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

[RoboTimbo]

What questions do you want me to answer?

You are many. I am one.

Start from where you came back to the thread after you ran away from it a year or more ago. All those questions you've been asked and have run away from again.

 

[traxy]

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

https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_F2_Findings.pdf

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?

The prints were lifted and/or photographed by both the DPD and FBI on the night of the assassination and witnessed by multiple people. There is no evidence that they were planted.

And again, we have an authenticated photograph of him holding that same rifle, and a signed copy of the same.

Signed by Oswald? According to whom?

George deMohrenschild. A handwriting panel with the House Select Committee verified that the writing on the back of the photograph belongs to Lee Harvey Oswald. Feel free to read their report here.

http://jfkassassination.net/parnell/hscahand.htm

So we have an authenticated photo with Oswald's authenticated signature showing him holding the same rifle that was recovered from the 6th floor of his workplace, a rifle that bore his prints and was ballistically linked to recovered bullets and fragments from the shooting.

 

[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?

The microfilm is the evidence vs. alleged photograph of said evidence.

Why settle for a photo of the evidence and not the evidence it self?

 

[HSienzant]

So we have an authenticated photo with Oswald's authenticated signature showing him holding the same rifle that was recovered from the 6th floor of his workplace, a rifle that bore his prints and was ballistically linked to recovered bullets and fragments from the shooting.

And a documented paper trail starting with an order form, a money order, and a stamped envelope in his handwriting that establishes he ordered a Carcano.

And documented copies of the business records from Klein's establishing he was shipped a rifle bearing the same serial number - C2766 - as that recovered at his place of work.

Manifesto must question all that, and find some reason to reject it all.

Not because there is something wrong with any of that.

Oh no, it's not that at all. It's because Manifesto is a conspiracy theorist, and he believes in a conspiracy. Ergo, all the evidence must be somehow wrong, no matter how much of it we have. Not because he can prove it wrong. Only because it conflicts with his belief that there is a conspiracy and Oswald was framed.

Hence the rationalization that we don't have the original microfilm (he claims, but no proof of that assertion is offered), and thus, his argument on display now that any evidence derived from the original microfilm is therefore suspect.

Hank

 

[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.

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?

Still, I argue from behavior, not from motive as you stated. No matter how you regard said behavior.

You made a faulty statement. Again.

 

[HSienzant]

The microfilm is the evidence vs. alleged photograph of said evidence.

Why settle for a photo of the evidence and not the evidence it self?

What part of 'the evidence itself is itself a microcopy of the original paper documents that were then discarded' don't you understand?

What part of 'paper copies of the microfilm records were made during Waldman's testimony and are perfectly acceptable as evidence' don't you understand?

What part of 'you keep asserting the microfilm is missing but haven't established that' don't you understand?

You're quibbling not because there's any problem with the evidence, but because you just don't want to accept the evidence.

See the Federal Rules of Evidence.
- Tell us why the Waldman exhibits are not acceptable.
- Cite for the source of YOUR claim that the microfilm is not available.

We'll wait and watch as you punt again.

Hank

 

[pgwenthold]

What questions do you want me to answer?

Well, I asked you to tell us all where the open mike was at the time of the shooting.

I also advised you not to suggest it was McLain, because there is no basis for asserting that his mike was open (and lots of basis for concluding it was not)

 

[manifesto]

What part of 'the evidence itself is itself a microcopy of the original paper documents that were then discarded' don't you understand?

What part of 'paper copies of the microfilm records were made during Waldman's testimony and are perfectly acceptable as evidence' don't you understand?

What part of 'you keep asserting the microfilm is missing but haven't established that' don't you understand?

You're quibbling not because there's any problem with the evidence, but because you just don't want to accept the evidence.

See the Federal Rules of Evidence.
- Tell us why the Waldman exhibits are not acceptable.
- Cite for the source of YOUR claim that the microfilm is not available.

We'll wait and watch as you punt again.

Hank

Instead of having to forge a microfilm, they only need to forge an order form and than photograph it. There is also potential additional info on the microfilm on another sold Carcano which could illuminate the alleged purchase from an alleged A. Hidell.

And then you have the evidence from Crescent Arms who allegedly sold the alleged murder weapon to Kleins. All records have disapeared. Only photographs was shown by the FBI to the Commission and are now archived among its collections at NARA.

Why settle with photographs of evidence instead of the evidence? The assassination of the Century. No need for evidence. Photographs of it will suffice?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Instead of having to forge a microfilm, they only need to forge an order form and than photograph it.

So you're claiming it was forged? Now you need compelling evidence of that.

There is also potential additional info on the microfilm on another sold Carcano which could illuminate the alleged purchase from an alleged A. Hidell.

You'll need compelling evidence for this "additional info".

And then you have the evidence from Crescent Arms who allegedly sold the alleged murder weapon to Kleins. All records have disapeared. Only photographs was shown by the FBI to the Commission and are now archived among its collections at NARA.

And? What are you claiming here?

Why settle with photographs of evidence instead of the evidence? The assassination of the Century. No need for evidence. Photographs of it will suffice?

Is there anyone IRL who could explain to you what's already been explained to you? You seem very resistant to learning some basic concepts.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The microfilm is the evidence vs. alleged photograph of said evidence.

Why settle for a photo of the evidence and not the evidence it self?

So... just to be clear.
The photograph of the document on a microfiche spool is evidence, but a copy of that image printed on paper, is not evidence?
Surely by this same logic only the paper originals would be evidence?

This makes no sense. Historians use prints of microfiche or microfilm, all the time. It is standard practise.

As a solicitor or barrister what you are suggesting would offer severe problems.

The owner of the documents would have no need to offer hundreds, or even thousands, of pages of documents to the FBI, that are irrelevant to the case, and contain the personal details of their clients. It would be a breach of confidentiality.
The FBI, should they try and demand the entire spool, would be unlikely to have a warrant granted. Only the receipt for one purchase is pertinent, and the documents for that purchase can be printed off and provided.

If you wish to suggest a way in which the print out has been manipulated, please do so, supplying evidence that shows said tampering.

Otherwise, on what grounds should we suspect the print was inaccurate?

 

[traxy]

So... just to be clear.
The photograph of the document on a microfiche spool is evidence, but a copy of that image printed on paper, is not evidence?
Surely by this same logic only the paper originals would be evidence?

This makes no sense. Historians use prints of microfiche or microfilm, all the time. It is standard practise.

Plus, Klein's themselves participated in retrieving the order info on the night of the shooting. Any claim that the microfilm capture has been faked would have to involve them too.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Still, I argue from behavior, not from motive as you stated. No matter how you regard said behavior.

You made a faulty statement. Again.

I stand corrected.
You made a flawed, ignorant, and racist assessment of a motive you have been unable to justify or substantiate after a groundless claim about his actions, neither of which are plausible.
I am happy to apologise for my mistake.

Now, please note that the core complaint: That your flimsy claim of a motive can equally be applied to JFK, and does not equate to a plausible motive, or in any way substantiate your *suspicions* about Mr Greer's actions still stand.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Instead of having to forge a microfilm, they only need to forge an order form and than photograph it. There is also potential additional info on the microfilm on another sold Carcano which could illuminate the alleged purchase from an alleged A. Hidell.

And then you have the evidence from Crescent Arms who allegedly sold the alleged murder weapon to Kleins. All records have disapeared. Only photographs was shown by the FBI to the Commission and are now archived among its collections at NARA.

Why settle with photographs of evidence instead of the evidence? The assassination of the Century. No need for evidence. Photographs of it will suffice?

Simple question:
Is it, or was it, common practise to take copies of documents into the record of evidence during criminal investigation?

 

[manifesto]

I stand corrected.
You made a flawed, ignorant, and racist assessment of a motive you have been unable to justify or substantiate after a groundless claim about his actions, neither of which are plausible.
I am happy to apologise for my mistake.

First time in my life I have been called a racist. I’m quoting Greers son saying that his father did not like JFK on reasons of ethnicity/race and I AM a racist??

Nuts.

Now, please note that the core complaint: That your flimsy claim of a motive can equally be applied to JFK, and does not equate to a plausible motive, or in any way substantiate your *suspicions* about Mr Greer's actions still stand.

When, how and where did JFK in that case trying to kill Greer? Do you have any evidence of JFK not liking Greer? For his ethnicity?

 

[manifesto]

Simple question:
Is it, or was it, common practise to take copies of documents into the record of evidence during criminal investigation?

Wrong question. Is it, or was it, common practise not to secure chain of custody, photograph the evidence and then through away same evidence while keeping the alleged photographs?

Show me.

 

[Tomtomkent]

First time in my life I have been called a racist. I’m quoting Greers son saying that his father did not like JFK on reasons of ethnicity/race and I AM a racist??

Nuts.

When, how and where did JFK in that case trying to kill Greer? Do you have any evidence of JFK did not like Greer? For his ethnicity?

I have not called you racist. I have pointed out your argument is a crude racist stereotype in the hope you see why it is insulting and reconsider how it is stated.

YOU presented as evidence of the divide JFKs own views.
Surely if Greer's motivation can be petty prejudice, so can JFKs.
How can you show that JFK did not choose that route to frame Greer?
That those "new" road markings were not placed there by a shadowy organisation to mark the point in which JFK would allow his marksman to take three shots at the car containing Greer?

I'm sorry, that is not a plausible motive, no matter whom claimed it.

And frankly, I find it disgusting anybody would try and frame survivor guilt for a man who just made mistakes in a life or death situation, as grounds for obsecene accusations you can not support.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Wrong question. Is it, or was it, common practise not to secure chain of custody, photograph the evidence and then through away same evidence while keeping the alleged photographs?

Show me.

Nope. I am asking a pertinent question. You are claiming there is some issue with obtaining a print of a microfiche document. Was obtaining that print common practise?

 

[HSienzant]

Instead of having to forge a microfilm, they only need to forge an order form and than photograph it.

Yep, as I stated, you're only looking for reasons to question the evidence.

Your claim above is false.

The paper copy now in existence came from the microfilm. We have the evidence for that in the testimony of Waldman. So the microfilm would have to be forged.

But again, from the testimony of Waldman, we know it wasn't, because he vouched that he marked it when he gave it to the FBI, and he vouched that it was the original microfilm when the copies were made. So the original microfilm wasn't forged, and the paper copies are sufficient.

Why aren't you accepting the photocopies in evidence, made by Waldman in the presence of Belin and entered into evidence at that time?

There is also potential additional info on the microfilm on another sold Carcano which could illuminate the alleged purchase from an alleged A. Hidell.

So no info that you know of? Right? And what more info do you need? We know what Oswald ordered (6.5 Carcano), we know what he paid for it ($21.45), we know what Klein's shipped (6.5 Carcano w/S# C2766), we know where it was shipped (PO Box 2915), and we know when it was shipped (March 20th). Do you need something else?

And then you have the evidence from Crescent Arms who allegedly sold the alleged murder weapon to Kleins. All records have disapeared.

Crescent Firearms doesn't exist anymore. And if they did, I doubt they would retain records from 55 years ago last month.

And if we had the originals, you would just claim they were faked, right?

And why does it matter WHERE Klein's got the weapon? All that matters is where Klein's shipped it -- to Oswald's PO Box 2915.

Only photographs was shown by the FBI to the Commission and are now archived among its collections at NARA.

Photocopies are admissible evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Why settle with photographs of evidence instead of the evidence? The assassination of the Century. No need for evidence. Photographs of it will suffice?

Photocopies are admissible evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
The microfilm itself is a microcopy of the original paper documents, so even if we had the microfilm, wouldn't you just complain we don't have the original paper documents?

Why aren't you accepting the photocopies in evidence, made by Waldman in the presence of Belin and entered into evidence at that time?

Oh, that's right, you're a conspiracy theorist, and you can't accept evidence pointing to Oswald, by definition. Otherwise you'd risk being drummed out of the CT Union.

Complain about being called a conspiracy theorist again, and the negative connotations thereof. But in your posts we see exactly why conspiracy theorists have such a bad reputation. You reject any evidence pointing anywhere except a conspiracy, you post suspicions, and hearsay, and innuendo, you don't document your claims, you repeat your claims even after they are shown to be wrong.

If 'conspiracy theorist' has a pejorative context, it's easy to understand why.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Federal Rules of Evidence regarding Business Records once more:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803

(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 or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.

Ball in your court. The Waldman exhibits are copies of Klein's business records. Show why they are not admissible.

Hank

 

[OKBob]

You are many. I am one.

Don't start with self-pity about being challenged by multiple critics--a common ploy of CTists on this list. You came on and asked for this.