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

[manifesto]

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?

You avoided to cite the whole content of my post:

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]

Neither are we. To date you've cited for little, and what you did attempt to cite for, those cites are links to conspiracy sites arguing for a conspiracy.

But you also reject links to anywhere, including to your own conspiracy sites.

You wrote:


Can you cite for any of your claims without links to the evidence for those claims?

Hank

There were no citing given, only the ”link”.

 

[Tomtomkent]

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

You argue from behaviour you *claim* to be suspicious, but offer no reason *why* it is such: You have not shown it is outside the spectrum of responses one might reasonably expect from somebody in the same situation. You have not shown it is outside the behaviour we would expect in general, or in his personal case.

Onto this you apply a "plausible motive" that you then argue should not be applied to JFK, despite your posting JFK's own opinion as you *evidence*.

Are you going to continue to argue we should find any of this plausible, or are you going to heed the critique and frame your accusations of Greer again, with evidence that will be more convincing?

 

[manifesto]

Already did.

Rifling on bullets and fragments matches the Mannlicher Carcano recovered on the 6th floor of the depository.

According to whom?

Fingerprints and palm prints on the weapon match Oswald.

If so, how did they get on the rifle?

An order form provided by the vendor shows the rifle was shipped to Oswald's PO box. Oswald was photographed posing with the same rifle.

A photograph from an alleged original microfilm is exactly that, a photograph.

Where is the original microfilm?

 

[Tomtomkent]

There were no citing given, only the ”link”.

Is the word you were looking for "Citations".

It has been shown in this thread, that even when the post includes a description, or a description is later given, you choose not to post links.

I still await that given this, why anybody should feel obliged to engage with you?

Perhaps if you clicked the links, knowing they are supporting evidence or pertinent articles from the context of the post, you might not have to complain so often that nobody is answering your questions.

 

[Tomtomkent]

A photograph from an alleged original microfilm is exactly that, a photograph.

Good. It's a photograph. That means you can tell us if there is any evidence of tampering in it, any photoartefacts indicating editing or alteration.
Are there any?
If you believe the copies do not include accurate information, or are inaccurate copies, you can show us evidence of these inaccuracies. You can supply testimony to the WC, or alternate documentations that show it was not as described?
Given the entire trail of custody has been previously shown in posts in this thread, reposted by Hank since you rejoined the conversation, you can of course highlight where exactly the switch or alteration was made, or some flaw in the process that can only be explained by these documents being fundamentally flawed?

I'm guessing not.

What reasonable expectation do you have of the original microfilms to be available now, given they are the fifty year old records of a private business?

If they were produced, having been stored in private hands without a trail of custody protocol, would that make them more, less, or as reliable as the copies contained in the archive?

 

[manifesto]

You argue from behaviour you *claim* to be suspicious, but offer no reason *why* it is such: You have not shown it is outside the spectrum of responses one might reasonably expect from somebody in the same situation. You have not shown it is outside the behaviour we would expect in general, or in his personal case.

I have listed the reasons for my suspicion. It is you who have to give a plausible alternative axplanation to the listed reasons.

Onto this you apply a "plausible motive" that you then argue should not be applied to JFK, despite your posting JFK's own opinion as you *evidence*.

Despite? How come?

Are you going to continue to argue we should find any of this plausible, or are you going to heed the critique and frame your accusations of Greer again, with evidence that will be more convincing?

I have not argued that any of my resons for suspicion are proof of his quilt, my argument is still that Greers behaviour was very suspicious and in case of guilt, a plausible motive in case he was guilty of taking part in the conspiracy.

As i said, much of the security arrangements around JFK’s visit to Dallas was destroyed after the ARRB repetedly requested the documents according to JFK Records Act.

That is a felony, and knowledge of guilt.

 

[manifesto]

Good. It's a photograph. That means you can tell us if there is any evidence of tampering in it, any photoartefacts indicating editing or alteration.
Are there any?
If you believe the copies do not include accurate information, or are inaccurate copies, you can show us evidence of these inaccuracies. You can supply testimony to the WC, or alternate documentations that show it was not as described?
Given the entire trail of custody has been previously shown in posts in this thread, reposted by Hank since you rejoined the conversation, you can of course highlight where exactly the switch or alteration was made, or some flaw in the process that can only be explained by these documents being fundamentally flawed?

I'm guessing not.

What reasonable expectation do you have of the original microfilms to be available now, given they are the fifty year old records of a private business?

If they were produced, having been stored in private hands without a trail of custody protocol, would that make them more, less, or as reliable as the copies contained in the archive?

So, why a photograph of the evidence? Why not the evidence?

 

[manifesto]

Is the word you were looking for "Citations".

It has been shown in this thread, that even when the post includes a description, or a description is later given, you choose not to post links.

I still await that given this, why anybody should feel obliged to engage with you?

Perhaps if you clicked the links, knowing they are supporting evidence or pertinent articles from the context of the post, you might not have to complain so often that nobody is answering your questions.

It has been shown in this thread that ”the thread” is regarded a sufficient reference to a specific claim.

To that, you will add ”a link”?

 

[manifesto]

You make your claim on the assumption that he was screened by the Secret Service to insure his abilities under stress. Every year hundreds of "trained professionals" fail to do their job in a moment of crisis.

This is not suspicious, it's human.

That has to be investigated in every case. In the case of Greer, he lied to the investigators.

But I’ll take it that ”lying” is also ”human”?

 

[Tomtomkent]

If so, how did they get on the rifle?

The prints lifted were latent prints.
They were revealed by a powder medium, and lifted from the surface, along with locating marks of the rifle.
Latent prints are formed from oils excreted by skin contact. They were invisible until lifted, and can only be lifted from the rifle, because of the locating marks.

The obvious answer is because Oswald, who owned the rifle, held it with his naked hand while capable of perspiring.

Would you like to posit another method by which his prints could have gotten there?

Would you like to show evidence for such tampering?

If not, your question, and conspiracy innuendo, is moot.

 

[Tomtomkent]

That has to be investigated in every case. In the case of Greer, he lied to the investigators.

But I’ll take it that ”lying” is also ”human”?

Would you care to prove this post with actual evidence?
Can you show a deliberate lie was told?

All you have shown is that Greer was as prone to confusion and inaccuracy in his memories as any other human, within a high stress situation. To show he lied would require you to show he made a deliberate choice deceive.

How exactly does one do that?

Is Greer no innocent unless you prove him guilty?

 

[Tomtomkent]

It has been shown in this thread that ”the thread” is regarded a sufficient reference to a specific claim.

To that, you will add ”a link”?

Oh, sorry, if you didn't know how to use the search facility, you could have just asked:

So, Axxman300, how do you know that Oswald killed JFK?

And Hank answered thus:

Wrong question. The evidence accumulated in multiple investigations points to Oswald and no one else.

That's the default explanation of the evidence at this point.

For a variety of reasons, not least because of Occam's razor.

So the proper question is what new evidence do you bring to the table to overturn the default explanation?

To which you replied:

No, you are wrong. The default is, innocent until proven guilty.

Give me your best ”accumulated” evidence for Oswalds guilt.

As has been explained, history does not default to innocent until proven guilty, that is a legal, not a historical, standing. History defaults to a null hypothesis based on the accumulated evidence.

As has been pointed out before that accumulated evidence can simply be summed up as "the Warren Commission evidence", but as you refuse to simply go and read that, we can only assume that you mean the *discussion* rather than the evidence, or when the evidence was presented in the discussion.

You will note this is not a specific request. I am not going to link to every relevant post in which new evidence was presented, nor will I hunt for posts on your behalf when you bring matters back to the top of the discussion.

The discussion starts here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=222556

 

[bknight]

Slight hijack
This discourse reminds me of a of an individual arguing the manned landings on the Moon were a hoax because no "evidence" existed that they did. Everything claimed by NASA could have be accomplished with robots or on Earth. Thus completely disregarding any/all evidence in favor of his belief.
manifesto reminds me of this guy.
Hijack complete.

 

[HSienzant]

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

My presumption is the microfilm was returned to Klein's Sporting Goods when the Warren Commission investigation was complete. It was part of their business records, after all, and there was other customers' records and other documentation on that microfilm spool than just Oswald's order.

Why do you ask?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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

But the suspicious behavior isn't that suspicious when we examine it. Yellow lines 'recently painted' on the curb? When is 'recent'? Document this?

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

Those yellow lines painted on the curb mark where Greer was to be shot.

JFK's normal driver died under mysterious circumstances to put Greer in the driver's seat during the shooting.

All your arguments work with JFK trying to kill Greer as well as in the reverse.

Your arguments are nonsense.

Hank

 

[RoboTimbo]

According to whom?

So you know nothing of the assassination?

If so, how did they get on the rifle?

Are you saying it wasn't on the rifle?

A photograph from an alleged original microfilm is exactly that, a photograph.

Where is the original microfilm?

Are you claiming there is no original microfilm?

 

[HSienzant]

Duplicate posting deleted.

Hank

 

[Whip]

Yellow lines 'recently painted' on the curb? When is 'recent'? Document this?

does it matter when one doesn't know what yellow curbs indicate to begin with? I'll even throw him a bone and agree they may have been 're'-painted the day/days before the parade. so what? That's just what towns do before a parade.......spruce things up.

my town has a street sweeper come through my street a day or two before the Memorial Day parade every year. Has someone been assassinated on my street every year and I just not know it?

 

[HSienzant]

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.

Yes. That is documented in the questioning of Waldman. The FBI took the microfilm -- marked by Waldman on 11/22/63 and identified by Waldman during his testimony as the one the FBI took -- and the Warren Commission counsel David Belin had it in his possession when he took Waldman's testimony.

Printed paper copies were made of the original microfilm records and those copies became Warren Commission exhibits. Those paper copies are reproduced in the Warren Commission 26 volumes of evidence. You can see them yourself if you so desire:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0358b.htm

Or?

There is no "OR". The above is what happened.

== 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.
== UNQUOTE ==

Hank