Stunning testimony at the JFK assassination hearings.

[LeftofLeft]

You claim “authority” all time. Is that a privilege exclusive to you?

Another baseless opinion devoid of supporting facts. Keep going.

 

[Soupnazi630]

When it comes to Kennedy, the only thing that's been debunked is the Warren Commission.

It never has been, least of all by you

 

[Soupnazi630]

Photographic "evidence" supports a claim of multiple gunshots? That's a profound exaggeration of reality.

There were multiple gun shots. Three to be exact one missed the others stuck Kennedy and Connally.

That has never been a controversy.

There was also however only one shooter and no evidence disputes that fact

 

[Soupnazi630]

Oswald didn't do it, and the CIA didn't do it.

The CIA only lied because they were trying to to cover up their link with the Mafia.

J Edgar knew about this because he was wiretapping the Mafia.

CIA higher-ups knew about the rogue Cubans in the Miami station who were moonlighting for the Mafia in their time off. It is these elements who ran Oswald and pretended their actions were official.

We know most of their names. We don't know exactly who did what in many cases, but we have the general landscape. And we have lots of bits and pieces of the specifics.

The tall Cuban who met Oswald at Silvia Odio's house was Bernardo de Torres. The man who drove Rose Cheramie from Miami was Sergio Arcacha Smith.

Oswald is not the one who bought the beers at the liquor store the morning of the assassination. Oswald didn't drink. Couldn't. Alcohol made him sick, he had an allergy.

Oswald also didn't drive. This single fact is an important part of the story, it proves that the setup started almost a full year before Kennedy's assassination. It was a careful, deliberate, and meticulous setup.

The only people with the knowledge and means to do this were the Mafia. The CIA didn't do business this way, but the Mafia was able to leverage CIA resources through their Cuban connections. They had resources in the CIA, resources in the FBI, resources in both Dallas and New Orleans, and resources in private industry including Hughes Helicopter, which is where Radio Man got his radio.

The CE-399 bullet didn't fall out of Connally's leg, it was planted in the hospital by Jack Ruby. That bullet wasn't fired from Oswald's rifle, it was a fake, a meticulously crafted work of art traced to Oswald through its striations.

The Warren Commission wanted us to believe that the bullet passed through Kennedy, exploded his head, then ricocheted off Connally's rib and finally embedded itself in his leg. Yet the bullet was pristine, there weren't even any bits of blood and bone on it and it wasn't deformed in any way. Whereas Connally's leg had shrapnel in it till the day he died.

We already know all this. I'm dubious what a new investigation will tell us that we don't already know. Maybe some particulars (like who the Oswald double was, although it really doesn't matter at this point).

What seems likely is that the Mafia traded their Cuban ambitions for part interest in the Golden Triangle. That's really the sordid part of the story, perhaps of greater significance than the assassination itself. It's one of the big pieces our government doesn't want us to know. And that DOES have to do with the CIA, especially its funding - which has exceeded its official budget every year since before Kennedy.

All false

the bulllet was never pristine DUMBASS

 

[scruffy]

There were multiple gun shots. Three to be exact one missed the others stuck Kennedy and Connally.

That has never been a controversy.

There was also however only one shooter and no evidence disputes that fact

You must be a leftard.

You know a lot of shit that simply isn't true.

 

[scruffy]

It never has been, least of all by you

The Warren Commission and the J6 Committee are birds of a feather.

Stupid people believe their bullshit.

 

[Soupnazi630]

You must be a leftard.

You know a lot of shit that simply isn't true.

Wrong

I know it is and unlike you there is evidence to prove it

You make up crap as you go without a shred of evidence

 

[Soupnazi630]

The Warren Commission and the J6 Committee are birds of a feather.

Stupid people believe their bullshit.

You have never read either one you have no idea what they say

you cannot challenge them

 

[scruffy]

You have never read either one you have no idea what they say

you cannot challenge them

I just did, you dumb ******* asshole.

You're way out of your league. Too stupid to talk to. Back to the ignore list you go.

 

[Soupnazi630]

I just did, you dumb ******* asshole.

You're way out of your league. Too stupid to talk to. Back to the ignore list you go.

You did not you dishoonest lying windbag

You have yet to post a challenge or fact you stupid ************

 

[scruffy]

Another baseless opinion devoid of supporting facts. Keep going.

Well, what's interesting about this case is "facts" have a slightly different definition than they usually do.

This case is full of contradictions. It's impossible to tell off the cuff, who's lying and who's not, or who's simply mistaken.

Scruffy's value-add is he has the computer, that assigns a weight to every "fact". The weights start simple, like how many pieces of corroborating evidence there are for each "fact".

For example - earlier I posted the identity of LIEMPTY-14, a photographer assigned to surveil the Soviet embassy in Mexico City. That tidbit of information was corroborated in two ways: a) by direct interview of the son of the person in question, who was tracked down through publicly available information, and b) because the CIA actually published it, they forgot to redact it from one of their internal documents released by President Trump. So this piece of evidence ends up with a very high weight. It doesn't mean much, other than proving the CIA lied - which we already knew because they lie to every-*******-body, the Congress, the Senate, hell they even lie to themselves! It proves the CIA had surveillance photos of Oswald, which means absolutely nothing in relation to the JFK assassination. They were surveiling the embassy, Oswald showed up, they took a picture. No big deal. It doesn't prove they knew who Oswald was or what he was up to, it just proves they took a picture.

On the other hand, earlier I discussed the bullet fired at Gen Edwin Walker in April of 1963. The only witness to that activity was a 14 year old boy. He said he saw two men in two separate cars leave the scene just after the shooting. How much weight do you assign to that? The computer says "not much". Even if you believe the kid, the chances are good he was mistaken. It was dark, he was scared, and kids are known to exaggerate and make stuff up. However, Walker's statement about the bullet gets a higher weight, for several reasons. What the computer does, is optimize around a "statement of fact" and assign a probability to it, and a confidence level. It does this two different ways: 1) using Bayesian inference (if you're into machine learning, it's MAP optimization), and 2) through annealing, which is the energy based method that minimizes errors to predict the shape of the energy surface. What you do is compare the statistical result with the energy based result, and if they agree with a high level of confidence you start building hypotheses around that, to ask more intelligent questions.

So for instance, the time between the Kennedy assassination and Oswald's arrest at the Texas Theater is a mess. You have all kinds of conflicting information, from all kinds of sources. What you CAN'T do, is assume that one source is more trustworthy than another. Usually we assume that cops are more trustworthy than civilians, but we can't assume that in this case. Some of the cops and some of the witnesses may have been working for the FBI or the CIA or the Mafia, and it's impossible to tell which is which. So the weights have to start simple, the more different people that tell the same story, the higher the weight. When you compare stories like this, you get a whole long list of which story is contradicted by which other story. Contradictions diminish the weights unless they're simply not believable. At the end of the day you get confidence levels that vary widely, and you have to put "stakes in the ground" and develop scenarios around them. Then you run those scenarios back through the weights and see if any of them equilibrate. Most of them don't. If you find one that does, it's a noteworthy blip on the radar screen.

So for example, earlier I said "there had to be two Oswalds at the Texas Theater". You arrive at that conclusion with a method called "principal component analysis", which means you get much higher confidence levels when you partition your dataset into two parts. (You can Google the method if you're interested, it's a form of factor analysis, or multivariate regression). If you take all of the available evidence between the time of the Tippit shooting and the time of Oswald's arrest, you find so many contradictions that the only conclusion is it's impossible for one person to have done all those things. But if you tell the computer "there were two Oswalds, go figure out which one did what", suddenly your posterior confidence levels shoot up above 50%. That's huge, it almost never happens. If you see something like that you can raise your eyebrows a mile high.

And then, once you've established that possibility in one place and time, you can backtrack and look for it in other places and times. Oswald didn't drink, but "Oswald" bought two beers in a liquor store before the assassination, check. That kind of thing. This way, you can establish the approximate times when the "second Oswald" became important and what he might have done. In this particular case, the evidence is supplemented by a doppelganger in an unrelated event, which is the parallel in Chicago three days earlier. In that case, you have a character with many overt similarities to Oswald, who also had a doppelganger. So the computer tells you, "this scenario is similar to that scenario" with about a 60% confidence level which is very high in context. It indicates that the same methods were being used in both places, which means it's highly likely the same people were pulling the strings.

The computer does things in minutes, that human researchers couldn't do in an entire lifetime. It still doesn't tell you what's a stone cold fact, but it establishes confidence levels, which is the point of doing research. It teaches you what questions to ask, by showing you which questions are the intelligent ones that result in high confidence levels.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Well, what's interesting about this case is "facts" have a slightly different definition than they usually do.

This case is full of contradictions. It's impossible to tell off the cuff, who's lying and who's not, or who's simply mistaken.

Scruffy's value-add is he has the computer, that assigns a weight to every "fact". The weights start simple, like how many pieces of corroborating evidence there are for each "fact".

For example - earlier I posted the identity of LIEMPTY-14, a photographer assigned to surveil the Soviet embassy in Mexico City. That tidbit of information was corroborated in two ways: a) by direct interview of the son of the person in question, who was tracked down through publicly available information, and b) because the CIA actually published it, they forgot to redact it from one of their internal documents released by President Trump. So this piece of evidence ends up with a very high weight. It doesn't mean much, other than proving the CIA lied - which we already knew because they lie to every-*******-body, the Congress, the Senate, hell they even lie to themselves! It proves the CIA had surveillance photos of Oswald, which means absolutely nothing in relation to the JFK assassination. They were surveiling the embassy, Oswald showed up, they took a picture. No big deal. It doesn't prove they knew who Oswald was or what he was up to, it just proves they took a picture.

On the other hand, earlier I discussed the bullet fired at Gen Edwin Walker in April of 1963. The only witness to that activity was a 14 year old boy. He said he saw two men in two separate cars leave the scene just after the shooting. How much weight do you assign to that? The computer says "not much". Even if you believe the kid, the chances are good he was mistaken. It was dark, he was scared, and kids are known to exaggerate and make stuff up. However, Walker's statement about the bullet gets a higher weight, for several reasons. What the computer does, is optimize around a "statement of fact" and assign a probability to it, and a confidence level. It does this two different ways: 1) using Bayesian inference (if you're into machine learning, it's MAP optimization), and 2) through annealing, which is the energy based method that minimizes errors to predict the shape of the energy surface. What you do is compare the statistical result with the energy based result, and if they agree with a high level of confidence you start building hypotheses around that, to ask more intelligent questions.

So for instance, the time between the Kennedy assassination and Oswald's arrest at the Texas Theater is a mess. You have all kinds of conflicting information, from all kinds of sources. What you CAN'T do, is assume that one source is more trustworthy than another. Usually we assume that cops are more trustworthy than civilians, but we can't assume that in this case. Some of the cops and some of the witnesses may have been working for the FBI or the CIA or the Mafia, and it's impossible to tell which is which. So the weights have to start simple, the more different people that tell the same story, the higher the weight. When you compare stories like this, you get a whole long list of which story is contradicted by which other story. Contradictions diminish the weights unless they're simply not believable. At the end of the day you get confidence levels that vary widely, and you have to put "stakes in the ground" and develop scenarios around them. Then you run those scenarios back through the weights and see if any of them equilibrate. Most of them don't. If you find one that does, it's a noteworthy blip on the radar screen.

So for example, earlier I said "there had to be two Oswalds at the Texas Theater". You arrive at that conclusion with a method called "principal component analysis", which means you get much higher confidence levels when you partition your dataset into two parts. (You can Google the method if you're interested, it's a form of factor analysis, or multivariate regression). If you take all of the available evidence between the time of the Tippit shooting and the time of Oswald's arrest, you find so many contradictions that the only conclusion is it's impossible for one person to have done all those things. But if you tell the computer "there were two Oswalds, go figure out which one did what", suddenly your posterior confidence levels shoot up above 50%. That's huge, it almost never happens. If you see something like that you can raise your eyebrows a mile high.

And then, once you've established that possibility in one place and time, you can backtrack and look for it in other places and times. Oswald didn't drink, but "Oswald" bought two beers in a liquor store before the assassination, check. That kind of thing. This way, you can establish the approximate times when the "second Oswald" became important and what he might have done. In this particular case, the evidence is supplemented by a doppelganger in an unrelated event, which is the parallel in Chicago three days earlier. In that case, you have a character with many overt similarities to Oswald, who also had a doppelganger. So the computer tells you, "this scenario is similar to that scenario" with about a 60% confidence level which is very high in context. It indicates that the same methods were being used in both places, which means it's highly likely the same people were pulling the strings.

The computer does things in minutes, that human researchers couldn't do in an entire lifetime. It still doesn't tell you what's a stone cold fact, but it establishes confidence levels, which is the point of doing research. It teaches you what questions to ask, by showing you which questions are the intelligent ones that result in high confidence levels.

So a baseless opinion with no confidence levels established.

 

[the watcher]

The narrative was set in place probably before the shooting and was in writing before Kennedy and Oswald were cold. Gerald Ford was Hoover's man (who in turn was LBJ's man) on the commission, and you probably know who Dulles represented. There was a tremendous and forceful manipulation of the facts, the only question is whether it was "benign" or treasonous in nature. I think events after the murder are a good indication of the motives. Katzenbach Memo