BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
Or another whole slough of books written by everyone from scholars to nutjobs, but it doesn't change the established facts - LHO squeezed the trigger.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
JFK's assassination: your thoughts
- Thread starter bigred
- Start date
Or another whole slough of books written by everyone from scholars to nutjobs, but it doesn't change the established facts - LHO squeezed the trigger.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
Or have co-conspirator shooters using a different caliber weapon.
I'll say it again - multiple shooters do not increase the chance of success, they multiply the chance of failure, and additional players in a conspiracy multiply the chances of disclosure.
The story always goes around in a circle to an inadequate little man who couldn't believe he wasn't the most important person on the planet.
If he was around today he'd probably be a mass homicide shooter.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
You shouldn't have a problem giving a comprehensive theory for who did what and how after reading one book from such an awesome historian. Be sure to name who the shooter(s) were and where they fired from. You must also account for the rifle and revolver that Oswald owned and who shot Officer Tippit. Also why Oswald snuck the rifle into the TSBD in the long package.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
And who shot at Gen. Walker as well.
elgarak
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2003
- Messages
- 4,472
Any gunshot residue (GSR) test can only proof if someone fired a gun.
It cannot proof if someone did NOT fire a gun.
IOW: One can fire a rifle, and it's possible that no conclusive GSR is found.
If GSR is found, it means one had fired a gun recently. If no GSR is found, one cannot tell.
I can try to find the reference to a talk I attended in Albuquerque at a science conference where this was stated explicitly if you want.
In case someone wonders: The modern technique takes samples with sticky tape (the tape is electrically conductive and attached to a steel sample holder for scanning electron microscopes) from the suspect. The samples are analyzed inside a scanning electron microscope with EDAX (spectroscopic analysis of the X-rays from the sample after being hit with the electron beam. There are a few abbreviations around to name the technique; EDAX or EDX are the ones I encounter most, but YMMV) to look for traces of barium (Ba), antimony (Sb) and lead (Pb). All three elements need to be present for a positive GSR result. If only Ba and Sb are found, but not Pb, the test is qualified as 'inconclusive'.
So I'm afraid the GSR test we have from Lee Harvey Oswald mean exactly nothing. One cannot tell anything from it. He may have fired a rifle (I'm convinced he did), but the paraffin test done cannot tell us.
Last edited:
No, I don't have to come up with a comprehensive theory about anything. The burden of proof is on those accusing someone of committing a crime to prove it. As far as I know, the defence in a trial doesn't have to prove who did commit the crime, just that the defendent didnt commit it.
As for the long bag you claim Oswald snuck into the TSBD, this is of course not what the witnesses said.
As you probably know, the two people who saw this bag, were absolutely adamant it was not long enough to contain a rifle, something which Buell Frazier has maintained for 50 years now.
The long bag theorists need to explain several things, because their theory simply does not corrospond to the evidence.
- The 2 witnesses who saw the bag were certain the bag wasnt long enough to contain a rifle
- The disassembled rifle was 35 inches long, meaning the package would have had to be over half Oswalds own height - in other words absolutely huge and the only thing you would notice about him.
- Frazier testified that the bag he saw was just a standard type of paper grocery bag you'd get in a store. The '6th floor' bag was a huge, ad hoc bag made of packing paper and covered in tape.
- Jack Dougherty, who saw Oswald enter the TSBD that morning, failed to see this absolutely huge bag, meaning he was either blind, a liar or Oswald wasnt carrying a huge bag. Which is it?
- Marina Oswald testified that he'd left for work that morning with a bag with his lunch in. Nobody saw Oswald carrying 2 bags to work, one huge gun bag and one smaller lunch bag.
- There is no crime scene photograph showing the gun bag on the 6th floor and the testimony about how it was found is a total mess.
- Oswald would have been unable to construct the bag at the TSBD because the packing station was permanently manned. Therefore he must have taken the huge piece of packing paper and tape home with him on Thursday night. Yet Frasier, who drove him home that night, made no mention of Oswald carrying a huge piece of packing paper and several pieces of tape.
- The paper bag was microscopically examined by the FBI and no traces of it ever containing a disassembled rifle were found.
The only problem with that is the initial Dallas Police report described the bullet found in Walker's home as a different calibre to the 6.5mm bullets in the 'Oswald' rifle. Walker himself, who held the bullet in his hand, reiterated this to the HSCA -
When FBI expert Henry Heilberger analysed the Walker bullet he found the lead alloy to be different from the lead alloy found in the fragments taken from the presidential limousine.
And the only witness to the Walker incident described two men fleeing the scene and driving off in cars. Oswald was only 1 man, and didn't drive.
The credibility of this is enhanced by the fact that 2 days before the shooting, an associate of Walker saw 2 men acting suspiciously around the property.
I could accept Oswald was involved in the Walker shooting, but not alone and not with the 'Oswald' rifle.
An undated note that makes no mention of Walker and the confused testimony of Marina is not enough to conclude Oswald was involved and involved alone.
This is the opposite of the case as I understand it. The constituent chemicals in GSR can be deposited on an individual by numerous innocent means. However, when test shooters show that the chemicals are present on an individual firing a the same type of rifle and ammo, and then those chemicals are not present on the alleged shooter, then that is strongly indicitive of innocence. Oswald should have had somewhere between double and 6 times the amount of antimony on his face than he actually had despite the fact he was firing out of an open window onto a windy plaza.
I think the best possible spin you could put on these tests is 'inconclusive'.
Last edited:
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
Or another possibility you failed to note, that Dougherty simply didn't pay much attention to LHO that morning.
Eye witness reports are subject to all the vagaries of human behavior, and his case is no different.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
I didn't say you had to. I said it shouldn't be a problem for you. Actually, I already knew you wouldn't be able to and was just making a point of it. I was making fun of your "historian" and his "research".
Cool. Done and done. Read the Warren Commission Report. They found Oswald to have done it. Were you accepting the burden of proof to try to prove someone else did it? What is your comprehensive theory for who did what and how? Name names.
LOL. No, I don't claim it. I thought you said you had read the WCR.
What happened to the curtain rods? How did Oswald's rifle get into the TSBD?
Actually, it does. Hey, didn't they find the wrapper that Oswald carried the rifle into the TSBD? That's right, they did! Where did they find the curtain rods?
How did Oswald's rifle that he shot JFK with get to the TSBD? Marina took them out to the garage to show them where his rifle wasn't in its normal place. Who broke into the garage and stole Oswald's rifle and snuck it into the TSBD for him?
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Was it the same people they saw shoot at General Walker? I seem to remember asking that before and not getting an answer.
Seems a bit unlikely considering how big the DPD said the bag was - more than half of Oswalds own height. Tell me you could look at this policeman and not notice he was carrying such a huge bag:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_7jAGmu20...NE/s530/Empty_Paper_Bag_Removed_From_TSBD.jpg
Edited by LashL:
Changed hotlinked image to regular link. Please see Rule 5.
Last edited by a moderator:
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
Actually, the burden is 100% yours.
Oswald's guilt has, for nearly 50 years now, been quite sufficiently established; it is the null hypothesis. No one has to continue to establish the null, certainly not to anyone blithely challenging it.
Moreover, this is a conspiracy thread in a conspiracy subforum. Proving, yet again, the null is out of place here. Since it's apparent you disbelieve it, you must therefore believe something else - a conspiracy.
So, please provide your conspiracy theory, being sure to include your supporting evidence.
Last edited:
They claimed it was about 27" to 28". It was actually about 38", or 35" if the top was folded over the gun. Not a significant discrepancy, not enough to ignore the fact that the bag was on the floor Oswald was working, where his rifle was found, and no curtain rods were found (no one said he left with a bag).
A three foot long bag is not "absolutely huge". It is not even huge. It is not big. It is longish, and a few inches wide.
It was not huge, it was three feet long and a few inches wide. Frazier said it was over two feet long and a few inches wide. He was pretty close to being right. The paper resembled standard grocery bag paper.
At least three witnesses said he was carrying a bag. Two said it was over two feet long. Dougherty testified that he didn't recall Oswald carrying anything. It is pretty likely that Dougherty was wrong about whether there was a bag. I guess the point is that it is impossible to ignore or forget a three foot long bag. It is not. A three foot bag is not something you would guarantee to commit to memory. One might remember it if one was paying attention, or one might not. Dougherty just saw him enter the building. We can conclude that he was not paying attention enough to notice much about Oswald. Not a problem.
She confirms he had one bag. Fine. How clearly did she see it? Given the other testimony, it was not just a normal lunch bag. Further, she expected him to have a lunch bag since that is what he normally carried. Expectations affect perception and memory. If she did not look carefully, she would not have known it was a longer bag. This does not give us reason to reject the claim he had a gun bag.
Yet all of the various conflicting statements all agree that they found the bag on the sixth floor. There are discrepancies about exactly when and where and exactly what was done with it, but all agree on that (and it was just a bag, no reason to vividly remember exactly everything about it and its discovery). Doubts about the finding of the bag only have any significance if we believe it was planted. But if planted, we can ignore the lack of scrapes and oil from the gun: conspirators would have put the gun in the frame-up bag. The case against Oswald did not need a bag, after all; they could have said that he threw it out somewhere during his escape. If they planted the bag and his gun, they would have actually put the gun in the bag. The conspirators got the gun into the building somehow. They could just leave the real bag.
Further, if Oswald was just a patsy, they would not have known he was going to take a longish skinny bag with him that day to make the story work so well, so they would have had no reason to plant one. At least, such a scenario is unlikely.
First, the idea that the station was literally always manned has to be false. For a station that unimportant, there is no way the pressure on employees to keep it manned was so great as to keep them from ever leaving. Second, someone made that bag, and evidence suggests it was made with material from the TSBD. That being the case, I see no reason why the person who made it could not be Oswald.
Would they be expected? I don't see why, though I am prepared to be proven wrong.
The minor points raised above do not come close to refuting the evidence that Oswald brought a rifle that day.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
What did they do with the bag that witnesses say Oswald was seen carrying into the TSBD?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
And there is quite a bit of evidence pointing to Lee Harvey Oswald above any other individual. All of that evidence has to be accounted for, even if your rebuttal is simply "Oswald didn't do it." You have to be able to explain why, if that's the case, so much evidence points toward him.
In other words, there is no mode or style of defense that completely absolves you of the need to formulate and defend an alternative theory for the evidence.
Well no, if you're talking about a court of law then the defense may elect simply to rebut the evidence offered in favor of guilt. That still requires coming up with, and defending, an alternate theory for why the evidence seems to be that way. Classic defenses include impeaching the eyewitnesses or casting doubt upon documentary or forensic evidence.
If the defense offers an affirmative rebuttal, however, then it accepts the burden of proof for it. "Oswald didn't kill Kennedy because in truth it was the CIA who did it," is an affirmative "defense" of Oswald. Whether you follow any of these affirmative claims, I'm not sure.
Arguing an open-ended claim, "Someone else besides Oswald did it," is not useful in a historic or legal sense. It is a pointless proposition because it fails to actually answer any questions regarding the evidence any more surely than, say, the Warren Commission's attempt. Leaving it open ended seems to relieve you of a burden of proof, but only at the expense of arguing a meaningless point.
Outside of a legal sense, i.e., in the purely historical context, you still have to propose and defend a better theory for all the evidence than the prevailing one. Trying to show that the prevailing one has flaws or faults or omissions doesn't keep it from prevailing unless a better alternative is found.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
Humans were involved, anything could happen, just like this recent case locally:
http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Absorbed-device-users-oblivious-to-danger-4876709.php
"A man standing on a crowded Muni train pulls out a .45-caliber pistol.
He raises the gun, pointing it across the aisle, before tucking it back against his side. He draws it out several more times, once using the hand holding the gun to wipe his nose. Dozens of passengers stand and sit just feet away - but none reacts.
Their eyes, focused on smartphones and tablets, don't lift until the gunman fires a bullet into the back of a San Francisco State student getting off the train."
Bus full of folks pay no attention to a guy brandishing a firearm - and while you can blame the electronic devices in hand, the fact is that often times people pay little or no attention to their surroundings or the other individuals in their immediate area.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
It's generically referred to as the SODDI defense - "Some Other Dude Did It."
In the example of LHO the various players in the CT sweepstakes can't even agree on the true scenario - actors, number of shooters, motivation, you name it, the CT's come in every flavor.
You have my apologies. I was under the impression you endorsed the findings of the WC. What do you believe then?
Have you read the Warren Commission? Oswald never said the bag had curtain rods in. He said the reason he was visiting the Paine's on a Thursday was to get curtain rods for his room. This was a lie - but an innocent one. The Oswald's were having marital difficulties and that was the reason for his visit, as a taciturn and private man he simply did not wish to discuss this with Buell Frazier, so he made something up.
Since the Paines were entirely unaware of it, the only evidence it was ever there is fibres that were matched to the blanket in the garage. Unfortunately for the DPD, and as shown in Jesse Curry's 1969 book, the rifle and other evidence, including the blanket, were stored together at police hq. There's even a photo showing the rifle and the blanket spread out across the floor together. Thus the evidence linking the rifle to the garage is worthless.
And as I'm sure you know, the Warren Commission published Oswald's time cards for the day he allegedly posted the order form and all of his time was accounted for, including the individual jobs he did.
And even though he was supposedly sneaking off from work, he decided to take far longer than necessary to complete this transition by purchasing the postal order from the Dallas Post office, but then walking miles out of his way to post it somewhere else.
There are just too many holes in this transaction than one could reasonably expect by chance. For instance, but not limited to -
- The postal order was never cashed
- It was from a batch numerically massively out of sequence from when it was purchased
- The rifle found in the TSBD wasn't the same one ordered.
- 'Hidel' wasn't permitted to pick up mail at that PO Box
- The transaction broke numerous postal regulations
- Both the FBI and CIA were monitoring his post box during this period
- The forms required to receive firearms by mail were never filled out
I don't discount the possibility he ordered the rifle, but its status as a fact is highly dubious.
You have a point, Dougherty was probably too engrossed with his ipad mini to notice.
If he'd said he didn't notice Lee Oswald at all, then it would be credible. But he did see Oswald, and the *only* thing you would notice about him is that he was carrying an absolutely massive bag.
Last edited: