JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Charles Collins on March 28, 2019, 02:11:38 PM
-
Many years ago I began pursuing my interest in the JFK assassination conspiracy theories by reading quite a few books by, you guessed it, conspiracy theorists. For a long time I was convinced that there just HAD to be a conspiracy. But there wasn't any conspiracy theory that had any credible evidence to support it. All there seemed to be was conjecture and innuendo. One book would claim that LBJ was behind the assassination, another book would claim JEH was the mastermind, and so on. I learned way more than I wanted to know about LBJ, JEH, the oil tycoons, etc. But no credible evidence that would support any of the theories. I was left with a big question mark asking which conspiracy theory was the right one. One day I decided to start fresh with an open mind. I decided that learning more about the evidence that the official investigation turned up was a good starting point. Because all I had learned about the evidence from all the conspiracy books was biased against the official investigation's findings and tried to discredit them. A look at the other side of the controversy (with an open mind) seemed to be the next logical step in my pursuit to know more. So I read the official report and a few books from authors who supported it. What I found was that the preponderance of the evidence points directly at LHO. This was more than just the conjecture and innuendo that I was used to seeing. The preponderance of the evidence is actually overwhelming. The arguments that try to discredit the evidence no longer made sense, but I still try to look for any evidence of a conspiracy with an open mind. That is why I continue to show up here from time to time.
-
Many years ago I began pursuing my interest in the JFK assassination conspiracy theories by reading quite a few books by, you guessed it, conspiracy theorists. For a long time I was convinced that there just HAD to be a conspiracy. But there wasn't any conspiracy theory that had any credible evidence to support it. All there seemed to be was conjecture and innuendo. One book would claim that LBJ was behind the assassination, another book would claim JEH was the mastermind, and so on. I learned way more than I wanted to know about LBJ, JEH, the oil tycoons, etc. But no credible evidence that would support any of the theories. I was left with a big question mark asking which conspiracy theory was the right one. One day I decided to start fresh with an open mind. I decided that learning more about the evidence that the official investigation turned up was a good starting point. Because all I had learned about the evidence from all the conspiracy books was biased against the official investigation's findings and tried to discredit them. A look at the other side of the controversy (with an open mind) seemed to be the next logical step in my pursuit to know more. So I read the official report and a few books from authors who supported it. What I found was that the preponderance of the evidence points directly at LHO. This was more than just the conjecture and innuendo that I was used to seeing. The preponderance of the evidence is actually overwhelming. The arguments that try to discredit the evidence no longer made sense, but I still try to look for any evidence of a conspiracy with an open mind. That is why I continue to show up here from time to time.
Looking for a conspiracy 56 years since the event is fool hardly. No matter which forum/blog you read, today?s conspiracy arguments are no different than 50 years. There is NO new evidence as the case was solved in 1963. All conspiracy advocates do today is debate the same old theories. It never changes. Never will.
-
Looking for a conspiracy 56 years since the event is fool hardly. No matter which forum/blog you read, today?s conspiracy arguments are no different than 50 years. There is NO new evidence as the case was solved in 1963. All conspiracy advocates do today is debate the same old theories. It never changes. Never will.
You are right. However, I don?t think that I yet know everything about the assassination that I would like to know. And I really do want to have an open mind. This is a place where both sides of the controversy can be discussed. So here I am.
-
So I read the official report and a few books from authors who supported it. What I found was that the preponderance of the evidence points directly at LHO. This was more than just the conjecture and innuendo that I was used to seeing. The preponderance of the evidence is actually overwhelming.
That's interesting, because when I read the official report and a few books from authors who supported it, it became abundantly clear that,
a) the conclusions of the report aren't supported by the evidence in the hearings and exhibits
b) what little evidence there is that points to LHO is weak and circumstantial and all of it is questionable, arguable, impeachable, or tainted in some way
c) it's not only not "overwhelming", it doesn't even come close to a reasonable doubt standard
-
That's interesting, because when I read the official report and a few books from authors who supported it, it became abundantly clear that,
a) the conclusions of the report aren't supported by the evidence in the hearings and exhibits
b) what little evidence there is that points to LHO is weak and circumstantial and all of it is questionable, arguable, impeachable, or tainted in some way
c) it's not only not "overwhelming", it doesn't even come close to a reasonable doubt standard
You apparently don?t have an open mind. Nothing that I could say is likely to alter your closed and made up opinion. I respect your opinion but disagree.
-
You apparently don?t have an open mind. Nothing that I could say is likely to alter your closed and made up opinion. I respect your opinion but disagree.
Uh....you're the guy who is "convinced" here that you know what happened. I'm not. You don't even say what this "preponderance of evidence" is.
-
Uh....you're the guy who is "convinced" here that you know what happened. I'm not. You don't even say what this "preponderance of evidence" is.
The evidence is in the official report. You are the one who apparently believes that it is wrong. What evidence do you have to the contrary?
-
The evidence is in the official report. You are the one who apparently believes that it is wrong. What evidence do you have to the contrary?
What gave you the idea that I think the evidence is wrong? The evidence is the evidence. Which evidence in the official report convinces you of Oswald's guilt and why?
-
What gave you the idea that I think the evidence is wrong? The evidence is the evidence. Which evidence in the official report convinces you of Oswald's guilt and why?
Item b in your first response certainly indicates that you believe the evidence is wrong. Care to expound?
-
Item b in your first response certainly indicates that you believe the evidence is wrong. Care to expound?
Do you always answer a question with another question?
What does "evidence is wrong" even mean? Evidence doesn't have an opinion.
So you're not willing to say what evidence convinces you, just that you're convinced. Ok. I don't think that faith is a good way of determining what is true and what is not.
-
Do you always answer a question with another question?
What does "evidence is wrong" even mean? Evidence doesn't have an opinion.
So you're not willing to say what evidence convinces you, just that you're convinced. Ok. I don't think that faith is a good way of determining what is true and what is not.
Here is what I mean when I say that you think the evidence is wrong (your own words) :
b) what little evidence there is that points to LHO is weak and circumstantial and all of it is questionable, arguable, impeachable, or tainted in some way
So please quit beating around the bush and explain yourself.
-
Many years ago I began pursuing my interest in the JFK assassination conspiracy theories by reading quite a few books by, you guessed it, conspiracy theorists. For a long time I was convinced that there just HAD to be a conspiracy. But there wasn't any conspiracy theory that had any credible evidence to support it. All there seemed to be was conjecture and innuendo. One book would claim that LBJ was behind the assassination, another book would claim JEH was the mastermind, and so on. I learned way more than I wanted to know about LBJ, JEH, the oil tycoons, etc. But no credible evidence that would support any of the theories. I was left with a big question mark asking which conspiracy theory was the right one. One day I decided to start fresh with an open mind. I decided that learning more about the evidence that the official investigation turned up was a good starting point. Because all I had learned about the evidence from all the conspiracy books was biased against the official investigation's findings and tried to discredit them. A look at the other side of the controversy (with an open mind) seemed to be the next logical step in my pursuit to know more. So I read the official report and a few books from authors who supported it. What I found was that the preponderance of the evidence points directly at LHO. This was more than just the conjecture and innuendo that I was used to seeing. The preponderance of the evidence is actually overwhelming. The arguments that try to discredit the evidence no longer made sense, but I still try to look for any evidence of a conspiracy with an open mind. That is why I continue to show up here from time to time.
You're right, Mr Collins--we CTers don't know what happened that day. But neither do you. Your I-once-was-lost-but-now-I'm-found cognitive serenity (some would say smugness) is utterly misplaced. A bad theory that happens to be official and unchanging is no better than a bad theory that is unofficial and mutable. In key respects, it's actually worse because it puts its apologists into the position of lazy, bad-faith inflexibility and (at times) outright reality-denial.
The assassination of JFK remains a radically mysterious tragedy. Warren Gullibles are of use to the ongoing research effort only in the sense that the better ones are skilled at holding Warren Critics' feet to the fire. Other than that? You've all backed the wrong horse!
Thumb1:
-
Here is what I mean when I say that you think the evidence is wrong (your own words) :
b) what little evidence there is that points to LHO is weak and circumstantial and all of it is questionable, arguable, impeachable, or tainted in some way
So please quit beating around the bush and explain yourself.
As far as I can tell, the only direct evidence that Oswald was in the 6th floor TSBD window at 12:30 with a rifle was testimony from Howard Brennan who initially failed to identify him in a police lineup (even after seeing Oswald's picture on television). A guy who claimed to see a gunman in position for the head shot (which necessarily would be crouching behind boxes) "from the belt up", and who gave a description that was the wrong weight, wrong age, wrong height, and wrong clothing description for it to be Oswald.
Circumstantial evidence
1. Frazier saw Oswald carrying a bag that was too short to have contained the alleged murder weapon, and a bag that Frazier said was not the same bag was allegedly found near the window the shots were allegedly fired from, but doesn't appear in any crime scene photographs.
2. The bag that was allegedly found (and showed no evidence of ever having contained a rifle) supposedly had two prints on it belonging to Oswald, but the testing process destroyed the prints.
3. Backyard photos exist that were allegedly taken 8 months earlier showing Oswald holding a rifle that may or may not be the rifle found on the sixth floor.
4. Marina peered in the end of a rolled up and tied blanket in the Paine's garage about 6 weeks earlier and saw a portion of what she took to be a rifle.
5. Oswald left work after the assassination, which some would like to think was a "consciousness of guilt", even though other employees were either dismissed or told not to re-enter the building.
6. Unscientific and biased handwriting "analysis" of 2 block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy (from microfilm that is now "missing") of a 2-inch order blank concluded that the handwriting on a Klein's order blank ordering a similar but not identical rifle was that of Oswald's.
7. That order blank showed an address of a PO box that Oswald had access to, but there is no record of such a Klein's package being mailed, delivered, picked up, or signed for by Oswald or anyone else.
8. Fibers that may or may not have come from the shirt Oswald was arrested in were found in the butt of the rifle allegedly found on the 6th floor.
9. After the FBI found no identifiable prints on the rifle allegedly found on the 6th floor, an index card showed up a week later with a partial palmprint identified as Oswald's and claimed to have been lifted from the rifle on the night of the assassination, but not turned over to the FBI with the other evidence or even mentioned to the FBI agent who received the evidence.
10. Oswald's prints were found on book boxes on the sixth floor, which is not that remarkable considering his job was getting books out of boxes.
Your turn. What evidence convinces you?
-
You are correct that the preponderance of the evidence points to LHO being a patsy. Otherwise, all the evidence fits like a glove (not OJ's). The conspiracy being the concocted story that LHO was a lone nut assassin that just happened to get a job along the motorcade route a couple of weeks before Plan A in Chicago got scrubbed (see Thomas Arthur Vallee). All LNers are CTs (Coincidence Theorists) that scoff at all the evidence that suggests LHO was NOT a lone nut assassin.
The problem with you LNers is that the LN conspiracy hypothesis is untenable any way you slice it. It's the narrative of the conspirators that they want you shills to perpetuate. They rely on your gullibility, lack of critical thinking (or ethics) and lack of legal and logic skills, which is why John I destroys your arguments every time and drives the LNers insane. ;D
-
Thanks Jack. The list of LN excuses for inconsistent or contradictory evidence is both long and legendary.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,100.0.html (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,100.0.html)
-
The evidence is in the official report. You are the one who apparently believes that it is wrong. What evidence do you have to the contrary?
Charles, I?ve asked this question of the truthers for some 50 years. They NEVER answer. They can?t. Not one piece of hard, credible evidence for conspiracy exists. They don?t care. They each have their pet theory. The best arguments are between the kooks themselves. Yet, history should be debated, not argued. They cannot debate it. They have no evidence.
-
As far as I can tell, the only direct evidence that Oswald was in the 6th floor TSBD window at 12:30 with a rifle was testimony from Howard Brennan who initially failed to identify him in a police lineup (even after seeing Oswald's picture on television). A guy who claimed to see a gunman in position for the head shot (which necessarily would be crouching behind boxes) "from the belt up", and who gave a description that was the wrong weight, wrong age, wrong height, and wrong clothing description for it to be Oswald.
Circumstantial evidence
1. Frazier saw Oswald carrying a bag that was too short to have contained the alleged murder weapon, and a bag that Frazier said was not the same bag was allegedly found near the window the shots were allegedly fired from, but doesn't appear in any crime scene photographs.
2. The bag that was allegedly found (and showed no evidence of ever having contained a rifle) supposedly had two prints on it belonging to Oswald, but the testing process destroyed the prints.
3. Backyard photos exist that were allegedly taken 8 months earlier showing Oswald holding a rifle that may or may not be the rifle found on the sixth floor.
4. Marina peered in the end of a rolled up and tied blanket in the Paine's garage about 6 weeks earlier and saw a portion of what she took to be a rifle.
5. Oswald left work after the assassination, which some would like to think was a "consciousness of guilt", even though other employees were either dismissed or told not to re-enter the building.
6. Unscientific and biased handwriting "analysis" of 2 block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy (from microfilm that is now "missing") of a 2-inch order blank concluded that the handwriting on a Klein's order blank ordering a similar but not identical rifle was that of Oswald's.
7. That order blank showed an address of a PO box that Oswald had access to, but there is no record of such a Klein's package being mailed, delivered, picked up, or signed for by Oswald or anyone else.
8. Fibers that may or may not have come from the shirt Oswald was arrested in were found in the butt of the rifle allegedly found on the 6th floor.
9. After the FBI found no identifiable prints on the rifle allegedly found on the 6th floor, an index card showed up a week later with a partial palmprint identified as Oswald's and claimed to have been lifted from the rifle on the night of the assassination, but not turned over to the FBI with the other evidence or even mentioned to the FBI agent who received the evidence.
10. Oswald's prints were found on book boxes on the sixth floor, which is not that remarkable considering his job was getting books out of boxes.
Your turn. What evidence convinces you?
And here we go again!
-
Charles, I?ve asked this question of the truthers for some 50 years. They NEVER answer. They can?t. Not one piece of hard, credible evidence for conspiracy exists. They don?t care. They each have their pet theory. The best arguments are between the kooks themselves. Yet, history should be debated, not argued. They cannot debate it. They have no evidence.
As Martin Weidmann so aptly put it:
"All it takes not to see "hard credible" evidence is to dismiss whatever is being offered as not credible."
-
And here we go again!
Indeed. To be an Oswald-did-it-ite is to never be willing to examine the evidence. The attitude is, "the WC concluded it, I believe it, and that settles it. Prove me wrong or I win."
-
You're right, Mr Collins--we CTers don't know what happened that day. But neither do you. Your I-once-was-lost-but-now-I'm-found cognitive serenity (some would say smugness) is utterly misplaced. A bad theory that happens to be official and unchanging is no better than a bad theory that is unofficial and mutable. In key respects, it's actually worse because it puts its apologists into the position of lazy, bad-faith inflexibility and (at times) outright reality-denial.
The assassination of JFK remains a radically mysterious tragedy. Warren Gullibles are of use to the ongoing research effort only in the sense that the better ones are skilled at holding Warren Critics' feet to the fire. Other than that? You've all backed the wrong horse!
Thumb1:
Hi Alan, thanks for the compliments. Hope that makes as much sense to you as your post does to me.
-
You are correct that the preponderance of the evidence points to LHO being a patsy. Otherwise, all the evidence fits like a glove (not OJ's). The conspiracy being the concocted story that LHO was a lone nut assassin that just happened to get a job along the motorcade route a couple of weeks before Plan A in Chicago got scrubbed (see Thomas Arthur Vallee). All LNers are CTs (Coincidence Theorists) that scoff at all the evidence that suggests LHO was NOT a lone nut assassin.
The problem with you LNers is that the LN conspiracy hypothesis is untenable any way you slice it. It's the narrative of the conspirators that they want you shills to perpetuate. They rely on your gullibility, lack of critical thinking (or ethics) and lack of legal and logic skills, which is why John I destroys your arguments every time and drives the LNers insane. ;D
Hi Jack, thanks for the reply. Did you have anything of substance to say?
-
Thanks Jack. The list of LN excuses for inconsistent or contradictory evidence is both long and legendary.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,100.0.html (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,100.0.html)
People have been trying to poke holes in the evidence for well over 50-years. I haven't seen any convincing arguments or evidence to the contrary. Especially when considering both sides of the controversy with an open mind.
-
Charles, I?ve asked this question of the truthers for some 50 years. They NEVER answer. They can?t. Not one piece of hard, credible evidence for conspiracy exists. They don?t care. They each have their pet theory. The best arguments are between the kooks themselves. Yet, history should be debated, not argued. They cannot debate it. They have no evidence.
Agreed. However, this event will likely remain controversial forever.
-
Indeed. To be an Oswald-did-it-ite is to never be willing to examine the evidence. The attitude is, "the WC concluded it, I believe it, and that settles it. Prove me wrong or I win."
The WC concluded that Oswald probably did it
The HSCA concluded that Oswald likely did it.
JAQers/CTers conclude that AnyBodyButOswald did it.
CTers float all sorts of wacko theories and a 'prove-me-wrong' attitude
-
Agreed. However, this event will likely remain controversial forever.
Especially if these characters breed
Looks like Oswald got his wish to be a somebody and be remembered for 10,000 years
-
As far as I can tell, the only direct evidence that Oswald was in the 6th floor TSBD window at 12:30 with a rifle was testimony from Howard Brennan who initially failed to identify him in a police lineup (even after seeing Oswald's picture on television). A guy who claimed to see a gunman in position for the head shot (which necessarily would be crouching behind boxes) "from the belt up", and who gave a description that was the wrong weight, wrong age, wrong height, and wrong clothing description for it to be Oswald.
Circumstantial evidence
1. Frazier saw Oswald carrying a bag that was too short to have contained the alleged murder weapon, and a bag that Frazier said was not the same bag was allegedly found near the window the shots were allegedly fired from, but doesn't appear in any crime scene photographs.
2. The bag that was allegedly found (and showed no evidence of ever having contained a rifle) supposedly had two prints on it belonging to Oswald, but the testing process destroyed the prints.
3. Backyard photos exist that were allegedly taken 8 months earlier showing Oswald holding a rifle that may or may not be the rifle found on the sixth floor.
4. Marina peered in the end of a rolled up and tied blanket in the Paine's garage about 6 weeks earlier and saw a portion of what she took to be a rifle.
5. Oswald left work after the assassination, which some would like to think was a "consciousness of guilt", even though other employees were either dismissed or told not to re-enter the building.
6. Unscientific and biased handwriting "analysis" of 2 block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy (from microfilm that is now "missing") of a 2-inch order blank concluded that the handwriting on a Klein's order blank ordering a similar but not identical rifle was that of Oswald's.
7. That order blank showed an address of a PO box that Oswald had access to, but there is no record of such a Klein's package being mailed, delivered, picked up, or signed for by Oswald or anyone else.
8. Fibers that may or may not have come from the shirt Oswald was arrested in were found in the butt of the rifle allegedly found on the 6th floor.
9. After the FBI found no identifiable prints on the rifle allegedly found on the 6th floor, an index card showed up a week later with a partial palmprint identified as Oswald's and claimed to have been lifted from the rifle on the night of the assassination, but not turned over to the FBI with the other evidence or even mentioned to the FBI agent who received the evidence.
10. Oswald's prints were found on book boxes on the sixth floor, which is not that remarkable considering his job was getting books out of boxes.
Your turn. What evidence convinces you?
I have seen all those arguments before. Even together they do not carry enough weight to convince me that the corresponding evidence isn't valid.
-
Charles, I?ve asked this question of the truthers for some 50 years. They NEVER answer. They can?t. Not one piece of hard, credible evidence for conspiracy exists. They don?t care. They each have their pet theory. The best arguments are between the kooks themselves. Yet, history should be debated, not argued. They cannot debate it. They have no evidence.
I've asked several times for someone to prove that anyone else but the shooter (including their shooter) knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day.
None so far. Too soon I guess.
-
I have seen all those arguments before. Even together they do not carry enough weight to convince me that the corresponding evidence isn't valid.
So you're not going to bother specifying what evidence convinces you that Oswald did it and why. That's what I figured. You're just convinced.
-
I've asked several times for someone to prove that anyone else but the shooter (including their shooter) knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day.
None so far. Too soon I guess.
...which is equal to the number of times you've justified your position that Oswald probably did it.
On the other hand, there is some evidence of foreknowledge of the assassination via Rose Cherami, Joseph Milteer, Eugene Dinkin, Homer Echevarria, and Richard Case Nagell.
-
People have been trying to poke holes in the evidence for well over 50-years. I haven't seen any convincing arguments or evidence to the contrary. Especially when considering both sides of the controversy with an open mind.
Poke holes in what evidence? You seem to think that unless we can prove Oswald's innocence, the default position is that he was a lone nut. Sorry but critical thinking has no default position and the onus is on you to prove he was a lone nut and not a patsy. Instead you LNers resort to pseudo-skepticism, because your so called evidence does not rise to the level of proof and your arguments are not logically sound. More holes than swiss cheese.
-
Hi Alan, thanks for the compliments. Hope that makes as much sense to you as your post does to me.
:D
Here's a dumbed-down version for you, Mr Collins:
Stop boasting about your gullibility! Thumb1:
-
So you're not going to bother specifying what evidence convinces you that Oswald did it and why. That's what I figured. You're just convinced.
The preponderance of the evidence points to Mr Collins' not wishing to get drawn into awkwardly detailed discussion about the case. It would only expose the double standard of 'credibility' he applies to evidence!
-
So you're not going to bother specifying what evidence convinces you that Oswald did it and why. That's what I figured. You're just convinced.
I believe that the official report does a good job of specifying the evidence and explaining the conclusions. I started the discussion to express the process that I went through to get to this point. I hope that the discussion might at least help start someone else to take a minute to consider their own process and how they got to the point where they are. Approaching the controversy with an open mind and honestly and fairly considering it from both sides brought me to this point.
I see no reason to engage you in your quest to discredit each piece of evidence. That has been tried countless times over the years and I really don?t feel a need to repeat. I know that you believe that you have invalidated the evidence. We just disagree.
-
Especially if these characters breed
Looks like Oswald got his wish to be a somebody and be remembered for 10,000 years
Except for a few LNer mouthbreathers, LHO will be remembered by everyone as a patsy. But I doubt that was his wish.
-
I believe that the official report does a good job of specifying the evidence and explaining the conclusions. I started the discussion to express the process that I went through to get to this point. I hope that the discussion might at least help start someone else to take a minute to consider their own process and how they got to the point where they are. Approaching the controversy with an open mind and honestly and fairly considering it from both sides brought me to this point.
I see no reason to engage you in your quest to discredit each piece of evidence. That has been tried countless times over the years and I really don?t feel a need to repeat. I know that you believe that you have invalidated the evidence. We just disagree.
By the official report, do you mean the WC report? HA! What about the HSCA report?
-
I believe that the official report does a good job of specifying the evidence and explaining the conclusions. I started the discussion to express the process that I went through to get to this point. I hope that the discussion might at least help start someone else to take a minute to consider their own process and how they got to the point where they are. Approaching the controversy with an open mind and honestly and fairly considering it from both sides brought me to this point.
I see no reason to engage you in your quest to discredit each piece of evidence. That has been tried countless times over the years and I really don?t feel a need to repeat. I know that you believe that you have invalidated the evidence. We just disagree.
I see no reason to engage you in your quest to discredit each piece of evidence.
With such unwillingness to discuss the evidence, what exactly was the purpose of you joining this forum?
-
I believe that the official report does a good job of specifying the evidence and explaining the conclusions. I started the discussion to express the process that I went through to get to this point. I hope that the discussion might at least help start someone else to take a minute to consider their own process and how they got to the point where they are. Approaching the controversy with an open mind and honestly and fairly considering it from both sides brought me to this point.
Smug much?
-
Poke holes in what evidence? You seem to think that unless we can prove Oswald's innocence, the default position is that he was a lone nut. Sorry but critical thinking has no default position and the onus is on you to prove he was a lone nut and not a patsy. Instead you LNers resort to pseudo-skepticism, because your so called evidence does not rise to the level of proof and your arguments are not logically sound. More holes than swiss cheese.
What I am saying is that unless one approaches the controversy with a truly open mind, one is cheating himself out of an honest opinion. If you truly believe that you have not cheated yourself in this way, then I respect your opinion. I hope that makes sense to you.
-
By the official report, do you mean the WC report? HA! What about the HSCA report?
HSCA reached the same conclusion as the WR. Oswald was the shooter. They did speak of a ?probable? conspiracy which they, not unlike the conspiracy movement of the past 56 years could not prove. Nor will you ever. So, where does this leave you?
-
What I am saying is that unless one approaches the controversy with a truly open mind, one is cheating himself out of an honest opinion. If you truly believe that you have not cheated yourself in this way, then I respect your opinion. I hope that makes sense to you.
Approaching the controversy with a truly open mind does not mean following your gut. Every single piece of evidence supports that Oswald was a patsy. Only the WC concluded he was a lone nut. I wonder why?
-
What I am saying is that unless one approaches the controversy with a truly open mind, one is cheating himself out of an honest opinion. If you truly believe that you have not cheated yourself in this way, then I respect your opinion. I hope that makes sense to you.
unless one approaches the controversy with a truly open mind, one is cheating himself out of an honest opinion. If you truly believe that you have not cheated yourself in this way, then I respect your opinion.
Actually, you have no respect for any opinion that differs from yours as you assume to begin with that people with a different opinion have in fact cheated themselves because they have not approached the case "with a truly open mind".
This, and your blatant unwillingness to even discuss and/or defend the evidence, ensures that you come across as a pretty arrogant person who believes he already has all the right answers and anybody who disagrees with you is wrong. It's pathetic!
-
By the official report, do you mean the WC report? HA! What about the HSCA report?
What about it? You tell me.
-
HSCA reached the same conclusion as the WR. Oswald was the shooter. They did speak of a ?probable? conspiracy which they, not unlike the conspiracy movement of the past 56 years could not prove. Nor will you ever. So, where does this leave you?
The mere fact that a conspiracy can't be proven, doesn't mean there wasn't one. It even could have been one involving Oswald. What makes it so important to you that Oswald is seen (and portrayed in history) as the lone gunman?
-
unless one approaches the controversy with a truly open mind, one is cheating himself out of an honest opinion. If you truly believe that you have not cheated yourself in this way, then I respect your opinion.
Actually, you have no respect for any opinion that differs from yours as you assume to begin with that people with a different opinion have in fact cheated themselves because they have not approached the case "with a truly open mind".
This, and your blatant unwillingness to even discuss and/or defend the evidence, ensures that you come across as a pretty arrongant person who believes he already has all the right answers and anybody who disagrees with you is wrong. It's pathetic!
That is NOT what I said.
-
The mere fact that a conspiracy can't be proven, doesn't mean there wasn't one. It even could have been one involving Oswald. What makes it so important to you that Oswald is seen (and portrayed in history) as the lone gunman?
I don?t disagree. I?ve said often a conspiracy cannot be ruled out with 100% certainly. Nor, can the FACT Oswald was the shooter. There is a very small chance a conspiracy occurred, hence the difficulty in proving one. Same for Oswald. Every piece of evidence points to Oswald pulling the trigger. NO patsy proof exists. Yet you people still suck it up.
-
That is NOT what I said.
True, but that's how it comes across
-
I see no reason to engage you in your quest to discredit each piece of evidence.
With such unwillingness to discuss the evidence, what exactly was the purpose of you joining this forum?
I joined many years ago to learn more about the assassination. And I have and hope to learn more. I simply don?t believe that repeating the same old arguments that I have seen many times is going to accomplish that.
-
True, but that's how it comes across
If that is the case, then it is unintentional.
-
I don?t disagree. I?ve said often a conspiracy cannot be ruled out with 100% certainly. Nor, can the FACT Oswald was the shooter. There is a very small chance a conspiracy occurred, hence the difficulty in proving one. Same for Oswald. Every piece of evidence points to Oswald pulling the trigger. NO patsy proof exists. Yet you people still suck it up.
NO patsy proof exists. Yet you people still suck it up.
And that's where you go wrong at least as far as I am concerned (I don't really know who "you people" are). I don't care about Oswald either way. The man has been dead for 5 decades and I have always left open the possibility that he was indeed the lone gunman. The problem is that the "evidence" presented by the WC is too weak and way too speculative to prove that. Show me evidence, without speculation and assumptions, that Oswald did it and he acted alone and I will gladly accept that, but don't ask to to so on pure faith just because some Commission said so and another one basically agreed with it. There is too much politics involved in the findings of those entities.
Every piece of evidence points to Oswald pulling the trigger.
That's a bold statement. Where can I find that evidence?
-
I joined many years ago to learn more about the assassination. And I have and hope to learn more. I simply don?t believe that repeating the same old arguments that I have seen many times is going to accomplish that.
Charles, quite candidly, there is nothing more to learn. NARA has released 99% of the files and if you believe you can learn learn one damn thing from a CT, you?re dreaming. What you will learn is the Truthers will only continue discussing the same BS day after day. Year after year. Very few have even read the WR. They?re here seeking confirmation bias and little else. Good luck.
-
HSCA reached the same conclusion as the WR. Oswald was the shooter. They did speak of a ?probable? conspiracy which they, not unlike the conspiracy movement of the past 56 years could not prove. Nor will you ever. So, where does this leave you?
No, the HSCA couldn't rule out Oswald as the shooter. However, they did think it was unlikely he was a lone nut, which is what you guys insist on without a scintilla of evidence to support the LN hypothesis. How can you be so sure that he wasn't a patsy that took a few token shots? FACT is, there is no evidence that he even took a shot, let alone that he was a LN assassin.
-
NO patsy proof exists. Yet you people still suck it up.
And that's where you go wrong at least as far as I am concerned (I don't really know who "you people" are). I don't care about Oswald either way. The man has been dead for 5 decades and I have always left open the possibility that he was indeed the lone gunman. The problem is that the "evidence" presented by the WC is too weak and way too speculative to prove that. Show me evidence, without speculation and assumptions, that Oswald did it and he acted alone and I will gladly accept that, but don't ask to to so on pure faith just because some Commission said so and another one basically agreed with it. There is too much politics involved in the findings of those entities.
Every piece of evidence points to Oswald pulling the trigger.
That's a bold statement. Where can I find that evidence?
The case against Oswald is an overwhelmingly circumstantial case, which the majority of murder cases are. The sheer preponderance of evidence cinches the shooter case. You?ll find ALL the evidence in the WR and/or HSCA final report. Have you read either?
-
I joined many years ago to learn more about the assassination. And I have and hope to learn more. I simply don?t believe that repeating the same old arguments that I have seen many times is going to accomplish that.
I simply don?t believe that repeating the same old arguments that I have seen many times is going to accomplish that.
There are new members all the time. I have learned from remarks made by LNs during discussions covering old ground, which is why I prefer to keep the debate going. You, on the other hand, seem to stay here merely to put forward your opinion without being willing to defend or explain it. Kinda defeats the purpose for being here, unless of course you are really a mere propagandist.
-
No, the HSCA couldn't rule out Oswald as the shooter. However, they did think it was unlikely he was a lone nut, which is what you guys insist on without a scintilla of evidence to support the LN hypothesis. How can you be so sure that he wasn't a patsy that took a few token shots? FACT is, there is no evidence that he even took a shot, let alone that he was a LN assassin.
The HSCA stated a probable conspiracy which they could not prove. Their statement. They agreed Oswald was the shooter. A few token shots??? If you have hard, credible evidence of another shooter, I?m all ears. Post it.
-
The case against Oswald is an overwhelmingly circumstantial case, which the majority of murder cases are. The sheer preponderance of evidence cinches the shooter case. You?ll find ALL the evidence in the WR and/or HSCA final report. Have you read either?
Have you read either?
Yes. Reading the WC report got me interested in this case, because it didn't make sense......
Circumstantial cases are the weakest kind. They rely on assumptions which may or may not be correct. You claim there is a preponderance of evidence which confirms Oswald was the killer of JFK, when in truth there really is only a rifle which can only be tied tentatively to Oswald by a photo-copy of a handwritten order form and money order (taken from a now lost microfilm) and a handwritten serial number on a Klein's document. Everything else is basically assumption. I find that rather unconvincing.
-
The HSCA stated a probable conspiracy which they could not prove. Their statement. They agreed Oswald was the shooter. A few token shots??? If you have hard, credible evidence of another shooter, I?m all ears. Post it.
How would hard, credible evidence of another shooter, if it even existed, prove that Oswald wasn't a shooter also?
Since when is "Oswald did it alone" the default?
-
Have you read either?
Yes. Reading the WC report got me interested in this case, because it didn't make sense......
Circumstantial cases are the weakest kind. They rely on assumptions which may or may not be correct. You claim there is a preponderance of evidence which confirms Oswald was the killer of JFK, when in truth there really is only a rifle which can only be tied tentatively to Oswald by a photo-copy of a handwritten order form and money order (taken from a now lost microfilm) and a handwritten serial number on a Klein's document. Everything else is basically assumption. I find that rather unconvincing.
WRONG. Totally ignorant to case law. Circumstantial case evidence is stronger than a direct evidence case because it contains no bias. It relies on science, medicine and ballistic evidence typically. You simply make crap up seeking confirmation bias. So typical. So embarrassing.
-
The HSCA stated a probable conspiracy which they could not prove. Their statement. They agreed Oswald was the shooter. A few token shots??? If you have hard, credible evidence of another shooter, I?m all ears. Post it.
There is more evidence that Oswald was not the shooter than there is evidence that he was. And even if he was the shooter why does he have to be a lone nut? Because you say so? HA!
List all the evidence proving why it is a FACT that Oswald was a lone nut shooter. Good luck.
-
WRONG. Totally ignorant to case law. Circumstantial case evidence is stronger than a direct evidence case because it contains no bias. It relies on science, medicine and ballistic evidence typically. You simply make crap up seeking confirmation bias. So typical. So embarrassing.
First of all, who is talking about case law?
Secondly, circumstantial evidence shouldn't contain bias.... the problem is that the WC version is a prosecutorial case which by nature is biased. Look for a particular result and a circumstantial case will get you there.
It relies on science, medicine and ballistic evidence typically.
Okay, I'll bite... what science, medicine and ballistic evidence ties Oswald to the rifle found at the TSBD?
-
First of all, who is talking about case law?
Secondly, circumstantial evidence shouldn't contain bias.... the problem is that the WC version is a prosecutorial case which by nature is biased. Look for a particular result and a circumstantial case will get you there.
It relies on science, medicine and ballistic evidence typically.
Okay, I'll bite... what science, medicine and ballistic evidence ties Oswald to the rifle found at the TSBD?
Alas, you?ve not read the WR or the HSCA final report. I won?t be drawn into the same effen debate as in the past 56 years. How many times must YOU PEOPLE be told something? You need to be relevant here? Support your argument with EVIDENCE of conspiracy. Disagreeing with the official findings caries that burden of responsibility. You can?t even prove an alternative to the SBT. 56 years and your side has nothing. YOU personally do not know anything about this case outside of all the conspiracy crap you eat up. Good luck with that.
-
Alas, you?ve not read the WR or the HSCA final report. I won?t be drawn into the same effen debate as in the past 56 years. How many times must YOU PEOPLE be told something? You need to be relevant here? Support your argument with EVIDENCE of conspiracy. Disagreeing with the official findings caries that burden of responsibility. You can?t even prove an alternative to the SBT. 56 years and your side has nothing. YOU personally do not know anything about this case outside of all the conspiracy crap you eat up. Good luck with that.
Alas, you?ve not read the WR or the HSCA final report. I won?t be drawn into the same effen debate as in the past 56 years.
Coward
How many times must YOU PEOPLE be told something?
"told".. you must be joking?. Shown, that's a different matter, but it seems you come up short in that department
You need to be relevant here? Support your argument with EVIDENCE of conspiracy
Here we go... Paulie is upset. Rather that argue his case, he goes back to the default "Oswald did it alone unless you can prove a conspiracy" crap. Pathetic!
Disagreeing with the official findings caries that burden of responsibility.
No it doesn't! Sorry to burst your bubble, but it isn't automatically so that what the Government tells you is the truth unless you can prove them wrong. I know this crushes your little world, but there have been enough examples by now of the Government lying to the people and the only ones who don't see that are zealots like you!
You can?t even prove an alternative to the SBT.
No need? you can't even prove the SBT in the first place. It's all theory?..
56 years and your side has nothing.
So, now it's "us against them"? Pathetic?. there is no "your side"... I asked you to show me and you failed. That's all there is!
YOU personally do not know anything about this case outside of all the conspiracy crap you eat up. Good luck with that.
And finally an ad hominem attack on the level of a 12 year old... the weakest form of defense?. Paulie thinks he knows it all but just can't defend or explain it...
-
Alas, you?ve not read the WR or the HSCA final report. I won?t be drawn into the same effen debate as in the past 56 years.
Coward
How many times must YOU PEOPLE be told something?
"told".. you must be joking?. Shown, that's a different matter, but it seems you come up short in that department
You need to be relevant here? Support your argument with EVIDENCE of conspiracy
Here we go... Paulie is upset. Rather that argue his case, he goes back to the default "Oswald did it alone unless you can prove a conspiracy" crap. Pathetic!
Disagreeing with the official findings caries that burden of responsibility.
No it doesn't! Sorry to burst your bubble, but it isn't automatically so that what the Government tells you is the truth unless you can prove them wrong. I know this crushes your little world, but there have been enough examples by now of the Government lying to the people and the only ones who don't see that are zealots like you!
You can?t even prove an alternative to the SBT.
No need? you can't even prove the SBT in the first place. It's all theory?..
56 years and your side has nothing.
So, now it's "us against them"? Pathetic?. there is no "your side"... I asked you to show me and you failed. That's all there is!
YOU personally do not know anything about this case outside of all the conspiracy crap you eat up. Good luck with that.
And finally an ad hominem attack on the level of a 12 year old... the weakest form of defense?. Paulie thinks he knows it all but just can't defend or explain it...
Here we go... Paulie is upset. Rather that argue his case, he goes back to the default "Oswald did it alone unless you can prove a conspiracy" crap. Pathetic!
Argue my case? This is how ignorant and uneducated you are. History is never argued, its debated. To debate, one needs facts and you don?t know the case so, you have no facts. Help society, get an education. You?re embarrassing ?your side?.
-
Charles, quite candidly, there is nothing more to learn. NARA has released 99% of the files and if you believe you can learn learn one damn thing from a CT, you?re dreaming. What you will learn is the Truthers will only continue discussing the same BS day after day. Year after year. Very few have even read the WR. They?re here seeking confirmation bias and little else. Good luck.
I appreciate your comments Paul. I keep hoping that something new will be uncovered but know that it is unlikely. My first post here involved looking for evidence of the timing of the shot that the WC never defined the timing of. I have explored many avenues and learned a lot. I don?t claim to be an expert, don?t have all the details memorized, but I do believe that I have looked at this with an open mind. And that is the point that I wish to make.
-
Here we go... Paulie is upset. Rather that argue his case, he goes back to the default "Oswald did it alone unless you can prove a conspiracy" crap. Pathetic!
Argue my case? This is how ignorant and uneducated you are. History is never argued, its debated. To debate, one needs facts and you don?t know the case so, you have no facts. Help society, get an education. You?re embarrassing ?your side?.
More hot air from a "Oswald did it alone" shill. Another "I'm the greatest and know all" crappy post.
Paulie will go on and on with this kind of crap, but what he will never do is support anything he says with actual evidence. So much for Paulie?..
-
I appreciate your comments Paul. I keep hoping that something new will be uncovered but know that it is unlikely. My first post here involved looking for evidence of the timing of the shot that the WC never defined the timing of. I have explored many avenues and learned a lot. I don?t claim to be an expert, don?t have all the details memorized, but I do believe that I have looked at this with an open mind. And that is the point that I wish to make.
And that is the point that I wish to make.
Well, you've made it now. So, was this your last post?
-
And that is the point that I wish to make.
Well, you've made it now. So, was this your last post?
Typical arrogant Weidmann response Charles. Ignore him as many do. 3rd grade was the best 4 years of his life.
-
Typical arrogant Weidmann response Charles. Ignore him as many do. 3rd grade was the best 4 years of his life.
Oh boy, did I get on your nerves, Paulie? :D
-
And that is the point that I wish to make.
Well, you've made it now. So, was this your last post?
I hope not.
-
Oh boy, did I get on your nerves, Paulie? :D
Hardly. Intelligent people get on my nerves because they should know better. Hardly the case with respect to you.
-
Hardly. Intelligent people get on my nerves because they should know better. Hardly the case with respect to you.
Ah, the "I am the superior intelligent creature" claim.... but sadly not intelligent enough to understand how stupid and childish it actually is....
-
I hope not.
Why not? What would be the purpose of staying here?
You think you have all the answers and don't want to discuss the evidence or the case... Are you just looking for something to kill time?
-
I appreciate your comments Paul. I keep hoping that something new will be uncovered but know that it is unlikely. My first post here involved looking for evidence of the timing of the shot that the WC never defined the timing of. I have explored many avenues and learned a lot. I don?t claim to be an expert, don?t have all the details memorized, but I do believe that I have looked at this with an open mind. And that is the point that I wish to make.
Let's get this straight, you don't think anything new will come out to change your default position that the WC report is spot on and also that if you truly have an open mind then you are obligated to accept that Oswald was a lone nut assassin and not a patsy...because American Nazi and Architect of the Big Event, Allen freakin' Dulles sez so.
Okey dokey, point made. But you didn't need to start a new topic just to lecture the CTs that they aren't open minded like Paul May whose mind is so open his brains fell out.
-
Especially if these characters breed
Looks like Oswald got his wish to be a somebody and be remembered for 10,000 years
As there are more that believe a conspiracy was behind JFK's death than not.....you are probably right! Another theory of yours? CT's are able to breed.....wow.....who would have thought. Then again you are the lone nut guys....must be difficult.
You think that CTs determined that Oswald would be remembered? Like Booth, or Pilate or Cassius and Brutus?
-
Let's get this straight, you don't think anything new will come out to change your default position that the WC report is spot on and also that if you truly have an open mind then you are obligated to accept that Oswald was a lone nut assassin and not a patsy...because American Nazi and Architect of the Big Event, Allen freakin' Dulles sez so.
Okey dokey, point made. But you didn't need to start a new topic just to lecture the CTs that they aren't open minded like Paul May whose mind is so open his brains fell out.
I am encouraging people to make up their own minds. Nowhere did I say anything about being obligated to one side or the other. Just pointing out that an open mind can help.
-
Why not? What would be the purpose of staying here?
You think you have all the answers and don't want to discuss the evidence or the case... Are you just looking for something to kill time?
Nowhere did I say that I think I have all the answers. I said I hope to continue to learn more. I just don?t believe that arguing the same things over and over again is likely to teach anyone anything new.
-
Nowhere did I say that I think I have all the answers. I said I hope to continue to learn more. I just don?t believe that arguing the same things over and over again is likely to teach anyone anything new.
I just don?t believe that arguing the same things over and over again is likely to teach anyone anything new.
From experience, I can tell you that you are wrong to believe that. I have discussed the same topic(s) several times and have frequently come across some information related to that topic that I had not seen or heard before.
-
I just don?t believe that arguing the same things over and over again is likely to teach anyone anything new.
From experience, I can tell you that you are wrong to believe that. I have discussed the same topic(s) several times and have frequently come across some information related to that topic that I had not seen or heard before.
Yes, that is a possibility of course. Thanks for correcting me.
-
LN True Believers never want to get ?drawn in? to discussing the evidence, because their conclusions aren?t based on the evidence.
-
As there are more that believe a conspiracy was behind JFK's death than not.....you are probably right! Another theory of yours? CT's are able to breed.....wow.....who would have thought. Then again you are the lone nut guys....must be difficult.
You think that CTs determined that Oswald would be remembered? Like Booth, or Pilate or Cassius and Brutus?
Oswald himself determined that he would be remembered
CTer-breeding produces little CT zombies
@John: Talk about 'true believers', huh
Like Atheist-breeding begets little Atheist zombies
-
Oswald himself determined that he would be remembered
CTer-breeding produces little CT zombies
@John: Talk about 'true believers', huh
Like Atheist-breeding begets little Atheist zombies
Jack Ruby determined that Oswald wouldn?t enjoy the attention.
-
LN True Believers never want to get ?drawn in? to discussing the evidence, because their conclusions aren?t based on the evidence.
I sure hope the Reptilians don't have a taste for us poor Lemmings
-
Oswald himself determined that he would be remembered
CTer-breeding produces little CT zombies
@John: Talk about 'true believers', huh
Like Atheist-breeding begets little Atheist zombies
I sure hope the Reptilians don't have a taste for us poor Lemmings
Is there anyone out there who can translate Chapman?s incoherent ramblings into English?
-
Jack Ruby determined that Oswald wouldn?t enjoy the attention.
Good one.
And Ruby should be celebrated by conspiracy-mongers everywhere for giving them something to live all these 56yrs
-
Some people are more reasonable than others. And some cannot be reasoned with about much of anything. Anyway, I thought that a definition of a reasonable person from the dictionary might be helpful.
rea?son?a?ble
/ˈrēz(ə)nəb(ə)l/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
adjective: reasonable
1.
(of a person) having sound judgment; fair and sensible.
"no reasonable person could have objected"
synonyms: sensible, rational, open to reason, full of common sense, logical, fair, fair-minded, just, equitable, decent; More
intelligent, wise, levelheaded, practical, realistic;
based on good sense, sound, judicious, well thought out, well grounded, reasoned, well reasoned, valid, commonsensical, advisable, well advised;
tenable, plausible, feasible, credible, acceptable, admissible, believable, viable
"a reasonable man"
antonyms: unreasonable, illogical
-
Good one.
And Ruby should be celebrated by conspiracy-mongers everywhere for giving them something to live all these 56yrs
LHO was a habitual liar. He lied about things even when there was no reason to lie. So I am not sure that he would have cleared up much if he had survived.
-
LHO was a habitual liar. He lied about things even when there was no reason to lie. So I am not sure that he would have cleared up much if he had survived.
There's no reasonable argument that Lee Oswald did not lie....Nearly every human being does... And Lee was a trained espionage agent, whose very prerequisite is based on deception. However being a liar does not mean the person is a murderer.... And with regard to your statement that he had no reason to lie. You can't possible know whether Lee had good sound logical reason to lie about something. IMO the biggest liar of the case was J.C. Day, or Will Fritz....
I'm aware that many folks live in a fairy tale world where the good guys never lie and the bad guys are all liars.... Anybody who believes such nonsense should seek a psychiatrist .....
-
LHO was a habitual liar. He lied about things even when there was no reason to lie. So I am not sure that he would have cleared up much if he had survived.
LHO was a habitual liar. He lied about things even when there was no reason to lie.
Knew him well, did you?
If not, stop making claims about him you haven't got any possibility of knowing for certain!
-
LHO was a habitual liar. He lied about things even when there was no reason to lie.
Knew him well, did you?
If not, stop making claims about him you haven't got any possibility of knowing for certain!
Oh, so you think his name really was O.H. Lee? And that he didn?t lie to his landlady about his name?
-
Many years ago I began pursuing my interest in the JFK assassination conspiracy theories by reading quite a few books by, you guessed it, conspiracy theorists. For a long time I was convinced that there just HAD to be a conspiracy. But there wasn't any conspiracy theory that had any credible evidence to support it. All there seemed to be was conjecture and innuendo. One book would claim that LBJ was behind the assassination, another book would claim JEH was the mastermind, and so on. I learned way more than I wanted to know about LBJ, JEH, the oil tycoons, etc. But no credible evidence that would support any of the theories. I was left with a big question mark asking which conspiracy theory was the right one. One day I decided to start fresh with an open mind. I decided that learning more about the evidence that the official investigation turned up was a good starting point. Because all I had learned about the evidence from all the conspiracy books was biased against the official investigation's findings and tried to discredit them. A look at the other side of the controversy (with an open mind) seemed to be the next logical step in my pursuit to know more. So I read the official report and a few books from authors who supported it. What I found was that the preponderance of the evidence points directly at LHO. This was more than just the conjecture and innuendo that I was used to seeing. The preponderance of the evidence is actually overwhelming. The arguments that try to discredit the evidence no longer made sense, but I still try to look for any evidence of a conspiracy with an open mind. That is why I continue to show up here from time to time.
It's totally fine to speculate. There's tons of Smoke and weird circumstances surrounding the JFK assassination.
I've come around to concluding that Oswald could not have been framed. He either acted alone or was part of a Conspiracy.
-
It's totally fine to speculate. There's tons of Smoke and weird circumstances surrounding the JFK assassination.
I've come around to concluding that Oswald could not have been framed. He either acted alone or was part of a Conspiracy.
Yes, speculation is only speculation though.
-
c=1849.msg49285#msg49285 date=1554227825]
Oh, so you think his name really was O.H. Lee? And that he didn?t lie to his landlady about his name?
Oh, so you think his name really was O.H. Lee?
I hope you're sitting down because this will be shocking news to you.... Lee told Fritz right up front that he lived at a rooming hous at 1026 N. Beckley and he was registered there as O.H. Lee.... Fritz didn't learn that from "some officer out in the hall"....as he told the WC,... He learned that from Lee Oswald....
-
Oh, so you think his name really was O.H. Lee?
I hope you're sitting down because this will be shocking news to you.... Lee told Fritz right up front that he lived at a rooming hous at 1026 N. Beckley and he was registered there as O.H. Lee.... Fritz didn't learn that from "some officer out in the hall"....as he told the WC,... He learned that from Lee Oswald....
Perhaps you might should be laying down when I tell you that you just said Fritz was one of the biggest liars. And now you turn around and hang your hat on one of his statements. So which is it? Also, this indicates that LHO knew that he lied to the landlady (in writing btw). So it wasn?t a mistake like I have seen a few people try to argue.
-
Perhaps you might should be laying down when I tell you that you just said Fritz was one of the biggest liars. And now you turn around and hang your hat on one of his statements. So which is it? Also, this indicates that LHO knew that he lied to the landlady (in writing btw). So it wasn?t a mistake like I have seen a few people try to argue.
Fritz lied and said that he learned that the suspect lived at 1026 N. Beckley "from one of his officers out in the hall".... But the TRUTH is Lee Oswald told Fritz that he lived at 1026 N Beckley, and he was registered as OH Lee......
Lee went on to explain to Fritz, that Mrs Roberts the landlady registered him as OH Lee....
-
Fritz lied and said that he learned that the suspect lived at 1026 N. Beckley "from one of his officers out in the hall".... But the TRUTH is Lee Oswald told Fritz that he lived at 1026 N Beckley, and he was registered as OH Lee......
Lee went on to explain to Fritz, that Mrs Roberts the landlady registered him as OH Lee....
Oh, I see. Thanks for keeping me straight! That makes all the difference in the world.
-
Perhaps you might should be laying down when I tell you that you just said Fritz was one of the biggest liars. And now you turn around and hang your hat on one of his statements. So which is it? Also, this indicates that LHO knew that he lied to the landlady (in writing btw). So it wasn?t a mistake like I have seen a few people try to argue.
Fritz:
"One of the officers had told me that he had rented the room on Beckley under the name of O. F. Lee. I asked him why he did this. He said the landlady did it. She didn't understand his name correctly."
Do you have some evidence that he registered himself as "O. H. Lee"?
-
Fritz:
"One of the officers had told me that he had rented the room on Beckley under the name of O. F. Lee. I asked him why he did this. He said the landlady did it. She didn't understand his name correctly."
Do you have some evidence that he registered himself as "O. H. Lee"?
No the landlady obviously did it. Not the butler.
-
No the landlady obviously did it. Not the butler.
I'll take that as a "no".
-
I'll take that as a "no".
Mr Collins doesn't like evidence that is contrary to the fairy tale that he embraces......
It's obvious that it was NOT Lee Oswald who was prevaricating ....but it was Will Fritz who was lying.
-
I'll take that as a "no".
Mr. BALL. Did he tell you what his name was?
Mrs. JOHNSON. O.H. L-e-e [spelling].
Mr. BALL. Did he sign anything with that name?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir; I have it in my purse.
Mr. BALL. May I see it?
Mrs. JOHNSON. I will be glad to--I don't want you to keep it. I want you to--I brought it for your information. I knew you was going to ask that.
Mr. BALL. Now, is this in his handwriting?
Mrs. JOHNSON. This "O. H. Lee" is in his handwriting and this other is in the housekeeper's handwriting--Mrs. Roberts.
-
Oh, so you think his name really was O.H. Lee? And that he didn?t lie to his landlady about his name?
First of all, you don't know what I think, so stop assuming that you do. I'm supposed to be the one who jumps to conclusions, remember?
Secondly, you claimed LHO was a habitual liar. Even if he gave his name to his landlady as O.H. Lee, how in the world does that make him a habitual liar?
You are rushing to judgement based upon a single story that was told by Earlene Roberts who herself was described as (and I paraphrase) a known liar by her employer!
So much for looking at the evidence with an open mind!
-
You apparently don?t have an open mind. Nothing that I could say is likely to alter your closed and made up opinion. I respect your opinion but disagree.
LNers always say this because they have no supporting evidence. For if they did have it then it wouldn't matter if us CTers accepted it or not.
-
First of all, you don't know what I think, so stop assuming that you do. I'm supposed to be the one who jumps to conclusions, remember?
Secondly, you claimed LHO was a habitual liar. Even if he gave his name to his landlady as O.H. Lee, how in the world does that make him a habitual liar?
You are rushing to judgement based upon a single story that was told by Earlene Roberts who herself was described as (and I paraphrase) a known liar by her employer!
So much for looking at the evidence with an open mind!
You questioned my statement and I backed it up with credible evidence. Not only did he lie to the landlady, he lied to Fritz about his lie. You can choose to believe otherwise. I really don?t care.
-
Mr. BALL. Did he tell you what his name was?
Mrs. JOHNSON. O.H. L-e-e [spelling].
Mr. BALL. Did he sign anything with that name?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir; I have it in my purse.
Mr. BALL. May I see it?
Mrs. JOHNSON. I will be glad to--I don't want you to keep it. I want you to--I brought it for your information. I knew you was going to ask that.
Mr. BALL. Now, is this in his handwriting?
Mrs. JOHNSON. This "O. H. Lee" is in his handwriting and this other is in the housekeeper's handwriting--Mrs. Roberts.
There's no argument about the name by which Lee was registered at the rooming house..... We have a he said ...she said situation.... Neither you nor I can know exactly how Lee Oswald came to be registered as Mr O.H.Lee, at the rooming house but that's not the point.... You stated that Lee lied about how he came to be registered and boldly stayed that he was a liar. I've pointed out that Lee clearly told the police that he was registered as OH. Lee at the rooming house at 1026 N Beckley...
The police were questioning him and he told them the truth....Mrs Roberts was of no consequence at the time that he registered....And I'm sure you know that it's very common for folks to register under a alias when they check in at a motel, or hotel....
-
Mr. BALL. Did he tell you what his name was?
Mrs. JOHNSON. O.H. L-e-e [spelling].
Mr. BALL. Did he sign anything with that name?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir; I have it in my purse.
Mr. BALL. May I see it?
Mrs. JOHNSON. I will be glad to--I don't want you to keep it. I want you to--I brought it for your information. I knew you was going to ask that.
Mr. BALL. Now, is this in his handwriting?
Mrs. JOHNSON. This "O. H. Lee" is in his handwriting and this other is in the housekeeper's handwriting--Mrs. Roberts.
yeah.....no.
(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pages/WH_Vol20_0148b.gif)
- Does that look like any of the other purported handwriting of Oswald?
- This is supposed to be a "register"? It looks like somebody keeping track of rent payments.
- Why in the world would this be stamped "top secret"?
-
Preponderance of evidence is a civil court standard and not a criminal court standard.
-
The evidence is in the official report. You are the one who apparently believes that it is wrong. What evidence do you have to the contrary?
Each new LNer starts at square one. It is your burden to cite the evidence that supports the WC's claims since you support them.
-
yeah.....no.
(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pages/WH_Vol20_0148b.gif)
- Does that look like any of the other purported handwriting of Oswald?
- This is supposed to be a "register"? It looks like somebody keeping track of rent payments.
- Why in the world would this be stamped "top secret"?
Because they didn't want anybody scrutinizing the signature of OH Lee.... Because that is NOT Lee's handwriting.....
-
Mr. BALL. Did he tell you what his name was?
Mrs. JOHNSON. O.H. L-e-e [spelling].
Mr. BALL. Did he sign anything with that name?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir; I have it in my purse.
Mr. BALL. May I see it?
Mrs. JOHNSON. I will be glad to--I don't want you to keep it. I want you to--I brought it for your information. I knew you was going to ask that.
Mr. BALL. Now, is this in his handwriting?
Mrs. JOHNSON. This "O. H. Lee" is in his handwriting and this other is in the housekeeper's handwriting--Mrs. Roberts.
So the landlady (Mrs Johnson) didn't do it... it was the housekeeper, Earlene Roberts.
-
You're right, Mr Collins--we CTers don't know what happened that day. But neither do you. Your I-once-was-lost-but-now-I'm-found cognitive serenity (some would say smugness) is utterly misplaced. A bad theory that happens to be official and unchanging is no better than a bad theory that is unofficial and mutable. In key respects, it's actually worse because it puts its apologists into the position of lazy, bad-faith inflexibility and (at times) outright reality-denial.
The assassination of JFK remains a radically mysterious tragedy. Warren Gullibles are of use to the ongoing research effort only in the sense that the better ones are skilled at holding Warren Critics' feet to the fire. Other than that? You've all backed the wrong horse!
Thumb1:
Why are they unwilling to admit this?
-
You questioned my statement and I backed it up with credible evidence. Not only did he lie to the landlady, he lied to Fritz about his lie. You can choose to believe otherwise. I really don?t care.
I questioned your claim that Oswald was a habitual liar and you didn't back that up at all. The biggest liar is somebody who claims that he doesn't lie!
Telling a lie on a registration for a room is of course being dishonest, but you wouldn't believe the number of people who check into hotels or rooms under false names. Do they all become habitual liars to you?
And how about this one. You just lied about it being the landlady (Mrs Johnson) taking Oswald's registration, instead of Earlene Roberts who actually did.
Does that make you a habitual liar?
-
The WC concluded that Oswald probably did it
The HSCA concluded that Oswald likely did it.
JAQers/CTers conclude that AnyBodyButOswald did it.
CTers float all sorts of wacko theories and a 'prove-me-wrong' attitude
Probably and likely are good enough for you, but for a lot of people they aren't.
-
So you're not going to bother specifying what evidence convinces you that Oswald did it and why. That's what I figured. You're just convinced.
They never can.
-
I questioned your claim that Oswald was a habitual liar and you didn't back that up at all. The biggest liar is somebody who claims that he doesn't lie!
Telling a lie on a registration for a room is of course being dishonest, but you wouldn't believe the number of people who check into hotels or rooms under false names. Do they all become habitual liars to you?
And how about this one. You just lied about it being the landlady (Mrs Johnson) taking Oswald's registration, instead of Earlene Roberts who actually did.
Does that make you a habitual liar?
Sorry, I forgot that you have trouble understanding my posts. That was made tongue in cheek. You know, the cliche about a typical murder mystery movie or book. (The butler did it.) The entire post was meant to be sarcastic and a joke.
-
Sorry, I forgot that you have trouble understanding my posts. That was made tongue in cheek. You know, the cliche about a typical murder mystery movie or book. (The butler did it.) The entire post was meant to be sarcastic and a joke.
If that was a Joke.... Then you most certainly are not "The Joker"...... Don't give up your regular job as Urinal Cake Technician....
-
Sorry, I forgot that you have trouble understanding my posts. That was made tongue in cheek. You know, the cliche about a typical murder mystery movie or book. (The butler did it.) The entire post was meant to be sarcastic and a joke.
As if I didn't understand that. Stop being so damned patronizing as it doesn't become you.
So it wasn't a lie? Ok... but when Oswald lies about his name to the housekeeper of a roominghouse (if that's what he did) he, in your mind, automatically becomes a habitual liar, right?
-
If that was a Joke.... Then you most certainly are not "The Joker"...... Don't give up your regular job as Urinal Cake Technician....
I?ll never never be able to challenge you for the clown crown.
-
As if I didn't understand that. Stop being so damned patronizing as it doesn't become you.
So it wasn't a lie? Ok... but when Oswald lies about his name to the housekeeper of a roominghouse (if that's what he did) he, in your mind, automatically becomes a habitual liar, right?
If you say so....
-
Oh, so you think his name really was O.H. Lee? And that he didn?t lie to his landlady about his name?
There were 3 conspirators
1) A. Hidell (rhymes with Fidel) was in charge of armament procurement
2) O.H. Lee was in charge of safe-house procurement
3) Oswald (AKA as 'Dirty Harvey') was in charge of finally becoming a somebody
-
If you say so....
No, it was you who used the inflammatory word, clearly to make a point that you (what else is new) can not back up.
-
There were 3 conspirators
1) A. Hidell (rhymes with Fidel) was in charge of armament procurement
2) O.H. Lee was in charge of safe-house procurement
3) Oswald (AKA as 'Dirty Harvey') was in charge of finally being a somebody
Nowadays they can access a body with nano surgery robots you can swallow.
Let's hope no such robot will ever end up in your brain, or what's left of it, as it most likely will not survive such a rollercoaster ride!
-
There were 3 conspirators
1) A. Hidell (rhymes with Fidel) was in charge of armament procurement
2) O.H. Lee was in charge of safe-house procurement
3) Oswald (AKA as 'Dirty Harvey') was in charge of finally becoming a somebody
I LIKE it! ;)
-
No, it was you who used the inflammatory word, clearly to make a point that you (what else is new) can not back up.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/leeslies.htm (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/leeslies.htm)
knock yourself out...
-
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/leeslies.htm (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/leeslies.htm)
knock yourself out...
A propaganda site.... that's what you use as source?
-
A propaganda site.... that's what you use as source?
The references are there.
-
The references are there.
Ah, the classic LN appeal to authority! ?. and wow, you really have got something there?. propaganda wise, I mean!
MacMillan, Posner and the WCR.... classic LN ?. all that's missing is the high priest, Bugs!
-
Ah, the classic LN appeal to authority!
Marina and Lee... Right in there with Portrait of the Assassin, You are the Jury, and Reclaiming [the mess] (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
-
I LIKE it! ;)
Dirty Harry:
'Smith, Wesson.... and me'
Dirty Harvey:
Smith, Wesson... and Lee.
-
Ah, the classic LN appeal to authority! ?. and wow, you really have got something there?. propaganda wise, I mean!
MacMillan, Posner and the WCR.... classic LN ?. all that's missing is the high priest, Bugs!
It has been a while since I read a CT book. Are they kept in the fiction section of the library?
-
It has been a while since I read a CT book. Are they kept in the fiction section of the library?
I have no idea. I have never read a CT book in my life.
-
I have no idea. I have never read a CT book in my life.
Why not?
-
Ah, the classic LN appeal to authority! ?. and wow, you really have got something there?. propaganda wise, I mean!
Not only is it a propaganda site, but the article itself is laughable. It basically amounts to this:
"I believe that Oswald bought a revolver from Seaport Traders, therefore it was a lie when he said he bought one in Fort Worth."
"I believe that he wrote "O.H. Lee" on the so-called "register", therefore he lied about his name"
"He wrote his "diary" after the events described, so he was a liar" (even though he never claimed when he wrote the diary entries)
"I think he had a difficult childhood with his mother which he didn't tell Marina about, therefore he was a liar"
"Oswald told Bouhe he was 'doing fine', and I don't think he was really doing fine, therefore he was a liar"
"Oswald used people as references without their knowledge, so he was a liar" (even though that's not even a lie)
"He called himself a "Radio Speaker and Lecturer", "Street Agitator", and "Organizer", and I don't think that what he did qualifies as that, therefore he was a liar"
Why is it that LN-ers always pad their arguments with nonsense?
-
It has been a while since I read a CT book. Are they kept in the fiction section of the library?
No. Just the Warren Commission report, Reclaiming History and Case Closed, are there. Maybe you should try reading a CT book Charles. Oh wait, I don't think there is one with just pictures in it.
-
Why not?
Because I am interested in examining evidence and not opinions or theories, be they from the WC or from conspiracy writers.
-
Not only is it a propaganda site, but the article itself is laughable. It basically amounts to this:
"I believe that Oswald bought a revolver from Seaport Traders, therefore it was a lie when he said he bought one in Fort Worth."
"I believe that he wrote "O.H. Lee" on the so-called "register", therefore he lied about his name"
"He wrote his "diary" after the events described, so he was a liar" (even though he never claimed when he wrote the diary entries)
"I think he had a difficult childhood with his mother which he didn't tell Marina about, therefore he was a liar"
"Oswald told Bouhe he was 'doing fine', and I don't think he was really doing fine, therefore he was a liar"
"Oswald used people as references without their knowledge, so he was a liar" (even though that's not even a lie)
"He called himself a "Radio Speaker and Lecturer", "Street Agitator", and "Organizer", and I don't think that what he did qualifies as that, therefore he was a liar"
Why is it that LN-ers always pad their arguments with nonsense?
I believe that Oswald bought a revolver from Seaport Traders, therefore it was a lie when he said he bought one in Fort Worth."
You're CT-IOWing again.
Omitting information that affects outcomes is tantamount to lying.
And tell us where in Fort Worth Dirty Harvey bought a revolver.
Omitting that information strips investigators of the opportunity-to-confirm.
-
No. Just the Warren Commission report, Reclaiming History and Case Closed, are there. Maybe you should try reading a CT book Charles. Oh wait, I don't think there is one with just pictures in it.
Yeah, The CT Book of NoName Shooters & Conspirators.
Cut to the chase: Tell us which CT book names the names.
Dude, walk the walk.
Can't wait for the big reveal.
What, too soon?
-
Because I am interested in examining evidence and not opinions or theories, be they from the WC or from conspiracy writers.
Where are you finding all the evidence to examine?
-
No. Just the Warren Commission report, Reclaiming History and Case Closed, are there. Maybe you should try reading a CT book Charles. Oh wait, I don't think there is one with just pictures in it.
Apparently you didn?t read the first post in this thread very well. I am thinking that it might be about time to consider reading another one. Do you have a recommendation?
-
And tell us where in Fort Worth Dirty Harvey bought a revolver.
Omitting that information strips investigators of the opportunity-to-confirm.
Gee, maybe they should have asked him. Maybe they did ask him.
-
Where are you finding all the evidence to examine?
Why should I answer your questions when you refuse to answer mine?
-
Gee, maybe they should have asked him. Maybe they did ask him.
Yes....And I wonder if this ties to Ruby's panic when he learned that Lee Oswald had been taken alive at the theater? I don't recall who Ruby was talking to but he was very concerned about "them finding out about the guns and everything".... As I recall Ruby said:... "We are all going to prison now,...they're going to find out about the guns and everything"
I wonder if Ruby knew where that S&W revolver came from?.... I wonder if it was one of the throw down guns that he had received through a New Mexico PO box ...
-
I believe that Oswald bought a revolver from Seaport Traders, therefore it was a lie when he said he bought one in Fort Worth."
You're CT-IOWing again.
Omitting information that affects outcomes is tantamount to lying.
And tell us where in Fort Worth Dirty Harvey bought a revolver.
Omitting that information strips investigators of the opportunity-to-confirm.
Hey stupid, according to the reports Oswald told the interrogators he bought the revolver in Forth Worth, but it seems nobody was listening since they apparently didn't even bother to ask him where exactly.
On the other hand, because of a dry cleaning label they investigated hunderds of outlets in the greater Dallas and New Orleans areas. It seems the jacket was more important to them than the revolver.
-
Why should I answer your questions when you refuse to answer mine?
The questions you asked have been argued here and elsewhere so many times before. I indicated I didn?t want to go there again.
My question was trying to find out if there is a way to examine the evidence that I am unaware of.
-
The questions you asked have been argued here and elsewhere so many times before. I indicated I didn?t want to go there again.
My question was trying to find out if there is a way to examine the evidence that I am unaware of.
My question was trying to find out if there is a way to examine the evidence that I am unaware of.
That's easy. Have really an open mind, examine the actual evidence and ignore the spin from either side around it.
Try to determine what it really means or says without a predetermined mind set.
On this forum, by far the easiest way of getting to the true substance is play devil's advocate, challenge the evidence and learn how well defended the point is by those who rely upon it to make their (biast) case.
-
Hey stupid, according to the reports Oswald told the interrogators he bought the revolver in Forth Worth, but it seems nobody was listening since they apparently didn't even bother to ask him where exactly.
On the other hand, because of a dry cleaning label they investigated hunderds of outlets in the greater Dallas and New Orleans areas. It seems the jacket was more important to them than the revolver.
Cite your 'according-to' reports
Other 'according-to' reports have Oswald telling interrogators (regarding his job search in Dallas) that they are welcome to check out those locations in said job search. That sets a precedent in Oswald's willingness/unwillingness to volunteer information, true or otherwise.
Another 'according-to' reports that Oswald refused to enlighten interrogators as to the actual Fort Worth location purchase, IMS.
An innocent man in Oswald's position would more-than-likely show no little eagerness in giving complete information regarding the firearm considered instrumental in the Tippit murder.
http://www.maebrussell.com/Mae%20Brussell%20Articles/Last%20Words%20of%20Lee%20Oswald.html
-
Cite your 'according-to' reports
Other 'according-to' reports have Oswald telling interrogators (regarding his job search in Dallas) that they are welcome to check out those locations in said job search. That sets a precedent in Oswald's willingness/unwillingness to volunteer information, true or otherwise.
Another 'according-to' reports that Oswald refused to enlighten interrogators as to the actual Fort Worth location purchase, IMS.
An innocent man in Oswald's position would more-than-likely show no little eagerness in giving complete information regarding a firearm suspected of being used in a murder.
http://www.maebrussell.com/Mae%20Brussell%20Articles/Last%20Words%20of%20Lee%20Oswald.html
So, you rely on a website that is presenting a possible scenario of what Oswald could have said without actually knowing with any kind of certainty that these words were actually spoken by him. Sorry, not worth my time
Fritz reported that Oswald told him he bought his revolver in Fort Worth.
-
So, you rely on a website that is presenting a possible scenario of what Oswald could have said without actually knowing with any kind of certainty that these words were actually spoken by him. Sorry, not worth my time
Of course he's relying on that.
There's nothing in Fritz's report that says that Oswald refused to tell him where he purchased a revolver.
-
The questions you asked have been argued here and elsewhere so many times before. I indicated I didn?t want to go there again.
But don't you have to explain why you believe all the arguments lead to a preponderance of the evidence? Otherwise, who gives a rat's arse what your gut tells you?
My question was trying to find out if there is a way to examine the evidence that I am unaware of.
Like all LNers, your problem is you don't know how to evaluate evidence to reach a logical conclusion. Critical thinking is something you must learn before you debate or you wind up looking like Chapman the Clown who is bereft of critical thinking skills and toes the LNer party line with ad homs, obfuscation and denial. Is this the club you want to join?
Besides, CTs don't have to prove Oswald was innocent or a patsy. Like the WC, LNers have to provide conclusive evidence that Oswald was a lone nut assassin and not part of a conspiracy. You would think after 56 years at least 1 of you would have come up with something definitive by now. You LNers don't understand that Oswald wasn't a lone nut by default. Your circumstantial evidence doesn't even meet the legal criteria for proof let alone a logical proof. You have set the bar impossibly high for yourselves by insisting that Oswald was a lone nut killer and not a patsy. Too bad for you that every single piece of evidence in the JFK assassination fits a coup d'etat with Oswald as the designated patsy. It all fits together like a glove (not OJ's), the LNer hypothesis, not so much.
-
But don't you have to explain why you believe all the arguments lead to a preponderance of the evidence? Otherwise, who gives a rat's arse what your gut tells you?
Like all LNers, your problem is you don't know how to evaluate evidence to reach a logical conclusion. Critical thinking is something you must learn before you debate or you wind up looking like Chapman the Clown who is bereft of critical thinking skills and toes the LNer party line with ad homs, obfuscation and denial. Is this the club you want to join?
Besides, CTs don't have to prove Oswald was innocent or a patsy. Like the WC, LNers have to provide conclusive evidence that Oswald was a lone nut assassin and not part of a conspiracy. You would think after 56 years at least 1 of you would have come up with something definitive by now. You LNers don't understand that Oswald wasn't a lone nut by default. Your circumstantial evidence doesn't even meet the legal criteria for proof let alone a logical proof. You have set the bar impossibly high for yourselves by insisting that Oswald was a lone nut killer and not a patsy. Too bad for you that every single piece of evidence in the JFK assassination fits a coup d'etat with Oswald as the designated patsy. It all fits together like a glove (not OJ's), the LNer hypothesis, not so much.
You might want to look up the meaning of the word preponderance. Your not making sense.
And please let us know exactly what the legal criteria for proof is.
-
You might want to look up the meaning of the word preponderance. Your not making sense.
And please let us know exactly what the legal criteria for proof is.
If you pile one piece of crap onto another piece of crap, you will ultimately end up with a preponderance of crap.
-
If you pile one piece of crap onto another piece of crap, you will ultimately end up with a preponderance of crap.
How many pieces of crap did you have to examine to figure that one out? I know that you like to examine the actual evidence.
-
You might want to look up the meaning of the word preponderance. Your not making sense.
You didn't know the ramifications of the word "preponderance" when you started this thread, did you? A preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence. But how can you establish the preponderance if you can't evaluate the evidence critically?
And please let us know exactly what the legal criteria for proof is.
Preponderance of the evidence is one type of evidentiary standard used in a burden of proof analysis. Under the preponderance standard, the burden of proof is met when the party with the burden convinces the fact finder that there is a greater than 50% chance that the claim is true. This is the burden of proof in a civil trial. Beyond a reasonable doubt is another matter.
-
How many pieces of crap did you have to examine to figure that one out? I know that you like to examine the actual evidence.
What makes you even think I had to examine even one piece of crap to figure that out?
And please tell how in the world you think you know what I like?
-
You didn't know the ramifications of the word "preponderance" when you started this thread, did you? A preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence. But how can you establish the preponderance if you can't evaluate the evidence critically?
Preponderance of the evidence is one type of evidentiary standard used in a burden of proof analysis. Under the preponderance standard, the burden of proof is met when the party with the burden convinces the fact finder that there is a greater than 50% chance that the claim is true. This is the burden of proof in a civil trial. Beyond a reasonable doubt is another matter.
convinces the fact finder
Yes and evidence that one person finds to be convincing might not be convincing to another person. Hence we have ?hung juries ? and subsequent mistrials. What is amazing to me is that the same evidence can be completely polarizing in this case.
-
convinces the fact finder
Yes and evidence that one person finds to be convincing might not be convincing to another person. Hence we have ?hung juries ? and subsequent mistrials. What is amazing to me is that the same evidence can be completely polarizing in this case.
that the same evidence can be completely polarizing in this case.
It might not have been if it had been looked at honestly, without a political agenda.
-
What makes you even think I had to examine even one piece of crap to figure that out?
And please tell how in the world you think you know what I like?
Another joke. You left yourself open. I couldn?t resist.
-
Another joke. You left yourself open. I couldn?t resist.
To make a fool of yourself?
Btw, do all LNs follow a course for talking gibberish or does it simply come natural to them?
You left yourself open. I couldn?t resist.
Open to what? Is this a game to you?
-
To make a fool of yourself?
Btw, do all LNs follow a course for talking gibberish or does it simply come natural to them?
You left yourself open. I couldn?t resist.
Open to what? Is this a game to you?
You can dish it out but you sure can?t take it.
-
You can dish it out but you sure can?t take it.
Take what? Stop talking gibberish?
I have been doing investigative work for the biggest part of my life, but I'll be damned if I can figure out what you are trying to say.
-
Take what? Stop talking gibberish?
I have been doing investigative work for the biggest part of my life, but I'll be damned if I can figure out what you are trying to say.
If you are having that much difficulty, perhaps you should consider another line of work.
-
If you are having that much difficulty, perhaps you should consider another line of work.
Or, alternatively, I could just ignore your nonsensical ramblings.
-
Or, alternatively, I could just ignore your nonsensical ramblings.
Thumb1:
-
convinces the fact finder
Yes and evidence that one person finds to be convincing might not be convincing to another person. Hence we have ?hung juries ? and subsequent mistrials. What is amazing to me is that the same evidence can be completely polarizing in this case.
You've just underlined the fundamental flaw in jury based justice systems. How can anyone expect a "jury of your peers" to understand the legal nuances of a complicated civil or criminal court case to render an informed verdict? It's the reason the guilty get off and the innocent get the chair. OJ comes to mind.
Face it, your avg juror is simply not qualified to deliberate a court case and your avg LNer is not qualified to assess what constitutes a preponderance of evidence that Oswald was a lone nut assassin. Otherwise, cite 1 piece of evidence that convinces you that Oswald was a lone nut and not a patsy. We don't need a preponderance, just 1 will do.
-
You've just underlined the fundamental flaw in jury based justice systems. How can anyone expect a "jury of your peers" to understand the legal nuances of a complicated civil or criminal court case to render an informed verdict? It's the reason the guilty get off and the innocent get the chair. OJ comes to mind.
Face it, your avg juror is simply not qualified to deliberate a court case and your avg LNer is not qualified to assess what constitutes a preponderance of evidence that Oswald was a lone nut assassin. Otherwise, cite 1 piece of evidence that convinces you that Oswald was a lone nut and not a patsy. We don't need a preponderance, just 1 will do.
No credible evidence of a conspiracy is why I believe he did it alone.
-
No credible evidence of a conspiracy is why I believe he did it alone.
And what's the credible evidence that he did it at all?
-
No credible evidence of a conspiracy is why I believe he did it alone.
Hey, that's very similar to what they said in Salem... "Can't prove she isn't a witch = she must be a witch"
-
And what's the credible evidence that he did it at all?
That is a different question than what Jack asked. If I understand his question he is asking about whether or not LHO was part of a conspiracy.
-
Hey, that's very similar to what they said in Salem... "Can't prove she isn't a witch = she must be a witch"
Not at all. If you claim that there was a conspiracy then the burden of proof is on you.
I only answered John?s question as I understand it.
-
So, you rely on a website that is presenting a possible scenario of what Oswald could have said without actually knowing with any kind of certainty that these words were actually spoken by him. Sorry, not worth my time
>>> So you rely on withholding complete information. Tell us why you fail to mention that Oswald volunteered his refusal to pinpoint the actual transaction location; in effect rendering any Fritz 'ask' moot.
Fritz reported that Oswald told him he bought his revolver in Fort Worth
>>> See above
Will Fritz Oswald Interview 4:45-6:30
Excerpt:
"I bought a pistol several months ago in Fort Worth. I refuse to tell you where the pistol was purchased"--- Oswald [AKA Dirty Harvey]
Bill Chapman
Hunter of Trolls
-
That is a different question than what Jack asked. If I understand his question he is asking about whether or not LHO was part of a conspiracy.
Actually, Jack didn't say anything about a conspiracy. He said,
"Otherwise, cite 1 piece of evidence that convinces you that Oswald was a lone nut and not a patsy. We don't need a preponderance, just 1 will do."
You don't have to be a part of anything to be a patsy.
-
Not at all. If you claim that there was a conspiracy then the burden of proof is on you.
Agreed. Just like if you claim that Oswald did it, then the burden of proof is on you.
-
Not at all. If you claim that there was a conspiracy then the burden of proof is on you.
I only answered John?s question as I understand it.
If you claim that there was a conspiracy then the burden of proof is on you.
True, but no such claim is being made, at least not by me, for lack of credible evidence.
However, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. And to say that absence of evidence is why you believe LHO is guilty is simply one jump to a conclusion too far.
Guilt must be proven and can not merely be assumed simply because there is no or not sufficient evidence to support another scenario.
-
Actually, Jack didn't say anything about a conspiracy. He said,
"Otherwise, cite 1 piece of evidence that convinces you that Oswald was a lone nut and not a patsy. We don't need a preponderance, just 1 will do."
You don't have to be a part of anything to be a patsy.
Yes a better wording would have been ?there was no conspiracy? instead of he did it alone.
-
>>> So you rely on withholding complete information. Tell us why you fail to mention that Oswald volunteered his refusal to pinpoint the actual transaction location himself; in effect rendering any Fritz 'ask' moot.
Because Fritz never said that Oswald refused to pinpoint the actual transaction location. Did you not read the previous comments?
-
Yes a better wording would have been ?there was no conspiracy? instead of he did it alone.
It also depends a lot on what you mean by "conspiracy" -- as in accessories after the fact.
-
If you claim that there was a conspiracy then the burden of proof is on you.
True, but no such claim is being made, at least not by me, for lack of credible evidence.
However, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. And to say that absence of evidence is why you believe LHO is guilty is simply one jump to a conclusion too far.
Guilt must be proven and can not merely be assumed simply because there is no or not sufficient evidence to support another scenario.
I clarified what I meant to say.
-
It also depends a lot on what you mean by "conspiracy" -- as in accessories after the fact.
Are you making a claim?
-
Any other mention made of his 'patsy-ness' by Oswald after the initial outburst... hello? Anyone?
-
I clarified what I meant to say.
Yes, you made it worse?
Now you claim that there was no conspiracy, which is bold statement as well as something you will never be able to know with 100% certainty.
-
Yes, you made it worse?
Now you claim that there was no conspiracy, which is bold statement as well as something you will never be able to know with 100% certainty.
I made no such claim. Please stop telling me that I said something that I didn?t.
-
Because Fritz never said that Oswald refused to pinpoint the actual transaction location. Did you not read the previous comments?
Did you not read the earlier comments where Martin went on a rant about no one asking Oswald about where he purchased the pistol?
-
I made no such claim. Please stop telling me that I said something that I didn?t.
Huh? That's strange, I could have sworn it was you who said;
Yes a better wording would have been ?there was no conspiracy? instead of he did it alone.
When you agree that a better wording would have been ?there was no conspiracy?, how does that somehow not mean that you agree there was no conspiracy?
-
Huh? That's strange, I could have sworn it was you who said;
When you agree that a better wording would have been ?there was no conspiracy?, how does that somehow not mean that you agree there was no conspiracy?
The context is that it was part of a sentence. Read the rest of it.
-
The context is that it was part of a sentence. Read the rest of it.
I did?.
Jack never said anything about a conspiracy and neither John or Jack made any "he did it alone" comment, which according to you would have been better worded by "there was no conspiracy?.
The only person to bring up that there was no conspiracy was you.
-
Of course he's relying on that.
There's nothing in Fritz's report that says that Oswald refused to tell him where he purchased a revolver.
Or that LHO said anything. He knew his rights. The only sources who said that he said anything are official ones. Without recordings or a stenographic record there is no way to validate what he was claimed to have said.
-
No credible evidence of a conspiracy is why I believe he did it alone.
So you don't think LBJ is credible? Because on April 3, 1967, he told his aide Marvin Watson that he was convinced that there was a conspiracy involved in JFK's assassination and that the CIA was involved in some way.
If you think that LBJ isn't credible then how can you believe the WC's conclusion when he created it?
-
Did you not read the earlier comments where Martin went on a rant about no one asking Oswald about where he purchased the pistol?
You keep quoting Mae Brussell's invented dialog. Here's what Fritz's report actually said:
"I asked him again why he carried the pistol to the show. He refused to answer questions about the pistol. He did tell me, however, that he had bought it several months before in Fort Worth, Texas."
There's nothing in there about Oswald refusing to tell Fritz where in Fort Worth the pistol was purchased. Or of Fritz even asking him that.
-
I did?.
Jack never said anything about a conspiracy and neither John or Jack made any "he did it alone" comment, which according to you would have been better worded by "there was no conspiracy?.
The only person to bring up that there was no conspiracy was you.
A patsy isn?t possible without a conspiracy.
-
So you don't think LBJ is credible? Because on April 3, 1967, he told his aide Marvin Watson that he was convinced that there was a conspiracy involved in JFK's assassination and that the CIA was involved in some way.
If you think that LBJ isn't credible then how can you believe the WC's conclusion when he created it?
Did LBJ provide any credible evidence to support his opinion?
-
A patsy isn?t possible without a conspiracy.
How are you defining conspiracy? Patsy just means somebody who is blamed for doing something they didn't do.
-
How are you defining conspiracy? Patsy just means somebody who is blamed for doing something they didn't do.
Who would be doing the blaming/framing in this case other than the conspirators?
-
A patsy isn?t possible without a conspiracy.
And so you did in fact claim there was no conspiracy!
-
And so you did in fact claim there was no conspiracy!
No I didn?t.
-
Thumb1:
???
These are just the JAQers/IOWers/CTrollers not to ignore.
Bill Chapman
Hunter of Trolls
-
This is what I said:
No credible evidence of a conspiracy is why I believe he did it alone.
It was a response to Jack?s request. It is my opinion. The words ?I believe? are indicative of that.
-
You've just underlined the fundamental flaw in jury based justice systems. How can anyone expect a "jury of your peers" to understand the legal nuances of a complicated civil or criminal court case to render an informed verdict? It's the reason the guilty get off and the innocent get the chair. OJ comes to mind.
Face it, your avg juror is simply not qualified to deliberate a court case and your avg LNer is not qualified to assess what constitutes a preponderance of evidence that Oswald was a lone nut assassin. Otherwise, cite 1 piece of evidence that convinces you that Oswald was a lone nut and not a patsy. We don't need a preponderance, just 1 will do.
From the CT POV: Oswald was a crappy shot with a crappy rifle and ammo. Do I have that right so far?
If so, I'd ask how would any framers would go about convincing anyone that he was believable as killer.
-
From the CT POV: Oswald was a crappy shot with a crappy rifle and ammo. Do I have that right so far?
If so, I'd ask how would any framers would go about convincing anyone that he was believable as killer.
When you're J.Edna Hoover....You could say that Snidely Whiplash was the assassin and a large segment of the gullible pissants would believe it.
-
From the CT POV: Oswald was a crappy shot with a crappy rifle and ammo. Do I have that right so far?
No, you have it wrong. Oswald was probably a decent shot had he practiced, which all sharpshooters must do to keep sharp. If Oswald knew he was going to take some shots at the POTUS it was imperative that he was well practiced and familiar with a reliable rifle. The fact that Oswald was a military marksman meant he knew what would increase his odds of success. This included:
1) Get a Mauser, not a MC (which was probably only a few bucks more, but much more reliable. The MC tended to jam almost every clip)
2) Practice practice practice...then practice some more.
3) Sight-in your scope (the fact that it wasn't implies that Oswald never practiced with the rifle)
4) Do NOT disassemble/reassemble the rifle or you will have to zero the sights in the TSBD.
5) Remove the misaligned scope from the rifle if you don't intend to use it. It takes up less space in the paper bag and it's just in the way if you intend to use the iron sights.
A preponderance of the evidence implies that Oswald never took a shot with the MC. I still haven't got a satisfactory answer from the LNers how Oswald managed to not get a single print on the rifle's stock, bolt, barrel, scope, trigger, clip, shells and strap after he disassembled/reassembled the rifle and supposedly fired it 3 times. Why doesn't that give you LNers pause?
If so, I'd ask how would any framers would go about convincing anyone that he was believable as killer.
Because you LNers have been carrying the conspirators water for 56 years now. Congrats!
-
No, you have it wrong. Oswald was probably a decent shot had he practiced, which all sharpshooters must do to keep sharp. If Oswald knew he was going to take some shots at the POTUS it was imperative that he was well practiced and familiar with a reliable rifle. The fact that Oswald was a military marksman meant he knew what would increase his odds of success. This included:
1) Get a Mauser, not a MC (which was probably only a few bucks more, but much more reliable. The MC tended to jam almost every clip)
2) Practice practice practice...then practice some more.
3) Sight-in your scope (the fact that it wasn't implies that Oswald never practiced with the rifle)
4) Do NOT disassemble/reassemble the rifle or you will have to zero the sights in the TSBD.
5) Remove the misaligned scope from the rifle if you don't intend to use it. It takes up less space in the paper bag and it's just in the way if you intend to use the iron sights.
A preponderance of the evidence implies that Oswald never took a shot with the MC. I still haven't got a satisfactory answer from the LNers how Oswald managed to not get a single print on the rifle's stock, bolt, barrel, scope, trigger, clip, shells and strap after he disassembled/reassembled the rifle and supposedly fired it 3 times. Why doesn't that give you LNers pause?
Because you LNers have been carrying the conspirators water for 56 years now. Congrats!
You're assuming Oswald planned to assassinate JFK months in advance.
The science as to why finding usable prints on weapons in shooting crimes can be so difficult is readily available online.
No usable prints found where they would normally expect to be found, and removed, suggests that the shooter took a few seconds to wipe down said areas... in a 'this-is-my-rifle-this-my-gun' sense.
.
-
"No usable prints found where they would normally expect to be found, and removed, suggests that the shooter took a few seconds to wipe down said areas... "
Does this include taking time to collect the bullet shells from their various positions in the SN, and wiping them clean, Chappers?
And how do you load a clip with bullets without getting either thumb or fingerprint on the shells? Use gloves? ;D
-
No, you have it wrong. Oswald was probably a decent shot had he practiced, which all sharpshooters must do to keep sharp. If Oswald knew he was going to take some shots at the POTUS it was imperative that he was well practiced and familiar with a reliable rifle. The fact that Oswald was a military marksman meant he knew what would increase his odds of success. This included:
1) Get a Mauser, not a MC (which was probably only a few bucks more, but much more reliable. The MC tended to jam almost every clip)
2) Practice practice practice...then practice some more.
3) Sight-in your scope (the fact that it wasn't implies that Oswald never practiced with the rifle)
4) Do NOT disassemble/reassemble the rifle or you will have to zero the sights in the TSBD.
5) Remove the misaligned scope from the rifle if you don't intend to use it. It takes up less space in the paper bag and it's just in the way if you intend to use the iron sights.
A preponderance of the evidence implies that Oswald never took a shot with the MC. I still haven't got a satisfactory answer from the LNers how Oswald managed to not get a single print on the rifle's stock, bolt, barrel, scope, trigger, clip, shells and strap after he disassembled/reassembled the rifle and supposedly fired it 3 times. Why doesn't that give you LNers pause?
Because you LNers have been carrying the conspirators water for 56 years now. Congrats!
These are questions. I am trying to learn something. I am not making any claims.
item #3: Could it be that LHO did practice with the rifle, adjusted it the best he could, made a mental note that it was just a little off target one way or another, and then he could adjust his aim a little to compensate for this?
Item #4: As I remember, the disassembly needed (so that the rifle would fit inside the bag) involved removing the wooden stock from the metal barrel. Did the scope need to be removed from the barrel also? If not, then why would it need to be adjusted after reassembly?
-
No, you have it wrong. Oswald was probably a decent shot had he practiced, which all sharpshooters must do to keep sharp. If Oswald knew he was going to take some shots at the POTUS it was imperative that he was well practiced and familiar with a reliable rifle. The fact that Oswald was a military marksman meant he knew what would increase his odds of success. This included:
1) Get a Mauser, not a MC (which was probably only a few bucks more, but much more reliable. The MC tended to jam almost every clip)
2) Practice practice practice...then practice some more.
3) Sight-in your scope (the fact that it wasn't implies that Oswald never practiced with the rifle)
4) Do NOT disassemble/reassemble the rifle or you will have to zero the sights in the TSBD.
5) Remove the misaligned scope from the rifle if you don't intend to use it. It takes up less space in the paper bag and it's just in the way if you intend to use the iron sights.
A preponderance of the evidence implies that Oswald never took a shot with the MC. I still haven't got a satisfactory answer from the LNers how Oswald managed to not get a single print on the rifle's stock, bolt, barrel, scope, trigger, clip, shells and strap after he disassembled/reassembled the rifle and supposedly fired it 3 times. Why doesn't that give you LNers pause?
Because you LNers have been carrying the conspirators water for 56 years now. Congrats!
A preponderance of the evidence implies that Oswald never took a shot with the MC.
That's right, Jack.... And furthermore the preponderance of the FACTUAL evidence ( See 15 feet 4 inches) indicates that the carcano was never fired that day.
-
No, you have it wrong. Oswald was probably a decent shot had he practiced
Because you LNers have been carrying the conspirators water for 56 years now.
I don't believe he had any more interest in shooting than most of this membership.
There may be some readers here who have pistols they never shoot.
Anyway here is one I don't recall ever seeing before...Final Compost--by David Belin
What could he have added that wasn't in the Report [duplicated by You are the Jury]??
(https://i.ebayimg.com/thumbs/images/g/QuEAAOSwsQJcWfAl/s-l225.jpg)
-
"No usable prints found where they would normally expect to be found, and removed, suggests that the shooter took a few seconds to wipe down said areas... "
Does this include taking time to collect the bullet shells from their various positions in the SN, and wiping them clean, Chappers?
And how do you load a clip with bullets without getting either thumb or fingerprint on the shells? Use gloves? ;D
What makes you think he had a need to wipe the shell casings
-
What makes you think he had a need to wipe the shell casings
Is that just a silly question with no question mark?
-
Is that just a silly question with no question mark?
Look at the science
-
Look at the science
We shall if you show us.
-
Who would be doing the blaming/framing in this case other than the conspirators?
Cops? Wade? Warren Commission?
-
From the CT POV: Oswald was a crappy shot with a crappy rifle and ammo. Do I have that right so far?
If so, I'd ask how would any framers would go about convincing anyone that he was believable as killer.
I don't know how the WC would go about convincing anyone that he was believable as killer either.
-
Item #3: Could it be that LHO did practice with the rifle, adjusted it the best he could, made a mental note that it was just a little off target one way or another, and then he could adjust his aim a little to compensate for this?
Sure. Do you have any evidence that he ever practiced with this rifle?
Item #4: As I remember, the disassembly needed (so that the rifle would fit inside the bag) involved removing the wooden stock from the metal barrel.
Or maybe that rifle was never in that bag.
-
Cops? Wade? Warren Commission?
Evidence of anyone trying to make LHO a patsy (scapegoat) would be evidence of a conspiracy. Do you have any?
-
Sure. Do you have any evidence that he ever practiced with this rifle?
Or maybe that rifle was never in that bag.
I previously stated that I was making no claims. Just asking questions.
If it was never in that bag, why would Jack indicate that the rifle had to be reassembled and the scope adjusted?
-
Evidence of anyone trying to make LHO a patsy (scapegoat) would be evidence of a conspiracy. Do you have any?
Yes. The unfair lineups, the disappearing initials on shells, and the magic partial palm print that shows up a week later. Just to name a few.
-
I previously stated that I was making no claims. Just asking questions.
Where?s Chapman when you need him?
If it was never in that bag, why would Jack indicate that the rifle had to be reassembled and the scope adjusted?
Because the LN narrative would demand it.
-
Yes. The unfair lineups, the disappearing initials on shells, and the magic partial palm print that shows up a week later. Just to name a few.
Not what I asked for.
-
Where?s Chapman when you need him?
Because the LN narrative would demand it.
Please explain both responses.
-
I don't know how the WC would go about convincing anyone that he was believable as killer either.
Probably didn't have to frame anybody.
-
Not what I asked for.
Exactly what you asked for?. what happened to the "open mind"?
There is a circumstantial case to be made for LHO (regardless of his guilt or innocence) being set up as a patsy. It's visible for anybody who wants to see?.
-
Exactly what you asked for?. what happened to the "open mind"?
There is a circumstantial case to be made for LHO (regardless of his guilt or innocence) being set up as a patsy. It's visible for anybody who wants to see?.
Conjecture and innuendo isn?t very convincing.
-
Where?s Chapman when you need him?
Because the LN narrative would demand it.
Chapman is not here 24/7
But feels the love nevertheless
Can he now expect flowers & chocolate?
;)
Were Charles' questions wild accusations in your opinion?
-
Conjecture and innuendo isn?t very convincing.
And what exactly would that conjecture and innuendo be?
The bulk of the WC prosecutorial case against Oswald is conjecture.... That's what you get in a circumstantial case.
-
And what exactly would that conjecture and innuendo be?
The bulk of the WC prosecutorial case against Oswald is conjecture.... That's what you get in a circumstantial case.
And what exactly would that conjecture and innuendo be?
Yes. The unfair lineups, the disappearing initials on shells, and the magic partial palm print that shows up a week later. Just to name a few.
That the above is evidence of anyone knowingly and intentionally blaming/framing LHO as a patsy.
-
And what exactly would that conjecture and innuendo be?
That the above is evidence of anyone knowingly and intentionally blaming/framing LHO as a patsy.
How is it conjecture that initials that were supposed to be on the shells but aren't? It's factual and it requires an explanation.
How is it conjecture to question an index card that shows up a week after the event, with an alleged print from Oswald taken from the rifle, when the FBI failed to find any prints on the rifle earlier? There are only two possible explanations; either Day screwed up big time or the print was added to the record after the fact.
And John said "Just to name a few". There are a whole lot more issues with evidence which one needs to overlook in order not to see the possibility of a frame up.
Now before you jump to conclusions; I am not saying Oswald was framed. I am saying that they needed to resolve the case as quickly as they could and Oswald's death provided them with the possibility to do so regardless of whether he really did it or not.
-
How is it conjecture that initials that were supposed to be on the shells but aren't? It's factual and it requires an explanation.
How is it conjecture to question an index card that shows up a week after the event, with an alleged print from Oswald taken from the rifle, when the FBI failed to find any prints on the rifle earlier? There are only two possible explanations; either Day screwed up big time or the print was added to the record after the fact.
And John said "Just to name a few". There are a whole lot more issues with evidence which one needs to overlook in order not to see the possibility of a frame up.
Now before you jump to conclusions; I am not saying Oswald was framed. I am saying that they needed to resolve the case as quickly as they could and Oswald's death provided them with the possibility to do so regardless of whether he really did it or not.
There are only two possible explanations; either Day screwed up big time or the print was added to the record after the fact.
innuendo and conjecture
This is more convincing to me:
The FBI confirmed that the print had been lifted from C2766 when they established that the adhesive material bearing the print also bore impressions of the same irregularities that appeared on the barrel of the rifle. Latona testified that this palmprint was the right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald. This finding was also confirmed by Arthur Mandella, and Ronald G. Wittmus.
-
How is it conjecture that initials that were supposed to be on the shells but aren't? It's factual and it requires an explanation.
Whose initials are supposed to be on what shells and aren't?
-
There are only two possible explanations; either Day screwed up big time or the print was added to the record after the fact.
innuendo and conjecture
This is more convincing to me:
The FBI confirmed that the print had been lifted from C2766 when they established that the adhesive material bearing the print also bore impressions of the same irregularities that appeared on the barrel of the rifle. Latona testified that this palmprint was the right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald. This finding was also confirmed by Arthur Mandella, and Ronald G. Wittmus.
In other words, Day screwed up big time, but it's no big deal...
-
In other words, Day screwed up big time, but it's no big deal...
What is important is that the evidence was processed. The delay is understandable, given the circumstances.
-
What is important is that the evidence was processed. The delay is understandable, given the circumstances.
Day held onto the evidence which, as a crime lab officer, he was perfectly authorized to do so.
-
Conjecture and innuendo isn?t very convincing.
Then why are you convinced that Oswald killed Kennedy?
-
What is important is that the evidence was processed. The delay is understandable, given the circumstances.
What is important is that the evidence was processed.
Sure, regardless where it comes from, right?
The delay is understandable, given the circumstances.
So, first day evidence isn't important anymore? You can always manipulate the evidence later and claim it was an error or an understandable delay, right?
-
This is more convincing to me:
The FBI confirmed that the print had been lifted from C2766 when they established that the adhesive material bearing the print also bore impressions of the same irregularities that appeared on the barrel of the rifle.
A claim without evidence is convincing to you?
Oh wait...of course it is.
-
Day held onto the evidence which, as a crime lab officer, he was perfectly authorized to do so.
Did his boss tell him to release all the evidence to the FBI or did he not?
Did he say that there were ridges left on the rifle barrel or did he not?
-
Did his boss tell him to release all the evidence to the FBI or did he not?
No.
Did he say that there were ridges left on the rifle barrel or did he not?
Yes.
-
What is important is that the evidence was processed.
Sure, regardless where it comes from, right?
The delay is understandable, given the circumstances.
So, first day evidence isn't important anymore? You can always manipulate the evidence later and claim it was an error or an understandable delay, right?
More conjecture and innuendo. No evidence to support it.
-
A claim without evidence is convincing to you?
Oh wait...of course it is.
No, what claim are you referring to?
-
No, what claim are you referring to?
The claim about the same ?irregularities? being on the rifle and the magic partial palm print.
-
More conjecture and innuendo. No evidence to support it.
Do you have trouble understanding the words "conjecture" and "innuendo"?
No evidence to support it.
To support what?
Does your "open mind" fail to understand that an investigation is conducted by elimination of possibilities rather than simple outright dismissal?
-
The claim about the same ?irregularities? being on the rifle and the magic partial palm print.
The evidence and conclusion was independently verified:
Latona testified that this palmprint was the right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.58 At the request of the Commission, Arthur Mandella, fingerprint expert with the New York City Police Department, conducted an independent examination and also determined that this was the right palmprint of Oswald.59 Latona's findings were also confirmed by Ronald G. Wittmus, another FBI fingerprint
I most certainly find this more convincing than anything I have seen that tries to cast doubt on it.
-
The evidence and conclusion was independently verified:
Latona testified that this palmprint was the right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.58 At the request of the Commission, Arthur Mandella, fingerprint expert with the New York City Police Department, conducted an independent examination and also determined that this was the right palmprint of Oswald.59 Latona's findings were also confirmed by Ronald G. Wittmus, another FBI fingerprint
I most certainly find this more convincing than anything I have seen that tries to cast doubt on it.
Whether you find it more convincing or not, it is not the answer to John's question. Who cares that it was Oswald's palm print on the index card when it can not be determined where it came from and when it was created.
-
Whether you find it more convincing or not, it is not the answer to John's question. Who cares that it was Oswald's palm print on the index card when it can not be determined where it came from and when it was created.
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the adhesive matter is not as described?
-
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the adhesive matter is not as described?
On 11/23/63 the FBI lab examined the rifle closely and found no prints on the rifle. They also do not mention finding any adhesive matter.
Only after the rifle was returned to the DPD and Oswald was killed did Day produce the index card.
Can you rule out that after it's return, the rifle wasn't used to create the index card?
-
On 11/23/63 the FBI lab examined the rifle closely and found no prints on the rifle. They also do not mention finding any adhesive matter.
Only after the rifle was returned to the DPD and Oswald was killed did Day produce the index card.
Can you rule out that after it's return, the rifle wasn't used to create the index card?
So I will take your response to my question as non responsive.
-
So I will take your response to my question as non responsive.
Oh, I responded alright. You just didn't like it.
You are not interested in the facts of this case or in looking at the evidence with an "open mind"
Instead, anything you don't like, you just dismiss. Nothing more than another LN troll
-
On 11/23/63 the FBI lab examined the rifle closely and found no prints on the rifle. They also do not mention finding any adhesive matter.
Only after the rifle was returned to the DPD and Oswald was killed did Day produce the index card.
Can you rule out that after it's return, the rifle wasn't used to create the index card?
Don't you get it yet, Mr Weidmann? Mr Collins will automatically rule out anything that might threaten the fairy tale he has fallen for. That's what 'keeping an open mind' means for Warren Gullibles like Mr Collins. ::)
-
The evidence and conclusion was independently verified:
Latona testified that this palmprint was the right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.58 At the request of the Commission, Arthur Mandella, fingerprint expert with the New York City Police Department, conducted an independent examination and also determined that this was the right palmprint of Oswald.59 Latona's findings were also confirmed by Ronald G. Wittmus, another FBI fingerprint
I most certainly find this more convincing than anything I have seen that tries to cast doubt on it.
A partial palm print on an index card was matched to Oswald, and this convinces you of what, exactly?
-
Oh, I responded alright. You just didn't like it.
You are not interested in the facts of this case or in looking at the evidence with an "open mind"
Instead, anything you don't like, you just dismiss. Nothing more than another LN troll
You responded but failed to address the question.
-
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the adhesive matter is not as described?
So you?re more than willing to accept a claim made with no supporting evidence until somebody proves the claim false?
I have an invisible pet dragon named Charles. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that he is not as I describe?
-
Charles, I?ve asked this question of the truthers for some 50 years. They NEVER answer. They can?t. Not one piece of hard, credible evidence for conspiracy exists. They don?t care. They each have their pet theory. The best arguments are between the kooks themselves. Yet, history should be debated, not argued. They cannot debate it. They have no evidence.
Hey good buddy, it's time to wake up and remember that you claim Oswald is guilty
" I?ve asked this question of the truthers for some 50 years. They NEVER answer. They can?t. Not one piece of hard, credible evidence for conspiracy exists."
It is too bad you happen to have this idea that LHO is responsible. You would think after over a half a century you and your group of storytellers really need to question your own failed ideas.
When you make a claim it is up to you to prove it, but of course, in this case, you can't.
Let me leave you with this wonderful quote that you should learn from because it describes you, the WC and all the lazy ideas. Plus I think you have heard it before. I know you'll agree.
"The best arguments are between the kooks themselves. Yet, history should be debated, not argued. They cannot debate it. They have no evidence."
-
You responded but failed to address the question.
No.. like a true LN you simply did not like the implication
-
So you?re more than willing to accept a claim made with no supporting evidence until somebody proves the claim false?
I have an invisible pet dragon named Charles. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that he is not as I describe?
Not to preempt Mr Collins's response, Mr Iacoletti, but I wish to state that, having considered your claim in an honest, fair and objective manner, and with an open mind, I have come to the conclusion that you are a very cruel man to keep an invisible dragon as a domestic pet. For shame, sir!
-
Many years ago I began pursuing my interest in the JFK assassination conspiracy theories by reading quite a few books by, you guessed it, conspiracy theorists. For a long time I was convinced that there just HAD to be a conspiracy. But there wasn't any conspiracy theory that had any credible evidence to support it. All there seemed to be was conjecture and innuendo. One book would claim that LBJ was behind the assassination, another book would claim JEH was the mastermind, and so on. I learned way more than I wanted to know about LBJ, JEH, the oil tycoons, etc. But no credible evidence that would support any of the theories. I was left with a big question mark asking which conspiracy theory was the right one. One day I decided to start fresh with an open mind. I decided that learning more about the evidence that the official investigation turned up was a good starting point. Because all I had learned about the evidence from all the conspiracy books was biased against the official investigation's findings and tried to discredit them. A look at the other side of the controversy (with an open mind) seemed to be the next logical step in my pursuit to know more. So I read the official report and a few books from authors who supported it. What I found was that the preponderance of the evidence points directly at LHO. This was more than just the conjecture and innuendo that I was used to seeing. The preponderance of the evidence is actually overwhelming. The arguments that try to discredit the evidence no longer made sense, but I still try to look for any evidence of a conspiracy with an open mind. That is why I continue to show up here from time to time.
You either believe LHO is responsible or you don't?
The preponderance of the evidence
You can not apply the burden of proof, a preponderance of the evidence to what is a criminal case. Oswald cannot be found kind of guilty this is not a civil case
-
You either believe LHO is responsible or you don't?
The preponderance of the evidence
You can not apply the burden of proof, a preponderance of the evidence to what is a criminal case. Oswald cannot be found kind of guilty this is not a civil case
to what is a criminal case
There will never be a criminal case brought against LHO. Jack Ruby made sure of that.
-
A partial palm print on an index card was matched to Oswald, and this convinces you of what, exactly?
We are discussing a lack of evidence of LHO being a patsy. Are you trying to change the subject?
-
So you?re more than willing to accept a claim made with no supporting evidence until somebody proves the claim false?
I have an invisible pet dragon named Charles. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that he is not as I describe?
Does your invisible dragon help you with your invisible evidence?
-
No.. like a true LN you simply did not like the implication
The implication suggests that something sinister could have happened with this item. No credible evidence that it did happen. Are you claiming that something sinister DID happen?
-
to what is a criminal case
There will never be a criminal case brought against LHO. Jack Ruby made sure of that.
So you are then going to use a preponderance of the evidence as your flimsy burden of proof. You could be honest by telling everyone you are a Lone nut believer instead of posing as Mr. Independent. Don't kid yourself. Hey, if you are ever called to jury duty, I can assure you they won't need you and you will be relieved of your duty
-
So you are then going to use a preponderance of the evidence as your flimsy burden of proof. You could be honest by telling everyone you are a Lone nut believer instead of posing as Mr. Independent. Don't kid yourself. Hey, if you are ever called to jury duty, I can assure you they won't need you and you will be relieved of your duty
Are you just going to criticize something that is irrelevant?
-
to what is a criminal case
There will never be a criminal case brought against LHO. Jack Ruby made sure of that.
As there never will be a criminal case, there will also never be a guilty verdict.
Claims that Oswald was somehow proven guilty nevertheless are obviously not accurate and should better not be repeated.
-
The implication suggests that something sinister could have happened with this item. No credible evidence that it did happen. Are you claiming that something sinister DID happen?
I made no such claim. I am merely stating that the possibility that it did happen can not be ruled out.
In the WC case against Oswald there a plenty of claims for which there either is no credible evidence, or - even worse - credible evidence that does not support the claim is simply dismissed. Yet, you accept the case against Oswald. Why the double standard?
As to the item discussed, there also is no credible evidence that it didn't happen. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Given the multitude of instances where there has been questional handling of physical evidence, a circumstantial case of evidence manipulation can be made, but we have already established that you are not interested in that and just call it "conjecture and innuendo"
-
As there never will be a criminal case, there will also never be a guilty verdict.
Claims that Oswald was somehow proven guilty nevertheless are obviously not accurate and should better not be repeated.
The WC conclusions are what we have. It is your prerogative to disagree with them. At one time I did also.
-
The WC conclusions are what we have. It is your prerogative to disagree with them. At one time I did also.
The WC conclusions are merely an opinion. Their entire case is nothing more than a theory based on questionable evidence that was never challenged
The WCR failed completely to convince me that the conclusions were correct.
-
I made no such claim. I am merely stating that the possibility that it did happen can not be ruled out.
In the WC case against Oswald there a plenty of claims for which there either is no credible evidence, or - even worse - credible evidence that does not support the claim is simply dismissed. Yet, you accept the case against Oswald. Why the double standard?
As to the item discussed, there also is no credible evidence that it didn't happen. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Given the multitude of instances where there has been questional handling of physical evidence, a circumstantial case of evidence manipulation can be made, but we have already established that you are not interested in that and just call it "conjecture and innuendo"
So you are trying to get me to argue against some hypothetical sinister activity that you have no credible evidence of and don?t claim actually happened. And you wonder why I told you up front that I wasn?t interested in arguing the same old arguments that have been argued for over 55 years now.
-
The WC conclusions are merely an opinion. Their entire case is nothing more than a theory based on questionable evidence that was never challenged
The WCR failed completely to convince me that the conclusions were correct.
It is fine to question the evidence. I have too.
-
We are discussing a lack of evidence of LHO being a patsy. Are you trying to change the subject?
A partial palm print that nobody knew about that just shows up a week later on an index card is evidence of framing.
-
Does your invisible dragon help you with your invisible evidence?
Says the guy who believes in invisible ?irregularities?.
-
The implication suggests that something sinister could have happened with this item. No credible evidence that it did happen. Are you claiming that something sinister DID happen?
There?s that magic word ?credible? again that means whatever you want it to mean.
I can do that too: no credible evidence that Oswald was the one who shot Kennedy.
-
The WC conclusions are what we have. It is your prerogative to disagree with them. At one time I did also.
Lots of people have made conclusions. What?s so special about the WC ones?
But the WC conclusions haven?t changed, so what specifically made you stop disagreeing?
-
So you are trying to get me to argue against some hypothetical sinister activity that you have no credible evidence of and don?t claim actually happened. And you wonder why I told you up front that I wasn?t interested in arguing the same old arguments that have been argued for over 55 years now.
So you are trying to get me to argue against some hypothetical sinister activity that you have no credible evidence of and don?t claim actually happened.
No, I am not trying to get you to argue against anything. There is no need to do that as you are in fact already doing so by refusing to accept that it is a possibility which can not be ruled out.
And you wonder why I told you up front that I wasn?t interested in arguing the same old arguments that have been argued for over 55 years now.
I don't wonder about that at all. It's pretty obvious that you are not interested in discussing the evidence because you probably understand the weakness of those arguments.
-
Lots of people have made conclusions. What?s so special about the WC ones?
Tell us how many of your 'lots of people' conducted 25,000 interviews
-
Tell us how many of your 'lots of people' conducted 25,000 interviews
Are you saying that the conclusions of the WC are somehow better simply because they interviewed more people?
-
A partial palm print that nobody knew about that just shows up a week later on an index card is evidence of framing.
The partial palm print (CE 639) was released to the FBI at midnight 11/22/63..... It was examined in the FBI lab in Washington DC on Saturday 11/23/63, and it was reported as being useless for ID purposes.
After the conspirators realized they had no solid evidence against Lee Oswald they realized that they needed to have evidence to back up their case and support Henry Wades bold lie . Henry Wade had told reporters that they had found Lee Oswald's prints on the gun...But Wade was simply lying.
Thus Hoover had the evidence sent back to Dallas so they could slip the palm print into the evidence stream.and manipulate the evidence of the arrest shirt. ......
Some folks simply cannot understand ( or refuse to believe) that J.Edgar Hoover was THE king pin in the coup d e'tat......
-
There?s that magic word ?credible? again that means whatever you want it to mean.
I can do that too: no credible evidence that Oswald was the one who shot Kennedy.
You can make up whatever you want to. And I will be just as interested as I am your invisible dragon.
-
The partial palm print (CE 639) was released to the FBI at midnight 11/22/63..... It was examined in the FBI lab in Washington DC on Saturday 11/23/63, and it was reported as being useless for ID purposes.
Bull.
Latona didn?t get the magic partial palmprint until November 29th.
-
You can make up whatever you want to. And I will be just as interested as I am your invisible dragon.
And I?m just as disinterested in your evidence-less ?Oswald did it? conclusion as you are in my evidence-less dragon.
Which was the whole point of the analogy.
-
Bull.
Latona didn?t get the magic partial palmprint until November 29th.
Bull !....There is a FBI report dated 11/23/63 that says exactly what I said it did.....
-
Bull !....There is a FBI report dated 11/23/63 that says exactly what I said it did.....
Let?s see it, Walt.
-
Let?s see it, Walt.
John It's been over twenty years since I saw that FBI report.... It is in one of the 26 volumes.....But I can't tell you where to find it....
I debated this many years ago in another forum......
-
The partial palm print (CE 639) was released to the FBI at midnight 11/22/63..... It was examined in the FBI lab in Washington DC on Saturday 11/23/63, and it was reported as being useless for ID purposes.
After the conspirators realized they had no solid evidence against Lee Oswald they realized that they needed to have evidence to back up their case and support Henry Wades bold lie . Henry Wade had told reporters that they had found Lee Oswald's prints on the gun...But Wade was simply lying.
Thus Hoover had the evidence sent back to Dallas so they could slip the palm print into the evidence stream.and manipulate the evidence of the arrest shirt. ......
Some folks simply cannot understand ( or refuse to believe) that J.Edgar Hoover was THE king pin in the coup d e'tat......
The question has been raised as to who is the biggest Kook on this forum. You are definitely in the running.
-
The question has been raised as to who is the biggest Kook on this forum. You are definitely in the running.
Nah, all CTers are tied for first.
As an aside, Gordie Howe once told a referee: 'You're the second-best referee in the league. All the others are tied for first'
-
Are you just going to criticize something that is irrelevant?
Answering a question with a question?
Now you changed this to a game of checkers. Your move
By the way, a preponderance of the evidence is what you brought up.
Are you feeling ok Chuck?
-
Are you saying that the conclusions of the WC are somehow better simply because they interviewed more people?
Where did I say that..
-
Tell us how many of your 'lots of people' conducted 25,000 interviews
Most of the interviews were used as filler to make their final report look as large a possible for their two biggest fans, you and Ross.
-
Where did I say that..
What else did you mean by this;
Tell us how many of your 'lots of people' conducted 25,000 interviews
-
Most of the interviews were used as filler to make their final report look as large a possible for their two biggest fans, you and Ross.
Yes. It's the same reason that Bugliosi lists "53 pieces of evidence", most of which aren't evidence for anything.
-
What else did you mean by this;
I meant what I said the first time: 25,000 interviews were undertaken. You wouldn't be assuming something, now would you?
Oh, btw can you point out just who your apparently small cadre of interviewers are that might render null and void the 25,000? Perhaps ambulance & Jimmy Jones chaser Mark Lane for instance, who tried to manipulate 'The Divine Miss M' but instead got his arse handed to him? That quality?
-
I meant what I said the first time: 25,000 interviews were undertaken. You wouldn't be assuming something, now would you?
Oh, btw can you point out just who your apparently small cadre of interviewers are that might render null and void the 25,000? Perhaps ambulance & Jimmy Jones chaser Mark Lane for instance, who tried to manipulate 'The Divine Miss M' but instead got his arse handed to him? That quality?
25,000? ha ha ha ha ha That's funny are sure it wasn't 50,000? Always an even number, right?
-
Yes. It's the same reason that Bugliosi lists "53 pieces of evidence", most of which aren't evidence for anything.
I don't know why Chapman doesn't use Bugliosi for his last name. Vincent had one illegitimate kid
-
Oh, btw can you point out just who your apparently small cadre of interviewers are that might render null and void the 25,000?
Who said the interviews were null and void?
-
I meant what I said the first time: 25,000 interviews were undertaken. You wouldn't be assuming something, now would you?
Oh, btw can you point out just who your apparently small cadre of interviewers are that might render null and void the 25,000? Perhaps ambulance & Jimmy Jones chaser Mark Lane for instance, who tried to manipulate 'The Divine Miss M' but instead got his arse handed to him? That quality?
I meant what I said the first time: 25,000 interviews were undertaken. You wouldn't be assuming something, now would you?
I don't need to assume anything. It's pretty obvious what you said, just that it is obvious that you are now trying to distance yourself from the stupidity of it.
-
Some of the scheduled "interviews" of witnesses were cancelled due to untimely "suicide" such as George De Morhenschildt, whom after speaking briefly to a reporter and also having received his reply from GHW Bush, about how to proceed at the HSCA hearings, was found dead by apparently shooting himself in the mouth with a shotgun.
-
Who said the interviews were null and void?
you missed 'might'
scroll back and see if you can figure out who I was originally responding to and why
-
Some of the scheduled "interviews" of witnesses were cancelled due to untimely "suicide" such as George De Morhenschildt, whom after speaking briefly to a reporter and also having received his reply from GHW Bush, about how to proceed at the HSCA hearings, was found dead by apparently shooting himself in the mouth with a shotgun.
List these 'scheduled witnesses' who died before they testified.
George deM was in a highly troubled mental state in 1976 it would appear. His wife was very sick and he had been predeceased by his daughter some years earlier. Nothing is worse for a parent.
His letter to Bush
"You will excuse this hand-written letter. Maybe you will be able to bring a solution to the hopeless situation I find myself in. My wife and I find ourselves surrounded by some vigilantes; our phone bugged; and we are being followed everywhere. Either FBI is involved in this or they do not want to accept my complaints. We are driven to insanity by the situation. I have been behaving like a damn fool ever since my daughter Nadya died from [cystic fibrosis] over three years ago. I tried to write, stupidly and unsuccessfully, about Lee H Oswald and must have angered a lot of people ? I do not know. But to punish an elderly man like myself and my highly nervous and sick wife is really too much. Could you do something to remove the net around us? This will be my last request for help and I will not annoy you any more. Good luck in your important job. Thank you so much."[57][58]
-
List these 'scheduled witnesses' who died before they testified.
George deM was in a highly troubled mental state in 1976 it would appear. His wife was very sick and he had been predeceased by his daughter some years earlier. Nothing is worse for a parent.
His letter to Bush
"You will excuse this hand-written letter. Maybe you will be able to bring a solution to the hopeless situation I find myself in. My wife and I find ourselves surrounded by some vigilantes; our phone bugged; and we are being followed everywhere. Either FBI is involved in this or they do not want to accept my complaints. We are driven to insanity by the situation. I have been behaving like a damn fool ever since my daughter Nadya died from [cystic fibrosis] over three years ago. I tried to write, stupidly and unsuccessfully, about Lee H Oswald and must have angered a lot of people ? I do not know. But to punish an elderly man like myself and my highly nervous and sick wife is really too much. Could you do something to remove the net around us? This will be my last request for help and I will not annoy you any more. Good luck in your important job. Thank you so much."[57][58]
Why wasn't LHO a witness...?? Oh that's right. Talk about efficient, he was taken care of long before anyone. I forgot about him. What was his involvement, if any that day?
-
you missed 'might'
::)
Ok, who said that the interviews might be null and void?
scroll back and see if you can figure out who I was originally responding to and why
I know who your strawman was directed at.
-
Why wasn't LHO a witness...?? Oh that's right. Talk about efficient, he was taken care of long before anyone. I forgot about him. What was his involvement, if any that day?
Try to focus. My post is about George deM.
-
Try to focus. My post is about George deM.
Yes, I call him Oswald's sponsor. Murder or suicide it makes no difference, but why so many? Everyone has to die. What is odd ---In the U.S.the combined murder/suicide rate is roughly 20 per 100,000 people. On the list below many are NATURAL CAUSES but it's amazing how many were MURDERS then you still have the ones that had suspicious circumstances. I bet you think LHO murder these people, an unbelievable killer he was, right?
Asterisks mark death that seemed to happen under suspicious circumstances.
Date Name Connection with case Cause of death
11/63 Karyn Kupicinet Tv host's daughter who was overheard telling of JFK's death prior to 11/22/63 Murdered
12/63 Jack Zangretti Expressed foreknowledge of Ruby shooting Oswald Gunshot Victim
2/64 Eddy Benavides Lookalike brother to Tippit shooting witness, Domingo Benavides Gunshot to head
2/64 Betty MacDonald* Former Ruby employee who alibied Warren Reynolds shooting suspect. Suicide by hanging in Dallas Jail
3/64 Bill Chesher Thought to have information linking Oswald and Ruby Heart attack
3/64 Hank Killam* Husband of Ruby employee, knew Oswald acquaintance Throat cut
4/64 Bill Hunter* Reporter who was in Ruby's apartment on 11/24/63 Accidental shooting by policeman
5/64 Gary Underhill* CIA agent who claimed Agency was involved Gunshot in head ruled suicide
5/64 Hugh Ward* Private investigator working with Guy Banister and David Ferrie Plane crash in Mexico
5/64 DeLesseps Morrison* New Orleans Mayor Passenger in Ward's plane
8/64 Teresa Norton* Ruby employee Fatally shot
6/64 Guy Banister* x-FBI agent in New Orleans connected to Ferrie, CIA, Carlos Marcello & Oswald Heart attack
9/64 Jim Koethe* Reporter who was in Ruby's apartment on 11/24/63 Blow to neck
9/64 C.D. Jackson "Life" magazine senior Vicepresident who bought Zapruderfilm and locked it away Unknown
10/64 Mary Pinchot JFK "special" friend whose diary was taken by CIA chief James Angleton after her death Murdered
1/65 Paul Mandal "Life" writer who told of JFK turning to rear when shot in throat Cancer
3/65 Tom Howard* Ruby's first lawyer, was in Ruby's apartment on 11/24/63 Heart attack
5/65 Maurice Gatlin* Pilot for Guy Banister Fatal fall
8/65 Mona B. Saenz* Texas Employment clerk who interviewed Oswald Hit by Dallas bus
?/65 David Goldstein Dallasite who helped FBI trace Oswald's pistol Natural causes
9/65 Rose Cheramie* Knew of assassination in advance, told of riding to Dallas with Cubans Hit/run victim
11/65 Dorothy Kilgallen* Columnist who had private interview with Ruby, pledged to "break" JFK case Drug overdose
11/65 Mrs. Earl Smith* Close friend to Dorothy Kilgallen, died two daysafter columnist, may have kept Kilgallen's notes Cause unknown
12/65 William Whaley* Cab driver who reportedly drove Oswald to Oak Cliff (The only Dallas taxi driver to die on duty) Motor collision
1966 Judge Joe Brown Presided over Ruby's trial Heart attack
1966 Karen "Little Lynn" Carlin* Ruby employee who last talked with Ruby before Oswald shooting Gunshot victim
1/66 Earlene Roberts Oswald's landlady Heart attack
2/66 Albert Bogard* Car salesman who said Oswald test drove new car Suicide
6/66 Capt. Frank Martin Dallas policeman who witnessed Oswald slaying, told Warren Commission "there's a lot to be said but probably be better if I don't say it" Sudden cancer
8/66 Lee Bowers Jr.* Witnessed men behind picket fence on Grassy Knoll Motor accident
9/66 Marilyn "Delila Walle* Ruby dancer Shot by husband after 1 month of marriage
10/66 Lt. William Pitzer* JFK autopsy photographer who described his duty as "horrifying experience" Gunshot rule suicided
11/66 Jimmy Levens Fort Worth nightclub owner who hired Ruby employees Natural causes
11/66 James Worrell Jr.* Saw man flee rear of Texas School Book Depository Motor accident
1966 Clarence Oliver Dist. Atty. Investigator who worked Ruby case Unknown
12/66 Hank Suydam Life magazine official in charge of JFK stories Heart attack
1967 Leonard Pullin Civilian Navy employee who helped film "Last Two Days" about assassination One-car crash
1/67 Jack Ruby* Oswald's slayer Lung cancer (he told family he was injected with cancer cells)
2/67 Harold Russell* Saw escape of Tippit killer killed by cop in bar brawl
2/67 David Ferrie* Acquaintance of Oswald, Garrison suspect and employee of Guy Banister Blow to neck (ruled accidental)
2/67 Eladio Del Valle* Anti-Castro Cuban associate of David Ferrie being sought by Garrison Gunshot wound, a wound to head
3/67 Dr. Mary Sherman* Ferrie associate working on cancer research Died in fire (possibly shot)
1/68 A. D. Bowie Asst. Dallas District Attorney prosecuting Ruby Cancer
4/68 Hiram Ingram Dallas Deputy Sheriff, close friend to Roger Craig Sudden cancer
5/68 Dr. Nicholas Chetta New Orleans coroner who on death of Ferrie Heart attack
8/68 Philip Geraci* Friend of Perry Russo, told of Oswald/Shaw conversation Electrocution
1/69 Henry Delaune* Brother-in-law to coroner Chetta Murdered
1/69 E.R. Walthers* Dallas Deputy Sheriff who was involved in Depository search, claimed to have found .45-cal. slug Shot by felon
1969 Charles Mentesana Filmed rifle other than Mannlicher-Carcano being taken from Depository Heart attack
4/69 Mary Bledsoe Neighbor to Oswald, also knew David Ferrie Natural causes
4/69 John Crawford* Close friend to both Ruby and Wesley Frazier, who gave ride to Oswald on 11/22/63 Crash of private plane
7/69 Rev. Clyde Johnson* Scheduled to testify about Clay Shaw/Oswald connection Fatally shot
1970 George McGann* Underworld figure connected to Ruby friends, wife, Beverly, took film in Dealey Plaza Murdered
1/70 Darrell W. Garner Arrested for shooting Warren Reynolds, released after alibi from Betty MacDonald Drug overdose
8/70 Bill Decker Dallas Sheriff who saw bullet hit street in front of JFK Natural causes
8/70 Abraham Zapruder Took famous film of JFK assassination Natural causes
12/70 Salvatore Granello* Mobster linked to both Hoffa,Trafficante, and Castro assassination plots Murdered
1971 James Plumeri* Mobster tied to mob-CIA assassination plots Murdered
3/71 Clayton Fowler Ruby's chief defense attorney Uknown
4/71 Gen. Charles Cabell* CIA deputy director connected to anti-Castro Cubans Collapsed and died afterphysical at Fort Myers
1972 Hale Boggs* House Majority Leader, member of Warren Commission who began to publicly express doubts about findings Disappeared on Alaskan plane flight
5/72 J. Edgar Hoover* FBI director who pushed "lone assassin" theory in JFK assassination Heart attack (no autopsy)
9/73 Thomas E. Davis* Gunrunner connected to both Ruby and CIA Electrocuted trying to steal wire
2/74 J.A. Milteer* Miami right-winger who predicted JFK's death and capture of scapegoat Heater explosion
1974 Dave Yaras* Close friend to both Hoffa and Jack Ruby Murdered
7/74 Earl Warren Chief Justice who reluctantly chaired Warren Commission Heart failure
8/74 Clay Shaw* Prime suspect in Garrison case, reportedly a CIA contact with Ferrie and E. Howard Hunt Possible cancer
1974 Earle Cabell Mayor of Dallas on 11/22/63, whose brother, Gen. Charles Cabell was fired from CIA by JFK Natural causes
6/75 Sam Giancana* Chicago Mafia boss slated to tell about CIA-mob death plots to Senate Committee Murdered
7/75 Clyde Tolson J. Edgar Hoover's assistant and roommate Natural causes
1975 Allen Sweatt Dallas Deputy Sheriff involved in investigation Natural causes
12/75 Gen. Earle Wheeler Contact between JFK and CIA Unknown
1976 Ralph Paul Ruby's business partner connected with crime figures Heart attack
4/76 James Chaney Dallas motorcycle officer riding to JFK's right rear who said JFK "struck in the face" with bullet Heart attack
4/76 Dr. Charles Gregory Governor John Connally's physician Heart attack
6/76 William Harvey* CIA coordinator for CIA-mob assassination plans against Castro Complications from heart surgery
7/76 John Roselli* Mobster who testified to Senate Committee and was to appear again Stabbed and stuffed in metal drum
-
2/64 Eddy Benavides Lookalike brother to Tippit shooting witness, Domingo Benavides Gunshot to head
Eddy Benavides was shot in 1965.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/eddy-benavides-death.jpg)