• 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.

JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert Prey said:
Apparently there was an m/c found at the TSBD.
Click to expand...
Yes. Oswald's.

But on a lower floor.
Click to expand...
No.

I question the "exclusion of all other weapons" assertion,
Click to expand...
Why?

but nonetheless, doesn't prove Oswald it, nor to the exclusion of of other shooters.
Click to expand...
The totality of the evidence does that.

What hypothesis are you putting forward for how JFK was killed and what is your single best piece of evidence for your hypothesis?
 
I Ratant said:
.
You are lost forever in the conspiracy sewers.
"Warren Commission Report
Chapter 3.
"The Shots from the Texas School Book Depository"
.
Description of Rifle

The bolt-action, clip-fed rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository, described more fully in appendix X, is inscribed with various markings, including "MADE ITALY," "CAL. 6.5," "1940" and the number C2766.126 (See Commission Exhibit Nos. 1303, 541(2) and 541 (3), pp. 82-83.)
Click to expand...
\

The Warren Report is a Whitewash.
 
Tomtomkent said:
My statement would be: "There is no single piece of evidence, to claim thus would be to have unrealistic expectations. There are however many smaller pieces that fit together to give a case which is proven beyond reasonable doubt, with no other satisfactory alternative, and no evidence to support further layers of conspiracy."

To expect a single piece of magic evidence is to misunderstand the process entirely. And by extension to misunderstand how reality tends to work. The palm prints on the rifle that fired the shots, in the location the shots were fired from, is more than reasonable.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the usual retreat by LN's into a fog of evidenciary minutia. One point at a time, please.
 
Walter Ego said:
Oh, I see, you don't like to read posts with more than one paragraph. Is English your second language? You also have trouble expressing yourself clearly. And you still haven't provided any evidence for whatever conspiracy theory you're peddling. (Hint: Unsourced assertions from books by conspiracy writers is not evidence.)

You need help, Robert. You are heading towards an epic fail. Do you have any conspiracy-minded buds who could drop by and give you a helping hand?
Click to expand...

So, I take it you respect Vincent Bugliosi as a serious scholar on the subject? Yes?
 
Robert Prey said:
\

The Warren Report is a Whitewash.
Click to expand...
.
So you've been told by your controllers, Marrs and Lifton.
That would be laughable were it not so sad.
Why not add "High Treason" to your list of truths, so you can have a trifecta of compiled lies and misdirections?
 
Tomtomkent said:
Will it be any time soon? As I can't see any reason for you having failed to produce it so far.

Two words leaves little room for citation however. And as "no evidence" is now truly debunked your work is cut out.
Click to expand...

Before getting into it, we should have a review of exactly what a 'Conspiracy" is under federal law, to wit:

"18 U.S.C. 371 makes it a separate Federal crime or offense for anyone to conspire or agree with someone else to do something which, if actually carried out, would amount to another Federal crime or offense. So, under this law, a 'conspiracy' is an agreement or a kind of 'partnership' in criminal purposes in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member.

In order to establish a conspiracy offense it is not necessary for the Government to prove that all of the people named in the indictment were members of the scheme; or that those who were members had entered into any formal type of agreement; or that the members had planned together all of the details of the scheme or the 'overt acts' that the indictment charges would be carried out in an effort to commit the intended crime."

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c103.htm

So, obviously, if it can be proved there was more than one shooter, it is a conspiracy. And that's what I will do in my 2nd piece of evidence. But it is not necessary to have more than one shooter to prove "conspiracy." Though my example does not preclude that either. So here is my first "proof" of conspiracy, summed up in just two words. The incident or incidents this item refers to have been referred to by House Assassinations Comm. Investigator Gaeton Fonzi as proof of a conspiracy, and even given grudging backhanded merit by the CT's severest critic,namely .......:

The two words are:

(Trumpet fanfare, please) Ta,ta,ta,ta tah tah:

Sylvia Odio​


Google it. WC it. HSCA it, Macadams It, and then come back on this board and say it ain't so!
 
Last edited:
I was thinking about it the other day, and came up with what I think (and please, correct me if I'm off, here) is a plausible chain of events behind each of the three shots:

Shot 1: LHO missed and couldn't find where his shot went (we can't know what he was aiming at, but given shot 3, we can assume JFK's head) so:

Shot 2: LHO aims roughly center of mass, pulls the trigger, and sees JFK react, but not slump as from a instantly mortal wound, so:

Shot 3: Since LHO knows roughly where he was aiming when he took shot 2, and also roughly where shot 2 struck, he takes a little more time to line up his shot, squeezes the trigger, and sees a very obvious mortal wound.

Can any conspiracy peddler do the same?
 
Robert Prey said:
So, I take it you respect Vincent Bugliosi as a serious scholar on the subject? Yes?
Click to expand...


On the subject of JFK conspiracy theorists or on the subject of the JFK assassination? On the former he is spot on. On the latter his book is exhaustive in its scope and but hardly the last word on the subject as he believes and he holds the Warren Report in a higher esteem than I do.

Okay, I answered your question. Why don't you start answering some of the numerous questions that have been put to you and that you've been ignoring.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
[If] it can be proved there was more than one shooter, it is a conspiracy. And that's what I will do in my 2nd piece of evidence. But it is not necessary to have more than one shooter to prove "conspiracy." Though my example does not preclude that either. So here is my first "proof" of conspiracy, summed up in just two words. The incident or incidents this item refers to have been referred to by House Assassinations Comm. Investigator Gaeton Fonzi as proof of a conspiracy, and even given grudging backhanded merit by the CT's severest critic,namely .......:

The two words are:

(Trumpet fanfare, please) Ta,ta,ta,ta tah tah:

Sylvia Odio​


Google it. WC it. HSCA it, Macadams It, and then come back on this board and say it ain't so!
Click to expand...


Some background on Odio here.

So you believe the man who Odio says was introduced to her as "Leon Oswald" was an Oswald impostor and that he was the second shooter?

Jean Davison who wrote Oswald's Game, the best book ever written about Lee Harvey Oswald, has this to say about the Odio incident.

When these men visited [Sylvia] Odio's apartment [in September 1963], Kennedy's trip to Dallas had not even been scheduled, let alone announced. ... No one on earth could have known that Oswald would ultimately land a job in a building that would overlook a Kennedy motorcade. But the frame-up theory's ultimate weakness involves the critics' conception of Lee Harvey Oswald. In every conspiracy book, Oswald is a piece of chaff blown about by powerful, unseen forces -- he's a dumb and compliant puppet with no volition of his own. If the man Odio saw was an impostor, how could the plotters be certain no witnesses would be able to establish Oswald's presence somewhere else that evening -- unless they ordered the unsuspecting patsy to stay out of sight? And if the real Oswald was used, how did the anti-Castro plotters get their Marxist enemy to stand at Odio's door to be introduced as a friend of the Cuban exiles? No one has come up with a plausible scenario that can answer those questions. ... The point to be stressed is this: Sylvia Odio gave testimony of obvious, even crucial importance, and no one could explain what it meant." -- Pages 193-195

Jean Davison's "Oswald's Game" (Norton 1983)
Click to expand...


I will give you some credit here. You have seized on the most intriguing anomaly in the case against Oswald.
 
Last edited:
Jean was a prolific contributor on CIS's Conspiracy forum, and was rational.
ISTR she was not a CTwit.
Sent me a video of ..... escapes me now, something to do with the M-C, if memory serves.
 
That's it? It aint so.

It doesn't refute the palm print. It doesn't refute the ballistics. It doesn't produce evidence for there being any other guns fired on the day. It is no different from any other conflicting memories of where oswald was at any other time. And it certainly doesn't present any reason you couldnt have mentioned it earlier rather than play silly games.

Investigations have anomolies, often based on flawed human memories. They don't prove conspiracies. Never mind.
 
I guess my reaction to Sylvio Odio is "and...?"

She could be remembering wrong, but assuming she isn't so what?

Oswald's wherabouts on the day in question were not well known.

He was in the company of a couple of anti-Castro Cubans. He could easily have been conning them or bumming a ride from them. Knowing Oswald he probably thought he was being a clever undercover agent who was going to report directly to Castro once he got to Cuba.

It was September, Oswald's plans at that point were to defect to Cuba. I don't think JFK's visit to Dallas was even in the works at that time.

Sylvia's testimony doesn't make anyone else guilty, nor does it remove the evidence pointing at Oswald.
 
What is this aversion that conspiracy theorists have to considering the preponderance of evidence?
 
I would think the proper time for us to be enlightened as to the "truth" would be on the 50th anniversary, not the 48th... but with the foot dragging on the "revelation(s)", it may well take 2 years to get anything "substantial" from this troll.
 
kookbreaker said:
I guess my reaction to Sylvio Odio is "and...?"

She could be remembering wrong, but assuming she isn't so what?

Oswald's wherabouts on the day in question were not well known.

He was in the company of a couple of anti-Castro Cubans. He could easily have been conning them or bumming a ride from them. Knowing Oswald he probably thought he was being a clever undercover agent who was going to report directly to Castro once he got to Cuba.

It was September, Oswald's plans at that point were to defect to Cuba. I don't think JFK's visit to Dallas was even in the works at that time.

Sylvia's testimony doesn't make anyone else guilty, nor does it remove the evidence pointing at Oswald.
Click to expand...


The Odio Incident is intriguing precisely because of Odio's credibility. Vincent Bugliosi devotes forty pages to Odio in his book Reclaiming History and concludes that her story is credible and it probably was Oswald who visited her apartment in the company of two anti-Castro Cubans in late September of 1963.

The HSCA also concluded Odio was credible but also said, as you do, so what?

It appears that Silvia Odio's testimony is essentially credible. From the evidence provided in the sworn testimony of corroborating witnesses, there is no doubt that three men came to her apartment in Dallas prior to the Kennedy assassination and identified themselves as members of an anti-Castro Cuban organization. From a judgment of the credibility of both Silvia and Annie Odio, it must be concluded that there is a strong probability that one of the men was or appeared to be Lee Harvey Oswald. No conclusion about the significance of that visit could be reached.

House Select Committee on Assassinations Hearings

http://www.jfk-online.com/odiohsca.html
Click to expand...


The incident is anomalous because it doesn't fit within the overwhelming matrix of the evidence of Oswald's guilt. As Jean Davison said, "no one could explain what it meant." I does not, however, mitigate that guilt.
 
Last edited:
Posner looked at Odio, and found nothing credible.
'Case Closed", 177.
"It is physically impossible for Oswald to visit Odio in Dallas when she claims he did."
The person she says may have been Oswald was most likely William Seymour, who greatly resembled Oswald.
She could not identify Oswald from photographs shown her by the Warren Commission.
And despite her tendency toward exhibitionism and need for attention, never contacted anyone, except to casually mention it to a neighbor after her breakdown the day of the assassination.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom