JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[No Other]

Hank, unless you feel there was a second person up in the snipers nest, the description of a second shooter or a second person has been used (albeit incorrectly) interchangeably. If this conversation develops any further let's contain the description to "second person". Agree

 

[No Other]

Actually, it was me. Axman then responded to my point on topic, and you then changed the subject to something entirely different.

Hank

This thread has many subjects, my initial comment did deal with multiple people in the snipers nest. So, don't lay it on me about changing subjects.

 

[Axxman300]

This thread has many subjects, my initial comment did deal with multiple people in the snipers nest. So, don't lay it on me about changing subjects.

Problem is you're talking in circles, I'm not sure if it's a language thing, but it's confusing.

Bottom line: There was only one person on the 6th Floor, Lee Oswald.

In fact the film footage from the motorcade shows that while the window was open, he hadn't set up to shoot until JFK's vehicle had reached the corner. He wasn't loitering, and while we don't know everything that he did, we do know he had to stack some boxes to rest his rifle upon.

The rifle would have been stashed somewhere safe so that none of his fellow employees could find it, and he would have had to unwrap it, and get into position. This would have been the contributing factor for the first shot missing the target.

We know it was Oswald because:

1. He was in the building.
2. It was his rifle, his fingerprints are STILL on it.
3.He was the only employee to flee the crime scene.
4. He murdered Officer Tippet, and attempted to kill a second DPD officer during his apprehension at the movie theater.

You can play the Introduction to Philosophy game of "Nobody can really know what happened" all you want, other CTers do it all the time, but the EVIDENCE points to Oswald as the lone shooter. 54 years of silly games have yet to change this fact.

 

[traxy]

to make that a useful statement you have to prove that LHO moved at least one box to set up the snipers nest and you can't nor can anybody else

Oswalds prints were lifted using powder from a Rolling Reader box directly under the snipers nest window. 3 of those boxes were used to form the snipers nest and were 40 or 50 feet away from the stack they came from. Oswald's prints lifted with powder had to be fresh (ie. left within day) as prints will not last long on cardboard before it absorbs perspiration.

Is that proof enough? If it isn't, nothing ever would be.

 

[HSienzant]

You are correct, Walthers did not call what she saw a second shooter. She claimed she saw someone else and that is what I posted.

And we're all aware of that. You're providing nothing new. Please review the thread to catch up. Given she's the only witness to say she saw two people in the window and numerous others said they saw only one, how do you reconcile the varying statements?

And why did you post Walthers statement at all, since it was off the topic of a second shooter? Change the subject much?

Given that Gaudet made statements that can't be verified, why are you posting his unverified claims as if they are meaningful, especially since this was all studied by the HSCA and they determined his last contact with the CIA was in 1961 - two years before the assassination? And that he wasn't a "CIA Agent" but simply a domestic contact?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Hank, unless you feel there was a second person up in the snipers nest, the description of a second shooter or a second person has been used (albeit incorrectly) interchangeably.

Only by you. Others were quite clear about what they are talking about. You brought up a second person in the sniper's nest in response to a post about a second shooter. That's clear.

If this conversation develops any further let's contain the description to "second person". Agree

Let's contain it to the original usage of "second shooter".

Got any evidence of one?

Or do you want to bring up Carolyn Walther as a change of subject once more?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Oswalds prints were lifted using powder from a Rolling Reader box directly under the snipers nest window. 3 of those boxes were used to form the snipers nest and were 40 or 50 feet away from the stack they came from. Oswald's prints lifted with powder had to be fresh (ie. left within day) as prints will not last long on cardboard before it absorbs perspiration.

Is that proof enough? If it isn't, nothing ever would be.

Nothing is good enough for conspiracy theorists. If it doesn't fit the ABO [Anyone But Oswald] mold, it gets rejected out of hand.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Her statement to the FBI is in the WC Report, she was not called to testify.

Yes, we understand.

Here's the thing, there were two TSBD employees in the window below Oswald, and another one filmed the motorcade from a window below them, so you had a bunch of people in windows, but only one had a rifle pointed out.

So no second shooter in the Depository? Great. We're making real headway here. Now that you've eliminated the Depository as a source of a second shooter, perhaps you can go through the other buildings & locations in Dealey Plaza and tell us if there was a rifle pointing out from any of them?

That would be returning to the original topic - of a second shooter.

What I said or at least meant to imply is that 11 people said they saw something on the 6th floor. Not one of them got the clothing correct, in summary, you have 11 people describing the clothes that were not worn by LHO. What evidence?

And I asked before, and you failed to respond -- how do you know what the correct clothing was supposed to be?

Can you cite for what Oswald was wearing at the time of the assassination?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

This thread has many subjects, my initial comment did deal with multiple people in the snipers nest. So, don't lay it on me about changing subjects.

And nobody here was talking about multiple people in the sniper's nest. The point you responded to was about 'a second shooter'. And hence, you changed the subject to talk about something else - a statement by Walthers you won't affirm as credible since you don't know her personally:

Quoting you: "I never said she was correct or that I even believed her... I do not think about the credibility of the witness, I am no position to put a value judgement on someone that never interfaced with and a person that I do not know."

If you're not here to discuss the assassination and reach a reasonable conclusion, why are you here? What's your point?

Here's your original response. Note the points you responded to.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11813626&postcount=3202

You did indeed change the subject from a second shooter to a second person in the sniper's nest.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Not one of your examples could track down LHO if those were the only descriptions provided.

But those statements weren't the only evidence accumulated that afternoon. For example, they found a rifle abandoned on the sixth floor that was traced to Oswald.

And your conjecture of LHO leaving the rifle behind is just that... conjecture and not fact.

I'm sorry, if my rifle is found at my place of work, who do you think would have left it behind?

The Easter Bunny?

Let's look at the evidence, shall we?

The rifle was taken to the Paine's home in September when Marina moved back to Dallas. Oswald went to Mexico City. Marina testified she saw the rifle in the blanket in the Paine garage. Michael Paine affirmed he moved the blanket a couple of times, finally placing it on the floor where it would be out of the way. On the afternoon of 11/22/63, the blanket was pointed out to the police, but the blanket was determined to be empty.

Not so coincidentally, Oswald was seen transporting a long package in a paper sack that morning to the Depository. A paper sack long enough to contain the rifle was found on the sixth floor.

And again, not so coincidentally, Oswald rifle, discovered missing from the Paine garage on the afternoon of 11/22/63, was found in the Depository on the afternoon of 11/22/63.

Now, barring teleportation by the rifle from one place to another, do you agree someone must have transported the rifle from the garage to the Depository?

Now, I am going to list all the people that I know had access to both those locations to narrow down who possibly could have transported the weapon. If you have evidence of others having access to both locations, please provide their names.

Here's my list:
1. Lee Harvey Oswald.

Feel free to add to this list.

“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.” ― Jesse Curry, Dallas Chief of Police, 1969

[eyeroll]Thank you, we've never seen that quote before.[/eyeroll]

Jesse Curry's opinion, do you affirm it because you knew him personally, or are you psoting this quote here for another reason?

You should provide the burden of proof; the Dallas police chief couldn't.

Even in a criminal trial the prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused to beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond all doubt.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Hank, now you know where some of my information comes from, in this case it was an interview with Gaudet and what I stated is what he stated.

Right, assuming the reporter made no errors in the story (it's hearsay) but you clearly didn't affirm Walther's account as true and accurate because you didn't know her: "I never said she was correct or that I even believed her... I do not think about the credibility of the witness, I am no position to put a value judgement on someone that [I} never interfaced with and a person that I do not know."

So what's the point of bring this up? Did you know Gaudet personally? Do you affirm the accuracy of his statement?

He said he knew of LHO, he [said he](Gaudet) was a CIA Agent, he published a newsletter, it was bought by others (the CIA purchasing from itself was common, it was an easy way to pay for Operations and laundry the money), he [said] was employed by the Agency for 25 years.

The underlined is meaningless as you don't show it applies here anymore than you show that Reader's Digest was a CIA asset because they publish stuff that was bought by others.

Regarding everything else, Gaudet is the source, and since you don't know him personally, to paraphrase you, you can't say he was correct or that you even believed him... You told us you do not think about the credibility of the witness, and you are in no position to put a value judgement on someone that you never interfaced with and a person that you do not know.

Right?

So what's your point here?

Hank

 

[No Other]

Problem is you're talking in circles, I'm not sure if it's a language thing, but it's confusing.

Bottom line: There was only one person on the 6th Floor, Lee Oswald.

In fact the film footage from the motorcade shows that while the window was open, he hadn't set up to shoot until JFK's vehicle had reached the corner. He wasn't loitering, and while we don't know everything that he did, we do know he had to stack some boxes to rest his rifle upon.

The rifle would have been stashed somewhere safe so that none of his fellow employees could find it, and he would have had to unwrap it, and get into position. This would have been the contributing factor for the first shot missing the target.

We know it was Oswald because:

1. He was in the building.
2. It was his rifle, his fingerprints are STILL on it.
3.He was the only employee to flee the crime scene.
4. He murdered Officer Tippet, and attempted to kill a second DPD officer during his apprehension at the movie theater.

You can play the Introduction to Philosophy game of "Nobody can really know what happened" all you want, other CTers do it all the time, but the EVIDENCE points to Oswald as the lone shooter. 54 years of silly games have yet to change this fact.

I will not respond to Sophomoric comments.

 

[No Other]

And we're all aware of that. You're providing nothing new. Please review the thread to catch up. Given she's the only witness to say she saw two people in the window and numerous others said they saw only one, how do you reconcile the varying statements?

And why did you post Walthers statement at all, since it was off the topic of a second shooter? Change the subject much?

Given that Gaudet made statements that can't be verified, why are you posting his unverified claims as if they are meaningful, especially since this was all studied by the HSCA and they determined his last contact with the CIA was in 1961 - two years before the assassination? And that he wasn't a "CIA Agent" but simply a domestic contact?

Hank

Congrats Hank, you are as responsive as Beechnut. Your approach is old and it represents a person who can only attack a person and not discuss a subject... goodbye

 

[HSienzant]

See my previous post Gaudet acknowledged he was an Employee for the CIA

No, the story you cited claimed he said he was an employee. No evidence is presented to confirm the claim. So I'll ask again, do you believe everything you read in the paper, especially since you didn't know Gaudet?

The link you provided showed that Gaudet went to Mexico City for one day. which one of your claims is accurate? The document you provided or you saying he went to Central America? It can't be both.

His flight had a stopover in Mexico, but not in Mexico City. His flight landed in Merida, Mexico before continuing on (CD75, previously cited, page 588). That information comes via the statements of Gaudet to the FBI. Why did you claim he went to Mexico City?

And according to that FBI report, and again, according to Gaudet, technically he did not enter Mexico since he did not depart the plane in Mexico at any time.

CE2123 is the document that the Mexican Government provided to the FBI. One of the questions that the FBI did not ask is why was Gaudet's name left off the list by the Mexican Government? The Mexican document was created on 11/30/63 which trumps your 12/2/63 document prepared by FBI Agent DeBrueys.

So the Mexican government was part of the coverup? That's what you're implying. If you're not implying this, what's the point of bringing up the list not containing Gaudet's name?

Perhaps the list is a list of people who actually entered Mexican soil at some point? And since Gaudet only had a stopover in Merida, and did not deplane, he was technically never on Mexican soil?

This is hard to reconcile after reading the article in the Washington DC newspaper.

What's hard to reconcile?

Appearances can be deceptive if there is myopia in the Receptor.

You can say that again.

thanks Hank I was not aware that the HSCA even existed, your links are invaluable.

You ignored entirely the conclusions of the HSCA, merely to make a snide remark aimed at me.

We can see right through stuff like that, you know.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Congrats Hank, you are as responsive as Beechnut. Your approach is old and it represents a person who can only attack a person and not discuss a subject... goodbye

Hilarious. You took your ball and went home, calling me names on the way out. Not unexpected behavior.

Couldn't add to this list, huh?

Now, I am going to list all the people that I know had access to both those locations to narrow down who possibly could have transported the weapon. If you have evidence of others having access to both locations, please provide their names.

Here's my list:
1. Lee Harvey Oswald.

Feel free to add to this list.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Are we supposed to not notice you didn't respond to the point?

If you want someone to respond, you first need to ask them a question. What question that was asked to me that I failed to answer?

You're so obvious, it's funny in a sad sort of way. The question that was asked of you that you failed to answer was immediately above your response quoted above.

Here's my question in context: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11814060&postcount=3207

You failed to respond to my points whatsoever.

I am not making a claim, it was Carolyn Walther who made the claim. I never said she was correct or that I even believed her. Stop telling me what you think I am thinking. Do not attribute your flimsy "straw man" to me.

What was your point in changing the subject and bringing her statement up? Since you haven't affirmed you believe her or think her observations were accurate? Why are we talking about her at all given that circumstance?

Mileage may differ? I am not making claims, I posted what somebody told the FBI and since she felt she saw what she said, I only wonder why the WC did not call her to testify.

Because the error in her observation is obvious (she saw brown boxes behind the gunman, and assumed it was part of a man from the shoulder to the waist who was wearing a brown suit, but she saw no head, no arms, no movement, nothing that would affirm she actually saw a man and not boxes), and it's apparent to anyone without a built-in bias in favor of a conspiracy.

I remind you the Warren Commission was operating under a budget and time constraints. To hear some conspiracy theorists, they should be investigating still.

I am not out to prove who shot who when, I am just pointing out inconsistencies and asking about them.

Great. And what do you hope to accomplish, if not have a conversation here and possibly reach a reasonable conclusion?

So should we dig up Walthers, the seven deceased Warren Commissioners, round up the junior counsel (living and dead) and have them reconvene and ask Walthers questions? Clearly you're not suggesting that. So what exactly are you suggesting is the best resolution here? Or is the goal just to go in circles and never reach a resolution?

they also did not find LHO up there but it does not prevent you from claiming that he was there with the rifle in his hand.

Not at the time the police arrived, no. But the evidence indicates he was there during the assassination. Not only did the descriptions I cited fit him the the exclusion of most of the employees of the Depository, but he happened to leave his weapon on the sixth floor, the same floor where the assassin was seen by numerous witnesses (yes, including Walthers) outside the building. Try to remember that.

Reasonable in your eyes, do not attribute your guess with anything other than a guess. For a person who continuously insists on facts from people, you provide a lot of interpretations all by yourself.

You must speak a different version of English than I do. "Reasonable conclusion" does not equate to "guess" where I come from. Nor did I intend it in that way. But thank you for ignoring my point entirely. You must have no evidence to cite in rebuttal.

"Cling" I only posted what the FBI provided to the WC. Your insistence on attempting to characterize my post as being a stance is a reckless regard for the facts.

You characterize it as reckless but also call it a "regard for the facts". I agree with the latter - I reached my conclusion after considering all the facts, so I don't think it was reckless to reach that conclusion, especially after 53+ years have passed since the assassination.

Did I say there was a second gunman? I'll give you the answer... NO!

Right, you ignored that point entirely that was under discussion and changed the subject.

and "Regardless" of what? Walthers said she saw another person, that is not disputed by anyone.

But since we all know about it, what's unexplained is why you changed the subject, brought up Walthers, and what your point was in bringing her up. What did you hope to accomplish? I think it's clear you failed to do whatever you hoped to as you've since taken your ball and went home.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I presume you mean Gaudet... no

Yes, 'gaudiest' is my tablet trying to guess what I meant. So, no, you don't know Gaudet personally.

One statement is about what she thought she saw and was provided to the FBI. The other statements or comments is someone talking about their experiences also provided to the FBI.

Sorry, come again? Both is first person statements given to the FBI. But you claim not to take a stance on Walther's claims but cite Gaudet's claims as if they are true.

Why the difference, since you know neither person, and you claimed that was pertinent to assessing a person's credibility: "I never said she was correct or that I even believed her... I do not think about the credibility of the witness, I am no position to put a value judgement on someone that [I} never interfaced with and a person that I do not know."

Why doesn't this apply to Gaudet?

let me make this clear, I made no claims about her and certainly not about being an accurate witness (show me where I stopped short of claiming she is an accurate witness)

You said: "I never said she was correct or that I even believed her... I do not think about the credibility of the witness, I am no position to put a value judgement on someone that [I} never interfaced with and a person that I do not know."

You yourself said you couldn't assess her credibility since you didn't know her.

There you go again, making attributes to my comments when I did not provide them. By the way, Gaudet is on record with multiple sources saying the same thing. The article was only one source.

Right, he told the same story to many people in the days after the assassination. Does mere repetition of a claim make it true?

Please respond to the many questions I have posed to you.

Done.

So what? You said he wasn't an Agent only a businessman who was doing what many other businessmen did for the CIA. Are you changing your stance?

A businessman reporting his observations about foreign countries to the CIA does not a CIA Agent make. It makes him a domestic contact. Period.

As for evidence, you provided the evidence when you posted the link the FBI report that provided the names of the people who applied for Tourist Cards. Did you read the FBI report?

Yes, it reports what Gaudet told them. Where's the evidence what Gaudet told them was true?

You think everyone interviewed by the FBI tells the truth, all the time? Surely you're not that naïve, but here you are, apparently citing what Gaudet said as if it's the gospel truth. You can't know that. Can you?

Hank

 

[Big Les]

I just heard about this documentary from the website SOFREP, which I have an RSS feed from but not a membership to. They apparently have an interview with Marty Skovlund, the former Green Beret who's in the show. I was immediately skeptical and after spending some time riffling Bugliosi's book, gave up and came here. I wasn't disappointed; thank you for torpedoing this nonsense!

 

[No Other]

Sorry, come again? Both is first person statements given to the FBI. But you claim not to take a stance on Walther's claims but cite Gaudet's claims as if they are true.

Why the difference, since you know neither person, and you claimed that was pertinent to assessing a person's credibility: "I never said she was correct or that I even believed her... I do not think about the credibility of the witness, I am no position to put a value judgement on someone that [I} never interfaced with and a person that I do not know."

Why doesn't this apply to Gaudet?

Who said it didn't?

 

[No Other]

Yelling the loudest and frequently does not make anyone more correct than the other. When direct experiences are questioned as "how do you know they are true?", then all discussion ends as that is the trap door that someone springs when they cannot provide an intelligent rebuttal. Unfortunately, this thread has it. In fact, I purposefully have not taken a stance but my favorite Poster has gone to his usual MO of claiming I am not answering a question. The desire to have every Poster create a narrative is the old trick of attacking a person and not addressing their own short comings. A person who purposefully leaves out portions of documents they have read when those portions do not support his or her claim... could be disingenuous. This thread has degenerated into **** Way or No Way.