Best evidence of Conspiracy
Maggsy
asked this question on alt.conspiracy.jfk and had to pretty much answer my
own question. Is the evidence really that week? Seems to really almost
totally on eyewitness testimony.
Robert Harris
<aeffaeac-62c2-4b66...@s20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Go to jfkhistory.com and click on the graphic in the lead article. Or,
if you don't have Quicktime you can view the Youtube version, which is
divided into parts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkAc76n8q44
Robert Harris
Herbert Blenner
> What is the best evidence for a conspiracy? Any smoking guns? I recently
> asked this question on alt.conspiracy.jfk and had to pretty much answer my
> own question. Is the evidence really that week? Seems to really almost
> totally on eyewitness testimony.
The elaborate deception by BB&N, W&A and the Ramsey Panel to mislead
people to believe that a motorcycle was the source of the loud
interference on the Dictabelt shows the seriousness of the conspiratorial
implications of jamming the primary Dallas police channel immediately
before, during and after the assassination of President Kennedy.
Herbert
claviger
Who is the Ramsey Panel?
bigdog
This shows workings of the conspiratorial mind. Intererence on the police
channel is assumed to the result of deliberate jamming by someone and not
the result of something as mundance as a stuck open microphone. And this
is considered the best evidence? Yes, the evidence for a conspiracy is
that weak, as in almost non-existent.
jbarge
Well, evidence isn't proof, that's for sure.
I could walk away but a few items caused me to dig deeper.
1. The Odio incident
2. The Trafficante threat reported to the FBI prior to the
assassination
3.The Bogard incident of an Oswald saying he would be coming into
money 2 weeks before the vacation
4. The Marcello threat, testified to under oath
5. The destruction of the Hosty note, impeaching the FBI's integrity
6. The Nancy Perrin Rich testimony of Ruby's presence in a 1963 gun-
running ring. This testimony was at first discounted by the Warren C.,
but the existance of the gun-running ring has been proven true - she
tried to get the facts out but it was ignored.
7. The 1957 FBN report that a Jack Ruby gave the okay for a narcotics
ring to operate out of Mexico and Texas
8. The 4 inch "mistake" in locating the entrance wound - I don't
believe that grown medical professionals holding a ruler would make
that mistake
9. The Jack Martin information that Ferrie & Banister were involved
with Oswald coupled with the address of Banister's office building
being on Oswald's pamphlet
10. the Ralph Yates report of picking up a hitchiker who discussed
assassinating JFK, backed up by a co-worker to the FBI
11. the disappearance of the 3rd backyard photo, impeaching the
Dallas Police Department integrity
12. the non-existance of Oswald photos in Mexico City at the embassies
- simply beyond rational belief
13. the recorded weight of JFK's brain at 1500 grams - simply beyond
rational belief
14. the Wes Wise report to the FBI of a license plate # with a car
containing Oswald later traced to Carl Mather. Carl Mather was a close
friend to J.D. Tippit and refused to talk to the FBI in 1964, using
his CIA clearance to justify his refusal.
15. Ruth Paine's September 1963 visit to her sister in Virginia. Her
sister? Employed by the CIA for 8 years by the time of the visit.
16. Oswald's possession of a half-torn box top at the time of his
arrest - a classic way to identify your contact in a darkened movie
theatre, who would possess the other half of the box top
17. Oswald's security risk "look out" card being removed from his FBI
file on October 9th, one day before the CIA sent in information about
his presence in Mexico City. Had the look out card been in place the
CIA report might have caused him to be under watch on 11/22/2963.
18. The Vecenia report of Oswald with David Attlee Phillips
19. the destruction of the first autopsy report, impeaching the
integrity of the autopsy
bigdog
Not one item on this list is evidence of a conspiracy. Every item on
the list requires that one assume that the explaination would point to
a conspiracy. All other plausible explainations must be ignored. A
perfect example is item #16. Oswald had a half torn box top in his
possession??? Are you kidding me? Is this what you consider evidence
of a conspiracy? Of all the possible reasons why he might have a half
torn box top on him, you assume it must mean it was to identify a
contact whom you assume existed, also in the absence of evidence.
Ridiculous!!! Did you ever stop to ask yourself why, if he was
supposed to meet his contact at the Texas Theater, did he detour to
10th and Patton and shoot a cop. 10th and Patton is not on the way
from his rooming house to the TT.
Anyone wanting to tout any of these items as evidence of a conspiracy
should take the next logical step and find out why these things were done.
Of course some CTs never take then next logical step. That don't take any
logical steps. Logicial steps don't take them to where they want to go. So
they abandon logic in favor of assumptions. It's must easier to make a
case for conspiracy with assumptions. It can't be done with evidence,
reason, and logic.
Maggsy
Who is the Ramsey Panel?
I believe he Burt is referring to this.
>
> > HerbertIn 1968 a panel of four medical experts appointed by Attorney General Ramsey Clark met in Washington, D.C. to examine various photographs, X-ray films, documents, and other evidence pertaining to the death of President Kennedy. The Clark Panel determined that Kennedy was struck by two bullets fired from above and behind him, one of which traversed the base of the neck on the right side without striking bone and the other of which entered the skull from behind and destroyed its upper right side.[88
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination#Ramsey_Clark_Panel
>
jas
> On Nov 30, 8:01 pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > What is the best evidence for a conspiracy? Any smoking guns? I recently
> > asked this question on alt.conspiracy.jfk and had to pretty much answer my
> > own question. Is the evidence really that week? Seems to really almost
> > totally on eyewitness testimony.
>
> Well, evidence isn't proof, that's for sure.
Huh? What law school professor told you that?
> I could walk away but a few items caused me to dig deeper.
> 1. The Odio incident
1. Probably mistaken identity, but even if proven true, no provable
association to the assassination.
> 2. The Trafficante threat reported to the FBI prior to the
> assassination
2. Hearsay. Threats don't prove they were carried out.
> 3.The Bogard incident of an Oswald saying he would be coming into
> money 2 weeks before the vacation
3. Even if proven true, no provable association to the assassination.
> 4. The Marcello threat, testified to under oath
4. Threats don't prove they were actually carried out.
> 5. The destruction of the Hosty note, impeaching the FBI's integrity
5. FBI's/Hoover's embarrassment over a successful assassination and
their failure to stop it.
> 6. The Nancy Perrin Rich testimony of Ruby's presence in a 1963 gun-
> running ring. This testimony was at first discounted by the Warren C.,
> but the existance of the gun-running ring has been proven true - she
> tried to get the facts out but it was ignored.
6. Even proven true, no provable association to the assassination.
> 7. The 1957 FBN report that a Jack Ruby gave the okay for a narcotics
> ring to operate out of Mexico and Texas
7. Even proven true, no proven association to the assassination.
> 8. The 4 inch "mistake" in locating the entrance wound - I don't
> believe that grown medical professionals holding a ruler would make
> that mistake
8. Massive nature of the wound causing confusing observations.
> 9. The Jack Martin information that Ferrie & Banister were involved
> with Oswald coupled with the address of Banister's office building
> being on Oswald's pamphlet
9. Hearsay. Even proven true, no proven association to the
assassination.
> 10. the Ralph Yates report of picking up a hitchiker who discussed
> assassinating JFK, backed up by a co-worker to the FBI
10. Hearsay. Even proven true, no proven association to the
assassination.
> 11. the disappearance of the 3rd backyard photo, impeaching the
> Dallas Police Department integrity
11. Mishandling of evidence doesn't mean nefarious intentions, only
human frailties common in all criminal investigations.
> 12. the non-existance of Oswald photos in Mexico City at the embassies
> - simply beyond rational belief
12. Mishandling of evidence doesn't mean nefarious intentions, only
human frailties common in all criminal investigations.
> 13. the recorded weight of JFK's brain at 1500 grams - simply beyond
> rational belief
13. Massive nature of the wound.
> 14. the Wes Wise report to the FBI of a license plate # with a car
> containing Oswald later traced to Carl Mather. Carl Mather was a close
> friend to J.D. Tippit and refused to talk to the FBI in 1964, using
> his CIA clearance to justify his refusal.
14., Even proven true, no proven association with the assassination.
> 15. Ruth Paine's September 1963 visit to her sister in Virginia. Her
> sister? Employed by the CIA for 8 years by the time of the visit.
15. No provable association to the assassination.
> 16. Oswald's possession of a half-torn box top at the time of his
> arrest - a classic way to identify your contact in a darkened movie
> theatre, who would possess the other half of the box top
16. Huh? Even proven true, no proven association to the assassination.
> 17. Oswald's security risk "look out" card being removed from his FBI
> file on October 9th, one day before the CIA sent in information about
> his presence in Mexico City. Had the look out card been in place the
> CIA report might have caused him to be under watch on 11/22/2963.
17. Possible mishandling of evidence -- doesn't mean nefarious
intentions, and no provable association to the assassination.
> 18. The Vecenia report of Oswald with David Attlee Phillips
18. Even proven true, no proven association to the assassination.
> 19. the destruction of the first autopsy report, impeaching the
> integrity of the autopsy
19. Mishandling of evidence, doesn't mean nefarious intentions, and no
provable association to the assassination.
Hey, this is fun! Got any more?
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 1, 11:22 am, jbarge<anjba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 30, 8:01 pm, Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What is the best evidence for a conspiracy? Any smoking guns? I recently
>>> asked this question on alt.conspiracy.jfk and had to pretty much answer my
>>> own question. Is the evidence really that week? Seems to really almost
>>> totally on eyewitness testimony.
>>
>> Well, evidence isn't proof, that's for sure.
>
> Huh? What law school professor told you that?
>
>> I could walk away but a few items caused me to dig deeper.
>> 1. The Odio incident
>
> 1. Probably mistaken identity, but even if proven true, no provable
> association to the assassination.
>
Great, so it is true, that would not consistute a threat and
premeditation?
>
>> 2. The Trafficante threat reported to the FBI prior to the
>> assassination
>
> 2. Hearsay. Threats don't prove they were carried out.
>
Once it's been carried out it makes the person who issued the threat a
suspect.
>
>> 3.The Bogard incident of an Oswald saying he would be coming into
>> money 2 weeks before the vacation
>
> 3. Even if proven true, no provable association to the assassination.
>
Of course it is not enough proof of anything, but it might be worth
investigating.
>
>> 4. The Marcello threat, testified to under oath
>
> 4. Threats don't prove they were actually carried out.
>
Once it's been carried out it makes the person who issued the threat a
suspect.
>
>> 5. The destruction of the Hosty note, impeaching the FBI's integrity
>
> 5. FBI's/Hoover's embarrassment over a successful assassination and
> their failure to stop it.
>
Well then keep pretending that the government never destroyed any
evidence. Try claiming it wasn't even evidence because we don't know for
sure if it was Oswald who wrote the note.
>
>> 6. The Nancy Perrin Rich testimony of Ruby's presence in a 1963 gun-
>> running ring. This testimony was at first discounted by the Warren C.,
>> but the existance of the gun-running ring has been proven true - she
>> tried to get the facts out but it was ignored.
>
> 6. Even proven true, no provable association to the assassination.
>
Correct. And even if we prove that a suspect was a member of the Mafia
or the CIA, that doesn't prove that the organization ordered the
assassination. Any more than a postal worker going on a shooting
rampage implicate the USPS.
>
>> 7. The 1957 FBN report that a Jack Ruby gave the okay for a narcotics
>> ring to operate out of Mexico and Texas
>
> 7. Even proven true, no proven association to the assassination.
>
Correct and you'd also claim it doesn't link him to the Mafia. He could be
an independent drug dealer unconnected to the Mafia and not owing any
favors to the Mafia.
>
>> 8. The 4 inch "mistake" in locating the entrance wound - I don't
>> believe that grown medical professionals holding a ruler would make
>> that mistake
>
> 8. Massive nature of the wound causing confusing observations.
>
Massive nature of the ENTRANCE wound causes confusion? When they
measured it supposedly as 7 x 15 mm? Do you specialize in making
ludicrous excuses for incompetence?
>
>> 9. The Jack Martin information that Ferrie& Banister were involved
>> with Oswald coupled with the address of Banister's office building
>> being on Oswald's pamphlet
>
> 9. Hearsay. Even proven true, no proven association to the
> assassination.
>
Well, to you there is no possible association that links to the
assassination. Even if someone proved that Oswald was an FBI agent or a
CIA agent or an ONI agent you could claim that does not prove any
association to the assassination.
>
>> 10. the Ralph Yates report of picking up a hitchiker who discussed
>> assassinating JFK, backed up by a co-worker to the FBI
>
> 10. Hearsay. Even proven true, no proven association to the
> assassination.
>
>
>> 11. the disappearance of the 3rd backyard photo, impeaching the
>> Dallas Police Department integrity
>
> 11. Mishandling of evidence doesn't mean nefarious intentions, only
> human frailties common in all criminal investigations.
>
And according to you intentional destruction of evidence does not
indicate nefarious intent.
>
>> 12. the non-existance of Oswald photos in Mexico City at the embassies
>> - simply beyond rational belief
>
> 12. Mishandling of evidence doesn't mean nefarious intentions, only
> human frailties common in all criminal investigations.
>
>
Mishandling? That's what you call the gross incompetence or deliberate
cover-up? So Watergate was just mishandling of evidence?
>
>> 13. the recorded weight of JFK's brain at 1500 grams - simply beyond
>> rational belief
>
> 13. Massive nature of the wound.
>
Again, you are clueless. The point is that 1500 grams is well above the
normal weight and a rounded out figure, not an exact measurement. If the
wound had a massive nature we'd expect the weight to be less. Incompetence
or cover-up?
>
>> 14. the Wes Wise report to the FBI of a license plate # with a car
>> containing Oswald later traced to Carl Mather. Carl Mather was a close
>> friend to J.D. Tippit and refused to talk to the FBI in 1964, using
>> his CIA clearance to justify his refusal.
>
> 14., Even proven true, no proven association with the assassination.
>
>
>> 15. Ruth Paine's September 1963 visit to her sister in Virginia. Her
>> sister? Employed by the CIA for 8 years by the time of the visit.
>
> 15. No provable association to the assassination.
>
>
>> 16. Oswald's possession of a half-torn box top at the time of his
>> arrest - a classic way to identify your contact in a darkened movie
>> theatre, who would possess the other half of the box top
>
> 16. Huh? Even proven true, no proven association to the assassination.
>
And not even suspicious?
>
>> 17. Oswald's security risk "look out" card being removed from his FBI
>> file on October 9th, one day before the CIA sent in information about
>> his presence in Mexico City. Had the look out card been in place the
>> CIA report might have caused him to be under watch on 11/22/2963.
>
> 17. Possible mishandling of evidence -- doesn't mean nefarious
> intentions, and no provable association to the assassination.
>
So, your standard denial is to call something mishandling.
So the Holocaust was just a mishandling of evidence?
Watergate was just a mishandling of evidence?
MK/ULTRA was just a mishandling of evidence?
The My Lai Massacre was just a mishandling of evidence?
>
>> 18. The Vecenia report of Oswald with David Attlee Phillips
>
> 18. Even proven true, no proven association to the assassination.
>
Standard form response, not even knowing the correct details of the
allegation and not able to correct the allegation. Nice to see that your
function keys are preprogrammed for cover-up.
>
>> 19. the destruction of the first autopsy report, impeaching the
>> integrity of the autopsy
>
> 19. Mishandling of evidence, doesn't mean nefarious intentions, and no
> provable association to the assassination.
>
>
> Hey, this is fun! Got any more?
>
>
Yes, your lack of knowledge.
>
>
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 1, 3:36 pm, claviger<historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 30, 11:25 pm, Herbert Blenner<a1ea...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 30, 8:01 pm, Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> What is the best evidence for a conspiracy? Any smoking guns? I recently
>>>> asked this question on alt.conspiracy.jfk and had to pretty much answer my
>>>> own question. Is the evidence really that week? Seems to really almost
>>>> totally on eyewitness testimony.
>>
>>> The elaborate deception by BB&N, W&A and the Ramsey Panel to mislead
>>> people to believe that a motorcycle was the source of the loud
>>> interference on the Dictabelt shows the seriousness of the conspiratorial
>>> implications of jamming the primary Dallas police channel immediately
>>> before, during and after the assassination of President Kennedy.
>
>
>
> Who is the Ramsey Panel?
>
> I believe he Burt is referring to this.
>
We commonly refer to it as the Ramsey panel because Norman Ramsey was the
lead scientist of the National Academy of Sciences group which reexamined
the acoustical evidence.
They disagreed with the HSCA's acoustical analysis.
Anthony Marsh
Of course the list is ridiculous, but I assume he/she is trying to use
them to suggest the NATURE of the assumed conspiracy, not as a solid proof
of the conspiracy.
> torn box top on him, you assume it must mean it was to identify a
> contact whom you assume existed, also in the absence of evidence.
> Ridiculous!!! Did you ever stop to ask yourself why, if he was
> supposed to meet his contact at the Texas Theater, did he detour to
> 10th and Patton and shoot a cop. 10th and Patton is not on the way
> from his rooming house to the TT.
>
You're not trying hard enough. What you should do is say that if his
mission was to meet someone at the movie theatre, then why did he waste
time going home first? Why not just walk to the theatre right from the
TSBD?
> Anyone wanting to tout any of these items as evidence of a conspiracy
> should take the next logical step and find out why these things were done.
Unnecessary.
Prove why Oswald gave up the cab to the little old lady.
Prove if Oswald ate lunch that day or not.
Anthony Marsh
The National Academy of Sciences panel who reviewed the HSCA's
acoustical analysis.
Gerry Simone
possible conspiracy.
You talk about 'logical steps'. Well, if we look at the chain of evidence
of the bullet discovered at Parkland, it doesn't lead us to CE 399 (just
as one example).
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2a111695-7f25-43f4...@p33g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
Gerry Simone
What about the Marcello admission of murdering (or having the President
murdered) in a prison courtyard to a credible informant?
"jas" <lle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:092e5dc9-6b42-4284...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Herbert Blenner
The Ramsey Panel also known as the Committee on Ballistic Acoustics
disputed the earlier finding by BB&N of synchroneity between the
assassination and the pulse patterns on the Dictabelt attributed to
gunfire. In particular the panel claimed that garbled speech on the
Dictabelt coincident with the pulses attributed to gunfire was
crosstalk from a message broadcast by Sheriff Decker about one minute
after Chief Curry ordered his officers to go to the hospital.
http://www.jfk-online.com/nas00.html
Neither former members of the panel nor their vocal defenders have
addressed either criticism of their alleged matching. First, they have
not explained why the loud annoying brieftone that accompanied the
Decker broadcast is missing from the alleged Decker crosstalk.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/deckerbroadcast.wav
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/allegeddeckercrosstalk.wav
Second, they have not explained the average warp factor of 0.912 that
produced the best match. For details see:
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/duped.htm
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
Silly. Explain exactly who, how and where the jamming was done.
Herbert Blenner
A stuck open microphone does not broadcast a loud interfering noise.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/cardinal_files/trackone0067.wav
Further three tests proven capable of identifying or filtering the sounds
of Harley engine failed to recognize or filter the loud interference from
the Dictabelt. In fact no test supported the assumption that a motorcycle
engine was the source of the loud interference and a simple measurement of
the repetition rate of 54,000 RPM shows the foolishness of labeling a
motorcycle as the source of the loud interference.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/cardinal_files/trackone0067.jpg
Identification of the loud interference as a simultaneous amplitude and
frequency modulated of audio coupled with a systematic study of the
spectral changes of this loud noise formed the basis to label the source
as a jammer. Interested readers can find a discussion of this systematic
study at the latter portion of the following link.
http://mysite.verizon.net./a1eah71/cardinal.htm
Herbert
Herbert Blenner
I give you one opportunity to show readers that you are not making
impossible demands by telling us the location and identify of the person
who uttered the syllable on the following portion of the Dictabelt.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/trackone00830084.wav
Herbert
WhiskyJoe
> Not one item on this list is evidence
> of a conspiracy.
Of course not. That's why the list was so long.
bigdog
> Some of these items represent circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy or
> possible conspiracy.
>
> You talk about 'logical steps'. Well, if we look at the chain of evidence
> of the bullet discovered at Parkland, it doesn't lead us to CE 399 (just
> as one example).
>
Someday I would like to just once to hear a CT offer a plausible thought
process for their alleged conspirators to have decided AHEAD OF TIME that
it was in their interest to plant a bullet from Oswald's MC. Just what
could they possibly have been thinking? If their intent was to frame
Oswald, either they used Oswald's rifle to kill JFK or they did not. That
is a binary choice. If they used Oswald's rifle, what purpose would there
be to plant an additional bullet at Parkland. Why not just allow the
bullets that actually killed JFK to speak for themselves. On the other
hand if they used a rifle other than Oswald's to kill JFK, by planting
CE399, they would be introducing a bullet from a different rifle than the
one that actually killed JFK. If they end up with bullets in evidence that
came from two different guns, they would be providing proof of a
conspiracy and they could kiss off the idea of framing a patsy as the lone
assassin. The idea that CE399 could have been a plant is ludicrous.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
You and Marsh should team up. You both seem to fancy yourselves as
experts in fields in which you have absolutely no training, such as
ballistics, forensic medicine, and acoustics.
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 1, 8:01 pm, "Gerry Simone"<newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Some of these items represent circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy or
>> possible conspiracy.
>>
>> You talk about 'logical steps'. Well, if we look at the chain of evidence
>> of the bullet discovered at Parkland, it doesn't lead us to CE 399 (just
>> as one example).
>>
>
> Someday I would like to just once to hear a CT offer a plausible thought
> process for their alleged conspirators to have decided AHEAD OF TIME that
No, you wouldn't. We already have. You refuse to listen.
jas
Exactly what I've said here so many times, and the only responses you'll
get are flimsy and feeble at best, then irrational, then finally resorting
to personal insults.
The three phases of some CTers responses here.
And so the game goes...
MSwanberg
I believe it just depends on the researcher. Some feel that the autopsy
stuff is what set them on the path to believing a conspiracy. Others look
at the photographic evidence. Still others look to the shoddy Warren
Commission Report.
As for me, it's the acoustic evidence. I agree with D.B.Thomas, it
would be a lot to ask of sunspots.
-Mike
MSwanberg
> Ridiculous!!! Did you ever stop to ask yourself why, if he was
> supposed to meet his contact at the Texas Theater, did he detour to
> 10th and Patton and shoot a cop. 10th and Patton is not on the way
> from his rooming house to the TT.
>
Not sure I see your point. Oswald walking on 10th (west or east) does not
seem logical for one on a path from 1026 N. Beckley to wind up on
Jefferson at the Texas Theater. If Oswald had a destination in mind
(which I've never heard of a posited destination from an LN on this), he
certainly did not take the quickest route if he was at 10th and Patton...
period.
-Mike
MSwanberg
> > 5. The destruction of the Hosty note, impeaching the FBI's integrity
>
> 5. FBI's/Hoover's embarrassment over a successful assassination and
> their failure to stop it.
Does this mean you believe in a conspiracy to cover up the truth?
-Mike
MSwanberg
> Someday I would like to just once to hear a CT offer a plausible thought
> process for their alleged conspirators to have decided AHEAD OF TIME that
> it was in their interest to plant a bullet from Oswald's MC. Just what
> could they possibly have been thinking? If their intent was to frame
> Oswald, either they used Oswald's rifle to kill JFK or they did not. That
> is a binary choice. If they used Oswald's rifle, what purpose would there
> be to plant an additional bullet at Parkland. Why not just allow the
> bullets that actually killed JFK to speak for themselves. On the other
> hand if they used a rifle other than Oswald's to kill JFK, by planting
> CE399, they would be introducing a bullet from a different rifle than the
> one that actually killed JFK. If they end up with bullets in evidence that
> came from two different guns, they would be providing proof of a
> conspiracy and they could kiss off the idea of framing a patsy as the lone
> assassin. The idea that CE399 could have been a plant is ludicrous.
I would posit that droves of CTs have offered you just what you purport to
seek, but you refuse to accept it. I submit that the disconnect is on your
side of the communication.
The thing is that so much of what's entered into evidence for the Warren
Commission was simply ignored or mis-diagnosed for what they were. See,
you're assuming that CE399 is the bullet that was found at Parkland.
Many believe it is not. They could have planted a bullet that would frame
someone other than Oswald, but then switched it in- transit before it
reached the WC. Or perhaps the idea was to simply get A bullet (any
bullet) found at Parkland and then they could enter whatever they wanted
to into evidence and just claim that anyone who thinks they're not the
same bullet is just mistaken.
My girlfriend offered a theory to me the other day as we were driving
around Dallas visiting various assassination lore sites. She said that
she believes that there were two separate conspiracies. And I have to
say, it makes some sense. It goes something like this.
A group of people (pick your favorite villains... CIA, M-I complex, Texas
oilmen, whoever) plot to kill the president and pin it on a communist, one
who specifically has ties (whether real or not) to Cuba and/or the Soviet
Union (queue Oswald's theme music here). Their goal is to whip up popular
support for an invasion of Cuba and perhaps even the Soviet Union. Part
of the nature of this frame-job was to sew a great deal of discontent,
confusion, and fear. As people see the questions arise as to the veracity
of the evidence, they will become more and more frightened of what force
could possibly be behind it.
After the assassination, both Hoover and Johnson were troubled by this,
saw an unwinnable nuclear war in their future, and conspired to make the
lone nut appear to be the sole assassin, and deny his direct association
with any foreign assets. Perhaps Hoover and Johnson learned what JFK
meant when he said that his military leaders had a "collective death wish
for the world." And so, Johnson appointed his panel, talked Warren into
the whitewash, and put the entire investigation in his neighbor J Edgar
Hoover's hands. Done and done.
Just a thought.
-Mike
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 1, 11:59 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Someday I would like to just once to hear a CT offer a plausible thought
>> process for their alleged conspirators to have decided AHEAD OF TIME that
>> it was in their interest to plant a bullet from Oswald's MC. Just what
>> could they possibly have been thinking? If their intent was to frame
>> Oswald, either they used Oswald's rifle to kill JFK or they did not. That
>> is a binary choice. If they used Oswald's rifle, what purpose would there
>> be to plant an additional bullet at Parkland. Why not just allow the
>> bullets that actually killed JFK to speak for themselves. On the other
>> hand if they used a rifle other than Oswald's to kill JFK, by planting
>> CE399, they would be introducing a bullet from a different rifle than the
>> one that actually killed JFK. If they end up with bullets in evidence that
>> came from two different guns, they would be providing proof of a
>> conspiracy and they could kiss off the idea of framing a patsy as the lone
>> assassin. The idea that CE399 could have been a plant is ludicrous.
>
> I would posit that droves of CTs have offered you just what you purport to
> seek, but you refuse to accept it. I submit that the disconnect is on your
> side of the communication.
>
> The thing is that so much of what's entered into evidence for the Warren
> Commission was simply ignored or mis-diagnosed for what they were. See,
> you're assuming that CE399 is the bullet that was found at Parkland.
> Many believe it is not. They could have planted a bullet that would frame
Not MANY. Maybe 5 or 6. Almost everyone agrees it was found at Parkland,
but some think it was planted.
> someone other than Oswald, but then switched it in- transit before it
> reached the WC. Or perhaps the idea was to simply get A bullet (any
I won't name names but someone thinks that Robert Frazier was a
conspirator who switched in CE 399 at the FBI lab.
garyb
Any one piece of evidence (in this case or any other) can be questioned.
No one piece of evidence proves conspiracy. So Banister knew Oswald, as my
reading of the evidence shows, that in itself does not prove conspiracy.
You have to look at all the evidence. You remind me of the creationists
asking for ONE proof of evolution.
WhiskyJoe
> 15. Ruth Paine's September 1963 visit to
> her sister in Virginia. Her sister?
> Employed by the CIA for 8 years by the
> time of the visit.
I have a transcript of the September 1963
conversation between the two CIA sisters
Ruth Paine and Sandra Pleasure.
Ruth: OK, I got the patsy back in the Dallas
area. Should I dispose of him now?
Sandra: No, no yet. You must first get him
a job at the Texas School Book Depository.
Ruth: How should I do this without drawing
attention to myself?
Sandra: The best way is to find a neighbor
who works at the Texas School Book Depository.
That way, it will seem perfectly natural that
you helped him find a job there. You do have
a neighbor who works there, don't you?
Ruth: Well, I'm not certain. I live in a
pretty large metropolitan area.
Sandra: Well, give it try. If that doesn't
work we can set up a phony raffle where the
winner gets a job there.
Ruth: Very well. I won't fail you.
Sandra: I hope not. Your my dearest sister
but I won't hesitate to cause an accident
if I need to.
Maggsy
> In article
> <aeffaeac-62c2-4b66-a428-8345ad3be...@s20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > What is thebestevidencefor a conspiracy? Any smoking guns? I recently
> > asked this question on alt.conspiracy.jfk and had to pretty much answer my
> > totally on eyewitness testimony.
>
> Go to jfkhistory.com and click on the graphic in the lead article. Or,
> if you don't have Quicktime you can view the Youtube version, which is
> divided into parts.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkAc76n8q44
>
> Robert Harris
Rob I think you have done sterling job with this video. I agree with
about 75% of it.No smoking gun's though.
Maggsy
> On Nov 30, 8:01 pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > What is thebestevidencefor a conspiracy? Any smoking guns? I recently
> > asked this question on alt.conspiracy.jfk and had to pretty much answer my
> > own question. Is theevidencereally that week? Seems to really almost
> > totally on eyewitness testimony.
>
> people to believe that a motorcycle was the source of the loud
> interference on the Dictabelt shows the seriousness of the conspiratorial
> implications of jamming the primary Dallas police channel immediately
> before, during and after the assassination of President Kennedy.
>
> Herbert
What is your evidence for this assertion?
bigdog
I was responding to jbarge's implied allegation that Oswald went to the
Texas Theater to meet his contact (whoever the hell that was). He made
what I consider to be a ridiculous assertion that the reason LHO had a
half a box top in his possession at the time of his arrest is because his
alleged contact would have the other half.
I really wish I knew what was going on inside Oswald's head both before
and after the assassinaiton. I wish I knew why he decided it would be
worth sacrificing his life to take out JFK. I wish I knew what he was
thinking and what he had in mind after he left the TSBD, but because he
gave us no clues, we can only speculate. I believe, but cannot prove, that
Oswald was surprised to have escaped from the TSBD. I believe that from
that point forward, he was winging it. I don't think he had a plan for
what he was going to do after he killed JFK. That was a contingency he
hadn't planned for. I don't think he could have had any realistic
expectations of getting away with it. But we've all seen those police
chase videos where a fugitive makes a desperate attempt to allude the
pursuing police even though there is almost no chance they are going to
escape. That doesn't stop them from trying. They keep running, hoping
against hope that somehow they are going to beat the odds.
My own belief is that Oswald didn't have any expectation he would escape.
I think he thought he would end up beind shot dead by the cops but he
would try to take as many of them with him as he could. Why? Who the hell
knows. That's just the kind of person he was. We can know what Oswald did.
We know how he did it. We have the weapons he did it with. What we will
never know is why. That will always be a mystery.
bigdog
Interesting plot for a movie but not one shred of evidence to support it.
Pure speculation. You avoid the main quesiton I asked. Why the hell would
the conspirators have thought it was in their interest to plant CE399 at
Parkland. It makes no sense. This is not a trivial question. If you are
going to allege that someone planted the bullet, you should at least offer
a plausible reason why they would do such a thing. I have been asking this
question for almost two decades and have yet to hear a rational answer.
That bullet was found shortly after the shooting. If it was a plant, the
plotters would have to have decided in advance to plant the bullet. Why
the hell would they do such a thing? It makes no sense, whether you
believe they used Oswald's MC to kill JFK or they used anothr rifle.
Either way, planting a bullet from Oswald's MC does nothing for them but
risks revealing a conspiracy.
Gerry Simone
assassination (a shooter would know which bullet killed the President, and
non-MC rounds would be frangible or exploding bullets that have little or
no forensic value).
Also, note that the bullet found on the stretcher (and subsequently
'lost') was described much differently than CE399, so this left more time
to gauge the results and introduce the plant.
The Z film doesn't support a SBT, etc., etc.
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:41e9b9be-3ec8-4b26...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Gerry Simone
"MSwanberg" <mswa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b53fb2f2-6690-4b01...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Thalia
>
> - Show quoted text -
What rubbish. You are talking about the Lone Nut side. Personal
attacks are your specialty.
MSwanberg
> On 12/2/2009 6:25 PM, MSwanberg wrote:
> > The thing is that so much of what's entered into evidence for the Warren
> > Commission was simply ignored or mis-diagnosed for what they were. See,
> > you're assuming that CE399 is the bullet that was found at Parkland.
> > Many believe it is not. They could have planted a bullet that would frame
>
> Not MANY. Maybe 5 or 6. Almost everyone agrees it was found at Parkland,
> but some think it was planted.
I'm not sure I get your point... are you saying that only 5 or 6
people believe that the bullet found on the stretcher is not the same
bullet that's been identified as CE399? This would mean that everyone
except those 5 or 6 people believe in the chain of evidence of CE399
from Parkland all the way to the WC. I'm not sure that's true...
unless my point was misunderstood.
What I'm saying is that many people believe that the bullet that was
found by the orderly at Parkland is NOT the same bullet as the WC
tagged CE399. I am among them, actually, since it seems not one
person who held the bullet at Parkland could identify CE399 as the
same bullet... and of course the WC decided that they were ALL
mistaken.
> I won't name names but someone thinks that Robert Frazier was a
> conspirator who switched in CE 399 at the FBI lab.
>
Wouldn't surprise me.
-Mike
MSwanberg
But "why" is a pretty important point, wouldn't you agree?
I do agree that Oswald's actions (what we have been told that they
were) are mysterious. I just don't believe they were motivated by his
attempt to escape after having shot the president. I think he was
trying to escape the conspirators. But that's an age-old difference
of opinion that we can (and will) pursue ad infinitum. :-)
But I did want to comment on your point about him going to the Texas
Theater. Sure, we can't know WHY he went there. Some obviously posit
that he had a contact that was supposed to meet him there. Some
believe that he was manipulated into thinking he had a contact there
but in reality he was being led to his own slaughter. And I would
love to know what the common LN thought is on why he went in there, as
I don't believe I've ever heard one.
In the end, if we all agree (which we don't, of course) that he took a
bus and a cab to his rooming house (actually PAST his rooming house
and then walked back, possibly identifying that his original
destination was NOT the rooming house but that he changed his mind...
anyone know what the cabby said? Did Oswald do the "just drop me off
here" thing?) and then walked from there to 10th and Patton and then
walked to the Texas Theater... well, that shows a complete lack of
direction and planning and destination.
I don't believe that Oswald's idea was that he would never escape but
would take as many cops with him in the chase... that fails on a lot
of points. If he expected to die then why did he IMMEDIATELY leave
the SN, wipe the prints, hide the rifle, and scurry downstairs? As
well, if he expected a chase and a shootout where he could nab as many
additional victims as possible, why not bring the revolver with him to
the TSBD?
But then again... I think we're showing LHO to not be the swiftest at
planning ahead...
-Mike
Herbert Blenner
I have presented the evidence for my assertions at the following
link.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/cardinal.htm
Herbert
Thalia
The conspirators knew there had to be one bullet in evidence that
matched Oswald's gun. As insiders, they expected the crime to be
covered up (or they didn't care if the authorities announced a
conspiracy, as long as it was blamed on Castro) What is ludicrous is
that CE399 went through two grown men shattering dense bones and came
out looking almost pristine. Of course, the evidence had to be
manipulated so that Oswald was made out to be a "lone assassin." The
reasons for this are numerous and multi-faceted. CE399 then had to be
the bullet that went through both men, despite there not being any
blood or bodily matter on it or there being sufficient damage. Of
course this does not pass any credibility test, but with the tenacity
of the lone nut promoters and defenders, unreality is made to be
reality, denial of common sense becomes the order of the day, and the
Emperor wears no clothes.
jas
> On 12/1/2009 3:08 PM, jas wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 1, 11:22 am, jbarge<anjba...@gmail.com> wrote:> >>> What is the best evidence for a conspiracy? Any smoking guns? I recently
> >>> asked this question on alt.conspiracy.jfk and had to pretty much answer my
> >>> totally on eyewitness testimony.
>
> >> Well, evidence isn't proof, that's for sure.
>
> > Huh? What law school professor told you that?
>
> >> I could walk away but a few items caused me to dig deeper.
> >> 1. The Odio incident
>
> > 1. Probably mistaken identity, but even if proven true, no provable
> > association to the assassination.
>
> premeditation?
>
>
>
> >> 2. The Trafficante threat reported to the FBI prior to the
> >> assassination
>
> > 2. Hearsay. Threats don't prove they were carried out.
>
> suspect.
>
>
>
> >> 3.The Bogard incident of an Oswald saying he would be coming into
> >> money 2 weeks before the vacation
>
> > 3. Even if proven true, no provable association to the assassination.
>
> investigating.
>
>
>
> >> 4. The Marcello threat, testified to under oath
>
> > 4. Threats don't prove they were actually carried out.
>
> suspect.
>
>
>
> >> 5. The destruction of the Hosty note, impeaching the FBI's integrity
>
> > 5. FBI's/Hoover's embarrassment over a successful assassination and
> > their failure to stop it.
>
> evidence. Try claiming it wasn't even evidence because we don't know for
> sure if it was Oswald who wrote the note.
>
>
>
> >> 6. The Nancy Perrin Rich testimony of Ruby's presence in a 1963 gun-
> >> running ring. This testimony was at first discounted by the Warren C.,
> >> but the existance of the gun-running ring has been proven true - she
> >> tried to get the facts out but it was ignored.
>
> > 6. Even proven true, no provable association to the assassination.
>
> or the CIA, that doesn't prove that the organization ordered the
> assassination. Any more than a postal worker going on a shooting
> rampage implicate the USPS.
>
>
>
> >> 7. The 1957 FBN report that a Jack Ruby gave the okay for a narcotics
> >> ring to operate out of Mexico and Texas
>
> > 7. Even proven true, no proven association to the assassination.
>
> an independent drug dealer unconnected to the Mafia and not owing any
> favors to the Mafia.
>
>
>
> >> 8. The 4 inch "mistake" in locating the entrance wound - I don't
> >> believe that grown medical professionals holding a ruler would make
> >> that mistake
>
> > 8. Massive nature of the wound causing confusing observations.
>
> measured it supposedly as 7 x 15 mm? Do you specialize in making
> ludicrous excuses for incompetence?
>
>
>
> >> 9. The Jack Martin information that Ferrie& Banister were involved
> >> with Oswald coupled with the address of Banister's office building
> >> being on Oswald's pamphlet
>
> > 9. Hearsay. Even proven true, no proven association to the
> > assassination.
>
> assassination. Even if someone proved that Oswald was an FBI agent or a
> CIA agent or an ONI agent you could claim that does not prove any
> association to the assassination.
>
>
>
> >> 10. the Ralph Yates report of picking up a hitchiker who discussed
> >> assassinating JFK, backed up by a co-worker to the FBI
>
> > 10. Hearsay. Even proven true, no proven association to the
> > assassination.
>
> >> 11. the disappearance of the 3rd backyard photo, impeaching the
> >> Dallas Police Department integrity
>
> > 11. Mishandling of evidence doesn't mean nefarious intentions, only
> > human frailties common in all criminal investigations.
>
> indicate nefarious intent.
>
>
>
> >> 12. the non-existance of Oswald photos in Mexico City at the embassies
> >> - simply beyond rational belief
>
> > 12. Mishandling of evidence doesn't mean nefarious intentions, only
> > human frailties common in all criminal investigations.
>
> cover-up? So Watergate was just mishandling of evidence?
>
>
>
> >> 13. the recorded weight of JFK's brain at 1500 grams - simply beyond
> >> rational belief
>
> > 13. Massive nature of the wound.
>
> normal weight and a rounded out figure, not an exact measurement. If the
> wound had a massive nature we'd expect the weight to be less. Incompetence
> or cover-up?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> 14. the Wes Wise report to the FBI of a license plate # with a car
> >> containing Oswald later traced to Carl Mather. Carl Mather was a close
> >> friend to J.D. Tippit and refused to talk to the FBI in 1964, using
> >> his CIA clearance to justify his refusal.
>
> > 14., Even proven true, no proven association with the assassination.
>
> >> sister? Employed by the CIA for 8 years by the time of the visit.
>
>
> >> 16. Oswald's possession of a half-torn box top at the time of his
> >> arrest - a classic way to identify your contact in a darkened movie
> >> theatre, who would possess the other half of the box top
>
> > 16. Huh? Even proven true, no proven association to the assassination.
>
>
>
>
> >> 17. Oswald's security risk "look out" card being removed from his FBI
> >> file on October 9th, one day before the CIA sent in information about
> >> his presence in Mexico City. Had the look out card been in place the
> >> CIA report might have caused him to be under watch on 11/22/2963.
>
> > 17. Possible mishandling of evidence -- doesn't mean nefarious
> > intentions, and no provable association to the assassination.
>
> So the Holocaust was just a mishandling of evidence?
> Watergate was just a mishandling of evidence?
> MK/ULTRA was just a mishandling of evidence?
> The My Lai Massacre was just a mishandling of evidence?
>
>
>
> >> 18. The Vecenia report of Oswald with David Attlee Phillips
>
> > 18. Even proven true, no proven association to the assassination.
>
> allegation and not able to correct the allegation. Nice to see that your
> function keys are preprogrammed for cover-up.
>
>
>
> >> 19. the destruction of the first autopsy report, impeaching the
> >> integrity of the autopsy
>
> > 19. Mishandling of evidence, doesn't mean nefarious intentions, and no
> > provable association to the assassination.
>
> > Hey, this is fun! Got any more?
>
>
>
>
>
My lack of knowledge?
Ha ha ha!! Beyond belief.
And YOUR knowledge of the frontal GK head shot?
Thalia
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thats what Lone Nuts do. It is how they construct their world so they
can sleep at night - isolate each piece of evidence and attempt to
explain it away (rarely successfully I might add) - they forget that
in a court of law, the totality of evidence is used to decide if a
person is guilty. Each item is presented at the same trial, so a
picture is built up. The evidence might be circumstantial, it might be
eyewitness, it might be forensic = everything is presented. Each piece
of evidence does not have to PROVE a person's guilt (though it may in
fact do so of course)
Michael O'Dell
That comment is just a bit of sarcasm. Nobody thinks it is sunspots just
happening to create an acoustic "fingerprint".
Michael
Thalia
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ditto darl.
Thalia
Don't forget that the FBI decided within days that Oswald was the lone
nut. Not exactly the most open-minded investigation ever undertaken.
Thalia
Possible. This idea is in the book "Deep Politics and the Death of
JFK" by Peter Dale Scott, a top historian. Johnson certainly used the
threat of nuclear war to get the WC members to go along with the FBI
report which stated Oswald was the lone killer. Whether he believed
that it was a real communist plot or not is another matter.
bigdog
> They allowed for that contingency depending on the outcome of the
> assassination (a shooter would know which bullet killed the President, and
> non-MC rounds would be frangible or exploding bullets that have little or
> no forensic value).
>
allowed for the contingency depending on the outcome of the
assassination"??? This is the trouble with all CT theories. The devil
is in the details. None of them make sense when one is asked to fill
in the blanks.
> Also, note that the bullet found on the stretcher (and subsequently
> 'lost') was described much differently than CE399, so this left more time
> to gauge the results and introduce the plant.
>
More vagueness.
> The Z film doesn't support a SBT, etc., etc.
>
Not that this has anything to do with the question of planting the
bullet, but the Z film is the best evidence for the SBT. We see the
bulging of JBC's jacket at Z224 followed immediately by his right arm
flipping up in the air in perfect synchronization with JFK's arms
coming up beginning with Z225-226.
> "bigdog" <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Thalia
What will alwys be a mystery is how obvious a conspiracy has to before
everyone can see it.
Anthony Marsh
It IS a trivial question because YOU are asking it. It's been answered
100 times, but you keep logging on with new aliases and asking exactly
the same question and pretending that no one ever answered it.
The ideas of planting a bullet is to link the bullets recovered to
Oswald's rifle to frame him. They can not be sure that any fragments
recovered will be intact enough to link ballistically to Oswald's rifle.
> going to allege that someone planted the bullet, you should at least offer
> a plausible reason why they would do such a thing. I have been asking this
> question for almost two decades and have yet to hear a rational answer.
>
It is always answered and you always refuse to listen.
> That bullet was found shortly after the shooting. If it was a plant, the
> plotters would have to have decided in advance to plant the bullet. Why
It would be a precaution. It was too early to tell is a bullet or
fragment was found in the car.
> the hell would they do such a thing? It makes no sense, whether you
> believe they used Oswald's MC to kill JFK or they used anothr rifle.
> Either way, planting a bullet from Oswald's MC does nothing for them but
> risks revealing a conspiracy.
>
No. They could count on people like you to argue away anything that
sounds conspiratorial. 10 rifles firing from 5 different locations.
You'd just call it a coincidence.
jbarge
> On Dec 1, 11:22 am, jbarge <anjba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 30, 8:01 pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > What is the best evidence for a conspiracy? Any smoking guns? I recently
> > > asked this question on alt.conspiracy.jfk and had to pretty much answer my
> > > own question. Is the evidence really that week? Seems to really almost
> > > totally on eyewitness testimony.
>
>
> Huh? What law school professor told you that?
The dictionary:
ev·i·dence (v-dns)
n.
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The
broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists
weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a
mourner's face.
3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects
admissible as testimony in a court of law.
proof (prf)
n.
1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an
assertion as true.
2.
a. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules,
as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially
derived conclusions.
b. A statement or argument used in such a validation.
3.
a. Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his
identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability.
b. The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of
evidence.
Thus you could have evidence, but it wouldn't accepted as "proof".
I hope this clarifies things.
>
> > I could walk away but a few items caused me to dig deeper.
> > 1. The Odio incident
>
> 1. Probably mistaken identity, but even if proven true, no provable
> association to the assassination.
As I said, evidence isn't proof, so "no provable association" means
nothing.
It might be mistaken identity or it might be evidence of a conspiracy,
specifically
>
> > 2. The Trafficante threat reported to the FBI prior to the
> > assassination
>
> 2. Hearsay. Threats don't prove they were carried out.
Technically hearsay is evidence, though not admissable in court.
I was asked for evidence without any qualifications.
Joseph Aleman was a direct witness to the statement being made, i.e.
he wasn't saying "I heard that Trafficante said this."
Trafficante told him JFK would be hit and Aleman informed the FBI
before the assassination.
It should have been investigated by the Warren Commission; it was not,
thus being a perfect example of how a hypothetical conspiracy
succeeded.
>
> > 3.The Bogard incident of an Oswald saying he would be coming into
> > money 2 weeks before the vacation
>
> 3. Even if proven true, no provable association to the assassination.
As I said, evidence isn't proof, so "no provable association" means
nothing.
But it is evidence of the accused coming into a large amount of money
2 weeks before the crime.
For what - writing his memoirs?
> > 4. The Marcello threat, testified to under oath
>
> 4. Threats don't prove they were actually carried out.
As I said, evidence isn't proof, so this is evidence, not proof, as
originally requested.
Your attempt to move the goal post falls flat.
Next.
>
> > 5. The destruction of the Hosty note, impeaching the FBI's integrity
>
> 5. FBI's/Hoover's embarrassment over a successful assassination and
> their failure to stop it.
Correct.
If they're willing to destroy this, what else are they willing to do?
> > 6. The Nancy Perrin Rich testimony of Ruby's presence in a 1963 gun-
> > running ring. This testimony was at first discounted by the Warren C.,
> > but the existance of the gun-running ring has been proven true - she
> > tried to get the facts out but it was ignored.
>
> 6. Even proven true, no provable association to the assassination.
The theory is that Ruby had no connection with Organized Crime as
espoused by the Warren Commission.
This angle could have revealed those connections if properly
investigated.
And here's another one - where did Oswald get the ammunition?
My research has indicated that the source of the ammunition was also
linked to this gun running ring.
Finally - an honest witness attempts to alert the American people to
what Ruby was up to and is ignored, thus illustrating how a
hypothetical conspiracy succeeded.
> > 7. The 1957 FBN report that a Jack Ruby gave the okay for a narcotics
> > ring to operate out of Mexico and Texas
>
> 7. Even proven true, no proven association to the assassination.
The theory is that Ruby had no connection to Organized Crime as
espoused by the Warren Commission.
If properly investigated this evidence could have led to possible
connections.
>
> > 8. The 4 inch "mistake" in locating the entrance wound - I don't
> > believe that grown medical professionals holding a ruler would make
> > that mistake
>
> 8. Massive nature of the wound causing confusing observations.
Nonsense.
We're talking about the entrance wound, not the exit wound.
How is a wound one centimenter in diameter "massive"?
Pitiful - c'mon, you can do better than that.
>
> > 9. The Jack Martin information that Ferrie & Banister were involved
> > with Oswald coupled with the address of Banister's office building
> > being on Oswald's pamphlet
>
> 9. Hearsay. Even proven true, no proven association to the
> assassination.
If it is proven true that Guy Banister and David Ferrie conspired to
assassinate JFK there's no proven association with assassinating JFK?
This is getting nonsensical.
>
> > 10. the Ralph Yates report of picking up a hitchiker who discussed
> > assassinating JFK, backed up by a co-worker to the FBI
>
> 10. Hearsay. Even proven true, no proven association to the
> assassination.
I'm thinking you don't know what the Ralph Yates report is.
Feel free to prove me wrong by posting what it is.
> > 11. the disappearance of the 3rd backyard photo, impeaching the
> > Dallas Police Department integrity
>
> 11. Mishandling of evidence doesn't mean nefarious intentions, only
> human frailties common in all criminal investigations.
Their "mishandling" of evidence could lead to a successful conspiracy,
and brings into question what other evidence was made to disappear.
>
> > 12. the non-existance of Oswald photos in Mexico City at the embassies
> > - simply beyond rational belief
>
> 12. Mishandling of evidence doesn't mean nefarious intentions, only
> human frailties common in all criminal investigations.
If it is only "mishandling" that is correct, but research indicates
that the non-existance of the photos was no simple mistake - read the
Lopez Report, on Winston Scott's memoir as starters.
>
> > 13. the recorded weight of JFK's brain at 1500 grams - simply beyond
> > rational belief
>
> 13. Massive nature of the wound.
This is nonsensical.
It is the massive nature of the wound that makes it IMPOSSIBLE for the
brain weight to be 1500 grams.
Try again.
>
> > 14. the Wes Wise report to the FBI of a license plate # with a car
> > containing Oswald later traced to Carl Mather. Carl Mather was a close
> > friend to J.D. Tippit and refused to talk to the FBI in 1964, using
> > his CIA clearance to justify his refusal.
>
> 14., Even proven true, no proven association with the assassination.
So at approximately 1 pm on 11/22/1963 a witnesses sees a strange car
parked near the Texas Theater.
Suspicious, the witness gets a good look at the passenger and writes
down the License plate #.
The witness later identifies the passenger as Oswald.
When the FBI goes to question the owner of the license plate in
mid-1964, he uses his CIA security clearance to justify not answering
any questions.
For you this means nothing.
Gosh - why should it?
>
> > 15. Ruth Paine's September 1963 visit to her sister in Virginia. Her
> > sister? Employed by the CIA for 8 years by the time of the visit.
>
> 15. No provable association to the assassination.
Not yet, at least.
But I am interested in how the CIA surrounds Oswald's activities, and
this more recent relevation caught my eye.
> > 16. Oswald's possession of a half-torn box top at the time of his
> > arrest - a classic way to identify your contact in a darkened movie
> > theatre, who would possess the other half of the box top
>
> 16. Huh? Even proven true, no proven association to the assassination.
Among Oswald's belongings when he was arrested, was a half-torn cereal
box-top.
Why did he have it?
Was his contact at the Texas Theater supposed to have the other half?
This is a common way for intelligence assetts to identify each other.
>
> > 17. Oswald's security risk "look out" card being removed from his FBI
> > file on October 9th, one day before the CIA sent in information about
> > his presence in Mexico City. Had the look out card been in place the
> > CIA report might have caused him to be under watch on 11/22/2963.
>
> 17. Possible mishandling of evidence -- doesn't mean nefarious
> intentions, and no provable association to the assassination.
Well, the "possibilities" are endless!
> > 18. The Vecenia report of Oswald with David Attlee Phillips
>
> 18. Even proven true, no proven association to the assassination.
As I have already said, evidence isn't proof.
But a direct CIA connection to Oswald could easily have something to
do with the assassinaton, if only to explain how an embarrassed agency
covered it up and thus allowed a hypothetical conspiracy to proceed.
So evidence of an intelligence connection - American, Cuban, Soviet,
or what-have-you, is associated with the assassination.
> > 19. the destruction of the first autopsy report, impeaching the
> > integrity of the autopsy
>
> 19. Mishandling of evidence, doesn't mean nefarious intentions, and no
> provable association to the assassination.
Really?
The factual basis for the lone gunmen resides in the medical evidence.
If the medical evidence is shown to be compromised, then the factual
basis for the lone gunmen is compromised.
> Hey, this is fun! Got any more?
Oh yes - the Wayne January report about the Red Bud airport, the Ruby-
Trafficante report by John Wilson-Hughes, the package addressed to
Oswald in the dead letter section of Dallas post office, the missing
postal records from 2 different PO boxes, the alteration of evidence
by the FBI, etc.
But your approach is weak, and honestly not worth anyone's time.
I prefer more challenging LN-ers, like BD or Bud, or even Sandy.
MSwanberg
You're completely missing the point... The point is that the bullet that
was found was NOT CE399... somewhere in transit it was switched.
Now, what is the origin of the bullet? I don't know. The actual bullet,
I mean, not CE399. Perhaps it was what was purported... it fell out of
one of the victims. But then it was switched to point to LHO instead of
away from him. I mean, if they found a bullet that was NOT from the M-C,
that would destroy the WCR, no?
OTOH, if the bullet was planted at Parkland (regardless of whether it was
an Oswald M-C bullet or not), then the implications are far more sinister
and it doesn't matter WHERE the bullet came from... it was planted, which
leads to the conclusion of conspiracy.
In the end, we'll never be able to speculate about the reason for planting
a bullet, since the one that was recovered from the stretcher is NOT
CE399... and oh yes, there is evidence of that. Again... NONE of the
people that held the stretcher bullet could say that CE399 was the same
bullet.
So seriously, you don't know why the conspirators would plant the bullet?
Seriously? I mean, come on... you make keen observations all the time,
why can't you get this one? Well here it is... (my idea, anyway)...
IF the bullet was planted at Parkland, it's so that the rifle that fired
that bullet (however that conclusion is made) can be tied to the event.
Then you simply tie the rifle to the patsy and you have your case. Very
simple.
-Mike
MSwanberg
> Hmmm.
>
> "MSwanberg" <mswanb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I know, right? My GF is pretty clever. I guess that Ivy League
education and the PhD are legit... :-)
-Mike
jas
Wrong. The LNs have the facts on our side. We don't have to resort to
irrational responses, then personal attacks, as some of your
"colleagues" are prone to doing at times.
jas
Just straw blowin' in the wind...
MSwanberg
> >"MSwanberg" <mswanb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:c76c516a-400a-42fa-b508->42e14146e__BEGIN_MASK_n#9g02mG7!__...__END_MASK_i?a63jfAD$z...@e7g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
Exactly. Thomas' point, as I understand it, was that for the sounds
to NOT be gunfire, they would have to be some random bit of nature...
but then they would have to fit the characteristics of the echoes of
gunfire in Dealey plaza and also be spaced similarly apart as
indications of gunfire in the Z-Film, and then finally be the same as
the echoes picked up by a microphone moving around 11mph through the
plaza through 5 different spots, in exact 1-2-3-4-5 order.
In the end, the odds of that being something random and/or natural,
like sunspots, is phenomenally low... and that's why I choose to
believe in the acoustics evidence.
-Mike
MSwanberg
It seems that many people (including Johnson himself) have said that
Johnson believed in a probable conspiracy involving the Cubans. But
yeah, we don't know for certain what he knew, when, and how.
-Mike
MSwanberg
Heh... hear hear!
-Mike
MSwanberg
Yeah, but then he held onto his stetson and there was no evidence of
blood on his white cuff... hmmmm... explain that one...
-Mike
Sandy McCroskey
OK, Thalia, just tell me *one* concrete, proven fact about the
assassination that, to your mind, makes it obvious that there was a
conspiracy.
/sandy
Anthony Marsh
Nah, you just call all conspiracy believers kooks and then refuse to
debate the facts.
jas
Sigh...please...
Your insinuation that I don't know the meaning of evidence is another
CT cheap shot and automatically gets filed under the "worthless post"
file.
You know exactly what I meant, why make yourself look foolish
attempting to rebut it?
Anyone who boldly states that "evidence is not proof" is the one that
doesn't understand what it is.
Tell me, if evidence is not "proof" in a criminal investigation, why
is it that -- above all else -- prosecutors depend on it in court to
successfully convict suspects?
> ...
>
> read more »
Anthony Marsh
Well, you can believe that if you wish, but you can't prove it as a fact.
> Now, what is the origin of the bullet? I don't know. The actual bullet,
> I mean, not CE399. Perhaps it was what was purported... it fell out of
> one of the victims. But then it was switched to point to LHO instead of
> away from him. I mean, if they found a bullet that was NOT from the M-C,
> that would destroy the WCR, no?
>
I think you underestimate the powers of the cover-up. When the dent of the
chrome topping was found that might have destroyed the lone gun theory. So
what did the architects of the cover-up do? The head of the Secret Service
simply lied and said that dent was there all along, years before the
shooting. So, if a strange bullet HAD been found at Parkland they would
say that it came from ANOTHER shooting victim and was not even found on
Connally's stretcher. It could have been tucked under the pad for 10 years
and then fell out when the orderly bumped it against the wall. You need to
step up your cover-up thinking.
What happened to the intact whole bullet that Hoover said rolled out of
the President's body when they removed it? What happened to the fragments
recovered from the windshield. The government loses things all the time.
Personal example. The government officially says they have no records on
my father, who was a section chief at the National Security Agency. They
even claim that he did not exit during WWII. I have the records and they
claim the records never existed. This is truly like 1984 with non-persons
removed from the history books.
> OTOH, if the bullet was planted at Parkland (regardless of whether it was
> an Oswald M-C bullet or not), then the implications are far more sinister
> and it doesn't matter WHERE the bullet came from... it was planted, which
> leads to the conclusion of conspiracy.
>
Of course conspiracy, but that might be only the conspiracy to frame
Oswald. Like the OJ Simpson case where he acted alone, but the police did
not have enough evidence against him so they planted some to make sure
that he would be convicted. Or the Bremer case where he was a lone
shooter, but Nixon wanted them to plant Democratic literature on him to
smear his opponents. That is conspiracy, but a lone shooter.
> In the end, we'll never be able to speculate about the reason for planting
> a bullet, since the one that was recovered from the stretcher is NOT
> CE399... and oh yes, there is evidence of that. Again... NONE of the
> people that held the stretcher bullet could say that CE399 was the same
> bullet.
>
I love Tink, but I sometimes disagree with him. In this example as
always, NEVER rely on witnesses.
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 1, 3:08 pm, jas<lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 1, 11:22 am, jbarge<anjba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 30, 8:01 pm, Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> What is the best evidence for a conspiracy? Any smoking guns? I recently
>>>> asked this question on alt.conspiracy.jfk and had to pretty much answer my
>>>> own question. Is the evidence really that week? Seems to really almost
>>>> totally on eyewitness testimony.
>>
>>> Well, evidence isn't proof, that's for sure.
>>
>> Huh? What law school professor told you that?
>
> The dictionary:
> n.
> 1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The
> broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists
That's not true. If it WERE a burglary the broken glass would be on the
INSIDE. But all the broken glass was on the outside. The perpetrator was
already on the inside and broke the glass to make it LOOK like a burglary.
To collect the insurance money. Monk would see that immediately. A WC
defender would never be able to figure it out.
>>> 9. The Jack Martin information that Ferrie& Banister were involved
Anthony Marsh
Do you think it is just random noise?
You also think it is just random noise on the Kent State Massacre tape?
Robert Harris
<20802156-f868-4b5e...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 3:28�am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <aeffaeac-62c2-4b66-a428-8345ad3be...@s20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > �Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > What is thebestevidencefor a conspiracy? Any smoking guns? I recently
> > > asked this question on alt.conspiracy.jfk and had to pretty much answer my
> > > own question. Is theevidencereally that week? Seems to really almost
> > > totally on eyewitness testimony.
> >
> > Go to jfkhistory.com and click on the graphic in the lead article. Or,
> > if you don't have Quicktime you can view the Youtube version, which is
> > divided into parts.
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkAc76n8q44
> >
> > Robert Harris
>
> Rob I think you have done sterling job with this video. I agree with
> about 75% of it.No smoking gun's though.
Thank you but would you mind being a bit more specific about what you
agree and disagree with?
I cannot understand how anyone could buy a majority of it and not agree
that Oswald did not act alone.
Robert Harris
Thalia
>
> I do agree that Oswald's actions (what we have been told that they
> were) are mysterious. I just don't believe they were motivated by his
> attempt to escape after having shot the president. I think he was
> trying to escape the conspirators. But that's an age-old difference
> of opinion that we can (and will) pursue ad infinitum. :-)
>
> But I did want to comment on your point about him going to the Texas
> Theater. Sure, we can't know WHY he went there. Some obviously posit
> that he had a contact that was supposed to meet him there. Some
> believe that he was manipulated into thinking he had a contact there
> but in reality he was being led to his own slaughter. And I would
> love to know what the common LN thought is on why he went in there, as
> I don't believe I've ever heard one.
>
> In the end, if we all agree (which we don't, of course) that he took a
> bus and a cab to his rooming house (actually PAST his rooming house
> and then walked back, possibly identifying that his original
> destination was NOT the rooming house but that he changed his mind...
> anyone know what the cabby said? Did Oswald do the "just drop me off
> here" thing?) and then walked from there to 10th and Patton and then
> walked to the Texas Theater... well, that shows a complete lack of
> direction and planning and destination.
>
> I don't believe that Oswald's idea was that he would never escape but
> would take as many cops with him in the chase... that fails on a lot
> of points. If he expected to die then why did he IMMEDIATELY leave
> the SN, wipe the prints, hide the rifle, and scurry downstairs? As
> well, if he expected a chase and a shootout where he could nab as many
> additional victims as possible, why not bring the revolver with him to
> the TSBD?
>
> But then again... I think we're showing LHO to not be the swiftest at
> planning ahead...
>
> -Mike- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oswald sat next to different people in the theatre, including a
pregnant lady. Why would he do this? He was looking for his contact,
who would have the other piece of torn cardboard.
Anthony Marsh
And there was no blood on Kennedy's back brace. Explain that one.
Anthony Marsh
Yes, we do. Because he tape recorded all his conversations.
> -Mike
>
tomnln
suspects.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/HOOVER.htm
(4th item down from top)
"Thalia" <thali...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:76875308-4076-4ce4...@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
Yes, it is even a little more complicated than that. As Barger put it
you'd have to reconstruct Dealey Plaza perfectly and then fire shots
there. In addition W&A found echoes unique to that time in Dealey Plaza
such as movable objects which were not part of the architecture of
Dealey Plaza, like a bus which produced echoes. In addition W&A could
only get their match by moving the cycle down Elm at about the same
speed as the motorcade. Some echoes came in as late as 900 milliseconds.
> In the end, the odds of that being something random and/or natural,
> like sunspots, is phenomenally low... and that's why I choose to
> believe in the acoustics evidence.
>
You'll notice that I asked Mike O'Dell about the Chi-square test and he
had no answer. That should tell you something. 99.99% probability. And
he says that's due to random noise.
> -Mike
>
Michael O'Dell
>On Dec 3, 12:47 pm, "Michael O'Dell" <ml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >"MSwanberg" <mswanb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:c76c516a-400a-42fa-b508->42e14146e__BEGIN_MASK_n#9g02mG7!__...__END_MASK_i?a63jfAD$z...@e7g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>> >On Nov 30, 7:01 pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> What is the best evidence for a conspiracy? Any smoking guns? I
>> >> recently
>> >> asked this question on alt.conspiracy.jfk and had to pretty much
>> >> answer
>> >> my
>> >> own question. Is the evidence really that week? Seems to really almost
>> >> totally on eyewitness testimony.
>>
>> >I believe it just depends on the researcher. Some feel that the autopsy
>> >stuff is what set them on the path to believing a conspiracy. Others
>> >look
>> >at the photographic evidence. Still others look to the shoddy Warren
>> >Commission Report.
>>
>> >As for me, it's the acoustic evidence. I agree with D.B.Thomas, it
>> >would be a lot to ask of sunspots.
>>
>> >-Mike
>>
>> That comment is just a bit of sarcasm. Nobody thinks it is sunspots just
>> happening to create an acoustic "fingerprint".
>>
>> Michael
>
>Exactly. Thomas' point, as I understand it, was that for the sounds
>to NOT be gunfire, they would have to be some random bit of nature...
Which would be incorrect.
>but then they would have to fit the characteristics of the echoes of
>gunfire in Dealey plaza and also be spaced similarly apart as
>indications of gunfire in the Z-Film, and then finally be the same as
>the echoes picked up by a microphone moving around 11mph through the
>plaza through 5 different spots, in exact 1-2-3-4-5 order.
>
>In the end, the odds of that being something random and/or natural,
>like sunspots, is phenomenally low...
It's not random or sunspots. It's a false dichotomy to think it has to be
either random sunspots or gunshots. That's the same basic error that W&A
made.
More likely is that the methods and statistics aren't as rigorous as they
were portrayed, and effectively all they did was find the section in a
long sequence that produced a match.
Take a real random process as an example, flipping a coin. The odds are
50/50 that any one flip will be heads. It is extremely unlikely that you
will flip heads five times in a row. But flip it 10,000 times and record
the sequence, and after the fact scan it looking for five heads in a row.
It's not unlikely at all that you'd find it.
Do that in a signal that's not even truly random, that by its nature
happens to produce patterns that are similar to what you are looking for
anyway, and the odds of getting a match go way up.
> and that's why I choose to
>believe in the acoustics evidence.
>
>-Mike
>
Read: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/odell
Michael
tomnln
"Thalia" <thali...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:76875308-4076-4ce4...@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 3, 7:21 am, MSwanberg <mswanb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 2:08 pm, jas <lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > 5. The destruction of the Hosty note, impeaching the FBI's integrity
>
> > 5. FBI's/Hoover's embarrassment over a successful assassination and
> > their failure to stop it.
>
> Does this mean you believe in a conspiracy to cover up the truth?
>
> -Mike
Don't forget that the FBI decided within days that Oswald was the lone
nut. Not exactly the most open-minded investigation ever undertaken.
Some think the FBI decided that BEFORE the Assassination ! ! !
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
What's to explain? His arm and wrist were only visible for about a half
second after the bullet hit which is not long enough for the blood to soak
through the cuff of his shirt. There is no reason why he would let go of
the Stetson.
bigdog
> I do agree that Oswald's actions (what we have been told that they
> were) are mysterious. I just don't believe they were motivated by his
> attempt to escape after having shot the president. I think he was
> trying to escape the conspirators. But that's an age-old difference
> of opinion that we can (and will) pursue ad infinitum. :-)
>
> But I did want to comment on your point about him going to the Texas
> Theater. Sure, we can't know WHY he went there. Some obviously posit
> that he had a contact that was supposed to meet him there. Some
> believe that he was manipulated into thinking he had a contact there
> but in reality he was being led to his own slaughter. And I would
> love to know what the common LN thought is on why he went in there, as
> I don't believe I've ever heard one.
>
He ducked into the theater because police cars were racing up and down
Jefferson and he wanted to get out of sight. Not a bad idea. Watch a
double feature and hope things have quieted down when it's over and he
could slip out after dark. Unfortunately for him, Brewer spotted him
acting strangely and then saw him duck into the theater. He reasoned
he might be the guy the cops were looking for so he had them
contacted.
> In the end, if we all agree (which we don't, of course) that he took a
> bus and a cab to his rooming house (actually PAST his rooming house
> and then walked back, possibly identifying that his original
> destination was NOT the rooming house but that he changed his mind...
> anyone know what the cabby said? Did Oswald do the "just drop me off
> here" thing?) and then walked from there to 10th and Patton and then
> walked to the Texas Theater... well, that shows a complete lack of
> direction and planning and destination.
It's speculation but he might have wanted to drive past the house
first to see if the cops were already waiting for him before he got
out of the cab. I doubt the Texas Theater was ever his intended
destination. It was just a convenient place to duck out of sight.
Might have worked if Brewer hadn't been alert.
>
> I don't believe that Oswald's idea was that he would never escape but
> would take as many cops with him in the chase... that fails on a lot
> of points. If he expected to die then why did he IMMEDIATELY leave
> the SN, wipe the prints, hide the rifle, and scurry downstairs? As
> well, if he expected a chase and a shootout where he could nab as many
> additional victims as possible, why not bring the revolver with him to
> the TSBD?
>
Sneaking one gun into the TSBD was enough of a problem. Sneaking two
in would increase the chances he would be detected. Since he hadn't
been to his rooming house since Wednesday morning, that means he would
have to have brought his revolver to work that day and then either
hide it there or conceal it from Frazier on the way to and from Irving
on Thursday night and Friday morning.
> But then again... I think we're showing LHO to not be the swiftest at
> planning ahead...
>
bigdog
> On Dec 2, 1:59 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 1, 8:01 pm, "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Some of these items represent circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy or
> > > possible conspiracy.
>
> > > You talk about 'logical steps'. Well, if we look at the chain of evidence
> > > of the bullet discovered at Parkland, it doesn't lead us to CE 399 (just
> > > as one example).
>
> > Someday I would like to just once to hear a CT offer a plausible thought
> > process for their alleged conspirators to have decided AHEAD OF TIME that
> > it was in their interest to plant a bullet from Oswald's MC. Just what
> > could they possibly have been thinking? If their intent was to frame
> > Oswald, either they used Oswald's rifle to kill JFK or they did not. That
> > is a binary choice. If they used Oswald's rifle, what purpose would there
> > be to plant an additional bullet at Parkland. Why not just allow the
> > bullets that actually killed JFK to speak for themselves. On the other
> > hand if they used a rifle other than Oswald's to kill JFK, by planting
> > CE399, they would be introducing a bullet from a different rifle than the
> > one that actually killed JFK. If they end up with bullets in evidence that
> > came from two different guns, they would be providing proof of a
> > conspiracy and they could kiss off the idea of framing a patsy as the lone
> > assassin. The idea that CE399 could have been a plant is ludicrous.
>
> matched Oswald's gun. As insiders, they expected the crime to be
> covered up (or they didn't care if the authorities announced a
> conspiracy, as long as it was blamed on Castro) What is ludicrous is
> that CE399 went through two grown men shattering dense bones and came
> out looking almost pristine. Of course, the evidence had to be
> manipulated so that Oswald was made out to be a "lone assassin." The
> reasons for this are numerous and multi-faceted. CE399 then had to be
> the bullet that went through both men, despite there not being any
> blood or bodily matter on it or there being sufficient damage. Of
> course this does not pass any credibility test, but with the tenacity
> of the lone nut promoters and defenders, unreality is made to be
> reality, denial of common sense becomes the order of the day, and the
>
> - Show quoted text -
Recreations have shown a bullet could pass through two torsos and
dense bone and come out in much the same condition as CE399. As for
there being no blood on it, I sat on a jury in a murder trial and we
were presented with the bullets from the crime seen. No visible blood
on them either.
bigdog
> On Dec 3, 12:02 pm, garyb <garyn2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 1, 12:08 pm, jas <lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 1, 11:22 am, jbarge <anjba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > What is the best evidence for a conspiracy? Any smoking guns? I recently
> > > > > asked this question on alt.conspiracy.jfk and had to pretty much answer my
> > > > > own question. Is the evidence really that week? Seems to really almost
> > > > > totally on eyewitness testimony.
>
>
> > > Huh? What law school professor told you that?
>
> > > > 1. The Odio incident
>
> > > 1. Probably mistaken identity, but even if proven true, no provable
> > > association to the assassination.
>
> > > > assassination
>
> > > 2. Hearsay. Threats don't prove they were carried out.
>
> > > > money 2 weeks before the vacation
>
> > > 3. Even if proven true, no provable association to the assassination.
>
>
> > > 4. Threats don't prove they were actually carried out.
>
>
> > > 5. FBI's/Hoover's embarrassment over a successful assassination and
> > > their failure to stop it.
>
> > > > running ring. This testimony was at first discounted by the Warren C.,
> > > > but the existance of the gun-running ring has been proven true - she
> > > > tried to get the facts out but it was ignored.
>
> > > 6. Even proven true, no provable association to the assassination.
>
> > > > ring to operate out of Mexico and Texas
>
> > > 7. Even proven true, no proven association to the assassination.
>
> > > > believe that grown medical professionals holding a ruler would make
> > > > that mistake
>
> > > 8. Massive nature of the wound causing confusing observations.
>
> > > > with Oswald coupled with the address of Banister's office building
> > > > being on Oswald's pamphlet
>
> > > 9. Hearsay. Even proven true, no proven association to the
> > > assassination.
>
> > > > assassinating JFK, backed up by a co-worker to the FBI
>
> > > 10. Hearsay. Even proven true, no proven association to the
> > > assassination.
>
> > > > Dallas Police Department integrity
>
> > > 11. Mishandling of evidence doesn't mean nefarious intentions, only
> > > human frailties common in all criminal investigations.
>
> > > > - simply beyond rational belief
>
> > > 12. Mishandling of evidence doesn't mean nefarious intentions, only
> > > human frailties common in all criminal investigations.
>
> > > > rational belief
>
> > > 13. Massive nature of the wound.
>
> > > > containing Oswald later traced to Carl Mather. Carl Mather was a close
> > > > friend to J.D. Tippit and refused to talk to the FBI in 1964, using
> > > > his CIA clearance to justify his refusal.
>
> > > 14., Even proven true, no proven association with the assassination.
>
> > > > sister? Employed by the CIA for 8 years by the time of the visit.
>
> > > 15. No provable association to the assassination.
>
> > > > arrest - a classic way to identify your contact in a darkened movie
> > > > theatre, who would possess the other half of the box top
>
> > > 16. Huh? Even proven true, no proven association to the assassination.
>
> > > > file on October 9th, one day before the CIA sent in information about
> > > > his presence in Mexico City. Had the look out card been in place the
> > > > CIA report might have caused him to be under watch on 11/22/2963.
>
> > > 17. Possible mishandling of evidence -- doesn't mean nefarious
> > > intentions, and no provable association to the assassination.
>
>
> > > 18. Even proven true, no proven association to the assassination.
>
> > > > integrity of the autopsy
>
> > > 19. Mishandling of evidence, doesn't mean nefarious intentions, and no
> > > provable association to the assassination.
>
>
> > No one piece of evidence proves conspiracy. So Banister knew Oswald, as my
> > reading of the evidence shows, that in itself does not prove conspiracy.
> > You have to look at all the evidence. You remind me of the creationists
> > asking for ONE proof of evolution.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> can sleep at night - isolate each piece of evidence and attempt to
> explain it away (rarely successfully I might add) - they forget that
> in a court of law, the totality of evidence is used to decide if a
> person is guilty. Each item is presented at the same trial, so a
> picture is built up. The evidence might be circumstantial, it might be
> eyewitness, it might be forensic = everything is presented. Each piece
> of evidence does not have to PROVE a person's guilt (though it may in
> fact do so of course)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The totality of evidence points at Oswald. Every piece of physical
evidence points at Oswald. In 46 years, not one shred of physical evidence
has been presented that anybody else was involved. If you doubt that, why
don't you accept the challenge I made to another poster to list three best
pieces of evidence that somebody other than Oswald shot JFK.
bigdog
> On Dec 3, 7:21 am, MSwanberg <mswanb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 1, 2:08 pm, jas <lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > 5. The destruction of the Hosty note, impeaching the FBI's integrity
>
> > > 5. FBI's/Hoover's embarrassment over a successful assassination and
> > > their failure to stop it.
>
>
> > -Mike
>
> Don't forget that the FBI decided within days that Oswald was the lone
> nut. Not exactly the most open-minded investigation ever undertaken.
They decided that because the evidence was so damn obvious. It didn't
take Sherlock Holmes to figure it out.
bigdog
>
> What will alwys be a mystery is how obvious a conspiracy has to before
> everyone can see it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Apparently, it doesn't need to be obvious at all because a lot of
folks seem to see one where none exists.
bigdog
> On Dec 2, 10:54 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 2, 6:25 pm, MSwanberg <mswanb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 1, 11:59 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Someday I would like to just once to hear a CT offer a plausible thought
> > > > process for their alleged conspirators to have decided AHEAD OF TIME that
> > > > it was in their interest to plant a bullet from Oswald's MC. Just what
> > > > could they possibly have been thinking? If their intent was to frame
> > > > Oswald, either they used Oswald's rifle to kill JFK or they did not. That
> > > > is a binary choice. If they used Oswald's rifle, what purpose would there
> > > > be to plant an additional bullet at Parkland. Why not just allow the
> > > > bullets that actually killed JFK to speak for themselves. On the other
> > > > hand if they used a rifle other than Oswald's to kill JFK, by planting
> > > > CE399, they would be introducing a bullet from a different rifle than the
> > > > one that actually killed JFK. If they end up with bullets in evidence that
> > > > came from two different guns, they would be providing proof of a
> > > > conspiracy and they could kiss off the idea of framing a patsy as the lone
> > > > assassin. The idea that CE399 could have been a plant is ludicrous.
>
> > Pure speculation. You avoid the main quesiton I asked. Why the hell would
> > the conspirators have thought it was in their interest to plant CE399 at
> > Parkland. It makes no sense. This is not a trivial question. If you are
> > going to allege that someone planted the bullet, you should at least offer
> > a plausible reason why they would do such a thing. I have been asking this
> > question for almost two decades and have yet to hear a rational answer.
>
> > That bullet was found shortly after the shooting. If it was a plant, the
> > plotters would have to have decided in advance to plant the bullet. Why
> > the hell would they do such a thing? It makes no sense, whether you
> > believe they used Oswald's MC to kill JFK or they used anothr rifle.
> > Either way, planting a bullet from Oswald's MC does nothing for them but
> > risks revealing a conspiracy.
>
> You're completely missing the point... The point is that the bullet that
> was found was NOT CE399... somewhere in transit it was switched.
>
> Now, what is the origin of the bullet? I don't know. The actual bullet,
> I mean, not CE399. Perhaps it was what was purported... it fell out of
> one of the victims. But then it was switched to point to LHO instead of
> away from him. I mean, if they found a bullet that was NOT from the M-C,
> that would destroy the WCR, no?
>
If they found a bullet that was not from Oswald's rifle that would
prove a conspiracy, but that didn't happen. The only bullets found
came from Oswald's rifle. Their is no evidence of a bullet or fragment
coming from any other gun. You still are avoiding the main dilemma. Do
you believe your alleged assassins used Oswald's rifle or did they use
another rifle. If they used Oswald's rifle, there was no reason to
plant a bullet. If they used another rifle, they would expect some of
the bullets from that rifle to be recovered and introducing a bullet
from Oswald's rifle would prove two guns were used.
> OTOH, if the bullet was planted at Parkland (regardless of whether it was
> an Oswald M-C bullet or not), then the implications are far more sinister
> and it doesn't matter WHERE the bullet came from... it was planted, which
> leads to the conclusion of conspiracy.
>
No bullet was planted. That is idiotic. It would have been idiotic for
the conspirators to plant the bullet and it is idiotic to think it was
planted.
> In the end, we'll never be able to speculate about the reason for planting
> a bullet, since the one that was recovered from the stretcher is NOT
> CE399... and oh yes, there is evidence of that. Again... NONE of the
> people that held the stretcher bullet could say that CE399 was the same
> bullet.
>
Nor would they way it was not.
> So seriously, you don't know why the conspirators would plant the bullet?
> Seriously? I mean, come on... you make keen observations all the time,
> why can't you get this one? Well here it is... (my idea, anyway)...
>
I've already explained why planting the bullet makes no sense. The
fragments found in the limo were traced to Oswald's rifle. We know
Oswald's rifle was used to kill JFK. There would be no reason to plant
another bullet from that rifle.
> IF the bullet was planted at Parkland, it's so that the rifle that fired
> that bullet (however that conclusion is made) can be tied to the event.
> Then you simply tie the rifle to the patsy and you have your case. Very
> simple.
>
The rifle was already tied to the event with the bullet fragments
found in the limo. Had CE399 never been found, the link to Oswald's
rifle is firmly established. Why the hell would the conspirators want
or need a patsy? They wouldn't care if anybody ever took the fall for
the crime, as long as they got away with it. That's just one more
thing that makes no sense.
Maggsy
> On 12/1/2009 2:27 PM, bigdog wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 1, 1:22 pm, jbarge<anjba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 30, 8:01 pm, Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> What is the best evidence for a conspiracy? Any smoking guns? I recently
> >>> asked this question on alt.conspiracy.jfk and had to pretty much answer my
> >>> own question. Is the evidence really that week? Seems to really almost
> >>> totally on eyewitness testimony.
>
> >> Well, evidence isn't proof, that's for sure.
> >> 1. The Odio incident
> >> assassination
> >> money 2 weeks before the vacation
> >> running ring. This testimony was at first discounted by the Warren C.,
> >> but the existance of the gun-running ring has been proven true - she
> >> tried to get the facts out but it was ignored.
> >> ring to operate out of Mexico and Texas
> >> believe that grown medical professionals holding a ruler would make
> >> that mistake
> >> with Oswald coupled with the address of Banister's office building
> >> being on Oswald's pamphlet
> >> assassinating JFK, backed up by a co-worker to the FBI
> >> Dallas Police Department integrity
> >> - simply beyond rational belief
> >> rational belief
> >> containing Oswald later traced to Carl Mather. Carl Mather was a close
> >> friend to J.D. Tippit and refused to talk to the FBI in 1964, using
> >> his CIA clearance to justify his refusal.
> >> sister? Employed by the CIA for 8 years by the time of the visit.
> >> arrest - a classic way to identify your contact in a darkened movie
> >> theatre, who would possess the other half of the box top
> >> file on October 9th, one day before the CIA sent in information about
> >> his presence in Mexico City. Had the look out card been in place the
> >> CIA report might have caused him to be under watch on 11/22/2963.
> >> integrity of the autopsy
>
> > the list requires that one assume that the explaination would point to
> > a conspiracy. All other plausible explainations must be ignored. A
> > perfect example is item #16. Oswald had a half torn box top in his
> > possession??? Are you kidding me? Is this what you consider evidence
> > of a conspiracy? Of all the possible reasons why he might have a half
>
> Of course the list is ridiculous, but I assume he/she is trying to use
> them to suggest the NATURE of the assumed conspiracy, not as a solid proof
> of the conspiracy.
>
> > torn box top on him, you assume it must mean it was to identify a
> > contact whom you assume existed, also in the absence of evidence.
> > Ridiculous!!! Did you ever stop to ask yourself why, if he was
> > supposed to meet his contact at the Texas Theater, did he detour to
> > 10th and Patton and shoot a cop. 10th and Patton is not on the way
> > from his rooming house to the TT.
>
> mission was to meet someone at the movie theatre, then why did he waste
> time going home first?
To get his gun.
Why not just walk to the theatre right from the
> TSBD?
>
> > Anyone wanting to tout any of these items as evidence of a conspiracy
> > should take the next logical step and find out why these things were done.
>
> Unnecessary.
> Prove why Oswald gave up the cab to the little old lady.
Acting casual like he did in the lunch room when Truly encountered
him.Psychopaths are very cool costumers by definition.Study some
serial killers. There actions very rarely give them away.
> Prove if Oswald ate lunch that day or not.
>
>
>
> > Of course some CTs never take then next logical step. That don't take any
> > logical steps. Logicial steps don't take them to where they want to go. So
> > they abandon logic in favor of assumptions. It's must easier to make a
> > case for conspiracy with assumptions. It can't be done with evidence,
> > reason, and logic.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Maggsy
> What about the Marcello admission of murdering (or having the President
> murdered) in a prison courtyard to a credible informant?
>
What is your source for this?
> "jas" <lle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:092e5dc9-6b42-4284...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 1, 11:22 am, jbarge <anjba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 30, 8:01 pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > What is the best evidence for a conspiracy? Any smoking guns? I recently
> > > asked this question on alt.conspiracy.jfk and had to pretty much answer
> > > my
> > > own question. Is the evidence really that week? Seems to really almost
> > > totally on eyewitness testimony.
>
> > Well, evidence isn't proof, that's for sure.
>
> Huh? What law school professor told you that?
>
> > I could walk away but a few items caused me to dig deeper.
> > 1. The Odio incident
>
> 1. Probably mistaken identity, but even if proven true, no provable
> association to the assassination.
>
> > 2. The Trafficante threat reported to the FBI prior to the
> > assassination
>
> 2. Hearsay. Threats don't prove they were carried out.
>
> > 3.The Bogard incident of an Oswald saying he would be coming into
> > money 2 weeks before the vacation
>
> 3. Even if proven true, no provable association to the assassination.
>
> > 4. The Marcello threat, testified to under oath
>
> 4. Threats don't prove they were actually carried out.
>
> > 5. The destruction of the Hosty note, impeaching the FBI's integrity
>
> 5. FBI's/Hoover's embarrassment over a successful assassination and
> their failure to stop it.
>
> > 6. The Nancy Perrin Rich testimony of Ruby's presence in a 1963 gun-
> > running ring. This testimony was at first discounted by the Warren C.,
> > but the existance of the gun-running ring has been proven true - she
> > tried to get the facts out but it was ignored.
>
> 6. Even proven true, no provable association to the assassination.
>
> > 7. The 1957 FBN report that a Jack Ruby gave the okay for a narcotics
> > ring to operate out of Mexico and Texas
>
> 7. Even proven true, no proven association to the assassination.
>
> > 8. The 4 inch "mistake" in locating the entrance wound - I don't
> > believe that grown medical professionals holding a ruler would make
> > that mistake
>
> 8. Massive nature of the wound causing confusing observations.
>
> > 9. The Jack Martin information that Ferrie & Banister were involved
> > with Oswald coupled with the address of Banister's office building
> > being on Oswald's pamphlet
>
> 9. Hearsay. Even proven true, no proven association to the
> assassination.
>
> > 10. the Ralph Yates report of picking up a hitchiker who discussed
> > assassinating JFK, backed up by a co-worker to the FBI
>
> 10. Hearsay. Even proven true, no proven association to the
> assassination.
>
> > 11. the disappearance of the 3rd backyard photo, impeaching the
> > Dallas Police Department integrity
>
> 11. Mishandling of evidence doesn't mean nefarious intentions, only
> human frailties common in all criminal investigations.
>
> > 12. the non-existance of Oswald photos in Mexico City at the embassies
> > - simply beyond rational belief
>
> 12. Mishandling of evidence doesn't mean nefarious intentions, only
> human frailties common in all criminal investigations.
>
> > 13. the recorded weight of JFK's brain at 1500 grams - simply beyond
> > rational belief
>
> 13. Massive nature of the wound.
>
> > 14. the Wes Wise report to the FBI of a license plate # with a car
> > containing Oswald later traced to Carl Mather. Carl Mather was a close
> > friend to J.D. Tippit and refused to talk to the FBI in 1964, using
> > his CIA clearance to justify his refusal.
>
> 14., Even proven true, no proven association with the assassination.
>
> > 15. Ruth Paine's September 1963 visit to her sister in Virginia. Her
> > sister? Employed by the CIA for 8 years by the time of the visit.
>
> 15. No provable association to the assassination.
>
> > 16. Oswald's possession of a half-torn box top at the time of his
> > arrest - a classic way to identify your contact in a darkened movie
> > theatre, who would possess the other half of the box top
>
> 16. Huh? Even proven true, no proven association to the assassination.
>
> > 17. Oswald's security risk "look out" card being removed from his FBI
> > file on October 9th, one day before the CIA sent in information about
> > his presence in Mexico City. Had the look out card been in place the
> > CIA report might have caused him to be under watch on 11/22/2963.
>
> 17. Possible mishandling of evidence -- doesn't mean nefarious
> intentions, and no provable association to the assassination.
>
> > 18. The Vecenia report of Oswald with David Attlee Phillips
>
> 18. Even proven true, no proven association to the assassination.
>
> > 19. the destruction of the first autopsy report, impeaching the
> > integrity of the autopsy
>
Maggsy
> On Dec 2, 11:49 pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 1, 5:25 am, Herbert Blenner <a1ea...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 30, 8:01 pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > asked this question on alt.conspiracy.jfk and had to pretty much answer my
> > > > totally on eyewitness testimony.
>
> > > The elaborate deception by BB&N, W&A and the Ramsey Panel to mislead
> > > people to believe that a motorcycle was the source of the loud
> > > interference on the Dictabelt shows the seriousness of the conspiratorial
> > > implications of jamming the primary Dallas police channel immediately
> > > before, during and after the assassination of President Kennedy.
>
> > > Herbert
>
> > What is your evidence for this assertion?
>
> I have presented the evidence for my assertions at the following
> link.
>
> http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/cardinal.htm
What are you trying to say? What qualifications do you have to make
these assertions?
>
> Herbert- Hide quoted text -
Maggsy
> On Dec 3, 12:52 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 2, 6:21 pm, MSwanberg <mswanb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 1, 1:27 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > supposed to meet his contact at the Texas Theater, did he detour to
> > > > 10th and Patton and shoot a cop. 10th and Patton is not on the way
> > > > from his rooming house to the TT.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why don't you list what you consider to be such obvious evidence for
us then?
Maggsy
MSwanberg
> On 12/3/2009 2:03 PM, MSwanberg wrote:
> > You're completely missing the point... The point is that the bullet that
> > was found was NOT CE399... somewhere in transit it was switched.
>
> Well, you can believe that if you wish, but you can't prove it as a fact.
>
So what's your theory? There were no fewer than 4 people who held
that bullet at Parkland, and all 4 say that they can't identify CE399
as the same bullet.
> I think you underestimate the powers of the cover-up. When the dent of the
> chrome topping was found that might have destroyed the lone gun theory. So
> what did the architects of the cover-up do? The head of the Secret Service
> simply lied and said that dent was there all along, years before the
> shooting. So, if a strange bullet HAD been found at Parkland they would
> say that it came from ANOTHER shooting victim and was not even found on
> Connally's stretcher. It could have been tucked under the pad for 10 years
> and then fell out when the orderly bumped it against the wall. You need to
> step up your cover-up thinking.
>
I have to say I disagree. I don't think people should be looking for
MORE conspiracy than they can ultimately prove. For the most part,
the simplest answer is usually the correct one.
IOW, if it can be shown that forces within the CIA conspired to kill
JFK, why would we start saying "Oh, and I'll bet the NSA was in on it
too. And the IRS. And the Parks and Wildlife Federation..."? Isn't
it enough to pursue what we can demonstrably show? And then if that
uncovers more leads to pursue, then we can do so.
In essence, I think it's dangerous thinking to believe the conspiracy
and then look for stuff to back that conclusion. I prefer to look at
the evidence first, and then determine what I believe it shows.
> Personal example. The government officially says they have no records on
> my father, who was a section chief at the National Security Agency. They
> even claim that he did not exit during WWII. I have the records and they
> claim the records never existed. This is truly like 1984 with non-persons
> removed from the history books.
>
Case in point... your father obviously DOES exist (or did then,
anyway) but just because the gov't has a good "National Security"
reason for denying so doesn't mean it's nefarious, does it? Aren't we
told in various means that there are spies that, if caught, their
existence will be officially denied? It's to protect the greater
national good.
Delta Force is a good example. I don't think there's anyone who
doubts the existence of Delta, but their existence is not officially
confirmed by the gov't. It's probably primarily for their own
protection as well as the protection of their families. Hardly any
gov't shenanigans.
> > OTOH, if the bullet was planted at Parkland (regardless of whether it was
> > an Oswald M-C bullet or not), then the implications are far more sinister
> > and it doesn't matter WHERE the bullet came from... it was planted, which
> > leads to the conclusion of conspiracy.
>
> Of course conspiracy, but that might be only the conspiracy to frame
> Oswald. Like the OJ Simpson case where he acted alone, but the police did
> not have enough evidence against him so they planted some to make sure
> that he would be convicted. Or the Bremer case where he was a lone
> shooter, but Nixon wanted them to plant Democratic literature on him to
> smear his opponents. That is conspiracy, but a lone shooter.
>
Of course. But I'm not sure of your point. If LHO was the only
shooter, but someone helped him, then it's a conspiracy. If he was
the lone shooter and others manufactured evidence against him, then
it's a conspiracy. If someone other than Oswald shot JFK and acted
alone, and then someone else acted to frame Oswald, then it's a
conspiracy.
Conspiracy can take many different forms.
> I love Tink, but I sometimes disagree with him. In this example as
> always, NEVER rely on witnesses.
>
Well, I think the standard is that witnesses can be relied upon if
their testimony is corroborated.
-Mike
MSwanberg
I've never heard that nugget... where'd you see that? I'd like to do
a little research into it before I start surmising why it might be so.
Thanks,
-Mike
MSwanberg
Can we, then, prove that his words in the recordings were truly his
thoughts? Nixon seems to have been using code a lot in his
recordings, so we can't necessarily know that the words are indicative
of the belief.
My point is that just because someone says something doesn't mean it's
what they really feel. I tell my girlfriend all the time, "no, that
doesn't make your butt look big at all." She could even record those
words. I could even be questioned about those words and confirm them.
Doesn't mean it's what I truly feel.
-Mike
MSwanberg
> >"MSwanberg" <mswanb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >On Dec 3, 12:47 pm, "Michael O'Dell" <ml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >"MSwanberg" <mswanb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I don't deny your analogy... I just think the nature of your statistical
probability is not quite spot on.
I would liken it to flipping a coin 1,000 times and then finding
alternating patterns of 5 heads, then 5 tails, then 5 heads, then 5 tails,
then 5 heads all preceded by 20 heads in a row and succeeded by 20 tails
in a row.
The fact of the matter is that the dictabelt recorded something. That
something resembled very closely a series of shots, in Dealey Plaza,
recorded by a microphone moving through the plaza from Houston onto Elm,
at about the same speed as the motorcade, right around the time of the
assassination. Those sounds also seem to resemble, by timings, events
seen in the Zapruder film (blur analyses and such).
Any ONE of those factors being off ends the whole deal. But all of those
factors are firmly in place. The echoes weren't like any other plaza;
they were like Dealey Plaza, which happens to be where the assassination
took place. The recording could have come from another microphone, but
there just happened to be a motorcycle with a sticky transmit switch in
the motorcade. The sounds weren't recorded by a microphone traveling on
Commerce; the mike was on Houston and Elm. The microphone wasn't traveling
20mph, or 5mph; it was traveling around 11mph. The recording wasn't made
on 11/23 or 11/21, it was made on 11/22. And so on.
If it's all due to coincidence, then it's got to be the grand poobah of
all coincidences of all time.
-Mike
Anthony Marsh
You are talking nonsense. I have not seen you disproving their statistical
analysis. They start with the null hypothesis that it is just random noise
and then the statistical analysis proves that the data matches known shot
patterns. You can not disprove that. And you haven't explained how Ramsey
justified his criticism of the Chi-square analysis.
Maggsy
>
> - Show quoted text -
I agree I don't think Oswald did act alone. Although on alt.
conspiracy.jfk I keep
being called a LNer. The place is full of Trolls.I think some of the
evidence was planted to make it look like Oswald acted alone. They
didn't want it to be a conspiracy.
Maggsy
> On 12/3/2009 2:03 PM, MSwanberg wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 2, 10:54 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 2, 6:25 pm, MSwanberg<mswanb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> process for their alleged conspirators to have decided AHEAD OF TIME that
> >>>> it was in their interest to plant a bullet from Oswald's MC. Just what
> >>>> could they possibly have been thinking? If their intent was to frame
> >>>> Oswald, either they used Oswald's rifle to kill JFK or they did not. That
> >>>> is a binary choice. If they used Oswald's rifle, what purpose would there
> >>>> be to plant an additional bullet at Parkland. Why not just allow the
> >>>> bullets that actually killed JFK to speak for themselves. On the other
> >>>> hand if they used a rifle other than Oswald's to kill JFK, by planting
> >>>> CE399, they would be introducing a bullet from a different rifle than the
> >>>> one that actually killed JFK. If they end up with bullets in evidence that
> >>>> came from two different guns, they would be providing proof of a
> >>>> conspiracy and they could kiss off the idea of framing a patsy as the lone
> >>>> assassin. The idea that CE399 could have been a plant is ludicrous.
>
> > was found was NOT CE399... somewhere in transit it was switched.
>
> Well, you can believe that if you wish, but you can't prove it as a fact.
>
> > I mean, not CE399. Perhaps it was what was purported... it fell out of
> > one of the victims. But then it was switched to point to LHO instead of
> > away from him. I mean, if they found a bullet that was NOT from the M-C,
> > that would destroy the WCR, no?
>
> chrome topping was found that might have destroyed the lone gun theory. So
> what did the architects of the cover-up do? The head of the Secret Service
> simply lied and said that dent was there all along, years before the
> shooting. So, if a strange bullet HAD been found at Parkland they would
> say that it came from ANOTHER shooting victim and was not even found on
> Connally's stretcher. It could have been tucked under the pad for 10 years
> and then fell out when the orderly bumped it against the wall. You need to
> step up your cover-up thinking.
>
> the President's body when they removed it? What happened to the fragments
> recovered from the windshield. The government loses things all the time.
>
> Personal example. The government officially says they have no records on
> my father, who was a section chief at the National Security Agency. They
> even claim that he did not exit during WWII. I have the records and they
> claim the records never existed. This is truly like 1984 with non-persons
> removed from the history books.
>
> > an Oswald M-C bullet or not), then the implications are far more sinister
> > and it doesn't matter WHERE the bullet came from... it was planted, which
> > leads to the conclusion of conspiracy.
>
> Of course conspiracy, but that might be only the conspiracy to frame
> Oswald. Like the OJ Simpson case where he acted alone, but the police did
> not have enough evidence against him so they planted some to make sure
> that he would be convicted. Or the Bremer case where he was a lone
> shooter, but Nixon wanted them to plant Democratic literature on him to
> smear his opponents. That is conspiracy, but a lone shooter.
This is a good point. Or it could be they planted evidence because
they wanted to make sure people went for the LN theory and ignored
any evidence that pointed to others being involved.And tried to get
rid of any evidence that pointed to a conspiracy.
>
> > In the end, we'll never be able to speculate about the reason for planting
> > a bullet, since the one that was recovered from the stretcher is NOT
> > CE399... and oh yes, there is evidence of that. Again... NONE of the
> > people that held the stretcher bullet could say that CE399 was the same
> > bullet.
>
> I love Tink, but I sometimes disagree with him. In this example as
> always, NEVER rely on witnesses.
>
>
>
> > So seriously, you don't know why the conspirators would plant the bullet?
> > Seriously? I mean, come on... you make keen observations all the time,
> > why can't you get this one? Well here it is... (my idea, anyway)...
>
> > IF the bullet was planted at Parkland, it's so that the rifle that fired
> > that bullet (however that conclusion is made) can be tied to the event.
> > Then you simply tie the rifle to the patsy and you have your case. Very
> > simple.
>
> > -Mike- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 3, 11:21 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 12/3/2009 2:03 PM, MSwanberg wrote:
>>> You're completely missing the point... The point is that the bullet that
>>> was found was NOT CE399... somewhere in transit it was switched.
>>
>> Well, you can believe that if you wish, but you can't prove it as a fact.
>>
>
> So what's your theory? There were no fewer than 4 people who held
> that bullet at Parkland, and all 4 say that they can't identify CE399
> as the same bullet.
>
In the first place it is silly to respond, "So what's your theory?"
Just because I say something can not be proved as a fact does not mean I
do not believe it myself.
I think all four people were wrong. And certain researchers influenced
what they said. And some researchers have misinterpreted what they said.
I am not sure that CE 399 was genuinely fired during the assassination.
But I am sure it was the bullet found somewhere at Parkland Hospital.
>
>> I think you underestimate the powers of the cover-up. When the dent of the
>> chrome topping was found that might have destroyed the lone gun theory. So
>> what did the architects of the cover-up do? The head of the Secret Service
>> simply lied and said that dent was there all along, years before the
>> shooting. So, if a strange bullet HAD been found at Parkland they would
>> say that it came from ANOTHER shooting victim and was not even found on
>> Connally's stretcher. It could have been tucked under the pad for 10 years
>> and then fell out when the orderly bumped it against the wall. You need to
>> step up your cover-up thinking.
>>
>
> I have to say I disagree. I don't think people should be looking for
> MORE conspiracy than they can ultimately prove. For the most part,
> the simplest answer is usually the correct one.
>
Yes, it's called Occam's Razor. That means the simplest answer tends to
be the correct answer. In this case that means that it was a CIA conspiracy.
> IOW, if it can be shown that forces within the CIA conspired to kill
> JFK, why would we start saying "Oh, and I'll bet the NSA was in on it
> too. And the IRS. And the Parks and Wildlife Federation..."? Isn't
> it enough to pursue what we can demonstrably show? And then if that
> uncovers more leads to pursue, then we can do so.
>
The WC defenders would do that. It's called a straw man argument. You'll
notice that they never try that trick about the Castro plots. They don't
try to include the IRS, ACLU, World Wildlife Fund.
They reserve their straw man arguments only for the JFK assassination.
> In essence, I think it's dangerous thinking to believe the conspiracy
> and then look for stuff to back that conclusion. I prefer to look at
> the evidence first, and then determine what I believe it shows.
>
Fine. But my approach is to look at the physical evidence first and then
determine if it is a conspiracy. Then look for suspects based on who had
the motive, means, and opportunity. That's one reason why I can't rule
out Oswald as a suspect. But I doubt that anyone would want him as a
coconspirator. Someone might want to set him up as the patsy and then
kill him before he could talk.
>
>> Personal example. The government officially says they have no records on
>> my father, who was a section chief at the National Security Agency. They
>> even claim that he did not exit during WWII. I have the records and they
>> claim the records never existed. This is truly like 1984 with non-persons
>> removed from the history books.
>>
>
> Case in point... your father obviously DOES exist (or did then,
> anyway) but just because the gov't has a good "National Security"
No, the point is that official he doesn't even exist, like the novel
1984 where there are non-persons. Like Russia where national heroes were
cut out of the history books.
> reason for denying so doesn't mean it's nefarious, does it? Aren't we
Well, in fact I know the reason and I know it's nefarious. He was going
to be the next Frank Olson dropped out of a hotel room window.
> told in various means that there are spies that, if caught, their
> existence will be officially denied? It's to protect the greater
> national good.
>
Sure, something like that. Like the NSA slogan, "They served in
silence." But Obama just signed a new policy into effect and no agency
is going to comply. How many years are they allowed to keep it secret?
100? 1,000?
> Delta Force is a good example. I don't think there's anyone who
> doubts the existence of Delta, but their existence is not officially
> confirmed by the gov't. It's probably primarily for their own
> protection as well as the protection of their families. Hardly any
> gov't shenanigans.
>
Do you know of any secrets from the Civil War which are still being kept
secret today? Like maybe that John Wilkes Booth was a Union spy, an
informant for the US Army? Something like that?
If the CIA had secrets from the Peloponnesian War they would still
refuse to declassify them.
They still classify Caesar's Alphabet Substitution Cipher Top Secret for
your much beloved reason of National Security.
>
>>> OTOH, if the bullet was planted at Parkland (regardless of whether it was
>>> an Oswald M-C bullet or not), then the implications are far more sinister
>>> and it doesn't matter WHERE the bullet came from... it was planted, which
>>> leads to the conclusion of conspiracy.
>>
>> Of course conspiracy, but that might be only the conspiracy to frame
>> Oswald. Like the OJ Simpson case where he acted alone, but the police did
>> not have enough evidence against him so they planted some to make sure
>> that he would be convicted. Or the Bremer case where he was a lone
>> shooter, but Nixon wanted them to plant Democratic literature on him to
>> smear his opponents. That is conspiracy, but a lone shooter.
>>
>
> Of course. But I'm not sure of your point. If LHO was the only
> shooter, but someone helped him, then it's a conspiracy. If he was
> the lone shooter and others manufactured evidence against him, then
> it's a conspiracy. If someone other than Oswald shot JFK and acted
> alone, and then someone else acted to frame Oswald, then it's a
> conspiracy.
>
It's a point that most WC defenders don't seem to understand.
Some of them think if it is a small conspiracy, that doesn't count.
Some of them think if it not a US government conspiracy, that doesn't count.
Some of them think if there are two shooters, that's not conspiracy,
just a coincidence of two lone nuts picking the same time and place.
> Conspiracy can take many different forms.
>
That's much too complicated for the WC defenders. They must protect the
honor of the government, especially the CIA.
>
>> I love Tink, but I sometimes disagree with him. In this example as
>> always, NEVER rely on witnesses.
>>
>
> Well, I think the standard is that witnesses can be relied upon if
> their testimony is corroborated.
>
Not my standard. NEVER rely on witnesses.
Evidence rarely knows enough to lie. Witnesses lie.
> -Mike
>
Anthony Marsh
So, according to you he acted cool when the police spotted him in the
Texas Theater?
According to you anytime a person acts innocent that proves that he just
assassinated the President of the United States. Brilliant.
Herbert Blenner
I said what I intended to say. The hard part was getting commonly used
browsers to display what I tried to program.
What qualifications do you have to make
> these assertions?
Describe the assertions and I will tell you how I acquired the
prerequisite knowledge.
Herbert
claviger
Maggsy,
What evidence was planted?
Anthony Marsh
You can't prove which gun the lead core fragments came from.
> coming from any other gun. You still are avoiding the main dilemma. Do
> you believe your alleged assassins used Oswald's rifle or did they use
> another rifle. If they used Oswald's rifle, there was no reason to
> plant a bullet. If they used another rifle, they would expect some of
If they DID use Oswald's rifle the reason to plant a bullet is because
they couldn't be sure it would leave behind any fragments.
> the bullets from that rifle to be recovered and introducing a bullet
> from Oswald's rifle would prove two guns were used.
>
No one would expect Oswald's rifle to leave behind intact bullets. It they
are broken into pieces they can't be matched ballistically and if the are
not broken they went right through both men and through the car and could
never be recovered. They couldn't even recover the missed shot bullet.
Bunch of Three Stooges.
>> OTOH, if the bullet was planted at Parkland (regardless of whether it was
>> an Oswald M-C bullet or not), then the implications are far more sinister
>> and it doesn't matter WHERE the bullet came from... it was planted, which
>> leads to the conclusion of conspiracy.
>>
> No bullet was planted. That is idiotic. It would have been idiotic for
> the conspirators to plant the bullet and it is idiotic to think it was
> planted.
>
So in your world evidence is never planted. Not in any case, no matter
what.
>> In the end, we'll never be able to speculate about the reason for planting
>> a bullet, since the one that was recovered from the stretcher is NOT
>> CE399... and oh yes, there is evidence of that. Again... NONE of the
>> people that held the stretcher bullet could say that CE399 was the same
>> bullet.
>>
> Nor would they way it was not.
>
>> So seriously, you don't know why the conspirators would plant the bullet?
>> Seriously? I mean, come on... you make keen observations all the time,
>> why can't you get this one? Well here it is... (my idea, anyway)...
>>
> I've already explained why planting the bullet makes no sense. The
> fragments found in the limo were traced to Oswald's rifle. We know
> Oswald's rifle was used to kill JFK. There would be no reason to plant
> another bullet from that rifle.
>
>> IF the bullet was planted at Parkland, it's so that the rifle that fired
>> that bullet (however that conclusion is made) can be tied to the event.
>> Then you simply tie the rifle to the patsy and you have your case. Very
>> simple.
>>
> The rifle was already tied to the event with the bullet fragments
> found in the limo. Had CE399 never been found, the link to Oswald's
Remember the Walker shooting? That INTACT bullet was dug out of the wall
and did they then arrest Oswald? They didn't even get the jacket's metal
composition correct and couldn't even identify the caliber. Bunch of Three
Stooges.
> rifle is firmly established. Why the hell would the conspirators want
> or need a patsy? They wouldn't care if anybody ever took the fall for
> the crime, as long as they got away with it. That's just one more
> thing that makes no sense.
>
I see you don't get out much.
Anthony Marsh
Sure, after the investigators had cleaned them.
You didn't see them immediately after they were dug out of the victim.
Anthony Marsh
So you believe that murders should not be solved? Just move on with your
life and let them continue to murder again and again and again?
>> I do agree that Oswald's actions (what we have been told that they
>> were) are mysterious. I just don't believe they were motivated by his
>> attempt to escape after having shot the president. I think he was
>> trying to escape the conspirators. But that's an age-old difference
>> of opinion that we can (and will) pursue ad infinitum. :-)
>>
>> But I did want to comment on your point about him going to the Texas
>> Theater. Sure, we can't know WHY he went there. Some obviously posit
>> that he had a contact that was supposed to meet him there. Some
>> believe that he was manipulated into thinking he had a contact there
>> but in reality he was being led to his own slaughter. And I would
>> love to know what the common LN thought is on why he went in there, as
>> I don't believe I've ever heard one.
>>
> He ducked into the theater because police cars were racing up and down
> Jefferson and he wanted to get out of sight. Not a bad idea. Watch a
> double feature and hope things have quieted down when it's over and he
> could slip out after dark. Unfortunately for him, Brewer spotted him
> acting strangely and then saw him duck into the theater. He reasoned
> he might be the guy the cops were looking for so he had them
> contacted.
>
For shooting the policeman.
>> In the end, if we all agree (which we don't, of course) that he took a
>> bus and a cab to his rooming house (actually PAST his rooming house
>> and then walked back, possibly identifying that his original
>> destination was NOT the rooming house but that he changed his mind...
>> anyone know what the cabby said? Did Oswald do the "just drop me off
>> here" thing?) and then walked from there to 10th and Patton and then
>> walked to the Texas Theater... well, that shows a complete lack of
>> direction and planning and destination.
>
> It's speculation but he might have wanted to drive past the house
> first to see if the cops were already waiting for him before he got
> out of the cab. I doubt the Texas Theater was ever his intended
> destination. It was just a convenient place to duck out of sight.
> Might have worked if Brewer hadn't been alert.
>>
>> I don't believe that Oswald's idea was that he would never escape but
>> would take as many cops with him in the chase... that fails on a lot
>> of points. If he expected to die then why did he IMMEDIATELY leave
>> the SN, wipe the prints, hide the rifle, and scurry downstairs? As
>> well, if he expected a chase and a shootout where he could nab as many
>> additional victims as possible, why not bring the revolver with him to
>> the TSBD?
>>
> Sneaking one gun into the TSBD was enough of a problem. Sneaking two
> in would increase the chances he would be detected. Since he hadn't
And yet you think it would be easy to smuggle the paper bag out and it
not be noticed by Frazier or anyone else.
> been to his rooming house since Wednesday morning, that means he would
> have to have brought his revolver to work that day and then either
> hide it there or conceal it from Frazier on the way to and from Irving
> on Thursday night and Friday morning.
>
Or maybe just take his revolver to work and use that.