"ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" -- A Personal Review (1 Viewer)

[Jeff Gatie]

If you aren't able to accept peer reviewed scientific studies or expert opinion, then you are hopelessly lost in buff land phil. I find it curiously ironic compared to your former complaints that conspiracy folks are "open minded" and it is us lone nutters who won't listen to reason. Pretty hard to take anything you say seriously when you so often do not practice what you preach. As to the fragments, it has been determined that when compared to the average weight of the bullets used, the 2.2 grains lost is well within the mean of bullets tested and is not excessive at all. This is in contrast to the buffs that make your claim, who only use the lowest possible bullet masses tested. See the following: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/wound3.txt Also notice within the same link, it is a scientific fact that the fragments in Connally are from CE 399, the fragments from JFK are directly linked to the bullets fired from the Carcano, and no other bullet fragments, from any other gun or bullet type, were found in JFK, Connally, or the limo By the way phil, I'd ask if you enjoy getting shot down on an almost daily basis, but with your obvious dedication to the buff religion, I doubt you even notice through the haze of denial.

 

[phil*]

Originally Posted by Jeff Gatie



By the way phil, I'd ask if you enjoy getting shot down on an almost daily basis, but with your obvious dedication to the buff religion, I doubt you even notice through the haze of denial.

No, Jeff, I haven't been getting shot down. One cannot make the same claim about you,however, as your wounds appear to be self inflicted, as when you made that ill fated reference to Dale Myers' computer simulation DEFYING others to debunk it...which it was.


I've already given you proof about the staying power of acrid, pungent odors which, of course you dismiss as a personal affront..but,of course, the REAL reason you dismiss it so casually is because it completely shreds your notion that pungent,acrid odors disappear with the snap of one's fingers.


The fact that you also dismiss as irrelevant the bullet casing found in the air conditioning duct on the roof of the Dallas County Records building is vivid testimony that it is YOU, not I, that is completely closed minded about the assassination. I NEVER claimed that LHO was somehow not involved in this. What I DO claim is that the official version, as espoused by the Warren Commission..that a single, lone nut,Lee Harvey Oswald,acting alone, did this..is pure,unadulterated nonsense.



In regards to Governor Connally's wounds..the following link probably explains EXACTLY what happened to cause them.


www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/18th.../connally.html

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Yes phil, flatulence in a closed room is an effective analogy to gunsmoke fired out an open window. Real strong scientific comparison, be sure to link to your study when it gets published in a peer reviewed periodical. As to the bullet, can you explain to me; if the shots from the Carcano did not kill JFK or wound Connally, then why weren't there any traces from any other gun or bullets found in JFK, Connally or the limo? You keep dodging that question. And as far as that silly YouTube video, I'll take a carefully created computer simulation over what amounts to a crayon drawing on a computer screen any day. Nothing I saw in that amateur buff film negates what I saw on Dale Myers website, which goes into far more detail than the video I listed. Myers positioning of JFK and Connally was accurate according to the limo schematic and the Zapruder film. Nothing your video shows negates that. It only shows that the positions can look different depending on angle of view.

 

[phil*]

Yes phil, flatulence in a closed room is an effective analogy to gunsmoke fired out an open window.

Pay attention Jeff! The analogy I was trying to draw between the two is that they are BOTH pungent, acrid odors, and as such, BOTH have staying power and do NOT dissipate quickly. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.

Myers positioning of JFK and Connally was accurate according to the limo schematic and the Zapruder film. Nothing your video shows negates that. It only shows that the positions can look different depending on angle of view.

If that is your TRUE feeling on the subject, then you are even more closed minded than I suspected.


By the way, Jeff, segueing....and going off on a completely different tangent....Habs 5 Bruins 2 tonight

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Also phil, to again address your absurd "no gunsmoke means no shots fired" theory, if no shots were fired, then why did the two people closest to the sniper's nest, James Jarman and Harold Norman, testify they heard 3 shots from above them on the 6th floor, and even heard the shell casings hit the floor? No shots phil? Maybe they heard some of that flatulence you are so enamored with, followed by a different kind of tinkling than the tinkling of falling shell casings, eh phil?

 

[Jeff Gatie]

phil, for the last time, the rifle was fired out a window. The vast majority of smoke was expelled outside the room. The minute quantity that would escape the bolt when cycled would dissipate in seconds. How do i know this? Because I've fired guns for years, both indoors and out. Modern powders are do not produce the acrid, black smoke you think they do, and the smoke does not follow the barrel back inside a window. Your analogy has no merit, unless your subject was hanging his ass out a window and expelled his gasses at 1200 fps into Dealy plaza. And phil, Tim Thomas has a sub-2.0 GAA, the odds of the Habs scoring 5 on him again is about that of you admitting LHO was guilty. They may win, but not 5-2. I'd predict the fights will be 5-2 B's, but thats absurd, unless Krecji fights Moen twice.

 

[Zundar]

Hi all. First off I am new here and just registered. I've been reading this topic over the last few days. I believe that LHO assassinated JFK and acted alone.


This is a question for anyone that believes that LHO wasn't involved in any way and was framed. We'll even ingore everything he did leading up to starting work that day.


He's at work on Friday and knows JFK will pass by his building. At the time of the motorcade he decides to eat lunch in the lunchroom instead of watching, maybe he wants to take advantage of a quiet lunchroom. Maybe he hears the shooting, maybe not, doesn't really matter. Somehow he finds out JFK has been shot, or at least shot at. My question then is why would he even think that he will be framed for it? The President of the United States of America has just been assassinated outside of your place of work and the first thing you think of is that you will be framed for it? That makes no sense to me. If someone has an explanation please share because while there may be one, I can't think of it. And why kill a police officer? Even if he thought he was being framed for something he didn't do, why? That will just make it harder to prove you are innocent. Or was he framed for that as well? And if he was framed for both, why him? Why frame a guy that is so unbelievable as the assassin? Why frame a gut that nobody will believe did it?

 

[Neil Brock]

Originally Posted by Zundar

Hi all. First off I am new here and just registered. I've been reading this topic over the last few days. I believe that LHO assassinated JFK and acted alone.


This is a question for anyone that believes that LHO wasn't involved in any way and was framed. We'll even ingore everything he did leading up to starting work that day.


He's at work on Friday and knows JFK will pass by his building. At the time of the motorcade he decides to eat lunch in the lunchroom instead of watching, maybe he wants to take advantage of a quiet lunchroom. Maybe he hears the shooting, maybe not, doesn't really matter. Somehow he finds out JFK has been shot, or at least shot at. My question then is why would he even think that he will be framed for it? The President of the United States of America has just been assassinated outside of your place of work and the first thing you think of is that you will be framed for it? That makes no sense to me. If someone has an explanation please share because while there may be one, I can't think of it. And why kill a police officer? Even if he thought he was being framed for something he didn't do, why? That will just make it harder to prove you are innocent. Or was he framed for that as well? And if he was framed for both, why him? Why frame a guy that is so unbelievable as the assassin? Why frame a gut that nobody will believe did it?

Either A) he was in on it to a degree that he knew something was going to happen but no exactly sure what and once it did happen, his instincts (or his orders) told him to get out of there or B) he was one of the shooters which still means it was a conspiracy but just that he was involved.

 

[Zundar]

Originally Posted by phil*


So, to reiterate..Oswald had NO motive..and please, don't fall back on that tired cliche that he was a nut so he didn't need a motive. It is SO incredibly weak.

If John Hinkley would have been killed after attempting to assassinate Reagan, would we have learned the reason? I don't know if he had written down why he was doing it, or admited after. Even if they would have learned of his obsession with Jodie Foster, was there evidence that he did it to impress her? Just because we don't know what LHO's motive was doesn't mean he didn't have one.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Zundar, Welcome. We've already given a probable and perfectly plausible motive for LHO. He was a hardcore communist and fanatical devotee of Fidel Castro, whom JFK tried to assassinate and threatened with war. The conspiracy buffs have not said anything about this except to say LHO's "socialist leanings" (the understatement of the century) could never be to blame for him killing the leader of a country he despised. Yeah, right. Every person with mere "socialist leanings" defects to the USSR and attempts to defect to Cuba.

 

[Jack P]

And Oswald's extreme leftism I would note, would merely place him in the same company as the man who last assassinated a president before JFK in 1901 with William McKinley, so it's not as if Oswald's action rooted in a specific ideology was unprecedented in American history.

 

[Zundar]

Originally Posted by Jeff Gatie /forum/thread/278047/on-trial-lee-harvey-oswald-a-personal-review/390#post_3790413

Thanks. I did see that you had done so. I also noticed that phil* doesn't seem to accept this, so I wanted to point out that just because we may not know someone's motive doesn't mean they didn't have one. I have read Reclaiming History, and have been reading parts of it again, which is how I found this site, I was looking for info on the London trial. I don't remember if he said it regarding motive, but as he said about other things if it's proven that LHO assassinated JFK then it doesn't matter if we know his actual motive since we already know he did it.

 

[Zundar]

Originally Posted by Neil Brock




Either A) he was in on it to a degree that he knew something was going to happen but no exactly sure what and once it did happen, his instincts (or his orders) told him to get out of there or B) he was one of the shooters which still means it was a conspiracy but just that he was involved.

Thanks for the reply.


My question was mainly for anyone that thinks LHO had nothing to do with it at all. I'm not sure if there's anyone posting on here lately that is in that camp. But the question does work towards others as well. I can see the B) answer but not really the A). If he wasn't a shooter why bring the gun to work? Was it to give to someone else to shot? And if so, why? Why go along with something that results in someone else assassinating JFK with your gun from you work? Wouldn't that guarantee that you'd become a main suspect? And if that was the case why not make sure you are seen by as many people as possible? And if there was another shooter in the TSBD, how come no employee there said anything about seeing someone in the building that didn't work there? Maybe they did, but I don't remember seeing any accounts of an unidentified person in the building from any of the people that were in the building. Or was the gun placed there by someone else to frame him? If so, what was in the bag LHO brought to work that day? Why would he go to the Paine house a day early and return with the package? If it wasn't the rifle, what was it? If it really was curtain rods, where did they end up? When his coworker gave him a ride to work Friday, and asked why he didn't have a lunch like normal, why did LHO tell him he was going to buy a lunch, then tell the police later that he didn't have a long package, just his lunch? When he got the ride home on Thursday, when the driver asked him if that meant he would need a ride home again on Friday did he say no? Why did he leave his wedding ring wth his wife, along with almost all of his money?

 

[Jeff Gatie]

They aren't going to give answers, beyond what has already been debunked a dozen times before in this thread. Their answers consist of more questions to try to camoflage the fact they have no answers for the overwhelming evidence against LHO. See phil's strawman "gunsmoke odor" argument that he won't let go of for an example.

 

[Zundar]

I'm having a little trouble with the flatulence analogy. How long was it before anyone checked out the 6th floor near the sniper's nest? I've smelled a lot of flatulence but I don't ever remember any that lingered for a while in a big room with open windows. And to answer phil*'s question on the gun smoke I don't believe the smoke would last long since the barrel of the gun was outside when fired and that there were open windows. Most of the gun smoke originated outside the window, the rest was in a large open room with at least 1 open window right there.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

There's no convincing phil. The no gunsmoke thing is literally his "smoking gun." Forget the fact that fragments traced to Oswald's gun (and only Oswald's gun) were found in both JFK and Connally, since nobody sniffed any smoke means that gun wasn't fired. Now how bullet fragments traced to that gun entered the wounds of two bodies, to the exclusion of any other weapon/bullet, is mere minutiae compared with phil's devastating "fart in a phone booth" evidence.

 

[phil*]

Is the Kennedy miniseries shot in Toronto airing in April available to American viewers after all? In Canada,it will be on the History Channel.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Will it tell us how bullet fragments got from LHO's rifle to the bodies of two victims without the gun being fired?

 

[phil*]

Originally Posted by Jeff Gatie /forum/thread/278047/on-trial-lee-harvey-oswald-a-personal-review/390#post_3790916

 

[Jeff Gatie]

It would have to be the Twilight Zone for your "Duh, no smoke means no rifle fired (despite bullet fragments that couldn't come from any other gun in the wounds of the victims)" scenario to be true.