JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[GregHouseMD]

How do we even know the picture was taken to disprove the shadow angles in one of the Oswald backyard photos? Robert won't tell us where he got it. It could just be a picture of a doofus holding a broomstick in a parking lot that he found on the internet.

In all fairness, if the photo has nothing to do with LHO then the man with the stick may not be a doofus. He may me demonstrating the proper way to preform the "Queen Anne Salute" without a real rifle.

 

[Tomtomkent]

In all fairness, if the photo has nothing to do with LHO then the man with the stick may not be a doofus. He may me demonstrating the proper way to preform the "Queen Anne Salute" without a real rifle.

Not in any manner a parade master might consider "proper".

 

[HSienzant]

Nicholas Katzenbach?

It's coming soon, oh ye of little faith. And if you are asking who NK worked for , that's a ridiculous question. Answer it yourself.

Again, if this is duplicative of a point made by another, my apologies.

NK worked for RFK.

His title at the time of the memorandum you cite was Deputy Attorney General. You do know who the Attorney General was, right?

Now, what point were you trying to make?

Hank

 

[Walter Ego]

Again, if this is duplicative of a point made by another, my apologies.

NK worked for RFK.

His title at the time of the memorandum you cite was Deputy Attorney General. You do know who the Attorney General was, right?

Now, what point were you trying to make?

Hank

Welcome to the forum.

It is often difficult to understand what Robert is trying to say. Even he seems confused at times about what he himself has posted which has led to much unintentional comedy on this thread.

You are correct that Katzenbach worked for Robert Kennedy (Katzenbach was in fact acting Attorney General for several months after the assassination filling in for the emotionally devastated RFK), but I believe what Robert was saying is that after the assassination Katzenbach worked for LBJ who Robert believes is the main perp in the vast ill-defined government conspiracy to cover up what happened in Dallas on November 22, 1963.

Good luck on getting him to clarify this, though. Trying to pin him down is like trying to nail Jello to a tree.

 

[Robert Prey]

Welcome to the forum.

It is often difficult to understand what Robert is trying to say. Even he seems confused at times about what he himself has posted which has led to much unintentional comedy on this thread.

You are correct that Katzenbach worked for Robert Kennedy (Katzenbach was in fact acting Attorney General for several months after the assassination filling in for the emotionally devastated RFK), but I believe what Robert was saying is that after the assassination Katzenbach worked for LBJ who Robert believes is the main perp in the vast ill-defined government conspiracy to cover up what happened in Dallas on November 22, 1963.

Good luck on getting him to clarify this, though. Trying to pin him down is like trying to nail Jello to a tree.

You're asking me to clarify your mis-quotes?

 

[Tomtomkent]

You're asking me to clarify your mis-quotes?

No they are trying to clarify what point you made when you misunderstood Walter. As you appear to be misunderstanding now. Never mind.

 

[HSienzant]

Nobody admitted anything like what you claim. Deferring does not equate with admitting. It merely allows that copies may not be as clear as originals. But Thompson could not possibly say he was wrong without seeing those originals. Logic 101. And still, when it comes to Jack White, Thompson and Pickering, you still decline to critique the evidence presented, which any average un-trained person can see with the naked eye is evidence of forgery and does not required a degree in forensic photography. Just common sense, something you seem to not want to embrace.

And you cannot say Thompson was right, either, since he didn't examine the originals. You just discredited your own witness. The one you brought to the discussion as evidence of forgery.

What else you got?

 

[Robert Prey]

And you cannot say Thompson was right, either, since he didn't examine the originals. You just discredited your own witness. The one you brought to the discussion as evidence of forgery.

What else you got?

Of course I can say Thompson was right. I've personally proved him to be right.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Of course I can say Thompson was right. I've personally proved him to be right.

Are you lying or simply mistaken?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Of course I can say Thompson was right. I've personally proved him to be right.

No you haven't. The reasons why you haven't have been explained at length.

 

[HSienzant]

RFK Recommended NK

Welcome to the forum.

It is often difficult to understand what Robert is trying to say. Even he seems confused at times about what he himself has posted which has led to much unintentional comedy on this thread.

You are correct that Katzenbach worked for Robert Kennedy (Katzenbach was in fact acting Attorney General for several months after the assassination filling in for the emotionally devastated RFK), but I believe what Robert was saying is that after the assassination Katzenbach worked for LBJ who Robert believes is the main perp in the vast ill-defined government conspiracy to cover up what happened in Dallas on November 22, 1963.

Good luck on getting him to clarify this, though. Trying to pin him down is like trying to nail Jello to a tree.

Of course, the more interesting thing is that RFK recommended NK to LBJ for the Attorney General position when RFK resigned. So RP is accusing RFK of recommending one supposed co-conspirator to another.

 

[HSienzant]

Harrison Livingston interviewed her in for "High Treason Two" in 1992. Her story then was that she took the photos, but not the one's in evidence because she said in the photos she took, the stairs of the house were to her back. IN the photos in evidence, the picture taker is facing the stairs, and the stairs are to the subject's back. That's a real inconsistency which if true, points to a re-taking of the photos by the conspirators.

That's a bizarre formulation.

You're saying the conspirators had legit photos of Oswald, taken by Marina, holding a rifle in that backyard, and for some reason (too much time on their hands and an unlimited budget, perhaps?) they destroyed the legit ones and went to all the trouble to substitute fake ones?

Do you even begin to think about the implications of some of your conjectures?

It appears not.

Of course, the other interpretation - that Marina, 20 or more years after the event - introduced this change in her story simply because she simply mis-remembered where she was standing at the time and this means the photos in evidence have always been the ones she took (and that Oswald signed the back of one), isn't to your liking, because it implicates Oswald as owning the rifle and being a leftist.

So of course you will seize upon any other interpretation, no matter how bizarre.

That is not the correct way to solve a crime.

Hank

 

[SpitfireIX]

So of course you will seize upon any other interpretation, no matter how bizarre.

You catch on quick. Welcome to the forum.

 

[HSienzant]

Marina told the HSCA and the WC that she took the photos in question. In 2000 she told Bugliosi the same. In 1993-94 she also told Posner the same thing.

Now while she told Livingston something else, one must consider that while Marina is a willful woman she has also had conspriacy nutters whispering nonsense in her ears for decades. The period from the late 70's through the early 90's was probably her at her worst and under the influence of some of the craziest CT buffs. It is when she agreed to have Lee's body exhumed, among other things. Eventually she sorted out that these things out and now stands by what she said to the HSCA and the WC.

Combine that with the fact that there is absolutely zero evidence of any sort of tampering of the photos (beyond the ravings of kooks or other folks who didn't actuall do any tests) and the backyard photos can be accepted as authentic.

And remember she has two daughters that would prefer not to be known as daughters of a presidential assassin. Her actions in many ways during those years is entirely understandable. But as you say, she still to this day says she took those photos and stands by her original testimony as it appears in the Warren Commission volumes of evidence.

 

[HSienzant]

Yeah, well that's one possibility, but not necessary to make a forgery. All they had to do is get Oswald's palm print whether from his dead body or from some other source, and then say, Hey, we got this off the rifle. Of course, there was no evidence of any readable palm or finger print on the rifle.

BS. The fingerprints on the trigger guard were photographed by Lt. Day on the day of the assassination and appear in the WC volumes of evidence. Years later, first-generation photos of those prints were examined by Vincent Scalise - a recognized expert on fingerprints - and it was his opinion they were Lee Harvey Oswald's print.

On the trigger guard.

On the afternoon of the assassination.

Live with it.

 

[HSienzant]

From the same page:
"Latona then processed the complete weapon but developed no identifiable prints."

The basis for the WC concluding that there was a palm print did not come from Latona's confirmation that a later print submitted on a card was Oswald's, because they had his Palm Print for ID purposes, but only from the unconfirmed statements of Lieutenant Day of the Dallas Police claiming that he had lifted a palm print by himself (with no confirming witnesses) But Day was asked to sign a statement swearing to the truth as to the lift, and he refused to do so. -- from "Rush to Judgement", citing FBI report in WR, vol XXVI

The fact remains that Latona found no identifiable prints.

Thus, the alleged palm print remains highly questionable and quite possibly a fraud, just like the B/Y photos and so much of the rest of the "evidence." And a real critical thinker would also keep in mind that the FBI itself is a prime suspect in the coverup.

So, let's keep count, shall we?

Involved in the conspiracy or coverup of the conspiracy according to you thus far:

Nicholas Katzenbach, LBJ, the two cubans, Oswald or the Oswald look-alike who made the JFK should be shot remarks, the forger(s) of the back yard photos, Lt Day of the DPD crime lab, and now, some unnamed members of the FBI.

I have no doubt there will be several thousand more co-conspirators or cover-upper-ers added by you in the ensuing days.

How'd they get all those guys together and agree to do this?

How'd they get all them guys to stay silent for nearly 50 years?

Hank

 

[Walter Ego]

You're asking me to clarify your mis-quotes?

No, Robert, HSienzant was asking you who you thought Nicholas Katzenbach worked for at the time of the JFK assassination and the formation of the Warren Commission and what significance that would have for your conspiracy theory. Typically, you have refused to answer him.

You have said many confused and contradictory things on this thread which you have refused to qualify and you have even posted stuff and later forgot what you have said. (I have examples if you need them.)

You also have a history of dodging or not answering questions. I would like to know where your got that picture of the doofus in the parking lot holding the broomstick but I seriously doubt you remember posting it at this point.

 

[HSienzant]

All the FBI got was an alleged palm print on a card. Could have been obtained from the corpse directly or indirectly by inking the palm. Mortician Groudy said LHO's palm was full of ink.

After the death of Oswald, some law enforcement officers (I forget who) went to the funeral home and yes, took inked prints of Oswald for identification purposes. Asked about it later, they said they did it to forestall speculation that it wasn't Oswald who was shot. A fat lot of good that did.

Of course, speculation that it wasn't Oswald in the grave eventually led to the body's exhumation and an exhaustive study (at Baylor, I believe) that concluded, that, yes, it was Lee Harvey Oswald in the grave.

That didn't stop the conspiraticists like Robert. They parsed the prose in that report and found other things to question.

It never ends.

 

[HSienzant]

You catch on quick. Welcome to the forum.

Been arguing the JFK assassination with loons like Robert Prey for nearly 20 years - going back to the early 1990's on the old AOL boards.

I've seen all these silly arguments countless times before.

All of them have been studied and disproven, and many have been abandoned even by many, but not all, conspiracists. But now and then you get somebody like Robert who reads only the self-reinforcing conspiracy literature, and thus, never heard that lots of this guff has been disproven.

He believes it because it makes a better story than the real one: Look at this little fish I caught. But you should've seen the one that got away!

Hank

 

[Robert Prey]

So, let's keep count, shall we?

Involved in the conspiracy or coverup of the conspiracy according to you thus far:

Nicholas Katzenbach, LBJ, the two cubans, Oswald or the Oswald look-alike who made the JFK should be shot remarks, the forger(s) of the back yard photos, Lt Day of the DPD crime lab, and now, some unnamed members of the FBI.

I have no doubt there will be several thousand more co-conspirators or cover-upper-ers added by you in the ensuing days.

How'd they get all those guys together and agree to do this?

How'd they get all them guys to stay silent for nearly 50 years?

Hank

They didn't.