JFK's assassination: your thoughts

[ladmo]

What do you think of the miracle at Fatima?

Probability is probability; if you care to challenge the equation feel free to do at this moment.

 

[JayUtah]

Your posing of this question is the most sophomoric framing I have witnessed.

How so? His inference has a reasonable basis. Your only basis for dismissing it is an argument from silence. I don't find that sophomoric in the least, especially if someone has personal experience in this field.

You are a fake or just provide the documentation that said the WC used this process.

Straw man. He has a reasonable basis for his inference. Your only rebuttal is a demand for documents you feel sure "must" exist and can be produced and published.

 

[ladmo]

How so? His inference has a reasonable basis. Your only basis for dismissing it is an argument from silence. I don't find that sophomoric in the least, especially if someone has personal experience in this field.

We have no way of knowing if his background is law enforcement or that of a bar room bouncer. Since claims can be and are continually made that have no merit, I will not be the research arm of a statement that I don't believe. His current argument is from silence as I have asked numerous times to provide support for his claim. I did not make the claim, plain and simple.

 

[JayUtah]

We have no way of knowing if his background is law enforcement or that of a bar room bouncer.

You are willing to be taught by him, therefore you accept him as an expert. You did not question the foundation of his expertise before. Too late to do it now.

His current argument is from silence as I have asked numerous times to provide support for his claim.

No, you have saddled him with a straw man in the form of the only rejoinder you will accept.

I did not make the claim, plain and simple.

He made the claim that a certain point of law exists and applies to this claim. In your rebuttal you affirmed that if such were the case, certain documents would necessarily exist and could be produced on demand. That is your claim, and it constitutes your affirmative rebuttal -- suppositional though it is.

 

[Robrob]

They never found out where Oswald allegedly got the 6.5mm copper jacket bullets. There were only two gun shops in Dallas that sold them and they said they never saw Oswald buy any.

So your assertion is gun shop owners remember every single customer they ever have?

 

[BStrong]

We have no way of knowing if his background is law enforcement or that of a bar room bouncer. Since claims can be and are continually made that have no merit, I will not be the research arm of a statement that I don't believe. His current argument is from silence as I have asked numerous times to provide support for his claim. I did not make the claim, plain and simple.

I did answer, but unfortunately you were so busy trying to run away from your lack of knowledge in the subject matter that you missed it - but just ftr, here we go again -there is no section of the WC report that explains or cites their process in determining LHO as the named shooter in the JFK assassination.

They collected evidence showing that Oswald was at the TSBD, they connected the Carcano to Oswald, they recovered the Carcano at the TSBD, they connected the Carcano to the assassination through ballistic evidence, and apprehended LHO after the murder of officer J.D. Tippet and at the time of arrest LHO had the weapon used to murder Tippet in his possession.

Subsequent to his arrest, LHO was murdered by Jack Ruby, which put a serious kink in any prosecution of LHO in court.

The murder of LHO precluded a prosecution and conviction, but there's this little thing that ladmo never heard of before yesterday, which is the principle and process of Exceptional Clearance.

Having the evidence at hand, the WC did what is not only legally permissible but used nation-wide by law enforcement agencies to clear cases where there is a identified suspect that for whatever reason is unavailable for prosecution - if certain investigational criteria is met, namely:

Cleared by exceptional means

In certain situations, elements beyond law enforcement’s control prevent the agency from arresting and formally charging the offender. When this occurs, the agency can clear the offense exceptionally. Law enforcement agencies must meet the following four conditions in order to clear an offense by exceptional means. The agency must have:

Identified the offender.

Gathered enough evidence to support an arrest, make a charge, and turn over the offender to the court for prosecution.

Identified the offender’s exact location so that the suspect could be taken into custody immediately.

Encountered a circumstance outside the control of law enforcement that prohibits the agency from arresting, charging, and prosecuting the offender.

Examples of exceptional clearances include, but are not limited to, the death of the offender (e.g., suicide or justifiably killed by police or citizen); the victim’s refusal to cooperate with the prosecution after the offender has been identified; or the denial of extradition because the offender committed a crime in another jurisdiction and is being prosecuted for that offense. In the UCR Program, the recovery of property alone does not clear an offense.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/clearances

The facts as evidenced wrt Oswald as the assassin of JFK fits this criteria, and although for whatever reasons ladmo wishes to reject the principle or process of Exceptional Clearance, those criteria and the evidence showing Oswald's actions explain how the WC named LHO as the assassin.

Ladmo, admit it, in this area you've never heard the term before I introduced it to you, didn't understand the process, asserted the process only applied to the FBI, and generally showed a complete lack of knowledge about procedures involved and the only resort available to you was to cover your ears and say "I can't hear you!"

Take my advice - go to a local attorney practicing criminal law and ask them what Exceptional Clearance is and how it works.

 

[BStrong]

This AM, 152 - 16 rational thought over woo.

 

[Robrob]

Ladmo, admit it, in this area you've never heard the term before I introduced it to you, didn't understand the process, asserted the process only applied to the FBI, and generally showed a complete lack of knowledge about procedures involved and the only resort available to you was to cover your ears and say "I can't hear you!"

To claim a legal procedure "applies only to the FBI" is mind boggling.

Not to mention, his sudden disinclination to "research" said legal process flys in the face of CT usual habit of insisting others read/watch/study up on Subject "X" before trying to refute them.

 

[Robrob]

(Duplicate post)

 

[Jetblast]

So your assertion is gun shop owners remember every single customer they ever have?

Sure Oswald would be easy to forget even though his face was all over the media and the bullets were not frequently bought.

 

[BStrong]

Sure Oswald would be easy to forget even though his face was all over the media and the bullets were not frequently bought.

Except you ignore the fact that both firearms (prior to 1968) and ammunition were sold throuh the mail, no questions asked.

 

[JayUtah]

Sure Oswald would be easy to forget even though his face was all over the media and the bullets were not frequently bought.

How does that answer the poster's question?

 

[ComfySlippers]

That's certainly at the forefront of JFK conspiracy argumentation. ..
.

Absolutely correct. I wish I had worded it so eloquently.

It annoys me also that kids or gullible adults read a few woo-sites and instantly become experts on things they know nothing about.
It's as if they think they stumbled upon something new.
Yet are unaware that badly written woo-sites, with flashing text, incorrect spelling and grammar filled with myths from decades ago do not a convincing argument make.

Hats off to you Sir.

 

[Jetblast]

Conjecture.

No actually backed by the facts of real research. Shaw was CIA and lied. Garrison was correct as shown in DiEugenio's book 'Destiny Betrayed'. Mark Lane got CIA Mexico Station Chief David Atlee Phillips to admit Oswald was never in Mexico City. This proves CIA framed Oswald in advance - proving their involvement. Read Lane's book 'Last Word: My Indictment Of CIA In The Murder Of JFK'. Also read 'Oswald And The CIA' by Military Analyst John Newman. He shows James Angleton was involved in steering Oswald's files from detection. Angleton worked with Clay Shaw in the OSS in WWII.

What is your evidence for this?

These are assassination related facts that will all check out. I'm not responsible for your ignorance of assassination history. Byrd helped form the Civil Air Patrol and was a Dallas right-winger. The Depository was not a pro-Kennedy building.

Untrue.

What I wrote is true and the Oswald palm print did not appear on the rifle until after FBI visited the funeral home. Dallas police did not find that print in their original test.

And they didn't acquire a print while he was still alive would be... What? Come on, throw us a bone here. Your (long debunked) assertion only adds a layer of stupid.

What I wrote is true. What you wrote is a self-indicting non-answer. The FBI planted the print after taking it from Oswald at the funeral home.

You're hitting on a very good reason why eye witness testimony is considered so unrealible.

Doesn't answer the point. So what you're saying is any witnesses that claim they saw Oswald are all 100% reliable and any who saw the real plotters are always unreliable? Nevermind the serious flaws with the Oswald witnesses. You simply fold and concede. Thanks.


I'm not reading a certain poster's entries because I do not consider him a serious entity. Civility doesn't require foolishness.

 

[Dcdrac]

"The Depository was not a pro-Kennedy building"

you are seriously saying a building had a political outlook......

 

[abaddon]

No actually backed by the facts of real research. Shaw was CIA and lied. Garrison was correct as shown in DiEugenio's book 'Destiny Betrayed'. Mark Lane got CIA Mexico Station Chief David Atlee Phillips to admit Oswald was never in Mexico City. This proves CIA framed Oswald in advance - proving their involvement. Read Lane's book 'Last Word: My Indictment Of CIA In The Murder Of JFK'. Also read 'Oswald And The CIA' by Military Analyst John Newman. He shows James Angleton was involved in steering Oswald's files from detection. Angleton worked with Clay Shaw in the OSS in WWII.

These are assassination related facts that will all check out. I'm not responsible for your ignorance of assassination history. Byrd helped form the Civil Air Patrol and was a Dallas right-winger. The Depository was not a pro-Kennedy building.

What I wrote is true and the Oswald palm print did not appear on the rifle until after FBI visited the funeral home. Dallas police did not find that print in their original test.

What I wrote is true. What you wrote is a self-indicting non-answer. The FBI planted the print after taking it from Oswald at the funeral home.

Doesn't answer the point. So what you're saying is any witnesses that claim they saw Oswald are all 100% reliable and any who saw the real plotters are always unreliable? Nevermind the serious flaws with the Oswald witnesses. You simply fold and concede. Thanks.

Whoa, again with the copypasta fiesta. It is blatantly obvious. Give it up.

In any event, even were it granted that only two Dallas gunstores stocked said ammo, why exactly could LHO not obtain that ammo elsewhere? What exactly restricted LHO to only purchase locally? Even if he did purchase ammo locally, why would the owner take note of him before the event?

You simply have no answers to those questions.

 

[BStrong]

"The Depository was not a pro-Kennedy building"

you are seriously saying a building had a political outlook......

Evidently the windows opened to the right...

 

[tsig]

A caller on Coast to Coast a few days ago said that Jackie Kennedy was a CIA agent and that she shot JFK point-blank. I have abandoned that theory. It's similar to the claim that the driver shot JFK. My latest theory is that it was a fake assassination and that JFK had been replaced by a plastic dummy. But the tricky thing with that theory is: what happened to the real JFK?

He's preserved in a basement in the pentagon awaiting revival when a national crisis hits the USA.

 

[tsig]

No actually backed by the facts of real research. Shaw was CIA and lied. Garrison was correct as shown in DiEugenio's book 'Destiny Betrayed'. Mark Lane got CIA Mexico Station Chief David Atlee Phillips to admit Oswald was never in Mexico City. This proves CIA framed Oswald in advance - proving their involvement. Read Lane's book 'Last Word: My Indictment Of CIA In The Murder Of JFK'. Also read 'Oswald And The CIA' by Military Analyst John Newman. He shows James Angleton was involved in steering Oswald's files from detection. Angleton worked with Clay Shaw in the OSS in WWII.









These are assassination related facts that will all check out. I'm not responsible for your ignorance of assassination history. Byrd helped form the Civil Air Patrol and was a Dallas right-winger. The Depository was not a pro-Kennedy building.







What I wrote is true and the Oswald palm print did not appear on the rifle until after FBI visited the funeral home. Dallas police did not find that print in their original test.








What I wrote is true. What you wrote is a self-indicting non-answer. The FBI planted the print after taking it from Oswald at the funeral home.








Doesn't answer the point. So what you're saying is any witnesses that claim they saw Oswald are all 100% reliable and any who saw the real plotters are always unreliable? Nevermind the serious flaws with the Oswald witnesses. You simply fold and concede. Thanks.


I'm not reading a certain poster's entries because I do not consider him a serious entity. Civility doesn't require foolishness.

The very building was in on it?

 

[Border Reiver]

These are assassination related facts that will all check out. I'm not responsible for your ignorance of assassination history. Byrd helped form the Civil Air Patrol and was a Dallas right-winger. The Depository was not a pro-Kennedy building.

Byrd's politics are irrelevant, as neither he, nor his company hired LHO.

Unless you can show us some evidence that the landlord can vet the employees of a tenant...

What I wrote is true and the Oswald palm print did not appear on the rifle until after FBI visited the funeral home. Dallas police did not find that print in their original test.

The palm print found on the rifle was a latent print, meaning that it was composed of sweat, etc. Latent prints cannot be made by corpses (as the dead don't sweat). The FBI took an ink print - hence the need for the mortician to scrub ink off.

What I wrote is true. What you wrote is a self-indicting non-answer. The FBI planted the print after taking it from Oswald at the funeral home.

Your observation that the FBI came to the funeral parlour to get a print is correct - see my point above for why it is not evidence that the FBI planted the print.

Doesn't answer the point. So what you're saying is any witnesses that claim they saw Oswald are all 100% reliable and any who saw the real plotters are always unreliable? Nevermind the serious flaws with the Oswald witnesses. You simply fold and concede. Thanks.

[stereotypical Hollywood thug voice]"Lovely strawmen you've got there. Shame if someone was to, I don't know, set fire to them."[/stereotypical Hollywood thug voice]

There are a number of problems with eyewitness evidence which push it down the scale of what is considered desirable:

a. Fallability of memory;
b. Misperception;
c. The desire on the part of the witness to please the interogator.

Physical evidence is preferred - and in this case there is sufficient evidence to tie LHO to the murder of both JFK and Tippet - LHO owned both the pistol that killed Tippet and the rifle that killed JFK, the rifle was found at LHO's place of work on a floor where only he had been working.

I'm not reading a certain poster's entries because I do not consider him a serious entity. Civility doesn't require foolishness.

Pot, this is the Kettle.