geovulture@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On Aug 4, 8:36 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> geovult...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>> On Jul 31, 8:16 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> geovult...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>>>>> Yes, because I have studied many other assassinations. Princip was
far in
>>>>>> front and not expected to fire. The bomb should have done the job.
In the
>>>>>> Petit-Clamart attempt on DeGaulle the insurance shooters were
caught by
>>>>>> surprise when they missed the signal that the car was coming.
>>>>> I would suggest that you study some examples that actually compare
to what
>>>>> you are suggesting happened in Dallas. Do you think Princip and his
>>>>> cohorts were trying to be covert? I don't think a hand grenade
qualifies
>>>>> as trying to pin an assassination on a patsy. Both of those
assassination
>>>>> attempts are highly public events with very little will to hide the
>>>>> assassins identity. They certainly were not frame ups.
>>>> The focus was very narrowly on the concept of the insurance shooter.
So
>>>> I gave you a couple of real world examples.
>>>> Princip would have had no reason to fire and no reason to be
identified
>>>> if not for the fact that the bomb missed.
>>> You don't find it troubling that your historic examples are in no way
>>> similar to the Kennedy assassination? About the only thing the Arch
>>> Duke's assassination has in common with your theory is that he also
died
>>> from his wounds. How can you claim that it in any way informs you
about
>>> the Kennedy assassination?
>> Doesn't matter at all. It was not a direct comparison. It was only an
>> illustration of how assassination plots use insurance shooters, since
>> you had never heard of that before.
>
> I think you need to go back and read the posts. You are changing the
> argument when you see that your example is a weak one. I never said
that
> I had never heard of an insurance shooter. Please quote me on that. I
You had ridiculed the idea that insurance shooters are used in an
assassination. That is what this thread was about.
> said that the situation that you have created for an insurance shooter
is
> ridiculous because they are trying to pin the job on a single shooter
from
> the rear. They would never place a shooter in the front and create a
> situation in which they would need to make the conspiracy so much
larger.
And you are wrong again, pretending to know what professional assassins
would do. The CIA's own assassination manual suggests that a patsy should
be blamed. The grassy knoll shooter did not start shooting until the last
possible second.
> You then claimed that I had no idea what they would or would not do. I
> asked you how then you knew that they would use an insurance shooter in
> the front and you brought up Princip. When I point out how weak that
> argument is, you back tracked and said you were just giving a general
> example of an insurance shooter. Do you see the little trick in that
I never said it was the same people. I gave you an example of using an
insurance shooter.
> maneuver? I'm sure anyone else that reads this will. If you are going
to
> base your guesses on precident, the precident has to relate to the
> situation that you are applying it to. Otherwise its just a guess. If
I said nothing about precedent. I just gave you some examples.
> you think that the bumbling techniques of Princip and his cohorts
> translate to a professional covert intelligence hit, then you are really
> stretching things. It's akin to saying "I know how jets are built
because
> I studied the Wright Brothers plane.
>
Professional covert intelligence hit? You mean like one of the dozens of
nutty CIA plots against Castro which failed?
You show me some examples of successful CIA attempts and we can talk about
those.
I suppose you won't dare to talk about successful Mossad assassinations?
>>
>>
>>> You also gloss over the fact that Princip wasn't really an insurance
>>> shooter in the sense that you have laid out. After the grenade
failed,
>>> the Arch Duke and his wife went to the hospital to see the people
injured
>>> by the blast and took a wrong turn. Princip just happened to be lucky
to
>> Pincip was outside and watching the events from farther along the
>> motorcade route. When the bomb didn't work and the other conspirators
>> failed to do their assigned tasks, he gave up and went into a cafe to
get
>> some coffee. It was just luck that The Archduke's car made a wrong turn
>> and ended up in front of that very cafe.
>>
>> Again, sometimes things go wrong in an assassination and sometimes luck
>> plays a part. But of course some people can't understand that simple
fact.
>> Someone like Vince Palamara would say that the driver must have been in
on
>> the plot and intentionaly drove to where Princip was waiting.
Coincidence?
>> He wouldn't think so.
>
> This doesn't really have anything to do with our discussion. All you
are
> doing is giving further evidence that your example has nothing to do
with
> an insurance shooter as you have laid it out in the Kennedy
assassination.
>
I was just making fun of your not understanding the event.
>>> be in that location and shot them dead. Are you suggesting that it
was
>>> his job to stand somewhere that the Arch Duke wasn't supposed to be in
>>> order to be an insurance shooter just in case they happened to make a
>> More nonsense from someone who refuses to learn history. Princip was
>> positioned along the motorcade route farther up, in front. He only went
to
>> the cafe when his cohorts failed.
>
> But if he was an insurance shooter, shouldn't he have finished the job
> right away, such as in your Kennedy assassination example? It isn't
much
> insurance if you give up and then just happen to run into your target
> while you are eating lunch.
>
No, he was too far up, the crowd had already reacted and the target was
already alerted.
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_in_Sarajevo
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sarajevo-assn-chart.svg
>>
>>> wrong turn? That's some insurance. My terrible Allstate agent isn't
even
>>> that bad. There's a difference between a planned insurance shooter
and a
>>> group of people all willing to be assassins. Of course, as is your
>>> standard practice, the details that don't fit your theories are cast
away.
>> There were several conspirators along the route and they all failed.
>
>
> Exactly, there were several individuals that all wanted to kill
Ferdinand.
> It doesn't mean that assassin #1 is the assassin and then each member
down
> the line is an insurance shooter for the next. It means that they
figured
> that several attempts were better than one. It's nothing like what you
> suggest happened to Kennedy.
>
They did not all shoot or thrown bombs at the same time. Each waited for
the proper time and if the target was still alive then they would act.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>> onlookers (with an open parking lot overlooked by an observation
tower to
>>>>>>>>> escape to). I'm sure they would fire a non suppressed rifle so
that it
>>>>>>>> The shooter was in a location where no one else was supposed to
be and
>>>>>>>> no one else was.
>>>>>>> Nobody else was supposed to be there? What do you mean by that?
They
>>>>>>> knew where every onlooker to the motorcade was going to sit?
Beyond that,
>>>>>> The police were supposed to keep spectators out of that area.
>>>>>>> nobody else was there if you are talking about the immediate 20'
around
>>>>>>> the location of the shooter, but there were plenty of people very
close to
>>>>>> I am not talking about a 20 foot radius. I am talking about behind
the
>>>>>> fence.
>>>>> A fence can't make you completely invisible , especially when you
are
>>>>> firing a high powered rifle at the President in broad daylight? You
>>>> Invisible? Who said invisible? No one re****ted seeing the man there.
No
>>>> one re****ted seeing Black Dog Man.
>>> Perhaps nobody re****ted seeing him because he wasn't there. Has that
>>> thought ever even crossed your mind? Of course, if Black Dog Man was
>>> actually the black couple that Sitzman re****ted in the area, he was
>> No, no one re****ted seeing anyone at the retaining wall corner.
>
> Yes, but they did re****t them a few feet from that location. Can you
> guarantee their whereabouts at all times?
>
No, they did not re****t them anywhere near there at the time of the
shooting.
As I said before the black couple can not be seen anywhere at any time in
films and photos. Sitzman saw someone somewhere sometime.
>
>>> actually re****ted. Of course, you would rather remove them completely
and
>>> insert a new shadow figure based on some shaky interpretation of the
skin
>>> tone identification. On top of that, you know as well as I that not
every
>>> person in the plaza was identified.
>> Shadow figure? Please. Then I could use your same trick to argue that
>> the black couple was never there.
>
> No, we know that the black couple was in that area. We just can't say
for
> sure if they were at the end of the wall at any time. That's a bit more
> to go on than inventing another individual.
>
Inventing? There was a man there. We don't have to know where he came
from. Here's a new theory just for you. How about if Black Dog Man was
the guy in a suit that Smith thought was a SS agent?
>>
>>
>>>>> believe that it was possible to see the shooter in photographs, so
is this
>>>>> invisibility a product of people just happening not to look in the
right
>>>>> place?
>>>> Yes. The spectators were watching the President.
>>>> Just like Black Dog Man.
>>> That is reverse logic. You claim that nobody saw him shoot the rifle,
>>> therefore you must believe that everyone was looking the other way.
Again,
>> No, not everyone was looking the other way. Moorman and Hill and others
>> near them were looking up towards the fence. At the time of the head
>> shot almost every person was focused on the Presidential limousine. Few
>> people were looking in the opposite direction or for potential
assassins.
>
> So, all of the people behind the limo on elm and all of the people along
> Houston don't face directly at the assassin as they follow the
President?
>
No, at an angle at the time of the head shot.
>
>>> you don't accept the thought that because he wasn't seen may mean that
he
>>> wasn't really there. It doesn't work that way. A shooter doesn't
place
>> Just because no one re****ts seeing someone does not mean he wasn't
>> there. No one re****ted seeing a person at the corner of the retaining
>> wall, but the photographic evidence proves that someone was there.
>>
>>> themselves in an exposed position simply planning on nobody looking
their
>>> way. Along with that, it could explain away the people with their
back to
>> The grassy knoll shooter did not place himself in an exposed position.
>> He was so well hidden that even you, old Eagle Eyes, can not see him.
>
> You just keep arguing backwards. "Nobody saw him, so he must have
really
> been hidden well". That's just bad logic. Nobody saw you make a valid
> point in this entire argument, but you don't see anyone claiming that
your
> valid arguments were simply hidden.
It counters your argument that no one could go unnoticed.
>
>
>>> the fence, but that is a small percentage of the people in Dealy
Plaza.
>>> Most people who were watching the President would be looking right in
the
>>> direction of the shooter as evidenced by the fact that multiple
>>> photographs are taken of the exact location that you claim the shooter
was
>>> in.
>> Most? No. Out of hundreds only a few were near Moorman and Hill.
>
> Again, most of the viewers down Elm and Houston and in the grass in the
> middle of the plaza would have been looking directly at the knoll as the
> head shot occured.
>
Sure. And none saw the Black Dog Man.
>
>
>
>>>>>>> the location that you suggest and many more looking directly in
the
>>>>>>> supposed shooters location (even taking pictures of the location).
It's
>>>>>>> absolutely ridiculous unless it is presented in a way that removes
it from
>>>>>>> the context of common sense.
>>>>>>>>> could be heard by accoustic experts and multiple witnesses. I'm
sure they
>>>>>>>> Many witnesses DID hear that shot and acoustics studies had not
been
>>>>>>>> invented then to pinpoint the location of a rifle.
>>>>>>> It doesn't matter that the science hadn't been invented yet.
Common sense
>>>>>>> says that if you fire a rifle (and it isn't suppressed) somebody
is going
>>>>>>> to hear it. It's going to leave evidence that isn't needed to be
left.
>>>>>> And they did and re****ted it. But of course you ignore that fact.
>>>>> And you ignore the fact that only 4 witnesses re****ted hearing what
you
>>>>> believe happened (two firing locations or is it three firing
locations?)
>>>> Ignore? I've only discussed it a few hundred times.
>>>>>>> You have bogus acoustic evidence that backs you into a corner and
forces
>>>>>>> you to say that they didn't suppress the shot. At that point, you
have to
>>>>>> No. My original theory before the HSCA was that silencers were
used. No
>>>>>> evidence of that in the acoustical studies.
>>>>> Yeah, so you were an easy mark for the accoustical studies. You
were
>>>>> already sold on cherry picked witness testimony and odd shapes in
>>>>> photographs.
>>>> I never rely on witness testimony. It is only a clue. And if you say
odd
>>>> shapes in photographs you are claiming that you can not see the
things I
>>>> am pointing out.
>>> So, you have photographic evidence that isn't just odd shapes? You
have
>>> verifiable human forms? You have scientific analysis of skin tones?
No?
>>> I guess you just have odd shapes and cherry picked witness testimony.
I
>>> saw the shape of a hamburger in the clouds today. That doesn't mean
that
>>> I had a free lunch.
>> Odd shapes that are there one moment and aren't there later?
>> Some of your fellow WC defenders say the same nonsense about Black Dog
Man.
>
> So you don't have any scientific analysis then.
>
The HSCA published it.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>> convince everyone out there with a brain that a shot from the TSBD
>>>>>>> couldn't be distinguished from a shot from a few feet away.
That's a tall
>>>>>> Look at the shooting tests from 1978. It depends on the listener
and the
>>>>>> position. Sometimes it is hard to tell. Stop guessing at things.
>>>>> Dr. David Green of BBN supervised the test and he himself stated
that it's
>>>>> "hard to believe a rifle was fired from the knoll" as it would be
easy to
>>>>> localize. He also brought up the little point that only 4 witnesses
>>>>> stated that they heard shots from both locations, to sup****t his
findings.
>>>> Good for him. Doesn't prove any fact.
>>> That's your response?! The scientist who ran the shooting tests,
which
>>> you claim I am ignorant of, claims that it's highly unlikely. This
>> He did not run the shooting tests. He was in charge of the listening
tests.
>
> Sorry, but you were the one that referenced them as the 1978 shooting
test
> and spoke about the problems that they had distingui****ng sounds. I'm
> just following your lead. After all, you can't have listening tests if
> you don't have shooting tests. They kind of go together. Feel free to
> correct yourself in that previous post. I'll correct myself here. I
> meant to say the "listening tests". Now that we have the semantics out
of
> the way, can you tell me why you glossed over his comments?
>
Because his comments are specious.
>
>>
>>
>>> scientist is a member of the same group that provided the foundation
for
>>> your belief in a grassy knoll
>> ...
>
>
>
|
