Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge

[HSienzant]

No, you are wrong. The default is, innocent until proven guilty.

Hilarious. I didn't realize you were the defense attorney and this was a courtroom. You are citing a criminal trial standard. And there's no trial when the defendant is dead. This is an internet forum, and we're discussing a crime - not trying anyone - that occurred nearly 55 years ago. That's an entirely different thing than a criminal trial.

Tell us you do understand the difference. And then tell us why you're insisting on a standard that doesn't apply here.

Give me your best ”accumulated” evidence for Oswalds guilt.

We both know that evidence. Or at least, I do. I suspect you do as well. Why don't you try to make a case for Oswald's innocence, if you dare.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The 6.5x52mm round recovered from the scene can only be fired from the Carcano. Shooting at Walker also show intent to kill someone important.



JFK, unless you think he shot someone else other than the President and Tippit.




Misidentified by an officer who'd never seen the Carcano before (which would have been just about every cop in Dallas, or the Southwest US for that matter). More importantly the Mauser thing came from officer buzz around the TSBD, it was never officially identified as such. The recovery of the rifle is on film.

It is evidence of Oswald's guilt because he owned THE rifle that made the shots, and the rifle was recovered from the floor where he was working that day. Had he bought at standard hunting rifle or M-1 Garand in .762 it would be possible to cast doubt, but he bought a Carcano that required a specific caliber.



Has never been in dispute. There was still a round left in the rifle.

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305136



It's called "Ballistics". The fragments were large enough to reveal the rifling, shape, and size of the round, and all are identified as 6.5x52mm round.

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305151

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305150

This isn't magic, all one needs is a good microscope.

The first bullet that struck was found at Parkland, and was mostly intact, which is a trait of the 6.5x52mm bullet when fired into mostly soft tissue.

I know CT-loons hate this, but that's the reality of this weapon.

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305144



His gun, retrieved FROM HIS HAND while attempting to shoot a second policemen in the theater. Eye witnesses saw him shoot Tippit.



Shooting a policeman is the act of a desperate man who was attempting to escape...unless you're someone who decides to shoot cops on your lunch hour. It's not a stand-alone event. Look at the facts:

Oswald is on the 6th floor when JFK is shot, he leaves his rifle there.
Oswald flees the TSBD.
Oswald returns to his rooming house to change clothes, and takes his pistol with him.

Oswald shoots Tippit. Why? Why would an innocent man shoot a cop if he allegedly doesn't even know the President has been shot?

Oswald attempts to kill a second policeman in the Texas Theater. Why? Is this something an innocent man does?

Oswald's actions on 11/22/63 taken in total prove his guilt.

His actions in the weeks prior the assassination are even more damning. His trip to Mexico City to obtain visas to either Russia or Cuba. His attempt on General Walker's life. His stalking of tall buildings along the parade route prior to the assassination asking for rooftop access. These are not the actions of an innocent man.

The key is the Carcano. He could have chosen any other surplus rifle in .762 and his bullets would have been common in Texas, and everywhere else in the US in 1963, but he didn't - he bought a Carcano. Conventional wisdom says he did so because it was the cheapest rifle he could buy, but he lived in Texas where guns were sold everywhere including hardware stores. He could have walked into any pawn shop and picked up an M-1 Garand for maybe $10 more than he paid for his mail-order Carcano. The M-1 was the rifle he was trained on while he was a Marine, so it would have made better sense to buy a weapon he could use in his sleep.

Yet he bought the Carcano. Why?

Was he that cheap? Maybe. Was he that dumb? Maybe.

Here's something to consider; maybe he chose the rifle because it stood out. It came with a scope, and the fact that it was Italian made it exotic. Oswald, being a Marine, certainly would have understood that 6.5x52mm is not an every day round like the .762, and would stand out if he used it in a crime.

And maybe that's what he wanted.

You don't kill JFK because you want to be anonymous. His actions and demeanor while in DPD custody were of a man loving the spotlight. He had finally found the fame that alluded him in his defection to Russia, and was absent on his return from Russia to the US. For the first time in his life he was somebody, and he was going to milk it for everything that he could.

So it all comes back to his choice of weapon; a rifle chambered for a proprietary round that would point back to its user. If you understand ballistics the Carcano is the ultimate smoking gun.

Thank you for saving me the time, but we both know the effort is lost on the intended recipient. He's not here for information, he says he knows it all already:

On the contrary, I’ve read just about everything there is.

 

[HSienzant]

On the contrary, I’ve read just about everything there is. And, it ain’t pretty.

Tell us what's ugly about it. A guy with a gun and a grudge stuck a rifle out a window and shot someone else dead.

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

Hilarious. I didn't realize you were the defense attorney and this was a courtroom. You are citing a criminal trial standard. And there's no trial when the defendant is dead. This is an internet forum, and we're discussing a crime - not trying anyone - that occurred nearly 55 years ago. That's an entirely different thing than a criminal trial.

Tell us you do understand the difference. And then tell us why you're insisting on a standard that doesn't apply here.




We both know that evidence. Or at least, I do. I suspect you do as well. Why don't you try to make a case for Oswald's innocence, if you dare.

Hank

The discussion has been one of a historical matter, held to the standards of historical study up until now. To my reading of these threads only Robert Prey tried to adopt cod-legal terms when he could not show his points with evidence.

 

[HSienzant]

The discussion has been one of a historical matter, held to the standards of historical study up until now. To my reading of these threads only Robert Prey tried to adopt cod-legal terms when he could not show his points with evidence.

Conspiracy theorists like to frame it as if the standard is the criminal trial "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, as that puts the onus on the other side to do all the hard work and post the evidence. They pretend all they then have to do is attempt to argue for "reasonable doubt" by asking questions and attempting to poke holes in the arguments and evidence provided.

We are seeing this now with the current CT poster.
Particularly in his post 689. Count the number of questions he asks. Note he posts no evidence:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12251780&postcount=689

The more answers provided, the more questions they raise. Jay Utah (I think it was) said it best. Conspiracy theorists aren't interested in a solving the crime. They are merely interested in prolonging the conversation to make it appear as if they had a point.

But beyond that they are stuck. They can't make all their objections fit together into a coherent scenario - indeed, many of their objections contradict each other - so they have no place to go when you go outside the box of their little comfort zone and start asking for their evidence of a conspiracy and their scenario.

Hank

 

[OKBob]

Tell us what's ugly about it. A guy with a gun and a grudge stuck a rifle out a window and shot someone else dead.

The signs are not auspicious for meaningful dialogue, Hank. For example, manifesto requests evidence that Oswald shot at Walker. This is likely a prelude to the kind of micro-refuting that CTs thrive on. Oswald's photographs of Walker's house and environs? Marina's testimony that Oswald told her he'd shot at Walker? The metallic consistency of the deformed bullet to the bullets fired by Oswald's gun in Dealey Plaza? There's clear consilience for the Walker incident just as for the JFK assassination, and it all points to Oswald. Manifesto has the burden of overcoming that stack of evidence. Will he try to discharge that burden? Will he even acknowledge that the burden exists?

 

[manifesto]

The 6.5x52mm round recovered from the scene can only be fired from the Carcano.

The same round that originally was identified as steel jacketted bullet?

Shooting at Walker also show intent to kill someone important.

And shooting JFK does the same, doesen’t it? One two punch?

JFK, unless you think he shot someone else other than the President and Tippit.

It is you who is claiming that Oswald killed two people that day and therefore need to spell it out when you are talking of him shooting someone.

So, what ”statement” from Marina are you refering to here?

Misidentified by an officer who'd never seen the Carcano before (which would have been just about every cop in Dallas, or the Southwest US for that matter). More importantly the Mauser thing came from officer buzz around the TSBD, it was never officially identified as such. The recovery of the rifle is on film.

It was three police officers who initially identified it as a ”Mauser”, both in written and signed statements and in spoken words. Two of them retracted and one did not.

I guess two of them remebered better after some time had past?

It is evidence of Oswald's guilt because he owned THE rifle

Do you have any evidence for this?

that made the shots,

Evidence?

and the rifle was recovered from the floor where he was working that day.

And you are certain that it wasn’t a Mauser? Beyond any reasonable doubt?

Had he bought at standard hunting rifle or M-1 Garand in .762 it would be possible to cast doubt, but he bought a Carcano that required a specific caliber.

I’m not sure what you are trying to argue here but begin with showing evidence of Oswald buying the rifle allegedly found in TSBD on the 6th floor on the day of the assassination.

Has never been in dispute.

Oh yes it has. Show me the chain of custody.

There was still a round left in the rifle.

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305136

Yes?

It's called "Ballistics". The fragments were large enough to reveal the rifling, shape, and size of the round, and all are identified as 6.5x52mm round.

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305151

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305150

This isn't magic, all one needs is a good microscope.

1. There were two larger fragments (bullet split in half) allegedly found beneath the front seats in the limo and allegedly the bullet that hit JFK from behind in the head.

Q. Are these two fragments proven to been fired from the alleged Carcano?

2. There were other, smaller, fragments in both JFK and Connally.

Q. Proven to have been fired from the same Carcano?

The first bullet that struck was found at Parkland, and was mostly intact, which is a trait of the 6.5x52mm bullet when fired into mostly soft tissue.

1. Do you have a chain of custody on this bullet?

2. Ah, a ”trait”? How convinient. Crushing ca 10 cm of a rib and a wristbone, the hardest in the human body + everything else it hit in two bodies, and almost pristine?

I know CT-loons hate this, but that's the reality of this weapon.

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305144

What ”reality of this weapon” are you talking about, loon?

His gun, retrieved FROM HIS HAND while attempting to shoot a second policemen in the theater.

1. How do you know he was trying to shoot a ”second policeman” in the theater?

2. What gun did he use trying do do this?

Eye witnesses saw him shoot Tippit.

Who?

Shooting a policeman is the act of a desperate man who was attempting to escape...unless you're someone who decides to shoot cops on your lunch hour.

Still no evidence. Dallas was a very violent city and Guns were everywhere.

It's not a stand-alone event. Look at the facts:

Wrong. It is a stand alone event until_proven_otherwise.

Oswald is on the 6th floor when JFK is shot,

Was he?

he leaves his rifle there.

His rifle?

Oswald flees the TSBD.

Flees?

Oswald returns to his rooming house to change clothes, and takes his pistol with him.

Were did you get the pistol-part from?

Oswald shoots Tippit.

Did he?

Why? Why would an innocent man shoot a cop if he allegedly doesn't even know the President has been shot?

IF Oswald shot Tippit it is still no evidence of him also shooting JFK. That connection has to be established.

Do you have such established connections?

Oswald attempts to kill a second policeman in the Texas Theater.

Why attempt to kill a policeman while at the same time repetedly yelling: - ”I’m not resisting arrest!”?

Why? Is this something an innocent man does?

There could be lots of not known reasons of this. The connection still have to be established.

I.e. you can’t prop up one lousy case with another lousy case and back again.

Or?

Oswald's actions on 11/22/63 taken in total prove his guilt.

Lots of crap are still just, crap.

Evidence, any?

His actions in the weeks prior the assassination are even more damning. His trip to Mexico City to obtain visas to either Russia or Cuba.

Damning? Why?

His attempt on General Walker's life.

Evidence?

His stalking of tall buildings along the parade route prior to the assassination asking for rooftop access. These are not the actions of an innocent man.

Wow. Stalking tall buildings? Evidence?

The key is the Carcano.

Agree.

He could have chosen any other surplus rifle in .762 and his bullets would have been common in Texas, and everywhere else in the US in 1963, but he didn't - he bought a Carcano.

Did he? Evidence for this?

Conventional wisdom says he did so because it was the cheapest rifle he could buy, but he lived in Texas where guns were sold everywhere including hardware stores. He could have walked into any pawn shop and picked up an M-1 Garand for maybe $10 more than he paid for his mail-order Carcano. The M-1 was the rifle he was trained on while he was a Marine, so it would have made better sense to buy a weapon he could use in his sleep.

Yet he bought the Carcano. Why?

Was he that cheap? Maybe. Was he that dumb? Maybe.

Here's something to consider; maybe he chose the rifle because it stood out. It came with a scope, and the fact that it was Italian made it exotic. Oswald, being a Marine, certainly would have understood that 6.5x52mm is not an every day round like the .762, and would stand out if he used it in a crime.

And maybe that's what he wanted.

Ah, clever thinking.

You don't kill JFK because you want to be anonymous.

No, you ”flee” from the crime scene, shoot a cop and try to shot one more, and after that ”emphatlicy deny” these actions until you get executed in the police stations basement by a mafia liasion to the DPD?

What a strange story?

His actions and demeanor while in DPD custody were of a man loving the spotlight.

Was it? How do you know this?

He had finally found the fame that alluded him in his defection to Russia, and was absent on his return from Russia to the US. For the first time in his life he was somebody, and he was going to milk it for everything that he could.

Wow. Is this all fantasy or do you have anything more substantial behind this smear?

So it all comes back to his choice of weapon; a rifle chambered for a proprietary round that would point back to its user. If you understand ballistics the Carcano is the ultimate smoking gun.

This is really fascinating to read. Any substance? Like, evidence, for all this?

Gerald (serial scam artist) Posner?

 

[OKBob]

Conspiracy theorists like to frame it as if the standard is the criminal trial "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, as that puts the onus on the other side to do all the hard work and post the evidence. They pretend all they then have to do is attempt to argue for "reasonable doubt" by asking questions and attempting to poke holes in the arguments and evidence provided.

Exactly. Robert Prey some time back and another poster a year or so ago argued for criminal-trial standards of proof. One of them also wanted to invoke evidentiary rules regarding hearsay and such. But we pointed out, first, that they had no idea what they were talking about, and, second, if hearsay and other rules of evidence were applied, that the CT playbook would collapse under its own weightlessness.

The BRD standard for criminal trials is there to protect a living defendant whose freedom or life hangs in the balance, from the power of government prosecutors who often have more resources than the defendant. But civil trials, where typically only money is at stake and the opponent is usually not a government, employ much lower standards of proof: the preponderance of the evidence, or clear and convincing evidence.

Oswald's life or freedom is not at stake. Historians, armchair and otherwise, do not have to prove his moral guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. History contains thousands of untried criminals--Booth, Hitler, bin Laden, Mohammed Atta, and on and on. Do they all bask in an aura of legal innocence that precludes historians and others from concluding their moral guilt?

 

[manifesto]

Hilarious. I didn't realize you were the defense attorney and this was a courtroom. You are citing a criminal trial standard. And there's no trial when the defendant is dead. This is an internet forum, and we're discussing a crime - not trying anyone - that occurred nearly 55 years ago. That's an entirely different thing than a criminal trial.

There is a good reason for having this deafault in a trial.

YOU are making the claim that Oswald was guilty of assassinating JFK. YOU need to present the evidence.

Tell us you do understand the difference. And then tell us why you're insisting on a standard that doesn't apply here.

So, what ”standard apply here”?

Guilty until proven innocent? Is this ”Scientific Scepticism”?

We both know that evidence. Or at least, I do. I suspect you do as well. Why don't you try to make a case for Oswald's innocence, if you dare.

Hank

I’m asking YOU to present the evidence backing your claim of Oswalds guilt in the assassination of JFK.

Do you have any?

 

[manifesto]

No. Proof, guilt, or innocence have nothing to do with my request. I don't even understand who you might be referring to as guilty or innocent. I simply want to hear (read) your narrative. I have never seen a coherent narrative of the conspiracy and I would like to. MicahJava has not been able to provide his so I am turning to you.

I’m looking for evidence of Oswald assassinating JFK.

Du you have any?

 

[HSienzant]

The signs are not auspicious for meaningful dialogue, Hank.

I know. CTs like to pretend the burden of proof is on those of us who believe the lone assassin scenario. In truth, the burden is on them to overcome all the accumulated evidence. That's why they want to pretend it's an "innocent until proven guilty" or "beyond a reasonable doubt" argument. They can play at being a defense attorney and only have to try to poke holes in the arguments and evidence we present.

For example, manifesto requests evidence that Oswald shot at Walker. This is likely a prelude to the kind of micro-refuting that CTs thrive on. Oswald's photographs of Walker's house and environs? Marina's testimony that Oswald told her he'd shot at Walker? The metallic consistency of the deformed bullet to the bullets fired by Oswald's gun in Dealey Plaza? There's clear consilience for the Walker incident just as for the JFK assassination, and it all points to Oswald.

I can see it now: Maybe Oswald was researching real estate in that neighborhood to buy Marina a home she deserved?

Manifesto has the burden of overcoming that stack of evidence. Will he try to discharge that burden? Will he even acknowledge that the burden exists?

Probably not. CTs say they know all about this evidence, but then pretend (by asking questions they already know the reasonable answers for) that they don't, so as to prolong the conversation and make it appear they actually has a point.

They don't. And our current CT poster doesn't, either.

You know that, I know that. And Manifesto knows that.

Hank

 

[manifesto]

Exactly. Robert Prey some time back and another poster a year or so ago argued for criminal-trial standards of proof. One of them also wanted to invoke evidentiary rules regarding hearsay and such. But we pointed out, first, that they had no idea what they were talking about, and, second, if hearsay and other rules of evidence were applied, that the CT playbook would collapse under its own weightlessness.

The BRD standard for criminal trials is there to protect a living defendant whose freedom or life hangs in the balance, from the power of government prosecutors who often have more resources than the defendant. But civil trials, where typically only money is at stake and the opponent is usually not a government, employ much lower standards of proof: the preponderance of the evidence, or clear and convincing evidence.

Oswald's life or freedom is not at stake. Historians, armchair and otherwise, do not have to prove his moral guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. History contains thousands of untried criminals--Booth, Hitler, bin Laden, Mohammed Atta, and on and on. Do they all bask in an aura of legal innocence that precludes historians and others from concluding their moral guilt?

I’m not arguing ”legal innocence”, I’m asking for ”evidence” of Oswald killing JFK.

Do you have any, or is it just emty assertions?

 

[Axxman300]

I’m looking for evidence of Oswald assassinating JFK.

Du you have any?

No you're not looking for evidence, you're looking for an argument because you've been getting the short end of the stick handed to you in other threads.

You said you've read extensively about the assassination, so what books have you read?

 

[HSienzant]

There is a good reason for having this deafault in a trial.

This is not a trial. I tried to point that out in my last post. Do you need me to repeat the points? Among other things, the defendant is dead, so he cannot participate.

YOU are making the claim that Oswald was guilty of assassinating JFK. YOU need to present the evidence.

No, I merely pointed out what you are arguing for - a criminal trial standard, when this forum is not a trial - is not the right approach.

You claim to know all about the evidence. Why not cut to the chase and tell us what convinces you of a conspiracy and/or Oswald's innocence?

So, what ”standard apply here”?

Gee, I thought you could figure it out.
www.dictionary.com/browse/historiography

Guilty until proven innocent? Is this ”Scientific Scepticism”?

Straw man argument. Nobody proposed that standard. Try to avoid logical fallacies... I find that is one of the earmarks of a dedicated conspiracy theorist.

I’m asking YOU to present the evidence backing your claim of Oswalds guilt in the assassination of JFK.

Why? You already affirmed you know that evidence.

On the contrary, I’ve read just about everything there is.

Do you have any?

None that will convince you, of that I am certain.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The same round that originally was identified as steel jacketted bullet?

And shooting JFK does the same, doesen’t it? One two punch?

It is you who is claiming that Oswald killed two people that day and therefore need to spell it out when you are talking of him shooting someone.

So, what ”statement” from Marina are you refering to here?

It was three police officers who initially identified it as a ”Mauser”, both in written and signed statements and in spoken words. Two of them retracted and one did not.

I guess two of them remebered better after some time had past?

Do you have any evidence for this?

Evidence?

And you are certain that it wasn’t a Mauser? Beyond any reasonable doubt?

I’m not sure what you are trying to argue here but begin with showing evidence of Oswald buying the rifle allegedly found in TSBD on the 6th floor on the day of the assassination.

Oh yes it has. Show me the chain of custody.

Yes?

1. There were two larger fragments (bullet split in half) allegedly found beneath the front seats in the limo and allegedly the bullet that hit JFK from behind in the head.

Q. Are these two fragments proven to been fired from the alleged Carcano?

2. There were other, smaller, fragments in both JFK and Connally.

Q. Proven to have been fired from the same Carcano?

1. Do you have a chain of custody on this bullet?

2. Ah, a ”trait”? How convinient. Crushing ca 10 cm of a rib and a wristbone, the hardest in the human body + everything else it hit in two bodies, and almost pristine?

What ”reality of this weapon” are you talking about, loon?

1. How do you know he was trying to shoot a ”second policeman” in the theater?

2. What gun did he use trying do do this?

Who?

Still no evidence. Dallas was a very violent city and Guns were everywhere.

Wrong. It is a stand alone event until_proven_otherwise.

Was he?

His rifle?

Flees?

Were did you get the pistol-part from?

Did he?

IF Oswald shot Tippit it is still no evidence of him also shooting JFK. That connection has to be established.

Do you have such established connections?

Why attempt to kill a policeman while at the same time repetedly yelling: - ”I’m not resisting arrest!”?

There could be lots of not known reasons of this. The connection still have to be established.

I.e. you can’t prop up one lousy case with another lousy case and back again.

Or?

Lots of crap are still just, crap.

Evidence, any?

Damning? Why?

Evidence?

Wow. Stalking tall buildings? Evidence?

Agree.

Did he? Evidence for this?

Ah, clever thinking.

No, you ”flee” from the crime scene, shoot a cop and try to shot one more, and after that ”emphatlicy deny” these actions until you get executed in the police stations basement by a mafia liasion to the DPD?

What a strange story?

Was it? How do you know this?

Wow. Is this all fantasy or do you have anything more substantial behind this smear?

This is really fascinating to read. Any substance? Like, evidence, for all this?

Gerald (serial scam artist) Posner?

Same old, same old. I would advise you to read the thread (and the predecessor threads) in their entirety. We have seen all these arguments before. We needn't repeat the evidence just for you, especially since you claim to know all this anyway.

On the one hand, you claim to know all the evidence, but on the other hand, every time the evidence is pointed out to you, you simply ask more questions, the answers to which you already profess to know.

The onus is on you to present the evidence of Oswald's innocence and/or a conspiracy, as it's clear at this point that is what you're arguing for.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I’m looking for evidence of Oswald assassinating JFK.

Now you're contradicting yourself.

You said you knew all about this case:

On the contrary, I’ve read just about everything there is.

Are you really unaware of any evidence of Oswald assassinating JFK? If so, you haven't read anywhere near as much as you're claiming.

Why won't you simply cut to the chase and give us the evidence of Oswald's innocence and/or a conspiracy?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I’m not arguing ”legal innocence”, I’m asking for ”evidence” of Oswald killing JFK. Do you have any, or is it just emty assertions?

You were arguing 'legal innocence' earlier.

The default is, innocent until proven guilty.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/presumption_of_innocence
"One of the most sacred principles in the American criminal justice system, holding that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. In other words, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each essential element of the crime charged."

Now, if you want to argue for Oswald's innocence, present the evidence.

Otherwise, you are following the conspiracy theorist playbook exactly as I said you would.

Hank

 

[manifesto]

I know. CTs like

You like to call people names, correct?

to pretend the burden of proof is on those of us who believe the lone assassin scenario.

No, the burden av proof lies with the indiviadual making a claim, a statement.

In truth, the burden is on them to overcome all the accumulated evidence.

I’m still waiting for you to present all this. One at a time.

That's why they want to pretend it's an "innocent until proven guilty" or "beyond a reasonable doubt" argument. They can play at being a defense attorney and only have to try to poke holes in the arguments and evidence we present.

This is not about ”play”. This is about YOU claiming that Oswald killed JFK.

On what facts are you making this claim?

For example, manifesto requests evidence that Oswald shot at Walker.

Wow? Should I not?

This is likely a prelude to the kind of micro-refuting that CTs thrive on.

Dude ... asking you of evidence for an attempted murder-claim is ”micro-refuting”? Wtf?

Oswald's photographs of Walker's house and environs?

1. How do you know Oswald took these?

2. If so, why couldn’t it have more innocent explanations, like Oswald presenting himself as a ”photographer” when looking for a job and applying for visas, etc? Walker was a ’celebrity’ in the South.

3. Why was the photograph manipulated after it allegedly came in the possession of the DPD?

Marina's testimony that Oswald told her he'd shot at Walker?

Marina ”said” a lot of things before, during and after the two committees investigating (and Garrisons probe) was running.

Both the Warren Commission and HSCA sent around internal memos complaining of Marina as a wittnes. She lied, forgot, made conflicting statements, changed her mind, time and time again, and was regarded a completely unreliable witness by the staff in both of the commissions.

Do you have a better impression of her as a wittnes?

The metallic consistency of the deformed bullet to the bullets fired by Oswald's gun in Dealey Plaza? There's clear consilience for the Walker incident just as for the JFK assassination, and it all points to Oswald.

Do you refering to the steel jacketed bullet found in Walkers kitchen which magicly transformerad in to a copper jacketed ditto when in DPD’s care?

I can see it now: Maybe Oswald was researching real estate in that neighborhood to buy Marina a home she deserved?

No.

1. Was it Oswald who took the photo’s?

2. If so, could it be a perfectly innocent explanation? Of course it could.

Probably not. CTs say they know all about this evidence, but then pretends (by asking questions he already knows the reasonable answers for) that he doesn't, so as to prolong the conversation and make it appear he actually has a point.

He doesn't.

You know that, I know that. And Manifesto knows that.

Hank

You know many things, Hank, but I’m still waiting for you to show me some evidence of Oswald killing JFK.

Yes, I know that you know that, no worries, just show me the evidence and I’ll be gone.

Promise.

 

[manifesto]

Tell us what's ugly about it. A guy with a gun and a grudge stuck a rifle out a window and shot someone else dead.

Hank

The fact that I have found no evidence of Oswald killing JFK.

That’s ugly.

 

[manifesto]

Now you're contradicting yourself.

You said you knew all about this case:


Are you really unaware of any evidence of Oswald assassinating JFK? If so, you haven't read anywhere near as much as you're claiming.

Why won't you simply cut to the chase and give us the evidence of Oswald's innocence and/or a conspiracy?

Hank

Yes, I’ve been looking for evidence of Oswalds guilt but have not found any.

Have you? Show me.