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

[RoboTimbo]

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

And I think you agree that they are specious.

Despite? How come?

I have not argued that any of my resons for suspicion are proof of his quilt,

So you AREN'T claiming Greer is guilty of anything?

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.

So you ARE claiming Greer is guilty of something?

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.

Citation required.

You really aren't very good at this, are you. You should stick to a subject that you know something about.

 

[HSienzant]

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

You ignored the content of my post entirely. Try answering the questions I asked.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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

No, shifting the burden of proof. Suspicions are not evidence. You need to provide evidence of guilt, not evidence of suspicions.

Another approach would be to question your reasons for your suspicions, and point out the issues with those. We have. You made assertions you could not establish (recently painted curb, mysterious heart attack, no autopsy) and argue from those non-existent 'facts' to find your suspicions.

And as we've seen, even granting the stuff you find suspicious (the curb, the death of the other driver, the religions of each), the 'evidence' you provided works with JFK as the plotter as well as JFK as the victim.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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

What are you babbling about?

The microfilm itself is a photograph of the original documents. That's how Klein's retained the large volume of orders and shipments and receipts that would otherwise fill up multiple filing cabinets.

Do you understand what microfilm is? It takes an entire page of a newspaper and shrinks it down to a picture about two inches by one inch. The original is then discarded, and the copies on microfilm are the business records. THEY ARE PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE AS EVIDENCE.

I answered that question two and a half years ago for all time in my point one here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11029667&postcount=503

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.

How many different ways and how many times are you going to ask the same questions, as if they are meaningful? How many different ways do we have to explain it before you stop asking the same meaningless questions?

Hank

 

[pgwenthold]

I know a lot of a lot of efforts do ”debunk” HSCA’s acoustical investigations. I know of none that has actually succeded in doing that.
.

Where was the open mic?

The conclusion that there was a second shooter REQUIRES that the mic be in a specific location.

What mic was in that location?

HINT: there was no motorcycle cop in the required location, nor one with a stuck mic anywhere in Dealey plaza. The stuck mic was sitting at the Trade Mart.

 

[HSienzant]

Full Fringe Reset to December of 2015.

 

[manifesto]

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

I ask beacause the microfilm is the evidence allegedly proving Oswald buying the alleged murder weapon and therefore per inference, that Oswald killed JFK.

Why not let Klein have a copy of the original and keep the evidence in the Commission collections? Why settle for a photograph of the evidence?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I ask beacause the microfilm is the evidence allegedly proving Oswald buying the alleged murder weapon and therefore per inference, that Oswald killed JFK.

Why not let Klein have a copy of the original and keep the evidence in the Commission collections? Why settle for a photograph of the evidence?

You really don't understand?

 

[manifesto]

Where was the open mic?

The conclusion that there was a second shooter REQUIRES that the mic be in a specific location.

What mic was in that location?

HINT: there was no motorcycle cop in the required location,

HINT: how do you know this? The ”drummer” from Ohio?

nor one with a stuck mic anywhere in Dealey plaza.

How do you know this?

 

[RoboTimbo]

HINT: how do you know this? The ”drummer” from Ohio?

How do you know this?

Where was the open mic? Answer the question.

 

[HSienzant]

I ask beacause the microfilm is the evidence allegedly proving Oswald buying the alleged murder weapon and therefore per inference, that Oswald killed JFK.

No, the Klein's business records is the evidence proving Oswald purchased the weapon bearing the serial number C2766 that was found on the sixth floor of the Depository.

And the Commission has copies of those records directly from the microfilm.

The original paper records were discarded after the microfilm was created, and the microfilm became the Klein's permanent business records.

Readable copies of Oswald's transaction with Klein's was printed at the microfilm reader / printer during Waldman's testimony, entered into evidence, and those became the Warren Commission's records of the transaction.

Why was it necessary to retain the microfilm in the Commission records? What's the problem with those paper copies now in existence now in the Archives?

When you go to your public library and ask for copies of the New York Times from the weekend of the assassination, do you get the original paper copies, or do you get microfilm or electronic copies?

If you wish a paper copy of some article to retain for your records, do you take the microfilm home with you, or do you make a separate printed copy of the article from the microfilm and return the microfilm to the rightful owner?

Is your paper photocopy of the original article from the microfilm of the original printed NY Times newspaper somehow less valid because you printed it from the microfilm?

Really, your argument here is meaningless. Beyond meaningless.

Why not let Klein have a copy of the original and keep the evidence in the Commission collections? Why settle for a photograph of the evidence?

Because the microfilm contained more than just Oswald's transactions. The Warren Commission didn't need to retain the microfilm once they had photocopies of Oswald's transactions. You can view those photocopies starting here: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0358b.htm

Those photocopies of Oswald's business transactions from the microfilm of Klein's business records are suitable as evidence.

Really, you're just looking for something to quibble over.

ALL THIS WAS EXPLAINED TO YOU BACK IN GREAT DETAIL IN DECEMBER OF 2015.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11029667&postcount=503
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11044963&postcount=580
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11045829&postcount=587
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11046072&postcount=593
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11046201&postcount=595

Why are you bringing it up again, now, anew?

Why can't you review the thread and read up on it?
Why must it be reposted for your benefit again?

Hank

 

[traxy]

According to whom?

Ballistics experts for the FBI.

If so, how did they get on the rifle?

The way prints typically get on surfaces. From Oswald handling the rifle.

This isn't exactly a stretch. We have a first generation photograph of him holding that exact weapon (and a signed copy too).

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

Where is the original microfilm?

I don't know. Either it's in the archives or it was returned to Klein's. The FBI got the relevant information from it.

 

[carlitos]

The next frame of the microfilm had Obama's Kenyan birth certificate. They had to return it to the "Klein's" location so that the truth wouldn't come out.

 

[bknight]

Full Fringe Reset to December of 2015.

But of course and with a new tactic perhaps, just continue to ask questions without answering any.

 

[manifesto]

Ballistics experts for the FBI.

Can you source it so I know what you are vaguely alluding to?

The way prints typically get on surfaces. From Oswald handling the rifle.

How do you know this? How do you know they wasn’t put there from print taken of Oswald before and/or after his execution in the DPD’s basement?

This isn't exactly a stretch. We have a first generation photograph of him holding that exact weapon

So, you are using one photo of evidence in order to support another photo of evidence and vice versa in a self reinforcing loop?

(and a signed copy too).

Signed by Oswald? According to whom?

I don't know. Either it's in the archives or it was returned to Klein's. The FBI got the relevant information from it.

The films box is still in FBI’s care, but the film, the actual evidence, isn’t there and no one knows where it is.

Why save a photograph of the evidence and not the evidence it self?

 

[HSienzant]

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

It's a photocopy... commonly called a Xerox copy, after the company that invented the photocopier. Today those machines are ubiquitous. It's not a photograph, as in 'taken with a camera'.

Where is the original microfilm?

Asked and answered. Back in December of 2015.

Use the search function.

Hank

 

[pgwenthold]

HINT: how do you know this? The ”drummer” from Ohio?

Because there is no identifiable motorcycle cop near that spot when the shots occurred, and certainly none with their mic stuck.

(HINT: Can't be McLain, because when he was told to go the hospital, he hit his siren on. It's not on the recording. Well, maybe not. The siren heard on the recording could be his, but it is from a stationery bike (that's why it has the doppler effect) as the sirens go by it. If the open mic were on McLain's bike, it would be constant pitch and volume. Of course, McLain also says he wasn't in the right spot)

 

[manifesto]

But of course and with a new tactic perhaps, just continue to ask questions without answering any.

What questions do you want me to answer?

You are many. I am one.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Can you source it so I know what you are vaguely alluding to?

Are you unable to find it?

How do you know this? How do you know they wasn’t put there from print taken of Oswald before and/or after his execution in the DPD’s basement?

Are you claiming the print came to be there in another way?

So, you are using one photo of evidence in order to support another photo of evidence and vice versa in a self reinforcing loop?

What are you using?

Signed by Oswald? According to whom?

Are you claiming it wasn't Oswald's signature?

The films box is still in FBI’s care, but the film, the actual evidence, isn’t there and no one knows where it is.

Why save a photograph of the evidence and not the evidence it self?

What is your explanation?

 

[HSienzant]

Can you source it so I know what you are vaguely alluding to?

I thought you were well-read on the subject? Why aren't you pointing out the problems with the known evidence instead of asking us to walk you through everything a step at a time?

Here's the Warren Report.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/wc/contents_wr.htm

Read it and tell us what issues you have problems with and why. Be specific. Tell us what evidence supports your conclusions. Get back to us when you're actually familiar with this evidence. Or when you decide to drop the "I don't know where the evidence is, I can't find any" game you're playing.

So, you are using one photo of evidence in order to support another photo of evidence and vice versa in a self reinforcing loop?

Copies of business records are admissible in criminal court trials. I even quoted the Federal Rules of Evidence on this.

The films box is still in FBI’s care, but the film, the actual evidence, isn’t there and no one knows where it is.

According to whom?

Why save a photograph of the evidence and not the evidence it self?

Asked and answered.

Hank