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

[RoboTimbo]

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.

Exept they've proven to be genuine. You can't change that fact.

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 would he borrow guns that he was known to own?

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.

The evidence says you are incorrect.

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.

Being told what to think by a CT website isn't the same as "reading through the controversy". The consilience of evidence, which you fail to understand, proves there was no such fabrication.

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.

That's because you know the photos have been proven to be genuine. What you fail to comprehend is how many times the acoustical crap has been debunked.

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've phrased it correctly as a mere belief based only on wishful thinking and being told what to think.

Your beliefs don't change reality and hoovering up CT idiocy from CT websites doesn't qualify you as being well-read on the subject. Have you ever tried reading anything reputable about the assassination?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I’m trying to respond to a barrage of questions without being bogged down in able to answer any and all of them.

FTFY

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.

If it was easily faked then you CTs (s) should be easily able to prove it. Why have none of you ever done that?

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

Typical CT. Don't any of you do anything original?

 

[Major Major]

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.

Juror Number Eight style:

"I have an alternative explanation . . . therefore reasonable doubt!!!"

Admittedly Juror Number Eight (from Twelve Angry Men, to clear it up) was violating jury procedure, which our contender isn't, since he isn't on a jury (fortunately).

Calling all the evidence forged is one thing. What is the proof?

 

[pgwenthold]

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!

.

4 shooters, in fact. Remember, manifesto insists that there were 4 shots from the 6th floor of the sbd. Two of them were too close together to be from 1 weapon So their must be 2 people shooring

 

[Tomtomkent]

Juror Number Eight style:

"I have an alternative explanation . . . therefore reasonable doubt!!!"

Admittedly Juror Number Eight (from Twelve Angry Men, to clear it up) was violating jury procedure, which our contender isn't, since he isn't on a jury (fortunately).

Calling all the evidence forged is one thing. What is the proof?

No doubt the Ghost will be shown as evidence of fakery, with no explanation of how a photograph of Oswald’s lawn, clearly in a different season with differing vegetation, was used to “fake” the photographs of him and his guns. Like we will have no evidence of any accusation of faked records.

 

[smartcooky]

And just for clarity manifesto,

If you claim that something actually happened (such as claiming the existence of a shooter on the grassy knoll) you are expected to present evidence in support of that claim.

If you claim that something possibly happened (such as claiming there were possibly shooters in Dealey Plaza with silenced rifles) you are expected to present evidence to show why you think your claim is possible.

So far, your posts in this thread have been nothing more than bare, unsupported assertions, unevidenced claims and pointless brain-wanking. You have also tried on numerous occasions to shift the burden of proof for your claims away from yourself onto the opponents you have been debating with.... well, we are not having it.

The evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the murder of John F. Kennedy is clear and obvious. Every aspect of that evidence fits with what witnesses saw and heard in Dealay Plaza on that day. Every aspect of the subsequent investigation points to Oswald being the killer, and at least on the day of the assassination, acting alone.

You claim someone else was the killer, who was he? Where is the evidence?

You claim that Oswald was set up as the patsy? Where is the evidence?

You claim the paper trail showing that Oswald bought the gun was fabricated? Where is the evidence?

You claim that the autopsy photos were altered? Where is the evidence?

You claim that the photo of Oswald holding the two guns he owned was forged? Where is the evidence?

You claim there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll? Where is the evidence?

You claim LBJ was behind the assassination? Where is the evidence?

 

[HSienzant]

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.

His Problem: He already did that.

That's why he's leaving it at that, for now.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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.

There were three photos discovered, two originally, and a third was turned in during the HSCA investigation in the late 1970's.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0074b.htm

Those three photos show Oswald holding the rifle in one hand and some communist literature he subscribed to in the other.

The three poses are:
A. Oswald holding the newspapers in front of his chest and the rifle in his left hand.
B. Oswald holding the newspapers in his right hand away from his body and the rifle in his left hand.
C. Oswald holding the newspapers in his left hand away from his body and the rifle in his right hand.

The one Marina hid in her shoe was a FOURTH pose, different from the other three, and evidence of that one was never recovered. It showed Oswald holding the rifle with two hands over his head. Oswald's mother described this fourth pose in her Warren Commission testimony.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/2_10_64_AM.htm

Marguerite Oswald's testimony:
== QUOTE ==

Mrs. OSWALD. ... My daughter-in-law spoke to Mrs. Paine in Russian, "Mamma." she says. So she takes me into the bedroom and closes the door. She said, "Mamma, I show you." She opened the closet, and in the closet was a lot of books and papers. And she came out with a picture a picture of Lee, with a gun.
It said, "To my daughter June"-written in English.
I said, "Oh, Marina, police."
...
She says, "You take, Mamma."'
"Yes, Mamma, you take."
I said, "No, Marina. Put back in the book." So she put the picture back in the book. Which book it was, I do not know.
So the next day, when we are at the courthouse this is on Saturday-she--we were sitting down, waiting to see Lee. She puts her shoe down, she says, "Mamma, picture." She had the picture folded up in her shoe.
...
Mr. RANKIN. In regard to the photograph, I will show you some photographs. Maybe you can tell me whether they are the ones that you are referring to. Here is Commission's Exhibit 134.
Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir, that is not the picture.
Mr. RANKIN. And 133, consists of two different pictures.
Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir, that is not the picture. He was holding the rifle and it said, "To my daughter, June, with love." He was holding the rifle up.
Mr. RANKIN. By holding it up, you mean----
Mrs. OSWALD. Like this.
Mr. RANKIN. Crosswise, with both hands on the rifle?
Mrs. OSWALD. With both hands on the rifle.
Mr. RANKIN. Above his head?
Mrs. OSWALD. That is right.
...
Mr. RANKIN. Had you said anything to her about burning it before that?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir. The last time I had seen the picture was in Marina's shoe when she was trying to tell me that the picture was in her shoe. I state here now that Marina meant for me to have that picture, from the very beginning, in Mrs. Paine's home. She said--I testified before "Mamma, you keep picture."
And then she showed it to me in the courthouse. And when I refused it, then she decided to get rid of the picture.
She tore up the picture and struck a match to it. Then I took it and flushed it down the toilet.
== UNQUOTE ==

The photo was burned by Marina and flushed down the toilet by Marguerite on Saturday, 11/23/63, according to the testimony of Marguerite. Marina takes the full blame for their destruction in her testimony, although she says Marguerite witnessed the destruction:
== QUOTE ==
Mrs. OSWALD. I went to my room. But then I showed Lee's mother the photograph, where he is photographed with a rifle, and told her he had shot at Walker and it appeared he might have been shooting at the President. She said that I should hide that photograph and not show it to anyone.
On the next day I destroyed one photograph which I had. I think I had two small ones. When we were in the hotel I burned it.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you say anything to her about the destruction of the photographs when she suggested that?
Mrs. OSWALD. She saw it, while I was destroying them.
== UNQUOTE ==

Hank

 

[manifesto]

I ride a motorcycle, and I can tell you that at 3000 rpm it would need to be running in low gear to keep it at rolling at around the speed of the motorcade... 8 to 10 mph. To anyone in close proximity it would sound very strange, like it was revving far too high. Near as I can figure out, the motorcycles in the motorcade were mostly 1963/64 Harley Davidson DuoGlides. They have a four speed gearbox and an engine red line of 4000 rpm. In fourth gear at 3000 rpm they are doing about 75 mph, in third gear about 62 mph. and in 2nd gear about 38 mph. I could not find the gearbox ratio of first gear but at 3000 in that gear, it would be difficult to keep the speed constant, as any slight change in throttle setting would cause the motorcycle accelerate and decelerate violently due to the high gear ratio.

ETA: Just found it. The 1st gear ratio of a 1963/64 Harley Davidson motorcyle is 2.60:1. That would have the motorcycle doing 28mph at 3000 rpm in 1st gear

1. The average speed of the motorcade on Main Street?

2. McLain’s speed on Main Street?

3. The Harley model McLain drove?

Three questions.

 

[manifesto]

Juror Number Eight style:

"I have an alternative explanation . . . therefore reasonable doubt!!!"

Wrong. The ’evidence’ you are citing for Oswalds quilt is far from clear cut. More on this later.

Admittedly Juror Number Eight (from Twelve Angry Men, to clear it up) was violating jury procedure, which our contender isn't, since he isn't on a jury (fortunately).

Calling all the evidence forged is one thing. What is the proof?

Some of it is proven forgeries. Som of it is suspect forgeries. All of it is highly suspect.

More on this later.

 

[manifesto]

4 shooters, in fact. Remember, manifesto insists that there were 4 shots from the 6th floor of the sbd.

That is a lie. The acoustic evidence says it were 4 shots from behind the limo.

Two of them were too close together to be from 1 weapon So their must be 2 people shooring

The five shots was fired in two bursts. The first three from behind the president and ca 5 seconds later the last two was fired from in fron on the knoll and from behind.

If there were only one shooter from behind he/she used an automatic rifle since the shots was so tight together. The alternative is at least one more shooter from behind.

The two last shots was even more tightly spaced but it doesn’t matter since the were fired from opposite directions = two shooters.

To sum it up.

One or two shooters from behind depending on weapon/s used + one shooter from in front = 2 - 3 shooters all in all.

 

[manifesto]

No doubt the Ghost will be shown as evidence of fakery, with no explanation of how a photograph of Oswald’s lawn, clearly in a different season with differing vegetation, was used to “fake” the photographs of him and his guns. Like we will have no evidence of any accusation of faked records.

Well, it depends on when he became the designated patsie, doesn’t it.

 

[manifesto]

And just for clarity manifesto,

You mean like when Gerald Ford moved the wound in the back to the neck? For clarity?

If you claim that something actually happened (such as claiming the existence of a shooter on the grassy knoll) you are expected to present evidence in support of that claim.

Done. Scientific evidence.

If you claim that something possibly happened (such as claiming there were possibly shooters in Dealey Plaza with silenced rifles) you are expected to present evidence to show why you think your claim is possible.

I’m not excluding this, no. You are? Why?

So far, your posts in this thread have been nothing more than bare, unsupported assertions,

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited for civility

unevidenced claims and pointless brain-wanking. You have also tried on numerous occasions to shift the burden of proof for your claims away from yourself onto the opponents you have been debating with.... well, we are not having it.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited for civility

The evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the murder of John F. Kennedy is clear and obvious.

Is it now? How about ”acted at all” for starters? Any evidence for this?

Every aspect of that evidence fits with what witnesses saw and heard in Dealay Plaza on that day.

Does it now? How does it fits with the majority of witnesses hearing shot/s from the knoll? For starters?

Explain.

Every aspect of the subsequent investigation points to Oswald being the killer, and at least on the day of the assassination, acting alone.

Name your best evidence in support of this assertion.

Pick your best one.

You claim someone else was the killer, who was he? Where is the evidence?

I do not know who assassinated JFK. I know that there is no evidence of Oswald doing it and I know that most of the so called evidence against him is bogus = he was framed in order to protect the real assassins.

You claim that Oswald was set up as the patsy? Where is the evidence?

Everywhere. At the moment I’m debating the acoustic evidence of five shots with the fatal one fired from in fron on the knoll = Oswald was at work in TSBD, behind the limo = Oswald didn’t kill JFK.

When this is properly settled, I’m planning to go over the fabricated chain of evidence allegedly showing that Oswald under he alleged alias, A. Hidell, purchased the alleged murder weapon.

One forgery at a time. Be patient.

You claim the paper trail showing that Oswald bought the gun was fabricated? Where is the evidence?

The evidence of fabrication is in the papertrail itself. More on this later.

You claim that the autopsy photos were altered? Where is the evidence?

1. The authenticity of the z-rays and the autopsy photographs, the very few that are left, has to be weighed against all the other evidence telling a completely different story.

2. There are also expertise who with the permission of the Kennedy family have been studying said x-rays and photos and who independently have reached the conclusion that they are forgeries.

More on this later.

You claim that the photo of Oswald holding the two guns he owned was forged? Where is the evidence?

No. I claim that this is a possibilty.

You claim there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll? Where is the evidence?

1. The majority of the (asked) witnesses in Dealey Plaza.

2. The scientific acoustic evidence in the HSCA report.

3. The witness testimony from almost 50 doctors, nurses, forensic photograpers, z-ray personel body guards and special agents from three hospitals and two federal police/intelligence organisations who observered JFK’s headwounds close up and reported a Big Gaping Whole in the right back of JFK’s head ——> exit wound ——> shot from in front.

4. The Zapruder film showing JFK’s head violently snapping back and to the left when hit by the fatal bullet ——> shot from in front to the right.

5. Shall I continue?

You claim LBJ was behind the assassination? Where is the evidence?

I claim that I firmely belive he was in on the assassination and I claim he was very active and central in covering it up.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited for civility

None?

 

[Major Major]

Wrong. The ’evidence’ you are citing for Oswalds quilt is far from clear cut. More on this later.

Some of it is proven forgeries. Som of it is suspect forgeries. All of it is highly suspect.

More on this later.

What is this evidence? How is it better than:

Mariana's testimony that she took the pictures.

The matching of the negative to her camera to the exception of all other cameras in the world.

The analysis of the film grain that showed there was no tampering.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Well, it depends on when he became the designated patsie, doesn’t it.

No. Because clearly it can’t have been used to fake any photographs, and we know it was identifying the location *after* considerable growth.

 

[Tomtomkent]

What is this evidence? How is it better than:

Mariana's testimony that she took the pictures.

The matching of the negative to her camera to the exception of all other cameras in the world.

The analysis of the film grain that showed there was no tampering.

By supporting the conclusion he wants.

This conversation is going down the same heater scelter as always. Demands we start over, complaints that the null shouldn’t be accepted after hundreds of pages of reaching that conclusion, pretending that we are all blind followers of a dogma, now claims that it’s okay to accuse others of a conspiracy without proof as long as it is pretended the accusation is only an opinion... and the never supplying actual evidence... if the cycle continues we will get to fringe resets and “but that evidence is tainted because X was a spy” then “yeah but this controversy is equal because all ideas are the same” and so forth.

 

[manifesto]

No. Because clearly it can’t have been used to fake any photographs, and we know it was identifying the location *after* considerable growth.

What? If the photos were taken well before the assassination it just says that Oswald could have been groomed well before the actual event.

 

[traxy]

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

A possibility advanced with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence.

 

[Tomtomkent]

What? If the photos were taken well before the assassination it just says that Oswald could have been groomed well before the actual event.

The ghost image wasn’t.
We can tell this because of the growth in vegetation that the photograph is of.
You do realise how growth works right?
A tree starts small. It gets bigger. Over time.
That and knowing the provenance of the image... mean that it was taken after the fact, to prove the yard photographs were of Oswald’s yard.

 

[Tomtomkent]

And really HOW could the ghost image have been used, regardless? It shows the same location after a considerable time has obviously passed. How does that form any part of the final photographs taken? What method did they use?