JFK Assassin's Rifle

[B Strong]

Well they took custody of the photos, but they never turned up as evidence. So maybe they were misplaced? Still highly irregular and unprofessional. Kinda a big event to lose evidence on. Especially when the secret service are the focus of the said evidence. Kinda of like if police lose dash cam video after police involved shooting. If there was nothing bad in the photos they should be mentioned and logged, and archived with other photos. Any photo taken that day during the shooting, at that location is considered important.

Evidence of what?

Contrary to CSI TV show's influence on the current generation of conspiracy "investigators," not every single piece of minutiae related to an incident, criminal or otherwise is put under an electron microscope for examination, nor is that procedure required to validate or refute actual evidence collected and identified during an investigation.

Mortal Error isn't anything more than a untrained self-appointed "investigator" coming up with an "alternative" theory as to who assassinated JFK and then working backwards to support said theory. It isn't even bad science, it's one of the best examples of logical fallacy that you'll ever encounter, right up there with the various "no-plane" CT's and Vicsim CT's (Victim Simulation - no individuals were killed in the 9/11 attack...)

The gratuitous assertion (because that is exactly what it is) that Hickey shot JFK isn't anything more than one individual's effort to inject themselves and their particular version of a non-existent reality into a national tragedy, and in the process earn a few bucks and have the experience of being in the public eye and taken seriously, even if only by other CT loons.

Think I don't have it correct?:

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1992-02-23/news/1992054044_1_killed-jfk-donahue-harvey-oswald

"It's Howard Donahue's tale, contained in a soon-to-be published book titled "Mortal Error: The Shot that Killed JFK," by Bonar Menninger, which chronicles Mr. Donahue's long odyssey through the thickets of ballistic evidence, governmental obstructionism and what he views as media indifference."

...

"But Howard Donahue, 69, can only smile: At least people are paying him some attention, when for years he has toiled in obscurity."

If you read Hunter's interview, Donahue started his "investigation" when he was one of the test shooters in the H.P. White tests of the LHO rifle in live fire testing - he of course made all the shots in the estimated elapsed time with equivalent accuracy, but that only led him to surmise that LHO would not have been able to do likewise - for those of you keeping score at home in the logical fallacy sweepstakes, that's called confirmation bias and as an extra added bonus point, argument from incredulity.

It doesn't get much better the more you read.

[Gem1950]

Did you watch the video? They were called off. If they were ordered off the detail the day before and it happened all the time, why was the agent complaing. Also JFK does not appear to be giving any directions, so the order (if given), was given beforehand.

Are you just inventing JFK gave the order, or is there some kind of testimony saying he gave the order?.
You sound like a government shill, are you on the clock? How much do they pay you to be a naysayer on forums? Do they hire Americans shills or are sitting in a cubicle in India reading a script? If you are an American I guess it least that's something positive.

You're catching on. If C87 and BS are not on salary I hope they get a deduction on their taxes cuz they be work'n overtime for the man on this truth-speak crapola.

[Citadelgrad87]

You're catching on. If C87 and BS are not on salary I hope they get a deduction on their taxes cuz they be work'n overtime for the man on this truth-speak crapola.

Does anyone not directly involved in this exchange recognize the level of delusion that must be present? This is someone who has decided to disbelieve the mountain of evidence and instead believe in innuendo, and is such a kool aid drinker that the ONLY explanation for anyone disagreeing with them must be they are "on salary", meaning, of course, that they choose to believe the government, which cannot pass out water after a hurricane, has this particular diabolical scheme so under control that I am paid to engage conspiracists on the Internet?

[dfletcher]

Does anyone not directly involved in this exchange recognize the level of delusion that must be present. This is someone who has decided to disbelieve the mountain of evidence and instead believe in innuendo, and is such a kool aid drinker that the ONLY explanation for anyone disagreeing with them must be they are "on salary", meaning, of course, that they choose to believe the government, which cannot pass put water after a hurricane, has this particular diabolical scheme so under control that I am paid to engage conspiracists on the Internet?

Well, you knew it was only a matter of time before "you're one of them too" became part of the equation - right? It's so much easier than discussing facts, evidence and such.

It would be easy to play the same game, turning it around - for instance, if "the man" killed all those incidental witnessess why did they leave Agent Hickey alive to die of old age? If it was a set up why did they do it with an old bolt action instead of a semi rifle? And how about Agent Greer, the driver who "delberately slowed down" - shouldn't he have been done in soon after the event?

I think any reasonably objective person reading this thread will see the facts and who is presenting them, contrasted with those who rely on supposition and creative writing.

[Citadelgrad87]

Well, you knew it was only a matter of time before "you're one of them too" became part of the equation - right? It's so much easier than discussing facts, evidence and such.

It would be easy to play the same game, turning it around - for instance, if "the man" killed all those incidental witnessess why did they leave Agent Hickey alive to die of old age? If it was a set up why did they do it with an old bolt action instead of a semi rifle? And how about Agent Greer, the driver who "delberately slowed down" - shouldn't he have been done in soon after the event?

I think any reasonably objective person reading this thread will see the facts and who is presenting them, contrasted with those who rely on supposition and creative writing.

The true believers can't simply step back and ask "does that make any sense?"

A perfect example is the claim that some large number of "witnesses" died mysteriously.

Except, of course, the reason we KNOW they are supposed to be witnesses is that they told their story, That's how we know hey are witnesses.

So why would anyone trying to keep a secret let the person say their piece, often under oath and recorded either by stenographer or audiotape, THEN kill them?. What sense does that make? It doesn't erase what they said, and, in fact, would only draw attention to whatever it is they supposedly said. How would killing Monica Lewinsky now, for example, help anyone? Everyone knows what she said. It makes no sense to claim that any witness was killed AFTER they testified. It's stupid.

Of course, most of these people didn't witness anything, and are only remotely connected to any event.

[Gem1950]

We see the same actors at work here over and over again defending the official version of legends the establishment desperately needs to keep whole. I see their unrelenting efforts to defend the spewings of a corrupt and evil power structure, that has lied on a continual basis for the last fifty years, as telling indeed. Moreover, they must marginalize and/or ridicule anyone who questions anything about their legend.

Who would behave in such a manner?

1) People who are just plain dumb. I think we can rule that one out in this instance.

2) People who are deathly afraid of their reality being challenged. Well maybe.

3) People who have and axe to grind - Hate the Kennedys at all costs. Afraid for our country if the truth were known. Some kind of obsession??? Could be.

4) People who have an agenda - Who know what's going on and side with the power structure for the sake of maintaining control over the serfs. Bingo!

In any case I find it ironic that on a pro 2A site (that is by definition skeptical of government activity) we have reoccurring actors and reoccurring themes that the government's official versions on certain subjects, that effect real power, are not to be questioned or even doubted.

People who behave in this manner are highly suspect in my book and are not to be trusted!

[Citadelgrad87]

We see the same actors at work here over and over again defending the official version of legends the establishment desperately needs to keep whole. I see their unrelenting efforts to defend the spewings of a corrupt and evil power structure, that has lied on a continual basis for the last fifty years, as telling indeed. Moreover, they must marginalize and/or ridicule anyone who questions anything about their legend.

Who would behave in such a manner?

1) People who are just plain dumb. I think we can rule that one out in this instance.

2) People who are deathly afraid of their reality being challenged. Well maybe.

3) People who have and axe to grind - Hate the Kennedys at all costs. Afraid for our country if the truth were known. Some kind of obsession??? Could be.

4) People who have an agenda - Who know what's going on and side with the power structure for the sake of maintaining control over the serfs. Bingo!

In any case I find it ironic that on a pro 2A site (that is by definition skeptical of government activity) we have reoccurring actors and reoccurring themes that the government's official versions on certain subjects, that effect real power, are not to be questioned or even doubted.

People who behave in this manner are highly suspect in my book and are not to be trusted!

Spoken like a totalitarian . Seriously, that sounds like a bad line from a movie about a totalitarian regime coming to power.

Do you frequently hide from engaging in debate by fabricating list of reasons people would want to disagree?

If you like vanilla, are only government shills going to argue that chocolate is better?

I've set forth pages and pages of citation to evidence on this topic. I believe what I believe because I decided to figure out what happened, and I read everything I could find about the events, starting with the warren report. I didn't know what happened, and I set out to try to figure out what all the hubbub was about.

My frame of reference is as a successful attorney who works with all kinds of evidence every day. Eyewitnesses, photos, experts, medical reports and subsequent evaluations of that same evidence. I looked at everything I could find, and ignored nothing. I had no idea or preconception of what the answer might be, no ego, no hatred for JFK.

There is a mountain of evidence that Oswald acted, and acted alone. There is no substantive EVIDENCE that he didn't act, or that someone else acted.

I've set out evidence supporting every point I've raised or disputed on this and dozens of prior threads. It's there for the searching.

If I believe differently than you do, why do you feel the need to attribute a motive other than that's what I think the evidence shows? Why must I work for some cigar chomping guy who's out to silence you? Do you think that's a healthy perspective?

Contrast my own transparent recitation of the evidence with your own cryptic, drive by "huh-uh" type posting, devoid of any substance, citation to evidence, or, more importantly, lacking the fortitude to simply post what you believe.

I'm not kidding and not trying to be insulting, you really need to seek professional mental help if the only explanation you can think of as to why I post is that the government pays me to follow you around.

[dfletcher]

We see the same actors at work here over and over again defending the official version of legends the establishment desperately needs to keep whole. I see their unrelenting efforts to defend the spewings of a corrupt and evil power structure, that has lied on a continual basis for the last fifty years, as telling indeed. Moreover, they must marginalize and/or ridicule anyone who questions anything about their legend.

Who would behave in such a manner?

1) People who are just plain dumb. I think we can rule that one out in this instance.

2) People who are deathly afraid of their reality being challenged. Well maybe.

3) People who have and axe to grind - Hate the Kennedys at all costs. Afraid for our country if the truth were known. Some kind of obsession??? Could be.

4) People who have an agenda - Who know what's going on and side with the power structure for the sake of maintaining control over the serfs. Bingo!

In any case I find it ironic that on a pro 2A site (that is by definition skeptical of government activity) we have reoccurring actors and reoccurring themes that the government's official versions on certain subjects, that effect real power, are not to be questioned or even doubted.

People who behave in this manner are highly suspect in my book and are not to be trusted!

"The same actors at work here" - how often does this come up in Calguns, once in a blue moon? And the opening post wasn't done by someone sold on the Warren Report.

Your post is derogatory, condescending and as is common void of anything supported by fact or evidence. You want to disagree on points fine, have at it. None of the folks who disagree have called you dumb or evil or not trustworthy - they have said you're wrong and invited a response based on fact. When might that happen?

So far as items 1 through 4 are concerned, I suppose we ought to consider it a compliment of sorts, that we're "in the know" and somehow part of the high ranking cabal that secretly runs the country. I'll have to be especially nice to them, Citadel and friends - knowing they could have me rubbed out .....

With respect to hate, you have no idea how foolish that assertion is. There isn't a single person in those old black & white films I haven't met, that my father hadn't worked with, talked to while on a Senator's staff or later in the BoB. And obsession? Sorry, it doesn't keep me up at night. Neither I nor the others here are the folks buying up the latest "This is Who Did It" foolishness.

That you mention surprise regarding a certain point of view on a gun forum is interesting. I have the same thought but in an different direction. I'm surprised to find the "it must be a conspiracy" mindset on a gun forum because it reminds me exactly of the anti-gun mentality. They believe what they want despite an absolute lack of fact or evidence to support their position. Whenever an inconvenient fact is presented they dig in or do a little misdirection, such as your post above - and they will never, ever change their mind.

[ChuckDizzle]

"In any case I find it ironic that on a pro 2A site (that is by definition skeptical of government activity) we have reoccurring actors and reoccurring themes that the government's official versions on certain subjects, that effect real power, are not to be questioned or even doubted. "

What happens when the question has been asked and the logical answer is still the "official" story?

[dfletcher]

"In any case I find it ironic that on a pro 2A site (that is by definition skeptical of government activity) we have reoccurring actors and reoccurring themes that the government's official versions on certain subjects, that effect real power, are not to be questioned or even doubted. "

What happens when the question has been asked and the logical answer is still the "official" story?

Then in the absence of additional information it seems to me reasonable people would consider the matter resolved.

No one objects to "questioning or doubting" but rather the quality of the questioning and doubting, what is being questioned or doubted and the responses provided. When the focus is facts and evidence, that's appropriate and worthwhile. But as you can see, that generally doesn't happen in this matter.

[bonusweb]

http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/02/25/snowden-training-guide-for-gchq-nsa-agents-infiltrating-and-disrupting-alternative-media-online/

[Citadelgrad87]

http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/02/2...-media-online/

According to these latest documents, there are paid government agent/contractor persons on social media posing as someone they are not, whilst on the payroll of the government. Their job is to befriend members of the alternative media, embed themselves in the ebb and flow of day-to-day communications, and then to engage in elaborate subterfuge – by any means necessary. The training exercise below uses terms like “befriend”, “infiltrate”, “mask/mimic”, “ruse”, “set-up”, “disrupt”, “create cognitive stress”, “use deception”, “ruin business relationships”, and “post negative information on appropriate forums

So what.?

We are not debating whether this has ever been done, we are discussing whether YOU think that the only people who think Oswald acted alone are paid to say that by the government, and, even more specifically, whether you think I am working for the government.

I will state on the record I am not now nor have I ever been employed by any branch of federal or state government.

I embarrass conspiracists purely as a hobby.

[B Strong]

We see the same actors at work here over and over again defending the official version of legends the establishment desperately needs to keep whole. I see their unrelenting efforts to defend the spewings of a corrupt and evil power structure, that has lied on a continual basis for the last fifty years, as telling indeed. Moreover, they must marginalize and/or ridicule anyone who questions anything about their legend.

Who would behave in such a manner?

1) People who are just plain dumb. I think we can rule that one out in this instance.

2) People who are deathly afraid of their reality being challenged. Well maybe.

3) People who have and axe to grind - Hate the Kennedys at all costs. Afraid for our country if the truth were known. Some kind of obsession??? Could be.

4) People who have an agenda - Who know what's going on and side with the power structure for the sake of maintaining control over the serfs. Bingo!

In any case I find it ironic that on a pro 2A site (that is by definition skeptical of government activity) we have reoccurring actors and reoccurring themes that the government's official versions on certain subjects, that effect real power, are not to be questioned or even doubted.

People who behave in this manner are highly suspect in my book and are not to be trusted!

Question things to your heart's content, but ultimately you are faced with the reality that while you're entitled to your personal beliefs, you're not entitled to your personal facts.

Go up thread, poster asserts that there is no evidence that LHO practiced with his rifle.

I refer to the testimony of his wife stating that she knew he practiced and cleaned the rifle in question, testimony that has been available for decades but somehow escaped the notice of the poster that made the assertion.

No refutation of her testimony by the poster or yourself (ignore button as shield from having to address facts?) and in your particular case it was well established in the other JFK thread that the totality of your participation was to cite CT's that you wish to believe, but you (and they) don't stand up to examination based on the established evidence.

In the particular CT at hand, you have a guy that started his theory with a false premise and proceeded to create a scenario that accommodated his conclusions - like I've stated before, it doesn't even rise to the level of bad science - the CT'er started out with confirmation bias and a healthy dollop of argument from personal incredulity and wove his preconceived conclusion into a story that he felt connected the dots as he sees them.

At this point it's like beating a dead horse, but because some goofy bastard comes up with a conclusion that shores up (whatever) nutty theory they believe in doesn't mean that said nutty theory has standing against the preponderance of established evidence, and again, in this particular CT the conclusion is so far out in left field that it isn't even a reasonable arguing point that events could have occurred as asserted by Donahue.

If individuals wish to tout their CT of choice, it really comes down to this:


"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

No alternative JFK assassination conspiracy theory rises to that standard.

[Gem1950]

http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/02/2...-media-online/

Yup

[Citadelgrad87]

Yup

Yup...what?

Snowden claims the uk does this. That's what the article says.

What does it have to do with this thread?