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

[traxy]

He didn’t buy the rifle. FBI fabricated the paper trial in order to connect him to the alleged murder weapon.

Absolute nonsense.

There is no evidence at all that the paper trail was fabricated.

Oswald was photographed with the weapon FFS. He signed the back of it. The print and negative were found to be genuine, unaltered and matched to the Oswalds Imperial Reflex camera to the exclusion of all other cameras. Oswald signed the back of George deMohrenschild's copy, a signature matched to Oswald by handwriting experts.

Any claim you make about the validity of the paper trail has to be viewed through that lens. We know FOR A FACT that he possessed the rifle in March of 1963.

Knowing that fact, everything else lines up.

- The order form and money order with his alias and handwriting found to be at best a match for Oswald or at worst inconclusive due to it being a photocopy.

- The prints on the rifle found in the depository. Quibble all you want about the palm print, the fingerprints on the trigger guard were Oswalds. 24 points of match.

- The paper bag in the depository with Oswalds prints that was large enough to carry the disassembled Carcano.

- Fibers in the bottom of the paper bag matching fibers from the blanket in the Paines garage where Oswald was thought to store his rifle.

- Fibers in the butt of the rifle shown to be the same as fibers in the shirt Oswald wore to work the day of the shooting.

 

[smartcooky]

Absolute nonsense.

There is no evidence at all that the paper trail was fabricated.

It certainly is!

The evidence of Oswalds ownership is a fence, not a chain. In order for manifesto's claim that the paper trail was fabricated to be valid, he MUST provide evidence that refutes EACH AND EVERY part of that fence and proves that it was fabricated (the parts that must be refuted and proved fabricated are highlighted in red in the rest of your post below)

Oswald was photographed with the weapon FFS. He signed the back of it. The print and negative were found to be genuine, unaltered and matched to the Oswalds Imperial Reflex camera to the exclusion of all other cameras. Oswald signed the back of George deMohrenschild's copy, a signature matched to Oswald by handwriting experts.

Any claim you make about the validity of the paper trail has to be viewed through that lens. We know FOR A FACT that he possessed the rifle in March of 1963.

Knowing that fact, everything else lines up.

- The order form and money order with his alias and handwriting found to be at best a match for Oswald or at worst inconclusive due to it being a photocopy.

- The prints on the rifle found in the depository. Quibble all you want about the palm print, the fingerprints on the trigger guard were Oswalds. 24 points of match.

- The paper bag in the depository with Oswalds prints that was large enough to carry the disassembled Carcano.

- Fibers in the bottom of the paper bag matching fibers from the blanket in the Paines garage where Oswald was thought to store his rifle.

- Fibers in the butt of the rifle shown to be the same as fibers in the shirt Oswald wore to work the day of the shooting.

 

[HSienzant]

He didn’t buy the rifle. FBI fabricated the paper trial in order to connect him to the alleged murder weapon.

This was covered three weeks ago with you, and 29 months ago with you, and you ignored the evidence each time.

I pointed out the facts to you 29 months ago. I pointed out the facts to you three weeks ago. Why should anyone take you seriously, given you completely and thoroughly ignore any evidence you don't like?

Why are you repeating claims everyone can see are not true?

Here's my post from three weeks ago, in which I reference the exchange from 29 months ago:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12259172&postcount=1223

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

 

[Axxman300]

Comming from you, I’ll take that as warm compliment. Thank you.

It's almost as good as your command of Irish history.

He was still CIA’s informal leader at the time of the assassination. Most of the old boys network were still loyal to him. Where were Allen at the time of the assassination? In his private bunker/appartment/HQ at the ”Farm”, CIA’s training facilities in Virginia. The whole weekend.

That's not how things work, and you'll need to cite evidence.

I’m convinced that most of the cowards taking part in the assassination of president Kennedy, did it as ”good patriots”, saving the country from a ”pinky” traitor in the White house.

Of course you're convinced. The fact was that JFK was a respected combat veteran, something that carried weight in D.C. in the 1960's. People may have disagreed with some of his politics, but no one questioned his commitment to the US, and ultimately a communist-free world. His foreign policy was purely anti-communist.

He was a corrupt sociopath doing anything to promote his own power and wealth. Anything. Lying to Congress to get a free pass with Vietnam, sacrificing millions of innocent human beings in Indochina including almost 70 000 young Americans in a cruel and pointless war he knew could not be won.

1. Congress knew he was lying but went along.
2. It's 58,209 Americans killed under 4 Presidents.
3. He knew it couldn't be won because the CIA told him so in 1964,1965, 1966, 1967, and just gave up .

With the Baker scandal closing in and knowing he would be droppen from the 64 election ticket, probably facing long time in prison, he had nothing to lose and everything to gain.

LBJ had no business dealings with Bobby Baker. The claims that he did came from Barry Goldwater and his campaign.

No he did not believe that Cuba was behind the assassination. He knew they were not, but used it as a blanket threat in order to cover up all signs of conspiracy, including the real one, of which he himself was a part

.

In the months and years that followed, Johnson remained ambivalent, torn between his loyalty to John Kennedy and his antipathy toward Robert. In October of 1968, shortly before leaving office, he volunteered a piece of information to the veteran newsman Howard K. Smith, whom he deeply respected. "I'll tell you something [about John Kennedy's murder] that will rock you," he said. "Kennedy was trying to get to Castro, but Castro got to him first." "I was rocked all right," Smith later recalled; he begged for details. But Johnson refused to provide any, saying only, "It will all come out one day." Johnson was so obviously worn down by the bitterness of his years in office that Smith was left wondering if he had just witnessed a last bit of Johnson blarney.

Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2004/06/the-assassination-tapes/302964/

No. You haven’t got a clue do you?

No clues, just facts.

In case this is true, he could easily have let Hoover go after his second inauguration and Hoover knew this.

Uh huh...and that would have ended the entire Kennedy family's political future.

Easy to hide if you have the power over the the investigation. Which he and his neigbour and long time friend the new US president Johnson, certainly had.

And, they succeeded.

Yet the newly released FBI documents, and the old documents show that the FBI was actively working to attach Oswald to a larger conspiracy.

Hoovers MO, yes, when an agent ”embarrassed the Bureau”, as Hosty’s little note from Oswald apparently did.

The FBI ran him out of the Bureau.

No. He was willfully ’hands of’ beacause he was the designated patsy.

Only in CT Land.

He didn’t buy the rifle. FBI fabricated the paper trial in order to connect him to the alleged murder weapon.

Already discussed and shown to be a worn-out CT lie.

Oswald bought the weapon, posed for 2 photos with it, was seen by neighbors dry-firing it, and was seen at a shooting range with his "Italian rifle".

If your only knowledge of US history comes from JFK-CT websites then you have no knowledge.

 

[bknight]

This was covered three weeks ago with you, and 29 months ago with you, and you ignored the evidence each time.

I pointed out the facts to you 29 months ago. I pointed out the facts to you three weeks ago. Why should anyone take you seriously, given you completely and thoroughly ignore any evidence you don't like?

Why are you repeating claims everyone can see are not true?

Here's my post from three weeks ago, in which I reference the exchange from 29 months ago:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12259172&postcount=1223

It's obvious that the FBI forged documents to prove LHO guilty.

 

[smartcooky]

Whatever.

I’m not excluding rifles with silencers, no. You do?

Wow. Violently. It is hardly discernable. I have no firm belief in any of the alternatives, I’m just listing them as possible alternatives, nothing more.

If I have to pick one I pick the silencer.

How do you reconcile your claim that silencers were used, with your claim that witnesses heard shots from the grassy knoll?

If the shots were silenced, witnesses would not have heard them.
If witnesses heard them, then the shots were not silenced.

Caught with your pants down again manifesto!

 

[manifesto]

How do you reconcile your claim that silencers were used, with your claim that witnesses heard shots from the grassy knoll?

If the shots were silenced, witnesses would not have heard them.
If witnesses heard them, then the shots were not silenced.

Caught with your pants down again manifesto!

I do not claim that silencers were used, I claim it as a possibility, and no, your logical faculties doesn’t grasp the possibilty that rifles without silencers as well as rifles with silencers could have been used at the same time by different shooters.

A possibility not to be excluded a priori ≠ a fact.

 

[manifesto]

A president too good to fail?

Que?

 

[manifesto]

CTs always complain how easy photos and film is to fake... and never identify any photo-artefact to prove tampering. No overlain exposure, broken emulsion grain, signs of splicing or painting...

Odd that.

Possibly faked ≠ faked.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Possibly faked ≠ faked.

Entirely the point.
You have mentioned more than once that something might be faked, was possibly faked, etc, as though it is in any way relevant unless you can show it was faked. Conspiracy Innuendo is worth as much as telling us it might be magic.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I do not claim that silencers were used, I claim it as a possibility, and no, your logical faculties doesn’t grasp the possibilty that rifles without silencers as well as rifles with silencers could have been used at the same time by different shooters.

A possibility not to be excluded a priori ≠ a fact.

Supply evidence to support it as a possibility, or it isn’t a possibility.
As a rule of thumb: If something can’t shown to be more likely than JFK choosing to headbutt a bullet really hard, it isn’t worth suggesting.

 

[manifesto]

And the pictures of him with the Carcano and the revolver? All fabricated?

I claim that Oswald probably was completely innocent of being part in the assassination of JFK. If correct, the backyard photo/s have two alternative explanations:

1. They were faked with Oswalds head superimposed onto the body of another individual.

2. Oswald posing for the photos as part of him creating his legend as a communist revolutionary, borrowing the rifle and gun for dramaturgical effect.

I’m almost certain that Oswald was telling the truth when he stated that the photo was a fabrication with his head superimposed on the body of another individual and that he could prove how it was done.

I have also read through the controversy and come to the conclusion that the converging evidence for a fabrication is much stronger than the opposite.

However, I’m not keen on debating the photo/s at this moment in time since I’m in the middle of discussing the acoustic evidence.

I belive that the real guy in the photo is DPD’s Roscoe White and so do his children. I leave it at that for now.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Seriously though, the question is never “can silenced rifles be counted out” it is why they should be counted in:

There were no wounds suggesting a silenced bullet.
There are no wounds compatible with a silenced bullet.
No wounds compatible with a shot from the front.
There is no evidence of a silenced carbine in the short range over which they are accurate.
There were no high calibre silenced rifles available at the time.
There is no physical remnant of a bullet fired by any rifle but the carricano.

Why exactly do we need to ponder a rifle that fired bullets, that made no detectable impact upon the world and left no traces?

 

[Tomtomkent]

I claim that Oswald probably was completely innocent of being part in the assassination of JFK. If correct, the backyard photo/s have two alternative explanations:

1. They were faked with Oswalds head superimposed onto the body of another individual.

2. Oswald posing for the photos as part of him creating his legend as a communist revolutionary, borrowing the rifle and gun for dramaturgical effect.

I’m almost certain that Oswald was telling the truth when he stated that the photo was a fabrication with his head superimposed on the body of another individual and that he could prove how it was done.

I have also read through the controversy and come to the conclusion that the converging evidence for a fabrication is much stronger than the opposite.

However, I’m not keen on debating the photo/s at this moment in time since I’m in the middle of discussing the acoustic evidence.

I belive that the real guy in the photo is DPD’s Roscoe White and so do his children. I leave it at that for now.

You believe it was Roscoe White? You are not presuming him innocent until proven guilty then?

Hi hum.
A lot of waffle and no evidence.
No evidence to suggest Oswald did not own his own weapons.
No evidence of photographic tampering.
No evidence to suggest there was a need for a “legend”.
Nothing of any substance to support any of these accusations.

 

[manifesto]

Entirely the point.
You have mentioned more than once that something might be faked, was possibly faked, etc, as though it is in any way relevant unless you can show it was faked. Conspiracy Innuendo is worth as much as telling us it might be magic.

I’m trying to respond to a barrage of questions without being bogged down in any and all of them. For now, I’m stating that said ’evidence’ easily could have been faked just in order to undress it of its imposed onthological status as irrefutable.

Until time permits, I’ll leave it at that for now.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I’m trying to respond to a barrage of questions without being bogged down in any and all of them. For now, I’m stating that said ’evidence’ easily could have been faked just in order to undress it of its imposed onthological status as irrefutable.

Until time permits, I’ll leave it at that for now.

Ah the usual CT claim then: “I don’t have to believe it, it could be faked... by some method I won’t explain, and can’t be bothered to show it happened.”

If you want to be taken seriously, just support something with evidence.
Better yet: take all the time you need and write as long a post as you want to offer a fully formed theory, you believe better describes events, and support it with as much evidence as you can.

 

[Axxman300]

I claim that Oswald probably was completely innocent of being part in the assassination of JFK. If correct, the backyard photo/s have two alternative explanations:

1. They were faked with Oswalds head superimposed onto the body of another individual.

2. Oswald posing for the photos as part of him creating his legend as a communist revolutionary, borrowing the rifle and gun for dramaturgical effect.

Why only two? Why couldn't Oswald be a proud owner of a cool Italian rifle? He didn't know who he was going to kill when the pictures were taken, certainly not JFK at that time.

I’m almost certain that Oswald was telling the truth when he stated that the photo was a fabrication with his head superimposed on the body of another individual and that he could prove how it was done.

Yeah, because he had watched a lot of TV and was an expert spy. That or he was talking out of his rear end.

I have also read through the controversy and come to the conclusion that the converging evidence for a fabrication is much stronger than the opposite.

Yes, your reasoning skills are flawed. Faking a photograph adds more people in on the conspiracy, risking discovery.

However, I’m not keen on debating the photo/s at this moment in time since I’m in the middle of discussing the acoustic evidence.

Might as well, you're losing that argument too.

I belive that the real guy in the photo is DPD’s Roscoe White and so do his children. I leave it at that for now.

Except it wasn't, and there is money for the White children to say it was him.

There are two photos, not one. Marina was trying to hide the famous one in her shoe. It's not like he had an 8x10 framed on the wall.

 

[Axxman300]

I do not claim that silencers were used, I claim it as a possibility,

Which is why it is obvious you know nothing about guns. They were not a realistic option in 1963 for shooting anyone in Dealey Plaza.

and no, your logical faculties doesn’t grasp the possibilty that rifles without silencers as well as rifles with silencers could have been used at the same time by different shooters.

This is because he understands that no shooter worth his salt was going to use a silencer to fire on a target at a range beyond a few years, and that silencers were expensive, and that anyone who has even simply read up on shooting in 1963 would know they were not an option.

You're just blowing smoke.

There was one shooter, Lee Oswald, on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

 

[manifesto]

It's almost as good as your command of Irish history.

Name one statement I have made regarding Irish history that hasn’t been correct.

One.

That's not how things work, and you'll need to cite evidence.

You claimed that Dulles did not have the power and influence in CIA in order to use parts of it in a conspiracy to assassinate his sworn enemy, JFK.

I corrected your fallacy big time.

Of course you're convinced. The fact was that JFK was a respected combat veteran, something that carried weight in D.C. in the 1960's. People may have disagreed with some of his politics, but no one questioned his commitment to the US, and ultimately a communist-free world. His foreign policy was purely anti-communist.

Yes, he was fiercely anti communist and a decorated veteran, but he was more than that evident in his actions as the president of USA. Bay of Pigs. Berlin. Laos. Middle East. Vietnam 1, Cuban missile crisis, Vietnam 2, Kongo, Indonesia, Brazil, everywhere an international crisis developed he went against US Security State and took a peaceful stand instead of violent conflict. Consistently. Everytime.

THAT equaled to treason in the minds of the far Right.

1. Congress knew he was lying but went along.

Maybe some of them but far from all of them, no. And still, he was lying to the peoples elected representatives, singlehandendly causing millions of innocent human beings their deaths. Only a sociopath would do that.

2. It's 58,209 Americans killed under 4 Presidents.

Correct, my misstanke, I should have written ”almost 60 000 young americans”. And yes, less than 100 Americans died in Vietnam under JFK. Same same ...

3. He knew it couldn't be won because the CIA told him so in 1964,1965, 1966, 1967, and just gave up .

What?

LBJ had no business dealings with Bobby Baker. The claims that he did came from Barry Goldwater and his campaign.

Lol.

Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2004/06/the-assassination-tapes/302964/

Well, LBJ lied. He allways lied, even when he didn’t have to. He was a liar, and used the fear of nuclear Holocaust as an effective way of cover up the assassination of his predecessor, JFK.

It was a coup d’etat, and LBJ was their principal errand boy.

No clues, just facts.

Lol.

Uh huh...and that would have ended the entire Kennedy family's political future.

1. JFK gets elected to a second term.

2. Hoover gets the boot.

3. Hoover is completely powerless and not able to master any resources to wage a smear campaign on JFK and even if he could, it would amount to nothing more than reflecting badly on those who is behind it, Hoover included.

It was different times. Everybody knew that JFK was womanizer. Nobody talked about. As with LBJ.

Yet the newly released FBI documents, and the old documents show that the FBI was actively working to attach Oswald to a larger conspiracy.

Examples of this?

The FBI ran him out of the Bureau.

It was Hoovers MO to harass any agent who ”embarrassed the Bureau/himself” no matter if the agent had done anything wrong or not, yes.

Only in CT Land.

Yes I know that your designation of Reality is ”CT Land”. Strange as it is.

Already discussed and shown to be a worn-out CT lie.

Oswald bought the weapon, posed for 2 photos with it, was seen by neighbors dry-firing it,

What neighbors? The neighbors in New Orleans? Wrong, they never so him with a rifle, only reading books at the porch.

and was seen at a shooting range with his "Italian rifle".

WC came to the conclusion that it couldn’t possibly be Oswald since he was shown to be at other places with other people when those events took place.

That makes one wonder who it was that tried to impersonate Oswald shooting with italian rifles shortly before the assassination, doesn’t it?

If your only knowledge of US history comes from JFK-CT websites then you have no knowledge.

It comes from lots of years at the university and lots of years reading books not sanctioned by US officialdom.

Both. How about you?

 

[smartcooky]

I do not claim that silencers were used, I claim it as a possibility, and no, your logical faculties doesn’t grasp the possibilty that rifles without silencers as well as rifles with silencers could have been used at the same time by different shooters.

A possibility not to be excluded a priori ≠ a fact.

Oh, so now you are claiming a possible three shooters, two of them on the grassy knoll, one with a silencer one without... hilarious; this never gets old!

Perhaps you could take some time out of your busy schedule to explain where all these extra bullets went? Oh, don't tell me... the sooper seekrit alphabet soup chappies sneaked back into Dealey Plaza under cover of darkness with metal detectors and found them.