JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Jorn Frending on June 16, 2019, 11:35:17 PM
-
CT's in general believe that Oswald was totally innocent and was set up as a patsy by a large scale conspiracy. The planning included taking him off the watchlist for subversive elements and planting all kind of evidence against him.
If you believe this you also have to believe that this costly big scale conspiracy would willingly take the risk that Oswald could be literally anywhere in company with anybody in such a way that he could not be set up.
He could have been on the grassy knoll steps in company with Lovelady or simply not having turned up to work that day. Even if he would have been urged to go to work that day and and been told to carry out certain activities somewhere in the building, would not guarantee him doing it in the exact moment of time considering also that the limo may be late.
Therefore, if you do not believe that a conspiracy would take such risks, you will have to present an alternative theory.
(Some of you may reconsider believing that Oswald was actually at the steps of the TSBD)
(The content and conclusion of of this thread is resumed in reply number 8, 10, 54 and 57 and has not been refuted in this thread)
(When adopting to this "new line of investigation" CT's will save time and reach more solid conclusions)
(Both LN's and CT's like Richard Smith and Ray Mitchham have quickly elaborated on this new line of investigation in this thread)
-
CT's in general believe that Oswald was totally innocent and was set up as a patsy by a large scale conspiracy. The planning included taking him off the watchlist for subversive elements and planting all kind of evidence against him.
If you believe this you also have to believe that this costly big scale conspiracy would willingly take the risk that Oswald could be literally anywhere in company with anybody in such a way that he could not be set up.
He could have been on the grassy knoll steps in company with Lovelady or simply not having turned up to work that day. Even if he would have been urged to go to work that day and and been told to carry out certain activities somewhere in the building, would not guarantee him doing it in the exact moment of time considering also that the limo may be late.
Therefore, if you do not believe that a conspiracy would take such risks, you will have to present an alternative theory.
(Some of you may reconsider believing that Oswald was actually at the steps of the TSBD)
How could a newbie with only 1 post before this come up with such a thread? If you could answer the above question first, before this thread continues.
Oswald was totally innocent according to Milteer, he was the local guy picked up to throw the public off.
He was in the the 2nd floor lunchroom when the shots were fired, from the Dal Tex which went in through the TSBD and then they then exited from the alleged SN window back out onto Elm street, causing debris to fall onto the witnesses below at the 5th floor S.E window.
He was only an order picker who would have been told the 6th floor was off limits due to work being carried out for renovations and because of his gentle obliging nature, he would have done what he was told, by any work colleague or supervisor.
-
How could a newbie with only 1 post before this come up with such a thread?
Oswald was totally innocent according to Milteer he was the local guy picked up to throw the public off.
He was in the the 2nd floor lunchroom when the shots were fired, from the Dal Tex and in through the TSBD and then they exited back out onto Elm street
Can't say you didn't provide an alternative theory.
So why would Oswald--if he's just innocently sitting in the lunchroom--decide to leave the building so suddenly? And leave his rifle upstairs?
-
(http://)
How could a newbie with only 1 post before this come up with such a thread?
Oswald was totally innocent according to Milteer he was the local guy picked up to throw the public off.
He was in the the 2nd floor lunchroom when the shots were fired, from the Dal Tex which went in through the TSBD and then they then exited from the alleged SN window back out onto Elm street, causing debris to fall onto the witnesses below at the 5th floor S.E window
He was only an order picker who would have been told the 6th floor was off limits due to work being carried out for renovations and because of his gentle obliging nature, he would have done what he was told, by any work colleague or supervisor
So how would you set up Oswald had he been in the street in company with others? If he was totally innocent he could have been anywhere ...
-
Can't say you didn't provide an alternative theory.
So why would Oswald--if he's just innocently sitting in the lunchroom--decide to leave the building so suddenly? And leave his rifle upstairs?
That is what I am here for.
Are you sure he knew the rifle was upstairs.
Did Shelly not tell him he could go, because no more work would take place
-
(http://)
So how would you set up Oswald had he been in the street in company with others? If he was totally innocent he could have been anywhere ...
Correct your grammar please, and answer my question how could a newbie create such a thread? are you guys working in teams just like the conspirators :-[
-
Correct your grammar please, and answer my question how could a newbie create such a thread? are you guys working in teams just like the conspirators :-[
I appreciate that you are being polite, however English is only my third language depending on what we are talking about and as a matter of fact I actually first registered to this forum in 2013 ...
And by the way, you didn't answer my question :)
-
I appreciate that you are being polite, however English is only my third language depending on what we are talking about and as a matter of fact I actually first registered to this forum in 2013 ...
Thanks for that I would always try be polite with those who are ok with me, good to see you have been around a while, so now you can address my other answers to your original questions
-
In addition to my first question a similar secondary question applies:
Would a large scale preplanned conspiracy rely on Ruby to finish off Oswald the way he did, taking such risks including that Oswald may survive and later being able to defend himself?
You either believe this or without doubt you must come up with an alternative theory involving that something HAD to go wrong somewhere and that Oswald SHOULD have been finished off earlier on ...
You have to choose one of those two possibilities ...
-
In addition to my first question a similar secondary question applies:
Would a large scale preplanned conspiracy rely on Ruby to finish off Oswald the way he did, taking such risks including that Oswald may survive and later being able to defend himself?
You either believe this or without doubt you must come up with an alternative theory involving that something HAD to go wrong somewhere and that Oswald SHOULD have been finished off earlier on ...
You have to choose one of those two possibilities ...
I would not rule out an attempt on Oswald life being missed around the Plazza area , but two days later Ruby the Jew shot Oswald the communist in the stomach with the gun pointing upwards, this was a classic assassination tactic, Levelle in white and Oswald all in black for the camera event, they knew he was not going to talk again, exactly what Ruby implied by the world would never know his true intent is something to be explored.
But perhaps another attempt on Oswald life being averted by Officer Tippet in Oak cliffe should also be looked into
-
As a third question we can consider that a completely innocent Oswald was set up in the Tippit shooting by a large scale conspiracy either preplanned or improvised.
How could conspirators know that a totally oblivious Oswald would go to the Texas Theater and watch a movie? He could have gone anywhere or simply stayed on Dealey Plaza.
Yes, only a woman could have kept Oswald out of sight in the TSBD rather than him going out on the street watching the president of the United States, and only a woman could make him go the theater rather than him watching the assassination news in the rooming house. Yet he could have been late, failed to have brought his gun or simply having bragged to friends of his date of a lifetime. No, this would all be too risky.
Improvising creates similar problems, "hey we've got this dead cop here-let's blame it on Oswald, he's nearby". Well, his trip to the theater could simply have been documented by witnesses. Also too risky and you didn't need it in the first place.
Any serious CT should come up with an alternative theory regarding Oswald being totally innocent.
-
As a third question we can consider that a completely innocent Oswald was set up in the Tippit shooting by a large scale conspiracy either preplanned or improvised.
How could conspirators know that a totally obnoxious Oswald would go to the Texas Theater and watch a movie? He could have gone anywhere or simply stayed on Dealey Plaza.
John, Osdlwad could have been under orders to meet a contact in the cinema. You may recall that he was seen moving around the theatre costing various people. Why would he do this?
Yes, only a woman could have kept Oswald out of sight in the TSBD rather than him going out on the street watching the president of the United States, and only a woman could make him go the theater rather than him watching the assassination news in the rooming house. Yet he could have been late, failed to have brought his gun or simply having bragged to friends of his date of a lifetime. No, this would all be too risky.
A very naive point of view, IMO.
Improvising creates similar problems, "hey we've got this dead cop here-let's blame it on Oswald, he's nearby". Well, his trip to the theater could simply have been documented by witnesses. Also too risky and you didn't need it in the first place.
Any serious CT should come up with an alternative theory regarding Oswald being totally innocent.
Yes, an alternative theory could be that he was acting under instructions and became the fall guy, thus he could easily have been totally innocent.
-
There is no logical way that a conspiracy to frame Oswald could have worked without the cooperation of Oswald himself. At a minimum, Oswald would have to agree to take the job at the TSBD, stay there until JFK could be brought to Dallas, show up on 11.22, carry a large bag, not be in the company of anyone else or be photographed on the street giving him an alibi at the moment of the assassination, and flee like the place was on fire moments after the assassination. These actions could not be be left to chance and only ensured if Oswald was an active participant in the conspiracy (i.e. at least to the extent of following instructions). Which is why many CTers appear to have given up on the notion of Oswald as an innocent Mr. Magoo-like character stumbling into trouble time and again. Instead Oswald is playing some unspecified role - maybe as the shooter or maybe as some gullible Gomer Pyle type who gets caught up in the plot. Of course there is zero credible evidence of Oswald's involvement with anyone else, but it at least makes more narrative sense for Oswald to have been playing some active role in the fantasy conspiracy.
-
John, Osdlwad could have been under orders to meet a contact in the cinema. You may recall that he was seen moving around the theatre costing various people. Why would he do this?
A very naive point of view, IMO.
Yes, an alternative theory could be that he was acting under instructions and became the fall guy, thus he could easily have been totally innocent.
I'm debating the idea that Oswald did not know anything what
so ever.
Once you believe that Oswald was in fact involved in something then this is a totally different discussion, and I do not then regard Oswald as "totally" innocent.
-
I'm debating the idea that Oswald did not know anything what
so ever.
Once you believe that Oswald was in fact involved in something then this is a totally different discussion, and I do not then regard Oswald as "totally" innocent.
There is at least one nut here who suggests Oswald was led to believe there would a staged attempt on JFK (but not actually an assassination) that would be used as a pretext for Oswald to seek asylum in Cuba to spy on Castro. It's laughable nonsense, but in this fantasy scenario Oswald is not only innocent but a gullible hero double crossed by the conspirators. It is tin foil hat kookery but one in which Oswald is technically "innocent" while playing an active role in the conspiracy because his participation is achieved via a false premise (i.e. that he is working as an agent behalf of the US rather as part of an assassination team).
-
"If you believe this you also have to believe that this costly big scale conspiracy would willingly take the risk that Oswald could be literally anywhere in company with anybody in such a way that he could not be set up."
I've always thought that LHO was in the 2nd floor lunchroom by himself because he WAS INSTRUCTED to be anywhere so long as he was alone. If so, yes, he should have wondered why but maybe he didn't.
-
"If you believe this you also have to believe that this costly big scale conspiracy would willingly take the risk that Oswald could be literally anywhere in company with anybody in such a way that he could not be set up."
I've always thought that LHO was in the 2nd floor lunchroom by himself because he WAS INSTRUCTED to be anywhere so long as he was alone. If so, yes, he should have wondered why but maybe he didn't.
How exactly could Oswald or the fantasy conspirators ensure that he would be "by himself" in a lunchroom at lunch time? Imagine that plan! LOL. After months or years spent to frame Oswald for the assassination, they just let him sit out in plain view for any random person who wanted to buy a drink or have lunch to see. Good grief. No one can possibly believe that was the plan. If Oswald is following "INSTRUCTIONS" why not just have him sequestered somewhere on the 6th floor where he is supposed to be in the frame up plan? If you were planning this event, would you let your patsy out of your sight in a lunchroom at the moment you were framing him for the assassination? Absolutely not. A critical component of any such plan is that Oswald must be unaccounted for and have no alibi at the time of the assassination.
-
There is no logical way that a conspiracy to frame Oswald could have worked without the cooperation of Oswald himself. At a minimum, Oswald would have to agree to take the job at the TSBD, stay there until JFK could be brought to Dallas, show up on 11.22, carry a large bag, not be in the company of anyone else or be photographed on the street giving him an alibi at the moment of the assassination, and flee like the place was on fire moments after the assassination. These actions could not be be left to chance and only ensured if Oswald was an active participant in the conspiracy (i.e. at least to the extent of following instructions). Which is why many CTers appear to have given up on the notion of Oswald as an innocent Mr. Magoo-like character stumbling into trouble time and again. Instead Oswald is playing some unspecified role - maybe as the shooter or maybe as some gullible Gomer Pyle type who gets caught up in the plot. Of course there is zero credible evidence of Oswald's involvement with anyone else, but it at least makes more narrative sense for Oswald to have been playing some active role in the fantasy conspiracy.
There is no logical way that a conspiracy to frame Oswald could have worked without the cooperation of Oswald himself.
I agree, but he could have been manipulated to believe he was involved in something else, while being set up for the assassination.
At a minimum, Oswald would have to agree to take the job at the TSBD, stay there until JFK could be brought to Dallas, show up on 11.22, carry a large bag, not be in the company of anyone else or be photographed on the street giving him an alibi at the moment of the assassination, and flee like the place was on fire moments after the assassination. These actions could not be be left to chance and only ensured if Oswald was an active participant in the conspiracy (i.e. at least to the extent of following instructions).
Cut the dramatics. If there was a conspiracy, it must have been one at the highest levels. At those levels none of the actual facts would have a problem since the narrative could have been made to fit after the fact.... even more so when there wasn't going to be a trial
not be in the company of anyone else or be photographed on the street giving him an alibi at the moment of the assassination
Why would being photographed be a a problem? We know there were people who had their cameras confiscated and they never got the pictures back that they took.
Which is why many CTers appear to have given up on the notion of Oswald as an innocent Mr. Magoo-like character stumbling into trouble time and again.
Define "innocent"
Of course there is zero credible evidence of Oswald's involvement with anyone else,
Would you expect there to be if a conspiracy had taken place and the conspirators (if they exist) control the evidence and the narrative?
To me there are enough indications in the WC report to conclude something was going on that shouldn't have been. The documented need to manipulate Oswald's bio, the selective calling of witnesses, the tampering with at least one WC witness's testimony, the way physical evidence was handled etc.... It was all geared up the reach a pre-determined conclusion regardless of the actual facts. But I guess to look at all that honestly one needs an unbiased view, so I am probably talking to the wrong guy.
-
What I find wrong with the presumption is that they were unwilling to take risks. It was all very daredevil, but they figured, if we pull it off, it's payday.
Define "payday." There are obviously considerable risks associated with assassinating the president. Like going to jail for the rest of your life or being killed. I don't think anyone with the alleged capabilities of the conspirators in this case (e.g. bringing JFK to Dallas in a motorcade that passes the TSBD and manipulating all the evidence including random citizens) leaves Oswald's movements to chance.
-
Define "payday." There are obviously considerable risks associated with assassinating the president. Like going to jail for the rest of your life or being killed. I don't think anyone with the alleged capabilities of the conspirators in this case (e.g. bringing JFK to Dallas in a motorcade that passes the TSBD and manipulating all the evidence including random citizens) leaves Oswald's movements to chance.
You are simply not getting this, are you?
Oswald's actual movements wouldn't have mattered one bit if the force behind the conspiracy (if there was one) was able to control the evidence and the narrative.
Once Oswald was killed, who was going to deny anything they claimed about him?
-
There is no logical way that a conspiracy to frame Oswald could have worked without the cooperation of Oswald himself.
I agree, but he could have been manipulated to believe he was involved in something else, while being set up for the assassination.
At a minimum, Oswald would have to agree to take the job at the TSBD, stay there until JFK could be brought to Dallas, show up on 11.22, carry a large bag, not be in the company of anyone else or be photographed on the street giving him an alibi at the moment of the assassination, and flee like the place was on fire moments after the assassination. These actions could not be be left to chance and only ensured if Oswald was an active participant in the conspiracy (i.e. at least to the extent of following instructions).
Cut the dramatics. If there was a conspiracy, it must have been one at the highest levels. At those levels none of the actual facts would have a problem since the narrative could have been made to fit after the fact.... even more so when there wasn't going to be a trial
not be in the company of anyone else or be photographed on the street giving him an alibi at the moment of the assassination
Why would being photographed be a a problem? We know there were people who had their cameras confiscated and they never got the pictures back that they took.
What exactly is "dramatic" about noting that any conspiracy that went to the lengths of framing Oswald would not leave his movements to chance at the moment of the assassination? And you don't believe it would be an issue for your fantasy conspirators if Oswald had been on the street at the moment of the assassination? LOL. Yes, all the conspirators had to do was confiscate and/or manipulate every single photo and film taken in DP. No wonder you are a CTer.
-
You are simply not getting this, are you?
Oswald's actual movements wouldn't have mattered one bit if the force behind the conspiracy (if there was one) was able to control the evidence and the narrative.
Once Oswald was killed, who was going to deny anything they claimed about him?
Aren't you embarrassed to peddle this nonsense? Oswald's movements "wouldn't have mattered one bit"! LOL. What if he hadn't gone to work that day and took a long weekend at the Paine residence? Your fantasy conspirators go to all manner of outlandish lengths to manipulate evidence and coerce random citizens to lie but they can't keep track of Oswald at the crucial moment of the assassination? Instead he is allowed to wonder about where anyone might encounter him and give him an alibi instead of doing the obvious and simple thing of just sequestering him for a couple of minutes. You can't be for real.
-
What exactly is "dramatic" about noting that any conspiracy that went to the lengths of framing Oswald would not leave his movements to chance at the moment of the assassination? And you don't believe it would be an issue for your fantasy conspirators if Oswald had been on the street at the moment of the assassination? LOL. Yes, all the conspirators had to do was confiscate and/or manipulate every single photo and film taken in DP. No wonder you are a CTer.
What exactly is "dramatic" about noting that any conspiracy that went to the lengths of framing Oswald would not leave his movements to chance at the moment of the assassination?
You simply don't get any of it. A force powerful enough to pull of something like the murder of a President is powerful enough to control the evidence after the fact.
And you don't believe it would be an issue for your fantasy conspirators if Oswald had been on the street at the moment of the assassination?
Nope… the "investigators" would simply say that anybody who said they saw him was wrong..... Carolyn Arnold comes to mind.
Yes, all the conspirators had to do was confiscate and/or manipulate every single photo and film taken in DP.
What happened to the photos that were indeed confiscated and either never returned or returned "damaged"?
Aren't you embarrassed to peddle this nonsense? Oswald's movements "wouldn't have mattered one bit"! LOL. What if he hadn't gone to work that day and took a long weekend at the Paine residence? Your fantasy conspirators go to all manner of outlandish lengths to manipulate evidence and coerce random citizens to lie but they can't keep track of Oswald at the crucial moment of the assassination? Instead he is allowed to wonder about where anyone might encounter him and give him an alibi instead of doing the obvious and simple thing of just sequestering him for a couple of minutes. You can't be for real.
What if he hadn't gone to work that day and took a long weekend at the Paine residence?
Pathetic! If Oswald was being manipulated, he would have been manipulated in such a way that he would do what the conspirators wanted. There would never have been any risk.... if there was a conspiracy and it all went south because of what Oswald did, they could simply have aborded the scheme and try again later.
Instead he is allowed to wonder about where anyone might encounter him and give him an alibi instead of doing the obvious and simple thing of just sequestering him for a couple of minutes.
Let's examine this crappy claim for a bit. Brennan said later he did not identify Oswald because he was afraid and you accept his word for it, but at the same time you seem to feel that nobody else would have been afraid and thus willing to come forward to say that the guy that the media had already painted guilty wasn't really guilty because he was seen elsewhere...... And even if anybody came forward, they would just be mistaken..... that seems to be the main strategy of the WC anyway!
-
What exactly is "dramatic" about noting that any conspiracy that went to the lengths of framing Oswald would not leave his movements to chance at the moment of the assassination?
You simply don't get any of it. A force powerful enough to pull of something like the murder of a President is powerful enough to control the evidence after the fact.
And you don't believe it would be an issue for your fantasy conspirators if Oswald had been on the street at the moment of the assassination?
Nope… the "investigators" would simply say that anybody who said they saw him was wrong..... Carolyn Arnold comes to mind.
Yes, all the conspirators had to do was confiscate and/or manipulate every single photo and film taken in DP.
What happened to the photos that were indeed confiscated and either never returned or returned "damaged"?
What if he hadn't gone to work that day and took a long weekend at the Paine residence?
Pathetic! If Oswald was being manipulated, he would have been manipulated in such a way that he would do what the conspirators wanted. There would never have been any risk.... if there was a conspiracy and it all went south because of what Oswald did, they could simply have aborded the scheme and try again later.
Instead he is allowed to wonder about where anyone might encounter him and give him an alibi instead of doing the obvious and simple thing of just sequestering him for a couple of minutes.
Let's examine this crappy claim for a bit. Brennan said later he did not identify Oswald because he was afraid and you accept his word for it, but at the same time you seem to feel that nobody else would have been afraid and thus willing to come forward to say that the guy that the media had already painted guilty wasn't really guilty because he was seen elsewhere...... And even if anybody came forward, they would just be mistaken..... that seems to be the main strategy of the WC anyway!
We have finally come to the end of the discussion! No evidence can ever convince you of Oswald's guilt because all evidence could be manipulated (even though there is no evidence that actually happened). It is the impossible Catch-22 standard of proof which allows you to ignore any evidence of Oswald's guilt and propose false, contrarian doubt to entertain an otherwise baseless fantasy.
-
John, Osdlwad could have been under orders to meet a contact in the cinema. You may recall that he was seen moving around the theatre costing various people. Why would he do this?
A very naive point of view, IMO.
Yes, an alternative theory could be that he was acting under instructions and became the fall guy, thus he could easily have been totally innocent.
Problem: A need to get off the street pronto
Solution: Pick up one of TT customers and get the hell out of Dodge
Or at least temporary off the street
You're not much of a problem solver
-
Problem: A need to get off the street pronto
Solution: Pick up one of TT customers and get the hell out of Dodge
Or at least temporary off the street
You're not much of a problem solver
Says a Warren Commission believer. :D
-
We have finally come to the end of the discussion! No evidence can ever convince you of Oswald's guilt because all evidence could be manipulated (even though there is no evidence that actually happened). It is the impossible Catch-22 standard of proof which allows you to ignore any evidence of Oswald's guilt and propose false, contrarian doubt to entertain an otherwise baseless fantasy.
We have finally come to the end of the discussion!
What discussion? There never was a discussion. All you have been doing is sounding like a broken record repeating the same rubbish all the time.
No evidence can ever convince you of Oswald's guilt because all evidence could be manipulated (even though there is no evidence that actually happened).
BS. This is just your classic "I can't convince you with my special kind of logic, but that is your fault" crap
It is the impossible Catch-22 standard of proof which allows you to ignore any evidence of Oswald's guilt and propose false, contrarian doubt to entertain an otherwise baseless fantasy.
What evidence of Oswald's guilt have I ever ignored? Could it be you equate questioning evidence with ignoring it? And since when is having doubts about something contrarian?
You still don't get that I am trying to discuss all possibilities without having a predetermined opinion, like you have.
-
CT's in general believe that Oswald was totally innocent and was set up as a patsy by a large scale conspiracy. The planning included taking him off the watchlist for subversive elements and planting all kind of evidence against him.
If you believe this you also have to believe that this costly big scale conspiracy would willingly take the risk that Oswald could be literally anywhere in company with anybody in such a way that he could not be set up.
He could have been on the grassy knoll steps in company with Lovelady or simply not having turned up to work that day. Even if he would have been urged to go to work that day and and been told to carry out certain activities somewhere in the building, would not guarantee him doing it in the exact moment of time considering also that the limo may be late.
Therefore, if you do not believe that a conspiracy would take such risks, you will have to present an alternative theory.
(Some of you may reconsider believing that Oswald was actually at the steps of the TSBD)
'Nightmare', huh.. are you sure the conspirator species even sleeps?
More like daydreams...
-
You are simply not getting this, are you?
Oswald's actual movements wouldn't have mattered one bit if the force behind the conspiracy (if there was one) was able to control the evidence and the narrative.
Once Oswald was killed, who was going to deny anything they claimed about him?
You are simply not getting this, are you?
>>> Lord Haughty the Condescender still running his mouth, I see...
-
We have finally come to the end of the discussion!
What discussion? There never was a discussion. All you have been doing is sounding like a broken record repeating the same rubbish all the time.
No evidence can ever convince you of Oswald's guilt because all evidence could be manipulated (even though there is no evidence that actually happened).
BS. This is just your classic "I can't convince you with my special kind of logic, but that is your fault" crap
It is the impossible Catch-22 standard of proof which allows you to ignore any evidence of Oswald's guilt and propose false, contrarian doubt to entertain an otherwise baseless fantasy.
What evidence of Oswald's guilt have I ever ignored? Could it be you equate questioning evidence with ignoring it? And since when is having doubts about something contrarian?
You still don't get that I am trying to discuss all possibilities without having a predetermined opinion, like you have.
You have claimed that Oswald's movements were not important at the moment of the assassination because the conspirators could control all the evidence such as confiscating and manipulating any films or photos taken of Oswald on the street. Once you have deemed your fantasy conspirators all powerful and ubiquitous then you eliminate the ability to prove Oswald guilty. It becomes an impossible standard of proof. For example, Oswald has no credible alibi at the time of the assassination. That doesn't matter to you because he could have been standing outside in the presence of others and your all powerful conspirators coerced them into lying. It is Alice-in-Wonderland nonsense that allows you entertain false doubt of Oswald's guilt regardless of the evidence.
-
You have claimed that Oswald's movements were not important at the moment of the assassination because the conspirators could control all the evidence such as confiscating and manipulating any films or photos taken of Oswald on the street. Once you have deemed your fantasy conspirators all powerful and ubiquitous then you eliminate the ability to prove Oswald guilty. It becomes an impossible standard of proof. For example, Oswald has no credible alibi at the time of the assassination. That doesn't matter to you because he could have been standing outside in the presence of others and your all powerful conspirators coerced them into lying. It is Alice-in-Wonderland nonsense that allows you entertain false doubt of Oswald's guilt regardless of the evidence.
Stop making up stuff and misrepresenting my words.
-
What exactly is "dramatic" about noting that any conspiracy that went to the lengths of framing Oswald would not leave his movements to chance at the moment of the assassination?
Does it not even occur to you that somebody can be framed after the fact?
-
You have claimed that Oswald's movements were not important at the moment of the assassination because the conspirators could control all the evidence such as confiscating and manipulating any films or photos taken of Oswald on the street. Once you have deemed your fantasy conspirators all powerful and ubiquitous then you eliminate the ability to prove Oswald guilty. It becomes an impossible standard of proof. For example, Oswald has no credible alibi at the time of the assassination.
Once you insert your subjective word "credible" in there, you reveal that your standard of proof is insufficient. You dismiss any evidence to the contrary as not being "credible". At least 6 other people in the TSBD alone have no alibi at the time of the assassination, "credible" or otherwise.
-
Does it not even occur to you that somebody can be framed after the fact?
Iacoletti,
Who do you think the evil, evil, evil DPD, CIA and FBI would have framed if Oswald hadn't gone to work that day, or ... gasp ... had been clearly "caught" on film while standing outside during the motorcade?
A different "Alek James Hidell"?
-- MWT ;)
-
"A Hidell" could have been anybody.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/graves-hidell.png)
-
"A Hidell" could have been anybody.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/graves-hidell.png)
Iacolonetti,
He wouldn't have been nearly that handsome.
Regardless, according to your theory, the bad guys had to not only wait until Oswald and all the other putative Hidells came to work that morning, but hope against hope that at least one of them would stay inside the building and not be seen by any other employees while some guy or gal from the evil, evil, evil CIA was doing the shooting.
LOL
-- MWT ;)
PS Why do you naturally assume that evidence implicating Oswald, like the palm print found on the stock of the Carcano, was fabricated?
Do you agree with Trump that we live in an evil, evil, evil CIA and FBI-dominated "Deep State," and that Russia's intelligence services are to be preferred to our own?
-
Regardless, according to your theory, the bad guys had to not only wait until Oswald and all the other putative Hidells came to work that morning, but hope against hope that at least one of them would stay inside the building and not be seen by any other employees while some guy or gal from the evil, evil, evil CIA was doing the shooting.
That's not my theory, but nice try.
PS Why do you naturally assume that evidence implicating Oswald, like the palm print found on the stock of the Carcano, was fabricated?
What palm print found on the stock of the Carcano? All I know about is a partial palm print found a week later on an index card.
-
That's not my theory, but nice try.
What palm print found on the stock of the Carcano? All I know about is a partial palm print found a week later on an index card.
And you automatically assume that it must be bogus, right?
Are you into Film Alteration, too?
-- MWT ;)
-
Iacoletti,
Care to expound on your theory as to how the evil, evil, evil DPD and/or the evil, evil, evil CIA and/or the evil, evil, evil FBI framed Oswald so quickly after-the-fact, not knowing in advance that he'd show up for work that day, and which frame job seems to have involved a "mysto" witness lying when he (allegedly) told Herb Sawyer about the dude he'd seen running away from the back of the building, and Brennan's "observations" during the shooting, and the lyin' descriptions, by people living or working in the 10th and Patton neighborhood, of Tippit's murderer, etc, etc, etc?
Was it that Oswald was numero uno on their frame-up list, and therefore they had all their ducks in a row "for him" beforehand, and just got lucky that he not only went to work that day, but that the "Oswald-exonerating" PRAYER PERSON image in that pesky Darnell dude's film (and in Wiegman's, too) was so hard to make out until a just a few years ago when Sean Murphy and Bart "The Fart" Kamp came along and explained it all to us?
-- MWT ;)
PS If they'd had to frame that Commie, Joe Molina, or somebody else, instead, would they still have alleged that the murder weapon was that particular Carcano?
Hmm?
-
And you automatically assume that it must be bogus, right?
Are you automatically assuming that it came from the Carcano?
-
Care to expound on your theory as to how the evil, evil, evil DPD and/or the evil, evil, evil CIA and/or the evil, evil, evil FBI framed Oswald so quickly after-the-fact, not knowing in advance that he'd show up for work that day, and which frame job seems to have involved a "mysto" witness lying when he (allegedly) told Herb Sawyer about the dude he'd seen running away from the back of the building, and Brennan's "observations" during the shooting, and the lyin' descriptions, by people living or working in the 10th and Patton neighborhood, of Tippit's murderer, etc, etc, etc?
Whatever gave you the idea that this is my theory?
Is it your "theory" that Oswald killed JFK?
-
Are you automatically assuming that it [the palm print] came from the Carcano?
Iacoletti,
Are you automatically assuming otherwise?
If so, why?
Because you want to believe "the evil, evil, evil Deep State" killed Kennedy?
-- MWT ;)
-
Quite simply, there is no reason to accept the claim that the magic palmprint was lifted from the Carcano rifle as being true.
-
Whatever gave you the idea that this is my theory?
Iacoletti,
That WHAT'S your theory, then?
That Oswald was quickly framed, after the fact, by bogus evidence and witness statements, even though the bad guys didn't know until immediately after the assassination that it was he they were going to frame?
Isn't that what you ... gasp ... believe?
-- MWT ;)
-
Quite simply, there is no reason to accept the claim that the magic palmprint was lifted from the Carcano rifle as being true.
Because the palm print wasn't photographed on the rifle at the time, or because the index card wasn't notarized, or something?
-- MWT ;)
-
Iacoletti,
That WHAT'S your theory, then?
That Oswald was quickly framed, after the fact, by bogus evidence and witness statements, even though the bad guys didn't know until immediately after the assassination that it was he they were going to frame?
Isn't that what you ... gasp ... believe?
Are you just going to keep making stuff up to argue against?
My position is that the case against Oswald for the murder of JFK is weak, circumstantial, and tainted, and cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Period.
-
Because the palm print wasn't photographed on the rifle at the time, or because the index card wasn't notarized, or something?
Because there is no evidence to support it (other than "Carl Day said so"), and several reasons to question it.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1979.msg53715.html#msg53715 (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1979.msg53715.html#msg53715)
-
Says a Warren Commission believer. :D
I'm more of a CTer non-believer
And don't quit your day job, Sherlock.
-
My position is that the case against Oswald for the murder of JFK is weak, circumstantial, and tainted, and cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Iacoletti,
Earlier in this thread, you replied to an Ostensible Lone Nutter (who doubted that the bad guys would have allowed Oswald to venture outside where he could be caught on film or noticed by other people) by glibly suggesting that Oswald was framed after-the-fact, and that if he hadn't gone to work that morning, or if the bad guys had noticed his doing jumping jacks or some-such thing in full sunlight, that the bad guys could just as easily have framed some other TSBD employee, instead.
Am I correct?
-- MWT ;)
-
"A Hidell" could have been anybody.
When Oswald rented PO Box 2915, "A Hidell" was getting stuff sent to Oswald's PO Box?
(https://i.postimg.cc/Y9xf7zhF/osw-ald-money-order.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTAyNrwVHiWQzh9jLkw80vmIaZdK6aqKjYkZ6-ND02E1uKrMEuDag)
And whoever "A Hidell" was, he/she was determined to have a writing style that indicated that they were Oswald?
(https://i.postimg.cc/QMGyxSxY/Money-orderr.jpg)
JohnM
-
When Oswald rented PO Box 2915, "A Hidell" was getting stuff sent to Oswald's PO Box?
There's no evidence that such "stuff" was sent to Oswald's PO box.
And whoever "A Hidell" was, he/she was determined to have a writing style that indicated that they were Oswald?
"writing style that indicated that they were Oswald". LOL.
-
There's no evidence that such "stuff" was sent to Oswald's PO box.
No evidence, LOL!
JohnM
-
No evidence, LOL!
None whatsoever.
-
None whatsoever.
None whatsoever. LOLOL!
JohnM
-
I will now add my fourth question (yes, it gets worse) and reach a conclusion ...
Let's for a moment imagine that Oswald was just manipulated and did not know that something special was going to happen. Well, why didn't he say so. "You know, this woman had a problem, we talked about it and agreed to meet later in the TT."
I therefore believe that Oswald either did it OR had to form part of an organisation which he believed in and was loyal to. If he was betrayed and did not know about the assassination he would have had to be silenced very quickly. The way it was done by Ruby was too risky and could only have been a plan B.
This thread has shown that CT's have no other options as mentioned above, OR accept that "Oswald did it but not alone" and still manage to prove conspiracy.
CT's will have to convince OTHER CT's and review their research.
Otherwise, they will keep walking in circles ...
-
None whatsoever. LOLOL!
Feel free to provide some.
LOLOL.
-
I will now add my fourth question (yes, it gets worse) and reach a conclusion ...
Let's for a moment imagine that Oswald was just manipulated and did not know that something special was going to happen. Well, why didn't he say so. "You know, this woman had a problem, we talked about it and agreed to meet later in the TT."
I therefore believe that Oswald either did it OR had to form part of an organisation which he believed in and was loyal to. If he was betrayed and did not know about the assassination he would have had to be silenced very quickly. The way it was done by Ruby was too risky and could only have been a plan B.
This thread has shown that CT's have no other options as mentioned above, OR accept that "Oswald did it but not alone" and still manage to prove conspiracy.
CT's will have to convince OTHER CT's and review their research.
Otherwise, they will keep walking in circles ...
Not nearly the circles that the "Oswald did it" theorists have to walk in.
The "what I think conspirators would have done" argument is a failure right out of the box.
-
Not nearly the circles that the "Oswald did it" theorists have to walk in.
The "what I think conspirators would have done" argument is a failure right out of the box.
In this thread we have shown that Oswald could not have been framed had he been totally oblivious of any event to take take place that day.
Oswald, being framed or not, had to have offered some collaboration or even just been taking plain orders.
I'm offering you the opportunity to still being a CT, why don't you take it? :)
-
Feel free to provide some.
LOLOL.
"Feel free to provide some" LOLOLOL!!!
JohnM
-
Does it not even occur to you that somebody can be framed after the fact?
Iacoletti, are you claiming it's possible that sometime after the assassination within a day, they invented enough evidence to arrest Oswald for not one but two murders? WOW!
JohnM
-
"Feel free to provide some" LOLOLOL!!!
JohnM
If you are trying to cover up the fact that you can't provide anything to substantiate your initial claim, you are not doing a very good job.
It's beyond obvious that you have nothing to offer, so why not simply say so instead of playing this silly game?
-
My position is that the case against Oswald for the murder of JFK is weak, circumstantial, and tainted, and cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Iacoletti,
You didn't answer my question.
Regardless, .... "tainted"?
How so?
Other than the fact that the lineups seemed a bit unfair, can you give me a few examples?
-- MWT ;)
-
Iacoletti,
You didn't answer my question.
Regardless, .... "tainted"?
How so?
Other than the fact that the lineups seemed a bit unfair, can you give me a few examples?
-- MWT ;)
Yes, he did answer your question, but he didn't give you the reply you wanted.
-
Yes, he did answer your question, but he didn't give you the reply you wanted.
Wrong again, Weidman.
(Are you Judge Judy, btw?)
Since Iacoletti had implied that the bad guys, having monitored Oswald closely both before and during the assassination (and thereby noticing that he hadn't gone out of the building so far as to actually get into the sunlight where he could really, really, really be "caught" on film and blow the "op"), decided they wouldn't have to quickly go to "Plan B" and start framing, immediately after-the-fact, Commie Joe Molina, or "Plan C" -- Big Jack Dougherty, or ..... "Plan Z" ... gasp ... that vicious little VICKI ADAMS, after all, and I was wondering how Iacoletti figured the bad guys (the evil, evil, evil DPD and/or the evil, evil, evil CIA and/or the evil, evil, evil FBI) had game-played out all those contingencies, you know, ahead of time, so to speak.
But he evidently didn't want to answer that question, did he.
-- MWT ;)
-
Wrong again, Weidman.
(Are you Judge Judy, btw?)
Since Iacoletti had implied that the bad guys, having monitored Oswald closely both before and during the assassination (and thereby noticing that he hadn't gone out of the building so far as to actually get into the sunlight where he could really, really, really be "caught" on film and blow the "op"), decided they wouldn't have to quickly go to "Plan B" and start framing, immediately after-the-fact, Commie Joe Molina, or "Plan C" -- Big Jack Dougherty, or ..... "Plan Z" ... gasp ... that vicious little VICKI ADAMS, after all, and I was wondering how Iacoletti figured the bad guys (the evil, evil, evil DPD and/or the evil, evil, evil CIA and/or the evil, evil, evil FBI) had game-played out all those contingencies, you know, ahead of time, so to speak.
But he evidently didn't want to answer that question, did he.
-- MWT ;)
Why would he have to answer a silly question based on something you feel John implied?
Perhaps you should read and try to understand what he really said.
-
Does it not even occur to you that somebody can be framed after the fact?
Oswald was framed?
-
Quite simply, there is no reason to accept the claim that the magic palmprint was lifted from the Carcano rifle as being true.
There was a magic palm print?
-
Oswald was framed?
Couldn't he have been?
-
There was a magic palm print?
Do you know so little about this case that you need to ask?
-
Couldn't he have been?
Did he have to be?
-
Do you know so little about this case that you need to ask?
Do you mean your interpretation of the case?
-
Do you mean your interpretation of the case?
Nope… that's something you wouldn't be willing or able to understand.
-
People pulling a 'fast one' usually don't want to get caught
Aliases come in handy
Overhead projectors make it easy to copy any writing
Do several and use the closest
-
Nope… that's something you wouldn't be willing or able to understand.
Lord Haughty the Put-Upon
-
If you are trying to cover up the fact that you can't provide anything to substantiate your initial claim, you are not doing a very good job.
It's beyond obvious that you have nothing to offer, so why not simply say so instead of playing this silly game?
You have something to offer?
-
You have something to offer?
I don't have to substantiate a silly claim, so, in that regard, no I don't
Any more questions?
Let me know when you are able, willing and man enough to debate a topic instead of just trolling around like a mediocre court jester
-
As long as you know my opinion about you, Your Majesty...
Thumb1:
-
Oswald was framed?
Not only that, but by definition, after-the-fact!
You gotta realize that the Dallas Police Department and/or the CIA and/or the FBI and/or military intelligence had updated-by-the-minute contingency plans for framing each and every employee at the TSBD (including that vicious little Vicki Adams) in case only one of 'em (by some fluke in statistical probability) showed up for work that morning, or if only one of 'em (by a different fluke in statistical probability) was out of view of all those dag-blasted cameras, and all those dag-blasted colleagues of their's, like EATIN' A CHEESE SANDWICH, HERMIT-LIKE, INSIDE THE BUILDING, from at least ten minutes before 12 noon (oops, looks like we're gonna have to change that to at least ten minutes before 12:31).
Oh yeah, and we're gonna have to make sure they can each one of 'em walk to 10th and Patton in time to shoot Officer Tippit (who'll be told as early as possible who to be on the lookout for) so we can frame 'em up real good n' proper ...
Oh yeah, and we're gonna have to make sure that each and every one of 'em looks as though they're a Castro-lovin' Communist so it'll look like he (Castro) done ordered the assassination, and then we can Invade Cuba and remove that S.O.B. from power, or, even better, nuke the mo-fo's and start the Nuclear Armeggedon and the Manifest Destiny that's been prophesized in the Old Testament since about 5,000 years after the Earth was formed, by God!
LOL
-- MWT ;)
-
You do not make a compelling case. Besides, there were possibly multiple patsies set up in case Oswald didn't work out. Do your investigation into the attempted assassination weeks earlier in Chicago where they had a patsy all set up and ready to go...
-
You do not make a compelling case. Besides, there were possibly multiple patsies set up in case Oswald didn't work out.
How many potential patsies you figure, so that, you know, the bad guys would feel confident they had "all the bases covered" for such an important, one shot (pardon the pun) "op"?
Five?
Ten?
More??
LOL
-- MWT ;)
PS Even though they didn't know which one of them patsies they'd end up using until the deed was done, did they let them all wander outside if they wanted to, where they could be "captured" on film during the shooting?
Wasn't that Dirty Commie the authorities were monitoring, Joe Molina, captured on film in Altgens-6 and/or Darnell?
Wuz they plannin' on usin' him if their number one "mark" was sick that day, or had decided to play hooky (they got any zoos in Big D?)?
You know, so we could invade Russia an' get our casinos back, or somethin'?
Wuz their real "ace in the hole" Big Jack Dougherty?
That vicious little Vicki Adams?
Mrs Robert Reid?
Hey! Buell Wesley Frazier! He got an Enfield 30.06, don't he?
-
Not only that, but by definition, after-the-fact!
You gotta realize that the Dallas Police Department and/or the CIA and/or the FBI and/or military intelligence had updated-by-the-minute contingency plans for framing each and every employee at the TSBD (including that vicious little Vicki Adams) in case only one of 'em (by some fluke in statistical probability) showed up for work that morning, or if only one of 'em (by a different fluke in statistical probability) was out of view of all those dag-blasted cameras, and all those dag-blasted colleagues of their's, like EATIN' A CHEESE SANDWICH, HERMIT-LIKE, INSIDE THE BUILDING, from at least ten minutes before 12 noon (oops, looks like we're gonna have to change that to at least ten minutes before 12:31).
Oh yeah, and we're gonna have to make sure they can each one of 'em walk to 10th and Patton in time to shoot Officer Tippit (who'll be told as early as possible who to be on the lookout for) so we can frame 'em up real good n' proper ...
Oh yeah, and we're gonna have to make sure that each and every one of 'em looks as though they're a Castro-lovin' Communist so it'll look like he (Castro) done ordered the assassination, and then we can Invade Cuba and remove that S.O.B. from power, or, even better, nuke the mo-fo's and start the Nuclear Armeggedon and the Manifest Destiny that's been prophesized in the Old Testament since about 5,000 years after the Earth was formed, by God!
LOL
-- MWT ;)
The only thing framing the prime suspect was the SN window
-
In this thread we have shown that Oswald could not have been framed had he been totally oblivious of any event to take take place that day.
You haven't shown that in any way whatsoever. You've just speculated on what you thought conspirators would do.
-
Iacoletti, are you claiming it's possible that sometime after the assassination within a day, they invented enough evidence to arrest Oswald for not one but two murders? WOW!
What makes you think there was enough evidence to arrest Oswald?
-
Iacoletti,
You didn't answer my question.
I don't answer loaded questions. Have you stopped beating your wife?
Regardless, .... "tainted"?
How so?
Other than the fact that the lineups seemed a bit unfair, can you give me a few examples?
-- MWT ;)
Sure. Here's just a few.
- Brennan's change of heart after failing to identify Oswald
- Brennan's alleged ability to see the head shot shooter from the waist up
- Alyea's description of Fritz tampering with the crime scene
- The long bag not appearing in crime scene photos
- Givens' later "recollection" of going back for his cigarettes and seeing Oswald on the 6th floor
- The magic partial palmprint
- No documented chains of custody for the magic bullet, the "limo fragments", the revolver, or the revolver shells
- The February Klein's deposit slip for an alleged March order
- The police "finding" bullets and bus transfer in Oswald's pockets hours after his arrest
- No mention of Oswald's alleged punch in the arrest report
- O.P. Wright's account of a pointed bullet at the hospital
- The Mauser reports
- Whaley's time sheet
- Altered hospital times for Tippit's death
- Drain's two contradictory reports on the characteristics of the paper bag
- The "steel-jacketed" Walker bullet.
-
Wrong again, Weidman.
(Are you Judge Judy, btw?)
Since Iacoletti had implied that the bad guys, having monitored Oswald closely both before and during the assassination (and thereby noticing that he hadn't gone out of the building so far as to actually get into the sunlight where he could really, really, really be "caught" on film and blow the "op"), decided they wouldn't have to quickly go to "Plan B" and start framing, immediately after-the-fact, Commie Joe Molina, or "Plan C" -- Big Jack Dougherty, or ..... "Plan Z" ... gasp ... that vicious little VICKI ADAMS, after all, and I was wondering how Iacoletti figured the bad guys (the evil, evil, evil DPD and/or the evil, evil, evil CIA and/or the evil, evil, evil FBI) had game-played out all those contingencies, you know, ahead of time, so to speak.
That's a cool story you made up. But how exactly did I imply any of that?
-
What makes you think there was enough evidence to arrest Oswald?
What makes you think there wasn't?
-
What makes you think there wasn't?
Would you care to enumerate the evidence that gave the police probable cause to arrest him for murder at the time of his arrest?
-
I don't answer loaded questions. Have you stopped beating your wife?
Sure. Here's just a few.
- Brennan's change of heart after failing to identify Oswald
- Brennan's alleged ability to see the head shot shooter from the waist up
- Alyea's description of Fritz tampering with the crime scene
- The long bag not appearing in crime scene photos
- Givens' later "recollection" of going back for his cigarettes and seeing Oswald on the 6th floor
- The magic partial palmprint
- No documented chains of custody for the magic bullet, the "limo fragments", the revolver, or the revolver shells
- The February Klein's deposit slip for an alleged March order
- The police "finding" bullets and bus transfer in Oswald's pockets hours after his arrest
- No mention of Oswald's alleged punch in the arrest report
- O.P. Wright's account of a pointed bullet at the hospital
- The Mauser reports
- Whaley's time sheet
- Altered hospital times for Tippit's death
- Drain's two contradictory reports on the characteristics of the paper bag
- The "steel-jacketed" Walker bullet.
- Brennan's change of heart after failing to identify Oswald
Brennan's description of Oswald that was nearly identical with the Police radio broadcast at about 12:45 is powerful corroborating evidence for Brennan's eventual positive identification of Oswald.
- Brennan's alleged ability to see the head shot shooter from the waist up
Oswald sat on the ledge.
- Alyea's description of Fritz tampering with the crime scene
Evidence has to be examined and removed, it's one of the job descriptions.
- The long bag not appearing in crime scene photos
The bag was seen and testified as being in the sniper's nest by six Police officers.
- Givens' later "recollection" of going back for his cigarettes and seeing Oswald on the 6th floor
At first Givens was just trying to cover his own ass and in time he was asked more questions and gave more detailed answers. And didn't Givens see Oswald half an hour before the assassination, BFD!
- The magic partial palmprint
Which shows that Oswald's palm touched the actual rifle, good luck arguing that one.
- The February Klein's deposit slip for an alleged March order
LOL! That's it? That's how you plan on taking the rifle out of Oswald's hands! Hehehe.
- The police "finding" bullets and bus transfer in Oswald's pockets hours after his arrest
And the only way you "found" out about this evidence of the Police finding stuff is because the Police told you? Is this your definition of tainted? Hahaha!
And the rest is just more easily debunked nonsense, as your list gets longer and longer and more and more people become involved, your credibility in turn becomes weaker and weaker.
JohnM
-
Would you care to enumerate the evidence that gave the police probable cause to arrest him for murder at the time of his arrest?
1) Lee Harvey Occam-Oswald
2) [SEE ABOVE]
-
Brennan's description of Oswald that was nearly identical with the Police radio broadcast at about 12:45 is powerful corroborating evidence for Brennan's eventual positive identification of Oswald.
"nearly identical". LOL.
Oswald sat on the ledge.
Brennan said "at the time that he was firing the gun".
Evidence has to be examined and removed, it's one of the job descriptions.
Does evidence have to be examined and then thrown back on the floor for pictures to be taken?
The bag was seen and testified as being in the sniper's nest by six Police officers.
Yes, in different locations and folded in different ways, and none of them were in the sniper's nest before Studebaker and Day went on their excursion to the wrapping station to get "samples".
At first Givens was just trying to cover his own ass and in time he was asked more questions and gave more detailed answers. And didn't Givens see Oswald half an hour before the assassination, BFD!
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/givens-money.png)
Which shows that Oswald's palm touched the actual rifle, good luck arguing that one.
No, it shows that Latona thought a partial print on an index card that arrived a week later matched Oswald.
LOL! That's it? That's how you plan on taking the rifle out of Oswald's hands! Hehehe.
"We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand." -- Jesse Curry
And the only way you "found" out about this evidence of the Police finding stuff is because the Police told you? Is this your definition of tainted? Hahaha!
Even dishonest cops can trip themselves up. And often do.
-
1) Lee Harvey Occam-Oswald
2) [SEE ABOVE]
Yeah, that's what I thought.
:D
-
"nearly identical". LOL.
Brennan said "at the time that he was firing the gun".
Does evidence have to be examined and then thrown back on the floor for pictures to be taken?
Yes, in different locations and folded in different ways, and none of them were in the sniper's nest before studebaker and Day went on their excursion to the wrapping station to get "samples".
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/givens-money.png)
No, it shows that Latona thought a partial print on an index card that arrived a week later matched Oswald.
"We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand." -- Jesse Curry
Even dishonest cops can trip themselves up. And often do.
WOW!
So in this short post we have even more liars, Brennan, Fritz, Day, Givens, etc etc, it never ends.
What an extreme way to build a case but at least you're convincing yourself?
JohnM
-
You haven't shown that in any way whatsoever. You've just speculated on what you thought conspirators would do.
It's called "ANALYZING" :)
It's been done in order to narrow down options based on the frequent CT premise that Oswald was framed according to a carefully elaborated plan being "OBLIVIOUS" of anything strange to take place that day.
Both CT's and LN's alike have contributed greatly to this thread and so far nobody has been able to refute the idea that Oswald could not have been framed had he not carried out some kind of planned voluntary action knowingly or not of the consequences.
However, if you do not agree, you are welcome to offer an alternative theory.
In any case the conclusion still allows for having a CT point of view ...
-
WOW!
So in this short post we have even more liars, Brennan, Fritz, Day, Givens, etc etc, it never ends.
What an extreme way to build a case but at least you're convincing yourself?
No, I'm just pointing out that the actual evidence doesn't support the claims that you continue to make about it. If you find "cop said so" to be compelling evidence then you should take Chief Curry's word for it.
-
It's called "ANALYZING" :)
It's been done in order to narrow down options based on the frequent CT premise that Oswald was framed according to a carefully elaborated plan being "OBLIVIOUS" of anything strange to take place that day.
If this premise is so frequent, then can you cite a single example of it being made on this forum?
Both CT's and LN's alike have contributed greatly to this thread and so far nobody has been able to refute the idea that Oswald could not have been framed had he not carried out some kind of planned voluntary action knowingly or not of the consequences.
So you're asking the participants here to prove a negative? Isn't that special?
However, if you do not agree, you are welcome to offer an alternative theory.
Actually what I'd like to see is you making an actual case that Oswald could not have been framed had he not carried out some kind of planned voluntary action, rather than just stating it as an axiom and demanding that it be disproven.
-
If you find "cop said so" to be compelling evidence then you should take Chief Curry's word for it.
Curry said in his book that there was enough evidence to charge Oswald with the Murder of Officer Tippit.
And as for what else Curry said, maybe you can find the passage in his book that supports your statement?
JohnM
-
Curry said in his book that there was enough evidence to charge Oswald with the Murder of Officer Tippit.
And as for what else Curry said, maybe you can find the passage in his book that supports your statement?
Not in his book. The quote is from a November 6, 1969 Dallas Morning News article by Tom Johnson.
-
Not in his book. The quote is from a November 6, 1969 Dallas Morning News article by Tom Johnson.
Oh, it's hearsay, no worries.
JohnM
-
Oh, it's hearsay, no worries.
Not if Curry said it directly to Johnson.
-
Yeah, that's what I thought.
:D
Thumb1:
-
Nothing has changed here I see. The LNers are still totally focused on Oswald's guilt as a lone nut. But they're actually anti-CTers and there was NO CONSPIRACY to see here so move along! Conspiracy theorists are just tin-foil hat kooks, after all.
So if Oswald was not a lone nut shooter then the LNers' world goes kaput. But there are a few problems with that. Firstly, it is highly unlikely that Oswald could have disassembled then reassembled the rifle without leaving a single print on it. Secondly, it is highly unlikely that Oswald could have pulled off the head shot when the scope on his rifle was grossly misaligned. Thirdly, there is not a valid 3rd shot ballistic trajectory from the 6th floor of the TSBD, into JFK's back and out his throat at his location, otherwise, show us what that trajectory looks like. Fourthly, the magic bullet showing up on the wrong stretcher in pristine condition speaks for itself. Lastly, the 3rd shot could not have come from the MC because it exploded in JFK's head, which a full-metal jacketed bullet doesn't do. How much more do you LNers need to doubt that this was a conspiracy?
Conclusion: Oswald likely didn't fire a shot, therefore he must have been a patsy, which means this was a conspiracy. Given this premise, LNers need to free their minds, use some critical thinking and apply some logic to reach the same conclusions to see how this all must have played out.
-
Nothing has changed here I see. The LNers are still totally focused on Oswald's guilt as a lone nut. But they're actually anti-CTers and there was NO CONSPIRACY to see here so move along! Conspiracy theorists are just tin-foil hat kooks, after all.
So if Oswald was not a lone nut shooter then the LNers' world goes kaput. But there are a few problems with that. Firstly, it is highly unlikely that Oswald could have disassembled then reassembled the rifle without leaving a single print on it. Secondly, it is highly unlikely that Oswald could have pulled off the head shot when the scope on his rifle was grossly misaligned. Thirdly, there is not a valid 3rd shot ballistic trajectory from the 6th floor of the TSBD, into JFK's back and out his throat at his location, otherwise, show us what that trajectory looks like. Fourthly, the magic bullet showing up on the wrong stretcher in pristine condition speaks for itself. Lastly, the 3rd shot could not have come from the MC because it exploded in JFK's head, which a full-metal jacketed bullet doesn't do. How much more do you LNers need to doubt that this was a conspiracy?
Conclusion: Oswald likely didn't fire a shot, therefore he must have been a patsy, which means this was a conspiracy. Given this premise, LNers need to free their minds, use some critical thinking and apply some logic to reach the same conclusions to see how this all must have played out.
In other words, anyone that hasn't reached the same conclusion as you must be flawed in some way. :D :D What an obnoxious, arrogant fool you are.
-
In other words, anyone that hasn't reached the same conclusion as you must be flawed in some way. What an obnoxious, arrogant fool you are.
Is that what this forum has come to...calibrated viscous snipes? There was nothing obnoxious arrogant or foolish in the post. There wasn't anything stated there that hasn't been stated many times before.
-
Hello again dear forum members!
I admit to staying off the forum for often longer periods of time as many of us do :)
I would like to know if there are still CT's who believe that Oswald could be TOTALLY innocent and could have been set up as a patsy without his whereabouts being controlled.
Would a big scale conspiracy allow for the possibility of Oswald being anywhere without his whereabouts being controlled also in the case of the Tipping shooting?
CT's should take this into consideration when elaborating on any theory as explained in the first post in this thread ...
-
Hello again dear forum members!
I admit to staying off the forum for often longer periods of time as many of us do :)
I would like to know if there are still CT's who believe that Oswald could be TOTALLY innocent and could have been set up as a patsy without his whereabouts being controlled.
Would a big scale conspiracy allow for the possibility of Oswald being anywhere without his whereabouts being controlled also in the case of the Tipping shooting?
CT's should take this into consideration when elaborating on any theory as explained in the first post in this thread ...
Coulda -woulda- shoulda :-\
-
Hello again dear forum members!
I admit to staying off the forum for often longer periods of time as many of us do :)
I would like to know if there are still CT's who believe that Oswald could be TOTALLY innocent and could have been set up as a patsy without his whereabouts being controlled.
Would a big scale conspiracy allow for the possibility of Oswald being anywhere without his whereabouts being controlled also in the case of the Tipping shooting?
CT's should take this into consideration when elaborating on any theory as explained in the first post in this thread ...
Hi Jorn.....You asked...."I would like to know if there are still CT's who believe that Oswald could be TOTALLY innocent" and I would like to know if there are still CT's who believe that Oswald could be TOTALLY innocent and could have been set up as a patsy without his whereabouts being controlled.
I can only speak for myself, and I most emphatically believe hat Lee Oswald was simply a naive and trusting, ignorant patsy.
and as for part two of the question .....could (he) have been set up as a patsy without his whereabouts being controlled.
This is a little hard to answer.....Obviously the conspirators had to have control over his movements to some degree.....But they couldn't have controlled him without his enthusiastic cooperation.... So they must have lead him to believe that he was involved in some patriotic endeavor that would have appealed to his ego, and his sense that he was a blooming Herb Philbrick. ( Based on his actions for the year prior to 11/22/63 we can be absolutely certain that he was presenting himself as a communist who admired Fidel Castro) Therefore since he trusted those who were controlling him ( Hoover's Extra Special Agents) and was trying to gain entry to Fidel Castro's island bastion he cooperated fully with them. However.....Being the renegade that he was , he still wasn't 100% under their control.... because if he had been he would have been on the sixth floor as they had told him to be, and if he had been there , he would have been murdered on the sixth floor and his corpse along with the spent shells and the carcano would have been mute evidence that he had shot JFK...... He threw a monkey wrench into that machine by being on the first floor at the time of the murder of JFK.
-
That is what I am here for.
Are you sure he knew the rifle was upstairs.
Did Shelly not tell him he could go, because no more work would take place
Ok....You've asked a couple of very interesting rhetorical questions ....now back off and let's hear the answers.....
-
Hi Jorn.....You asked...."I would like to know if there are still CT's who believe that Oswald could be TOTALLY innocent" and I would like to know if there are still CT's who believe that Oswald could be TOTALLY innocent and could have been set up as a patsy without his whereabouts being controlled.
I can only speak for myself, and I most emphatically believe hat Lee Oswald was simply a naive and trusting, ignorant patsy.
and as for part two of the question .....could (he) have been set up as a patsy without his whereabouts being controlled.
This is a little hard to answer.....Obviously the conspirators had to have control over his movements to some degree.....But they couldn't have controlled him without his enthusiastic cooperation.... So they must have lead him to believe that he was involved in some patriotic endeavor that would have appealed to his ego, and his sense that he was a blooming Herb Philbrick. ( Based on his actions for the year prior to 11/22/63 we can be absolutely certain that he was presenting himself as a communist who admired Fidel Castro) Therefore since he trusted those who were controlling him ( Hoover's Extra Special Agents) and was trying to gain entry to Fidel Castro's island bastion he cooperated fully with them. However.....Being the renegade that he was , he still wasn't 100% under their control.... because if he had been he would have been on the sixth floor as they had told him to be, and if he had been there , he would have been murdered on the sixth floor and his corpse along with the spent shells and the carcano would have been mute evidence that he had shot JFK...... He threw a monkey wrench into that machine by being on the first floor at the time of the murder of JFK.
Hello again Walt, as always it's a pleasure to here from you and learn from your valuable inputs ...
I want to know the truth whether Oswald did it or not. So far and as presented in this thread Oswald must have offered some kind of collaboration to be at the correct location to be able to set him up. This, or he did actually do it. Since this has been proven in this thread CT's might as well take this into consideration when elaborating on a theory.
However, what many new CT's want is to put names on shooters and place them all over Deadly Plaza. Once they get over this stage and work on what's possible the closer they get to the truth.
You were talking about the spent shells. I actually always wanted to ask you about a photo I saw a long way back showing the three carcano shells together. Two of the shells had a dark ring near the base as if they had been in a clip for a long time but the dented shell didn't have this. I wonder if you ever noticed it?
-
Hello again Walt, as always it's a pleasure to here from you and learn from your valuable inputs ...
I want to know the truth whether Oswald did it or not. So far and as presented in this thread Oswald must have offered some kind of collaboration to be at the correct location to be able to set him up. This, or he did actually do it. Since this has been proven in this thread CT's might as well take this into consideration when elaborating on a theory.
However, what many new CT's want is to put names on shooters and place them all over Deadly Plaza. Once they get over this stage and work on what's possible the closer they get to the truth.
You were talking about the spent shells. I actually always wanted to ask you about a photo I saw a long way back showing the three carcano shells together. Two of the shells had a dark ring near the base as if they had been in a clip for a long time but the dented shell didn't have this. I wonder if you ever noticed it?
You were talking about the spent shells. I actually always wanted to ask you about a photo I saw a long way back showing the three carcano shells together. Two of the shells had a dark ring near the base as if they had been in a clip for a long time but the dented shell didn't have this. I wonder if you ever noticed it?
Thanks for asking for my opinion....But I don't recall noticing a difference in the coloration of the spent shells. I'll see if I can find my colored pictures of the shells and reply. Now since you've mentioned the dented shell....There is not an iota of doubt in my mind that that particular shell COULD NOT have been fired in the carcano that day. That shell was dented AFTER it was fired and there is absolutely NOTHING that I know of that could have dented that shell in the manner it was dented. The most common argument is the shell was dented by being flung against the receiver of the rifle as it was ejected. This desperate proposition is simply NONSENSE.
-
You were talking about the spent shells. I actually always wanted to ask you about a photo I saw a long way back showing the three carcano shells together. Two of the shells had a dark ring near the base as if they had been in a clip for a long time but the dented shell didn't have this. I wonder if you ever noticed it?
Thanks for asking for my opinion....But I don't recall noticing a difference in the coloration of the spent shells. I'll see if I can find my colored pictures of the shells and reply. Now since you've mentioned the dented shell....There is not an iota of doubt in my mind that that particular shell COULD NOT have been fired in the carcano that day. That shell was dented AFTER it was fired and there is absolutely NOTHING that I know of that could have dented that shell in the manner it was dented. The most common argument is the shell was dented by being flung against the receiver of the rifle as it was ejected. This desperate proposition is simply NONSENSE.
Thank you Walt, I could remember wrong, it could be the other way around, that the dented shell hat old dirt in the extractor groove or what you call it, where as the two others were shiny. I believe it was a black and white photo possibly from a book .,. Thank you
-
Ok....You've asked a couple of very interesting rhetorical questions ....now back off and let's hear the answers.....
Yeah...uh Walt--- Mr O'Brians account has been suspended for about a year [for some reason] It was his belief that Edwin Walker planned the entire event. I know for absolute certain that the General was not sorry to see JFK go.
-
Yeah...uh Walt--- Mr O'Brians account has been suspended for about a year [for some reason] It was his belief that Edwin Walker planned the entire event. I know for absolute certain that the General was not sorry to see JFK go.
There were many influential Texans who "were not sorry to see JFK go" and some of them were involved in his departure.
Dear Mr Hunt ,
I would like information concerding (sp) my position. I am asking only for information . I am suggesting the we discuss the matter fully before ant steps are taken by me or anyone else.
Thank You,
Lee Harvey Oswald
-
So far and as presented in this thread Oswald must have offered some kind of collaboration to be at the correct location to be able to set him up. This, or he did actually do it. Since this has been proven in this thread CT's might as well take this into consideration when elaborating on a theory.
How exactly has this been “proven”?
-
How exactly has this been “proven”?
I'm not sure "WHAT?" Jorn believes has been proven......
-
I'm not sure "WHAT?" Jorn believes has been proven......
English probably is not his first language and things just got lost in the translation.
-
How exactly has this been “proven”?
Hello John, I suppose that you always look at this from a legal point of view.
What I think has been proven in this thread is that an innocent unaware Oswald could not have been set up since he could have been anywhere in plain sight when the events took place.
My conclusion is therefore that either he did it alone or was somehow fooled to participate. I can not believe that he would be part of a conspiracy to kill JFK implicating setting up HIMSELF. Therefore those are to me the two only possibilities left.
In any case. In my first post in this thread I refer to a few key answers so that you don't have to read all the pages.
So I hope that this will also answer Walt and Jerry ...
-
Hello John, I suppose that you always look at this from a legal point of view.
What I think has been proven in this thread is that an innocent unaware Oswald could not have been set up since he could have been anywhere in plain sight when the events took place.
My conclusion is therefore that either he did it alone or was somehow fooled to participate. I can not believe that he would be part of a conspiracy to kill JFK implicating setting up HIMSELF. Therefore those are to me the two only possibilities left.
In any case. In my first post in this thread I refer to a few key answers so that you don't have to read all the pages.
Jorn, If Lee thought that he had created a hoax that would make it appear that he had taken a shot at JFK ( just as he had for the Walker hoax) It wouln't have been necessary for anybody to force him to participate in the hoax.
So I hope that this will also answer Walt and Jerry ...
-
The suggestion being [as I understand it] ---How would the assassins know that Oswald would not be in plain sight of someone when the shots were fired?
Perhaps he was.
Also..there certainly might have been other employees or pseudo-employees in the building whose whereabouts were not absolutely accounted for at that time.
-
Hello John, I suppose that you always look at this from a legal point of view.
What I think has been proven in this thread is that an innocent unaware Oswald could not have been set up since he could have been anywhere in plain sight when the events took place.
My conclusion is therefore that either he did it alone or was somehow fooled to participate. I can not believe that he would be part of a conspiracy to kill JFK implicating setting up HIMSELF. Therefore those are to me the two only possibilities left.
In any case. In my first post in this thread I refer to a few key answers so that you don't have to read all the pages.
So I hope that this will also answer Walt and Jerry ...
What I think has been proven in this thread is that an innocent unaware Oswald could not have been set up since he could have been anywhere in plain sight when the events took place.
Jorn, I think you are jumping to conclusions way too fast.
I would suggest that you think for a moment as a defense lawyer and first ask yourself what physical evidence was absolutely essential to set up Oswald and how it could be obtained involving Oswald without him becoming aware what was really going on?
Secondly, you could consider how a cover up could deal with Oswald being seen somewhere else in plain sight when the events took place.
-
It wouldn’t take a genius to guess that a loner who eats lunch by himself might be off by himself.
This also doesn’t preclude somebody being set up after the fact *because* he was unaccounted for.
-
It wouldn’t take a genius to guess that a loner who eats lunch by himself might be off by himself.
This also doesn’t preclude somebody being set up after the fact *because* he was unaccounted for.
Since I believe that Lee himself created the staged attempt on JFK..... He would have known that he need to stay out of sight during the period that he was supposed to be shooting at JFK. And that's just what he did....However the conspirators thought that he would stay out of sight on the sixth floor where his body would have been found after the assassination ...But Bonnie Ray Williams fouled up that idea....