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

[RoboTimbo]

1. It is Greers actions during and after the assassination that is more than suspicious.

2. I provide a more than plausible motive for those actions.

You be the judge.

Thank you for your admission that you are unable to support your foolish claim against Greer. Did you have any claims that you are able to support with evidence rather than your uninformed opinion?

 

[HSienzant]

Silly fool. If your ”answers” are incompleete or faulty, of course I have to ask you of further information in order to clear up the matter.

That said, Hank, do you have any evidence supporting your bald claim that Oswald killed JFK?

You alluded to a certain papertrail showing that Oswald bought the alleged murder weapon. Correct?

What paper trail?

Show me.

I've been showing you, and asking you to respond to the points I made over two years ago:

Here's the original 12 from December of 2015: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11029667&postcount=503

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

It’s really easy. If you make a claim. Show me the evidence.

You are consistently trying to promote that I should find the evidence myself. To support YOUR claim.

Do you really not understand the madness in that charge?

Or are you just trolling as usual, RoboTimbo?

It is continually pointed out where the posts you demand can be found.
You said links to them were not good enough. Why?
You have been directed towards the SOURCE evidence. Why not read it?
You have been advised to read the thread. That way many of your questions would be answered fully, in depth. You seem not to want to.
If you are unfamiliar, I even offered to direct you towards accessible summaries of the argument.

It has even been pointed out how you can best convince us of a conspiracy.

I am not sure you should be accusing others of trolling while you are being given the benefit of the doubt.

 

[HSienzant]

JFK to Nehru, January, 1962:

”I grew up in a community where the people were hardly a generation away from colonial rule. And I can claim the company of many historians in saying that the colonialism to which my immediate ancestors were subject was more sterile, oppressive and even cruel than that of India.”​

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/dodd-and-dulles-vs-kennedy-in-africa

So JFK was going to kill Greer, but Greer got to him first?

I believe you have finally lost it, Hank. I feel sorry for you. Defending a lost cause all this years and sensing the end is near. Easy to go bonkers for less than that.

You're the one claiming:

The Irish people (catholics) had been the ”[N-word]” 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.

So now JFK is the most powerful man in the world and you won't expect him to exact retribution against Greer? Why not?

Your problem is your argument for Greer's motivation works equally well as JFK's motivation.

Hence my question: JFK wanted Greer dead but Greer got to him first?

You can respond with further ad hominem (suggesting I'm crazy) or you can respond by debating the point I raised. Or, I suppose, you can ignore the point down the line or you can change the subject, or you can double down on your silly assertion ...

Hank

 

[manifesto]

Does not equal: "Deliberately attempts harm."

No, it eaqual ”plausible motive”, which is my argument.

You should try to read my posts before letting your itchy little fingers doing your thinking for you.

 

[bknight]

A ”link” doesen’t cut it. Explain what are behind the link and more precisly how it refutes HSCA’s acoustical findings.

Defend your source.

Open the link read the material, very simple and clear cut refuting of the HSCA acoustical evidence. They did the best that was available at the time, now with better technology a fourth gunshot is ruled out. One man, LHO firing three times hitting two one killing JFK.

 

[traxy]

There’s also still fragments in Connallys thigh because the widow refused to allow an exhumation recovering them.

If there's fragments left in Connally, they don't fall under the category of "recovered fragments", do they?

What experts and what studies? Source. Quotes. Methods used. Etc.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/firearms_hsca.htm

And why did not Lt. Day make a photo of it BEFORE lifting it as correct procedure demands?

He wanted to lift the print before the FBI arrived to take the rifle.

Easy to fake after the fact (as with the palm print).

You have proof that the prints were faked?

Show me.

Sebastian Latona, supervisor of the Latent Fingerprint section of the FBI’s Identification Division, testified that the palm print found on the barrel of the rifle belonged to Lee Harvey Oswald.

When Henry Wade listed a long raw of ”evidence” (almost everything later withdrawn or debunked) against Oswald to the world press, not a word of finding his fingerprints on the rifle. A slam dunk of Oswalds quilt (at least handling the alleged murder weapon) and not a word?

Why?

JC Day didn't have time to process the fingerprints before he lost possession of the rifle. He took photos of them and covered them in tape for transport by the FBI. He thought they would be too faint to attempt to lift.

http://www.jfk-online.com/prints.html

So, if Oswalds latent fingerprints are still visible on the rifle, why did not FBI see them when making a thourough investigation of it the first night after the assassination? The ”best crime lab in the world”?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/latona.htm

They did find the fingerprints on the trigger guard. It's in Latona's testimony.

This is basic JFK 101 stuff man.

Do you have access to the original order form or is it just FBI’s alleged photographs of it you are trying to sell as the real deal?

Klein's provided the form. Are you asserting it is fake? Prove it.

 

[manifesto]

It is continually pointed out where the posts you demand can be found.

”The thread”.

You said links to them were not good enough. Why?

What ”links”?

You have been directed towards the SOURCE evidence.

Where?

Show me.

Why not read it?

Read what and where?

Show me.

You have been advised to read the thread.

Yes? Why? As a substitute for demanding evidence supporting your claims?

Isn’t that, well, a bit strange?

That way many of your questions would be answered fully, in depth. You seem not to want to.

As a substitute for you providing evidence supporting your claims? Why?

If you are unfamiliar,

I’m familiar with your claims but still not with your supporting evidence. If you post your supporting evidence I’ll be familiar with that too.

So, why not post your evidence? Shyness?

I even offered to direct you towards accessible summaries of the argument.

And I told you that I do not mind you quoting said summaries and make it your own.

Still waiting.

It has even been pointed out how you can best convince us of a conspiracy.

That is not my prime purpose at the moment. It is trying to find out the evidence on which you claim that Oswald killed JFK.

Do you have any? Where? ”The thread”?

I am not sure you should be accusing others of trolling while you are being given the benefit of the doubt.

Benefit of the doubt? You are claiming that Oswald killed JFK and I’m trying to get a grip on what evidence you have supporting said claim. I’ve tried a couple of days now but still no show. Yes some of you have posted some evidence, but that was very easy to refute, so I’m still waiting for some real evidence. Do you have any?

Or, am I waiting in vain?

 

[HSienzant]

Do you have access to the original order form or is it just FBI’s alleged photographs of it you are trying to sell as the real deal?

This is the first point in this post from December of 2015 which you avoided responding to when it was first posted, and have studiously ignored even though I've reposted the link multiple times.

This is what's properly called a Fringe Reset.

Bring up a point, see it destroyed, wait a while, repeat the allegation.

Here's where I destroyed that point.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11029667&postcount=503

Business records are admissible.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803

== QUOTE ==
(6) Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity. A record of an act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis if:
(A) the record was made at or near the time by — or from information transmitted by — someone with knowledge;
(B) the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or calling, whether or not for profit;
(C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity;
(D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness, or by a certification that complies with Rule 902(11) or (12) or with a statute permitting certification; and
(E) ...the opponent does not show that the source of information nor or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.
== UNQUOTE ==

See point one in the link to post 503 in a prior thread.

Klein's business records are admissible.

The photocopies were made from the original microfilm retained by Klein's directly at a microfilm machine. There is nothing wrong with the Klein's business records.

I told you that in December of 2015.

Hank

 

[RoboTimbo]

Yes some of you have posted some evidence, but that was very easy to refute, so I’m still waiting for some real evidence. Do you have any?

Where have you refuted any of it?

 

[Tomtomkent]

”The thread”.

What ”links”?

Where?

Show me.

Read what and where?

Show me.

Yes? Why? As a substitute for demanding evidence supporting your claims?

Isn’t that, well, a bit strange?

As a substitute for you providing evidence supporting your claims? Why?

I’m familiar with your claims but still not with your supporting evidence. If you post your supporting evidence I’ll be familiar with that too.

So, why not post your evidence? Shyness?

And I told you that I do not mind you quoting said summaries and make it your own.

Still waiting.

That is not my prime purpose at the moment. It is trying to find out the evidence on which you claim that Oswald killed JFK.

Do you have any? Where? ”The thread”?

Benefit of the doubt? You are claiming that Oswald killed JFK and I’m trying to get a grip on what evidence you have supporting said claim. I’ve tried a couple of days now but still no show. Yes some of you have posted some evidence, but that was very easy to refute, so I’m still waiting for some real evidence. Do you have any?

Or, am I waiting in vain?

Which part of this are you failing to grasp?
That the multitude of reasons I believe that Oswald is guilty have been discussed at too great a length to post anew?
That I see no need to state them anew when the entire conversation is here for you to read?
That the evidence is too much to be posted and that you can read it all in the Warren Commission without my posting it here?
That you claim to already be familiar with the WC so there is no NEED to restate the case?
That I have no interest in playing the case for prosecution?
That the historical consensus is established and if you wish to overturn it the onus is on you?
That I am only hanging around here to see if YOU posit an alternative theory?

All this has been explained.

Explain why you think any of us should reboot the discussion, from scratch. Explain why you need the Null restated if you are familiar with it. What does it add to the conversation?

 

[manifesto]

Open the link read the material, very simple and clear cut refuting of the HSCA acoustical evidence. They did the best that was available at the time, now with better technology a fourth gunshot is ruled out. One man, LHO firing three times hitting two one killing JFK.

You are the one claiming someone refuted HSCA’s acoustics findingings.

Who? How? When?

Explain.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Here is a challenge to any CT:
Assume that the case for the prosecution is the WC.
Post your rebuttal to the WC, in brief.
Post your alternative theory.
Supply some evidence.
Then see if it withstands scrutiny.

That’s all you need to do. Post a better theory.

 

[RoboTimbo]

You are the one claiming someone refuted HSCA’s acoustics findingings.

Did the HSCA find evidence for more shots than Oswald's?

Who? How? When?

Explain.

 

[Tomtomkent]

You are the one claiming someone refuted HSCA’s acoustics findingings.

Who? How? When?

Explain.

The link explained this.
Why did you not follow it?

 

[Axxman300]

1. It is Greers actions during and after the assassination that is more than suspicious.

2. I provide a more than plausible motive for those actions.

You be the judge.

Suspicious based on what?

How many times have you been directly shot at, and how many people have been shot less than five feet away from you?

 

[manifesto]

Suspicious based on what?

How many times have you been directly shot at, and how many people have been shot less than five feet away from you?

1. He acted the opposite he was trained to do. He was a veteran in the detail, years of training.

2. He was fully aware of his acting during the shooting, begging Jackie to forgive him at Parkland.

3. He lied to the Commission, stating he did not look at JFK during the shooting and that he accelerated the limo away directly after hearing the first shot.

This is not proof of guilt, but it is proof of very suspect behavior and lying about it sworn under oath.

That is a felony.

(Btw, Jackie was bitterly joking to a friend that she should avoid bad drivers, implying Greers performance during the killing of her dead husband.)

 

[Axxman300]

I state that Greer probably would have been an easy target for persuasion by the planers of the conspiracy.

Who were these "planners"?

Why would they go to the extreme detail hand-picking the driver due to his religious prejudices, but then "plant" a rifle that only fires a 6.5x52mm bullet instead of a generic .762 caliber?

Your conspiracy works only if those planning were idiots.

 

[cmikes]

I'm confused about Manifesto's new persona. Is he actually trying to claim that he's never read the Warren Commission, the HSCA, the Clark panel report, the Rockefeller commission report, or the ARRB? And he's trying to spin it as a good thing that he's never read anything other than conspiracy sources?

 

[manifesto]

The link explained this.
Why did you not follow it?

The only thing a ”link” explain is that it is a ”link”.

I know that already. I still do not no what ”debunking” you are refering to and I certainly doesn’t know HOW this ”debunking” was performed and why it is convincing, if it is convincing.

That, you have to explain, because you are the only one knowing what goes on in your own head.

1. You make a claim (debunked acoustics).

2. You explain by whom and how this was done.

I can’t do it for you.