JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

Why do you need physical evidence like DNA? Why not trust the witnesses who "saw" them commit the crime? Or trust the witness who said "I didn't do it!"?

A little hypocritical that you post this immediately after stating evidence is forged or faked if witnesses say they remembered events differently...

Physical evidence? How about the absence of physical evidence for LHO? How about the negative parafin test on Oswald's cheek, indicating no evidence he even fired a rifle. How about the finger print of Malcomb Wallace, one of LBJ's top soldiers?????

 

[Tomtomkent]

I have proven the conspiracy -- b the 40 plus on the scene medical witnesses that observed a large blow-out in the back of the head proving a shot from the grassy knoll. That they must all be mistaken or lying defies common sense. On the other hand, you can't even prove that LHO even fired a single shot or was even on the 6th flloor window at the time.

No. 40 witnesses have been proven wrong. By physical evidence.

All you have to do to convince me of your story is offer some physical evidence.

Why do you fail to do so?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Physical evidence? How about the absence of physical evidence for LHO? How about the negative parafin test on Oswald's cheek, indicating no evidence he even fired a rifle. How about the finger print of Malcomb Wallace, one of LBJ's top soldiers?????

So why does the fingerprint of Mac wallace in the TSBD prove a shooter on the grassy knoll?

Does that not DISPROVE your claims by placing the shooter in the snipers nest of the TSBD?

Why do we have to discount, with out reason, that mac wallace, in the direct employ of LBJ could have been sent to the TSBD after the shooting. For exactly the kind of unofficial investigation he was employed for?

Or that the identification of the print in question is dubious at best.

How about the presence of LHOs rifle, and shells, with his fingerprints on?

The rifle he bought with his fake ID under his alias?
Then held in a photograph with a revolver used in a following murder and attempted murder?
The witnesses who saw LHO enter the building with a package that he claimed contained curtain poles, but was the only package that could contain the rifle?


All of which questions LHO. NONE of which makes any difference to, or in any way verifies your claims of shooters on the grassy knoll.

Why dont you have ANY physical evidence for a shooter on the knoll? Why?

 

[BravesFan]

I suspect it's because he won't get any attention if he concedes that LHO did the shooting. he won't be "special" and "in the know"....

 

[Tomtomkent]

Oh, but there may have indeed been a shooter or shooters from the TSBD. But none of them nor the Grassy Knoll shooters were seen. The idea is to commit the crime and then get away quickly. And the idea is if you want to make sure the assassination is successful you have shooters in more than one location.

There certainly was a shooter in the TSBD. Oswald. All the available physical evidence proves this.

Think about the logistics of what you claim. Instead of placing one bomb on air force one, or one gunman in the tsbd to frame Oswald, you are exponentially increasing the riskfactor for each party involved.

Then you are claiming multiple photographic sources were tampered with,or substituted for fakes. Including autopsy photographs shown, beyond any doubt to be of JFK. How? How do you fake injuries to a body? How do you alter the z film, polaroid and other photos without leaving any trace of tampering? Which by the way is impossible.

Why do you make it harder to infiltrate and extract armed teams? Why exponentially increase the risk of discovery before or immediately after the assassination.

If the myth of Mac Wallace as hit man for LBJ were true, why change MO from staged suicides of isolated individuals by a single well placed gunman for an MO that requires gunmen in clear view of the public and police escorts, at great risk of capture?

If your patsy is in the TSBD you shoot from the TSBD. If you shoot from the grassy knoll, your patsy is on the grassy konll. If you are LBJ you have JFK killed quitely in a staged suicide and rake up his scandals as a reason for suicide.. why? Because for Mac Wallace to be your "soldier", for the Mac Wallace stories to be true, this is what you have done. Before and gotten away with. A proven methodology.

On the other hand if tales of LBJ and Mac having killed their way to the top are fairy stories what do you have? A gofer maybe leaving a print, maybe investigating after the shooting. Why? Because the print was on cardboard, and unlikely to have survived long enough to have been left before the shooting.

Any way you cut it, ALL the physical evidence points to the TSBD. It disproves any claims of any other shooter.

 

[jargon buster]

And the idea is if you want to make sure the assassination is successful you have shooters in more than one location.

No you dont, if you want to "make sure" you dont take potshots at a moving vehicle because no matter how many shooters you have there are no guarantees of success.

 

[Robert Prey]

So why does the fingerprint of Mac wallace in the TSBD prove a shooter on the grassy knoll?

Does that not DISPROVE your claims by placing the shooter in the snipers nest of the TSBD?

Why do we have to discount, with out reason, that mac wallace, in the direct employ of LBJ could have been sent to the TSBD after the shooting. For exactly the kind of unofficial investigation he was employed for?

Or that the identification of the print in question is dubious at best.

How about the presence of LHOs rifle, and shells, with his fingerprints on?

The rifle he bought with his fake ID under his alias?
Then held in a photograph with a revolver used in a following murder and attempted murder?
The witnesses who saw LHO enter the building with a package that he claimed contained curtain poles, but was the only package that could contain the rifle?


All of which questions LHO. NONE of which makes any difference to, or in any way verifies your claims of shooters on the grassy knoll.

Why dont you have ANY physical evidence for a shooter on the knoll? Why?

Very dishonest. Even FBI admitted no identifiable fingerprints on rifle. As to fingerprints on shells, what is your source for that?
The standard for fingerprint id in US is 12 points of ID. Wallace's had 24. Nuff said.
Very dishonest.
Physical evidence for a shooter on the knoll?? Like what? Shell casings left on purpose just like on the 6th floor TSBD? A rifle deliberately left just like TSBD? NO. One patsy at a time is all that was needed. Frame him in the court of public opinion and then kill him. The CIA way.

 

[Robert Prey]

No you dont, if you want to "make sure" you dont take potshots at a moving vehicle because no matter how many shooters you have there are no guarantees of success.

But if you have several shooters at different angles, with vehicle that has stopped or slowed, your chances of "success' are substantially increased. And that's the professional way -- the CIA way.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

At this point, 50 years on, anyone clinging to their belief in a JFK conspiracy can only indicate severe mental health issues. Crazy is as crazy does.

 

[Robert Prey]

T
How do you alter the z film, polaroid and other photos without leaving any trace of tampering? Which by the way is impossible.
.

It's easy and there are numerous indications of Z film tempering, not the least of which are the on the scene witnesses who saw the blow-out in the back of the head and brains, hair and scalp flying in their faces, their uniforms and their follow up vehicles, the final conifirmation made by the medical witnesses at Parkland and Bethdesda.
And then there is the Muchmore Film which shows the Limo red brake lights slowing and stopping the Limo which you don't see on the Z film.

 

[BravesFan]

Pro's would've popped him at the left turn, when the car was moving at it's slowest.

 

[jargon buster]

But if you have several shooters at different angles, with vehicle that has stopped or slowed, your chances of "success' are substantially increased. And that's the professional way -- the CIA way.

Well you did say "make sure" before and now you want to say "substantially increase" your chances.

Wouldnt the "professional way" be to just kill him at home with a pillow over his head?

 

[Tomtomkent]

It's easy and there are numerous indications of Z film tempering, not the least of which are the on the scene witnesses who saw the blow-out in the back of the head and brains, hair and scalp flying in their faces, their uniforms and their follow up vehicles, the final conifirmation made by the medical witnesses at Parkland and Bethdesda.
And then there is the Muchmore Film which shows the Limo red brake lights slowing and stopping the Limo which you don't see on the Z film.

Just to be clear, none of the things you list are indicaters of the z film being tampered with. They indicate witnesses disagreeing with the z film, which is entirely different.

Let me clarify by asking the question a different way; can you show any physical alteration to the film that indicates tampering. Can you show any frame where the emulsion has beenpainted, cut or altered? Any photographic artefact in any frame, that proves tampering?


Because you assert it MUST have been tampered with time and again, yet fail to show a single alteration.

 

[Border Reiver]

Pro's would've popped him at the left turn, when the car was moving at it's slowest.

Pros would have done it In a way as to guarantee success. A sniper - generally not against a small moving target - wait until the target is stationary and then use a rifle that is a trifle more inherently accurate than a surplus standard issue MC. In the end though the amateur with the sub-optimal rifle and the not perfect plan pulled it off, so all the hypothesizing is fairly pointless.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Very dishonest. Even FBI admitted no identifiable fingerprints on rifle.

As you know, the Dallas police lifted the print from the rifle which means that you are, as you say

Very dishonest.

 

[Tomtomkent]

As you know, the Dallas police lifted the print from the rifle which means that you are, as you say

Robert never did explain how the fingerprints were faked. He described ink prints taken from a corpse for ID purposes, those obtained by the Dallas PD were magnezium powder.

Like the faked photos and films he claims it must have happened,but has yet to show how, let alone prove it did happen.

 

[HSienzant]

Yes, indeed. The jails really are full of innocent people. Just check out The Innocence Project.
From the Innocence Project

Facts on Post-Conviction DNA Exonerations
[Print Version]

There have been 289 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States.

• The first DNA exoneration took place in 1989. Exonerations have been won in 35 states; since 2000, there have been 222 exonerations.

• 17 of the 289 people exonerated through DNA served time on death row.

• The average length of time served by exonerees is 13.5 years. The total number of years served is approximately 3,800.

• The average age of exonerees at the time of their wrongful convictions was 27.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Facts_on_PostConviction_DNA_Exonerations.php


So what would you call these people besides innocent????

Why, of course. Just like Oswald they are

PATSIES!!!​

lol.

Like always, you miss the point.
The 289 exonerations you cite are a miniscule percentage of the total prison population. The overwhelming majority of the prison population hasn't been found innocent, although most everyone in prison will tell you they are.

And besides, citing the 289 wrongful convictions doesn't do anything to establish that Oswald belongs in that group, and not the far larger "convicted and not exonerated" group. Not sure what you think you've established, but it's not Oswald's innocence with this citation.

Hell, Ted Bundy insisted on his innocence until the last few days until his execution. Then he tried to cut a deal - extend my time on earth and I'll confess so the families can get some closure.

The governor said no deal.

Explain to me how his case differs from Oswald's, except there is far more evidence that Oswald was guilty. Face it, most of the time, the system works and the guilty party gets convicted. But the guilty parties still claim innocence.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Sure, Robert.

These brilliant conspirators came up with a plan to frame a *Lone Nut* patsy shooting from behind by putting multiple shooters to the right of Kennedy. And somehow those shooters make an exit wound in the back of the head?

That theory makes a ton of sense.

I asked before, but you glossed right over it, why plan to do it in public, in a motorcade, where multiple cameras from multiple angles might capture the gunmen on film?

Why not crash the plane, for example?

The conspirators really planned to shoot JFK in broad daylight with multiple shooters and then planned to frame a patsy shooting from behind? And this theory makes sense to you?

Hank

I just don't know how you can argue with success.

Aah, but you are presuming the success in advance of the completion of the operation. You are also using circular reasoning, using the conclusion (the films were altered, the photos were altered, evidence was planted, etc.) to justify the premise (there was a conspiracy).

Let me be more clear -- you are saying the operation was successful, so of course it was a great plan. That only works in hindsight.

I am asking how the planners knew - when they planned it, in advance of the actual killing, and without the hindsight you are claiming you possess - how they knew it would be successful, and since they obviously weren't assured of it being successful, why would they plan the Rube Goldbergian plan you put forward, instead of the just far-more-simple plan of crashing the plane or exposing the President's affairs, most likely costing him the 1964 election.

Try to answer it this time without the benefit of the hindsight the planners obviously didn't possess, and without circular reasoning. Bet you can't.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Oh, just by way of reminder, the grassy knoll fence (where Holland put the smoke, where Hoffman supposedly saw the rifleman, and where Bowers put two men, about 15 feet apart), isn't to the front of JFK at the time of the head shot, it's almost to JFK's immediate right, considering his head was canted 17 degrees to the left of the centerline of the limo.

A shot from the front would have come from the overpass, where Holland was.

A shot from the right would have exited - not the back of the head - but the left side of the head.

Your supposed trajectory for a Grassy Knoll gunshot doesn't make sense, Robert. That's some magic bullet you got there.

Hank

Correction: Right front. Obviously.

You're not aware a shot from the right front won't exit the right back of JFK's head, because the angles are wrong? Well, let me clue you in. A shot from the right front won't exit the right back of JFK's head, because the angles are wrong.

Try to make sense. I know it's not much of a case you're trying to defend, as the evidence is all against you, but try to make sense. Or just admit you cannot.

 

[Robert Prey]

Aah, but you are presuming the success in advance of the completion of the operation. You are also using circular reasoning, using the conclusion (the films were altered, the photos were altered, evidence was planted, etc.) to justify the premise (there was a conspiracy).

Let me be more clear -- you are saying the operation was successful, so of course it was a great plan. That only works in hindsight.

I am asking how the planners knew - when they planned it, in advance of the actual killing, and without the hindsight you are claiming you possess - how they knew it would be successful, and since they obviously weren't assured of it being successful, why would they plan the Rube Goldbergian plan you put forward, instead of the just far-more-simple plan of crashing the plane or exposing the President's affairs, most likely costing him the 1964 election.

Try to answer it this time without the benefit of the hindsight the planners obviously didn't possess, and without circular reasoning. Bet you can't.

Hank

Rube Goldberian??? Nothing is more ridiculous than "simply" crashing Arr Force One.