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

[manifesto]

Please provide documentation that the rifle was shown to have been fired on the day that JFK was assassinated.

This is very illustrative of the ”investigation”. The most important murder weapon in the history of the USA, and no one is looking of it had been fired that day.

Like, lets interview ”25 000 witnesses”, but do not bother with putting your index finger in the pipe looking for fresh soot.

That is waaayyy over doing it.

 

[HSienzant]

Would that not be expected?

Would it? Why are you trying to shift the burden of proof? This is your claim, proceed to establish that is to be expected by citing books on criminology - past or present. I won't even limit you to 1963 materials.

Go ahead, we'll await your change of subject.

Hank

 

[Hans]

This is very illustrative of the ”investigation”. The most important murder weapon in the history of the USA, and no one is looking of it had been fired that day.

Like, lets interview ”25 000 witnesses”, but do not bother with putting your index finger in the pipe looking for fresh soot.

....and if they had done that would you have believed them?

No, absolutely not - so what would have been the point? Remember you reject all evidence that you don't like.

 

[bknight]

This is very illustrative of the ”investigation”. The most important murder weapon in the history of the USA, and no one is looking of it had been fired that day.

Like, lets interview ”25 000 witnesses”, but do not bother with putting your index finger in the pipe looking for fresh soot.

That is waaayyy over doing it.

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.

Had you looked at my post you would have seen all your BS is meaningless

 

[HSienzant]

I am not quibbling over anything, your preemptive poisoning of the well is distracting.
I am respecting your claims since you have stated that.

It appears that the bullets were fired from the rifle; the rest should be fairly straight forward... what physical evidence did the FBI obtain that put the rifle in Oswald's hand that day?

His fresh prints were discovered and photographed on the trigger guard by J.C.Day of the Dallas Crime lab.

A long paper sack was discovered near the sniper's nest window. This sack was determined to be the same color as the sack carried by Oswald that was observed by Wes Frazier and his sister Linnie Mae Randle on the morning of the assassination, and was determined to be long enough to contain the rifle. It bore Oswald's palmprint.

Not physical evidence but: Multiple eyewitnesses identified the shooter as looking like Oswald. One witness, after hesitating to do so for fear of retaliation from other possible conspirators, did so later.

Hank

 

[bknight]

....and if they had done that would you have believed them?

No, absolutely not - so what would have been the point? Remember you reject all evidence that you don't like.

A more appropriate answer than mine, thanks.

 

[No Other]

His finger prints are STILL on the rifle.

Fingers can be found on the human hand, last time I checked.

That is still not enough to put the rifle in his hands and pulling the trigger. Those same finger prints could have been put on two weeks prior to the killing.

 

[MicahJava]

Hank- I figured it out for myself, thanks.

 

[HSienzant]

I know that Hank has read most of the books, and he either bought them, or he visited a local library.

Over 500 in total. Most were bought. Those that were borrowed from the library in most cases I later bought to add to my collection (sometimes at a cost of over $100). The libraries weren't always local either. When I visited relatives in other states I would check their local libraries for copies of JFK assassination books I didn't have and borrow those. I don't have every book ever published on the subject, but I have a large representative sample.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Any used book store will have CT books, and Amazon has a used book market that I have found long out of print books for sale cheap.

ABEbooks.com is even cheaper, I've found. I'd recommend there first.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

You bring up an interesting point in JFK and Walker. JFK and Walker were polar opposites YET Oswald attempts to take them both out. What is gained? If Oswald is successful in taking out Walker, how does that help any cause?

Answered in the very post you're responding to.

Try to read more carefully.

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.

Hank

 

[manifesto]

You dismiss this out of hand for lack of evidence. Good for you!

But then you do this:



Same amount of evidence for both!

What? Are you disputing LBJ forcing Warren to head the Commission with threats of nuclear war and 40 million American dead first hour?

Look at ”29 Nov 1963” and the phone call to Senator Richard Russel (last one that day):

In this amazing call, LBJ warned Russell about the possibility of 40 million dead Americans (in a nuclear exchange with the Soviets), and at the end told the story of how he had gotten Earl Warren to head the Commission, by telling him "something Hoover told me about a little incident in Mexico City."

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/LBJ_Phone_Calls.html​

That ”little incident in Mexico City” was the alleged interaktions Oswald had with the Cuban and Soviet consulats = the assassination was masterminded by them = third world nuclear war = truth Commission to put the public to rest = whitewash the FBI investigation saying Lone Nut Oswald did it all by himself = no conspiracy.

What so ever.

 

[No Other]

His fresh prints were discovered and photographed on the trigger guard by J.C.Day of the Dallas Crime lab.

A long paper sack was discovered near the sniper's nest window. This sack was determined to be the same color as the sack carried by Oswald that was observed by Wes Frazier and his sister Linnie Mae Randle on the morning of the assassination, and was determined to be long enough to contain the rifle. It bore Oswald's palmprint.

Not physical evidence but: Multiple eyewitnesses identified the shooter as looking like Oswald. One witness, after hesitating to do so for fear of retaliation from other possible conspirators, did so later.

Hank

If I recall, the paper sack you are referring to... was never submitted as evidence. Wasn't the sack you are referencing, the one that was made at the FBI lab? Was the sack that was carried in by Oswald (containing the rifle) ever presented to the WC or was just a facsimile presented?

 

[No Other]

Asked and answered in the very post you're responding to.

Try to read more carefully.

Wow, that was the best he could do? He sounded more like a CT than anything else...

 

[manifesto]

That is still not enough to put the rifle in his hands and pulling the trigger. Those same finger prints could have been put on two weeks prior to the killing.

Or after the killing.

The rifle was flawn to FBI HQ’s lab in DC the night of the killing. Not a single fingerprint was detected. ”The most sophisticated crime lab in the world”.

A week later a palmprint was fond in a drawer by DPD’s Lt. Day and sent with an affidavit to the FBI. Problem was, no photo of the print before taped by Day and no signature by Day in the Affidavit.

Old, not latent fingerprints are very easy to plant.

 

[HSienzant]

Yo Hank isn't aware of basic stuff about CE399 that he should know by now, as evidenced above. I should probably feel grateful when his posts are at least intelligible.

You should feel grateful that I take time out of my day to deign to respond to your nonsense.

The fact that Tomlinson or Wright didn't ID the bullet when shown it seven months after the assassination as the specific one they handled on 11/22/63 isn't surprising. They didn't mark it in any fashion, nor would they be expected to.

Shown a bullet, they said it resembled the bullet they found, but how could they be expected to identify it as the *specific* bullet they handled, absent a marking of their initials on it?

What would be surprising is if they somehow said, "Yeah, that's the bullet I handled, beyond a doubt" or words to that effect. But that outcome is apparently the only one you'd accept.

I thought you were talking about the Tomlinson interview from three years after the fact by Thompson. And yeah, I didn't bother to click your link, it's typically just a citation to another CT opinion supported solely by logical fallacies and out of context quotes.

EDIT: It was. You originally provided a link to a CT article: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm

Hank

 

[bknight]

Or after the killing.

The rifle was flawn to FBI HQ’s lab in DC the night of the killing. Not a single fingerprint was detected. ”The most sophisticated crime lab in the world”.

A week later a palmprint was fond in a drawer by DPD’s Lt. Day and sent with an affidavit to the FBI. Problem was, no photo of the print before taped by Day and no signature by Day in the Affidavit.

Old, not latent fingerprints are very easy to plant.

And tell me of your training in identifying, taking, and handling?

We'll wait because I doubt you will answer.

 

[No Other]

Or after the killing.

The rifle was flawn to FBI HQ’s lab in DC the night of the killing. Not a single fingerprint was detected. ”The most sophisticated crime lab in the world”.

A week later a palmprint was fond in a drawer by DPD’s Lt. Day and sent with an affidavit to the FBI. Problem was, no photo of the print before taped by Day and no signature by Day in the Affidavit.

Old, not latent fingerprints are very easy to plant.

Wow, that appears to be suspect.

Hank said there were "fresh" prints found yet you are saying that latent prints are easy to plant... so I am a bit confused. Do those "fresh" prints over rule latent prints?

 

[HSienzant]

If I recall, the paper sack you are referring to... was never submitted as evidence.

False. Your recollection is as faulty as most of the witnesses MicahJava cites.

Wasn't the sack you are referencing, the one that was made at the FBI lab?

And False. Still trust eyewitness recollections from decades after the fact, like MicahJava?

Was the sack that was carried in by Oswald (containing the rifle) ever presented to the WC or was just a facsimile presented?

Both. The original was stained in the process of obtaining fingerprints. A portion was left unexposed to the fingerprinting process to retain the original color. Here's the original - CE142: https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0269a.htm

The FBI made a replica bag of the same size and shape from paper obtained from the Depository to show to witnesses.
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0492b.htm

The print was obtained from the bag found on the sixth floor - CE142.

So we've satisfied your request for evidence that the weapon was fired that day AND put it in Oswald's hands during the assassination, right?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Wow, that was the best he could do? He sounded more like a CT than anything else...

Added more. Refresh. Don't be so impatient.

Hank