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

[HSienzant]

That is not what he said. He said this right before where your quotes begin and it is not the same thing.

"these two officers came around and asked me if I'd seen him, and I told him yes, and told them what I had seen, and they asked me if I could identify him, and I said I don't think I could. It this time I was sure, I wasn't sure that I could or not. I wasn't going to say I could identify and go down and couldn't have."

Prior to this he gave a detailed description of the shooter that matched Oswald.

 

[OKBob]

Maybe the real killer/s tried to kill Oswald too. Maybe he witnessed the shooting, got scared and fled the scene.

And after 55 years, your "maybes" don't add anything. Why should anyone--besides yourself--be interested in your concocted hypotheticals?

 

[manifesto]

No, he said the man he saw in the papers and on TV *resembled* the guy he saw doing the shooting. And of course, that guy was being identified as Lee Oswald. So he called the guy Oswald. I changed the emphasis to the part you ignored.

Looked like the guy, resembled the guy, is far from giving a postive identification. Curly hair, square hairline at the neck and dark skinn complexion is hardly resembeling Oswald, is it?

Saying to the police officers on the scene that he could not identify the killer and therefore not wanted to take part in a line up, is hardly a positive ID is it?

To ”figure” it was Oswald who killed Tippit because Oswald had been in the news every day for months AS BEING THE KILLER of Tippit is hardly a good foundation for an unbiased identification is it?

Benavides suspecting that his brother got killed because he was very look a like to himself and the fact that he had not positively identified Oswald as the killer of Tippit, is hardly admitting that he saw Oswald kill Tippit, is it?

I know that you are fond of McAdams and his methods, Hank, but more on this later.

Another example of having it both ways. Conspiracy sources

You mean sources outside the Mighty Church of the Lone Assassin, which is pretty much equal to Reality itself.

in the past typically claimed the shooting occurred in February of 1964 - about two months before the testimony of Domingo and it was intended for Domingo as an attempt to either silence him from identifying Oswald or intimidate him into identifying Oswald.

Here's how Robert Groden treated it:
"After Domingo Benavides witnessed the Tippit murder, he began to receive numerous threats upon his life.

You are disputing that?

Along with other eyewitnesses,

You are disputing that?

had had claimed that Tippit's killer did not look anything like Lee Harvey Oswald. After Benavides brother Edward (who looked very much like Domingo) was killed in a bar fight — a possible case of mistaken identity — Domingo Benavides changed his story, stating that the murderer resembled Oswald.(The Killing of a President, p. 98)

But thanks to the hard work of some LN researchers (notably John McAdams), it was established that Eddy Benavides was actually shot and killed in a tavern in February of 1965, ten months after Benavides testimony, and too late to impact it.

So now the conspiracy argument has changed - it was intended to kill Domingo, not to silence him before he testified, but as retribution for failing to ID Oswald.

This has always been my contention, it was an honest mistake from the newspaper man, Penn Jones.

The reports of scared and intimidated witnesses are many. Dallas was a city in fear after the assassination of JFK, and after the killing of Tippit, a fellow cop, in particular.

Note the problems. Groden

I haven’t cited Groden a single time concerning this event, but you are trying to smear him and then me by trying to associate my statements with his? It is starting to look more and more like the tactics used by your hero, McAdams, doesn’t it?

Do you know why McAdams disinformation allways comes up as the first hits when searching for anything connected to the JFK assassination? He is hardly the most read researcher in the field. So, why always on top of everything else when googleing JFK?

Any idea?

was claiming Benavides did ID Oswald, Manifesto is claiming Benavides didn't.

Am I to blame for mistakes Groden does? I do not know the guy and have used zero of his material in my studie of the Tippit case?

Isn’t this a bit weired even coming from, Hank?

Note as well it doesn't matter when Eddie Benavides died, before or after his brother's testimony. Either way conspiracy theorists will argue it establishes a conspiracy and to conspirators killing witnessses (or trying to).

The important thing here is that Benavides DID NOT identify Oswald as the killer of Tippit. That he ”figured” it was Oswald after his picture had been blasted in the news for months as Tippits killer, of course Benavides ”figure” it was Oswald who killed Tippit.

Note both Groden and Manifesto retain the "unknown killer" Nonsense. Apparently they are unaware the killer (Radford Lee Hil) confessed and served time for the offense.

That I didn’t know. If true.

And apparently the conspirators don't read conspiracy books, because they never realized they killed the wrong guy and never went back to kill Domingo, the actual witness.

IF Benavides is correct in suspecting that the murder of his brother was connected to his inability to positively identify Oswald as the killer of Tippit, it happened after his testimony. That could spell revenge, but more reasonably, it was one in a number of violent acts in order to spread fear among potential witnesses who otherwise could step forward and tell a different story of the killings that weekend.

Here's more detail: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/benavides_death.htm

Ah, caught in the act. More on your pal, McAdams later, but I can say this, it ain’t pretty.

Still 15.

Lol.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Maybe Maybe

Remember, the opinion of a CT is zero value.

 

[manifesto]

And after 55 years, your "maybes" don't add anything. Why should anyone--besides yourself--be interested in your concocted hypotheticals?

Fleeing the scene of a shooting doesn’t equal being the shooter of, in this case, Tippit.

Outside the Mighty Church, this is self evident.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Fleeing the scene of a shooting doesn’t equal being the shooter of, in this case, Tippit.

Shooting Officer Tippitt, as Oswald was proved to have done, does equal being the shooter.

Outside the Mighty Church, this is self evident.

Que?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Fleeing the scene of a shooting doesn’t equal being the shooter of, in this case, Tippit.

Outside the Mighty Church, this is self evident.

It is circumstantial. This does not, as many assume mean it is of life title or no value. It describes the circumstances, and no one point is taken alone. Oswald not only fled the scene, he acted suspiciously, dropped spent shells, was in possession of the murder weapon, and attempted to murder a second officer. That he was identified in the middle of this is entirely significant

 

[traxy]

Maybe the real killer/s tried to kill Oswald too. Maybe he witnessed the shooting, got scared and fled the scene.

Yeah, this didn't happen.

Moreover, the suggestion is moronic and unworthy of a response. I'm not sure how you can hold your head high while suggesting this nonsense instead of simply admitting the evidence shows Oswald was the killer.

More on this later.

Did any of your three witnesses identify Oswald from a lineup?

8 of them, from either a lineup or a photo. 4 as the shooter, 4 as the man fleeing the scene of a shooting with a revolver in his hand.

 

[smartcooky]

Fleeing the scene of a shooting doesn’t equal being the shooter of, in this case, Tippit.

Outside the Mighty Church, this is self evident.

Fleeing the scene of a shooting whilst carrying a gun, and then being caught with said gun, which is later ballistically connected to the bullets removed from the victim, in this case Tippet, is pretty much case closed in any jurisdiction you can name.

Outside of CT nutcase world, this is self evident!

 

[OKBob]

Outside the Mighty Church, this is self evident.

You claimed that you could not prove a conspiracy because an official cover-up limits you to detecting flaws here and there. I then asked you to prove the cover-up. My request is still pending.

 

[manifesto]

Yeah, this didn't happen.

Moreover, the suggestion is moronic and unworthy of a response. I'm not sure how you can hold your head high while suggesting this nonsense instead of simply admitting the evidence shows Oswald was the killer.

More on this later.

What an idiot reply. There are other suppressed witness reports that talks of more than one killer on the scene, two cars, another police car ... lots of activity, not reported in the WC volumes. This is what you have to produce:

1. Witnesses who unequivocally say they saw Oswald shoot Tippit.

2. Witnesses who say they saw Oswald in connection to the shooting of Tippit.

List them and I have a look at them one at the time. Promise.

8 of them, from either a lineup or a photo

Are you refering to DPD’s travesty of lineup here? Oswald, the only one with a black eye and a torn T-shirt? Oswald complaining loud and clear over the missmatched lineup while the witnesses are present?

Photos? Where and when? After Oswald, ”the cop killer”, had been shown all over the news for how long?

4 as the shooter,

Is it four now? Not three? Name them and cite relevant parts of their testimonies.

4 as the man fleeing the scene of a shooting with a revolver in his hand.

Name them and cite relevant parts of their testimonies.

 

[Tomtomkent]

What an idiot reply. There are other suppressed witness reports that talks of more than one killer on the scene, two cars, another police car ... lots of activity, not reported in the WC volumes.

1) Can you provide them as evidence?
2) If you are aware of them, how can they be suppressed?

 

[smartcooky]

1) Can you provide them as evidence?
2) If you are aware of them, how can they be suppressed?

Oops!!!

 

[RoboTimbo]

This is what you have to produce:

1. Witnesses who unequivocally say they saw Oswald shoot Tippit.

Why would witnesses be necessary? , be specific.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Why would witnesses be necessary? , be specific.

Good question. Do we have a reason to doubt the bullets fired by the pistol held by the accused during his arrest, or the spent shells from that same gun?

The one that accused was photographed holding?

 

[bknight]

You mean like when Gerald Ford moved the wound in the back to the neck? For clarity?
Citation for this assertion.
Quote:



Done. Scientific evidence.
Except the scientific evidence is ties to parameters that can't be proven, therefore the evidence doesn't hold.
Quote:

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

Well, that is a damned lie. Why are you lying all the time, smartcooky?

Well, another damned lie. Why are you lying all the time, smartcooky?

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

Does it now? How does it fits with the majority of witnesses hearing shot/s from the knoll? For starters?
You have been shown that isn't the case, but go right ahead and keep on saying it, although it will still be false.
Quote:

Explain.

Name your best evidence in support of this assertion.

Pick your best one.

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.
Except the evidence points to LHO as the assassin.
Quote:

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.
You are beating a dead horse, the stringent requirements that the scientists based the findings are not present, therefore the conclusion was/is wrong.
Quote:

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.
This has also been proven to anyone who can read.
Quote:

One forgery at a time. Be patient.

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

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.
The autopsy is supported by the x-rays and images. One GSW to the head from behind.
Quote:

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.
Citation for this assertion.
Quote:

More on this later.

No. I claim that this is a possibilty.
Anything is possible, but not all in probable. You lose.
Quote:

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

2. The scientific acoustic evidence in the HSCA report.
This has been soundly debunked to almost everyone on the planet.
Quote:

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.
Citation for this assertion.
Quote:

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.
Why is there no exit wound on the back of JFK's head?
Quote:

5. Shall I continue?

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.

So, I ask again, why are you lying all the time, smartcooky? Have you no sense of shame?

None?
You are wrong in all of the attempts to declare that history of the assassination is flawed.

Here is a copy of a post I had where I asked for you to post some citations of claims you had made along with the questions. Since this board doesn't contain all the previous work, just the most recent post, so don't complain, just provide evidence for your claims and answer questions.

 

[manifesto]

It is circumstantial. This does not, as many assume mean it is of life title or no value. It describes the circumstances, and no one point is taken alone. Oswald not only fled the scene, he acted suspiciously, dropped spent shells, was in possession of the murder weapon, and attempted to murder a second officer. That he was identified in the middle of this is entirely significant

So far I have not stated it as of no value. So far I’m asking Traxy to sort out which witnesses he/she claims actually reporting seeing Oswald shoot Tippit.

Your comment is a, strawman.

 

[manifesto]

Good question. Do we have a reason to doubt the bullets fired by the pistol held by the accused during his arrest, or the spent shells from that same gun?

The one that accused was photographed holding?

I’m trying to sort out the witness reports first before going to the really good stuff, the ballistics.

Be patient.

 

[HSienzant]

Looked like the guy, resembled the guy, is far from giving a postive identification. ... More on your pal, McAdams later, but I can say this, it ain’t pretty.

Lol.

Stop right there... I see what you're doing. You're concentrating on one little subset of my points, ignoring the rest, and ignoring the very point that got us here.

Back up a bit.

I'm asking you for the reason Oswald left the building at 12:33, given, according to the little bit of your scenario you shared with us, he didn't witness the shooting, he didn't bring his rifle into the building that morning to sell to someone, he didn't know shots even came from inside the building. He was in a small room eating his lunch at 12:30, according to his own admissions in custody and hence, your scenario.

Yet, according to the evidence, which you apparently concede, he left the building at 12:33 and went home and got his revolver, which even he admitted in custody.

And according to you, he didn't realize he was being set up as a patsy until after his arrest. So he didn't leave at 12:33 because he realized he was a patsy.

So, why did he leave at 12:33? And why did he take a cab PAST his rooming house?

We're seeing exactly why conspiracy theorists don't share their own scenario so we can compare and contrast with the Warren Commission one. The minute they share even the most minute bit, it starts to fall apart, because it makes no sense.

As I said, you have Oswald acting on knowledge at 12:33pm that, according to you, he didn't acquire until after 2:00pm the same day.

Please explain.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I’m trying to sort out the witness reports first before going to the really good stuff, the ballistics.

Be patient.

That's what you always say when stuck. We've seen that before, with Robert Prey and his one point per post nonsense.

Hank