JFK's assassination: your thoughts

[JayUtah]

you don't judge the messenger, you judge the message.

The messenger edits and frames the message. This is the essence of history.

False conclusion.

Nonsense. I'm simply repeating your statements back to you without all the weasel words.

 

[ladmo]

Yes, the WC did find that Oswald was the lone assassin of JFK, using the rifle he bought mail order. Then he killed officer Tippit with the revolver Oswald owned as he was trying to make his escape. Why did you think otherwise? There is a link a page or two back to the WC report if you'd like to read it.

I have read the WC Report a couple of times and have referenced back to it dozens more. The WC makes perfectly clear that they do not have a certainty on LHO.

"The Commission also recognized that testimony would be presented before it which would be inadmissible in judicial proceedings and might
prejudice innocent parties if made public out of context."

The above statement shows that the Commission was conducting a proceeding that held no merit in court.

The Commission states in Chapter VII:

"The evidence reviewed above identifies Lee Harvey
Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy and indicates
that he acted alone in that event. There is no evidence that
he had accomplices or that he was involved in any conspiracy directed
to the assassination of the President."

The Commission has identified LHO as the assassin but they failed to bring their findings up to court standards. They were not able to "prove" it. As stated many times, the Commission is strictly an opinion and they state that themselves when they confess that their findings are inadmissible in the court.

In short, you accept a finding that would be disallowed in our judicial system.

And yet you have no more coherent theory to advance that would overturn the null hypothesis? Nothing at all? A pity, I was hoping for something new from the CT crowd, not the same old, same old.

I have already stated that the WC relied on unproven information. In order to disprove something, you do not need to provide an alternative.

 

[ladmo]

The messenger edits and frames the message. This is the essence of history.

When a document is copied without a word being disturbed, it is not editing. My statement was framed around a memo written by NK to Bill Moyers, it is not taken out of context as there is no other reference to prior documents or conversations. My "take" on this is personal but the document is what it is...

Nonsense. I'm simply repeating your statements back to you without all the weasel words.

"Weasel words" is toxic; that is poisoning the well.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I have read the WC Report a couple of times and have referenced back to it dozens more. The WC makes perfectly clear that they do not have a certainty on LHO.

"The Commission also recognized that testimony would be presented before it which would be inadmissible in judicial proceedings and might
prejudice innocent parties if made public out of context."

The above statement shows that the Commission was conducting a proceeding that held no merit in court.

The Commission states in Chapter VII:

"The evidence reviewed above identifies Lee Harvey
Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy and indicates
that he acted alone in that event. There is no evidence that
he had accomplices or that he was involved in any conspiracy directed
to the assassination of the President."

The Commission has identified LHO as the assassin but they failed to bring their findings up to court standards. They were not able to "prove" it. As stated many times, the Commission is strictly an opinion and they state that themselves when they confess that their findings are inadmissible in the court.

In short, you accept a finding that would be disallowed in our judicial system.

Thank you for proving the point that the WC found that Oswald acted alone in assassinating JFK. Anything else I can help you find for yourself?

I have already stated that the WC relied on unproven information. In order to disprove something, you do not need to provide an alternative.

But, as you've clearly proven, the WC found that Oswald did act alone in assassinating JFK. That's fine if you want to start providing evidence that would overturn the WC findings that you've quoted. I also understand your admission that you have no coherent theory for, well, anything.

Like I said, I look forward to the day when a CT will raise the bar. This is just the same old, same old that's been shredded a dozen ways from Sunday. It's lost its novelty.

 

[Jetblast]

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.

Meanwhile the history of those bullets shows the biggest and main holder of them in the US was the CIA from a large order they made for US military stock. The Carcano order itself was targeted for CIA acquisition in order to arm Cubans with a cheap mass-produced rifle. Look it up.

 

[ladmo]

Thank you for proving the point that the WC found that Oswald acted alone in assassinating JFK. Anything else I can help you find for yourself?

You apparently missed, forget, or didn't comprehend... the WC did not PROVE that LHO was the lone gunman.

But, as you've clearly proven, the WC found that Oswald did act alone in assassinating JFK. That's fine if you want to start providing evidence that would overturn the WC findings that you've quoted. I also understand your admission that you have no coherent theory for, well, anything.

I have already provided a couple of facts that you have completely ignored. Start with those and then lets from that point forward.

1. No proof of Oswald in Mexico
2. Predetermining that Oswald was the Lone Gunman
3. If you have read the transcripts of the conversation between LBJ and JEH; speak to the knowledge that both of them had that the photo of the fake Oswald visiting the Russian Embassy was already understood within 23 hours of the assassination.

Like I said, I look forward to the day when a CT will raise the bar. This is just the same old, same old that's been shredded a dozen ways from Sunday. It's lost its novelty.

I am not a CT; I have clearly stated that and have proven that by not coming up with an alternative theory. You have yet to shred anything, you have not even attempted to discuss it. So far, you have not provided an inkling of information regarding the evidence in the assassination of JFK. Your approach is that of a Spammer.

 

[Jetblast]

The Commission has identified LHO as the assassin but they failed to bring their findings up to court standards. They were not able to "prove" it. As stated many times, the Commission is strictly an opinion and they state that themselves when they confess that their findings are inadmissible in the court.

Dallas Police chief Curry made a statement saying they had no evidence on Oswald and if tried he would have walked.

 

[ladmo]

Dallas Police chief Curry made a statement saying they had no evidence on Oswald and if tried he would have walked.

That would make sense and follow what JEH told LBJ.

"We,of course, charged him with the murder of the President. The evidence that they have at the present time is not very strong."

This was 23 hours after the assassination.

 

[ladmo]

You have advocated a method of investigation. That method is commonly used by conspiracy theorists. Whether you or they have used it to draw some specific conclusion is irrelevant. You are being criticized for advocating the method, not for some conclusion drawn by it.

If the method is disqualifying information that at one time was considered factual and has since been proven to be false, then I stand by that. If CT people use that, I cannot be held responsible for their actions. As it stands at this moment, no one has come forward and said that what I presented is false which stands to reason as I have only provided information from the people who wrote the documents.

Let me repeat, the claim I am addressing is that portions of information that the WC based their assumptions on are clearly incorrect. As time went on, additional disclosures came to surface, this is what history is all about. History is not fixed, it is like science, when greater information is available to disprove previous understandings... adjustments are made. Many of the debunkers on this site are only out to criticize who they feel is a CT'er without providing anything of substance.

 

[kookbreaker]

Dallas Police chief Curry made a statement saying they had no evidence on Oswald and if tried he would have walked.

You got a source for that or are we just supposed to take your word for it?

Because it is nonsense.

 

[BStrong]

You apparently missed, forget, or didn't comprehend... the WC did not PROVE that LHO was the lone gunman.


I have already provided a couple of facts that you have completely ignored. Start with those and then lets from that point forward.

1. No proof of Oswald in Mexico
2. Predetermining that Oswald was the Lone Gunman
3. If you have read the transcripts of the conversation between LBJ and JEH; speak to the knowledge that both of them had that the photo of the fake Oswald visiting the Russian Embassy was already understood within 23 hours of the assassination.

I am not a CT; I have clearly stated that and have proven that by not coming up with an alternative theory. You have yet to shred anything, you have not even attempted to discuss it. So far, you have not provided an inkling of information regarding the evidence in the assassination of JFK. Your approach is that of a Spammer.

It's generally referred to as "Exceptional Clearance"

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

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.

Pretty much covers all the bases there ladmo.

 

[ladmo]

It's generally referred to as "Exceptional Clearance"

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

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.

Pretty much covers all the bases there ladmo.

This has absolutely nothing to do with LHO and assassination of the President. You're correct, that pretty much covers all your bases.

 

[BStrong]

This has absolutely nothing to do with LHO and assassination of the President. You're correct, that pretty much covers all your bases.

Actually. it's the text book definition.

Sorry.

 

[ladmo]

You got a source for that or are we just supposed to take your word for it?

Because it is nonsense.

Curry did say this:

"We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did.
Nobody's yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand."

Dallas Morning News, 6 Nov 1969. Article by Tom Johnson

 

[Robrob]

Curry did say this:

"We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did.
Nobody's yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand."

Dallas Morning News, 6 Nov 1969. Article by Tom Johnson

Yes. Do you think because there are no eyewitnesses to LHO holding and firing a rifle into the skull of JFK, that means it didn't happen?

 

[RoboTimbo]

You apparently missed, forget, or didn't comprehend... the WC did not PROVE that LHO was the lone gunman.

Proof is for mathematics. What they determined was what you posted, Oswald was the lone assassin, using the rifle he bought, fired from the sixth floor of the TSBD. Then he murdered Officer Tippit during his escape attempt. Who else did you think did murder JFK?

I have already provided a couple of facts that you have completely ignored. Start with those and then lets from that point forward.

1. No proof of Oswald in Mexico
2. Predetermining that Oswald was the Lone Gunman
3. If you have read the transcripts of the conversation between LBJ and JEH; speak to the knowledge that both of them had that the photo of the fake Oswald visiting the Russian Embassy was already understood within 23 hours of the assassination.

I am not a CT; I have clearly stated that and have proven that by not coming up with an alternative theory.

Yes, you're a CT. You do exactly the same as all the rest of them. You hunt for anomalies in the WC report but have no coherent alternative to offer. That's because you know that no other alternative fits the evidence. Anything you put forward would be quickly shot down in flames. Boring. I still hold out hope for a novel CT who will actually have the courage of their convictions.

You have yet to shred anything, you have not even attempted to discuss it. So far, you have not provided an inkling of information regarding the evidence in the assassination of JFK. Your approach is that of a Spammer.

Oh yes, everything you've stated has been shredded to bits and you've never shown that Oswald was not the lone assassin. Start there.

 

[ladmo]

Actually. it's the text book definition.

Sorry.

It has nothing to do with the assassination.

 

[ladmo]

Proof is for mathematics. What they determined was what you posted, Oswald was the lone assassin, using the rifle he bought, fired from the sixth floor of the TSBD. Then he murdered Officer Tippit during his escape attempt. Who else did you think did murder JFK?

laughable, downright laughable

Yes, you're a CT. You do exactly the same as all the rest of them. You hunt for anomalies in the WC report but have no coherent alternative to offer. That's because you know that no other alternative fits the evidence. Anything you put forward would be quickly shot down in flames. Boring. I still hold out hope for a novel CT who will actually have the courage of their convictions.

an alternative is not required; only in your imagination.

Oh yes, everything you've stated has been shredded to bits and you've never shown that Oswald was not the lone assassin. Start there.

I have no desire to start with a conclusion. My mind is not already made up.

Speak to what I posted.

 

[Robrob]

It has nothing to do with the assassination.

You realize it was a list of what you do to prove something is true?

I guess I see why you think that would have nothing to do with your claims.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Disclaimer -- I have not been following this thread (though I did just vote for Oswald alone).

However, it does seem the appropriate place to post this url:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303722604579111222338096030.html

But a closer look at Oswald's life—his history, his personality, the relationships he forged, the fragmented political tracts he wrote—makes it abundantly clear that he was capable of killing the president all by himself. If we focus on his Soviet period, the most important chapter in his truncated, 24-year life, it is possible to piece together a more complete picture of Oswald.

An interesting read.