• 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.
You never responded to the points below, Robert.

HSienzant said:
Setting up and killing the supposed patsy didn't stop the investigation. It broadened it. Before Oswald was shot, it was a local investigation, run by the Dallas Police. After he was shot, the Feds took over.
Your premise that this would work to cut off the investigation is false.

Instead, all it would do is put a lot of faked evidence into the hands of the investigators. One mistake (like planting too many bullets) could reveal the whole plot. So why would the conspirators do it that way, when a simpler way is to simply shoot JFK from the sixth floor window, leaving behind NO weapon (or even Oswald's weapon), and NOTHING else?

It also means there doesn't have to be two brains, two autopsies, two rifles, multiple Oswald impersonators, altered films and photos from Dealey Plaza, altering Connally's wounds, altering JFK's wounds... etc, ad nauseum.

Your entire argument is a house of cards.

It has no logical basis in fact.

Hank
Click to expand...
 
Robert Prey said:
One backyard photo was forged and I proved it. Logically, all of them were forged or altered just like the autopsy photos.
Click to expand...

LOL. What times are it?



You did prove one thing but I don't think it's what you meant to prove.



Don't you agree that the FBI would want to talk to you? They have a special room to interview you in.
 
HSienzant said:
Hi Robert,

Please advise the date Oswald ordered the rifle. Do you know?
Now advise the date the trip to Dallas was confirmed. Do you know?

You are conflating the facts to make it seem like Oswald ordered the rifle to shoot JFK. But at the time Oswald ordered the rifle, there were no plans for JFK to go to Dallas. The evidence indicates Oswald ordered the rifle to shoot General Walker, an attempt he carried out in April of 1963.


Hank
Click to expand...

Hey, Robert, you never did answer this.

How come?

You raised the bogus issue of the rifle here:

Robert Prey said:
Why would Lee Harvey Oswald, a man alleged to be a crazy, Marxist Communist, disloyal American looking to make a name for himself by shooting a President, make sure he left a paper trail on his purchase of a rifle, instead of going over the counter locally, with no paper trail??? Or did he perhaps want to be caught so that he would go down in history as a big man who killed the President???? Oh, and the purchase made with a fake ID which he conveniently left in his wallet so that when he was picked up, they would know it was he who purchased the rifle, and he would get "credit" for the Crime of the Century. Make sense??? To Lone Nutters, hell yes. But then Lone Nutters really are kind of nuts.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Nothing except that it is truthful, while the May 8 memo is not.
Click to expand...


But the "except that it is truthful" is clearly just an assumption on your part.

So you admit you have nothing except your assumption that the memo is truthful.

Thanks for that admission.

Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
Well, duh --- The U.S.Marine Corps.

You do understand they are a branch of the military (specifically, of the Department of the Navy), right?
And he was stationed at the Atsugi NAVAL base?
You understand the meaning of the word "Naval" in the above, or do you want to contemplate this awhile?

Hank
Click to expand...

NOMINATED!! pithy, clever, hilarious!
 
Robert Prey said:
Oh, contraire!! Your entire argument confirms suspicion tha LHO was set up as a Patsy. I remind you, that after the Patsy (Oswald) was killed, he had no lawyer, nor rules of evidence, no trial. Just what the real conspirators wanted and planned.
Click to expand...
Vince Bugliosi prosecuted Oswald with Gerry Spence for the defense. Mr B handily won a conviction.

Try again.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
Vince Bugliosi prosecuted Oswald with Gerry Spence for the defense. Mr B handily won a conviction.

Try again.
Click to expand...

No. What was on trial at the mock trail was Lee Oswald, who was not present to give a defense. For the Bug man, like shooting fish in a barrel. But the real question was not on trial, namely, was it a conspiracy? Were there others involved. And that is the question raised on this board. Not that there is any irrefutable evidence that LHO even fired a single shot.
 
HSienzant said:
Baloney.

You are merely assuming what you need to prove!
Click to expand...

The May 8 memo asserts the Oswald had no association with CIA. That is false. The documented association with the CIA sponsored U2 spy plane was never ever alluded to. That proves the memo is a lie.
 
HSienzant said:
Please explain how anything I wrote "confirms suspicion" that Oswald was set up as a patsy.

You do understand that you just admitted you only have suspicions, not evidence, by your own wording above. Otherwise, I fail to understand why you wrote what you did.

Or why you would need me to confirm it.

Wouldn't the hard evidence you and other critics have accumulated over the past five decades confirm it?

Oh, what's that? You don't have any hard evidence?

Why didn't you say so to start?

And Robert, why would the conspirators not shoot from the sixth floor and just walk away, leaving behind Oswald's weapon and shells, and NOT have to bother with altering films, altering x-rays, altering the body, forging photos, planting evidence, killing witnesses, etc, etc? Wouldn't that approach save a lot of time, effort, and money? Why did they adopt a Rube Goldbergian plan like you suggest?

oops - too many questions - dodge ball time for Robert.

Hank
Click to expand...

As previously pointed out, a single shooter from a single location offers a high degree of the possibility of failure. But more than one shooter, from other angles, offers a high probability of "success". Obviously.
 
As previously pointed out, a single shooter from a single location offers a high degree of the possibility of failure. But more than one shooter, from other angles, offers a high probability of "success". Obviously.
Click to expand...

And a far higher degree of being caught doing it. Obviously.
 
HSienzant said:
Well, duh --- The U.S.Marine Corps.

You do understand they are a branch of the military (specifically, of the Department of the Navy), right?
And he was stationed at the Atsugi NAVAL base?
You understand the meaning of the word "Naval" in the above, or do you want to contemplate this awhile?

Hank
Click to expand...


Marine Corps, Navy, Naval Intell, DIA, CIA. That's the pecking order. But the U2 project was strictly CIA and LHO was a part of it.
 
Border Reiver said:
I was able to answer 7 of your questions at once - all it takes is a little organization.

You should be able to answer my 2 (the one about Texas being rhetorical):

a. Based on your logic of "if the CIA confirms it - it must be true" and "if the CIA denies it - it must be true" - what do you infer if the CIA says nothing? and

b. What evidence do you have that the facts in the May 3 memo are true and the May 18 memo are false?

My 8 year old can answer two part questions - why can't you? (Note, this is rhetorical and does not require an anwer to be posted, but you may wish to work it our for yourself anysways)
Click to expand...

Already answered. The May 8 memo makes no mention of LHO and U2. Nuff said.
 
HSienzant said:
Why don't you just cite the two or three strongest pieces of evidence that Oswald had connections to the CIA, Robert?

I've read the book [twice] and I could not find anything that would pass muster.

Hank
Click to expand...

The CIA U2 project. That's enough.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom