• 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.
No Other said:
If they would had put the rifle in the bag, it would show that if conformed. That would eliminate the nay-sayers who say the presented bag was either too small or too large. Rifles have oil to keep them lubricated, oil in rifles are always escaping. The smallest amount of residue could be matched.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing, there's only one person who disputes the size of the bag: Buell Wesley Frazier, the kid who drove Oswald to work that day.

Nobody else is disputing that the custom-made bag recovered from the 6th Floor fits the Carcano.

If you look at his testimony, and Oswald's statement there seems to be two lines of confusion. When asked about a paper bag, Oswald said it was his lunch bag. Frazier said that Oswald told him it was a bag of curtain rods.

Frazier is obviously talking about a much larger bag, and Oswald did bag his lunch that day, and I think at some point Frazier admits that Oswald kept that bag with him in the front seat (the large bag was placed in the back seat).

This is the ONLY confusion about the paper bag.

Frazier says that the bag Oswald carried in was not long enough to hide the rifle, broken down or otherwise. If you listen to him tell the story one thing jumps out - he wasn't really paying attention to Oswald as he walked across the parking lot to the building. Oswald got out, but Frazier stayed in the car for another few minutes to prime the battery so it wouldn't drain while he was at work, something that was a problem with some car models in those days. So he was focused on revving his engine, and watching the gauges on his dashboard, and not focused on Oswald.

The confusion on his part is simple to understand on this point alone, but then there is a much larger issue with Frazier: he was abused by DPD detectives during his interrogation. I'm not saying he felt abused, HE WAS ABUSED. They went at him for hours on end without water and just a candy bar, and at the end the head detective tried to force him to sign a confession to being part of a conspiracy to kill JFK.

Frazier has never forgiven the DPD for this, and clearly holds a grudge. This was compounded by what he felt was negative treatment by the Warren Commission people who interrogated him later. In my view, when Frazier says he doesn't think Oswald did it this is just his way of sticking it to the DPD and government.
 
No Other said:
This is spot on; the challenge to the one's who feel that a lone gunman is the one who shot and killed our President is to make sure that when you cite "evidence" that it will withstand the scrutiny regarding the secured chain of custody. What most forget is that the WC was like a Grand Jury, they had no investigative body besides the FBI and they had the luxury of working autonomously without interference with the public and sometimes the facts. J. Edgar already had LHO as the lone gunman by the second day after JFK died, so what are the chances that a Field Agent is going to go Rogue and contradict JEH? The WC was working more on a deadline than obtaining the truth (this was admitted by default when the WC said that certain elements could not be in the Report due to the "need" to get this out prior to the elections.
Click to expand...

First off, the Warren Commission was rushed because conspiracy theories were already flying, and they had to get the report out.

It was nothing like a grand jury. They sent people out to interview witnessed, a grand jury doesn't chase people down. They had the FBI, the Secret Service, and the CIA.

Yes, Hoover felt Oswald was the lone gunman, but that was based on the first 48 hours of FBI investigation. The recent documents released by the National Archives detail that every FBI field office went into overdrive to link Oswald to a larger conspiracy. In those new documents is a memo from Hoover asking about Oswald's security in DPD custody. His worry was that he wouldn't live to see a trial, and thus would feed endless conspiracy theories.

Hoover was right.
 
Axxman300 said:
Here's the problem with this claim.

There is no test to determine if a gun or rifle has been recently fired. Not in 1963 and not now.

Any cop, or anyone who has been used gun shopping knows this.
Click to expand...


You can, if the barrel is hot (then its been recently fired). If the barrel is cold... you are out of luck... could been fired a couple of hours ago, or days, or weeks or years.

Oswald fired his Carcano three times in quick succession at about 12:30 pm Friday. IME, if it wasn't found by about 12:45 pm, the barrel would have equalized back to room temperature.

The problem here is that CTs believe that what they see from Hollywood and on TV fiction is like real life. It isn't;

- Cop finds gun, sniffs gun, turns to partner and says "its been recently fired" (No. Its not possible to determine this by sniffing the gun)

- Cop finds gun, pulls magazine (its got peep holes). He looks at the magazine, turns to partner and says "five shots have been fired" (no, only if the magazine was full to start with. Also, the shooter may have had a bullet chambered, no way of telling)
 
smartcooky said:
You can, if the barrel is hot (then its been recently fired). If the barrel is cold... you are out of luck... could been fired a couple of hours ago, or days, or weeks or years.

Oswald fired his Carcano three times in quick succession at about 12:30 pm Friday. IME, if it wasn't found by about 12:45 pm, the barrel would have equalized back to room temperature.

The problem here is that CTs believe that what they see from Hollywood and on TV fiction is like real life. It isn't;

- Cop finds gun, sniffs gun, turns to partner and says "its been recently fired" (No. Its not possible to determine this by sniffing the gun)

- Cop finds gun, pulls magazine (its got peep holes). He looks at the magazine, turns to partner and says "five shots have been fired" (no, only if the magazine was full to start with. Also, the shooter may have had a bullet chambered, no way of telling)
Click to expand...

True, if the cops can get to the weapon fast enough, which almost never happens.

In the case of Oswald's handgun, they captured it in the process of being fired with the hammer impacting the webbing of the officer's hand between the thumb and forefinger.

This is yet another fun thing about CTists; they love to lecture people about how real life is not like it is in the movies, and then go into lengthy descriptions of how crime scenes and evidence are processed, and it's always the Hollywood version, and never the real way it's done.

Seriously, show me a perfect air-tight criminal investigation where no mistakes are made by any of the officers , detectives, and crime-lab people involved, and you could make the case that there is probably a real conspiracy going on.

There are almost always lingering questions about closed cases where there was a conviction, unless the suspect freely admits guilt. Sometimes the killer doesn't have all the answered either.
 
Axxman300 said:
True, if the cops can get to the weapon fast enough, which almost never happens.

In the case of Oswald's handgun, they captured it in the process of being fired with the hammer impacting the webbing of the officer's hand between the thumb and forefinger.

This is yet another fun thing about CTists; they love to lecture people about how real life is not like it is in the movies, and then go into lengthy descriptions of how crime scenes and evidence are processed, and it's always the Hollywood version, and never the real way it's done.

Seriously, show me a perfect air-tight criminal investigation where no mistakes are made by any of the officers , detectives, and crime-lab people involved, and you could make the case that there is probably a real conspiracy going on.

There are almost always lingering questions about closed cases where there was a conviction, unless the suspect freely admits guilt. Sometimes the killer doesn't have all the answered either.
Click to expand...


Yep. If all cases were as perfect as CTs think they should be and there were no mistakes by police, witnesses or prosecutors, the jury wouldn't get much past the point of electing a foreman before they came to a decision and handed down the verdict; home in time for hors d'oeuvres.

There is no room for mistakes, oversights or procedural errors in the fantasy land of CT world (or should I say, among the Order of the Bleedin' Fruitcake).
 
Last edited:
manifesto said:
Why set up a Commission in order to prevent world war III and nuclear Armageddon if JFK was killed by a, Lone little Nut?
Click to expand...

What a silly formulation for what should be obvious. Can you imagine an assassination of a US president in the modern era that would not entail an official commission or investigation? As usual, your formulation embeds a begged question: "if there was a commission, then it must be the case that more was involved than a lone shooter." Prove that assumption first.

By the way, when are you going to address my question, now asked for a third time, about why those PMO regulations used the word "should" instead of the standard word for legal requirement, "shall"?
 
HSienzant said:
#78 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.​



What exactly are you arguing here?
#79- Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.​


What exactly are you arguing here?
#80 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.​


Can you cite where the word 'quibble' is defined as synonymous with ' evidence with secured chain of custody and provenance'?
#81 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.​


What concepts? Chain of custody? If you think the chain of custody is flawed well, you know what to do:
#82 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.​


No, you apparently still don't understand what the null is. Or why it is.
#83 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.​
Hank
Click to expand...

When manifesto first appeared after some months of hiatus, these were my first request of him. And surprise surprise he hasn't responded with any evidence of mishandling of the bullets, rifle or now fingerprints from the DPD to the FBI.;)
 
bknight said:
When manifesto first appeared after some months of hiatus, these were my first request of him. And surprise surprise he hasn't responded with any evidence of mishandling of the bullets, rifle or now fingerprints from the DPD to the FBI.;)
Click to expand...

Asking a series of questions that all require long answers is gish gallop. Providing a lot of evidence is not.
 
MicahJava said:
Asking a series of questions that all require long answers is gish gallop.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't any such thing; the essence of a Gish gallop is throwing out a series of irrelevancies, lies, half-truths and misleading questions so fast that the opponent can't reply within the context of a time-limited discussion. Asking a series of relevant questions that all require long answers on a discussion forum, where there is no particular time limitation on replying, is called "debating".

MicahJava said:
Providing a lot of evidence is not.
Click to expand...

What relevance does that statement have, given that we're talking about manifesto?

Dave
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Asking a series of questions that all require long answers is gish gallop. Providing a lot of evidence is not.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I'm glad someone besides myself recognizes what's been going on between myself and 'No Other'.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Asking a series of questions that all require long answers is gish gallop. Providing a lot of evidence is not.
Click to expand...

He hasn't provided ANY evidence for his statements.

To characterize my post as Gish Gallop in comparison to manifesto's is rather like comparing my ant to his elephant.
 
Last edited:
No Other said:
I find no argument with your wording. I do want to highlight that it is quite possible to determine if it was NOT fired within a couple of hours. Knowing if that rifle was NOT fired was equally, if not more important, than finding if the rifle WAS recently fired. Since we both agree that it is next to impossible if not impossible to determine when it was fired... then finding out if it was not fired is a route to go. We all know that this was not conducted.
Click to expand...

In this case, it's possible to determine when it was fired by noting that the bullets which struck JFK and Connally came from that rifle to the exclusion of all others in the world. This is in the Warren Commission Report.

Why did Oswald then go on to murder Officer Tippit and then attempt to murder more officers in the theater with the same gun he murdered Officer Tippit with?
 
Last edited:
manifesto said:
What a creepy comment and laughter. The Mighty Church does stuff with you, methinks.
Click to expand...

You ;) aren't intelligently using your time if you're stalling like this and not answering Hank's list and all of the other questions.

It doesn't matter to me but you ;) will continue to fail until you ;) do answer them all.
 
RoboTimbo said:
In this case, it's possible to determine when it was fired by noting that the bullets which struck JFK and Connally came from that rifle to the exclusion of all others in the world. This is in the Warren Commission Report.
Click to expand...
”Ah, I found a rifle hid behind some stuff here. Could it be the murder weapon? Check if it has been newly fired. No, not necessary, I know that the technical ballistic guys will prove that this is the murder weapon in a couple of months. I am clairvoyant, you see.

Ah.”​

Why did Oswald then go on to murder Officer Tippitt
Click to expand...
Yes indeed, why on earth did he do that?

and then attempt to murder more officers in the theater with the same gun he murdered Officer Tippitt with?
Click to expand...
There is at least between seven and ten different stories of these murder attempts of Oswald trying to kill severeal of the officers belonging to one of the most corrupt police forces in the history of the world?

Which one of the conflicting stories do you find the most convincing?

Ask your little blue idiot smileys, they know. They always do.

Ask them and report here.
 
HSienzant said:
What's the name of the test that shows it's been fired within the last 24 hours?

As opposed to two weeks ago and not cleaned since?

Hank
Click to expand...
”Put the finger in the pipe and chamber to see if it has NOT been newly fired”-test.

First sentence first page first book in the crime investigation manual.

Common sence 101.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom