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

[Jeff Gatie]

By the way, for anyone stating LHO tested negative after a parrafin test for gunpowder residue, he actually tested positive for residue on his hands. The negative was on his cheek, which is consistent with firing a closed bolt rifle. And in truth, paraffin tests were very unreliable at the time. See the following link (and then stop with the paraffin test nonsense): Did the Paraffin Test Show Oswald Had Not Fired a Rifle?  

 

[phil*]

If paraffin tests are so unreliable,then by definition, the 2 positive tests on Oswald's hands might have been wrong. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

I didn't say anything different. But notice I cited both positive and negative results, unlike the buffs who conveniently only cite the negative. I also gave a possible physical explanation for the negative results, beyond any reliability questions of the test. If only the buffs were so thorough.


Still waiting for the fingerprints planted for future technologies and cleaning the limo replies.

 

[Neil Brock]

I really have to thank you LNT guys because thanks to this thread, I tracked down a fantastic site called Citizens for Truth about the Kennedy Assassination and a great dissection of the Bugliosi propaganda book by James DiEugenio. It is long but not as long as Bugliosi's tome. I don't expect the tunnel-vision LNT apologists to read it but for anyone who keeps an open mind, its an eye opener.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Still waiting for your replies on the fingerprints found by future technology and my rebuttal of your "cleaning all evidence from the limo" claims, Neil. While you are at it, you can give us your other "possible" paths of a bullet which passes through three distinct wounds at one instant in time. Too busy reading buff sites to finish what you started here?

 

[Jack P]

DiEugenio is a big champion of Jim Garrison, which means his credibility as a researcher is right straight in the toilet from the get-go.

 

[Ed Moroughan]

Originally Posted by Jeff Gatie /forum/thread/278047/on-trial-lee-harvey-oswald-a-personal-review/210#post_3776640

I've been complaining about that for years and I've never gotten an answer other than "they killed them all." The nonsense just goes around in a ever expanding circle.


*sigh*


I wish to add my insulting opinion, based on three bios of JFK I've read, that for a Pres. who did nothing much useful for (or against) the American people he sure had a lot of enemies looking to kill him.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Ed, not to mention the simply unbelievable alliances which must take place in order for even the simplest CT to hold up. The Mafia hired Secret Service agents to clean the limo? Really!? The DPD, FBI, press and doctors at two hospitals in two different states were in the bag for Carlos Marcello? Really!? Bobby Kennedy destroyed the brain because it held evidence that his sworn enemies, the Mafia, killed his beloved big brother? Really!?

 

[Neil Brock]

So, if we don't know who actually planned and executed the killing means that it had to be Oswald? It can't be that it was a well planned crime which will never be solved? And just because certain entities, Hoover, LBJ, The Warren Commission, etc., had a vested interest in bamboozling the public into believing the LNT crap doesn't mean that they were involved beforehand. All it means is that they did not want to delve too deeply and open up a can of worms they weren't prepared to deal with. Anybody with alternate stories, such as Gov. Connelly saying he was hit AFTER Kennedy, well they were just mistaken. Of course that has to be it. Couldn't be that he changed his story after getting the word. Or the doctor marking the wound in the back. No, he was just mistaken and doesn't know the difference between a back and a neck. Right. Same with the doctors who said Kennedy was hit with a gunshot from the front. Also just mistakes. So many people made all these mistakes until they were told the party line. So glad that got straightened out and they could correct these MISTAKES!

 

[Jack P]

Your comment asking "can't it be something that can never be solved?" is what is known in the business of professional historiography as a cop-out. It's the nice little game buffdom plays to exempt themselves from all of the professional rules and standards by which we study a historical event, out of the belief that all they have to do is raise some phantom notion of "reasonable doubt" in the public eye and they can walk away from there. But that isn't how it works, Neil, you have to do some hard WORK of your own that means going beyond your questions that defenders have answers for and start constructing your alternate scenarios of how this event happened and to do according to a plausible hypothesis that factors in the *totality* of the evidence. And all of this you have evaded from in every one of your posts because you have not, I noticed deigned it important to answer a single question put to you to put up or shut up with regards to your explanation of how this event happened that reconciles all of the evidence.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Neil, please answer the questions: If "cleaning the limo of all evidence" is a significant indication of a coverup, then why was it done in front of television crews, by Secret Service men who are sworn to protect the president, and why was there significant physical and photo evidence from the limo used in the Warren Commision report? How do you explain the fact that Oswald's fingerprints were revealed in pictures of the rifle using technology that was not even present in 1963? Are you seriously claiming that the "conspirators" framed LHO by planting fingerprints that would only be found years later? As you have stated that the computer simulation of the second shot is merely a "possible" scenario, could you please describe an alternate path for a bullet that passes through three distinct wounds in one instance in time? Please be specific, merely declaring that there are alternate paths is not an answer. PS - And since you have described the SBT as both "plausible" and "possible," will you now refrain from calling it the Magic Bullet Theory? By very definition, there is nothing "magic" about a possible and plausible event. After all, you buffs are all about revealing the truth, and you wouldn't want to mislead anyone with your terminology, right?

 

[Jeff Gatie]

By the way Neil, Kennedy was hit in the back. The exit wound was in the neck. The claim that the shot could not hit him in the back and exit his neck is totally debunked by viewing Kennedy's actual body position, as was exactly mapped in the computer sim you called "possible" and "plausible." The doctor was correct.

 

[phil*]

Originally Posted by Jeff Gatie

By the way Neil, Kennedy was hit in the back. The exit wound was in the neck.

If Kennedy was hit in the back (which he was),and Oswald inflicted this wound by shooting at him to his right, and on a DOWNWARD slope of around 45 degrees, I'd like to know how this bullet supposedly exited near JFK's Adam's apple. That's ONE of the reasons we call it a "Magic Bullet". Did the computer simulation show this?

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Watch the computer simulation. The artist mapped the bodies of JFK and Connally exactly to the individual frames of the Zapruder film. Exactly. Thus he had a 3D map of the entire scene, exactly how it happened. He pinpointed the exact time of the shot, because Connally's coat showed a bulge from the bullet. He then mapped the exact locations of the wounds on JFK and Connally. A line drawn through the wounds at the exact time of impact extended straight back to the 6th floor window. The problem with Garrison is his positioning of JFK and the Governor was so far from reality, you have to ask if the man knew anything about the crime scene at all. PS - There is a reason Neil called the simulation "possible" and "plausible" and now he refuses to discuss an alternate bullet path in detail. It's because the only "alternate" path is if the gunman was hiding in the footwell between Connally's legs. Hence the reluctant admission and subsequent silence from Neil.

 

[phil*]

Originally Posted by Jeff Gatie

Watch the computer simulation. The artist mapped the bodies of JFK and Connally exactly to the individual frames of the Zapruder film. Exactly. Thus he had a 3D map of the entire scene, exactly how it happened. He pinpointed the exact time of the shot, because Connally's coat showed a bulge from the bullet. He then mapped the exact locations of the wounds on JFK and Connally. A line drawn through the wounds at the exact time of impact extended straight back to the 6th floor window. The problem with Garrison is his positioning of JFK and the Governor was so far from reality, you have to ask if the man knew anything about the crime scene at all.

PS - There is a reason Neil called the simulation "possible" and "plausible" and now he refuses to discuss an alternate bullet path in detail. It's because the only "alternate" path is if the gunman was hiding in the footwell between Connally's legs. Hence the reluctant admission and subsequent silence from Neil.

You seem to place a great deal of stock in computer simulations. You know, if I was so inclined, I could produce a computer simulation showing a puck, fired off the stick of Zdeno Chara at the TD Garden which somehow ended up in the lap of President Hosni Mubarak sitting in his beseiged Palace in Cairo,Egypt. What would that prove? Nothing. The point I'm trying to make is that,computer simulations are just that...SIMULATIONS. A computer simulation can be made to show exactly what you want it to.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Gee phil, you seem to quickly discount a computer simulation before you even view it. So whats worse, evaluating something after viewing it, or dismissing it without examination because it may skewer your biased view? As to your feeble attempt at an analogy Phil, if you mapped that computer simulation to an actual film of the actual event, matching the exact geography, buildings, vehicles and personell present by wire framing the objects in the film, then filling them in, then I'd have to believe Chara performed the feat. But you don't have that film. Luckily, Abraham Zapruder did. So Phil, the link is a couple pages back. Are you going to watch it, or put your head in the sand? If you do watch it, I'm gonna love seeing you squirm like Neil did. Perhaps it will silence you too, then we can drop this thread . . . Again.

 

[phil*]

Originally Posted by Jeff Gatie

Gee phil, you seem to quickly discount a computer simulation before you even view it.

Actually,Jeff, I saw it...twice..before posting my previous comment.


Again, I'll repeat.."it's just a computer simulation." The only feasible way to line up the actual bullet trajectories was to have conducted a neutron activation analysis on JFK's body and Connally's torso. This was not done. Computer simulations are very subjective and, by definition,subject to interpretation.


Anyways, I read something the other day that I'm sure you'll get a kick out of:


"It's the End of Days and all the conspiracy theorists are in heaven and are granted an audience before God Himself and they ask "God, we've been told that in Heaven all truth will be revealed and so we ask, who really killed JFK?" And God said "Now listen carefully, for I will say this only once and then I want you to get on with your lives in Heaven. Lee Harvey Oswald alone planned it and shot him.'' They all turn to each other and say "Wow, this conspiracy is bigger than we thought!"

 

[Jeff Gatie]

So you are admitting that no evidence would ever make you think differently. Just as I thought.

 

[Richard V]

Originally Posted by Jeff Gatie
then we can drop this thread

We could drop this thread at any time, but you, Phil, and Jack P are constantly trying to get the last word.

 

[Neil Brock]

Originally Posted by Jeff Gatie

Watch the computer simulation. The artist mapped the bodies of JFK and Connally exactly to the individual frames of the Zapruder film. Exactly. Thus he had a 3D map of the entire scene, exactly how it happened. He pinpointed the exact time of the shot, because Connally's coat showed a bulge from the bullet. He then mapped the exact locations of the wounds on JFK and Connally. A line drawn through the wounds at the exact time of impact extended straight back to the 6th floor window. The problem with Garrison is his positioning of JFK and the Governor was so far from reality, you have to ask if the man knew anything about the crime scene at all.

PS - There is a reason Neil called the simulation "possible" and "plausible" and now he refuses to discuss an alternate bullet path in detail. It's because the only "alternate" path is if the gunman was hiding in the footwell between Connally's legs. Hence the reluctant admission and subsequent silence from Neil.

Okay, I haven't given this hundreds of hours of thought but you want an alternate bullet path. Two or three shots from the building behind the motorcade. The first one misses and hits the curb and then strikes the pedestrian in the cheek. Another shot hits JFK, not sure from where. A second shot from the back strikes Connelly and the fatal head shot comes from in front from the grassy knoll. I love how Oswald all of a sudden became depicted as an "expert" marksman and great shot for purposes of the great lie. Of course if he was so great, then how do you explain the shot that hit the curb and missed everything and everybody by a mile? You can't have it both ways and say this guy was a grade AAAAA shot but then in the same breath say, OOOPS, he just wasn't that great with the first shot, only with the next two.