Referee-Determined Outcomes or Thrown Games?
-
You seem interested in conspiracy. You have used the term, whereas I have not… I confess I am not up to speed on conspiracies. They are so tough to substantiate, especially If done by pros, that I don’t think about them much. What is the point?
But since you appear interested in them and in JFK, the citizen in me, who has never read systematically about this subject–but have lived with a sad memory of my grade school teacher weeping and telling our class that our beloved President had died from being shot, plus the recollection a day or so later of watching Jack Ruby gut shoot Oswald who had claimed to be a patsy live on TV–has to ask you something.
Didn’t the Church Committee Investigation and hearings end the discussion of whether there was a conspiracy in the JFK. assassination long ago? I thought all the debate since, which I have never followed closely, had been about how many shooters there were, 1 or more, and who hired them? Right? Holy cow! Did I misunderstand the Church Commitee all these years? I kind of stopped thinking about it much after that, figuring any conspiracy capable of whacking our President and getting away with it for a decade was likely never going to be found out.
Do you know some binding government inquiry since the Church Committe that proves some thing different? I don’t keep up much with this stuff. The last thing I recall was a non binding but seemingly credible National Geographic inquiry I read in a doctor’s office a year or two ago that concluded unequivocally that JFK was assasinated by a conspiracy and probably by more than one shooter, if I recall correctly.
You sound informed about Oswald and the JFK assassination. Has there been some new binding government finding I have missed? Or do you think National Geographic AND the Church Committee are lying, or involved in conspiracy?
I tend to trust the Church Committee and all these years later the National Geographic.
But I haven’t read systematically all these years to reach a fully informed opinion as you perhaps have.
If you say I have missed something, then I reckon it would be my duty as a citizen to read up on this issue further.
Rock Chalk!
-
@Crimsonorblue22 That absolutely cracked me up. I’d like to think 90’s Coach K benches him but he also pampered Laettner so perhaps not. By the way, that 30 for 30 almost made me hate him more. I’ll admit I have a secret respect for Coach K though.
-
@jaybate-1.0 Never heard of Jack Ruby claiming to be a patsy, in fact he took a much more righteous position and claimed to have killed Oswald out of pure patriotism and moral obligation; for our country and Jackie and her children. I know most don’t want to see this conversation on the boards so I’ll try and keep it short. I equivocate the ‘Kennedy conspiracy’ with the ‘9/11 conspiracy.’ So many people like to moan about the inefficiency of our government and the total dysfunction that plagues it. Yet, when it comes to these conspiracies that could only have been elaborate and complex in nature, our government agencies and employees somehow morph into a highly effective and secretive bureaucracy. I don’t buy it. You kill Oswald, then you have to kill Jack Ruby, and the man who killed Jack Ruby, and so on and so forth. The logic doesn’t add up. Not to mention, Oswald’s feat of two well-aimed shots out of three in 9 seconds was not miraculous and totally in the realm of possibility for any average Marine rifleman.
-
@drgnslayr said:
But you have to pick… Duke or UK… who is it going to be?
I’ll take rat face over the squid any day of the week!
The TV does not need to be on at that point.
-
Maybe the NCAA has an agenda about who should NOT advance in the tournament. I read that Larry and Roy are both gonna be on the hot seat now that they’re through with Boeheim.
-
@jaybate-1.0 One of these days, I’ll learn to use the sarcasm font.
-
Well, hell, if we are to peer into conspiracy theories, what about the TIMING of NCAA investigations and subsequent effects of news releases of rule violations? Actually, our very own 2015 Jayhawk collapse appears to have hinged more than somewhat on the Alexander Issue. Our league opponents are probably squealing, “Yeah, yeah, the NCAA held off announcing that info until after Bill Self and KU had pretty much nailed down that 11th consecutive conference crown!”
-
@VoyagingJayhawk Let me ask you this then, from a ballistics standpoint. How does one bullet pass directly through Kennedy – clean hole in the back, clean hole in the front (throat). And then a second essentially explode his head? That to me would indicate two types of bullets. One with a full metal jacket (passing straight through) and the second with a hollow point (exploding upon impact). That has always been my biggest doubt. Remember the “pristine” bullet supposedly found on his stretcher? Compare to a bullet that literally disintegrated in his head.
The 9/11 conspiracy stuff is much different than the Kennedy stuff. There is a plausible explanation and argument that Oswald did it absolutely alone, but there are plausible arguments that he did not do it absolutely alone – and that’s the only issue in a conspiracy. Did he do it absolutely alone with no other involvement?
-
@Crimsonorblue22 ahhh i didnt watch the game, just the box scores
-
Sorry for the ambiguous writing. I meant Oswald claimed to be a patsy.
So you agree with the Church Committee and the National Geographic that a conspiracy assassinated JFK and you are not one of those anti conspiracy nuts? Good.
You just think the conspiracy hired one shooter, right? And it hired confirmed US Intel spook Lee Harvey Oswald for the job, when there were many more qualified and experienced assassins available, right? In order to make it look like the Intel world–Soviet, Castro Cuba, etc.-- hired him, right? And the conspiracy wanted to do it on the cheap without a team?
And one of Sam Giancana’s guys–Jack Ruby–so loved the President–a President sleeping with Sam’s girl Judith–that he decided to whack Lee in front of the cops, right?
And Lee could make 2 great shots that record as three, and the one shot could do the crazy trajectory changes that Kansas boy made good Arlen Specter asserted, right?
And more killing would have been required than silencing US Intel spook Oswald, who was claiming patsy status?
Hmmm.
This is why I mostly left this stuff behind after the Church Committee findings. i saw Stone’s JFK for entertainment (great entertainment) and found the National Geographic story (sound and informative to this Rip Van Winkle of JFK Research) in my doctor’s office. I just am not qualified to figure this out with the evidence destroyed and more still classified and lots of books and articles written by anti conspiracy nuts and pro conspiracy nuts.
All that I accept is there was apparently a conspiracy that killed JFK, that Spook Oswald claimed to be a patsy, and he was silenced by a gun running strip club operator and associate of a Chicago mobster, and the mobster’s girlfriend slept with JFK. And this all happened after the mob helped JFK win election in places like Chicago and West Virginia, etc. And it happened after JFK failed to deliver Cuba for the mob (casinos) and for the sugar trust (sugar, land and oligopoly benefits), after JFK s-canned Allen Dulles at CIA and authorized the Special Forces and SEALS to report straight to him, and after JFK printed his own currency–$4 Billion silver certificates–that he could use at his discretion to fund special forces and SEALS perhaps if his authority were challenged as a result of the preceding. Oh and he was inadequately protecting the Golden Triangle of heroin, oil, tin and rubber in Southeast Asia, while, as I said, setting up his own Praetorian guard of special forces and SEALS that could take over operations in that region from CIA and the ousted Dulles. And JFK was the first since Lincoln to print his own currency and the last.
These are the few facts I have kept in mind all these years, while the anti-conspiracy nuts and pro conspiracy nuts have spewed out books that I have been told often try to marginalize these facts, and focus on minutiae while truckloads of evidence are reputedly destroyed, missing or classified, and they can’t even find the President’s brain! Even Inspector Clousseau could not accidentally solve this beyond a reasonable doubt! How can I?
But I don’t buy your logic that the killing had to go beyond JFK and Oswald. Killing JFK and Oswald, plus losing evidence plus classifying tons of evidence solved all the problems but public doubt, which rarely solves anything.
Hey, after all these years, this is kind of fun. Maybe at this late date I can become a “JFK researcher.”
Not!
Rock Chalk!
-
“Not to mention, Oswald’s feat of two well-aimed shots out of three in 9 seconds was not miraculous and totally in the realm of possibility for any average Marine rifleman.”
The accuracy is very plausible. I know several sportsmen that could probably be successful 3 out of 3 with a similar firearm and with stock sights.
You should publish your thoughts on Kennedy. I’ll buy a copy!
-
Interesting. This does feel vaguely like speculating about a possible ground water contamination plume under a closed service station’s possibly leaking tanks. Hard to say where it might extend to without systematic inquiry, if it were proven an actual verifiable phenomenon at all.
The crucial thing is to avoid a witch-hunt, which the unsavory types would appropriate for inappropriate ends, and just focus on things actually verifiable.
-
@VoyagingJayhawk Youtube Altered History by Douglas Horne. Fairly credible researcher from what I can tell. The subject is fascinating and still disturbs me to this day… Altered History is somewhat of a slog and will put most people to sleep, however I found it informative.
-
Thanks for mentioning it.
-
Back to the SMU game and call. If the SMU guy is an offensive player in perfect position for a putback slam, no ref anywhere would have called that offensive goaltending. So why would have same ref called it defensive goaltending?
But for this to prove the refs wanted to determine the outcome, it was such an odd play that there is no way that a referee could have in that 2-3 second time span decided he was going to call a goaltending could there have been? Now if the refs had said we’ll call a foul on any shot in the lane to help UCLA, well, you could ‘justify’ that on almost any shot in the lane. But that wasn’t the case here, so I’m going to, as the NCAA’s attorney, stick to my guns that it was just a bad call that the ref probably regrets after watching it happen in replay.
-
@wissoxfan83 Don’t much believe in conspiracies and you are right about decisions in that time frame. Unfortunately the NCAA didn’t think that was a bad call. They thought it was correct. It was good enough that the same ref was calling the game last night between OU and MSU.
One of my favorite plays last night involved a loose ball on the MSU side of the court above the key. An OU player was going for it and I thought would clearly get it. All of a sudden he stopped. Why you might ask? Because a MSU player grabbed him. Clear as a bell. MSU gets the ball and scores. What gets me is that officials can get bang bang charge and out of bounds calls correct a very high majority of the time and yet miss such blatant calls such as the goal tend and the grab. Both of which happen in clear view off all.
-
@jaybate-1.0 Ahhh Oliver Stone’s JFK! Though certainly you enjoyed it as entertainment as I did, people like my father still quote the completely inaccurate lines of Kevin Costner as fact! It’s a shame many use that as a source for making a judgment on whether or not it was a conspiracy because there are so many serious works of research on both sides. Now, you reference the “Magic Bullet” which I think you’ll find was no magic bullet at all. The seat that Governor Connally rode in was three inches lower and inboard of the President. When the correct position of the seats are taken into account, one finds a straight line from Governor Connally’s thigh, to his wrist, to his ribcage, through the President’s upper back and finally to Oswald’s rifle. Nor was it “pristine” as HEM alluded to. Keep in mind this was a military round meant to pass through the body without breaking up, this is seen as more humane and less likely to cause massive trauma to the body, particularly the internal organs. In my favorite book on this subject, “Reclaiming History” by Vincent Bugliosi, he discusses the extent of the actual damage to this bullet. One notices when looking at the bullet from the base just how badly smashed it had become, lead extruding from the base and the bullet becoming an oval-type shape. The bullet actually weighed something like three ounces less than it’s original weight. This was indeed a badly damaged bullet. And remember, it contacted flesh it’s entire flight path except twice; once when it nicked the Governor’s rib bone and the second time when it hit the Governor’s wrist which caused some flattening. The radius, being weaker than most bones in the body, has been known to inflict very little to no damage on bullets.
@HighEliteMajor In regards to the third bullet fired from Oswald, which is my favorite bullet to discuss because it really gets into how the body and particularly the head reacts when struck by foreign objects like bullets. First, the entrance wound in the right-rear of President Kennedy’s head immediately dispels any possibility of a shot being fired from anywhere but behind the President. Now, a rough understanding of physics, which is all I have, tells you that the President’s head would move only very slightly in the direction the bullet was traveling because of the weight of the bullet compared to the weight of the head. Also, there is natural muscular resistance to being propelled in the direction of an object that strikes you. So the head snap to the rear could not have been caused by the force of a bullet, weighing 1/3 of an ounce, fired from the front. That is precisely what happened, the President’s head moved slightly forward AND downward, which is key. I pulled my book out for a qoute here: “The neuromuscular reaction in which the heavier back muscles predominate over the lighter abdominal muscles would have thrown him backwards no matter where the bullet came from.”
@rocketdog I’ll check it out, thank you! And as stated earlier, I highly recommend “Reclaiming History.” A monster of a book but interesting the whole way through.
Enjoyed the discussion with you guys, love how this site seems to have attracted only those capable of engaging in friendly and meaningful discussions. And apologies to those who come here for basketball! Hope it was only a minor annoyance and a matter of scrolling down just a little further.
-
@wissoxfan83
From the muck raking books I have read that have had sections on actual documented game throwing and point shaving, players and/or refs shape outcomes by intervening as often as discreetly, but as often as necessary and as situations arise and permit, at least that’s what I recall. Its been a few years since I read them.
Throwing who wins is rarely the objective of those shaping games. They tend to try to fulfill, or counter, betting spreads in one way or another. I don’t know, but perhaps in single elimination tournaments, who wins might also influence their actions. I haven’t read anything that commented on that distinction one way or the other.
This sort of corruption appears not to be tightly choreographed. Rather, a game presents a series of possession-opportunities and corrupt players and/or refs would intervene as expediently as required.
One book described a preference for players to intervene via defensive lapses, and refs to intervene via no calls, because errors of ommision are reputedly harder to gauge than errors of commission.
Why didn’t you call that is easier to defend with “I didn’t see it,” than is why did you call that with “because I…”
However, it is hardly a science.
And I can at least imagine high stakes situations, where there might be significant pressure to make a decisive impact late in a game, when the opportunity presented itself.
I am only speculating here, but it would seem there might be at least two types of interventions.
Early game: The first type might be to structurally bias the game in its early stages to the favor of the desired winner Team A. One might call an asymmetric number of fouls on Team B to hamstring its defense for the rest of the game.
Late game: The second type might come on the heels of the former type. As the game winds down through the last ten, or five minutes, one favors Team A , which has already been advantaged, as much, or as little, as is needed to deliver the score to the spread desired.
We can learn something about inappropriate interventions in games from the coaches that have over the years sought to enable their teams to be able to foul more by fouling frequently from the beginning to “normalize” the fouling from the start. If fouling is frequent early, the refs appear to call quite a few fouls early, and if the fouling continues, there appears to come a point in the game where the refs finally give up and permit a rougher game than they started out trying to permit.
It occurs to me that if referees were involved in cheating, more frequent errors of commission early might condition and so desensitize most involved, involved including fans, to view this kind of error of commission as “just a part of the game.”
Regarding this goal tending call, it is an error of commission, if it were anything inappropriate at all, so it does not fall into the reputedly preferred way for refs to intervene. This favors your point of view.
On the other hand, it was a close game, and SMU was about to beat UCLA by some amount of points. The call made highly probably UCLA would win by a given margin.Have you looked at the point spread on the game? I haven’t. Might it have helped that in some way? Alternatively, did UCLA help attendance and/or viewership?
Not sayin’.
Just wonderin’.
-
@jaybate-1.0 did you see the duke game last night ? Ref called a foul with 7 tenths of a second remaining and the score beat the spread by one point after a made free throw. Noteworthy.
-
@jaybate-1.0 Would be intriguing to sit down for a beer with Larry Brown, catch him “off the record” for an opinion on this matter. I am certain that, over his extended career, he has developed a FEEL for such possibly corrupt happenings.
-
@REHawk need a keg!
-
Well I hope that they don’t mess anything up today or tomorrow because I still have a perfect final four!
-
@wissoxfan83 Who do you have from the East?
-
I’ve got Michigan State, and UW, uk and duke
-
@wissoxfan83 Let’s go Wisconsin! Your guys are my last, great hope.
-
Thanks, they’re starting pretty well here in the 2nd half obviously.
-
Boy, this is gonna be a battle!
-
Starting to believe @jaybate-1.0 and his refereeing conspiracy theory right now.
-
@VoyagingJayhawk But my reference was to ballistics … I am not referring to what you mentioned. I was referring to the injuries. A full metal jacket bullet will penetrate, stay in its general form, and exit. Thus the “pristine” bullet (supposedly) found on the stretcher.
However, the bullet that struck Kennedy’s head was clearly a hollow tip bullet, and a hollow tip that fragmented, as noted by the autopsy.
This would mean that Oswald’s one gun, fired two different types of bullets.
-
@wissoxfan83 Sam Dekker is a MAN!
-
@wissoxfan83 Wow. Good calls
-
And you spelled his name right too!! That was the first time I’ve seen him look Larry Birdish or something like that. And it came at the right time.
-
@wissoxfan83 @Jesse-Newell tweeted regarding Wisconsin and I quote," The nation’s top offense doesn’t seem to be scared of Fools gold"
-
@HighEliteMajor Sorry for the confusion, I tried to limit the length of my post which resulted in me missing your point. Quite simply, the reason the bullets behaved differently is because of where the two bullets struck. The first bullet struck and then tumbled almost entirely through human tissue. The third bullet was indeed the same type of bullet as the one that struck both the President and the Governor. Striking the hard skull of President Kennedy broke apart the metal jacket bullet and similar results can be seen in two different experiments conducted. The behavior of the third round fired is indeed not inconsistent with any other similar bullet. I’ll post a link here to a rather lengthy ballistics review that explains this in a much more clear and concise manner.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/pdf/lattimer.pdf
The information relevant to this particular point begins on page 29 of the review.
-
@VoyagingJayhawk I will read the link … thanks.
-
@wissoxfan83
Hypothesis.
On Wisconsin!
-
Missed it. Thx for the heads up.
-
It would be fascinating to talk to LB about anything.
I don’t know what a coach might decide to do.
If something were going on a large scale, it could be very costly for any one coach to speak out.
