JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Bill Chapman on March 05, 2018, 07:08:01 PM
-
I'm 100% certain of that.
(That he probably did it)
Feel free to name some other shooter who probably did it
Along with that, show circumstantial evidence pointing at your probable shooter and no one else
-
I'm 100% certain of that.
That he probably did it.
Feel free to name some other shooter who probably did it
Along with that, show circumstantial evidence pointing at your probable shooter and no one else
Before that why don't you show your evidence that Oswald was certainly the shooter.
-
Before that why don't you show your evidence that Oswald was certainly the shooter.
Show us were I said he 'certainly' did it.
Perhaps you've missed the 'tongue-in-cheek' flavour of my stated conclusion. In any case, it should be plain to see that I'm certain up to the level of the probability. Which is a step beyond possibility, and just short of claiming certainty.
And you and others have also ignored my oft-stated recognition of the fact that no one here can prove Oswald's guilt or innocence to a dead certainty.
-
Show us were I said he 'certainly' did it.
Perhaps you've missed the 'tongue-in-cheek' flavour of my stated conclusion. In any case, it should be plain to see that I'm certain up to the level of the probability. Which is a step beyond possibility, and just short of claiming certainty.
And you and others have also ignored my oft-stated recognition of the fact that no one here can prove Oswald's guilt or innocence to a dead certainty.
you and others have also ignored my oft-stated recognition of the fact
You hate to be ignored ...don't you Chappy?
that no one here can prove Oswald's guilt or innocence to a dead certainty.
No court requires a "dead certainty"..... But had Lee lived to be indicted ...He wouldn't have been indicted because there wasn't enough evidence to send him to trial. The conspirators knew that and that's the reason he was murdered.
-
Please show your evidence that Oswald "probably did it" then.
-
In the Mary Moorman photo, you can see a gunman to the viewers left of Mr. Zapruder and Ms. Sitzman.
No I can't.
-
I know it is hard for some people to live in the world of hard evidence when their whole life has been programmed to believe something else.
In this thread, I have shown hard circumstantial evidence of another gunman besides LHO.
I can probably show circumstantial evidence of another assassin with support documentation in Dealey Plaza. Any takers?
-
I know it is hard for some people to live in the world of hard evidence when their whole life has been programmed to believe something else.
In this thread, I have shown hard circumstantial evidence of another gunman besides LHO.
I can probably show circumstantial evidence of another assassin with support documentation in Dealey Plaza. Any takers?
I missed the part where you show hard evidence
-
I missed the part where you show hard evidence
Do you mean "hard circumstantial evidence"?
Steve, Bill, I presented photographic and film evidence of another shooter besides LHO. It is up to you to draw your own conclusion from this evidence.
Other users reading this thread will come up with their own conclusion that may and may not agree with your conclusions.
That is why we are here, to exchange our ideas and get them challenged by a different point of view.
-
I'm 100% certain of that.
(That he probably did it)
Feel free to name some other shooter who probably did it
Along with that, show circumstantial evidence pointing at your probable shooter and no one else
I am surprised that you got anyone to play your silly game. Your motive is clear and we have seen this same ?black or white? logical fallacy repeatedly. If one cannot show compelling evidence that someone other than Oswald did it, then Oswald did it, right? WRONG! It is not necessary to provide an alternate shooter to show that Oswald was not the shooter and the burden of proof that Oswald was the shooter rests on those arguing that he was. Furthermore, since we both know the evidence, have made up our minds, and there is no possible way that either one of us could sway the other, your post is futile.
-
Do you mean "hard circumstantial evidence"?
Steve, Bill, I presented photographic and film evidence of another shooter besides LHO. It is up to you to draw your own conclusion from this evidence.
Other users reading this thread will come up with their own conclusion that may and may not agree with your conclusions.
That is why we are here, to exchange our ideas and get them challenged by a different point of view.
I missed the part where you show photographic and film evidence of another shooter
-
CT's are always saying there is no evidence that points to Oswald's guilt. And yet when asked for evidence that proves him innocent they cannot produce it. All they ever have is "It was altered. it was faked, he said, she said, and on, and on, and on". After almost 55 years there is ZERO physical or ballistic evidence of any second shooter. On the other hand:
Oswald had the opportunity to shoot the president. The motorcade went right past the TSBD.
Oswald had the means. He owned rifle C2766.
Oswald had the ability. He qualified twice in the Marines as a "Sharpshooter" and as a "Marksman". And that is at 200 yards with iron sights.
Oswald had the will to shoot the president. In view of his attempt to kill Gen. Walker I would say yes.
His prints were on the rifle and at the sniper's nest.
Why was Oswald the only employee that left work at the TSBD?
Where are the curtain rods he told Frazier that he had in the bag?
Why did he tell Capt. Fritz that he had brought his lunch in the big bag? Why not just tell the truth and tell the Capt. that he brought curtain rods?
Oswald's housekeeper said he came home and then left after grabbing a jacket.
Why kill Tippet?
Oswald was id'ed as the killer of Tippet by several witnesses.
Why did Oswald go to Ruth Paine's on Thursday instead of his normal Friday visit? To get his rifle, that is why.
Oswald tested positive on his hands for having fired a weapon. For those of you who will say "Yes but not on his cheek", it is not likely that a shooter would get powder residue on their cheek from a bolt action rifle. Plus it was tested by the FBI.
All of the ballistic evidence was linked to Oswald's rifle and ammo and to him.
54 witnesses reported hearing three shots come from the TSBD.
Witnesses saw the gunman in the 6th floor window with a rifle.
Jarman, Norman, and Williams were right below the 6th floor window on the 5th floor and all of them heard the three shots right above them.
I could add more.
-
CT's are always saying there is no evidence that points to Oswald's guilt. And yet when asked for evidence that proves him innocent they cannot produce it.
I don't know what country you're from, but in the United States it's "innocent until proven guilty", not the other way around.
On the other hand:
Oswald had the opportunity to shoot the president. The motorcade went right past the TSBD.
The motorcade went right past dozens (perhaps hundreds) of people in Dealey Plaza.
Oswald had the means. He owned rifle C2766.
That's a conclusion, not evidence. And it's a conclusion that is not even very well supported by the evidence.
Oswald had the ability. He qualified twice in the Marines as a "Sharpshooter" and as a "Marksman". And that is at 200 yards with iron sights.
And that tells you exactly what about the proficiency of a guy 3-7 years later allegedly firing a bolt action rifle with a misaligned scope at 80-90 yards at a moving target from a 6th floor window?
Oswald had the will to shoot the president. In view of his attempt to kill Gen. Walker I would say yes.
"Attempt to kill Gen. Walker" is another one of those assumptions not well supported by the evidence. Not to mention that Walker was the political opposite of JFK.
His prints were on the rifle
No, a single partial palmprint was discovered a week later on an index card which was identified as Oswald's.
and at the sniper's nest.
That's not remarkable. His job was to get books out of boxes.
Why was Oswald the only employee that left work at the TSBD?
He wasn't.
Where are the curtain rods he told Frazier that he had in the bag?
Hell, where is the bag?
Why did he tell Capt. Fritz that he had brought his lunch in the big bag? Why not just tell the truth and tell the Capt. that he brought curtain rods?
How do you know what the truth is?
Oswald's housekeeper said he came home and then left after grabbing a jacket.
yes, and . . .?
Why kill Tippet?
Another one of those assumptions not well supported by the evidence. By the way, it's Tippit.
Oswald was id'ed as the killer of Tippet by several witnesses.
No he wasn't. Only one of those witnesses even saw Tippit being killed. And the lineups were unfair and biased.
Why did Oswald go to Ruth Paine's on Thursday instead of his normal Friday visit? To get his rifle, that is why.
Now we have an assumption unsupported by any evidence. Besides, what makes it a "normal Friday visit"? He had only been at this job about 6 weeks, missed the previous weekend completely, and one other time he had come on a Saturday. So "normal visit" is based on what, like 4 visits? How about he went there to try to make up with Marina following their big quarrel the previous weekend?
Oswald tested positive on his hands for having fired a weapon. For those of you who will say "Yes but not on his cheek", it is not likely that a shooter would get powder residue on their cheek from a bolt action rifle.
What makes this not likely? Vincent Guinn disagrees with you. Besides, did you know you can get a false positive on a nitrate test from printing ink? You know like that found in school books?
All of the ballistic evidence was linked to Oswald's rifle and ammo and to him.
"Oswald's rifle" is an assumption not well supported by the evidence. And there is nothing that connects any of the "ballistic evidence" to Oswald. Or even to the murder victims.
54 witnesses reported hearing three shots come from the TSBD.
So what? How is that evidence against Oswald? Besides, these tabulations are all affected by the biases of the person interpreting what is in many cases vague testimony, not to mention testimony colored by the media and other influences. But depending on who's doing the counting, anywhere from 33-52 witnesses reported hearing shots from the knoll. Again, so what?
Witnesses saw the gunman in the 6th floor window with a rifle.
4 witnesses reported seeing a man with a rifle in any window: Howard Brennan, who failed to identify Oswald in the lineup, and who initially described a man wearing light colored clothing who was a different height, weight, and age as Oswald. Carolyn Walther, who said it wasn't as high as the sixth floor, it was two men standing together, and that the man with the rifle was wearing a white shirt and had blond or light brown hair. Arnold Rowland, who saw a man in the Southwest 6th floor window 15 minutes before the assassination wearing a light colored shirt, and Amos Euins, who told one reporter that the man with the rifle was "colored", and told the Warren Commission that the man had a bald spot.
What makes you think that any of these people saw Oswald?
Jarman, Norman, and Williams were right below the 6th floor window on the 5th floor and all of them heard the three shots right above them.
Not quite. On day one, Bonnie Ray Williams said he heard two shots. But so what? How does the number of shots tell you who did the shooting?
I could add more.
Please do. I'm waiting for something that definitively points to Oswald actually being the shooter.
-
I don't know what country you're from, but in the United States it's "innocent until proven guilty", not the other way around.
The motorcade went right past dozens (perhaps hundreds) of people in Dealey Plaza.
That's a conclusion, not evidence. And it's a conclusion that is not even very well supported by the evidence.
And that tells you exactly what about the proficiency of a guy 3-7 years later allegedly firing a bolt action rifle with a misaligned scope at 80-90 yards at a moving target from a 6th floor window?
"Attempt to kill Gen. Walker" is another one of those assumptions not well supported by the evidence. Not to mention that Walker was the political opposite of JFK.
No, a single partial palmprint was discovered a week later on an index card which was identified as Oswald's.
That's not remarkable. His job was to get books out of boxes.
He wasn't.
Hell, where is the bag?
How do you know what the truth is?
yes, and . . .?
Another one of those assumptions not well supported by the evidence. By the way, it's Tippit.
No he wasn't. Only one of those witnesses even saw Tippit being killed. And the lineups were unfair and biased.
Now we have an assumption unsupported by any evidence. Besides, what makes it a "normal Friday visit"? He had only been at this job about 6 weeks, missed the previous weekend completely, and one other time he had come on a Saturday. So "normal visit" is based on what, like 4 visits? How about he went there to try to make up with Marina following their big quarrel the previous weekend?
What makes this not likely? Vincent Guinn disagrees with you. Besides, did you know you can get a false positive on a nitrate test from printing ink? You know like that found in school books?
"Oswald's rifle" is an assumption not well supported by the evidence. And there is nothing that connects any of the "ballistic evidence" to Oswald. Or even to the murder victims.
So what? How is that evidence against Oswald? Besides, these tabulations are all affected by the biases of the person interpreting what is in many cases vague testimony, not to mention testimony colored by the media and other influences. But depending on who's doing the counting, anywhere from 33-52 witnesses reported hearing shots from the knoll. Again, so what?
4 witnesses reported seeing a man with a rifle in any window: Howard Brennan, who failed to identify Oswald in the lineup, and who initially described a man wearing light colored clothing who was a different height, weight, and age as Oswald. Carolyn Walther, who said it wasn't as high as the sixth floor, it was two men standing together, and that the man with the rifle was wearing a white shirt and had blond or light brown hair. Arnold Rowland, who saw a man in the Southwest 6th floor window 15 minutes before the assassination wearing a light colored shirt, and Amos Euins, who told one reporter that the man with the rifle was "colored", and told the Warren Commission that the man had a bald spot.
What makes you think that any of these people saw Oswald?
Not quite. On day one, Bonnie Ray Williams said he heard two shots. But so what? How does the number of shots tell you who did the shooting?
Please do. I'm waiting for something that definitively points to Oswald actually being the shooter.
Okay John let's take it a piece at a time. All of the physical evidence in the case which includes the bullet, fragments, and rifle that were found were linked to Oswald. Can you name any physical evidence, a rifle, a bullet, a fragment that points to anyone but Oswald. By the way, which theory do you believe? There are so many, so which one? You must have one that you favor. The rifle was linked to Oswald by the FBI and you know it. It is easy to say everything in this case is debatable. That is an old ploy by CT's. When in doubt, deny and claim everything is faked, altered, covered up. Come on Cowboy up and state what theory you believe. The murder happened one way and one way only.
-
At least circle it or point an arrow to it or something. Just saying "it's there" isn't particularly compelling. Nor are your other interpretations.
Can you help there, it is a clear as daylight. If you can't see it, nothing I do will let you see it.
Do you actually think that Oswald did not shoot at JFK?
This picture of the TSBD sure looks like Oswald in the window.
(http://darkroom.baltimoresun.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/BS-US-NEWS-JFK50YEARS-10-MC.jpg)
-
Do you actually think that Oswald did not shoot at JFK?
Iacoletti has been quoted as saying that "all the evidence leads to Oswald".
JohnM
-
Great. Another Richard Smith who has no carriage return.
Number one, I don't know who Richard Smith is, so your post has no meaning to me. Number two, what is your point? If you have some evidence to cite that proves Oswald innocent then do so.
-
If you have some evidence to cite that proves Oswald innocent then do so.
Wesley, that's not how it works. It's not up to Oswald defenders to prove that he was innocent. But they do have to challenge the evidence against him. Most of them refuse to do so. They just dismiss it out of hand. Rob Caprio is the worst of the bunch. He can't be reasoned with at all. So, don't even bother wasting your time trying. John Iacolletti tries to be reasonable from time to time but for the most part his approach is one that would empty the jails and prisons nationwide.
-
Wesley, that's not how it works. It's not up to Oswald defenders to prove that he was innocent. But they do have to challenge the evidence against him. Most of them refuse to do so. They just dismiss it out of hand. Rob Caprio is the worst of the bunch. He can't be reasoned with at all. So, don't even bother wasting your time trying. John Iacolletti tries to be reasonable from time to time but for the most part his approach is one that would empty the jails and prisons nationwide.
Thanks for the information Tim.
-
Okay John let's take it a piece at a time. All of the physical evidence in the case which includes the bullet, fragments, and rifle that were found were linked to Oswald.
Ok, one at a time.
What bullet was linked to Oswald, and how?
What fragments were linked to Oswald, and how?
What is your evidence that Oswald owned, possessed, or fired the C2766 Mannlicher Carcano rifle allegedly found in the TSBD?
-
Can you help there, it is a clear as daylight. If you can't see it, nothing I do will let you see it.
What a cop out. You claim it's there, but can't even point it out.
Do you actually think that Oswald did not shoot at JFK?
I don't know who shot at JFK.
This picture of the TSBD sure looks like Oswald in the window.
LOL
-
What is your evidence that Oswald owned... the C2766 Mannlicher Carcano rifle allegedly found in the TSBD?
Define ownership?
JohnM
-
Ok, one at a time.
What bullet was linked to Oswald, and how?
What fragments were linked to Oswald, and how?
What is your evidence that Oswald owned, possessed, or fired the C2766 Mannlicher Carcano rifle allegedly found in the TSBD?
There you go again John. Doing exactly like I thought you would. I'm saying the evidence in possession and investigated is and was linked to Oswald. Can you cite any physical, ballistic evidence at all John? A bullet, a fragment, and piece of lead, a rifle, a print? Anything at all John? Maybe a gunman? Anything? Help me out here John. What theory do you believe John?
-
Define ownership?
Bought. Possessed. Under the physical control of.
-
I don't know who shot at JFK.
Surely after 54 years you must have some idea?
At the very least can you direct us to who might be behind it because so far after a bazillion hours of the most in depth research the World has ever seen and none of your mates seem to be in agreement about anything?
Or is it just easier to stay in your boring go nowhere "defence attorney" comfort zone?
JohnM
-
There you go again John. Doing exactly like I thought you would. I'm saying the evidence in possession and investigated is and was linked to Oswald. Can you cite any physical, ballistic evidence at all John? A bullet, a fragment, and piece of lead, a rifle, a print? Anything at all John? Maybe a gunman? Anything? Help me out here John. What theory do you believe John?
I'm still waiting for you to explain what bullet and what fragments were ever linked to Oswald.
-
Surely after 54 years you must have some idea?
At the very least can you direct us to who might be behind it because so far after a bazillion hours of the most in depth research the World has ever seen and none of your mates seem to be in agreement about anything?
Or is it just easier to stay in your boring go nowhere "defence attorney" comfort zone?
Says the guy who stays in his boring go nowhere "prosecuting attorney" comfort zone.
I get that it's comforting to have an answer -- even if you have to make one up.
-
Bought. Possessed. Under the physical control of.
Bought.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xKEPpbfpke8/Txt6KyNEnlI/AAAAAAAADy0/NfZflKY0SHE/s530/CE785.jpg)
Possessed.
(https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/oswald11.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=618&h=410&crop=1)
Under the physical control of.
See above.
JohnM
-
Says the guy who stays in his boring go nowhere "prosecuting attorney" comfort zone.
I get that it's comforting to have an answer -- even if you have to make one up.
Just repeating what I say is Lazy and Tedious. Try again!
JohnM
-
I'm still waiting for you to explain what bullet and what fragments were ever linked to Oswald.
And I'm still waiting for you to name anything that points away from Oswald. The fragments found in the car, the bullet found at the hospital, the rifle found on the 6th floor. Now what are you going to do John? Just comment on what I stated and tell me where I am wrong without naming anything from up on top of that fence that points to a second shooter or away from Oswald. Why don't you just be honest and say "I don't think Oswald did it, but I can't tell you why or what I believe because I don't believe in anything"?
-
Iacoletti has been quoted as saying that "all the evidence leads to Oswald".
No doubt misquoted or taken out of context. Mytton-style.
-
Bought.
Possessed.
Under the physical control of.
Not evidence. Just empty claims based on misinterpreting or embellishing the actual evidence with conjecture and speculation.
-
Just repeating what I say is Lazy and Tedious. Try again!
Your hypocrisy is lazy and tedious, yes.
-
And I'm still waiting for you to name anything that points away from Oswald. The fragments found in the car, the bullet found at the hospital, the rifle found on the 6th floor. Now what are you going to do John? Just comment on what I stated and tell me where I am wrong without naming anything from up on top of that fence that points to a second shooter or away from Oswald. Why don't you just be honest and say "I don't think Oswald did it, but I can't tell you why or what I believe because I don't believe in anything"?
Why don't you be honest and admit that you're shifting the burden of proof because you can't actually prove that Oswald did it?
-
Not evidence. Just empty claims based on misinterpreting or embellishing the actual evidence with conjecture and speculation.
Wow what a load of garbage, but at least your thesaurus had a thorough workout!
JohnM
-
What a cop out. You claim it's there, but can't even point it out.
I don't know who shot at JFK.
LOL
What do you think of this incriminating evidence pointing to Oswald using the alias Alec Hidell
(https://tosee....wrworld.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/post-office-box-doc-e1423934642365.jpg?w=300&h=219)
-
What do you think of this incriminating evidence pointing to Oswald using the alias Alec Hidell
How does that post office form tell you that "A. J. Hidell" was an alias that Oswald used?
-
Wow what a load of garbage, but at least your thesaurus had a thorough workout!
The load of garbage is you showing a photo and just claiming that it's the same rifle.
Yeah, I know. Yellow blobs.
-
The load of garbage is you showing a photo and just claiming that it's the same rifle.
Yeah, I know. Yellow blobs.
What a surprise that you "can't" see the same gouges in the same place on both photos, how predictable!
(https://s17.postimg.org/u9hz3fbmn/hscagougez.gif)
Instead of telling us what you think you see how about you present the HSCA evidence to someone reputable and get a definitive answer because really John, a personal opinion from Oswald's Defence Lawyer isn't worth the paper it's written on.
JohnM
-
How does that post office form tell you that "A. J. Hidell" was an alias that Oswald used?
Well John, how about the fake Selective Service card found in Oswald's wallet by the DPD? Oswald had two id's on him. One in the name of Oswald the other in the name of Hidell. Now I suppose you will ask "How do you know that the DPD found two id's one in the name of Hidell"? John, I have a question for you. How do you know that you even exist? How do you know I exist? How do you know that we have even been debating on this forum? How do you know that I know that you know that I know that you don't really believe in anything? How do I know that I even wrote this? LMAO
-
What a surprise that you "can't" see the same gouges in the same place on both photos, how predictable!
Yeah and another poster sees a gunman in the pergola in Moorman. What I see is some yellow lines and wishful thinking.
Instead of telling us what you think you see how about you present the HSCA evidence to someone reputable and get a definitive answer because really John, a personal opinion from Oswald's Defence Lawyer isn't worth the paper it's written on.
And a personal opinion from Oswald's prosecuting attorney somehow is?
The best the HSCA could do is one guy on the panel saying the "scales are tipped in that direction", because moon craters. At least it wasn't the even more ridiculous proof by yellow blob.
-
Well John, how about the fake Selective Service card found in Oswald's wallet by the DPD? Oswald had two id's on him. One in the name of Oswald the other in the name of Hidell. Now I suppose you will ask "How do you know that the DPD found two id's one in the name of Hidell"? John, I have a question for you. How do you know that you even exist? How do you know I exist? How do you know that we have even been debating on this forum? You do you know that I know that you know that I know that you don't really believe in anything? How do I know that I even wrote this? LMAO
Is that word salad supposed to make the DPD's claim more credible?
Bentley said he found the Hidell ID in the car on the way to the station. Walker said he found the Hidell ID on Oswald in the interrogation room. And why did none of them including all of the arresting officers mention the Hidell ID in any of their arrest reports? And why was one Oswald wallet found at 10th and Patton, another wallet in his pocket after arrest, and yet 3 more Oswald wallets at the Paines house? Why did Hill, Wade, Fritz, and Curry never mention this ID card in any interview or in public until after the alleged rifle order was located? Curry didn't mention the ID card even when he announced to reporters that a money order bearing the name A. Hidell had been found in Virginia. That would have been the obvious time to mention it. And furthermore, why would somebody carry an ID with a name that he used to order a rifle on the same day he decided to kill the president with that same rifle?
But yeah, let's forget about all the things that don't make sense about this and just accept it because we don't even know for sure that we even exist. Sounds like a plan.
-
Is that word salad supposed to make the DPD's claim more credible?
Bentley said he found the Hidell ID in the car on the way to the station. Walker said he found the Hidell ID on Oswald in the interrogation room. And why did none of them including all of the arresting officers mention the Hidell ID in any of their arrest reports? And why was one Oswald wallet found at 10th and Patton, another wallet in his pocket after arrest, and yet 3 more Oswald wallets at the Paines house? Why did Hill, Wade, Fritz, and Curry never mention this ID card in any interview or in public until after the alleged rifle order was located? Curry didn't mention the ID card even when he announced to reporters that a money order bearing the name A. Hidell had been found in Virginia. That would have been the obvious time to mention it. And furthermore, why would somebody carry an ID with a name that he used to order a rifle on the same day he decided to kill the president with that same rifle?
But yeah, let's forget about all the things that don't make sense about this and just accept it because we don't even know for sure that we even exist. Sounds like a plan.
Bentley said he found the Hidell ID in the car on the way to the station.
Actually, no he didn't. In his television interview on 11/23 Bentley says he found a credit card and a drivers license in the wallet he took from Oswald in the car.
The first time the Hidell alias came up (at least this is how it was presented during WC testimony) was when Gus Rose came on duty at the police station and was given a wallet, which was claimed to belong to Oswald and allegedly contained the Hidell alias. However, as far as I know there is no contemporary report about Rose's conversation with Oswald nor has it ever been determined who the officer was that Rose received the wallet from or how that officer obtained the wallet.
-
Actually, no he didn't. In his television interview on 11/23 Bentley says he found a credit card and a drivers license in the wallet he took from Oswald in the car.
Thanks for the correction, Martin. What I should have said is that Bentley said he removed Oswald's wallet en route to city hall. So how could Oswald have still had the alleged Hidell ID with him when Walker supposedly took it from him in the interrogation room?
-
Bentley said he found the Hidell ID in the car on the way to the station.
Actually, no he didn't. In his television interview on 11/23 Bentley says he found a credit card and a drivers license in the wallet he took from Oswald in the car.
Actually, no he didn't.
-
Actually, no he didn't.
Sorry, Tim... I'm not playing your little word game.
I know why you feel Bentley was mistaken during the interview and it is hogwash IMO.
As for my previous comment;
Actually, no he didn't. In his television interview on 11/23 Bentley says he found there was a credit card and a drivers license in the wallet he took from Oswald in the car.
There, I fixed it for you. Happy now?
-
Sorry, Tim... I'm not playing your little word game.
Did Bentley mention a credit card and a drivers license when asked what was in the wallet, yes or no?
Bentley mention a drivers license, credit cards, and things like that. He said that he believed that the wallet contained a drivers license and credit cards but he never stated that he had actually found a credit card and a drivers license in the wallet.
-
Bentley mention a drivers license, credit cards, and things like that. He said that he believed that the wallet contained a drivers license and credit cards but he never stated that he had actually found found a credit card and a drivers license in the wallet.
As I said... word game.
Btw.. when you posted your comment, I was re-writing my previous post.
-
As I said... word game.
Btw.. when you posted your comment, I was re-writing my previous post.
Better but still not entirely accurate. I edited my own post as well.
-
Better but still not entirely accurate. I edited my own post as well.
Better but still not entirely accurate = Not according to your wishes, right?
The fact remains that Bentley mentioned a credit card and a drivers license when he was asked what was in the wallet.
Why would he mention those items if they weren't really there? Did he just make it up?
-
I am surprised that you got anyone to play your silly game. Your motive is clear and we have seen this same ?black or white? logical fallacy repeatedly. If one cannot show compelling evidence that someone other than Oswald did it, then Oswald did it, right? WRONG! It is not necessary to provide an alternate shooter to show that Oswald was not the shooter and the burden of proof that Oswald was the shooter rests on those arguing that he was. Furthermore, since we both know the evidence, have made up our minds, and there is no possible way that either one of us could sway the other, your post is futile.
If one cannot show compelling evidence that someone other than Oswald did it, then Oswald did it, right? WRONG!
>Show us where I claim that little gem.
-
If one cannot show compelling evidence that someone other than Oswald did it, then Oswald did it, right? WRONG!
>Show us where I ever claimed that little gem.
-
If one cannot show compelling evidence that someone other than Oswald did it, then Oswald did it, right? WRONG!
>Show us where I claim that little gem.
Why should I? I asked a question. But don't play stupid now, it is probably what you meant. I am 100% certain of that (that you probably meant it). ::)
-
The point is no one is going to read run-on endless paragraphs. Learn to separate your thoughts.
I don't have to prove LHO's innocence. You have to prove his guilt. Well?
Funny. I looked at one of your posts and you ramble on forever. Learn to separate your thoughts. Actually since this is not a court of law, neither one of us is compelled to prove anything.
-
Funny. I looked at one of your posts and you ramble on forever. Learn to separate your thoughts. Actually since this is not a court of law, neither one of us is compelled to prove anything.
True enough, but don't you feel like you need good reasons to believe the things you believe?
-
Funny. I looked at one of your posts and you ramble on forever. Learn to separate your thoughts. Actually since this is not a court of law, neither one of us is compelled to prove anything.
Actually since this is not a court of law, neither one of us is compelled to prove anything.
So true... as long as it is understood that all concerned are merely expressing opinions rather than making claims like;
I would love to have Oswald in the hot seat at court. At the end of it, I would pin the bag, the rifle, the revolver, the bullet, the fragments, the shell casings, the documents, proving Oswald's ownership of the weapons, and the eye witness testimonies, right to little old Oswaldovich's head. And after the defense, blew all the smoke and put up all the mirrors, the jury would see that they had zero, physical, or ballistic evidence to support their defense. It is hilarious.
Gee... Wesley, did you write that?
Btw.. Any idead why LNs are constantly asking for proof for just about everything?
-
Why should I? I asked a question. But don't play stupid now, it is probably what you meant. I am 100% certain of that (that you probably meant it). ::)
;)
-
Sure. My thoughts are laid out in a readable fashion. I do NOT use ONE paragraph for all my thoughts.
If you are going to accuse someone of two murders then you are compelled to provide evidence supporting this contention, but you can't since NONE exists. You're sunk.
No Rob, not sunk at all. I don't have to prove anything. Talk about no evidence. I will ask you again, can you cite any physical, or ballistic evidence that points to anyone other than Oswald or a second shooter? I'll be waiting a long time. After all of these years all you guys have is rebuttal of the evidence that has been known for decades now. So, you have anything?
-
True enough, but don't you feel like you need good reasons to believe the things you believe?
And what is your reason for never believing anything?
-
Actually since this is not a court of law, neither one of us is compelled to prove anything.
So true... as long as it is understood that all concerned are merely expressing opinions rather than making claims like;
Gee... Wesley, did you write that?
Btw.. Any idead why LNs are constantly asking for proof for just about everything?
At least I do believe in some things. You fence walkers on here are not even secure enough to even say you believe there was a conspiracy. Very humorous Martin. I don't see men in black driving black SUV's following me when I go to work. You and all the CTers claim some of the most ridculous things I have ever heard. "Jackie did it!" LMAO. You and the CTers are not just a little bit embarrassed by some of your partners in fantasy?
-
At least I do believe in some things. You fence walkers on here are not even secure enough to even say you believe there was a conspiracy. Very humorous Martin. I don't see men in black driving black SUV's following me when I go to work. You and all the CTers claim some of the most ridculous things I have ever heard. "Jackie did it!" LMAO. You and the CTers are not just a little bit embarrassed by some of your partners in fantasy?
You seem extremely preoccupied with what CTs think, believe and claim. Why is that? Is it just that you rather complain about CTs than it is to defend and expain your own beliefs?
I don't see men in black driving black SUV's following me when I go to work.
Me neither, although I must say, I did have a white Mini Cooper following me once until the end of the street. Does that count?
-
Except in your fantasy court as described in your rant below:
Yet another Bugliosi wannabe?
CT fantasy court
Oswald: I didn't do it. I'm innocent.
Sorensen: Okay, my darling. You can go.
-
CT fantasy court
Oswald: I didn't do it. I'm innocent.
Sorensen: Okay, my darling. You can go.
No. That's only true in your fantasy world.
-
What? And here you are another "buff" that can't name one piece of real evidence to point to any one but Ozzie. :o
Can you explain why anybody needs to present "one piece of real evidence to point to any one but Ozzie"?
-
No. That's only true in your fantasy world.
LOL
You characters just can't handle mockery.... now can you
Why would I fantasize about dirty little Harvey getting off easily
Please don't post while inebriated. You make no sense..
-
LOL
You characters just can't handle mockery.... now can you
Why would I fantasize about dirty little Harvey getting off easily
Please don't post while inebriated. You make no sense..
Why would I fantasize about dirty little Harvey getting off easily
I don't know who ever claimed you did precisely that and I have no idea why you would do that, or for that matter how this thought even occured to you, but you might indeed still do it.
Nobody knows for sure, except you of course, right?
-
Can you explain why anybody needs to present "one piece of real evidence to point to any one but Ozzie"?
What does it matter to you? You don't believe anything. Do I really need to explain to you why I ask that? Okay, Martin I'll play along with your little word game. I ask that, because most CTers, (and fence walkers ;D) on here claim Oswald didn't do it. The president was killed that day, (or do you question that too), so, if Oswald didn't do it, who did? Thus the question " present one piece of real evidence to point to any one but Ozzie." Does that clear it up for you?
-
I'm not evading anything. If you have studied this long enough you know exactly what evidence I'm talking about. I'm talking about the evidence that was gathered by the DPD and the Secret Service relating to the crime. Clear enough for you Tom? Now, can you name any physical, or ballistic evidence that is not related to Oswald and indicates a second shooter or someone else shooting the president. You do know that the president was killed that day by being shot with bullets right? So name the evidence.
You still haven't explained why anybody needs to present "one piece of real evidence to point to any one but Ozzie".
Why is that?
-
You're starting to sound like Paul May. *YOU* have the burden as you accuse LHO of two murders. I haven't accused anyone so I do NOT need to cite evidence for something I have NOT claimed.
Stop shifting the burden and cite your evidence. Stop playing ⚽⚾🏀🏈.
Oh, stop with the little word games Rob. You are not that clever. So, once again, can you cite any evidence at all, like fingerprints, or bullets, or a rifle? Anything Rob? Let me be very clear to you. Do you have any physical, or ballistic evidence other than the evidence that was gathered by the DPD, or Secret Service, or FBI, or anyone else that submitted evidence? Anything at all Rob?
-
As I used to tell Paul May I don't have to. I am NOT the one accusing anyone -- you are. Why do you accuse someone of two murders when you can't cite any evidence to show that they did it?
I didn't accuse Oswald, the DPD. Which theory do you believe?
-
I'm not evading anything. If you have studied this long enough you know exactly what evidence I'm talking about. I'm talking about the evidence that was gathered by the DPD and the Secret Service relating to the crime. Clear enough for you Tom? Now, can you name any physical, or ballistic evidence that is not related to Oswald and indicates a second shooter or someone else shooting the president. You do know that the president was killed that day by being shot with bullets right? So name the evidence.
Wesley, I agree with Martin. It's not up to him and other Oswald defenders to present evidence that points to any one but Oswald. His job is to deal with the evidence that implicates Oswald's guilt.
-
You still haven't explained why anybody needs to present "one piece of real evidence to point to any one but Ozzie".
Why is that?
Really Martin? You seem like a smart guy. I think you know the answer for that. But, I will try and be as clear as I can. The reason I ask for evidence of anyone else shooting the president, or a second shooter is because of the dozens of "conspiracy theories" that are out there. I believe the results of the President's Commission (WC) the Rockefeller Commission, the HSCA (on their conclusion that Oswald shot the president not their conclusion of a forth shot from the knoll). Clear enough for you? Instead of just rehashing over the evidence that exits and dealing with the CTers trying to dispute it, I would like them to name the evidence that shows there was a second shooter or someone else, other than Oswald, that killed the president. The president was killed that day, so if not by Oswald, then by whom? Where is the evidence that supports a second shooter or a different shooter than Oswald?
-
Really Martin? You seem like a smart guy. I think you know the answer for that. But, I will try and be as clear as I can. The reason I ask for evidence of anyone else shooting the president, or a second shooter is because of the dozens of "conspiracy theories" that are out there. I believe the results of the President's Commission (WC) the Rockefeller Commission, the HSCA (on their conclusion that Oswald shot the president not their conclusion of a forth shot from the knoll). Clear enough for you? Instead of just rehashing over the evidence that exits and dealing with the CTers trying to dispute it, I would like them to name the evidence that shows there was a second shooter or someone else, other than Oswald, that killed the president. The president was killed that day, so if not by Oswald, then by whom? Where is the evidence that supports a second shooter or a different shooter than Oswald?
The reason I ask for evidence of anyone else shooting the president, or a second shooter is because of the dozens of "conspiracy theories" that are out there.
Fair enough, but shouldn't you be asking people who actually put forward such a theory, rather than just randomly ask anybody who doesn't share your opinion?
I believe the results of the President's Commission (WC) the Rockefeller Commission, the HSCA (on their conclusion that Oswald shot the president not their conclusion of a forth shot from the knoll). Clear enough for you?
Yes, that was clear since the moment you joined this forum. Let me be equally clear; I have serious doubts about the veracity of the WC's conclusions, but I do not know (and probably never will) where it gets me. My concern is that the case was possibly wrapped around an already dead Oswald regardless of his actual guilt or innocence. How can Hoover write, within hours of the murder, that the sole assassin was in custody even before the first shred of evidence was collected? Can you explain that to me?
Instead of just rehashing over the evidence that exits and dealing with the CTers trying to dispute it, I would like them to name the evidence that shows there was a second shooter or someone else, other than Oswald, that killed the president.
But that's not how the game is played. You are shifting the burden of proof on others rather than standing up for and defending what you believe. What is the problem with dealing with people who, for whatever reason, dispute the evidence? That's what LNs do here!
The president was killed that day, so if not by Oswald, then by whom? Where is the evidence that supports a second shooter or a different shooter than Oswald?
Why ask a question you know full well can't be answered by anybody on this board? Where does it get you? Do you think that not being able to name a conspirator somehow confirms by default that Oswald was the lone gunman after all? Is that it?
-
Wesley, I agree with Martin. It's not up to him and other Oswald defenders to present evidence that points to any one but Oswald. His job is to deal with the evidence that implicates Oswald's guilt.
"His job is to deal with the evidence that implicates Oswald's guilt."
I didn't know this was a job Tim. Do they get paid? Where do I sign up? It's just a fun hobby for me Tim. I have been studying the assassination for decades now. I use to believe in a conspiracy until I realized one day that the "conspiracy authors" never presented or cited any real evidence to exonerate Oswald. Most of these guys will not even say which theory they back. It's just in fun Tim that I do this. I believe Oswald acted alone and until someone presents any new evidence to the contrary I always will. ;D
-
🖒I am not an "Oswald" defender though. I go where the evidence leads. If it lead to LHO then I would admit that, but it doesn't.
LHO could still have been involved, but the WC didn't see fit to investigate how.
"If it lead to LHO then I would admit that, but it doesn't."
Well Rob, that is exactly why I ask. In your opinion who does it lead to then? ;D
-
The reason I ask for evidence of anyone else shooting the president, or a second shooter is because of the dozens of "conspiracy theories" that are out there.
Fair enough, but shouldn't you be asking people who actually put forward such a theory, rather than just randomly ask anybody who doesn't share your opinion?
I believe the results of the President's Commission (WC) the Rockefeller Commission, the HSCA (on their conclusion that Oswald shot the president not their conclusion of a forth shot from the knoll). Clear enough for you?
Yes, that was clear since the moment you joined this forum. Let me be equally clear; I have serious doubts about the veracity of the WC's conclusions, but I do not know (and probably never will) where it gets me. My concern is that the case was possibly wrapped around an already dead Oswald regardless of his actual guilt or innocence. How can Hoover write, within hours of the murder, that the sole assassin was in custody even before the first shred of evidence was collected? Can you explain that to me?
Instead of just rehashing over the evidence that exits and dealing with the CTers trying to dispute it, I would like them to name the evidence that shows there was a second shooter or someone else, other than Oswald, that killed the president.
But that's not how the game is played. You are shifting the burden of proof on others rather than standing up for and defending what you believe. What is the problem with dealing with people who, for whatever reason, dispute the evidence? That's what LNs do here!
The president was killed that day, so if not by Oswald, then by whom? Where is the evidence that supports a second shooter or a different shooter than Oswald?
Why ask a question you know full well can't be answered by anybody on this board? Where does it get you? Do you think that not being able to name a conspirator somehow confirms by default that Oswald was the lone gunman after all? Is that it?
I'm not shifting anything Martin. I'm glad you admit that no one on here can provide any evidence to implicate a second shooter or anyone other than Oswald. Okay, now we can move on. One of the problems that I have with you "Oswald defenders" as Tim called them, is this Martin. Let's take the good old "mauser" story. We all should be familiar with that one. So, a rifle was found on the 6th floor by Officers Seymour Weitzman and Eugene Boone. They did not touch the rifle but stated in looked like a "mauser". Upon closer inspection it was revealed that the rifle was a Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5mm. Are you familiar with rifles Martin? There were a lot of "mauser" type rifles made in Europe by a few different countries. It was a good design. One of the main reasons is the box magazines they used. The rifles looked similar. I got my youngest son a Mosin-Nagant that looks similar. When CTers and whomever else disputes this and goes back to "Weitzman and Boone" said it was a "mauser". Then you get all these CTers claiming a conspiracy, and a cover-up because a "mauser" was found and they changed it with the M-C 6.5 mm. By implication Martin, if that were true, that means that Captain Will Fritz and Lt. Day were part of a conspiracy, which is ridiculous. And to build on that why were Weitzman and Boone left alive? They saw a "mauser!" You see where I'm going Martin? It's one thing to dispute evidence Martin, I'm fine with that. It is entirely different when you ask, "okay I don't believe the evidence", but then what does that mean in terms of what really happened and who was behind it. If you dispute the documentation on the ownership of the rifle then by implication you involve the FBI, so on and so on. It becomes a conspiracy of hundreds of people and they all have to keep their mouths shut. In my opinion there was no conspiracy.
-
I'm not shifting anything Martin. I'm glad you admit that no one on here can provide any evidence to implicate a second shooter or anyone other than Oswald. Okay, now we can move on. One of the problems that I have with you "Oswald defenders" as Tim called them, is this Martin. Let's take the good old "mauser" story. We all should be familiar with that one. So, a rifle was found on the 6th floor by Officers Seymour Weitzman and Eugene Boone. They did not touch the rifle but stated in looked like a "mauser". Upon closer inspection it was revealed that the rifle was a Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5mm. Are you familiar with rifles Martin? There were a lot of "mauser" type rifles made in Europe by a few different countries. It was a good design. One of the main reasons is the box magazines they used. The rifles looked similar. I got my youngest son a Mosin-Nagant that looks similar. When CTers and whomever else disputes this and goes back to "Weitzman and Boone" said it was a "mauser". Then you get all these CTers claiming a conspiracy, and a cover-up because a "mauser" was found and they changed it with the M-C 6.5 mm. By implication Martin, if that were true, that means that Captain Will Fritz and Lt. Day were part of a conspiracy, which is ridiculous. And to build on that why were Weitzman and Boone left alive? They saw a "mauser!" You see where I'm going Martin? It's one thing to dispute evidence Martin, I'm fine with that. It is entirely different when you ask, "okay I don't believe the evidence", but then what does that mean in terms of what really happened and who was behind it. If you dispute the documentation on the ownership of the rifle then by implication you involve the FBI, so on and so on. It becomes a conspiracy of hundreds of people and they all have to keep their mouths shut. In my opinion there was no conspiracy.
I'm not shifting anything Martin.
Of course you are
I'm glad you admit that no one on here can provide any evidence to implicate a second shooter or anyone other than Oswald.
Did I?
One of the problems that I have with you "Oswald defenders"
Does questioning the evidence equal being an "Oswald defender" to you?
Are you familiar with rifles Martin?
Not really. I don't like them and don't want to be near them.
You see where I'm going Martin?
No, not really....
It's one thing to dispute evidence Martin, I'm fine with that. It is entirely different when you ask, "okay I don't believe the evidence", but then what does that mean in terms of what really happened and who was behind it. If you dispute the documentation on the ownership of the rifle then by implication you involve the FBI, so on and so on.
Why would you involve the entire FBI when there are all sorts of ways that documentation could have ended up where it was found?
It becomes a conspiracy of hundreds of people and they all have to keep their mouths shut. In my opinion there was no conspiracy.
That's a classic LN argument that I simply do not believe is true. Have you ever heard of Operation Mincemeat? Granted, it's not completely the same thing but it is a classic example of how a hand full of people were able to fool the entire German leadership in WW2 with 100% fake evidence. There a documentary on you tube about it. Do you think there are no similar creative minds anywhere in the country?
-
I have found numerous books and websites not necessarily confirming that it wasn't Oswald, but very good theories that he was just planted as the decoy in the whole scheme. I believe that a man named Malcolm Wallace was the one that shot and killed Kennedy. He clearly is not a shy guy when it comes to killing people and take a look at this article and let me know what you think. I can show you my other evidence as well that I have found.
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKwallaceM.htm
-
No. That's only true in your fantasy world.
WHOOSH
Again you pretend to miss the point
-
WHOOSH
Again you pretend to miss the point
Seriously that's all you have to say. Please tell me and provide evidence what makes you 100% believe that it was certainly Oswald who did it. Here is another article talking about LBJ.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/21/jfk-conspiracy-theorist-points-finger-at-lbj/3660765/
-
Seriously that's all you have to say. Please tell me and provide evidence what makes you 100% believe that it was certainly Oswald who did it. Here is another article talking about LBJ.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/21/jfk-conspiracy-theorist-points-finger-at-lbj/3660765/
Point out where I ever said that I was 100% certain of Oswald's guilt
Why do you need me to prove anything, anyway.
Are you characters so insecure that everybody has to agree with you?
-
No, I just was trying to understand what makes you think that it was Oswald. Take a look at this website that talks about a meeting that LBJ and many other people had the night before Kennedy was killed.
http://www.viewzone.com/lbj/lbj4.html
-
I'm not shifting anything Martin.
Of course you are
I'm glad you admit that no one on here can provide any evidence to implicate a second shooter or anyone other than Oswald.
Did I?
One of the problems that I have with you "Oswald defenders"
Does questioning the evidence equal being an "Oswald defender" to you?
Are you familiar with rifles Martin?
Not really. I don't like them and don't want to be near them.
You see where I'm going Martin?
No, not really....
It's one thing to dispute evidence Martin, I'm fine with that. It is entirely different when you ask, "okay I don't believe the evidence", but then what does that mean in terms of what really happened and who was behind it. If you dispute the documentation on the ownership of the rifle then by implication you involve the FBI, so on and so on.
Why would you involve the entire FBI when there are all sorts of ways that documentation could have ended up where it was found?
It becomes a conspiracy of hundreds of people and they all have to keep their mouths shut. In my opinion there was no conspiracy.
That's a classic LN argument that I simply do not believe is true. Have you ever heard of Operation Mincemeat? Granted, it's not completely the same thing but it is a classic example of how a hand full of people were able to fool the entire German leadership in WW2 with 100% fake evidence. There a documentary on you tube about it. Do you think there are no similar creative minds anywhere in the country?
No Martin, I don't believe a hand full of people could have pulled a conspiracy off. At least not involving Mr. Oswald. Carlos Marcello said, "the only way three people can keep a secret is if two of them are dead". Funny. The motorcade route was not announced and printed in the paper until 11\19\63, so part of what you would have me believe is that in three days your hand full of people could implement their "master plan" as you call it without anyone getting suspicious? Right Martin, I believe that. And in view of the fact that you seem to dispute every bit of evidence against Oswald it would take a small army to coordinate and plant all of this tainted evidence. You just keep believing that Martin. I know it is more fun for guys like you to imagine all these mysterious people maneuvering and manipulating poor little Oswald. Didn't happen. Since you don't know much about rifles it is pointless to continue.
-
No Martin, I don't believe a hand full of people could have pulled a conspiracy off. At least not involving Mr. Oswald. Carlos Marcello said, "the only way three people can keep a secret is if two of them are dead". Funny. The motorcade route was not announced and printed in the paper until 11\19\63, so part of what you would have me believe is that in three days your hand full of people could implement their "master plan" as you call it without anyone getting suspicious? Right Martin, I believe that. And in view of the fact that you seem to dispute every bit of evidence against Oswald it would take a small army to coordinate and plant all of this tainted evidence. You just keep believing that Martin. I know it is more fun for guys like you to imagine all these mysterious people maneuvering and manipulating poor little Oswald. Didn't happen. Since you don't know much about rifles it is pointless to continue.
Carlos Marcello said, "the only way three people can keep a secret is if two of them are dead".
Mark Twain (or was it Lord Byron) said "truth is stranger than fiction", so what is your point?
And in view of the fact that you seem to dispute every bit of evidence against Oswald it would take a small army to coordinate and plant all of this tainted evidence
Really, so you lack the imagination to understand how that could have worked?
Btw where did you get the notion that I dispute every bit of evidence when I have accepted the BY photos as authentic. You seem to be all the place with wild claims....why is that?
so part of what you would have me believe is that in three days your hand full of people could implement their "master plan" as you call it without anyone getting suspicious?
Who said anything about three days? The rifle and revolver were allegedly bought in early 1963, weren't they?
Since you don't know much about rifles it is pointless to continue.
Huh? Continue with what?
Is this false "appeal to authority" the latest strategy for not discussing the claims you make but can't support with evidence?
-
And what is your reason for never believing anything?
I only believe things that I have good reasons to believe. You have yet to provide a single good reason to believe that Oswald killed Kennedy.
-
At least I do believe in some things. You fence walkers on here are not even secure enough to even say you believe there was a conspiracy.
"Believe what I want you to believe so I can argue with it!"
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/crybaby.png)
-
I only believe things that I have good reasons to believe. You have yet to provide a single good reason to believe that Oswald killed Kennedy.
John, I strongly agree with you, it is very wishy-washy that it was supposedly Oswald who killed Kennedy I have found numerous books and websites explaining how it was Johnson and his associates that did it.
-
CT fantasy court
Oswald: I didn't do it. I'm innocent.
Sorensen: Okay, my darling. You can go.
LN fantasy court
Oswald: I didn't do it. I'm innocent.
Chapman: Only a guilty man would deny his guilt. Send him to the chair.
-
Wesley, I agree with Martin. It's not up to him and other Oswald defenders to present evidence that points to any one but Oswald. His job is to deal with the evidence that implicates Oswald's guilt.
(https://emojipedia-us.s3.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/emoji-one/104/thumbs-up-sign_1f44d.png)
Thanks Tim. Finally, an LNer who understands burden of proof.
-
John, I strongly agree with you, it is very wishy-washy that it was supposedly Oswald who killed Kennedy I have found numerous books and websites explaining how it was Johnson and his associates that did it.
Alice, have you tried examining the evidence yourself?
-
I didn't know this was a job Tim. Do they get paid? Where do I sign up? It's just a fun hobby for me Tim. I have been studying the assassination for decades now.
Is that where you learned that Charles Givens was short?
-
And in view of the fact that you seem to dispute every bit of evidence against Oswald it would take a small army to coordinate and plant all of this tainted evidence.
You're assuming that this evidence you keeps claiming there is (but won't actually list) actually incriminates Oswald.
-
Btw where did you get the notion that I dispute every bit of evidence when I have accepted the BY photos as authentic. You seem to be all the place with wild claims....why is that?
Because he's lazy. It's a lot easier to argue ridiculous strawmen then to deal with what you actually say.
-
Actually, I have been doing extensive research into this and I wasn't a believer in it a first but now I am. Take a look at this website.
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKwallaceM.htm
-
Actually, I have been doing extensive research into this and I wasn't a believer in it a first but now I am. Take a look at this website.
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKwallaceM.htm
Alice, I must point out to you that the Education site is a very poor source for obtaining accurate information from. About six or seven years ago, I helped my youngest daughter with a school project. I forget if it was on Booker T Washington or George Washington Carver. It may have been both. Anyway, she used the Education site as a source. It turned out the information she used from there was horribly inaccurate. Consider yourself warned.
-
Thank you for notifying me of that source. But I have found this source as well where it talks about Attorney Craig Zirbel opinion on Johnson's motive, opportunity, and means. If you have any other websites talking about Johnson's involvement please link away.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/21/jfk-conspiracy-theorist-points-finger-at-lbj/3660765/
-
Thank you for notifying me of that source. But I have found this source as well where it talks about Attorney Craig Zirbel opinion on Johnson's motive, opportunity, and means. If you have any other websites talking about Johnson's involvement please link away.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/21/jfk-conspiracy-theorist-points-finger-at-lbj/3660765/
Zirbel is welcome to his opinion but I more interested in facts than opinion.
-
(https://emojipedia-us.s3.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/emoji-one/104/thumbs-up-sign_1f44d.png)
Thanks Tim. Finally, an LNer who understands burden of proof.
Sorry Iacoletti but we aren't in court, you aren't Oswald's defence Lawyer, you aren't a Judge and as this websites Forum title says we are here to determine who assassinated JFK therefore it's real simple, if you suggest there was a conspiracy to kill JFK then it's up to you to provide evidence to support a conspiracy.
Iacoletti's fantasy.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/jkSAdnKNOcY/maxresdefault.jpg)
Iacoletti's reality
(http://www.carnagecorp.com/pub/pictures/fat_geek.jpg)
JohnM
-
Santa Claus probably does have an elf factory at North pole.
-
Sorry Iacoletti but we aren't in court, you aren't Oswald's defence Lawyer, you aren't a Judge and as this websites Forum title says we are here to determine who assassinated JFK therefore it's real simple, if you suggest there was a conspiracy to kill JFK then it's up to you to provide evidence to support a conspiracy.
And Mytton does not understand burden of proof. It has nothing to do with a courtroom. I didn't suggest there was a conspiracy. You however claim that Oswald killed JFK. It's up to you to provide evidence for your claim instead of demanding that people prove you wrong.
-
John, I strongly agree with you, it is very wishy-washy that it was supposedly Oswald who killed Kennedy I have found numerous books and websites explaining how it was Johnson and his associates that did it.
Better to rely on some real information instead of an Internet krank. How about reading, for example, Robert Caro's book "Passage of Power"? Caro is the foremost historian on LBJ. He has said many critical things about Johnson but found no credible evidence whatsoever of his involvement in the JFK assassination - which is a wild, baseless, and outlandish claim predicated apparently only on the basis that LBJ apparently stood to benefit from JFK's death. Even the History Channel which runs almost nothing but UFO programs wouldn't air a documentary alleging LBJ was behind the assassination because it was so far removed from reality. It is an absurd fringe theory.
-
Better to rely on some real information instead of an Internet krank. How about reading, for example, Robert Caro's book "Passage of Power"? Caro is the foremost historian on LBJ. He has said many critical things about Johnson but found no credible evidence whatsoever of his involvement in the JFK assassination - which is a wild, baseless, and outlandish claim predicated apparently only on the basis that LBJ apparently stood to benefit from JFK's death. Even the History Channel which runs almost nothing but UFO programs wouldn't air a documentary alleging LBJ was behind the assassination because it was so far removed from reality. It is an absurd fringe theory.
"After tomorrow those goddamn Kennedys will never embarrass me again"
-
Carlos Marcello said, "the only way three people can keep a secret is if two of them are dead".
Mark Twain (or was it Lord Byron) said "truth is stranger than fiction", so what is your point?
And in view of the fact that you seem to dispute every bit of evidence against Oswald it would take a small army to coordinate and plant all of this tainted evidence
Really, so you lack the imagination to understand how that could have worked?
Btw where did you get the notion that I dispute every bit of evidence when I have accepted the BY photos as authentic. You seem to be all the place with wild claims....why is that?
so part of what you would have me believe is that in three days your hand full of people could implement their "master plan" as you call it without anyone getting suspicious?
Who said anything about three days? The rifle and revolver were allegedly bought in early 1963, weren't they?
Since you don't know much about rifles it is pointless to continue.
Huh? Continue with what?
Is this false "appeal to authority" the latest strategy for not discussing the claims you make but can't support with evidence?
Okay Martin so you say the backyard photos are real. Good for you. I really find it strange that so many of you dispute the evidence but then try and claim "you never said there was a conspiracy". WTF. Okay, you question the evidence, so for the sake of fun, let's say I'm leaning your way. Tell me, what do you think really happened? Any ideas? And you guys keep saying I don't name the evidence. What? You are not children are you? I will state once again, as I have else where, I believe in the evidence that was gathered by the DPD, SS, FBI and whoever else found any evidence. Do I have to spell it out? The rifle, the bullet, the fragments, the bag, the prints, shell casings, revolver, etc. etc,. etc. Clear enough? And I know you question it. Okay, tell me what you think happened.
-
Okay Martin so you say the backyard photos are real. Good for you. I really find it strange that so many of you dispute the evidence but then try and claim "you never said there was a conspiracy". WTF.
WTF, indeed. Do you think the only two possibilities are:
- Oswald did it
- There was a conspiracy
Okay, you question the evidence, so for the sake of fun, let's say I'm leaning your way. Tell me, what do you think really happened? Any ideas? And you guys keep saying I don't name the evidence. What? You are not children are you? I will state once again, as I have else where, I believe in the evidence that was gathered by the DPD, SS, FBI and whoever else found any evidence. Do I have to spell it out? The rifle, the bullet, the fragments, the bag, the prints, shell casings, revolver, etc. etc,. etc. Clear enough?
No, of course it's not clear enough. What about the rifle, the bullet, the fragments, the bag, the prints, shell casings, revolver tells you that Oswald killed JFK? Be specific. C'mon Wesley, you've been studying this case for decades.
-
WTF, indeed. Do you think the only two possibilities are:
- Oswald did it
- There was a conspiracy
No, of course it's not clear enough. What about the rifle, the bullet, the fragments, the bag, the prints, shell casings, revolver tells you that Oswald killed JFK? Be specific. C'mon Wesley, you've been studying this case for decades.
No John. Not going to play that game. You know exactly what tests were performed on that evidence, and by whom, as well as I. I will ask again. What do you think happened.
Oswald did it
- There was a conspiracy
So tell me some 3rd or 4th possibilities John? You posted that so you indicate there are more possibilities. What are they?
-
No John. Not going to play that game.
Of course not. That would require that you actually understand the evidence.
You know exactly what tests were performed on that evidence, and by whom, as well as I.
Yes I do. Which is why I wonder why you think it proves that Oswald killed Kennedy.
I will ask again. What do you think happened.
Oswald did it
- There was a conspiracy
So tell me some 3rd or 4th possibilities John? You posted that so you indicate there are more possibilities. What are they?
Sure. It's possible that somebody else killed Kennedy.
What's possible is not all that interesting. Lots of things are possible. I care about what can be proven with evidence. Which is not much, unfortunately.
-
Of course not. That would require that you actually understand the evidence.
Yes I do. Which is why I wonder why you think it proves that Oswald killed Kennedy.
Sure. It's possible that somebody else killed Kennedy.
What's possible is not all that interesting. Lots of things are possible. I care about what can be proven with evidence. Which is not much, unfortunately.
Oh, I understand the evidence John.
Sure. It's possible that somebody else killed Kennedy.
Come on John, you're being a bit simplistic here. If someone else killed Kennedy other than Oswald, and all the evidence indicates Oswald did it, then that means the evidence was planted by someone and by definition would mean a conspiracy. Come on man. When you make statements like that John it makes me question your common sense.
-
Oh, I understand the evidence John.
Sure. It's possible that somebody else killed Kennedy.
Come on John, you're being a bit simplistic here. If someone else killed Kennedy other than Oswald, and all the evidence indicates Oswald did it,
What evidence indicates that Oswald did it?
then that means the evidence was planted by someone and by definition would mean a conspiracy. Come on man. When you make statements like that John it makes me question your common sense.
"Common sense" as defined by agreeing with your opinions? Authentic evidence can be misrepresented and misinterpreted. Which is what you're doing. I'm still waiting for you to explain your claim that there is ballistic evidence pointing to Oswald.
-
Okay Martin so you say the backyard photos are real. Good for you. I really find it strange that so many of you dispute the evidence but then try and claim "you never said there was a conspiracy". WTF. Okay, you question the evidence, so for the sake of fun, let's say I'm leaning your way. Tell me, what do you think really happened? Any ideas? And you guys keep saying I don't name the evidence. What? You are not children are you? I will state once again, as I have else where, I believe in the evidence that was gathered by the DPD, SS, FBI and whoever else found any evidence. Do I have to spell it out? The rifle, the bullet, the fragments, the bag, the prints, shell casings, revolver, etc. etc,. etc. Clear enough? And I know you question it. Okay, tell me what you think happened.
Okay, you question the evidence, so for the sake of fun, let's say I'm leaning your way. Tell me, what do you think really happened?
Sorry, I'm not like you. I don't first think what happened and then look for only the evidence to support that theory.
I believe in the evidence that was gathered by the DPD, SS, FBI and whoever else found any evidence. Do I have to spell it out? The rifle, the bullet, the fragments, the bag, the prints, shell casings, revolver, etc. etc,. etc. Clear enough? And I know you question it.
Yes, and it is being questioned for good reasons, which is why somebody like you needs to explain why you believe what you believe and why you ignore, dismiss and overlook anything that causes doubt about the quality of the evidence.
-
"After tomorrow those goddamn Kennedys will never embarrass me again"
And this from the same nut who states that he is not suggesting there was any conspiracy. But here John implies that LBJ had foreknowledge of the assassination. You should be embarrassed to be so lazy and dishonest. Have you read Caro's "Passage of Power"?
-
And this from the same nut who states that he is not suggesting there was any conspiracy. But here John implies that LBJ had foreknowledge of the assassination. You should be embarrassed to be so lazy and dishonest. Have you read Caro's "Passage of Power"?
Since when is posting a quote the same as implying that LBJ knew up front of the assassination? You are paranoid beyond belief.
-
Okay, you question the evidence, so for the sake of fun, let's say I'm leaning your way. Tell me, what do you think really happened?
Sorry, I'm not like you. I don't first think what happened and then look for only the evidence to support that theory.
I believe in the evidence that was gathered by the DPD, SS, FBI and whoever else found any evidence. Do I have to spell it out? The rifle, the bullet, the fragments, the bag, the prints, shell casings, revolver, etc. etc,. etc. Clear enough? And I know you question it.
Yes, and it is being questioned for good reasons, which is why somebody like you needs to explain why you believe what you believe and why you ignore, dismiss and overlook anything that causes doubt about the quality of the evidence.
Martin I don't know how much more clear I can be to you about why I believe Oswald did it. What do you want me to do? Explain every test that was performed, every piece of paper that was analyzed? I believe the evidence gathered to be accurate. I have read most or all of the same material you have. I just don't believe it shows Oswald did not do it. You guys question every little detail. It is amazing. Are you seriously telling me that you have never had any thought about who might have been behind the assassination if the evidence against Oswald is not accurate? I don't believe you. I will ask you again, if you are right about the evidence who do you think was behind it?
-
Since when is posting a quote the same as implying that LBJ knew up front of the assassination? You are paranoid beyond belief.
I'm calling BS on you here Martin. Cters have always used that quote as an indication that LBJ was behind it and there was a conspiracy. Get real. You can't even admit that? Fascinating.
-
Martin I don't know how much more clear I can be to you about why I believe Oswald did it. What do you want me to do? Explain every test that was performed, every piece of paper that was analyzed? I believe the evidence gathered to be accurate. I have read most or all of the same material you have. I just don't believe it shows Oswald did not do it. You guys question every little detail. It is amazing. Are you seriously telling me that you have never had any thought about who might have been behind the assassination if the evidence against Oswald is not accurate? I don't believe you. I will ask you again, if you are right about the evidence who do you think was behind it?
Martin I don't know how much more clear I can be to you about why I believe Oswald did it.
So, Mark was right. You have nothing to offer to the discussion.
I believe the evidence gathered to be accurate. I have read most or all of the same material you have. I just don't believe it shows Oswald did not do it.
If anybody claims that the evidence shows that Oswald didn't do it, I would disagree with him. But nobody is claiming that.
You guys question every little detail. It is amazing.
It's very simple. The whole thing happened in just one way, which means that basically all pieces of the puzzle should fall into place if the version of the narrative you are telling is the correct one. Here, those pieces simply do not all fall into place but, even worse, you've got important pieces missing and others that do not fit at all. Believing the official narrative nevertheless is faith and not reason.
I'm calling BS on you here Martin. Cters have always used that quote as an indication that LBJ was behind it and there was a conspiracy. Get real. You can't even admit that? Fascinating.
Well you know all there is to know about BS, so for me there isn't anything to add except perhaps that your constant CT bashing is getting very tiresome.
-
Martin, what's your take on the assassination? More so, what's your conspiracy on it? Do you believe that it was the CIA, Cubans/Soviets, Johnson/his associates, or do you just believe that it was Oswald and case closed?
-
Martin, what's your take on the assassination? More so, what's your conspiracy on it? Do you believe that it was the CIA, Cubans/Soviets, Johnson/his associates, or do you just believe that it was Oswald and case closed?
Alice,
I don't have a theory. I'm interested in the game, not the players. If Oswald did it alone, so be it. If there was a conspiracy, so be it. What I want to know is if the case against Oswald is solid or just a fairytale to wrap the case around one man, regardless of his guilt or innocence.
-
Martin,
So based on whatever you have found so far what are you leaning more towards? It being a "fairytale" or that it was solid.
-
Martin,
So based on whatever you have found so far what are you leaning more towards? It being a "fairytale" or that it was solid.
Too many loose ends, unanswered questions and assumptions for it to be solid.
-
I agree with you and it also doesn't help that he was shot and killed by Jack Ruby just two days later!!! Therefore, he couldn't answer all of the questions investigators and police may have wanted to ask.
-
Martin I don't know how much more clear I can be to you about why I believe Oswald did it.
So, Mark was right. You have nothing to offer to the discussion.
I believe the evidence gathered to be accurate. I have read most or all of the same material you have. I just don't believe it shows Oswald did not do it.
If anybody claims that the evidence shows that Oswald didn't do ,I would disagree with him. But nobody is claiming that.
You guys question every little detail. It is amazing.
It's very simple. The whole thing happened in just one way, which means that basically all pieces of the puzzle should fall into place if the version of the narrative you are telling is the correct one. Here, those pieces simply do not all fall into place but, even worse, you've got important pieces missing and others that do not fit at all. Believing the official narrative nevertheless is faith and not reason.
Well you know all there is to know about BS, so for me there isn't anything to add except perhaps that your constant CT bashing is getting very tiresome.
Martin if Oswald would have killed a citizen of Dallas instead of President Kennedy all the pieces would have all fit together. And you are very tiresome as well. If you don't like what I write then don't read it or reply.
-
And this from the same nut who states that he is not suggesting there was any conspiracy. But here John implies that LBJ had foreknowledge of the assassination. You should be embarrassed to be so lazy and dishonest. Have you read Caro's "Passage of Power"?
Even more revealing is how he uncritically accepts the statement.
Usually, we have the "that's hearsay" or "look over there" or some sort of dismissive response.
If that was a quote about Oswald can you imagine the tortured attempts to dismiss it?
There are, for me, legitimate, reasoned critics of the lone nut explanation of what happened and there are illegitimate unreasonable critics who don't try to figure out, as best as we can at this late date, what happened. It's easy to tell the two apart.
-
Martin if Oswald would have killed a citizen of Dallas instead of President Kennedy all the pieces would have all fit together. And you are very tiresome as well. If you don't like what I write then don't read it or reply.
if Oswald would have killed a citizen of Dallas instead of President Kennedy all the pieces would have all fit together.
BS
If you don't like what I write then don't read it or reply.
That's probably the best suggestion you have made on this board so far.
-
if Oswald would have killed a citizen of Dallas instead of President Kennedy all the pieces would have all fit together.
BS
If you don't like what I write then don't read it or reply.
That's probably the best suggestion you have made on this board so far.
BS
And that is a pure assumption on your part. And since Oswald never made it to trial we will never know. So, why don't you take my suggestion? It must feel safe dancing along that fence pole and never having to say that you believe in a conspiracy. I know why you and people like you on here do that. Because the moment you say you believe there was a conspiracy, then you would have to defend it. You and I know you can't defend a conspiracy theory. It is far easier for you to just wait until someone says they believe "Oswald acted alone" and then you just try and dispute the evidence they cite. After all you have far more hearsay evidence and speculation in doing that. At last count I think there have been over two thousand books written about JFK and his assassination. Most of the assassination books are from the conspiracy theory people. Have you ever been to Dealy Plaza on a weekend Martin. It is a circus. You can purchase material from probably a dozen different theories in just a few minutes. It is disgusting the amount of people making money from the president's death. For what it is worth, I don't even like that authors like Posner, and Bugliosi made money from the president's death.
-
The authorities weren't looking for answers, but rather an admission of guilt. They kept saying over and over that he wouldn't admit that he was guilty. They never entertained the idea of him being innocent.
So they just wanted him to plead guilty and admit to it and that's it then?
-
Yes. They pronounced him to be guilty within hours.
What happened then after he was shot and killed? Did they question Jack Ruby why he killed him? Whatever happened with that?
-
Yes. They pronounced him to be guilty within hours.
Who is they? Explain. Who pronounced Oswald guilty within hours?
-
BS
And that is a pure assumption on your part. And since Oswald never made it to trial we will never know. So, why don't you take my suggestion? It must feel safe dancing along that fence pole and never having to say that you believe in a conspiracy. I know why you and people like you on here do that. Because the moment you say you believe there was a conspiracy, then you would have to defend it. You and I know you can't defend a conspiracy theory. It is far easier for you to just wait until someone says they believe "Oswald acted alone" and then you just try and dispute the evidence they cite. After all you have far more hearsay evidence and speculation in doing that. At last count I think there have been over two thousand books written about JFK and his assassination. Most of the assassination books are from the conspiracy theory people. Have you ever been to Dealy Plaza on a weekend Martin. It is a circus. You can purchase material from probably a dozen different theories in just a few minutes. It is disgusting the amount of people making money from the president's death. For what it is worth, I don't even like that authors like Posner, and Bugliosi made money from the president's death.
I am not even going to bother with this, except for one thing.
And that is a pure assumption on your part. And since Oswald never made it to trial we will never know.
If my response is pure assumption, than by this reasoning, your initial comment is pure assumption as well. Ever thought of that?
-
I am not even going to bother with this, except for one thing.
And that is a pure assumption on your part. And since Oswald never made it to trial we will never know.
If my response is pure assumption, than by this reasoning, your initial comment is pure assumption as well. Ever thought of that?
Ever thought of that?
No not one minute from the time I started believing Oswald acted alone.
-
Ever thought of that?
No not one minute from the time I started believing Oswald acted alone.
Just as I thought. A closed mind convinced of it's own delusion!
-
Just as I thought. A closed mind convinced of it's own delusion!
Martin, just take a deep breath and you will get through this. Talk about delusion! Have you ever been to Dealy Plaza Martin? Just curious. You already admitted you have no experience with rifles, which puts you at a disadvantage when discussing such issues. I was wondering. Have you even been to the scene of the assassination?
-
Martin, just take a deep breath and you will get through this. Talk about delusion! Have you ever been to Dealy Plaza Martin? Just curious. You already admitted you have no experience with rifles, which puts you at a disadvantage when discussing such issues. I was wondering. Have you even been to the scene of the assassination?
Yes, I have been there serveral times.
-
Yes, I have been there serveral times.
Good. Then can you tell me if the head shot at Z film frame 313 was a difficult shot or an easy one? Any assumptions on that?
-
Good. Then can you tell me if the head shot at Z film frame 313 was a difficult shot or an easy one? Any assumptions on that?
What in the world has this got to do with me having been in Dallas?
-
So you are admitting that you know nothing about this case. Good of you to do this.
Just giving you back some of your own medicine. ;D
I'll ask you what I have asked others. If you are correct about "they" being behind the assassination, what do you think happened and who is "they" specifically? Any thoughts on that Rob. You convinced me. Now tell me what happened.
-
What in the world has this got to do with me having been in Dallas?
Very simple Martin. If you have been to Dealy Plaza and looked at the ground and studied the angles you would know why I asked. But then you don't have any experience with rifles. If you did, you would know that a shot from the front and a shot from the grassy knoll just didn't happened. That renders a lot of the theories invalid. You've been a good sport Martin. By the way, I do respect your position of questioning everything. We just disagree.
-
Even more revealing is how he uncritically accepts the statement.
So not only does Richard assume that I "implie[d] that LBJ had foreknowledge of the assassination", but you assume that I uncritically accept a statement just because I quoted it.
Are you guys incapable of making any argument that doesn't rely on assumptions?
And Caro is an author and journalist, not a mindreader.
-
I know why you and people like you on here do that. Because the moment you say you believe there was a conspiracy, then you would have to defend it. You and I know you can't defend a conspiracy theory.
And I know why you and people like you on here are always trying to shift the burden of proof. Because you and I know you can't defend your position that Oswald did it.
Rational people don't believe any claim for which there is insufficient evidence. So why do you? Because you're not rational?
-
Good. Then can you tell me if the head shot at Z film frame 313 was a difficult shot or an easy one? Any assumptions on that?
That would depend a lot on what weapon was used and where it was shot from, right?
If you've been to Dealey Plaza, you would know that the TSBD SE 6th floor window is sealed off by a large glass case. At least since the Sixth Floor Museum has been there.
-
Very simple Martin. If you have been to Dealy Plaza and looked at the ground and studied the angles you would know why I asked. But then you don't have any experience with rifles. If you did, you would know that a shot from the front and a shot from the grassy knoll just didn't happened. That renders a lot of the theories invalid. You've been a good sport Martin. By the way, I do respect your position of questioning everything. We just disagree.
When did Martin ever claim that a shot was fired from the grassy knoll?
But how does your alleged experience with rifles tell you that a shot from the front "just didn't happened"? Please enlighten us.
-
When did Martin ever claim that a shot was fired from the grassy knoll?
But how does your alleged experience with rifles tell you that a shot from the front "just didn't happened"? Please enlighten us.
And here your shiny head is again John. You really need to get over it.
-
Where is that post that had all of Wesley's self proclaimed ballistic bona fides? I can't seem to find it.
So tell me Steve. Do you think a shot came from the knoll or through the windshield?
-
So tell me Steve. Do you think a shot came from the knoll or through the windshield?
There had to of been multiple gunmen. I believe one of them was Mac Wallace
-
There had to of been multiple gunmen. I believe one of them was Mac Wallace
Alice , Why would there have had to of been multiple shooters and why do you believe that Mac Wallace was one of them? Was Lee Harvey Oswald one of those multiple shooters?
-
Anyway are you familiar with the testimony of Willie Cicci in the movie Godfather II where he talks about "buffers" ?
Yeah, the family has a lot of buffers.
-
And here your shiny head is again John. You really need to get over it.
Says the guy who was just whining about being "insulted". What does my head have to do with anything? You'll talk about anything except the actual evidence. Why is that, Wesley?
At least I have the guts to use my actual photo. Let's see your head.
-
Says the guy who was just whining about being "insulted". What does my head have to do with anything? You'll talk about anything except the actual evidence. Why is that, Wesley?
At least I have the guts to use my actual photo. Let's see your head.
Is it true that God made only a limited number of perfect pates.....the rest he covered with hair.....
-
I'm not exactly for sure, but Wallace was in the marines and he was considered a good sniper. Edward Clark introduced Johnson and Wallace and that's how this whole thing came about. Wallace has also been known to have murdered people and that's another reason that leads me to believe that he killed JFK.
-
You're really pushing this LBJ theory aren't you?
Anyway are you familiar with the testimony of Willie Cicci in the movie Godfather II where he talks about "buffers" ?
Do you really think that if LBJ was calling the shots on the assassination he would enlist one of his own known associates?
Do you really think that he was that stupid?
No, could you link me it or explain to me what happened in the testimony?? I have never heard of it yet.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=uezhB-qJqDc
He is a fictional character in a movie. How does this have anything to do with why I think it was LBJ and his associates? Please explain, I'm confused.
-
And here your shiny head is again John. You really need to get over it.
Any real need for the "shiny head" comment? Making fun of someone's appearance is just childish, it's not clever. Any reason why you don't post a pic of yourself?
-
Any real need for the "shiny head" comment? Making fun of someone's appearance is just childish, it's not clever. Any reason why you don't post a pic of yourself?
ID theft
-
John, in the Nix film beginning at the steps. 4 oaks trees, 1st is in shadows just left of steps, 2nd is almost parallel with Fort Worth sign, 3rd, and the 4th is about 15 feet from where the wood fence merges with the concrete embankment. All of their trunks show up dark, the 4th tree, about 5 feet up from the ground is a light colored plume. It dissects the trunk which appears to be about 10 to 12 inches in diameter. There are no forks in the trunk for another 5 or 6 feet up so there is no way it is light shining through. If that is a smoke plume drifting out from the fence about 15 feet away then it matches Mr Dodd, Mr Price's statements. Since its a right angle view its hard to determine how close it is to that 4th tree. One things for sure its between that dark trunk and Nix's lense. It is probably what Mr Holland referred to as well but he put it further down to the east. Mr Dodd and more especially Mr Price were at more a right angle to the fence then Mr Holland. Its easier to pinpoint the origin of something coming more direct at you then you viewing it moving perpendicular to your position. Its less visible in the Bell film but its there as well. It shows up in the Nix film as the limo evens up with the Fort Worth sign so its captured sooner. Please view and let me know if you see it.
-
Let's see your head.
Or maybe not :o
-
....why I think it was LBJ and his associates? Please explain, I'm confused.
Don't be confused because yes you are correct.
-
Making fun of someone's appearance is just childish, it's not clever.
This is the worst example I've ever seen
-
(https://jimflanigan.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/trump-hair-raising-2.png?w=264&h=252)(https://i.pinimg.com/236x/5c/0d/61/5c0d6171ab636d48caf9552175ca6b24--rock-fashion-s-fashion.jpg)
-
Ruby won his appeal and was granted a new trial. He died in jail awaiting this new trial.
Inconsequential really.
-
I'm not exactly for sure, but Wallace was in the marines and he was considered a good sniper. Edward Clark introduced Johnson and Wallace and that's how this whole thing came about. Wallace has also been known to have murdered people and that's another reason that leads me to believe that he killed JFK.
Wallace probably didn't do it...
-
Wallace probably didn't do it...
Wallace probably didn't do it... and Lee Oswald definitely didn't do it....
-
Wallace probably didn't do it... and Lee Oswald definitely didn't do it....
Feel free to nominate a shooter who probably did it
-
Yes, half the people in prison, maybe more, didn't do it.
-
Feel free to nominate a shooter who probably did it
I don't know.....But I do know that there was no shooter in the SE corner window of the sixth floor of the TSBD.
-
I don't know.....But I do know that there was no shooter in the SE corner window of the sixth floor of the TSBD.
Of course you do... in fact you're the only person on the planet who knows that.
-
probably
This presents a certain permutation of possibilities.
Reversing the tendency to proclaim a definite 'without a doubt'.
Strikingly different from a history of stating exactly that.
There must be some scientific actuarial that could be employed to determine the odds of someone who has no apparent reason to kill a national leader as opposed to his being framed by those who had sundry reasons for killing this same leader and recruiting all the required nuances that the case involved.
Probably, Oswald most likely didn't do it.
-
This presents a certain permutation of possibilities.
Reversing the tendency to proclaim a definite 'without a doubt'.
Strikingly different from a history of stating exactly that.
There must be some scientific actuarial that could be employed to determine the odds of someone who has no apparent reason to kill a national leader as opposed to his being framed by those who had sundry reasons for killing this same leader and recruiting all the required nuances that the case involved.
Probably, Oswald most likely didn't do it.
There's no need to speculate.... It would have been impossible for anybody to fire a rifle from that sE corner window and hit JFK in the Lincoln at the time. Not only was there a tree between the window and JFK ...the window was not open far enough to allow any gunman to stand behind that window and shoot down onto Elm street.
The liars on LBJ's cover up committee said that Lee Oswald sat on a box back away from the window and aimed the Carcano out f the window and fired it, and killed JFK. (They completely ignored Howard Brennan's eyewitness account in which Brennan said that the man who was dressed entirely differently than Lee Oswald, was STANDING and aiming a HUNTING rifle out of a window. ) Lee couldn't have sat on a box back away from the window and declined the muzzle of the rifle low enough to hit anything on Elm street.
-
This presents a certain permutation of possibilities.
Reversing the tendency to proclaim a definite 'without a doubt'.
Strikingly different from a history of stating exactly that.
There must be some scientific actuarial that could be employed to determine the odds of someone who has no apparent reason to kill a national leader as opposed to his being framed by those who had sundry reasons for killing this same leader and recruiting all the required nuances that the case involved.
Probably, Oswald most likely didn't do it.
I?m quite certain the lack of motive (especially in a crime like this) doesn?t make it less likely to have been LHO (perhaps even more likely). LHO clearly wasn?t the shining portrait of mental health, and to miss this as an obvious factor in his behaviour is by far the greatest failure of assassination researchers.
-
...the shining portrait of mental health, and to miss this as an obvious factor in his behaviour is by far the greatest failure of assassination researchers.
behaviour <<< an Aussie or a Kiwi?(http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
-
Feel free to nominate a shooter who probably did it
You mean without any supporting evidence the way you do?
-
You mean without any supporting evidence the way you do?
. Five government investigations[n 1] concluded that Oswald shot and killed Kennedy from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository as the President traveled by motorcade through Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Oswald
No evidence at all, a bunch of government workers always pulling the wool over our eyes! :D
-
No evidence at all, a bunch of government workers always pulling the wool over our eyes! :D
But Chapman hasn't even gone so far as to quote Wikipedia as his "evidence".
"5 government investigations" :D
-
You mean without any supporting evidence the way you do?
You don't have to prove who did it, an opinion on who might have is the requirement of my OP
-
But Chapman hasn't even gone so far as to quote Wikipedia as his "evidence".
"5 government investigations" :D
Not quite sure of your point
But as far as I can tell from multiple sources (including conspiracy-mongers) I think Oswald probably did it.
-
Not quite sure of your point
But as far as I can tell from multiple sources (including conspiracy-mongers) I think Oswald probably did it.
My point is that anyone can throw out a name. Providing evidence to support it is another matter entirely. That's the difference between you and me. I don't believe something is "probably true" without having a good reason to believe that. In all of your years on the forum you have yet to provide even a single good reason to believe that Oswald probably did it.
-
My point is that anyone can throw out a name. Providing evidence to support it is another matter entirely. That's the difference between you and me. I don't believe something is "probably true" without having a good reason to believe that. In all of your years on the forum you have yet to provide even a single good reason to believe that Oswald probably did it.
In all of your years on the forum you have yet to provide even a single good reason to believe that Oswald probably did it.
Mr Iacoletti..... You should not expect our little Chappie to provide something that even LBJ's lawyers couldn't provide after months of diggin through Lee's background.....