JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

Except where he did



Not really important.



and? Where was this Mauser? Boone did not find the rifle.



Craig told many tales. I am not impressed. Read this and his contradictory statements: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/craig.htm

I'll give you that one. Weitzman said what he said on youtube after being brow-beaten as to the official script, like so many others, by the FBI. But what is on Youtube is not a sworn statement. His WC document is and it is very specific betraying more than just a "glance." As a police officer Mr. W. knows very well that when you swear that something is true, that means it's true. An un-sworn statement is virtually worthless if in a court of law.

Mr. W.also had some mental problems.
"Document # 180-10077-10208 Is the 25 page statement of Dr. Charles Laburda. Dr. Laburda told Mr. Matthews that Mr. Weitzman was a chronic schizophrenic. He was constantly in fear of his life. Also, he would tell people some things to make them happy and get them to go away. "

-- ARRB 13th Batch
The Federal Register February 20,1996 p. 6346-6347

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/20th_Issue/arrb_13.html

 

[kookbreaker]

You do understand the word "latent" don't you?

A moment ago you were saying there was no palm print.

The FBI's Sebastian Latona examined the prints and found them to be worthless.
His WC Testiomny:
:
Mr. LATONA. I could see faintly ridge formations there. However, examination disclosed to me that the formations, the ridge formations and characteristics, were insufficient for purposes of either effecting identification or a determination that the print was not identical with the prints of people. Accordingly, my opinion simply was that the latent prints which were there were of no value.

That would be because the Dallas police had already lifted the prints. Latona got them second hand.

As to the alleged palm print

It had no chain of evidence,

Yes it did. The problems that rise stem from the FBI demanding the weapon and the CTer confusion over the matter

and the Dallas police did not tell the FBI about the print until AFTER Oswald was dead.

DPD didn't care much for the FBI.

There is evidence that suggests the palm print was obtained from Oswald's dead body at the morgue, or later at the funeral home (Lifton 354-356 n; cf. Meagher 120-127). So suspicious was the palm print that even the WC privately had doubts about the manner in which it was obtained (Garrison 113; Marrs 445; cf.

Moreover:

"..."Miller Funeral Home director Paul Groody told this author that the FBI fingerprinted Oswald's corpse. Groody said 'I had a heck of time getting the black fingerprint ink off of Oswald's hands.' In 1978, FBI agent Richard Harrison confirmed to researcher Gary Mack that he had personally driven another Bureau agent and the 'Oswald' rifle to the Miller Funeral Home. Harrison said at the time he understood that the other agent intended to place Oswald's palm print on the rifle 'for comparison purposes.' Oswald had been fingerprinted three times while alive and in Dallas police custody. There has been no explanation for this postmortem fingerprinting."-- from "Crossfire" by Jim Mars

This is laughable. The dead sweat in Mars & Garrisons world, apparently.

Try reading this: http://www.jfk-online.com/prints.html

 

[Tomtomkent]

"Conspiracy Theorists are just nuts...', eh? So all you do is to confirm what I have said, that you guys just offer name calling, with no evidence, save for one person who brought up the rifle ID. So, what do you have? In terms of "evidence.' Nothing, I'm sure.

So just to be clear, which pieces of evidence offered by walter and discussed at length here by the "established history" side of the discussion were invalidated by the post you are rebutting? Assuming that is what you meant by "us guys". Even if you have deliberately misread the post and assumed it was name calling (rather than the intensded warning of how you will sound if you continue to not provide evidence…) it is hard to understand how you can ignore the wealth of data already discussed at length. Which you have refered to in your own posts!

Claiming "nothing" has been offered a few posts after discussing "something" is called a "lie". Please try to avoid those.

 

[bynmdsue]

I only claim it was a conspiracy, which I will shortly get into.

C'mon! Bring it in, set it on the table and open it up! I've waited twenty-odd yrs, now wow me.

 

[kookbreaker]

I'll give you that one. Weitzman said what he said on youtube after being brow-beaten as to the official script, like so many others, by the FBI. But what is on Youtube is not a sworn statement. His WC document is and it is very specific betraying more than just a "glance." As a police officer Mr. W. knows very well that when you swear that something is true, that means it's true.

Really? So if I swear to something and I am wrong (not lying, just wrong) that means it is actually true? How interesting.

An un-sworn statement is virtually worthless if in a court of law.

Well you know what trumps a sworn statement with an error in it? A complete lack of evidence for a Mauser - no Mauser, no Mauser brass, no Mauser bullets, etc.

 

[timhau]

You were given more than enough evidence by Walter Ego on post 53 and it was quoted several times. Pretending its not there doesn't impress us.

Speak for yourself. I've always found flat-out denial of reality highly impressive. Impressive in the wrong way, but impressive nonetheless.

 

[I Ratant]

Based on the incredibly shallow and thoughtless "research" RP has spent several minutes on, his culprit will be Colonel Mustard in the library with the candlestick.

 

[Tomtomkent]

There is also a burden of proof issue here. The status quo is that the available evidence points towards LHO acting alone, the established course of events. The null is that we have no reason to doubt these conclusions. The burden of evidence is for the null to be disproven, not for the most likely course of events to be made an absolute. RP seems to be expecting evidence to be provided to move the LHO case from beyond reasonable doubt, as it stands, to beyond any doubt (an impossibility inalmost any historical event) whatsoever.

And no evidence has yet been produced to sway us from the null. If it's coming why has it not been posted?

 

[Walter Ego]

You do understand the word "latent" don't you?

Yes, I do.

Although the word latent means hidden or invisible, in modern usage for forensic science the term latent prints means any chance or accidental impression left by friction ridge skin on a surface, regardless of whether it is visible or invisible at the time of deposition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint#Latent_prints

What did you think "latent" meant? Did you even read the article by Gary Savage on the fingerprint evidence I linked? I'm beginning to doubt that you did.

As to the alleged palm print

It had no chain of evidence, and the Dallas police did not tell the FBI about the print until AFTER Oswald was dead.

"...journalists assigned to the Dallas police station were reporting that, according to their police sources, Oswald's prints had NOT been found on the rifle (Lifton 356 n).

There is evidence that suggests the palm print was obtained from Oswald's dead body at the morgue, or later at the funeral home (Lifton 354-356 n; cf. Meagher 120-127). So suspicious was the palm print that even the WC privately had doubts about the manner in which it was obtained (Garrison 113; Marrs 445; cf.

Moreover:

"..."Miller Funeral Home director Paul Groody told this author that the FBI fingerprinted Oswald's corpse. Groody said 'I had a heck of time getting the black fingerprint ink off of Oswald's hands.' In 1978, FBI agent Richard Harrison confirmed to researcher Gary Mack that he had personally driven another Bureau agent and the 'Oswald' rifle to the Miller Funeral Home. Harrison said at the time he understood that the other agent intended to place Oswald's palm print on the rifle 'for comparison purposes.' Oswald had been fingerprinted three times while alive and in Dallas police custody. There has been no explanation for this postmortem fingerprinting."-- from "Crossfire" by Jim Mars

Btw, an "alleged palm print" of Oswald's was also found on one of the boxes in the sniper's nest on the 6th floor of the TSBD. Did the conspirators drag Oswald's corpse back up there too?

You are still having problems with proper citation but at least you give page numbers of the conspiracy books you are quoting... and that's part of the problem. What is this "evidence" that "suggests the palm print was obtained from Oswald's dead body at the morgue, or later at the funeral home"? You don't say. You merely quote Lifton and Marrs. Once again this is merely another assertion.

You do understand the different between evidence and mere assertion, don't you? I'm beginning to think you don't. Do you own the books by Marrs and Lifton? If so, maybe you can check to see if they give any sources for this "evidence."

All this talk of fingerprints reminded me of the PBS documentary Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald? which can be viewed on You Tube and which, as it happens, features both Gary Savage and former Dallas Police Crime Lab Detective Rusty Livingston.

I've cued up the clip to the relevant segment and you can view it here. The advantage of this clip (for you at least) is that it doesn't require any reading.

 

[Robert Prey]

Yes, I do.




What did you think "latent" meant? Did you even read the article by Gary Savage on the fingerprint evidence I linked? I'm beginning to doubt that you did.





Btw, an "alleged palm print" of Oswald's was also found on one of the boxes in the sniper's nest on the 6th floor of the TSBD. Did the conspirators drag Oswald's corpse back up there too?

You are still having problems with proper citation but at least you give page numbers of the conspiracy books you are quoting... and that's part of the problem. What is this "evidence" that "suggests the palm print was obtained from Oswald's dead body at the morgue, or later at the funeral home"? You don't say. You merely quote Lifton and Marrs. Once again this is merely another assertion.

You do understand the different between evidence and mere assertion, don't you? I'm beginning to think you don't. Do you own the books by Marrs and Lifton? If so, maybe you can check to see if they give any sources for this "evidence."

All this talk of fingerprints reminded me of the PBS documentary Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald? which can be viewed on You Tube and which, as it happens, features both Gary Savage and former Dallas Police Crime Lab Detective Rusty Livingston.

I've cued up the clip to the relevant segment and you can view it here. The advantage of this clip (for you at least) is that it doesn't require any reading.

So, in a few words, exactly what is your point?

 

[Robert Prey]

There is also a burden of proof issue here. The status quo is that the available evidence points towards LHO acting alone, the established course of events. The null is that we have no reason to doubt these conclusions. The burden of evidence is for the null to be disproven, not for the most likely course of events to be made an absolute. RP seems to be expecting evidence to be provided to move the LHO case from beyond reasonable doubt, as it stands, to beyond any doubt (an impossibility inalmost any historical event) whatsoever.

And no evidence has yet been produced to sway us from the null. If it's coming why has it not been posted?

No, the burden is on those who make the accusation.

 

[Robert Prey]

Really? So if I swear to something and I am wrong (not lying, just wrong) that means it is actually true? How interesting.



Well you know what trumps a sworn statement with an error in it? A complete lack of evidence for a Mauser - no Mauser, no Mauser brass, no Mauser bullets, etc.

Weitzman was mistaken more than once. He was mistaken when he stated on the CBS program that it was proven that he was wrong about the rifle ID. It was not "proven." He was only told by the FBI that it was proven. Weitzman was never allowed to see the rifle in question to affirm that it was or was not the rifle that he observed. Thus, it was not proven to him, only told to him. Perhaps he was not so paranoid to fear what might happen to him if he didn't recant his sworn statement, what actually did happen to Roger Craig who never recanted his recollection that the rifle was indeed a Mauser and that he observed the inscription 'Mauser, 7.65.

 

[Scott Sommers]

So, in a few words, exactly what is your point?

I don't really understand this. I get Walter's point and I don't know anything about this Kennedy stuff. And you haven't said a single thing in response to him. I guess that means you beat. What else could it mean?

Good show their Walter. Strike another blow for the mighty Canadian.

 

[Robert Prey]

So just to be clear, which pieces of evidence offered by walter and discussed at length here by the "established history" side of the discussion were invalidated by the post you are rebutting? Assuming that is what you meant by "us guys". Even if you have deliberately misread the post and assumed it was name calling (rather than the intensded warning of how you will sound if you continue to not provide evidence…) it is hard to understand how you can ignore the wealth of data already discussed at length. Which you have refered to in your own posts!

Claiming "nothing" has been offered a few posts after discussing "something" is called a "lie". Please try to avoid those.

This is a small space. Name one item, not a thousand.

 

[Robert Prey]

A moment ago you were saying there was no palm print.



That would be because the Dallas police had already lifted the prints. Latona got them second hand.



Yes it did. The problems that rise stem from the FBI demanding the weapon and the CTer confusion over the matter



DPD didn't care much for the FBI.



This is laughable. The dead sweat in Mars & Garrisons world, apparently.

Try reading this: http://www.jfk-online.com/prints.html

No, first try to make a point.

 

[Chaos]

No, the burden is on those who make the accusation.

Then the burden is on you to show there were additional assassins.

And "show" means provide evidence, not spam a couple of unsupported claims.

 

[timhau]

No, the burden is on those who make the accusation.

You says there is a conspiracy, you proves there is a conspiracy. Simple as that, really.

 

[kookbreaker]

Weitzman was mistaken more than once. He was mistaken when he stated on the CBS program that it was proven that he was wrong about the rifle ID. It was not "proven." He was only told by the FBI that it was proven. Weitzman was never allowed to see the rifle in question to affirm that it was or was not the rifle that he observed.

Yawn. There were plenty of chances for him to see the rifle and by his own admission he was not an expert. He saw what looked like a Mauser, being less than 20 years out of WW2 Mausers were probabaly the 1st bolt action rifle that would come to an average American detective's mind, especially when presented with a rifle of very similar design. This is not a strech, so you don't need any fanciful nonsense like this:

Thus, it was not proven to him, only told to him. Perhaps he was not so paranoid to fear what might happen to him if he didn't recant his sworn statement,

Speculative, paranoid nonsense that cannot even remotely be taken seriously. This is the dreck 'evidence' we are to expect from you?!

There was no evidence of a Mauser, no Mauser brass, and no Mauser bullets to be found anywhere in Dealy plaza. The Carcano resembles a Mauser and it is an easy mistake to make.

what actually did happen to Roger Craig who never recanted his recollection that the rifle was indeed a Mauser and that he observed the inscription 'Mauser, 7.65.

Craig told a lot of tales, as my previous link on him showed. but your silly, paranoid fantasy ramblings about his suicide being an asassination is ludicrous.

And Craig was contradictory about it being a Mauser: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/craig.htm#mauser

 

[kookbreaker]

No, first try to make a point.

I answered your points and destroyed them. Game-playing won't win you any points here.

I wonder if you actually think you are being clever?

 

[Tomtomkent]

No, the burden is on those who make the accusation.

The burden for proving a conspiracy lays with you. It's your claim, prove it.