JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

Robert, the ORIGINAL POLAROID still exists. It has NOT been tampered with. If you believe differently please document when it was altered and what was changed, and your evidence for same. Also tell us the mechanism for HOW it was altered.

Your claim that it could have been altered simply because it was in the hands of the FBI is nonsense and shows you don't know a thing about photography.

Please do tell us, Robert, how one could alter a Polaroid photo. You do not understand apparently, that a Polaroid is developed on the spot, takes no more than a minute or so to reveal the image, no negative exists, and the photo is fixed forever once it is developed. Your claim that it could have been altered is nonsense.

It is you who post nonsense:

The complete guide to altered imagery: for collage, altered books, ... - Google Books Result
books.google.com/books?isbn=1592531776...

http://books.google.com/books?id=_e...can a polaroid photograph be altered?&f=false

 

[Robert Prey]

What's Baloney, Robert?

Crenshaw's claim's? They are directly from his book. You can verify the quotes easily enough.

What's baloney is your failure to document any of your claims, and then to dismiss any and all counter-evidence with a wave of the hand and the utterance
of a one-word retort like "Baloney'.

Hank

Wh

What is baloney are your claims. Here is what Crenshaw wrote for the umteenth time. Do not waste my time with this again, and please locate and pay attention to the words Occipital and Cerebellum.

From: "JFK Conspiracy of Silence" by Charles A. Crenshaw, M.D.

"Had I been allwoed to testify, I would have told them that there is no doubt in my mind that the bullet that killed President Kennedy was shot from the Grassy Knoll area...

The entire right hemisphere of his brain was missing...based on my experience with trauma to the head from gunshots, I knew that only a high velocity ]bullet from a rifle could dissect a cranium that way. Part of his brain, the cerebellum was dangling from the back of his head...

...From the damage I saw there was no doubt in my mind that the bullet had entered his head through the front, and as it surgically passed through his cranium the missle obliterated part of the temporal and all the parietal and occipital lobes before it lacerated the cerebellum...

The hundreds of trauma cases involving gunshots that I have seen and treated since 1963 further convince me that my conclusions about President Kennedy's wouinds were correct....The men on the Commission heard exactly what they wanted to hear, or what they were instructed to hear and then reported what they wanted to report or what they were instructed to report.... the Warren Report (is) a fable, a virtual insult to the intellilgence of the American People."

 

[Tomtomkent]

What is baloney are your claims.

You mean the quotes he posted, which cant possibly be forged or altered once they were written down?

Nothing you write changes the fact that there are witnesses who counter your claims. Repeat it as often as you like, you fail to disprove the dissenting quotes.

 

[Tomtomkent]

It is you who post nonsense:

The complete guide to altered imagery: for collage, altered books, ... - Google Books Result
books.google.com/books?isbn=1592531776...

http://books.google.com/books?id=_e...can a polaroid photograph be altered?&f=false

So what photo-artefact can you point to that suggests the emulsion of the polaroid was in anyway tampered with?

You can even quote from that book, if any of it is relevent.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

What, oh what, drives JFK conspiracists for 50 years like we see in threads like this? It is a puzzlement. And a wonder to regard.

 

[HSienzant]

It is you who post nonsense:

The complete guide to altered imagery: for collage, altered books, ... - Google Books Result
books.google.com/books?isbn=1592531776...

http://books.google.com/books?id=_e...can a polaroid photograph be altered?&f=false

Please cite the section on altering Polaroids that doesn't consist of turning the picture into a oil painting-like image by simply swirling the emulsion around after the first couple of minutes.

Are you suggesting that is what the FBI or Secret Service did in the first five minutes after the photo was snapped?

Remember that you named them (FBI and Secret Service) originally.

Now you just need to establish a few things to convince me this is what happened:

1. They took possession of Mary Moorman's polaroid photo in the first few minutes. Any evidence of that?

2. They took possession of Mary Moorman's polaroid photo before the fixative was applied. Any evidence of that?

3. Having done 1 & 2 above, they also had an opportunity to alter the image with nobody seeing them do it. Any evidence of that?

4. Having done 1 & 2 & 3 above, they also had a REASON to alter the image in the area of the back of the head (remember, Robert, in the first five minutes after the assassination). Any evidence of that?

5. Having done 1 & 2 & 3 above, and having a REASON to alter the image, they also had the SKILL to do so and have it remain undetected for 50 years. Any evidence of that?

What's that you say?

You have no evidence for any of this?

Then why did you suggest it as a possibility? Even as a remote possibility?

Your claim is, as always, nonsense. Why, because we both know the FBI or Secret Service didn't have any contact with Mary Moorman for at least a few hours after the photo was taken on 11/22/63, which was long after the emulsion had dried and long after any opportunity to modify the image had passed. Quite simply, Mary Moorman was the only person to handle her Polaroid in the first five minutes after the assassination.

Surely you're not suggesting she altered the image. Are you, Robert?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Wh

What is baloney are your claims. Here is what Crenshaw wrote for the umteenth time. Do not waste my time with this again, and please locate and pay attention to the words Occipital and Cerebellum.

From: "JFK Conspiracy of Silence" by Charles A. Crenshaw, M.D.

"Had I been allwoed to testify, I would have told them that there is no doubt in my mind that the bullet that killed President Kennedy was shot from the Grassy Knoll area...

The entire right hemisphere of his brain was missing...based on my experience with trauma to the head from gunshots, I knew that only a high velocity ]bullet from a rifle could dissect a cranium that way. Part of his brain, the cerebellum was dangling from the back of his head...

...From the damage I saw there was no doubt in my mind that the bullet had entered his head through the front, and as it surgically passed through his cranium the missle obliterated part of the temporal and all the parietal and occipital lobes before it lacerated the cerebellum...

The hundreds of trauma cases involving gunshots that I have seen and treated since 1963 further convince me that my conclusions about President Kennedy's wouinds were correct....The men on the Commission heard exactly what they wanted to hear, or what they were instructed to hear and then reported what they wanted to report or what they were instructed to report.... the Warren Report (is) a fable, a virtual insult to the intellilgence of the American People."

lol. Remember that we've already seen that a bullet track as described above doesn't track back to the Grassy Knoll, as JFK's head was turned to the left of center of the limo at the time of the head shot by 17 degrees. A shot doing the damage you claim Crenshaw described could not have come from the Grassy Knoll, because a shot hitting JFK from the knoll in the right side of the head would have exited the left side of the head, not the back of the head.

Yet Crenshaw claims he KNOWS the shot came from the Grassy Knoll. Further, Crenshaw claims he KNOWS the bullet went front to back, but there was no rifle found in FRONT of JFK (or to his right, on the Grassy Knoll incline, either). The only rifle found that day was found BEHIND the President, so I suggest Crenshaw, who did not examine the head wound, never touched the head, and had no opportunity to track the wound in any manner, simply made a mistake about the direction the bullet was traveling. Moreover, two bullet fragments were found in the limo, and those fragments were directly traceable to the rifle found BEHIND the president.

It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out, Robert.

I submit your witness makes no sense. Nor does your suggested scenario.

Are you suggesting an invisible assassin fired an vanishing bullet from an invisible rifle? That appears to be your claim.

I also submit your witness made these easily verifiable claims about damage to the right side of the head:

Pg 2: "The entire right hemisphere of President Kennedy's brain was obliterated. . . . "
Pg 78: "Then I noticed that the entire right hemisphere of his brain was missing, beginning at his hairline and extending all the way behind his right ear."
Pg 86: "His entire right cerebral hemisphere appeared to be gone. It looked like a crater, an empty cavity."
Pg 87: (Quoting Kemp Clark): "My God, the whole right side of his head is shot off... We've got nothing to work with."
Pg 89: "... there is still nothing that can save a victim who loses the entire right side of his brain."

I also submit your other witness, Dr. Jenkins, likewise put the damage he saw on the right side of the head.

 

[Robert Prey]

Please cite the section on altering Polaroids that doesn't consist of turning the picture into a oil painting-like image by simply swirling the emulsion around after the first couple of minutes.

Are you suggesting that is what the FBI or Secret Service did in the first five minutes after the photo was snapped?

Remember that you named them (FBI and Secret Service) originally.

Now you just need to establish a few things to convince me this is what happened:

1. They took possession of Mary Moorman's polaroid photo in the first few minutes. Any evidence of that?

2. They took possession of Mary Moorman's polaroid photo before the fixative was applied. Any evidence of that?

3. Having done 1 & 2 above, they also had an opportunity to alter the image with nobody seeing them do it. Any evidence of that?

4. Having done 1 & 2 & 3 above, they also had a REASON to alter the image in the area of the back of the head (remember, Robert, in the first five minutes after the assassination). Any evidence of that?

5. Having done 1 & 2 & 3 above, and having a REASON to alter the image, they also had the SKILL to do so and have it remain undetected for 50 years. Any evidence of that?

What's that you say?

You have no evidence for any of this?

Then why did you suggest it as a possibility? Even as a remote possibility?

Your claim is, as always, nonsense. Why, because we both know the FBI or Secret Service didn't have any contact with Mary Moorman for at least a few hours after the photo was taken on 11/22/63, which was long after the emulsion had dried and long after any opportunity to modify the image had passed. Quite simply, Mary Moorman was the only person to handle her Polaroid in the first five minutes after the assassination.

Surely you're not suggesting she altered the image. Are you, Robert?

Hank

According to Moorman herself, her picture was indeed altered.

"Q: Is there anything contained in State 51 which is not contained in your photograph?

A: Yes, there is a difference in these two photographs if that is what you're asking me.

Q: What is the difference?

A: In my photograph it shows two motorcycle policemen while this only has a portion of one.

http://www.jfk-online.com/moormanshaw.html

But as to alteration of the head wound, Moorman's testimony indicates that she took the picture just before she heard the final shot. Therefore, there would be no need to alter the intact head.

Moorman's sworn testimony, Nov. 22, 1963

"As I snapped the picture of President Kennedy, I heard a shot ring out."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/moorman.htm

 

[Robert Prey]

lol. Remember that we've already seen that a bullet track as described above doesn't track back to the Grassy Knoll, as JFK's head was turned to the left of center of the limo at the time of the head shot by 17 degrees. A shot doing the damage you claim Crenshaw described could not have come from the Grassy Knoll, because a shot hitting JFK from the knoll in the right side of the head would have exited the left side of the head, not the back of the head.

Yet Crenshaw claims he KNOWS the shot came from the Grassy Knoll. Further, Crenshaw claims he KNOWS the bullet went front to back, but there was no rifle found in FRONT of JFK (or to his right, on the Grassy Knoll incline, either). The only rifle found that day was found BEHIND the President, so I suggest Crenshaw, who did not examine the head wound, never touched the head, and had no opportunity to track the wound in any manner, simply made a mistake about the direction the bullet was traveling. Moreover, two bullet fragments were found in the limo, and those fragments were directly traceable to the rifle found BEHIND the president.

It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out, Robert.

I submit your witness makes no sense. Nor does your suggested scenario.

Are you suggesting an invisible assassin fired an vanishing bullet from an invisible rifle? That appears to be your claim.

I also submit your witness made these easily verifiable claims about damage to the right side of the head:

Pg 2: "The entire right hemisphere of President Kennedy's brain was obliterated. . . . "
Pg 78: "Then I noticed that the entire right hemisphere of his brain was missing, beginning at his hairline and extending all the way behind his right ear."
Pg 86: "His entire right cerebral hemisphere appeared to be gone. It looked like a crater, an empty cavity."
Pg 87: (Quoting Kemp Clark): "My God, the whole right side of his head is shot off... We've got nothing to work with."
Pg 89: "... there is still nothing that can save a victim who loses the entire right side of his brain."

I also submit your other witness, Dr. Jenkins, likewise put the damage he saw on the right side of the head.

How forgetful it was for the Grassy Knoll shooter to not have left his rifle to be discovered.

 

[Robert Prey]

What, oh what, drives JFK conspiracists for 50 years like we see in threads like this? It is a puzzlement. And a wonder to regard.

Yet no puzzlement at all for pooh-poohers to note the 25 pound zillion word book by the likes of Bugliosi to try to refute the conspiracy evidence.

 

[Robert Prey]

You mean the quotes he posted, which cant possibly be forged or altered once they were written down?

Nothing you write changes the fact that there are witnesses who counter your claims. .

Yet you can't name any.

 

[Tomtomkent]

How forgetful it was for the Grassy Knoll shooter to not have left his rifle to be discovered.

How odd you didn't address why the witness statements, that can't be forged, don't tally with your claims.

 

[HSienzant]

According to Moorman herself, her picture was indeed altered.

"Q: Is there anything contained in State 51 which is not contained in your photograph?

A: Yes, there is a difference in these two photographs if that is what you're asking me.

Q: What is the difference?

A: In my photograph it shows two motorcycle policemen while this only has a portion of one.

http://www.jfk-online.com/moormanshaw.html

But as to alteration of the head wound, Moorman's testimony indicates that she took the picture just before she heard the final shot. Therefore, there would be no need to alter the intact head.

Moorman's sworn testimony, Nov. 22, 1963

"As I snapped the picture of President Kennedy, I heard a shot ring out."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/moorman.htm

Robert, you're talking nonsense again. Her photo is State Exhibit 50. You're citing what she said about a different photo -- a blowup of a portion of her photo (State Exhibit 51).

Here's her testimony on that point, from the same source you cited:
Q: Mrs. Moorman, do you presently have in your possession a photograph?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: And when was this photograph taken?
A: As the Presidential limousine drew across from me.
Q: Did -- and would you please hand me the photograph?
MR. ALFORD: What is the next number?
THE MINUTE CLERK: Fifty....
BY MR. ALFORD:
Q: Now, Mrs. Moorman, in relation to the photograph you have just handed me and which I have marked State 50, I would ask you to look at this photograph and tell the Gentlemen of the Jury and the Court whether or not the photograph is in the condition it was in at a short period of time after it was taken?
A: No, it is not.
Q: How does this condition now differ from then?

A: It has lightened in color which is due to the film but it also has fingerprints on it. [NOTE: No alterations to the substance of the photo]
. . .
Q: Now, Mrs. Moorman, I show you what for purposes of identification has been marked State 51 and ask you to inspect this. Can you identify what is depicted here?
A: Yes.
Q: What is it?
A: It is a portion of the photograph.
Q: Of what photograph?
A: The photograph of mine.
Q: Is there anything contained in State 51 which is not contained in your photograph?
A: Yes, there is a difference in these two photographs if that is what you're asking me.
Q: What is the difference?
A: In my photograph it shows two motorcycle policemen while this only has a portion of one.
Q: Is everything that is contained in State 51 also contained in your photograph? [State 50 - Hank]
A: Yes.

Here's the full Moorman photo again below. Many times a newspaper or a lawyer may CROP (not alter) a less-significant portion of any photo to simply devote more space to the pertinent portion. You will note that this photo has two motorcycle policeman. You've hardly established alteration of any sort.

http://simfootball.net/JFK/MoormanFBIprint-1.jpg

Why do I say that "you've hardly established alteration"? Because Jean Hill also said that everything contained in the cropped photo (blown up from the original for the State's purposes) was also contained in her original photo. She also affirmed there were NO changes made to her original photo (other than expected changes due to aging of the photo and some fingerprints).

Your own source tells you there was no alterations - exactly what I've been telling for a week now (except you're now arguing that the photo was taken before the head shot). That is untrue, as her photo clearly shows damage to the top of JFK's head - clear evidence, as I said earlier, that it was taken after the head shot. Disregarding that point, you are now conceding / admitting there is NO need to alter the photo. But remember it was you who insisted there was alteration to the Moorman photograph to conceal damage to the back of the head originally, even going so far as to cite pages from a book to demonstrate how the Moorman photo could have been altered:

It is you who post nonsense:

The complete guide to altered imagery: for collage, altered books, ... - Google Books Result
books.google.com/books?isbn=1592531776...

http://books.google.com/books?id=_e...can a polaroid photograph be altered?&f=false

But are you foolish enough to claim that the chain of evidence in the Moorman photo bypassed the FBI and the Secret Service?????

Here is her testimony from the Clay Shaw Trial:

Q: Did this photograph remain in your possession from the time you took it until today?

A: No, it did not.

Q: Whose possession other than yourself has this photograph been?

A: A reporter and the Secret Service and the FBI that I know of.

http://www.jfk-online.com/moormanshaw.html

So could the Moorman photo have been altered? Is the Pope Catholic?

It is good to see you are coming to your senses and realizing you have no evidence to support the conclusion of alteration of the Moorman photo. But you attempt to say now it wasn't necessary because the photo was before the head shot. But the fact that the Moorman photo was taken slightly after the head shot is almost universally accepted by conspiracy theorists and supporters of the official conclusions alike. (I say "almost universally" because I am unaware anyone contended differently until you posted saying this was before the head shot). Now, given there is visible damage to the top of JFK's head in the photo,

http://simfootball.net/JFK/MoormanFBIprint-1.jpg

I would ask what material evidence you have to move this photo to BEFORE the head shot, but we both know you don't have any.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

How forgetful it was for the Grassy Knoll shooter to not have left his rifle to be discovered.

Oh, Robert, you are simply assuming what you have to prove -- that there was a grassy knoll shooter at all. There is to date, absolutely no evidence of one. First, establish there was a shooter on the knoll, then we can talk about why he left NO evidence behind (not just the weapon, but no evidence whatsoever).

As I pointed out, and you ignored, the evidence indicates a shot from behind hit the president in the head, and a shot from the knoll doesn't align with the president's known wounds in the head -- whether you believe in the autopsy report or the drawings you cited:

lol. Remember that we've already seen that a bullet track as described above doesn't track back to the Grassy Knoll, as JFK's head was turned to the left of center of the limo at the time of the head shot by 17 degrees. A shot doing the damage you claim Crenshaw described could not have come from the Grassy Knoll, because a shot hitting JFK from the knoll in the right side of the head would have exited the left side of the head, not the back of the head.

Yet Crenshaw claims he KNOWS the shot came from the Grassy Knoll. Further, Crenshaw claims he KNOWS the bullet went front to back, but there was no rifle found in FRONT of JFK (or to his right, on the Grassy Knoll incline, either). The only rifle found that day was found BEHIND the President, so I suggest Crenshaw, who did not examine the head wound, never touched the head, and had no opportunity to track the wound in any manner, simply made a mistake about the direction the bullet was traveling. Moreover, two bullet fragments were found in the limo, and those fragments were directly traceable to the rifle found BEHIND the president.

Ignore everything I wrote again.
Hank

 

[HSienzant]

What, oh what, drives JFK conspiracists for 50 years like we see in threads like this? It is a puzzlement. And a wonder to regard.

Lack of familiarity with the evidence, and over-reliance on conspiracy authors out-of-context quotes and suppositions from scant evidence convinces too many that a conspiracy must have existed, and Oswald could not have done it alone and unaided.

I myself believed in a conspiracy for nearly 15 years, until I purchased a set of the WC volumes in the early 1980's and started reading through the testimony. I then realized how I had been duped by conspiracy writers who twisted what was actually said into the exact opposite time-and-time again.

Hank

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Yet no puzzlement at all for pooh-poohers to note the 25 pound zillion word book by the likes of Bugliosi to try to refute the conspiracy evidence.

Considering there was no conspiracy, there can be no evidence. But you're welcome to devote another 50 years to trying to locate any.

 

[Robert Prey]

Oh, Robert, you are simply assuming what you have to prove -- that there was a grassy knoll shooter at all. There is to date, absolutely no evidence of one. First, establish there was a shooter on the knoll, then we can talk about why he left NO evidence behind (not just the weapon, but no evidence whatsoever).

As I pointed out, and you ignored, the evidence indicates a shot from behind hit the president in the head, and a shot from the knoll doesn't align with the president's known wounds in the head -- whether you believe in the autopsy report or the drawings you cited:

lol. Remember that we've already seen that a bullet track as described above doesn't track back to the Grassy Knoll, as JFK's head was turned to the left of center of the limo at the time of the head shot by 17 degrees. A shot doing the damage you claim Crenshaw described could not have come from the Grassy Knoll, because a shot hitting JFK from the knoll in the right side of the head would have exited the left side of the head, not the back of the head.

Yet Crenshaw claims he KNOWS the shot came from the Grassy Knoll. Further, Crenshaw claims he KNOWS the bullet went front to back, but there was no rifle found in FRONT of JFK (or to his right, on the Grassy Knoll incline, either). The only rifle found that day was found BEHIND the President, so I suggest Crenshaw, who did not examine the head wound, never touched the head, and had no opportunity to track the wound in any manner, simply made a mistake about the direction the bullet was traveling. Moreover, two bullet fragments were found in the limo, and those fragments were directly traceable to the rifle found BEHIND the president.

Ignore everything I wrote again.
Hank

Baloney.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Baloney.

So you know you cant support your own argument, and have resorted to handwaving.

Again.

How was the polaroid faked robert?

 

[Robert Prey]

Robert, you're talking nonsense again. Her photo is State Exhibit 50. You're citing what she said about a different photo -- a blowup of a portion of her photo (State Exhibit 51).

Here's her testimony on that point, from the same source you cited:
Q: Mrs. Moorman, do you presently have in your possession a photograph?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: And when was this photograph taken?
A: As the Presidential limousine drew across from me.
Q: Did -- and would you please hand me the photograph?
MR. ALFORD: What is the next number?
THE MINUTE CLERK: Fifty....
BY MR. ALFORD:
Q: Now, Mrs. Moorman, in relation to the photograph you have just handed me and which I have marked State 50, I would ask you to look at this photograph and tell the Gentlemen of the Jury and the Court whether or not the photograph is in the condition it was in at a short period of time after it was taken?
A: No, it is not.
Q: How does this condition now differ from then?

A: It has lightened in color which is due to the film but it also has fingerprints on it. [NOTE: No alterations to the substance of the photo]
. . .
Q: Now, Mrs. Moorman, I show you what for purposes of identification has been marked State 51 and ask you to inspect this. Can you identify what is depicted here?
A: Yes.
Q: What is it?
A: It is a portion of the photograph.
Q: Of what photograph?
A: The photograph of mine.
Q: Is there anything contained in State 51 which is not contained in your photograph?
A: Yes, there is a difference in these two photographs if that is what you're asking me.
Q: What is the difference?
A: In my photograph it shows two motorcycle policemen while this only has a portion of one.
Q: Is everything that is contained in State 51 also contained in your photograph? [State 50 - Hank]
A: Yes.

Here's the full Moorman photo again below. Many times a newspaper or a lawyer may CROP (not alter) a less-significant portion of any photo to simply devote more space to the pertinent portion. You will note that this photo has two motorcycle policeman. You've hardly established alteration of any sort.

http://simfootball.net/JFK/MoormanFBIprint-1.jpg

Why do I say that "you've hardly established alteration"? Because Jean Hill also said that everything contained in the cropped photo (blown up from the original for the State's purposes) was also contained in her original photo. She also affirmed there were NO changes made to her original photo (other than expected changes due to aging of the photo and some fingerprints).

Your own source tells you there was no alterations - exactly what I've been telling for a week now (except you're now arguing that the photo was taken before the head shot). That is untrue, as her photo clearly shows damage to the top of JFK's head - clear evidence, as I said earlier, that it was taken after the head shot. Disregarding that point, you are now conceding / admitting there is NO need to alter the photo. But remember it was you who insisted there was alteration to the Moorman photograph to conceal damage to the back of the head originally, even going so far as to cite pages from a book to demonstrate how the Moorman photo could have been altered:






It is good to see you are coming to your senses and realizing you have no evidence to support the conclusion of alteration of the Moorman photo. But you attempt to say now it wasn't necessary because the photo was before the head shot. But the fact that the Moorman photo was taken slightly after the head shot is almost universally accepted by conspiracy theorists and supporters of the official conclusions alike. (I say "almost universally" because I am unaware anyone contended differently until you posted saying this was before the head shot). Now, given there is visible damage to the top of JFK's head in the photo,

http://simfootball.net/JFK/MoormanFBIprint-1.jpg

I would ask what material evidence you have to move this photo to BEFORE the head shot, but we both know you don't have any.

Hank

We have her statement and if true, then the final pic took place before the fatal shot.
"As I snapped the picture of President Kennedy, I heard a shot ring out. President Kennedy kind of slumped over. Then I heard another shot ring out...'

The pic could have been altered, but if the pic was taken before the fatal shot, then alteration is not necessary.

 

[Robert Prey]

Oh, Robert, you are simply assuming what you have to prove -- that there was a grassy knoll shooter at all. There is to date, absolutely no evidence of one. First, establish there was a shooter on the knoll, then we can talk about why he left NO evidence behind (not just the weapon, but no evidence whatsoever).

Hank

There is only a mountain of evidence of a fatal shot from the Knoll as has been documented. In addition to the 40 plus on the scene medical witnesses, there are the numerous on the scene witnesses who claim the shot came from the knoll. And then there is the witness who actually saw two men with the rifle, a puff of smoke, and dis-assemble the rifle, place in a tool box, and casually walk away toward the railroad tracks. That's why there was no rifle found. That witness being Ed Hoffman who claims the FBI tried to shut him up with bribery. Now all that is left for your and your Amen chorus of naysayers is to do what you have attempted to do with every other witness. Time for the mud. No more need be said.