I directed you to an extensive resource with all the arguments that you need to realize that Posner is intellectually dishonest. I never used personal attacks and insults.

I think most people would agree that if somone swallows and unquestions such garbage as manufactured evidence, manufactured testimony, quote splicing (Posner often takes the words of individuals and splices them together ignoring the fact that they were said years apart), and plainly ignoring contrary evidence when they do not fit his theories is "not committed to the truth" and is guilty of being a parrot. No?

I suggested a resource that demonstrates how fraudent the man is. Insults and personal attacks? Nowhere to be found, brother.

Here is another response to Posner: http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id81.htm

Here is a partial response the the sham ABC special.

1. Oswald was presented as a disgruntled Marxist who fled to Russia.

ABC did not even examine Oswald's military records in regards to his involvement with Naval Intelligence and their linguistic operations. They did not note the discrepancies between Oswald's pay status and the pay status of lower-ranking soldiers (as Oswald was inaccurately painted). Oswald may have have studied Marxist literature in high school (he was an intelligent individual who accelled in political theory), but there is no evidence whatsoever that he maintained such a leaning into his military career. ABC did not examine the amount of money Oswald mysteriously received when returning to the United States after his supposed-defection.

2. Oswald was presented as a excellent marksman.

Only partially true. Right after training, Oswald did excel at sharp-shooting and scored high on his first examination. However, all of the subsequent examinations showed his skill level continually dropped as his military direction went further into language and communications. Oswald failed his last examinations; see his military files. Furthermore, Oswald was never trained to shoot a bolt-action rifle; firearms of that kind had become quite obselete following their miserable failure during World War II. The rifles that Oswald used were much higher quality and much more user-friendly.

3. The old man demonstrated that he could fire a bolt-action rifle three times in less than seven seconds.

A flawed depiction on the part of ABC and the old man. As anyone who has used a scope on a rifle knows, it takes time to line up a target in the cross-hairs. The old man simply picked up the rifle, loaded the chamber, briefly looked into the scope, and then fired and repeated three times. Anyone can do that in seven seconds. The real test would be using the exact same MC rifle that Oswald supposedly used (as well as the defective bullets and scope) loading the chamber, lining up the target in the scope, and firing at a moving target and then repeating this three times in less than seven seconds (and hitting at the very least two of the three shots). Such an exact reproduction has never been achieved. The House-Senate Select Committee on Assassinations in the late 1970s also demonstrated the inferior quality of the bullets supposedly used by Oswald - on average, they failed to fire over 50% of the time.

4. ABC showed a well-known film footage of a Kennedy associate officially anouncing his death. The full-length footage shows the associate saying that "Kennedy was shot in the brain." He then firmly pointed to his right temple as to indicate where he had seen the where Kennedy was shot. ABC edited this out to help mold their case.

5. Oswald was presented as a crazed and desparate individual who wanted to make a mark on history. Oswald supposedly wanted to be a hero. If that is so, then why did Oswald 100% deny that he killed Kennedy? If he was so hellbent on being a historical hero, then why didnt he stand up and proclaim his good deed?

6. ABC presented the Tippett shooting as being from the gun of Oswald. Eye witness reports show that there were two men who shot the officer. The forensic evidence fits in with that - two different types of shells made by two different manufacturers were found on the scene. ABC said Oswald probably dropped the shells on purpose to throw off the investigation. But how likely is that? The murder of the officer seems highly spontaneous - how would have Oswald known to bring with him several spent revolver shells (especially of a type of gun that he never owned)?

7. The backyard photos of Oswald were showed over and over by ABC, but they never questioned nor reviewed their history. ABC presented these photos as soft evidence that Oswald was a crazed militant, but they never let us know that the HSCA proved these photos to be doctored. Here is the exact report: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/photos.txt

8. ABC presented the supposed-autopsy photos as evidence that the exit wounds were not in the back of the head. These are the same photos that have been demonstrated to be either doctored or pictures of a touched up corpse using morticians wax and makeup. These photographs were taken after the body had been violently kidnapped by the Federal authorities at gun-point and taken to Maryland. The doctors and nurses and administration associates at Parkland Hospital in Dallas all describe the back of the head as being totally blown out and an entrance wound in the front. Why the discrepancy between the two reports?

9. ABC said that Oswald's prints had been found on the MC rifle. Only partially true. Two finger print tests had been performed; the first, conducted by Dallas authorities, there were no finger prints. The second test performed the FBI found prints. Note, that the second tests were taken after Oswald had been killed and his body was in the morgue.

10. ABC left out the fact that no gun powder residue had been found on Oswald's face. Whenever an individual fires a gun (especially a scope-sighted rifle), there is always residue on the face.

11. ABC presented Stone's film JFK as the eptiome of all those who question the Warren Report. Most assassination researchers totally discredit the film as nothing more than the creation of dramatic license; only passive theorists put any stock into that garbage. ABC built up JFK as the sum of theorists ideas and research and then quickly ripped it apart. Classic strawman.

Interesting perspective. I wonder, if bolt action rifles are such miserable failures, why does the Marine Sniper Unit, argueably one of the top long range shooting units in the wrold, still use bolt-action rifles?

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

Suffice it to say that whatever the merits of your other arguments here, your rifle related arguments are way off. Bolt action rifles are in fact quite easy to use, and would require no special training. They are highly reliable, and inherently accurate. In the early 60s most of the major powers had just gone over to SLRs. There are still applications where the bolt action is preferred over auto-loaders, mainly for snipers. Even a mediocre rifleman could have made the shot.

__________________
The pavement is evil, and it must be punished.

So the Marine Sniper Units use Mannlicher-Carcano rifles that were used in WWII but then later abandoned because of their utter unreliability and sold wholesale for $3 a piece during the 1950s and 1960s? Dont think so. My apologies if I made it seem like all bolt-action rifles are inferior firearms; I was speaking specifically of the Mannlicher-Carcano that was found in the TSBD - the supposed murder weapon.

I used to think the Mafia was behind the assassination based on a book I read about Sam Giancana and how JFK's dad screwed them but I never really came across supporting evidence. Unless the government is somehow involved (which I seriously doubt) there's no reason for them to cover-up anything .. I voted "no conspiracy"

Your sarcasm is appriciated. The Mannlicher-Carcano was a perfectly servicable rifle and was considered good enough for the Italian army from 1891 until the end of WWII. The action was essentially a copy of the Mauser, and the Magazine system was copied frim the Austrian Mannlicher rifle. The 6.5mm round was considered a bit underpowered compared to the 8mm Mauser and .30-06, but had more than enough power to ruin your day. It was also noted to have good accuracy, though that was hardly an issue at less than 100 yards. The fact that Oswald was not trained on that particular rifle in the military is not an issue either. That is like saying that someone would not know how to drive a Honda Civic because they used Ford Escorts at the driving school. None of this proves or disproves a conspiricy, but Oswald could have easily made that shot

__________________
The pavement is evil, and it must be punished.

There are many reports of their failure during WWII - hence their discontinued status. Furthermore, the particular rifle that was found at the TSBD was not in good shape itself; the scope was totally out of alignment and shims had to be installed under the scope by the FBI and other investigators in order to even begin to test the rifle. Also interesting to note, the sling found on the rifle was not a standard rifle sling - it was for a camera or some sort of musical instrument and was too short to be used correctly. The ammunition used was also junk - check out the HSCA report; they were a miserable failure.

Parafin tests for residue were taken - none were found on Oswald's face. Prints were only found after Oswald's death and after he was left in the morgue.

Nope.

Even if the shots came from that location, that does not mean that Oswald was the shooter. If Oswald was the lone shooter, then explain the presence of Mac Wallace's fingerprint in the sniper's nest.

I can not speak of the condition of that particular rifle. But even if it were old and warn out it could have made the shot. The type of scope mount on Oswald's rifle allowed the use of the iron sights, which would have been preferable for such a close range shot anyway.

I think the most significant thing about the rifle is that it would not have been admissable as evidence anyway. There were several breaks in the chain of custody of the rifle, and the pistol that was alledged to be used in the Tippet shooting. Possible conspiricies aside, a lot of legal experts have stated that they would not have been able to get a conviction on Oswald.

Has anyone even proposed the possibility that Oswald acted alone but that the government formed a conspiricy to kill him using a low lever mob figure (who was dying of cancer anyway) so that they would not have to deal with the embarrasment of seeing Oswald walk?

__________________
The pavement is evil, and it must be punished.

I doubt it. Most conspiracy evidence is nto really evidence at all once you look more closely at it. It has been tested and proven many times that not only could Oswald have easily made that shot, he in fact did. Also, and eyewitness saying that Kennedy was shot in the right temple means nothing, since often eyewitness accounts are incorrect. Not to mention that it would be difficult to distinguish where a man was shot when half his head is blown off.

All bolt-action rifles were "discontinued" after WW2. That was because they were obsolete, replaced by semi-automatic rifles such as the M-1 Garand and (increasingly) by the new generation of "assault rifles". (the SKS, AK-47 and M-16). Even the British Short Model Lee-Enfield (SMLE), universally regarded as the finest bolt-action rifle ever made was dropped after WW2. That didn't change the fact that the rifle had served extraordinarily well throughout WW1 and WW2. Suggesting that bolt-action rifles were miserable failures is just plain ludicrous.

As to the Mannlicher-Caracano, I would point out that its 6.5 x 52 millimeter round is comparable with most modern military rifle rounds. At 100 meters, it has an impact energy of 2,160 joules as opposed to 1,367 joules for the 5.56 x 45 as used by the M-16, 1,592 joules for the 7.62 x 39 used by the AK-47, 1,292 joules for the Soviet 5.45 x 39 and 2,920 joules for the 7.62 x 51. Thus, although less powerful than the full-powered 7.62 NATO, its actually got more ooommmpph than any other modern military rifle cartidge.

Interestingly, the 6.5 x 52 is still in production whereas most rounds of its era are not. That suggests there is a lot of demand for it - ie a lot of the old Mannlicher Caracano rifles are still being fired regularly. Not bad for a weapon 60 years after it was withdrawn.

On accuracy. You don't seem to understand that 88 yards is point blank range for a rifle. Its doable for a handgun but easy for a rifle. I took an English friend of mine onto a range not long ago and within an afternoon he was getting head-sized groups on the target using both an SKS and an AR-15 using iron sights. Lee Harvey Oswald didn't have to be a good shot to do the job, he had to be better than utterly incompetent.

Oh, and operating the bolt in the time frame? Tried it last night with a Mannlicher action rifle. No problem.

Time for the Gmann to weigh in.

Oswald was shooting at a target less than 100 yards away. Not really a challenge for anyone who has any rifle training.

The seven seconds start when the trigger is pulled for the first shot. This would only be repeated twice since the first shot starts the time clock. 3 1/2 seconds for the each of the next two is not too difficult, especially when aiming at something that is less than 100 yards away.

This may be percieved as "nitpicking" but most people when refering to the brain do not usually point to the back of their heads, their finger goes up to the temple area because it is easier to reach.

The History Channel recently ran the documentary "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" they talked to a man who saw the Ofc. Tibbets killing, and he identified Oswald as the shooter. He did not mention that there was more person involved, only Lee H.

Watch the Zapruder film. The front of JFK's head is the part that flies apart, not the back. Gunshot wounds that involve rifles usually have entry and exit wounds. The exit wound is much larger than the entrance wound, so unless JFK was shot with a funnel...

Oliver Stone is a movie maker. He makes a living telling stories. JFK was not a documentary. The main flaw in a FBI/CIA/Mafia/Soviet/Cuban/ God knows who else conspiricy is simply this: If you have too many people involved, someone is going to squeal. So far, not even a credible oink. As far as I'm concerned, Oswald did the shooting. Did he have help? Good question. Answer! :-k

__________________
Those who repeat History are doomed to learn it.

Thanks Stuart. I do not think there was a conspiricy. Maybe there was, but I have not seen any solid proof, just a lot of speculation. the argument that Oswald could not have made the shot is bogus, so if you want to prove a conspiricy you have to look elsewhere.

__________________
The pavement is evil, and it must be punished.

Possible. Certainly, if you're going to posit that Ruby was sent to kill Oswald as part of a conspiracy you have to deal with the fact that he was late. His transfer was delayed by something like 4 minutes (if I remember from the documentary; this ABC one sounds the same as the one we had on BBC2 in the UK on Sunday), and Ruby only had to wait less than a minute to get his shot in. The documentary claims that this was Oswald stalling; any conspiracy then requires the complicity of the people doing the transfer in delaying while Ruby got there, and then shifting the reasons for the delay to avoid suspicion.

I say coincidence, however.

Just a thought. Occom's razor would have me accept that he was a dying loser that decided he wanted his 15 minutes of fame.

Is there anyone out there who does not agree that the investigation was a disaster?

__________________
The pavement is evil, and it must be punished.

No problem - its useful having the ballistic data of every type of cartridge ever made sitting on my desk - even down to the 2.7 x 6 millimeter Lilliput. Now, if somebody had claimed LHO had used that, we'd have a problem.

By the way, I made a mistake in my extemporized test last. I started from bolt-closed, three rounds in magazine. So the 7-second cycle went workbolt-acquire-fire-workbolt-acquire-fire-workbolt-acquire-fire-. Seven seconds, all three shots in the head. Range was only 60 yards not 88 though - but I was using 8 millimeter Lebel, not 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano (the 8 millimeter Frnech round is only just over 2,400 joules at 100 meters - again, making the M-C round look a lot less shabby.

If anybody wants to do some "testing" themselves on a local range, the 6.5 x 52 ammunition is available from Cascade at US$38.50 for 20 rounds. The going cost for an M-C rifle is around US$740.

I believe that the sloppieness of the Warren Commission report is what fed the woo-woo's in the first place. Imagine the pressure put on these people. They had to investigate the biggest crime in years. Couple that with the fact that forensics was not the science that it is today. George Noory talked with a pair of folks who put together a Court TV production based on todays forensics applied to the evidence that is availiable, and it showed that Oswald was the shooter, did he have help? They did not rule it out, but they had also had no reasonto believe that there was anyone helping him. I did not see the ABC production, but it sounds a lot like the one these guys were talking about. There are a lot stories from "witnesses", but I wonder how many of these people are really telling the truth. Conspiricy Theories do have a beginning, but no discernable end.

__________________
Those who repeat History are doomed to learn it.

The Warren commision did not have a lot of good evidence to work from. When I was taught how to conduct an investigation one of the first things I was told was to secure all evidence and maintain a chain of custody. I was also instructed that one person form one agence needed to be put in charge and any help from outside agencies had to be properly coordinated. I remember one of the witnesses saying that it had to be a conspiricy because they would not let her talk to her husband until after she had given her statment. this is normal. The husband was also a witness. You never interview two witnesses at the same time, they tend to contaminate each other. So at least hey did that right. An experienced investigator would not get suspicious if witness testimony was all different on details. They get suspicious if all of the details are exactly the same. People's memories and perceptions are faliable. If they all tell the exact same story, then you can start thinking about a conspiricy.

__________________
The pavement is evil, and it must be punished.

Like any conspiracy, you can get bogged down in 'evidence'. I don't think anyone would argue that the Warren Commission conducted a complete or even credible investigation.
However, like most conspiracy theories, they lack a reasonable impetus to even drive it. What would be the point of killing Kennedy?
In reality, he did very little in office. The Cuba thing is propaganda, we removed missiles from Turkey, so it's not that we 'backed down' the Ruskies like they tried to spin it. Not to mention the debacle at the Bay of Pigs.
JFK didn't really accomplish much. The moon speech was nice and all, but the space race was largely a propaganda tool during his tour. Civil rights were championed far more by Johnson and Nixon than Kennedy (rich elitist clan, hmmm go figure).
So my question, even before getting into the details of the investigation, is WHY would there be a conspiracy to kill JFK? Foreign powers obviously might have a reason, but that's awful risky. Anything less than a perfect crime may lead back to the host nations...and nuclear retaliation at a time when it seemed like everyone had a hand on the button.
Conspiracy from within? Again, why? Who is going to benefit? Oliver Stone made it out to be war mongering powers like Johnson looking to expand Vietnam to a full scale war. But that's dumb. Johnson himself had no love for the war, and showed it by off again/on again bombing. "Vietnamization" came about under Johnson. In fact, Lyndon seemed much more eager for talks to end the war than inflaming it.
So I've yet to see a case as to WHY there would be a conspiracy and assassination.

Besides that, having grown up in New England, I've heard more than enough about this self righteous, elitist (the only blacks near Kennedys are carrying golf clubs for them) clan. I watched the Kennedy worship in Mass nearly destroy the state. Heard all about this legendary president that got killed- but yet can't find much that he actually accomplished. Frankly, I'm less than impressed with the family name, don't see much value from JFK, and don't see any reason for a conspiracy.
OT, I know, but I fear anyone from Mass running for president. Growing up on the border of NH/MA, I can tell you it just made me all that more happy to be from NH!

Ah yes, Mass. A states that has never fained to elect a Kennedy no matter how many people he kills or how drunk he gets.

__________________
The pavement is evil, and it must be punished.

Must admit I'm a fan of "JFK" as a movie, and I've been interested to learn how factual it is since first seeing it. This documentary was an interesting counterpoint.

I've just read through that report and it seems to me that their overwhelming conclusion is that the photos weren't doctored. Can you point out the paragraph(s) that support your interpretation?

The main questions I have are:

1. Is it true that wound on the back of JFK's head was larger than that on the forehead? If so, does this not suggest that the former was an exit wound?

2. The 'non-conspiratorial' explanations for each of the three bullets fired, as I understand it, are: shot 1 missed; shot 2 passed through Kennedy's back and neck and through Connely's torso, and shot 3 caused Kennedy's head wounds. I can't recall the documentary linking shot 2 with Connelly's wrist and neck wound, am I mistaken? And, either way, the JFK movie alleged that a man some distance from the car was hit by shrapnel from a stray shot (distinct from shot 1) - was this pure fabrication?

Speaking as someone who has lived in Massachusetts his whole life, I'd appreciate it if you didn't consider all of us blind Kennedy-worshippers. We're not.

(edited to correct typo)

__________________
I am the terror that flaps in the night...
Arcadia Prime - Battle Reports and more from the 41st millenium
Evidence of my nerdiness: My YouTube Video: Far Away

You might find this helpful.

The conclusion of which is (and I quote exactly via the wonderful world of cut-and-paste).

"The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials."

It appears that Xochitl's alleged "source" flatly contradicts the statements he made. It would be interesting to hear his explanation. Or is he just another conspiracy woo-woo

Clearly, there WAS an assassination. You're not disputing that, are you?

If Oswald discussed his plan to assassinate Kennedy with his wife and she took no action to prevent him from carrying it out, then that's a conspiracy. It takes just two people to make a conspiracy.

Clearly Oswald (if he was the killer) had some reason to kill Kennedy. Whatever that reason was, it may have been one he shared with some other nut. A conspiracy need not involve the Mafia, the government, the CIA, the FBI or whatever.

__________________
- Learn a lot teaching others.

A plot to kill JFK is a conspiracy if there are two or more plotters.

So there may after all have been a conspiracy - just, Oswald wasn't part of it!

__________________
- Learn a lot teaching others.

Just out of curiosity, did the intelligence services have any intelligence or prior warning that Kennedy's life might be at risk if he took part in an open-topped cavalcade in Dallas?

__________________
- Learn a lot teaching others.

A friend of mine had an interesting theory along those lines. He believed there was a Mob conspiracy to whack JFK and a killer was hired to do it. He was lining up for his shot when Oswald got in first. This, of course, meant he wouldn't get paid so he told his bosses that he'd done it but set that loser LHO up to take the fall. Of course, this meant that LHO couldn't go on trial because the case against him was fairly weak - so the killer did a deal with Ruby (who already knew he was dying of cancer) by which Ruby whacked LHO and the Mob looked after Ruby's family.

Why did the Mob want JFK dead? The idea that the top people (the Commission) were involved doesn't hold water - there is no hint that anybody who would have known, did (chief amongst whom was Meyer Lansky - if Meyer Lansky didn't approve of it, it didn't happen). But how about the second Tier? People like Sam Giancana and Carlos Marcello? They wanted up but the Commission blocked the way. Its known that there was a meeting between Joseph P Kennedy and his Mob pals - suppose there was a failure to communicate? Joseph P walks away thinking "my old pals are going to help my boy" and the Mob guys walk away thinking "He promised that if we got his boy in, he'll use the justice Department to take down the Commission and let us take over."

They hand Chicago (and thus Illinois) over to the Democrats, JFK gets in, the Second Tier Mob call to collect and get shown the door. So they whack JFK.

Weird and contorted but no worse than any of the other conspiracy theories.

Exactly! This has always been more or less my contention.


I agree with what you said, in fact that was more or less what I was trying to say. What my main point was, it was not a conspirator's bullet that killed him.

What I found amusing about the documentary (which aired on BBC2 last week) was the part where someone mentioned the shot from the grassy knoll. "Two shooters at the scene equals a conspiracy."

Well, I admit to knowing very little about the subject, but doesn't that seem like a REALLY good reason for any conspirators to only use ONE gunman?!

__________________
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views." The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Face of Evil.