• 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:
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
Click to expand...

Irrelevant minutia.
 
HSienzant said:
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
Click to expand...

If so, then document where Scalise swore to it.
 
HSienzant said:
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?

Hank
Click to expand...

One of the shibboleths often spouted by Lone Nutters is, if there was a conspiracy, then why hasn't anyone talked? The obverse of that is the other shibboleth, namely that too many people have talked, therefore they are all loonies. Make up your mind.
 
HSienzant said:
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
Click to expand...

Too much prose, too many questions. As to the above suggested proofs, of course not all are ever necessary in any murder trial. One or two would probably do. Like a confession, for instance.
 
Robert Prey said:
Too much prose, too many questions. As to the above suggested proofs, of course not all are ever necessary in any murder trial. One or two would probably do. Like a confession, for instance.
Click to expand...

I'd settle for evidence that your loon who "confessed" was on the 6th floor of the TSBD where the shots came from and that he had used the alias AJ Hidell to buy the MC.

Do you have that?
 
Tomtomkent said:
Already shown to be there.



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.
Click to expand...

Factually incorrect. Lie tests are allowed in court in many US jurisdictions.
 
Robert, I'd settle for your loon's fingerprints being found on the murder weapon, the MC.

Were they?

Have you contacted the FBI yet with your evidence?

Oops, that was two questions. Oh well, I'm sure you can put on your big boy pants and answer them both.
 
RoboTimbo said:
I'd settle for evidence that your loon who "confessed" was on the 6th floor of the TSBD where the shots came from and that he had used the alias AJ Hidell to buy the MC.

Do you have that?
Click to expand...

Well, the question remains unanswered as to why we should believe that Roberts favoured confession is any more/less accurate/insane than any of the others who have "come forwards" over fifty years.

No doubt it is a pure coincidence that the confession was published in a book for profit instead of being taken to the relevent authorities.
 
Robert Prey said:
Factually incorrect. Lie tests are allowed in court in many US jurisdictions.
Click to expand...

Which jurisdictions?

Given the general rule making them inadmissable in most jurisdictions, due to the unreliable nature of the test, I would think that those jurisdictions would have a higher than normal appeal success rate.
 
HSienzant said:
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
Click to expand...

You are now making speculations when you say "I dare say clips got removed millions of times from MCs"... your posts up to this point had merit. You have fallen into an abyss where you demand facts from others yet you put forward opinions. When I say "damage", I refer to distortion of the clip; in order for the clip to be jammed in the M/C, it had to have damage, it is the only way it can be jammed. If you care to put forth another way the clip can be jammed without any evidence of altering the clip... then I will listen.

As for citations... you offer none, yet you get on a high horse and demand one out of me. Do you need a citation for your toast being removed without damage? No, you don't and there is no such citation for the clip or a rock busting out a window. You have reduced your defenseless position to rubble.

I never made a claim about anyone substituting clips, yet that does bring to the forefront that there is no receipt for the clip. Clips were sold separately and one of the foundations of tracing the rifle back to Oswald was the chain of receipts which allowed the Commission to come up with the chain of custody.

Where is the receipt for the clip? Maybe if you start with this question, it could add substance to your stance.
 
HSienzant said:
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
Click to expand...

I never said it was a Federal Crime, I have no problem with police standards. You specifically asked about Dallas in 1963. I said I don't know about their SOPs but the FBI did have metal fouling on the check list of forensics determinations. You conveniently twisted my response.

Hank, you know very little about weapons and huge measures of fallacious arguing. You are attempting to make a distinction with a difference. My daughter-in-law works for the Police Forensics Department of one of the largest cities in the SW. Her department is under the jurisdiction of the Police Department... I guess you can pick apart structures of sentences and you can attempt to determine what I attempted to say... go ahead and do so because you now going down this rat hole because you have very little knowledge of forensics and weaponry. I went back and re-read my comment and yes I left out a complete thought, so let's use this mistake as a complete foundation for your position.

Bottom line: Forensics tests for metal fouling. It was not done on the weapon that was found in TSBD. There is no evidence that this rifle was shot from that day. There is sworn testimony that the rifle had rust and corrosion in the barrel.

citation: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0202a.htm

Speak to how the barrel can have corrosion after a round has been shot through the barrel.

Hank, answer this one question and I will go away. Let it be known that I provided a citation so I expect the same from you when you answer the previous sentence.
 
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...

You do understand - or perhaps not - that the ballistics test referred to by me and the previous poster is on a microscopic level and is as unique as a fingerprint.

What happens is the machine tool used to grind down the bore of the barrel during the manufacturer process has minute imperfections in in that changes as it is used. Those minute imperfections get transferred to the barrel, and thus make any two rifles off the same assembly line unique on a microscopic level. These microscopic markings are then transferred to the bullet as it travels down the barrel, leaving a unique record behind on the bullet of which rifle it was fired from.

The nearly whole bullet found in Parkland Hospital, as well as the two large fragments found on the floor of the limo on the night of the assassination, were directly traceable to, and determined to have been fired from, Oswald's Mannlicher Carcano, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

This means this weapon of Oswald's was used in the assassination attempt, and fired those two bullets.

Now, since we know it is a weapon ordered by Oswald (using an alias), that has his palmprint and fingerprints on it, and that he was photographed holding, we further know he picked it up from his post-office box that it was shipped to (another point of contention by the conspiracy crowd that goes nowhere because of the evidence of him possessing it after the shipment to the PO Box).

We further have his wife's testimony that she took the photographs of him holding the rifle at his behest, and that the rifle was normally stored within a blanket in the Paine garage since the Oswald's moved from New Orleans. Yet, on the afternoon of the assassination, that blanket was empty and the rifle was found at the TSBD on the sixth floor, the floor where numerous witnesses saw a man at the sniper's next window or a rifle in the window.

Unless you are going to prove (not just allege) the bullet and two fragments were planted, the rifle was planted, and Oswald's prints on it were planted, and the photographs of him holding it all forged [Robert is going to pop in to say these are already proven, but we both know Robert's proofs amount to nothing], it's pretty much an open-and-shut case, based on the hard evidence alone.

Allegations don't fly here.

So give it your best shot, 50 years of trying by many other conspiracy believers have not disproven that evidence. I doubt another 50 will, either.

A non-named test and uncited test that wasn't conducted but was supposedly normally conducted in 1963 by the court system doesn't come close to overturning the evidence that was gathered.

It also occurs to me that your claim (in the link below) that these tests are normally conducted by the court's science forensic lab, even if true, would not be pertinent, as there was never a court case in the JFK assassination (Oswald being shot in custody).

ladmo said:
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
Click to expand...

Hank
 
ladmo said:
I never said it was a Federal Crime, I have no problem with police standards. You specifically asked about Dallas in 1963. I said I don't know about their SOPs but the FBI did have metal fouling on the check list of forensics determinations. You conveniently twisted my response.

Hank, you know very little about weapons and huge measures of fallacious arguing. You are attempting to make a distinction with a difference. My daughter-in-law works for the Police Forensics Department of one of the largest cities in the SW. Her department is under the jurisdiction of the Police Department... I guess you can pick apart structures of sentences and you can attempt to determine what I attempted to say... go ahead and do so because you now going down this rat hole because you have very little knowledge of forensics and weaponry. I went back and re-read my comment and yes I left out a complete thought, so let's use this mistake as a complete foundation for your position.

Bottom line: Forensics tests for metal fouling. It was not done on the weapon that was found in TSBD. There is no evidence that this rifle was shot from that day. There is sworn testimony that the rifle had rust and corrosion in the barrel.

citation: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0202a.htm

Speak to how the barrel can have corrosion after a round has been shot through the barrel.

Hank, answer this one question and I will go away. Let it be known that I provided a citation so I expect the same from you when you answer the previous sentence.
Click to expand...

Sure, no problem. Here's my citation.

citation: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0202a.htm

You will note it is the same as yours.

I see nothing where FBI Agent Frazier admitted to RUST or corrosion. What he spoke to was corrosion OR WEAR (e.g., from being used).

That changes the allegation you make into another conspiracy point that doesn't prove what it is alleged is proven.

What Frazier actually said was:

Frazier: ... the lands and the grooves were WORN, the corners were WORN, and the interior of the surface was roughened from CORROSION OR WEAR. [emphasis added by me]

At no point did he mention RUST within the barrel being found. But that was your specific claim. Your claim was quite specific: There is sworn testimony that the rifle had RUST AND CORROSION in the barrel.

Nope. Frazier never said that.

Corrision can come from a number of sources; wear being one of them.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corrode

1: to eat away by degrees as if by gnawing; especially : to wear away gradually usually by chemical action <the metal was corroded beyond repair>
2: to weaken or destroy gradually : undermine <manners and miserliness that corrode the human spirit — Bernard De Voto>

Let me reiterate: At no point did he mention RUST within the barrel being found.

YOUR citation itself shows that. The point you attempt to make is unproven because your own citation does not say what you said it did. No rust was found in the barrel.

On your point about the federal crime, you appeared to be alleging it should not have been with the responsibility of the police to investigate this on two levels, that it was a murder of the president, not some local yokel, and that the court system, not the police, typically performs the test. You, at one point specifically ruled out the police as having jurisdiction. Since you appeared to be attacking the police having jurisidiction on two levels, I replied on both. Now you say your daughter works for a police dept, not the courts, which proves my rebuttal point nicely.

If I misunderstood your point because you left out a whole thought is hardly something you can blame me for, although you appear to be doing that when you claim "You conveniently twisted my response"

You still haven't named this test or cited any forensic manual that shows it was normally done in 1963 - by police depts or the FBI.

Why the delay in that, if this test was used as commonly as you allege?

Here's what you originally wrote below. I've numbered your response points as I responded to them about the local police having jurisdiction on two levels.

ladmo said:
Interesting questions Hank. [1] 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. [2] 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
Click to expand...


Hank
 
Last edited:
I've skipped...several pages. Did RP name his confessed grassy knoll shooter?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom