• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
manifesto said:
Ah, name one piece of evidence that conclusively proves that Oswald shot JFK. And remember that a trial in a courtroom includes a defence, vary of provenance, chain of custody, original (not xerox or photo) evidence, cross examination, etc.

Name one.
Click to expand...

Asked and answered, numerous times, by many posters here. That you don't accept the evidence is irrelevant.

1. All of the bullets found came from the same rifle which Oswald purchased.

2. The trajectory of all of the shots showed that they came from the Texas Schoolbook Depository where Oswald was employed.

3. Oswald was employed at the Depository, but could not be found later in the afternoon after the assassination. He was the only employee known to be missing from this location after it was locked down.

4. The rifle that Oswald purchased was found in Depository. It had been fired and it was located on what appeared to be a sniper's nest.

5. No other weapons or firing positions were ever found.

6. No eyewitnesses to any other shooters were found.

7. An earlier assassination attempt (retired Gen.Edwin Anderson Walker) was made by someone using the same type of rifle that Oswald purchased seven months before Dallas.Oswald's wife told investigators that he told her that he had attempted to kill the general.

8. Oswald asked a co-worker (as he did not own a car) for a ride back to a house where his wife was living in Irving, Texas to "pick up some curtain rods." He later took these "curtain rods" to work with him in a paper bag. No one ever found these rods.

9. Ten eyewitnesses saw Oswald shoot and kill Officer JD Tippitt , who had stopped to question him after he noticed that Oswald matched the description of a suspect. Oswald then fled into a nearby theater.

Now, you have to PROVE every single item on this list is false. No "coulda, woulda, shoulda", no ifs, no buts, no maybes, no bare assertions, no unevidenced claims, no unbridled speculation and none of the lies you normally make up when cornered. Only hard, documentary or physical evidence will be even looked at.

I am not relitigating this with you again. I have this list saved in a text file on my desktop, and I may add to it as time goes by. If you keep asking your idiotic "show me one piece of evidence" question in future, I will simply copy pasta this list, and only if I can even be bothered answering.
 
Axxman300 said:
Because if the right thing to do, the honest thing to do, is to pay for it, and you take it without paying for it - you're a thief.

It further undermines your credibility because it is a testament to your honesty, and if firmly implies that you don't believe any of the claims you're making here.

If you are not willing to pay for information then by definition the information is worthless.
Click to expand...

I simply do not value money as much as some other people, and also I don't think that a system that relies on kindness will be an effective one. You should check out socialism, it adapts to human nature and also such a situation like piracy under heavy socialist policies would be avoided because pay would be equal.
 
Last edited:
OKBob said:
I've been a tenured university academic in two separate and very different disciplines for the better part of thirty years. In neither discipline was I ever offered money by special interests, and none of my many professor friends--in many fields--have ever reported anything like that to me. (I do not include here the payments that some academics have received from, say, the tobacco industry and such. Those payments have occurred, but they're different from what you're talking about, though also objectionable, in my view.) I concede that my evidence, though grounded in deep experience, is negative--that is, I have simply not seen or heard of such payments offered or made. But what is your evidence or experience for the claim you make?
Click to expand...


...er, he makes stuff up........
 
Also, what about books that do not exist in ebook format officially for sale? Can we pirate OCR'd scanned copies of those books or do we have to swallow in our filth for a thousand years with physical copies bought at fluctuating prices that must be ordered through the mail when you just need a single obscure reference?
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
4. The rifle that Oswald purchased was found in Depository. It had been fired and it was located on what appeared to be a sniper's nest.
Click to expand...
Please provide documentation that the rifle was shown to have been fired on the day that JFK was assassinated.
 
manifesto said:
And remember that a trial in a courtroom includes a defence, vary of provenance, chain of custody, original (not xerox or photo) evidence, cross examination, etc.
Click to expand...

And you know little or nothing about any of these courtroom practices and evidentiary requirements. Yes, there would have been some difficulties for the prosecutor of Oswald in a Texas court--not least the spousal privilege which would have limited Marina's testimony against her husband. But attacks on chains of custody would almost certainly have failed. You don't seem to grasp that perceived gaps in any evidentiary chain of custody can be filled by the testimony of officers and other officials. You seem to think there must always be an official document that completes the chain. Wrong. You're also dead wrong about the inadmissibility of copies of documents. Copies may be, and often are, admitted in evidence under clear rules of authentication and best evidence. Please stop talking nonsense.
 
JayUtah said:
I assume the photocopy of the microfilm can be easily verified as containing the same pertinent information as the microfilm itself. Notaries all across the country do this many thousands of times a day. That would make it admissible as a faithful rendition of the microfilm for pretty much any purpose under law. In a court it would be the same as having the microfilm itself.

I'm sure you can find details in the rules of evidence, but there's no reason to suppose a microfilmed archival record of long disposed paper records would not be admissible. If Manifesto's aim is to impeach the record by saying it could have been doctored, then that's his burden of proof. And it would be fairly difficult, I would think, to carry that from the microfilm itself. But he certainly doesn't get to say it's impeached or inadmissible simply because it's a copy.
Click to expand...

You just summed up everything Manifesto said and everything said in rebuttal over the period of about three weeks. That was in fact one of the first things I ever discussed with him here - about 30 months ago - the legitimacy of the photocopies of the microfilm made directly from the microfilm printer in the presence of William Waldman.

Waldman, who was a VP at Klein's and designed their tracking system then in use, supplied the microfilm, attested to its authenticity, and then was accompanied by David Belin to the microfilm printer where paper copies were made from the microfilm. Those paper copies became the Warren Commission exhibits.

Manifesto tried to argue those paper copies weren't legitimate because... uh, 'reasons'.

Hank
 
OKBob said:
And you know little or nothing about any of these courtroom practices and evidentiary requirements. Yes, there would have been some difficulties for the prosecutor of Oswald in a Texas court--not least the spousal privilege which would have limited Marina's testimony against her husband. But attacks on chains of custody would almost certainly have failed. You don't seem to grasp that perceived gaps in any evidentiary chain of custody can be filled by the testimony of officers and other officials. You seem to think there must always be an official document that completes the chain. Wrong. You're also dead wrong about the inadmissibility of copies of documents. Copies may be, and often are, admitted in evidence under clear rules of authentication and best evidence. Please stop talking nonsense.
Click to expand...

Should he do that, there would be no more posts by him.
 
manifesto said:
One issue at the time. Do you now agree that the regulations says that the PMO’s 1963 SHOULD HAVE bank endorsement stamps on them?
Click to expand...

And I've asked you--so far without an answer--why you think these regulations use the odd word "should," which does not convey mandatory legal authority, when mandatory rules typically employ the word "shall." "Should" suggests an aspirational norm that was probably not being achieved in all cases; hence the admonition in this regulation.

Moreover, even if "should" does mean "shall" here, it constitutes no sort of proof that Oswald's PMO was unstamped because of nefarious reasons. If this was an actual rule, his PMO may have broken it innocently. You still have all your work before you to prove anything on this point.
 
Last edited:
No Other said:
Please provide documentation that the rifle was shown to have been fired on the day that JFK was assassinated.
Click to expand...

Not necessary:
1. A rifle was fired at JFK, killing him.
2. The rifling on the bullets recovered matched those of that particular rifle to the exclusion of any other weapon in existence.
3. Therefore that rifle was used to assassinate the President, and was fired that day.
 
No Other said:
Please provide documentation that the rifle was shown to have been fired on the day that JFK was assassinated.
Click to expand...

Easy-peasy. As easy as 3-2-1 in fact..

Three shell discovered shortly after the assassination at the sniper's nest window were ballistically traceable to Oswald's rifle to the EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER WEAPONS IN THE WORLD.

Two large fragments discovered the night of the assassination in the Presidential limousine were ballistically traceable to Oswald's rifle to the EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER WEAPONS IN THE WORLD.

One nearly whole bullet discovered in the hospital near Connally's stretcher on the afternoon of the assassination was ballistically traceable to Oswald's rifle to the EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER WEAPONS IN THE WORLD.

Now you'll quibble over the claims and pretend the evidence isn't admissible because [whatever you can think of the moment] but all that evidence is admissible and all of it establishes Oswald's rifle was fired not only on the day of the assassination, but at the time of the assassination and at the Presidential limousine. To the EXCLUSION OF ALL PLACES AND TIMES.

Hank
 
OKBob said:
And you know little or nothing about any of these courtroom practices and evidentiary requirements. Yes, there would have been some difficulties for the prosecutor of Oswald in a Texas court--not least the spousal privilege which would have limited Marina's testimony against her husband. But attacks on chains of custody would almost certainly have failed. You don't seem to grasp that perceived gaps in any evidentiary chain of custody can be filled by the testimony of officers and other officials. You seem to think there must always be an official document that completes the chain. Wrong. You're also dead wrong about the inadmissibility of copies of documents. Copies may be, and often are, admitted in evidence under clear rules of authentication and best evidence. Please stop talking nonsense.
Click to expand...

Hoover apparently thought this "chain of custody" stuff was important to lie through his teeth about Wright and Tomlinson visually identifying CE399 as the bullet they found.

https://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm
 
Hans said:
Yeah that was always the basis of my CT. That someone might have accidentally or on purpose inspired him in some way in that situation. Some phrase or comment from a Cuban official or sympathizer.

Will we ever know? Nope.
Click to expand...

The honest problem with all of that is that Oswald's visit to Mexico City was in the last week of September, 1963, returning to Texas on 2, October.

Oswald doesn't begin working at the TSBD until 16, October.

The President's visit to Dallas wasn't confirmed until 4, November.

So he had no way of knowing that he'd even have the opportunity to kill JFK while he was in Mexico City, at least not so soon. There would be a long campaign for JFK the following year that would certainly bring him to Dallas or New Orleans.

The big problem for a massive conspiracy in relation to Oswald is the time-line:

Oswald buys the rifle in March, 1963, and received it on 25, March.
On 10, April he takes a shot at General Walker.

This suggests that Walker was his original target.

From that point on the Carcano is with him, or is within easy access from the time he moves to New Orleans, until the time he kills JFK. This suggests that he was looking for a high profile target to kill, but he never gets the chance. He tries to worm his way into a local anti-Castro Cuban group while there, but then they see him handing out FPCC fliers. He gets his tourist card from the Mexican Consulate in New Orleans, and leaves for Texas the next week.

So the questions are:

What was his game in trying to kill Walker?
Was he alone in that act? If not, was it a test-run to show his commitment to the cause (whatever that was)?

His move to New Orleans seems strange until you remember that he was from that area, and would have felt comfortable there. Yet he tries to link up with anti-Castro Cubans AFTER trying to murder General Walker. Why?

While he is in New Orleans a local paper runs a long investigative piece about the Kennedy Administration's ongoing operations to kill Castro, and overthrow his regime.

Bottom Line:

The only through-line between Walker and JFK is that they were both men working to overthrow the Communist government of Cuba, and they were easy targets, with JFK rolling right under Oswald's window on 22, November.

Oswald was just a guy with a rifle, and an over-inflated sense of self.

*Keep in mind that it had been raining in Dallas that day, and had the sun not come out the limo would have had its bubble-top, making it harder to kill the President. That decision was made on the ground when he arrived at Love Field.*
 
HSienzant said:
Easy-peasy. As easy as 3-2-1 in fact..

Three shell discovered shortly after the assassination at the sniper's nest window were ballistically traceable to Oswald's rifle to the EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER WEAPONS IN THE WORLD.

Two large fragments discovered the night of the assassination in the Presidential limousine were ballistically traceable to Oswald's rifle to the EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER WEAPONS IN THE WORLD.

One nearly whole bullet discovered in the hospital near Connally's stretcher on the afternoon of the assassination was ballistically traceable to Oswald's rifle to the EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER WEAPONS IN THE WORLD.

Now you'll quibble over the claims and pretend the evidence isn't admissible because [whatever you can think of the moment] but all that evidence is admissible and all of it establishes Oswald's rifle was fired not only on the day of the assassination, but at the time of the assassination and at the Presidential limousine. To the EXCLUSION OF ALL PLACES AND TIMES.

Hank
Click to expand...

BTW Hank, do we know how many rounds the FBI test fired in order to change the grooves of the barrel so much that the HSCA later couldn't find any rifling match between CE399 and their test shots? From what I know, all we have is testimony from the 60's stating that the test shots matched CE399 and CE 567. No remaining photographic record or anything like we have with the RFK case.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Hoover apparently thought this "chain of custody" stuff was important to lie through his teeth about Wright and Tomlinson visually identifying CE399 as the bullet they found.

https://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm
Click to expand...

Where did Hoover lie about that? Tomlinson's failure to identify three years later doesn't exclude CE399 as being the bullet. We've talked about recollection often enough that you should know it by now by heart. Recollections years after the fact aren't very reliable. In fact, they start degrading the very day they are formed and can be influenced by stuff read, heard or seen since, as well as something as benign as the way the question was asked.

Pretend some more that recollections are valuable. We know why you do. It's all you really have - false memory.

Hank
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom