JFK Assassination Forum

General Discussion & Debate => General Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Bill Chapman on March 05, 2018, 07:08:01 PM

Title: Oswald Probably Did It
Post 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
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Ray Mitcham on March 05, 2018, 07:25:11 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

Before that why don't you show your evidence that Oswald was certainly the shooter.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 05, 2018, 09:52:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 05, 2018, 10:18:43 PM
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.     
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 06, 2018, 07:46:48 PM
Please show your evidence that Oswald "probably did it" then.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Keyvan Shahrdar on March 06, 2018, 09:20:52 PM
There were two shooters inside the pergola of the grassy knoll.  In the Mary Moorman photo, you can see a gunman to the viewers left of Mr. Zapruder and Ms. Sitzman.  It is hard to see, but the assassin is there. (FYI - If you think this image has been cropped, you can get the FBI copy of the Mary Moorman photo, and you will see the assassin there.)
(https://jfkplayersandwitnesses.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/moorman-full.jpg)

In the Nix Film (26-27 second mark of the film, you should put the video in slow motion to be able to see better), you can see a shot from the third window from the bottom of the pergola and immediately afterwards a smoke trail coming out of the walkway of the pergola to the right of the windows.(Where the assassin is seen in the Mary Moorman photo)

Here is a clip from the Darnel film, probably about thirty seconds after JFK was shot.  There you can see people inside the pergola.
(http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_darnell.jpg)

Here you can see gun smoke floating around seconds after JFK was assassinated.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TLxk6_guQpI/AAAAAAAAFfQ/qbO0Ity5XdI/s1600/216.+Frame+From+Dave+Wiegman+Film.jpg)

A first source image from the JFK Museum in Dealey Plaza of Harold Doyle, one of the tramps, shows the butt of a rifle imprinted on his left lapel.  You will need to zoom in on Harold Doyle

Here you can watch Harold Doyle deny the fact that he was involved in the assassination of JFK. (He was lying through his teeth!)  FYI - Harold Doyle(Deceased) had a lengthy military record.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 06, 2018, 10:30:25 PM
In the Mary Moorman photo, you can see a gunman to the viewers left of Mr. Zapruder and Ms. Sitzman.

No I can't.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Keyvan Shahrdar on March 06, 2018, 11:19:05 PM

Sorry to hear that you cannot see the assassin inside the walkway of the pergola at the grassy knoll.
1. Did you see the corroborating smoke trail in the Nix film?
2. Did you see the butt of a rifle in the left lapel of Harold Doyle from the image stored at the Sixth Floor Museum website?
3. Did you see the Darnell photo clip of people inside the pergola about 30 seconds after JFK was shot?
4. Did you see the Wiegman photo clip of gun smoke in the area?
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 06, 2018, 11:31:47 PM
Sorry to hear that you cannot see the assassin inside the walkway of the pergola at the grassy knoll.
1. Did you see the corroborating smoke trail in the Nix film?

No

Quote
2. Did you see the butt of a rifle in the left lapel of Harold Doyle from the image stored at the Sixth Floor Museum website?

No, but your link didn't work.

Quote
3. Did you see the Darnell photo clip of people inside the pergola about 30 seconds after JFK was shot?

I didn't see people.

Quote
4. Did you see the Wiegman photo clip of gun smoke in the area?

Possibly.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Keyvan Shahrdar on March 06, 2018, 11:57:16 PM
To see the smoke trail in the Nix film, in YouTube, click the gear icon and make the speed be 25% .  I start looking around the 26 second mark in the area of the pergola to the left of Zapruder.  There you will see the smoke trail.

You can to to the sixth floor museum http://www.jfk.org
Click Collections, and enter 1989.100.0024.0015  in the search box.
Zoom into the image.  You should see a faint imprint of a butt of a rifle on Harold Doyle?s left lapel.

I can?t help you if you don?t see people inside of the pergola in the Darnell film clip. 
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 07, 2018, 12:10:26 AM
To see the smoke trail in the Nix film, in YouTube, click the gear icon and make the speed be 25% .  I start looking around the 26 second mark in the area of the pergola to the left of Zapruder.  There you will see the smoke trail.

No, I still don't.  Sorry.

Quote
You can to to the sixth floor museum http://www.jfk.org
Click Collections, and enter 1989.100.0024.0015  in the search box.
Zoom into the image.  You should see a faint imprint of a butt of a rifle on Harold Doyle?s left lapel.

Is this what you're talking about (on his right lapel)?

(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/doyle-butt.png)

Quote
I can?t help you if you don?t see people inside of the pergola in the Darnell film clip.

Maybe you could draw an arrow to where you see them.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Keyvan Shahrdar on March 07, 2018, 03:13:17 AM
Mary Moorman Photo pergola - colored.  When you colorize a black and white image, you can get more information. In this colored photograph, you can clearly see the contrast between the assassin and the background inside the pergola.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Hxx8TafILG4/UpJmJiQvswI/AAAAAAAAl5s/5ixp9qutulw/s1600/s_500_opednews_com_0_mary-moorman-polaroid-jpg_89485_20131121-894.gif)

Nix Film 27 second mark - smoke trail
(http://jfkreport.weebly.com/uploads/2/9/7/2/29721625/5374108_orig.jpg)

Left Lapel of Harold Doyle - you can see an imprint of a butt of a rifle.
(http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/monthly_2017_07/5978b76b939d3_ScreenShot2017-07-26at10_31_36AM.png.b5d876fed7734605f9c46dc47b554eb2.png)

Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 07, 2018, 08:55:31 AM
Mary Moorman Photo pergola - colored.  When you colorize a black and white image, you can get more information. In this colored photograph, you can clearly see the contrast between the assassin and the background inside the pergola.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Hxx8TafILG4/UpJmJiQvswI/AAAAAAAAl5s/5ixp9qutulw/s1600/s_500_opednews_com_0_mary-moorman-polaroid-jpg_89485_20131121-894.gif)

Nix Film 27 second mark - smoke trail
(http://jfkreport.weebly.com/uploads/2/9/7/2/29721625/5374108_orig.jpg)

Left Lapel of Harold Doyle - you can see an imprint of a butt of a rifle.
(http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/monthly_2017_07/5978b76b939d3_ScreenShot2017-07-26at10_31_36AM.png.b5d876fed7734605f9c46dc47b554eb2.png)

Mary Moorman Photo pergola - colored.  When you colorize a black and white image, you can get more information. In this colored photograph, you can clearly see the contrast between the assassin and the background inside the pergola.
>No I can?t

Left Lapel of Harold Doyle - you can see an imprint of a butt of a rifle.
> That has as much chance of being the imprint of a rifle butt as it has of being the butt-crack of his girlfriend

Nix Film 27 second mark - smoke trail
>Nah, it would be wispy, curling, and barely seen in the wind and bright sunlight (present in Dealy Plaza at that time).
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Keyvan Shahrdar on March 07, 2018, 11:25:53 AM
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?
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Keyvan Shahrdar on March 07, 2018, 02:58:35 PM
Hi Steve, I am glad you have asked these questions.

Tell us more about this (these) shooter from the pergola. How did he/they elude capture?  This assassin team are known as the tramps.  Here you can read more about them.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_tramps#References
Synopsis: Police officer Marvin Wise was waved down by a worked at the railyard behind the grassy knoll.  The worker stated to the officer that he saw three people get in a box car about 400 yards down the line.  Here is Mr. Wise HSCA testimony. http://jfkassassinationfiles.com/hsca_180-10112-10156

All three tramps were arrested that day.  Here are their arrest records:
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hobo1small.gif)
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hobo2small.gif)
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hobo3small.gif)

These tramps where hidden from the American public until 1992 when journalist Mary La Fontaine discovered the November 22, 1963, arrest records that the Dallas Police Department had released in 1989, which named the three men as Gus W. Abrams, Harold Doyle, and John F. Gedney.  These records were hidden from the Rockefeller comission, the warren comission, the HSCA.  The powers that be did not want these records released.


How did he/they hide the weapon? Here is Lee Bowers Warren Comission testimony - http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/bowers.htm

There he states that he observed cars with out of state tags moving in and out of the area with Goldwater political stickers.  Don't know what happened to the weapons, but my assumption is they where put in those cars.


How loud would shots fired from the pergola be? I don't know, do you?

Why wasn't a man or men stumbling out of the pergola holding his/their hands over his/their ears in considerable pain seen by witnesses? I don't know, do you?

Where the hell do you come up with this stuff? From the Internet.  Bill challenged readers to show circumstantial evidence that there was another shooter besides LHO.  Here you have it.

Where did you read this? On the Internet.

You couldn't have possibly done a lick of research to come up with this doozy.  -> Have you?
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 07, 2018, 05:19:22 PM
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



Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Keyvan Shahrdar on March 07, 2018, 05:35:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Larry Baldwin on March 07, 2018, 06:00:28 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 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.


Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 07, 2018, 06:04:27 PM
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
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 07, 2018, 06:38:11 PM
I missed the part where you show photographic and film evidence of another shooter

I have to agree with my nemesis, Bill Chapman, on this one.  You added a brown smudge to the Moorman photo and claimed to see a "top of gunman's head", "rifle firer" (whatever that is), and a "smoke trail" there.  That's not "hard evidence", it's pareidolia.  Just like some other people colorized a different part of Moorman and claimed to see a "badge man".

There was a guy on here a while back before the restart who thought he saw shooters in blurry photos of pretty much every part of Dealey Plaza.  Up on top of cement columns and behind bushes by the reflecting pond and all over the place.

And I still don't see your "rifle butt imprint" on Doyle.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 07, 2018, 06:38:39 PM
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.   
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Keyvan Shahrdar on March 07, 2018, 06:57:05 PM
Sorry that you don't see the butt plate on Harold Doyle's left lapel, John.

I presented the photographic and film evidence, it is up to you to interpret it as you please.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 07, 2018, 07:43:08 PM
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
and at the sniper's nest.

That's not remarkable.  His job was to get books out of boxes.

Quote
Why was Oswald the only employee that left work at the TSBD?

He wasn't.

Quote
Where are the curtain rods he told Frazier that he had in the bag?

Hell, where is the bag?

Quote
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?

Quote
Oswald's housekeeper said he came home and then left after grabbing a jacket.

yes, and . . .?

Quote
Why kill Tippet?

Another one of those assumptions not well supported by the evidence.  By the way, it's Tippit.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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?

Quote
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?

Quote
I could add more.

Please do.  I'm waiting for something that definitively points to Oswald actually being the shooter.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 07, 2018, 07:44:38 PM
Sorry that you don't see the butt plate on Harold Doyle's left lapel, John.

I presented the photographic and film evidence, it is up to you to interpret it as you please.

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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 07, 2018, 08:01:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Keyvan Shahrdar on March 07, 2018, 08:13:40 PM
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)
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Mytton on March 07, 2018, 08:16:16 PM


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
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 07, 2018, 08:17:40 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 07, 2018, 08:29:15 PM

 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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 07, 2018, 08:45:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 07, 2018, 08:59:57 PM
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?
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 07, 2018, 09:02:40 PM
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.

Quote
Do you actually think that Oswald did not shoot at JFK?

I don't know who shot at JFK.

Quote
This picture of the TSBD sure looks like Oswald in the window.

LOL
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Mytton on March 07, 2018, 09:03:57 PM

What is your evidence that Oswald owned... the C2766 Mannlicher Carcano rifle allegedly found in the TSBD?




Define ownership?



JohnM
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 07, 2018, 09:08:13 PM
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?
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 07, 2018, 09:12:48 PM
Define ownership?

Bought.  Possessed.  Under the physical control of.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Mytton on March 07, 2018, 09:12:56 PM

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
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 07, 2018, 09:13:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 07, 2018, 09:15:14 PM


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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Mytton on March 07, 2018, 09:16:58 PM
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
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Mytton on March 07, 2018, 09:18:03 PM
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
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 07, 2018, 09:24:11 PM
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"? 
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 07, 2018, 09:31:05 PM
Iacoletti has been quoted as saying that "all the evidence leads to Oswald".

No doubt misquoted or taken out of context.  Mytton-style.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 07, 2018, 09:33:34 PM
Bought.

Possessed.

Under the physical control of.

Not evidence.  Just empty claims based on misinterpreting or embellishing the actual evidence with conjecture and speculation.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 07, 2018, 09:34:20 PM
Just repeating what I say is Lazy and Tedious. Try again!

Your hypocrisy is lazy and tedious, yes.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 07, 2018, 09:35:41 PM

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?
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Mytton on March 07, 2018, 09:38:35 PM
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
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Keyvan Shahrdar on March 07, 2018, 09:39:17 PM
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://toseekanewrworld.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/post-office-box-doc-e1423934642365.jpg?w=300&h=219)
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 07, 2018, 09:55:45 PM
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?
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 07, 2018, 09:56:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Mytton on March 07, 2018, 10:04:36 PM
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

Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 07, 2018, 10:11:07 PM
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 
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 07, 2018, 10:13:47 PM
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 07, 2018, 10:31:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 08, 2018, 12:15:39 AM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 08, 2018, 12:27:14 AM
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?
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 08, 2018, 01:10:22 AM

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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 08, 2018, 01:13:45 AM

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?
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 08, 2018, 01:20:02 AM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 08, 2018, 01:30:21 AM

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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 08, 2018, 01:35:32 AM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 08, 2018, 01:55:04 AM

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?
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 08, 2018, 02:53:44 AM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 08, 2018, 04:03:59 AM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Larry Baldwin on March 08, 2018, 01:58:33 PM
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).  ::)
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 08, 2018, 03:55:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 13, 2018, 04:56:04 PM

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?
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 13, 2018, 07:10:32 PM

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?
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 13, 2018, 09:48:41 PM
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).  ::)

 ;)
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 14, 2018, 04:07:43 PM
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?
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 14, 2018, 04:10:06 PM
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?
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 14, 2018, 04:16:52 PM
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?
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 14, 2018, 04:22:52 PM

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?
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 14, 2018, 05:09:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 14, 2018, 05:40:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 14, 2018, 05:55:23 PM

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"?


Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 14, 2018, 06:29:20 PM
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..
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 14, 2018, 07:39:40 PM
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?
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 14, 2018, 08:22:30 PM
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?
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 14, 2018, 08:48:58 PM

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?
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 14, 2018, 08:49:15 PM
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?
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 14, 2018, 09:09:12 PM
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?
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 14, 2018, 09:15:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 14, 2018, 09:19:44 PM
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?
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 14, 2018, 09:32:17 PM
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?
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 14, 2018, 09:58:16 PM
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
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 14, 2018, 10:01:41 PM
🖒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
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 14, 2018, 10:28:50 PM
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.   
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 14, 2018, 11:28:06 PM

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? 
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Alice Thorton on March 15, 2018, 03:11:03 AM
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
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 15, 2018, 03:17:20 AM
No. That's only true in your fantasy world.

WHOOSH

Again you pretend to miss the point
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Alice Thorton on March 15, 2018, 03:21:52 AM
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/
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 15, 2018, 03:58:17 AM
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?





Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Alice Thorton on March 15, 2018, 12:42:12 PM
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
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 15, 2018, 03:07:55 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 15, 2018, 03:29:16 PM
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?
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 15, 2018, 10:32:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 15, 2018, 10:37:42 PM
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)
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Alice Thorton on March 15, 2018, 10:39:57 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 15, 2018, 10:40:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 15, 2018, 10:45:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 15, 2018, 10:47:07 PM
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?
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 15, 2018, 10:47:47 PM
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?
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 15, 2018, 10:51:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 15, 2018, 10:53:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Alice Thorton on March 15, 2018, 10:55:05 PM
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
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 15, 2018, 11:00:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Alice Thorton on March 15, 2018, 11:08:47 PM
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/
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 15, 2018, 11:26:20 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Mytton on March 16, 2018, 01:45:27 AM
(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
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Zeon Wasinsky on March 16, 2018, 05:48:22 AM
Santa Claus probably does have an elf factory at North pole.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 16, 2018, 03:27:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Richard Smith on March 16, 2018, 03:53:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 16, 2018, 04:19:14 PM
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"
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 16, 2018, 04:23:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 16, 2018, 04:43:43 PM
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

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 16, 2018, 04:50:34 PM
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?
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 16, 2018, 04:58:01 PM
No John. Not going to play that game.

Of course not.  That would require that you actually understand the evidence.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 16, 2018, 05:11:19 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 16, 2018, 06:10:07 PM
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?

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 16, 2018, 07:16:25 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Richard Smith on March 19, 2018, 02:15:54 PM
"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"?
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 19, 2018, 03:03:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 19, 2018, 04:35:32 PM
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?   
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 19, 2018, 04:38:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 19, 2018, 04:46:46 PM

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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Alice Thorton on March 19, 2018, 05:58:05 PM
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?
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 19, 2018, 06:03:17 PM

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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Alice Thorton on March 19, 2018, 06:09:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 19, 2018, 06:14:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Alice Thorton on March 19, 2018, 06:17:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 19, 2018, 07:03:19 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on March 19, 2018, 07:10:04 PM
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.

Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 19, 2018, 07:24:34 PM

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.

Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 19, 2018, 08:02:25 PM
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.

Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Alice Thorton on March 19, 2018, 08:04:47 PM
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?
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Alice Thorton on March 19, 2018, 08:10:25 PM
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?
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 19, 2018, 08:14:44 PM
Yes. They pronounced him to be guilty within hours.

Who is they? Explain. Who pronounced Oswald guilty within hours?
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 19, 2018, 08:26:10 PM
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?
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 19, 2018, 08:40:30 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 19, 2018, 08:44:36 PM
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!
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 19, 2018, 08:50:36 PM
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?
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 19, 2018, 09:01:33 PM

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.

Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 19, 2018, 09:09:32 PM
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?
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 19, 2018, 09:23:24 PM

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?

Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 20, 2018, 03:21:27 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 20, 2018, 03:28:20 PM
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.   
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 20, 2018, 09:53:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 20, 2018, 09:56:38 PM
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?
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 20, 2018, 10:00:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 20, 2018, 10:03:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 21, 2018, 03:13:13 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 21, 2018, 03:14:38 PM
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?
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Alice Thorton on March 21, 2018, 06:43:31 PM
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
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 21, 2018, 07:14:12 PM
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?
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 21, 2018, 07:26:31 PM

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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 21, 2018, 08:26:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 21, 2018, 08:31:49 PM
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.....
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Alice Thorton on March 22, 2018, 02:04:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Alice Thorton on March 22, 2018, 02:05:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Alice Thorton on March 23, 2018, 09:00:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Denis Pointing on March 23, 2018, 09:51:37 PM
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?
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 23, 2018, 11:36:49 PM
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
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Blake Heisler on August 02, 2018, 09:11:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Jerry Freeman on August 03, 2018, 02:00:29 AM
  Let's see your head.

Or maybe not    :o

 
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Jerry Freeman on August 03, 2018, 02:03:48 AM
....why I think it was LBJ and his associates? Please explain, I'm confused.
Don't be confused because yes you are correct.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 03, 2018, 08:48:09 AM
Making fun of someone's appearance is just childish, it's not clever.

This is the worst example I've ever seen

Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Jerry Freeman on August 03, 2018, 05:14:21 PM
(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)
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Jerry Freeman on August 04, 2018, 03:02:43 AM
Quote
Ruby won his appeal and was granted a new trial.  He died in jail awaiting this new trial.
Inconsequential really.
 
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 04, 2018, 04:17:43 AM
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...
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 04, 2018, 03:51:26 PM
Wallace probably didn't do it...

Wallace probably didn't do it...   and Lee Oswald definitely didn't do it....
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 04, 2018, 06:18:50 PM
Wallace probably didn't do it...   and Lee Oswald definitely didn't do it....

Feel free to nominate a shooter who probably did it
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Richard Rubio on August 04, 2018, 06:20:08 PM
Yes, half the people in prison, maybe more, didn't do it.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 04, 2018, 06:21:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 04, 2018, 06:24:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Jerry Freeman on August 05, 2018, 09:12:40 PM
  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.
 
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 05, 2018, 09:34:05 PM
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.

Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Dillon Rankine on August 06, 2018, 12:48:10 AM
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.   
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Jerry Freeman on August 06, 2018, 01:29:24 AM
...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)
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 06, 2018, 10:56:58 PM
Feel free to nominate a shooter who probably did it

You mean without any supporting evidence the way you do?
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Richard Rubio on August 06, 2018, 11:14:45 PM
You mean without any supporting evidence the way you do?

Quote
. 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
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 07, 2018, 12:09:18 AM
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
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 07, 2018, 05:00:08 AM
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
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 07, 2018, 05:03:48 AM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 07, 2018, 10:57:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oswald Probably Did It
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 08, 2018, 01:12:34 AM
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.....