BS: Who shot JFK

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Oct 17 - 04:11 PM

Rap says it was you, 'dude! He says you're a much better shot than him! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Jack Campin
Date: 29 Oct 17 - 05:09 PM

The definitive conspiracy theory has to be: it didn't happen.

JFK, Oswald and Ruby have all been partying together in some sybaritic resort paradise since 1963. I'm not sure if it makes a better story for it to be in Area 51, the Moon or Mar-a-Lago.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 17 - 05:13 PM

Witness testimony requires reliable corroboration. I saw seventeen blue meteorites plunging into the sea tonight just off Bude. There. Witness testimony. Now, Keith, what do you think is needed before anyone believes me? Witness is witness. Not evidence. And I thought you had a science background.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Oct 17 - 07:11 PM

I bet Forest Gump was told the truth. ;^/

The 'pristine bullet' is still bemusing.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Oct 17 - 04:00 AM

Steve, I think that your witness statement is a lie, motivated by your need to support Greg.
It can not be corroborated.
There were a number of witnesses in Dallas who smelled gunsmoke, thereby corroborating each other and with no motive for lying.

Seven are named and quoted in the piece I linked to, including a police officer and a senator.

Witness statements are regarded as strong evidence by the courts.
Who are you to demand they be discounted here?

http://listverse.com/2014/06/08/10-reasons-jfks-death-might-have-been-an-accident/

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Oct 17 - 04:42 AM

Sensible objections to the accident theory;
What is the likelihood of a random, un-aimed shot hitting the target?
If it was fired but missed, gunsmoke would still be present in the street.
The accident theory has nothing to say about the number of actual assassins or their motivation.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Oct 17 - 04:43 AM

You are confusing witness, the person, with witness, the phenomenon. Not having the motivation to lie is lamentably insufficient to clinch a witness claim as true. As for smelling gun smoke, well there was a motorcade going past with plenty of nice, smelly 1963 exhausts guffing out smoke. I should think half the people in the crowd were either smoking a fag or had just put one out. The ones lighting fags could have been using matches, which give off a sulphureous pong. And Dallas was a big, smoky city. The weather was calm and any smoke was hanging around. You hear what you think is a gun going off, you smell the fag smoke of the bloke behind you and you make five out of two and two. Finally, "Hey, I can smell gun smoke. Can anyone else smell gun smoke?"

So reliable, these witnesses...

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Oct 17 - 04:47 AM

Gunsmoke is a quite distinctive smell.
There was no likelihood of communication between the witnesses listed.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Oct 17 - 05:02 AM

My point is only that "there is evidence" and there is. I have presented some of it.
Your point seems to be that it is not proof.
I agree and have never said otherwise.
Likewise BWM.
Is that your only point Steve, or are you saying something else?

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Oct 17 - 06:35 AM

"Gunsmoke is a quite distinctive smell."

I wouldn't know. So seven people smelled a smoky smell, they knew that guns had been fired, and they analysed the smell as gunsmoke. Cor. Just reminded myself of the scene. I see that police motorbikes were between the cars and the crowd too. Wonder if they were electric ones.

"There was no likelihood of communication between the witnesses listed."

Alleged gun smoke from one shot, fired well away from the crowds on the, er, sidewalk, being dragged in the wake of speeding vehicles was sufficient to convince seven different witnesses that they smelled a gun. Yet they were so far away from each other that they couldn't possibly have colluded. That must have been one hell of a smoky gun.

Just sayin'.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Oct 17 - 09:40 AM

For your information, Professor:

ev?i?dence
ˈevədəns/
noun
noun: evidence

1.the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 30 Oct 17 - 11:19 AM

From: Greg F. - PM
Date: 30 Oct 17 - 09:40 AM
For your information, Professor:

ev?i?dence
ˈevədəns/
noun
noun: evidence
1.the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Yes, that is one meaning of the word, which specifies it as "the body of facts".
But it can also refer to individual facts, or individual testimonies:
Law Information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object, used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court.
'without evidence, they can't bring a charge'
From Oxford dictionaries
So 'witness testimony' is 'evidence' despite what others may have told you.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Oct 17 - 12:18 PM

Was St Bernadette's witness testimony "evidence," Nigel?

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Oct 17 - 01:20 PM

No-one could confuse vehicle exhaust with gun smoke.
I am sure the police outrider would recognise it for what it was, but it is reasonable to question evidence.
Your case seems to be that it is not proof. As I said, no-one here has ever claimed that it was.
Just that "there is evidence," including the evidence of witness testimonies.

Witness testimonies are universally accepted as evidence.
You make yourselves ridiculous by denying that fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Oct 17 - 01:23 PM

Is St Bernadette's witness testimony universally accepted as evidence? Not in my book it isn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Oct 17 - 01:25 PM

Was St Bernadette's witness testimony "evidence," Nigel?

Yes it is, and many people believe it while many others reject it totally.
Your meteorite testimony is also evidence but it would convince no-one.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Oct 17 - 01:33 PM

Well I've just looked this up. Seven people claimed to have "seen gun smoke" in the vicinity of the grassy knoll. Just one person "smelled" gun smoke. Seen gun smoke, eh? Now I wonder what gun smoke looks like compared to fag smoke, pipe smoke or car exhaust smoke, or boy-scouts-rubbing-their-knees-together smoke.

I'm not entering into a sterile argument about what evidence is, Keith. Let's just say that I set my bar a little higher than you do. Which is why I'm an atheist and you're a Godsquadder, for example.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Oct 17 - 01:34 PM

"witness testimony universally accepted as evidence?"


My wife absolutely refuses to accept witness accounts..

If I tell her I just saw her doing it*
she will obstinately persist in completely denying all guilt and responsibility,
..then sulkily turn on me for accusing her of doing things all the time...

[* for example yesterday, using the TV remote control with her fingers covered in sticky creamy jammy cakey substances..

maybe, not in the same league as JFK assassination.. but still, replacement SKY remotes are not cheap...]

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: robomatic
Date: 30 Oct 17 - 02:48 PM

A case of
"Who ya gonna believe? Me or your lyin' eyes?"

In any case, over the years I've seen no reason to abandon the single shooter theory (Oswald). There are multiple conspiracy theories at odds with each other, each less believable than that a disappointed man with his own odd grievances took it upon himself to utilize his access to an ideal point of sniping advantage and act out his vision.

I recommend Sondheim's musical "Assassins" a genuinely thoughtful and entertaining look at the American history of Presidential assassinations and attempts.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Oct 17 - 02:54 PM

You may be amazed to know that I agree with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Oct 17 - 02:55 PM

Well I've just looked this up. Seven people claimed to have "seen gun smoke" in the vicinity of the grassy knoll. Just one person "smelled" gun smoke.

Then you have failed to look it up.

2
Multiple Witnesses Smelled Gunpowder At Street Level

At least seven witnesses testified that they smelled gunpowder at street level immediately after the shooting.
Billy Martin was a Dallas police officer who was driving his motorcycle just behind the Presidential limousine?s left rear fender at the time of the shooting. He is on record as stating: ?You could smell the gunpowder?.?.?.you knew he wasn?t far away. When you?re that close, you can smell the powder burning?.?.?.you could smell the gunpowder?.?.?.right there in the street.?
Senator Ralph Yarborough, riding with Vice President Johnson in the second convertible, claimed to be able to: ?smell the gunpowder from the assassin?s murder weapon.?
Elizabeth Cabell testified that she was riding in the third or fourth car behind the President?s limousine when the shooting occurred. She had this to say: ?It was in just a fleeting second that I jerked my head up and I saw something in that window, and I turned around to say to Earle, ?Earle, it is a shot,? and before I got the words out, just as I got the words out, he said, ?Oh, no; it must have been a?.?.?.? [then] the second two shots rang out. After that, there is a certain amount of confusion in my mind. I was acutely aware of the odor of gunpowder.?
Tom Dillard was a press photographer riding well behind the Presidential limousine. At the time of the shooting, Dillard?s vehicle was still approaching the Texas School Book Depository Building, facing Oswald?s sniper position. He stated: ?I very definitely smelled gunpowder when the car moved up at the corner.?
Virgie Rackley was a bystander close to the street in front of the Depository Building who, after the second shot, smelled gunsmoke.
Earle Brown was a police officer stationed on top of the overpass under which the motorcade passed after the shooting. At the time of the shooting, Brown was looking north toward Dealey Plaza and the Depository Building. In his testimony he stated: ?I heard these shots and then I smelled this gunpowder?.?.?.It come on it would be maybe a couple minutes later so?at least it smelled like it to me.? Officer Joe Smith also reported, ?a distinctive smell of gun smoke cordite,? as he rode along Elm Street.
According to the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), measurements taken at Love Field , 8.5 kilometers (5.3 mi) by road from Dealey Plaza, found that the wind on the day of the assassination was blowing at around 24?32 kilometers per hour (15?20 mph) from the west-northwest.
http://listverse.com/2014/06/08/10-reasons-jfks-death-might-have-been-an-accident/

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Oct 17 - 03:15 PM

Everyone who has been to a Fireworks display would have smelled a gunsmoke oder.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Oct 17 - 03:41 PM

Professor, if only you had told us that your "evidence" comes directly from "Flamehorse" that would have been reason enough for us to accept it as unimpeachable.

Donuel, fireworks involve black powder. In Dallas -whoever he, she, they, or it were, they were using smokeless.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: robomatic
Date: 30 Oct 17 - 04:00 PM

Ah, Steve, not as amazed as that you ADMIT to it! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: meself
Date: 30 Oct 17 - 04:52 PM

So - how do you explain Ruby? Seriously. I've never heard much of an explanation - other than from his brother, who said Jack always wanted to be a big-shot. Other than that ... of all the people who were outraged by the assassination, the one who decides to kill Oswald - before he gets a chance to talk - is a shady strip-club owner with mob connections. Nothing suspicious about that?

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Oct 17 - 07:37 PM

Got my info from wiki, Keith. I give Jimmy Wales ten quid a year so it must be right. He would never lie to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: olddude
Date: 30 Oct 17 - 09:39 PM

I love the smell of gun smoke in the morning
:) sorry or was it napalm

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 31 Oct 17 - 04:27 AM

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 30 Oct 17 - 12:18 PM
Was St Bernadette's witness testimony "evidence," Nigel?

Undoubtedly.

The level of credibility you wish to give it is a personal matter.
That is why 'evidence' in court is often heard by a jury, some of whom may give any individual piece of evidence a different degree of credibility.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 17 - 05:12 AM

What if I insist that there are fairies at the bottom of my garden? Is that evidence that fairies exist?

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 31 Oct 17 - 05:49 AM

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 31 Oct 17 - 05:12 AM
What if I insist that there are fairies at the bottom of my garden? Is that evidence that fairies exist?

If you insist upon it, then it is evidence. Hardly credible evidence, but evidence nonetheless.

It may be taken as (unsubstantiated) evidence of fairies at the bottom of your garden.
It may also be taken as evidence of your mental state.

Whether or not you, or I, believe a particular statement does not stop it being evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Oct 17 - 06:11 AM

You can not only smell the nitrates of smokeless ammo or the explosive powder of fireworks, the guns set off the smoke alarm in the Vegas hotel room. Pyrotechnics use far more than black powder explosives,
If you have no sense of smell you might not notice.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 17 - 07:25 AM

i prefer not to do belief.

"It may also be taken as evidence of your mental state."

In that case you are calling into question the mental state of billions of believers in God. After all, he's no more likely to exist, based on any evidence I've ever seen, than fairies at the bottom of my garden.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Oct 17 - 07:43 AM

point and match

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 31 Oct 17 - 08:35 AM

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 31 Oct 17 - 07:25 AM
i prefer not to do belief.
"It may also be taken as evidence of your mental state."
In that case you are calling into question the mental state of billions of believers in God. After all, he's no more likely to exist, based on any evidence I've ever seen, than fairies at the bottom of my garden.
Not at all.
If you truly believe you saw fairies then you have a reason for your belief in fairies.
If it was a statement you made just to make a point, but do not believe in (also known as a lie), then that is of less value than statements made by persons who believe they are telling the truth.
On that basis there is no equivalence in your belief in fairies, and others belief in God.


St Bernadette's witness testimony was evidence. But at this remove it must be considered that anyone relying on it is relying on 'hearsay evidence', as no-one now living was alive to cross-examine her. But the fact that it was recorded for posterity suggests that many found it credible at that time.
Similarly, no-one now can give personal evidence of the Battle of Rourke's Drift. But there is sufficient documentary evidence available that I do not doubt it occurred (although the version in the film 'Zulu' may not be a true representation).

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Oct 17 - 09:11 AM

the guns set off the smoke alarm in the Vegas hotel room.

Didn't realize JFK was shot in Vegas.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 17 - 10:15 AM

"If it was a statement you made just to make a point, but do not believe in (also known as a lie), then that is of less value than statements made by persons who believe they are telling the truth."

But you can't assess that value because you don't know whether I'm telling a lie or whether I believe I'm telling the truth. The thing is, there are no fairies at the bottom of the garden. Whether I'm being genuine or whether I'm lying makes no difference to that rather obstinate fact. So both statements are intrinsically equally valueless.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 31 Oct 17 - 10:32 AM

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 31 Oct 17 - 10:15 AM
"If it was a statement you made just to make a point, but do not believe in (also known as a lie), then that is of less value than statements made by persons who believe they are telling the truth."
But you can't assess that value because you don't know whether I'm telling a lie or whether I believe I'm telling the truth. The thing is, there are no fairies at the bottom of the garden. Whether I'm being genuine or whether I'm lying makes no difference to that rather obstinate fact. So both statements are intrinsically equally valueless.

Yes, but until you confirmed that you were lying, you would be the only one to know that the statement was valueless.
Compare that with statements from theists who believe in God, and state that God exists, and you should see that their statements have a value. (if only to themselves) So your attempt to equate the two was also worthless.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Oct 17 - 10:32 AM

In a world where facts do not matter, where the scrutiny of scientific method is ignored with the toss of a phrase, belief reigns supreme.

Yes I have seen things you would not believe.

I do not and will not insist you believe.

I do not blame people for that.

I blame the physiology of the brain in the way we learn individually.
Hive minds would not have this debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Oct 17 - 10:37 AM

Individual learning should be hailed.
We have seen the evil and the good that hive mind mentality has wrought.
When its bad, its very bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 31 Oct 17 - 10:51 AM

From: Donuel - PM
Date: 31 Oct 17 - 10:37 AM
. . .When its bad, its very bad.

"There was a little girl,
A pretty little girl,
With a curl in the middle of her forehead.
When she was good she was very, very, good.
And when she was bad
She was fantastic!"

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 17 - 03:14 PM

If a statement is INTRINSICALLY valueless, nothing can alter that. There are no fairies at the bottom of my garden. That's for definite, though I can't actually prove it. Any statement that is contrary to that has no value. Pretending that it has value to me if I happen to believe it is fallacious. Any benefit you may ascribe to it is delusional. In fact, holding to that assertion can have a negative impact only. I am wasting my time and emotion on it and I'm inviting ridicule. All negative. Belief in religion is not the same thing, quite. Adhering to a religion involves having a large set of beliefs (a belief system in other words), and it's possible to tease them apart somewhat and see relative benefits for some of them. For example, your irrational belief may get you to church where you may meet lots of pleasant people who enhance your social life. Your actual belief in a deity, on the other hand, taken in isolation, is always a negative. It prevents you from using your powers of reasoning to see the beauty of reality for what it is. In some cases it may even lead you to deny truths such as evolution. As a believer in a particular God is an atheist apropos of every other God bar his own, he's in danger of becoming a bigot. All negative, no benefits. You may see a lifetime lived in a state of happy delusion as somehow beneficial. But it's beneficial only to those who like to exercise authoritarian, manipulative control over you. The modus operandi of all major religions. Scare tactics are usually involved.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 31 Oct 17 - 03:43 PM

If god really is omnipresent.. he saw who shot JFK.. he definitely knows who dunnit...!!!

Anyone asked him yet...???

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 17 - 05:46 PM

God knows.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Nov 17 - 03:52 AM

Steve, People lie when giving evidence, as you did over meteorites and fairies.
That evidence was false.

Bernadette was a teenage girl who testified to events she claimed to have witnessed.
It was uncorroborated.
Suppose she had reported being sexually assaulted. If uncorroborated her evidence may not be believed, but it is still evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 17 - 05:30 AM

Sexual assault is a reality that we are at long last beginning to give the serious attention it deserves. Claiming to have seen an impossible being eighteen times who spake unto her, etc., is taken seriously only by fools. You were perfectly correct to strongly suspect me of either lying or being demented apropos of the fairies. St Bernadette is no different, except that a bunch of men in frocks got their heads together and decided it was all true.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Nov 17 - 06:27 AM

Nothing is as simple as it seems to the literalists.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Nov 17 - 06:56 AM

Supernatural experiences are so common that there must be an explanation for them whether they are real or not.
Only a fool would categories a significant proportion of the entire population as "fools."

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 01 Nov 17 - 07:53 AM

"Supernatural experiences are so common that there must be an explanation for them whether they are real or not."

The fallibility of human mind, ignorance from good education, and poor eyesight in variable lighting conditions...

I constantly see ethereal black manifestations floating in the air around me..

Are they dark malignant fairy sprites...

..or floaters in my eye fluids...

Hooray for modern science...!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 17 - 07:55 AM

"Only a fool would categories a significant proportion of the entire population as 'fools.'"

How about 52%?

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Nov 17 - 08:15 AM

There are many phenomena which cannot be explained by science, for example "Mental telepathy".