Posted on 11/21/2002 10:52:30 PM PST by mlo
I have. You've made a claim, back it up. What are your referring to? Cite it. I don't know what you mean.
"Hundreds of researchers" have spent their time trying to prove a conspiracy any way they could, and usually have done so by misunderstanding the basic facts. Such "documentation" is worthless, as are your claims until you back them up.
None of that is true. Show me a picture or the autopsy report where it says any of that. The guy in the doorway is a guy named Lovelady. He's surrounded by people who knew him, who identified him from the picture and it isn't Oswald. If you have ever shot a gun before, you should know about small entrance holes and large exit holes. In the Zapruder film there isn't any action of debris at the rear of the head. The car was moving at 11 MPH. Throw something up in the air at that speed and see what happens to it. Military rifle at that time could be removed from the stock by using a dime for the barrel band screws or the screws at the trigger group. Where did the curtain rods go if that was what was in the paper?
This is the moment of impact. Where on earth do you claim to see a large hole in the back of the head? All of the debris was carrying by the bullet and the bullet split in two with one fragment cracking the windshield.
Not trying to. There is no comparison between the small forward motion of the head upon being struck and the backwards motion of the whole body afterwards.
I've personally shot thousands of rounds of ammunition, and can't recall a single time where the item being hit moved toward the rifle.
You failed to note that I made no claim that the backwards motion was caused by the bullet.
The HSCA said there was more than 3 shots;
Based solely on the later invalidated acoustics evidence. The HSCA also said that Oswald fired three shots from the rear, hitting JFK twice and causing all the wounds.
the scope from Oswald's rifle had to be adjusted before the re-enactment;
Which is evidence of nothing because the scope could have been damaged when he threw the rifle between some boxes to hide it, or he may not have used it. The target was close enough to use the iron sights.
the Parkland doctors and the morticians both reported a gaping hole in the BACK of his head;
There was a hole in the back, and the side, and the front. Nearly the entire right side of his head was blown out. Large peices of skull were still attached to flaps of skin and the large front flap was put back into place before the Parkland doctors saw him. Leaving a visible hole only in the rear. The emergency room doctors did not do a thorough examination. They were trying to save his life.
some X-rays show a blown out eye-orbit, while others don't,
None have a blown out eye-orbit. Some conspriacy writers said it did, but forgot that an x-ray of the face also shows the skull in the back. It's an x-ray
Actually. he was photographed in the doorway.
Oswald was not in the doorway. That was Bill Lovelady.
The package Oswald was seen carrying was reported as 2 feet in length. The rifle doesn't break down that small.
A witness said he carried the package cupped in his palm. He saw it from the back. This imposes no length limits because it didn't have to be IN the armpit, it could have been in front of the shoulder. The witness also said he didn't pay much attention.
Also, there was no traces of oil on the paper wrapping that the rifle was alledged to have been brought in, while the rifle did have oil on it.
The rifle had oil IN it. The moving parts were maintained. It was not covered with oil.
I have.
You've made a claim, back it up. What are your referring to? Cite it. I don't know what you mean.
You know what I mean from the many detailed threads we both participated on from a year ago, or more.
-- Find them - And refute my last concluding posts on them, if you must.
You fellas never did so then, what makes you think anything has changed now?
"Hundreds of researchers" have spent their time trying to prove a conspiracy any way they could, and usually have done so by misunderstanding the basic facts. Such "documentation" is worthless, as are your claims until you back them up.
Just as you claim "documentation" is worthless because of misunderstood facts. - Back up your own claims. -- You never have. - Do it in context, on those posts where the details in question have already been posted. Rehashing the whole issue here again is redundant.
Even if Oswald's shooting skill are in doubt, the fact that he MIGHT not have been able to does not mean he COULD not have. All of us at times do things we might not ordinary be able to do, or repeat with consistency. I can give you a couple of examples in my own life. The last time I went golfing, which I think was the third time in my life, I went with two buddies. I was the last two tee off. My friends each sent mediocre shots down the fairway, slicing or hooking to the side. I addressed the ball, pulled back the club, and swung through. The ball rose, straight and long, bounding down the center of the fairway. It was the only such tee shot I made all day. It might have been the only one if I tried one hundred times, and it was the first one!
Another time, many years before, I went to an Angels game. My friends were bigger baseball fans than I, and I did not even bring a glove. They wanted to get closer to the field for batting practice to try and shag some fly balls hit into the stands. Suddenly one rose toward our location and landed on the grass. It obviously was going to bounce into the stands and everyone went for it. I just leaned, and as the base landed in my palm I close my fingers and caught it bare handed, in my left hand, and I'm right handed. How many times do you think, if we wanted to, that the guy pitching the ball, and the batter, and myself could duplicate that? How many times would it take? But it did happen, and just the same Oswald may have exceeded his normal ability just that one time. it is not impossible, and there is no evidence to that anyone else did it.
You are describing yourself.
That is an absolute lie. I have consistently posted links and documentation for the things I've said when I've been asked. You are a liar.
Just as you claim "documentation" is worthless because of misunderstood facts. - Back up your own claims. -- You never have. - Do it in context, on those posts where the details in question have already been posted. Rehashing the whole issue here again is redundant.
tpaine, you are notorious for your insulting posts, as this thread continues to demonstrate. Insults are your stock in trade. I will gladly debate the issues with you, I will not play your stupid games. You made a claim. Cite it and we can talk about it. Otherwise be ignored.
Hmm. One staunchly anti-communist Democrat is replaced by another staunchly anti-communist Democrat. That sure wraps up the case.
If anyone is interested in the real no-tin-hat story, I recommend reading "Marina and Lee" by Pricilla McMillan.
That is an absolute lie. I have consistently posted links and documentation for the things I've said when I've been asked. You are a liar.
Not at all. Your links/documentation are based on 'misunderstood facts' just as you claim mine, or any others to be.
-----------------------------
Just as you claim "documentation" is worthless because of misunderstood facts. - Back up your own claims. -- You never have. - Do it in context, on those posts where the details in question have already been posted. Rehashing the whole issue here again is redundant.
tpaine, you are notorious for your insulting posts, as this thread continues to demonstrate.
You attack me, because you cannot refute my logic.
Insults are your stock in trade. I will gladly debate the issues with you, I will not play your stupid games.
Nor I your 'stupid games', as I opened this thread saying. You are just as kooky on this issue as the worse of the conspiracy nuts. - Live with the fact that you just made that even more evident with your 'insults' charge.
You made a claim. Cite it and we can talk about it. Otherwise be ignored.
Back your own claims, - I'll back mine as I wish. -- But I will not ignore your efforts to whitewash a flawed 'report'.
I'll tell you why:
1. Evidence is strong that Communist Kennedy-hater Lee Harvey Oswald started work at the Texas School Book Depository long before it was known that Kennedy would be driving past. On the fateful day, Kennedy did not take the usual route for a Preisdent visiting Dallas, so Oswald could not have possibly taken that job hoping Kennedy would drive past.
2. Evidence is strong that Oswald shot from his workplace, at the Presdent, at a distance and with a weapon that one could reasonably expect to kill the President. And then the President died.
3. After the President's death, vast numbers of liberals just could not accept that a Communist, whether acting alone or with a moderate amount of Cuban government help, had killed the President. So they tried like defense attorneys to poke holes in the case against Oswald. Most of these conspiracy theorist just cannot accept that the Communist threat was real, so that had to look for holes in the obvious explanation for Kennedy's death.
As a conservative, it is easy for me to believe that this assasination was a communist hit. Then I read the story of Oswald's life, and it all comes together. The liberals don't want to believe the truth about what communism did at Daly Plaza. And a few conservatives have been taken in by an anti-government gloss being put on an essentially liberal attempt to blur the motive for Kennedy's death. Kennedy was killed because he asked us to "bear any burden" in fighting the ideology to which Mr. Osward and millions of other evil ones were committed (and, in North Korea, are committed. This is what should be remembered first when one remembers the Kennedy assasination.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.