• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
HSienzant said:
What would qualify as proof to you, Robert?

We have everything we need to prove Oswald was the shooter.

Fingerprints on the trigger guard of the rifle found in the building? We got 'em, but you will claim they are planted, forged, or Scalise lied about what they show.

Fingerprints on the boxes in the sniper's nest window? We got 'em, but you claim they are meaningless because Oswald worked in the building and could have handled the boxes in his line of work.

A nearly-whole bullet fired from his weapon found at the Hospital where the victims were taken? We got that. But you claim it was planted.

Bullet fragments traceable to his weapon - to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world - found in the limo? We got that, but you claim those are planted.

How about eyewitnesses who saw a young man looking like Oswald in the window? We got 'em, but you discredit each and every one.

How about film and photos showing Oswald in the window? We don't got that, but if we did, you would just allege they were altered by the conspirators. Like you do with solid evidence like the Zapruder film and the Moorman photo.

So what, exactly, would it take to prove to YOU that Oswald was the assassin? Can you answer that question?

If you won't accept anything, then admit that, and acknowledge your claim above is an empty shell, totally meaningless to the case.

The evidence indicates Oswald fired all the shots. Denying it over and over won't change that fact. Especially when you won't accept any evidence that indicates Oswald's guilt.

Hank
Click to expand...

All of it already covered and discredited baloney.
 
Robert Prey said:
Except that he didn't do it.
Click to expand...

Did you remember to click your Ruby shoes together when you said that, Robert?

Maybe wishing will make it so, if you click hard enough.

However, if you want to stop wishing and look at the evidence, it's all that you need to understand who did do it:

HSienzant said:
What would qualify as proof to you, Robert?

We have everything we need to prove Oswald was the shooter.

Fingerprints on the trigger guard of the rifle found in the building? We got 'em, but you will claim they are planted, forged, or Scalise lied about what they show.

Fingerprints on the boxes in the sniper's nest window? We got 'em, but you claim they are meaningless because Oswald worked in the building and could have handled the boxes in his line of work.

A nearly-whole bullet fired from his weapon found at the Hospital where the victims were taken? We got that. But you claim it was planted.

Bullet fragments traceable to his weapon - to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world - found in the limo? We got that, but you claim those are planted.

How about eyewitnesses who saw a young man looking like Oswald in the window? We got 'em, but you discredit each and every one.

How about film and photos showing Oswald in the window? We don't got that, but if we did, you would just allege they were altered by the conspirators. Like you do with solid evidence like the Zapruder film and the Moorman photo.

So what, exactly, would it take to prove to YOU that Oswald was the assassin? Can you answer that question?

If you won't accept anything, then admit that, and acknowledge your claim above is an empty shell, totally meaningless to the case.

The evidence indicates Oswald fired all the shots. Denying it over and over won't change that fact. Especially when you won't accept any evidence that indicates Oswald's guilt.

Hank
Click to expand...
 
HSienzant said:
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
Click to expand...

Please take exception but you would still need to show that the clip can get stuck and then extracted without damage.
 
HSienzant said:
A nearly-whole bullet fired from his weapon found at the Hospital where the victims were taken? We got that. But you claim it was planted.

Bullet fragments traceable to his weapon - to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world - found in the limo? We got that, but you claim those are planted.
Hank
Click to expand...

Hi Hank, I snipped portions from your post; you make a compelling position. The two items I have snipped deal with direct evidence that the weapon was actually tested for use. I was not aware of this; can you point me in a direction so that I can read about it? I have been looking for some level of evidence since the barrel was not swabbed for metal foulings; I may now have it thanks to you. thx Curt
 
I need to modify my last post.

There is no test to see if a weapon had been recently fired but the metal foulings would at least provide a determination if the rifle had been fired since it's last cleaning. Thx again, I apologize for the wording. Curt
 
ladmo said:
Hi Hank, I snipped portions from your post; you make a compelling position. The two items I have snipped deal with direct evidence that the weapon was actually tested for use. I was not aware of this; can you point me in a direction so that I can read about it? I have been looking for some level of evidence since the barrel was not swabbed for metal foulings; I may now have it thanks to you. thx Curt
Click to expand...

I think the FBI tested it, shooting the rifle into either water or sand bags (I don't have notes to hand and am doing this from memory, so if I am wrong feel free to corect me) so the rifeling marks left as the round travelled the barrels could be compared. I might have this wrong, but I am pretty sure (from the Bugliosi or Ramsey book, can't remember which now, if either) that several tests were made at a range.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_rifle
 
Tomtomkent said:
I think the FBI tested it, shooting the rifle into either water or sand bags (I don't have notes to hand and am doing this from memory, so if I am wrong feel free to corect me) so the rifeling marks left as the round travelled the barrels could be compared. I might have this wrong, but I am pretty sure (from the Bugliosi or Ramsey book, can't remember which now, if either) that several tests were made at a range.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_rifle
Click to expand...

Thanks for the response. I apologize, I have not expressed myself properly. What I am attempting to capture is the information that the rifle barrel was tested for metal foulings. Testing for the metal foulings does not determine when the weapon was fired but it does determine if that particular weapon had been fired since its last cleaning. It is nothing more than a swab test.
 
Hank wrote:


So what, exactly, would it take to prove to YOU that Oswald was the assassin? Can you answer that question?

Comment: It would take evidence that LHO shot the fatal shot from the Grassy Knoll because that is what killed the President,.
 
ladmo said:
Please take exception but you would still need to show that the clip can get stuck and then extracted without damage.
Click to expand...


Weren't you paying attention?
That's already been established by the photographic evidence.

1. Did you see the photo showing the clip stuck in the rifle shortly after the assassination? That establishes the clip can get stuck, doesn't it?

2. Did you yourself provide citations for the clip showing no damage? I thought you did. That established the clip can be extracted without damage, doesn't it?

What more do you need?

We also have the memorandum for the record executed by J.C.Day of the DPD Crime Lab stating the markings on the clip when he removed it from the rifle, which ties points 1 and 2 above together.

There isn't any mystery here. Maybe you need a course in toaster repair or something. Because my toast still gets stuck (and sometimes burnt) in my toaster. Should there be an investigation? Should Charley Brown demand an investigation when his kite gets stuck in a tree?

This type of argument from conspiracy believers shows very well the paucity of evidence they have, when they have to cobble together a nonsense argument about the clip being stuck to make any case.

Let's put a little background behind this: The clip is only important because without it, Oswald would not have time to fire three shots in about nine seconds, as he would have to manually load each bullet into the chamber. The clip was made an issue by early critics who ignored the photographic evidence showing the clip (like the Allen photo I provided) and ignored the fact that J.C.Day mentioned the clip in his testimony. They argued there was no mention of the clip in the record early on, and if there was no clip, there was a conspiracy. But the early photos were published in the local papers and the memorandum for the record (which wasn't published in the Warren Commission volumes of evidence) was read into the record by J.C.Day during his testimony, so the arguments about the clip raised by the critics always were easily-disproven nonsense and just mis-direction by folks out to make a buck by confusing the American people with crapola about the assassination.

Why you think there is some points to be made here is beyond me.

All the best,

Hank
 
ladmo said:
Thanks for the response. I apologize, I have not expressed myself properly. What I am attempting to capture is the information that the rifle barrel was tested for metal foulings. Testing for the metal foulings does not determine when the weapon was fired but it does determine if that particular weapon had been fired since its last cleaning. It is nothing more than a swab test.
Click to expand...

What's the name of that test? Do any standard forensic manuals mention it?
Is it a test that is normally done on suspected weapons by police depts? Was it normally done in 1963?

Hank
 
Robert Prey said:
Hank wrote:


So what, exactly, would it take to prove to YOU that Oswald was the assassin? Can you answer that question?

Comment: It would take evidence that LHO shot the fatal shot from the Grassy Knoll because that is what killed the President,.
Click to expand...

For 91 pages we've all been waiting for you to show actual physical evidence of this. Are you ever going to provide any?
 
of course not! he sayeth it is so and we plebians are just supposed to accept it as gospel.

Or else he's got it, somewhere, hidden under a pile of sterilized TV dinner trays
 
Robert Prey said:
All of it already covered and discredited baloney.
Click to expand...

Do tell me what proof you would accept, Robert. It appears the only answer is "none", based on your response above.

Especially since much of what I mentioned hasn't been covered, and none of it has been discredited.

Do tell me what was wrong with Fischer and Edwards description of the gunman.

Do tell me what was wrong with the fragments found in the limo.

Do tell me what was wrong with the fingerprints on the trigger guard.

Do tell me what was wrong with the bullet found at Parkland.

I do not recall any of these items being covered by you. Neither have they been discredited, since your arguments against, like we see above, usually consist of a dismissive phrase and a wave of the hand.

That manner of argument discredits only he who uses it as it exposes their lack of any valid argument.

Hank
 
Robert Prey said:
Hank wrote:


So what, exactly, would it take to prove to YOU that Oswald was the assassin? Can you answer that question?

Comment: It would take evidence that LHO shot the fatal shot from the Grassy Knoll because that is what killed the President.
Click to expand...

Glad to see you're keeping an open mind, Robert. Since someone firing from the knoll does not exclude Oswald firing from the TSBD, your position is untenable. Likewise, since all the hard evidence indicates it was Oswald from the Depository, with the Mannlicher Carcano, expecting to find evidence of an assassin from the knoll is doomed to failure. None existed.

Lee Bowers could have told you that. So could Sam Holland.

But you want to believe in chimera.

You can lead a horse to water...

Hank

Hank
 
HSienzant said:
Do tell me what proof you would accept, Robert. It appears the only answer is "none", based on your response above.

Especially since much of what I mentioned hasn't been covered, and none of it has been discredited.

Do tell me what was wrong with Fischer and Edwards description of the gunman.

Do tell me what was wrong with the fragments found in the limo.

Do tell me what was wrong with the fingerprints on the trigger guard.

Do tell me what was wrong with the bullet found at Parkland.

I do not recall any of these items being covered by you. Neither have they been discredited, since your arguments against, like we see above, usually consist of a dismissive phrase and a wave of the hand.

That manner of argument discredits only he who uses it as it exposes their lack of any valid argument.

Hank
Click to expand...

One question at a time. All this has already been covered and discredited. The alleged fingerprints were roundly rejected by the FBI as old, and un-
identifiable. The one person who claims different refused to swear to it.
 
Robert Prey said:
Hank wrote:


So what, exactly, would it take to prove to YOU that Oswald was the assassin? Can you answer that question?

Comment: It would take evidence that LHO shot the fatal shot from the Grassy Knoll because that is what killed the President,.
Click to expand...
Robert, are you denying that any shots were fired from the TSBD Building? If not, what evidence, exactly, would you require as proof that LHO was the shooter from there?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom