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

[Axxman300]

What day were they taken?

March 9 or 10.

I thought you were well read on this subject.

Whatever really happened, the photo is not proof of Oswald ”owning” the rifle in the photo.

In conjunction with the receipt, his wife's testimony, and the folks who saw him at the firing range with the Carcano it seals the evidence nicely (except in CT land).

 

[Axxman300]

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

So far he has only cited or linked to CT sources.

This is like claiming proof of UFO's by citing the movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind as documented evidence.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So to summarise:

We can either believe that the photographs of Oswald, holding the murder weapons that his wife not only remembered taking, but inscribed (“the great hunter of Nazis”), at least one copy of which (signed if I remember correctly) ended up in the hands of a private individual before the shootings, the photographs with no physical signs of manipulation or tampering, are real, and that some people, over the time period between the photographs being taken and the shootings, might have gotten rid of old clothes and bought new clothes...

Or we can pretend it is as likely, or more likely, that the photographs were faked, impossibly leaving no signs of manipulation, and somehow others were strung in to give the lie credence...

Even though at some point Oswald must have held the rifle, because his palm print, lifted with locational markings unique to the rifle, can only have got there by Oswald holding the rifle.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So far he has only cited or linked to CT sources.

This is like claiming proof of UFO's by citing the movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind as documented evidence.

Or perhaps that UFOs are real as some “researchers “ claim CE3K was intended to prepare us for real events...

 

[Axxman300]

Two days later, he was executed in the DPD’s basement by Jack Ruby, the liaison between the mob and said DPD.

Explain to me the logic of killing a man WITH NO LINKS TO ORGANIZED CRIME or THE CIA, and then replacing him with a guy like Jack Ruby.

The fatal flaw of all CTists is that their theories have more holes than the honest investigations they claim to debunk.

Jack Ruby couldn't keep a secret for five minutes, which is why he wasn't a mobster. Sure, he knew Mafia types, but he also knew most of the DPD too.

 

[Axxman300]

So to summarise:

We can either believe that the photographs of Oswald, holding the murder weapons that his wife not only remembered taking, but inscribed (“the great hunter of Nazis”), at least one copy of which (signed if I remember correctly) ended up in the hands of a private individual before the shootings, the photographs with no physical signs of manipulation or tampering, are real, and that some people, over the time period between the photographs being taken and the shootings, might have gotten rid of old clothes and bought new clothes...

Or we can pretend it is as likely, or more likely, that the photographs were faked, impossibly leaving no signs of manipulation, and somehow others were strung in to give the lie credence...

Even though at some point Oswald must have held the rifle, because his palm print, lifted with locational markings unique to the rifle, can only have got there by Oswald holding the rifle.

Throw in the fact that the second of those backyard photos was lost for 20 years, and turned up in a box found in a garage of a former DPD officer by his son. The cop had taken the second one for a souvenir.

The history of the two pictures is not consistent with a plant.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Jack Ruby was not a mob liaison.
Jack Ruby had no stronger links to the mob than you would expect of a man whose business and hobby (strip club and gambling) brushed against their domain.
The literature trying to make this into a made man or any kind of gangster, are built on “if”s. If this guy was a crook, and if his uncle made him a runner, and if somebody who started running numbers might have graduated to this or that...

“Wait”, I here nobody cry, “wasn’t there a book by actual mobster, that said he was a made man?”
“Yes”, we can reply, “But given the book was a money spinning lark, that identified innocent bystanders as ‘hired assassins’ and had swarms of killers turning the Plaza into a shooting gallery, before skipping town without anybody noticing, we can safely dismiss it as the unfounded cobblers it is.”

 

[CORed]

Jack Ruby was not a mob liaison.
Jack Ruby had no stronger links to the mob than you would expect of a man whose business and hobby (strip club and gambling) brushed against their domain.
The literature trying to make this into a made man or any kind of gangster, are built on “if”s. If this guy was a crook, and if his uncle made him a runner, and if somebody who started running numbers might have graduated to this or that...

“Wait”, I here nobody cry, “wasn’t there a book by actual mobster, that said he was a made man?”
“Yes”, we can reply, “But given the book was a money spinning lark, that identified innocent bystanders as ‘hired assassins’ and had swarms of killers turning the Plaza into a shooting gallery, before skipping town without anybody noticing, we can safely dismiss it as the unfounded cobblers it is.”

I'm not disputing any of the points you have made. However, as far as the idea that JFK was killed by the Mafia goes, I find Jack Ruby as a Mafia hitman is infinitely more believable than Oswald as a Mafia hit man. As far as I'm concerned, any plausible conspiracy to kill JFK has to include Oswald as the shooter. Ruby's killing of Oswald is, IMO, perhaps the one aspect of the assassination that raises at least a small suspicion that there was a conspiracy. It certainly raises the possibility that somebody wanted to make sure Oswald didn't talk.

However I can't for the life of me see how the Mafia would have chosen Oswald as the guy to make the "hit". Two "lone nuts" seems infinitely more believable than the Mafia hiring Oswald as a hit man and Ruby to take out Oswald.

 

[manifesto]

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



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

It was ment as a casual summary of a progression of events. Not a detailed statement of detailed facts.

Affidavits = signed affidavit + signed letter to superior officer

Remember better after a good night sleep = remember better as time progress = figure of speech.

For Craig, I asked when he FIRST told this story

I know that he did not identify the brand of the rifle in his testimony to the Commission, and I asked you if you have any idea why the Commission did not ask him. I mean, he stod right beside when it was discovered, but the Commission was not interested in knowing what kind of a presumed murder weapon hi saw?

Really? Come on, Hank.

and asked you to cite for his signed affidavit. You haven't told us.

I have never stated that detective Craig identified the found alleged murder weapon as a Mauser in a signed affidavit.

Shape up, Hank.

 

[CORed]

Is it just me, or does it seem that each advocate for Kennedy conspiracy theories on this thread and its predecessors is worse that the last? Bad as Micah Java was, manifesto is worse. The silly game of claiming ignorance of any evidence supporting Oswald as the shooter is just plain dumb, and hanging his whole argument on the misidentification of the Carcano as a Mauser is at least as silly as Micah Java's quibbles over the location of the entry wound. At this point, the only reason to follow the thread is to laugh at how pathetic the arguments presented on the pro-conspiracy side are.

 

[bknight]

To what?

claim:- HSCA’s acoustical investigation found five rifle shots on the DPD’s dictabeltrecording from a stuck microphone on a police motorcycle. Four from behind the limo and one from the picket fence on the knoll. P for random noise = 1/100 000.

Has it? Show me.

Claim:- HSCA acoustical investigation found no evidence of echos that could be misstaken for the source of the sound = echos can not explain (away) the majority pointing to (and running up to) the picket fence as the source of shot/s.

Has it? Show me.

In answering to both of the above questions.
http://www.richmond.com/news/virgin...cle_a64237b4-35b6-11e3-a5ca-001a4bcf6878.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_Dictabelt_recording

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.

Well the blood didn't hang in mid air, but if you look at the Zapruder film blood and tissue are ejected with the bullet blowing away part of JFK's head this material will travel upward until gravity attracts it downward right into the policeman's face. Not very hard to debunk all of this. It doesn't have to be a piece of concrete same reason.

You are intentionally missquoting me? I wrote:

No I did not intentionally misquote you that was a quote of the post #874.

- 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.​

Where in the autopsy is the wound located in the back of the head, other than the entry wound?

Was it? According to whom?

claim:BTW it wasn't blown away just a portion, the majority of the head was intact. You asked to have one question addressed and now I will tell you quite asking twenty questions and we can do this. Just view the autopsy images.

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

Show me.

I'm not claiming anything. I asked you to provide evidence that a chain of custody was not done.

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

Show me.

CT's have a monetary interest in publishing book, not in uncovering the truth.
Simple fact that CT's like you don't understand.

 

[manifesto]

He will ignore all that or hand-wave it away. He doesn't want the evidence except to argue against it. He's already made up his mind and you shouldn't attempt to confuse him with the facts.

Hank

Wrong, Hank. I’m waiting for the evidence supporting your statement of Oswald guilt of killing JFK. So far you have formulated your ”Null hypothesis” as a sufficient reason for NOT presenting said evidence. I checked your ”Null” and found it badly flawed: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12253485&postcount=842

So, show me some evidence, Hank. The clock is ticking. Tic tac ...

 

[smartcooky]

manifesto you continue to question the historical facts/null hypothesis, asking for evidence already given or stated, but you appear unwilling to state your own theory.

If it wasn't LHO, then

Who do you think shot JFK?
Who do you think owned the Carcano found in the 6th floor SE corner room of the TSBD?
Who do you think ordered the Carcano from Kleins Sporting Goods and had it delivered to his PO Box?
Who do you think the witnesses saw shooting from the 6th floor SE corner room of the TSBD?

...stop needling Hank.

This is something I have noticed among other conspiracy theorists... they go after the (apparently) most experienced and most knowledgeable person in the discussion/thread. In the Moon Hoax Conspiracy Theory, we call this a "Jay Obsession" because HBs try to attack Jay Utah and invariably come off second best.

It seems to me that manifesto has a "Hank Obsession" (and also looks like he is being handed his arse!)

 

[manifesto]

Is it just me, or does it seem that each advocate for Kennedy conspiracy theories on this thread and its predecessors is worse that the last? Bad as Micah Java was, manifesto is worse. The silly game of claiming ignorance of any evidence supporting Oswald as the shooter is just plain dumb,

No, its the person making a positive statement who has to provide the evidence supporting said statement. You can not proclaim a truth calling it the ”Null hypothesis” thereby escape the burden of proof/evidence. Its just nuts. Crazy. Insane.

hanging his whole argument on the misidentification of the Carcano as a Mauser

Where do I hanging my ”whole argument” on the alleged identification of the alleged murder weapon? It’s a small detail in a vast field of crap swept together in order to cover up the real culprits behind the assassination of JFK. A small detail, but an important one, yes.

is at least as silly as Micah Java's quibbles over the location of the entry wound. At this point, the only reason to follow the thread is to laugh at how pathetic the arguments presented on the pro-conspiracy side are.

This is not a laughing matter, fool. This is serious.

The killing of JFK was a breaking point not only in American history, but in world history continuing to this very day.

It’s ongoing.

 

[Tomtomkent]

No, its the person making a positive statement who has to provide the evidence supporting said statement. You can not proclaim a truth calling it the ”Null hypothesis” thereby escape the burden of proof/evidence. Its just nuts. Crazy. Insane.

Where do I hanging my ”whole argument” on the alleged identification of the alleged murder weapon? It’s a small detail in a vast field of crap swept together in order to cover up the real culprits behind the assassination of JFK. A small detail, but an important one, yes.

This is not a laughing matter, fool. This is serious.

The killing of JFK was a breaking point not only in American history, but in world history continuing to this very day.

It’s ongoing.

If it’s so serious then take it seriously.
Provide YOUR theory.
Show actual EVIDENCE.
Perhaps even take the time to understand what a null hypothesis is, so you don’t say something as obviously childish as the above.

 

[Whip]

This is serious.

followed by a joke:

The killing of JFK was a breaking point not only in American history, but in world history continuing to this very day.

hilarious.

 

[HSienzant]

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

The phrase 'conspiracy theorist' and its pejorative context goes back to the 1800's as I established in a prior post. You'd know that if you read the thread.

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

Calling someone who theorizes about conspiracy but brings no evidence to the table to establish one a conspiracy theorist hardly seems like a stretch.
Do you prefer "conspiracy buff" or "loon" (the name used on prodigy to denote CTs in early 1990s). I asked you before if you wanted to be referred to as "Oh Exalted One". You never did respond.

And now I see you're retreating from your previous position that we must be getting paid to post here. You wrote initially: "That very powerful people (via paid proxy) attack anyone pointing out their crimes against humanity with a phrase loaded with pejorative meaning?"

Do you lika calling people names, Hank? Why?

You theorize a conspiracy in the JFK assassination. "Conspiracy theorist" seems like the most appropriate term. Pretend some more (mostly when you want to change the subject) that the name reflects somehow badly on CTs, more so than is warranted. If CTs performed actual research and weren't seen as on the fringe, 'conspiracy theorist' wouldn't retain such a perjorative context, would it? Yet it does. Why do you suppose that is?

As ye sow, so shall you reap.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Now we’re talking. What paper trail?
Show me.

You've been shown. Why do we need to show you again?

You were shown in January of 2016. It's in the thread, and I referenced it within the past few days. You ignored all that, and then stopped responding entirely to requests for a response. Start there.

Or not. We both know you aren't seriously looking for a reasoned discussion.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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.

Remember this is the same guy who conjectured that Oswald might have had photos of General Walker's house and environs taken shortly before the assassination attempt on Walker because Oswald was looking to get a job as a photographer.

He knows the evidence. He's not interested in assessing it reasonably or accurately. He's interested in spinning his 'Oswald was framed by conspirators' nonsense.

Note he still hasn't responded to the points I made in rebuttal to his original argument here:

You can establish it's the rifle found in the Depository.
- that doesn't mean he owned it. Maybe he was carrying it for a friend.

You can establish he paid for it.
- that doesn't mean he owned it. Maybe he gave it away as a gift.

You can establish it was shipped to his PO box.
- that doesn't mean he owned it. Maybe he never picked it up!

No matter how much evidence you provide (that would be more than enough to convince any reasonable person), it won't convince a CT who's already made up his mind to the contrary.

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.

Hence my request for him to define "own" and give me an idea of the evidence he would accept to establish ownership. He never complied of course. Because by every reasonable standard of ownership, Oswald owned the rifle.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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.