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

[manifesto]

I disagree entirely. You presented nothing but a catalogue of your private suspicions clustered about the idea that Greer was from a Protestant Irish background and JFK from an Catholic Irish one, combined with the suggestion that Greer as driver intended to expose JFK to gunfire (a begged question). There's nothing "compelling" about what you offered. Your knowledge of the JFK assassination literature is too thin, and your grasp of logic and sound argumentation too poor, to support any compelling claims here.

1. Greer acted contrary to his training as a veteran driver of the presidents limo.

2. He did not obey orders from his superior to step on it, instead he continued decellerating the limo looking straight att JFK until he saw his head explode. THEN he turned around and sped away.

3. He knew how he had acted during the shooting, but lied about it to the Commission.

4. There were newly painted yellow markings on the south curb of Elm Street, exactly where the shooting took place.


This is suspect behavior, but what motive could he have for taking part in a conspiracy?

1. He was an Irish protestant and JFK born into an Irish catholic family with centuries of hatred between the two ethnic groups.

2. Greers son, Richard, insinuated that his father did not like JFK beacouce said ethnicity.

3. To work as a chauffeur, a servant to the ’enemy’ and to a member of a people colonized by the Brittish for 800 years is a so called status reversal, differcult to handle for anyone.

4. The agent who was scheduled to drive the limo in Dallas died mysteriously on duty in Camp David a couple of weeks before the planned visit in the city.


Of course this is not proof of Greer was part of a conspiracy, but it is suspicius and a plausible scenario.

IF one belive that it was a conspiracy behind the assassination, they had to be sure they succeeded. A surviving president would have rounded them up and put them away for good.

A driver who decellerated the limo until the president was deadly wounded could provide that security.

I believe Greer was that driver.

 

[OKBob]

Simply repeating weak claims, begged questions, and zoo-running assertions does not make them more convincing. I'm sorry, but you aren't equipped for the task you have undertaken.

 

[HSienzant]

Ok, Hank lets go through them one at the time.

I wrote:

”Ok, fair enough. In the case of Oswald buying and owning the proposed murder weapon (CE-139) there are a multitude of problems with the evidence put forward by the FBI and the WC:


1. Most important. All the documents put forward by the FBI are copies of film of the originals, not the original documents. The originals are these days nowhere to be found.”​

You wrote:

”Why are the normal Kleins business records - (which were stored on microfilm and the originals discarded in the normal course of business and which suffice for everyday disputes) - not sufficient for YOU?

Because they point to Oswald?

Do you still get your original checks returned to you by your bank? Or do you get copies, which are sufficient to establish what you wrote and who you wrote it to? If you go to your bank and argue you didn't write that check and they can't prove it because there's no original, do you think you'd get very far? But that's the silly argument you're advancing here. Only microfilm copies of the orders were retained by Kleins. Those microfilm copies were their business records. They are perfectly acceptable - unless the accused name is Oswald, for some reason.”​

Lets begin with Kleins records allegedly showing Oswald buying the alleged murder weapon. FBI whent there the night of the assassination, searched the records and allegedly found the order on microfilm and took it with them when they left.

Where is this microfilm? Did the Commission look at it or did they only look at an alleged photo of it?

Wow. Are you serious? I showed you the answer to that question almost two and a half years ago!

Did you forget?

Or are you pretending you never saw the evidence?

I showed it to you on December 23rd of 2015:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11046072&highlight=Waldman#post11046072

I also showed it to you as recently as yesterday, April 14th.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12257354&postcount=1078

Here's some of the testimony. Feel free to read it all at the link provided.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/waldman.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN. Did the FBI indicate at what time, what period that they felt you might have received this rifle originally?
Mr. WALDMAN. We were able to determine from our purchase records the date in which the rifle had been received, and they also had a record of when it had been shipped, so we knew the approximate date of receipt by us, and from that we made---let's see, we examined our microfilm records which show orders from mail order customers and related papers, and from this determined to whom the gun had been shipped by us.
Mr. BELIN. Are these microfilm records part of your customary recording of transactions of your company?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; they are.
Mr. BELIN. I'm handing you what has been marked as an FBI Exhibit D-77 and ask you if you know what this is.
Mr. WALDMAN. This is a microfilm record that---of mail order transactions for a given period of time. It was turned over by us to the FBI.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know when it was turned over to the FBI?
Mr. WALDMAN. It was turned over to them on November 23, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Now, you are reading from the carton containing that microfilm. Do you know whose initials are on there?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the initials on here are mine and they were put on the date on which this was turned over to the FBI concerned with the investigation.
Mr. BELIN. You have on your premises a machine for looking at the microfilm prints?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. And you can make copies of the microfilm prints?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. I wonder if we can adjourn the deposition upstairs to take a look at these records in the microfilm and get copies of the appropriate records that you found on the evening of November 22.
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes.
(Whereupon, the following proceedings were had at the microfilm machine.)
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Waldman, you have just put the microfilm which we call D-77 into your viewer which is marked a Microfilm Reader-Printer, and you have identified this as No. 270502, according to your records. Is this just a record number of yours on this particular shipment?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's a number which we assign for identification purposes.
Mr. BELIN. And on the microfilm record, would you please state who it shows this particular rifle was shipped
Mr. WALDMAN. Shipped to a Mr. A.--last name H-i-d-e-l-l, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex.
Mr. BELIN. And does it show any serial number or control number?
Mr. WALDMAN. It shows shipment of a rifle bearing our control number VC-836 and serial number C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. Is there a price shown for that?
Mr. WALDMAN. Price is $19.95, plus $1.50 postage and handling, or a total of $21.45.
Mr. BELIN. Now, I see another number off to the left. What is this number?
Mr. WALDMAN. The number that you referred to, C20-T750 is a catalog number.
Mr. BELIN. And after that, there appears some words of identification or description. Can you state what that is?
Mr. WALDMAN. The number designates an item which we sell, namely, an Italian carbine, 6.5 caliber rifle with the 4X scope.
Mr. BELIN. Is there a date of shipment which appears on this microfilm record?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the date of shipment was March 20, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Does it show by what means it was shipped?
Mr. WALDMAN. It was shipped by parcel post as indicated by this circle around the letters "PP."
Mr. BELIN. Does it show if any amount was enclosed with the order itself?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the amount that was enclosed with the order was $21.45, as designated on the right-hand side of this order blank here.
Mr. BELIN. Opposite the words "total amount enclosed"?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes.
== UNQUOTE ==

More and more frequently, I think you're just a troll. You claimed you were well-read about the assassination. When I pointed you to the testimony, you said you didn't see any evidence in there.

But you'll believe anything a conspiracy site tells you, apparently.

This was your original claim about the microfilm:

Yes, the money order was routinely microfilmed and thereafter routinely destroyed by Klein's, no one is stating otherwise. However, the FBI showed only a xerox copy of a copy of the Klein's original microfilm to the WC. When trying to locate the original microfilm at the FBI it had disappeared leaving behind an empty box.

That claim is nonsense. And it was shown to you to be nonsense almost two and a half years ago. The Warren Commission had possession of the microfilm and looked at it with William Waldman walking Commission counsel David Belin through what the Klein's business records showed. Copies were made directly from the microfilm reader/printer by Waldman for Belin. Those copies were retained by the Warren Commission and marked into evidence. They were printed in the 26 volumes. Waldman's testimony is evidence, and I quoted a portion where they read the microfilm directly from the microfilm reader machine just yesterday. I asked if you had any questions for Waldman, remember? You went mute on that and ignored the testimony and my post entirely.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12257354&postcount=1078

Now you pretend you didn't see this evidence two and a half years ago, you didn't see it yesterday, and you didn't see it in the Warren Commission volumes of evidence (you claimed you were well read on this subject, and claimed you read the volumes, but didn't see any evidence in there).

What's the point of debating this with you if you're going to ignore any inconvenient evidence? Or pretend you never saw it and continually ask me to repeat it?

And as I pointed out the last time we went through this:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11046636&postcount=599
"As expected, Manifesto, after reading up on the paper trail of the rifle, apparently decided not to address my points at all, but argue some other ones. He thereby avoids admitting he was ever wrong on any of his claims."

As I've pointed out to you numerous times in the past, you need to stop getting your information from conspiracy books and websites and start reading the actual evidence for yourself. Those sites and those books are lying to you.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Was he? When? How? Where?

You need to answer this. The 'evidence' you raise to throw suspicion at the late William Greer would apply equally to JFK and supply JFK with a motive to want Greer dead, as much as it supplies Greer with a motive to want JFK dead.

So explain why the most powerful man in the world, with all this supposed motive you conjecture, didn't have Greer killed.

We'll wait.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

If all this is not suspicious, nothing is.

It may be suspicious to you, but like beauty, suspicion is in the eye of the beholder.

I know what it's not, however. It's not evidence. You remember, the stuff you could actually bring up in court in a criminal trial and present to the jury?

That stuff?

Good luck getting that menagerie of begged questions, assumptions, hearsay, and innuendo before a jury.

Why don't you ever mention any evidence, Manifesto?

Hank

 

[Axxman300]

1. Greer acted contrary to his training as a veteran driver of the presidents limo.

What - EXACTLY - was his training? What did it detail? What were the standards?

How many active assassination attempts had Greer been involved with prior to Dallas?

2. He did not obey orders from his superior to step on it, instead he continued decellerating the limo looking straight att JFK until he saw his head explode. THEN he turned around and sped away.

Everyone knows this. The thing about the Zapruder Film is that it is silent, so you don't hear the screaming.

3. He knew how he had acted during the shooting, but lied about it to the Commission.

Speculation.

4. There were newly painted yellow markings on the south curb of Elm Street, exactly where the shooting took place.

Put there buy the city. And?

This is suspect behavior, but what motive could he have for taking part in a conspiracy?

Nobody has successfully established a conspiracy in the past 54 years.

1. He was an Irish protestant and JFK born into an Irish catholic family with centuries of hatred between the two ethnic groups.

Catholicism and Protestantism are NOT RACES. Impressive attention to detail per usual.

Also, this is blatantly racist.

2. Greers son, Richard, insinuated that his father did not like JFK beacouce said ethnicity.

They were both Irish. They went to different churches, nothing more. And not liking someone is different than wanting to kill someone.

3. To work as a chauffeur, a servant to the ’enemy’ and to a member of a people colonized by the Brittish for 800 years is a so called status reversal, differcult to handle for anyone.

That's not how things work in the US. Greer and Kennedy were Americans first, just like every other American. I wear green on St.Patrick's Day, but that's it. I have no allegiance to Ireland in any way - no Irish American does, it's just a dot on a map I'd like to visit one day, nothing more.

Your racism is on full display with this statement. It is based on ignorance and the worst kind of evil suppositions.

4. The agent who was scheduled to drive the limo in Dallas died mysteriously on duty in Camp David a couple of weeks before the planned visit in the city.

And this driver had a name? His obituary is where?

Of course this is not proof of Greer was part of a conspiracy, but it is suspicius and a plausible scenario.

It is only suspicious in CT Land, not in the real world where people live.

IF one belive that it was a conspiracy behind the assassination, they had to be sure they succeeded. A surviving president would have rounded them up and put them away for good.

They would have died in the electric chair.

But not because the President hunted them down.

See, if you knew anything concrete about the Irish is that if you kill a member of the family we don't sleep until you're hanging from the end of a rope (we're fun that way). Here's the problem with your scenario - RFK was JUST AS IRISH AND JUST AS CATHOLIC AS HIS OLDER BROTHER.

Do you honestly think he'd just let the murder of his brother slide? The man who ran Operation Mongoose? The man who faced down the biggest Mafia names in the country? There is nobody in the CIA, FBI, or any other group he wouldn't have ordered investigated and arrested.

If you read anything beyond CT sites you'd know that the Attorney General is the most powerful law enforcement officer in the US. RFK was ruthless. Those repeated inquiries I told you about were the CIA and FBI repeatedly shook down all of their sources hoping to link Oswald to a conspiracy? Those orders came out of the AG's office.

I can definitively state that if there were others involved in the assassination they would have been arrested, and tried, and dealt with. If you knew anything about RFK you would have no reason to doubt this to be true.

 

[HSienzant]

2. He did not obey orders from his superior to step on it, instead he continued decellerating the limo looking straight att JFK until he saw his head explode. THEN he turned around and sped away.

What are you babbling about? What orders from whom to step on it?

Cite the evidence (NOT claims from a conspiracy site).

I already showed you that Kellerman, who was likewise in the car, said Greer didn't slow down during the shooting.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12259091&postcount=1210

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Kellerman, did the President's automobile at any time slow down after the first shot?
Mr. KELLERMAN. No; not that I recall.

Kellerman also stated in his initial affidavit after the assassination (from 11/29/63) that he said "Step on it, we're hit!" only after the final shot.
Immediately I heard what I firmly believe was the President's voice, "My God, I'm hit!" I turned around to find out what happened when two additional shots rang out, and the President slumped into Mrs. Kennedy's lap and Governor Connally fell_to Mrs. Connally's lap. I heard Mrs. Kennedy shout, "What are they doing to you?" I yelled at William Greer (the driver) to "Step on it, we're hit!" and grabbed the mike from the car radio, called to SA Lawson in the police lead car that we were hit and to get us to a hospital.

4. There were newly painted yellow markings on the south curb of Elm Street, exactly where the shooting took place.

Source for the 'newly-painted'? You are suspicious of this because why, exactly? If they were six months old, would you still be suspicious? Eight years old, still suspicious? It appears your 'newly-painted' claim needs support.

This is suspect behavior, but what motive could he have for taking part in a conspiracy?

Your second point is false, and your fourth ('newly-painted') is an unproven allegation. How is any of that 'suspect behavior', and how is yellow markings along the curb suspect behavior on Greer's part?

Your arguments make no sense.

Separate from that, you list these arguments:

3. To work as a chauffeur, a servant to the ’enemy’ and to a member of a people colonized by the Brittish for 800 years is a so called status reversal, differcult to handle for anyone.

Please provide one first-person quote - not hearsay decades after the fact - of Greer's issues with driving the President of the United States around.

4. The agent who was scheduled to drive the limo in Dallas died mysteriously on duty in Camp David a couple of weeks before the planned visit in the city.

You've alleged this before, a few times. I've asked you before, a few times, to document this. We're still waiting for you to do that even once. Contrast how you respond to requests for evidence to how I do. You asked for the evidence of the existence of the microfilm ... I provided it today, and I pointed out I provided it yesterday, and I pointed out I provided it two and a half years ago. And I pointed out it was in the Warren Commission volumes of evidence, which I pointed you too more than once, and which you claimed you had read, but didn't see any evidence in there.

Hank

 

[Axxman300]

Source for the 'newly-painted'? You are suspicious of this because why, exactly? If they were six months old, would you still be suspicious? Eight years old, still suspicious? It appears your 'newly-painted' claim needs support.

Well, Hank, the way I like to run my black-ops wet-works teams is to give the police a fighting chance to catch me. Some guys like to be sneaky and use poison. Me? I see no problem marking up my kill-zone with spray paint even though I'm using top marksmen. I've even invested in custom orange vests for my shooters that have "Assassin" written in reflective letters, and I bought some of those big orange public work's signs that I can put up a few blocks away that say "Assassination Kill-Zone Ahead - Detour" because I'm thoughtful that way.

I'm trying to talk the Illuminati into funding a couple of those electronic road-side message boards so I can list our escape routes, safe-house addresses, and off-shore bank accounts. They've already told me I can't have a marching band present, which would have been super awesome.

 

[HSienzant]

And this driver had a name? His obituary is where?

Thomas Shipman.

Obit can be seen here: https://heavy.com/news/2013/11/jfk-john-f-kennedy-assassination-anniversary-conspiracy/2/

Turns out there was an autopsy, and a heart attack was determined to be the cause of death.

Manifesto alleged there was no autopsy, and of course put "heart attack" in scare quotes:

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 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.

Where's the evidence of the 'rushed burial' and the 'family wondering what really happened' and the fact Shipman had 'no known health problems'? Or that he was supposed to be 'the driver in Dallas'?

Just asserted, just like 'no autopsy' is asserted - but we know that one is false from the obit.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Well, Hank, the way I like to run my black-ops wet-works teams is to give the police a fighting chance to catch me. Some guys like to be sneaky and use poison. Me? I see no problem marking up my kill-zone with spray paint even though I'm using top marksmen. I've even invested in custom orange vests for my shooters that have "Assassin" written in reflective letters, and I bought some of those big orange public work's signs that I can put up a few blocks away that say "Assassination Kill-Zone Ahead - Detour" because I'm thoughtful that way.

I'm trying to talk the Illuminati into funding a couple of those electronic road-side message boards so I can list our escape routes, safe-house addresses, and off-shore bank accounts. They've already told me I can't have a marching band present, which would have been super awesome.

 

[Axxman300]

Thomas Shipman.

Obit can be seen here: https://heavy.com/news/2013/11/jfk-john-f-kennedy-assassination-anniversary-conspiracy/2/

Turns out there was an autopsy, and a heart attack was determined to be the cause of death.

Manifesto alleged there was no autopsy, and of course put "heart attack" in scare quotes:

See, here you are doing

Edited by Darat: 

breach of Rule 0. Do not change a member's username to insult them.

work for him. He should have posted that when he made the claim.

And it still doesn't prove a conspiracy.

 

[Tomtomkent]

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.

You didn't answer my question.
Did you follow the link?

 

[manifesto]

Wow.
Hank

So, Hank, where is the original of the microfilm today?

 

[manifesto]

You need to answer this. The 'evidence' you raise to throw suspicion at the late William Greer would apply equally to JFK and supply JFK with a motive to want Greer dead, as much as it supplies Greer with a motive to want JFK dead.

So explain why the most powerful man in the world, with all this supposed motive you conjecture, didn't have Greer killed.

We'll wait.

Hank

Nonsense. I do not argue from motive, I argue from suspisious behavior and adds plausible motive as a plausible explanation for said behaviour.

So, what behaviour of JFK makes you suspect him of trying to kill Greer?

 

[manifesto]

You didn't answer my question.
Did you follow the link?

I do not follow links when no explation of whats behind it are provided.

Explain what the content behind the link is supposed to be.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So, what behaviour of JFK makes you suspect him of trying to kill Greer?

Should we give you the benefit of the doubt, and assumed this if failed sophism, or are you still trying to pretend that your claimed motive applies to Greer but not to JFK, even when JFK was the one you quoted?

Should we, in short, assume anybody we assume to be suitably Anglican Protestant to hold the same motive to harm JFK?

Are you, at any point, going to support your suspicions of Greer with credible evidence?

 

[Tomtomkent]

I do not follow links when no explation of whats behind it are provided.

Explain what the content behind the link is supposed to be.

An explanation like this?

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.

Because to me, it looks like you are trying very hard to remain ignorant of the very things you ask for.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So, Hank, where is the original of the microfilm today?

Private receipts from a business fifty years ago?
Where would you expect them to be? Why is it relevant, when we have copies made, in the archive? Is there some issue with the copies you can prove? Are you intending to claim they are inaccurate or otherwise flawed?

We have copies made, in evidence, and retained in the archive.
If you wish to posit they are fake, inaccurate, or otherwise tampered with, you need to substantiate that claim.

It has not gone unnoticed that this question bares no relevance to your original point, an in no way invalidates the standing of the evidence.

You are imposing an unrealistic standard for evidence, because you are looking for reasons to be able to handwave or dismiss the evidence.

 

[manifesto]

Private receipts from a business fifty years ago?
Where would you expect them to be? Why is it relevant, when we have copies made, in the archive? Is there some issue with the copies you can prove? Are you intending to claim they are inaccurate or otherwise flawed?

We have copies made, in evidence, and retained in the archive.
If you wish to posit they are fake, inaccurate, or otherwise tampered with, you need to substantiate that claim.

It has not gone unnoticed that this question bares no relevance to your original point, an in no way invalidates the standing of the evidence.

You are imposing an unrealistic standard for evidence, because you are looking for reasons to be able to handwave or dismiss the evidence.

The microfilm was detained by FBI as evidence, so I wonder where it is today. I asume FBI gave it to the Commission along with all the other evidence.

Or?

 

[manifesto]

An explanation like this?



Because to me, it looks like you are trying very hard to remain ignorant of the very things you ask for.

No specifics, no. It is like linking to ”a book” or ”a thread” when arguing specifics.

What behind the ”link” is it that ”debunks” HSCA’s acoustics investigation? Quote. Argue. Explain.