JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[HSienzant]

Here's a hypothetical question: If a bunch of conspirators sought to assassinate the President, would they be fair about it? Or would they instead set up a Patsy, then kill him, to avoid a trial and a public outcry for a further investigation? A simple yes or no answer is requested, if you have the courage to provide it.

You're missing my point. They could do all that much simpler ways.

If they were planning to frame a patsy, there are easier ways to do it than your way.

The smart way to do it:
1. Use his weapon from his building, while telling him to wait on the second floor for a phone call.
2. Nothing else need be done. Since his weapon was used, and he was in the building, of course all the evidence points to him doing it.


Your claims about how the planners did it instead:
1. Shoot him from a different direction (the grassy knoll).
2. Make sure the autopsists lie about the bullet directions.
3. Alter the films and photos taken at the scene.
4. Plant a rifle and shells to frame the patsy.
5. Fake a photo showing the suspect with the rifle.
6. Alter the autopsy x-rays.
7. Alter the autopsy photos.
8. Alter the body.
9. Make sure the FBI lies in documents about what the witnesses said.
10. Start intimidating witnesses to lie, or kill them if necessary.
11. Etc., etc., ad nauseum.

Quite simply, your argument about how this frame up / conspiracy to assassinate JFK was put together and went done is idiotic.
It makes no sense whatsoever.
I don't know how people like yourself fall for this nonsense.

Hank

 

[Robert Prey]

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

You obviously don't live in Crook County or similar environs in the US where in a bench trial you can get whatever you want in a murder case, (innocent or guilty) for a mere $5,000 bribe. Without the discovery of DNA evidence, those 289 would either be dead or in prison for life. How many more innocent patsies there are no one knows, but odds are there are a lot. And the FBI and its infamous crime lab have been proven to be the most corrupt of all.

 

[Robert Prey]

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.

And it is you who now assumes what has not been proven.

 

[HSienzant]

According to the PSE lie test performed by George O'Tool, when Oswald exclaimed he was just a Patsy, he was telling the truth.

Firstly, It's O'Toole.

Secondly, I established that claim is nonsense a while ago. Here's the post you never bothered to rebut:

That book was written in the 1970's. I read it then.

For those who haven't read it, O'Toole's claim is that you can take a tape recording of somebody, and by slowing down and graphing their speech, you can determine whether the person is speaking with high stress (which, he claims, denotes a lie) or with low stress (which, he claims, denotes the truth).

The problem I had at the time was the technology was new, so I wasn't prepared to necessarily believe his assertions about whether the stress levels were the determining factor.

I figured I'd put the assertions in the book aside, and let the technology prove itself and revisit the claims in a later decade.

About four decades later:

How many police departments use O'Toole's methodology for solving crimes?
How many courts in the USA accept his methodology?

To my knowledge, none and none.

Now, if this technology is as 'foolproof' as you would like to believe, it should be accepted almost everywhere - DNA is a example of a technology that wasn't available when O'Toole wrote his book, yet police departments and courts now routinely accept the validity of DNA evidence today universally.

But O'Toole's PSE, which pre-dates DNA evidence?

Nowhere to be seen. Not accepted in courts, and not used by the police to solve crimes.

Do you have an explanation for this, except that O'Toole's PSE isn't the foolproof lie-detector he claims?
I would love to hear it.

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

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

What is required to crash airforce one: A single bomb deposited on board by the conspiracy.

What was needed for your assertions:
Multiple kill teams, many in clear view of the public.
The alteration of EVERY photograph and film made in the vaccinity by citizens.
The mannipulation of JFKs head wounds for the autopsy photographs.
Extenidng your conspiracy to the FBI, CIA, WC and Secret Service.

Already the cost and efficiency are compromised far beyond lunacy. Far beyond what could be achieved with a couple of sticks of dynamite and saying "Those guys did it!"

Is planting a bomb on Air Force One any less simple than planting bombs in the Brighton Hotel? In Hitlers meeting room? Or any of the assisination attempts against Charles DeGaul? Or Castro?

Of course not. What Robert is fantasizing about is not anything that resembles real assassination attempts. He is trying to justify his own belief, and certainly not to convince anybody else.

 

[Tomtomkent]

And it is you who now assumes what has not been proven.

There are precedents for assassinations as he describes.

You assume there were other kill teams. Where is your physical evidence for this? You have spent more time arguing over terms you will understand than supplying any!

If you have none admit so now.

 

[HSienzant]

You obviously don't live in Crook County or similar environs in the US where in a bench trial you can get whatever you want in a murder case, (innocent or guilty) for a mere $5,000 bribe. Without the discovery of DNA evidence, those 289 would either be dead or in prison for life. How many more innocent patsies there are no one knows, but odds are there are a lot. And the FBI and its infamous crime lab have been proven to be the most corrupt of all.

Not sure what any of these cases have to do with the Oswald case, and in any event, your claims are total bunk.

Sorry, Robert. You can make all the unproven assertions you like but the end result is still the same. On the one hand we have your unproven assertions, on the other we have hard physical evidence like the rifle, the zapruder film, the bullet fragments found in the limo, the shells found at the window, etc.
Hmmm. Tough choice.

You need to put some veriafiable evidence on the table. Or maybe start using a bigger font to get your point across. Remember the adage, when the evidence is on your side, pound the facts. When the evidence is not on your side, pound the table.

Not.

 

[HSienzant]

What is required to crash airforce one: A single bomb deposited on board by the conspiracy.

What was needed for your assertions:
Multiple kill teams, many in clear view of the public.
The alteration of EVERY photograph and film made in the vaccinity by citizens.
The mannipulation of JFKs head wounds for the autopsy photographs.
Extenidng your conspiracy to the FBI, CIA, WC and Secret Service.

Already the cost and efficiency are compromised far beyond lunacy. Far beyond what could be achieved with a couple of sticks of dynamite and saying "Those guys did it!"

Is planting a bomb on Air Force One any less simple than planting bombs in the Brighton Hotel? In Hitlers meeting room? Or any of the assisination attempts against Charles DeGaul? Or Castro?

Of course not. What Robert is fantasizing about is not anything that resembles real assassination attempts. He is trying to justify his own belief, and certainly not to convince anybody else.

Or a single pilot who is part of the conspiracy and willing to sacrifice his own life in the cause he believes is just. Nothing like that would ever happen in the US, right?

Or even, drugging the pilot and co-pilot with any of a number of narcotics that would slow their reaction speeds and then have a small mechanic problem develop with the steering ability of the plan through loss of hydraulic fluid or the like.

 

[HSienzant]

That "short distance" was about a hundred yards, traversing a waste high steam pipe which men were tripping over and cars parked bumper to bumper so that, in the words of Holland, "you could hardly get through them."

Aah. Great, welcome to the real world.

Now please, let's revisit Ed Hoffman for a moment.

Where did he mention anything like this in ANY of his statements?

Even in his book?

Got anything like that? Or was Ed Hoffman lying about where he was and what he saw?

Or was Sam Holland?

Since the witnesses disagree, you must choose one to be correct, and one to be wrong.

Which one was wrong about what the grassy knoll looked like at the time of the shooting? Ed Hoffman, who didn't come forward until 1967 and whose story changed repeatedly, or Sam Holland, who came forward on 11/22/63 and told a consistent story?

You need to cut the cord on one of these guys, Robert.

Hank

 

[ladmo]

Addendum: You appear to be quoting Lutz saying the clip lips were opened, causing the clip to stick in the rifle. But then you contrast that by citing photos of a cartridge, not the clip. Not sure how photos of an undamaged cartridge establish that the clip lips weren't opened, as Monty Lutz said.

Yes, you are correct about Lutz. I meant to say clip instead of cartridge, that was my error. So, the conundrum is how can the two be reconciled? A picture of an undamaged clip (exhibit) and a picture of the clip still in the magazine when it should have been ejected*?

* in order for the clip to be secure in the magazine after the last cartridge has been chambered the clip has to be disfigured.

 

[HSienzant]

That "short distance" was about a hundred yards, traversing a waste high steam pipe which men were tripping over and cars parked bumper to bumper so that, in the words of Holland, "you could hardly get through them."

I think you mean waist-high steam pipe.

Like I said, welcome to the real world.

Did the engineers who designed that steam pipe leave the exhaust valve out to save money and figure it was cheaper to replace the entire pipe when it exploded from the pressure than to put a exhaust valve in?

Or did that steam pipe happen to have an exhaust valve where steam could escape when the pressure got too high? Where was it located, do you knoll?

Robert, that's two big admissions by you in one post. Those two admissions destroy much of what you argued previously about Ed Hofman and the witnesses who saw smoke on the knoll. Are you feeling well?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Yes, you are correct about Lutz. I meant to say clip instead of cartridge, that was my error. So, the conundrum is how can the two be reconciled? A picture of an undamaged clip (exhibit) and a picture of the clip still in the magazine when it should have been ejected*?

* in order for the clip to be secure in the magazine after the last cartridge has been chambered the clip has to be disfigured.

I take exception to your last claim (the footnote).

The picture takes precedence over anything anyone might say, whether it's you or Monty Lutz.

Like I said before, my toaster doesn't pop up the toast like it should.
Should there be an investigation, or do we just understand that not all mechanical devices work they way they should 100% of the time?

It is clear the Allen photo shows the clip stuck in the magazine. It's not an arguable point. It's there. Stuck. Like my toast.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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.

No shooters were seen in the TSBD?

That's just another falsehood by you.

I refer you to Mr. Ronald Fischer:

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

His friend Robert Edwards saw the man in the window too:

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

They were lying, and Ed Hoffman is believable, right?

Note they both gave statements on 11/22/63:

Edwards: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/edward1.htm
Fischer: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/fischer1.htm

 

[HSienzant]

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.

That last sentence only makes sense if you are not intent on framing a single man shooting from behind as the patsy. Putting shooters in more than one location would reveal the conspiracy and work against the frame-up you allege occurred.

Your claims are at odds with each other.

Why are we not surprised?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Have a look at the pic you provided and the distance involved. Does that answer your question?

Not at all. Your response is unclear.

You allege a gunman killed JFK from the grassy knoll by shooting him in the head with the rifle. You further allege Ed Hoffman is trustworthy, and his story is correct in his general scope, if not all the particulars.

I asked what happened to the rifle? and why didn't the guys on the overpass who thought the shots came from the knoll see anyone with a rifle and tackle that man?

What happened to the rifle, Robert? What happened to the man with the rifle?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Assuming PSE is a valid and accurate technique:
That proves Oswald believed he was a patsy. It does not prove he WAS a patsy.

In the real world however we know that PSE is deeply flawed. It is ONLY as accurate as polygraph, which means it is far from perfect. Oswald may have believed he was a patsy, but that in itself proves nothing.

I'm not certain it's even as accurate as a polygraph.
I think it's junk science.

Let Robert prove his case for the PSE before he starts citing conclusions derived from the PSE.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Baloney. It's not that easy to kill President and make it look like an accident.

How about an accidental overdose of sleeping pills or something like that?

Didn't the conspirators kill David Ferrie that way and then left a couple of typed but unsigned notes that could be construed as suicide notes?

Why does this work for David Ferrie but not the President?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

David Lifton's frame by frame analysis shows the back of K's head was painted in. Others have shown film anomalies. And the 40 plus Medical witnesses prove Z film fakery.

Where can we find the Lifton analysis?

If not online, post the highlights of the arguments for, please.

Is it as thorough and complete as his body-snatcher theory? I laughed out loud when I first heard his theory that the president's body was altered to conceal shots from the front. If that was true, Connally's wound would also have to be altered to conceal that he was shot from the front. Curiously, Lifton barely mentions Connally in his book, BEST EVIDENCE, How I Became the Biggest Loon on the Planet, and doesn't discuss at all how Connally's wounds were altered.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

David Lifton's frame by frame analysis shows the back of K's head was painted in. Others have shown film anomalies. And the 40 plus Medical witnesses prove Z film fakery.

Can you cite the others who show film anomalies, and what they purported show?

Thanks.

As has been pointed out before, the Z-film and the Moorman photo shows any witnesses who say the back of JFK"s head was blown out was simply mistaken.

 

[Tomtomkent]

David Lifton's frame by frame analysis shows the back of K's head was painted in.

And is utterly wrong. Unless you want to show where the emulsion marks are on the film. Feel free. Show me actual evidence. Lifton only ever falls back onto confirmation bias, the body must be altered, the film must be altered, etc, not because he can prove any of it, but because he needs it to be true for his stories to work.