Again, you are applying today's standards to line-ups conducted over 40 years ago. Further, even had the Dallas police attempted to fake cuts and bruises, you and other conspiracists would likely claim that the faking was imperfect, and that that fact made it obvious to the witnesses that the other men were decoys. The point is, no line-up can ever be absolutely perfect; therefore, the questions to be considered are a) by the standards of that jurisdiction at that time, were the line-ups reasonably fair? and b) what are the chances that the imperfections actually caused all the witnesses to misidentify Oswald?

What is common sense now was still common sense 40 or more years ago. And most of today's standard lineup procedures are nothing more than writing down on paper the standard practices for conducting a lineup as unbiased and impartially as possible. More on that later.

What myself or "other conspiracists would likely claim" is a straw man argument, period.

I haven't uncovered Texas Criminal Code procedures for that time as yet, so I don't know what was standard practice for lineups, if it existed. But I don't see how it would have been considered a "reasonably fair" lineup procedure in Dallas, or Texas, or any other state, whether in 1963, 1943, or 1923.

...I disagree with your calculations based on invalid lineups and prejudicial witness selections

You can disagree all you want, but the calculation is correct. Should you continue to disagree, I'll provide a detailed explanation of why it is correct, and I'll get some other people here to back me up.

I actually agree with two basic points you make here. First, that your so-called "less-than-perfect" lineups are indeed adequate to raise reasonable doubt.

No one would be expected to doubt that you do agree with that, so why bother to mention it?

But I still prefer to call them "tainted" lineups, or if I'm being generous..."far-from-perfect".

You are free to call them whatever you choose, but it's clear from your use of the word "tainted" that you are attempting to characterize the line-ups as deliberately unfair, thus implying the existence of a conspiracy, or at a minimum a rush to judgement. In fact, the line-ups were conducted following the normal procedures for the Dallas Police Department at that time.

And, I concur that it is not "proof of a vast government conspiracy". By itself, this point- or nearly any other single point raised - does not prove or disprove a conspiracy. A case being made either way does not rest upon isolating one detail from everything else that supports the case as a whole.

Yes, however, you have repeatedly manifested a lack of understanding of the burden of proof in a conspiracy case. As Jay has pointed out, because of the impossibility of proving that a conspiracy doesn't exist, we must assume the lack of a conspiracy and require proof that one does exist. Therefore, as I have pointed out before, claiming that some of the evidence is ambiguous ("Oswald might have shot Tippit, or he might not have") does not help your case, except insofar as the claim may prevent one or more aspects of that case from being utterly destroyed. For example, incontrovertible evidence that Oswald did shoot Tippit would clearly prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald was somehow involved in Kennedy's assassination, which would destroy your claim that Oswald wasn't involved.

Well, turbonium, the original source is the Warren report; however, this is discussed in the same article from which you took the out-of-context quote that suggested the Davis sisters lied about not having seen Oswald on television before the line-up. Yet again, it appears that you didn't read one of your own sources carefully, but merely skimmed it for factoids with which you might attempt to bolster your case. In other words, you use factoids "the way a drunk uses lamp posts--for support, rather than illumination." (attributed to writer Andrew Lang)

Finally, I renew my request that you cease arguing peripheral points until you have addressed my earlier questions, starting with the issue of why anyone should take you or your "rational analysis" seriously.

[edit: typos]

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

What is common sense now was still common sense 40 or more years ago. And most of today's standard lineup procedures are nothing more than writing down on paper the standard practices for conducting a lineup as unbiased and impartially as possible. More on that later.

The document you linked earlier is from a training manual designed to complement the research report Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement, which was published in 1999.

From the first page of the report:

From a paper written by three of the authors of the report, which was published in 2003.

Please explain how "decades of social science research" is equivalent to "common sense 40 or more years ago," and how a comprehensive report authored by a group of 34 experts is equivalent to "nothing more than writing down on paper the standard practices for conducting a lineup as unbiased and impartially as possible."

What myself or "other conspiracists would likely claim" is a straw man argument, period.

No. It is a prediction based on numerous observations of the actions of conspiracists such as yourself, and I stand by it.

I haven't uncovered Texas Criminal Code procedures for that time as yet, so I don't know what was standard practice for lineups, if it existed.

I seriously doubt that this was codified at the time.

But I don't see how it would have been considered a "reasonably fair" lineup procedure in Dallas, or Texas, or any other state, whether in 1963, 1943, or 1923.

Now, turbonium, if, as you contend, the lineups were so unfair by the standards of the time, why did the Chief Justice of the United States, who only two years later would write the Supreme Court's landmark Miranda decision protecting the rights of suspects in police custody, acquiesce in this wording of the report?? Also, your opinion on legal matters has frankly been conclusively demonstrated to be non-credible.

[edit: publication year of report]

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

More deliberate obtuseness--I meant that Oswald was to blame for complaining during the line-up, and thus giving himself away as the suspect. He could have complained later.

Come on. Oswald complained from the very first lineup. If the cops wanted to make the change, they would have done it after only one lineup. So at most he gets id'ed by Witness #1 - either for causing a ruckus or for sticking out for his shabby appearance. Nipped in the bud, end of problem. And he certainly isn't to blame because no proper adjustments were immediately made by the police for all the subsequent lineups!!

Oswald complained about being paraded with teenagers during the fourth lineup--not the first. That's also from your own source.

And you've still given no reason why he couldn't have complained after the lineup.

Yet again, I renew my request that you address my previous questions and stop arguing peripheral issues until you have done so.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

I just noticed that although the calculation is correct, I wrote the formula incorrectly. The probablility of six false positive identifications is 0.8^6, or about 26%. I inadvertently wrote 1 - 0.8^6, which would be the chance that at least one person would correctly claim that Oswald was not the shooter, if he were not. My apologies if that is what confused you.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

I'm repeating the part of Spiff's original post about his JFK beliefs here.

The claim that Kennedy was planning to abolish the CIA evidently appears in a book by "Colonel" Donn Grand Pre. Some sources claim he's a retired US Army colonel, some a retired US Marine colonel, and one a US Air Force colonel, which is why I put the rank in quotations. Grand Pre is definitely a hard-core September 11 conspiracist, but from what I gather, he has written a series of books basically claiming that everything is a conspiracy. I couldn't find much direct information about his views on the JFK assassination, except for a quotation in which he makes the claim about the CIA. The quotation references another book, an advertisement for which contains the above quotation.

Therefore, in short, there is no credible evidence that Kennedy was planning to disband the CIA.

May I ask why, specifically, you find it "hard to believe" that Oswald could have carried out the assassination by himself? Oswald was trained to shoot in the US Marine Corps, and his qualification scores with a rifle were about average. Kennedy's limousine was moving slowly away from Oswald, with minimal apparent motion of the target. All three shots were fired well within the effective engagement range for the Mannlicher-Carcano carbine.

As for the continuing controversy, there are two major issues. The first issue is the fact that the autopsy was completely mishandled. Kennedy's body should have been autopsied in Dallas, by the county coroner. However, for perfectly understandable but misguided reasons of emotion, the Secret Service chose to return Kennedy's body to Air Force One and fly back to Washington, along with the Presidential party, as quickly as possible, in violation of Texas law. The choice of where to have the autopsy performed was, again for understandable but misguided reasons, left to Jackie Kennedy. She chose Bethesda Naval Hospital because of JFK's naval service. The pathologists there were inexperienced in gunshot autopsies, and, undoubtedly for reasons of pride, the Navy declined to engage a qualified civilian forensic pathologist, though they did call in Army Colonel Pierre Finck, who had had some experience (though not recent) in homicide autopsies. On top of this, there was tremendous pressure to complete the autopsy quickly, and to further damage Kennedy's body as little as possible. Therefore, the autopsy was far from thorough.

The second issue is that the Warren Commission made several mistakes in its work, which has left the door open to charges that its conclusions are inaccurate.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

The disbanding of the CIA was something I had read a couple of times and heard a couple of times so I by no means have evidence of that either.

As far as Oswald goes everything I've ever heard about him indicates that he was not exactly a stable personality. And this was the president of the US who usualy has an extreme amount of security. I've just always thought it was a pretty expertly executed assasination for Oswald to have doen it himself.

It requires a not so stable personality to decide to go out and kill the president of course.

And as a matter of fact, killing somebody from a crowd is not so hard. Security can't really help that. It's sad of course, but you can't go and check everyone everywhere for guns and the like.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

As I recall, Kennedy himself, decided to travel in an open car. No amount of security is going to protect you from a guy with a rifle in that circumstance.

__________________
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story, people want to be entertained.

Not too much expertise needed really. All that is needed is the will and the means. And all the security in the world doesn't mean that you're not going to get shot at by someone.

Look at other assasination atempts. Regan was shot at almost point blank range, Ford lucked out because of a misfire. All Oswald needed was rifle and a clear shot. Which he had. It was no secret either what path Kennedy was taking on his tour.

__________________
"The universe is driven by the complex interaction between three ingredients: matter, energy, and enlightened self-interest." - G'Kar

The disbanding of the CIA was something I had read a couple of times and heard a couple of times so I by no means have evidence of that either.

From what I've been able to determine, this idea originated either with Grand Pre or with Michael Collins Piper, whose book Grand Pre cites as a source. It seems to have been repeated by a few particularly cranky conspiracist web sites. You will find that most conspiracists simply parrot the claims of others, without bothering to investigate either the claims' validity, or the credibility of the sources.

As far as Oswald goes everything I've ever heard about him indicates that he was not exactly a stable personality.

This goes for every Presidential assassin and would-be assassin in the history of the United States, with the possible exception of John Wilkes Booth (though I would argue that it also applies to him).

And this was the president of the US who usualy has an extreme amount of security.

Your expectations are likely colored by your perceptions of more modern levels of Presidential security, Many regulations, procedures, and training standards changed after Kennedy's assassination, including a major expansion of the Secret Service's White House detail.

I've just always thought it was a pretty expertly executed assasination for Oswald to have doen it himself.

This was discussed earlier in this thread. As mentioned, Oswald was a fully qualified as a Marine rifleman, and his shooting has been successfully reenacted numerous times.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

Didn't the Warren commission also find there was no policy for searching buildings, roofs and windows along the route. Also, the route chosen had been printed in the paper making it easier for Oswald.

__________________
Hanlon's Razor - "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Asimov's addition - "Or ignorance."

"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
-- Charles Babbage

As I recall, Kennedy himself, decided to travel in an open car.

The Presidential limousine had a bubble top, but its purpose was to protect against the weather, rather than small-arms fire (though obviously it would have been better than nothing).

No amount of security is going to protect you from a guy with a rifle in that circumstance.

Not true.

From the Warren Report, Chapter 8:

From the HSCA Report, Section I, Part D:

Had even one police officer been assigned specifically to watch the Depository building, he would undoubtedly have spotted Oswald no later than the first shot's being fired, and likely earlier, which could well have led to the following scenario:

One second before the first shot, the officer notices some movement at the sixth-floor corner window and focuses his attention on it, just in time to see Oswald fire. The first shot misses, due to striking a tree branch. The officer immediately draws his pistol and aims at the window. Seeing this, Assistant to the Special Agent in Charge Thomas Johns, in the Vice-Presidential follow-up car, immediately calls over the radio, "Sniper! Right rear!" In response to this, Special Agent Kellerman, in the Presidential limousine, orders the driver to take evasive action. Special Agent Greer steps on the accelerator just as Oswald's second shot strikes Kennedy's back, passes through his throat, and wounds Governor Connally. Simultaneously, the police officer opens fire on Oswald. Although none of the officer's shots hits Oswald, due to the distance and the cover provided by the building wall, Oswald is struck by fragments of glass from the window and splinters from the window frame. This distraction, plus Greer's evasive action, cause Oswald's third shot to miss. The motorcade speeds to Parkland Hospital, where doctors are able to save the lives of both Kennedy and Connally.

Knowing exactly where the shots came from, police officers immediately converge on the Depository building and secure all of the exits. With fresh cuts and splinters providing incontrovertible evidence of his guilt, Oswald is immediately arrested. He is quickly convicted and sentenced to life in prison, where he's still rotting today in the geriatric block. And all of the JFK conspiracists are out of a job.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

No, Oswald wasn't very stable, but his particular instabilities make him a more likely assassin than someone with a clean bill of mental health.

Oswald had a deep-seated need to be the center of attention. His life is full of examples of his expressing that need--certainly being an open Marxist in a Marine barracks in, what, the late 50s wouldn't make you a lot of friends, but it would make you noticed.

After his rejection by the Soviet Union (he wanted to be a hero; he could be some schmo in an electronics factory just fine in the US), he transferred that hero-worship to Cuba instead. Castro implied that Kennedy should be held accountable in a pretty permanent way for the many failed assassination attempts on him by the CIA, and Oswald took that to heart.

In some ways, the greatest punishment Oswald could have ever had was being considered too pathetic to accomplish anything; it's the only benefit I see to his own death and subsequent treatment by the CTs.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

In some ways, the greatest punishment Oswald could have ever had was being considered too pathetic to accomplish anything; it's the only benefit I see to his own death and subsequent treatment by the CTs.

Actually this is oneof the things I find the funniest about CTs. Oswald would have hated the idea that his accomplishment was taken from him and he was turned into a patsy who was worth the time of day, and I'm pretty sure OBL would be fumming if everyone really thought that the US Govt had done 911. Here these guys pull off the coup of a lifetime, and (if the CT's had their way) no one believes it.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

What I was refering to by Oswalds mental instability was that it seems to me that an assassination of the president would require a pretty stable thought process and if he were too unstable he might not be able to plan something like this on his own.

I have been reading through this thread although I admit I haven't read it all, I got through the 3rd page I think and I have come to the conclusion that the lone gunman therory is the most likely case given the evidence availible and all of the testing and analizing that has gone on.

However I think most of you will admit that a conspiracy could have been possible and it's exactly the kind of thing I would expect from the kind of wheeling, dealing under the table atmosphere that exsists in washington even today.
I suppose I just assumed that there was a conspiracy based on my cynical opinion of most politicians.

So am I a convert to the no conspiracy camp? Yes I suppose so, Evidence gathered and analized by more patient people than me has convinced me. At least in this case. It's not a big blow really, like I said I was never a real diehard fan of the CT about JFK. It just seemed like there were alot of conflicting things about it that made me think there was some validity to the conspiracy. I do however maintain that goverment conspiracies are a very real possibility given the amount of secrecy they demand. Some of that secrecy is I admit nessaccery but not all.

I might agree about Oswald's ability to plan it except for the fact that he worked in that building. He had all the time in the world to think about how he would go about shooting out that window at the targets he peceived to be causing all his problems ala Charles Whitman. And then Kennedy's route just happen to go right by there and fate had given him a chance for the fame he wanted, right outside his work place.
Serial killers function in society until they get caught. People might not like to be around them but usually have no idea that so and so is a serial killer. Oswald was probably more stable than them.
One thing is for sure, it would have been better if he'd got to stand trial.

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

To Spitfire(I love your avitar by the way) You have devoted ALOT of time and effort in debunking Turboniums claims. Way more time that he deserves I think. Unless of course you enjoy that kind of back and forth debating! I persona;y could not find the time to devote to this kind of thing. Your very detailed and logical arguments are one of the main things that convinced me.

Oh and I dont think your going to convince him even if you dould take him back in time and show him the shooting.

I don't know if it's really official usage, but in my social circle, which is full of mentally ill people of one kind or another, we use "stable" and "functional" differently. Oswald was a lot more functional than he was stable. He couldn't hold a job well, but he could hold one. People thought he was weird, but they weren't immediately inclined to cross the street when they saw him coming. He could more or less get by in society. He could more or less make and carry out plans (see his defection!). The crazy was relatively contained until the moment in which it wasn't.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

To Spitfire(I love your avitar by the way)

Thanks--I'm a tremendous WWII nut and also a tremendous Anglophile, so it seemed a good choice. I also use it on Matrix Games' forum and Paltalk

You have devoted ALOT of time and effort in debunking Turboniums claims.

As I mentioned in a couple of posts, using Turbonium as a verbal punching bag was good therapy for me after some major problems with my former girlfriend, especially when I didn't feel like studying (I didn't do so well in school last semester, but I survived, academically and emotionally).

Way more time that he deserves I think.

When I first engaged him, on the issue of Pearl Harbor conspiracies, he seemed halfway reasonable, so I initially thought he could be made to see reason. How wrong I was.

Unless of course you enjoy that kind of back and forth debating!

I don't enjoy debating turbonium very much, because he will never admit to his mistakes or retract any of his claims, even when they are shown to be erroneous. The only time I enjoy it is when he says something particularly outrageous, and I'm able to land on him with both feet.

I personally could not find the time to devote to this kind of thing. Your very detailed and logical arguments are one of the main things that convinced me.

Then it was all well worth it. It was primarily for the benefit of those like you, and not turbonium's, that I expended.

Oh and I dont think your going to convince him even if you dould take him back in time and show him the shooting.

You've got that right. I'm seriously considering putting him on "ignore" next time he comes back (as are several other people).

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

I don't know about that. He was a man prone to angry outbursts, and beat his wife. Not saying that that makes him any more unstable than a good chunk of Americans, but nonetheless, I wouldn't call him stable.

__________________
There are few left who
Stare at the skies with wonder
Wishing to know more;
The clouds still drift by above
But the eyes below are blind.
--Laura Lundberg

Check out my writing, maybe.

When I first engaged him, on the issue of Pearl Harbor conspiracies, he seemed halfway reasonable, so I initially thought he could be made to see reason. How wrong I was.

I think we have all been there. I've sworn to stop discussions with him several times and he keeps saying things that drag me back.

because he will never admit to his mistakes or retract any of his claims, even when they are shown to be erroneous.

Yup, he just drops it, then restates the exact same argument three months later as if it was never rebuted.

I'm seriously considering putting him on "ignore" next time he comes back (as are several other people).

I have to admit that I haven't managed that yet.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

You have to add the name manually in the Ignore List.
(To be found in the User CP.)
There is no button for it.

__________________
Join the Illuminati

I was meaning that I hadn't added anyone yet, not that I couldn't.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran