CaptHaddock

3 hours ago, watcharacters said:

 

 

 

OK I think you're trying to be polemic.     That's good for discussion.

 

 

I doubt it's fair to equate to vastly different experiences as equal.   Guns are not generally used in Paris but they are freely available in Texas both now and  in 1963.

 

I think People in Texas at that time had a far better awareness of shots and from where they came than did the Parisians during the terrorists attacks

Your reply is incoherent.  I am not equating "vastly different experiences" at all.  I pointed out that crowds of unarmed civilians present at a shooting will never take it upon themselves to attempt to charge armed killers.  Instead, they will try to flee away from the line of fire.  That's what they did at the Paris shootings and, in my opinion, that's what they did in Dealey Plaza.  The notion that the bystanders in Dealey Plaza were running to "get" the killers doesn't stand up to scrutiny.  The fact that so many documentaries repeat that ridiculous claim shows how unthinking people can be.

14 minutes ago, MrPatrickThai said:

Well most voters here think that he WON"T be impeached. I wonder if Putin has anything to do with that vote -  lol

 

It's too early to know whether Trump will be impeached or not.  It will depend on the content of Mueller's report and the strength of the evidence to support it.  If witnesses like Flynn and Manafort flip and testify to incriminating statements from Trump and if the Dems were to take the House in 2018, it is possible that Trump will be impeached.  I consider the first possibility likely and the second unlikely, in which caseTrump will not be impeached.  Even if the Dems were to take the House and all of the Republican Senate seats up for election next year they would fall short of the sixty-six votes necessary to convict and remove from office, unless there are serious Republican defections as there were in Nixon's case.  So, removal from office by impeachment is quite unlikely.

However, if Mueller's presents very strong evidence against Trump for obstruction of justice, money-laundering, or conspiring with a foreign power to violate US election laws, he could be so hamstrung by criticism and loss of support as to become a liability to his party.  This outcome is very possible and, I believe, the best possible outcome, since a Pence presidency would be just turning the office over to the Koch brothers.

2 minutes ago, thaihome said:

I note the particular section in Wikipedia you link has no citation backing it up though I do understand the FBI did test fire and reported it inaccurate and difficult to fire that fast accurately . 

 

I did find this congressional report on the test firing of similar rifles in 1979 ( the original had not been cleaned since 1963 and was basically inoperable). One of the conclusions from that test firing was:

 

 

 

Worth reading the whole report.

 

I find the fact that so many people reject Oswald as the sole shooter acting alone fascinating. My personal belief is this proliferation of conspiracy theories to this day was mostly caused by the CIA and FBI cover-up and lack of transparency after the assassination of the gross incompetence in dealing with Oswald who they had been watching for over 4 years.  This is what will come out of the new document releases, but it is far too late to stop the JFK conspiracy industry. 

 

TH 

You have not addressed my main objection to the firing tests that all such tests used stationary targets only.  Invalid.  End of story. 

There is no evidence that Oswald fired a rifle that day since Police Chief Curry confirmed that the paraffin test for nitrates on his face was negative.  No one saw Oswald with a gun in the TSBD at any time.  No one saw Oswald on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting although he was seen elsewhere in the building immediately before and immediately after the shooting. 

My own view of the untenability of the Oswald-did-it theory does not rest, however, on the weakness of the evidence pointing to Oswald's involvement, but on Kennedy's head wounds.  The Parkland doctors and nurses and others overwhelmingly reported an egg-sized hole in the back right portion of Kennedy's skull.  The official Bethesda autopsy, conducted under control of the military, shows instead a huge opening from the back of the head up to and including much of the top of the head extending nearly to forehead/temple area on the right front side..  The Bethesda head wound is so massive that the audience at the autopsy gasped audibly when the scalp was lifted off to reveal the effect of a supposed single bullet to the head, as reported by the FBI agents present.

Extraordinarily, the autopsists found no bullets in Kennedy's body, probably because they had removed them prior to the autopsy as David Lifton claims.  The gross alteration of Kennedy's wounds between Parkland and Bethesda can have no innocent explanation and is not so technical that medical laymen like ourselves are unable to evaluate it.  It must indicate a cover-up conducted by the military and other parts of the government.  A cover-up conducted by the government beginning immediately after the assassination indicates that the government was involved in the assassination itself. 

It's beyond me how anyone who is aware of the medical evidence can maintain belief in the Oswald-did-it theory. 

25 minutes ago, StayinThailand2much said:

And I am still waiting for an explanation, why JFK's body was rushed from one hospital to another, photos of his skull 'doctored', crucial evidence tampered with, or missing, etc., etc. Releasing FBI and CIA documents about these circumstances would certainly help to defuse certain conspiracy theories. Until this happens, there is the suspicion of 'the fish smelling from the head'...

Pretty fully explained in David Lifton's book, "Best Evidence."    Lifton has promised a last book on the subject to be called, "Final Charade," outlining the conspiracy in the fullest detail to date.  Supposed to be out next year, but the book is already ten years late, so who knows.

48 minutes ago, StayinThailand2much said:

And yes, I still am curious about a few things, which are hard to explain, e.g. why Oswald, who was supposedly a bad shot, did so well as an assassin.

 

The  FBI and the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the U.S. Army's Ballistics Research Laboratory conducted shooting tests with the Mannlicher-Carcano found at the TSBD.  They were unable to sight the rifle using the scope, however, until they added two shims under the scope which were not present.  Later CBS conducted firing tests using M-C rifles, but not the one found at the TSBD.  The results varied, but in all tests the shooters were aiming at stationary, not moving, targets invalidating the results.  It's hard to believe that tests this shoddy have been presented seriously as evidence of anything.

5 hours ago, watcharacters said:

But carrying on,  why on earth would the crowd at the scene  rush towards the grassy knoll and disregard the book depository when they were reacting to a gunshot sound.  

This is actually an interesting point.  For fifty years film narrators have routinely described the crowd rushing up the grassy knoll as in pursuit of a shooter or shooters and everyone else has unthinkingly repeated the claim.  On the face of it this notion is ridiculous.  Is it at all plausible that unarmed civilians are intending to pursue and confront armed shooters who have just killed a man?  Has such a thing ever happened?  It certainly didn't happen with the recent shootings in Paris.  It's really a ludicrous idea.  It is much more likely that the crowd ran up the grassy knoll, because that was the shortest path out of Dealey Plaza and out of the line of fire.  The cops who were rushing up the incline were a different story, because that's their job. 

3 hours ago, Gregster said:

 
Lots of documentaries provide credible evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald could NOT have fired all 3 bullets in such a short time from that particular (very old at the time) bolt action rifle.
 
Question.... Does anyone still seriously believe the Warren Commission’s “findings” that Lee Harvey Oswald was the only shooter?
 

There is little reason to suppose that Oswald fired any shots that day.  The paraffin test to his face showed negative for nitrates indicating he had not fired a rifle that day.  No one among the Dallas PD, Secret Service, or FBI sniffed the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that was found in the Texas School Book Depository to determine if it had been fired recently.  Although it was later reported that three empty shell casings were found in the TSBD that day, the initial reports and photos show two empty shells and one live round.  No one ever saw Oswald with the M-C rifle at the TSBD or, indeed, in any other location at any time. 

Oswald himself denied shooting anyone, which one might dismiss as normal criminal exculpation.  However, no other presidential assassin or attempted assassin ever denied that crime before or since. 

1 hour ago, watcharacters said:

Thanks for providing the link  CaptHaddock for two reason:    you provide support for your post and you've shown me a site that I believe I'll  throughly enjoy investigating

 

While I don't subscribe to the philosophy of  some, that government intrusion into private lives is innocuous if one has nothing to hide,   I do believe the government telling citizens they  has no right to view  documents because of fear is patently insane.

 

At this point in time I suspect it'll absolutely  take until the calendar year  2039 for a serious chance at full disclosure unless whoever is president at the time again gets convinced the population is unable to withstand knowing the full  truth.

 

As initially planned no doubt there'll be few of us alive to find out what happened on that November day 54 years ago.      

I imagine most  of us who were at least a teenager at the time  remember the event clearly.    I know I certainly  do.

 

 

Of course, we do want the release of all of the records related to the JFK assassination, but even without all the available documentation the broad outline of what happened is by now clear:  Elements of the government conspired to have Kennedy killed including the Secret Service, the CIA, and the military, at least.  In other words, it was a coup d'etat.  There is enough critical evidence, the evaluation of which does not require special expertise, to make the lone gunman theory untenable.

Apparently, the documents withheld by the CIA and FBI amount to at least 18,000 items.  From the CIA statement on the docs withheld:

Every single one of the approximately 18,000 remaining CIA records in the collection will ultimately be released, with no document withheld in full.  While some of these 18,000 records currently contain targeted redactions, the information redacted represents less than one percent of the total CIA information in the collection.

http://jfkfacts.org/cia-statement-trumps-cover-jfk-records/#more-26128

Since the reported number of documents released yesterday was 2800, it looks like the vast majority of the documents were not released, contrary to the impression given in news reports.

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

You need to read the full interview.  That puff piece skewed what he said and it's out of context.  As said in the original, he's a religious guy.  The bible talks about the devil. 

 

No crime committed.  No corruption.

Dream on.  The Court was so ashamed of its decision in Gore v. Bush that none of the justices signed it.

Just now, craigt3365 said:

Corrupt?  Jeez.  Ridiculous comment.  It's formed with the best legal minds in the US.  Who've been vetted to the extreme.

Sure, eminent jurists like Justice Clarence "Long Dong Silver" Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia who admitted to an interviewer that he believed in the devil.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/07/justice-scalia-devil-_n_4059202.html

1 hour ago, EvenSteven said:

by crook or by hook, and that is what the investigation is about.

 

Btw, Dubya didn't need any help from Russian criminals.

 

 

 

 

Make the Trump crime syndicate great again.

No, he didn't.  Help from a corrupt Supreme Court was enough to do the job in that case.

56 minutes ago, pegman said:

Watergate break'in until Nixon resigns, June/72-Aug/74. It's a process. The Republicans are waiting in the weeds to get rid of him.

http://www.palmerreport.com/politics/impeach-indict-trump/5618/

Seems far-fetched.  Trump solved the big problem for Repubs: how to get elected.  McCain couldn't do it.  Romney couldn't do it and none of the rest of the sorry lot would have beaten HC in 2016.  Much as they would rather deal with Pence than Trump, Pence in 2020 would be a long shot.

The only way Trump gets impeached is if Mueller presents strong evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors and the Dems take the House next year.  If that were to happen it's barely possible.

Now, apparently, the documents will indeed be released after all. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/21/us/politics/trump-jfk-assassination-classified.html

Guess we're SOL, if this news story is accurate:

Trump administration and other government officials say privately that President Donald Trump is almost certain to block the release of information from some of the thousands of classified files related to the November 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy that are scheduled to be made public in less than a week by the National Archives.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/20/trump-block-release-jfk-kennedy-assassination-files-documents-215732

If you post your question on

fairmark.com

you will get a well-informed answer, probably from a certified public accountant.

1 hour ago, pegman said:

This Niger fiasco looks like it has legs.

 

http://www.palmerreport.com/politics/ignored-niger/5632/

The implication that providing additional equipment, such as drones, required a decision from Trump himself seems odd. 

7 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

You're right.  Sessions is such a lap dog for Trump that he figures everyone assumes there is

'executive privilege' on nearly everything.  Executive privilege has to be declared by the executive himself - on specific issues. 

 

Sessions stated the basis of his refusal.  He refused because at some time in the future Trump might claim executive privilege for those discussions, therefore he can't reveal them now.  This is novel legal theory that is comically bogus.  He deserves credit for stating it with a straight face.

19 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Women are coerced, yes, but have to take at least some responsibility for their actions.  Women make a lot of dumb-ass decisions re; who to have sex with.  Sometimes they get STD's, sometimes unwanted pregnancies.   It happens with men also.  We're an impressionable, vulnerable, and often stupid species.  

 

I think it was Bette Davis, who said of Joan Crawford, "She slept with every alpha male at 20th Century Fox, except Lassie."

We are not talking about women who sleep their way to the top.  We are talking about those who refused to.  Big difference.  If it were a lone woman who subsequently changed her mind about what was going on, maybe you could give Harvey the benefit of the doubt, but given the numbers of women accusers, that seems a stretch too far.

I think Weinstein could go to prison, which, if the accusations are true, he would richly deserve. 

8 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

It isn’t just about sex. These powerful men want to assert their dominance. They want what they want, not just what’s offered. They especially want what’s not offered. Hence, assault and harassment—followed by threats and/or payouts.

Exactly.  Weinstein could have all the freebies he wanted, but that's only a mild display of power.  He has to take what is refused and then get away with it.  Now that's real power.

Sessions should be held in contempt of Congress.  The Congress has an oversight function for the Dept. of Justice.  In the absence of a claim of executive privilege, which has been sustained by the courts, Sessions has no basis on which to refuse to answer questions.

13 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

Maybe this is the era Trump wants to go to to MAGA. Trump fits into Government perfectly really.

 

 

There are many similar stories.  During the fifties the government deliberately released radioactive plumes in southern Utah to study the effects on livestock and humans, who, when they later learned the truth, began calling themselves "downwinders."  The government specifically chose this area because, among other reasons, the Mormon population there trusted the government to a high degree.

Nice guys.

19 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Well, this time they voted for the biggest scam artist who just barely beat out the second biggest scam artist. Wouldn't you rather they stop voting for scam artists, of whatever stripe, altogether?

I just don't think it is worth my time to argue the obvious with someone who is able to refuse to see it.

39 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

 

Be that as it may, would you rather have graduated from Grosse Point High School or whichever the best high school iin Roi Et is?

 

I would rather my countrymen in the world's richest country knew how to think clearly enough not to fall for the biggest scam artist in American politics.  As could have been predicted the biggest losers from Trump's ascendancy will be his own followers, which is hardly surprising since he has spent a lifetime double-crossing anyone foolish enough to trust him, i.e. employees, friends, mentors, wives, contractors, yadda, yadda, yadda.

To help adjust our expectations of our fellow Americans, a map showing countries with high school graduation rates equivalent to the various US states: