Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[HSienzant]

It's commonly referred to as SWAG - scientific wild-ass guess.

Folks use all sorts of descriptive tools and terms when estimating age/height/weight and in many cases get things wrong, sometimes horribly so.

I can't tell you how many times there would be a criminal incident where security camera footage was eventually made available and that footage directly contradicted the accounts of witnesses - mismatched color or type of clothing being very common.

You'd think that somebody interviewed by an officer within minutes of an incident would be able to accurately describe a suspect, but in many cases they'd be way off from the evidence shown on camera.

Imhotep's complaint (via Simpich), as I understand it, was that the 165 lb. estimate of Oswald's weight could only have come from the CIA or FBI because that's the weight they had in their records back in 1960.

They (Imhotep & Simpich) profess to not understand how anyone could estimate the guy in the window as 165 lbs. Ergo, their thought process apparently goes, it must have been a frame-up of Oswald by the CIA.

But then we have officer Baker, who stopped Oswald in the lunchroom roughly 90 seconds after the assassination, estimating the man he stopped -- whom we know was Oswald -- at 165 lbs. as well.

Therefore their thought process is wrong. Someone could look at Oswald and think he was 165 lbs, and ergo, the 165 lb. estimate for the shooter could have come from a civilian, a regular joe, and not from a CIA or FBI document from 1960, and there was no frame up of Oswald indicated by the 165 lb. estimate.

Curiously, though, after posting this argument of Simpich's and apparently crediting it, Imhotep goes on to say he thinks Oswald was the lone shooter, and not framed, which is in direct contradiction to everything Simpich concluded. He thinks Oswald was neither the shooter of JFK or Tippit, and Simpich thinks Oswald was framed for both.

So it makes no sense to me how Imhotep can think Simpich's logic and citations are rock solid ("My claims do have traction, most of what I posted [almost all of which came from Simpich - Hank] can be linked straight to the evidence archive at the Mary Ferrell site"), while at the same time reaching diametrically opposite conclusions to Simpich in such a key area as whether Oswald fired any shots during the assassination.

Simpich: "Although the rifle was found near the sixth floor crime scene, I don’t think the rifle was used to shoot the President. I think it was used as a throw-down weapon with throw-down shells to frame the man called Oswald who worked on the sixth floor."

Imhotep: "I believe Oswald shot Kennedy and was the only active shooter".

Simpich contradicts himself by first claiming that the 5-10, 165 lb. description couldn't be a legit description of Oswald at the window, then finishes up that section of chapter six by arguing "I believe that Sawyer was telling the truth. He was told that a man was carrying a Winchester rifle, and that he was 5 foot 10, 165, about 30, with a slender build. It wouldn’t take long to find out which book depository employee fit that rough description."

Clearly, Simpich is suggesting that Oswald would be the "book depository employee" that best "fit that rough description."

So on the one hand, he argues it can't be a legit description of Oswald because Oswald was an inch shorter and 25 lbs. lighter, and then on the other hand suggests that description of 5-10, 165 lbs. would best fit Oswald out of all the Depository employees.

Simpich also contradicts himself regarding where in the TSBD Oswald worked ("I think it was used as a throw-down weapon with throw-down shells to frame the man called Oswald who worked on the sixth floor"), but earlier in that chapter argued against that ("The sixth floor was not Oswald’s turf – as an order filler, he would only come up there when he needed some books ").

I walk away from arguments like this scratching my head, wondering if the writer even cares that he makes no sense, or if the only goal is to reach a conspiracy conclusion regardless of the knots they have to tie themselves into to get there.

Hank

 

[bknight]

...

I walk away from arguments like this scratching my head, wondering if the writer even cares that he makes no sense, or if the only goal is to reach a conspiracy conclusion regardless of the knots they have to tie themselves into to get there.

Hank

It's all for the money.

 

[HSienzant]

It's all for the money.

Well, that would make sense if Simpich is selling the book; but he's giving it away for free as an e-book here: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret.html

EDIT: Simpich also thinks Orenthal James Simpson was framed: "Even if you believe that Oswald was guilty – and I don’t – guilty men can also be framed. That’s what happened to O. J. Simpson, if you remember how the glove, sock and blood evidence contradicted the prosecution’s version of the facts in the criminal case. That’s why the jury acquitted him on that round."

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret_Conclusion.html

Hank

 

[bknight]

Well, that would make sense if Simpich is selling the book; but he's giving it away for free as an e-book here: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret.html

Hank

Ah, I didn't know that and hadn't looked.

ETA:

Then it would be I (Simpich) am smarter/more clever than everyone else that has studied the case.

 

[OKBob]

Then it would be I (Simpich) am smarter/more clever than everyone else that has studied the case.

My sense is that CT thinking is often more holier-than-thou than smarter-than-thou. Yes, they do think they have greater insight, but often they claim that everyone could see what they see if only we all opened our eyes, minds, and hearts, if we just stripped off the blinders and exercised our common sense. There's a displaced religious and political impulse here. Ultimately, I think that a confused form of ideological hatred lies behind much CT thinking (apart from the money motive that, as you point out, does drive some CT). They reflexively challenge authority, whether governmental authority or what they deem "official" and coopted storytellers. (Their instinctive hatred for much established authority brings them temperamentally quite close to Oswald himself.) This is why most CTs, in my view, don't really want to solve the JFK assassination, as they claim, because that would put finis to their war against officialdom, or, rather, would create a new officialdom that must be opposed straightaway. I return to my idea, offered a few days ago, that CTs instrumentalize Oswald. In the guise of sleuthing, they exonerate or minimize the wretched waif in order to carry on a hate campaign against abstract authority. In truth, a murderer has humanity--a twisted humanity, granted--but CTs, in pursuing their religio-political agenda, are not interested in autonomous human depravity. They mostly treat human agency and individuals as pretexts for railing against "them," the mysterious, faceless cabal that has sought to control our thinking since at least 1963.

 

[Axxman300]

My sense is that CT thinking is often more holier-than-thou than smarter-than-thou. Yes, they do think they have greater insight, but often they claim that everyone could see what they see if only we all opened our eyes, minds, and hearts, if we just stripped off the blinders and exercised our common sense. There's a displaced religious and political impulse here. Ultimately, I think that a confused form of ideological hatred lies behind much CT thinking (apart from the money motive that, as you point out, does drive some CT). They reflexively challenge authority, whether governmental authority or what they deem "official" and coopted storytellers. (Their instinctive hatred for much established authority brings them temperamentally quite close to Oswald himself.) This is why most CTs, in my view, don't really want to solve the JFK assassination, as they claim, because that would put finis to their war against officialdom, or, rather, would create a new officialdom that must be opposed straightaway. I return to my idea, offered a few days ago, that CTs instrumentalize Oswald. In the guise of sleuthing, they exonerate or minimize the wretched waif in order to carry on a hate campaign against abstract authority. In truth, a murderer has humanity--a twisted humanity, granted--but CTs, in pursuing their religio-political agenda, are not interested in autonomous human depravity. They mostly treat human agency and individuals as pretexts for railing against "them," the mysterious, faceless cabal that has sought to control our thinking since at least 1963.

I agree with this, and need to point out that every CT is about changing guilt from the actual perpetrator(s) to the target of a specific political or social enemy. This is why you've seen everyone from the Mafia, CIA, LBJ, Hunt Oil, Castro, or the Soviets being charged as the true culprits behind JFK's death.

The JFK Assassination was prime real estate for a conspiracy right off the bat. It took place at a time before live TV was common place, and though it was caught on 8mm and 16mm film, the public wouldn't see these films for 13 years. What America did see was Lee Oswald murdered on live TV, where they see a bland, scrawny little man shot. It became a CT built on space and time. People had doubts based on gossip, the government of the 1960's had secrets to keep (Cuba, Vietnam, etc), and the counter-culture began to bloom into an era where EVERYTHING was questioned. Soon the assassination became folklore, and as the lies from Southeast Asia grew it reinforced the belief in conspiracy in the minds of more and more people.

By the time Nixon resigned from the White House a conspiracy behind JFK's death was palpable.

Moving into the 1980's we saw the rise of cable TV where there were thousands of hours of air-time to fill, and CT's found a new home in the form of "documentaries". The JFK assassination lead the way.

This gave the JFK-CT a 25 year-old foundation supported by an industry of books and VHS tapes.

Today, thanks to the internet and YouTube, there is a mountain of bad information out there for a growing population of non-critical thinkers to absorb. On the bright side, the internet brings a lot of people into play, and while CT's still pop-up they get torn apart fairly quickly leaving only fringe-types spouting off.

 

[OKBob]

This is why you've seen everyone from the Mafia, CIA, LBJ, Hunt Oil, Castro, or the Soviets being charged as the true culprits behind JFK's death.

I think your social and historical comments about JFK-CT hit the nail on the head. I'd stress the point that it's typically malign collectivities, such as those you cite above, that are fingered as suspects by CTs. You almost never see a CT say, "Not Oswald but this other disaffected individual killed JFK." When the HSCA credited last-minute acoustic evidence (misinterpreted, as we know) with uncovering a shot from the Grassy Knoll, G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel to the HSCA, concluded that it showed the hand of the Mafia, not simply another antisocial individual, conspiring or coincidental, with Oswald's act.

 

[Axxman300]

And Blakey is part of the problem.

Here's the thing; the evidence can't point in 20 directions.

So you start at the crime scene and work backward in time.

Here's what you get:

JFK is struck from behind by two 6.5x52mm bullets, one in the back that passes through his body and strikes Gov. Connally, and the other round striking him in the back of the head to dramatic effect.

Witnesses point to the 6th floor of the TSBD, and there the police find a sniper's nest, spent 6.5x52mm shell casings, and a Carcano rifle of the same caliber. * Witnesses also directed cops to other locations where they thought they saw or heard something, but no evidence of a gunman was found at these locations.*

The Carcano belongs to Lee Oswald, a TSBD employee, who has fled the building. Oswald later shoots officer Tippet, killing him, and later attempts to shoot a second officer during his apprehension at a movie theater. The gun in Owald's hand is the gun used to kill Tippet, and was also owned by Oswald.

This right here is enough to put Oswald in the electric chair.

From here we look at Oswald to see if there were other conspirators. While there are a few interesting people in his life (depending on how far back you want to go) the fact is that there isn't anyone where you could build a solid case of being a co-conspirator - AND PEOPLE HAVE TRIED AND FAILED (you know, Jack Ruby, David Ferrie, Guy Banister, the Lambchop puppet, etc).

Oswald wasn't a guy with a lot of friends, and none of them were dangerous.

The last place they would focus on is Oswald's trip to Mexico City, and while there are a few colorful stories emerging about where he went, and whom he talked to while he was there in the end nobody can point to anything concrete linking him to Cuba, Russia, or the CIA.

So that brings us back to Dealey Plaza and Oswald...all by himself.

I spent 25 years of my life as a JFK CTist, not one of the theories is strong enough to override the facts of the case as we know it. Oswald was given a target of opportunity on 11/22/63, and he snuck his Carcano into the building, and shot JFK. It was an easy shot.

It's just that simple.

 

[bknight]

While CT's may be attempting to shift guilt to "them", I guess I'm referring to CT's in general not just the JFK. Flat Earth, Apollo, 9/11, or you pick the theory contains the CT's that believe they are "smarter/more clever than everyone" and or "critical thinkers" that have government/top official in charge of fantasy frauds that the CT's believe/support.

 

[MicahJava]

You're absolutely right of course, but let's dissect MicahJava's pointless noise for the fun of it.


Can you name another employee "...to flee the building after the assassination"? No. There were no others. That leaves Oswald as the only one known to have fled. And remember, he's also the only one who left his rifle behind in the building. Surely those two facts, in concert, count for more than each alone, don't you think?


This is more of what DiEugenio does, taking claims out of context and quibbling about minor points. In point of fact, it was Roy Truly, Oswald's supervisor, who noticed him missing and reported that fact to the police. Truly's testimony on that point:
Mr. TRULY. Then in a few minutes--it could have been moments or minutes at a time like that--I noticed some of my boys were over in the west corner of the shipping department, and there were several officers over there taking their names and addresses, and so forth.
There were other officers in other parts of the building taking other employees, like office people's names. I noticed that Lee Oswald was not among these boys.
So I picked up the telephone and called Mr. Aiken down at the other warehouse who keeps our application blanks. Back up there.
First I mentioned to Mr. Campbell--I asked Bill Shelley if he had seen him, he looked around and said no.
Mr. BELIN. When you asked Bill Shelley if he had seen whom?
Mr. TRULY. Lee Oswald. I said, "Have you seen him around lately," and he said no.
So Mr. Campbell is standing there, and I said, "I have a boy over here missing. I don't know whether to report it or not." Because I had another one or two out then. I didn't know whether they were all there or not. He said, "What do you think"? And I got to thinking. He said, "Well, we better do it anyway." It was so quick after that.
So I picked the phone up then and called Mr. Aiken, at the warehouse, and got the boy's name and general description and telephone number and address at Irving.
Mr. BELIN. Did you have any address for him in Dallas, or did you just have an address in Irving?
Mr. TRULY. Just the address in Irving. I knew nothing of this Dallas address. I didn't know he was living away from his family.
Mr. BELIN. Now, would that be the address and the description as shown on this application, Exhibit 496?
Mr. TRULY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Did you ask for the name and addresses of any other employees who might have been missing?
Mr. TRULY. No, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Why didn't you ask for any other employees?
Mr. TRULY. That is the only one that I could be certain right then was missing.

Now, whether you want to quibble and call the police taking the names of the employees for the record as a 'roll call' is relatively meaningless. What is pertinent is Truly was the genesis for the police knowing they were seeking an employee named Lee Harvey Oswald for questioning. When a person of the same name was arrested in the Texas Theatre as a suspect in the killing of a police officer after the assassination, it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out this "Lee Harvey Oswald" character might be involved in both murders.


You apparently started one thought here and abandoned it.


Nobody ever suggested it did, so this argument reduces to a strawman argument raised by Rose merely to knock down. Truly's noticing Oswald was not present, and confirming Shelley hadn't seen him, was enough to get Oswald reported to the police as 'missing'. The roll call wasn't why Oswald was arrested in any case, so why do you think this minor incident is even worth discussing? You don't say, except, of course, conspiracy theorists apparently must quibble about everything before breakfast, or they feel incomplete.


More quibbles. The fact of the matter is Truly noticed the police taking the names of the employees and thought that giving them Oswald's name might be important, as he was then not accounted for. The fact that Truly saw Oswald IN the building about 90 seconds after the assassination (with Officer Baker) could have entered into his determination that he should provide Oswald's name to the police.


Givens was outside the building at the time of the assassination, and was still outside at the time of Truly noticing Oswald wasn't present as the police were taking names. Truly also hadn't seen Givens about 90 seconds after the assassination, so Givens' name wasn't foremost in Truly's mind. And as it turned out, Givens neither left a rifle behind nor shot and killed a police officer in the ensuing 45 minutes. And, as Truly mentioned in his testimony, "That is the only one [Oswald] that I could be certain right then was missing."


What would be a more appropriate English word for the police segregating the workers and taking their names and addresses? I am open to suggestions. Got one? If not, then 'roll call' will have to do.


And in point of fact, NONE of them reported to Roy Truly, so he had no reason to recall their names or report them missing. And he hadn't seen any of them within the building in the 90 seconds immediately following the shooting, so, again, Truly had no reason to think their being outside his purview was significant. But Oswald? Oswald reported to Truly and Oswald was seen by Truly inside the building a short time before. And now Oswald wasn't around. Truly felt that significant enough to mention to the police. So Truly reported that. What's the big deal here? The word 'roll call' annoys you that much? Call it what you wish. Truly reported Oswald missing. That's the fact. And no amount of quibbling over what the proper English word is for this will ever change that fact. This is why conspiracy theorists have such a bad reputation... they ignore the wheat and concentrate on the chaff.


Or not. Beside which, there's no evidence these 'others' reported to Truly or were seen by him in the 90 seconds following the shooting, right? So why would Truly think of them, or report their names and addresses to the police, if he even knew these others? As you note, but appear to have a double-standard about, there were multiple businesses in the TSBD, and Truly was part of only one business. So why quibble over the others?


Well, now, this is just a change of subject from why Oswald was reported to the police. It's almost like you know your arguments about the putative roll call are worthless, and you're already lining up another point to argue in its stead.

Beyond that, it's important to note that there's no civil rights protection for someone who deliberately calls attention to himself during a police lineup. Having done so, you don't then get to suggest the lineups were invalid and should be disregarded because you called attention to yourself. Otherwise, every suspect would use this ploy every time they were in a lineup in an attempt to get the results of the lineups thrown out.

And beyond that, the lineups really don't matter. This is again another quibble by you. The weapon recovered from the Depository was Oswald's, he left his prints on the weapon in two places, there are photos of him with the weapon, it was determined on the afternoon of the assassination to be missing from its normal hiding place in the Paine garage, and the Kleins business records show it was shipped to his PO Box. The revolver pulled from his hand in the theatre was determined to be the one used to kill Officer Tippit, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. Ditto with his rifle used to killed President Kennedy.

Hank

Um, dude, don't you think anything Truly says should be taken with a grain of salt? He's not the most consistent witness, with himself or others. And can you recconcile your Truly quote with the information posted above? The role-call thing sounds like an exaggerated tale based on a fragment of time.

 

[MicahJava]

Why do you think Oswald had a whole, torn dollar bill in his pocket? It can't be to identify someone at the Texas Theatre, because that requires the other person to have the other half of the dollar bill, and Oswald has the whole dollar. So where's the whole dollar with a slight tear gain its significance?

How do you explain it? And do you have any direct *evidence* for your explanation?

And how do you explain the piece of paper about two other half dollars not linked to Oswald found in the archives? What's the *evidence* of their significance to this case?

Hank

The whole, partially torn dollar bill would be there to rip it completely and give the other half to somebody else. This is speculation based on an anomalous aspect of the case. This speculation is warranted because a mundane explanation is highly unlikely.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The whole, partially torn dollar bill would be there to rip it completely and give the other half to somebody else. This is speculation based on an anomalous aspect of the case. This speculation is warranted because a mundane explanation is highly unlikely.

Why?

 

[MicahJava]

You guys will quibble about anything pretty much, won't you?

Officer Marion Baker saw Oswald on the second floor of the Depository within about 90 seconds of the assassination, right? Is that something beyond dispute?

I trust so, because it destroys your silly argument.

Here's his affidavit.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htm

Note the age, height, & weight he estimated Oswald at:
The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket.

What does this establish, except conspiracy theorists quibble over ever little item, mostly for no good reason?

Baker saw Oswald, and estimated his weight at 165lb. The witness saw Oswald in the window and estimated his weight at 165. Someone else saw Oswald and estimated his weight at 165 (as reflected in the cable you cite). You're right, your argument proves nothing, except how desperate you are to have an argument that establishes conspiracy, when all it establishes is Oswald looked like he was about 165 pounds.

What's your source for Oswald's weight being 140? Do you even have one, or is that just your personal favorite guess?

Hank

Patspeer.com has a great chapter on examining Oswald's clothing when and where.

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter4b%3A%22theso-calledevidence%22

 

[Elagabalus]

The whole, partially torn dollar bill would be there to rip it completely and give the other half to somebody else. This is speculation based on an anomalous aspect of the case. This speculation is warranted because a mundane explanation is highly unlikely.

Oswald was involved, then? Is that what you are saying?

 

[HSienzant]

The whole, partially torn dollar bill would be there to rip it completely and give the other half to somebody else.

Why does it need to be torn partially to start? Wouldn't a whole, untorn bill in his wallet suffice for the same purpose? Why are you assuming the partial tear is there by design? Didn't he have other, untorn, bills that would suffice?

This is speculation based on an anomalous aspect of the case.

What anomalous aspect of the case? The tear? Then you're arguing in a circle and begging the question.

This speculation is warranted because a mundane explanation is highly unlikely.

Show us your math for how you calculated the likelihood of the mundane explanation vs the speculative explanation you favor. No math? Then you're just blowing smoke.

Hank

 

[OKBob]

This speculation is warranted because a mundane explanation is highly unlikely.

Circular argument from personal incredulity. Doubly fallacious. A great number of JFK-CTs make just this argument. "The mundane explanation that an indignant, grieving Jack Ruby opportunistically murdered Oswald is highly unlikely." "Why do you say that?" "Because anybody with common sense couldn't believe it."

 

[BStrong]

The whole, partially torn dollar bill would be there to rip it completely and give the other half to somebody else. This is speculation based on an anomalous aspect of the case. This speculation is warranted because a mundane explanation is highly unlikely.

Might want to think about how your use of the word mundane contradicts your point.

 

[HSienzant]

Patspeer.com has a great chapter on examining Oswald's clothing when and where.

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter4b%3A%22theso-calledevidence%22

Don't care what Pat Speer says. He's not here to debate this. You expect me to rebut everything you can find on the web to cut and paste? THAT isn't going to happen.

Right now the subject under discussion isn't Oswald's clothes, but his approximate weight. Imhotep raised that issue, suggesting the source of the 165 lbs. that went out over the DPD radio at about 12:45 pm on the day of the assassination was a mystery man repeating what was contained in a CIA document from 1960 (he quoted Bill Simpich, another conspiracy theorist about that). If you want to change the subject to Oswald's clothes, go right ahead, but at least understand that's a red herring and you are avoiding the topic your fellow CT brought up.

So right now we're discussing these points:

1. Did Baker see Oswald in the lunch room in the Depository about 90 seconds after the assassination, yes or no?

2. Did Baker execute a document later the same day saying the man he saw was about 165 lbs., yes or no?

3. Does Baker's estimate destroy entirely the argument Imhotep was advancing concerning the CIA being the source of the 165 lb. estimate for Oswald, given Baker didn't work for the CIA, saw Oswald only briefly, and likewise estimated Oswald weighed about 165 lbs.?

Now, what's your quibble (via Speers) about Oswald's clothes?

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Why?

Why?

What would be the default "mundane explanation"?

1. Oswald was given three $1 bills at some point in time.

2. All three $1 bills have three-digit notations on them signifying that they were once on top of a grouped stack of currency.

3. Two of the $1 become so worn that the other half tears off, with their corresponding halves missing. Oswald keeps these useless items around his home.

4. One of the $1 bills becomes so worn that it partially tears. Oswald decides to keep this one in his wallet, along with $13 of other comparatively mundane currency, on the day of 11/22/1963.

?

 

[RoboTimbo]

What would be the default "mundane explanation"?

1. Oswald was given three $1 bills at some point in time.

2. All three $1 bills have three-digit notations on them signifying that they were once on top of a stack of currency.

3. Two of the $1 become so worn that the other half tears off, with their corresponding halves missing. Oswald keeps these useless items around his home.

4. One of the $1 bills becomes so worn that it partially tears. Oswald decides to keep this one in his wallet, along with $13 of other comparatively mundane currency, on the day of 11/22/1963.

?

Is there such a thing as a "default" mundane explanation? Which non-mundane one do you prefer?