippit's murder. He had plenty of opportunities to flee and should have done so. A meeting seems the likely reason to remain.
One of my favorite facts that critics cannot refute is the Warren Commission had no authority or jurisdiction, it was forced via Executive order, local authorities or the State Congress should have rightfully investigated the matter, so why did the Commission?
"Legally, the assassination of President Kennedy and the subsequent murder of Lee Harvey Oswald were within the jurisdiction of Texas State Authorities" - Senate Select "Church" Committee on Intelligence Activities Report, Book 5, Part IV, Intelligence Agencies, Summary and Findings, p.45
That little FACT you speak of constitutes the wholesale theft of the body from the hands of the TX authorities by one SAIC ROY KELLERMAN - the same man who leaves Greer at the wheel of the ambulance at 7pm as he runs thru the hospital to the morgue... the same man who helps Greer/Sibert/O'Neil carry in an empty casket at 7:17... and ALSO is aware of the third casket entry WITH JFK... the best he can do is suggest a "FLURRY" of shots, for a total of 3, even though the first and third shots appear to be single shots... counting for 2 of the 3... WHEN does the FLURRY arrive and how does that not raise the bullet count beyond 3?
Mr. SPECTER. Now, to the best of your ability to recollect, exactly when did your automobile first accelerate?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Our car accelerated immediately on the time-at the time--this flurry of shots came into it.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you say the acceleration--
Mr. KELLERMAN. Between the second and third shot.
now, based on this FBI scale model of what occurred... what occurred - as it appears (based on the calculations offered in CD298 and the "X" we see drwon on the street for z313)
it APPEARS as if there is another shot AFTER z313, in fact it can be placed with some confidence at Z375 since we can see the base of the light pole in line with the rear of the limo...
Given that the LIMO is speeding away at this point, yet has only travelled 45 feet from z313-zZ375 (62 frames / 18.3 = 3.4 seconds = 13.24 feet per second = 9mph)
Mr. KELLERMAN. Mr. Congressman, I have driven that car many times, and I never cease to be amazed even to this day with the weight of the automobile plus the power that is under the hood; we just literally jumped out of the God-damn road.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5303[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5304[/ATTACH]
Mr. KEL[B]LERMAN. [/B]This I can't truly answer. However, I should say that, as for the casket being brought into the hospital, another gentleman came into this little doctor's room, his name I don't recall, but he represented himself to be from the Health Department or commission, some form. He said to me, he said, "There has been a homicide here, you won't be able to remove the body. We will have to take it down there to the mortuary and have an autopsy." I said, "No, we are not." And he (Dr.ROSE) said, "We have a law here whereby you have to comply with it."
With that Dr. Burkley walked in, and I said "Doctor, this man is from some health unit in town. He tells me we can't remove this body." The Doctor became a little enraged; he said, "We are removing it." He said, "This is the President of the United States and there should be some consideration in an event like this." And I told this gentleman, I said, "You are going to have to come up with something a little stronger than you to give me the law that this body can't be removed."
So, he frantically called everybody he could think of and he hasn't got an answer; nobody is home.
Shortly he leaves this little room and it seems like a few minutes he is back and he has another gentleman with him, and he said, "This is"--the name escapes me he said, "He is a judge here in Dallas," and he said, "He will tell you whether you can remove this body or not." I said, "It doesn't make any difference. We are going to move it," and I said, "Judge, do you know who I am?"
And he said, "Yes," and I said, "There must be something in your thinking here that we don't have to go through this agony; the family doesn't have to go through this. We will take care of the matter when we get back to Washington." The poor man looked at me and he said, "I know who you are," and he said, "I can't help you out." I said. "All right, sir."
But then I happened to look to the right and I can see the casket coming on rollers, and I just left the room and let it out through the emergency entrance and we got to the ambulance and put it in, shut the door after Mrs. Kennedy and General McHugh and Clinton Hill in the rear part of this ambulance.
I am looking around for Mr. Greer and I don't spot him directly because I want to get out of here in a hurry, and I recognize Agent Berger and I said, "Berger, you get in the front seat and drive and, Mr. Stout, you get in the middle and I will get on this side," and as we are leaving--Mr. Lawson, I should say, was in a police car that led us away from Parkland Memorial Hospital. As we are leaving a gentleman taps on the driver's window and they roll it down and he says, "I will meet you at the mortuary." "Yes, sir." We went to the airport, gentlemen.
Our president was the obvious target of a conspiracy, the continuing cover-up of which entails endless microsplitting of hairs
altogether with an imploring to (as Cole Porter wrote in parody) Not Be Beastly to the Germans
C Stavasano
It is insulting that the media and academia still do the heavy lifting for the assassination sponsors and their continuing business plan
Chris Davidson
Your link presents as a blank page but I gather your calculations show a 13-plus mile-per-hour limousine speed at one section in the Zapruder film
The overarching theme of this thread is a concept of reasonable doubt, a legal term which in our system also includes presumption of innocence
I would herein restate my assertion that the David von Peins of the world are the True Believers of Eric Hoffer (1951)
We may add the New Soviet Man and the Inner Party Member of Eric Blair (George Orwell)
For those not closed to the truth, fifty years of evidence are enough
For those closed, no amount will suffice
We might consider whether the continuing assertion that Benghazi wasn't about arms-running is akin to the Warrenati obsession with Lee Oswald
Or, consider whether we would in another day, have to convince Joseph Goebbels or another NSDAP official that the fire in the Reichstag was not a Communist plot
We do not require proofs ad infinitum that the world is not flat, that the sun does not move around this flat earth, and that bleeding even more would have brought George Washington back to health
I do enjoy the ever greater clarity of such meticulous data as David provided above:
We may again consider how closely spaced were the shots of this mythic gunman in Walhalla
and how no animation (see Pat Speer, Animania: Searching for Truth in Dale Myers' House of Mirrors) can bring any such projectile
around one hundred eighty degrees to enter the president's throat
or his right temple
Allen Dulles down through the ages presents the rebuttal of the inconvenient proofs of a David S. Lifton (Best Evidence):
From the very illustrative page above (well worth enjoying in its entirety) we have:
Dulles got very angry. "You have nothing! Absolutely nothing! The head could be going around in circles for all I can see. You can't see a thing here! I have examined the film in the Archives many times. This proves nothing"
I agree that a thorough understanding of the subject is important. 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 understand that some know more than I or anyone commenting, however the average person does not. The average person can easily get lost in the many presented intricacies that will be easily understood here. Honestly I'm wondering, what is the gist of you criticism? I know that the DVP's of the world may be lost to reason and evidence, but not all critics are so far gone. Many are simply misinformed, and some can be swayed, I speak from personal experience. This does not mean all, or a majority will be, but some shall if we approach them reasonably, without some self assured bias. Your view of the psychology of the critic is based on your personal experience as is mine. As I said before its sounds more like your trying to convince me of your feelings than facts. Your free to believe whatever you wish, however so am I, and I find evidence not bias to be more enduring. Critics are not always our enemies, sometimes they can be reasoned with and see the truth. I would assume many of our understandings and view have changed over time with new information, all people are capable of such actions, not just the ones we agree with.
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
![[Image: modify_inline.gif]](http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Themes/blue/images/icons/modify_inline.gif){kind=icon}
