JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Jerry Freeman on July 08, 2018, 03:16:46 AM
-
Never read it. However curiosity has gotten the better of me lately with all the adnauseum posting citing Vincent Bugliosi as the foremost guru of the Warren Report defenders.
I was called out because I accused VB of lying.
I mean he was a lawyer for Pete's sake!
So I glanced at the Amazon books preview of Reclaiming History.
He admits in his introduction that he wrote Reclaiming because there was not enough balance in conspiracy vs pro WC books.
OK.
Also in the intro.....VB says that LBJ was strongly opposed to forming a commission [as an investigating body] that it should have been handled by the State of Texas Attny General's office.
"We can't interfere with local jurisdiction" VB "quotes" Johnson [somehow]
1. Never heard that one before.
2. How did Vince manage to find this out? Was it in the papers?
3. If it were true... then why did Johnson order Kennedy's body & the presidential car zipped back to DC first thing- straight-a-way??
Bugliosi scoffs at the idea of a conspiracy with every other word.
And the lemmings follow suit.
Those who would appear to have had the most motive for the removal of President Kennedy were the least considered of his list of suspects which only contained one name.
There is a youtube that they made called The Trial of Lee Oswald. VB as the prosecution... slams the ghost of Oswald with barely a peep from the defense [Gerry Spence]
With oratory zeal Bugliosi proclaimed that Oswald [after there was a TSBD roll call] "was the only one missing...the only one mind you!"
We know there was no 'roll call' and Oswald was not the only one missing.
With out any objection from the defense attorney who obviously knew nothing about this case.
-
We know there was no 'roll call'...
Buell Frazier said there definitely was a roll call:
https://app.box.com/s/1rtitsd5catfh496qbdaxjrc96zhsp87
"They read names off, and you had to answer." -- Buell Wesley Frazier; June 21, 2002
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complete 2-Hour Interview With Frazier:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B66zFAvTgxxISUhXaldpNmN2QmM/view
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Link (re: the "roll call"):
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1142.html
-
Buell Frazier said there definitely was a roll call:
https://app.box.com/s/1rtitsd5catfh496qbdaxjrc96zhsp87
"They read names off, and you had to answer." -- Buell Wesley Frazier; June 21, 2002
Complete 2-Hour Interview:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B66zFAvTgxxISUhXaldpNmN2QmM/view
Would this be the same Buell Frazier who also said that Oswald carried the paper bag in the cup of his hand and under his armpit?
He said it on day one and is still saying it to this day?..
So why accept something he said once in 2002 about a roll call and not what he said from day one?
-
?At the London trial, Wesley Frazier testified that "everyone was present [at the roll call] except Mr. Oswald." (Transcript of "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald", July 23, 1986, p.38).
Billy Lovelady told the media back in 1964 that "a roll call was taken of the dozen or so men in my work gang. Only Oswald was missing" (New York Herald Tribune, May 24, 1964, p.10).?
-- Via Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History"
-
But then there's the other side of the "Roll Call" coin, provided by TSBD Superintendent Roy Truly, whose WC testimony certainly indicates there was NO roll call at all (which has to make you wonder why Billy Lovelady told a New York newspaper in 1964 that there was a "roll call", and why Buell Wesley Frazier told Vincent Bugliosi in 1986 and Gary Mack in 2002 that he remembers the details of a "roll call" as well).
However, this testimony by Mr. Truly doesn't completely eliminate the possibility that a roll call could have been conducted by William Shelley at some point in time on November 22nd, although you'd think if that had been the case, Truly would have at least been aware of it. ~shrug~ ....
JOSEPH A. BALL -- "Did you make a check of your employees afterwards?"
ROY S. TRULY -- "No, no; not complete. No, I just saw the group of the employees over there on the floor and I noticed this boy [Lee Oswald] wasn't with them. With no thought in my mind except that I had seen him a short time before in the building, I noticed he wasn't there."
-
?At the London trial, Wesley Frazier testified that "everyone was present [at the roll call] except Mr. Oswald." (Transcript of "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald", July 23, 1986, p.38).
Billy Lovelady told the media back in 1964 that "a roll call was taken of the dozen or so men in my work gang. Only Oswald was missing" (New York Herald Tribune, May 24, 1964, p.10).?
-- Via Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History"
Fine, you accept Frazier's word for the roll call....
How about the way he described Oswald carried the package?
-
They read names off, and you had to answer.
And everybody was present except for Oswald?
I guess we need to have a roll call to see if there was a roll call (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
-
?At the London trial, Wesley Frazier testified that "everyone was present [at the roll call] except Mr. Oswald." (Transcript of "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald", July 23, 1986, p.38).
Billy Lovelady told the media back in 1964 that "a roll call was taken of the dozen or so men in my work gang. Only Oswald was missing" (New York Herald Tribune, May 24, 1964, p.10).?
-- Via Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History"
And worker Eddie Piper said there was what he called a "lineup" where the workers gave the police their names and home addresses.
From his WC testimony:
Mr. BALL. Did you at anytime after the shooting miss Lee Oswald---did you notice he wasn't around?
Mr. PIPER. No, sir; I didn't notice it until the lineup. You know, I just figured all the people was there.
Mr. BALL. You did notice it at the lineup, did you?
Mr. PIPER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Tell us about that.
Mr. PIPER. I did notice it in the lineup.
Mr. BALL. What do you mean by the lineup?
Mr. PIPER. I mean, when they lined us all up and told us to give our name and address and just to go home.
Mr. BALL. You say "they"; who do you mean?
Mr. PIPER. The detective---whoever it was.
Mr. BALL. The police?
Mr. PIPER. Yes; they had the building all surrounded. They went to locking the doors back and front and told us to all come up and then go home, and I told him, I says, "I've got to go down in the basement and get my clothes," and he said, "You can go down and get your clothes and come on back up here, but give me your identification and your name and tell us where you are staying," and everybody heard me say that, I guess, and he let us out of the building, one by one, and I went on out the front door.
Mr. BALL. Did you say something to anybody about not seeing Oswald there?
Mr. PIPER. No, sir; I didn't say it, but I just saw he wasn't in the lineup--I didn't tell anyone because I didn't see him.
Mr. BALL. Just tell us what did you notice?
Mr. PIPER. I noticed he was not in the lineup.
Mr. BALL. You noticed that he was not in the lineup?
There seems to be pretty solid evidence that some sort of "account" of the workers who were in the building was taken by the police. Lineup, roll call, whatever one wants to call it.
-
There seems to be pretty solid evidence that some sort of "account" of the workers who were in the building was taken by the police. Lineup, roll call, whatever one wants to call it.
Mr. BALL. Did you make a check of your employees afterwards?
Mr. TRULY. No, no; not complete. No, I just saw the group of the employees over there on the floor and I noticed this boy wasn't with them. With no thought in my mind except that I had seen him a short time before in the building, I noticed he wasn't there.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/truly2.htm
Remember that this was all post mortum.
There was no cross examination of witnesses.
A newspaper interview is not "testimony".
-
And worker Eddie Piper said there was what he called a "lineup" where the workers gave the police their names and home addresses.
From his WC testimony:
Mr. BALL. Did you at anytime after the shooting miss Lee Oswald---did you notice he wasn't around?
Mr. PIPER. No, sir; I didn't notice it until the lineup. You know, I just figured all the people was there.
Mr. BALL. You did notice it at the lineup, did you?
Mr. PIPER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Tell us about that.
Mr. PIPER. I did notice it in the lineup.
Mr. BALL. What do you mean by the lineup?
Mr. PIPER. I mean, when they lined us all up and told us to give our name and address and just to go home.
Mr. BALL. You say "they"; who do you mean?
Mr. PIPER. The detective---whoever it was.
Mr. BALL. The police?
Mr. PIPER. Yes...
Thanks, Steve, for Piper's "lineup" reference.
Piper, however, was talking about the POLICE conducting that "lineup", not Roy Truly or Bill Shelley of the TSBD staff.
But upon being reminded by Steve of Eddie Piper's testimony, it makes me wonder if perhaps the "lineup" that Piper talked about could be the "roll call" that Frazier and Lovelady remembered. ? ? ?
In any event, that makes THREE separate TSBD employees --- Frazier, Lovelady, and Piper (plus reporter Kent Biffle) --- who each has made reference to some type of "roll call" or "lineup" being conducted in the TSBD before the employees were sent home on 11/22.
-
In any event,
OK David on the roll call stuff...Bugliosi states that Oswald was the only one who had left the building therefore implicating his guilt.
If Oswald was in such an all-fired hurry to get out of there, why did he [supposedly] stop off at the soda machine and grab something to drink?
My point is that in his zeal to blast the critics, Bugliosi failed to do little else but criticize the critics.
Vincent Bugliosi further writes in his intro to Reclaim that he joins in the chorus of other lone nut defenders who say that it just must be "more exciting, fascinating, and intriguing" to be a critic of the Report and a supporter of a conspiracy.
A callus statement I believe.
There is nothing fun about any of this.
VB-The critics want their "day in court that they don't want to give the Warren Commission".
Please.
VB- The critics believe Jack Ruby "supposedly" silenced Oswald.
Ruby did not "supposedly" silence Oswald...he DID silence Oswald.
VB-The voluminous Warren Report with it's 18,000 pages of hearings and testimony alone should be evidence of Oswald's guilt.
VB "Oswald was a marksman in the Marines"
Oswald obtained a sharpshooters badge in 1956. So what? This made him a deadly sniper for life? With a score of 212 that is nearly the bare minimum for Marine qualification.
-
Would this be the same Buell Frazier who also said that Oswald carried the paper bag in the cup of his hand and under his armpit?
He said it on day one and is still saying it to this day?..
So why accept something he said once in 2002 about a roll call and not what he said from day one?
Would that happen to be the same Buell Frazier who in later years said he was tired of being harassed by people because of his driving of the eventual prime suspect to the eventual assassination scene? Would that happen to be the same Buell Frazier who kept volunteering that he paid, in effect, scant attention to the bag?
Are you positive that Buell & his sister didn't bs about the size of the bag in a CYA move to lessen the chances of Buell winding up frying as an accomplice?
-
Caster was absent. Maybe he was finally taking his Mauser home
-
Would that happen to be the same Buell Frazier who in later years said he was tired of being harassed by people because of his driving of the eventual prime suspect to the eventual assassination scene? Would that happen to be the same Buell Frazier who kept volunteering that he paid, in effect, scant attention to the bag?
Are you positive that Buell & his sister didn't bs about the size of the bag in a CYA move to lessen the chances of Buell winding up frying as an accomplice?
Why would I have to be positive that Buell and his sister didn't bs about the size of the bag? Why would you even begin with the assumption, based on absolutely nothing at all, that both were not telling the truth and take it from there?
Also, regardless of how many times Frazier said he didn't pay much attention to the bag, he still could have been exactly right about the way he saw Oswald carry the bag, couldn't he?
So, why would you automatically assume that he was wrong about that as well?
-
Would this be the same Buell Frazier who also said that Oswald carried the paper bag in the cup of his hand and under his armpit?
He said it on day one and is still saying it to this day?..
So why accept something he said once in 2002 about a roll call and not what he said from day one?
He said in the 1986 trial that there was a roll call also. He also said he didn't pay much attention to the rifle and could have been mistaken about how Oswald carried it. 3:40 and 4:00.
The fact that you are actually comparing the reliability of remembering exactly how someone was carrying a rifle ( that you admit you barely paid attention to ) to remembering whether or not you were in a roll call shows once again you lack critical thinking skills. That is what this case if all about. I didn't didn't read much of the thread yet but I am guessing you or one of Oswald's other defense lawyers will also try to compare remembering you were involved in a roll call to guessing the size of a package.
-
Buell managed to not be included with those taken to HQ that afternoon. Fritz instructed Stengel to gather up all those who worked on the 6th floor that day for questioning. Frazier managed to avoid that somehow.....he sure looked suspicious given his association with the prime suspect. Got him a job, gave him a lift, disappeared after the shooting.....some hot water there for sure.
-
OK David on the roll call stuff...Bugliosi states that Oswald was the only one who had left the building therefore implicating his guilt.
If Oswald was in such an all-fired hurry to get out of there, why did he [supposedly] stop off at the soda machine and grab something to drink?
Perhaps to avoid the men who he heard coming up the stairs from the first floor to the second floor, or at the very least, have a reason to be there (pretend to be thirsty, wanted a soda) since it became obvious to him that he probably wasn't going to be able to avoid these men, whoever they may be (Truly and Baker).
You really don't understand the very simple concept of one beginning to make his way down from the second floor to the first floor and then, upon hearing men coming up those very steps, deciding to enter the vestibule leading to the lunch room pretending as if that was his destination all along (versus going down to the first floor on his way to leaving the building)?
-
VB "Oswald was a marksman in the Marines"
Oswald obtained a sharpshooters badge in 1956. So what? This made him a deadly sniper for life? With a score of 212 that is nearly the bare minimum for Marine qualification.
Key word there... "qualification".
Oswald indeed qualified. That means he passed. Right?
-
Would this be the same Buell Frazier who also said that Oswald carried the paper bag in the cup of his hand and under his armpit?
He said it on day one and is still saying it to this day?..
So why accept something he said once in 2002 about a roll call and not what he said from day one?
He said in the 1986 trial that there was a roll call also. He also said he didn't pay much attention to the rifle and could have been mistaken about how Oswald carried it. 3:40 and 4:00.
The fact that you are actually comparing the reliability of remembering exactly how someone was carrying a rifle ( that you admit you barely paid attention to ) to remembering whether or not you were in a roll call shows once again you lack critical thinking skills.
(https://i.imgur.com/7Fp3t2Q.jpg)
-
:D -- 2500 days ago
You think he had enough practice to maintain that on 11/22?
But, that wasn't the point of the post which I was addressing. Was it?
The point that I was addressing was that Oswald's score of 212 was "the bare minimum for Marine qualification", as if that score of 212 somehow demeans the very simple FACT that Oswald indeed qualified.
-
:D -- 2500 days ago
You think he had enough practice to maintain that on 11/22?
Oswald was rusty and missed the headshot twice whereas a professional assassin would only need one shot.
JohnM
-
:D ...and to that I believe Jerry's original point was; so what.
This is where you're confused. More than one point was being made in the post which I replied to. You should understand that since you have very clearly seen that particular post.
Oswald qualified. Right?
That means he PASSED.
While we're at it, was Oswald out on the front steps at the time of the assassination?
-
While we're at it, was Oswald out on the front steps at the time of the assassination?
Michael Capasse has been studying the JFK assassination since the mid-1970s, and he began to champion Oswald in the doorway in 1978. Michael is extremely well-read on JFK, and he made a very detailed study of the mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald involving lawyers Gerry Spence and Vincent Bugliosi. Michael has held study groups on the JFK assassination in CT and GA.
http://www.oswald-innocent.com/#mike
JohnM
-
..and Mytton will spew some 15 year old post
like it's relevant today
Amazing, so you go from championing some outlandish theory 15 years ago and now for some reason known only to yourself you now appear to have totally rejected and 180'd your previous findings, yet the evidence hasn't changed in 50 years? Wow!
Btw what is it with your obsession of linking everything to either spewing, spitting, weeing or poo throwing? Yuucckk!
JohnM
-
Btw what is it with your obsession of linking everything to either spewing, spitting, weeing or poo throwing? Yuucckk!
JohnM
:D
-
Fine, you accept Frazier's word for the roll call....
How about the way he described Oswald carried the package?
You leave out the fact that Frazier also said he wasn't really paying any attention to it(the way Oswald carried the rifle).
-
Let's face it. 3 spent casings were left in the sniper's nest, a carcano linked to Oswald was found nearby, he worked in the building and was hired just months before the shooting took place. Too coincidental? He was also a defector to Russia, married a Russian girl and had ties to Cuba. Not only that, before he could give a statement, he was assassinated.
I think we have our man! He is guilty as sin. Not only that, film evidence coming from the Zapruder film frames Z-313/314 proves without doubt the shots came from this very same sniper's nest where he was present at! Its pretty well a sealed case, all cut and dried.
......now how many times can I be struck by lightning and still live?!!!!!!
-
And since when does a broken down MC rifle wrapped in a paper bag fit between Oswald's cupped hand and his armpit?
Did you even read what I said? Frazier, himself, admitted that he wasn't really paying much attention to how O was carrying the rifle, therefore, Frazier may not have seen the rifle sticking above O's shoulder! When you Oswald sympathizers can come up with proof that it wasn't O's rifle, get back with us, until then, all you have to go by is two people GUESSING at the length of the package, Oswald telling Frazier that the package was curtain rods, when no curtain rods were ever found at the sixth floor window where the brown paper was discovered with O's prints on it. The bullet fragments and whole bullet were fired from O's rifle, to the exclusion of all other rifles in the world. All you have to offer is speculation regarding all these points. Speculation is not proof.
-
Did you even read what I said? Frazier, himself, admitted that he wasn't really paying much attention to how O was carrying the rifle, therefore, Frazier may not have seen the rifle sticking above O's shoulder! When you Oswald sympathizers can come up with proof that it wasn't O's rifle, get back with us, until then, all you have to go by is two people GUESSING at the length of the package, Oswald telling Frazier that the package was curtain rods, when no curtain rods were ever found at the sixth floor window where the brown paper was discovered with O's prints on it. The bullet fragments and whole bullet were fired from O's rifle, to the exclusion of all other rifles in the world. All you have to offer is speculation regarding all these points. Speculation is not proof.
Speculation is what you are doing about where the bag was supposedly found. No photo of it in situ in the so called sniper nest, and numerous officers missing seeing it. And nobody admits to picking the bag up. Tell us who admitted picking the bag up, Steve.
-
On November 22, 1963! Whether you accept it or not, you have no proof that it wasn't his rifle. NONE!
We have no proof it wasn't yours. How do you prove a negative? Prove it was his.
-
Conveyance of a disassembled rifle is a catchy subject in itself.
There was no exhibit of the broken down into it's components MC rifle...how many pieces there would be...tools required to reassemble ...were any such tools found? Why utilize a scope when it would obviously not have been sighted in properly?
All and all there is something sloppy about the whole idea of 'smuggled' in segments of weapon... unseen by anyone and then to where?
-
On page 40 of Bugliosi's verbose novel he recounts the witness who "clearly" saw the rifleman in action.
Howard Brennen "looks up. The man he saw earlier in the sixth floor window is aiming a rifle straight down Elm St. Brennen sees him from the waist up in awful clarity..the rifle braced against his right shoulder as he leans against the left window jamb..the gunman's motions are deliberate and without panic. After a few seconds he fires again."
Vince added all of this loquacious text I suppose to make his book thicker and appear more grandiose.
Who ever said 'you can't make this stuff up'?
The only view that I can possibly see based on Brennen's desciption [according to Vince] would be from the waist down to the knees as --if the gunman was standing..that's all you would see utilizing the appearance of that window.
It would be that.. or the gunman shut the window down really quickly.
Bugliosi wrote Reclaiming [the Myth] in 2007 and after all that time he didn't check into this account and see it as being just simply a physical impossibility.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184840/m1/1/med_res/)
-
Thanks, Steve, for Piper's "lineup" reference.
Piper, however, was talking about the POLICE conducting that "lineup", not Roy Truly or Bill Shelley of the TSBD staff.
I agree. That's not a roll call. The police would have been gathering witness names and addresses (something they were supposed to have done in the Texas Theater too) not seeing who was missing.
If there really had been a roll call, wouldn't Truly have remembered it too? And if there had really been a roll call they would have known that Oswald was not the only one missing.
-
Are you positive that Buell & his sister didn't bs about the size of the bag in a CYA move to lessen the chances of Buell winding up frying as an accomplice?
Now who's calling Frazier a liar?
-
Now who's calling Frazier a liar?
I give it a high probability given the circumstances in which Bueller found himself that day. Lying would be the smart move if the bag was seen to be big enough to carry a rifle.
-
I agree. That's not a roll call. The police would have been gathering witness names and addresses (something they were supposed to have done in the Texas Theater too) not seeing who was missing.
If there really had been a roll call, wouldn't Truly have remembered it too? And if there had really been a roll call they would have known that Oswald was not the only one missing.
Dirty Harvey was the only one not missing from the sn at 12:30
;)
-
Isn't it possible that the rifle was not in a complete "disassembled" state...
Isn't it possible there was a conspiracy?
-
Isn't it possible there was a conspiracy?
Again, what would be the minimal amount of disassembly necessary to fit the MC rifle into the bag? Would it require a complete disassembly as depicted in that picture or just connecting the barrel to the rifle stock? This is not a trick question as I have never assembled a MC rifle and am curious as to the answer. It has implications for the minimum amount of time it would have taken for Oswald to assemble the rifle.
-
Isn't it possible there was a conspiracy?
Is it possible that you just avoided answering Richard's question?
-
Again, what would be the minimal amount of disassembly necessary to fit the MC rifle into the bag? Would it require a complete disassembly as depicted in that picture or just connecting the barrel to the rifle stock? This is not a trick question as I have never assembled a MC rifle and am curious as to the answer. It has implications for the minimum amount of time it would have taken for Oswald to assemble the rifle.
Oswald may have loosened the screws (somewhat) the night before, thus speeding up the reassembly
It seems from this disassembly that separating the barrel from the stock is rather easy
By this video, seems he could be finished by step 8-9 re partial disassembly
http://thisoldrifle.com/carcano9138/rifledisassembly/index.asp
-
Would it require a complete disassembly as depicted in that picture or just connecting the barrel to the rifle stock? This is not a trick question as I have never assembled a MC rifle and am curious as to the answer. It has implications for the minimum amount of time it would have taken for Oswald to assemble the rifle.
OK Rich.... actually I have only disassembled my shotgun [Winchester 1400 12 ga. auto]
It isn't hard to do but I have Teflon screwdrivers so I don't bugger the metal.
But shotguns are different from rifles.
I have a .22 Marlin semi auto.. the trigger housing is screwed into the stock.
Have you seen the link here?
http://dealeyplazauk.org.uk/pdfArticles/TheMannlicher-Carcano.pdf
It should have been determined and reported by the FBI [Robt Frazier?] that the MC in question was indeed reassembled like quickly with a what? Crude fastening device? I mean they analyzed Oswald's pubic hairs and stuff like that ::)
I see you found a link.
http://thisoldrifle.com/carcano9138/rifledisassembly/index.asp
-
We are left to assume that disassembly of the
weapon is a quick, simple and straightforward process at the end of which
we have the
rifle in two pieces: the wooden stock and the remainder of it
consisting of the metal part. In reality, this is far from the truth.
At this point, I must also question the object of taking the time and trouble
to completely disassemble and then reassemble
the weapon in order to
make a saving of less than six inches in its length.
Twelve separate components
?
plus a sling
Perhaps it is appropriate at this stage to explain exactly what is involved
when you disassemble this weapon. Despite the automatic ass
umption that
you have a ?wooden part? and a ?metal part?, there is far more to it than
that. When
fully
disassembled, which it
has
to be to isolate the wooden
stock, the rifle is broken down into no fewer than 12 separate components.
Yes, twelve! Now that is something which the Warren Commission omitted
to reveal. Even then, there is a further item to consider, although it is not
strictly speaking part of the rifle. This is the sling (which was fitted to the
alleged assassination weapon when it was found).
If we then go along with the Warren Commission?s main conclusion that
Oswald was the lone assassin, we have to add an ammunition clip and four
unexpended rounds of ammunition. I can just visualize Oswald climbing into
Frazier?s car carrying a paper sack i
n which all those assorted ingredients of
the rifle are jangling about.
http://dealeyplazauk.org.uk/pdfArticles/TheMannlicher-Carcano.pdf
-
I give it a high probability given the circumstances in which Bueller found himself that day.
As in Ferris Bueller? WTF?
-
Based on his 'assumption'...I didn't read Bugliosi's book.
I mean what did he say in 900 pages that the Warren Report didn't say in 900 pages?
Correction: Bugliosi said in 1648 pages what Posner said in 640 pages what Jim Moore said in 236 pages.
-
As in Ferris Bueller? WTF?
Another pointless post this time pointing out an obvious auto-correction. WTF?
What is it with you and Caprio, why this urge to reply to anything and everything that you can, is having an artificially inflated high post count beneficial to you in some way?
JohnM
-
Another pointless post this time pointing out an obvious auto-correction. WTF?
That's the problem with you, "Mytton" -- you always think your own guesses are "obvious". But Chapman has called him "Bueller" more than once.
What is it with you and Caprio, why this urge to reply to anything and everything that you can
Says the guy with the urge to reply to anything and everything I say.
-
Correction: Bugliosi said in 1648 pages what Posner said in 640 pages what Jim Moore said in 236 pages.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10402
What the FBI said in 20 :D
-
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10402
What the FBI said in 20 :D
What Hoover said in one sentence!
"The thing I am concerned about, and so is Mr. Katzenbach, is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin."
-
What Hoover said in one sentence!
"The thing I am concerned about, and so is Mr. Katzenbach, is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin."
Correct.
Oswald was the real assassin and therefore, of course they wanted the public to know that.
Why would they be okay with the public believing someone other than Oswald (the real assassin) was responsible?
Use your head.
-
Correct.
Oswald was the real assassin and therefore, of course they wanted the public to know that.
Why would they be okay with the public believing someone other than Oswald (the real assassin) was responsible?
Use your head.
Which Hoover convinced himself of on November 24th.....how, exactly?
-
Which Hoover convinced himself of on November 24th.....how, exactly?
Unrelated to the point you were trying to make and my response to your attempt.
-
Which Hoover convinced himself of on November 24th.....how, exactly?
If Hoover was convinced of anything, it would be the importance of stalling in order to assuage public fears of a conspiracy pointing to a confrontation with Russia and WWIII
It was the height of the Cold War, FFS
-
Unrelated to the point you were trying to make and my response to your attempt.
Completely related to the point. They wanted to convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin before they had any reason at all to believe that. The conclusion came before the investigation.
-
If Hoover was convinced of anything, it would be the importance of stalling in order to assuage public fears of a conspiracy pointing to a confrontation with Russia and WWIII
It was the height of the Cold War, FFS
Thanks for admitting that Hoover didn't give a damn about who actually committed the crime.
-
Thanks for admitting that Hoover didn't give a damn about who actually committed the crime.
That says that? Better than a nuclear holocaust if so.
-
Completely related to the point. They wanted to convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin before they had any reason at all to believe that. The conclusion came before the investigation.
That seems to be your take on everything: Ignore the circumstances (the very real threat of WWW III should supported connections to Russia be found pointing to their possible culpabilty in the matter) in your zeal to somehow bolster your claim of Oswald's innocence. In the total abscence of rational thought, it seems to me.
-
Which Hoover convinced himself of on November 24th.....how, exactly?
Are you serious, this is just some of the evidence that Hoover would have access to by that time.
Oswald's rifle.
Oswald bought the rifle with an alias.
Oswald left immediately.
Oswald desperately caught a bus and a cab.
Oswald got out way past his rooming house.
Oswald killed a cop in front of eyewitnesses.
Oswald tried to kill more cops.
Oswald was arrested with a revolver.
Oswald told lie after lie while being interrogated.
With all this evidence what other conclusion would any sane man arrive at?
JohnM
-
I?m not ignoring anything. What you?re saying is that the truth didn?t matter to them. And I agree.
-
Thanks for admitting that Hoover didn't give a damn about who actually committed the crime.
Where did I 'admit' that, John?
-
Are you serious, this is just some of the evidence that Hoover would have access to by that time.
Oswald's rifle.
Oswald bought the rifle with an alias.
Oswald left immediately.
Oswald desperately caught a bus and a cab.
Oswald got out way past his rooming house.
Oswald killed a cop in front of eyewitnesses.
Oswald tried to kill more cops.
Oswald was arrested with a revolver.
Oswald told lie after lie while being interrogated.
The usual litany of a bunch of things that aren?t evidence of murder at all along with misrepresentations of the actual evidence.
-
The usual litany of a bunch of things that aren?t evidence of murder at all along with misrepresentations of the actual evidence.
An interesting perspective. What do you think should be done in this case? Opening it back up? I'm sure there are those on both sides that would welcome that.
I've read your posts for 2 years or more. I recognize a general outlook on the assassination. And if I may say so, a civil participating member in this forum.
-
An interesting perspective. What do you think should be done in this case? Opening it back up? I'm sure there are those on both sides that would welcome that.
Honestly, I think it?s too late to have a honest, comprehensive investigation. Too many people are no longer around. Too much evidence is ?missing? and/or destroyed. I think we?re stuck with ?inconclusive?.
I've read your posts for 2 years or more. I recognize a general outlook on the assassination. And if I may say so, a civil participating member in this forum.
Thanks, I appreciate that!
-
Bill Crapman on July 20, 2018, 11:49:37 PM
If Hoover was convinced of anything, it would be the importance of stalling in order to assuage public fears of a conspiracy pointing to a confrontation with Russia and WWIII
Quick! Someone find a shovel. The Dallas cops had already convicted Oswald... so please.
Thanks for admitting that Hoover didn't give a damn about who actually committed the crime.
All Hoover cared about was his precious FBI & that's all he ever cared about.
Was he out there with head bowed ...hat in hand at Kennedy's funeral?
He was actually in his office [probably cigar in hand]...business as usual.
-
The usual litany of a bunch of things that aren?t evidence of murder at all along with misrepresentations of the actual evidence.
This isn't all about you, it's what evidence that Hoover had, and the following list even at that stage was already absolutely devastating for your client.
Oswald's rifle.
Oswald bought the rifle with an alias.
Oswald left immediately.
Oswald desperately caught a bus while it was stopped in the middle of the street.
Oswald panicked when the bus wasn't moving and caught a cab
Oswald got out way past his rooming house.
Oswald killed a cop in front of eyewitnesses.
Oswald tried to kill more cops.
Oswald was arrested with a revolver.
Oswald told lie after lie while being interrogated.
JohnM
-
Quick! Someone find a shovel. The Dallas cops had already convicted Oswald... so please.
All Hoover cared about was his precious FBI & that's all he ever cared about.
Was he out there with head bowed ...hat in hand at Kennedy's funeral?
He was actually in his office [probably cigar in hand]...business as usual.
Wow, just wow, and distorting someone's name as well. Man. :-X
-
Oswald desperately caught a bus while it was stopped in the middle of the street.
Oswald panicked when the bus wasn't moving and caught a cab
The Warren Report writers..Posner..not even Vincent Bugliosi were as verbosely idiosyncratic as this guy.
Keep it up! Make me believe...and say yes oh yes I believe BS:
-
I?m not ignoring anything. What you?re saying is that the truth didn?t matter to them. And I agree.
Is this post directed at me?
If so, don't tell me what I said. Stop trying to gaslight me. You'll fail.
-
This isn't all about you, it's what evidence that Hoover had, and the following list even at that stage was already absolutely devastating for your client.
"Devastating". LOL.
Oswald's rifle.
Unproven speculation.
Oswald bought the rifle with an alias.
Unproven speculation.
Oswald left immediately.
"Devastating evidence". LOL.
Oswald desperately caught a bus while it was stopped in the middle of the street.
"Desperately". LOL. "Mytton" the mindreader. LOL.
Oswald panicked when the bus wasn't moving and caught a cab
"Panicked". LOL. "Mytton" the mindreader. LOL.
Oswald got out way past his rooming house.
"Devastating evidence". LOL.
Oswald killed a cop in front of eyewitnesses.
Oswald tried to kill more cops.
Oswald was arrested with a revolver.
Oswald told lie after lie while being interrogated.
Unproven speculation.
The only thing that's devastated here is what you think passes for evidence.
-
"Devastating". LOL.
Unproven speculation.
Unproven speculation.
"Devastating evidence". LOL.
"Desperately". LOL. "Mytton" the mindreader. LOL.
"Panicked". LOL. "Mytton" the mindreader. LOL.
"Devastating evidence". LOL.
Unproven speculation.
The only thing that's devastated here is what you think passes for evidence.
To some of us, the evidence pointing to Oswald* ranges from compelling to highly persuasive.
*Feel free to point elsewhere
-
To some of us, the evidence pointing to Oswald* ranges from compelling to highly persuasive.
No doubt. Faith can be a very powerful influence.
-
No doubt. Faith can be a very powerful influence.
Spoken like a true atheist.
-
Spoken like a true atheist.
Poor Bill -- he keeps trying so hard to bait me into an off-topic religious argument. I will say though that I'm not at all surprised that he equates his position on the JFK murder to a religion, because that's exactly what it is.
-
I forget which thread it was, it was about when G. Edgar Hoover decided he needed to convince the public it was Oswald and that was the 24th of Nov. 1963 I believe.
I saw earlier where Truman seemed to say Oswald did it, already on November 23rd, 1963.
-
Poor Bill -- he keeps trying so hard to bait me into an off-topic religious argument. I will say though that I'm not at all surprised that he equates his position on the JFK murder to a religion, because that's exactly what it is.
Trying so hard? LOL
No.
I'm not trying to "bait" you into anything at all.
Also, how exactly does my comment equate my position on the assassination to a religion? You're going to have to explain that one.
-
That's the problem with you, "Mytton" -- you always think your own guesses are "obvious". But Chapman has called him "Bueller" more than once.
Says the guy with the urge to reply to anything and everything I say.
'Chapman has called him "Bueller" more than once'
>>>On purpose... and only on his day off
'Says the guy with the urge to reply to anything and everything I say'
>>>Says the guy with 2184 posts who replies to everything every LNer says
-
No doubt. Faith can be a very powerful influence.
You should know, since all you have is speculation that runs contrary to the facts. It's called 'cognitive dissonance'. Look that up to spare yourself having to wet your pants once again as is, seemingly, the case every time I post opinion and science from anywhere other than the conspiracy-monger fiction section of life.
-
You should know, since all you have is speculation that runs contrary to the facts. It's called 'cognitive dissonance'. Look that up to spare yourself having to wet your pants every time I post opinion and science from anywhere other than the conspiracy-monger fiction section of life.
Remember that John will not even acknowledge that he is a CTer. He is simply taking issue with any evidence against Oswald by suggesting it is all faked or the product of lies. LOL. He doesn't have to provide any evidence of this fakery, however, since he is not a CTer. The circle of lunacy. A classic example is suggesting there is somehow doubt about Oswald's ownership of the MC rifle. Imagine all the forge documents, photos, lies, and fakery that would have to have gone on to explain away the evidence that links Oswald to that rifle. But John is not alleging a conspiracy - right? Just taking issue with the evidence. We are left to wonder where all this fake evidence derived from if he is not alleging a conspiracy. Maybe Santa's elves?
-
Remember that John will not even acknowledge that he is a CTer. He is simply taking issue with any evidence against Oswald by suggesting it is all faked or the product of lies. LOL. He doesn't have to provide any evidence of this fakery, however, since he is not a CTer. The circle of lunacy. A classic example is suggesting there is somehow doubt about Oswald's ownership of the MC rifle. Imagine all the forge documents, photos, lies, and fakery that would have to have gone on to explain away the evidence that links Oswald to that rifle. But John is not alleging a conspiracy - right? Just taking issue with the evidence. We are left to wonder where all this fake evidence derived from if he is not alleging a conspiracy. Maybe Santa's elves?
Appeal to rebellion
http://warp.povusers.org/grrr/conspiracytheories.html
Conspiracy theories in general, and the "n% of people doubt the story" claims in particular, also appeal to a sense of rebellion in people.
As Wikipedia puts it, "a rebellion is, in the most general sense, a refusal to accept authority."
People don't want to be sheep who are patronized by authority and told what they have to do and how they have to think. People usually distrust authorities and many believe that authorities are selfish and abuse people for their own benefit. This is an extremely fertile ground for conspiracy theories.
This is so ingrained in people that a sentence like "the official story" has basically become a synonym for "a coverup/lie". Whenever "the official story" is mentioned, it immediately makes people think that it's some kind of coverup, something not true.
Conspiracy theorists are masters at abusing this psyhcological phenomenon for their advantage. They basically insinuate that "if you believe the official story then you are gullible because you are being lied to". They want to make it feel that doubting the original story is a sign of intelligence and logical thinking. However, believing a conspiracy theory usually shows, quite ironically, a great lack of logical thinking.
This is an actual quote from a JFK assassination conspiracy theory website. It's almost as hilarious as it is contradictory:
"In the end, you have to decide for yourself what to believe. But don't just believe what the U.S. Government tells you!"
(In other words, believe anything you want except the official story!
-
Also, how exactly does my comment equate my position on the assassination to a religion? You're going to have to explain that one.
A cop said it, you believe it, and that settles it.
-
You should know, since all you have is speculation that runs contrary to the facts.
You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the arse. Your entire case relies on speculation and assumptions.
It's called 'cognitive dissonance'. Look that up to spare yourself having to wet your pants once again as is, seemingly, the case every time I post opinion and science from anywhere other than the conspiracy-monger fiction section of life.
I know what cognitive dissonance is. It's why you call one witness a liar and chide others for daring to suggest that another witness lied. It's why you think gorillas playing basketball somehow prove that there was a long bag near the window when the "sniper's nest" was first discovered. Your entire world view depends on being able to lame excuse away blatant inconsistencies in the official narrative.
-
Remember that John will not even acknowledge that he is a CTer. He is simply taking issue with any evidence against Oswald by suggesting it is all faked or the product of lies. LOL.
There is no better demonstration of the complete bankruptcy of the "Oswald Did It" position than that its proponents have to lie about the evidence in order to make their arguments. "Richard" can't even tell the truth about what other people on the forum say. I've never said that any evidence against Oswald is all faked or the product of lies. The conclusions that you make are not actually supported by the existing evidence. Not without a lot of assumptions, speculation, and handwaving.
A classic example is suggesting there is somehow doubt about Oswald's ownership of the MC rifle. Imagine all the forge documents, photos, lies, and fakery that would have to have gone on to explain away the evidence that links Oswald to that rifle.
What evidence, "Richard"? Biased handwriting "analysis" of 2 block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a two-inch order coupon from microfilm that is now "missing"? There is no forgery required to explain why this is not evidence of ownership.
-
Conspiracy theorists are masters at abusing this psyhcological phenomenon for their advantage. They basically insinuate that "if you believe the official story then you are gullible because you are being lied to". They want to make it feel that doubting the original story is a sign of intelligence and logical thinking. However, believing a conspiracy theory usually shows, quite ironically, a great lack of logical thinking.
The ODIA-ites are masters at false appeals to authority.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority)
They think that you should believe the official story, merely because it's the official story.
-
A cop said it, you believe it, and that settles it.
And you believe that somehow equates my position on the assassination to a religion? The cop is a deity? You're going to have to explain that one.
-
And you believe that somehow equates my position on the assassination to a religion? The cop is a deity? You're going to have to explain that one.
Strong belief in a doctrine based on faith in authority rather than evidence of its veracity.
-
Strong belief in a doctrine based on faith in authority rather than evidence of its veracity.
But, that's just it. My belief is not based on faith. It is based on every single piece of evidence that has been presented. The evidence which has been presented points to Oswald and no one but Oswald. I know that you agree with that.
I've asked you this before. Is there any evidence which points to someone other than Oswald? You answered with a "no".
So, once again, you're doing nothing more than wasting the forum's time by playing devil's advocate.
-
But, that's just it. My belief is not based on faith. It is based on every single piece of evidence that has been presented.
Yep, plus a whole lots of faith-based assumptions, handwaving, conjecture, and cherry-picking.
The evidence which has been presented points to Oswald and no one but Oswald. I know that you agree with that.
What little evidence there is, is weak, circumstantial, and tainted.
I've asked you this before. Is there any evidence which points to someone other than Oswald? You answered with a "no".
Is that supposed to prove that Oswald committed the crime?
So, once again, you're doing nothing more than wasting the forum's time by playing devil's advocate.
No, once again, you think your answer automatically wins by default unless somebody proves a different answer. For someone who keeps invoking what he thinks would happen at a hypothetical trial, you sure don't seem to understand how burden of proof at trials work. Has anybody ever acquitted of a crime been required to prove that somebody else did it?
-
I've asked you this before. Is there any evidence which points to someone other than Oswald? You answered with a "no".
Is that supposed to prove that Oswald committed the crime?
No. I never said that.
You said that my strong belief in a doctrine is based on faith in authority. I am simply showing that your statement is wrong, that my "strong belief" is based on the evidence and the witness testimony in the case... nothing to do with faith in authority.
-
And you believe that somehow equates my position on the assassination to a religion? The cop is a deity? You're going to have to explain that one.
The cop is a deity?
Not all of them.
-
The cop is a deity?
Not all of them.
:D Thumb1:
-
No. I never said that.
You said that my strong belief in a doctrine is based on faith in authority. I am simply showing that your statement is wrong, that my "strong belief" is based on the evidence and the witness testimony in the case... nothing to do with faith in authority.
Except you haven't shown anything of the kind. Every single one of your arguments about the evidence amounts to trusting the people whose claims and opinions match your predetermined bias and ignoring the claims and opinions of people who do not.
-
The cop is a deity?
Not all of them.
Some of them think they are! :D
-
Some of them think they are! :D
Well fortunately you're not a battered wife or an abused child that was rescued from a hellish and violent situation by a Law Enforcement Officer. To them, some of them are.
-
Except you haven't shown anything of the kind. Every single one of your arguments about the evidence amounts to trusting the people whose claims and opinions match your predetermined bias and ignoring the claims and opinions of people who do not.
Nonsense.
Name one Tippit witness who stated as a fact that Oswald was NOT the cop-killer. Remember, I said "witness", people who actually saw things, not people like Acquilla Clemons.
The Tippit witnesses either stated that Oswald was in fact the killer (or the man they saw running from the scene with a gun in his hands)... or they couldn't be certain either way.
Name one real witness who stated as a fact that Oswald was NOT the killer. Which witness am I ignoring? Go on. I'll wait.
-
Nonsense.
Name one Tippit witness who stated as a fact that Oswald was NOT the cop-killer.
Once again, Bill doesn't understand how burden of proof works. Or how lineups are supposed to work.
Remember, I said "witness", people who actually saw things, not people like Acquilla Clemons.
LOL. Name one witness . . . except for the ones who I don't believe because they said something I don't like.
(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/roflmao.gif)
-
Well fortunately you're not a battered wife or an abused child that was rescued from a hellish and violent situation by a Law Enforcement Officer. To them, some of them are.
Amen. And my hat's off to them. Those angels suffer from the actions of the bad cops too.
-
Amen. And my hat's off to them. Those angels suffer from the actions of the bad cops too.
We're in agreement 100%.
-
Once again, Bill doesn't understand how burden of proof works.
Prove it to who, you?
JohnM
-
Prove it to who, you?
Anyone who thinks that "prove Oswald didn't do it" is a valid argument for Oswald doing it has already lost.
-
Anyone who thinks that "prove Oswald didn't do it" is a valid argument for Oswald doing it has already lost.
You do know there is a difference between proof and evidence?
JohnM
-
You do know there is a difference between proof and evidence?
Why yes, "John", I do. Do you?
-
Why yes, "John", I do. Do you?
Sure you do!
JohnM
-
Once again, Bill doesn't understand how burden of proof works. Or how lineups are supposed to work.
LOL. Name one witness . . . except for the ones who I don't believe because they said something I don't like.
(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/roflmao.gif)
More nonsense.
This isn't about burden of proof. But, I see why you'd want to change the subject.
It's obvious that you can't name one witness who I am ignoring, regarding whether or not Oswald was Tippit's murderer.
-
If you have evidence of Acquilla Clemons not seeing things let's see it. I'll wait.
All you have to do is watch her interview with Mark Lane. Duh.
-
More nonsense.
This isn't about burden of proof. But, I see why you'd want to change the subject.
It's totally about burden of proof. Whether or not I can name a witness who said Oswald was NOT the cop-killer is completely irrelevant to your claim that Oswald killed Tippit.
It's obvious that you can't name one witness who I am ignoring, regarding whether or not Oswald was Tippit's murderer.
There is only a single eyewitness to Tippit being murdered.
But I can name several witnesses you are ignoring the testimony of. You just handwave them away with your "not a real witness" nonsense.
-
It's totally about burden of proof. Whether or not I can name a witness who said Oswald was NOT the cop-killer is completely irrelevant to your claim that Oswald killed Tippit.
There is only a single eyewitness to Tippit being murdered.
But I can name several witnesses you are ignoring the testimony of. You just handwave them away with your "not a real witness" nonsense.
It's totally about burden of proof. Whether or not I can name a witness who said Oswald was NOT the cop-killer is completely irrelevant to your claim that Oswald killed Tippit.
This isn't even close to where our conversation was heading. You simply keep trying to take it there so you can As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.' and holler (again) about burden of proof.
But I can name several witnesses you are ignoring the testimony of. You just handwave them away with your "not a real witness" nonsense.
Well then, what are you waiting on?
-
This isn't even close to where our conversation was heading. You simply keep trying to take it there so you can As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.' and holler (again) about burden of proof.
Well then by all means explain how it is the least bit relevant whether or not anybody can name a witness who said Oswald was NOT the cop-killer without committing a shifting the burden of proof fallacy.
Well then, what are you waiting on?
Already asked and answered multiple times throughout the course of this forum. You're ignoring or discounting statements made by Acquilla Clemons, Frank Wright, Doris Holan and Margie Higgins for starters. Hell, you're even ignoring some statements made by Helen Markham, Domingo Benavides, T.F. Bowley, and Barbara and Virigina Davis when it suits you.
-
One of the most absurd arguments made by the priggish author of Reclaiming came from DVP's 'VB Favorites'.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/07/favorite-quotes-from-reclaiming-history.html
Bugliosi absolutely threw the straw argument around by the bale-fulls with this one---
The twistboard was the latest gadget Jack [Ruby] was selling, and he was very serious about it. His roommate, George Senator, said that in the last few weeks before the assassination, Ruby had been getting up...earlier than normal to visit department stores in Dallas in an effort to promote the board. Just, of course, what you would expect a big mob hit man to be doing in the weeks and days leading up to the biggest day of his mob career, when he would be "silencing" Oswald for them. -- VB; Page 1096
Really? Mr Ruby was a fad entrepreneur? Where was his patent application? Truth is..the Twistboard had already been marketed. Vincent Bugliosi did the very thing that he accused his detractors of....sucking up some obscure minute scintilla of testimony and rolling it into some risible anecdote.
All that said...I really must hand it to Vincent Bugliosi and if I needed a sharp lawyer on either side of the courtroom, I would want someone just as witty as he was ;D
-
Also from 'favorite quotes'...
"In addition to Oswald's palm print being found on the underside of the Carcano's barrel, we know that Oswald's fingerprints were found within an inch of the trigger of the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building. The evidence is clear and unimpeachable?Lee Harvey Oswald bought, owned, and handled the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found on the sixth floor. And...it was this weapon that was used to murder John F. Kennedy." -- VB; Page 804
That was the first time I had ever seen that lie. "WE KNOW" and.."THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR" were Bugsie's fondest distortions(https://www.raptureforums.com/forums/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/doh.gif)
Lieutenant J.C. Day of the Dallas police examined the rifle, and found faint traces of two fingerprints on the metal housing by the trigger. He took photographs and applied a protective layer of cellophane to the area. Shortly before midnight on the day of the assassination, the rife was flown to Washington. Sebastian Latona, a fingerprint expert at the FBI laboratory, examined the rifle and the photographs, but concluded that no identifiable prints were present. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=146
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=34#relPageId=29