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

[HSienzant]

I have already suplied the information: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12252687&postcount=772

Weitzman: Signed affidavit - https://kennedysandking.com/images/pdf/JosephsRifle.pdf

Boone: Written letter - https://kennedysandking.com/images/pdf/JosephsRifle.pdf

Craig: Filmed interview - https://youtu.be/-RGZPa8FdbA

Tell me if you are missing something that have any bearing on my original argument.

On the two men, here's what I asked:

The crime of the century and three police officers get the brand of the rifle wrong? In written and signed affidavits? Then, after a good nights sleep, two of them suddely ”remember” much clearer that is was a Carcano rifle, while the third of them still remember a ”wrong” rifle?

Can you name these three police officers and cite for their three signed affidavits?

Can you cite for two of them changing their mind overnight "after a good nights sleep"?

Remember that you told us this:

"... the burden av proof lies with the indiviadual making a claim, a statement."

Burden of proof for your claims belongs with you.

Names and links to the affidavits, please.
Citations to where two of the three changed their mind the next day.

We'll wait.

Hank

I've bolded the part you failed to comply with for Boone and Weitzman.

For Craig, I asked when he FIRST told this story and asked you to cite for his signed affidavit. You haven't told us.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Where do I say that I’m not opposed to reading the whole thread.

Every post where you whine about being expected to read the thread for answers to questions you're repeating.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I was thinking of the CIA here, chief marketer of the phrase since the killing of JFK.

Paid or not paid, the concept is serving its purpose.

Do you lika calling people names, Hank? Why?

You've said you are well-read on the subject but you appear to have only consumed one or two conspiracy websites for your information. That seems to be the case with CTists, open their mouths as wide as they can to swallow as much conspiracy nonsense as they can fit in.

Part and parcel of that is accusing anyone who asks them for evidence of their nonsense as being "paid shills".

Start answering the questions you've been asked, MicahJava manifesto.

 

[manifesto]

It's most definitely his rifle.

I take it you most definitely have some evidence backing this claim.

Show me.

His wife has said nothing less for over 50 years.

She said what she was told to. According to the staffs in both the WC and later, the HSCA, said that she was a very unreliable witness. You disagree?

There's the matter of the paper trail,

Now we’re talking. What paper trail?

Show me.

in Oswald's handwriting,

Identified from a photocopy and lots of disagreements from consulted experts, yes. It is impossible to identify a signature as real from a photograph.

tying the purchase and delivery of the rifle to A Hidell,

The A Hidell that had no access to Oswalds postbox in Dallas, correct?

an alias that Oswald had on him in the form of a fake ID when he was arrested.

Oswald left his wallet with Marina in the Paines houshold before leaving for work the day of the assassination. Oswald left his wallet on the ground besides Tippit who he allegedly shot to death. Oswald had his wallet in his pocket when the police searched him in the police car between the Texas Theater and DPD HQ.

Oswald, the man with the very very many wallets. The plot thickens?

His prints were on it.

Over what? The rifle? Says who?

The photo is no forgery either. They were able to recover a negative for one of the backyard images. Photography experts working on behalf of the HSCA found that it was an untouched original taken by the Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera to the exclusion of all other cameras.

Yes I know of the twists and turns concerning the backyard photo, but are not interested at the moment of being bogged down in an endless discussion of technicalities and probabilities so far impossible to PROVE one way or the other.

You have your beliefs, I have mine. The point is, EVEN IF its the real deal it is still not evidence of him OWNING the rifle in the photo and therefore OWNING the alleged murder weapon.

You had some papertrail you knew of showing he owned the rifle?

Show me.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Manifesto, don’t take this unkindly, but is it a mistake to take at face value your claims to be well read on the subject?

Taking the rifle as an example, if you agree with it or not, I can not think of many places you could have read about the case and not have encountered the evidence placing it in Oswald’s hands.
Literally in the case of his palm print.
But nevertheless, what other conclusions are we to reasonably reach given the photographs, the testimony of his wife (whom if you wish to accuse of being directed you need to supply evidence), the purchase orders traced to his false ID and the photographs of him posing with the damned things?

Your quibble over the word “ownership” is perhaps not the clever ruse you seem to think, but appears to my reading as desperate flailing to avoid making the logical conclusion.

Let’s be blunt. The interpretation that touches most evidence points is that Oswald owned the rifle. If you don’t like that word than it was in his possession and he was the only user for who we have evidence, making him the de-facto owner. As there is no evidence for any other user, or the rifle leaving his possession to that of another, because he made the bag that carried the rifle, and he was the worker with access to both the rifle and the location, the Null in this instance will be that it is Oswald’s and he used it.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I take it you most definitely have some evidence backing this claim.

Show me.

Done. You've not addressed those posts as I told you to do. Address those now.

She said what she was told to. According to the staffs in both the WC and later, the HSCA, said that she was a very unreliable witness. You disagree?

But you believe Oswald when he says he was a patsy? What are your criteria for believing or disbelieving someone?

Now we’re talking. What paper trail?

Show me.

You aren't familiar with any of this, are you?

Identified from a photocopy and lots of disagreements from consulted experts, yes. It is impossible to identify a signature as real from a photograph.

No, it was positively identified as Oswald's. Do you have evidence that it wasn't? Show me.

The A Hidell that had no access to Oswalds postbox in Dallas, correct?

A Hidell was Oswald. Do you know anything about the assassination at all?

Oswald left his wallet with Marina in the Paines houshold before leaving for work the day of the assassination. Oswald left his wallet on the ground besides Tippit who he allegedly shot to death. Oswald had his wallet in his pocket when the police searched him in the police car between the Texas Theater and DPD HQ.

Oswald, the man with the very very many wallets. The plot thickens?

Citations, please.

Over what? The rifle? Says who?

Your one CT website didn't tell you?

Yes I know of the twists and turns concerning the backyard photo, but are not interested at the moment of being bogged down in an endless discussion of technicalities and probabilities so far impossible to PROVE one way or the other.

No, it was shown to not be tampered with. Unless you have evidence that it was, the null hypothesis will remain.

You have your beliefs, I have mine. The point is, EVEN IF its the real deal it is still not evidence of him OWNING the rifle in the photo and therefore OWNING the alleged murder weapon.

No, you have beliefs, we have evidence. What do you think about the paper trail proving that he bought it?

You had some papertrail you knew of showing he owned the rifle?

Show me.

Done. Read the thread.

 

[Wolrab]

It's like a bad pro wrestling tag team match. One gets tagged out and the next demands everything be rehashed. Conspiracy theories are like a long bridge in the hinterlands, innumerable trolls hide under it. Funny they seldom support each other, but come out swinging with the exact same crap that has been debunked for half a century.

 

[traxy]

I take it you most definitely have some evidence backing this claim.

Show me.

Photographs, verified as authentic by a panel of photography experts, taken by his wife with their camera to the exclusion of all other cameras.

Palm print on the rifle (testified to at length by Dallas PD, witnessed by multiple officers, photographed and lifted)

Fingerprints on the trigger housing, photographed and found to have 24 points of similarity by fingerprint expert Vincent Scalise in 1992 using high contrast photos found in Dallas PD storage (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21_ZBkBpS0M)

Fibers embedded in the butt of the rifle matching the shirt Oswald wore the day of the shooting.

A form sent to Kleins Sporting Goods in the name of A Hidell, handwriting a close match for Oswald (as close as a photocopy can get), ordering the rifle to a post office box rented by Oswald.

A money order, also in the name of A Hidell, also with handwriting a close match to Oswald.

Before you attempt to go with the "Hidell couldn't receive mail at Oswald's PO box" line of thinking, he ordered his pistol to the same box using the same alias and had that pistol on him when arrested.

If the evidence we have tying Oswald to the rifle isn't persuasive enough, what would be?

 

[manifesto]

Not playing your game here are your claims, supply sources and referencs.

To what?

This has already been debunked by newer forensic measures so don't bother

Has it? Show me.

This has already been debunked by newer forensic measures so don't bother

Has it? Show me.

Citation required that indicates that blood splatter required a high speed to splatter the policeman.

According to Luis Alvarez (HSCA 1:428, 440, 441) the speed of the limo was ca 8mph at the time of the shooting. Here is the testimony from MC police officer Bobby Hargis, riding at the left rear of the limo during the shots:

Mr. STERN. Just a minute. Do you recall your impression at the time regard- ing the source of the shots?
Mr. HARGIS. Well, at the time it sounded like the shots were right next to me. There wasn’t any way in the world I could tell where they were coming from, but at the time there was something in my head that said that they probably could have been coming from the railroad overpass, because I thought since I had got splattered, with blood- I was just a little back and left of-just a little bit back and left of Mrs. Kennedy, but I didn’t know. I had a feeling that it might have been from the Texas Book Depository, and these two places was the primary place that could have been shot from.​

Ca 8mph and Hargis got splattered with blood. In this low speeds the splatter doesn’t like ’hang still in the air like a cloud’ while the limo keeps moving forward. It continues with the same momentum as the car until the air slows it down and/or it falls to the ground. Hence no splatter on the following motorcycle if same splatter had no momentum from an incoming bullet exploding it backwards hitting it.

Hargis also says he got hit ”as of a peace of concrete” which is peculiar since none of the three bullets could have produced the necessary recochett for it to happen. It had to be a bone fragment from the presidents head —-> shot from in front of him.

Citation required that a shot from the front was the only manner in which these witnesses could have reported the head "being blown away".

You are intentionally missquoting me? I wrote:

- A few witnesses on the Dealey Plaza reporting seeing the back of JFK’s head being blown away, indicating a shot from in front of him.​

BTW it wasn't blown away just a portion, the majority of the head was intact.

Was it? According to whom?

Citation required that no chain of custody existed.

You are the one claiming secured provinience and secured chain of custody.

Show me.

And do not bother posting quotes from CT sources, the WC is acceptable.

Says who? The mighty lord of the Lone Nutty Church?

Show me.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I wrote:

- A few witnesses on the Dealey Plaza reporting seeing the back of JFK’s head being blown away, indicating a shot from in front of him.​

Now you just need compelling evidence that there was an exit wound in the back of the head.

You're falling way behind on answering questions. So far, you're losing badly.

 

[manifesto]

Now you just need compelling evidence that there was an exit wound in the back of the head.

You're falling way behind on answering questions. So far, you're losing badly.

No. The argument was that I had stated that a few witnesses reported the whole head was blown of. That was a faulty citation. I corrected it.

You are out there, being wrong. Again.

 

[RoboTimbo]

No. The argument was that I had stated that a few witnesses reported the whole head was blown of. That was a faulty citation. I corrected it.

You are out there, being wrong. Again.

You're retracting your claim that there was a shot from the front and admitting that you were mistaken?

 

[manifesto]

You're retracting your claim that there was a shot from the front and admitting that you were mistaken?

No. But please tell me how you extract that message from my post. I’m really curious of how your cognitive faculties operate.

They seem exotic, almost esoteric from where I stand.

 

[RoboTimbo]

No.

Then you need compelling evidence for a shot from the front and an exit wound in the back of the head. Do you have this much trouble understanding things elsewhere?

 

[manifesto]

How about Weitzman's 1964 Warren Commission testimony and his 1967 television interview in which he acknowledged his mistake?

I know this and stated it several times. This is not the argument. The argument is that there are different identifikations from the same or different officers at different times. Mauser vs. Carcano = different modell = not a clear cut identification. The only written records from the finding says it was a Mauser. 55 years later, still counting. And officer Craig never changed his testimony.

That make it impossible to state with a sufficient degree of certainty what rifle was found on the 6th floor in the TSBD. It could have been a Carcano. It could have been a Mauser.

Who knows? You?

 

[Axxman300]

The clothes look new and the tone looks very black, not a light color, very dark compared to other objects in the photo.

Nothing similar was found in Oswalds belongings.

1. He borrowed the clothes in order to look good in the photo.

2. He bought the clothes and through/hid them away on a Secret place after taking the photo, although he was very poor.

3. Someone else is posing and Oswald is telling the truth, when stating that someone superimposed his head on another guys body in order to frame him as a patsy.

I thought you were well read on the assassination.

You overlook the FACT that between the day these pictures were taken and the day the police searched his things he had moved to New Orleans (where he moved twice), and then moved back to Texas where again he relocated multiple times.

The logical answer to this non-mystery is that he left them behind at some point during his wanderings. All of that happened between March 9/10, 1963, and 11/22/1963.

You are not very good at this.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I know this and stated it several times. This is not the argument. The argument is that there are different identifikations from the same or different officers at different times. Mauser vs. Carcano = different modell = not a clear cut identification. The only written records from the finding says it was a Mauser. 55 years later, still counting. And officer Craig never changed his testimony.

That make it impossible to state with a sufficient degree of certainty what rifle was found on the 6th floor in the TSBD. It could have been a Carcano. It could have been a Mauser.

Who knows? You?

Yes. We know.
We know because of the photographs taken of the rifle, and because of the thorough examination made of the rifle taken into custody. Both of these obviously trump a brief assessment by first responders, who did not take the time to study the markings to differentiate between similar looking models, one of which is comparatively obscure.

We know because the rifle in evidence is tied to the shots fired and shells collected by forensics.

Why am I reminded of the speech from Minister Of Chance: if you see an apple, only after you have eliminated a wagon from which the apple was dropped, and found no trees for it to have grown on, do you wonder if it was magic that made it appear.

A CT finds the person who at first glance thought it was mauser, and run off screaming that we just don’t know, and the conspiracy is as likely... but a little more digging always shows there is evidence being ignored.

 

[manifesto]

I thought you were well read on the assassination.

You overlook the FACT that between the day these pictures were taken

What day were they taken?

and the day the police searched his things he had moved to New Orleans

What? The day the police first searched his things, he was under arrest for the murder of policeman Tippit. Two days later, he was executed in the DPD’s basement by Jack Ruby, the liaison between the mob and said DPD.

(where he moved twice), and then moved back to Texas where again he relocated multiple times.

Yes, he moved around a lot and your argument from this is, what?

The logical answer to this non-mystery is that he left them behind at some point during his wanderings.

That is WC’s conclusion which I highly doubt, yes.

All of that happened between March 9/10, 1963, and 11/22/1963.

You are not very good at this.

Yes?

 

[Axxman300]

I know this and stated it several times. This is not the argument. The argument is that there are different identifikations from the same or different officers at different times. Mauser vs. Carcano = different modell = not a clear cut identification. The only written records from the finding says it was a Mauser. 55 years later, still counting. And officer Craig never changed his testimony.

That make it impossible to state with a sufficient degree of certainty what rifle was found on the 6th floor in the TSBD. It could have been a Carcano. It could have been a Mauser.

Who knows? You?

The Mauser is a sham argument.

Again, you are adding to the confusion by not accurately stating what kind of Mauser you think was recovered. Was it a Mauser rifle? What model? Was it a Mauser pistol? Yeah they make those too.

The recovery of the Carcano was captured on film and anyone can watch the film.

The officers claiming it was a Mauser never held it.

Then there is the logical fallacy of of why there would be a second rifle in the first place. If the idea was to frame Oswald then they could just use his Carcano, which most shooters seem to enjoy firing, and is a capable rifle for the job. The next problem is the caliber, the Mauser doesn't fire the 6.5x52mm rounds that killed the President. The third problem would be getting two rifles into the building unseen.

The fourth problem was that at the time of the initial search of the TSBD nobody knew who the shooter was nor how many shooters were involved. Dallas PD searched the entire building, not just the 6th floor. TSBD employees were also in the building as were members of the press. A TV camera crew was on the 6th floor when the Carcano was located, and the only reason they were there is because they were locked in. There was no time to frame anyone up because they didn't know who they were looking for at the time.

The fifth problem is Buell Wesley Frazier. Forget the his issue with the package size for a moment. He was taken into custody by the DPD, and interrogated for many hours in an aggressive manner by the detectives. At the end of this questioning Detective Fitz walks in and tells him to sign a typed confession that he was part of a conspiracy with Lee Oswald to kill the President.

If the DPD was part of a grand conspiracy to kill JFK and frame Oswald then why attempt to frame Frazier as being a CO-CONSPIRATOR?

You can't claim Oswald was framed when the evidence shows that the DPD was actively working to fabricate a conspiracy, and the documents from the CIA and FBI also show that from 1:00pm Dallas time they were also actively searching to link Oswald to a larger entity.

I thought you were well read on this subject.

 

[Steve]

I thought you were well read on this subject.

The amount of material read, and the amount of material retained in memory, may have only a very tenuous connection.