Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Post by dekeI think that Jpie's suggestion about dna testing is an excellent one. The
controversy about Oswald's identity goes all the way back to 1966 when
Richard Popkin published a book called "The Second Oswald." Since then,
others, most notably John Armstrong, have suggested the same theory and
have come up with evidence to support it. Since dna testing would put the
matter to rest once and for all, I think it should be welcomed by everyone
regardless of what side of the LN/CT fence you're on. Unless, of course,
you have a Jack Nicholson moment and feel that "you can't handle the
truth" if the results showed that there was no family connection between
the alleged Lee Oswald and the real Robert Oswald.
Ok, good point. Zircon might be right about the 1981 dental checking
although I need to read that more thoroughly and apparently go to dental
school for a while to try to understand it.
Hilarious. Forensic scientists have been using dental records for decades
to establish the identity of remains of people.
But when that's used to establish the identity of the person known as Lee
Harvey Oswald, conspiracy theorists won't accept it unless they become
experts and verify the conclusion themselves.
You're starting to illustrate the problem I spoke of elsewhere. Conspiracy
theorists reject anything pointing to Oswald. Your claim you need a dental
school background to understand it and to accept it illustrates the
problem I mentioned precisely.
If the DNA results establish Lee Oswald's children and Robert Oswald's
children are related in exactly the way you'd expect, will you hold off
accepting that conclusion until you become expert in DNA analysis, and
conduct your own test? Or will you reject or put on hold the DNA
conclusions because you simply don't like the results? I expect you will
react exactly as you did for the autopsy conducted in 1981... you won't
accept the expert conclusions until you verify them independently through
your own examination, once you get qualified, of course.
My only point was the
discrepancies between Oswald who went and the one who came back. I t
would be a lot easier if we could have real proof that they are the same.
If not that would make everything even more murky.
The autopsy was that proof. But of course, you don't accept that. And the
DNA will only confirm that result, not that you'll accept that either.
However, when I called Mrs. Vada Oswald I don't get an answer at all, and
Mrs. Marina Oswald Porter hasn't answered either. I left 2 messages with
a couple of questions which I thought were pretty harmless (as far as
she's concerned). I also asked and if anybody knows, please put the
answer about where I can call her 2 daughters and same for Mrs. V where
her son and daughter are. They are adults and I think they can decided if
they are willing to have dna test. Particularly in my case I think that
LH Oswald was involved in several things but possibly not in the murder of
Kennedy. And perhaps his 2 daughters would appreciate finding out their
father is NOT a murderer (might not be able to prove it but I have plenty
more to say about that whole mess).
There is no 'whole mess'. You're lost and only think it's a mess because
you reject all the evidence and accept suppositions, speculations, and
logical fallacies as fact. CTs are always confused about where the
evidence points, because they reject all the evidence and draw conclusions
from conspiracy nonsense masquerading as fact. You're no different in that
regard.
You're not the first and you certainly won't be the last. David Lifton
couldn't understand what the evidence was telling him, so he wound up
inventing the patently ridiculous theory that the President's wounds were
altered to conceal the fact that all the President's assassins were in
front of the President, and that Oswald fired no shots at the motorcade
whatsoever.
Of course, he failed to understand that his theory could be disproven by
one four-word question -- Who Altered Connally's Wounds?
I've never heard a theory of altering Connally's wonds. Please tell me
more. YOU can't explain his known wounds.
The theory of Connally's wounds being altered follows from and is an
extension of Lifton's theory that the shooters were in front of the limo
and the President was shot only from the front and his wounds were altered
to look like he was struck by shots from behind.
Are you nuts?
No, but I like arguing with them.
Post by Anthony MarshWhy are you bringing Lifton into this?
It's called an example or an illustration.
Post by Anthony MarshHe never said that all the shots came from the front.
Sure he did. See Chapter 14 of his book, _BEST EVIDENCE, under the section
called Wound Geometry.
He says the only way his theory of trajectory reversal could work is if
all the shooters were in front of the President.
== QUOTE ==
If I could somehow arrange to leave that side (the posterior) of the body
unmark, then the required 'companion' entries could be created wherever
they were needed. The problem I would have would be how to leave the rear
surface [of the President's body] unmarked.
Evidently I should fire no shots from the rear.
...
Consequently, it seemed that if I were a plotter, I could arrnge to leave
the rear surface free by firing only from the front..."
== UNQUOTE ==
There's more, but from the quoted portion alone, it's clear Lifton's
argument was that all the shooters were in front of the President, and
that's how they managed to reverse the apparent trajectory of the
wounds.
If all the shooters were in front of the President, then they were also in
front of the Governor, who was seated immediately in front of the
President.
Like the President's wounds, Connally's wounds point to the rear. Both
have wounds that trace back to a shooter above and behind them. If all the
shooters were in front, then the Governor's wounds must have also have
been altered. It follows from Lifton's premise.
Post by Anthony MarshYou are creating a
straw man argument just to show how tough you are to knock it down.
It's not a straw man. It's Lifton's premise, spelled out in his book and
quoted above.
Post by Anthony MarshWhy
didn't you bring up the gunman inside the fake tree? You're not trying
hard enough. I've seen and met thousand of kooks and not one of them
said JFK was shot in the back by a gun inthe front.
Lifton didn't say that either. He said the President was shot only from
the front, and then fake entry wounds were created on the back of the
President, and the true entry wounds were enlarged to look like exits and
to retrieve any bullets in the body:
== QUOTE ==
What I found intriguing was the way these two problems = bullet removal
and trajectory reversal were intertwined... the seemingly paradoxical
consequence of this analysis was that to be able to shoot the President,
retrieve the bullets, and insure that afterward it appeared the shots came
from behind, the real bullets had to be fired from the front.
...
Professional assassinations could be located at hidden positions off in one
directio, whereas a scapegoat could be located off in another.
== UNQUOTE ==
Lifton's argument is all the shooters were in front of the President AND
the Governor.
So how were Connally's wounds altered?
Lifton didn't deal with that issue. Nobody on the CT side does.
Post by Anthony MarshStop making up dishonest arguments.
Quoting Lifton and spelling out his argument is somehow dishonest now?
Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)If the shooters were in front of the limo as Lifton asserts, they were
also in front of the Governor. If the President was shot only from the
front as Lifton asserts, so was the Governor. If the President's wounds
were altered to make it appear the President was shot from behind, then
the Governor's wounds were likewise altered to make it appear he was shot
from behind.
Who on this planet ever said that? Have you been talking to aliens?
I think Lifton was born in the USA. Lifton's argument is that all the
shooters were in front of the President AND the Governor. But the
Governor's wound, like the President's, point to the rear.
That means either both the President's and the Governor's wounds were
altered, or neither were.
Choose one. Lifton avoided having to choose by avoiding the issue entirely
in his 747-page book entirely by avoiding the ramifications of his
theory.
Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Because the Governor's wounds look like he was shot from behind. And if
all the shooters were in front of the limo, Connally's wounds MUST have
been altered.
PLease quote anyone from this planet saying that.
It's a logical consequence of Lifton's argument. Sorry if you cannot
understand it.
Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)It follows from Lifton's argument. If you don't like the conclusion from
Lifton's argument, ask Lifton to explain it. It's his theory.
I argued with Liston all the time, but I don't bother arguing with straw
men or aliens. Go peddle your phony stories in the other newsgroup.
Nothing phony about the consequences of Lifton's argument that all the
shooters were in front of the President AND the Governor.
Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)It's not a coincidence that Lifton didn't address how Connally got wounded
at all in his nonsense book, BEST EVIDENCE. Lifton wouldn't know the best
evidence if he tripped over it.
YOU have neever seen evidence. All you do is make personal attacks.
Pointing out the logical issues with Lifton's theory does not qualify as a
personal attack.
Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Connally's wounds are explained by one bullet fired by Oswald from the
Depository hitting Connally in the back and passing through his body until
it struck his thigh.
SHOW me your diagram. Which Free Frank Warner diagram do you agree with?
I don't need to have any diagrams. Lifton's theory is that all the shooters
were in front of the President.
It follows from that argument that he's also arguing for the Governor's
wounds to be altered to point to the rear. Whether you understand it or
not.
Post by Anthony MarshExcuse me? More personal attacks.
Saying Lifton is in love with his theory, Bob Harris is in love with his
theory, Don Willis is in love with his theory, and you're is in love with
your theory, is not a personal attack. It's a self-evident observation.
You don't agree with any of the other's theories, and they don't agree
with any of the others, either.
Post by Anthony MarshYour side has its own crazy theories.
I don't falsely claim that you believe all ot them.
I'm not claiming you believe all the craxy CT theories. I'm claiming you
believe your own crazy theory.
Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)matter how bizarre, and fail to recognize the relative weakness of their
arguments compared to the Commission's case.
The WC had no case, only lies.
An assertion without any evidence presented can be dismissed with no
evidence presented.
Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)This applies to Lifton as much as anyone. Maybe more so.
OMG. Low hanging fruit. So you prove how tough you are by grabbing at
the low hanging fruit.
I think you're admitting Lifton is the exemplar of CT nut cases.
I agree.
Hank
