JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends II

[Mudcat]

There were three different witnesses who thought it was a Mauser rifle in the book depository.

Henri, I would still like to know which one of these two scenarios do you think more likely:

1. Three people made a mistake in identifying a lesser known riffle for an identical and more well known riffle.
2. Some persons unknown successfully pull off a presidential assassination in a very public way and pin the blame on someone else but accidentally plant the wrong weapon at the supposed crime scene and later replaces the wrong weapon with the right weapon, all without being discovered.

Are you ever going to address this question?

There are those who think Oswald was stitched up with regard to his supposed order of an Italian rifle.

There are also people who think Elvis is still alive, thoughts don't always have basis in reality.

The photos of Oswald holding a rifle have been described by two different experts as fakes.

And who are these experts?

 

[HSienzant]

ladmo sent me a private post despite my urging him to respond to the forum.

I won't post the contents of that post, but I will post my reply. It is below.

You have no true rebuttal. The facts are evident. The physical evidence is evident. It all indicts Oswald and no one else.

Putting the *estimates* by two witnesses ahead of the physical evidence is absurd;

Throwing out the physical evidence because one item wasn't photographed in place is absurd;

Believing conspirators of some sort conspired to create and plant a bag with Oswald's prints on it is absurd;

Believing conspirators of some sort conspired to create and plant a bag with fibers from Oswald's blanket on it is absurd;

Believing there's a smaller bag containing curtain rods that somehow vanished is absurd;

Believing curtain rods were actually brought into the TSBD by Oswald but a rifle wasn't, when the rifle was found in the TSBD and no curtain rods were found in the TSBD is absurd;

Ignoring Oswald's lies in custody about the bag/curtain rods/rifle is absurd;

Being dependent on conspiracy books and conspiracy websites for your facts - as I believe I've established - without ever actually reading all the eyewitness testimony for yourself, is absurd.

Being unable - after 50 years - to advance a hypothesis that explains anything close to all the facts of the assassination -- or even all the facts of the paper bag -- is absurd.

Believing Oswald was somehow framed for the assassination is absurd.

Believing in a conspiracy that killed JFK is absurd.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Henri, I would still like to know which one of these two scenarios do you think more likely:

1. Three people made a mistake in identifying a lesser known riffle for an identical and more well known riffle.
2. Some persons unknown successfully pull off a presidential assassination in a very public way and pin the blame on someone else but accidentally plant the wrong weapon at the supposed crime scene and later replaces the wrong weapon with the right weapon, all without being discovered.

According to Henri, even the later swapped "right" weapon is still the wrong one - remember, according to Henri, Oswald was "stitched up" (falsely connected) to the Mannlicher-Carcano with the serial number C2766 (CE139).

That means the conspirators that have stayed hidden for 50 years actually:
(a) planted the wrong weapon not connected to Oswald,
(b) swapped it later for another wrong weapon not connected to Oswald,
(c) tried to frame Oswald with a rifle inadequate to the task and of course,
(d) shot JFK from multiple directions, including the right front - while framing Oswald as the lone-nut shooting only from behind.

According to Henri.

He actually believes all this, and if you have any doubts, he can provide a link to a conspiracy site where it is all spelled out for you.

Hank

 

[Mudcat]

According to Henri, even the later swapped weapon is still the wrong one - remember, according to Henri, Oswald was "stitched up" (falsely connected) to the Mannlicher-Carcano with the serial number C2766 (CE139).

That means the conspirators that have stayed hidden for 50 years actually:
(a) planted the wrong weapon not connected to Oswald,
(b) swapped it later for another wrong weapon not connected to Oswald,
(c) tried to frame Oswald with a rifle inadequate to the task and of course,
(d) shot JFK from multiple directions, including the right front - while framing Oswald as the lone-nut shooting only from behind.

 

[HSienzant]

There is an interesting analysis of all this at these websites with which I agree:

http://www.ctka.net/reviews/hay_review.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-jfk-assassination-beware-of-an-obvious-plot/5358071

Really?

So who do you agree with concerning the paper bag at the first link above?

Martin Hay (the book reviewer) or Donald Thomas, the author?

Hay says this about Martin's book at the link you provided:

... it was surprising to discover that he [Thomas] accepted the Warren Commission's claim that Oswald had carried the Mannlicher Carcano rifle into the building in a brown paper bag disguised as curtain rods.

Hank

 

[JayUtah]

I don't have a definite opinion about the bag, but it hardly seems like conclusive evidence to me.

It isn't purported to be lynchpin evidence. Straw man.

The forensics in the JFK case are unsafe.

By what standard?

• Many people are mystified by the fingerprint and palm print examination.
• There were three different witnesses who thought it was a Mauser rifle in the book depository.
• There are those who think Oswald was stitched up with regard to his supposed order of an Italian rifle.
• The photos of Oswald holding a rifle have been described by two different experts as fakes.
• There are doubts about the bullets which killed Office Tippit.
• The autopsy was not thorough, or professional.
• The brain and photos have vanished. Nobody seems terribly sure about the exact location of entrance, or exit wounds
• some have said as many as five shots were fired.

All these have been covered at length over the past two years. Read the thread.

It's like the way the FBI fabricated forensic evidence ... in the Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald wrongful conviction case.

No. That's a different case that has nothing to do with Kennedy.

 

[BStrong]

Please allow me to make a point about this "it was a Mauser" nonsense.

Individuals, including LEO's who are not trained experts in the field of firearms identifcation, often use generic terms to describe firearms they encounter - every lever action rifle is a "Winchester 30/30," every semi-auto pistol is a ".45," every mag fed rifle is either an "UZI," "AK" or "AR15" regardless of what identifiable characteristics are seen by the observer (a civilian on a range my department was using wanted to know how we liked our "Uzi's" when in fact we were using HK MP5's in various configurations and various M16 platform configurations - he was quite surprised when I corrected his observation as he was a "gun nut"...)

With regard to WWII surplus rifles, an observer not trained in the discipline will often describe any such rifle as a "Mauser," completely oblivious of the many variations in Mauser design used from the turn of the century forward, and completely innocent of the many other bolt rifle variations used by the other participants in WWII from the Enfields to the Mosin nagant's and everything under the sun.

There is a pre-war Mauser sold as an export product to South America that uses a similar magazine/trigger guard assembly that bears a resembalance to the M/C

The standard model of the Argentine model was sold in great quantities via mailorder prior to '68, and many of those rifles ended up as the base for custom hunting and target rifles built by American 'smiths and end users in versions perfect to horrible, and it's very easy to see how the mag housing trigger guard of the M/C can be mistaken by a half-informed observer.

Every description of LHO's rifle as being a "Mauser" that I've encountered stops at that - the observation also notes 7.65mm as the caliber, and that matches the issue caliber of the Argentine model, but the descriptions noted never move into the realm of receiver markings, national crest, etc. all the standard markings on Mauser rifles of that era, and without those details, such reports don't rise to the level of reliable evidence.

 

[HSienzant]

Please allow me to make a point about this "it was a Mauser" nonsense.

Individuals, including LEO's who are not trained experts in the field of firearms identifcation, often use generic terms to describe firearms they encounter - every lever action rifle is a "Winchester 30/30," every semi-auto pistol is a ".45," every mag fed rifle is either an "UZI," "AK" or "AR15" regardless of what identifiable characteristics are seen by the observer (a civilian on a range my department was using wanted to know how we liked our "Uzi's" when in fact we were using HK MP5's in various configurations and various M16 platform configurations - he was quite surprised when I corrected his observation as he was a "gun nut"...)

With regard to WWII surplus rifles, an observer not trained in the discipline will often describe any such rifle as a "Mauser," completely oblivious of the many variations in Mauser design used from the turn of the century forward, and completely innocent of the many other bolt rifle variations used by the other participants in WWII from the Enfields to the Mosin nagant's and everything under the sun.

There is a pre-war Mauser sold as an export product to South America that uses a similar magazine/trigger guard assembly that bears a resembalance to the M/C

[qimg]http://images19.fotki.com/v286/photos/2/28344/157842/91_Argentine_Wards_01-vi.jpg[/qimg]

The standard model of the Argentine model was sold in great quantities via mailorder prior to '68, and many of those rifles ended up as the base for custom hunting and target rifles built by American 'smiths and end users in versions perfect to horrible, and it's very easy to see how the mag housing trigger guard of the M/C can be mistaken by a half-informed observer.

Every description of LHO's rifle as being a "Mauser" that I've encountered stops at that - they observation also notes 7.65mm as the caliber, and that matches the issue caliber of the Argentine model, but the descriptions noted never move into the realm of receiver markings, national crest, etc. all the standard markings on Mauser rifles of that era, and without those details, such reports don't rise to the level of reliable evidence.

Here's an image of the Mauser vs Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano (the MC has a scope, and the bolt is open)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-sQ7OwjM2bGY/TjXqgthQBGI/AAAAAAAAAOo/Rbijy-1FTxM/s400/2Rifles.jpg

Anyone can see how closely they resemble each other.

Hank

 

[BStrong]

Here's an image of the Mauser vs Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano (the MC has a scope, and the bolt is open)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-sQ7OwjM2bGY/TjXqgthQBGI/AAAAAAAAAOo/Rbijy-1FTxM/s400/2Rifles.jpg

Anyone can see how closely they resemble each other.

Hank

Spot on Hank.

 

[ComfySlippers]

I've just remembered why I joined JREF.

These armchair JFK experts make me laugh so much.

 

[Henri McPhee]

You asked me why I think the FBI investigation was a poor investigation and poor police work so I'll tell you from the Michael Griffiths website. I suppose somebody will now go complaining to the moderator about it.

I have always said that I don't think Oswald was completely innocent. I have also always believed he wasn't a lone gunman. It was never esatablished beyond reasonable doubt by forensic tests that Oswald fired a rifle that day, or that he killed Officer Tippit. In any fair trial Oswald would have gone free, if there was an extremely competent judge.

With regard to the Italian rifle it is mentioned on this website:

http://www.giljesus.com/jfk/window.htm

Some say Oswald was carrying his lunch in the paper bag, though I'm not sure about that. The eyewitnesses certainly got the measurements wrong.

This is what Michael Griffiths posted on his website about the fingerprints. I think this could be true.

Fingerprint Evidence

"A certified fingerprint expert has determined that convicted killer Malcolm "Mac" Wallace left a fingerprint in the sixth-floor sniper's nest on the day of the assassination. On the afternoon of the shooting, the authorities found a fingerprint in the sixth-floor window that they were never able to identify. It didn't belong to Oswald, and it didn't belong to any other employee in the building nor to any of the law enforcement personnel who searched the sixth floor. In 1998 fingerprint expert A. Nathan Darby identified the mystery print as belonging to convicted killer Mac Wallace. Darby found a 14-point match between the sixth-floor fingerprint and Wallace's fingerprint.

Darby is a certified Latent Print Examiner with impressive credentials and years of experience. In addition to his training and awards, Darby has testified as an expert witness on fingerprint identification in numerous court cases. Darby states in his notarized affidavit that he found fourteen matches between the previously unidentified fingerprint from the sixth-floor sniper's nest and a fingerprint card that contained the fingerprints of Mac Wallace. It should be pointed out that Darby did not know whose fingerprints were on the fingerprint card. He was asked to compare the fingerprints on the fingerprint card with the unidentified fingerprint from "Box A" from the sixth-floor window. Darby wasn't aware the fingerprint card bore Mac Wallace's fingerprints until after he'd made the identification.

Who was Mac Wallace? Wallace was convicted in a 1951 murder and was suspected in others. He was also linked to the 1961 death of U.S. Department of Agriculture investigator Henry Marshall. Marshall was reportedly close to connecting then-Vice President Lyndon Johnson to fraudulent activities involving businessman and convicted swindler and millionaire Billy Sol Estes. Estes was a key Johnson associate who funneled millions of dollars into a slush fund for LBJ.

Estes alleged in 1984 that LBJ ordered the killings of Marshall and President Kennedy, among others, and that Wallace carried them out. A grand jury decided that same year that Henry Marshall was murdered as a result of a conspiracy involving then-Vice President Johnson, his aide Clifton Carter, and Mac Wallace. No charges were possible since all three men were by then deceased.

A few fingerprint identifiers have challenged Darby's identification. However, none of them has Darby's experience or credentials. The FBI, after having the prints for a year, verbally informed an attorney associated with the Wallace fingerprint project that the bureau had not found a match between Wallace's print and the sixth-floor print. The FBI issued no report and did not disclose who had examined the prints or what was involved in the review process. The researchers involved with the Wallace fingerprint identification were wholly unimpressed with the FBI's belated, undocumented claim. Students of the JFK case are aware of the FBI's awful, abysmal track record in dealing with evidence relating to the assassination. Even way back in 1964 one of the members of the Warren Commission complained the FBI had already rushed to judgment and that it didn't want to consider any alternative views. Within days, even hours, after the shooting, the FBI became obsessed with proving the assassination was the work of one man acting alone. On more than one occasion, FBI officials have been caught giving out false information about evidence relating to the JFK case, such as when the Dallas FBI office falsely claimed the Tague curb scar had been obliterated by rains and/or street cleaners. The FBI's crime lab has been rocked by serious charges of fraud and evidence tampering. Some of these charges have come from a highly regarded scientist who worked in the FBI's crime lab. Much more could be said about the FBI's performance on matters pertaining to the Kennedy assassination. For now suffice it to say that any FBI challenge to the fingerprint evidence deserves to be viewed skeptically from the outset, given the bureau's miserable track record on the JFK case.

If the unidentified fingerprint from Box A from the sniper's nest is not Mac Wallace's fingerprint, then whose is it? If nothing else, the Box A fingerprint suggests a second person was in the sniper's nest. The print must have been placed on the box no more than 24 hours before it was lifted by the police. As mentioned, the print didn't belong to Oswald, nor to any of his fellow employees, nor to any of the police personnel who searched the sixth-floor window. It should be mentioned that several witnesses in Dealey Plaza reported seeing two men in the sixth-floor window shortly before the motorcade arrived in the plaza, and that another witness saw someone moving boxes around in the window a few minutes after the shooting. This could not have been Oswald, since a policeman and a building manager saw Oswald in the second-floor lunchroom calmly standing near a soda machine less than two minutes after the shots were fired."

 

[turingtest]

The more I read the JFK (and other CT) threads here on JREF, the more I am impressed with the idea that CTers simply do not understand (or refuse to acknowledge, which leads to the same useless result) the concept of consilience. Wikipedia (as a quick and dirty source only) says this:

In science and history, consilience (also convergence of evidence or concordance of evidence) refers to the principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" to strong conclusions. That is, when multiple sources of evidence are in agreement, the conclusion can be very strong even when none of the individual sources of evidence are very strong on their own.

And, further down the page (I'd link to it if I had enough posts here to do so)-

Consilience does not forbid deviations: in fact, since not all experiments are perfect, some deviations from established knowledge are expected. However, when the convergence is strong enough, then new evidence inconsistent with the previous conclusion is not usually enough to outweigh that convergence. Without an equally strong convergence on the new result, the weight of evidence will still favor the established result. This means that the new evidence is most likely to be wrong.

This Mauser "evidence" seems to be an example of just that- an attempt to muddy the waters through a perceived deviation that doesn't (as Mudcat and others have shown) stand either on its own or as a logical part of another conclusion. If there was actually a Mauser found, then the conspirators either "stitched" Oswald to the wrong rifle (the MC) or forgot to "stitch" him to the right one (the Mauser). In either case, the conspiracy which was brilliant enough to pull off undetected such a publicly-staged murder was also absolutely incompetent in forging a necessary and basic link of proof between Oswald and the murder weapon.

The same can be generally said of any other "evidence" the CTers insist on; they don't converge on any other useful conclusion, and have only the creation of confusion in place of clarity as a purpose.

 

[HSienzant]

If the unidentified fingerprint from Box A from the sniper's nest is not Mac Wallace's fingerprint, then whose is it? If nothing else, the Box A fingerprint suggests a second person was in the sniper's nest..."

First off, quit pasting a wall of words from conspiracy sites.

Secondly, it's not Mac Wallace's print. You can see that for yourself in this link:
http://www.clpex.com/images/Darby-Wallace-Analysis/Erroneous-Match.htm
If you simply look at the comparisons of Wallace's fingerprint and the latent print, you will see highlighted differences that exclude Wallace from having left that latent print.

Third, the contention that whoever left the print must have been in the sniper's nest is nonsense. The latent print could have been left on the box at any time, by anyone who handled the boxes at any time once the box was manufactured.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The same can be generally said of any other "evidence" the CTers insist on; they don't converge on any other useful conclusion, and have only the creation of confusion in place of clarity as a purpose.

But the conspiracists accept their own arguments for discarding all the solid physical evidence and accepting the eyewitness accounts instead (as in the case of the bag as we've seen over the prior ten pages of posts), and then argue that this case, unlike others, hasn't come together as a coherent whole, and that, instead, as we learn more, we actually see the facts diverge from any rational explanation. They then argue this failure for the evidence to converge can only be because most of the evidence is forged, altered, or otherwise falsified.

In short, they use the conclusion to support the premise (i.e. circular reasoning). And the fact that their theories lead nowhere and make no sense is seen as a positive even -- confirmation that they are on the right track.

They don't accept any other possible reason as a explanation other than the one they prefer.

Example: In this blog, Bill Kelly (BK), a conspiracy theorist, says he interviewed Michael Paine's step-father, Arthur Young, when "Young asked me if I was an alien, and expressed interest in UFOs, aliens and ESP..."

Instead of Kelly seeing this as apparent mockery of Kelly's conspiracy beliefs by Young, Kelly apparently sees it as confirmation of his conspiracy beliefs: "...So what is the connection? I think it stems back to the intentional decision to develop and use the UFO phenomenon as a cover for the U2, satellite recon and other advanced research developments..."

http://jfkcountercoup.wordpress.com/response-to-dave-reitzes-jfk-at-the-fringe-of-reason/

You can't make this stuff up.

Hank

 

[BStrong]

He did the same thing to me a couple months ago. I understand his urge to take the debate private, but that's highly disingenuous.

I'm willing to bet that a certain poster here wishes s/he had made the zombie death bed confession assertion in private rather than on the forum.

 

[Mudcat]

And, further down the page (I'd link to it if I had enough posts here to do so)-

Linked that for you.

 

[turingtest]

First off, quit pasting a wall of words from conspiracy sites.

Secondly, it's not Mac Wallace's print. You can see that for yourself in this link:
{Link deleted because I can't post them yet-tt.}
If you simply look at the comparisons of Wallace's fingerprint and the latent print, you will see highlighted differences that exclude Wallace from having left that latent print.

Third, the contention that whoever left the print must have been in the sniper's nest is nonsense. The latent print could have been left on the box at any time, by anyone who handled the boxes at any time once the box was manufactured.

Hank

There's also the fact that Darby, in his affidavit, said that he compared photocopies of the prints-

7.Recently I received a photocopy of an inked print along with a photocopy of a latent print from [Texas researcher]. After careful and extended examination of the inked print photocopy and the latent print photocopy given me. I have their identifying characteristics marked and numbered. The inked print is Exhibit DAN #3, and the latent print is Exhibit DAN #4."

Latent prints often aren't, by their nature, easily matched to begin with; a print on cardboard would seem especially iffy; and an image of the latent print at least once removed from the original hardly seems like a good source for "OMG!!! It was Mac Wallace and LBJ!!!!"

I noticed that "[t]he print must have been placed on the box no more than 24 hours before it was lifted by the police" thing too, and had to wonder about the source for this assertion. I doubt there is one, but it's not hard to see the reason for asserting it.

 

[turingtest]

Linked that for you.

Thank you. I'll be able to do my own links shortly now, I think.

 

[Mudcat]

Thank you. I'll be able to do my own links shortly now, I think.

You can now, in fact.

 

[abaddon]

You asked me why I think the FBI investigation was a poor investigation and poor police work so I'll tell you from the Michael Griffiths website. I suppose somebody will now go complaining to the moderator about it.

No thanks. I will complain to you directly. Why is it that you have no other source? You have Griffiths, JetBlast has DiEugenio and so forth. JB has gone to ground now that he got caught out over his zombie death bed affidavit malarkey. You have similarly gone to ground when you have been caught out. Is it that you have been blinded by your single source, or is it an intentional attempt to narrow things down to how you particularly want them to be?

I have always said that I don't think Oswald was completely innocent. I have also always believed he wasn't a lone gunman. It was never esatablished beyond reasonable doubt by forensic tests that Oswald fired a rifle that day, or that he killed Officer Tippit. In any fair trial Oswald would have gone free, if there was an extremely competent judge.

Pages upon pages upon pages of this discussion. Discussed to death. Ignored by you. Why?

With regard to the Italian rifle it is mentioned on this website:

http://www.giljesus.com/jfk/window.htm

Some say Oswald was carrying his lunch in the paper bag, though I'm not sure about that. The eyewitnesses certainly got the measurements wrong.

You could not better summarise your position. You are not sure of anything. That is your very own characterisation of your very own position. Why should anyone find such a position convincing of anything?

<snip>

copypasta wall of text of your sole source. Straight question, are you Griffiths?