The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I would like to acknowledge Texas A&M from whos website I have taken the quotes of Gary Mack, Cliff Spiegelman and Jim Marrs and the majority of the facts in this piece. Dont want more cheat accusations now do I!!!!. Hope this interests you as much as it has me.
New testing on the type of ammunition used in the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy raises questions about whether Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, according to a study by researchers at Texas A&M University.
Lead research Cliff Spiegelman stressed, however, that the research doesn't necessarily support conspiracy theorists who for decades have doubted Oswald was the lone gunman.
"We're not saying there was a conspiracy. All we're saying is the evidence that was presented as a slam dunk for a single shooter is not a slam dunk," said Spiegelman, a Texas A&M statistics professor and an expert in bullet-lead analysis.
The Warren Commission concluded in 1964 that Oswald fired three shots at Kennedy's motorcade from the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas. The U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations agreed in 1979 and found that the two bullets that hit Kennedy came from Oswald's rifle.
The committee's findings were based in part on the testimony of former chemist Vincent Guinn, who said recovered fragments came from only two bullets. Guinn testified that the bullets Oswald used, Western-Winchester Cartridge Co. Mannlicher-Carcano bullets, were unique and that it would be possible to distinguish one from another even if they both came from the same box.
But Spiegelman and his fellow researchers, who tested 30 of the same type of bullets, found that fragments were not nearly so rare and that bullets within the same box could match one another. One of the test bullets also matched one or more of the assassination fragments.
"This finding means that the bullet fragments from the assassination that match could have come from three or more separate bullets," the researchers wrote in a paper detailing their study, set to be published later this year by the journal "Annals of Applied Statistics." The study is available on the journal's Web site.
"If the assassination fragments are derived from three or more separate bullets, then a second assassin is likely, as the additional bullet would not be attributable to the main suspect, Mr. Oswald," they wrote.
The bullets Spiegelman's team used were from two of only four lots ever produced of the ammunition. The researchers were able to test for more elements than Guinn and used better quality control techniques, Spiegelman said.
Gary Mack, curator of the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas, which focuses on Kennedy's life and assassination, questioned the study's methods.
"Their study can't answer anything about the assassination," he said. "That's my understanding of it because they didn't test the actual fragments. They tested similar fragments and found that the test itself is flawed."
Conspiracy supporters believe it helps prove that Oswald didn't act alone.
"Is this going to solve the case, create further investigation or change anybody's mind? Probably not, but it supports the contentions of conspiracy researchers all through the years," said Jim Marrs, whose book, "Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy" was one of two used as the basis for Oliver Stone's conspiracy film "JFK."
Spiegelman advocates for the bullet fragments from the assassination to undergo more rigorous analysis. Further testing of the fragments would be up to the National Archives and Records Administration, the legal custodian of the projectiles and other evidence used by the Warren Commission.
The last time the fragments were tested was in 1999. The examination was inconclusive.
New testing on the type of ammunition used in the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy raises questions about whether Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, according to a study by researchers at Texas A&M University.
Lead research Cliff Spiegelman stressed, however, that the research doesn't necessarily support conspiracy theorists who for decades have doubted Oswald was the lone gunman.
"We're not saying there was a conspiracy. All we're saying is the evidence that was presented as a slam dunk for a single shooter is not a slam dunk," said Spiegelman, a Texas A&M statistics professor and an expert in bullet-lead analysis.
The Warren Commission concluded in 1964 that Oswald fired three shots at Kennedy's motorcade from the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas. The U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations agreed in 1979 and found that the two bullets that hit Kennedy came from Oswald's rifle.
The committee's findings were based in part on the testimony of former chemist Vincent Guinn, who said recovered fragments came from only two bullets. Guinn testified that the bullets Oswald used, Western-Winchester Cartridge Co. Mannlicher-Carcano bullets, were unique and that it would be possible to distinguish one from another even if they both came from the same box.
But Spiegelman and his fellow researchers, who tested 30 of the same type of bullets, found that fragments were not nearly so rare and that bullets within the same box could match one another. One of the test bullets also matched one or more of the assassination fragments.
"This finding means that the bullet fragments from the assassination that match could have come from three or more separate bullets," the researchers wrote in a paper detailing their study, set to be published later this year by the journal "Annals of Applied Statistics." The study is available on the journal's Web site.
"If the assassination fragments are derived from three or more separate bullets, then a second assassin is likely, as the additional bullet would not be attributable to the main suspect, Mr. Oswald," they wrote.
The bullets Spiegelman's team used were from two of only four lots ever produced of the ammunition. The researchers were able to test for more elements than Guinn and used better quality control techniques, Spiegelman said.
Gary Mack, curator of the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas, which focuses on Kennedy's life and assassination, questioned the study's methods.
"Their study can't answer anything about the assassination," he said. "That's my understanding of it because they didn't test the actual fragments. They tested similar fragments and found that the test itself is flawed."
Conspiracy supporters believe it helps prove that Oswald didn't act alone.
"Is this going to solve the case, create further investigation or change anybody's mind? Probably not, but it supports the contentions of conspiracy researchers all through the years," said Jim Marrs, whose book, "Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy" was one of two used as the basis for Oliver Stone's conspiracy film "JFK."
Spiegelman advocates for the bullet fragments from the assassination to undergo more rigorous analysis. Further testing of the fragments would be up to the National Archives and Records Administration, the legal custodian of the projectiles and other evidence used by the Warren Commission.
The last time the fragments were tested was in 1999. The examination was inconclusive.
I would like to acknowledge Texas A&M from whos website I have taken the quotes of Gary Mack, Cliff Spiegelman and Jim Marrs and the majority of the facts in this piece. Dont want more cheat accusations now do I!!!!. Hope this interests you as much as it has me.
New testing on the type of ammunition used in the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy raises questions about whether Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, according to a study by researchers at Texas A&M University.
Lead research Cliff Spiegelman stressed, however, that the research doesn't necessarily support conspiracy theorists who for decades have doubted Oswald was the lone gunman.
"We're not saying there was a conspiracy. All we're saying is the evidence that was presented as a slam dunk for a single shooter is not a slam dunk," said Spiegelman, a Texas A&M statistics professor and an expert in bullet-lead analysis.
The Warren Commission concluded in 1964 that Oswald fired three shots at Kennedy's motorcade from the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas. The U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations agreed in 1979 and found that the two bullets that hit Kennedy came from Oswald's rifle.
The committee's findings were based in part on the testimony of former chemist Vincent Guinn, who said recovered fragments came from only two bullets. Guinn testified that the bullets Oswald used, Western-Winchester Cartridge Co. Mannlicher-Carcano bullets, were unique and that it would be possible to distinguish one from another even if they both came from the same box.
But Spiegelman and his fellow researchers, who tested 30 of the same type of bullets, found that fragments were not nearly so rare and that bullets within the same box could match one another. One of the test bullets also matched one or more of the assassination fragments.
"This finding means that the bullet fragments from the assassination that match could have come from three or more separate bullets," the researchers wrote in a paper detailing their study, set to be published later this year by the journal "Annals of Applied Statistics." The study is available on the journal's Web site.
"If the assassination fragments are derived from three or more separate bullets, then a second assassin is likely, as the additional bullet would not be attributable to the main suspect, Mr. Oswald," they wrote.
The bullets Spiegelman's team used were from two of only four lots ever produced of the ammunition. The researchers were able to test for more elements than Guinn and used better quality control techniques, Spiegelman said.
Gary Mack, curator of the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas, which focuses on Kennedy's life and assassination, questioned the study's methods.
"Their study can't answer anything about the assassination," he said. "That's my understanding of it because they didn't test the actual fragments. They tested similar fragments and found that the test itself is flawed."
Conspiracy supporters believe it helps prove that Oswald didn't act alone.
"Is this going to solve the case, create further investigation or change anybody's mind? Probably not, but it supports the contentions of conspiracy researchers all through the years," said Jim Marrs, whose book, "Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy" was one of two used as the basis for Oliver Stone's conspiracy film "JFK."
Spiegelman advocates for the bullet fragments from the assassination to undergo more rigorous analysis. Further testing of the fragments would be up to the National Archives and Records Administration, the legal custodian of the projectiles and other evidence used by the Warren Commission.
The last time the fragments were tested was in 1999. The examination was inconclusive.
New testing on the type of ammunition used in the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy raises questions about whether Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, according to a study by researchers at Texas A&M University.
Lead research Cliff Spiegelman stressed, however, that the research doesn't necessarily support conspiracy theorists who for decades have doubted Oswald was the lone gunman.
"We're not saying there was a conspiracy. All we're saying is the evidence that was presented as a slam dunk for a single shooter is not a slam dunk," said Spiegelman, a Texas A&M statistics professor and an expert in bullet-lead analysis.
The Warren Commission concluded in 1964 that Oswald fired three shots at Kennedy's motorcade from the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas. The U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations agreed in 1979 and found that the two bullets that hit Kennedy came from Oswald's rifle.
The committee's findings were based in part on the testimony of former chemist Vincent Guinn, who said recovered fragments came from only two bullets. Guinn testified that the bullets Oswald used, Western-Winchester Cartridge Co. Mannlicher-Carcano bullets, were unique and that it would be possible to distinguish one from another even if they both came from the same box.
But Spiegelman and his fellow researchers, who tested 30 of the same type of bullets, found that fragments were not nearly so rare and that bullets within the same box could match one another. One of the test bullets also matched one or more of the assassination fragments.
"This finding means that the bullet fragments from the assassination that match could have come from three or more separate bullets," the researchers wrote in a paper detailing their study, set to be published later this year by the journal "Annals of Applied Statistics." The study is available on the journal's Web site.
"If the assassination fragments are derived from three or more separate bullets, then a second assassin is likely, as the additional bullet would not be attributable to the main suspect, Mr. Oswald," they wrote.
The bullets Spiegelman's team used were from two of only four lots ever produced of the ammunition. The researchers were able to test for more elements than Guinn and used better quality control techniques, Spiegelman said.
Gary Mack, curator of the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas, which focuses on Kennedy's life and assassination, questioned the study's methods.
"Their study can't answer anything about the assassination," he said. "That's my understanding of it because they didn't test the actual fragments. They tested similar fragments and found that the test itself is flawed."
Conspiracy supporters believe it helps prove that Oswald didn't act alone.
"Is this going to solve the case, create further investigation or change anybody's mind? Probably not, but it supports the contentions of conspiracy researchers all through the years," said Jim Marrs, whose book, "Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy" was one of two used as the basis for Oliver Stone's conspiracy film "JFK."
Spiegelman advocates for the bullet fragments from the assassination to undergo more rigorous analysis. Further testing of the fragments would be up to the National Archives and Records Administration, the legal custodian of the projectiles and other evidence used by the Warren Commission.
The last time the fragments were tested was in 1999. The examination was inconclusive.
Of course, this has always been a contentious issue; especially among Americans who don't wish to believe that one of their presidents was killed by a Communist sympathiser who was also a crack shot. A former Marine to boot. No, you don't want to show weakness by having had a President shot by someone like that, do you, especially that he was a great shot and held such beliefs?
I guess it's a good thing that in Britain the one Prime Minister who was assasinated, Spencer Perceval, had little to record his name in history aside from his death, so we have fewer such issues to conted with!
The "Magic Bullet" theory, and whether Kennedy was hit 3 times or not, et al? All this stuff comes up again, again and again. It's not easy to trace these sorts of things, hence the "Inconclusivity", but it's more than likely that one of the bullets was deflected, et cetera et cetera. Fragmentation? Well, that is a problem. But bullets can fragment for all sorts of reasons, and who knows, he may have filled his gun's magainze with bullets from a few sources, as I believe it was rather an outmoded Italian rifle that was used. And so, on goes the debate when something that's probably hard to prove results in a new theory, whoopee!
There was a BBC programme not so long ago that dispelled so many ideas, including Oswald's firing speed. A crack shot who was a bit of a nutter managed to kill a young President and did so very well, and of course it was incredibly tragic. End of story?
I guess it's a good thing that in Britain the one Prime Minister who was assasinated, Spencer Perceval, had little to record his name in history aside from his death, so we have fewer such issues to conted with!
The "Magic Bullet" theory, and whether Kennedy was hit 3 times or not, et al? All this stuff comes up again, again and again. It's not easy to trace these sorts of things, hence the "Inconclusivity", but it's more than likely that one of the bullets was deflected, et cetera et cetera. Fragmentation? Well, that is a problem. But bullets can fragment for all sorts of reasons, and who knows, he may have filled his gun's magainze with bullets from a few sources, as I believe it was rather an outmoded Italian rifle that was used. And so, on goes the debate when something that's probably hard to prove results in a new theory, whoopee!
There was a BBC programme not so long ago that dispelled so many ideas, including Oswald's firing speed. A crack shot who was a bit of a nutter managed to kill a young President and did so very well, and of course it was incredibly tragic. End of story?
Agreed. Alot of this is just conspiracy but but conspiracy is really just looking outside the box. The idea may be less likely but by no means impossible. Lets face it, everyone thought the Guantanamo Bay mistreatments were conspiracies until they were proven to be true..... its surprising it is allowed to continue holding people outside the law and having a wizz all over the bill of human rights but that is another matter.
Ah yes the BBC documentary. Bottom line is this sort of "new evidance" is something which, as you say, rocks the US "boat". Is it, therefore, surprising that the government endorsed and sponsored T.V network, of the U.S.A's closest ally is showing this sort of "anti conspiracy" documentory. I am not saying that the ideas are likely or even particularlly credible but lets face it the U.S government does like to cover things up when they are not positive and we are a bit of a lapdog.
To be honest it was a terrible tradegy but it is nice to think that one man may have changed history and made the world listen where entire councils of countries have failed. I am not condoning the actions of Oswald but J.F.K was not the nice smiling president that people remember. He had his fair share of "skeletons" which will be forgotten due to the way he died.
I can't imagine any future U.S president will drive around in a convertable!!!!
Ah yes the BBC documentary. Bottom line is this sort of "new evidance" is something which, as you say, rocks the US "boat". Is it, therefore, surprising that the government endorsed and sponsored T.V network, of the U.S.A's closest ally is showing this sort of "anti conspiracy" documentory. I am not saying that the ideas are likely or even particularlly credible but lets face it the U.S government does like to cover things up when they are not positive and we are a bit of a lapdog.
To be honest it was a terrible tradegy but it is nice to think that one man may have changed history and made the world listen where entire councils of countries have failed. I am not condoning the actions of Oswald but J.F.K was not the nice smiling president that people remember. He had his fair share of "skeletons" which will be forgotten due to the way he died.
I can't imagine any future U.S president will drive around in a convertable!!!!
DoomBaboon1982 wrote:
> Agreed. Alot of this is just conspiracy but but conspiracy is
> really just looking outside the box. The idea may be less likely
> but by no means impossible. Lets face it, everyone thought the
> Guantanamo Bay mistreatments were conspiracies until they were
> proven to be true..... its surprising it is allowed to continue
> holding people outside the law and having a wizz all over the
> bill of human rights but that is another matter.
Conspiracy? You have to realise that a detention of seemingly dangerous persons is justified, especially in such an era, yet the American military has gone too far in the way that they are treated, and so on. Just get on with the trials!
> Ah yes the BBC documentary. Bottom line is this sort of
> "new evidance" is something which, as you say, rocks
> the US "boat". Is it, therefore, surprising that the
> government endorsed and sponsored T.V network, of the U.S.A's
> closest ally is showing this sort of "anti conspiracy"
> documentory. I am not saying that the ideas are likely or even
> particularlly credible but lets face it the U.S government does
> like to cover things up when they are not positive and we are a
> bit of a lapdog.
The BBC isn't so much state funded as it relies on license fees, and is not directly funded; if it were, it probably would not have a promise of impartiality and neutrality in its Charter, and indeed would not have broadcast many programmes such as those focussing on "Killing Squads" during the Troubles in Northern Ireland. And a lot of bias in what could be called a "National Interest" can be seen in ITN footage, as is distributed to Channel 4 and ITV, such as their overemphasis on the translations of people who have experienced bombs in Iraq.
> To be honest it was a terrible tradegy but it is nice to think
> that one man may have changed history and made the world listen
> where entire councils of countries have failed. I am not
> condoning the actions of Oswald but J.F.K was not the nice
> smiling president that people remember. He had his fair share of
> "skeletons" which will be forgotten due to the way he
> died.
Kennedy did get things going in Vietnam and did spend an awful lot of time with, er, female "friends", but I think many elements of Johnson's Great Society social programme were Kennedy's ideas prior to his death. And then there's the Cuban Missile Crisis. And his involvement in 'Nam was centered on an obsession with counterinsurgency programmes - not the mass-bombing and slaughters that the Conflict later became asscociated with.
> I can't imagine any future U.S president will drive around in a
> convertable!!!!
Bush's is bullet-proof and to an extent, bomb proof. Ironically enough, one of the first (if not the first) Presidential limousines was bulletproof, and purchased by the Roosevelt administration from Al Capone's asscociates!
> Agreed. Alot of this is just conspiracy but but conspiracy is
> really just looking outside the box. The idea may be less likely
> but by no means impossible. Lets face it, everyone thought the
> Guantanamo Bay mistreatments were conspiracies until they were
> proven to be true..... its surprising it is allowed to continue
> holding people outside the law and having a wizz all over the
> bill of human rights but that is another matter.
Conspiracy? You have to realise that a detention of seemingly dangerous persons is justified, especially in such an era, yet the American military has gone too far in the way that they are treated, and so on. Just get on with the trials!
> Ah yes the BBC documentary. Bottom line is this sort of
> "new evidance" is something which, as you say, rocks
> the US "boat". Is it, therefore, surprising that the
> government endorsed and sponsored T.V network, of the U.S.A's
> closest ally is showing this sort of "anti conspiracy"
> documentory. I am not saying that the ideas are likely or even
> particularlly credible but lets face it the U.S government does
> like to cover things up when they are not positive and we are a
> bit of a lapdog.
The BBC isn't so much state funded as it relies on license fees, and is not directly funded; if it were, it probably would not have a promise of impartiality and neutrality in its Charter, and indeed would not have broadcast many programmes such as those focussing on "Killing Squads" during the Troubles in Northern Ireland. And a lot of bias in what could be called a "National Interest" can be seen in ITN footage, as is distributed to Channel 4 and ITV, such as their overemphasis on the translations of people who have experienced bombs in Iraq.
> To be honest it was a terrible tradegy but it is nice to think
> that one man may have changed history and made the world listen
> where entire councils of countries have failed. I am not
> condoning the actions of Oswald but J.F.K was not the nice
> smiling president that people remember. He had his fair share of
> "skeletons" which will be forgotten due to the way he
> died.
Kennedy did get things going in Vietnam and did spend an awful lot of time with, er, female "friends", but I think many elements of Johnson's Great Society social programme were Kennedy's ideas prior to his death. And then there's the Cuban Missile Crisis. And his involvement in 'Nam was centered on an obsession with counterinsurgency programmes - not the mass-bombing and slaughters that the Conflict later became asscociated with.
> I can't imagine any future U.S president will drive around in a
> convertable!!!!
Bush's is bullet-proof and to an extent, bomb proof. Ironically enough, one of the first (if not the first) Presidential limousines was bulletproof, and purchased by the Roosevelt administration from Al Capone's asscociates!
No doubt we live in a time where people who are dangerous do need to be detained but lets face it some people have been held there for years with no proof of wrong doings and no charges.
I realise the BBC is not funded by the government, i pay my liscence fee after all so this was not the right word. The BBC has a responcibility as the the U.Ks largest broadcaster to protect the interest of the power party and its allies. Agreed this may not be due to direct financing but the news decides who the "goodies and baddies" are in any situation depending on the political views of that party. E.G Israel is usually painted as the victim of the Palestinians...... Have we forgotten that Israel "stole" land from them in the first place and now uses huge military power to retain it. Not saying that suicide bombers are in any way acceptable or any other terrorist act for that matter but its all they can do in the situation. Just like the viet cong in Nam.
I didn't realise that Roosevelt had an armoured mafia limo but lets fact it, they probably had to know how to get good ones!!!
I realise the BBC is not funded by the government, i pay my liscence fee after all so this was not the right word. The BBC has a responcibility as the the U.Ks largest broadcaster to protect the interest of the power party and its allies. Agreed this may not be due to direct financing but the news decides who the "goodies and baddies" are in any situation depending on the political views of that party. E.G Israel is usually painted as the victim of the Palestinians...... Have we forgotten that Israel "stole" land from them in the first place and now uses huge military power to retain it. Not saying that suicide bombers are in any way acceptable or any other terrorist act for that matter but its all they can do in the situation. Just like the viet cong in Nam.
I didn't realise that Roosevelt had an armoured mafia limo but lets fact it, they probably had to know how to get good ones!!!
I was never of the opinion that Isreal stole it, I thought it was seen as a solution to what was going on in Palestine in the 1940s; the British (and the French?) controlled much of the Middle-East as Mandates, and decided to grant the Jews a homeland, and of course then there is all this contention which I'd really rather not go into due to its complexity. Will all that ever be resolved? Not likely, but the Israelis are often victims in a way; are there Zionist terror organisations carrying out bomings? Yes, there have been many wars over territory, but largely with other nations' armies; what some Palestinians are doing is spreading terror.
Portraying the good guys and bad guys? Well, if someone attacks or opposes your nation, you'll see them as the bad guys; yes, it is a means of supporting the government, but not directly so. As far as I see it, this isn't the kind of bias you'd expect from Fox, widely seen as being overtly right-wing, they're just doing what comes naturally, and I thinkt hat in the case of a war the government does have emergency powers of censorship anyway. Therefore it will give support when seen as necessary, or indeed when forced to, yet is largely independent, compared to what goes on in in some nations (Look at what that tyrant Chavez is doing right now), and indeed is not under threat for it, although it does have, as in any nation, to report to regulatory bodies.
Portraying the good guys and bad guys? Well, if someone attacks or opposes your nation, you'll see them as the bad guys; yes, it is a means of supporting the government, but not directly so. As far as I see it, this isn't the kind of bias you'd expect from Fox, widely seen as being overtly right-wing, they're just doing what comes naturally, and I thinkt hat in the case of a war the government does have emergency powers of censorship anyway. Therefore it will give support when seen as necessary, or indeed when forced to, yet is largely independent, compared to what goes on in in some nations (Look at what that tyrant Chavez is doing right now), and indeed is not under threat for it, although it does have, as in any nation, to report to regulatory bodies.