JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: John Mytton on July 12, 2019, 03:56:08 AM
-
Surely, the most important piece of evidence to convince the public would be eyewitnesses to the murder, there were hundreds of people in Dealey Plaza and having 5-6 people all say they saw Oswald with a rifle in the Sniper's nest and I seriously doubt that we would be here today but instead the conspirators used considerable manpower to manufacture rifle paper trails, threaten eyewitnesses, plant evidence, manufacture evidence, when all they had to do was have eyewitnesses say it was Oswald in the window.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184817/m1/1/med_res/)
Were the conspirators naive or did they just rely on the roll of the dice?
JohnM
-
Surely, the most important piece of evidence to convince the public would be eyewitnesses to the murder, there were hundreds of people in Dealey Plaza and having 5-6 people all say they saw Oswald with a rifle in the Sniper's nest and I seriously doubt that we would be here today but instead the conspirators used considerable manpower to manufacture rifle paper trails, threaten eyewitnesses, plant evidence, manufacture evidence, when all they had to do was have eyewitnesses say it was Oswald in the window.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184817/m1/1/med_res/)
Were the conspirators naive or did they just rely on the roll of the dice?
JohnM
John,
Since they didn't even know if Oswald would show up for work that day (or be captured on film, outside, during the shooting) the evil, evil, evil S.O.B.s in CIA didn't know if they'd be framing Oswald, or Joe Molina, or Jack Dougherty, or that vicious little Vicki Adams until after the smoke had cleared!
LOL
-- MWT ;)
-
Surely, the most important piece of evidence to convince the public would be eyewitnesses to the murder, there were hundreds of people in Dealey Plaza and having 5-6 people all say they saw Oswald with a rifle in the Sniper's nest and I seriously doubt that we would be here today but instead the conspirators used considerable manpower to manufacture rifle paper trails, threaten eyewitnesses, plant evidence, manufacture evidence, when all they had to do was have eyewitnesses say it was Oswald in the window.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184817/m1/1/med_res/)
Were the conspirators naive or did they just rely on the roll of the dice?
JohnM
Your point being that just because there were no 5 or 6 witnesses to say they saw Oswald, there couldn't have been a conspiracy?
Just how old are you, John?
-
John,
Since they didn't even know if Oswald would show up for work that day (or be captured on film, outside, during the shooting) the evil, evil, evil S.O.B.s in CIA didn't know if they'd be framing Oswald, or Joe Molina, or Jack Dougherty, or that vicious little Vicki Adams until after the smoke had cleared!
LOL
-- MWT ;)
Hi Thomas, that's an interesting scenario, Oswald didn't see Marina the weekend before and could have rightfully made it a long weekend to make up for the lost time or Oswald could have been sick or involved in a car crash with Frazier or any number of problems but everything goes to plan and Oswald goes to work and stays out of sight at 12:30, what are the odds the random person "they" pick would tick so many boxes?
Your what ifs are interesting, Jack Dougherty would be the no brainer, mainly because many perceive him to be a bit slow which would make later manipulation much easier. Dougherty gets to work early so getting a rifle into the building could be easily explained, he was in the service, lived at home, never married, classic Loner.
JohnM
-
Your point being that just because there were no 5 or 6 witnesses to say they saw Oswald, there couldn't have been a conspiracy?
Sure, having eyewitnesses to a crime, solves a crime whereas relying on made up circumstantial evidence is an unnecessary risk.
Just how old are you, John?
Old enough to know that debating someone who is usually reduced to claiming that "they" can fake anything, which leads to the predictable ""absolutely nothing can be trusted", is pretty futile.
JohnM
-
Surely, the most important piece of evidence to convince the public would be eyewitnesses to the murder, there were hundreds of people in Dealey Plaza and having 5-6 people all say they saw Oswald with a rifle in the Sniper's nest and I seriously doubt that we would be here today but instead the conspirators used considerable manpower to manufacture rifle paper trails, threaten eyewitnesses, plant evidence, manufacture evidence, when all they had to do was have eyewitnesses say it was Oswald in the window.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184817/m1/1/med_res/)
Were the conspirators naive or did they just rely on the roll of the dice?
JohnM
Contradictions are de rigeur in CT Wonderland.
-
Sure, having eyewitnesses to a crime, solves a crime whereas relying on made up circumstantial evidence is an unnecessary risk.
Old enough to know that debating someone who is usually reduced to claiming that "they" can fake anything, which leads to the predictable ""absolutely nothing can be trusted", is pretty futile.
JohnM
Five or six witnesses doesn't automatically mean those witnesses are right.
-
Five or six witnesses doesn't automatically mean those witnesses are right.
Yeah, all the "lineups were unfair". LOL!
JohnM
-
Surely, the most important piece of evidence to convince the public would be eyewitnesses to the murder, there were hundreds of people in Dealey Plaza and having 5-6 people all say they saw Oswald with a rifle in the Sniper's nest and I seriously doubt that we would be here today but instead the conspirators used considerable manpower to manufacture rifle paper trails, threaten eyewitnesses, plant evidence, manufacture evidence, when all they had to do was have eyewitnesses say it was Oswald in the window.
What conspirators who used considerable manpower to manufacture rifle paper trails, threaten eyewitnesses, plant evidence, manufacture evidence? You wouldn't be manufacturing YET ANOTHER LN-er strawman argument would you?
-
Yeah, all the "lineups were unfair". LOL!
Rigged lineups are no laughing matter.
- Fillers should generally resemble each other and the suspect
- Fillers and the suspect should be dressed alike
- Fillers should resemble the witness's pre-lineup description of the suspect
- There should be a minimum of 5 fillers
- The person administering the lineup should not know who the suspect is
- If the suspect has an unusual or unique feature that would make him stand out then it should be concealed, or the fillers should have the same thing artificially added
- Witnesses should not attend lineups together
- The witness should not be visible to the suspect or fillers
- The suspect's position in each lineup should be randomly placed
- Witnesses should be told that the suspect may or may not be in the lineup
- Witnesses should be asked how certain they are of the identification
- Witnesses should not have been biased by media reports prior to the lineup
- Witnesses shouldn't be pressured to make a selection
https://www.ncjrs.gov/nij/eyewitness/eyewitness_id.html (https://www.ncjrs.gov/nij/eyewitness/eyewitness_id.html)
-
Yeah, all the "lineups were unfair". LOL!
JohnM
Identification rates are demonstrably lower when fillers are dressed the same
Plus people generally aren't all that observant in the first place, especially modern-day
-
The lineups were not part of any conspiracy. Just what you would expect given the circumstances. Why would anyone expect them to be fair? They achieved their purpose.
-
Perhaps Castro's rifle was all that was required on the day. Oswald's whereabouts at shooting time would not be so important.
-
Sure, having eyewitnesses to a crime, solves a crime whereas relying on made up circumstantial evidence is an unnecessary risk.
Old enough to know that debating someone who is usually reduced to claiming that "they" can fake anything, which leads to the predictable ""absolutely nothing can be trusted", is pretty futile.
JohnM
"they" can fake anything
Johnny, are you really that naive? Do you truly believe something can be made but can not subsequently be faked?
absolutely nothing can be trusted"
Something presented as "evidence" needs to be examined..... there is no room for (blind faith) trust, at least not in court of law.....