JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[HSienzant]

2 things... 1. Kleins did not run out of stock on the 36" until September of '63. 2. Kleins did not start selling the 40" until April '63 which is after the time the WC said LHO bought the rifle.

These assertions of yours are based on what evidence?

Hank, your imagination is ripe! I took the liberty to highlight your inferences and WAGs. Not one of the speculations is supported by evidence outside of your fertile story telling mind.
And I am sure you can provide documentation to support your guess. The only person who can speak to LHO frame of mind is LHO... not you.

Tell me what part of the below you didn't understand:

I was once asked: [emphasis added]
(a) why Oswald bothered to fashion a paper sack out of wrapping paper from the Depository since the rifle was already wrapped within a blanket, and
(b) if he was going to that trouble, why didn't he make the sack long enough to contain the assembled rifle?

I was asked to speculate on Oswald's frame of mind. I did. Your complain goes nowhere.

My speculations were based on the available evidence, such as Oswald ordering a 36" rifle and being shipped a 40" one, which helps account for the 38" package found at his place of work with his prints on it. Again, thinking he owned a 36" rifle, he made a 38" package out of Depository paper and not having measured his rifle at any time, was no doubt surprised to find his 40" weapon didn't fit in his 38" bag. I also explained why he left the blanket behind appearing undisturbed.

If you have better speculations as to Oswald's frame of mind, let's hear them.

Why did the conspirators, who presumably planted the 40-inch weapon on the sixth floor, make a 38-inch sack and plant that instead of planting a 42-inch sack? Didn't they know the length of the rifle they were framing Oswald for owning?

Excellent Straw Men!

You apparently don't understand what a straw man argument is. Yours is, as I asked about what Frazier or Randle said not at all. Instead of answering the question, you changed the subject to those two witnesses and talk about their estimates. I am asking conspiracy theorists to fill in the gaps in typical conspiracy arguments. The fact that you don't even try and instead switch to something you'd rather discuss is most telling.

Why did the conspirators, who presumably planted the 40-inch weapon on the sixth floor, make a 38-inch sack and plant that instead of planting a 42-inch sack? Didn't they know the length of the rifle they were framing Oswald for owning?

First, a Witness that saw LHO carry the sack into the TSBD is required.

We have two, and you go on to mention them both. But both have nothing to do with the question I asked.

Why did the conspirators, who presumably planted the 40-inch weapon on the sixth floor, make a 38-inch sack and plant that instead of planting a 42-inch sack? Didn't they know the length of the rifle they were framing Oswald for owning?

Buell Wesley Frazier witnessed LHO bringing a sack approximately 27" long with him that morning but not a 38" sack. Buell's sister also witnessed seeing a sack the size that her brother saw... outside of that Nobody saw LHO carry a 38" sack into the building that day or any other day. The WC said Frazier was mistaken on the length and then they said his sister was also mistaken yet the cornerstone of the WC saying LHO brought the rifle to work is based on Buell's and his sister's testimony (except for their description of what they say).

You're bringing up points first raised 51 years ago by Mark Lane. They weren't sufficient then, they aren't sufficient now. Please tell us why you expect witnesses to be 100% accurate on the dimensions of something they never handled, never measured, and only estimated the dimensions of. Mark Lane never did enunciate his reasons for quibbling over the estimates, nor tell us what estimates he would accept. If Frazier had estimated 33 inches or 44 inches, would both those estimates likewise exclude Oswald's weapon, as the estimates are too short or too long to be a 38" package? What about 37 inches or 39 inches? What are the upper and lower boundaries you'll accept on estimates?

And if you're going to persist in arguing it wasn't a rifle that Oswald brought into the Depository, please tell us:
(a) what was in the package Oswald brought to the Depository that morning,
(b) what happened to what was in the blanket stored in the Paine garage,
(c) where'd the 'whatever' that Oswald brought into the Depository wound up,
(d) why was the sack found on the sixth floor determined to be long enough to contain the disassembled rifle,
(e) why that sack found on the sixth floor was made in the recent past with Depository paper,
(f) why it had Oswald's prints on it,
(g) How did Oswald's rifle get into the Depository, and
(h) please, tell us why Oswald denied in custody he brought any long sack to the Depository that morning, going as far as claiming Frazier must be mistaken and thinking of some other time?

Try to advance a coherent argument here actually responding to the points I raise. Bonus points if you can actually cite any evidence to support your claims.

So the only 2 people who can put LHO with a package were told they were wrong (the size of the package) by a Committee that never saw the package.

Along with the commission, Oswald was likewise insisting they were wrong, denying he brought any long package to work that day, claiming he only brought his lunch. Do you agree with Oswald here, or are you going to insist he was being less than truthful? If the former, explain why those two witnesses thought they saw a long package. If the latter, explain what Oswald was trying to hide or deceive the police about.

The 36" rifle broken down still had a measurement of 34.8".

Meaningless, since you haven't argued Oswald brought a 36" rifle to the Depository, nor have you argued he was shipped a 36" rifle.

Hank, this is classic, you were complaining about Micah dismissing evidence when it didn't fit his outcome and this is exactly what the WC did. So really your question means nothing; it is only a Red Herring.

Bunk. The Warren Commission dismissed estimates of the length of Oswald's paper sack. Please tell us what are the upper and lower limits of the estimates you would accept. Hopefully you understand neither Wes Frazier or his sister, Linnie Mae Randle, measured the package they saw in Oswald's possession, and thus, some leeway is allowed for them to err in their estimates. Yes? Or are you going to insist that if the witnesses said anything but 38" they were wrong and the erroneous estimate eliminates Oswald?

How did the blanket in the Paine garage which presumably normally contained the rifle Oswald didn't own or ever possess, happen to wind up empty on 11/22/63? If it never contained a rifle, what did it contain when Marina looked inside it and when Michael Paine moved it?

This is another ridiculous question; it is nothing but speculation within a circular argument.

You just dismissed the argument without telling us what was wrong with it. It isn't speculation as Marina Oswald and Michael Paine both testified to handling the blanket in the Paine garage and either seeing something inside (Marina said the butt of a rifle) and feeling something heavy inside (Michael thought there was 'camping equipment' made of iron, based on the weight).
It's likewise not a circular argument, as it relies on those eyewitnesses testimony just to establish that something was inside the blanket prior to the assassination, and that something was determined to be missing a few hours after the assassination. Tell us what was missing and where it went. If you could be so kind.

In order to believe what Hank is saying you need to believe:
That Klein's provided a rifle that had not yet been advertised yet
for sale and continued to advertise a firearm that they no longer had.

More bunk. You don't understand the real world, and publishing, apparently. They understood they would run out of the supply of the shorter weapon and started shipping the longer one, so they modified the advertisement. Remember that the date appearing on any magazine (go check your closest newsstand) is pre-dated so they don't appear out of date sitting on the rack -- that is, the April issue (containing the updated advertisement with the 40" weapon) appeared on newsstands in March, not in April. And was in the process of being prepared in February or sometime in early March at the latest. And Klein's needed some leeway to get the new advertisement to the various publisher(s) so it could be included in the issue being distributed in March (the April issue), so they might have changed the advertisement in early March or late February at the latest and sent it to the publisher then. You don't know the lead times they were working under, and you appear to think the issue marked "April" was actually prepared, printed, and distributed in April, and contained an advertisement that reflected Klein's April inventory. It wasn't. It couldn't. It would be distributed in March, and prepared before that.

My explanations account for what Oswald was actually shipped, according to Klein's records: a 40" rifle bearing the serial number C2766. Your complaint about the April issue is nonsense, as it doesn't take into account that Kleins was already shipping a 40" rifle in March of 1963.

And you still can't answer the simplest questions, like the one I asked here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11817782&postcount=3255

Hank

PS: At most, the issue is Reasonable Doubt, not beyond all doubt. But to understand Reasonable Doubt, you must be able to reason and understand what the word reasonable means. Reasonable doesn't mean insisting estimates must match the actual dimensions, for starters.

 

[No Other]

My explanations account for what Oswald was actually shipped, according to Klein's records: a 40" rifle bearing the serial number C2766. Your complaint about the April issue is nonsense, as it doesn't take into account that Kleins was already shipping a 40" rifle in March of 1963.

What catalogue number is on the bill of sale a 36" or 40"? Hank, you are not dealing with facts and no matter how many times you attempt to dismiss what I say, it doesn't work. If you wish to be a bully and just spout off at the mouth, then you are doing one fine job. Riddle me the above Hank.

 

[HSienzant]

The CIA tried to kill Castro how many times (CIA says 8 and Castro says 638)? None of them were successful

It was the mob that actually carried out the attempts, not the CIA, as I understand it. What's your point, that the mob wasn't really trying to kill Castro, or that they were lousy at assassinations?

This is exactly why a Mannlicher Carcano would be used, it excludes all the 30 aut 6's in the area. You do not want a large pool of suspects. If you want to frame someone make sure you have rock solid "planted" evidence that points the finger at your patsy.

We're back at you arguing for a planted weapon. Why is "planted" in quotes? Are you arguing it was actually used in the assassination (and hence, not planted) or just emphasizing the word "planted"?

Please elucidate the evidence for a planted Mannlicher Carcano weapon firing 6.5mm ammo and explain why some of the early statements said it was a Mauser or a Enfield or a Japanese weapon. Explain also why years after the fact, Roger Craig came forward to say he saw a 7.65 Mannlicher Carcano.

Were the plotters unsure of who they were trying to frame? Or were they trying to frame a multitude of patsies? Or were all those early statements wrong?

And, does that mean the 6.5mm fragments found in the limo were legit, along with the 6.5mm nearly whole bullet found in Parkland legit as well?

Or was Oswald's weapon only planted after the real shots were fired by another weapon or more? If that's the case, what happened to the other weapon(s)?

Hmmm?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

What catalogue number is on the bill of sale a 36" or 40"? Hank, you are not dealing with facts and no matter how many times you attempt to dismiss what I say, it doesn't work. If you wish to be a bully and just spout off at the mouth, then you are doing one fine job. Riddle me the above Hank.

First off, we're not supposed to notice you're failing to address any of the earlier issues whatsoever and raising a different one? And calling me names in addition? Those are two well-known logical fallacies - red herring & ad hominem.

Oswald ordered a rifle (C20 - T750) from an advertisement that appeared in the February issue of American Rifleman magazine.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0364b.htm

That February advertisement pictured a 36" rifle. But the advertisement was likely prepared in January or earlier. Oswald ordered the rifle in mid-March.

Kleins paperwork (a combination order form / shipping form) repeats that C20-T750 catalog number and says he was shipped a rifle bearing the serial number C2766.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0364a.htm

William Waldman of Kleins explained how this worked here:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/waldman.htm

Mr. BELIN. Well, I hand you what has been marked as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 4 and ask you to state if you know what this is.
Mr. WALDMAN. This is the record created by us showing the control number we have assigned to the gun together with the serial number that is imprinted in the frame of the gun.
Mr. BELIN. Now, this is a photostat, I believe, of records you have in front of you on your desk right now?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct.
Mr. BELIN. Do you find anywhere on Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 4 the serial number C-2766?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. And what is your control number for that?
Mr. WALDMAN. Our control number for that is VC-836.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0362b.htm
...
Mr. BELIN. Now, when we examined. Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 1, had a control number of which the last four numbers were T749, and when you shipped the rifle, you had the control number with the last four numbers as T750; otherwise the control number is the same. Could you tell us what accounts for the difference?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; these numbers that you referred to are not control numbers, as previously stated. These are known as catalog numbers. The number C20-T749 describes a rifle only, whereas the catalog No. C20-T750 describes the Italian carbine rifle with a four-power scope, which is sold as a package unit.
...
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Waldman, you have just put the microfilm which we call D-77 into your viewer which is marked a Microfilm Reader-Printer, and you have identified this as No. 270502, according to your records. Is this just a record number of yours on this particular shipment?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's a number which we assign for identification purposes.
Mr. BELIN. And on the microfilm record, would you please state who it shows this particular rifle was shipped
Mr. WALDMAN. Shipped to a Mr. A.--last name H-i-d-e-l-l, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex.
Mr. BELIN. And does it show any serial number or control number?
Mr. WALDMAN. It shows shipment of a rifle bearing our control number VC-836 and serial number C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. Is there a price shown for that?
Mr. WALDMAN. Price is $19.95, plus $1.50 postage and handling, or a total of $21.45.
Mr. BELIN. Now, I see another number off to the left. What is this number?
Mr. WALDMAN. The number that you referred to, C20-T750 is a catalog number.
Mr. BELIN. And after that, there appears some words of identification or description. Can you state what that is?
Mr. WALDMAN. The number designates an item which we sell, namely, an Italian carbine, 6.5 caliber rifle with the 4X scope.

Oswald ordered catalog number C20-T750. He was shipped catalog number C20-T750. He was shipped the weapon with the Klein's *unique* internal control number of VC-836 - that bore the *unique* serial number stamped on the weapon by the manufacturer of C2766. All those numbers are listed on the order / shipping form. It was shipped to his PO box, 2915. Between the time the advertisement his order form came from (dated February, 1963 - on newsstands in January, 1963) showing a 36" rifle and the time they shipped his order (March 20th, 1963), Kleins started shipping the longer, 40" rifles. It's really not a mystery here.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0364a.htm

This particular rifle was the one found in the Depository after the assassination.
Oswald is shown in the backyard photos holding this particular rifle. Oswald's prints (fingerprints and palmprints) are on this particular rifle.

Hank

PS: Your turn. Now try to answer the questions I raised here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11824191&postcount=3281

 

[OKBob]

First, a Witness that saw LHO carry the sack into the TSBD is required.[/B]

Please indicate where you found this "requirement" for an eyewitness to the precise instant that Oswald entered the TSBD with the sack. Murderers are often convicted, beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the physical evidence of the crime, without any eyewitness testimony that they brought the weapon to the scene. If your expectation is not a requirement of criminal law (even assuming that the standards of a criminal trial are relevant here), where did you find it?

 

[Axxman300]

The CIA tried to kill Castro how many times (CIA says 8 and Castro says 638)? None of them were successful

Wonder why? Oh that's right, CUBA is an ISLAND, and Castro had an effective counter-intelligence force. That's means just getting into Cuba was a chore.

Hyannis, and Washington D.C. are much easier to reach for an internal assassination team.

This is exactly why a Mannlicher Carcano would be used, it excludes all the 30 aut 6's in the area. You do not want a large pool of suspects. If you want to frame someone make sure you have rock solid "planted" evidence that points the finger at your patsy

Yeah, because every successful black operation needs to be blamed on someone who could lead authorities back to the conspirators. That's why every assassination had a patsy...hold the phone, they didn't have pasties.

The huge problem with 6.5x52mm rounds is that they're not common, which means you can run out of ammo, and then you have to order more - which leaves a paper trail even in 1963. The round is great for long range, and it can pass through two or more human bodies, but it also tells everyone what kind of rifle to look for.

Either way, Oswald did the shooting. His finger prints are still on the weapon. Oswald also scouted locations along the parade route looking for a better location to kill JFK, which he did in the evenings, and would have provided opportunity to bring the weapon into the TSBD. The fact is he brought it with him on the morning of the assassination. His weapon, his place of work, and he fled the scene murdering one DPD officer and attempting to kill a second one.

The facts are solid.

The patsy thing has never been credible.

 

[MicahJava]

No Other:

Thanks for pointing out some of this stuff.

Another thing is the Money Order problem. The money order allegedly used to purchase the rifle from Klein's sporting goods apparently does not have a bank endorsement stamp, although it appears to have all of the rest of the necessary makings. On the London Education Forum, one time Hank insisted that the "pay to the order of First National Bank of Chicago" was supposed to be the bank endorsement stamp, but Von Pein disagreed and ended up admitting that there is no 'debunking' of this.

Postal regulations in 1960: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/files/docs/historical/ny%20circulars/1960_04928.pdf

Postal regulations in 1969: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/files/docs/historical/ny%20circulars/1969_6370.pdf

The following will be accepted for collection as cash items:

...

(3) Postal money orders (United States postal money orders; United States international postal money orders; and domestic-international postal money orders).

...

Postal money orders

Postal money orders will be handled in accordance with an agreement made by the Postmaster General, in behalf of the United States, and the Federal Reserve Banks as depositories and fiscal agents of the United States pursuant to authorization of the Secretary of the Treasury; and with respect to matters not covered by such agreement, the provisions of Regulation J, this circular and our time schedules shall be deemed applicable to all postal money orders. Immediate credit will be given to member banks and non* member clearing banks for postal money orders as provided in our time schedules and simultaneously with such credit we will debit the amount of such money orders against the general account of the Treas*urer of the United States under such symbol numbers as may be assigned by the Treasurer of the United States. Said agreement fur*ther provides in effect that no claim for refund or otherwise with respect to any money order debited against the general account of the Treasurer of the United States and delivered to the representa*tive of the Post Office Department as provided in said agreement (other than a claim based on the negligence of a Federal Reserve Bank) will be made against or through any Federal Reserve Bank; that if the Post Office Department makes any such claim with respect to any such money order, such money order will not be returned or sent to a Federal Reserve Bank, but the Post Office Department will deal directly with the bank or the party against which such claim is made; and that the Federal Reserve Banks will assist the Post Office Department in making such claim, including making their records and any relevant evidence in their possession available to the Post Office Department

...

Endorsements

All cash items sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to the order of the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent, or endorsed to the order of any bank, banker or trust company, or with some similar endorsement. Cash items will be accepted by us, and by other Federal Reserve Banks, only upon the understanding and condition that all prior endorsements are guaranteed by the sending bank. There should be incorporated in the endorsement of the sending bank the phrase, “All prior endorsements guaranteed.” The act of sending or deliver*ing a cash item to us or to another Federal Reserve Bank will, however, be deemed and understood to constitute a guaranty of all prior endorsements on such item, whether or not an express guaranty is incorporated in the sending bank’s endorsement. The endorsement of the sending bank should be dated and should show the American Bankers Association transit number of the sending bank in prominent type on both sides.

Also, why would Hank think it would be crazy to plant fragments? If they truly were found in the limousine, they would've gotten covered in blood and matter anyway. I posted that report saying that three days after sitting in storage, the limousine was still covered in blood and matter. If those fragments got anywhere near the limousine, they're going to get covered in that stuff.

 

[traxy]

Linnie May Randle saw the bag Oswald was carrying. The day of the shooting, she rushed over to Ruth Paine's house and spoke to police there because she was fairly certain the bag she'd seen had been large enough to transport Oswald's rifle.

She ballparked its size at 3 feet that day.

As far as the 36" vs 40" rifle debate, Oswald clipped his ad from the February edition of American Rifleman (which was on newsstands in January of 1963), which had the 36" Mannlicher Carcano listed under catalog number C20-T750. There was no Klein's ad in the March 1963 edition of American Rifleman. In the April 1963 edition (which was on newsstands in March of 1963), the same catalog number of C20-T750 was used for the 40" Mannlicher Carcano.

Oswald mailed in his form in March.

So, when Klein's received his order form in March of 1963, the current ad at the time (in the April edition of magazines) had C20-T750 as a 40" Mannlicher Carcano, which is what they shipped him.

 

[HSienzant]

Another thing is the Money Order problem. The money order allegedly used to purchase the rifle from Klein's sporting goods apparently does not have a bank endorsement stamp, although it appears to have all of the rest of the necessary makings. On the London Education Forum, one time Hank insisted that the "pay to the order of First National Bank of Chicago" was supposed to be the bank endorsement stamp, but Von Pein disagreed and ended up admitting that there is no 'debunking' of this.

Hilarious. You yourself quoted this:

Endorsements
All cash items sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to the order of the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent, or endorsed to the order of any bank, banker or trust company, or with some similar endorsement.

You lose. The endorsement on the back of the money order reads

PAY TO THE ORDER OF
THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO
50 91144​

Look here: http://harveyandlee.net/Guns/Money Order.jpg

That "50 91144" is the account number of Klein's at that bank. The purpose of the endorsement is to be able to track back the payment to the company / individual that cashed the money order, in case it's disputed later. It says it should be endorsed as payable to the order of any bank, and certainly the endorsement stamp noting it as payable to the order of THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO satisfies that condition.

Like I said, you lose. Conspiracy theorists are so entrenched in a belief in a conspiracy, they lose sight of what is right in front of them, and deny the plain meaning of the words they read. It should be endorsed as payable to any bank, and it is. It is endorsed PAY TO THE ORDER OF THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO. It has the necessary endorsement per what you yourself quoted was sufficient.

Also, why would Hank think it would be crazy to plant fragments?

Straw man argument. Show where I argued it was 'crazy' to plant fragments. You want to argue for planted fragments, you need to show the evidence for planted fragments. Trying to shift the burden of proof and asking me to disprove your contentions has been covered in detail. It's still a logical fallacy. And changing my argument from what I actually said to something you find easier to argue against is the logical fallacy of a straw man argument.

If they truly were found in the limousine, they would've gotten covered in blood and matter anyway.

How many crime scenes have you been the lead criminologist at? What's that, NONE? Okay, then, why not post the evidence for this claim as well?

I posted that report saying that three days after sitting in storage, the limousine was still covered in blood and matter.

It didn't say that.

Here's what you quoted:

"Late Sunday evening, November 24, the guards were removed from the vehicle and SA Gies and Special Officer Davis and White House Police Officer Hutch began to remove the blood stains and the debris from the car. At that time there were still fragments of bone and hair in the debris of the car which had not been removed by the FBI search team."

I see nothing about the limousine being "covered in blood and matter". Instead, it says "fragments of bone and hair" were found that had not been removed by the FBI. It doesn't say how many or how large or extensive these fragments were. You're simply making stuff up now to fit your beliefs.

If those fragments got anywhere near the limousine, they're going to get covered in that stuff.

Do you actually have a source for this or are you just making stuff up again?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Please indicate where you found this "requirement" for an eyewitness to the precise instant that Oswald entered the TSBD with the sack. Murderers are often convicted, beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the physical evidence of the crime, without any eyewitness testimony that they brought the weapon to the scene. If your expectation is not a requirement of criminal law (even assuming that the standards of a criminal trial are relevant here), where did you find it?

Mark Lane said it in RUSH TO JUDGMENT, and by golly, if it's good enough for Mark Lane, it's been good enough for almost every conspiracy theorist since, ("No Other" included) no matter how many times it's been pointed out Mark Lane advanced a bogus argument there (as you do above).

Lane devoted all of his Chapter 11 (entitled "The Curtain Rod Story; or The Long and Bulky Package") to trying to dispute the evidence that Oswald brought his rifle to the Depository. And his arguments amount to what we've seen from No Other, the two witnesses that saw the rifle estimated the package they saw as too small to contain a weapon.

That argument is supposed to suffice to convince us to ignore these questions Lane can't answer:

(a) what was in the package Oswald brought to the Depository that morning,
(b) what happened to what was in the blanket stored in the Paine garage,
(c) where'd the 'whatever' that Oswald brought into the Depository wound up,
(d) why was the sack found on the sixth floor determined to be long enough to contain the disassembled rifle,
(e) why that sack found on the sixth floor was made in the recent past with Depository paper,
(f) why it had Oswald's prints on it,
(g) How did Oswald's rifle get into the Depository*, and
(h) please, tell us why Oswald denied in custody he brought any long sack to the Depository that morning, going as far as claiming Frazier must be mistaken and thinking of some other time?

Hank
____________
* Since Oswald's rifle was found in the Depository after the assassination, who are the only persons who had access to BOTH the Paine garage and the Depository, and would therefore be the chief suspects as to who transported it from the Paine garage to the Depository? I listed one person I knew had access to both locations, Lee Harvey Oswald, and asked No Other to feel free to add to the list of those suspects. Of course, he punted.

 

[HSienzant]

Do not attempt or allude that I am a CT or Lone Nutter, you have no idea.

Hilarious. I have an excellent idea, based on your arguments advanced thus far, all of them critical of the 'Lone Nut' solution to the crime. So yeah, I call 'em as I see 'em, and I'm calling you a conspiracy theorist until I see evidence to the contrary.

Your use of fallacies is now at the point of absurdity, to actually think a CT or someone who happens to disagree with a point or several points HAS TO HAVE a narrative.

I don't use fallacies (or try not to). I just point the logical fallacies out when my opponents use them. A narrative by the conspiracy theorists would allow us to compare apples to apples -- which narrative fits the known evidence better and does a better job of explaining what happened?

The lack of a compelling opposing narrative hampers your argument. If you had one, you could cite the evidence and show how the evidence fits your narrative, as I do when I cite the evidence pointing to Oswald as the assassin.

Your problem, as a conspiracy theorist, is that you don't have a compelling competing narrative because you don't have any evidence. All you have is outlier anomalies that you don't think fit the narrative we have. So you stress those anomalies, thinking it's sufficient to overturn the narrative on the table. They are not. They never will be.

In many cases the arguments conspiracy theorists advance not only don't fit the conventional narrative, they don't even agree with each other. So we get arguments like
"Oswald's rifle wasn't found on the sixth floor."
"It was found there, but it was planted."
"It was found there, but there's no evidence he fired it."
"Besides, it was a piece of junk rifle and not good enough for the task."
"And besides, he wasn't a good enough shot to accomplish the assassination."

All of those arguments have been advanced by conspiracy theorists. I've pointed this out before, but it sounds a lot like the claims of a young man accused of statutory rape: First, he claims he didn't know her, then he admits he did know her, but says he never touched her, then he offers up the excuse, "She told me she was over 18!"

That level of thinking establishes the baseline of knowledge or lack of when it comes to discussing differences of opinion. You use the fallacies of Appeal to Authority and Appeal to Popular Opinion is childish.

Asking you to familiarize yourself with the preceding arguments advanced in this thread is neither an Appeal to Authority nor an Appeal to Popular Opinion. You apparently don't know what either logical fallacy actually means.

You recycle your statements way too often, it is tiring hearing about your experience on this thread and again your use of the fallacy of Appeal to Authority is exhausted

I have never once cited myself as an authority. I have cited witnesses testimony and expert testimony that agrees with the narrative I believe explains the assassination best. If I happened to repeat those arguments, it's because you ignore them and pointing them out again is deemed a necessary reminder. And remember, the evidence hasn't changed in the past 53+ years, so if the argument was sufficient five or ten or twenty years ago to dismiss a particular conspiracy claim, its repetition should be sufficient now as well.

You and your supporters are the only ones who can make unsupported claims and that all of your evidence should be believed while those who counter what you say, their information is required to go through a litmus test. Stick to facts instead of speculation.

I put my claims through the same "litmus test" I ask of you. If you differ, point out the claims you think I cannot support. I've pointed out plenty of claims you couldn't support, and you just keep changing the subject.

Gaudet has been shown to have inflated his own importance in statements he made to various persons, including to agents of the FBI. This is not uncommon, and a person's claims is not evidence those claims are true. You appear to accept his claims without question, affirming them more than once, but you have provided no evidence his claims are true, and dismissed with a snide remark the in-depth analysis of Gaudet provided to you that was done by the HSCA staff.

You need to provide support for this claim.

Asked and answered. I already did. You dismissed it with a snide remark. I've pointed out your dismissal more than once. Asking me to provide the support once again is disingenuous when you were already provided it and dismissed it. Here's one of the times I pointed it out.

In this case, you're presuming Gaudet's claims about being a CIA Agent are true, and calling those claims his "direct experiences". But you haven't established he was a CIA agent, so you haven't established he had those "direct experiences".

You still need to do that. The HSCA studied the issue in the late 1970s and found evidence contradicting Gaudet's claims. I pointed it out to you. You dismissed it with a snide remark.

Remember this exchange?

The HSCA investigated all this and you can find their conclusions here:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0124b.htm[/COLOR]

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

Having given you the information, and seeing you dismiss it, you don't get the benefit of the doubt when you ask for it again.

Once again Hank, I never made a value judgement on Gaudet's comments and if you continue to put words in my mouth and mind without my approval, I will exhaust my paths for remedy.

You have constantly cited his claims, calling them his "direct experiences" (that's a value judgement that they are true) and claiming "Gaudet was a Participant" (again, a value judgment that his claims are true), nor claim that "Gaudet acknowledged he was an employee for the CIA" (again, a value judgment that his claims are true).

If you weren't judging his statements as true, you would not have asserted those were his direct experiences nor would you have asserted he was a participant nor that he admitted being a CIA employee. You asserted all three.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

As usual you twist and add words. Gaudet was a Participant and Walthers was a Spectator.

Without a doubt Walthers was a spectator. She gave a statement to the Sheriff's office the same day as the assassination detailing her recollections of what she thought she saw. You have yet to establish Gaudet was "a participant", nor do you even bother to clarify what he participated in.

The bottom line is you told us you couldn't put credibility in Walthers statement because you didn't know her personally, then you confirmed you didn't know Gaudet personally either. So if you didn't know either, and that's how you assess credibility, why are you citing either? Or trying to establish a difference between them and their statements?

You never did explain.

And when it was pointed out to you that the HSCA researched this issue and determined the record showed Gaudet inflated both how recent his contacts were with the CIA and how involved he was with that organization, you cited his own statements in rebuttal without qualification in any way:

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

First, what did Gaudet inflate?

Asked and answered. See my prior posts on this subject. Heck, see the point you are responding to (I've now bolded and underscored my point you're pretending not to understand). Your pretense at this late date that you're unaware of my arguments here and they need further explication isn't very convincing when they are right in front of you.

And your citing of Gaudet's statements to the FBI as him acknowledging he was an employee of the CIA shows you accepting his claim at face value without qualification.

Second, if you wish to believe the HSCA then you are a CT'er because they published that LHO most likely did not act alone.

Hilarious. That's the most absurd thing I've read today -- that if I accept a study by a given group I am bound to accept all their conclusions. You really don't have much of an argument if that's how you intend to dismiss their conclusions about Gaudet.

So which is it? You cannot vouch for Gaudet's credibility and truthfulness because you don't know him, or questioning Gaudet's credibility and truthfulness is a "trap door that someone springs when they cannot provide an intelligent rebuttal".

Make up your mind. You appear to be arguing for Walther's eyewitness claim and Gaudet's claims about being a CIA agent until you are asked direct questions about the claims and the veracity of those two persons, and then you back away from those claims, stating you never said they were truthful or accurate or credible because you don't know the person personally:

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.

Yet despite the above, and not knowing Gaudet or Walthers personally, you brought up their statements and appear to argue for what for their statements every chance you get.

Your arguments are hard to reconcile with each other. Can you explain?

Because you cannot reconcile do not ask me to explain what you fail to understand, that is not my problem.

More humor. What you're saying is you don't intend to have a give-and-take conversation with me, that if I ask you any questions about your assertions, you don't have to explain them or the apparent contradictions within them.

If that's going to be your approach, why bother posting here? Write a blog and don't allow comments.

I'm going with "you can't explain those apparent contradictions" until I see evidence to the contrary.

Hank

 

[OKBob]

it's been pointed out Mark Lane advanced a bogus argument there (as you do above).

Hank, I trust you mean the argument that I was questioning, not advancing.

I don't find any problem with the evidence of the bag. The length estimates given by the Fraziers were typical guesses made by eyewitnesses who had no reason to concentrate on the size of the bag that morning. Buell Frazier himself said numerous times during his WC testimony that he didn't look closely at the bag or at Oswald as the latter carried it toward the TSBD.

But I'm not challenging No Other with regard to the facts here. I'm talking about a problem with the typically arbitrary CT standard of proof: beyond-all-cosmic-doubt when the facts support Oswald as the shooter; anything-goes when something points away from Oswald.

My question is still pending for No Other: you say that Oswald's guilt "requires" an eyewitness to his entering the TSBD with the package. Where (apart from Lane or another CT source) do you derive that standard?

 

[MicahJava]

Hank, I trust you mean the argument that I was questioning, not advancing.

I don't find any problem with the evidence of the bag. The length estimates given by the Fraziers were typical guesses made by eyewitnesses who had no reason to concentrate on the size of the bag that morning. Buell Frazier himself said numerous times during his WC testimony that he didn't look closely at the bag or at Oswald as the latter carried it toward the TSBD.

But I'm not challenging No Other with regard to the facts here. I'm talking about a problem with the typically arbitrary CT standard of proof: beyond-all-cosmic-doubt when the facts support Oswald as the shooter; anything-goes when something points away from Oswald.

My question is still pending for No Other: you say that Oswald's guilt "requires" an eyewitness to his entering the TSBD with the package. Where (apart from Lane or another CT source) do you derive that standard?

From Martin Hay's review of Beyond Reasonable Doubt by Mel Ayton and David Von Pein:

Let us begin with the Warren Commission's claim, repeated by Ayton and Von Pein, that on the morning of November 22, 1963, Oswald smuggled his cheap, mail-ordered rifle into the Texas School Book Depository building inside a paper bag. As first generation critics of the Warren Report like Harold Weisberg, Mark Lane and Silvia Meagher quickly discovered, reasonable doubt is cast on this allegation by the very testimony on which it is based.

Broken down, the sixth floor rifle was 34.8 inches long. (WR, p. 133) But witnesses Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle repeatedly swore that the package they saw Oswald carry that morning was, at most, 27-28 inches long. For Ayton and Von Pein this poses no problem at all and they blithely state that Frazier and Randle both "made mistakes in describing the parcel's length..." (ibid, p. 69) As to how they deduced that Frazier and Randle were mistaken when there is literally no evidence overturning their consistent and corroborative estimates is difficult to fathom. Nobody else saw the package Oswald carried that morning, and the fact is that the two different ways in which Frazier and Randle saw Oswald holding the bag corroborate their estimates and prove that it had to be considerably shorter than the rifle it was alleged to contain.

Frazier saw Oswald carrying the bag with one end cupped in his hand and the other tucked under his arm. However, as he discovered during his Commission testimony, it was impossible to carry the rifle in that manner. Commission lawyer, Joseph Ball, handed Frazier the disassembled rifle inside a paper bag and asked him to demonstrate how Oswald had held the package. But when Frazier cupped the bottom end in his hand, the top end extended several inches above his shoulder, almost up to the level of his eye. As Frazier made clear, none of the bag he saw Oswald carrying had been sticking up above his shoulder and he was certain the bottom end was cupped in Oswald's hand. "From what I seen, walking behind," Frazier testified, "he had it under his arm and you couldn't tell he had a package from the back." (WC Vol. 2, p. 243, hereafter expressed as 2H243)

Ayton and Von Pein try to get around this by writing that "...in 1986, Frazier confirmed via Vincent Bugliosi's questions...that the package could have extended beyond Oswald's body and he might not have noticed it." (Ayton and Von Pein, p. 69) This is a gross distortion of what Frazier agreed to, which is that the package could have been "protruding out in front of [Oswald's] body" without him seeing it. He never said that it could have been sticking up above the shoulder or below the hand. To this day Frazier is adamant that the package he saw was around two feet long and that Oswald carried it with one end cupped in his hand and the other tucked under his arm. In other words, it was smaller than the rifle.

Often overlooked is the manner in which Oswald was carrying the package when Randle saw him. She was looking out of her kitchen window as she watched Oswald cross the street toward her house holding a "heavy brown bag." At this time, he held the package by the top and the bottom did not quite reach the ground. (2H248) The only way the 5 foot 9 inch Oswald could have carried a 34.8-inch long rifle down by his side without it dragging along the ground behind him is if he had arms like a T-Rex. Given that Oswald was a normally proportioned human male we can safely conclude from Randle's testimony that the package she saw him carry was considerably shorter than the rifle. It is readily apparent, then, that despite Ayton and Von Pein's assurance that Frazier and Randle "made mistakes in describing the parcel's length," their estimates actually make little difference. Because the two different ways in which Oswald carried it are entirely corroborative and clearly establish that it could not have contained the rifle.

Ayton and Von Pein would no doubt argue that the testimony of Frazier and Randle on this point is negated by the long paper bag; apparently made from wrapping paper and tape from the book depository's shipping department; allegedly found by Dallas police in the so-called "sniper's nest," on the sixth floor of the depository building. But that bag is, to say the least, of dubious origin. As retired British police detective Ian Griggs pointed out in his seminal essay, "The Paper Bag That Never Was," it does not appear in any of the official crime scene photographs, and the first officers on the scene did not see it there. For example, Police Sergeant Gerald Hill told the Commission that the only paper bag he had seen was a "small lunch sack" and remarked of the larger bag, "...if it was found up there on the sixth floor, if it was there, I didn't see it." (7H65) As Griggs points out in his essay, Deputy Sheriffs Luke Mooney and Roger Craig and Police Detective Elmer Boyd all said much the same thing. (See, Griggs, No Case to Answer, pgs. 173-214)

One fact overlooked by Griggs was that on the evening of November 22, 1963, Buell Frazier was given a polygraph examination by Dallas Police Detective R.D. Lewis and, while it was in progress, Lewis showed Frazier the long paper bag supposedly found in the "sniper's nest." Frazier told him that "he did not think that it resembled...the crinkly brown paper sack that Oswald had when he rode to work with him that morning..." (FBI 105-82555 Oswald HQ File, Section 17, p. 100) If Frazier, who got the best look at the package Oswald carried that morning, could not identify the bag produced by Dallas Police, it is difficult to imagine that it could ever have been introduced as evidence in court.

Nevertheless, the bag is seemingly linked to Oswald by a partial right palmprint and a partial left index fingerprint. Yet the obvious question this raises is how these could be the only two prints Oswald left on the bag when he supposedly made it himself using paper and tape from the depository, carried it with him to the Paine home in Irving, used it to wrap his rifle, carried it at least two different ways on his journey back into the depository, and unwrapped his rifle again on the sixth floor. In light of everything outlined above; Frazier and Randle's testimony, the fact that the bag does not appear in crime scene photographs, was not seen by the first officers on the scene, and was not identified by Frazier during his polygraph; the prints cannot be said to in any way prove that Oswald used the bag to carry the rifle. Realistically, all the prints tell us is that he handled the bag briefly at some point. This reviewer would not be the least bit surprised if that occurred whilst Oswald was in police custody.

Though they are careful to omit it all from their book, Ayton and Von Pein are no doubt aware of the serious issues outlined above, so they try to give themselves an out by writing that, "The question of whether or not Oswald took his rifle into work that morning, however, is a moot point. Oswald had plenty of opportunities to hide his rifle in the Book Depository on other occasions." (p. 69) Informed readers will recognize this for the smokescreen that it is. According to the official story, for the two months leading up the assassination, Oswald's alleged rifle was wrapped in a blanket in Ruth Paine's garage. If he did not retrieve it on the morning of the assassination then he never did so because at no other time was he seen taking a package from the Paine home, at no time was any rifle seen at his rooming house, and at no other time did he take a package into the Book Depository. November 22 was his one and only opportunity. Which means that if the package he carried that morning did not contain the rifle--and the preponderance of evidence tells us it did not--then someone else placed it on the sixth floor of the depository building, and Oswald was exactly what he said he was: A patsy.

Just from this instance, one can see why the authors lowered the legal standard. But even at that, an informed reader can see that they do not meet even that lower standard.

Before moving on, let us take note of another example of Ayton and Von Pein misrepresenting Frazier's words to suit their needs. The authors allege that when Frazier and Oswald "arrived at the Book Depository parking lot, Oswald hurried to the building 50 feet ahead of his co-worker...Oswald had never previously walked ahead of Frazier to the building. But Friday, November 22nd was different." (Ibid) The implication here is that Oswald immediately got out of the car and rushed ahead of his workmate because he was in a hurry to get his rifle into the building. The reality is quite different. As Frazier testified, upon arriving at the depository, he sat in his car, "letting my engine run and getting to charge up my battery." (2H227) Oswald had gotten out of the vehicle but, upon realizing Frazier was not with him, stopped and stood "at the end of the cyclone fence waiting for me to get out of the car." (Ibid, 228) Once Frazier shut off the engine and exited the car, Oswald carried on walking but Frazier said he "didn't try to catch up to him because I knew I had plenty of time so I just took my time walking up there." As Frazier told the Commission, he was less interested in catching up with Oswald and more interested in taking a minute to watch the nearby railroad tracks because "I just like to watch them switch the cars..." (Ibid) So quite contrary to the impression Ayton and Von Pein attempt to convey, Oswald did not end up 50 feet ahead of his co-worker because he "hurried," he did so because Frazier purposely lagged behind. Clearly the truth is less supportive of Ayton and Von Pein's agenda than their own version of events.

[NOTE: Over recent years, a number of very knowledgeable researchers have begun to question whether or not Oswald carried any kind of package with him that morning at all. They suggest that Frazier was pressured into telling this story after he was arrested by police on the evening of the assassination. Whilst, on balance, the reviewer believes that Frazier and his sister were telling the truth, the inconsistencies these critics have highlighted should not be summarily dismissed. Readers are referred to chapter 8 of Jim DiEugenio's excellent book, Reclaiming Parkland, for details.]


Reclaiming Parkland, first edition, free Kindle ebook link: http://libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=42A5E4F79FC922F0682935F4FD7F55D3

 

[HSienzant]

Hank, I trust you mean the argument that I was questioning, not advancing.

Yes, I was pointing out it's a bogus argument that No Other (& Mark Lane before him) were advancing, and that you were properly questioning.

I don't find any problem with the evidence of the bag.

Only conspiracy theorists do. They never specify what range of guesses (in inches or as a percentage) they would accept as not eliminating Oswald. Any number that didn't match the length of the disassembled rifle would be kicked to the curb by them (or kerb, for those folks on the other side of the Atlantic from me).

The length estimates given by the Fraziers were typical guesses made by eyewitnesses who had no reason to concentrate on the size of the bag that morning. Buell Frazier himself said numerous times during his WC testimony that he didn't look closely at the bag or at Oswald as the latter carried it toward the TSBD.

But I'm not challenging No Other with regard to the facts here. I'm talking about a problem with the typically arbitrary CT standard of proof: beyond-all-cosmic-doubt when the facts support Oswald as the shooter; anything-goes when something points away from Oswald.

Yes, but nonetheless, if one is a conspiracy theorist, because one has no evidence, one must raise the bar for evidence against Oswald to the ceiling; and drop the bar to the floor for evidence pointing to a conspiracy. Those of us here since 2011 have seen this same routine repeated over and over with each conspiracy theorist trying to make a case.

My question is still pending for No Other: you say that Oswald's guilt "requires" an eyewitness to his entering the TSBD with the package. Where (apart from Lane or another CT source) do you derive that standard?

He won't answer. He can't answer. Mark Lane (and numerous other conspiracy authors since) never cited for the claim that eyewitnesses are required for the rifle being brought into the building as No Other claims. So No Other has no valid response here because conspiracy authors don't address this.

No Other also has never tried to answer any of my questions. Questions are ignored, because the conspiracy authors never really try to argue the case by looking at all the evidence. They take one snippet of testimony from a witness (like Walthers seeing two men) and never try to put it into context or compare and contrast with what other witnesses said, and try to resolve the discrepancies... on the contrary, the discrepancies are all they have, and resolving those would kill their cash cow. Mark Lane went to the well HOW MANY TIMES on this subject?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

From Martin Hay's review of Beyond Reasonable Doubt by Mel Ayton and David Von Pein:

yada yada.

Why are you telling us what Martin Hay thinks?
He's not here to answer any questions.

What do you think?

Do estimates by eyewitnesses that are off by about 25% eliminate the actual package, especially considering the package recovered from the Depository is large enough to contain the disassembled weapon, AND contains the suspect's print on it, AND his weapon was discovered in the Depository as well?

Please try to offer up a reasoned narrative that explains all this, and accounts for Oswald's claim in custody that he only took his lunch to work that day... no long package put on the back seat.

Can you explain all that? Martin Hay doesn't even try. He's content to quibble over whether estimates overrule the hard evidence (he votes yes).

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Why are you telling us what Martin Hay thinks?

What do you think?

Do estimates by eyewitnesses that are off by about 25% eliminate the actual package, especially considering the package recovered from the Depository is large enough to contain the disassembled weapon, AND contains the suspect's print on it, AND his weapon was discovered in the Depository as well?

Please try to offer up a reasoned narrative that explains all this, and accounts for Oswald's claim in custody that he only took his lunch to work that day... no long package put on the back seat.

Can you explain all that? Martin Hay doesn't even try. He's content to quibble over whether estimates overrule the hard evidence (he votes yes).

Hank

Why should I accept the paper bag taken out of the Depository as the paper bag in evidence?

See here: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4c

And just look at how you phrase problems: "Do estimates by eyewitnesses that are off by about 25% eliminate the actual package"

Frazier said the bag was about the size of a large grocery bag, from a grocery store. In the common every day sense, who sees a paper bag that long? Frazier thought of it as a grocery bag. It's the difference between him remembering a common, every day grocery bag and remembering a weird long paper bag stitched together with tape.

 

[OKBob]

[snip] Beyond Reasonable Doubt by Mel Ayton and David Von Pein [snip]

I'm not interested, just now, in whether CTers think they've raised reasonable doubt concerning the package, or whether LNers think that that standard of proof has been met. Any such position begs the question of whether a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard is even appropriate for what is now essentially a question of history and historiography. I'm asking No Other--and you, too, Micah, if you have a pertinent opinion--why anyone would or should take the position that an eyewitness to Oswald's entering the TSBD with the package is "required" to establish his guilt, historically or forensically.

 

[OKBob]

Yes, I was pointing out it's a bogus argument that No Other (& Mark Lane before him) were advancing, and that you were properly questioning.

So I suspected, Hank. Thanks.

 

[bknight]

Why should I accept the paper bag taken out of the Depository as the paper bag in evidence?

....

Given this type of reasoning, why should you believe any evidence? Or is it that you believe ANY evidence by a CT and not any by the authorities?