A
Anonymous
Guest
Im my own opinion, supplied to me by many others:smokin: , JFK was killed by the Department of Justice and the Federal Reserve!
Trace Mann
Trace Mann
A
Anonymous
Guest
The problem is that Posner fails to convincingly close the case, despite what you've heard and read. Briefly (and by no means exhaustively):
The FAA data used by Posner has been convincingly shown to have been "cut-to-fit", and by a variety of commentators, both among mainstream conspiracy theorists and among skeptics (See "Case Still Open", The Skeptic, Vol.6 No. 4., 1998).
He has been shown to have used a version of the Single Bullet Theory (SBT) developed by Robert Piziali and his FAA team for the prosecution in a mock trial of Oswald at the 1992 Convention of the American Bar Association in San Francisco. Additionally he fails to mention that the FAA also supplied a team to produce data for the defence in that same mock trial, and ignores the fact that the jury in the mock trial -which heard both sets of data- were unable to reach a verdict. But rather than telling us of that, we hear only one side of the case in Case Closed.
Another problem, Posner cites Dr. Michael West's analysis of of his enhancement of frames Z227 to Z229 of the Zapruder film (centred on Gov. Connally and his hat) as showing "positive proof" of "a neurological reaction to physical trauma." But Dr. West is a forensic dentist, not qualified to make that assessment (which was, in fact, plain wrong). Furthermore in 1994 Dr. West was suspended by the American Board of Forensic Odontology because he "had misrepresented evidence and testified outside his field of expertise". This is Posner's conception of a reliable authority?
There are a multitude of similar perfectly reasonable problems with Posner's book. That's why Case Closed fails to shut down the JFK conpiracy. Nothing to do with a conspiracy of conspiracy-theorists. The very idea! :eek!!!!:
The FAA data used by Posner has been convincingly shown to have been "cut-to-fit", and by a variety of commentators, both among mainstream conspiracy theorists and among skeptics (See "Case Still Open", The Skeptic, Vol.6 No. 4., 1998).
He has been shown to have used a version of the Single Bullet Theory (SBT) developed by Robert Piziali and his FAA team for the prosecution in a mock trial of Oswald at the 1992 Convention of the American Bar Association in San Francisco. Additionally he fails to mention that the FAA also supplied a team to produce data for the defence in that same mock trial, and ignores the fact that the jury in the mock trial -which heard both sets of data- were unable to reach a verdict. But rather than telling us of that, we hear only one side of the case in Case Closed.
Another problem, Posner cites Dr. Michael West's analysis of of his enhancement of frames Z227 to Z229 of the Zapruder film (centred on Gov. Connally and his hat) as showing "positive proof" of "a neurological reaction to physical trauma." But Dr. West is a forensic dentist, not qualified to make that assessment (which was, in fact, plain wrong). Furthermore in 1994 Dr. West was suspended by the American Board of Forensic Odontology because he "had misrepresented evidence and testified outside his field of expertise". This is Posner's conception of a reliable authority?
There are a multitude of similar perfectly reasonable problems with Posner's book. That's why Case Closed fails to shut down the JFK conpiracy. Nothing to do with a conspiracy of conspiracy-theorists. The very idea! :eek!!!!:
A
Anonymous
Guest
guess missing evidence, missing defendant, missing ten people around the motorcade, could constitute conspiracy. Why would trained secret service men mess up with the evidece? The Brain, The bulet... they are trained with the strictest guidlines. No secret service member would mistakenly missplace evidence. Not One of them would.
How often do you think Murder victims sit and dine with their muderer, just a handfull of days before the attack?
Jack Ruby and LH Oswald were dining together shortly before the JFK assasination.
Why would the Oswald photos be doctored?
How about when you watch the Zapruder film, ....Why does the driver start turning around just before the bullet's impact? Don't say because he heard the shot....because he would have heard it after the bulets impact.
Was that a gun in his hand?
Conspiracy is what it is. And almost never is it just for the sake of a conspiracy. (Political wag the dog type...campaign trails...and filibustering Excluded...'cause it happens every day)
Conspiracy exists when there are questions that can be answered but are not....
JFK dead.
Oswald DEAD.
Johnson in....
There are way to many questions.
$
How often do you think Murder victims sit and dine with their muderer, just a handfull of days before the attack?
Jack Ruby and LH Oswald were dining together shortly before the JFK assasination.
Why would the Oswald photos be doctored?
How about when you watch the Zapruder film, ....Why does the driver start turning around just before the bullet's impact? Don't say because he heard the shot....because he would have heard it after the bulets impact.
Was that a gun in his hand?
Conspiracy is what it is. And almost never is it just for the sake of a conspiracy. (Political wag the dog type...campaign trails...and filibustering Excluded...'cause it happens every day)
Conspiracy exists when there are questions that can be answered but are not....
JFK dead.
Oswald DEAD.
Johnson in....
There are way to many questions.
$
A
Anonymous
Guest
But the truths ARE the mysteries!!!! While you dance around with your shroud of lies, I beat my face against the harsh cold reality. The things needed to solve the mystery, to get the truth out, are gone. And we will never know.
F
FraterLibre
Guest
Posner's a Poseur
Both.
And I concur with lopaka.
Bilderberger said:
Both.
And I concur with lopaka.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2001
- Messages
- 591
Emperor Zombie said:ok angry man, CALM DOWN! firstly, lets see if you can spot the devils advocates in the above posts....there's two of them, it could be tricky (THAT THERE WAS SARCASM, but I figured you deserved it)
Never angry - just fascinated
. And yes, with hindsight, your sarcasm was deserved as I totally missed the point of your post. Apologies where it is due.To others - I do not feel that Posner has ALL the answers. Just that he does crack through a number of JFK myths that still maintain the public opinion. The "magic bullet" is tricky ground - too technical for me to make a judgement on - best one can do is make a judgement on the nature of the source.
However, the question remains to those who feel the need to totally debunk Posner is why chuck the baby out with the bath water? Posner does, without any doubt, crack through a number of JFK/Oswald myths which demonstrate that the general perception and some (if not much) of the oft vaunted core "evidence" of conspiracy is based on no more than bad research.
EZ puts it quite perfectly - "mysteries endure.....truths become old and forgotten."
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2001
- Messages
- 591
The only point I was trying to make here is that there is a myth about the standard of gun used in connection with why it couldn't be Oswald.
The myth is incorrect and I quoted Posner on the subject - as he does a better job of debunking it than I could do.
It was pointed out that Posner is a bad source and has been totally debunked. Sure, it is not perfect, however I see no reason to doubt him on the section which I quoted. He gets a lot of bad press from people who haven't even read the book (it would be too dirty to even touch!).
Lopaka - with the greatest respect - if the subject "tires" you then why bother posting? I'm not being pissy - just seems a strange thing to write.
The mention of Posner's name does create a remarkable affect.
The myth is incorrect and I quoted Posner on the subject - as he does a better job of debunking it than I could do.
It was pointed out that Posner is a bad source and has been totally debunked. Sure, it is not perfect, however I see no reason to doubt him on the section which I quoted. He gets a lot of bad press from people who haven't even read the book (it would be too dirty to even touch!).
Lopaka - with the greatest respect - if the subject "tires" you then why bother posting? I'm not being pissy - just seems a strange thing to write.
The mention of Posner's name does create a remarkable affect.
F
FraterLibre
Guest
Go Back To Sleep Folks, Nothing Here
Posner's point exactly, yes. Move on, nothing to see here.
Well, bullshit.
The best people of several generations have ended up dead by gunshot and airplane crash and other things, while the worst of us bob to the surface like turds always do.
Why? Because they threatened the money-making potential of the Perpetual War, that's why.
We live in a Kakistocracy thanks to JFK, RFK, MKL, and so many others being swept aside.
Coincidence, yes, I know. No conspiracy, move on, nothing to see here. It's just a coincidence that being labeled a Liberal Democrat shortens your life potential by several decades.
And Posner's explanation of Arlen Specter's idiocy of the Magic Bullet? Masterful.
If slapstick mindless comedy is your thing.
And if it is, hey, Ahnold the Terminator is running for Karl Rove in CA.
Pretty fucking cool, huh, Gerald?
Posner's point exactly, yes. Move on, nothing to see here.
Well, bullshit.
The best people of several generations have ended up dead by gunshot and airplane crash and other things, while the worst of us bob to the surface like turds always do.
Why? Because they threatened the money-making potential of the Perpetual War, that's why.
We live in a Kakistocracy thanks to JFK, RFK, MKL, and so many others being swept aside.
Coincidence, yes, I know. No conspiracy, move on, nothing to see here. It's just a coincidence that being labeled a Liberal Democrat shortens your life potential by several decades.
And Posner's explanation of Arlen Specter's idiocy of the Magic Bullet? Masterful.
If slapstick mindless comedy is your thing.
And if it is, hey, Ahnold the Terminator is running for Karl Rove in CA.
Pretty fucking cool, huh, Gerald?
F
FraterLibre
Guest
Legal Term
Fruit from the Poison Tree.
That's why Posner cannot be believed.
Look into his backers and who arranged the book for him, etc.
Fruit from the Poison Tree.
That's why Posner cannot be believed.
Look into his backers and who arranged the book for him, etc.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2001
- Messages
- 591
Re: Go Back To Sleep Folks, Nothing Here
Is that based on the idea that JFK wouldn't have taken the US into Vietnam? Because, if so, I would suggest that such an opinion is based on myth - and very incorrect myth at that. In fact, he most certanly would have done so.
Oliver Stone made a great movie - but it wasn't history
(or have I missed the point of your post?).
JFK wasn't so damn great - LBJ was a greater advocate of civil rights than JFK ever was and ever would be.
FraterLibre said:
Is that based on the idea that JFK wouldn't have taken the US into Vietnam? Because, if so, I would suggest that such an opinion is based on myth - and very incorrect myth at that. In fact, he most certanly would have done so.
Oliver Stone made a great movie - but it wasn't history
(or have I missed the point of your post?).
JFK wasn't so damn great - LBJ was a greater advocate of civil rights than JFK ever was and ever would be.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2001
- Messages
- 591
Emperor Zombie said:
I disagree.
If I quoted Posner to say "Oswald did it" - then you are totally correct.
If I quote Posner on a specific area of factual information (which is mainly a quote from someone else!) then as long as his facts are right, then there is nothing wrong there (the facts are correct - Frat. even admits that!).
When an historian quotes AJP Taylor on the second world war - the fact that some of Taylor's work has been superceded does not reduce the veracity of that which is left. It is whether it is an element which has been superceded that effects ones ability to use that quote/opinion.
Otherwise academia would be in a right mess
:eek!!!!:
F
FraterLibre
Guest
Who Done It
Zombie - Of course it does. In fact, the reaction to Stone's movie shows us exactly what they'd seek to keep quiet: Who in fact did it.
The Donald Sutherland speech in the last third of the movie, delivered on the Capitol Mall, neatly sums this method up, by the way.
Who benefitted?
Who was in a position to have done this, that, or the other?
Who jumps when things are mentioned?
And I was not arguing John Kennedy's wonderfulness, either, by the way. In point of fact I view his Presidency with a gimlet eye, too.
It is complex bullshit, and revealing as such, and I hadn't meant to say one should dismiss Posner's book, nor his subsequent ones on other fun targets of the superrich, such as H. Ross Perot, the MLK assassination. His c.v. reads like Richard Mellon Scaife's hit list.
I've read Posner and thoroughly debated the contents of Case Closed when it came out in hardcover. I can see why some of us may be tired. lol
Zombie - Of course it does. In fact, the reaction to Stone's movie shows us exactly what they'd seek to keep quiet: Who in fact did it.
The Donald Sutherland speech in the last third of the movie, delivered on the Capitol Mall, neatly sums this method up, by the way.
Who benefitted?
Who was in a position to have done this, that, or the other?
Who jumps when things are mentioned?
And I was not arguing John Kennedy's wonderfulness, either, by the way. In point of fact I view his Presidency with a gimlet eye, too.
It is complex bullshit, and revealing as such, and I hadn't meant to say one should dismiss Posner's book, nor his subsequent ones on other fun targets of the superrich, such as H. Ross Perot, the MLK assassination. His c.v. reads like Richard Mellon Scaife's hit list.
I've read Posner and thoroughly debated the contents of Case Closed when it came out in hardcover. I can see why some of us may be tired. lol
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2001
- Messages
- 591
LOL - caught me out on semantics there. Yes - you are right - it cannot be "fact" as you rightly say.
May I change the phrase to "However, the weight of evidence strongly suggests that he would have."
Is that OK?
May I change the phrase to "However, the weight of evidence strongly suggests that he would have."
Is that OK?
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2001
- Messages
- 591
Re: Who Done It
So, why did JFK "threaten(ed) the money-making potential of the Perpetual War"
FraterLibre said:
So, why did JFK "threaten(ed) the money-making potential of the Perpetual War"
F
FraterLibre
Guest
Odd Fact
When Oliver Stone's JFK was about two weeks old, I think it was, and still in theaters, Senator Arlen Spector diverted his plane in what he called an emergency, called what he characterized as an emergency press conference at a small airport outside Bedford PA, (spook place), and proceeded to denounce the movie in general terms.
It was a bizarre thing to do and the reporters went away genuinely puzzled.
It's not been explained to this day.
When Oliver Stone's JFK was about two weeks old, I think it was, and still in theaters, Senator Arlen Spector diverted his plane in what he called an emergency, called what he characterized as an emergency press conference at a small airport outside Bedford PA, (spook place), and proceeded to denounce the movie in general terms.
It was a bizarre thing to do and the reporters went away genuinely puzzled.
It's not been explained to this day.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2001
- Messages
- 591
Then continue to smile away merrily.
F
FraterLibre
Guest
Re: Re: Who Done It
Read the Gnomes of Zurich speech, and consider his and brother Robert's plan to "smash the CIA into a million pieces".
Ahem.
Bilderberger said:
Read the Gnomes of Zurich speech, and consider his and brother Robert's plan to "smash the CIA into a million pieces".
Ahem.
F
FraterLibre
Guest
Never Served
Which reminds us that there was a CIA agent sent to spring the three Hobos, (E. Howard Hunt and boys?), named, yes, George Bush, even though of course King George I has since denied ever serving in CIA -- well, until he was appointed as its head sight unseen.
Ahem.
LOL
Which reminds us that there was a CIA agent sent to spring the three Hobos, (E. Howard Hunt and boys?), named, yes, George Bush, even though of course King George I has since denied ever serving in CIA -- well, until he was appointed as its head sight unseen.
Ahem.
LOL
F
FraterLibre
Guest
LBJ's Paranoia
And remember, too, LBJ's paranoia late in his Presidency, and even later, interviewed by Walter Cronkite, when he spoke of his fear of Unseen Forces.
He knew even being el presidenté didn't protect anyone from certain vengeful elements.
Step out of line too much and wham.
And remember, too, LBJ's paranoia late in his Presidency, and even later, interviewed by Walter Cronkite, when he spoke of his fear of Unseen Forces.
He knew even being el presidenté didn't protect anyone from certain vengeful elements.
Step out of line too much and wham.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Not what they seem
Nice quote from Churchill. I guess he's talking from experiance, here's one of my favs from the sack of ****, "...I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas gas against uncivilised tribes....." Surprising how alike he and Hitler were.
Nice quote from Churchill. I guess he's talking from experiance, here's one of my favs from the sack of ****, "...I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas gas against uncivilised tribes....." Surprising how alike he and Hitler were.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Re: Not what they seem
So, you think he was involved in the conspiracy then? Or, perhaps he was the 'grassy knoll?'smudge said:
F
FraterLibre
Guest
Re: Re: Re: Go Back To Sleep Folks, Nothing Here
The rabid and vociferous ad hominem attacks against Stone, and the insane attacks against the movie, both tended to treat it as if it were intended as either History with a capital aitch, or a documentary, when in fact it was nothing more than a good melodrama cobbled out of Garrison's, Marrs's, and others' books. It rather drolly includes as many conspiracy theories as possible without breaking the exciting pace, and ends up being very entertaining whether or not one buys into any, some, or all of the ideas presented.
In other words, it's in ironic mode, folks. But boy those literalists sure took it seriously. *rolls eyes*
Emperor Zombie said:
The rabid and vociferous ad hominem attacks against Stone, and the insane attacks against the movie, both tended to treat it as if it were intended as either History with a capital aitch, or a documentary, when in fact it was nothing more than a good melodrama cobbled out of Garrison's, Marrs's, and others' books. It rather drolly includes as many conspiracy theories as possible without breaking the exciting pace, and ends up being very entertaining whether or not one buys into any, some, or all of the ideas presented.
In other words, it's in ironic mode, folks. But boy those literalists sure took it seriously. *rolls eyes*
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 2,011
Bilderberger said:
Oh, no, valid question. I'm just very tired in general right now. I didn't mean to convey that I find it boring. It's just like, say, the Christianity/homosexuality thing in that I've spent a lot of time reading, discussing and sometimes debating it, because it does (or did) interest me a great deal. But at some point I feel as if I've been on the merry-go-round too many times. I might still contribute to such a topic, but am unlikely to to get too deeply invloved in a back-and-forth.
Dunno how much sense that makes, but like I said, I'm very, very tired from life of late.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2002
- Messages
- 13,692
I remeber it being posited (wish I could remember where 
) that the Mafia killed Kennedy basically to make the point that he owed them, and that no-one was beyond their powers of revenge, and that the Feds were no real threat to them (Hoffa got dragged in there too).
Don't know how valid that is, nor do I necessarily subscribe to it, but just thought I'd toss it into the mix.
Come to think of it - conspiracies of silence, suppression of truth, powers various promoting one explanation - should I add "The FTMB Moderators" to the poll? I'm sure there are those that would vote for us.
) that the Mafia killed Kennedy basically to make the point that he owed them, and that no-one was beyond their powers of revenge, and that the Feds were no real threat to them (Hoffa got dragged in there too).Don't know how valid that is, nor do I necessarily subscribe to it, but just thought I'd toss it into the mix
.Come to think of it - conspiracies of silence, suppression of truth, powers various promoting one explanation - should I add "The FTMB Moderators" to the poll? I'm sure there are those that would vote for us
.- Joined
- Aug 20, 2001
- Messages
- 1,805
No I was on the overpass, Ryn was on the knoll.
urm.. I mean... Oh look! Elvis!
*Legs it.*
urm.. I mean... Oh look! Elvis!
*Legs it.*
A
Anonymous
Guest
It doesn't matter if Posner's facts are right if he's picking and choosing only the facts that he already agrees with, and not even mentioning the inconvenient facts that don't support his theory.Bilderberger said:
A
Anonymous
Guest
I want to take this opportunity to mention that I too remember where I was when Kennedy died: on the living room carpet, screaming my head off because of a dislocated shoulder. My aunt had dropped me when she heard the news, but managed to grab my wrist -and pull upwards- just before I hit the floor.
(Obviously I was less than a year old and I'm using the word 'remember' in the sense of 'I remember where everyone in the family tells me I was'.)
(Obviously I was less than a year old and I'm using the word 'remember' in the sense of 'I remember where everyone in the family tells me I was'.)
A
Anonymous
Guest
Well put Zygon.
I've had my mind changed a few diferent times in here, and it was never a reaction to the obvious. It was always when someone came from a new angle. Never was it changed, for the OPINIONS of others. Facts>...... There are too many theories surrounding JFK and not enough fact. Perhaps in 20 years, when Posner's work becomes the new truth, all of his opinions will be law...Sort of like the world being flat...It's true until someone proves it wrong. It too late to prove anyone wrong in the JFK assassination. The facts that remain are few, and the opinions are endless.
I've had my mind changed a few diferent times in here, and it was never a reaction to the obvious. It was always when someone came from a new angle. Never was it changed, for the OPINIONS of others. Facts>...... There are too many theories surrounding JFK and not enough fact. Perhaps in 20 years, when Posner's work becomes the new truth, all of his opinions will be law...Sort of like the world being flat...It's true until someone proves it wrong. It too late to prove anyone wrong in the JFK assassination. The facts that remain are few, and the opinions are endless.
A
Anonymous
Guest
If these criticsms are fair, how will the truth ever come out? Oswald may well have acted alone, but there is more than enough doubt to warrant the questions that the conspiracy-industry has been coming up with since the 60s.
It also doesn't help that the supporters of the 'lone nut' theory tend to aggressively dismiss the suggestion that a conspiracy was possible out of hand, despite the lessons of history that show conspiracies do occur.
Confirmed conspiracies led to the assassination of Lincoln, and the death of Allende in Chile; conspiracies attempted to frame Alfred Dreyfus for treason (the Dreyfus Affair), attempted to assassinate Harry Truman in 1950, and there were conspiracies leading to no less than 8 attempts on the life of Charles de Gaulle, at least one of which involved collusion from elements within the French military. Meanwhile, 'lone nuts' account for the assassinations of Presidents McKinley and Garfield, and for attempts on Reagan and Ford.
The suggestion that Kennedy's assassination was the result of a conspiracy is thus clearly no more fantastic than the suggestion that Oswald acted alone. (Indeed, in each of the proven 'lone nut' instances cited, the gunman approached the target on foot and made no real attempt to escape after discharging their weapons: Oswald, if he acted alone, would be the unique exception to this. While that in itself is suggestive, it is no more than that.) The questions continue to need to be asked.