JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

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?

An eyewitness or two, up close and positive.

A positive paraffin test.

Recent Fingerprints Id'd on the alleged Rifle.

An absence of planted evidence (shells, rifle, stretcher bullet)

An admission of guilt

A positive Lie test.

A motive.

There is indeed evidence that LHO may have been a shooter. There is even stronger evidence that he was a set up Patsy. But even if all those above elements existed, that still does not prove he murdered Kennedy because all of the strongest evidence points to the fatal shot coming from the Grassy Knoll and LHO can't be in two places at once. Fact is, all the attention to Oswald's participation, is a red herring that draws attention away from the real issue, namely, was it a conspiracy? LHO's involvement or non-involvement is therefore irrelevant to that most important question.

 

[RoboTimbo]

An eyewitness or two, up close and positive.

A positive paraffin test.

Recent Fingerprints Id'd on the alleged Rifle.

An absence of planted evidence (shells)

An admission of guilt

A positive Lie test.

A motive.

Interesting how your dishonesty and hypocrisy mean that you don't have those things for your own story.

 

[Robert Prey]

Interesting how your dishonesty and hypocrisy mean that you don't have those things for your own story.

Oh, but I do have an admission of guilt and a motive as well as the ID of the Grassy Knoll Shooter.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Oh, but I do have an admission of guilt and a motive as well as the ID of the Grassy Knoll Shooter.

<snork> Better get those to the FBI, quick! You would agree that the FBI would take you seriously, right?

 

[ladmo]

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

Removing a clip from a M/C without damage has not been replicated. The sheer fact that the clip was jammed would require damage to the piece.

In no way has anyone disproven the clip issue; people who can't explain this situation just ignore it. You say it has been disproven; provide some links that fully explain why the undamaged clip is nothing. Your clip background and bringing up "conspiracy believers" is poisoning the well.

-Curt

 

[Tomtomkent]

An eyewitness or two, up close and positive.

Already shown to be there.

A positive paraffin test.

Not required due to the weight of evidence.

Recent Fingerprints Id'd on the alleged Rifle.

Yep, they were Oswalds/

An absence of planted evidence (shells, rifle, stretcher bullet)

Gosh darn, we have shells, a rifle and a bullet, and yet you have yet to prove they were planted. You assume they were as an excuse to dismiss them. Tough break.

An admission of guilt

Yeah, because people who murder are always honest about it...

A positive Lie test.

Why would we consider evidence inadmissable to a court of law? You understand why polygraphs are not allowed? And why there is no true test of a lie, only of what the liar has convinced himself? Never mind.

There is indeed evidence that LHO may have been a shooter.

But you said he was innocent and needed a medal. Now he "may" have been? He was. There is no evidence he was framed, no evidence of a conspiracy, no evidence of other shooters.

If there was, why have you yet to produce it for the thousand or so times you have been asked?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Oh, but I do have an admission of guilt and a motive as well as the ID of the Grassy Knoll Shooter.

But no actual physical evidence?

Yeah, because nobody has ever admitted to it before....
Was it Charles Harrison, Woody's Dad?
How about a brain damaged native American who claimed to have been in the TSBD with Mac Wallace and LHO?
Or Hunt? Did you buy his guff about a Frenchman on the grassy knoll?
Oh wait. Maybe it was another guy claiming Jimmy Hoffa hired him? Was it James Files?

You see, there is your problem Rob. All those guys claimed to have a motive, all of them "confessed". Assuming you have what you claim, why do we believe you over any of those other guys?

Why, you would need PHYSICAL evidence...

 

[ladmo]

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

Interesting questions Hank. The President of the United States was shot and you are asking if a metal fouling test is normally done on suspected weapons by police departments. Not police departments but the forensice science department within the court system is the typical agency that performs all tests to make sure the suspected weapon was used in the commission of the crime. The answer to your question is "yes" it is normally conducted and it was commonly used in forensics in 1963. Was it part of the SOP for Dallas' forensic science department? I don't know but it was in the FBI.

-Curt

 

[HSienzant]

Interesting questions Hank. The President of the United States was shot and you are asking if a metal fouling test is normally done on suspected weapons by police departments. Not police departments but the forensice science department within the court system is the typical agency that performs all tests to make sure the suspected weapon was used in the commission of the crime. The answer to your question is "yes" it is normally conducted and it was commonly used in forensics in 1963. Was it part of the SOP for Dallas' forensic science department? I don't know but it was in the FBI.

-Curt

Killing the President was NOT a federal crime in 1963. The Dallas Police had jurisidiction. Ergo, I asked what was the standard for police depts in the US. So what's the problem? I dunno, but you apparently have a problem with my question. So enlighten me as to the issue.

What's the name of the test, and which standard forensics manuals mention it? (you skimmed over both of these).

Since when does the court system conduct any tests on weapons? Not sure where you're getting your info, but it's not true to the best of my knowledge.
The defense might call their own expert witnesses, as will the prosecutor, but there is no separate, impartial forensic science dept within the court system anywhere within the U.S.A that conducts those kinds of tests on weapons and makes those determinations.

To my knowledge.

That includes Dallas in 1963.

Who conducted the fingerprint search on Oswald's weapon? The Dallas Police Dept.

Who conducted the paraffin test? The DPD.

Who interviewed Oswald extensively? The DPD.

There is no "Forensic Science Dept" within the Dallas Court system. The closest I can come to what you're alleging is that the Dallas Crime Lab - a department of the Dallas Police Dept - was responsible for the analysis of evidence gathered in this case. J.C.Day was a member of the Dallas Crime Lab in 1963 and took responsibility for the evidence and conducted the tests on it he deemed necessary. Until they were ordered to turn it over to the FBI.

You say the FBI did this as Standard Operating Procedure in 1963, but offer no citation for this fact. Nor do you mention the name of the test, or cite any standard forensics books that say this test is standard. Nor did the FBI conduct any such test on the rifle once they had the weapon.

So, on the basis of what you allege above, I would say you are zero for six.

No federal jurisdiction over this case.
No evidence of court systems conducting tests.
No name of the test provided.
No standard forensics manual cited.
No evidence it was commonly used by the FBI or any police dept.
No evidence it was conducted in 1963.

So, again, could you name the test and provide a citation to a standard forensics manual that says that's a standard test for weapons suspected of being used in a shooting? A circa-1963 citation or prior would be great.

Hank

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I would be flabbergasted to the point of fainting if a JFK conspiracist of such tenacious conviction as our little friend here were to come to his senses. But that's just it, there's a point passed where belief turns into religion, cult, and fanatacism. Reason, logic, all manner of critical thinking is folded in on itself like a Mobius strip.

Best thing to do is let the raving loony on the street corner be.

 

[HSienzant]

Removing a clip from a M/C without damage has not been replicated. The sheer fact that the clip was jammed would require damage to the piece.

In no way has anyone disproven the clip issue; people who can't explain this situation just ignore it. You say it has been disproven; provide some links that fully explain why the undamaged clip is nothing. Your clip background and bringing up "conspiracy believers" is poisoning the well.

-Curt

I dare say clips got removed millions of times from MCs during the war without damage. A rifle that wouldn't allow the clip to be removed without damage would be pretty useless, wouldn't it?

My toast got burnt this morning! I demand an investigation. This should NOT be happening, and doesn't happen in your universe, right?

The photos in evidence show your claim is nonsense. Unless you are alleging that J.C.Day took the damaged clip out of Oswald's rifle, and then SUBSTITUTED an undamaged clip for the damaged one and then photographed the undamaged one as the one found in the rifle. If you have any evidence that is the case, please present it now. Or, I'll also accept a GOOD reason for Day to make that substitution, given that we both know you don't have any evidence of a substitution and are just blowing smoke.

Why would Day keep the legit clip out of the record and substitute another one (that he just happened to have lying around and fit the confines of Oswald's rifle's magazine chamber) that wasn't legit evidence?

Any idea? Any idea at all?

No? If you can't come up with evidence nor a reason, then, as I said, the evidence indicates what I said it does: that this clip issue has been and always will be nonsense, raised by desperate people with no real evidence on their side.

Truly, this is just much ado about nothing. The critics raised a meaningless point back in the mid-1960's, and it just keep echoing around the internet nearly five decades later.

PS: You made a claim you can't substantiate: The sheer fact that the clip was jammed would require damage to the piece.

Please provide a citation for that fact, which you no doubt just made up on the spot.

Hank

 

[JohnG]

<snork> Better get those to the FBI, quick! You would agree that the FBI would take you seriously, right?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/267444f12f8cf6fa92.jpg[/qimg]

Interesting thing about that Guy Fawkes, (oops, sorry Robert) "V For Vendetta" mask superimposed over the face of the guy in the photo Robert originally posted is that "V For Vendetta" creator himself Alan Moore no longer believes in the sorts of big sexy conspiracy theories of which the JFK CT is one of the most famous. He came to this conclusion for two reasons:

1. He is extremely intelligent.
2. He actually bothered to properly research the big CTs as well as the larger CT phenomenon in general and found both the CTs and the CTists wanting. He came to the conclusion that for certain types of people the idea that there is some cruel but omnipotent "Big Brother" is more comforting than the idea that there is no "Big Brother" (benign/malign or indifferent) at all.

 

[HSienzant]

An eyewitness or two, up close and positive.

A positive paraffin test.

Recent Fingerprints Id'd on the alleged Rifle.

An absence of planted evidence (shells, rifle, stretcher bullet)

An admission of guilt

A positive Lie test.

A motive.

There is indeed evidence that LHO may have been a shooter. There is even stronger evidence that he was a set up Patsy. But even if all those above elements existed, that still does not prove he murdered Kennedy because all of the strongest evidence points to the fatal shot coming from the Grassy Knoll and LHO can't be in two places at once. Fact is, all the attention to Oswald's participation, is a red herring that draws attention away from the real issue, namely, was it a conspiracy? LHO's involvement or non-involvement is therefore irrelevant to that most important question.

Are those "Ands" or "Ors"?

In other words, do all of those need to exist, or just one of them?

Not sure why you need an admission of guilt, for example, AND a positive lie detector test AND a positive paraffin test, for example.

If all of them. why do you need a motive on top of all the above? What was Hinckley's professed motive for shooting Reagan? Do you know?

It was to impress Jodie Foster!

Now, if Hinckley had been shot and killed before he could talk about his motive for the shooting, would you have guessed in a million years that was Hinckley's motive? Of course not. And if you could not come up with a motive that makes sense and is sufficient for you, does that mean Hinckley had no motive? of course not.

But that doesn't mean Hinckley didn't have a motive that made sense and was sufficient to him.

Ditto with Oswald. I believe the motive is crystal-clear -- it was two-fold:
1. Put his name on the world stage, where he always felt he belonged.
2. Commit an act in furtherance of Communist Cuba, his current socialistic movement of choice.

But that can be a discussion for another time. Maybe it was to impress Ann Margret. It doesn't matter what Oswald's motive was.

The motive doesn't have to make sense to us. It just has to make sense to him. And with Oswald dead, you can guess at a motive for the next million years, and maybe you won't hit it.

We don't know for certain Oswald's motive (and if Hinckley was shot dead in his assassation attempt, we wouldn't know Hinckley's, either) but that should not affect a determination of guilt or innocence.

So why is it on your list?

Hank

One more question: Is the above the requirements in any murder trial you would be part of the jury for? Or would you follow the judge's instructions on how to determine if the accused is guilty? Does any jurisdiction in the world require all the above before a person can be found guilty? If not, why are you setting the bar so high for Oswald AND ONLY OSWALD - as it certainly appears you are doing.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Oh, but I do have an admission of guilt and a motive as well as the ID of the Grassy Knoll Shooter.

You do know that in famous crimes, loonies often come out of the woodwork to claim they did it, right?
And some other loonies claim they were eyewitnesses, right?

You do know that, right?

How many different people confessed to kidnapping the Lindbergh baby, for example?

Do you know?

Now, do you have any evidence that the confession is legit? Of course, if a person comes forward and says "I did it because of ... [fill in any motive you like] you have an admission, an ID, and a motive all wrapped up in one nice little package, but do you have any *evidence* that the confession is legit?

If not, all you have is a looney with a story. That you believe.

And, btw, do you have a positive paraffin test, some witness IDs, fingerprints on the murder weapon (you do have the murder weapon, right?), no planted evidence (how do you determine whether it's planted, btw)?

All of those were necessary, as I understand it, for you to find Oswald guilty. Why a lower standard for this supposed grassy knoll shooter?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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.

No, Robert, they weren't covered and discredited.

What is wrong with the Fischer and Edwards IDs of the shooter?

They were across the street from the TSBD and saw him about as close up and personal as you could get. You would need a ladder to get any closer.

Regarding the fingerprints on the trigger guard, Vincent Scalise claims different and did swear to it. Your statement is false.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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

You still owe me a response here that doesn't amount to "Baloney", Robert.

 

[HSienzant]

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

You still owe me a response here, Robert.

 

[HSienzant]

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

Robert, why did you claim no shooters were seen in the Depository? Were you unaware of the existence of Edwards and Fischer? There are numerous others. But let's start there.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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

Robert, did you compare Sam Holland's statement about the steam pipe and how difficult it was to get to the corner of the knoll fence with Hoffman's statements about how the gunman walked away from the fence and tossed the rifle to another man (which would have put the other man and this rifle into the view of Holland?

Did you note there's NOTHING about a sea of cars or the like in Hoffman's years-later statement?

It only happened one way, Robert. Which way did it happen? Who is telling the truth here?

Do you know where the steam pipe ran, and where it vented, btw?

Hank

 

[Southwind17]

An eyewitness or two, up close and positive.
A positive paraffin test.
Recent Fingerprints Id'd on the alleged Rifle.
An absence of planted evidence (shells, rifle, stretcher bullet)
An admission of guilt
A positive Lie test.
A motive.

Interesting how your dishonesty and hypocrisy mean that you don't have those things for your own story.

Exactly. I find it amusing that Robert actually fell right into that trap!

Shows how his mind works (not!).