JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
JayUtah said:
[Referring to the "Jackie did it" theory] Not as credible as the "Lee Harvey Oswald did it" accusation.
Click to expand...

When you look at the evidence with any care, the Oswald theory is not too much more unbelievable than the Jackie theory.

When you examine the supposed evidence of Oswald's guilt, time after time after time you find substantive, and often egregious, problems with it. Here are just a few facts along this line:

* When the WC had three Master-rated riflemen attempt to duplicate Oswald's alleged shooting feat, not one of them even came close, and they were the only ones who have used the alleged murder weapon itself.

* The fingerprint evidence against Oswald smells to high heaven and is riddled with absurd contradictions in the various stories about how it was supposedly obtained and processed.

* The 6.5mm fragment on the x-rays screams against the Oswald-did-it theory. Not only is that fragment a composite of a smaller fragment and a ghosted image, but the fragment's location clearly rules out the idea that it was fired by Oswald.

* The Zapruder film wreaks havoc on the Oswald theory. Lone-gunman theorists have been forced to range all over the map on when their three shots were fired and on which shot was the alleged magic bullet.

* The Oswald theory depends fundamentally on the single-bullet theory, which has been thoroughly, utterly debunked by subsequent research.

See:

Faulty Evidence: Problems with the Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/faulty.htm

Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/forensic.htm

Was Oswald's Palm Print Planted on the Alleged Murder Weapon?
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/palmprint.htm

10 Reasons I Reject the Single-Bullet Theory
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/10reasons.htm

How Long Would Oswald Have Had to Shoot?
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/howlong.htm

Reactions to Six Shots in the Zapruder Film
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/6shots.htm
 
Last edited:
bobtaftfan said:
When you look at the evidence with any care...
Click to expand...

...which you have not demonstrated you've done. You haven't even read the thread you're posting in.

When you examine the supposed evidence of Oswald's guilt, time after time after time you find substantive, and often egregious, problems with it.
Click to expand...

Same old JFK hustle. No better theory, just feeble attempts to undermine the prevailing theory, hoping some nebulous alternative will hold be default. Nope. Learn how an investigation really works.

Here are just a few facts along this line:
Click to expand...

All moldy old claims that have been discussed at length in this thread.

www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/faulty.htm
www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/forensic.htm
www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/palmprint.htm
www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/10reasons.htm
www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/howlong.htm
www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/6shots.htm[/QUOTE]

This is the only source you've ever employed. Please revisit the argument where you accused your critics of relying on one or two sources, and also please kindly broaden your horizons -- at least to include the prior discussion in this thread.

No, really. If you're just going to regurgitate exclusively from one other person's work, then you have no claim to erudition on the subject, nor to require attention from those of us who have been in this thread for a year or more.
 
Oh gosh a fringe reset - lets go thru it all again and maybe this time I'll win....sheesssh
 
Hans said:
Oh gosh a fringe reset - lets go thru it all again and maybe this time I'll win....sheesssh
Click to expand...
At one point some weeks ago, this thread had slipped down the bottom of page 3 in the CT subforum. I had hoped it was dead, but I should have known better. I suppose now we'll go round the wooberry bush for another several dozen pages.

Bob, will you please do us a favor, and at least read this thread before you post the same old dead arguments?
 
Link spam, not just for breakfast anymore.

So bobtaftfan, care to share what you think happened in Dallas that day?

Our dear friend Mr. Prey has never done that.
 
I see bobtaftfan has gone back to hit and run link spams to his own delusions.

Any thought from the rest of you on RFK Jr.'s claim that the Warren Commission report was crap?

If RFK really thought it was a conspiracy, wouldn't you think something concrete would have come out by now?
 
In most murder cases, the victim's relatives are generally not likely to be able to objectively evaluate the facts and the evidence. The fact that RFK was the attorney general does not magically change this.

RFK Jr.'s claim that his father's investigators determined that Ruby's and Oswald's phone records "'were like an inventory' of mafia leaders the government had been investigating" is not supported by the HSCA analysis of Ruby's phone records (see here). In a cursory search I haven't been able to find anything about Oswald's telephone activities; I'm not certain that he even had regular access to a private telephone line during much of 1963.
 
SpitfireIX said:
In most murder cases, the victim's relatives are generally not likely to be able to objectively evaluate the facts and the evidence. The fact that RFK was the attorney general does not magically change this.

RFK Jr.'s claim that his father's investigators determined that Ruby's and Oswald's phone records "'were like an inventory' of mafia leaders the government had been investigating" is not supported by the HSCA analysis of Ruby's phone records (see here). In a cursory search I haven't been able to find anything about Oswald's telephone activities; I'm not certain that he even had regular access to a private telephone line during much of 1963.
Click to expand...

A penurious sort, Oswald did NOT own a phone and for the last month or two prior to the assassination, was living under an assumed name (O.H.Lee) at a roominghouse with one payphone for the boarders. According to the housekeeper, he never got any calls. He typically called his wife twice a day. Also, he failed to tell his wife he was living under an assumed name, and when Marina asked Mrs. Paine (whom she was living with) to contact Lee there, she was told there was nobody by the name of Oswald living there.

The HSCA found scant evidence of any association with any Mafia types by Oswald. The closest they could come to ANY such link was to his uncle, who was a illegal bookmaker (i.e., bookie). But Oswald didn't associate much with Dutz Murret, his uncle, and Dutz lived in New Orleans and Oswald in Dallas, after the summer of 1963.

Hank
 
Last edited:
More Media Brainwash

"I haven't seen a single piece of evidence that would refute the Warren Commission's conclusion of Lee Harvey Oswald firing all of the shots from behind..." --

Gary Mack in the documentary 'Inside the Target Car."


No, Gary, you haven't since like the WC, you never bothered to even consider the large blow-out wound in the back of K's head observed by scores of on the scene witnesses indicating a fatal shot from the front.
 
Robert Prey said:
"I haven't seen a single piece of evidence that would refute the Warren Commission's conclusion of Lee Harvey Oswald firing all of the shots from behind..." --

Gary Mack in the documentary 'Inside the Target Car."


No, Gary, you haven't since like the WC, you never bothered to even consider the large blow-out wound in the back of K's head observed by scores of on the scene witnesses indicating a fatal shot from the front.
Click to expand...

Why would he bother to look at something that did not exhist and for which you have failed to provide any valid evidence?

No fringe reset for your unfounded fantasy.
 
So what evidence does Robert have that Gary Mack never bothered to consider the fictional front shooter, instead of having considered the witnesses before coming to the entirely reasonable conclusion that their testemony is disproven by the photographic, medical and filmed evidence? Or perhaps that annectdotal evidence proves nothing in and of itself and he has no reason to count those annectdotes as any more reliable than those that support the WC? Or the entirely reasonable conclusion that because the vast majority of the "evidence" Robert refers to does not in fact state or even suggest what he wishes, let alone support his theory, and is largely cherry picked lines that he has failed to understand even after removing them from meaningful context?

Absolutely none. Roberts powers of mind-reading are apparently so strong he feels the need to dictate what somebody should consider convincing and he riles against somebody else having not been convinced that the WC was refuted in their own opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom