• 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:
See the book FIRST DAY EVIDENCE, by Gary Savage. I already provided that, and further info on the book a few days ago in an earlier post.

True to form, you ignored it all.

Hank
Click to expand...


No. Nothing in that book makes any such claim as to a sworn statement.
 
HSienzant said:
lol. No, that's a false dichotomy on your part. Nobody ever said that too many people have talked, therefore they are all loonies. The claims have been examined and found wanting, therefore they are each provably a loony.

Robert, when the question is asked, "why hasn't anyone talked" we of course mean people actually involved in the conspiracy, that could prove, by insider knowledge and other evidence, that there was indeed a conspiracy and that they indeed were part of it.

We don't mean the run-of-the-mill loonies that come out of the woodwork in every crime, and the more you get as the crime gets bigger.

I am truly sorry you don't understand the difference. You appear to equate any loony coming forward with a 'story' and no evidence of any kind with a true conspirator who was actually involved in a conspiracy to kill JFK.

I think I see part of the reason this discussion has lasted nearly one hundred pages.

Let me clarify: those two are not equivalent, and a ton of loonies coming forward with stories of how they were involved (either as witnesses or conspirators or even as assassins), does not equal one legit confession with verifiable evidence. You have plenty of the former; none of the latter.

Again, I apologize for the confusion and am glad I could clear this up for you.

Hank
Click to expand...

And what would be your criteria for a valid confession? With specificity. What do you mean by "insider knowledge." Knowledge of what? That it was a conspiracy? But that is what a confession alleges. I would suggest that the only credence necessary or possible is the credibility of the witness and if other conspirators have also confessed with the same or similar information. Here is an example of what you should write: YOu finish the sentence

"There was a conspiracy and I was involved and can prove by reason of the fact that......'

You fill in the blank.
 
HSienzant said:
One or two?

But Robert, I already listed that we have that many for Oswald!

You do remember authoring the list below, right?


I offered the names of two witnesses. Edwards and Fischer, and cited their testimony and first day statements. You ignored both.

I pointed out that J.C.Day found fingerprints on the weapon's trigger guard he was in the process of determining were Oswald's, and Vincent Scalise worked from the photos of those prints to positively identify them as Oswald's.

You haven't offered one iota of evidence that the shells, rifle, or stretcher bullet was planted.

I offered two motives, Oswald's desire to go down in history, along with his desire to kill an avowed enemy of the Cuban revolution (he had already shot at one such enemy in General Walker whom he had gone out of his way to stalk and shoot; Kennedy was different in that he was a target of opportunity in that the motorcade route took JFK past Oswald's place of employment).

Hank
Click to expand...

As already stated, the WC concluded Edwards and Fischer could not make a positive ID.

Oswald's alleged Marxism and Love of Cuiba is contradicted by his association with anti-Castro cubans and his stated love for President Kennedy. Nor is there any proof that he attempted to kill Gen.Walker.
 
Robert Prey said:
To increase the chances of success, it is logical to have more than one shooter in more than one location. Logic 101. If one shooter gets cold feet, the others may not. If one shooter's weapon jams, the others may not. If one shooter misses, the others may not. Logic 101 and 102. It's not Rube Goldberg but common sense. On the other hand, your plan(s) have a high risk of failure.
Click to expand...

Or one shooter takes three shots. Logic 101. Obviously. You can't argue with success.

Did you get your irrefutable evidence to the FBI yet? Hurry man! They're waiting for someone just like you!



LOL.
 
Hank wrote:

I pointed out that J.C.Day found fingerprints on the weapon's trigger guard he was in the process of determining were Oswald's, and Vincent Scalise worked from the photos of those prints to positively identify them as Oswald's.

Comment:
The alleged fingerprint on the trigger guard Scalice found to be of no value.

The alleged fingerprint from the underside of the foregrip Scalice says he found just 5 points of ID. Do you know what the standard number of points of fingerprint ID is for a valid match? In the US it's 12. In the UK it's 16. So much for Scalice and his creative conclusions.

From HSCA,

Findings and Conclusions of Vincent L. Scalice

"Latent fingerprint designated 4b recovered from the trigger guard of a 6.5 millimeter, Mannlicher-Carcano rilfe, serial No. C2766, processed at the Dallas Plice Dept. It is of no value for identification purposes."

"Lift from rifle (designated commission exhibit 139) from the underside of the foregrip at the4 gun barrel end of the foregrip of a Mannlicher-Carcano, serial NJo. C2766, I identified five characteristics or points of identity which match the lift."


http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0126b.htm
 
bynmdsue said:
I've skipped...several pages. Did RP name his confessed grassy knoll shooter?
Click to expand...

He's still recovering from his self-infliced foot injuries but he has a few confession loons to choose from. Which one will he hitch his little red wagon to over the others?
 
Robert Prey said:
Stay tuned.
Click to expand...

Of course not. He seems to think we are waiting for baited breath.

He has yet to even state why this particular confession is any more accurate than other. Surely if "they confessed" was a benchmark he should be over the moon about several conspiracies I have already listed who "confessed".
 
Tomtomkent said:
Of course not. He seems to think we are waiting for baited breath.

He has yet to even state why this particular confession is any more accurate than other. Surely if "they confessed" was a benchmark he should be over the moon about several conspiracies I have already listed who "confessed".
Click to expand...

What would be your criteria for a valid confession? Here is an example of what you should write: YOu finish the sentence

"There was a conspiracy and I was involved and can prove this by reason of the fact that......'

Finish the sentence as to what might be a reasonable hypothetical of what might be a credible confession... if you can.
 
Last edited:
Tomtomkent said:
Of course not. He seems to think we are waiting for baited breath.

He has yet to even state why this particular confession is any more accurate than other. Surely if "they confessed" was a benchmark he should be over the moon about several conspiracies I have already listed who "confessed".
Click to expand...

(my bold)

It's how he troll
 
Robert Prey said:
To increase the chances of success, it is logical to have more than one shooter in more than one location. Logic 101. If one shooter gets cold feet, the others may not. If one shooter's weapon jams, the others may not. If one shooter misses, the others may not. Logic 101 and 102. It's not Rube Goldberg but common sense. On the other hand, your plan(s) have a high risk of failure.
Click to expand...


We're not just talking multiple shooters, Robert. Ignore my points some more.

We're talking alterations to the autopsy photos, alterations to the body, alterations to the films taken in Dealey Plaza, if your intent is to kill the President AND frame a patsy. We're talking getting the autopsists to lie about what they saw.

We're talking planting of bullets in Parkland, planting of fragments in the limo, and planting of shells on the sixth floor.

We're talking planting of a rifle that wasn't used in the shooting. We're talking planting a paper bag on the sixth floor to frame the patsy for bringing the rifle into the building in a paper bag.

We're talking forging the backyard photos, then getting Marina to lie about them.

There's a ton of stuff that has to get done to cover the conspirators' behinds AND frame the patsy.

There's a lot of loose ends there.

The plan that you suggest was carried out has a high chance of discovery, yet the perpetrators haven't been discovered yet (who altered the body, for instance? Who altered the Zapruder film? Who altered the autopsy photos?, etc. etc.). Who planted the rifle

After 50 years, you claim the conspiracy is a done deal, but you cannot answer the most rudimentary questions about why they would do it the way they did.

My way - as long as you have a half-way decent shot in the sixth floor window - is much simpler and if you don't get him, maybe you get another opportunity two weeks later, in another motorcade.

Or you crash AF1 or a helocopter the President flies in.

Whatever, but it doesn't involve a cast of thousands. Each a failure point, as each of these people could come forth and say, yeah, I planted the bullet at Parkland (and I have proof).

Hank
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
As already stated, the WC concluded Edwards and Fischer could not make a positive ID.

Oswald's alleged Marxism and Love of Cuiba is contradicted by his association with anti-Castro cubans and his stated love for President Kennedy. Nor is there any proof that he attempted to kill Gen.Walker.
Click to expand...


You originally said nobody SAW the shooter(s) in the TSBD:

Robert Prey said:
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.
Click to expand...


Now you are redefining what you said originally to fit what your argument, but you didn't say "nobody ID'ed the shooter". You said "nobody saw the shooter(s)". And that was the point I made.

Fischer and Edwards saw a man in the sniper's nest window. Less than a minute later, a rifle was seen in that window.
Ergo, Fischer and Edwards saw the shooter, contrary to your *original* statement.

And regarding Oswald's professed love for JFK, Oswald in custody said he liked the Kennedy family, but so what?
Oswald himself wrote that he INFILTRATED the anti-Castro Cuban movement in New Orleans. Do you know what INFILTRATED means?

Oswald was a Marxist, as he told the police in custody. He had no compunction admitting that even in custody, but note he did say that, in light of the charges against him, he did not want to discuss Kennedy's policies.

If he was a patsy being framed, and NOT a Marxist, why did he lie about in custody?

Twist this all you want, but the evidence still points at Oswald as the guilty party.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
And what would be your criteria for a valid confession? With specificity. What do you mean by "insider knowledge." Knowledge of what? That it was a conspiracy? But that is what a confession alleges. I would suggest that the only credence necessary or possible is the credibility of the witness and if other conspirators have also confessed with the same or similar information. Here is an example of what you should write: YOu finish the sentence

"There was a conspiracy and I was involved and can prove by reason of the fact that ...
You fill in the blank.
Click to expand...


"... I altered the autopsy photos and here are the unaltered originals and negatives."

Or "... I altered the Zapruder film along with [Naming names] and here is a copy of the camera original, unaltered."

Or "... I altered the backyard photos and here is what we started with, and here are the intermediary steps."

Or "... I planted the bullet in Parkland and here is a another bullet that I intended to drop in the dirt in Dealey Plaza if necessary. You will note this second bullet is ballistically traceable to Oswald's rifle, just like the one I planted in Parkland."

etc. etc.

It's not just a STORY, Robert.

It's evidence to substantiate the story.

It's evidence that couldn't be obtained anywhere else, that is verifiable as authentic.

Anybody could tell a story.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Here's what happened: The fatal shot came from the vicinity of the Grassy Knoll. We know that from close up on the scene witnesses and confirmation from the medical reports. We can only speculate as to the specifics as to the details, but a sober, unbiased analysis cannot refute the result. Arguing about steam pipes, the number of cars, how the rifle disappeared (who says it was a rifle?) is irrelevant minutia in an attempt to refute the irrefutable.
Click to expand...


YOUR WITNESS said it was a rifle!

Don't you remember bringing up Ed Hoffman and quoting Jim Marrs as vouching for his sincerity AND credibility?

Robert Prey said:
... And then there is the witness who actually saw two men with the rifle, a puff of smoke, and dis-assemble the rifle, place in a tool box, and casually walk away toward the railroad tracks. That's why there was no rifle found. That witness being Ed Hoffman who claims the FBI tried to shut him up with bribery...
Click to expand...


Robert Prey said:
... According to Jim Mars, the man was sincere and credible:

As the one who first brought Ed Hoffman and even
walked the Grassy Knoll with Ed, I can assure you he was a credible and
sincere witness. No one who knew Ed has expressed serious doubts about
his veracity. His family early on tried to downplay Ed's testimony but
only out of love. They did not want him subjected to public ridicule.
With his death we lost a valuable witness. --Jim Marrs

http://jfkhistory.com/forum/index.php?topic=153.60

But there are still other witnesses that corroborate Ed Hoffman and the Grassy Knoll shot: Lee Bowers who saw two men, a flash of light and smoke...
Click to expand...


Who said it was a rifle? YOUR WITNESS!

Are you saying Ed Hoffman was mistaken? Or was he lying?

The evidence is not irrefutable, I have refuted it. You don't dare compare and contrast the witness statements to try to make a coherent story; you can't. Hoffman says the rifleman tossed the rifle to another man near the corner of the overpass and fence. That location would have put this second man in full view of Sam Holland and others, but although they thought they saw smoke, and ran to that same corner in an attempt to see what they presumed was the shooter, THEY SAW NOBODY with a rifle. If Hoffman's story is true, Holland would practically have tripped over the man with the gun.

Please explain why your witness is not credible.

Please explain why you bring up a witness seeing a shooter with a rifle one day, then ask "who said the shooter had a rifle?" a bit later.
Please explain why no two of your witnesses corroborate each other in the particulars, or what you like to dismiss it as, the irrelevant minutia...
Please explain why the steam pipe YOUR WITNESS put in the area wouldn't explain the supposed puff of smoke some witnesses saw.
Please explain why one of your witnesses says the area was a sea of cars and he and others had difficulty getting to the knoll, but your other witness, who supposedly saw a rifleman and his associate, says nothing about cars impeding the movement of either of the two men he saw.

You need to come up with a coherent story, Robert.

Your witnesses aren't helping you in that regard.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Here's what happened: The fatal shot came from the vicinity of the Grassy Knoll. We know that from close up on the scene witnesses and confirmation from the medical reports. We can only speculate as to the specifics as to the details, but a sober, unbiased analysis cannot refute the result. Arguing about steam pipes, the number of cars, how the rifle disappeared (who says it was a rifle?) is irrelevant minutia in an attempt to refute the irrefutable.
Click to expand...
Comedy gold.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom