JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Lance Payette on April 04, 2025, 02:37:12 PM
-
I’m embarrassed to admit that this never clicked with me before, but my interactions here have been a genuine epiphany.
I always assumed the JFKA research community, LNers and CTers alike, was a quest for What Really Happened. Silly me.
I thus assumed that CTers’ efforts to poke holes in the LN narrative were in furtherance of some coherent conspiracy theory. Some favored LBJ, some the Mafia, others the CIA or KGB, and so on and so forth.
I now realize this was simply wrong. Some, like Tom with his KGB narrative, do have and promote a coherent theory. However, a very large and vocal segment of the CT community is not working in furtherance of ANY THEORY AT ALL. Like criminal defense counsel, all they want to do is create doubt about the LN narrative.
A criminal defense attorney doesn’t need a theory as to who DID rob the bank or commit the murder. He just needs to create doubt that his client did. Any silly argument is worth making if there is the slightest chance the dummies on the jury might buy it. This is why lawyers refer to the “straight face test” – can you at least assert your nonsense with a straight face?
I now see why my efforts at the “epistemological” level go nowhere. I keep asking, “How does what you are saying making any sense at all unless the conspirators were utter bumbling fools?"
I never get any answers because, for the Oswald Defense Counsel Team, what they say doesn’t have to make sense! It doesn’t have to further any coherent conspiracy theory! Whether what they say would require the conspirators to have been utter bumbling fools is irrelevant!
This has been a true epiphany. I now realize that this is why I end up consigning this class of CTers to the bin of people not worth my time. Unless all I were interested in were defending the LN narrative like a religious zealot, why would I waste my time with folks who genuinely don’t care whether what they say makes any sense?
This does raise a second-level epistemological concern: Why would anyone waste so much time playing defense counsel for a guy who’s been dead almost 62 years? If your efforts aren’t in furtherance of a coherent alternative theory, what’s the point? Obviously, I expect no answers to THOSE questions either.
Epiphanies at age 75 are few and far between, but this was one.
-
I might add that this is true, albeit less obviously so, even at the level of characters like Morley and Newman. They have no coherent theory of the JFKA.
Their game is to create a confusing mishmash of "CIA stuff" and hope you'll make the connection that it somehow "explains the JFKA."
This is why the well-known CTer who nevertheless encouraged my little efforts told me privately that "At some point, Newman will need to bring it all to Dealey Plaza, but I doubt he ever will."
-
The challenge for the conspiracy people, which they won't accept, is to take all of their planted evidence, the mysterious deaths, the second Oswalds, the multiple gunmen, etc and weave it into
a coherent narrative. They simply have too much conspiracy factoids that you cannot put into a narrative.
fred
-
I’m embarrassed to admit that this never clicked with me before, but my interactions here have been a genuine epiphany.
I always assumed the JFKA research community, LNers and CTers alike, was a quest for What Really Happened. Silly me.
I thus assumed that CTers’ efforts to poke holes in the LN narrative were in furtherance of some coherent conspiracy theory. Some favored LBJ, some the Mafia, others the CIA or KGB, and so on and so forth.
I now realize this was simply wrong. Some, like Tom with his KGB narrative, do have and promote a coherent theory. However, a very large and vocal segment of the CT community is not working in furtherance of ANY THEORY AT ALL. Like criminal defense counsel, all they want to do is create doubt about the LN narrative.
A criminal defense attorney doesn’t need a theory as to who DID rob the bank or commit the murder. He just needs to create doubt that his client did. Any silly argument is worth making if there is the slightest chance the dummies on the jury might buy it. This is why lawyers refer to the “straight face test” – can you at least assert your nonsense with a straight face?
I now see why my efforts at the “epistemological” level go nowhere. I keep asking, “How does what you are saying making any sense at all unless the conspirators were utter bumbling fools?"
I never get any answers because, for the Oswald Defense Counsel Team, what they say doesn’t have to make sense! It doesn’t have to further any coherent conspiracy theory! Whether what they say would require the conspirators to have been utter bumbling fools is irrelevant!
This has been a true epiphany. I now realize that this is why I end up consigning this class of CTers to the bin of people not worth my time. Unless all I were interested in were defending the LN narrative like a religious zealot, why would I waste my time with folks who genuinely don’t care whether what they say makes any sense?
This does raise a second-level epistemological concern: Why would anyone waste so much time playing defense counsel for a guy who’s been dead almost 62 years? If your efforts aren’t in furtherance of a coherent alternative theory, what’s the point? Obviously, I expect no answers to THOSE questions either.
Epiphanies at age 75 are few and far between, but this was one.
Date Registered: February 02, 2025, 04:17:11 PMLocal Time:April 04, 2025, 03:28:58 PMLast Active: Today at 02:53:08 PM
What took you so long? ;)
Just kidding, quite frankly, it took me a lot longer….
-
"Coherent Conspiracy Theory"? How about any Evidence to rebut Knott Labs Forensic SCIENCE finding the SBT, "IS IMPOSSIBLE"? Without even the possibility of the SBT, there are multiple shooters = Conspiracy. As it NOW stands, this is a Slam Dunk!
-
I'd say that CTers keep more of an open mind about the many possibilities that present themselves when one sifts through all this stuff.
I think that because you've had an "epiphany" in realising this Lance is a very good illustration of the tunnel vision of a typical LNer fan.
I myself remain wobbling on the fence. One day I can read something that sways to the lone nut, the next day, something else sends me swaying back the other way.
Remember that Gerald Ford told the president of France that they knew that there had been a conspiracy but hadn't been able to find out who was involved. Of course LNer tunnel vision will say as usual "The French president didn't understand English well enough" etc. ::)
-
I now realize this was simply wrong. Some, like Tom with his KGB narrative, do have and promote a coherent theory. However, a very large and vocal segment of the CT community is not working in furtherance of ANY THEORY AT ALL. Like criminal defense counsel, all they want to do is create doubt about the LN narrative.
No one can "create" doubt in a murder investigation.
Doubt exists because there are holes in the case. The JFK assassination is full of sloppy police work, weird coincidences, inconsistent testimonies, and inconclusive evidence.
Even if you believe Oswald acted alone, it's impossible to reach absolute certainty due to the mountains of problems with the evidence.
I believe there was probably a conspiracy but I admit that I'm not certain there was one.
This does raise a second-level epistemological concern: Why would anyone waste so much time playing defense counsel for a guy who’s been dead almost 62 years? If your efforts aren’t in furtherance of a coherent alternative theory, what’s the point? Obviously, I expect no answers to THOSE questions either.
For me, it's not about exonerating LHO, its about establishing the Truth about what happened.
The murder of a US President is a BIG deal.
An even bigger deal if it was an inside job (as it increasingly appears to have been).
Even if no one is held accountable for the conspiracy to kill JFK, most of us will settle for the Truth because it matters...
-
The challenge for the conspiracy people, which they won't accept, is to take all of their planted evidence, the mysterious deaths, the second Oswalds, the multiple gunmen, etc and weave it into
a coherent narrative. They simply have too much conspiracy factoids that you cannot put into a narrative.
fred
The Dallas PD was either incompetent or intentionally malicious, but most of the problems with the evidence at the Book Depository and Tippit crime scenes originates from the mishandling of the case by local police. Captain Westbrook appears to have been in the middle of nearly all the problems with the Dallas PD evidence on 11/22/63.
The FBI is responsible for the post-11/22 cover-up and they no doubt got orders from LBJ and Hoover to focus on Oswald and ignore other potential leads.
The CIA and Secret Service obstructed investigations and covered up stuff too.
All of the above could be dismissed as incompetence and attempts after the fact to cover up their incompetence. I'm receptive to that argument.
However, in the big picture, that explanation doesn't explain the inconsistencies in the forensic evidence and other inexplicable stuff related to this case.
For example, how is it that dozens of witnesses between Parkland and Bethesda said they saw the back of Kennedy's head blown out but the autopsy photos don't show it? We're talking about doctors and nurses. Not lay people. How could so many of them be wrong in their description of Kennedy's head wound?
The inconsistencies with the Medical evidence are one of the main reasons I don't think we'll ever be able to conclusively say there was a single shooter.
People intuitively feel that there's more to the story and they're probably right.
-
When it comes to EVIDENCE, the SS: (1) STOLE the JFK Body, and (2) STOLE the Murder Scene/JFK Limo. It's almost impossible to believe this went on inside the USA with nobody ever being held accountable inside a court of law. Specifically who shot JFK is debatable. The ensuing Coverup is indisputable.
-
There ensuing Coverup is indisputable.
Which isn't necessarily connected to an assassination conspiracy.
-
Which isn't necessarily connected to an assassination conspiracy.
I have always said it is inexcusable that Not a single SS Agent attempted to locate/neutralize the shooter(s). And now we have JFK Researchers stretching the elapsed time for the 3 shots to roughly 11 Seconds. So we have a POTUS under continuous fire for 11 seconds and Not 1 SS Agent attempts to locate/neutralize the shooter? This extended inaction would get a Security Officer at a Public School FIRED! Yet nobody on that SS Detail was terminated. The SS was in-the-bag.
-
Date Registered: February 02, 2025, 04:17:11 PMLocal Time:April 04, 2025, 03:28:58 PMLast Active: Today at 02:53:08 PM
What took you so long? ;)
Just kidding, quite frankly, it took me a lot longer….
Let's be fair to poor old Lance here. I've been following the JFKA at some level for 50+ years and was a nuisance on the Ed Forum for six or so. Somehow a couple of the characters here so obviously didn't care whether anything they said made sense, and so pointedly ignored my challenges to at least try to explain how what they said made sense to them, that the Universe finally whacked me upside the head and said, "That's the key, you fool - they literally don't care if it makes sense. You're giving them too much credit by trying to engage them rationally. People who, in their ordinary lives, are sane, intelligent, educated, reasonable spouses, parents and employees simply go nutty when it comes to the JFKA."
-
I have always said it is inexcusable that Not a single SS Agent attempted to locate/neutralize the shooter(s). And now we have JFK Researchers stretching the elapsed time for the 3 shots to roughly 11 Seconds. So we have a POTUS under continuous fire for 11 seconds and Not 1 SS Agent attempts to locate/neutralize the shooter? This extended inaction would get a Security Officer at a Public School FIRED! Yet nobody on that SS Detail was terminated. The SS was in-the-bag.
Maybe they were just confused - no idea where the shots were coming from, with all those echoes. Maybe they were fire crackers? Didn't they all have a hangover from the previous night's partying also?
-
Maybe they were just confused - no idea where the shots were coming from, with all those echoes. Maybe they were fire crackers? Didn't they all have a hangover from the previous night's partying also?
11 Seconds being under fire and, "they were just confused"? We are talking about the SS. Not Mayberry's Finest Barney Fife.
-
It seems to me that you are arguing against yourself, in contradiction to your previous complaints: that is, you've pointed out and complained before about these myriad and absurd Rube Goldberg-type conspiracy explanations as to what happened but now turn around and say they have no explanation as to what took place, that it's just an attempt to exonerate Oswald and not give a counter theory as to what happened.
So which is it? Absurdly complex explanations or none at all? Rube Goldberg explanations or simply defenses of Oswald?
To be sure there are people here who seem to be solely interested in clearing Oswald. A sort of Mark Lane approach (although he blamed the CIA for the crime). But they are a small minority not a majority. And certainly if you go to other assassination sites they are filled with explanations as to what happened. Incoherent and contradictory ones, ones made entirely up; but at least an explanation.
-
I'd say that CTers keep more of an open mind about the many possibilities that present themselves when one sifts through all this stuff.
I think that because you've had an "epiphany" in realising this Lance is a very good illustration of the tunnel vision of a typical LNer fan.
I myself remain wobbling on the fence. One day I can read something that sways to the lone nut, the next day, something else sends me swaying back the other way.
Remember that Gerald Ford told the president of France that they knew that there had been a conspiracy but hadn't been able to find out who was involved. Of course LNer tunnel vision will say as usual "The French president didn't understand English well enough" etc. ::)
Your theory won't quite work insofar as Lance is concerned. I know him pretty well.
From approximately 1975 to maybe 2010, I read NOTHING BUT conspiracy literature. The reason is somewhat humorous. An avid reader in all areas of Weirdness, I received every month a massive newspaper-sized offering from Edward R. Hamilton, Bookseller. They offered hardback books on all subjects at staggering discounts - $25 books for $3. Every month I had a substantial box coming my way. They had tons of JFK material - ALL CT-oriented because it apparently didn't sell and could be had for $2 or $3. I read EVERYTHING. There was a point at which David Lifton, whom I now regard as certifiably insane, actually made sort of a Gee Whiz sense to me. That's how far into the Conspiracy Ozone I was.
When the internet became a reality, I was a Gee Whiz conspiracy enthusiast. On any number of forums, I questioned how any fool could possibly believe the JFKA was ANYTHING BUT a conspiracy. My first posts on the Ed Forum - I can't recall exactly when that was, but perhaps 2016 - were solidly in the conspiracy vein. Not whacked-out CTer because I'm simply not whacked-out, but solidly CT-oriented. Like most CTers, I had no coherent theory - but by God there OBVIOUSLY had to have been an elaborate conspiracy and cover-up.
I fully retired at the end of 2017, having spent 40 years writing complex motions and appellate briefs, doing in-depth research, understanding the nuances of evidence, and honing my critical-thinking skills as I poked holes in other lawyers' arguments and defended my own. I also developed a strong interest in epistemology, which eventually led me to the vast body of psychological and sociological literature regarding the conspiracy-prone mindset. In that literature, I recognized MYSELF to some extent. This was true insofar as the JFKA, UFOs and lots of other areas of Weirdness were concerned.
Over the past roughly 7-8 years, I have been STEEPED in the JFKA. I have read materials that I guarantee you 99% of JFKA enthusiasts haven't read. (I started with the massive writings of Walt Brown - his JFK chronology alone being over a million words - and Harvey & Lee because Brown recommended it, if only for the staggering amount of research Armstrong had done.) Thanks to what I describe in the preceding paragraph, the scales gradually fell from my eyes. I realized Conspiracy World is fundamentally - yes - NUTS. The Lone Nut narrative, with all its defects, is FAR more plausible and, perhaps most significant to me, far more consistent with Oswald the actual man. I now guard against my own conspiracy-prone mindset and exercise my lawyerly critical-thinking skills to insist upon the best evidence, the most reasonable inferences, and the most plausible conclusions.
I have utterly no emotional or quasi-religious attachment to the Lone Nut narrative. If presented with genuinely compelling evidence, I would cheerfully return to Conspiracy World in a heartbeat. The fact is, however, to date there has been no such evidence and what passes for Conspiracy Thinking on forums such as this is, to be blunt, almost entirely unadulterated crap and pointless mental masturbation. As I've said before, I find the bizarre psychology and dynamics of forums such as this far more interesting - an epistemologist's field day! - than anything that is actually said about the JFKA.
"Tunnel vision of the typical LN fan"? Uh, not exactly.
-
It seems to me that you are arguing against yourself, in contradiction to your previous complaints: that is, you've pointed out and complained before about these myriad and absurd Rube Goldberg-type conspiracy explanations as to what happened but now turn around and say they have no explanation as to what took place, that it's just an attempt to exonerate Oswald and not give a counter theory as to what happened.
So which is it? Absurdly complex explanations or none at all? Rube Goldberg explanations or simply defenses of Oswald?
To be sure there are people here who seem to be solely interested in clearing Oswald. A sort of Mark Lane approach (although he blamed the CIA for the crime). But they are a small minority not a majority. And certainly if you go to other assassination sites they are filled with explanations as to what happened. Incoherent and contradictory ones, ones made entirely up; but at least an explanation.
Please, you are comparing Pre-Epiphany Me to Post-Epiphany Me, scarcely a fair comparison. :) This is like reminding a new convert he was thrown out of a bar last Tuesday.
You have highlighted the entire problem with Pre-Epiphany Me. I loosely referred to "conspiracy theories" without realizing they aren't theories at all.
There may be extensive issue-specific theorizing, such as (for example) "why CE 399 cannot have done what the LN narrative insists it did." But this theorizing is not fitted into any coherent theory of the JFKA. The theory, to use the term loosely, is more in the vein of "the LN narrative has to be wrong because CE 399 is bogus." When one asks, "Please explain how what you are saying about CE 399 makes sense to you in the context of your own theory about the JFKA," you get crickets because there is no theory.
What I refer to as Rube Goldberg contraptions are not coherent theories - that's precisely the point. They are mishmashes of who bought the Carcano and how it got into the TSBD, why Bill Shelley was really a CIA guy, how Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City, yada yada, but the elements aren't internally consistent and don't add up to a coherent theory of the JFKA.
Tom Graves, it seems to me, has a coherent theory with the KGB. Perhaps the most coherent theory, to give the devils their due, is Harvey & Lee. Armstrong did a staggering amount of research - the John Armstrong Collection at Baylor University is a priceless resource - and fitted it into a fascinating theory of two distinct Oswalds. I may think it's absurd in the extreme, but it is an actual coherent theory of the JFKA that the H&L folks promote and defend.
My post is actually an indictment of myself. By assuming these folks were interested in What Actually Happened and were arguing against the LN narrative in furtherance of some theory of the JFKA that they at least found coherent, I was giving them too much credit and just wasting my breath.
I'm making a pretty narrow point, whereas you seem to be accusing me of painting with a broad brush. In my original post, I specifically acknowledged the existence of coherent conspiracy theories. I addressed, however, the "very large and vocal segment" that simply wants to play Oswald defense counsel, has no coherent theory of the JFKA, and for this reason cannot be engaged rationally at the level of such theory. Like good defense counsel, they just sling mud and hope some of it sticks; whether it makes any sense is irrelevant. Some, certainly, aren't consciously playing Oswald defense counsel but are just mentally masturbating over issues like CE 399 because they don't know enough about the JFKA to do more than this and enjoy the game.
I would take issue with your last paragraph. In my experience, these folks are anything but a "small minority." They are a very substantial segment of the CT community, particularly on internet forums. YMMV, of course.
-
I’m embarrassed to admit that this never clicked with me before, but my interactions here have been a genuine epiphany.
I always assumed the JFKA research community, LNers and CTers alike, was a quest for What Really Happened. Silly me.
I thus assumed that CTers’ efforts to poke holes in the LN narrative were in furtherance of some coherent conspiracy theory. Some favored LBJ, some the Mafia, others the CIA or KGB, and so on and so forth.
I now realize this was simply wrong. Some, like Tom with his KGB narrative, do have and promote a coherent theory. However, a very large and vocal segment of the CT community is not working in furtherance of ANY THEORY AT ALL. Like criminal defense counsel, all they want to do is create doubt about the LN narrative.
A criminal defense attorney doesn’t need a theory as to who DID rob the bank or commit the murder. He just needs to create doubt that his client did. Any silly argument is worth making if there is the slightest chance the dummies on the jury might buy it. This is why lawyers refer to the “straight face test” – can you at least assert your nonsense with a straight face?
I now see why my efforts at the “epistemological” level go nowhere. I keep asking, “How does what you are saying making any sense at all unless the conspirators were utter bumbling fools?"
I never get any answers because, for the Oswald Defense Counsel Team, what they say doesn’t have to make sense! It doesn’t have to further any coherent conspiracy theory! Whether what they say would require the conspirators to have been utter bumbling fools is irrelevant!
This has been a true epiphany. I now realize that this is why I end up consigning this class of CTers to the bin of people not worth my time. Unless all I were interested in were defending the LN narrative like a religious zealot, why would I waste my time with folks who genuinely don’t care whether what they say makes any sense?
This does raise a second-level epistemological concern: Why would anyone waste so much time playing defense counsel for a guy who’s been dead almost 62 years? If your efforts aren’t in furtherance of a coherent alternative theory, what’s the point? Obviously, I expect no answers to THOSE questions either.
Epiphanies at age 75 are few and far between, but this was one.
Dear Lance,
One of the few things I'm sure of is that a KGB* "mole" in the CIA sent an unwitting former sharpshooting Marine U-2 radar operator to Moscow in October of 1959 in a planned-to-fail mole hunt.
I'm also sure that the Kremlin in early 1959, having realized that the USSR and the Warsaw Pact couldn't defeat the USSR and NATO militarily, decided to try to get us to destroy ourselves by waging disinformation, "active measures, and "Inside Man" / "Outside Man" strategic deception counterintelligence operations against the CIA, the FBI, and the intelligence services of our NATO allies.
That strategy seems to have worked out very well indeed.
I'm equally sure that the KGB* has made so much hay from the anomaly-replete JFK assassination since Day One that it has been able to use the anti-CIA / anti-government conspiracy theories it's created over the past six decades to zombify our body politic to such an extent that one of its "former" officers, Vladimir Putin, was able to install an expendable "useful idiot" as our "President" in 2017 and 2025, and that this so-called "President" of ours has recently found his KGB* influenced Rasputin in the form of Laura "Loony Tunes" Loomer.
*Today's SVR and FSB
-- Tom
-
"Coherent Conspiracy Theory"? How about any Evidence to rebut Knott Labs Forensic SCIENCE finding the SBT, "IS IMPOSSIBLE"? Without even the possibility of the SBT, there are multiple shooters = Conspiracy. As it NOW stands, this is a Slam Dunk!
Did you know that Knox Labs started their "study" by using a digital game video, and that their positioning of JFK and JBC in the limo in the final product was grossly incorrect?
-
I’m embarrassed to admit that this never clicked with me before, but my interactions here have been a genuine epiphany.
The use of the term "epiphany" just reinforces the idea that LoneNutterism is a religious ideology.
I thus assumed that CTers’ efforts to poke holes in the LN narrative were in furtherance of some coherent conspiracy theory. Some favored LBJ, some the Mafia, others the CIA or KGB, and so on and so forth.
Yes, silly you. It's a false dichotomy. First of all, nobody has to "poke holes" in a narrative that is already full of holes. Secondly, recognizing those holes and other weaknesses and disbelieving the fanciful conclusions that result does not constitute a "conspiracy theory".
Basically this is just yet another attempt at "my unproven theory is automatically correct unless you can prove something different".
A criminal defense attorney doesn’t need a theory as to who DID rob the bank or commit the murder. He just needs to create doubt that his client did. Any silly argument is worth making if there is the slightest chance the dummies on the jury might buy it.
You unambiguously reveal your bias here. An accusation is all that is necessary as far as you are concerned, and guilt can be assumed.
But a prosecuting attorney doesn't need (or care about) the truth. What s/he cares about is manipulating that dumb jury with theater and rhetoric and hope that they will do what they are told without thinking about it too much.
I now see why my efforts at the “epistemological” level go nowhere. I keep asking, “How does what you are saying making any sense at all unless the conspirators were utter bumbling fools?"
It goes nowhere, because it's a sleazy lawyer trick. Make up a ridiculous strawman "conspiracy" that nobody actually put forward, and sit back at say, "look at these silly conspirators. Aren't they silly? Therefore, Oswald did it".
And then whine when nobody plays your dishonest rhetorical game.
Perhaps you could explain why anyone would waste so much time playing prosecuting counsel against a guy who’s been dead almost 62 years?
-
To be sure there are people here who seem to be solely interested in clearing Oswald. A sort of Mark Lane approach (although he blamed the CIA for the crime). But they are a small minority not a majority. And certainly if you go to other assassination sites they are filled with explanations as to what happened. Incoherent and contradictory ones, ones made entirely up; but at least an explanation.
Oswald doesn't need to be cleared since no compelling evidence-based argument has ever been made for his guilt.
But not everybody is going to be interesting in making up another unprovable story to replace your unprovable story. Sometimes the most honest answer to an inquiry is "we don't know and we likely never will".
The LN-faithful just want there to be other incoherent and contradictory theories so that they can shift the focus off of their own incoherent and contradictory theory.
-
When the internet became a reality, I was a Gee Whiz conspiracy enthusiast. On any number of forums, I questioned how any fool could possibly believe the JFKA was ANYTHING BUT a conspiracy. My first posts on the Ed Forum - I can't recall exactly when that was, but perhaps 2016 - were solidly in the conspiracy vein. Not whacked-out CTer because I'm simply not whacked-out, but solidly CT-oriented. Like most CTers, I had no coherent theory - but by God there OBVIOUSLY had to have been an elaborate conspiracy and cover-up.
I was a smoker until I wised up and saw the light.
I was a non-Christian until I wised up and saw the light.
I was a meat-eater until I wised up and saw the light.
I was a Democrat until I wised up and saw the light.
There are fewer thing more annoying (and less persuasive) than personal testimonials from true-believer converts.
I have utterly no emotional or quasi-religious attachment to the Lone Nut narrative.
You absolutely do, though I'm not surprised you are in denial about it. Otherwise you would have spent at least as much time (or any time) sanity-checking the "Oswald-did-it" theory as you do trying to knock down CT windmills.
If presented with genuinely compelling evidence, I would cheerfully return to Conspiracy World in a heartbeat.
Great, then you should understand that if you were able to present genuinely compelling evidence, your story would be accepted too.
-
There may be extensive issue-specific theorizing, such as (for example) "why CE 399 cannot have done what the LN narrative insists it did." But this theorizing is not fitted into any coherent theory of the JFKA. The theory, to use the term loosely, is more in the vein of "the LN narrative has to be wrong because CE 399 is bogus." When one asks, "Please explain how what you are saying about CE 399 makes sense to you in the context of your own theory about the JFKA," you get crickets because there is no theory.
We all are guilty of going off into the weeds when it comes to minutia. In the end, it doesn't matter if CE 399 could have done what the LN narrative insists it did, because whether it did or not, it tells us exactly nothing about who or what killed JFK.
-
Oswald doesn't need to be cleared since no compelling evidence-based argument has ever been made for his guilt.
But not everybody is going to be interesting in making up another unprovable story to replace your unprovable story. Sometimes the most honest answer to an inquiry is "we don't know and we likely never will".
The LN-faithful just want there to be other incoherent and contradictory theories so that they can shift the focus off of their own incoherent and contradictory theory.
^I Agree 100%
The most honest answer is that we may never completely know the truth about what happened.
-
Did you know that Knox Labs started their "study" by using a digital game video, and that their positioning of JFK and JBC in the limo in the final product was grossly incorrect?
"Incorrect" by what standard?
-
It's a mystery to me why someone would posts thousands of times at a JFK Assassination Forum and only defend Oswald against the allegations while never once giving his or her theory as to what happened that day in Dallas. What is the person trying to accomplish?
This is the "JFK Assassination Forum" not the "Oswald Didn't Do It" Forum.
-
It's a mystery to me why someone would posts thousands of times at a JFK Assassination Forum and only defend Oswald against the allegations while never once giving his or her theory as to what happened that day in Dallas. What is the person trying to accomplish?
If I had a theory I would present it. Why do I have to have one? Not everybody likes to make up fanciful stories without evidence and insist they are true. Does that somehow make YOUR fanciful story automatically any more correct?
This is the "JFK Assassination Forum" not the "Oswald Didn't Do It" Forum.
It also isn't "Oswald did do it" forum. Or fan-fiction forum.
-
"Incorrect" by what standard?
Look at Zapruder frames 190 or-so through 224 and then look at their 5:08-long video at 1:37 and judge for yourself.
-
If I had a theory as to who conspired to kill JFK, I would share it. Why do I have to have one? (paraphrased)
Because the fact you don't suggests that you think the Oswald-Did-It theory is the best one that you know of.
-
"There are none so blind as those who will not see," which encapsulates the mindset of the LNers. For them, the moment an irrefutable fact contradicts the LN hypothesis, it’s game over. This is why they adamantly reject any evidence suggesting that Oswald didn't act alone. To anyone trained in critical thinking and logic, it is clear that Oswald was part of a conspiracy, while LNers resort to pseudo-skepticism and denialism to defend their position.
CTs do not need to connect every detail to present a coherent conspiratorial hypothesis that LNers would find acceptable or even sound. Their primary task is simply to demonstrate that Oswald did not act alone, which would establish a conspiracy. At that point, the debate is over. They are not required to define the motives behind the conspiracy or determine whether Oswald was merely a patsy or if he even fired a shot; the mere implication that he was not a lone assassin suffices. This is why LNers steadfastly refuse to acknowledge any evidence of a conspiracy, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They will deny any suggestion of a conspiracy because they are deeply invested in their belief.
For example: Did Oswald even take a shot?
1) You LNers seem to think it’s insignificant that Oswald disassembled the rifle, placed it in a bag, smuggled it into the TSBD, removed it from the bag, reassembled it, fired it at least three times, and then discarded it without leaving a single fingerprint on the rifle.
2) You LNers find it reasonable to believe that after the shooting, Oswald wiped off all his fingerprints, ditched the rifle, raced downstairs to the second floor, and calmly bought a Coke in less than 90 seconds. Really?
3) You LNers believe that sharpshooter Oswald never bothered to sight in his scope, yet included it in the paper bag with the disassembled rifle, knowing he wouldn’t use it.
4) The real issue is that the magic bullet does not have a valid trajectory from the sixth floor, entering JFK's back at the T1 vertebra and exiting at C7. This is simply impossible!
5) Here is my two-laser challenge that disproves the magic bullet theory: http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_2lasers.png
Here are the results of my attempt to match up the wounds: http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/MB2lasers2.png
6) This is the only viable trajectory that fits the wounds on JFK's back and throat: http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_AMBT2.png
7) Below is JFK's alleged x-ray showing where the magic bullet supposedly smashed through his T1 vertebra and out his throat, then shattered Connally's rib and wrist bones, causing at least seven wounds before dropping onto the wrong gurney without a trace of blood, bone, or flesh on it—looking as if it was fished out of a swimming pool, only slightly deformed and essentially intact. That bullet was indeed magical!
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/x-ray_mb.gif
8 ) Regarding the backyard photos: Sheep-dipping 101.
a) The Warren Commission only had one negative for CE 133-B and not the crucial CE 133-A, which somehow went missing, like much of the evidence in this case. The Dallas police reportedly found three negatives and at least two prints. The Warren Commission received only two prints and one negative. There were at least six photos that Marina couldn’t recall taking, which turned up in unexpected places. So it seems Marina must have been lying and didn’t take all the photos, especially CE 133-A.
b) Roscoe White and the Dallas Police Department were behind the backyard photos, and Roscoe was very familiar with darkroom shenanigans. The backyard photos were part of Oswald's sheep-dipping, and the DPD aimed to leak a photo showing Oswald with the alleged murder weapons and communist literature to frame him as the patsy. The scope was left on the rifle to match the backyard photos. Only CE 133-A was of sufficient quality to read the font on the communist literature, which is why it had to be shot with a different camera, not by Marina.
c) The DPD’s incriminating connections to the backyard photos included re-enactments and a darkroom cutout created from a negative that appeared out of nowhere and was never admitted into evidence. Clearly, CE 133-A is the smoking anomaly here since its quality does not match the other photos, which could not have been achieved with the Imperial Reflex 620 camera (CE 750). CE 133-A does not have the same lens distortion as the other photos; specifically, the spherical aberration of CE 133-A does not match the others. CE 133-A was obviously the "money shot" and was likely taken with the Minox spy camera found among Oswald's possessions.
d) Marina clearly lied about taking only one photo and misremembered taking more than six backyard photos of Oswald. Someone else must have taken them. Therefore, conspiracy.
e) The DPD staged some backyard photos and created a cutout of CE 133-C, which was found in Roscoe White's widow's house and was never admitted into evidence. What was the cutout intended for?
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/images/BY_cutout.jpg
f) The following GIF demonstrates the glaring differences in distortion between CE 133-A and C. As a photogrammetrist, I can confidently say that the discrepancies in focus and spherical aberration between these two photos are so obvious that they were undoubtedly taken with different cameras or lenses.
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/images/anim5.gif
===============================
There's much more to this case, including the autopsy, but I’ll stop here because I know the LNers' eyes have glazed over and they are in full denial mode. I suspect they will argue that none of this constitutes a well-defined conspiracy, riddled with holes and unconnected dots, etc. However, I don't expect any refutations because it only takes one fact to shatter their LNer worldview, and they are all in for a penny. As I mentioned at the outset, I only need one irrefutable fact to prove Oswald was not a lone assassin to win the debate. I do have a conspiracy theory to support my claims, but I doubt the LNers are interested, so I won't bother.
-
The saying goes, "There are none so blind as those who will not see," and this encapsulates the mindset of the LNers. For them, the moment an irrefutable fact contradicts the LN hypothesis, it’s game over. This is why they adamantly reject any evidence suggesting that Oswald acted alone. To anyone trained in critical thinking and logic, it is clear that Oswald was part of a conspiracy, while LNers resort to pseudo-skepticism and denialism to defend their position.
CTs do not need to connect every detail to present a coherent conspiratorial hypothesis that LNers would find acceptable or even sound. Their primary task is simply to demonstrate that Oswald did not act alone, which would establish a conspiracy. At that point, the debate is over. They are not required to define the motives behind the conspiracy or determine whether Oswald was merely a patsy or if he even fired a shot; the mere implication that he was not a lone assassin suffices. This is why LNers steadfastly refuse to acknowledge any evidence of a conspiracy, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They will deny any suggestion of a conspiracy because they are deeply invested in their belief.
For example: Did Oswald even take a shot?
1) You LNers seem to think it’s insignificant that Oswald disassembled the rifle, placed it in a bag, smuggled it into the TSBD, removed it from the bag, reassembled it, fired it at least three times, and then discarded it without leaving a single fingerprint on the rifle.
2) You LNers find it reasonable to believe that after the shooting, Oswald wiped off all his fingerprints, ditched the rifle, raced downstairs to the second floor, and calmly bought a Coke in less than 90 seconds. Really?
3) You LNers believe that sharpshooter Oswald never bothered to sight in his scope, yet included it in the paper bag with the disassembled rifle, knowing he wouldn’t use it.
4) The real issue is that the magic bullet does not have a valid trajectory from the sixth floor, entering JFK's back at the T1 vertebra and exiting at C7. This is simply impossible!
5) Here is my two-laser challenge that disproves the magic bullet theory: http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_2lasers.png
Here are the results of my attempt to match up the wounds: http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/MB2lasers2.png
6) This is the only viable trajectory that fits the wounds on JFK's back and throat: http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_AMBT2.png
7) Below is JFK's alleged x-ray showing where the magic bullet supposedly smashed through his T1 vertebra and out his throat, then shattered Connally's rib and wrist bones, causing at least seven wounds before dropping onto the wrong gurney without a trace of blood, bone, or flesh on it—looking as if it was fished out of a swimming pool, only slightly deformed and essentially intact. That bullet was indeed magical!
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/x-ray_mb.gif
8 ) Regarding the backyard photos: Sheep-dipping 101.
a) The Warren Commission only had one negative for CE 133-B and not the crucial CE 133-A, which somehow went missing, like much of the evidence in this case. The Dallas police reportedly found three negatives and at least two prints. The Warren Commission received only two prints and one negative. There were at least six photos that Marina couldn’t recall taking, which turned up in unexpected places. So it seems Marina must have been lying and didn’t take all the photos, especially CE 133-A.
b) Roscoe White and the Dallas Police Department were behind the backyard photos, and Roscoe was very familiar with darkroom tricks. The backyard photos were part of Oswald's sheep-dipping, and the DPD aimed to leak a photo showing Oswald with the alleged murder weapons and communist literature to frame him as the patsy. The scope was left on the rifle to match the backyard photos. Only CE 133-A was of sufficient quality to read the font on the communist literature, which is why it had to be shot with a different camera, not by Marina.
c) The DPD’s incriminating connections to the backyard photos included re-enactments and a darkroom cutout created from a negative that appeared out of nowhere and was never admitted into evidence. Clearly, CE 133-A is the smoking anomaly here since its quality does not match the other photos, which could not have been achieved with the Imperial Reflex 620 camera (CE 750). CE 133-A does not have the same lens distortion as the other photos; specifically, the spherical aberration of CE 133-A does not match the others. CE 133-A was obviously the "money shot" and was likely taken with the Minox spy camera found among Oswald's possessions.
d) Marina clearly lied about taking only one photo and misremembered taking more than six backyard photos of Oswald. Someone else must have taken them. Therefore, conspiracy.
e) The DPD staged some backyard photos and created a cutout of CE 133-C, which was found in Roscoe White's widow's house and was never admitted into evidence. What was the cutout intended for?
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/images/BY_cutout.jpg
f) The following GIF demonstrates the glaring differences in distortion between CE 133-A and C. As a photogrammetrist, I can confidently say that the discrepancies in focus and spherical aberration between these two photos are so obvious that they were undoubtedly taken with different cameras or lenses.
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/images/anim5.gif
===============================
There's much more to this case, but I’ll stop here because I know the LNers' eyes have glazed over and they are in full denial mode. I suspect they will argue that none of this constitutes a well-defined conspiracy, riddled with holes and unconnected dots, etc. However, I don't expect any refutations because it only takes one fact to shatter their LNer worldview, and they are all in for a penny. As I mentioned at the outset, I only need one irrefutable fact to prove Oswald was not a lone assassin to win the debate. I do have a conspiracy theory to support my claims, but I doubt the LNers are interested, so I won't bother.
How many bad guys and bad gals do you think were wittingly involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up?
Oodles and gobs?
-
How many bad guys and bad gals do you think were wittingly involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up?
Oodles and gobs?
Not sure why you LNers think that numbers disqualifies a coup. But in a nutshell:
CIA: Allen Dulles (architect of the Big Event), James Angleton (recruited Oswald from the False Defector Program), Richard Helms, George Joannides (who all lied to Congress about what they knew about Oswald before the shooting)
FBI: J.E. Hoover and a few of his minions (Hoover was the defacto Mob boss at the time and Angleton was blackmailing him with a salacious photo)
SS: William Robert Greer (limo driver who slowed the limo down at the turkey shoot point) H. Roy Kellerman (seated next to him)
DPD: J. W. Fritz (lead investigator) with a few stooges, Roscoe White (edited the Zapruder film, the backyard photos and maybe the autopsy photos)
Doctors:The two pathologists who conducted the autopsy on JFK: Commander James Humes (who burned all his notes and performed post mortem surgery on JFK to hide bullet wounds from the front) and Commander J. Thornton Boswell, with assistance from ballistics wound expert Pierre Finck.
VP: Lyndon B. Johnson (was complicit, but reneged on selling out America to Dulles and the 4th Reich, thank goodness for LBJ)
MOB: Carlos Marcello and a few others (there were no lack of mobsters who hated the Kennedys)
I'm sure there are a few more but if you think that's too many to be believable then you are naive to a fault. Dulles was a bloody Nazi and the CIA was a cesspool of corruption. Do you have any doubt that Hoover wasn't corrupt enough? The DPD? The Mob? Get real. Nixon confessed that they were all a bunch of animals.
So yes, oodles and gobs.
-
Not sure why you LNers think that numbers disqualifies a coup. But in a nutshell:
CIA: Allen Dulles (architect of the Big Event), James Angleton (recruited Oswald from the False Defector Program), Richard Helms, George Joannides (who all lied to Congress about what they knew about Oswald before the shooting)
FBI: J.E. Hoover and a few of his minions (Hoover was the defacto Mob boss at the time and Angleton was blackmailing him with a salacious photo)
SS: William Robert Greer (limo driver who slowed the limo down at the turkey shoot point) H. Roy Kellerman (seated next to him)
DPD: J. W. Fritz (lead investigator) with a few stooges, Roscoe White (edited the Zapruder film, the backyard photos and maybe the autopsy photos)
Doctors:The two pathologists who conducted the autopsy on JFK: Commander James Humes (who burned all his notes and performed post mortem surgery on JFK to hide bullet wounds from the front) and Commander J. Thornton Boswell, with assistance from ballistics wound expert Pierre Finck.
VP: Lyndon B. Johnson (was complicit, but reneged on selling out America to Dulles and the 4th Reich, thank goodness for LBJ)
MOB: Carlos Marcello and a few others (there were no lack of mobsters who hated the Kennedys)
I'm sure there are a few more but if you think that's too many to be believable then you are naive to a fault. Dulles was a bloody Nazi and the CIA was a cesspool of corruption. Do you have any doubt that Hoover wasn't corrupt enough? The DPD? The Mob? Get real. Nixon confessed that they were all a bunch of animals.
So yes, oodles and gobs.
And all of them hated JFK so much that they were willing to take the very real risk of being caught or snitched on, and fry?
Btw, which one created CE-399 (and how and why did he or she deform it so strangely?), and either "plant" it or cause it to be given to FBI agent Elmer Todd?
How did he or she manage to get Oswald's Carcano and fire CE-399 with it as well as the bullet that the "planted" head-shot fragments came from?
-
Not sure why you LNers think that numbers disqualifies a coup. But in a nutshell:
CIA: Allen Dulles (architect of the Big Event), James Angleton (recruited Oswald from the False Defector Program), Richard Helms, George Joannides (who all lied to Congress about what they knew about Oswald before the shooting)
FBI: J.E. Hoover and a few of his minions (Hoover was the defacto Mob boss at the time and Angleton was blackmailing him with a salacious photo)
SS: William Robert Greer (limo driver who slowed the limo down at the turkey shoot point) H. Roy Kellerman (seated next to him)
DPD: J. W. Fritz (lead investigator) with a few stooges, Roscoe White (edited the Zapruder film, the backyard photos and maybe the autopsy photos)
Doctors:The two pathologists who conducted the autopsy on JFK: Commander James Humes (who burned all his notes and performed post mortem surgery on JFK to hide bullet wounds from the front) and Commander J. Thornton Boswell, with assistance from ballistics wound expert Pierre Finck.
VP: Lyndon B. Johnson (was complicit, but reneged on selling out America to Dulles and the 4th Reich, thank goodness for LBJ)
MOB: Carlos Marcello and a few others (there were no lack of mobsters who hated the Kennedys)
I'm sure there are a few more but if you think that's too many to be believable then you are naive to a fault. Dulles was a bloody Nazi and the CIA was a cesspool of corruption. Do you have any doubt that Hoover wasn't corrupt enough? The DPD? The Mob? Get real. Nixon confessed that they were all a bunch of animals.
So yes, oodles and gobs.
In direct contrast with O'Meara's smarter but misguided conspiracy with just a few participants, you've gone the whole hog and thrown everyone including the kitchen sink at your unbelievably massive conspiracy!
For a start it's impossible to believe Hoover collaborating with anyone, much less the mob and why, when and where did they all get together and formulate this nefarious plan and let's not forget that this murder is the most extreme version of treason and each one of them would be subject to the death penalty.
You also have Greer and Kellerman on your list and I can just imagine the job description: "Ok fella's, your mission is to drive into a warzone with a triangulation of sniper's who will be all firing into your Limo, so just slow down and let it happen and oh, BTW don't forget to duck!"
Then the Bethesda doctors miraculously patched a hole in the back of Kennedy's head, "Halleluiah" and performed surgery on a man without a beating heart and made it look like surgery on a man with a beating heart "Halleluiah x2", Wecht your greatest ally rejected Lifton's nonsense of surgery on a dead man, by exposing this silly mistake with basic human physiology of the circulatory system.
And what's in it for the Dallas Police, did any one or ALL of them suddenly have an influx of enormous amounts of money or did they just hate Kennedy so much, they just did for self satisfaction?
(https://i.postimg.cc/xCQYD4hB/BIG-meeting-KK.png)
JohnM
-
In direct contrast with O'Meara's smarter but misguided conspiracy with just a few participants, you've gone the whole hog and thrown everyone including the kitchen sink at your unbelievably massive conspiracy!
For a start it's impossible to believe Hoover collaborating with anyone, much less the mob and why, when and where did they all get together and formulate this nefarious plan and let's not forget that this murder is the most extreme version of treason and each one of them would be subject to the death penalty.
You also have Greer and Kellerman on your list and I can just imagine the job description: "Ok fella's, your mission is to drive into a warzone with a triangulation of sniper's who will be all firing into your Limo, so just slow down and let it happen and oh, BTW don't forget to duck!"
Then the Bethesda doctors miraculously patched a hole in the back of Kennedy's head, "Halleluiah" and performed surgery on a man without a beating heart and made it look like surgery on a man with a beating heart "Halleluiah x2", Wecht your greatest ally rejected Lifton's nonsense of surgery on a dead man, by exposing this silly mistake with basic human physiology of the circulatory system.
And what's in it for the Dallas Police, did any one or ALL of them suddenly have an influx of enormous amounts of money or did they just hate Kennedy so much, they just did for self satisfaction?
JohnM
One group of conspiracists complain that "nutters" exaggerate what they claim happened, that "nutters" make unfair straw man arguments to characterize their conspiracy beliefs. "Nobody is saying that!"
Then another group of conspiracists come along and say everything the "nutters" claim, everything that the first group complains about being straw men.
Does the first group challenge the second? Well, no. They only complain that "Nobody is saying that", that being exactly what the other group says.
-
Did you know that Knox Labs started their "study" by using a digital game video, and that their positioning of JFK and JBC in the limo in the final product was grossly incorrect?
Unless we see some sourcing, the above is water cooler prattle. Wally from Composing doing battle with Forensic SCIENCE. What new?
-
One group of conspiracists complain that "nutters" exaggerate what they claim happened, that "nutters" make unfair straw man arguments to characterize their conspiracy beliefs. "Nobody is saying that!"
Then another group of conspiracists come along and say everything the "nutters" claim, everything that the first group complains about being straw men.
Does the first group challenge the second? Well, no. They only complain that "Nobody is saying that", that being exactly what the other group says.
What's funny is that CT's will explore and entertain any possibility no matter how little supporting evidence there is or how off the wall their premise is, except the one with the mountain of evidence, Oswald did it!
JohnM
-
One group of conspiracists complain that "nutters" exaggerate what they claim happened, that "nutters" make unfair straw man arguments to characterize their conspiracy beliefs. "Nobody is saying that!"
Then another group of conspiracists come along and say everything the "nutters" claim, everything that the first group complains about being straw men.
Does the first group challenge the second? Well, no. They only complain that "Nobody is saying that", that being exactly what the other group says.
The group of LN-faithful lumps everybody who disputes the official fantasy as "conspiracists" and demands that they all march in lock step, like they do.
Then they make up absurd strawmen that no "group" puts forward and expect everybody who they label "conspiracists" to "explain" it.
-
What's funny is that CT's will explore and entertain any possibility no matter how little supporting evidence there is or how off the wall their premise is, except the one with the mountain of evidence, Oswald did it!
If there actually was one with a "mountain of evidence", then maybe they would.
Hint: referring to it as "Oswald's rifle" is not "evidence".
-
If there actually was one with a "mountain of evidence", then maybe they would.
Hint: referring to it as "Oswald's rifle" is not "evidence".
You say you don't think the JFKA was a conspiracy, but you can't say who forged his handwriting on the coupon and the money order he sent in, whose rifle he's holding in The Backyard Photos, who put his prints on the rifle, who put fibers similar to the blanket's fibers on it, who smuggled it into the TSBD, and who put his prints on the bag and on two of the boxes in the Sniper's Nest.
-
You say you don't think the JFKA was a conspiracy, but you can't say who forged his handwriting on the coupon and the money order he sent in, whose rifle he's holding in The Backyard Photos, who put his prints on the rifle, who put fibers similar to the blanket's fibers on it, who smuggled it into the TSBD, and who put his prints on the bag and on two of the boxes in the Sniper's Nest.
Who brought the rifle from New Orleans to Dallas? (Ruth Paine denies that she transported it to her garage)
Why is the rifle found in TSBD not the same model as the one Oswald allegedly ordered?
Why did Oswald order a rifle and leave a paper trail when he could've bought one with cash from a local gun store?
-
Who brought the rifle from New Orleans to Dallas? (Ruth Paine denies that she transported it to her garage)
Did Russophile Ruthie deny transporting it, or did she say in so many words that she didn't notice it?
Why was the rifle found in TSBD not the same model as the one Oswald allegedly ordered?
Probably because they'd run out of the length the little self-described Marxist ordered, so they sent him a longer (and therefore probably more accurate) one, instead.
Why did Oswald order a rifle and leave a paper trail when he could've bought one with cash from a local gun store?
He used a fake name and a coupon and therefore was more anonymous than if he'd walked into a hardware store or some-such place.
Question: Did hardware stores, etc, in Texas sell used short-rifles that fired highly-stable-in-flight and highly-penetrating round-nosed fmj rounds?
-
Question: Did hardware stores, etc, in Texas sell used short-rifles that fired highly-stable-in-flight and highly-penetrating round-nosed fmj rounds?
No one knows where the Carcano ammo Oswald allegedly used was purchased from. Another mystery. Hmm...
-
No one knows where the Carcano ammo Oswald allegedly used was purchased from. Another mystery. Hmm...
Why not just deal with the so-called "mysteries" I've answered for you instead of trying to embellish your open-ended tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory by asking a rhetorical question that neither you nor I can definitively answer?
-
Why not just deal with the so-called "mysteries" I've answered for you instead of trying to embellish your tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory by asking a rhetorical question that neither you nor I can definitively answer?
Says the guy who believes Trump works for Putin ::)
It's okay. The Warren Commission couldn't answer the question of where the ammo came from either...
-
Who brought the rifle from New Orleans to Dallas? (Ruth Paine denies that she transported it to her garage)
Why is the rifle found in TSBD not the same model as the one Oswald allegedly ordered?
Why did Oswald order a rifle and leave a paper trail when he could've bought one with cash from a local gun store?
Who brought the rifle from New Orleans to Dallas? (Ruth Paine denies that she transported it to her garage)
Michael Paine handled the blanket wrapped rifle and had no idea what was contained within, he speculated a shovel or camping equipment, so why would pacifist Ruth be any the wiser?
Why is the rifle found in TSBD not the same model as the one Oswald allegedly ordered?
Oswald ordered C20-T750 and Oswald received C20-T750. It's also interesting to note that Kleins was advertising the 36 inch model far into 1963, which indicates that their advertising for a cheap ass military surplus rifle wasn't exactly held to a high standard. And why would anyone complain if they received the longer better model and besides, both rifles used the same 6.5mm ammo.
(https://i.postimg.cc/28Jd42TB/Riflead1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/tgdhGybh/Kleins-Ad1.jpg)
Why did Oswald order a rifle and leave a paper trail when he could've bought one with cash from a local gun store?
Brick and mortar stores are typically more expensive than mail order but if indeed it was a conspiracy wouldn't it be far easier to have Oswald supposedly remembered buying it from a shop instead of injecting an unnecessarily complicated paper trail?
(https://shootersdelight.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/shutterstock_1686855574-300x189.jpg)
JohnM
-
Michael Paine handled the blanket wrapped rifle and had no idea what was contained within, he speculated a shovel or camping equipment, so why would pacifist Ruth be any the wiser?
Not convincing. You don't have to be a gun enthusiast to recognize the shape of a rifle. Even if it was disassembled, the wooden part still resembles a rifle stock.
I've never bought the story and yes, I do think the Paines weren't completely honest with the Warren Commission...
-
Not convincing. You don't have to be a gun enthusiast to recognize the shape of a rifle. Even if it was disassembled, the wooden part still resembles a rifle stock.
I've never bought the story and yes, I do think the Paines weren't completely honest with the Warren Commission...
Jon, you are the suspicious one aren't you!
Michael and Ruth were both intelligent and articulate, and had many proven interactions with Oswald and could have easily painted Oswald in a very unflattering light, but they both just told the truth.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did he ever indicate to you any specific hostility toward President Kennedy?
Mr. PAINE - I think at this ACLU meeting he mentioned this specifically that he thought Kennedy had done a good job in civil rights. That was it--generally my impression was that he liked--he didn't like anybody, but he disliked Kennedy least as you might go right from Kennedy.
Mr. LIEBELER - To the best of your recollection, was that the only time he mentioned President Kennedy specifically?
Mr. PAINE - Yes.
Representative BOGGS - Did he ever express any violence toward General Walker?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Representative BOGGS - Did he ever discuss President Kennedy with you?
Mrs. PAINE - He never mentioned Kennedy at all.
JohnM
-
Jon, you are the suspicious one aren't you!
Michael and Ruth were both intelligent and articulate, and had many proven interactions with Oswald and could have easily painted Oswald in a very unflattering light, but they both just told the truth.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did he ever indicate to you any specific hostility toward President Kennedy?
Mr. PAINE - I think at this ACLU meeting he mentioned this specifically that he thought Kennedy had done a good job in civil rights. That was it--generally my impression was that he liked--he didn't like anybody, but he disliked Kennedy least as you might go right from Kennedy.
Mr. LIEBELER - To the best of your recollection, was that the only time he mentioned President Kennedy specifically?
Mr. PAINE - Yes.
Representative BOGGS - Did he ever express any violence toward General Walker?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Representative BOGGS - Did he ever discuss President Kennedy with you?
Mrs. PAINE - He never mentioned Kennedy at all.
JohnM
If the Paines were inclined/ordered (whatever motive you want to have) to *get* Oswald they could have said a dozen and one damning things about him. He's dead; they can make them up. As in: Oswald said he hated JFK, that he showed signs of instability, it's a long list of things. As you point out, not only did they *not* say those things they said essentially the opposite of them.
So how does this fit into the Paines were dishonest view? It doesn't.
-
Jon, you are the suspicious one aren't you!
Michael and Ruth were both intelligent and articulate, and had many proven interactions with Oswald and could have easily painted Oswald in a very unflattering light, but they both just told the truth.
I don't believe the Paines were part of the conspiracy plot but I also don't believe they were completely honest about everything they told investigators. Like Wesley Frazier, I think they primarily were concerned with not being viewed as a potential accomplices of Oswald's. If Ruth wittingly transported a rifle from New Orleans to Dallas, how could that be explained in an innocent way?
Again, you don't have to be a gun expert or enthusiast to recognize a rifle stock. I don't buy the camping equipment story.
-
You say you don't think the JFKA was a conspiracy, but you can't say who forged his handwriting on the coupon and the money order he sent in
Who said anybody did?
whose rifle he's holding in The Backyard Photos,
LOL. My unsubstantiated claim is automatically true unless you prove otherwise, part 10001.
who put his prints on the rifle,
LOL. What prints on the rifle?
who put fibers similar to the blanket's fibers on it,
“Similar”. LOL.
who smuggled it into the TSBD,
“Smuggled”. LOL.
and who put his prints on the bag and on two of the boxes in the Sniper's Nest.
..and these prove what, exactly?
LOL
-
Probably because they'd run out of the length the little self-described Marxist ordered, so they sent him a longer (and therefore probably more accurate) one, instead.
“Probably”. LOL.
He used a fake name and a coupon and therefore was more anonymous than if he'd walked into a hardware store or some-such place.
And yet he walked into a post office and picked up a 5-foot cardboard package marked “firearm” because that was more anonymous. LOL.
-
Why not just deal with the so-called "mysteries" I've answered for you instead of trying to embellish your open-ended tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory by asking a rhetorical question that neither you nor I can definitively answer?
You mean the way you embellished your tinfoil hat nutter theory by injecting the word “probably”?
-
You mean the way you embellished your tinfoil hat nutter theory by injecting the word “probably”?
Iacoletti,
How many bad guys and really, really bad gals do you figure were wittingly involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up?
Just a few, or oodles and gobs?
Btw, do you still think the three people walking across the pergola "patio" a few minutes after the assassination in the Mr. Towner clip were three Bermuda-shorts-wearing dudes, and that one of them was holding a light-blue balloon near his head?
-
Iacoletti,
How many bad guys and really, really bad gals do you figure were wittingly involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up?
Just a few, or oodles and gobs?
Btw, do you still think the three people walking across the pergola "patio" a few minutes after the assassination in the Mr. Towner clip were three Bermuda-shorts-wearing dudes, and that one of them was holding a light-blue balloon near his head?
Graves, give it a damn rest.
-
Graves, give it a damn rest.
Iacoletti,
Just answer the question -- Do you still believe the three people who can be seen walking across the pergola "patio" a few minutes after the assassination in the Mr. Towner clip were NOT self-described American Indian Stella Mae Jacobs, strawberry-blond Gloria Holt, and blue-headscarf-wearing Sharron Simmons, but three Bermuda-shorts-wearing dudes?
-
Iacoletti,
Just answer the question -- Do you still believe the three people who can be seen walking across the pergola "patio" a few minutes after the assassination in the Mr. Towner clip were NOT self-described American Indian Stella Mae Jacobs, strawberry-blond Gloria Holt, and blue-headscarf-wearing Sharron Simmons, but three Bermuda-shorts-wearing dudes?
I never believed that. You made it up because you never have anything useful to say.
Now give it a damn rest.
-
I never believed that. You made it up because you never have anything useful to say.
Now give it a damn rest.
Shall I "bump" the pertinent thread from a few years ago?
Did you delete the photo you'd posted showing some male models wearing Bermuda shorts in the snow?