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

[Tomtomkent]

It was a response to a categorical statement, as if it was proven there were only one shooter. It’s proven it was AT LEAST one shooter. That is the ”Null” (lol) if you like.

Nope.
Null Hypothesis remains that the evidence presented by the WC and HSCA is accurate and LHO was the lone gunman.
If you want to claim "At least one shooter" then you need to present a theory of there being more shooters, that better fits the evidence.

 

[HSienzant]

Greer was an Irish protestant, JFK an Irish catholic. Centuries of hatred between the two ethnic groups.

So Kennedy was going to kill Greer, but Greer got him first, is that your argument?

This was a Irish Protestant plot now? Not involving the CIA or the military / industrial complex, or the mob or a gay thrill killing?

Is that really how bizarre you're willing to go in your silly arguments?

The original assigned driver in the Dallas motorcade died in a ”heart attack” on asignment in Camp David some weeks before JFK’s parade in the City. No known health problems, no autopsy, rushed burial without telling the president that one of his life guards suddenly died on duty.

Please provide the evidence of this. Conspiracy sources are NOT acceptable. I want original sources.

Let's look at the evidence instead of this horse manure you're trying to peddle, shall we?
== QUOTE ==
Mr. SPECTER. Describe your duties since joining the Secret Service, please.
Mr. GREER. Since joining the Secret Service I was assigned to the uniform force at first with the Secret Service at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. For about 2 years I was with the physical education part of it. We had a gymnasium there. I was an instructor there part-time part of the time. And then I was assigned for about 2 years to pick up the food of the President at the White House. I had that duty for about 2 years. And then I went back to the Treasury for a short period, a few months. And then I was reassigned to the White House as an agent in November--1950 I went there. I was made a full agent that following August 1951. I was there as a special officer from November to August 1951.
Mr. SPECTER. And have you been assigned to the White House staff since that time?
Mr. GREER. Yes, sir; I have been there ever since.
Mr. SPECTER. And while assigned at the White House staff, how much of your duty has involved driving the President's car?
Mr. GREER. Well, I drove the follow-up car for quite a long time you know, off and on. And then I drove the President at intervals during President Truman's and President Eisenhower's terms. I was also assigned a great many times to Mrs. Eisenhower. When she left Washington, I was always assigned to her, to travel with her. And I have been assigned to the President, to drive the President, since election day, with President Kennedy. I was the senior agent assigned to him, to drive him.
== UNQUOTE ==

 

[Axxman300]

Hmmm ... so, you didn’t know that you where stupid back then, but you know this today? That you are stupid? Progress.

Acknowledging that I was once a mindless fool who believed the mountain of lies spread by conspiracy theorists does not make me stupid.

It makes me dangerous to people like you because I know the game you're playing, I know all the tricks, all diversionary tactics to keep the argument going without ever having to prove anything while batting away solid evidence.

Everything you posted in your reply is classic, and sadly outdated JFK-CT noise.
Every word a lie that you have chosen to believe. The sad thing is that you sound fairly smart, but you have been sucked into a con-game started by people with profound mental problems, and harsh anti-American leanings.

Greer was an Irish protestant, JFK an Irish catholic. Centuries of hatred between the two ethnic groups.

This nonsense may play in Europe, but not in the US, not in 1963. The fact is Americans do their jobs every day regardless of their prejudices.

Greer screwed up, he apologized dramatically to Jackie Kennedy later, and the ulcers he developed from his failure of duty forced him our of the service in 1966. Hardly the signs of a job well done.

The fact is that Greer had driven JFK many times before Dallas.

The ultimate fact is that JFK shares most of the blame for making his murder possible. JFK insisted on having the top of the limo removed. JFK insisted that the Secret Service Agents not stand on their running boards on the rear of the limo.

The painful truth is that JFK put himself into a dangerous position surrounded by agents who had been out drinking until 3 in the morning:

http://www.newsweek.com/drunken-truth-about-jfk-assassination-391613

Kennedy was reckless and it caught up with him.

You can read The Kennedy Detail about the Secret Service agents assigned to the Kennedys if you're in any way serious about real history, and not manufactured history.

You can also listen to the surviving members tell their stories:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmCEx-f0dfI

I doubt you will.

 

[HSienzant]

It was a response to a categorical statement, as if it was proven there were only one shooter. It’s proven it was AT LEAST one shooter. That is the ”Null” (lol) if you like.

You agreed the null hypothesis was that there was one shooter, because JFK was shot to death, which means a minimum of one shooter. Yes, the null is that there is at least one shooter, exactly as you state above (bolded).

You agreed additional shooters must be proven, as I quoted above and as anyone can see at the link below.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12253485&postcount=842

You then when back to shifting the burden of proof, claiming the minimum of one (1) shooter must be proven. No, additional shooters beyond one (1) must be proven.

Ball in your court. Stop invoking logical fallacies. Stop with the fringe resets.

No, the reason you and your following are refering to ”the thread” as evidence is that you have none.

Evidence: J.C.Day testimony quoted here.
- You? No response.

Evidence: Roger Craig testimony quoted here.
- You? No response.

Evidence: William Waldman testimony quoted here.
- You? No response.

I'm posting evidence every day, and giving you the opportunity to cite the counter evidence, which you said you would do.

You've punted every time.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

This nonsense may play in Europe, but not in the US, not in 1963.

And not now.

I've worked alongside hundreds of people over the course of my career, and not once did I ever inquire about the religion of the person I was working with. It simply didn't matter to me. Nor did anyone ever ask me my religion.

It's clearly a crock and a desperate ploy, because they have nothing on Greer whatsoever, and they need to have something on him to make him a part of the conspiracy and find some reason to question his actions.



MANIFESTO: I'm still awaiting that evidence of Shipman being bumped off so as to get Greer - who had been driving JFK since he took office - into the driver's seat on the Dallas trip.

Here's a photo from May of 1963 from the JFK library.
https://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKWHP-ST-278-3-63.aspx

It shows JFK standing, and note the driver, according to the text to the right of the photo: William Greer.

Description:
President John F. Kennedy (standing in the Lincoln-Mercury Continental convertible) waves to the crowd gathered along the motorcade route from Nashville Municipal Airport to Vanderbilt University. Also riding in the Presidential limousine are: White House Secret Service agent Bill Greer (driving); Senators Estes Kefauver (jump seat) and Albert Gore, Sr. (back seat) of Tennessee; and Governor of Tennessee Frank G. Clement (back seat). President Kennedy traveled to Nashville, Tennessee, to attend Founder's Day ceremonies at Vanderbilt University.

Is the JFK Library part of the conspiracy too?

Hank

 

[manifesto]

Why is it that the burden of proof seems to be constantly moving in your posts?
LHO has to be believed innocent until proven guilty, but you can believe this other chap guilty without citing any evidence?
Why then do you demand a case be made against LHO afresh?

To state that you believe something is not the same as state it as a fact.

You should know this.

As for the photographs: if it can not be proven to BE a forgery, then claiming it can not be proven NOT to be forgery is a nonsense, or do you expect a negative to be provable?

Agree. Maybe I was a bit unclear. I mean that there are different opinions regarding the authenticity of the photographs and that a definitive answer for or against is impossible to reach (and who would be the judge?), therefore I’m careful when stating that I don’t know and that it anyway doesn’t prove that he owned the rifle or that the rifle was used by him or someone else in the killing of JFK.

I believe it is DPD’s Roscoe White posing in the photo’s with Oswalds head superimposed on it in order to frame him for the killing of JFK.

Can I prove it? No. Can I build a compelling case? Maybe, but not at the moment since I have much more intersisting evidence to argue.

And in that case, which do you think is the null?

It would be that the photographs being genuine, but, it is not that simple. They have to be viewed in light of everything else that speaks of fabricating, manipulating, ignoring, etc, evidence in order to frame Oswald for the murder.

In this light, the ”Null” should be the other way around - they are faked (as everything else), prove they are not.

We have a piece of material (as in physical, not the legal term) evidence.
It appears to be a photograph of a murder suspect holding murder weapons.
We can check it for signs of tampering, by methods available in the sixties.
The null hypothesis is not “this is a photograph that could or could not be tampered with, in equal likelihood”, because the tests are all to find evidence of tampering. The null has to be “this is a photograph taken and developed” until such a time as we can prove tampering.

See above.

So we look at the photograph, and we search for photo-artefacts indicators of tampering. We look for signs of superimposed negatives, of implosion being cut so that one face is removed and another is put in its place. We use photometry to calaculate sizes and distances to test the various claims that something is too short, too high, at the wrong angle, etc. We recreate the “impossible” shadows over and over again.
And when we fail to find any the objective, unbiased conclusion is not “but it could still be faked so let’s add additional accusations”. It is “until somebody can show an artefact which can not be explained by the standard development of the photograph, it can not be assumed to be fake, and claims of faking it remain unsubstantiated.”

I know that you really love to discuss the art of tampering with photographs, but that have to wait on my part. I have other more interesting issues to adress.

I am one. You are many.

 

[HSienzant]

I now call to the stand Inspector Harry Holmes of the Dallas Post Office. Mr. Holmes will testify that PO box 2915 where the weapon found in the Depository was shipped by Klein's Sporting Goods, was opened by the defendant.

== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN. Would you please state your name for the record?
Mr. HOLMES. Harry D. Holmes.
...
Mr. BELIN. Then what was the next thing that you had contact with pertaining to the assassination?
Mr. HOLMES. Saturday morning----
Mr. BELIN. This would be November 23?
Mr. HOLMES. Twenty-third. I came into the lobby of the terminal annex, and the postal inspector that was on duty mentioned that the FBI agent had called to inquire as to how they could obtain an original post office money order.
He said he had told them that they would have to get it in Washington, but would have to know the number of the post office money order.
So he was worrying then as to how he could get that number.
So I knew about the post office money order. They said that Oswald---they said that also this FBI agent had passed on the information that I don't know whether he told him or I called the FBI after--I went on up to my office, but somewhere I got the information that the FBI had knowledge that a gun of this particular Italian make and caliber had been purchased from Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago, that it had been purchased, and the FBI furnished me the information that a money order of some description in the amount of $21.95 had been used as reimbursement for the gun that had been purchased from Klein's in Chicago, and that the purchase date was March 20, 1963. I immediately had some men begin to search the Dallas money order records with the thought that they might have used a U.S. postal money order to buy this gun.
I didn't have any luck, so along about 11 o'clock in the morning, Saturday, I had my boys call the postal inspector. Oh, wait a minute, let's back up.
I had my secretary go out and purchase about half a dozen books on outdoor type magazines such as Field and Stream, with the thought that I might locate this gun to identify it, and I did.
Mr. BELIN. You have what magazine?
Mr. HOLMES. Field and Stream of November 1963.
Mr. BELIN. You found a Field and Stream magazine of just November 1963?
Mr. HOLMES. It was the current magazine on the rack.
Mr. BELIN. You got it to look for a gun and identified it in this magazine?
Is this the page? I will call it Holmes Deposition Exhibit 2.
Mr. HOLMES. Here, page 98.
Mr. BELIN. Well, it is on the back of a page numbered 98, is that right?
Mr. HOLMES. That's right.
Mr. BELIN. Or the front side. I am marking on the top of it, "Holmes Deposition Exhibit 2."
Was that the page you tore out?
Mr. HOLMES. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. I notice there is a magazine or there is a number of guns identified on that page.
Mr. HOLMES. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. I See one circled in red, is that correct?
Mr. HOLMES. That's correct.
Mr. BELIN. Who circled that in red?
Mr. HOLMES. I did.
Mr. BELIN. Then I see that it is a picture with a gun with a scope on it and it says, "6.5 Italian carbine," in big black letters. And underneath it says, "Late military issue. Only 40 inches overall. Weighs 7 lbs. Shows only slight use, test-fired and head spaced, ready for shooting. Turned-down bolt. 6-shot, clip fed, rear sight." And it is marked "$12.78."
Mr. HOLMES. With scope, it is $19.95.
Mr. BELIN. There is a number. That $12.78 says "C20-1196." And underneath that it says, "C20-750, carbine with brand new 4x- 3/4" diameter (illustrated) $19.95." Is that right?
Mr. HOLMES. That's correct.
Mr. BELIN. Then on the lower right-hand corner of the page there is a kind of place for clipping out of coupons It is marked "Klein's Sporting Goods at 227 West Washington Street, Chicago 6, Illinois," then there is a place for a box to be checked. It says, "cash customers, send check or money order in full. Unless otherwise specified, send $1.00 postage and handling on any size order . . . $1.50 on shotgun and rifles."
Then there is a place at the bottom of the page. It is a place for putting the name and address and the city and State, is that correct?
Mr. HOLMES. That's correct.
Mr. BELIN. Now I notice on a piece of scrap paper you have taken the $19.95 which would be the exact amount for the rifle with the scope, and then added the $1.50 for the charge that the coupon says for postage and handling and you come up with a total of $21.45.
I thought you said the FBI said $21.95?
Mr. HOLMES. He had, and that was the amount of money order I had been looking for. So I had my postal inspector in charge call our Chicago office and suggested that he get an inspector out to Klein's Sporting Goods and recheck it for accuracy, that if our looking at the right gun in the magazine, they were looking for the wrong money order.
Mr. BELIN. So what happened?
Mr. HOLMES. So in about an hour Postal Inspector McGee of Chicago called back then and said that the correct amount was $21.95---$21.45 excuse me, and that the shipping---they had received this money order on March the 13th, whereas I had been looking for March 20.
So then I passed the information to the men who were looking for this money order stub to show which would designate, which would show the number of the money order, and that is the only way you could find one.
I relayed this information to them and told them to start on the 13th because he could have bought it that morning and that he could have gotten it by airmail that afternoon, so they began to search and within 10 minutes they called back and said they had a money order in that amount issued on, I don't know that I show, but it was that money order in an amount issued at the main post office, which is the same place as this post office box was at that time, box 2915 and the money order had been issued early on the morning of March the 12th, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. To whom?
Mr. HOLMES. They are issued in blank. He has to fill it in.
Mr. BELIN. Does it say the name of the person who is purchased--purchasing--
Mr. HOLMES. No; you don't get----
Mr. BELIN. He had to fill it in himself?
Mr. HOLMES. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. You mentioned another post office box, and a new number there. When was that?
Mr. HOLMES. Just now?
Mr. BELIN. Yes, No. 2915?
Mr. HOLMES. That is the box he had rented at the main post office before he went to New Orleans?
Mr. BELIN. When you say the main post office, what city and State?
Mr. HOLMES. Dallas, Tex.
Mr. BELIN. When did you learn about this, if you remember?
Mr. HOLMES. I don't know that I can tell. Some clerk was passing information to me and also it could have been that McGee, this inspector said it was sent to box 2915, in Dallas. I couldn't tell you when I first realized he had this box.
Mr. BELIN. I hand you what has been marked "Holmes Deposition Exhibit 3," and ask you to state what that is?
Mr. HOLMES. That is a photostatic copy of the original box rental application covering the rental of box 2915, at the main post office in Dallas, Tex. which shows that it was completed on October the 9th, 1962. The applicants name was Lee H. Oswald, home address, 3519 Fairmore Avenue, Dallas, Tex. Signed Lee H. Oswald. It shows that the box was closed on May 14, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Now, it is stamped date box opened, October 9, 1962. And that is the same date that it appears to be written in handwriting at the bottom of it.
Mr. HOLMES. That's correct.
...
Mr. BELIN. ... Anything else now, Mr Holmes?
Mr. HOLMES. I might cover the record of his rental of the post office box in New Orleans. Do you want me to go into that?
Mr. BELIN. All right, go ahead.
Mr. HOLMES. The box rental records at New Orleans show that on June the 3d, 1963, post office box 30061 was rented to L. H. Oswald. Let me see there. Some of my information comes at times I see 30061 and at times I see 30016. I had it two places. One is a written memorandum on that new setup, and the other is what I took over the phone, and both of them show 61.
Mr. BELIN. All right, go ahead.
Mr. HOLMES. I think I got a copy.
Mr. BELIN. That is all right, you can go ahead.
Mr. HOLMES. This is at the Lafayette Square Station in New Orleans. At that time he showed his home address as 657 French Street, New Orleans. On this box rental application card, he showed as being entitled to also receive mail in the box, Marina Oswald, and A.J. Hidell. This box was closed on September 26, 1963, with instructions to forward mail addressed to 2515 West Fifth Street, Irving, Tex.
== UNQUOTE ==

Let me remind the jury that the defendant's name was not on the order form for the rifle or the money order used to pay for the rifle. It was ordered in the name of A.J. Hidell. We will see evidence that the defendant used this A.J.Hidell alias other times as well, more than just on the P.O.Box 30061.

Let me further remind the jury that we've now established the rifle found in the Depository bearing the serial number C2766 was shipped to the PO box 2915, and that's the box the defendant had opened and owned at the time of the delivery of the rifle in question.

YOUR WITNESS, Manifesto.

Any questions for Harry Holmes?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

To state that you believe something is not the same as state it as a fact.

So fact-free posts from you so far? We can agree on something?

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

So fact-free posts from you so far? We can agree on something?

Hank

Well, he just made a nonsense out of his own posts. If there are differing opinions of the photograph, then it is not an answer to my points, because that is only what somebody believes.

If only other posters had explained an object method of establishing which opinions meet a minimum threshold of proof.

Perhaps through use of a null hypothesis?

If only somebody had used the photographs as an illustration of such a principle...

At this point I am struggling to other any benefit of the doubt when “belief “ is going to be a weasel word. If, frankly, you are stating you believe something to be true, but are unwilling to show it is true, that surely becomes a “suspicion “, unless you are such a petty soul you are happy to believe somebody guilty without even trying to validate your belief.

Again with the double standard. Oswald MUST be proven guilty, but it is fine to “believe “ others guilty?

I for one would rather establish facts, then decide guilt after. As the facts of the case are established, if others like it or not, I know Oswald’s guilt was not accepted lightly, and would not accuse others so lightly that I thought I excuse the weight of accusations by saying my “belief” trumps a need for evidence.

 

[manifesto]

Acknowledging that I was once a mindless fool who believed the mountain of lies spread by conspiracy theorists does not make me stupid.

Once a mindless fool, always a mindless fool.

It makes me dangerous to people like you because I know the game you're playing, I know all the tricks, all diversionary tactics to keep the argument going without ever having to prove anything while batting away solid evidence.

I put forward a very long rebutal of nearly everything you baldly (and rather foolishly) stated in your posting. All you are able to muster in response is babbleing rantings saying your are ”dangerous”.

Are you?

Everything you posted in your reply is classic, and sadly outdated JFK-CT noise.

Good. You should have a heyday refuting it point by point like a real boss, shouldn’t you?

Every word a lie that you have chosen to believe. The sad thing is that you sound fairly smart, but you have been sucked into a con-game started by people with profound mental problems, and harsh anti-American leanings.

Ah, here it comes, the ”anti-American leanings”. There are idiots everywhere and US is not excluded, so drop that crap where you found it and start using your faculties defending what you reagard as the truth.

Begin with the medical record. Why did the three pathologists in Bethesda, Humes, Bosswell and Finck, position the entrance wound at EOP 4 cm to the right of the midline, when the x-rays according to HSCA’s medical panel is showing the entrance wound 11 cm above and 4 cm to the left on midline in the cowlick area?

At the other side of the back of the head?

This nonsense may play in Europe, but not in the US, not in 1963. The fact is Americans do their jobs every day regardless of their prejudices.

Not according to Greers own son who in an interview insinuated exactly that when asked if his father liked JFK: ”Well, JFK was a catholic and we are Irish protestants, so no, not really” (quoting from memory).

You have to familiarize with Irish History to really grasp the hatred and how deep it went.

Greer screwed up, he apologized dramatically to Jackie Kennedy later,

He was behaving extremely odd at Parkland after the shooting, crying and almost aggressively begging Jackie for forgivness, yes. But after that, he lied to the Commission, saying he did what he was supposed to do. The Zapruder-film is showing the opposite. If Greer had done what he as a veteran was trained to do, JFK would have probably survived.

and the ulcers he developed from his failure of duty forced him our of the service in 1966. Hardly the signs of a job well done.

The fact is that Greer had driven JFK many times before Dallas.

The fact is that he was not supposed to do that in Dallas, was it not for the original driver dying of a ”heart attack” on duty in Camp David a couple of weeks earlier. No autopsy. A rushed burial. Not telling JFK who was very caring of his employees. The family to the driver are still wondering what really happened and why it was so rushed and hushed down.

I believe that Greer let himself be convinced to be part of the killing. To slow down the limo when he saw the yellow freshly painted marks on the Elm Street south curb, and remain slowing down until JFK took a fatal hit.

I believe he was easy to convince the same way a southerner would have been easy to convince driving a black president down Elm Street, 1963.

The Irish people (catholics) had been the ”************” of Great Britain for almost a thousand years. Suddenly Greer (english/nothern Ireland protestant) is working for one and who happens to be the most powerful man in the World.

Edited by jsfisher: 

Swear words must be completely masked by asterisks.

Humiliating.

The ultimate fact is that JFK shares most of the blame for making his murder possible. JFK insisted on having the top of the limo removed.

Did he? According to whom?

JFK insisted that the Secret Service Agents not stand on their running boards on the rear of the limo

Did he? According to whom?

The painful truth is that JFK put himself into a dangerous position surrounded by agents who had been out drinking until 3 in the morning:

http://www.newsweek.com/drunken-truth-about-jfk-assassination-391613

Was it JFK’s fault that the people entrusted with guarding him with their own lifes was out on a drinking binge the night before the motocade? Really?

(You shouldn’t read Neewsweek if you are aspire to know anything about the assassination of JFK.)

Kennedy was reckless and it caught up with him.

Blaming the victim. Is that an American trait, would you say?

You can read The Kennedy Detail about the Secret Service agents assigned to the Kennedys if you're in any way serious about real history, and not manufactured history.

I have and most of it, the critical parts pertaining to the killing of JFK are proven lies.

Read this book if you’re interested in knowing the truth and not some old punks covering their ass when the real story are being told: https://www.amazon.com/Survivors-Gu...swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1523739290&sr=8-2

You can also listen to the surviving members tell their stories:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmCEx-f0dfI

I doubt you will.

I have. The only one who behaved like a real Secret Service Agent that day, was Clint Hill. Probably because his special mission was to protect the first lady and not the president.

All others falted badly. It’s a shame.

 

[HSienzant]

Once a mindless fool, always a mindless fool.

Surprise! We agree on something else.

But most likely not in the way you intended.

Hank

 

[OKBob]

The Devil is in the detail, Whip. Lots of details in the JFK murder case.

This is where you go wrong, manifesto. You seem to believe that some detail that you deem anomalous or inconsistent, or even some random collection of such details, can overturn the large preponderance of evidence amassed by the Warren Commission and confirmed by later official investigations.

Here's where null hypothesis, consilience, and burden of proof come together, and you'd do well to take this point seriously. Consilience is a converging or coming together of evidence from different, unrelated sources such that the persuasiveness of the whole body of evidence exceeds that of any of its parts: e.g., the convergence of the Hidell order form, the photos of Oswald with the Carcano, evidence that the rifle was wrapped in the blanket in the Paine garage, the large package Oswald carried in full and left behind empty in the TSBD, his lie about curtain rods, his fingerprints on the weapon, and so on--all pointing to his ownership of the Carcano and his possession of it on the day of the assassination.

From numerous instances of such consilience the null hypothesis emerges: the best present explanation of all the evidence.

And from consilience and the null we arrive at your burden of proof. You have the burden, and not we, because you want to alter the null. Arguing for the existence of evidentiary anomalies here and there will not displace established clusters of consilience or overturn the resulting null hypothesis.

So I urge you to stop trying to pick at this or that detail, and present us with an alternative, evidence-based scenario that does such a good job of re-interpreting the large amount of diverse evidence against Oswald that we will be willing to discard the present null hypothesis and replace it with your hypothesis.

 

[HSienzant]

The original assigned driver in the Dallas motorcade died in a ”heart attack” on asignment in Camp David some weeks before JFK’s parade in the City. No known health problems, no autopsy, rushed burial without telling the president that one of his life guards suddenly died on duty.

The fact is that Greer had driven JFK many times before Dallas.

The fact is that he was not supposed to do that in Dallas, was it not for the original driver dying of a ”heart attack” on duty in Camp David a couple of weeks earlier. No autopsy. A rushed burial. Not telling JFK who was very caring of his employees. The family to the driver are still wondering what really happened and why it was so rushed and hushed down.

THIRD request for the primary source evidence here. You got any? Or are you just repeating conspiracy theorist claptrap you read online someplace?

Let's see you document this.

I asked here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12257429&postcount=1082

And here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12257504&postcount=1085

And now again for the third time.

Show us the evidence that the Shipman was the original assigned driver for the Dallas motorcade. Show us the evidence Greer was recruited into a plot. Show us the evidence there was a rushed burial. Show us the evidence Shipman died of other than a heart attack. Show us the evidence Shipman had ever driven JFK anywhere since he became President.

Primary sources only, not conspiracy innuendo and suspicion.

Hank

 

[OKBob]

THIRD request for the primary source evidence here. You got any? Or are you just repeating conspiracy theorist claptrap you read online someplace?

Let's see you document this.

This Catholic/Protestant CT seems to have gotten some traction in the Irish press a few years ago, with some articles suggesting that Greer had been a member of an Orange (Protestant Irish) organization dedicated to resisting Rome and the Pope. Even if one accepts this affiliation of Greer's (and I'd certainly want more evidence), the Orange lodge of which he was purportedly a member advocated resistance to Rome "by all lawful means." That rules out murdering the President.

 

[manifesto]

This is where you go wrong, manifesto. You seem to believe that some detail that you deem anomalous or inconsistent, or even some random collection of such details, can overturn the large preponderance of evidence amassed by the Warren Commission and confirmed by later official investigations.

Here's where null hypothesis, consilience, and burden of proof come together, and you'd do well to take this point seriously. Consilience is a converging or coming together of evidence from different, unrelated sources such that the persuasiveness of the whole body of evidence exceeds that of any of its parts: e.g., the convergence of the Hidell order form, the photos of Oswald with the Carcano, evidence that the rifle was wrapped in the blanket in the Paine garage, the large package Oswald carried in full and left behind empty in the TSBD, his lie about curtain rods, his fingerprints on the weapon, and so on--all pointing to his ownership of the Carcano and his possession of it on the day of the assassination.

From numerous instances of such consilience the null hypothesis emerges: the best present explanation of all the evidence.

And from consilience and the null we arrive at your burden of proof. You have the burden, and not we, because you want to alter the null. Arguing for the existence of evidentiary anomalies here and there will not displace established clusters of consilience or overturn the resulting null hypothesis.

So I urge you to stop trying to pick at this or that detail, and present us with an alternative, evidence-based scenario that does such a good job of re-interpreting the large amount of diverse evidence against Oswald that we will be willing to discard the present null hypothesis and replace it with your hypothesis.

You don’t get it do you? If most of the evidence can be proved to be fabrications they seize to be evidence of Oswalds guilt and transforms to equally strong evidence of his innocence and most important, that the guilty party can be found among those who framed him and orchestrated the cover up.

Why else fabricate evidence and cover it up?

 

[OKBob]

[...] If most of the evidence can be proved to be fabrications [...]

Then stop chattering incoherently and prove this massive "fabrication" claim. You have the burden.

 

[HSienzant]

If most of the evidence can be proved to be fabrications ...

When do you intend to start?

I gave you the evidence from J.C.Day, Roger Craig, William Waldman, and Harry Holmes, establishing how the rifle got from Klein's sporting goods to Oswald's possession, and then was recovered in the Depository.

You had the opportunity to rebut any and all of that, and prove it to be fabrications with counter evidence (which you said you would be able to do).

I am prepered to argue and present counter evidence when Hank (or anyone) presents specific evidence pertaining to Oswalds alleged killing of JFK. Since I’m not a mind reader I can not know this without Hank (or anyone) letting me know what evidence HE is refering to.

You now know some of the evidence (just a small portion, really) I'm referring to. We're still waiting for you to start.

Hank

 

[bknight]

manifesto

manifesto answer my question.

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

manifesto answer my question

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

 

[manifesto]

Then stop chattering incoherently and prove this massive "fabrication" claim. You have the burden.

I’m doing that when the evidence in question are being provided by those of you who have the opinion that Oswald killed JFK.

Read my posts. Submit critique if you have any. But be specific.

And, do you have any evidence of Oswalds guilt? Please post it and I’ll have a look at it.

 

[HSienzant]

I’m doing that when the evidence in question are being provided by those of you who have the opinion that Oswald killed JFK.

Any questions for J.C.Day, Roger Craig, William Waldman, or Harry Holmes?

Their testimony is evidence, and is being provided.

That evidence establishes how the rifle got from Klein's Sporting Goods to Oswald's possession, and then was recovered in the Depository.

We're still waiting for this vaunted defense - with counter evidence, you claimed - to begin.

You got nuthin'.

Hank