JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

Hi Robert,

I was asking about the co-conspirators you named earlier. Do you even recall them?

Here's what I asked again:



Now, instead of answering that question, you simply added more conspirators to the pile! Did any of the original co-conspirators you named confess to anything? No? Why couldn't you have said that, then?

So we're up to, according to your own statements, Nicholas Katzenbach, LBJ, two Cubans who appeared at Sylvia Odio's apartment, Oswald or the Oswald look-alike who, it is alleged, made a "JFK should be shot" remark, the forger(s) of the back yard photos, Lt Day of the DPD crime lab, and now, some unnamed members of the FBI, as well as definitely Oswald (who talked to a cellmate), Ruby, Sam Giancana, Frank Fiorini (Sturgis), Marita Lorenz, and E. Howard Hunt!

Now, I doubt you can offer a coherent theory about how this conspiracy work, but I feel duty-bound to ask: How did this conspiracy work? What was the plan? Where did it go wrong, and why did they have to forge backyard photos instead of just using the ones they had that Marina took, why did they have to alter the autopsy photos *AND* the z-film *AND* the body? Why did they have to both plant and then later swap a bullet at Parkland for the bullet they originally planted? etc. etc. etc. I realize you may not have made all these claims yet, but they are all in the conspiracy literature, and you are simply parroting back to us the claims from that literature, so it's probably only a matter of time before you make these other claims.

You've already flip-flopped a number of times on whether Oswald was involved. Why don't you start with that?

Better yet, why not just tell us which of the above you don't believe? We can start there.

Hank

Your post is filled with distortions and mis-quotes and a few dozen compound questions. You want an answer, then my rule is one question at a time and a little more honesty would be appreciated.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So, having failed to prove a Lone Nut assassin of the President, you now prefer to engage in a side issue of the shooting ot Tippit? Even if, how does that prove a Lone Nutter conspiracy???

And this does not answer the direct question either. We can assume you have no reasonable evidence to suggest why they would frame Oswald with the "wrong" gun.

Oddly the murder of one policeman and attempted murder of a second, while trying to flee and hide, using a weapon directly tied to the murder weapon of the POTUS is not a side issue. It is a direct thread on enquiry. Oswald had the same pistol in is hand for those shootings as mariana photographed him holding with the rifle.

 

[Robert Prey]

If there is doubt about whether Oswald was involved, why did you mention the Cubans at Odio's apartment story, and tell us they were co-conspirators with Lee Harvey Oswald?

Have you changed your mind about the import of the Odio story?

Hank

Another distortion and mis-quote. I never accused Oswald of being involved in a conspiracy to murder the President, but have suggested he could have. The Odio incident merely shows that Oswald or someone impersonating him was one of the men who visited Odio. It may be altogether possible that Oswald, working for Am. Intelligence, had infiltrated the anti-Castro group and was playing the role of his youthful hero, Herb Philbrick, depicted in his favorite TV show, "I Led Three Lives." Oswald, in this role, may have been an Am. Intell. provocateur.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Your post is filled with distortions and mis-quotes and a few dozen compound questions. You want an answer, then my rule is one question at a time and a little more honesty would be appreciated.

Please indicate where you think there are misquotes.

Then you might want to amend many of your own posts.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Another distortion and mis-quote. I never accused Oswald of being involved in a conspiracy to murder the President, but have suggested he might have. The Odio incident merely shows that Oswald or someone impersonating him was one of the men who visited Odio. It may be altogether possible and Oswald, working for Am. Intelligence, had infiltrated the anti-Castro group and was playing the role of his youthful hero, Herb Philbrick depicted in his favorite TV show, "I Led Three Lives."

So you didnt ... except when you said he might have...

If he was NOT part of a conspiracy why did you suggest the odio quote "proved" a conspiracy, and argue at length that the two Cubans were legally part of the conspiracy for being aware of his plans?

Will you now please retract all claims to have proven a conspiracy.

 

[Robert Prey]

It's not Robert's fault. The conspiracy books throw so much garbage against the wall, hoping some of it will stick, that some people reading the books never get the concept that a lot of the allegations contradict each other, and thus at least one (if not both) must be false.

So Robert claims the autopsy photos in evidence aren't the real ones, then cites supposed evidence from one autopsy photo that it is alleged, shows JFK was shot from the front. And he doesn't even see the conflict in his own claims!

This is true throughout the conspiracy literature. I am thinking of the claims about the nearly-whole bullet found in Parkland Hospital (Commission Exhibit399).

Some CTs allege it was planted, others allege it was swapped, still others allege it was both planted and swapped.

Not sure where RP stands on this, but it's clear that if conspirators planted the bullet, there would be no need to swap it later, and if it was swapped later, it clearly wasn't planted.

Still, that doesn't stop some less-thoughtful conspiracy theorists from alleging both happened.

Now, Robert, you can swamp us with arguments on both sides of that fence, but we realize what you don't - that something is not kosher with a conspiracy theorist if they argue for both. You need to pick one, if you are going to argue the bullet is not legit - no conspirator would act in the way the conspiracy books allege.

Hank

No. You are the one who is confused. The boot-leg death stare photos are not autopsy photos, but pre-autopsy photos.

 

[Robert Prey]

You left one out: Why did Marina show one on the day after the assassination to Lee Harvey's Oswald's own Mother, who adivised her to burn it and flush the ashes down the toilet?

This is from the testimony of Marina Oswald.

You never did adress the question I raised about the photos. You alleged the conspirators had legit photos of Oswald with a rifle in the backyard, but destroyed those and susbtituted others - the ones now in evidence.

You never explained why we should believe that, instead of Marina's own admissions to the Warren Commission and to the HSCa, that she took the photos.

For example (testimony before the HSCA, as Mrs Marina Porter, in 1978):

Mrs. Porter, I have got two exhibits to show you, if the clerk would procure them from the representatives of the National Archives.
We have two photographs to show you. They are Warren Commission Exhibits C-133-A and B, which have been given JFK Nos. F-378 and F-379. If the clerk would please hand them to you, and also if we could now have for display purposes JFK Exhibit F-179, which is a blowup of the two photographs placed in front of you.
Mrs. Porter, do you recognize the photographs placed in front of you?
Mrs. PORTER. Yes, I do.
Mr. McDONALD. And how do you recognize them?
Mrs. PORTER. That is the photograph that I made of Lee on his persistent request of taking a picture of him dressed like that with rifle.

Now, unless you can explain *why* the conspirators would do something as silly as destroying legit photos of Oswald with a rifle, only to substitute falsified photos of Oswald with a rifle, it is clear the only reasonable explanation before us is that Marina took the photos, and simply mis-remembered at one time (ovr twenty years after the fact) which way she was facing.

I know you don't accept it, and never will. But it is the only reasonable explanation - unless you can address the silliness in your own claims and explain it reasonably.

Hank

The only sense one can make of Marina's many versions is nonsense. But again, believe what you want about the phony b/y photos. It still doesn't add up to proof of one Lone Nut.

 

[Tomtomkent]

No. You are the one who is confused. The boot-leg death stare photos are not autopsy photos, but pre-autopsy photos.

Then why do they form part of the autopsy documents?
Why (when uncropped…) do they not show what you describe?
Why have you never validated this claimed origin with documentary evidence?
Why have both been cropped and rotated to claim they show significantly different wounds to those claimed?

 

[Robert Prey]

Okay, so at the time this supposed 'conspiracy to assassinate JFK' was plotted, the people named thus far in the various agencies (like Nicholas Katzenbach in the Justice Department) work for whom, Robert?

Why does who they worked for *after the plot was completed* count for more than *who they worked for when the plot was hatched*?

Can you explain that coherently?

You never think of the implications of where these conspiracy theories lead, do you?

With all due respect,
Hank

Nobody but you has made the claim of all the cover-uppers involved in the assassination plot. The cover-uppers most probably were merely following orders from the chief cover-upper.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The only sense one can make of Marina's many versions is nonsense. But again, believe what you want about the phony b/y photos. It still doesn't add up to proof of one Lone Nut.

So what evidence leads you to believe the "nonsense" when she claims not to have taken some of the photos?
Why did your model fail to replicate the pose accurately when proving the shadows "impossible"?
Why should we not accept a signed photograph of LHO holding the rifle that fired all the shots accounted for at JFK, found later in his place of work, with his prints on, as evidence heacted alone? In the absense of evidence of any other shooters what other reasonable conclusion can be drawn? Why should we not use that evidence in conjuction with the rest of the material evidence?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Nobody but you has made the claim of all the cover-uppers involved in the assassination plot. The cover-uppers most probably were merely following orders from the chief cover-upper.

So are you going to supply a coherent narrative or just vague assertions like this?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Your post is filled with distortions and mis-quotes and a few dozen compound questions. You want an answer, then my rule is one question at a time and a little more honesty would be appreciated.

Honestly, your cowardly dodging does not make anyone think less of you.

 

[Walter Ego]

Another distortion and mis-quote. I never accused Oswald of being involved in a conspiracy to murder the President, but have suggested he could have. The Odio incident merely shows that Oswald or someone impersonating him was one of the men who visited Odio. It may be altogether possible that Oswald, working for Am. Intelligence, had infiltrated the anti-Castro group and was playing the role of his youthful hero, Herb Philbrick, depicted in his favorite TV show, "I Led Three Lives." Oswald, in this role, may have been an Am. Intell. provocateur.

"Suggested," "could have," "may be," "may have been." Interesting. So these claims are unsupported supposition. That's odd because in your "I Luv Lee" post quoted below and some other posts you've made the same claims as if they were incontrovertible facts. So which is it, Robert?

[Lee Harvey] Oswald claimed to be a Marxist, but actually was a loyal patriotic American who loved his country, loved his president, was a former US Marine, worked for Naval Intelligence, as well as an operative for CIA and FBI, was sent to USSR after having been sheep dipped as a disloyal American, but never revoked his citizenship, was apparently sent to language school so that he could speak fluent Russian, then sent to USSR so that he could spy for the US. While he made a big splash with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, he was also working with anti-Castro groups at the same time. Someday, when the full truth is accepted, he should be posthumously awarded the Medal of Freedom.

 

[Robert Prey]

"Suggested," "could have," "may be," "may have been." Interesting. So these claims are unsupported supposition. That's odd because in your "I Luv Lee" post quoted below and some other posts you've made the same claims as if they were incontrovertible facts. So which is it, Robert?

Oswald, in the role of an double agent provocateur still wears a white hat. It does not necessarily mean he intended to participate in a plot to kill the President. Unlike you, while I may have a strong belief in his innocence as to shooting anybody, I am also open to other scenarios, except for the unlikely scenario of one Lone Nut acting alone. The blow-out wound to the back of the head negates that.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Oswald, in the role of an double agent provocateur still wears a white hat. It does not necessarily mean he intended to participate in a plot to kill the President. Unlike you, while I may have a strong belief in his innocence as to shooting anybody, I am also open to other scenarios, except for the unlikely scenario of one Lone Nut acting alone. The blow-out wound to the back of the head negates that.

Can you point out that blow out wound to the back of the head on the Zapruder film? Not the one you colored with your red crayon. Are you lying or simply mistaken? What about the Half a Beer Boy doofus in your photo?

 

[Walter Ego]

Oswald, in the role of an double agent provocateur still wears a white hat. It does not necessarily mean he intended to participate in a plot to kill the President. Unlike you, while I may have a strong belief in his innocence as to shooting anybody, I am also open to other scenarios, except for the unlikely scenario of one Lone Nut acting alone. The blow-out wound to the back of the head negates that.

You have not offered the slightest bit of evidence for Oswald as a "double agent provocateur," only supposition presented as if it were fact.

And you are of course wrong that I am not "open to other scenarios." As I said before (perhaps you weren't paying attention), I would suffer no loss of self-esteem if it could be proven there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. You and the conspiracy authors you rely on have failed (miserably in your case) to do so. The preponderance of the evidence still points to your hero Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone shooter.

 

[Robert Prey]

You have not offered the slightest bit of evidence for Oswald as a "double agent provocateur," only supposition presented as if it were fact.

And you are of course wrong that I am not "open to other scenarios." As I said before (perhaps you weren't paying attention), I would suffer no loss of self-esteem if it could be proven there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. You and the conspiracy authors you rely on have failed (miserably in your case) to do so. The preponderance of the evidence still points to your hero Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone shooter.

The Parkland observations -- 30 or so witnesses independently corroborating each other -- is as solid evidence as there could be. The notion that Oswald was a double agent provocateur of course is supposition. But your entire LN case consists of the flimsiest suppositions, beginning with the supposition that there was an honest investigation and the 30 medical witnesses at Parkland could all be either lying or mistaken. That's a hell of a supposition.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Who cares what eyewitness say, when they are in conflict with physical evidence?

 

[bynmdsue]

There's a tendency amongst, let's call them Leftists who strive to exonerate Oswald because, well, it looks pretty bad for the president's assassin to be a Communist. So they minimize Oswald and focus on oilmen and war-mongers and a "climate of right-wing hate" in Dallas.

So why is a seemingly committed Righty like RP trying so hard to deflect from Oswald, his ideological enemy? To pin the blame on LBJ? There are plenty of real world reasons to oppose LBJ, why invent one?

 

[Robrob]

Oswald, in the role of an double agent provocateur still wears a white hat. It does not necessarily mean he intended to participate in a plot to kill the President. Unlike you, while I may have a strong belief in his innocence as to shooting anybody, I am also open to other scenarios, except for the unlikely scenario of one Lone Nut acting alone. The blow-out wound to the back of the head negates that.

Classic, "I am open to anything except for the historical reality."

BTW, are you ever going to explain why you intentionally lied about LHO being "fluent in Russian?"