JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[Sandy McCroskey]

You do not get it du you? You wrote:I wrote, "fair enough", meaning it is a reasonable request, and posting 12 points of problems with the evidentiary record on Oswalds supposed purchase of the weapon. A resolution of these 12 problems would increase the probability that Oswald "fired those shots." It's not enough, but it would be a good start.

Understand?


I'm not debating "Hank", I am debating YOU and if you think "Hank" has a good argument for anything, quote it and I'd be happy to respond.

Ok?


Not compromised evidence of Oswald buying the alleged murder weapon (CE-139) would be a good start. Would it be enough? No, it would be a good start. One step at a time. The material is vast.

Fair enough?

You should debate anyone who has responded to you here with critical remarks.

No, you have not told me what kind of evidence you would accept as proof that Oswald was the shooter. Twisting that question into something else, you provided a list of bogus insinuations that some evidence was faked. This list has been shot full of holes by Hank. If you think that is an inaccurate assessment, you should demonstrate why.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

Not compromised evidence of Oswald buying the alleged murder weapon (CE-139) would be a good start. Would it be enough? No, it would be a good start. One step at a time. The material is vast.

Fair enough?

Hank demolished most of your points, but I demonstrated that it's ridiculous to think the serial number on the money order is significant. Why don't you get back to me on that?

 

[abaddon]

<snip for brevity>


Nobody is forcing you to take part in this discussion ... or is it included in your job description?

<snip for brevity>

It does not matter which side of the debate one takes, flat out accusations of being a "paid shill" are bang out of order as well as being the last resort of the evidentially bereft.

 

[Hans]

It does not matter which side of the debate one takes, flat out accusations of being a "paid shill" are bang out of order as well as being the last resort of the evidentially bereft.

Chuckle

One would also have to ask who would be paying a shill? Who exactly would care? Everyone who would have had a hand in a conspiracy against JFK would be dead or very elderly.

 

[cmikes]

Oswald would have left lots of latent fingerprints during his time in custody:

1. Tape his palm print from, lets say, a glass.

2. Use the same tape on the rifle barrel, picking up the traces mixing the two.

3. Or, in reversed order.

Not possible?

No, not possible. And if you had read any of the previous links you would understand why it's not possible.

ETA: And I'll join others in strongly recommending that you go back and read the previous threads on this subject. Tomtomkent is right that you've brought nothing new to the table that hasn't already been discussed ad nauseam on this very forum. You could save everybody a lot of time if you would read back through so that you were aware which conspiracy theories have already been hashed out and rejected for lack of evidence so that maybe people don't feel that they have to repeat the same arguments yet again.

 

[manifesto]

1. Most important. All the documents put forward by the FBI are copies of film of the originals, not the original documents. The originals are these days nowhere to be found.

I said Hank answered this question. Armstrong (and you, blindly following) is making something out of nothing. Maybe you didn't read Hank's answer:

"Do you still get your original checks returned to you by your bank? Or do you get copies, which are sufficient to establish what you wrote and who you wrote it to? If you go to your bank and argue you didn't write that check and they can't prove it because there's no original, do you think you'd get very far? But that's the silly argument you're advancing here. Only microfilm copies of the orders were retained by Kleins. Those microfilm copies were their business records. They are perfectly acceptable - unless the accused name is Oswald, for some reason."​

You haven't responded to this point yet.

Yes, the money order was routinely microfilmed and thereafter routinely destroyed by Klein's, no one is stating otherwise. However, the FBI showed only a xerox copy of a copy of the Klein's original microfilm to the WC. When trying to locate the original microfilm at the FBI it had disappeared leaving behind an empty box.

- As for all the other evidence, FBI made photographs of the original documents (on paper) and showed xeroxed copies of the photographed allegedly original documents.

- The allegedly original documents are nowhere to be found.​

Why this strange effort? And where are the originals?

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

Yes, the money order was routinely microfilmed and thereafter routinely destroyed by Klein's, no one is stating otherwise. However, the FBI showed only a xerox copy of a copy of the Klein's original microfilm to the WC. When trying to locate the original microfilm at the FBI it had disappeared leaving behind an empty box.

- As for all the other evidence, FBI made photographs of the original documents (on paper) and showed xeroxed copies of the photographed allegedly original documents.

- The allegedly original documents are nowhere to be found.​

Why this strange effort? And where are the originals?

What strange effort? As far as microfilm is concerned, most microfilm from the 1920s to the 1980s was acetate-based, which deteriorates over time. To be preserved as long as possible, it must be stored at a strictly controlled temperature. Retrieving information from deteriorated film can be a complicated, time-consuming and expensive procedure.

However, the real reason the original microfilm couldn't be found (by whom? when?) could very easily be that the original microfilm records were returned to the stores.

You gave John Armstrong as your source for this. Here is a typically unsubstantiated statement from Armstrong: "But after the FBI confiscated original records from Harborside, Rupp, Lifschutz, and Klein's, they altered those records, photographed the altered records, and then destroyed the original records."

What source does Armstrong give for his allegation that "they altered those records"?

If the originals are missing, John Armstrong has certainly never seen them.

How, then, does he know, as he claims to, that the originals were altered before the photographs were taken that he has seen?

As for the statement that all originals of all evidential documents were destroyed... well, you can't just expect me to take your... or his word for it, can you?

John Armstrong has no credibility with me, but if he gave his source for this supposed information, please pass it along.

If you are only talking about microfilm records, many of those may not have been destroyed but rather self-destructed. Acetate microfilm is not recommended today as an information-storage medium.

 

[Axxman300]

The most important factor about the rifle was that Oswald was the one who picked it up from the place it had been sent to. He also took the rifle with him when he went to New Orleans.

His ownership of the rifle isn't even in dispute among the higher-functioning JFK CT folks because they know it's a solid case.

This is a conversation with the Kennedy Secret Service detail at the 6th Floor Museum:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmCEx-f0dfI

What I found interesting is that Clint Hill and the others believe that not only did all three shots come from behind and above, but they also insist that Oswald landed three individual shots:

First shot into JFK.
Second shot into Connally.
Third shot into JFK's head.

Hill is critical of the Warren Commission for not interviewing the driver of the car directly behind the POTUS as he had the best view of the entire event, and it was his job to keep his eyes glued on that car.

 

[manifesto]

The most important factor about the rifle was that Oswald was the one who picked it up from the place it had been sent to.

- To where had it been sent by whom?

- How do you know that Oswald picked it up?

He also took the rifle with him when he went to New Orleans.

How do you know that? Any witnesses? And, how did he transport it back to Irving/Dallas?

- He could not have taken it from New Orleans by bus to Mexico City and then from MC to Dallas/Irving. It would have been illegal and people would have noticed the very big old infantry rifle.

- No one of Marina, Ruth or Michael Paine noticed a very big old infantry rifle supposedly wrapt in ... a blanket (lol) when moved from Ruths station wagon to the Paines garage.

His ownership of the rifle isn't even in dispute among the higher-functioning JFK CT folks because they know it's a solid case.

Name one.

This is a conversation with the Kennedy Secret Service detail at the 6th Floor Museum:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmCEx-f0dfI

What I found interesting is that Clint Hill and the others believe that not only did all three shots come from behind and above, but they also insist that Oswald landed three individual shots:

Of course they do. Clint Hill was also reporting a big gaping wound in the back of JFK's head as he sat on him all the way to Parkland, JFK facing downward.

Clint can not be right on both contradictory assertions: 1. Oswald was the lone assassin, 2. JFK had a big gaping (avulsive) wound in the back of his head, with his brain oozing out, and a fourth shot was fired.

First shot into JFK.
Second shot into Connally.
Third shot into JFK's head.

And who shot bystander James Tauge? He was not in the line of fire and therefore must had been hit by a fragment from- or caused by a forth bullet. That is way Specter had to come up with the silly Magic Bullet Theory, to explain (away) all the damage caused by maximum three bullets. More bullets and Oswald could not have been the lone shooter and therefore it must have been a conspiracy.

Hill is critical of the Warren Commission for not interviewing the driver of the car directly behind the POTUS as he had the best view of the entire event, and it was his job to keep his eyes glued on that car.

Only the driver? How about everyone belonging to the Secret Service in the presidents follow up car for not lifting a finger to protect their president?

Clint Hill was the only one moving that day, maybe because his primary task was the safety of Mrs Kennedy, not the Presidents.

 

[Axxman300]

How do you know that? Any witnesses? And, how did he transport it back to Irving/Dallas?

His neighbors complained about LHO sitting on his porch at 4907 Magazine Street, in New Orleans, dry-firing his rifle and pointing it at passing cars.

 

[manifesto]

His neighbors complained about LHO sitting on his porch at 4907 Magazine Street, in New Orleans, dry-firing his rifle and pointing it at passing cars.

Name one.

 

[HSienzant]

Are you disputing the factual content of my first point?

I am disputing the factual content of all 12 of your points.

I have to wait in line for your to respond? Why? If Sandy posted the same remarks, meanwhile, you would thereupon respond?

What kind of logic is that?

Here's the link for you to ignore some more (post 503 in this thread):
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11029667&postcount=503


Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Repent.

Spoken like someone with a faith-based belief system.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

No. He could not identify Oswald in the line up.

Is "could not" the correct claim? Or did he say he "would not" do it at that time?

No we have a planted rifle with a fabricated paper trail trying to incriminate Oswald as the assassin of JFK.

Prove ALL that. We'll wait.

An old palm print on the barrel. Very easy to fake.

Another claim you won't establish. You also appear to be overlooking the photographs of the fingerprints of Oswald on the trigger guard of the assassination weapon.

No. Three cartridges with no chain of custody planted in the proposed snipers nest in order to implicate the planted rifle implicating Oswald with a fabricated paper trail.

Again, simply a bunch of empty claims by you. I think I hear the logical fallacy of an attempt to shift the burden of proof approaching. Let's see how long it takes to arrive.

The CE-399 bullet is probably fired from the CE-139 rifle yes, but nothing else is proven, no. No chain of custody.

You appear to be ignoring the fact that there are also two large fragments recovered from the limousine on the night of the assassination, and that these two fragments were traceable to Oswald's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. I understand conspiracy books are a bit hesitant to mention those fragments, so you might not be familiar with them. There's also nothing wrong with the chain of custody of the bullet identified in the record as Commission Exhibit 399.

No, I'm trying to show you the problems with taking "evidence" at face value, not looking closer for signs of misconduct, in a case riddled with allegations of cover up and conspiracy since day one.

By the Soviet Union. Since day two, actually. They were the first ones to claim there was a conspiracy by the right wing, but what would you expect them to say, when a left wing loner who defected to Russia and tried to make arrangements to get into Cuba a few months before was the accused assassin?

So, we are both of the opinion that crack pot primadonna Vincent Bugliosi's Helter_Scelter_conspiracy_urban_legend is a complete nut job?! That's good and a first small sign of sanity.

That's the logical fallacy of a straw man argument. I am not hopeful you will refrain from logical fallacies in the future. Nobody's talking about Bugliosi.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Before discussing the possibilities of faking old and dry fingerprints in 1963, lets suppose it was Oswalds old and dry palm print on the barrel.

- Does prior handling of the rifle prove that he handled it that day?

- Does it prove that he fired the rifle that day?

It establishes he handled the weapon at some point in the past. Ergo, all those silly arguments about being unable to establish who picked up the weapon from the post office go right out the window, as do most of the arguments about not being able to prove where the weapon was stored before the assassination.

Nobody is forcing you to take part in this discussion ... or is it included in your job description?

And there's the logical fallacy of poisoning the well. That's where you raise some issue about another person to question their motivation and hence, their arguments.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html

Don't resort to logical fallacies to attempt to make points here. I will point them out to you.

Description of Poisoning the Well

This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

1.Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
2.Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

All we ever get is CT advocates saying the evidence is not how they think it should look, with nothing mote [more] than innuendo and talk of why it "must" have been altered.

It's the "argument by anomaly".

It's also the logical fallacy of an appeal to incredulity; or an confusion between unexplained and unexplainable.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logical-fallacies
Confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable

Because we do not currently have an adequate explanation for a phenomenon does not mean that it is forever unexplainable, or that it therefore defies the laws of nature or requires a paranormal explanation. An example of this is the “God of the Gaps” strategy of creationists that whatever we cannot currently explain is unexplainable and was therefore an act of god.

The approach wasn't valid when advanced by Mark Lane or Harold Weisberg in the mid-1960s, it's not valid now.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Yes, the money order was routinely microfilmed and thereafter routinely destroyed by Klein's, no one is stating otherwise. However, the FBI showed only a xerox copy of a copy of the Klein's original microfilm to the WC. When trying to locate the original microfilm at the FBI it had disappeared leaving behind an empty box.

That is flatly untrue. You are obviously not reading the testimony, but getting your claims filtered through some conspiracy author who is lying to you. Why don't you cite the source of your claim, so we both know the source?

Meanwhile, here's mine:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cadigan2.htm
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, I now hand you Commission Exhibit No. 773, and I ask you whether you have examined that item.
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, that consists of an application to purchase a rifle, addressed to Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago. Mr. Cadigan, I now hand you an item consisting of a roll of microfilm labeled D-77, and ask you whether you are familiar with that roll of microfilm?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I am.
Mr. EISENBERG That micro film will be marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 1.
(The article referred to was marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 1.)

Now, is it clear to you at this time that your claim above, about the original microfilm being missing, and never being shown to the Warren Commission, and only Xerox copies being used is FALSE?

- As for all the other evidence, FBI made photographs of the original documents (on paper) and showed xeroxed copies of the photographed allegedly original documents.

- The allegedly original documents are nowhere to be found.​

Why this strange effort? And where are the originals?

In the National Archives. Right where you'd expect them to be.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

...You gave John Armstrong as your source for this. Here is a typically unsubstantiated statement from Armstrong: "But after the FBI confiscated original records from Harborside, Rupp, Lifschutz, and Klein's, they altered those records, photographed the altered records, and then destroyed the original records."

What source does Armstrong give for his allegation that "they altered those records"?

If the originals are missing, John Armstrong has certainly never seen them.

They aren't missing. Never were. The Warren Commission had the Kleins microfilm, which Manifesto has already conceded would be just fine as business records. We're done with point one. I wonder if he wants to advance to point two of his 12 points?

Hank

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

https://books.google.com/books?id=a... Street New Orleans dry-firing Oswald&f=false

 

[HSienzant]

Yes, the money order was routinely microfilmed and thereafter routinely destroyed by Klein's, no one is stating otherwise. However, the FBI showed only a xerox copy of a copy of the Klein's original microfilm to the WC. When trying to locate the original microfilm at the FBI it had disappeared leaving behind an empty box.

Above I asked for your source for this, but I see from your original post you cited your source as John Armstrong's claims at this website:

http://harveyandlee.net/Guns/Guns.html

Therein, he makes this claim: All original records from Crescent Arms (Louis Feldsott's company) and the Klein's microfilm disappeared while in FBI custody. Only "photographs" of documents were given to the WC, and are now at the National Archives.

So we now know that Armstrong is unreliable, as he cites no source for this claim, AND it is contradicted by the very testimony the Warren Commission published, which I quoted for you above, and will quote again here:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cadigan2.htm
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, I now hand you Commission Exhibit No. 773, and I ask you whether you have examined that item.
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, that consists of an application to purchase a rifle, addressed to Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago. Mr. Cadigan, I now hand you an item consisting of a roll of microfilm labeled D-77, and ask you whether you are familiar with that roll of microfilm?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I am.
Mr. EISENBERG That micro film will be marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 1.
(The article referred to was marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 1.)

In case there's any doubt, here's a photograph of that roll of microfilm that was admitted into evidence:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0133a.htm

We established that Armstrong's claim is unsourced and false. Is that not true?

We also established you took the claims of John Armstrong at face value, and echoed them here, and apparently did not try to validate those claims in any manner. Is that not also true?

Can you explain why you would simply state as fact stuff you read on the internet, without attempting to validate it in any fashion?

Hank