Were any OCTers watching "no conspiracies" "go to guy" Penn Jillette on Fox w/ Glenn Beck?

[HamdenRice]

Several OCTers have referred to Penn Jillette as the go-to guy to prove that all allegations of criminal conspiracies are "crazy". Speaking of crazy did anyone watch Penn Jillette supporting Glenn Beck's "news coverage" of the "tea baggers" rally at the Alamo?

Do the OCTabots still claim to be progressives after watching Jillette rant that a several percentage raise of the tax rate on millionaires is cause for a right wing revolution?

[seemslikeadream]

1. There was a good Larry King Live with Stephanie Miller and Jillette

I'm gonna look for that youtube vid

[AZCat]

2. I don't have a TV.

For some reason, I don't think Glenn Beck is a reason to get one.

[OnTheOtherHand]

3. ?

If you define "OCTabots" as "people who refer to Penn Jillette as the go-to guy (etc.)," then I guess you will have to find some and ask them.

My Google search didn't reveal any combination of "Penn Jillette" "go-to guy" on this site. Perhaps I'm being too darn literal.

[LARED]

4. Hamden seems to up to silly tricks again

Several OCTers have referred to Penn Jillette as the go-to guy to prove that all allegations of criminal conspiracies are "crazy".

[jberryhill]

7. He's figured out, Lared, that you are a Glenn Beck supporter

You see, if you ever once referred to Penn Gilette (or however you spell his name) for any purpose, then it means you support Glenn Beck, because Penn is apparently a Glenn Beck supporter.

This means that Hamden is a racist because he uses a computer that relies on transistors which were co-invented by William Shockley, the noted racist.

[LARED]

12. Shocking news. nt

[NowHearThis]

5. Magicians are the most LIKELY suspects for 9/11!

So yes, those guys probably are motivated by disgust at not being properly credited! As in, "conspiracy my foot. that was a damn fine act by whoever pulled it off and whoever DID sure as heck weren't Arab magicians, that's for sure".

[jberryhill]

6. "Several OCTers have referred to Penn Jillette as the go-to guy"

Really, "the go-to guy"?

William Shockley is a confirmed racist. I hope you quit using transistors when you found that out.

About the only thing I've ever seen him referenced for around here is shooting an object with a gun to get a backwards motion out of it. I doubt he used some kind of right wing freeper gun for that, but otherwise, whose been calling him "the go-to guy"?

[seemslikeadream]

8. sharing the insanity

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FIFSREb0Fk


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR9jyB4m9EY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt-fRgMIAIY

[vincent_vega_lives]

9. THANK GOD

thank god you posted this. I was planning on going-to Penn Jillette regarding allegation of criminal conspiracies. Now I have a good reason to not to. Thank you.

[seemslikeadream]

10. Penn&Teller skepticism & atheism in the media put on by the James Randi Educational Foundation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIDeVseZ8Fs

This is the manic magic house that Penn built.........

poster featuring The Amazing Randi, the famed debunker and Jillette's hero.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-10-28-at-home-penn-jillette_x.htm






http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/02/the_more_amazin.html

The More Amazing Penn


On Wednesday Penn Jillette (of Penn and Teller) did a radio interview with The Amazing Randi, whom Penn calls "the most important person in the world to me; the person who changed my life the most." Toward the end (~36:00), we find this exchange, which suggests to me that Penn has a better grasp of the issues, and his own limitations:

Penn: "The definition of an intellectual is someone who can change their mind given facts ..."
Randi: "This doesn't happen with the believer, ... they cannot be unconvinced ... based on experience with thousands of them"
Penn: "What is the biggest thing you have ever changed your mind on, what is the deepest belief you held that you were wrong on?"
Randi: "Oh boy. Hard to say now, I've never been posed with that question before." He never answers the question.

Penn: Explains his mom became atheist in her 80s, a few years before she died. "... There isn't like a political point or a point like that that you shifted on over the years? "
Randi: "Well. I think that it takes a certain amount of intelligence and education to be able to do this, a reversal of this kind. But the key phrase here is that its not that they want this to be true, they need it to be true. ... If they have to say they are wrong, to reverse their minds, they have to be essentially saying they think (I don't this is true) `I'm really stupid.' No, naive and uniformed is not stupid."
Penn: "Also victim is not stupid. ... People always say how stupid do you have to be to believe in a psychic, and I always say how hot do you have to be to be raped. ... we tend to blame the victim ... I think that anyone can be duped, and be duped badly; you must blame the perpetrator and not the victim ... when you say they need to believe this, you have to explain that more because one way of looking at this is, if someone needs something like need food or water, and you are coming in to try to take that away from them, what you are doing is wrong, so you can't mean "need" in the traditional sense"
Randi: "You're right. .... I haven't had a moment as a child or as an adult ever that I would have believed any of this sort of thing, any more than I would have believed in Santa Claus. .. immediately I knew it was a myth."
Penn: Says that age 10 or 11 he believed in Chariot of the Gods style UFOs, he was religious and believer in all sorts of stuff until 16 or 17.
Randi: "I don't have any need or want; people say do you want it to be true and I say I don't care; all I want to know is, is it true, yes or no? I just want to know what the truth is and I have no fear of the answer."

[Name removed]

11. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrMickeysMom]

13. I still don't understand what "OCT" stands for...

Does it have something to do with "original conspiracy theorists"? Cause, I'm guessing here...

Penn Jillette no doubt suffers from obstructive sleep apnea. Jesus, did ya see SLaD's video down thread? That guy has no neck. He sounds like his brains got sucked out of his ass. His head was probably up there distorting it!

[greyl]

14. "Only Coherent Theory" or "Obama's Conspiracy Theory".

When the those enthralled by the 9/11 Truth Industry use the term to speak derisively about other DUers here, they mean Obama's Conspiracy Theory.

[procopia]

15. If you believe

what government officials have told us happened on 9/11, why would you think "Official Conspiracy Theory" is a derisive term?

[greyl]

17. Official Conspiracy Theory is a meaningless term.

That's one reason why my post didn't mention it at all.

Terms like OCTabots and OCTabarnacles are clearly derisive. Paying attention to the context can usually help sort out what something is intended to mean.

[procopia]

19. Not at all

The Official Conspiracy Theory is simply what government officials told us happened on 9/11, nothing more, nothing less.

[NowHearThis]

21. Objection. You failed to say that the OCT is only operative

for PR purposes and that it has the advantage of being extremely malleable whenever confronted by the truth and its bearers.

[greyl]

24. Officials like Cynthia McKinney, Jesse Ventura, and Sen. Karen Johnson?

...or Barack Obama?

[procopia]

34. What did those officials tell us

happened on 9/11? What were their theories? I realize former Gov. Ventura expressed a belief it was controlled demolition, but was this during his term? I don't think so.

[greyl]

43. Does your answer depend? nt

[procopia]

53. No, your question depends on it (nt)

.

[vincent_vega_lives]

71. Which government officials told you what exactly?

Did you get a memo? Phone call? Why just you?

[MrMickeysMom]

42. I see nothing wrong with the term Official Conspiracy Theory-

Absent a definitive collection of evidence, clear motives, surveillance videos, denial from OBL, and a commission that had to be put together after a long delay, rather than a coordinated immediate objective and first rate investigation resulting in a trial, I'd say it falls into an original THEORY.

Unsolved mystery ... theorized and argued daily... right here.

[greyl]

44. You just have a problem with the Only Coherent Theory & Obama's CT, I got it. nt

[MrMickeysMom]

48. That's not my choice...

I don't have a problem with most things.

The reason that it's not my choice should be an obvious one. I don't live in absolutes about what has not been proven. Maybe it's why I don't have a personal "God" that lives up in heaven with a white beard. I leave room for interpretation and someone or something being brighter than I am to provide the ultimate explanation.

People who designate an "only" to theories make me suspicious about their motives. I can tell whenever people prefer absolutes, they generally fortify their own perception and aren't interested in someone else's. Because, like you, they have no interest in reasoning what may and may not be true.

Same choice about naming some silly ass theory after Barack Obama... "Obama's CT"? Who made it Obama's?

[greyl]

49. What I believe about 9/11 happens to coincide with what Barack Obama believes

Not to mention with what the hundreds of thousands of people comprised of witnesses & professionals with relevant experience to judge what physically happened. All that input comprises the Only Coherent Theory about 9/11. The dozens of silly-ass, self-contradictory, pure speculation theories are care of the 9/11 Truth Industry. They are not coherent individually, let alone as a group.

Until you provide evidence that Barack Obama believes in MIHOP or LIHOP, you might as well be thinking of him when you use the term OCT. I could also point out that it's the same one as Dennis Kucinich's, but the letters don't quite work out, do they?

[MrMickeysMom]

50. Do the letters, "HIA" work out for you better?

You'd have to have yours way up there to believe you have evidence supporting what Obama or Kucinich think happened at the WTC 911.

That's pure megalomania.

[greyl]

51. The evidence I have, which is probably pretty close to what you have...

supports that Barack, and Dennis, and hundreds of thousands of people comprised of witnesses and experts with relevant experience, all share the same belief about what physically happened on 9/11 and with regards to conspiracies.
I hope you've seen at least a few of the speeches Obama and Kucinich have made where they mentioned 9/11, Al Queda, and the proper way to wage peace in a world where religious fundamentalist terrorists actually do exist.

You don't actually think they agree with you, do you?

[MrMickeysMom]

52. Oh, sure, I'm sure they agree with me!

... why, we were just talking last week... :sarcasm:

What you and I are witnessing when we see the president and congress address 911 is political, and not an intended "weigh in of opinion"... Listen carefully, and you will hear the generalization of agreement that all Americans, ney, all citizens of the world have the right to protect their shores and that fundamentalism is not a good thing.

That cannot nor should not be interpreted as "sharing the same belief" and you don't see numbers on the account of "hundreds and thousands of people" who share in that belief. You are not able to give me numbers because you have none. You just have your opinion and I have mine. Quit shooting holes into who's right and wrong and wasting your time with these arguments.

[greyl]

54. Right, they don't agree with you at all.

The numbers I cited are from previous conversations here concerning licensed engineers - you know - that other huge group that agrees with the Only Coherent Theory.
The one based on evidence.

[MrMickeysMom]

69. For objectivity...

you FAIL.

"previous conversations"

"other huge group that agrees with OCT"

NONE OF THESE = evidence based data.

Why don't you just give up and start counting some opinions to compare and contrast if you want to talk about evidence... Otherwise, just admit you want to stick your opinion in everyone's face.

[greyl]

70. Simple math and a calculation of what is most likely.

Add the number people who witnessed the physical events of 9/11 to the number of ASCE members, firefighers, air traffic control personnel etc.
You will then have the total number of "people comprised of witnesses and experts with relevant experience".
Hundreds of thousands is actually a very conservative estimate.

Why is it justified for you to make claims about me like I "have no interest in reasoning what may and may not be true" without any evidence, but I can't take at face value the many public statements of Obama and Kucinich and notice that it is extremely likely that we agree on 9/11?

Your only recourse in this argument is to claim that Obama has been lying to everyone and is being complicit in a cover-up of immense gravity. Again, you do that with no evidence whatsoever.

[MrMickeysMom]

86. Huh?

Add the number people who witnessed the physical events of 9/11...

And who would THESE PEOPLE be???


Mmm... I guess what we have here is your fuzzy math, right?

[rollingrock]

16. He sounds like a right-wing crackpot

but let's not use him to smear everyone who believes in the official conspiracy theory
(the OCT for you noobs), or playing guilt by association. I don't believe the official story one bit, but let's try to be better than that. I don't think most OCTers on DU would want anything to do with this Penn guy.

[NowHearThis]

18. Even right-wing crackpots can be amusing sometimes

P&G are right-wing nut jobs and so it's not surprising they'd promote right-wing conspiracy theories. However misguided and
mean-spirited the two rascals (one little, the other BIG), they are talented and entertaining. Just like some ordinary posters
on certain Web sites.

[Theobald]

20. I would hardly consider Penn & Teller right wing nut jobs.

Libertarian nut jobs maybe, but anyone who is an atheist, promotes pornography, and is for drug legalization hardly qualifies as a right wing nut job.

[NowHearThis]

22. Your list could also include willingness to use celebrity to

promote Government lies.

[HamdenRice]

23. You haven't been around long enough. For some reason OCTers think magicians are geniuses

and tend to cite them as all knowing sources of "debunking" any notion that there might be criminal conspiracies within government.

Certain OCTers rely on Penn's video and overall "credibility" to "prove" that JFK was assassinated by lone gun man, Lee Oswald, and that any deviation from the OCT re 9/11 is "crazy tin foil hat" thinking.

[jberryhill]

25. O RLY?

How many magicians get cited as an authority on any aspect of 9/11?

And, to cut to the chase on this one - if I quote something you post on DU, then am I citing Skinner as an authority?

[HamdenRice]

26. Are you saying Penn Jillette has not been cited here as an authority?

Or that Jillette is not a magician?

[jberryhill]

27. Jillettes demonstration of shooting an object and obtaining recall

...has been posted here.

And he is a magician.

Are you saying that Jillette's rifle is biased as a demonstration of what happens when something is shot?

Personally, I think that entire demonstration is irrelevant for the purpose it is offered, but without going down that entire argument, it is quite apparent that he is not being cited as an "authority" on anything - it is a video of him shooting a bullet into an object, and certainly not the only one.

This is like saying "Bush has been cited as an authority on whether people can fall off of a Segway"

No, he is an example of a person who fell off of a Segway.

Stark evidence of Republican Segway propaganda:

[HamdenRice]

28. "I think that entire demonstration is irrelevant for the purpose it is offered"

Agreed.

"it is quite apparent that he is not being cited as an "authority" on anything"

Disagreed.

[jberryhill]

29. That particular shooting demonstration has been done by more than him

So how does his reproduction of a frequently demonstrated fact make him an "authority"?


(it's involuntary muscle jerk anyway, and not an impact reaction, but that's beside the point)

[HamdenRice]

30. What? 50% agreement isn't enough?

Implicitly, citing that video is relying on his authority to design a ballistics experiment and to show how fast a rifle can be aimed and fired (he was cited for more than just the direction of momentum issue).

He simply doesn't have the qualifications to be relied upon for designing those experiments and interpreting the results -- not to mention other comments of his about "conspiracies" in general.

He's a relatively uneducated, right wing, libertarian entertainer -- not an expert on ballistics, marksmanship, international politics or criminal investigations.

[OnTheOtherHand]

31. you need to move the goalposts more subtly

Saying that citing the video "implicitly" relies on his authority to design a ballistics experiment is a pretty neat move. But by the time you get to "international politics," even the most careless reader is bound to notice something amiss -- and it is still nowhere near the OP's "prove that all allegations of criminal conspiracies are 'crazy'" or the last snippet in post #23.

[greyl]

46. After your full-of-shit OP? Nope.

Fine example of how CTists love to post claims for which they no evidence.

[HamdenRice]

56. "claims for which they no evidence"

If by evidence, you mean, "a telepathic talking gorilla told me so," no my claims don't meat your "standards" of evidence.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[OnTheOtherHand]

57. did you intend to support the substance of the OP?

Or is this, in fact, all about flame bait?

[HamdenRice]

58. Which claims? That Jillette is a magician? That he was on Glenn Beck?

That he was the "go to guy" for some OCTers?

Here are the claims:

1. Penn Jillette is a magician.

2. Penn Jillette was on Glenn Beck.

3. On Glenn Beck, Jillette was supporting a"tea baggers'" rally at the Alamo.

3a. On Glenn Beck, Jillette supported the idea that a small percentage increase in the tax rate is cause for a right wing revolution.

4. Jillette was an OCTabot "go to guy" to prove allegations of conspiracy are crazy.

5. OCTabots claim to be progressive.

Which claim do you want evidence for? It seems that 1-3a are obvious, and the claim in 5 is ubiquitous around here.

The claim in 4 is confirmed by jberryhill in post 27.

[OnTheOtherHand]

59. :eyes:

Hamden, you strike me as a reasonably intelligent person. I'm sure you realize that post #27 does not confirm the claim that "Jillette was an OCTabot 'go to guy' to prove allegations of conspiracy are crazy" -- which is still an attempt to rephrase your OP ("the go-to guy... all allegations...") to make it slightly less ridiculous.

OK, well, keep stirring.

[HamdenRice]

60. What precisely do you object to?

Are you saying that there were no threads in which Jillette's experiments and rants were used as citation authority against conspiracies? You keep complaining, but you are not providing any specific critique.

Do you object to the colorful term, "go to guy"? Is that your problem?

Are you suggesting I said all OCTers rely on Jillette? Because I didn't. I said some.

What precisely is your problem with the claim? Did you read those threads? Isn't jberryhill's post enough evidence for you that Jillette was cited as an authority by OCTers? Do you know what Jillette's claims are? Jillette positions himself as someone who disbelieves all "conspiracy theories." Are you saying that that is not a fair characterization of Jillette?

I'm sure you can be more specific than simply saying, "keep stirring." Can you formulate an affirmative statement about what you think is wrong about the OP?

[OnTheOtherHand]

61. wow

Hamden, can you give me any reason to believe that you are sincere and serious about any of this? Because I'm pretty good at suspending disbelief, but not that good.

[HamdenRice]

62. I've asked for a simple affirmative statement

You seem unable to give it. Here is one last opportunity to redeem your credibility.

What precisely is your claim?

[OnTheOtherHand]

63. shorter Hamden: "no, I can't"

I simply observe, again, that jberryhill's post doesn't support either the OP or your revisionist paraphrase of the OP. You've offered no argument to the contrary, and I think we both know what jberryhill thinks about the matter, so I guess that's it.

[NowHearThis]

32. HARVEY Oswald fired NOTHING at JFK

Even former Dallas Chief of Police, Jesse Curry admitted that they couldn't place Oswald in the sniper's nest, but that's a very tiny drop in the bucket of NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that Oswald shot JFK.

Penn's video is irrelevant to the issue of who killed President Kennedy.

[SDuderstadt]

33. Bullshit...

please provide any proof you have of your silly claims.

[NowHearThis]

36. Read Chief Curry's book

How many times do you have to be told? The truth is out there and plenty of right-wingers know it.

[SDuderstadt]

38. oswald's palm print was found on boxes...

used to set up the sniper's nest. what a lame answer...''read chief curry's book''. pathetic.

[NowHearThis]

40. You calling Chief Curry a liar?

You obviously haven't read his book.

[SDuderstadt]

45. Please prove that he said anything of the sort...

until you can, this is just more of your bullshit. Name of the book and relevant page number, please.

[NowHearThis]

65. Here you go. Enjoy.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKcurryJ.htm

[SDuderstadt]

67. first you said it was in curry's book...

now you refer me to an item on a jfk assassination ct website in which someone is saying that curry made that comment to tom johnson. do you see why that isn't particularly convincing? it's someone saying that someone said that tom johnson said that jesse curry said it. does curry make that statement in his book? did curry state that he did not believe that oswald shot jfk? no, curry believed that oswald did. this is why i don't take you seriously.

[OnTheOtherHand]

68. also, the quotation at face value doesn't support the claim

I don't know if the quotation is accurate. But even stipulating that it is, saying (1) there is no proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and (2) no one has been able to put him in the book depository with a gun in his hand, doesn't amount to saying that "they couldn't place Oswald in the sniper's nest," and certainly doesn't support the assertion of "NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that Oswald shot JFK."

[NowHearThis]

74. If you can make a logical argument for what YOU claim, please do.

Just keep in mind that you talking to someone who is pretty familiar with the evidence. Try to do better than your teammates.

[OnTheOtherHand]

77. excuse me?

I just made my argument. You've offered no objection, so until further notice, I assume that you concede that your quotation doesn't support your claim. If you disagree, I will be interested to see why: the issue seems pretty clear-cut.

I don't care how familiar you think you are with the evidence, what you assume that I "claim" beyond what I've actually posted, or what screwball assumptions about "teammates" you make. I'm just interested whether you are capable of supporting your arguments.

[NowHearThis]

78. Chew on this

I'm sure you know about this, but just as a reminder of two of the claims about HARVEY Oswald:

1. Oswald’s rifle was found near the "sniper's nest" in the Book Depository building, and a bullet involved in the shooting had markings proving it was fired from that rifle. But this bullet was found on a stretcher in Parkland Hospital under circumstances that suggest it was planted. The rifle also may have been planted – the story that Oswald carried the rifle into a building inside a paper bag has many problems. Further, a paraffin test on Oswald's cheek came out negative, indicating he hadn't fired a rifle that day.

2. Oswald was present on the sixth floor around the time of the shooting, and was even spotted in the window. The Warren Commissioner's "star witness" Howard Brennan didn't identify Oswald at a police lineup, and evidence indicates he could not have been the source for the description of Oswald that went out over police radio. No other eyewitnesses put him in the window, and there is contradictory testimony about Oswald's whereabouts including multiple witnesses placing him on a lower floor.

[OnTheOtherHand]

79. please pay attention

Your claim was, "Jesse Curry admitted that they couldn't place Oswald in the sniper's nest." Are you prepared to support that claim, or not?

You're taking this already off-topic excursion even further off topic.

[NowHearThis]

82. Wake up. It's already been done + much more for you to chew on.

nt

[OnTheOtherHand]

85. I can only conclude that you aren't reading.

OK.

[NowHearThis]

73. You haven't provided any proof of anything Curry believed.

If you have some evidence that Curry believed Oswald was on the sixth floor and that it could be proven that he was, kindly provide it.

Curry was definitely a lone nut theorist just like you and your friends are, but fortunately he also was honest enough to let slip a few things which show that deep down he knew better. He first ordered police officers to go and check up around the triple underpass because that was where gunsmoke had been seen and smelled. Later, to prove he was a team player, he claimed that the only place from which shots were fired was the sixth floor.

It doesn't bother me because I know your game, but some people probably snicker behind your back at how amateurish you appear whenever you do things like try to dismiss inconvenient evidence by labeling its source inaccurately as you did in this instance above. Hopefully, the wrong people will forgive you and just assume that most folks are too dumb to see through your game.

[NowHearThis]

76. Jesse Curry + Oswald + Sixth Floor of TSBD

The American Bar Association held a mock Oswald trial in 1992. The trial ended in a hung jury. Jesse Curry, who was the chief of the Dallas Police Department at the time Kennedy was shot, said in 1969, six years after the assassination,

"We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand." (Dallas Morning News, Nov. 6, 1969, from Jim Marrs, Crossfire, New York: Carroll & Graf, 1990, p. 47)


Please have the decency to not try and get this message deleted. Thanks.

[LARED]

35. Dang, that is one bold claim

It is nonsense of course, but hey, lots of people believe all sorts of odd thing.

[NowHearThis]

37. Spoken like a true Lone Nut Theorist

How could anyone be so wrong about so many things? You really need to get up to speed on the things you rail about but know nothing about (I'm trying to be fair by assuming your sincerity. No, I really mean it.)

[SDuderstadt]

39. have you ever reviewed the actual evidence against oswald?

it is, in fact, overwhelming.

[NowHearThis]

41. Yep, sure have. Obviously you haven't.

That's why I know that HARVEY Oswald wasn't even on the sixth floor. You really know almost nothing about the case and I have
a strong suspicion that you don't CARE to know anything about it either. Much simpler that way for Lone Nut Theorists.

[SDuderstadt]

47. Yeah, you're right.....

I don't CARE to know anything about it...that's why I bought Bugliosi's 1612 page book and read every page. Have you?

[vincent_vega_lives]

72. Question

What's with the all caps Harvey?

[NowHearThis]

75. Chief Curry speaks + why Oswald wouldn't have been found guilty

First, watch Chief Curry talk about the fatal shot
http://heh.pl/&3in


Curry's first impression of where he thought shots came from
is interesting.

According to Dallas Police Department radio recordings, the
following is heard just before and after shots are fired:

Chief Curry: Approaching Triple Underpass

Dispatcher: 12:30 p.m. KKB 364

Chief: Go to the hospital - Parkland Hospital. Have them stand by.

Chief: Get a man on top of that triple underpass and see what happened up there.

Have Parkland stand by.


It's quite obvious that Curry thought the shots came
from in front of him, and not behind him, where the TSBD was
located. The triple underpass was in front, not behind him.


Oswald would not have been found guilty for the attack in Dealey Plaza for the following reasons:

1. He was questioned without the benefit of counsel.

2. No transcript or recording was taken of his statements during questioning.

3. His fingerprints were never found on the rifle.

4. The bullets that were used fragmented and were not the same as the only type which could have been fired from his rifle.

5. The paraffin test proved that he hadn't fired a rifle in 24 hours.

6. Two of the three shells allegedly found on the sixth floor of the TSBD were never fired from his rifle.

7. The bullet fragments found in the limousine were never photographed in place.

8. The bullet holes in JFK's body did not support a single shooter. Kennedy was hit from two different directions.

9. No one could put Oswald on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting.

10. The police lineups were conducted illegally.

11. No one saw him bring the rifle into the building.

12. No evidence existed as to how Oswald came to possess the ammunition.

13. The scope was set up for a left-eyed shooter and Oswald was right-eyed.

[SDuderstadt]

80. Let's just look at two of your assertions and show...

why your list is nonsense:

5. The paraffin test proved that he hadn't fired a rifle in 24 hours.

First of all, parrafin tests are highly unreliable and often give false positives, as well as false negatives, which you would know, if you knew anything about police procedure. Secondly, why do you think a parrafin test might not reveal if someone fired a rifle, assuming the test was even reliable to begin with. Think real hard. Hint: the parrafin test is testing for nitrates. Again, thinking really hard, why would such a test not show Oswald had "fired a rifle"? You do, of course, know that the parrafin test showed positive that Oswald had fired a pistol. Why do you think that was? Hint: because, unlike the rifle, the pistol that Oswald used was a revolver, meaning that cylinders are open, allowing the nitrates to deposit on the shooter, whereas a rifle is constructed differently (it's closed, not open), thus, not affording the same opportunity.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm

You don't fare any better on "13. The scope was set up for a left-eyed shooter and Oswald was right-eyed." This was specifically debunked by the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

Does the method of mounting a scope on a rifle affect or have any influence on whether the rifle can be fired by a left-handed individual?

(158) There is no such thing as a left- or right-handed telescopic sight. The location of a telescopic sight on a rifle is determined not by whether it is to be shot left-handed or right-handed, but rather by such factors as receiver design, cartridge case ejection direction and bolt handle travel pattern. On CE 139, the telescopic sight is mounted on the left side of the receiver because of the vertical bolt handle travel pattern and the split receiver (see fig. 1). Because this rifle has a right-handed action, a telescopic sight cannot be mounted on the right side of the receiver.

You can rebunk this stuff all you want, but your "list" is just warmed over CT nonsense which has been roundly debunked over the years.

[NowHearThis]

81. Only lone nut theorists pay any attention to McAdams. Refute THIS

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13779&st=0


Here's a little bit of what researcher Duke Lane says about Oswald's innocence - from the above Web site

The proof of Oswald's innocence in the downtown shooting is this:

Junior Jarman and Hank Norman did not begin their walk to the fifth floor until they'd heard - either over a police radio or through the buzz of the crowd after someone else had heard it - that the motorcade was on Main Street. This was mentioned on Channel 2 two times, once at 12:22 and again at either 12:26 or 12:27, but the earliest time 12:22.

They walked from the front of the building, up Houston Street and entered the building, first noting that the passenger elevator was not in its first-floor stop, then walking around to the freight elevator, which they rode up to, according to their testimony, the fifth floor. There was nobody else on that floor as they made their way to the front windows. This walk and elevator ride - the latter at one floor every six seconds, or 24 seconds total - could have taken as little as a minute and a half, possibly a little shorter or longer.

Bonnie Ray Williams had been on the sixth floor, claimed that he'd heard footsteps or something below him, and rode the passenger elevator - that he'd taken up during the lunch hour - down to the fifth floor, where he joined his compatriots at the front windows. Only Hank Norman equivocated about whether Bonnie Ray was there when he and Junior had gotten there or if he joined them later; the other two agreed he joined the two of them later.

Also on both the fifth and sixth floors, "getting stock," was "great big husky fellow" Jack Dougherty, whom none of the three claimed to have seen.

If Bonnie Ray ate his lunch where he said he did and where remnants were later found, there is no way anyone could have been in the southeast corner without being seen or heard by him: anyone who's stood at the end of the next set of windows from the "sniper's nest" exhibit on the sixth floor would agree.

If anyone planned on shooting at Kennedy, they'd have had to have been ready to do so no later than 12:25 when the motorcade was scheduled to arrive (five minutes before the 12:30 luncheon at the Trade Mart), and earlier in case the motorcade was ahead of schedule.

If Hank and Junior didn't start to go upstairs until after 12:22 and Bonnie Ray was upstairs until after the other two had arrived on the fifth floor, then Bonnie Ray was on the sixth floor even later than the latest he'd estimated (12:15), to within a minute or so before 12:25 or - if Hank and Junior didn't start up until after the 12:26/27 broadcast of the motorcade's being on Main Street, as late as 12:28 or even 12:29.

Either of those times being so, Bonnie Ray was on the sixth floor when whoever was setting up to shoot was there, and within 20 feet or less from him or them. That being so, if the shooter was Oswald, by the time Williams had much to say to anyone, Oswald was dead: what harm could there possibly be in identifying him as the shooter, eyewitnessed by someone who knew him?

When he heard what he thought was a "backfire," Jack Dougherty was standing "10 feet west of the west elevator," that is, right smack dab where the fleeing Oswald had to have run to get downstairs in time to meet Baker & Truly in the second floor lunch room. Dougherty remained there with the gate up until after Truly yelled up to "let that elevator loose" and began his ascent with Baker by stairs. If Oswald didn't run by - or even into - Jack Dougherty, then he didn't run down the stairs to the lunchroom.

There's more to the story, but this is sufficient to mark the main points: Williams didn't see Oswald and neither did Jack Dougherty, ergo Oswald wasn't there. If they saw anyone else, they didn't say ... and if they saw anyone other than Oswald, they may very well have had something to fear. But if Oswald had done what he supposedly did, then there'd have been no reason not to identify him.

[SDuderstadt]

83. "Williams didn't see Oswald and neither did Jack Dougherty, ergo Oswald wasn't there"

It's safe to say that Oswald did not want to be seen by anyone and we know the boxes that formed the sniper's nest were already in place. Are you seriously claiming that Oswald could not have been hiding behind the boxes without being seen????

[SDuderstadt]

84. If you'd bother to read what I actually wrote...

I'm citing the HSCA, not McAdams. I merely accessed it through McAdams site. It's also pretty funny to claim McAdams isn't credible but Duke Lane is.

[LARED]

55. I should get up to speed you say

How about helping out a poor benighted DU'er and pointing me to some good research materials so I understand.

[NowHearThis]

64. Here are a few resources where you could learn a lot

TheEducationForum

JFK Lancer

Mary Ferrell Foundation

History Matters

JFK Deep Politics Quarterly

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.