Was ALL Of This Stuff Planted?

[David Von Pein]

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I like to occasionally ask conspiracy theorists this question, which is a
question they can never answer without claiming that all of the Dallas
cops were crooked and part of a plot to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for two
murders he never actually committed:

Did the Dallas Police Department normally have a habit of officially
charging suspects with TWO murders if they had no solid evidence against
that suspect at all? (And many conspiracists seem to think the police had
no real evidence at all against Oswald--let alone the huge pile of stuff
that all reasonable people know the DPD actually did have against LHO.)

But when we get away from the goofy conspiracists who think everything was
planted to frame Lee Oswald, a fairly decent argument can be made for
Oswald's probable guilt based on just the fact that the police officially
charged him with TWO murders within 12 hours of the crimes being
committed. That fact alone is strong circumstantial evidence of Oswald's
guilt.

In other words--the police had enough evidence within half-a-day to be
confident enough to charge Oswald with double-murder. Shouldn't that
important fact mean just a *little* something to the conspiracy theorists
of the world?


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

I don't know anyone who claims that EVERYTHING was planted.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Then you haven't looked very hard. Because virtually all conspiracy
believers that I have encountered on the Internet think that every single
scrap of evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald is suspicious in some manner,
including each of the following items:

1. All three bullet shells found in the Sniper's Nest.

2. All four bullet shells found at the scene of J.D. Tippit's murder.

3. Commission Exhibit No. 399.

4. The paper bag found in the Sniper's Nest (with Oswald's prints on
it--and those prints are phony too, per most CTers).

5. The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.

6. The two bullet fragments found in the front seat of JFK's limousine.

7. Each and every witness who fingered Lee Oswald for either JFK's murder
or J.D. Tippit's slaying or identified LHO as the man they saw leaving the
scene of the Tippit crime with gun in hand -- from Howard Brennan, to
Helen Markham, to Barbara Davis, to Virginia Davis, to Ted Callaway, to
William Scoggins, etc., etc.

8. The backyard photos showing Oswald holding the rifle that killed
President Kennedy.

9. All of the paperwork that shows Lee Oswald purchased Rifle #C2766 from
Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago.

10. All of the paperwork that indicates Lee Oswald purchased Revolver
#V510210 from Seaport Traders in Los Angeles.

11. The Walker bullet.

12. And even the five unfired revolver bullets that Oswald had in his
pocket after he was arrested. Those unfired bullets, per some
conspiracists, are phony too. They say the cops planted those five bullets
on Oswald to add to the frame-up against him. That's how far down "Crazy
Boulevard" some conspiracy mongers have travelled in their efforts to
exonerate a guilty double-murderer.

About the only thing I can think of that the conspiracy theorists *might*
say hasn't been faked or manufactured to frame Patsy Oswald are the
fingerprints and palmprints of LHO's that were located on the boxes inside
the Sniper's Nest.

But, naturally, the Anybody But Oswald conspiracy believers would never in
a million years think that those prints could be used to incriminate poor
Lee Harvey. After all, he worked there. So, quite naturally, THREE of his
prints are very likely going to show up on TWO of the boxes that the
Presidential assassin also must have handled (and I guess the "real"
Presidential assassin must have been wearing gloves when he touched those
boxes on November 22, 1963).

And just because shells from Oswald's gun were found right there in the
Sniper's Nest too, why should the conspiracy theorists consider--for even
a brief moment--the idea of linking the two things together (OSWALD'S
shells + OSWALD'S prints)? What rational person would ever consider doing
something silly like tying those two items together? Right? After all, all
good conspiracy advocates always insist that those bullet shells were
planted in the Book Depository too.

Ergo, nothing can be trusted. And why? Because the conspiracy hounds have
said so. And when we get right down to the brass tacks of the matter,
that's pretty much the only reason.


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

No. Because officials have a habit of tampering with evidence.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And there's the ever-so-convenient escape hatch used by almost all
conspiracy theorists. The fact that "tampering with evidence" could have
possibly been done is enough to convince those conspiracy believers
(particularly "Internet CTers") that all of the evidence that incriminates
Oswald was, in fact, tampered with.

Via such a wide-sweeping claim, however, no defendant who was on trial for
any crime could ever be convicted---because all the sneaky defense
attorneys need to do is to convince the jury that the evidence **could**
have conceivably been tampered with.

And how can the jury possibly know with 100% certainty if any (or all) of
the evidence really had or had not been tampered with? They can't possibly
know such a thing--even with a rock-solid chain of possession for every
last piece of evidence in the whole case. Because why couldn't a "chain of
custody" trail be faked too? Obviously, it could be faked.

Ergo, every defendant could potentially walk free out of every courtroom
due to the mere possibility of such underhanded shenanigans on the part of
the authorities.

For an indication of what I just implied above being the absolute truth,
all one has to do is to look to the O.J. Simpson sham of a trial.

But the allegation of evidence-tampering is a far cry from proving that
the evidence really was tampered with.

And what PROOF does any conspiracy theorist who has ever walked this Earth
possess that would verify and prove that even one piece of evidence in the
JFK murder case was, in fact, "tampered with" by any of the authorities?

I'll answer my last question with the only possible answer there is ---
There is no such proof. And there never has been.

David Von Pein
September 2014

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/09/was-all-of-this-evidence-planted.html

[bigdog]

What conspiracy hobbyists have never understood is that it is the
accumulation of evidence that establishes Oswald's guilt. Sure there could
be one or two pieces of evidence that might point in the wrong direction
but when there is so much evidence of Oswald's guilt, it is ludicrous to
think that he could be innocent.

If you've followed some of my recent exchanges with Chris, that
illustrates that perfectly. I will provide just a partial list of the
things indicating Oswald's guilt and he will counter that it doesn't prove
he was the shooter. If he was speaking of only one or two pieces of
evidence that would be true. For example:

Oswald's ownership of the rifle doesn't prove he was the shooter.

Oswald's palm print on the rifle doesn't prove he was the shooter.

Oswald's fingerprints in the sniper's nest doesn't prove he was the
shooter.

Oswald bringing a long bag to work doesn't prove he was the shooter.

Oswald's fingerprints on a long bag found near the sniper's nest doesn't
prove he was the shooter.

Fibers from Oswald's blanket found in the bag doesn't prove he was the
shooter.

Fibers matching the shirt Oswald was wearing that day doesn't prove he was
the shooter.

An eyewitness who IDed Oswald doesn't prove he was the shooter.

Not one of those items by itself proves Oswald was the shooter. A case for
his innocence could be made with just two items from this list. There is
no reasonable argument for his innocence that can be made with all that
evidence against him. Everything is just as we would expect it to be if
Oswald was the shooter. One or two pieces of evidence might point in the
wrong direction. All of he the evidence is not going to point in the wrong
direction.

And we haven't even started to talk about the evidence that he killed J.D.
Tippit.

[Anthony Marsh]

False. Only a handfull of kooks and then you claim ALL conspiracy
believers believe the same thing.
There can be problems with the evidence and with YOUR assumptions about
the evidence, but that does not mean it is fake.
Take the paraffin casts. Sloppy WC defenders will use that as proof that
Oswald fired the rifle. Cautious conspiracy believers will reject that
wild guess, but admit that he shot the revolver.

> including each of the following items:
>
> 1. All three bullet shells found in the Sniper's Nest.
>

So what? The acoustical evidence proved that 3 shots were fired from
that window so YOU have to claim that evidence is fake.

> 2. All four bullet shells found at the scene of J.D. Tippit's murder.
>

Yes, so what? I hope you realize that the shells and bullet do not add
up perfectly. Maybe because some shell was lost or stolen and one bullet
missed.

> 3. Commission Exhibit No. 399.
>

Lots of problems with your Magic Bullet. Where do you want to start?
Just admit that it was fired from Oswald's rifle and that's all you can
say. You can't prove what it hit.

> 4. The paper bag found in the Sniper's Nest (with Oswald's prints on
> it--and those prints are phony too, per most CTers).
>

WHich paper bag? The original or the FBI replica?
Do you understand the difference between fingerprints and palm prints?

> 5. The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.
>

What about it? It was the DPD that called it a Mauser, not moi.

> 6. The two bullet fragments found in the front seat of JFK's limousine.
>

Which you can't explain.

> 7. Each and every witness who fingered Lee Oswald for either JFK's murder
> or J.D. Tippit's slaying or identified LHO as the man they saw leaving the
> scene of the Tippit crime with gun in hand -- from Howard Brennan, to
> Helen Markham, to Barbara Davis, to Virginia Davis, to Ted Callaway, to
> William Scoggins, etc., etc.
>

There are problems with each of them, but YOU pick which witnesses you
want to believe. Maybe I believe Euins because he said the shooter was a
black man.

> 8. The backyard photos showing Oswald holding the rifle that killed
> President Kennedy.
>

That's an old chestnut that the HSCA resolved, but you try to claim that
the HSCA was worthless.

> 9. All of the paperwork that shows Lee Oswald purchased Rifle #C2766 from
> Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago.
>

Yeah, so what. That doesn't prove that he fired it on 11/22/63.

> 10. All of the paperwork that indicates Lee Oswald purchased Revolver
> #V510210 from Seaport Traders in Los Angeles.
>

Yeah, so what? Only I know that the pattern of primer residue on the
paraffin cast proves that it came from the revolver blowby.

> 11. The Walker bullet.
>

OK, so you worship the DPD and agree with them that it was
steel-jacketed, not one of Oswald's WCC bullets.
I think we know better now.

> 12. And even the five unfired revolver bullets that Oswald had in his
> pocket after he was arrested. Those unfired bullets, per some
> conspiracists, are phony too. They say the cops planted those five bullets
> on Oswald to add to the frame-up against him. That's how far down "Crazy
> Boulevard" some conspiracy mongers have travelled in their efforts to
> exonerate a guilty double-murderer.
>

You're not trying hard enough to curry favor with cover-up.
You should be making more outlandish false claims about what conspiracy
believers claim. Instead of the DPD you should be claiming that it was
the CIA. Or maybe even the Illuminati or Masons to make conspiracy
believers look crazy. But of course you never do that for any of your
crazy theories.

> About the only thing I can think of that the conspiracy theorists *might*
> say hasn't been faked or manufactured to frame Patsy Oswald are the
> fingerprints and palmprints of LHO's that were located on the boxes inside
> the Sniper's Nest.
>

As always you paint with a broadbrush. You can never admit that any
conspiracy believer was ever right about anything.
So when I am the one who proves that the Zapruder film is authentic,
then YOU have to claim that it is a fake to knock me down.
Just just can't concede ANY point. You can't argue honestly.

> But, naturally, the Anybody But Oswald conspiracy believers would never in
> a million years think that those prints could be used to incriminate poor

And what percentage do they represent? Less than one percent, so you
have to beef them up to have a more sturdy straw man to knock down to
prove how tough you are.

> Lee Harvey. After all, he worked there. So, quite naturally, THREE of his
> prints are very likely going to show up on TWO of the boxes that the
> Presidential assassin also must have handled (and I guess the "real"
> Presidential assassin must have been wearing gloves when he touched those
> boxes on November 22, 1963).
>

Is that your latest theory?
Why don't you tell the innocent reader about the prints they couldn't
identify and how kooks falsely claimed they were left by the real killer
that they name as Mac Wallace?
How about Fritz the Klutz? Think we might find his prints all over the
place?

> And just because shells from Oswald's gun were found right there in the
> Sniper's Nest too, why should the conspiracy theorists consider--for even

Yes, Oswald rifle fired 3 shots. The acoustical evidence proves that so
you have to dismiss it as junk science.

> a brief moment--the idea of linking the two things together (OSWALD'S
> shells + OSWALD'S prints)? What rational person would ever consider doing

You can link anything if you have a wild enough imagination and bias.

> something silly like tying those two items together? Right? After all, all
> good conspiracy advocates always insist that those bullet shells were
> planted in the Book Depository too.
>

Cheap slander. Name your "all" and prove it.
I am not part of your "all." But I don't have to believe everything that
you do.

> Ergo, nothing can be trusted. And why? Because the conspiracy hounds have
> said so. And when we get right down to the brass tacks of the matter,

Hounds? Don't be a Speciesist. But I guess you mean bloodhounds as in
investigators. As in the HSCA which we worked to form and you opposed
and which PROVED conspiracy. Face it, your cover-up is falling apart.

> that's pretty much the only reason.
>
>
> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>
> No. Because officials have a habit of tampering with evidence.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> And there's the ever-so-convenient escape hatch used by almost all
> conspiracy theorists. The fact that "tampering with evidence" could have
> possibly been done is enough to convince those conspiracy believers
> (particularly "Internet CTers") that all of the evidence that incriminates
> Oswald was, in fact, tampered with.
>

Tampering with evidence was enough to get cases thrown out of court and
verdicts reversed and guilty people found not guilty.
It is not a joke or some tiny little problem to be glossed over.

> Via such a wide-sweeping claim, however, no defendant who was on trial for
> any crime could ever be convicted---because all the sneaky defense

Methinks he doth protest too much. If everyone's right to a fair trial
were upheld he thinks that no one could ever be convicted.
He doesn't believe in our Constitution or the Rule of Law.
He believes in framing people and torturing confessions out of innocent
people. The Nazis and many third world dictatorships were very good at that.

> attorneys need to do is to convince the jury that the evidence **could**
> have conceivably been tampered with.
>

Why do you think it is called REAONABLE DOUBT.

> And how can the jury possibly know with 100% certainty if any (or all) of
> the evidence really had or had not been tampered with? They can't possibly
> know such a thing--even with a rock-solid chain of possession for every

So you would argue that justifies violating the law. OK, in some other
country, not the United States of America.

> last piece of evidence in the whole case. Because why couldn't a "chain of
> custody" trail be faked too? Obviously, it could be faked.
>

Obviously YOU could be faked? So what?

> Ergo, every defendant could potentially walk free out of every courtroom
> due to the mere possibility of such underhanded shenanigans on the part of
> the authorities.
>

Stop being childish.

> For an indication of what I just implied above being the absolute truth,
> all one has to do is to look to the O.J. Simpson sham of a trial.
>

And if you KNEW that the glove had been planted and the blood sample
poured onto the socks that would be OK with you because at least they
didn't frame an innocent man.
You are unAmerican.

> But the allegation of evidence-tampering is a far cry from proving that
> the evidence really was tampered with.
>

Sure, I've seen literally thousands of examples of kooks making wild
claims about evidence being faked. The difference is that I prove why
they are wrong. One by one, individual case by individual case, many
times in person. You just attack whole classes of people and call them
all kooks and not worthy of debating you. Gee, I wonder where I've seen
that same tactic used before? Like a mystery shot at Z-285?
YOU didn't lift a finger to prove that the Zapruder film is authentic.
So when I had to be the one to do it, you call me a kook and claim the
Zapruder film is fake only because I said it is authentic.
You can ONLY attack. You don't know how to admit any fact.

> And what PROOF does any conspiracy theorist who has ever walked this Earth
> possess that would verify and prove that even one piece of evidence in the
> JFK murder case was, in fact, "tampered with" by any of the authorities?
>

I have proven a few and uploaded the proof here. But you refuse to look.

[donald willis]

Not so much planted there, as transferred, by Fritz, who picked them up
somewhere else. Were they even the same shells? Only Fritz knew....

>
> 2. All four bullet shells found at the scene of J.D. Tippit's murder.
>

I used to support this. But then I saw that witness Benavides told the
Commission that he did NOT tell the police at the scene re the shooter
manually removing & dropping the shells. Hence, Poe & Hill's natural
conclusion that the gun was an automatic.

> 3. Commission Exhibit No. 399.
>
> 4. The paper bag found in the Sniper's Nest (with Oswald's prints on
> it--and those prints are phony too, per most CTers).
>

Still, it's curious that it wasn't photographed in situ....

> 5. The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.
>
> 6. The two bullet fragments found in the front seat of JFK's limousine.
>
> 7. Each and every witness who fingered Lee Oswald for either JFK's murder
> or J.D. Tippit's slaying or identified LHO as the man they saw leaving the
> scene of the Tippit crime with gun in hand -- from Howard Brennan, to
> Helen Markham, to Barbara Davis, to Virginia Davis, to Ted Callaway, to
> William Scoggins, etc., etc.

Well, I think that Guinyard may have been on the level. He apparently did
see a suspect who looked something like Oswald. But, say, Scoggins was
with police for 24 hours before he ID'd Oswald. And Markham said the perp
left the scene in a taxi! (As per Dale Myers' revised "With Malice")

dcw

[Robert Harris]

David Von Pein wrote:
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> I like to occasionally ask conspiracy theorists this question, which is a
> question they can never answer without claiming that all of the Dallas
> cops were crooked and part of a plot to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for two
> murders he never actually committed:

Utter nonsense, and you know it, David.

The FBI's stated agenda was that the public must be convinced
that Oswald had no accomplices.

And they justified it with the not unreasonable argument at
the time, that a conspiracy would point to the commies and
lead to WW3.

This gave them justification to order the Dallas PD to cover
up evidence of two shooters and two rifles in the TSBD.

It also permitted them to use that same tactic to silence
other witnesses, including Parkland personnel.

>
> Did the Dallas Police Department normally have a habit of officially
> charging suspects with TWO murders if they had no solid evidence against
> that suspect at all?

There was plenty of evidence against Oswald. They didn't need
to frame him.

> (And many conspiracists seem to think the police had
> no real evidence at all against Oswald--let alone the huge pile of stuff
> that all reasonable people know the DPD actually did have against LHO.)

And some "conspiracists" think the assassination was
connected to UFOs.

>
> But when we get away from the goofy conspiracists who think everything was
> planted to frame Lee Oswald, a fairly decent argument can be made for
> Oswald's probable guilt based on just the fact that the police officially
> charged him with TWO murders within 12 hours of the crimes being
> committed. That fact alone is strong circumstantial evidence of Oswald's
> guilt.

The fact that they arrested him, proves nothing. But a great
deal of verifiable evidence does.

>
> In other words--the police had enough evidence within half-a-day to be
> confident enough to charge Oswald with double-murder. Shouldn't that
> important fact mean just a *little* something to the conspiracy theorists
> of the world?

It means that they caught one of the perps, no more and no less.

>
>
> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>
> I don't know anyone who claims that EVERYTHING was planted.

Nothing was planted, David. There was no need to frame Oswald.

The need, was to make sure the world didn't know about his
accomplices.

>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Then you haven't looked very hard. Because virtually all conspiracy
> believers that I have encountered on the Internet think that every single
> scrap of evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald is suspicious in some manner,
> including each of the following items:
>
> 1. All three bullet shells found in the Sniper's Nest.

That evidence is worthless unless u can prove they were fired
that day.

>
> 2. All four bullet shells found at the scene of J.D. Tippit's murder.

Ditto. But Oswald admitted to his wife that he took a shot at
Walker.

>
> 3. Commission Exhibit No. 399.

ROFLMAO!!

I can't believe you would say something like that.

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html

Are you still claiming Herskowitz is a liar? Were Wade, Nolan
and Bell liars too, or were they doing heave drugs that day:-)

And when do you intend to show us where Todd and Johnsen's
initials are on CE399?

>
> 4. The paper bag found in the Sniper's Nest (with Oswald's prints on
> it--and those prints are phony too, per most CTers).
>
> 5. The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.
>
> 6. The two bullet fragments found in the front seat of JFK's limousine.

Only if you have a lot of blind faith in the FBI.

Tell me David, have you ever in your life, seen a single
piece of evidence which supports the notion that Oswald acted
alone?





Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

You say the same thing about every innocent person ever framed.

> be one or two pieces of evidence that might point in the wrong direction
> but when there is so much evidence of Oswald's guilt, it is ludicrous to
> think that he could be innocent.
>

Wow, he worked in that building, thefore he must be guilty. But you
never say that about Givens.

> If you've followed some of my recent exchanges with Chris, that
> illustrates that perfectly. I will provide just a partial list of the
> things indicating Oswald's guilt and he will counter that it doesn't prove
> he was the shooter. If he was speaking of only one or two pieces of
> evidence that would be true. For example:
>
> Oswald's ownership of the rifle doesn't prove he was the shooter.
>
> Oswald's palm print on the rifle doesn't prove he was the shooter.
>
> Oswald's fingerprints in the sniper's nest doesn't prove he was the
> shooter.
>
> Oswald bringing a long bag to work doesn't prove he was the shooter.
>
> Oswald's fingerprints on a long bag found near the sniper's nest doesn't
> prove he was the shooter.
>
> Fibers from Oswald's blanket found in the bag doesn't prove he was the
> shooter.
>
> Fibers matching the shirt Oswald was wearing that day doesn't prove he was
> the shooter.
>
> An eyewitness who IDed Oswald doesn't prove he was the shooter.
>
> Not one of those items by itself proves Oswald was the shooter. A case for
> his innocence could be made with just two items from this list. There is
> no reasonable argument for his innocence that can be made with all that
> evidence against him. Everything is just as we would expect it to be if
> Oswald was the shooter. One or two pieces of evidence might point in the
> wrong direction. All of he the evidence is not going to point in the wrong
> direction.
>

No. How do you get Oswald onto the grassy knoll to fire that shot?

> And we haven't even started to talk about the evidence that he killed J.D.
> Tippit.
>

I have, thousands of times.

[mainframetech]

DVP's list is similar to yours, so I know that he (like you) has not
made his case. The evidence is flimsy at best. The ownership of the MC
rifle is agreed to, yet that does not put it in the hands of Oswald firing
out the window. In truth the rifle was used by someone else who had
convinced Oswald to bring it in that day.

Sure there could
> be one or two pieces of evidence that might point in the wrong direction
> but when there is so much evidence of Oswald's guilt, it is ludicrous to
> think that he could be innocent.
>

WRONG! There is NOT "so much" evidence, and the little there is
doesn't put Oswald in the window with the rifle.

> If you've followed some of my recent exchanges with Chris, that
> illustrates that perfectly. I will provide just a partial list of the
> things indicating Oswald's guilt and he will counter that it doesn't prove
> he was the shooter. If he was speaking of only one or two pieces of
> evidence that would be true. For example:
>
> Oswald's ownership of the rifle doesn't prove he was the shooter.
>
> Oswald's palm print on the rifle doesn't prove he was the shooter.
>
> Oswald's fingerprints in the sniper's nest doesn't prove he was the
> shooter.
>
> Oswald bringing a long bag to work doesn't prove he was the shooter.
>
> Oswald's fingerprints on a long bag found near the sniper's nest doesn't
> prove he was the shooter.
>
> Fibers from Oswald's blanket found in the bag doesn't prove he was the
> shooter.
>
> Fibers matching the shirt Oswald was wearing that day doesn't prove he was
> the shooter.
>
> An eyewitness who IDed Oswald doesn't prove he was the shooter.
>

bd is correct about all those little items that he wishes were
evidence, they don't put the rifle in the hands of Oswald. But his
attempt to use Howard Brennan as a witness, when bd himself says that
witnesses can't be trusted, shows he'll flip-flop when it suits his needs.
Howard Brennan discredited himself when he admitted that he saw Oswald on
TV twice before he went down to ID Oswald in a lineup. Then just before
the lineup Brennan admitted that he also was told by a detective what
position in the lineup was where Oswald was at. He is NOT a reliable
witness, and so there are NO witnesses to Oswald being anywhere near the
6th floor window.

> Not one of those items by itself proves Oswald was the shooter. A case for
> his innocence could be made with just two items from this list. There is
> no reasonable argument for his innocence that can be made with all that
> evidence against him. Everything is just as we would expect it to be if
> Oswald was the shooter. One or two pieces of evidence might point in the
> wrong direction. All of he the evidence is not going to point in the wrong
> direction.
>

The trouble with that is that "all of the evidence" suggests there is
some large pile of evidence, which there is not. There are a few flimsy
things that suggest that Oswald owned the rifle, but there's nothing that
says he was at the window with the rifle firing into the plaza. In fact,
a book called "The Men on the Sixth Floor" by Collum and Sample seems to
have found evidence that 3 people snuck into the TSBD through the loading
dock door and went up to the 6th floor and fired guns out of the 6th floor
window including using Oswald's rifle which as hidden there. They then
went back down and left the building, and they were seen coming out of the
loading dock area.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Sunday, November 6, 2016 at 3:11:59 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:

> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> I like to occasionally ask conspiracy theorists this question, which is a
> question they can never answer without claiming that all of the Dallas
> cops were crooked and part of a plot to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for two
> murders he never actually committed:
>

Completely false. There are answers and the DPD were not part of a
plot. There were some dirty cops for sure, but NOT ALL of them. And
those that were dirty were not in on any conspiracy. Or at least there's
no proof that they were.

> Did the Dallas Police Department normally have a habit of officially
> charging suspects with TWO murders if they had no solid evidence against
> that suspect at all? (And many conspiracists seem to think the police had
> no real evidence at all against Oswald--let alone the huge pile of stuff
> that all reasonable people know the DPD actually did have against LHO.)
>

You would need to list the items of evidence against Oswald for someone
to answer that, but generally, the evidence presented (for instance) by bd
here was a weak list and did not in any way prove any guilt on the part of
Oswald for the murder of JFK.

> But when we get away from the goofy conspiracists who think everything was
> planted to frame Lee Oswald, a fairly decent argument can be made for
> Oswald's probable guilt based on just the fact that the police officially
> charged him with TWO murders within 12 hours of the crimes being
> committed. That fact alone is strong circumstantial evidence of Oswald's
> guilt.
>

That fact is no proof of any kind. Police around the country have made
mistakes and had to let go suspects in the past, and will in the future.
The police are pressured to find killers when the populace gets up in
arms, and sometimes the cops will latch on to the nearest person that
might have been guilty. There have been many prisoners let out from death
row after been proven innocent, that there is no guarantee that if the
cops arrest someone and charge them, that they will be found to be guilty.

> In other words--the police had enough evidence within half-a-day to be
> confident enough to charge Oswald with double-murder. Shouldn't that
> important fact mean just a *little* something to the conspiracy theorists
> of the world?
>

Sadly, too many people have been incorrectly charged with a crime and
later found to be innocent. The police are NOT infallible.

>
> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>
> I don't know anyone who claims that EVERYTHING was planted.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Then you haven't looked very hard. Because virtually all conspiracy
> believers that I have encountered on the Internet think that every single
> scrap of evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald is suspicious in some manner,
> including each of the following items:
>
> 1. All three bullet shells found in the Sniper's Nest.
>

As a proud CT, I don't find them to have been planted. Another error
in your figuring.

> 2. All four bullet shells found at the scene of J.D. Tippit's murder.
>

There is some doubt about the count of the type of shells vs. the
bullets found in Tippit.

> 3. Commission Exhibit No. 399.
>

There is great doubt as to the authenticity of that bullet. But since
it was supposedly found on the WERONG gurney at Parkland hospital, it
can't be evidence of anything. However, the ORIGINAL bullet that had been
handled by 4 men, no longer looked the same when later the 4 men were
asked to identify the bullet and were unable to, even though 2 of them
were SS agents and knew they had to initial evidence like bullets. One of
the men also stated that the bullet was not even the right shape. He said
the original bullet was pointed nosed, and the one shown to them was round
nosed. So since the bullet could not be identified, it could not be used
as evidence.

> 4. The paper bag found in the Sniper's Nest (with Oswald's prints on
> it--and those prints are phony too, per most CTers).
>

The paper bag was used by Oswald to bring his MC rifle into the TSBD.
But that doesn't prove that he fired it.



> 5. The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.
>


The rifle belonged to Oswald, but that doesn't prove that he was the
one that fired it out the window of the 6th floor.

> 6. The two bullet fragments found in the front seat of JFK's limousine.
>

The 2 fragments were not proven to have hit or hurt anyone. Given
where they were found, they were probably the remains of what hit the
limousine above the windshield, leaving a circular mark. After striking
there, they fell down to the front seat. The strike over the windshield
was too high to have hit a person in the limousine.

> 7. Each and every witness who fingered Lee Oswald for either JFK's murder
> or J.D. Tippit's slaying or identified LHO as the man they saw leaving the
> scene of the Tippit crime with gun in hand -- from Howard Brennan, to
> Helen Markham, to Barbara Davis, to Virginia Davis, to Ted Callaway, to
> William Scoggins, etc., etc.
>

Starting with Howard Brennan, he discredited himself when he admitted
in his autobiography that he had seen Oswald on TV twice before he went
down to identify him in a lineup. He also admitted that a police
detective told him which position Oswald was in for the lineup, before he
made his ID. As well, a teen standing near Brennan could not see anything
in the 6th floor window but a rifle poking out and a bald spot on the
shooters head. Yet Brennan said he could see Oswald as if he were
standing in front of him. He also stated there was no scope on the rifle.

As to the Tippit shooting, 2 women said they saw 2 men and one was
reloading a revolver, and the other looked like Oswald. So that the
shooter was said to be dark and short and chunky:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaCCd0hzLsY

> 8. The backyard photos showing Oswald holding the rifle that killed
> President Kennedy.
>

The photos were probably to impress someone that Oswald wanted to get
in with, and were to prove that he was a man of action, well armed and
ready. When he got his photos he rolled the rifle up in a blanket and
threw in the garage. The evidence suggests that Oswald had NO intention
of shooting anyone.

> 9. All of the paperwork that shows Lee Oswald purchased Rifle #C2766 from
> Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago.
>

It's probably true that Oswald purchased the rifle from Klein's. That
does not prove that he fired it out the TSBD window.

> 10. All of the paperwork that indicates Lee Oswald purchased Revolver
> #V510210 from Seaport Traders in Los Angeles.
>

Oswald probably bought the revolver.



> 11. The Walker bullet.
>


Completely false. The official Offense Report filled out by 2 DPD
detectives stated clearly that the Walker bullet had a STEEL jacket, yet
later after Dec. 4th when they showed the bullet to the public, it was
suddenly COPPER jacketed! It was not planted, it was replaced with a test
bullet by the bullet custodian, who was part of the group testing the MC
rifle the day after the murder. They fired over 60 bullets into various
materials, leaving a trove of test bullets. One of the, had to have been
used to replace the Walker bullet when the sealed evidence box was opened.

The bullet (like CE399) was NOT recognized by Walker himself, who had
seen the original bullet when the detectives had found it. Walker even
wrote letters and had his lawyer write letters to authorities to withdraw
the bullet since it was NOT the right one. The original bullet was
mangled so badly that they could not use it to match to a gun, and they
couldn't use it to determine caliber. Yet the bullet that was suddenly
COPPER jacketed had enough material to get caliber and to determine what
gun it came from.

> 12. And even the five unfired revolver bullets that Oswald had in his
> pocket after he was arrested. Those unfired bullets, per some
> conspiracists, are phony too. They say the cops planted those five bullets
> on Oswald to add to the frame-up against him. That's how far down "Crazy
> Boulevard" some conspiracy mongers have travelled in their efforts to
> exonerate a guilty double-murderer.
>

Why would anyone complain about those bullets? If he took his revolver
for protection or to intimidate someone, he might well have taken another
set of bullets. But it doesn't prove that he killed anyone. There are
still many questions about the Tippit murder.

> About the only thing I can think of that the conspiracy theorists *might*
> say hasn't been faked or manufactured to frame Patsy Oswald are the
> fingerprints and palmprints of LHO's that were located on the boxes inside
> the Sniper's Nest.
>

Since Oswald worked at the TSBD, his prints were probably all over the
place, since he would have had to find books all day long for weeks by
checking boxes.

> But, naturally, the Anybody But Oswald conspiracy believers would never in
> a million years think that those prints could be used to incriminate poor
> Lee Harvey. After all, he worked there. So, quite naturally, THREE of his
> prints are very likely going to show up on TWO of the boxes that the
> Presidential assassin also must have handled (and I guess the "real"
> Presidential assassin must have been wearing gloves when he touched those
> boxes on November 22, 1963).
>

As a matter of fact, the fingerprint od Mac Wallace (LBJ's hit man) was
found on one of the boxes. The fingerprint expert found a 14 point match,
plenty enough to convict.

> And just because shells from Oswald's gun were found right there in the
> Sniper's Nest too, why should the conspiracy theorists consider--for even
> a brief moment--the idea of linking the two things together (OSWALD'S
> shells + OSWALD'S prints)? What rational person would ever consider doing
> something silly like tying those two items together? Right? After all, all
> good conspiracy advocates always insist that those bullet shells were
> planted in the Book Depository too.
>

There is nothing wrong with saying that Oswald's rifle probably fired
the 3 shells into Dealey Plaza for forensic purposes, but none of them
ever hit or hurt anyone, and no one can prove differently. This is not
proof that Oswald held the rifle at the window.

> Ergo, nothing can be trusted. And why? Because the conspiracy hounds have
> said so. And when we get right down to the brass tacks of the matter,
> that's pretty much the only reason.
>

Actually, the LN kooks that try to make Oswald guilty, fail to prove
their case. And there are a few things that can be trusted in the case.
The MC rifle belonged to Oswald, and the shells came from that rifle and
were fired out the window on the 6th floor at the motorcade. None of
which proved that Oswald fired the rifle himself, since he was shown to
have been elsewhere when the shooting started. Oswald was seen in the 2nd
floor lunchroom at 12:15pm by Carolyn Arnold. If he had tried to get to
the 6th floor, the 2 men with a gun that were seen there at about that
same time by witnesses, would have chased him away from their window, and
if he got there first, they would have had to remove him somehow from the
window they wanted to use.

>
> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>
> No. Because officials have a habit of tampering with evidence.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> And there's the ever-so-convenient escape hatch used by almost all
> conspiracy theorists. The fact that "tampering with evidence" could have
> possibly been done is enough to convince those conspiracy believers
> (particularly "Internet CTers") that all of the evidence that incriminates
> Oswald was, in fact, tampered with.
>

WRONG! ALL the evidence was not tampered with. Some was though. It
was shown that the FBI (for instance) had lied about what various
witnesses had said and filed 302 reports that did NOT say what the
witnesses had said. As well, the FBI was also accused of intimidating
witnesses with threats against physical safety. The proof was also that
both bullets in the JFK and Walker case could NOT be identified by
witnesses that had seen the bullets originally!

> Via such a wide-sweeping claim, however, no defendant who was on trial for
> any crime could ever be convicted---because all the sneaky defense
> attorneys need to do is to convince the jury that the evidence **could**
> have conceivably been tampered with.
>
> And how can the jury possibly know with 100% certainty if any (or all) of
> the evidence really had or had not been tampered with? They can't possibly
> know such a thing--even with a rock-solid chain of possession for every
> last piece of evidence in the whole case. Because why couldn't a "chain of
> custody" trail be faked too? Obviously, it could be faked.
>

In this case there is solid proof that the FBI tampered with evidence,
particularly the statements of witnesses. And suggestive proof that the
bullet custodian tampered with the bullet evidence.

> Ergo, every defendant could potentially walk free out of every courtroom
> due to the mere possibility of such underhanded shenanigans on the part of
> the authorities.
>

Typical exaggeration to attempt to prove a point.

> For an indication of what I just implied above being the absolute truth,
> all one has to do is to look to the O.J. Simpson sham of a trial.
>
> But the allegation of evidence-tampering is a far cry from proving that
> the evidence really was tampered with.
>
> And what PROOF does any conspiracy theorist who has ever walked this Earth
> possess that would verify and prove that even one piece of evidence in the
> JFK murder case was, in fact, "tampered with" by any of the authorities?
>

That has been presented above, though it needs to be elaborated on, the
basic info is there.

> I'll answer my last question with the only possible answer there is ---
> There is no such proof. And there never has been.
>

WRONG as usual!

Chris

[Allan G. Johnson]

On Sunday, November 6, 2016 at 9:38:48 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:

PREPONDERANCE of evidence. With each piece it just adds another nail
in the coffin. Oswald's has been hermetically sealed. The more the
evidence, the more difficult it becomes to connect it all to a conspiracy
that PROVES the evidence is false or misinterpreted.

The Tippit shooting confirms the first shooting by the same person
because it was the motive. Oswald's reason for shooting Tippit was
because he was responsible for shooting the President and he didn't want
to be caught. How often does a criminal stand around after killing
someone to be arrested? Even hit and run drivers don't do that. I'd have
more respect for him if he did stay around and admit to the crime and
state his reasons (political?) for doing it. It would have saved us 50
plus years of this conspiracy nonsense.

[BOZ]

Rossley believes that everything was planted or faked by Stanley Kubrick
and NASA.

[David Von Pein]

ROBERT HARRIS SAID:

There was plenty of evidence against Oswald. They [the Dallas Police
Department] didn't need to frame him.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Exactly, Bob. That was kinda my point when I said this:

"Did the Dallas Police Department normally have a habit of officially
charging suspects with TWO murders if they had no solid evidence against

that suspect at all?" -- DVP; September 2014

ROBERT HARRIS SAID:

Nothing was planted, David. There was no need to frame Oswald.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Again --- that's exactly correct.

(If you keep thinking this way, Bob, you'll be an LNer before you know
it.)


ROBERT HARRIS SAID (ONE NEEDLESS COMMA REMOVED BY DVP):

The need was to make sure the world didn't know about his accomplices.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You were doing great before you made that last statement.

Re: the Katzenbach memo....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-971.html


ROBERT HARRIS SAID:

That evidence [the three bullet shells found in the Sniper's Nest] is
worthless unless [you] can prove they were fired that day.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

There were bullet fragments from THAT SAME GUN found in the President's
car! Plus, the Carcano rifle was found on the same floor as the three
empty shell casings. You don't think those little tidbits of information
provide ample indication as to the DAY when those bullet shells were left
in the Sniper's Nest?

How much more proof do you need, Bob? Do you think that bullet fragments
from Oswald's gun somehow managed to get into the front seat area of
President Kennedy's limousine at some point in time *PRIOR* to 12:30 PM
CST on November 22, 1963? (That would be one wild theory that I doubt even
most Internet conspiracy theorists would dare to put forth.)


ROBERT HARRIS SAID (WITH ONE MORE NEEDLESS COMMA REMOVED BY DVP):

Tell me David, have you ever in your life seen a single piece of evidence

which supports the notion that Oswald acted alone?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Every single piece of evidence goes in the direction of Oswald acting
alone, Bob. All of it. You know that. You just won't admit it. And all
other conspiracy theorists who are aware of the evidence know it too. But
they won't admit it either. And that's because they like the idea that
unknown/unseen plotters were also involved in JFK's murder, despite the
total lack of proof in that regard.

Put all of those "pieces" of evidence together, Bob. What does it add up
to? That's the simple arithmetic that no conspiracy theorist ever seems to
want to perform.

And please tell me how the TOTALITY of physical evidence in this case
(which all points to Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt--and no one else's guilt!)
somehow proves--or even remotely suggests--that "accomplices" were
involved with Oswald in the assassination?

[bigdog]

On Monday, November 7, 2016 at 3:26:26 PM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
> David Von Pein wrote:
> > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> >
> > I like to occasionally ask conspiracy theorists this question, which is a
> > question they can never answer without claiming that all of the Dallas
> > cops were crooked and part of a plot to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for two
> > murders he never actually committed:
>
> Utter nonsense, and you know it, David.
>
> The FBI's stated agenda was that the public must be convinced
> that Oswald had no accomplices.
>

No it wasn't. That was Katzenbach's memo. He didn't work for the FBI. He
was assistant AG. Hoover didn't report to him. The both reported to the
same guy. AG Robert Kennedy.

> And they justified it with the not unreasonable argument at
> the time, that a conspiracy would point to the commies and
> lead to WW3.
>

Who in the FBI made that argument?

> This gave them justification to order the Dallas PD to cover
> up evidence of two shooters and two rifles in the TSBD.
>

The DPD was not subservient to he FBI. The FBI had no power to issue such
orders to them and no evidence that they did.

> It also permitted them to use that same tactic to silence
> other witnesses, including Parkland personnel.
>

Here we go again. The dog ate my evidence.

> >
> > Did the Dallas Police Department normally have a habit of officially
> > charging suspects with TWO murders if they had no solid evidence against
> > that suspect at all?
>
> There was plenty of evidence against Oswald. They didn't need
> to frame him.
>

No shit!

>
> > (And many conspiracists seem to think the police had
> > no real evidence at all against Oswald--let alone the huge pile of stuff
> > that all reasonable people know the DPD actually did have against LHO.)
>
> And some "conspiracists" think the assassination was
> connected to UFOs.
>

Those people make more sense than you do.

> >
> > But when we get away from the goofy conspiracists who think everything was
> > planted to frame Lee Oswald, a fairly decent argument can be made for
> > Oswald's probable guilt based on just the fact that the police officially
> > charged him with TWO murders within 12 hours of the crimes being
> > committed. That fact alone is strong circumstantial evidence of Oswald's
> > guilt.
>
>
> The fact that they arrested him, proves nothing. But a great
> deal of verifiable evidence does.
>
> >
> > In other words--the police had enough evidence within half-a-day to be
> > confident enough to charge Oswald with double-murder. Shouldn't that
> > important fact mean just a *little* something to the conspiracy theorists
> > of the world?
>
> It means that they caught one of the perps, no more and no less.
>

If only you had real evidence of other perps.

> >
> >
> > ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
> >
> > I don't know anyone who claims that EVERYTHING was planted.
>
> Nothing was planted, David. There was no need to frame Oswald.
>
> The need, was to make sure the world didn't know about his
> accomplices.
>

Who needed that?

> >
> >
> > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> >
> > Then you haven't looked very hard. Because virtually all conspiracy
> > believers that I have encountered on the Internet think that every single
> > scrap of evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald is suspicious in some manner,
> > including each of the following items:
> >
> > 1. All three bullet shells found in the Sniper's Nest.
>
> That evidence is worthless unless u can prove they were fired
> that day.
>
> >
> > 2. All four bullet shells found at the scene of J.D. Tippit's murder.
>
> Ditto. But Oswald admitted to his wife that he took a shot at
> Walker.
>
> >
> > 3. Commission Exhibit No. 399.
>
> ROFLMAO!!
>
> I can't believe you would say something like that.
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
>
> Are you still claiming Herskowitz is a liar? Were Wade, Nolan
> and Bell liars too, or were they doing heave drugs that day:-)
>
> And when do you intend to show us where Todd and Johnsen's
> initials are on CE399?
>

That would be hard to do unless the National Archives loaned him CE399.

>
> >
> > 4. The paper bag found in the Sniper's Nest (with Oswald's prints on
> > it--and those prints are phony too, per most CTers).
> >
> > 5. The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.
> >
> > 6. The two bullet fragments found in the front seat of JFK's limousine.
>
> Only if you have a lot of blind faith in the FBI.
>

The SS found the bullet fragments in the limo.

> Tell me David, have you ever in your life, seen a single
> piece of evidence which supports the notion that Oswald acted
> alone?
>

Just what form would such evidence take? There is ample evidence Oswald
acted. There is zero evidence he had even a single accomplice. That is
exactly what we should expect if Oswald acted alone.

[Anthony Marsh]

Not curious at all. Typical DPD screwup.
One of the cops was standing on it.
This wasn't CSI:Dallas you know.

>> 5. The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.
>>
>> 6. The two bullet fragments found in the front seat of JFK's limousine.
>>
>> 7. Each and every witness who fingered Lee Oswald for either JFK's murder
>> or J.D. Tippit's slaying or identified LHO as the man they saw leaving the
>> scene of the Tippit crime with gun in hand -- from Howard Brennan, to
>> Helen Markham, to Barbara Davis, to Virginia Davis, to Ted Callaway, to
>> William Scoggins, etc., etc.
>
> Well, I think that Guinyard may have been on the level. He apparently did
> see a suspect who looked something like Oswald. But, say, Scoggins was
> with police for 24 hours before he ID'd Oswald. And Markham said the perp
> left the scene in a taxi! (As per Dale Myers' revised "With Malice")
>

Yeah, and Lovelady looked like Oswald.
BFD

> dcw
>

[bigdog]

That is what you had to convince yourself of in order to preserve your
cherished belief that Oswald was innocent.

>
>
> Sure there could
> > be one or two pieces of evidence that might point in the wrong direction
> > but when there is so much evidence of Oswald's guilt, it is ludicrous to
> > think that he could be innocent.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! There is NOT "so much" evidence, and the little there is
> doesn't put Oswald in the window with the rifle.
>

If you listed all the evidence we should have of Oswald's guilt and all of
the evidence we do have of Oswald's guilt, the two lists would be
identical.

Of course Howard Brennan COULD be wrong. That's why I wrote that his ID by
itself doesn't prove Oswald was the shooter. But all that other evidence
taken collectively does establish Oswald was the shooter. It is
inconceivable there would be ALL that evidence against him if he were
innocent. The body of evidence establishes that Brennan was not wrong.

>
>
>
> > Not one of those items by itself proves Oswald was the shooter. A case for
> > his innocence could be made with just two items from this list. There is
> > no reasonable argument for his innocence that can be made with all that
> > evidence against him. Everything is just as we would expect it to be if
> > Oswald was the shooter. One or two pieces of evidence might point in the
> > wrong direction. All of he the evidence is not going to point in the wrong
> > direction.
> >
>
>
> The trouble with that is that "all of the evidence" suggests there is
> some large pile of evidence, which there is not. There are a few flimsy
> things that suggest that Oswald owned the rifle, but there's nothing that
> says he was at the window with the rifle firing into the plaza. In fact,
> a book called "The Men on the Sixth Floor" by Collum and Sample seems to
> have found evidence that 3 people snuck into the TSBD through the loading
> dock door and went up to the 6th floor and fired guns out of the 6th floor
> window including using Oswald's rifle which as hidden there. They then
> went back down and left the building, and they were seen coming out of the
> loading dock area.
>

The authors of "The Men on the Sixth Floor seem to have found a few
gullible people who believe their nonsense. And took their money.

[Anthony Marsh]

You forgot to include that he was left handed and had defected to Russia.

> The Tippit shooting confirms the first shooting by the same person
> because it was the motive. Oswald's reason for shooting Tippit was

You can't connect 2 crimes like that.
Oswald's reason for shooting Tippit was that he was paranoid about being
harassed by law enforcement.

> because he was responsible for shooting the President and he didn't want
> to be caught. How often does a criminal stand around after killing
> someone to be arrested? Even hit and run drivers don't do that. I'd have

A lot of times.

> more respect for him if he did stay around and admit to the crime and
> state his reasons (political?) for doing it. It would have saved us 50
> plus years of this conspiracy nonsense.
>

How did Oswald shoot from the grassy knoll?

[mainframetech]

There is a preponderance of attempts to make circumstantial evidence
into real evidence. It's the kind of thing you see when a case has to be
trumped up for lack of solid evidence. All of the evidence that Oswald
showed a lack of intent to shoot anyone was not mentioned, and shouild
have ben to allow for proper decisions. First, Oswald had a chance to buy
ammunition from Klein's for this odd rifle which was not common, but he
refused it. Second, the FBI tried but could not finds anyplace that
Oswald bought any ammunition for the rifle, and there were only two places
within the area, one of which had reloaded all their MC type ammo with
lead bullets. Third, the FBI could not find anyplace that Oswald did any
practicing with the rifle, and since the rifle had a misaligned scope and
s sticky bolt, he would have found out those things and repaired them if
he had practiced.

What we do know is that Oswald got his rifle, went in the back yard
and had Marina take his photo with his literature and his guns, and then
he rolled the rifle up in a blanket and threw in the garage. The photo
might be later used to impress someone that he was rough and ready for
action. But he had no intent to shoot anyone.

Chris

[donald willis]

On the other hand, Poe & Hill lied to the Commission & said that Benavides
did tell them about the shooter manually dropping shells.

dcw

[Ace Kefford]

On Sunday, November 6, 2016 at 3:11:59 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:

"Yes". Mr. Al T. Rationist

[Anthony Marsh]

Excuse me, but that does not automatically prove Oswald innocent.
He could still be a shooter or still be part of a conspiracy.

>>
>>
>> Sure there could
>>> be one or two pieces of evidence that might point in the wrong direction
>>> but when there is so much evidence of Oswald's guilt, it is ludicrous to
>>> think that he could be innocent.
>>>
>>
>>
>> WRONG! There is NOT "so much" evidence, and the little there is
>> doesn't put Oswald in the window with the rifle.
>>
>
> If you listed all the evidence we should have of Oswald's guilt and all of
> the evidence we do have of Oswald's guilt, the two lists would be
> identical.
>

Silly. You would want a confession. You would want Oswald's fingerprints
on the cartridges. You would want nitrates on the cheeks. You could draw
up a wish list and claim it all points to Oswald.

And maybe Euins was right and the shooter was a black man.
Oswald was not black.

>>
>>
>>
>>> Not one of those items by itself proves Oswald was the shooter. A case for
>>> his innocence could be made with just two items from this list. There is
>>> no reasonable argument for his innocence that can be made with all that
>>> evidence against him. Everything is just as we would expect it to be if
>>> Oswald was the shooter. One or two pieces of evidence might point in the
>>> wrong direction. All of he the evidence is not going to point in the wrong
>>> direction.
>>>
>>
>>
>> The trouble with that is that "all of the evidence" suggests there is
>> some large pile of evidence, which there is not. There are a few flimsy
>> things that suggest that Oswald owned the rifle, but there's nothing that
>> says he was at the window with the rifle firing into the plaza. In fact,
>> a book called "The Men on the Sixth Floor" by Collum and Sample seems to
>> have found evidence that 3 people snuck into the TSBD through the loading
>> dock door and went up to the 6th floor and fired guns out of the 6th floor
>> window including using Oswald's rifle which as hidden there. They then
>> went back down and left the building, and they were seen coming out of the
>> loading dock area.
>>
>
> The authors of "The Men on the Sixth Floor seem to have found a few
> gullible people who believe their nonsense. And took their money.
>

Not many.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/8/2016 1:01 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Monday, November 7, 2016 at 3:26:26 PM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
>> David Von Pein wrote:
>>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>>
>>> I like to occasionally ask conspiracy theorists this question, which is a
>>> question they can never answer without claiming that all of the Dallas
>>> cops were crooked and part of a plot to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for two
>>> murders he never actually committed:
>>
>> Utter nonsense, and you know it, David.
>>
>> The FBI's stated agenda was that the public must be convinced
>> that Oswald had no accomplices.
>>
>
> No it wasn't. That was Katzenbach's memo. He didn't work for the FBI. He
> was assistant AG. Hoover didn't report to him. The both reported to the
> same guy. AG Robert Kennedy.
>
>> And they justified it with the not unreasonable argument at
>> the time, that a conspiracy would point to the commies and
>> lead to WW3.
>>
>
> Who in the FBI made that argument?
>
>> This gave them justification to order the Dallas PD to cover
>> up evidence of two shooters and two rifles in the TSBD.
>>
>
> The DPD was not subservient to he FBI. The FBI had no power to issue such
> orders to them and no evidence that they did.
>

Hoover exerted his control on the DPD and made them comply.
That's why the Dallas said that Oswald was an FBI informant.

>> It also permitted them to use that same tactic to silence
>> other witnesses, including Parkland personnel.
>>
>
> Here we go again. The dog ate my evidence.
>

Now, wait a dam minute. Are you trying to confuse us?
I thought YOU said you were the dog. Are YOU admitting that you ate the
evidence?

Or do you mean Harris's dog? When he ate through the cord and fried the
computer?

Some.

>> Tell me David, have you ever in your life, seen a single
>> piece of evidence which supports the notion that Oswald acted
>> alone?
>>
>
> Just what form would such evidence take? There is ample evidence Oswald
> acted. There is zero evidence he had even a single accomplice. That is
> exactly what we should expect if Oswald acted alone.
>

So how did Oswald fire the shot from the grassy knoll?

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

As I mentioned before - and the usual lunatic sociopath who posts here
couldn't accept - if they were framing Oswald then they'd have more than
just Brennan identifying him as the shooter. "They" would have numerous
people pointing him out.

But the village idiot here couldn't understand this.

[OHLeeRedux]

On Monday, November 7, 2016 at 12:26:26 PM UTC-8, Robert Harris wrote:
> David Von Pein wrote:
> > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> >
> > I like to occasionally ask conspiracy theorists this question, which is a
> > question they can never answer without claiming that all of the Dallas
> > cops were crooked and part of a plot to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for two
> > murders he never actually committed:
>
> Utter nonsense, and you know it, David.
>
>

> Tell me David, have you ever in your life, seen a single
> piece of evidence which supports the notion that Oswald acted
> alone?
>
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris

Trying to shift the burden of proof. Again.

[mainframetech]

WRONG! I was convinced by the lack of evidence. Try it some time.

> > Sure there could
> > > be one or two pieces of evidence that might point in the wrong direction
> > > but when there is so much evidence of Oswald's guilt, it is ludicrous to
> > > think that he could be innocent.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! There is NOT "so much" evidence, and the little there is
> > doesn't put Oswald in the window with the rifle.
> >
>
> If you listed all the evidence we should have of Oswald's guilt and all of
> the evidence we do have of Oswald's guilt, the two lists would be
> identical.
>

and just as useless as each other. There is not anything that puts
Oswald in the window of the 6th floor, and nothing that puts the rifle in
his hands at the time of the shooting.

It is VERY conceivable that without Brennan that there isn't enough
evidence to convict anyone. Talking about "all that evidence" is just
words and opinion.

> >
> >
> >
> > > Not one of those items by itself proves Oswald was the shooter. A case for
> > > his innocence could be made with just two items from this list. There is
> > > no reasonable argument for his innocence that can be made with all that
> > > evidence against him. Everything is just as we would expect it to be if
> > > Oswald was the shooter. One or two pieces of evidence might point in the
> > > wrong direction. All of he the evidence is not going to point in the wrong
> > > direction.
> > >
> >
> >
> > The trouble with that is that "all of the evidence" suggests there is
> > some large pile of evidence, which there is not. There are a few flimsy
> > things that suggest that Oswald owned the rifle, but there's nothing that
> > says he was at the window with the rifle firing into the plaza. In fact,
> > a book called "The Men on the Sixth Floor" by Collum and Sample seems to
> > have found evidence that 3 people snuck into the TSBD through the loading
> > dock door and went up to the 6th floor and fired guns out of the 6th floor
> > window including using Oswald's rifle which as hidden there. They then
> > went back down and left the building, and they were seen coming out of the
> > loading dock area.
> >
>
> The authors of "The Men on the Sixth Floor seem to have found a few
> gullible people who believe their nonsense. And took their money.

Ah, so now you've decided to attack the book's information. Well,
prove that the book is wrong. don't just feed us your useless opinion.

Chris

[mainframetech]

You might want to think about HOW the fragments got into the front
seat of the limo. The best guess is that they were part of a bullet that
struck over the windshield and then fell down to the front seat. But that
path is very high and so did not go through a person. As a matter of
fact, NO MC type bullet ever hit or hurt anyone, and no one can prove
differently.


>

> ROBERT HARRIS SAID (WITH ONE MORE NEEDLESS COMMA REMOVED BY DVP):
>
> Tell me David, have you ever in your life seen a single piece of evidence
> which supports the notion that Oswald acted alone?
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Every single piece of evidence goes in the direction of Oswald acting
> alone, Bob. All of it. You know that. You just won't admit it. And all
> other conspiracy theorists who are aware of the evidence know it too. But
> they won't admit it either. And that's because they like the idea that
> unknown/unseen plotters were also involved in JFK's murder, despite the
> total lack of proof in that regard.
>

Oddly, you're both wrong. Oswald was seen by Carolyn Arnold at 12:15pm
in the 2nd floor lunchroom. At about the same time 2 men with a gun were
seen in the window of the 6th floor. If Oswald had tried to get to the
6th floor at that time, he would have been put off by the 2 men, who
wanted that window. If Oswald had tried to get to that window earlier
than the 2 men, they would have found a way to convince him to leave it to
them.

> Put all of those "pieces" of evidence together, Bob. What does it add up
> to? That's the simple arithmetic that no conspiracy theorist ever seems to
> want to perform.
>
> And please tell me how the TOTALITY of physical evidence in this case
> (which all points to Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt--and no one else's guilt!)
> somehow proves--or even remotely suggests--that "accomplices" were
> involved with Oswald in the assassination?

The list of items that you think prove Oswald's guilt, don't. They are
all circumstantial, and most are less than that. Since the rifle belonged
to Oswald, and the paper bag was used by him to bring the rifle into the
TSBD, there is very little in the list left. The only bit of evidence
that might prove something against Oswald and put a rifle in his hands,
was Howard Brennan, and he completely discredited himself when he wrote
his autobiography. It turns out that he admitted that he saw Oswald on TV
twice before he went down to ID him in a lineup. Not only that, but he
also admitted that when he got to the lineup, a detective told him in
which position Oswald was standing in the lineup.

No other evidence puts a rifle in Oswald's hands, and the evidence we
have about him and the rifle was that he did not intend to shoot anyone
with that rifle.

When Oswald bought the rifle from Klein's they offered him a deal to
buy ammunition from the rifle, which was not a common type of rifle for
Texas. He rejected that offer. Later the FBI tried to find where he
might have bought ammunition for the rifle, but they found only 2 places
in the area that sold that type of ammo, and one of them had reloaded all
his MC type ammo with lead bullets. The FBI also was unable to find a
place where Oswald would have practiced with the rifle. As it turned out,
the rifle had a misaligned scope from a bad mounting, and as sticky bolt
that made rapid shooting difficult.

If Oswald had practiced, he would have found the problems and fixed
them before taking a shot at the POTUS. But no fixing was done, so no
practicing was done. When Oswald got the rifle he got Marina to take
photos of him with his guns and his literature to impress someone he
wanted to get in with that he was a rough and ready guy ready for action.
But after he got his photos, he rolled the rifle up in a blanket and threw
it in the garage.

Oswald had no intention of shooting anyone, and he wasn't in the 6th
floor window when the shooting started.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

I hate to remind you, but in some other cases the cops have framed a
guilty man because they thought there was not enough HARD evidence.
Such as the OJ Simpson case. They knew he did it, but all they had was
circumstantial evidence, which could just as easily pointed to someone else.
The cases of Boston cops planting drugs on long-time drug dealers to
make sure of a conviction.
Then we have thousands of cases of police tampering with evidence that
often gets cases thrown out of court.

> showed a lack of intent to shoot anyone was not mentioned, and shouild
> have ben to allow for proper decisions. First, Oswald had a chance to buy

They almost ruined their own case by admitting that at the time of the
shooting Oswald was down in the lunch room drinking a Coke.

> ammunition from Klein's for this odd rifle which was not common, but he
> refused it. Second, the FBI tried but could not finds anyplace that

That is meaningless. Oswald didn't need 108 round to shoot Walker.
That is why he bought the rifle and the ammo. One shot, one kill.
He thought he was successful with that one shot.

> Oswald bought any ammunition for the rifle, and there were only two places
> within the area, one of which had reloaded all their MC type ammo with
> lead bullets. Third, the FBI could not find anyplace that Oswald did any

Do you mean hunting rounds?

> practicing with the rifle, and since the rifle had a misaligned scope and
> s sticky bolt, he would have found out those things and repaired them if
> he had practiced.
>

Those are silly objections.
A. We don't know exactly when the scope got the damage.
B. Oswald would not have noticed the difference.
C. Oswald did apparently shoot 15 other rounds elsewhere.
Did he learn anything and fix anything? No.
Some of the problems with that rifle can not be fixed.

> What we do know is that Oswald got his rifle, went in the back yard
> and had Marina take his photo with his literature and his guns, and then
> he rolled the rifle up in a blanket and threw in the garage. The photo

You keep saying impossible things.
He did not even know about the Paines garage when he bought the rifle
and it wasn't stored in their garage until after he moved back from New
Orleans.

> might be later used to impress someone that he was rough and ready for
> action. But he had no intent to shoot anyone.
>

Walker.

> Chris
>

[donald willis]

Myers backs that, too?

> > dcw
> >

[bigdog]

The fact that you don't think circumstantial evidence isn't real evidence
speaks volume.

> It's the kind of thing you see when a case has to be
> trumped up for lack of solid evidence.

Forensic evidence is the most solid form of evidence there is.

> All of the evidence that Oswald
> showed a lack of intent to shoot anyone was not mentioned,

Hilarious that you don't think forensic evidence is solid evidence but you
think your silly figuring is.

> and shouild
> have ben to allow for proper decisions. First, Oswald had a chance to buy
> ammunition from Klein's for this odd rifle which was not common, but he
> refused it. Second, the FBI tried but could not finds anyplace that
> Oswald bought any ammunition for the rifle, and there were only two places
> within the area, one of which had reloaded all their MC type ammo with
> lead bullets. Third, the FBI could not find anyplace that Oswald did any
> practicing with the rifle, and since the rifle had a misaligned scope and
> s sticky bolt, he would have found out those things and repaired them if
> he had practiced.
>

What you are describing isn't evidence. It is an absence of evidence. You
don't seem to understand the difference.

> What we do know is that Oswald got his rifle, went in the back yard
> and had Marina take his photo with his literature and his guns, and then
> he rolled the rifle up in a blanket and threw in the garage. The photo
> might be later used to impress someone that he was rough and ready for
> action. But he had no intent to shoot anyone.
>

The first part of the paragraph is absolutely factual. The second half is
nothing but silly conspiracy hobbyist figuring.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Sorry for the rough language but I'm fed up with this nonsense from this
one poster.

It's getting tiresome.

I should ignore it, yes; but he drags down every thread with his replies.

[Anthony Marsh]

So when the FBI was framing the 5 Boston bookies for murder, why did
they have to rely on only 1 witness? Because he was the real killer.
That was the only way that he could have known about those murders.
For the record, since you are hurling around slanderous charges, I never
said that the government planted Brennan to become their star witness.
He was there by chance and saw SOMETHING.
So, why did you overlook Euins? Racism? Ageism?
Why don't you admit that there were at least 2 witnesses, and possibly
5? Why do YOU want it all to rest on Brennan?

[mainframetech]

On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 2:02:24 PM UTC-5, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:

Sad. There seems to be a wealth of village idiots around today. The
problem is that you've just told us all about your personal opinion. It
may be that they only found one person to shill for them in time for the
job. Or many other excuses, IF that was even the case. There is no
guarantee that multiple shills would be used in such a situation. And we
don't know that it is the reason that he knew to tell the cops quickly the
description of the shooter. Unless you personally know the rules for
plotting to kill a president, you haven't helped at all.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

You mean an Oswald Carcano bullet fired from the front? WHy do you need it
to fly over the windshield? I thought you had a bullet going through the
windshield. That bullet could break up when it hits the windshield.

Or do you mean hit the chrome topping? OK, that could be like Furhman's
theory. Did you like his solution?

>
>
>>
>> ROBERT HARRIS SAID (WITH ONE MORE NEEDLESS COMMA REMOVED BY DVP):
>>
>> Tell me David, have you ever in your life seen a single piece of evidence
>> which supports the notion that Oswald acted alone?
>>
>>
>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>
>> Every single piece of evidence goes in the direction of Oswald acting
>> alone, Bob. All of it. You know that. You just won't admit it. And all
>> other conspiracy theorists who are aware of the evidence know it too. But
>> they won't admit it either. And that's because they like the idea that
>> unknown/unseen plotters were also involved in JFK's murder, despite the
>> total lack of proof in that regard.
>>
>
>
> Oddly, you're both wrong. Oswald was seen by Carolyn Arnold at 12:15pm
> in the 2nd floor lunchroom. At about the same time 2 men with a gun were

False. That's not what she said. You've been corrected on this hundreds
of times.

[Jason Burke]

Again? I think that's the first time Harris has tried that.

Oh, wait...

[bigdog]

This statement speaks volumes. A logical person would not be convinced of
anything of anything due to a lack of evidence. For example, there is a
lack of evidence that Oswald had any accomplices in his crime. That
doesn't prove he didn't have any. Given that none has surfaced in over 50
years makes it highly unlikely any such accomplices existed but it cannot
be logically ruled out.

>
>
> > > Sure there could
> > > > be one or two pieces of evidence that might point in the wrong direction
> > > > but when there is so much evidence of Oswald's guilt, it is ludicrous to
> > > > think that he could be innocent.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! There is NOT "so much" evidence, and the little there is
> > > doesn't put Oswald in the window with the rifle.
> > >
> >
> > If you listed all the evidence we should have of Oswald's guilt and all of
> > the evidence we do have of Oswald's guilt, the two lists would be
> > identical.
> >
>
>
> and just as useless as each other. There is not anything that puts
> Oswald in the window of the 6th floor, and nothing that puts the rifle in
> his hands at the time of the shooting.
>

In addition to the eyewitness who IDed him, we have the fibers matching
his shirt on the butt plate of the rifle. Exactly what we would expect
there to be had he fired three shots from the Carcano, the recoil from
those shots driving the butt of the rifle forcefully into his shoulder. On
top of the fact it was his rifle, his palm print was on the rifle, and his
fingerprints were on the boxes in the sniper's nest oriented precisely as
they would be if he was the shooter and facing down Elm St. It is
impossible to construct a plausible scenario that explains for all that
evidence of his guilt if he were innocent. The body of evidence is exactly
what we would expect it to be if he were the shooter.

By denying that this body of evidence establishes Oswald's guilt, you are
creating a burden of proof that is so high that it would be virtually
impossible to convict most murderers of their crime if that same burden of
proof were applied in all murder cases. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is
not the same as proof beyond all doubt as it would be virtually impossible
to provide the latter in any murder case.

If you want to cling to the belief that Oswald was innocent just because
of the theoretical possibility that all that evidence could line up
against him and he could still be innocent you are assuring that you will
never understand who it was that killed JFK. If you reject the one and
only truth there is zero chance you will ever find another.

As I said, if the same burden of proof beyond all possible doubt were
applied to all murder cases that conspiracy hobbyists want to apply in
this case, no murderers would ever be convicted.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Not one of those items by itself proves Oswald was the shooter. A case for
> > > > his innocence could be made with just two items from this list. There is
> > > > no reasonable argument for his innocence that can be made with all that
> > > > evidence against him. Everything is just as we would expect it to be if
> > > > Oswald was the shooter. One or two pieces of evidence might point in the
> > > > wrong direction. All of he the evidence is not going to point in the wrong
> > > > direction.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The trouble with that is that "all of the evidence" suggests there is
> > > some large pile of evidence, which there is not. There are a few flimsy
> > > things that suggest that Oswald owned the rifle, but there's nothing that
> > > says he was at the window with the rifle firing into the plaza. In fact,
> > > a book called "The Men on the Sixth Floor" by Collum and Sample seems to
> > > have found evidence that 3 people snuck into the TSBD through the loading
> > > dock door and went up to the 6th floor and fired guns out of the 6th floor
> > > window including using Oswald's rifle which as hidden there. They then
> > > went back down and left the building, and they were seen coming out of the
> > > loading dock area.
> > >
> >
> > The authors of "The Men on the Sixth Floor seem to have found a few
> > gullible people who believe their nonsense. And took their money.
>
>
> Ah, so now you've decided to attack the book's information.

Yes I did. I decided that when you told me they cooked up a story of 3
assassins on the 6th floor and Oswald wasn't one of them. Since I know
Oswald was the assassin, I know they are full of shit. Had their story
been that there were two people in addition to Oswald I would want to see
what evidence they had of those accomplices. Since their "proof" consists
of a story supposedly told to them by a dead guy who can no longer refute
their story, it is quite easy to dismiss their nonsense.

> Well,
> prove that the book is wrong. don't just feed us your useless opinion.
>

I don't have to prove the book is wrong. They need to prove it is right.

Your double standards are once again on display. For Oswald, you demand
proof beyond all possible doubt of his guilt. Yet you are perfectly
willing to accept this cockamamie story until somebody can prove it is
wrong. You set the bar as high as you possibly can for proof of Oswald's
guilt and then lay the bar on the floor for the things you want to
believe.

[bigdog]

That's your best guess. Not a very good one. I'm sure if you tried you
could do better.

> But that
> path is very high and so did not go through a person. As a matter of
> fact, NO MC type bullet ever hit or hurt anyone, and no one can prove
> differently.
>

I suppose you think that when the bullet fragmented upon passing through
the skull wall all those fragments would continue one the same vector as
the whole bullet was on when it entered the skull.

>
> >
> > ROBERT HARRIS SAID (WITH ONE MORE NEEDLESS COMMA REMOVED BY DVP):
> >
> > Tell me David, have you ever in your life seen a single piece of evidence
> > which supports the notion that Oswald acted alone?
> >
> >
> > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> >
> > Every single piece of evidence goes in the direction of Oswald acting
> > alone, Bob. All of it. You know that. You just won't admit it. And all
> > other conspiracy theorists who are aware of the evidence know it too. But
> > they won't admit it either. And that's because they like the idea that
> > unknown/unseen plotters were also involved in JFK's murder, despite the
> > total lack of proof in that regard.
> >
>
>
> Oddly, you're both wrong. Oswald was seen by Carolyn Arnold at 12:15pm
> in the 2nd floor lunchroom.

Even if true that does nothing to establish his whereabouts at 12:30.

> At about the same time 2 men with a gun were
> seen in the window of the 6th floor. If Oswald had tried to get to the
> 6th floor at that time, he would have been put off by the 2 men, who
> wanted that window. If Oswald had tried to get to that window earlier
> than the 2 men, they would have found a way to convince him to leave it to
> them.
>

This nonsense isn't worth of a reply.

>
>
> > Put all of those "pieces" of evidence together, Bob. What does it add up
> > to? That's the simple arithmetic that no conspiracy theorist ever seems to
> > want to perform.
> >
> > And please tell me how the TOTALITY of physical evidence in this case
> > (which all points to Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt--and no one else's guilt!)
> > somehow proves--or even remotely suggests--that "accomplices" were
> > involved with Oswald in the assassination?
>
>
> The list of items that you think prove Oswald's guilt, don't. They are
> all circumstantial, and most are less than that. Since the rifle belonged
> to Oswald, and the paper bag was used by him to bring the rifle into the
> TSBD, there is very little in the list left.

Once you ignore the rest of the list.

> The only bit of evidence
> that might prove something against Oswald and put a rifle in his hands,
> was Howard Brennan, and he completely discredited himself when he wrote
> his autobiography. It turns out that he admitted that he saw Oswald on TV
> twice before he went down to ID him in a lineup. Not only that, but he
> also admitted that when he got to the lineup, a detective told him in
> which position Oswald was standing in the lineup.
>

That's right. Completely ignore the fibers on the butt plate of the rifle
that matched Oswald's shirt and Oswald's fingerprints in precisely the
place they would be if he was where Brennan placed him. Both of these
pieces of evidence corroborate Brennan's ID of Oswald. But of course you
will dismiss these just because you can dream up other theoretical
possibilities for that evidence being the way it was and you don't care
how unlikely those explanations are. As Bud observed a long time ago,
conspiracy hobbyists are really, really bad at weighing evidence. They
dismiss any and all evidence of Oswald's guilt no matter how probative
that evidence is but will accept just about any cockamamie conspiracy
theory on the flimsiest of evidence and in some cases no evidence at all.

> No other evidence puts a rifle in Oswald's hands, and the evidence we
> have about him and the rifle was that he did not intend to shoot anyone
> with that rifle.
>
> When Oswald bought the rifle from Klein's they offered him a deal to
> buy ammunition from the rifle, which was not a common type of rifle for
> Texas. He rejected that offer. Later the FBI tried to find where he
> might have bought ammunition for the rifle, but they found only 2 places
> in the area that sold that type of ammo, and one of them had reloaded all
> his MC type ammo with lead bullets. The FBI also was unable to find a
> place where Oswald would have practiced with the rifle. As it turned out,
> the rifle had a misaligned scope from a bad mounting, and as sticky bolt
> that made rapid shooting difficult.
>
> If Oswald had practiced, he would have found the problems and fixed
> them before taking a shot at the POTUS. But no fixing was done, so no
> practicing was done. When Oswald got the rifle he got Marina to take
> photos of him with his guns and his literature to impress someone he
> wanted to get in with that he was a rough and ready guy ready for action.
> But after he got his photos, he rolled the rifle up in a blanket and threw
> it in the garage.
>
> Oswald had no intention of shooting anyone, and he wasn't in the 6th
> floor window when the shooting started.
>

It is futile to continue to point out to you how illogical these
conclusions are. You are determined to believe nonsense because you don't
want to believe the truth.

[Bud]

Liberals love their false narratives.

> They knew he did it, but all they had was
> circumstantial evidence, which could just as easily pointed to someone else.
> The cases of Boston cops planting drugs on long-time drug dealers to
> make sure of a conviction.
> Then we have thousands of cases of police tampering with evidence that
> often gets cases thrown out of court.
>
> > showed a lack of intent to shoot anyone was not mentioned, and shouild
> > have ben to allow for proper decisions. First, Oswald had a chance to buy
>
> They almost ruined their own case by admitting that at the time of the
> shooting Oswald was down in the lunch room drinking a Coke.

Where did they say that?

[mainframetech]

Then you're in for a surprise now.

> > > > >
> > > > > 1. All three bullet shells found in the Sniper's Nest.
> > > > >

Agreed, but does not prove that any MC type bullet hit or hurt anyone.

> > > > > 2. All four bullet shells found at the scene of J.D. Tippit's murder.

The count of bullets and types of shells didn't match and there were
other questions about the Tippit killing, including witnesses that said
there was a different man than Oswald reloading his revolver:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaCCd0hzLsY

> > > > >
> > > > > 3. Commission Exhibit No. 399.
> > > > >

CE399 was a test bullet as proved by comparison with other test bullet
in photo next to it. Also 4 men that handled the original; bullet refused
to identify the CE399 bullet as one they had seen before. One of them
said the shape was wrong, since it was round nosed and the original bullet
was pointed nosed.

CE399 was replaced while in the hands of the bullet custodian, who had
been testing the MC rifle by firing it into various materials the day
after the murder. He had a stock of 60 or more fired test bullets.
Choosing one and replacing the bullet in custody was as easy as pie.

> > > > > 4. The paper bag found in the Sniper's Nest (with Oswald's prints on
> > > > > it--and those prints are phony too, per most CTers).
> > > > >

As a proud CT, I can say that the paper bag was probably used by Oswald
to get the MC rifle into the TSBD quietly.



> > > > > 5. The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.
> > > > >


The rifle belonged to Oswald. But that doesn't prove that he fired it
out the 6th floor window.

> > > > > 6. The two bullet fragments found in the front seat of JFK's limousine.
> > > > >

The fragments found in the front seat do NOT prove that Oswald fired a
rifle out the 6th floor window, and no MC type bullet hit or hurt anyone.

> > > > > 7. Each and every witness who fingered Lee Oswald for either JFK's murder
> > > > > or J.D. Tippit's slaying or identified LHO as the man they saw leaving the
> > > > > scene of the Tippit crime with gun in hand -- from Howard Brennan, to
> > > > > Helen Markham, to Barbara Davis, to Virginia Davis, to Ted Callaway, to
> > > > > William Scoggins, etc., etc.

Howard Brennan was discredited out of his own autobiography when he
admitted that he had seen Oswald on TV twice before he went down to the
lineup. He also admitted that when he was there at the lineup, a
detective told him which position in the lineup was where Oswald was
standing.

As to the Tippit killing witnesses, Markham was a ditzy person who said
the body talked to her after it was shot. There were questions about the
others as well, and about who actually fired the shots.

> > > > >
> > > > > 8. The backyard photos showing Oswald holding the rifle that killed
> > > > > President Kennedy.
> > > > >

There is absolutely NO proof whatsoever that the MC rifle killed
anyone. Oswald got Marina to take his photo with his guns and his
literature to impress people he wanted to get in with that he was a rough
and ready guy ready for action. When the photos were done, he rolled the
rifle up in a blanket and threw in the garage. The evidence suggests he
had no intention of killing anyone.

> > > > > 9. All of the paperwork that shows Lee Oswald purchased Rifle #C2766 from
> > > > > Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago.
> > > > >

There is no argument that Oswald bought the rifle mail order from
Klein's, and it should be noted that he was offered ammunition for the odd
rifle, which was not common in those parts, and he refused it.

> > > > > 10. All of the paperwork that indicates Lee Oswald purchased Revolver
> > > > > #V510210 from Seaport Traders in Los Angeles.
> > > > >

It's agreed that Oswald owned the MC rifle. So what? That does not
prove that he used it out the window at the motorcade.



> > > > > 11. The Walker bullet.



The Walker bullet was reported by 2 DPD detectives in their official
Offense Report that it was STEEL jacketed and mangled beyond using it for
matching to a rifle or determining caliber. Yet later when the bullet was
shown, it was suddenly COPPER jacketed and had enough left on it to
determine caliber and match it to a rifle. Walker himself, who had seen
the original bullet demanded that the authorities withdraw the phony
bullet because it was not the original. Just like the JFK CE399 bullet,
it appeared that the bullet was rejected by the person that saw it
originally as not being the right one.

> > > > >
> > > > > 12. And even the five unfired revolver bullets that Oswald had in his
> > > > > pocket after he was arrested. Those unfired bullets, per some
> > > > > conspiracists, are phony too. They say the cops planted those five bullets
> > > > > on Oswald to add to the frame-up against him. That's how far down "Crazy
> > > > > Boulevard" some conspiracy mongers have travelled in their efforts to
> > > > > exonerate a guilty double-murderer.
> > > > >

As a proud CT, I have no argument to offer as to the bullets in
Oswald's pocket. It seems like a normal thing to carry spares in times of
trouble. It does not prove that he killed anyone.

> > > > > About the only thing I can think of that the conspiracy theorists *might*
> > > > > say hasn't been faked or manufactured to frame Patsy Oswald are the
> > > > > fingerprints and palmprints of LHO's that were located on the boxes inside
> > > > > the Sniper's Nest.
> > > > >
> > > > > But, naturally, the Anybody But Oswald conspiracy believers would never in
> > > > > a million years think that those prints could be used to incriminate poor
> > > > > Lee Harvey. After all, he worked there. So, quite naturally, THREE of his
> > > > > prints are very likely going to show up on TWO of the boxes that the
> > > > > Presidential assassin also must have handled (and I guess the "real"
> > > > > Presidential assassin must have been wearing gloves when he touched those
> > > > > boxes on November 22, 1963).

Actually, Oswald worked at the TSBD for a while, and in that time he
probably hunted down many books, and in that process he probably handled
an awful lot of boxes of books.

> > > > >
> > > > > And just because shells from Oswald's gun were found right there in the
> > > > > Sniper's Nest too, why should the conspiracy theorists consider--for even
> > > > > a brief moment--the idea of linking the two things together (OSWALD'S
> > > > > shells + OSWALD'S prints)? What rational person would ever consider doing
> > > > > something silly like tying those two items together? Right? After all, all
> > > > > good conspiracy advocates always insist that those bullet shells were
> > > > > planted in the Book Depository too.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ergo, nothing can be trusted. And why? Because the conspiracy hounds have
> > > > > said so. And when we get right down to the brass tacks of the matter,
> > > > > that's pretty much the only reason.

As note above, So far NOTHING has been offered as evidence that Oswald
fired the MC rifle out the window at the motorcade, and there is no
evidence putting him anywhere on the 6th floor even. As well, he was seen
on the 2nd floor lunchroom at about 12:15pm, and about the same time 2 men
were seen in the 6th floor window with a gun. If Oswald had tried to get
to the 6th floor, the 2 men wit ha gun would persuade him to leave the
area, where they had staked out the window. If he tried to get to the
window BEFORE the 2 men with a gun, they would arrive on the 6th floor and
chase him away. Either way, Oswald was not on the 6th floor when the
shooting started.

Let me know when you have some evidence that Oswald was guilty of
killing JFK.

Chris

> > > > >
> > > > > But the allegation of evidence-tampering is a far cry from proving that
> > > > > the evidence really was tampered with.
> > > > >
> > > > > And what PROOF does any conspiracy theorist who has ever walked this Earth
> > > > > possess that would verify and prove that even one piece of evidence in the
> > > > > JFK murder case was, in fact, "tampered with" by any of the authorities?
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll answer my last question with the only possible answer there is ---
> > > > > There is no such proof. And there never has been.
> > > > >
> > > > > David Von Pein
> > > > > September 2014
> > > > >
> > > > > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/09/was-all-of-this-evidence-planted.html
> > > >
> > > > What conspiracy hobbyists have never understood is that it is the
> > > > accumulation of evidence that establishes Oswald's guilt. Sure there could
> > > > be one or two pieces of evidence that might point in the wrong direction
> > > > but when there is so much evidence of Oswald's guilt, it is ludicrous to
> > > > think that he could be innocent.
> > > >

There is NOT "so much" evidence. Of what you've listed above, only a
few items are circumstantial, and the rest have no connection to Oswald.
It's all bullshit. Say it enough times and people will believe it even
though there is so little evidence and none of which can put a rifle in
Oswald's hand, and none of which can even place him on the 6th floor!

> > > > If you've followed some of my recent exchanges with Chris, that
> > > > illustrates that perfectly. I will provide just a partial list of the
> > > > things indicating Oswald's guilt and he will counter that it doesn't prove
> > > > he was the shooter. If he was speaking of only one or two pieces of
> > > > evidence that would be true. For example:
> > > >
> > > > Oswald's ownership of the rifle doesn't prove he was the shooter.
> > > >
> > > > Oswald's palm print on the rifle doesn't prove he was the shooter.
> > > >
> > > > Oswald's fingerprints in the sniper's nest doesn't prove he was the
> > > > shooter.
> > > >
> > > > Oswald bringing a long bag to work doesn't prove he was the shooter.
> > > >
> > > > Oswald's fingerprints on a long bag found near the sniper's nest doesn't
> > > > prove he was the shooter.
> > > >
> > > > Fibers from Oswald's blanket found in the bag doesn't prove he was the
> > > > shooter.
> > > >
> > > > Fibers matching the shirt Oswald was wearing that day doesn't prove he was
> > > > the shooter.
> > > >
> > > > An eyewitness who IDed Oswald doesn't prove he was the shooter.
> > > >

OK, since DVP has tried to show that I have unjustly pointed out that
his 'list of evidence' isn't anything of importance, here is my further
comment based on what he just said. First, the stupid claim that Howard
Brennan saw Oswald in the 6th floor window. Howard Brennan discredited
himself in his autobiography when he admitted that he saw Oswald on TV
twice before he went down to the lineup. He also admitted that he was
told by a detective which position Oswald was standing in on the lineup
before he made his ID. Scratch Brenna as a witness. Now no one can place
Oswald on the 6th floor, and at least one person can place him on the 2nd
floor lunchroom at about12:15pm, and about the same time 2 men were seen
in the 5th floor window with a gun.

If Oswald had tried to get to the window the 2 men with a gun would
have dissuaded him from being there. If he tried to get there first, they
would have found him there and made him leave. They had obviously staked
out the window for themselves.

Now on to the other foolish items. As a proud CT I agree that the
rifle was owned by Oswald. Because it was his rifle, that means there is
nothing special about there being fibers on the rifle from his shirt and
his blanket that he rolled the rifle up in I before he threw it in the
garage. As well, his prints would be on it too. Since Oswald brought the
rifle in to the TSBD, the paper bag was probably used to do that quietly.


Taking the whole collection of minor items, it's clear that none of
them place Oswald on the 6th floor firing the rifle out the window. And
since he was shown to be elsewhere, the whole bunch of unconnected items
really means practically nothing. DVP will not admit to this, so he will
keep pretending he knows something about the JFK murder, where really he
doesn't.

> > > > Not one of those items by itself proves Oswald was the shooter. A case for
> > > > his innocence could be made with just two items from this list. There is
> > > > no reasonable argument for his innocence that can be made with all that
> > > > evidence against him. Everything is just as we would expect it to be if
> > > > Oswald was the shooter. One or two pieces of evidence might point in the
> > > > wrong direction. All of he the evidence is not going to point in the wrong
> > > > direction.

See above.

> > > >
> > > > And we haven't even started to talk about the evidence that he killed J.D.
> > > > Tippit.
> > >
> > > PREPONDERANCE of evidence. With each piece it just adds another nail
> > > in the coffin. Oswald's has been hermetically sealed. The more the
> > > evidence, the more difficult it becomes to connect it all to a conspiracy
> > > that PROVES the evidence is false or misinterpreted.
> > >

If all you have is a few cupcakes, they don't add up to a solid wall
of evidence.

> >
> >
> > There is a preponderance of attempts to make circumstantial evidence
> > into real evidence.
>
> The fact that you don't think circumstantial evidence isn't real evidence
> speaks volume.
>
> > It's the kind of thing you see when a case has to be
> > trumped up for lack of solid evidence.
>
> Forensic evidence is the most solid form of evidence there is.
>

And what "forensic evidence" have you quoted so far? That 3 shells
were found in the TSBD? And have you been taking your cues from bd, who
likes the phrase 'forensic evidence'? I would advise against that, since
I have to correct him practically all the time.

> Hilarious that you don't think forensic evidence is solid evidence but you
> think your silly figuring is.
>

WRONG again! I have never said that "forensic evidence" is not solid
evidence. I have said now and then that it can be messed with though.
And there are many tools needed to solve crimes, including even rumors.

> > All of the evidence that Oswald
> > showed a lack of intent to shoot anyone was not mentioned,

> > and should
> > have been to allow for proper decisions. First, Oswald had a chance to buy

> > ammunition from Klein's for this odd rifle which was not common, but he
> > refused it. Second, the FBI tried but could not finds anyplace that
> > Oswald bought any ammunition for the rifle, and there were only two places
> > within the area, one of which had reloaded all their MC type ammo with
> > lead bullets. Third, the FBI could not find anyplace that Oswald did any
> > practicing with the rifle, and since the rifle had a misaligned scope and
> > s sticky bolt, he would have found out those things and repaired them if
> > he had practiced.
> >
>
> What you are describing isn't evidence. It is an absence of evidence. You
> don't seem to understand the difference.
>

Something that you have failed to learn all this time I've instructed
you is that evidence comes in MANY forms, and may be solid and may be
logical, and maybe rumors, and may be any number of things. Try and
resolve yourself to that. We're NOT IN COURT and you're no judge, for
sure.

> > What we do know is that Oswald got his rifle, went in the back yard
> > and had Marina take his photo with his literature and his guns, and then
> > he rolled the rifle up in a blanket and threw in the garage. The photo
> > might be later used to impress someone that he was rough and ready for
> > action. But he had no intent to shoot anyone.
> >
>
> The first part of the paragraph is absolutely factual. The second half is
> nothing but silly conspiracy hobbyist figuring.

To keep you honest, it is true that I added the reasoning for why the
photo was taken, but many bits of evidence suggest that it is what was
going on back then.

Chris

[Allan G. Johnson]

On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 2:02:24 PM UTC-5, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:

And a photo or film of the shooter doing it!

[bigdog]

I took the pledge not to respond to him over a year ago and it has proven
to be quite liberating. For one I spend about half the time I use to spend
on this board because I can just skip over most of what he writes.
Occasionally for giggles I'll skim over what he has written just to
reassure myself that he continues to be what he has always been. I no
longer feel any compulsion to respond to him because I know if I do he
will just twist what I have written and then offer some inane comment that
is only vaguely related to what it is I have written. He simply isn't
important enough to waste my time with. In short, he is irrelevant.

[mainframetech]

The whole comment is pure opinion and therefore useless.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 7:02:23 AM UTC-5, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:

If you think that's tiresome, then you can appreciate how sickening it
is listening to you with your illogical theories popping out based on your
opinions only. Make an argument against the proofs that I've provided and
we'll see what comes up as evidence and what comes up as your fantasies
based on your opinion.

> I should ignore it, yes; but he drags down every thread with his replies.

I suggest you either ignore what you don't like or provide some
evidence of your contentions and argue it out. Of course, that's how bd
lost all his arguments. He can't defeat the real evidence from the
official record, which much of my proofs are.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

So, according to your worldview Liberals are always wrong and Nazis are
always right. But I already linked to the cases I mentioned so you can't
pretend they never existed. The best you can do is support their
cover-ups.

>> They knew he did it, but all they had was
>> circumstantial evidence, which could just as easily pointed to someone else.
>> The cases of Boston cops planting drugs on long-time drug dealers to
>> make sure of a conviction.
>> Then we have thousands of cases of police tampering with evidence that
>> often gets cases thrown out of court.
>>
>>> showed a lack of intent to shoot anyone was not mentioned, and shouild
>>> have ben to allow for proper decisions. First, Oswald had a chance to buy
>>
>> They almost ruined their own case by admitting that at the time of the
>> shooting Oswald was down in the lunch room drinking a Coke.
>
> Where did they say that?
>

By publishing the 302 where Baker said it. That should have been destroyed.

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, some WC defenders would be stupid enough to say that. Why do you
think Dale Myers had to change his diagram? I've never seen your diagram.
But I like how it's ok for you to postulate that the bullet changed
course in the body and then when a conspiracy believer says the same
thing you get to call him a kook. You have to work very hard to be a
hypocrite about every point.
No wonder you're always so tired. Get some sleep.

>>
>>>
>>> ROBERT HARRIS SAID (WITH ONE MORE NEEDLESS COMMA REMOVED BY DVP):
>>>
>>> Tell me David, have you ever in your life seen a single piece of evidence
>>> which supports the notion that Oswald acted alone?
>>>
>>>
>>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>>
>>> Every single piece of evidence goes in the direction of Oswald acting
>>> alone, Bob. All of it. You know that. You just won't admit it. And all
>>> other conspiracy theorists who are aware of the evidence know it too. But
>>> they won't admit it either. And that's because they like the idea that
>>> unknown/unseen plotters were also involved in JFK's murder, despite the
>>> total lack of proof in that regard.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Oddly, you're both wrong. Oswald was seen by Carolyn Arnold at 12:15pm
>> in the 2nd floor lunchroom.
>
> Even if true that does nothing to establish his whereabouts at 12:30.
>
>> At about the same time 2 men with a gun were
>> seen in the window of the 6th floor. If Oswald had tried to get to the
>> 6th floor at that time, he would have been put off by the 2 men, who
>> wanted that window. If Oswald had tried to get to that window earlier
>> than the 2 men, they would have found a way to convince him to leave it to
>> them.
>>
>
> This nonsense isn't worth of a reply.
>

Nor are you.

>>
>>
>>> Put all of those "pieces" of evidence together, Bob. What does it add up
>>> to? That's the simple arithmetic that no conspiracy theorist ever seems to
>>> want to perform.
>>>
>>> And please tell me how the TOTALITY of physical evidence in this case
>>> (which all points to Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt--and no one else's guilt!)
>>> somehow proves--or even remotely suggests--that "accomplices" were
>>> involved with Oswald in the assassination?
>>
>>
>> The list of items that you think prove Oswald's guilt, don't. They are
>> all circumstantial, and most are less than that. Since the rifle belonged
>> to Oswald, and the paper bag was used by him to bring the rifle into the
>> TSBD, there is very little in the list left.
>
> Once you ignore the rest of the list.
>
>> The only bit of evidence
>> that might prove something against Oswald and put a rifle in his hands,
>> was Howard Brennan, and he completely discredited himself when he wrote
>> his autobiography. It turns out that he admitted that he saw Oswald on TV
>> twice before he went down to ID him in a lineup. Not only that, but he
>> also admitted that when he got to the lineup, a detective told him in
>> which position Oswald was standing in the lineup.
>>
>
> That's right. Completely ignore the fibers on the butt plate of the rifle
> that matched Oswald's shirt and Oswald's fingerprints in precisely the

Learn more about trace evidence. It's called cross=contamination.

> place they would be if he was where Brennan placed him. Both of these
> pieces of evidence corroborate Brennan's ID of Oswald. But of course you

We don't know for sure how the boxes were arranged at the time of the
shooting.

> will dismiss these just because you can dream up other theoretical
> possibilities for that evidence being the way it was and you don't care
> how unlikely those explanations are. As Bud observed a long time ago,
> conspiracy hobbyists are really, really bad at weighing evidence. They

Hard to weigh when you destroyed it.

You just believe whatever you want to believe.

[Anthony Marsh]

Something like that, but not quite. Did you ever hear of the dog that
didn't bark or the door lock that was broken After the thief got in?

> lack of evidence that Oswald had any accomplices in his crime. That

Hoover and LBJ believed there was evidence of an accomplice.
Frits tried to charge Frazier.

> doesn't prove he didn't have any. Given that none has surfaced in over 50
> years makes it highly unlikely any such accomplices existed but it cannot
> be logically ruled out.
>
>>
>>
>>>> Sure there could
>>>>> be one or two pieces of evidence that might point in the wrong direction
>>>>> but when there is so much evidence of Oswald's guilt, it is ludicrous to
>>>>> think that he could be innocent.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> WRONG! There is NOT "so much" evidence, and the little there is
>>>> doesn't put Oswald in the window with the rifle.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you listed all the evidence we should have of Oswald's guilt and all of
>>> the evidence we do have of Oswald's guilt, the two lists would be
>>> identical.
>>>
>>
>>
>> and just as useless as each other. There is not anything that puts
>> Oswald in the window of the 6th floor, and nothing that puts the rifle in
>> his hands at the time of the shooting.
>>
>
> In addition to the eyewitness who IDed him, we have the fibers matching
> his shirt on the butt plate of the rifle. Exactly what we would expect

Worthless. Naturally someone like you would think it was significant.

> there to be had he fired three shots from the Carcano, the recoil from
> those shots driving the butt of the rifle forcefully into his shoulder. On

Nonsense. Demonstrate that for us.

> top of the fact it was his rifle, his palm print was on the rifle, and his
> fingerprints were on the boxes in the sniper's nest oriented precisely as

He worked in that building. Naturally his fingerprints would be found
there.

> they would be if he was the shooter and facing down Elm St. It is
> impossible to construct a plausible scenario that explains for all that
> evidence of his guilt if he were innocent. The body of evidence is exactly
> what we would expect it to be if he were the shooter.
>

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. Just because you are biased does not mean
that you are correct. You just keep repeating the WC lies over and over.

> By denying that this body of evidence establishes Oswald's guilt, you are
> creating a burden of proof that is so high that it would be virtually
> impossible to convict most murderers of their crime if that same burden of
> proof were applied in all murder cases. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is
> not the same as proof beyond all doubt as it would be virtually impossible
> to provide the latter in any murder case.
>

Juvenile. You burden of proof has convicted many innocent people.

> If you want to cling to the belief that Oswald was innocent just because
> of the theoretical possibility that all that evidence could line up
> against him and he could still be innocent you are assuring that you will
> never understand who it was that killed JFK. If you reject the one and
> only truth there is zero chance you will ever find another.
>

Silly, you don't have to believe that Oswald is innocent to know that it
was a conspiracy.

[mainframetech]

WRONG! There is no better. The evidence is there. No tampering.

> > But that
> > path is very high and so did not go through a person. As a matter of
> > fact, NO MC type bullet ever hit or hurt anyone, and no one can prove
> > differently.
> >
>
> I suppose you think that when the bullet fragmented upon passing through
> the skull wall all those fragments would continue one the same vector as
> the whole bullet was on when it entered the skull.
>

No MC type bullet "passed through any skull". The path was too high.
If you drew a line from where you say the shooter was, on the 6th floor of
the TSBD, and had the line go to the point over the windshield where the
bullet struck, it would be too high to have hit any person. And it would
be rather coincidental if the bullet HAD passed through a skull (I assume
your assumption was JFK) and just blooped down in front of him instead of
going on further. As well, there is no exit from the body of JFK for any
bullet to leave his skull and strike the chrome over the windshield so
hard as to mangle it as badly as CE567 and 569 were.

> >
> > >
> > > ROBERT HARRIS SAID (WITH ONE MORE NEEDLESS COMMA REMOVED BY DVP):
> > >
> > > Tell me David, have you ever in your life seen a single piece of evidence
> > > which supports the notion that Oswald acted alone?
> > >
> > >
> > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > >
> > > Every single piece of evidence goes in the direction of Oswald acting
> > > alone, Bob. All of it. You know that. You just won't admit it. And all
> > > other conspiracy theorists who are aware of the evidence know it too. But
> > > they won't admit it either. And that's because they like the idea that
> > > unknown/unseen plotters were also involved in JFK's murder, despite the
> > > total lack of proof in that regard.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Oddly, you're both wrong. Oswald was seen by Carolyn Arnold at 12:15pm
> > in the 2nd floor lunchroom.
>
> Even if true that does nothing to establish his whereabouts at 12:30.
>

WRONG! Of course it does. Read on and learn.

> > At about the same time 2 men with a gun were
> > seen in the window of the 6th floor. If Oswald had tried to get to the
> > 6th floor at that time, he would have been put off by the 2 men, who
> > wanted that window. If Oswald had tried to get to that window earlier
> > than the 2 men, they would have found a way to convince him to leave it to
> > them.
> >
>
> This nonsense isn't worth of a reply.
>

WRONG! You don't have a reply so you had to make up an excuse to run
away.

> >
> >
> > > Put all of those "pieces" of evidence together, Bob. What does it add up
> > > to? That's the simple arithmetic that no conspiracy theorist ever seems to
> > > want to perform.
> > >
> > > And please tell me how the TOTALITY of physical evidence in this case
> > > (which all points to Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt--and no one else's guilt!)
> > > somehow proves--or even remotely suggests--that "accomplices" were
> > > involved with Oswald in the assassination?
> >
> >
> > The list of items that you think prove Oswald's guilt, don't. They are
> > all circumstantial, and most are less than that. Since the rifle belonged
> > to Oswald, and the paper bag was used by him to bring the rifle into the
> > TSBD, there is very little in the list left.
>
> Once you ignore the rest of the list.
>

I said there was little left, meaning that I didn't do like you and
dismiss evidence.

> > The only bit of evidence
> > that might prove something against Oswald and put a rifle in his hands,
> > was Howard Brennan, and he completely discredited himself when he wrote
> > his autobiography. It turns out that he admitted that he saw Oswald on TV
> > twice before he went down to ID him in a lineup. Not only that, but he
> > also admitted that when he got to the lineup, a detective told him in
> > which position Oswald was standing in the lineup.
> >
>
> That's right. Completely ignore the fibers on the butt plate of the rifle
> that matched Oswald's shirt and Oswald's fingerprints in precisely the
> place they would be if he was where Brennan placed him.

WRONG! Stop the crap! Both of those items were Oswald's and had every
reason to appear where they did. There is no proof in them showing he
fired a rifle or even had the intent. Oswald 'liked' JFK and thought he
was a 'great leader'.

Both of these
> pieces of evidence corroborate Brennan's ID of Oswald.

They corroborate nothing. Brennan probably saw the rifle sticking out
the window but not the person holding it, same as Amos Euins, who was
nearby. That is not corroboration of the guilty party, only corroboration
that there was a rifle in the window on the 6th floor.

But of course you
> will dismiss these just because you can dream up other theoretical
> possibilities for that evidence being the way it was and you don't care
> how unlikely those explanations are. As Bud observed a long time ago,
> conspiracy hobbyists are really, really bad at weighing evidence.

Ah, the truth comes out! You listen to Bud and that's where you get
your crazy ideas! Now we know it all! Of course that's all opinion,
where as my opinion is that LNs are really bad at weighing evidence. But
all of this evidence that you got from me and from Bud is really just
opinion and mean nothing. So get back to trying to make your point with

evidence.



They
> dismiss any and all evidence of Oswald's guilt no matter how probative
> that evidence is but will accept just about any cockamamie conspiracy
> theory on the flimsiest of evidence and in some cases no evidence at all.
>

Ah, you mean like all the kooks that believe the WCR, even after it's
been proven wrong so many times?

> > No other evidence puts a rifle in Oswald's hands, and the evidence we
> > have about him and the rifle was that he did not intend to shoot anyone
> > with that rifle.
> >
> > When Oswald bought the rifle from Klein's they offered him a deal to
> > buy ammunition from the rifle, which was not a common type of rifle for
> > Texas. He rejected that offer. Later the FBI tried to find where he
> > might have bought ammunition for the rifle, but they found only 2 places
> > in the area that sold that type of ammo, and one of them had reloaded all
> > his MC type ammo with lead bullets. The FBI also was unable to find a
> > place where Oswald would have practiced with the rifle. As it turned out,
> > the rifle had a misaligned scope from a bad mounting, and as sticky bolt
> > that made rapid shooting difficult.
> >
> > If Oswald had practiced, he would have found the problems and fixed
> > them before taking a shot at the POTUS. But no fixing was done, so no
> > practicing was done. When Oswald got the rifle he got Marina to take
> > photos of him with his guns and his literature to impress someone he
> > wanted to get in with that he was a rough and ready guy ready for action.
> > But after he got his photos, he rolled the rifle up in a blanket and threw
> > it in the garage.
> >
> > Oswald had no intention of shooting anyone, and he wasn't in the 6th
> > floor window when the shooting started.
> >
>
> It is futile to continue to point out to you how illogical these
> conclusions are. You are determined to believe nonsense because you don't
> want to believe the truth.

You act like YOU own the truth, yet you're a believer in the WCR,
proving that you're on the wrong track. Come back to reality!

Chris

[mainframetech]

Playing the philosopher again. A role you never tire of, no matter how
often your errors have to be corrected. I'm glad you believe that a lack
of evidence is not a convincing factor, since you have stated many times
that I have a lack of evidence for the many things I've brought to light.
Thank you for finally agreeing with me on everything I have proposed.
Because far from a "lack of evidence", I've provided good evidence for
each thing I believe.

> >
> >
> > > > Sure there could
> > > > > be one or two pieces of evidence that might point in the wrong direction
> > > > > but when there is so much evidence of Oswald's guilt, it is ludicrous to
> > > > > think that he could be innocent.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WRONG! There is NOT "so much" evidence, and the little there is
> > > > doesn't put Oswald in the window with the rifle.
> > > >
> > >
> > > If you listed all the evidence we should have of Oswald's guilt and all of
> > > the evidence we do have of Oswald's guilt, the two lists would be
> > > identical.
> > >
> >
> >
> > and just as useless as each other. There is not anything that puts
> > Oswald in the window of the 6th floor, and nothing that puts the rifle in
> > his hands at the time of the shooting.
> >
>
> In addition to the eyewitness who IDed him, we have the fibers matching
> his shirt on the butt plate of the rifle. Exactly what we would expect
> there to be had he fired three shots from the Carcano, the recoil from
> those shots driving the butt of the rifle forcefully into his shoulder.

What total bullshit! A fiber caught on a a butt plate would come from
a bit of metal hanging loose on the butt plate, and that would catch a
fiber when the shirt would be slid over the butt plate, not when the plate
was pushed into the shoulder.

On
> top of the fact it was his rifle, his palm print was on the rifle, and his
> fingerprints were on the boxes in the sniper's nest oriented precisely as
> they would be if he was the shooter and facing down Elm St. It is
> impossible to construct a plausible scenario that explains for all that
> evidence of his guilt if he were innocent.

WRONG! The rifle was his and that means he would get prints on it.
He worked in the TSBD and he searched for books in many boxes. He
probably handled almost every box in the place looking for books.
Whoever constructed the 'nest' would place boxes to satisfy their need.
Since Mac Wallace had a fingerprint on a box there, maybe he was the one
that moved the boxes. Now,. as to a plausible scenario, Oswald was
manipulated into bringing in his rifle that day and hiding it for later.
He told someone where he hid it. 3 people went up the back stairs from
the loading dock entrance, and they got the rifle out of its hiding place
and then fired on the motorcade leaving 3 shells there at the 'nest'.
Simple.

The body of evidence is exactly
> what we would expect it to be if he were the shooter.
>

It would also satisfy a few different scenarios. It's only your
opinion that Oswald was the shooter, you have not a single bit of evidence
that says Oswald was in the window and was firing the MC rifle at the
motorcade.

> By denying that this body of evidence establishes Oswald's guilt, you are
> creating a burden of proof that is so high that it would be virtually
> impossible to convict most murderers of their crime if that same burden of
> proof were applied in all murder cases.

There isn't a "body of evidence", only a couple of circumstantial items
and a lot of baloney. Little of which points to Oswald, and very little
tells us about the shooter.

Proof beyond reasonable doubt is
> not the same as proof beyond all doubt as it would be virtually impossible
> to provide the latter in any murder case.
>

I have a reasonable doubt that Oswald was the shooter at the
motorcade. I know that he was not present at the 6th floor window,
therefore he is innocent of the murder of the man he liked and thought was
a "good leader".

> If you want to cling to the belief that Oswald was innocent just because
> of the theoretical possibility that all that evidence could line up
> against him and he could still be innocent you are assuring that you will
> never understand who it was that killed JFK. If you reject the one and
> only truth there is zero chance you will ever find another.
>

WRONG! Don't be ridiculous yet again! I believe his innocence because
of the evidence that he was not on the 6th floor when the shots rang out.

"All" What evidence? You've only shown a few things that do nothing to
blame Oswald for something.

It is
> > > inconceivable there would be ALL that evidence against him if he were
> > > innocent. The body of evidence establishes that Brennan was not wrong.
> > >
> >
> >
> > It is VERY conceivable that without Brennan that there isn't enough
> > evidence to convict anyone. Talking about "all that evidence" is just
> > words and opinion.
> >
>
> As I said, if the same burden of proof beyond all possible doubt were
> applied to all murder cases that conspiracy hobbyists want to apply in
> this case, no murderers would ever be convicted.
>

Forget it. You don't even have 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

> > > > > Not one of those items by itself proves Oswald was the shooter. A case for
> > > > > his innocence could be made with just two items from this list. There is
> > > > > no reasonable argument for his innocence that can be made with all that
> > > > > evidence against him. Everything is just as we would expect it to be if
> > > > > Oswald was the shooter. One or two pieces of evidence might point in the
> > > > > wrong direction. All of he the evidence is not going to point in the wrong
> > > > > direction.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The trouble with that is that "all of the evidence" suggests there is
> > > > some large pile of evidence, which there is not. There are a few flimsy
> > > > things that suggest that Oswald owned the rifle, but there's nothing that
> > > > says he was at the window with the rifle firing into the plaza. In fact,
> > > > a book called "The Men on the Sixth Floor" by Collum and Sample seems to
> > > > have found evidence that 3 people snuck into the TSBD through the loading
> > > > dock door and went up to the 6th floor and fired guns out of the 6th floor
> > > > window including using Oswald's rifle which as hidden there. They then
> > > > went back down and left the building, and they were seen coming out of the
> > > > loading dock area.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The authors of "The Men on the Sixth Floor seem to have found a few
> > > gullible people who believe their nonsense. And took their money.
> >
> >
> > Ah, so now you've decided to attack the book's information.
>


> Yes I did. I decided that when you told me they cooked up a story of 3
> assassins on the 6th floor and Oswald wasn't one of them.

WHOA! I did NOT tell you that THEY "cooked us a story". I named the book
and the authors, and told you the general story line. The authors that
Oswald was not one of the shooters, just as we know it from evidence that
Oswald was elsewhere than on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

Since I know
> Oswald was the assassin, I know they are full of shit.

The trouble with all that is that you have little evidence that Oswald
was even ON the 6th floor never mind holding the rifle and shooting at the
motorcade.

Had their story
> been that there were two people in addition to Oswald I would want to see
> what evidence they had of those accomplices. Since their "proof" consists
> of a story supposedly told to them by a dead guy who can no longer refute
> their story, it is quite easy to dismiss their nonsense.
>

Face it, you would find anything to "dismiss" the story, never mind
that many facts in the story match the situation.

> > Well,
> > prove that the book is wrong. don't just feed us your useless opinion.
> >
>
> I don't have to prove the book is wrong. They need to prove it is right.
>

Ah, anything to get the burden off you. First, the book is really a
statement of a witness, namely Loy Factor. We are reading his eyewitness
story of the killing of JFK. Second, many of the facts in the book fit
other facts, such as the 2 men in the window with a gun, which fits the
book, and the entry and exit through the loading dock entrance. As well,
there was a statement that there were other shooters stationed around the
plaza and they got a signal from Ruth Ann who was with them on the 6th
floor, which fit the situation again.

There is no reason to doubt the book's story. There has been no proof
that either of the 2 men that wrote it did ANYTHING wrong or had ever
falsified anything. The story also of Loy Factor identifying Mac Wallace
as the boss of this little group was also a clue, since without knowing it
at first, they found out that Wallace was LBJ's hit man, and we know that
Wallace's finger print was found in the 'nest'.

> Your double standards are once again on display. For Oswald, you demand
> proof beyond all possible doubt of his guilt. Yet you are perfectly
> willing to accept this cockamamie story until somebody can prove it is
> wrong.

WRONG! I believe Oswald was innocent because the evidence says so.
He wasn't near the 6th floor when the shots rang out. You have tried to
concoct evidence against him ,as the plotters wanted you to, but it just
wasn't enough. Your witness was discredited, and your other evidence
amounts to almost nothing.

You set the bar as high as you possibly can for proof of Oswald's
> guilt and then lay the bar on the floor for the things you want to
> believe.

WRONG! That is, of course, more of your useless opinion. Try proof.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Yes, the first part is factual, and the second part is more useless
opinion.

Chris

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Hah, this is hilarious.

He disagrees more with you than I do. He's the one who calls you an
alterationist kook. Not me. I don't need to expose your nonsense; you do
it by yourself.

Tell us again how Jackie went along with the switching of JFK's body? And
how someone else shot Tippit and handed the revolver to Oswald?

Those are great stories.

Take you sickness up with him. I'm sure you two will get along.

[bigdog]

Nor is it necessary to prove that. Not in this case and not in any other
murder case. Even in a criminal trial a jury is instructed that they may
make "logical inferences" from the evidence. The following is from a
template for instructions judges give to juries in determining the facts
at trial.

" Summations provide each lawyer an opportunity to review the evidence and
submit for your consideration the facts, inferences, and conclusions that
they contend may properly be drawn from the evidence.

If you find that a lawyer has accurately summarized and analyzed the
evidence, and if you find that the inferences and conclusions the lawyer
asks you to draw from that evidence are reasonable, logical and consistent
with the evidence, then you may adopt those inferences and conclusions."

http://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/5-SampleCharges/CJI2d.Final_Instructions.pdf

I know your knee jerk reaction will be to point out that we are not in
court which of course is true but the fact that our justice system
encourages jurors to make logical inferences in their deliberations it
only makes sense that such logical inferences should be employed in
reaching the historical verdict in this case.

Three shells were found at the very location where a shooter was seen
firing a rifle at JFK. Those shells were matched to the rifle found hidden
on that floor a short time later. That rifle matched a fragmented bullet
found in the President's limo and a bullet later found at the hospital
where the two shooting victims were taken. An autopsy determined that the
deceased was struck by two bullets fired from above and behind him,
consistent with a shot fired from the location where the shells were
found. No other rifle, shells, or bullets were ever found. A logical
inference can be made that the recovered bullets that matched the rifle
and the shells were the ones that caused the wounds to the two shooting
victims.

Of course that is a reasonable conclusion. Conspiracy hobbyists aren't
interested in reasonable conclusions. They demand a standard of proof far
beyond what our justice system demands the state meet before it can
deprive a citizen of life, liberty, or property. The demand that all
aspects of the case be proven beyond all possible doubt. If they can
establish even a theoretical possibility of Oswald's innocence no matter
how far fetched that possibility is, that is good enough for them. Then
they will turn around and embrace the wildest, most convoluted conspiracy
theories imaginable based on nothing more than their own suspicions. Is it
any wonder that after 53 years they are still wandering aimlessly trying
to figure out a case that the DPD nailed down in the first 12 hours.

>
>
> > > > > > 2. All four bullet shells found at the scene of J.D. Tippit's murder.
>
>
> The count of bullets and types of shells didn't match and there were
> other questions about the Tippit killing, including witnesses that said
> there was a different man than Oswald reloading his revolver:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaCCd0hzLsY
>

So do you think that "different man" gave Oswald's revolver back to him
after he shot Tippit with it?

>
>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3. Commission Exhibit No. 399.
> > > > > >
>
>
>
> CE399 was a test bullet as proved by comparison with other test bullet
> in photo next to it. Also 4 men that handled the original; bullet refused
> to identify the CE399 bullet as one they had seen before. One of them
> said the shape was wrong, since it was round nosed and the original bullet
> was pointed nosed.
>

Proved??? <chuckle>

> CE399 was replaced while in the hands of the bullet custodian, who had
> been testing the MC rifle by firing it into various materials the day
> after the murder. He had a stock of 60 or more fired test bullets.
> Choosing one and replacing the bullet in custody was as easy as pie.
>

A perfect example of the wild, convoluted conspiracy theories I spoke of
earlier in this reply.

>
>
> > > > > > 4. The paper bag found in the Sniper's Nest (with Oswald's prints on
> > > > > > it--and those prints are phony too, per most CTers).
> > > > > >
>
>
> As a proud CT, I can say that the paper bag was probably used by Oswald
> to get the MC rifle into the TSBD quietly.
>

Gee, I wonder why he wanted to do that.

>
>
> > > > > > 5. The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.
> > > > > >
>
>
> The rifle belonged to Oswald. But that doesn't prove that he fired it
> out the 6th floor window.
>

No, but the accumulation of evidence pointing to that conclusion sure
does. A perfect example of the logical inferences that establish Oswald's
guilt.

>
>
> > > > > > 6. The two bullet fragments found in the front seat of JFK's limousine.
> > > > > >
>
>
> The fragments found in the front seat do NOT prove that Oswald fired a
> rifle out the 6th floor window, and no MC type bullet hit or hurt anyone.
>

See above.

>
>
> > > > > > 7. Each and every witness who fingered Lee Oswald for either JFK's murder
> > > > > > or J.D. Tippit's slaying or identified LHO as the man they saw leaving the
> > > > > > scene of the Tippit crime with gun in hand -- from Howard Brennan, to
> > > > > > Helen Markham, to Barbara Davis, to Virginia Davis, to Ted Callaway, to
> > > > > > William Scoggins, etc., etc.
>
>
> Howard Brennan was discredited out of his own autobiography when he
> admitted that he had seen Oswald on TV twice before he went down to the
> lineup. He also admitted that when he was there at the lineup, a
> detective told him which position in the lineup was where Oswald was
> standing.
>

Brennan was corroborated by the forensic evidence alone. Oswald's guilt is
established even without Brennan's testimony so all that evidence is an
indicated he IDed the correct man.

> As to the Tippit killing witnesses, Markham was a ditzy person who said
> the body talked to her after it was shot. There were questions about the
> others as well, and about who actually fired the shots.
>

So ditzy that she IDed the guy who had the murder weapon in his possession
when arrested a short time later.

>
>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 8. The backyard photos showing Oswald holding the rifle that killed
> > > > > > President Kennedy.
> > > > > >
>
>
>
> There is absolutely NO proof whatsoever that the MC rifle killed
> anyone. Oswald got Marina to take his photo with his guns and his
> literature to impress people he wanted to get in with that he was a rough
> and ready guy ready for action. When the photos were done, he rolled the
> rifle up in a blanket and threw in the garage. The evidence suggests he
> had no intention of killing anyone.
>

This is a perfect example of illogical inferences.

>
>
>
>
> > > > > > 9. All of the paperwork that shows Lee Oswald purchased Rifle #C2766 from
> > > > > > Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago.
> > > > > >
>
>
>
> There is no argument that Oswald bought the rifle mail order from
> Klein's, and it should be noted that he was offered ammunition for the odd
> rifle, which was not common in those parts, and he refused it.
>

Which establishes nothing.

>
>
> > > > > > 10. All of the paperwork that indicates Lee Oswald purchased Revolver
> > > > > > #V510210 from Seaport Traders in Los Angeles.
> > > > > >
>
>
> It's agreed that Oswald owned the MC rifle. So what? That does not
> prove that he used it out the window at the motorcade.
>

No, we have to make logical inferences to reach that conclusion.

>
>
> > > > > > 11. The Walker bullet.
>
>
>
> The Walker bullet was reported by 2 DPD detectives in their official
> Offense Report that it was STEEL jacketed and mangled beyond using it for
> matching to a rifle or determining caliber. Yet later when the bullet was
> shown, it was suddenly COPPER jacketed and had enough left on it to
> determine caliber and match it to a rifle. Walker himself, who had seen
> the original bullet demanded that the authorities withdraw the phony
> bullet because it was not the original. Just like the JFK CE399 bullet,
> it appeared that the bullet was rejected by the person that saw it
> originally as not being the right one.
>

The physical evidence coupled with Marina's testimony is enough to infer
that Oswald was the one who took the errant shot at Walker. Even if it
were not possible to reach that conclusion, that in now way would weaken
the case that Oswald killed JFK and JDT.

>
>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 12. And even the five unfired revolver bullets that Oswald had in his
> > > > > > pocket after he was arrested. Those unfired bullets, per some
> > > > > > conspiracists, are phony too. They say the cops planted those five bullets
> > > > > > on Oswald to add to the frame-up against him. That's how far down "Crazy
> > > > > > Boulevard" some conspiracy mongers have travelled in their efforts to
> > > > > > exonerate a guilty double-murderer.
> > > > > >
>
>
>
> As a proud CT, I have no argument to offer as to the bullets in
> Oswald's pocket. It seems like a normal thing to carry spares in times of
> trouble. It does not prove that he killed anyone.
>

Once again you need to make a logical inference which seems to be a real
stumbling block for you.

>
>
> > > > > > About the only thing I can think of that the conspiracy theorists *might*
> > > > > > say hasn't been faked or manufactured to frame Patsy Oswald are the
> > > > > > fingerprints and palmprints of LHO's that were located on the boxes inside
> > > > > > the Sniper's Nest.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But, naturally, the Anybody But Oswald conspiracy believers would never in
> > > > > > a million years think that those prints could be used to incriminate poor
> > > > > > Lee Harvey. After all, he worked there. So, quite naturally, THREE of his
> > > > > > prints are very likely going to show up on TWO of the boxes that the
> > > > > > Presidential assassin also must have handled (and I guess the "real"
> > > > > > Presidential assassin must have been wearing gloves when he touched those
> > > > > > boxes on November 22, 1963).
>
>
>
> Actually, Oswald worked at the TSBD for a while, and in that time he
> probably hunted down many books, and in that process he probably handled
> an awful lot of boxes of books.
>

How many of them had his prints on top of the boxes oriented precisely as
they would be if he had been in the sniper's nest looking southwest down
Elm St?

>
>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And just because shells from Oswald's gun were found right there in the
> > > > > > Sniper's Nest too, why should the conspiracy theorists consider--for even
> > > > > > a brief moment--the idea of linking the two things together (OSWALD'S
> > > > > > shells + OSWALD'S prints)? What rational person would ever consider doing
> > > > > > something silly like tying those two items together? Right? After all, all
> > > > > > good conspiracy advocates always insist that those bullet shells were
> > > > > > planted in the Book Depository too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ergo, nothing can be trusted. And why? Because the conspiracy hounds have
> > > > > > said so. And when we get right down to the brass tacks of the matter,
> > > > > > that's pretty much the only reason.
>
>
>
> As note above, So far NOTHING has been offered as evidence that Oswald
> fired the MC rifle out the window at the motorcade, and there is no
> evidence putting him anywhere on the 6th floor even.

His fingerprints in the sniper's nest don't put him on the 6th floor???

> As well, he was seen
> on the 2nd floor lunchroom at about 12:15pm, and about the same time 2 men
> were seen in the 6th floor window with a gun.

Back to your preferred illogical inferences.

> If Oswald had tried to get
> to the 6th floor, the 2 men wit ha gun would persuade him to leave the
> area, where they had staked out the window. If he tried to get to the
> window BEFORE the 2 men with a gun, they would arrive on the 6th floor and
> chase him away. Either way, Oswald was not on the 6th floor when the
> shooting started.
>
> Let me know when you have some evidence that Oswald was guilty of
> killing JFK.
>

Since you have established you are incapable of making logical inferences,
proving that to you is a hopeless task. There's a greater likelihood
Hillary Clinton will one day be President of the United States than that
you will figure out such a simple murder case.

[bigdog]

That pretty much describes everything you have ever written on this
newsgroup.

[Anthony Marsh]

You have a photo or a film of who doing what?

[Bud]

It was a simple concept and you still screwed it up. Here it is against,
two more whiffs and you`re out...

"Liberals love their false narratives."

> But I already linked to the cases I mentioned so you can't
> pretend they never existed. The best you can do is support their
> cover-ups.

I can do better than that, I can point out that all you do is mangle and
misrepresent information. Liberals only like false narratives.

> >> They knew he did it, but all they had was
> >> circumstantial evidence, which could just as easily pointed to someone else.
> >> The cases of Boston cops planting drugs on long-time drug dealers to
> >> make sure of a conviction.
> >> Then we have thousands of cases of police tampering with evidence that
> >> often gets cases thrown out of court.
> >>
> >>> showed a lack of intent to shoot anyone was not mentioned, and shouild
> >>> have ben to allow for proper decisions. First, Oswald had a chance to buy
> >>
> >> They almost ruined their own case by admitting that at the time of the
> >> shooting Oswald was down in the lunch room drinking a Coke.
> >
> > Where did they say that?
> >
>
> By publishing the 302 where Baker said it.

Thats what I thought, the product of feverish conspiracy hobbyist
figuring.

[Robert Harris]

David Von Pein wrote:
> ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>
> There was plenty of evidence against Oswald. They [the Dallas Police
> Department] didn't need to frame him.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Exactly, Bob. That was kinda my point when I said this:
>

> "Did the Dallas Police Department normally have a habit of officially
> charging suspects with TWO murders if they had no solid evidence against

> that suspect at all?" -- DVP; September 2014
>
>
> ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>
> Nothing was planted, David. There was no need to frame Oswald.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Again --- that's exactly correct.
>
> (If you keep thinking this way, Bob, you'll be an LNer before you know
> it.)
>
>
> ROBERT HARRIS SAID (ONE NEEDLESS COMMA REMOVED BY DVP):
>
> The need was to make sure the world didn't know about his accomplices.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> You were doing great before you made that last statement.
>
> Re: the Katzenbach memo....
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-971.html

Strange that you didn't discuss the most important part of
that memo, David.

"The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin;
that he did not have confederates who are still at large.."

Why would he and Hoover, whose orders he was following, want
to tell people that Oswald had no accomplices?

And why did you mention their statement about getting the
facts out, but fail to mention the rather damning caveat, "in
such a way"?

You don't report facts "in such a way" David. When you do
that they aren't facts anymore. They become spin or more
accurately, bullshit.

"I reported my income to the IRS 'in such a way' that it
appeared that I earned half of what I really did"

The memo also made it clear that they were VERY concerned
about the DPD's conclusion that Castro was behind the murder
- exactly as I told you.

It was that concern, that motivated the FBI to cover up
evidence of conspiracy. It also gave them a way to convince
otherwise honest witnesses to withhold information or even lie.

How do you argue with a federal agent telling you that if you
are truthful, you might start a nuclear, world war:-)

>
>
> ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>
> That evidence [the three bullet shells found in the Sniper's Nest] is
> worthless unless [you] can prove they were fired that day.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>

> There were bullet fragments from THAT SAME GUN found in the President's
> car!

We don't for sure about that David. Any evidence from the
FBI, just be taken with a large grain of salt.

OTOH, they might have come from Oswald's rifle.

> Plus, the Carcano rifle was found on the same floor as the three
> empty shell casings.

I doubt that, David. ATF agent, Frank Ellsworth was told by
police officers who were searching the depository with him,
that Oswald's rifle was found on a lower floor.

It was undoubtedly, the Mauser they found on the 6th, as was
originally stated by the officers who found it.

Fortunately for us, the FBI apparently didn't get ahold of
Ellsworth.

> You don't think those little tidbits of information
> provide ample indication as to the DAY when those bullet shells were left
> in the Sniper's Nest?

Your tidbits are not true in one case and dubious in the other:-)

But even if you were right on every one, what does that have
to do with the FACT that Oswald couldn't have fired all the
shots.

He couldn't have fired shots at both 285 and 313, and he
certainly didn't fire any of the early shots, one of which
was inaudible to most witnesses, including ALL of the
surviving limo passengers.

>
> How much more proof do you need, Bob?

David, that's not a very bright question, considering that
none of your arguments are proven:-)

> Do you think that bullet fragments
> from Oswald's gun somehow managed to get into the front seat area of
> President Kennedy's limousine at some point in time *PRIOR* to 12:30 PM

No, but isn't it strange that Dr. Guinn said that ALL of the
fragments he received, were replacements and he got NO originals?

Now why do you suppose that happened:-)

> CST on November 22, 1963? (That would be one wild theory that I doubt even
> most Internet conspiracy theorists would dare to put forth.)

David, you do a great job, debunking theories that you make
up and have never been claimed by anyone else:-)

>
>
> ROBERT HARRIS SAID (WITH ONE MORE NEEDLESS COMMA REMOVED BY DVP):
>
> Tell me David, have you ever in your life seen a single piece of evidence
> which supports the notion that Oswald acted alone?

No, the comma is quite appropriate. It's pathetic that you
not only have to resort to statements like this, but that you
are almost always wrong.

"Tell me David, have you ever in your life, seen a single

piece of evidence which supports the notion that Oswald acted
alone?"

This is from grammarbook.com (quoting)

Rule 4a. When starting a sentence with a dependent clause,
use a comma after it.

Example: If you are not sure about this, let me know now.

(unquote)

You should go to that site and learn, so that you can stop
embarrassing yourself. The full URL is,

http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/commas.asp


>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Every single piece of evidence goes in the direction of Oswald acting
> alone, Bob.

BULLSHIT!

Even if every claim you just made, had been correct, you
still would have never touched on the question of whether he
had accomplices.

Why would you make such a ridiculous statement?


> All of it.

No, NONE of it.

ZERO, ZIP, NADA.

You argued that Oswald fired the shot at 313, and that was it.

How in holy hell, would you think that proved he acted alone:-)

> You know that. You just won't admit it.

Sorry David, I think I need to go bicker with Tony, who by
comparison is a bastion of reason!


Robert Harris

[mainframetech]

Odd that you would say that. If it's me your talking about, you've
answered practically every single post I've made. It is critically
important for you to do so, as the one among most of the people here, I
usually use the official record for my posts to back up what I say, which
causes you to come up with the most bizarre gimmicks to try and cover up
what I've put out. That ha caused many failures on your part, and errors
that I've has to correct.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Thank you, Pee-wee Herman.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/11/2016 8:23 PM, bigdog wrote:

And the acoustical analysis shows that 3 shots were fired from that
window so we know that the rifle and shells were not just planted there.

[Anthony Marsh]

You are ASSuMING a data point which you haven't proven.
Do you know what happens when you ASSuME?

> be rather coincidental if the bullet HAD passed through a skull (I assume
> your assumption was JFK) and just blooped down in front of him instead of
> going on further. As well, there is no exit from the body of JFK for any
> bullet to leave his skull and strike the chrome over the windshield so
> hard as to mangle it as badly as CE567 and 569 were.
>

No one said it had to and WC defenders can't diagram an intact bullet
doing that.

[donald willis]

I don't even have to mention the flaws in the above sentence. You know them well, yet you repeat repeat repeat

Those shells were matched to the rifle found hidden
> on that floor a short time later. That rifle matched a fragmented bullet
> found in the President's limo and a bullet later found at the hospital
> where the two shooting victims were taken. An autopsy determined that the
> deceased was struck by two bullets fired from above and behind him,
> consistent with a shot fired from the location where the shells were
> found. No other rifle, shells, or bullets were ever found.

Maybe not, but those shells were found somewhere else first....

dcw

[bigdog]

The fact you think that what I just wrote is an indication that I agree
with everything you have proposed shows just how illogically your mind
works.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Sure there could
> > > > > > be one or two pieces of evidence that might point in the wrong direction
> > > > > > but when there is so much evidence of Oswald's guilt, it is ludicrous to
> > > > > > think that he could be innocent.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > WRONG! There is NOT "so much" evidence, and the little there is
> > > > > doesn't put Oswald in the window with the rifle.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > If you listed all the evidence we should have of Oswald's guilt and all of
> > > > the evidence we do have of Oswald's guilt, the two lists would be
> > > > identical.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > and just as useless as each other. There is not anything that puts
> > > Oswald in the window of the 6th floor, and nothing that puts the rifle in
> > > his hands at the time of the shooting.
> > >
> >
> > In addition to the eyewitness who IDed him, we have the fibers matching
> > his shirt on the butt plate of the rifle. Exactly what we would expect
> > there to be had he fired three shots from the Carcano, the recoil from
> > those shots driving the butt of the rifle forcefully into his shoulder.
>
>
>
> What total bullshit! A fiber caught on a a butt plate would come from
> a bit of metal hanging loose on the butt plate,

And I'm sure you have evidence that there was "a bit of metal hanging
loose on the butt plate" of Oswald's rifle or you would not have made such
a claim. <chuckle>

> and that would catch a
> fiber when the shirt would be slid over the butt plate, not when the plate
> was pushed into the shoulder.
>

One more silly assumption.

>
>
> On
> > top of the fact it was his rifle, his palm print was on the rifle, and his
> > fingerprints were on the boxes in the sniper's nest oriented precisely as
> > they would be if he was the shooter and facing down Elm St. It is
> > impossible to construct a plausible scenario that explains for all that
> > evidence of his guilt if he were innocent.
>
>
> WRONG! The rifle was his and that means he would get prints on it.
> He worked in the TSBD and he searched for books in many boxes. He
> probably handled almost every box in the place looking for books.
> Whoever constructed the 'nest' would place boxes to satisfy their need.

That would be Oswald.

> Since Mac Wallace had a fingerprint on a box there, maybe he was the one
> that moved the boxes.

A fingerprint expert has disputed that it was Mac Wallace's on the box.
While it did have a number of matching points to Wallace's fingerprint, it
also had a mismatching point which it would not have if it were Wallace's
print.

> Now,. as to a plausible scenario, Oswald was
> manipulated into bringing in his rifle that day and hiding it for later.

Another assumption for which you have produced zero evidence.

> He told someone where he hid it.

And another.

> 3 people went up the back stairs from
> the loading dock entrance, and they got the rifle out of its hiding place
> and then fired on the motorcade leaving 3 shells there at the 'nest'.
> Simple.
>

Really simple when you don't require evidence for the things you dream up.

>
>
> The body of evidence is exactly
> > what we would expect it to be if he were the shooter.
> >
>
>
>
> It would also satisfy a few different scenarios.

Someday I hope to encounter a conspiracy hobbyist who can offer a COMPLETE
scenario that explains the entire body of evidence but there is probably a
better chance I will discover a Sasquatch living in my basement.
Conspiracy hobbyists can offer alternative explanations for any single
piece of evidence but to date note one I have seen has been able to offer
a plausible scenario to explain ALL the evidence.

> It's only your
> opinion that Oswald was the shooter,

And opinion supported by the entire body of evidence.

> you have not a single bit of evidence
> that says Oswald was in the window and was firing the MC rifle at the
> motorcade.
>

A preposterous statement.

>
>
> > By denying that this body of evidence establishes Oswald's guilt, you are
> > creating a burden of proof that is so high that it would be virtually
> > impossible to convict most murderers of their crime if that same burden of
> > proof were applied in all murder cases.
>
>
>
> There isn't a "body of evidence", only a couple of circumstantial items
> and a lot of baloney. Little of which points to Oswald, and very little
> tells us about the shooter.
>

Vincent Bugliosi has offered 53 pieces of evidence that Oswald was guilty
of the murders of JFK and JDT which forces you to invent 53 excuses to
dismiss each and every one of them.

>
>
> Proof beyond reasonable doubt is
> > not the same as proof beyond all doubt as it would be virtually impossible
> > to provide the latter in any murder case.
> >
>
>
> I have a reasonable doubt that Oswald was the shooter at the
> motorcade.

There is nothing reasonable about your doubt.

> I know that he was not present at the 6th floor window,
> therefore he is innocent of the murder of the man he liked and thought was
> a "good leader".
>

You know a lot of things that aren't true.

>
>
> > If you want to cling to the belief that Oswald was innocent just because
> > of the theoretical possibility that all that evidence could line up
> > against him and he could still be innocent you are assuring that you will
> > never understand who it was that killed JFK. If you reject the one and
> > only truth there is zero chance you will ever find another.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! Don't be ridiculous yet again! I believe his innocence because
> of the evidence that he was not on the 6th floor when the shots rang out.
>

There isn't a single piece of evidence that precludes him from being the
shooter in the sniper's nest at 12:30. Not one.

Amazing how illogical you can be. It is a deliberate ignorance.

>
>
> It is
> > > > inconceivable there would be ALL that evidence against him if he were
> > > > innocent. The body of evidence establishes that Brennan was not wrong.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It is VERY conceivable that without Brennan that there isn't enough
> > > evidence to convict anyone. Talking about "all that evidence" is just
> > > words and opinion.
> > >
> >
> > As I said, if the same burden of proof beyond all possible doubt were
> > applied to all murder cases that conspiracy hobbyists want to apply in
> > this case, no murderers would ever be convicted.
> >
>
>
>
> Forget it. You don't even have 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.
>

There is no reasonable doubt of Oswald's guilt among reasonable people.

>
>
> > > > > > Not one of those items by itself proves Oswald was the shooter. A case for
> > > > > > his innocence could be made with just two items from this list. There is
> > > > > > no reasonable argument for his innocence that can be made with all that
> > > > > > evidence against him. Everything is just as we would expect it to be if
> > > > > > Oswald was the shooter. One or two pieces of evidence might point in the
> > > > > > wrong direction. All of he the evidence is not going to point in the wrong
> > > > > > direction.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The trouble with that is that "all of the evidence" suggests there is
> > > > > some large pile of evidence, which there is not. There are a few flimsy
> > > > > things that suggest that Oswald owned the rifle, but there's nothing that
> > > > > says he was at the window with the rifle firing into the plaza. In fact,
> > > > > a book called "The Men on the Sixth Floor" by Collum and Sample seems to
> > > > > have found evidence that 3 people snuck into the TSBD through the loading
> > > > > dock door and went up to the 6th floor and fired guns out of the 6th floor
> > > > > window including using Oswald's rifle which as hidden there. They then
> > > > > went back down and left the building, and they were seen coming out of the
> > > > > loading dock area.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The authors of "The Men on the Sixth Floor seem to have found a few
> > > > gullible people who believe their nonsense. And took their money.
> > >
> > >
> > > Ah, so now you've decided to attack the book's information.
> >
>
>
> > Yes I did. I decided that when you told me they cooked up a story of 3
> > assassins on the 6th floor and Oswald wasn't one of them.
>
>
>
>
> WHOA! I did NOT tell you that THEY "cooked us a story".

You didn't need to. You told me what their story was and the evidence
tells me they cooked it up.

> I named the book
> and the authors, and told you the general story line. The authors that
> Oswald was not one of the shooters, just as we know it from evidence that
> Oswald was elsewhere than on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
>

No such evidence exists.

>
>
> Since I know
> > Oswald was the assassin, I know they are full of shit.
>
>
>
> The trouble with all that is that you have little evidence that Oswald
> was even ON the 6th floor never mind holding the rifle and shooting at the
> motorcade.
>

The evidence has been listed for you numerous times and your response is
always to invent excuses to dismiss it. You refuse to accept Oswald's
guilt no matter how much evidence of it is presented to you. If there were
1053 pieces of evidence of his guilt, you would invent 1053 excuses to
dismiss them.

>
>
> Had their story
> > been that there were two people in addition to Oswald I would want to see
> > what evidence they had of those accomplices. Since their "proof" consists
> > of a story supposedly told to them by a dead guy who can no longer refute
> > their story, it is quite easy to dismiss their nonsense.
> >
>
>
>
> Face it, you would find anything to "dismiss" the story, never mind
> that many facts in the story match the situation.
>

It's very easy to dismiss claims for which there is no supporting
evidence. I'm not forced to dream up excuses to dismiss evidence the way
you do.

>
>
> > > Well,
> > > prove that the book is wrong. don't just feed us your useless opinion.
> > >
> >
> > I don't have to prove the book is wrong. They need to prove it is right.
> >
>
>
> Ah, anything to get the burden off you.

That's the way it works among reasonable people. The person advancing a
hypothesis has the burden of providing the evidence for that hypothesis.
No one has a burden to disprove a hypothesis for which there is no
evidence.

> First, the book is really a
> statement of a witness, namely Loy Factor.

We only have the authors word for that. If I claimed I saw a herd of pink
unicorns, would that be evidence that there was a herd of pink unicorns?

> We are reading his eyewitness
> story of the killing of JFK.

No, we are reading the authors' claim of what he said. We have no idea
what he actually said.

> Second, many of the facts in the book fit
> other facts, such as the 2 men in the window with a gun, which fits the
> book, and the entry and exit through the loading dock entrance.

So you are trying to use one myth to support another. Typical.

> As well,
> there was a statement that there were other shooters stationed around the
> plaza and they got a signal from Ruth Ann who was with them on the 6th
> floor, which fit the situation again.
>

Anybody can make statements. Offering evidence to support those statements
is the challenging part.

> There is no reason to doubt the book's story.

Other than the authors are full of shit and have offered not a scrap of
evidence to support their bogus story.

> There has been no proof
> that either of the 2 men that wrote it did ANYTHING wrong or had ever
> falsified anything.

Once again, no one has the burden to disprove anyone else's hypothesis is
false. The person(s) offering the hypothesis has the burden of proving it.
You can't disprove my story that I saw a herd of pink unicorns. Does that
give credibility to my story?

> The story also of Loy Factor identifying Mac Wallace
> as the boss of this little group was also a clue, since without knowing it
> at first, they found out that Wallace was LBJ's hit man, and we know that
> Wallace's finger print was found in the 'nest'.
>

There is no evidence Wallace was LBJ's hit man and the fact that there
have been rumors, suspicions, and accusations of that have been around for
years. The authors just dovetailed their bullshit story to fit those
accusations.

>
>
> > Your double standards are once again on display. For Oswald, you demand
> > proof beyond all possible doubt of his guilt. Yet you are perfectly
> > willing to accept this cockamamie story until somebody can prove it is
> > wrong.
>
>
>
> WRONG! I believe Oswald was innocent because the evidence says so.
> He wasn't near the 6th floor when the shots rang out.

No evidence of that.

> You have tried to
> concoct evidence against him ,as the plotters wanted you to, but it just
> wasn't enough.

There is no evidence there were any plotters other than Oswald.

> Your witness was discredited, and your other evidence
> amounts to almost nothing.
>

The fact you dismiss Howard Brennan does not discredit him. He IDed the
location and the shooter and there is ample corroborating evidence for
both of those.

>
>
> You set the bar as high as you possibly can for proof of Oswald's
> > guilt and then lay the bar on the floor for the things you want to
> > believe.
>
>
> WRONG! That is, of course, more of your useless opinion. Try proof.
>

That is a statement of fact. You demand proof beyond all possible doubt of
Oswald's guilt yet you accept stories that have absolutely no supporting
evidence solely because you want to believe them.

[mainframetech]

Aww, you don't like me. Thank you, that means I've succeeded in
correcting you and winning so many arguments.

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG! Jackie probably didn't know that there was switch. I doubt
that any of the agents or those in the know would tell her that they were
playing musical caskets with her husband's body. As to the handing of a
revolver to Oswald, who saw that? Who said that happened? No one I heard
of. There were a couple witnesses to the reloading of the revolver after
the shots were heard and it was being done by someone other than Oswald,
who was standing nearby. Here's one of them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaCCd0hzLsY


If you think you have enough facts and information to expose anything
that is untrue, make your case, don't hide or run away. Face the person
in error and prove to them their mistakes. Of course if they have proof
of their contentions, then just accept their information.

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG! YOU ARE NOT IN COURT, AND YOU ARE NOT A JUDGE, AND YOU DO NOT
DECIDE WHAT EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION CAN BE USED TO SOLVE THE MURDER.

In this case it has been proven that there was evidence altered, and a
'patsy' provided by false information suggesting he was guilty of the
murder when he wasn't even on the same floor of the TSBD when the shooting
started. Because of that accusation, it is necessary to prove the killer
clearly was indeed the killer, and not a 'patsy' held up to be blamed for
everything so the plotters could go free.

> I know your knee jerk reaction will be to point out that we are not in
> court which of course is true but the fact that our justice system
> encourages jurors to make logical inferences in their deliberations it
> only makes sense that such logical inferences should be employed in
> reaching the historical verdict in this case.
>

WRONG! You do NOT get to decide what evidence can be believed or what
cannot toward finding the guilty party. The methods used to believe what
information we have tells us of a murderer or not belong to each person,
and they have every right to argue in any fashion they feel is legitimate.
Of all people here, YOU have used more fantasy and phony excuses for your
arguments in the case, and continue to do so with no one stopping you.
Stop playing philosopher and make an argument about something.

> Three shells were found at the very location where a shooter was seen
> firing a rifle at JFK. Those shells were matched to the rifle found hidden
> on that floor a short time later. That rifle matched a fragmented bullet
> found in the President's limo and a bullet later found at the hospital
> where the two shooting victims were taken.

WRONG! The rifle was indeed found where a rifle was seen poking out a
window in the TSBD on the 6th floor. However, there was no match with the
bullet found on the WRONG gurney at Parkland hospital. There may have
been a match made later with a bullet that replaced that bullet, but not
with the original bullet. Se if you can tell when that match was done and
was successful, and show it with cites and links.

An autopsy determined that the
> deceased was struck by two bullets fired from above and behind him,
> consistent with a shot fired from the location where the shells were
> found. No other rifle, shells, or bullets were ever found. A logical
> inference can be made that the recovered bullets that matched the rifle
> and the shells were the ones that caused the wounds to the two shooting
> victims.
>

Such an inference would be foolish. There is no connection between
shells left on the floor and the wounds on the body. Since there was
proof provided that the autopsy results were ordered and not correct, that
is not factual. There is also evidence that suggests clearly that one of
the bullets that went through the skull of JFK was NOT an FMJ type bullet,
and left small particles all along a path in the skull. That bullet was
never found. No MC type bullet ever hit or hurt anyone, and no one can
prove otherwise.

> Of course that is a reasonable conclusion. Conspiracy hobbyists aren't
> interested in reasonable conclusions. They demand a standard of proof far
> beyond what our justice system demands the state meet before it can
> deprive a citizen of life, liberty, or property. The demand that all
> aspects of the case be proven beyond all possible doubt.

WRONG! But since there are accusations of false efforts to blame a
'patsy' there needs to be a more rigorous standard in this case. Those
anti-conspiracy hobbyists that differ with the proofs have still to submit
to reasoned argument.

If they can
> establish even a theoretical possibility of Oswald's innocence no matter
> how far fetched that possibility is, that is good enough for them.

WRONG! It's not for you to decide what is good evidence for innocence,
only to argue your beliefs and give proof of them. You can give your
opinion of the evidence, you just can't decide if it's valid or not.

Then
> they will turn around and embrace the wildest, most convoluted conspiracy
> theories imaginable based on nothing more than their own suspicions. Is it
> any wonder that after 53 years they are still wandering aimlessly trying
> to figure out a case that the DPD nailed down in the first 12 hours.
>

WRONG! If you disagree with certain evidence, then make an argument
showing that the evidence is incorrect, or accept what you've been told.
All your philosophy isn't a valid argument.

> > > > > > > 2. All four bullet shells found at the scene of J.D. Tippit's murder.
> >
> >
> > The count of bullets and types of shells didn't match and there were
> > other questions about the Tippit killing, including witnesses that said
> > there was a different man than Oswald reloading his revolver:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaCCd0hzLsY
> >
>
> So do you think that "different man" gave Oswald's revolver back to him
> after he shot Tippit with it?
>

Who said they gave a revolver back to Oswald? No one. You just made
that up! The bullets in the victim were not matched to the revolver.
Even the count of the bullet manufacturers from the body was different
from the count of the makers of the shells found on the ground. There are
questions still about that killing.

> > > > > > > 3. Commission Exhibit No. 399.
> > > > > > >
> >
> >
> >

> > CE399 was a test bullet as proved by comparison with another test bullet
> > in a photo next to it. Also 4 men that handled the original bullet refused

> > to identify the CE399 bullet as one they had seen before. One of them
> > said the shape was wrong, since it was round nosed and the original bullet
> > was pointed nosed.
> >
>
> Proved??? <chuckle>
>

2 of the men were also SS agents, but if they refuse to identify the
bullet, and one man says the shape is wrong, then it's pretty clear there
has been a replacement or damage to the bullet in question. And since it
was so close to 'pristine' it would be a rare thing indeed for that bullet
to have been the one that struck 2 men 7 times, including 2 bone strikes
and come out almost completely unscathed. However, since it resembles a
test bullet so closely, that's probably what it is, given that the bullet
custodian had possession of both the CE399 bullet and over 60 test
bullets. An easy replacement, since the bullet now in custody couldn't be
identified by the 4 men that saw the original bullet. Face the facts.

> > CE399 was replaced while in the hands of the bullet custodian, who had
> > been testing the MC rifle by firing it into various materials the day
> > after the murder. He had a stock of 60 or more fired test bullets.
> > Choosing one and replacing the bullet in custody was as easy as pie.
> >
>
> A perfect example of the wild, convoluted conspiracy theories I spoke of
> earlier in this reply.
>

WRONG! A perfect step in a conspiracy, allowing it to be much easier
to blame a patsy who owned the rifle that the bullets came from. It would
cause dumb suckers to use the false trail for years after. And the same
replacement was used with the Walker bullet which was also refused to be
identified by the person that saw the ORIGINAL bullet. The original was
described by 2 detectives in their report to be STEEL jacketed. Later the
bullet shown to the public was COPPER jacketed. There was even a
difference in the amount of mangling the bullet showed.

> >
> >
> > > > > > > 4. The paper bag found in the Sniper's Nest (with Oswald's prints on
> > > > > > > it--and those prints are phony too, per most CTers).
> > > > > > >
> >
> >
> > As a proud CT, I can say that the paper bag was probably used by Oswald
> > to get the MC rifle into the TSBD quietly.
> >
>
> Gee, I wonder why he wanted to do that.
>

Probably because he was suckered into doing it. As a 'patsy' was
needed to help the plotters to go free.

> >
> >
> > > > > > > 5. The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.
> > > > > > >
> >
> >
> > The rifle belonged to Oswald. But that doesn't prove that he fired it
> > out the 6th floor window.
> >
>
> No, but the accumulation of evidence pointing to that conclusion sure
> does. A perfect example of the logical inferences that establish Oswald's
> guilt.
>

There is no accumulation of evidence. there are hardly any little bits
of information here. The rifle belonged to Oswald, which makes moot some
of the so-called evidence in this list. Fibers, prints and such.

> > > > > > > 6. The two bullet fragments found in the front seat of JFK's limousine.
> > > > > > >
> >
> >
> > The fragments found in the front seat do NOT prove that Oswald fired a
> > rifle out the 6th floor window, and no MC type bullet hit or hurt anyone.
> >
>
> See above.
>
> >
> >
> > > > > > > 7. Each and every witness who fingered Lee Oswald for either JFK's murder
> > > > > > > or J.D. Tippit's slaying or identified LHO as the man they saw leaving the
> > > > > > > scene of the Tippit crime with gun in hand -- from Howard Brennan, to
> > > > > > > Helen Markham, to Barbara Davis, to Virginia Davis, to Ted Callaway, to
> > > > > > > William Scoggins, etc., etc.
> >
> >
> > Howard Brennan was discredited out of his own autobiography when he
> > admitted that he had seen Oswald on TV twice before he went down to the
> > lineup. He also admitted that when he was there at the lineup, a
> > detective told him which position in the lineup was where Oswald was
> > standing.

There are no other witnesses to Oswald being the person in the TSBD
window. Though there are some witnesses that saw 2 men with a gun there.

> >
>
> Brennan was corroborated by the forensic evidence alone. Oswald's guilt is
> established even without Brennan's testimony so all that evidence is an
> indicated he IDed the correct man.
>

The only corroboration that can be gotten from the evidence is that
Brennan saw a rifle poking out a window of the TSBD, just like Amos Euins
did, and rifle shells were found near that window. That's the only
corroboration.

> > As to the Tippit killing witnesses, Markham was a ditzy person who said
> > the body talked to her after it was shot. There were questions about the
> > others as well, and about who actually fired the shots.
> >
>
> So ditzy that she IDed the guy who had the murder weapon in his possession
> when arrested a short time later.
>

That's one of the questions generated from that part of the case.
How could she identify anyone when she's talking to bodies. Possibly the
police gave her a clue and she just repeated what seemed possible. After
all, a person like Oswald's description was present on that street.

> > > > > > > 8. The backyard photos showing Oswald holding the rifle that killed
> > > > > > > President Kennedy.
> > > > > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > There is absolutely NO proof whatsoever that the MC rifle killed
> > anyone. Oswald got Marina to take his photo with his guns and his
> > literature to impress people he wanted to get in with that he was a rough
> > and ready guy ready for action. When the photos were done, he rolled the
> > rifle up in a blanket and threw in the garage. The evidence suggests he
> > had no intention of killing anyone.
> >
>
> This is a perfect example of illogical inferences.
>

You don't get to decide what is logical or not. Especially from your
past mistakes.

> > > > > > > 9. All of the paperwork that shows Lee Oswald purchased Rifle #C2766 from
> > > > > > > Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago.
> > > > > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > There is no argument that Oswald bought the rifle mail order from
> > Klein's, and it should be noted that he was offered ammunition for the odd
> > rifle, which was not common in those parts, and he refused it.
> >
>
> Which establishes nothing.
>

WRONG! It establishes that on one occasion he was offered cartridges
for his odd rifle and he refused them. That fits with the FBI being
unable to find where (if anywhere) he bought any ammunition for the MC
rifle. They also couldn't fins anyplace he practiced with the rifle that
he supposedly was going to kill JFK with.

> >
> >
> > > > > > > 10. All of the paperwork that indicates Lee Oswald purchased Revolver
> > > > > > > #V510210 from Seaport Traders in Los Angeles.
> > > > > > >
> >
> >

> > It's agreed that Oswald owned the revolver. So what? That does not

> > prove that he used it out the window at the motorcade.
> >
>
> No, we have to make logical inferences to reach that conclusion.
>

Not in this case, there has been an accusation of setting up evidence
to blame a 'patsy' so that much more stringent evidence will be required
to prove guilt or innocence.

> > > > > > > 11. The Walker bullet.
> >
> >
> >
> > The Walker bullet was reported by 2 DPD detectives in their official
> > Offense Report that it was STEEL jacketed and mangled beyond using it for
> > matching to a rifle or determining caliber. Yet later when the bullet was
> > shown, it was suddenly COPPER jacketed and had enough left on it to
> > determine caliber and match it to a rifle. Walker himself, who had seen
> > the original bullet demanded that the authorities withdraw the phony
> > bullet because it was not the original. Just like the JFK CE399 bullet,
> > it appeared that the bullet was rejected by the person that saw it
> > originally as not being the right one.
> >
>
> The physical evidence coupled with Marina's testimony is enough to infer
> that Oswald was the one who took the errant shot at Walker. Even if it
> were not possible to reach that conclusion, that in now way would weaken
> the case that Oswald killed JFK and JDT.
>

Sincethereis clear an unassailable evidence that the bullet shown as
the Walker bullet was NOT the right bullet, and since the jacket of that
bullet shown was COPPER when the DPD detectives said the original bullet
was STEEL, the bullet shown was NOT the bullet, and the type of the bullet
dose not match the MC rifle. As well, the witness that saw 2 men leaving
the scene of the shooting gave descriptions that didn't match Oswald.

> > > > > > > 12. And even the five unfired revolver bullets that Oswald had in his
> > > > > > > pocket after he was arrested. Those unfired bullets, per some
> > > > > > > conspiracists, are phony too. They say the cops planted those five bullets
> > > > > > > on Oswald to add to the frame-up against him. That's how far down "Crazy
> > > > > > > Boulevard" some conspiracy mongers have travelled in their efforts to
> > > > > > > exonerate a guilty double-murderer.
> > > > > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > As a proud CT, I have no argument to offer as to the bullets in
> > Oswald's pocket. It seems like a normal thing to carry spares in times of
> > trouble. It does not prove that he killed anyone.
> >
>
> Once again you need to make a logical inference which seems to be a real
> stumbling block for you.
>

My logical inference is that he never fired the revolver, or he would
have used the bullets in his pocket to reload. This case has certain
outstanding accusations of falsifying who did the crimes, so that 'logical
inference' isn't good enough to determine who was the killer. Not to
mention to you again, that YOU ARE NOT IN COURT.

> >
> >
> > > > > > > About the only thing I can think of that the conspiracy theorists *might*
> > > > > > > say hasn't been faked or manufactured to frame Patsy Oswald are the
> > > > > > > fingerprints and palmprints of LHO's that were located on the boxes inside
> > > > > > > the Sniper's Nest.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But, naturally, the Anybody But Oswald conspiracy believers would never in
> > > > > > > a million years think that those prints could be used to incriminate poor
> > > > > > > Lee Harvey. After all, he worked there. So, quite naturally, THREE of his
> > > > > > > prints are very likely going to show up on TWO of the boxes that the
> > > > > > > Presidential assassin also must have handled (and I guess the "real"
> > > > > > > Presidential assassin must have been wearing gloves when he touched those
> > > > > > > boxes on November 22, 1963).
> >
> >
> >
> > Actually, Oswald worked at the TSBD for a while, and in that time he
> > probably hunted down many books, and in that process he probably handled
> > an awful lot of boxes of books.
> >
>
> How many of them had his prints on top of the boxes oriented precisely as
> they would be if he had been in the sniper's nest looking southwest down
> Elm St?
>

We don't know who "oriented" them. Was it someone with gloves? In
1963 when fingerprinting was a mature tool of the police, why would anyone
move boxes for a shooter's 'nest' and not wear gloves? The only
possibility that occurs to me is that they may have moved the boxes and
didn't know that they were going to be blamed for a major murder because
of those prints on the boxes. Otherwise look elsewhere for your murderer.
Think it through.

> > > > > > > And just because shells from Oswald's gun were found right there in the
> > > > > > > Sniper's Nest too, why should the conspiracy theorists consider--for even
> > > > > > > a brief moment--the idea of linking the two things together (OSWALD'S
> > > > > > > shells + OSWALD'S prints)? What rational person would ever consider doing
> > > > > > > something silly like tying those two items together? Right? After all, all
> > > > > > > good conspiracy advocates always insist that those bullet shells were
> > > > > > > planted in the Book Depository too.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ergo, nothing can be trusted. And why? Because the conspiracy hounds have
> > > > > > > said so. And when we get right down to the brass tacks of the matter,
> > > > > > > that's pretty much the only reason.
> >
> >
> >
> > As note above, So far NOTHING has been offered as evidence that Oswald
> > fired the MC rifle out the window at the motorcade, and there is no
> > evidence putting him anywhere on the 6th floor even.
>
> His fingerprints in the sniper's nest don't put him on the 6th floor???
>

Correct! He worked there and his prints may have been all over that
place. However, he was proven logically to have been in the 2nd floor
lunchroom. Which reasoning you've heard a hundred times. So why can't
you remember it, and avoid the constant repeating which gets you nowhere?

> > As well, he was seen
> > on the 2nd floor lunchroom at about 12:15pm, and about the same time 2 men
> > were seen in the 6th floor window with a gun.
>
> Back to your preferred illogical inferences.
>

WRONG! Logical inference is easy. Oswald couldn't go to the 6th floor,
because the 2 men with a gun would have shooed him away. Simple.

> > If Oswald had tried to get

> > to the 6th floor, the 2 men with a gun would persuade him to leave the

> > area, where they had staked out the window. If he tried to get to the
> > window BEFORE the 2 men with a gun, they would arrive on the 6th floor and
> > chase him away. Either way, Oswald was not on the 6th floor when the
> > shooting started.
> >
> > Let me know when you have some evidence that Oswald was guilty of
> > killing JFK.
> >
>
> Since you have established you are incapable of making logical inferences,
> proving that to you is a hopeless task.

So you're going to try to run away. Your "logical inference" gimmick
didn't work so time to run and hope another idea will present itself...:)

There's a greater likelihood
> Hillary Clinton will one day be President of the United States than that
> you will figure out such a simple murder case.

LOL! In 4 years there may be another chance, but if not Hillary, then
Sanders. That's if Trump isn't impeached for making a dumb decision and
grabbing an intern in the W.H. Did you know about his rape of a 13 year
old girl? The suit was going forward in NY, but I think he paid it off so
she would go away. There was also a witness to the crime, so it would
have been a slam dunk.

http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/

Note that the article is on Snopes, one of the fact checkers.

Chris

[mainframetech]

> > > > > 1. All three bullet shells found in the Sniper's Nest.
> > > > >

> > > > > 2. All four bullet shells found at the scene of J.D. Tippit's murder.
> > > > >

> > > > > 3. Commission Exhibit No. 399.
> > > > >

> > > > > 4. The paper bag found in the Sniper's Nest (with Oswald's prints on
> > > > > it--and those prints are phony too, per most CTers).
> > > > >

> > > > > 5. The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.

> > > > >
> > > > > 6. The two bullet fragments found in the front seat of JFK's limousine.
> > > > >

> > > > > 7. Each and every witness who fingered Lee Oswald for either JFK's murder
> > > > > or J.D. Tippit's slaying or identified LHO as the man they saw leaving the
> > > > > scene of the Tippit crime with gun in hand -- from Howard Brennan, to
> > > > > Helen Markham, to Barbara Davis, to Virginia Davis, to Ted Callaway, to
> > > > > William Scoggins, etc., etc.
> > > > >

> > > > > 8. The backyard photos showing Oswald holding the rifle that killed
> > > > > President Kennedy.
> > > > >

> > > > > 9. All of the paperwork that shows Lee Oswald purchased Rifle #C2766 from
> > > > > Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago.
> > > > >

> > > > > 10. All of the paperwork that indicates Lee Oswald purchased Revolver
> > > > > #V510210 from Seaport Traders in Los Angeles.
> > > > >

> > > > > 11. The Walker bullet.

> > > > >
> > > > > 12. And even the five unfired revolver bullets that Oswald had in his
> > > > > pocket after he was arrested. Those unfired bullets, per some
> > > > > conspiracists, are phony too. They say the cops planted those five bullets
> > > > > on Oswald to add to the frame-up against him. That's how far down "Crazy
> > > > > Boulevard" some conspiracy mongers have travelled in their efforts to
> > > > > exonerate a guilty double-murderer.
> > > > >

> > > > > About the only thing I can think of that the conspiracy theorists *might*
> > > > > say hasn't been faked or manufactured to frame Patsy Oswald are the
> > > > > fingerprints and palmprints of LHO's that were located on the boxes inside
> > > > > the Sniper's Nest.
> > > > >
> > > > > But, naturally, the Anybody But Oswald conspiracy believers would never in
> > > > > a million years think that those prints could be used to incriminate poor
> > > > > Lee Harvey. After all, he worked there. So, quite naturally, THREE of his
> > > > > prints are very likely going to show up on TWO of the boxes that the
> > > > > Presidential assassin also must have handled (and I guess the "real"
> > > > > Presidential assassin must have been wearing gloves when he touched those
> > > > > boxes on November 22, 1963).
> > > > >

> > > > > And just because shells from Oswald's gun were found right there in the
> > > > > Sniper's Nest too, why should the conspiracy theorists consider--for even
> > > > > a brief moment--the idea of linking the two things together (OSWALD'S
> > > > > shells + OSWALD'S prints)? What rational person would ever consider doing
> > > > > something silly like tying those two items together? Right? After all, all
> > > > > good conspiracy advocates always insist that those bullet shells were
> > > > > planted in the Book Depository too.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ergo, nothing can be trusted. And why? Because the conspiracy hounds have
> > > > > said so. And when we get right down to the brass tacks of the matter,
> > > > > that's pretty much the only reason.
> > > > >
> > > > >

> > > > accumulation of evidence that establishes Oswald's guilt. Sure there could

> > > > be one or two pieces of evidence that might point in the wrong direction
> > > > but when there is so much evidence of Oswald's guilt, it is ludicrous to
> > > > think that he could be innocent.
> > > >

> > > > If you've followed some of my recent exchanges with Chris, that
> > > > illustrates that perfectly. I will provide just a partial list of the
> > > > things indicating Oswald's guilt and he will counter that it doesn't prove
> > > > he was the shooter. If he was speaking of only one or two pieces of
> > > > evidence that would be true. For example:
> > > >
> > > > Oswald's ownership of the rifle doesn't prove he was the shooter.
> > > >
> > > > Oswald's palm print on the rifle doesn't prove he was the shooter.
> > > >
> > > > Oswald's fingerprints in the sniper's nest doesn't prove he was the
> > > > shooter.
> > > >
> > > > Oswald bringing a long bag to work doesn't prove he was the shooter.
> > > >
> > > > Oswald's fingerprints on a long bag found near the sniper's nest doesn't
> > > > prove he was the shooter.
> > > >
> > > > Fibers from Oswald's blanket found in the bag doesn't prove he was the
> > > > shooter.
> > > >
> > > > Fibers matching the shirt Oswald was wearing that day doesn't prove he was
> > > > the shooter.
> > > >
> > > > An eyewitness who IDed Oswald doesn't prove he was the shooter.
> > > >

> > > > Not one of those items by itself proves Oswald was the shooter. A case for
> > > > his innocence could be made with just two items from this list. There is
> > > > no reasonable argument for his innocence that can be made with all that
> > > > evidence against him. Everything is just as we would expect it to be if
> > > > Oswald was the shooter. One or two pieces of evidence might point in the
> > > > wrong direction. All of he the evidence is not going to point in the wrong
> > > > direction.
> > > >

> > > > And we haven't even started to talk about the evidence that he killed J.D.
> > > > Tippit.
> > >
> > > PREPONDERANCE of evidence. With each piece it just adds another nail
> > > in the coffin. Oswald's has been hermetically sealed. The more the
> > > evidence, the more difficult it becomes to connect it all to a conspiracy
> > > that PROVES the evidence is false or misinterpreted.
> > >
> >
> >
> > There is a preponderance of attempts to make circumstantial evidence
> > into real evidence.
>

> The fact that you don't think circumstantial evidence isn't real evidence
> speaks volume.
>

> > It's the kind of thing you see when a case has to be
> > trumped up for lack of solid evidence.
>

> Forensic evidence is the most solid form of evidence there is.
>
> > All of the evidence that Oswald

> > showed a lack of intent to shoot anyone was not mentioned,
>

> Hilarious that you don't think forensic evidence is solid evidence but you
> think your silly figuring is.
>

> > and shouild
> > have ben to allow for proper decisions. First, Oswald had a chance to buy

> > ammunition from Klein's for this odd rifle which was not common, but he
> > refused it. Second, the FBI tried but could not finds anyplace that

> > Oswald bought any ammunition for the rifle, and there were only two places
> > within the area, one of which had reloaded all their MC type ammo with
> > lead bullets. Third, the FBI could not find anyplace that Oswald did any

> > practicing with the rifle, and since the rifle had a misaligned scope and
> > s sticky bolt, he would have found out those things and repaired them if
> > he had practiced.
> >
>

> What you are describing isn't evidence. It is an absence of evidence. You
> don't seem to understand the difference.
>

> > What we do know is that Oswald got his rifle, went in the back yard
> > and had Marina take his photo with his literature and his guns, and then
> > he rolled the rifle up in a blanket and threw in the garage. The photo
> > might be later used to impress someone that he was rough and ready for
> > action. But he had no intent to shoot anyone.
> >
>
> The first part of the paragraph is absolutely factual. The second half is
> nothing but silly conspiracy hobbyist figuring.

All parts of the above list were answered in a previous version of this
post. There is precious little evidence that is legitimate to use in
finding who fired the MC rifle out the window at the motorcade.

Chris

[Bud]

Over 50 years later and nobody can show otherwise.

> Why would he and Hoover, whose orders he was following, want
> to tell people that Oswald had no accomplices?

Because it was true.

> And why did you mention their statement about getting the
> facts out, but fail to mention the rather damning caveat, "in
> such a way"?
>
> You don't report facts "in such a way" David. When you do
> that they aren't facts anymore.

Facts are stubborn things, they stay factual. It is a fact that Trumo
won the election. Folks are trying to spin his victory and Hillary`s loss
into forms they are comfortable with, but the fact of his victory is not
impacted by this activity.

> They become spin or more
> accurately, bullshit.

Exactly what you do, take some facts and then apply your figuring,
subjective opinions and conjecture to create a bullshit story.

> "I reported my income to the IRS 'in such a way' that it
> appeared that I earned half of what I really did"

How could you do such a thing if you reported your factual income and
made factual deductions?

> The memo also made it clear that they were VERY concerned
> about the DPD's conclusion that Castro was behind the murder
> - exactly as I told you.

They were concerned will all the rumors, thats why he wanted to get the
facts out quickly.

> It was that concern, that motivated the FBI to cover up
> evidence of conspiracy.

The exact opposite of the directive in the memo to put facts out.

> It also gave them a way to convince
> otherwise honest witnesses to withhold information or even lie.

And conspiracy hobbyists a contrived excuse to cherry pick.

> How do you argue with a federal agent telling you that if you
> are truthful, you might start a nuclear, world war:-)

Where are you witnesses saying this is what occurred?

Empty claim.

> He couldn't have fired shots at both 285 and 313, and he
> certainly didn't fire any of the early shots, one of which
> was inaudible to most witnesses, including ALL of the
> surviving limo passengers.

This is an idea that actually becomes less compelling with repetition.

> >
> > How much more proof do you need, Bob?
>
> David, that's not a very bright question, considering that
> none of your arguments are proven:-)

You consider things to be fact that are not. Who died and left you the
person to determine such things?

[Anthony Marsh]

You can't figure out by a process of elimination whom he means?
Do you understand how threads work?

[bigdog]

On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 2:38:16 PM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:

Because there was no evidence Oswald had any accomplices.

> And why did you mention their statement about getting the
> facts out, but fail to mention the rather damning caveat, "in
> such a way"?
>
> You don't report facts "in such a way" David. When you do
> that they aren't facts anymore. They become spin or more
> accurately, bullshit.
>

How about they reported the facts in such a way the public would
understand. If they resorted to a lot of techno-babble the public might
not understand.

> "I reported my income to the IRS 'in such a way' that it
> appeared that I earned half of what I really did"
>

How about, "I reported my income to the IRS in such a way that they would
see I am clearly and accurately reporting my income.".

> The memo also made it clear that they were VERY concerned
> about the DPD's conclusion that Castro was behind the murder
> - exactly as I told you.
>
> It was that concern, that motivated the FBI to cover up
> evidence of conspiracy. It also gave them a way to convince
> otherwise honest witnesses to withhold information or even lie.
>

Now we are getting into your assumptions. Don't you know that the
conspiracy hobbyist manual calls for you to preface your assumptions with
the word "obvious".

> How do you argue with a federal agent telling you that if you
> are truthful, you might start a nuclear, world war:-)
>

Which federal agent said that?

[mainframetech]

Ah, and what do YOU think the fiber caught on? Think carefully, or
you'll look dumb. And don't say the butt plate. Which is generally
smooth, especially after all the wear this rifle had going through WW2.

> > and that would catch a
> > fiber when the shirt would be slid over the butt plate, not when the plate
> > was pushed into the shoulder.
> >
>
> One more silly assumption.
>

I don't hear you giving out with any detailed information. Can't
think of any?

> >
> >
> > On
> > > top of the fact it was his rifle, his palm print was on the rifle, and his
> > > fingerprints were on the boxes in the sniper's nest oriented precisely as
> > > they would be if he was the shooter and facing down Elm St. It is
> > > impossible to construct a plausible scenario that explains for all that
> > > evidence of his guilt if he were innocent.
> >
> >
> > WRONG! The rifle was his and that means he would get prints on it.
> > He worked in the TSBD and he searched for books in many boxes. He
> > probably handled almost every box in the place looking for books.
> > Whoever constructed the 'nest' would place boxes to satisfy their need.
>
> That would be Oswald.
>

You haven't proved that, so don't say it.

>
> > Since Mac Wallace had a fingerprint on a box there, maybe he was the one
> > that moved the boxes.
>
> A fingerprint expert has disputed that it was Mac Wallace's on the box.
> While it did have a number of matching points to Wallace's fingerprint, it
> also had a mismatching point which it would not have if it were Wallace's
> print.
>

A top flight print expert said it was a print of Wallace's. That's
good enough for me. I've seen his resume. He didn't even know the name
until later after he decided the print was a match.



> > Now, as to a plausible scenario, Oswald was

> > manipulated into bringing in his rifle that day and hiding it for later.
>
> Another assumption for which you have produced zero evidence.
>

There has been a great deal of evidence presented, but you will
naturally try to put it down.

> > He told someone where he hid it.
>
> And another.
>
> > 3 people went up the back stairs from
> > the loading dock entrance, and they got the rifle out of its hiding place
> > and then fired on the motorcade leaving 3 shells there at the 'nest'.
> > Simple.
> >
>
> Really simple when you don't require evidence for the things you dream up.
>

I had witnesses tell me that story. They were called Collum and
Sample.

> >
> >
> > The body of evidence is exactly
> > > what we would expect it to be if he were the shooter.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > It would also satisfy a few different scenarios.
>
> Someday I hope to encounter a conspiracy hobbyist who can offer a COMPLETE
> scenario that explains the entire body of evidence but there is probably a
> better chance I will discover a Sasquatch living in my basement.
> Conspiracy hobbyists can offer alternative explanations for any single
> piece of evidence but to date note one I have seen has been able to offer
> a plausible scenario to explain ALL the evidence.
>

WRONG! I've given you just such an answer to your wish, but you will
never be able to actually receive your wish because your diehard attitude
won't let you believe anything but the tired old WCR.

> > It's only your
> > opinion that Oswald was the shooter,
>
> And opinion supported by the entire body of evidence.
>

Not at all. That tiny list of items doesn't prove that Oswald was even
on the 6th floor, so how could it prove he fired a gun out the window, and
how can it prove he killed anyone? Your batty ideas will only get you
embarrassment. Oswald was elsewhere when the shooting started.

> > you have not a single bit of evidence
> > that says Oswald was in the window and was firing the MC rifle at the
> > motorcade.
> >
>
> A preposterous statement.
>

Oh? Show me how you proved that Oswald was even at the window on the
6th floor!

> >
> >
> > > By denying that this body of evidence establishes Oswald's guilt, you are
> > > creating a burden of proof that is so high that it would be virtually
> > > impossible to convict most murderers of their crime if that same burden of
> > > proof were applied in all murder cases.
> >
> >
> >
> > There isn't a "body of evidence", only a couple of circumstantial items
> > and a lot of baloney. Little of which points to Oswald, and very little
> > tells us about the shooter.
> >
>
> Vincent Bugliosi has offered 53 pieces of evidence that Oswald was guilty
> of the murders of JFK and JDT which forces you to invent 53 excuses to
> dismiss each and every one of them.
>

VB is a lawyer, and it's his training to make people believe whatever
he wants. His 53 items have all been answered many times over out on the
internet. It's so easy that it's not even worth my time.

> >
> >
> > Proof beyond reasonable doubt is
> > > not the same as proof beyond all doubt as it would be virtually impossible
> > > to provide the latter in any murder case.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I have a reasonable doubt that Oswald was the shooter at the
> > motorcade.
>
> There is nothing reasonable about your doubt.
>

More opinion. It counts for nothing.

> > I know that he was not present at the 6th floor window,
> > therefore he is innocent of the murder of the man he liked and thought was
> > a "good leader".
> >
>
> You know a lot of things that aren't true.
>
> >
> >
> > > If you want to cling to the belief that Oswald was innocent just because
> > > of the theoretical possibility that all that evidence could line up
> > > against him and he could still be innocent you are assuring that you will
> > > never understand who it was that killed JFK. If you reject the one and
> > > only truth there is zero chance you will ever find another.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! Don't be ridiculous yet again! I believe his innocence because
> > of the evidence that he was not on the 6th floor when the shots rang out.
> >
>
> There isn't a single piece of evidence that precludes him from being the
> shooter in the sniper's nest at 12:30. Not one.
>

I've given you the list and yet while in your fantasy, you didn't hear
a bit of it.

Amazing how illogical you are when trying to get away with opinions,
when we need evidence.

> >
> >
> > It is
> > > > > inconceivable there would be ALL that evidence against him if he were
> > > > > innocent. The body of evidence establishes that Brennan was not wrong.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It is VERY conceivable that without Brennan that there isn't enough
> > > > evidence to convict anyone. Talking about "all that evidence" is just
> > > > words and opinion.
> > > >
> > >
> > > As I said, if the same burden of proof beyond all possible doubt were
> > > applied to all murder cases that conspiracy hobbyists want to apply in
> > > this case, no murderers would ever be convicted.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Forget it. You don't even have 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.
> >
>
> There is no reasonable doubt of Oswald's guilt among reasonable people.
>

More unprovable opinion. Try evidence, what you tried to show before
was a pittance and not worth the powder to blow it to hell.

> >
> >
> > > > > > > Not one of those items by itself proves Oswald was the shooter. A case for
> > > > > > > his innocence could be made with just two items from this list. There is
> > > > > > > no reasonable argument for his innocence that can be made with all that
> > > > > > > evidence against him. Everything is just as we would expect it to be if
> > > > > > > Oswald was the shooter. One or two pieces of evidence might point in the
> > > > > > > wrong direction. All of he the evidence is not going to point in the wrong
> > > > > > > direction.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The trouble with that is that "all of the evidence" suggests there is
> > > > > > some large pile of evidence, which there is not. There are a few flimsy
> > > > > > things that suggest that Oswald owned the rifle, but there's nothing that
> > > > > > says he was at the window with the rifle firing into the plaza. In fact,
> > > > > > a book called "The Men on the Sixth Floor" by Collum and Sample seems to
> > > > > > have found evidence that 3 people snuck into the TSBD through the loading
> > > > > > dock door and went up to the 6th floor and fired guns out of the 6th floor
> > > > > > window including using Oswald's rifle which as hidden there. They then
> > > > > > went back down and left the building, and they were seen coming out of the
> > > > > > loading dock area.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The authors of "The Men on the Sixth Floor seem to have found a few
> > > > > gullible people who believe their nonsense. And took their money.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ah, so now you've decided to attack the book's information.
> > >
> >
> >
> > > Yes I did. I decided that when you told me they cooked up a story of 3
> > > assassins on the 6th floor and Oswald wasn't one of them.
> >
> >
> >
> >

> > WHOA! I did NOT tell you that THEY "cooked up a story".

>
> You didn't need to. You told me what their story was and the evidence
> tells me they cooked it up.
>
> > I named the book

> > and the authors, and told you the general story line. The authors said that

> > Oswald was not one of the shooters, just as we know it from evidence that
> > Oswald was elsewhere than on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
> >
>
> No such evidence exists.
>

Of course it exists. Were you asleep again when it was told to you?

> >
> >
> > Since I know
> > > Oswald was the assassin, I know they are full of shit.
> >
> >
> >
> > The trouble with all that is that you have little evidence that Oswald
> > was even ON the 6th floor never mind holding the rifle and shooting at the
> > motorcade.
> >
>
> The evidence has been listed for you numerous times and your response is
> always to invent excuses to dismiss it. You refuse to accept Oswald's
> guilt no matter how much evidence of it is presented to you. If there were
> 1053 pieces of evidence of his guilt, you would invent 1053 excuses to
> dismiss them.
>

Your "evidence" was NOT "dismissed". It was evidence of your inability
to recognize evidence. Your little list of items came to nothing as I
showed - item by item.

> >
> >
> > Had their story
> > > been that there were two people in addition to Oswald I would want to see
> > > what evidence they had of those accomplices. Since their "proof" consists
> > > of a story supposedly told to them by a dead guy who can no longer refute
> > > their story, it is quite easy to dismiss their nonsense.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Face it, you would find anything to "dismiss" the story, never mind
> > that many facts in the story match the situation.
> >
>
> It's very easy to dismiss claims for which there is no supporting
> evidence. I'm not forced to dream up excuses to dismiss evidence the way
> you do.
>

You were given the supporting evidence. Your fantasy won't let you
admit it.

> >
> >
> > > > Well,
> > > > prove that the book is wrong. don't just feed us your useless opinion.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I don't have to prove the book is wrong. They need to prove it is right.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Ah, anything to get the burden off you.
>
> That's the way it works among reasonable people. The person advancing a
> hypothesis has the burden of providing the evidence for that hypothesis.
> No one has a burden to disprove a hypothesis for which there is no
> evidence.
>

I didn't advance ANY "hypothesis", I repeated what 2 authors said,
which were the words of Loy factor who participated in the events
described.

> > First, the book is really a
> > statement of a witness, namely Loy Factor.
>
> We only have the authors word for that. If I claimed I saw a herd of pink
> unicorns, would that be evidence that there was a herd of pink unicorns?
>

You wouldn't be believed in any event, since your reputation for making
errors is monumental.

> > We are reading his eyewitness
> > story of the killing of JFK.
>
> No, we are reading the authors' claim of what he said. We have no idea
> what he actually said.
>

If you want to prove that he lied to the authors, then do so. Otherwise
their repeating of his words stands.

> > Second, many of the facts in the book fit
> > other facts, such as the 2 men in the window with a gun, which fits the
> > book, and the entry and exit through the loading dock entrance.
>
> So you are trying to use one myth to support another. Typical.
>

I used the term "facts". Try them some time.

> > As well,
> > there was a statement that there were other shooters stationed around the
> > plaza and they got a signal from Ruth Ann who was with them on the 6th
> > floor, which fit the situation again.
> >
>
> Anybody can make statements. Offering evidence to support those statements
> is the challenging part.
>
> > There is no reason to doubt the book's story.
>
> Other than the authors are full of shit and have offered not a scrap of
> evidence to support their bogus story.
>

You've just made a statement, please back it up. I'm waiting.

> > There has been no proof
> > that either of the 2 men that wrote it did ANYTHING wrong or had ever
> > falsified anything.
>
> Once again, no one has the burden to disprove anyone else's hypothesis is
> false. The person(s) offering the hypothesis has the burden of proving it.
> You can't disprove my story that I saw a herd of pink unicorns. Does that
> give credibility to my story?
>

No "hypothesis" was offered. a story that was of real events was offered.
In the case of your word, we have clear evidence of your frequent errors,
so we can easily assume that you're word is no good.

> > The story also of Loy Factor identifying Mac Wallace
> > as the boss of this little group was also a clue, since without knowing it
> > at first, they found out that Wallace was LBJ's hit man, and we know that
> > Wallace's finger print was found in the 'nest'.
> >
>
> There is no evidence Wallace was LBJ's hit man and the fact that there
> have been rumors, suspicions, and accusations of that have been around for
> years. The authors just dovetailed their bullshit story to fit those
> accusations.
>

So you think that what has been said out of Texas about LBJ and Wallace
was completely untrue? Can you back up that statement? The authors state
that they didn't know that LBJ paid Wallace to kill for him until later.
No reason to believe otherwise.

> >
> >
> > > Your double standards are once again on display. For Oswald, you demand
> > > proof beyond all possible doubt of his guilt. Yet you are perfectly
> > > willing to accept this cockamamie story until somebody can prove it is
> > > wrong.
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! I believe Oswald was innocent because the evidence says so.
> > He wasn't near the 6th floor when the shots rang out.
>
> No evidence of that.
>

WRONG! I've presented that evidence.



> > You have tried to
> > concoct evidence against him, as the plotters wanted you to, but it just

> > wasn't enough.
>
> There is no evidence there were any plotters other than Oswald.
>

The whole case smells of conspiracy. Amazing that you were fooled into
changing your belief.

> > Your witness was discredited, and your other evidence
> > amounts to almost nothing.
> >
>
> The fact you dismiss Howard Brennan does not discredit him. He IDed the
> location and the shooter and there is ample corroborating evidence for
> both of those.
>

He IDed the location, NOT the shooter. He discredited his ID of the
person on the 6th floor.

> > You set the bar as high as you possibly can for proof of Oswald's
> > > guilt and then lay the bar on the floor for the things you want to
> > > believe.
> >
> >
> > WRONG! That is, of course, more of your useless opinion. Try proof.
> >
>
> That is a statement of fact. You demand proof beyond all possible doubt of
> Oswald's guilt yet you accept stories that have absolutely no supporting
> evidence solely because you want to believe them.

This is a special case where there has ben an accusation of falsifying
evidence to blame a 'patsy' for the crime, and so careful weighing of the
evidence is needed to be sure and catch those that would like to blame the
'patsy' and help to cover up for the guilty plotters.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 9:20:17 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 12:16:43 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:

> > On Monday, November 7, 2016 at 8:17:29 PM UTC-5, Allan G. Johnson wrote:
> > > On Sunday, November 6, 2016 at 9:38:48 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, November 6, 2016 at 3:11:59 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > > > >
> > > > > I like to occasionally ask conspiracy theorists this question, which is a
> > > > > question they can never answer without claiming that all of the Dallas
> > > > > cops were crooked and part of a plot to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for two
> > > > > murders he never actually committed:
> > > > >

> > > > > Did the Dallas Police Department normally have a habit of officially
> > > > > charging suspects with TWO murders if they had no solid evidence against

> > > > accumulation of evidence that establishes Oswald's guilt. Sure there could

> > > > be one or two pieces of evidence that might point in the wrong direction
> > > > but when there is so much evidence of Oswald's guilt, it is ludicrous to
> > > > think that he could be innocent.
> > > >

> > > > If you've followed some of my recent exchanges with Chris, that
> > > > illustrates that perfectly. I will provide just a partial list of the
> > > > things indicating Oswald's guilt and he will counter that it doesn't prove
> > > > he was the shooter. If he was speaking of only one or two pieces of
> > > > evidence that would be true. For example:
> > > >
> > > > Oswald's ownership of the rifle doesn't prove he was the shooter.
> > > >
> > > > Oswald's palm print on the rifle doesn't prove he was the shooter.
> > > >
> > > > Oswald's fingerprints in the sniper's nest doesn't prove he was the
> > > > shooter.
> > > >
> > > > Oswald bringing a long bag to work doesn't prove he was the shooter.
> > > >
> > > > Oswald's fingerprints on a long bag found near the sniper's nest doesn't
> > > > prove he was the shooter.
> > > >
> > > > Fibers from Oswald's blanket found in the bag doesn't prove he was the
> > > > shooter.
> > > >
> > > > Fibers matching the shirt Oswald was wearing that day doesn't prove he was
> > > > the shooter.
> > > >
> > > > An eyewitness who IDed Oswald doesn't prove he was the shooter.
> > > >

> > > > Not one of those items by itself proves Oswald was the shooter. A case for
> > > > his innocence could be made with just two items from this list. There is
> > > > no reasonable argument for his innocence that can be made with all that
> > > > evidence against him. Everything is just as we would expect it to be if
> > > > Oswald was the shooter. One or two pieces of evidence might point in the
> > > > wrong direction. All of he the evidence is not going to point in the wrong
> > > > direction.
> > > >

> > > > And we haven't even started to talk about the evidence that he killed J.D.
> > > > Tippit.
> > >
> > > PREPONDERANCE of evidence. With each piece it just adds another nail
> > > in the coffin. Oswald's has been hermetically sealed. The more the
> > > evidence, the more difficult it becomes to connect it all to a conspiracy
> > > that PROVES the evidence is false or misinterpreted.
> > >
> >
> >
> > There is a preponderance of attempts to make circumstantial evidence
> > into real evidence.
>
> The fact that you don't think circumstantial evidence isn't real evidence
> speaks volume.
>
> > It's the kind of thing you see when a case has to be
> > trumped up for lack of solid evidence.
>
> Forensic evidence is the most solid form of evidence there is.
>
> > All of the evidence that Oswald
> > showed a lack of intent to shoot anyone was not mentioned,
>
> Hilarious that you don't think forensic evidence is solid evidence but you
> think your silly figuring is.
>

WRONG yet again! I didn't say that 'forensic evidence' was not solid,
but I will say you don't have much of it that applies to the case.



> > and should
> > have been to allow for proper decisions. First, Oswald had a chance to buy

> > ammunition from Klein's for this odd rifle which was not common, but he

> > refused it. Second, the FBI tried but could not finds any place that

> > Oswald bought any ammunition for the rifle, and there were only two places
> > within the area, one of which had reloaded all their MC type ammo with
> > lead bullets. Third, the FBI could not find anyplace that Oswald did any
> > practicing with the rifle, and since the rifle had a misaligned scope and
> > s sticky bolt, he would have found out those things and repaired them if
> > he had practiced.
> >
>
> What you are describing isn't evidence. It is an absence of evidence. You
> don't seem to understand the difference.
>

You don't seem to understand what id evidence in any case. Any
information that gets you closer to the truth, even eliminating something,
is good evidence.

> > What we do know is that Oswald got his rifle, went in the back yard
> > and had Marina take his photo with his literature and his guns, and then
> > he rolled the rifle up in a blanket and threw in the garage. The photo
> > might be later used to impress someone that he was rough and ready for
> > action. But he had no intent to shoot anyone.
> >
>
> The first part of the paragraph is absolutely factual. The second half is
> nothing but silly conspiracy hobbyist figuring.

The full paragraph is factual, you're just not able to admit it.

Chris

[bigdog]

Who fact checks the fact checkers?

After spending considerable time making a point by point rebuttal to this
post of yours the web page crashed and I lost my reply just as I was
getting read to hit POST. I'm not going to bother doing that again. Let me
just summarize.

The things I believe in are supported by real evidence. Forensic evidence.
You have none of that to support your arguments. I have expert testimony
on my side. You have none of that in your tool box. I rely on eyewitnesses
who are corroborated by other forms of evidence and who told their stories
at the time of the assassination. You rely on eyewitnesses who cooked up
their stories many years later and whom are not supported by other forms
of evidence. You rely on silly assumptions and then make illogical
inferences from them to reach your conclusions.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/13/2016 8:05 AM, bigdog wrote:
> On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 2:38:16 PM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
>> David Von Pein wrote:
>>> ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>>>
>>> There was plenty of evidence against Oswald. They [the Dallas Police
>>> Department] didn't need to frame him.
>>>
>>>
>>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>>
>>> Exactly, Bob. That was kinda my point when I said this:
>>>
>>> "Did the Dallas Police Department normally have a habit of officially
>>> charging suspects with TWO murders if they had no solid evidence against
>>> that suspect at all?" -- DVP; September 2014
>>>
>>>
>>> ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>>>
>>> Nothing was planted, David. There was no need to frame Oswald.
>>>
>>>
>>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>>
>>> Again --- that's exactly correct.
>>>
>>> (If you keep thinking this way, Bob, you'll be an LNer before you know
>>> it.)
>>>
>>>

So who claimed that it was the DPD alone who framed OSwald?
No one. Just another or your standard strawman arguments.

#
#
############
#
# #
# #
# #
# #

>>> ROBERT HARRIS SAID (ONE NEEDLESS COMMA REMOVED BY DVP):
>>>
>>> The need was to make sure the world didn't know about his accomplices.
>>>
>>>
>>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>>
>>> You were doing great before you made that last statement.
>>>
>>> Re: the Katzenbach memo....
>>>
>>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-971.html
>>
>> Strange that you didn't discuss the most important part of
>> that memo, David.
>>
>> "The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin;
>> that he did not have confederates who are still at large.."
>>
>> Why would he and Hoover, whose orders he was following, want
>> to tell people that Oswald had no accomplices?
>>
>
> Because there was no evidence Oswald had any accomplices.
>

There was fake evidence, planted by the Cuban Exiles to link Oswald to
Castro. Hoover believed it, the CIA believed it, LBJ believed it.
That is what caused the cover-up.

>> And why did you mention their statement about getting the
>> facts out, but fail to mention the rather damning caveat, "in
>> such a way"?
>>
>> You don't report facts "in such a way" David. When you do
>> that they aren't facts anymore. They become spin or more
>> accurately, bullshit.
>>
>
> How about they reported the facts in such a way the public would
> understand. If they resorted to a lot of techno-babble the public might
> not understand.
>

Exactly. Talk down to the public as if they are just little children who
need to be told what to think. Just never tell the truth.
That's your mantra.

>> "I reported my income to the IRS 'in such a way' that it
>> appeared that I earned half of what I really did"
>>
>
> How about, "I reported my income to the IRS in such a way that they would
> see I am clearly and accurately reporting my income.".
>

I doubt it. Is that what Trump did?

>> The memo also made it clear that they were VERY concerned
>> about the DPD's conclusion that Castro was behind the murder
>> - exactly as I told you.
>>
>> It was that concern, that motivated the FBI to cover up
>> evidence of conspiracy. It also gave them a way to convince
>> otherwise honest witnesses to withhold information or even lie.
>>
>

No. it was the Pedro Charles letters and rumors from the Cuban exiles.

> Now we are getting into your assumptions. Don't you know that the
> conspiracy hobbyist manual calls for you to preface your assumptions with
> the word "obvious".
>
>> How do you argue with a federal agent telling you that if you
>> are truthful, you might start a nuclear, world war:-)
>>
>
> Which federal agent said that?
>

FBI and CIA.
I can't say LBJ because he was not a federal AGENT.

[Anthony Marsh]

Stop being coy. Just spit it out.

> dcw
>

[bigdog]

The joke about the Carcanos was that they had never been fired and dropped
only once.

The butt plate would not need to be loose in order to catch fibers. The
forceful recoil of the rifle into the shirt would be enough.

>
>
>
> > > and that would catch a
> > > fiber when the shirt would be slid over the butt plate, not when the plate
> > > was pushed into the shoulder.
> > >
> >
> > One more silly assumption.
> >
>
>
> I don't hear you giving out with any detailed information. Can't
> think of any?
>

The fact the fibers matching Oswald's shirt were on the butt plate of the
rifle is detailed enough.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > On
> > > > top of the fact it was his rifle, his palm print was on the rifle, and his
> > > > fingerprints were on the boxes in the sniper's nest oriented precisely as
> > > > they would be if he was the shooter and facing down Elm St. It is
> > > > impossible to construct a plausible scenario that explains for all that
> > > > evidence of his guilt if he were innocent.
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! The rifle was his and that means he would get prints on it.
> > > He worked in the TSBD and he searched for books in many boxes. He
> > > probably handled almost every box in the place looking for books.
> > > Whoever constructed the 'nest' would place boxes to satisfy their need.
> >
> > That would be Oswald.
> >
>
>
> You haven't proved that, so don't say it.
>

If it were necessary to prove the things you say, you wouldn't be allowed
to post here.

>
>
> >
> > > Since Mac Wallace had a fingerprint on a box there, maybe he was the one
> > > that moved the boxes.
> >
> > A fingerprint expert has disputed that it was Mac Wallace's on the box.
> > While it did have a number of matching points to Wallace's fingerprint, it
> > also had a mismatching point which it would not have if it were Wallace's
> > print.
> >
>
>
> A top flight print expert said it was a print of Wallace's. That's
> good enough for me. I've seen his resume. He didn't even know the name
> until later after he decided the print was a match.
>

So we have conflicting expert opinions and your solution is to buy the one
that fits with what you want to believe rather than examine the analysis
of the two experts. If you did that you would see why the expert who
refuted it was Wallace's print came to that conclusion.

>
>
> > > Now, as to a plausible scenario, Oswald was
> > > manipulated into bringing in his rifle that day and hiding it for later.
> >
> > Another assumption for which you have produced zero evidence.
> >
>
>
> There has been a great deal of evidence presented, but you will
> naturally try to put it down.
>

Just what form did that evidence take. No one at the TSBD testified that
Oswald brought the rifle in to sell. That is pure conjecture on your part.
You assumed it to be true because you need it to be tree.

>
>
> > > He told someone where he hid it.
> >
> > And another.
> >
> > > 3 people went up the back stairs from
> > > the loading dock entrance, and they got the rifle out of its hiding place
> > > and then fired on the motorcade leaving 3 shells there at the 'nest'.
> > > Simple.
> > >
> >
> > Really simple when you don't require evidence for the things you dream up.
> >
>
>
> I had witnesses tell me that story. They were called Collum and
> Sample.
>

Collum and Sample were not witnesses.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > The body of evidence is exactly
> > > > what we would expect it to be if he were the shooter.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It would also satisfy a few different scenarios.
> >
> > Someday I hope to encounter a conspiracy hobbyist who can offer a COMPLETE
> > scenario that explains the entire body of evidence but there is probably a
> > better chance I will discover a Sasquatch living in my basement.
> > Conspiracy hobbyists can offer alternative explanations for any single
> > piece of evidence but to date note one I have seen has been able to offer
> > a plausible scenario to explain ALL the evidence.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! I've given you just such an answer to your wish, but you will
> never be able to actually receive your wish because your diehard attitude
> won't let you believe anything but the tired old WCR.
>

Your scenario dismisses the evidence, it does not conform to the evidence.

>
>
> > > It's only your
> > > opinion that Oswald was the shooter,
> >
> > And opinion supported by the entire body of evidence.
> >
>
>
> Not at all. That tiny list of items doesn't prove that Oswald was even
> on the 6th floor, so how could it prove he fired a gun out the window, and
> how can it prove he killed anyone? Your batty ideas will only get you
> embarrassment. Oswald was elsewhere when the shooting started.
>

That is what you assume.

>
>
>
> > > you have not a single bit of evidence
> > > that says Oswald was in the window and was firing the MC rifle at the
> > > motorcade.
> > >
> >
> > A preposterous statement.
> >
>
>
> Oh? Show me how you proved that Oswald was even at the window on the
> 6th floor!
>

His fingerprints were there.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > By denying that this body of evidence establishes Oswald's guilt, you are
> > > > creating a burden of proof that is so high that it would be virtually
> > > > impossible to convict most murderers of their crime if that same burden of
> > > > proof were applied in all murder cases.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > There isn't a "body of evidence", only a couple of circumstantial items
> > > and a lot of baloney. Little of which points to Oswald, and very little
> > > tells us about the shooter.
> > >
> >
> > Vincent Bugliosi has offered 53 pieces of evidence that Oswald was guilty
> > of the murders of JFK and JDT which forces you to invent 53 excuses to
> > dismiss each and every one of them.
> >
>
>
>
> VB is a lawyer, and it's his training to make people believe whatever
> he wants. His 53 items have all been answered many times over out on the
> internet. It's so easy that it's not even worth my time.
>

The've been answered with 53 excuses for dismissing them.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > Proof beyond reasonable doubt is
> > > > not the same as proof beyond all doubt as it would be virtually impossible
> > > > to provide the latter in any murder case.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have a reasonable doubt that Oswald was the shooter at the
> > > motorcade.
> >
> > There is nothing reasonable about your doubt.
> >
>
>
>
> More opinion. It counts for nothing.
>

Your opinion never has.

>
>
> > > I know that he was not present at the 6th floor window,
> > > therefore he is innocent of the murder of the man he liked and thought was
> > > a "good leader".
> > >
> >
> > You know a lot of things that aren't true.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > If you want to cling to the belief that Oswald was innocent just because
> > > > of the theoretical possibility that all that evidence could line up
> > > > against him and he could still be innocent you are assuring that you will
> > > > never understand who it was that killed JFK. If you reject the one and
> > > > only truth there is zero chance you will ever find another.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! Don't be ridiculous yet again! I believe his innocence because
> > > of the evidence that he was not on the 6th floor when the shots rang out.
> > >
> >
> > There isn't a single piece of evidence that precludes him from being the
> > shooter in the sniper's nest at 12:30. Not one.
> >
>
>
> I've given you the list and yet while in your fantasy, you didn't hear
> a bit of it.
>

You've given me assumptions. No evidence. The only thing you do with
evidence is invent excuses to dismiss it.

You have not cited a single witness who states they saw Oswald elsewhere
in the TSBD at 12:30. Not once. Not ever.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > Since I know
> > > > Oswald was the assassin, I know they are full of shit.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The trouble with all that is that you have little evidence that Oswald
> > > was even ON the 6th floor never mind holding the rifle and shooting at the
> > > motorcade.
> > >
> >
> > The evidence has been listed for you numerous times and your response is
> > always to invent excuses to dismiss it. You refuse to accept Oswald's
> > guilt no matter how much evidence of it is presented to you. If there were
> > 1053 pieces of evidence of his guilt, you would invent 1053 excuses to
> > dismiss them.
> >
>
>
> Your "evidence" was NOT "dismissed". It was evidence of your inability
> to recognize evidence. Your little list of items came to nothing as I
> showed - item by item.
>

You responded to the evidence with excuses to ignore it.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > Had their story
> > > > been that there were two people in addition to Oswald I would want to see
> > > > what evidence they had of those accomplices. Since their "proof" consists
> > > > of a story supposedly told to them by a dead guy who can no longer refute
> > > > their story, it is quite easy to dismiss their nonsense.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Face it, you would find anything to "dismiss" the story, never mind
> > > that many facts in the story match the situation.
> > >
> >
> > It's very easy to dismiss claims for which there is no supporting
> > evidence. I'm not forced to dream up excuses to dismiss evidence the way
> > you do.
> >
>
>
> You were given the supporting evidence. Your fantasy won't let you
> admit it.
>

You don't understand what evidence is. You don't understand what proof is.
You think you know but you haven't got a clue.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Well,
> > > > > prove that the book is wrong. don't just feed us your useless opinion.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't have to prove the book is wrong. They need to prove it is right.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ah, anything to get the burden off you.
> >
> > That's the way it works among reasonable people. The person advancing a
> > hypothesis has the burden of providing the evidence for that hypothesis.
> > No one has a burden to disprove a hypothesis for which there is no
> > evidence.
> >
>
>
> I didn't advance ANY "hypothesis", I repeated what 2 authors said,
> which were the words of Loy factor who participated in the events
> described.
>

They claim those were the words of Loy Factor. Since he is dead there is
no way to verify that they didn't just make it all up to sell a book.

>
>
> > > First, the book is really a
> > > statement of a witness, namely Loy Factor.
> >
> > We only have the authors word for that. If I claimed I saw a herd of pink
> > unicorns, would that be evidence that there was a herd of pink unicorns?
> >
>
>
> You wouldn't be believed in any event, since your reputation for making
> errors is monumental.
>

So you dodge the question.

>
>
> > > We are reading his eyewitness
> > > story of the killing of JFK.
> >
> > No, we are reading the authors' claim of what he said. We have no idea
> > what he actually said.
> >
>
>
> If you want to prove that he lied to the authors, then do so. Otherwise
> their repeating of his words stands.
>

So can you prove I didn't see a herd of pink unicorns? If not, by your
rule my story stands.

>
>
> > > Second, many of the facts in the book fit
> > > other facts, such as the 2 men in the window with a gun, which fits the
> > > book, and the entry and exit through the loading dock entrance.
> >
> > So you are trying to use one myth to support another. Typical.
> >
>
>
>
> I used the term "facts". Try them some time.
>

You use the term facts to describe your myths.

>
>
> > > As well,
> > > there was a statement that there were other shooters stationed around the
> > > plaza and they got a signal from Ruth Ann who was with them on the 6th
> > > floor, which fit the situation again.
> > >
> >
> > Anybody can make statements. Offering evidence to support those statements
> > is the challenging part.
> >
> > > There is no reason to doubt the book's story.
> >
> > Other than the authors are full of shit and have offered not a scrap of
> > evidence to support their bogus story.
> >
>
>
> You've just made a statement, please back it up. I'm waiting.
>

Once again you tried to shift the burden. You can't prove their story is
accurate so you resort to challenging others to disprove it.

>
>
> > > There has been no proof
> > > that either of the 2 men that wrote it did ANYTHING wrong or had ever
> > > falsified anything.
> >
> > Once again, no one has the burden to disprove anyone else's hypothesis is
> > false. The person(s) offering the hypothesis has the burden of proving it.
> > You can't disprove my story that I saw a herd of pink unicorns. Does that
> > give credibility to my story?
> >
>
>
> No "hypothesis" was offered. a story that was of real events was offered.
> In the case of your word, we have clear evidence of your frequent errors,
> so we can easily assume that you're word is no good.
>

So you arbitrarily decide which stories you choose to believe. I've known
that for quite some time. It's nice to see you finally admit it.

>
>
>
> > > The story also of Loy Factor identifying Mac Wallace
> > > as the boss of this little group was also a clue, since without knowing it
> > > at first, they found out that Wallace was LBJ's hit man, and we know that
> > > Wallace's finger print was found in the 'nest'.
> > >
> >
> > There is no evidence Wallace was LBJ's hit man and the fact that there
> > have been rumors, suspicions, and accusations of that have been around for
> > years. The authors just dovetailed their bullshit story to fit those
> > accusations.
> >
>
>
> So you think that what has been said out of Texas about LBJ and Wallace
> was completely untrue? Can you back up that statement?

I have seen no evidence that LBJ employed Wallace as a hit man and until I
do I see no reason to believe that is true.

> The authors state
> that they didn't know that LBJ paid Wallace to kill for him until later.
> No reason to believe otherwise.
>

And of course you believe them because they said so.

>
> > >
> > >
> > > > Your double standards are once again on display. For Oswald, you demand
> > > > proof beyond all possible doubt of his guilt. Yet you are perfectly
> > > > willing to accept this cockamamie story until somebody can prove it is
> > > > wrong.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! I believe Oswald was innocent because the evidence says so.
> > > He wasn't near the 6th floor when the shots rang out.
> >
> > No evidence of that.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! I've presented that evidence.
>

You have presented people who said they saw him earlier. You have pointed
to people who same him later. You have pointed to know one who saw him at
12:30 and dismissed the only witness who said he saw him at the time the
shots were fired.

>
>
> > > You have tried to
> > > concoct evidence against him, as the plotters wanted you to, but it just
> > > wasn't enough.
> >
> > There is no evidence there were any plotters other than Oswald.
> >
>
>
> The whole case smells of conspiracy. Amazing that you were fooled into
> changing your belief.
>

So you are using your olfactory system in lieu of evidence.

>
>
> > > Your witness was discredited, and your other evidence
> > > amounts to almost nothing.
> > >
> >
> > The fact you dismiss Howard Brennan does not discredit him. He IDed the
> > location and the shooter and there is ample corroborating evidence for
> > both of those.
> >
>
>
> He IDed the location, NOT the shooter.

No, he IDed the shooter too.

> He discredited his ID of the
> person on the 6th floor.

So right after you said he didn't ID the shooter you said his ID of the
shooter was discredited.

>
>
>
> > > You set the bar as high as you possibly can for proof of Oswald's
> > > > guilt and then lay the bar on the floor for the things you want to
> > > > believe.
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! That is, of course, more of your useless opinion. Try proof.
> > >
> >
> > That is a statement of fact. You demand proof beyond all possible doubt of
> > Oswald's guilt yet you accept stories that have absolutely no supporting
> > evidence solely because you want to believe them.
>
>
> This is a special case where there has ben an accusation of falsifying
> evidence to blame a 'patsy' for the crime, and so careful weighing of the
> evidence is needed to be sure and catch those that would like to blame the
> 'patsy' and help to cover up for the guilty plotters.
>

And since you have no evidence that anybody but Oswald was involved you
just make it up.

[Bud]

In what real way have you ruled out that the fiber caught on the
buttplate?

Yes, bad information is all you are interested in.

> I've seen his resume. He didn't even know the name
> until later after he decided the print was a match.

Why did he check the print found in the SN against Wallace`s print at
all?

[mainframetech]

LOL! We can all witness the dying hopes of an LN who loves his WCR.

> After spending considerable time making a point by point rebuttal to this
> post of yours the web page crashed and I lost my reply just as I was
> getting read to hit POST. I'm not going to bother doing that again. Let me
> just summarize.
>

I'm sure everyone thanks you.

> The things I believe in are supported by real evidence. Forensic evidence.
> You have none of that to support your arguments.

Absolutely false! Where do you get these silly dreams? I've seen your
tiny list of evidence and it doesn't prove a thing to do with Oswald, and
it doesn't prove at all that any MC type bullet hit or hurt anyone. You
haven't even proven that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots rang
out. What baloney!

I have expert testimony
> on my side. You have none of that in your tool box. I rely on eyewitnesses
> who are corroborated by other forms of evidence and who told their stories
> at the time of the assassination.

"Expert witnesses"? You have nothing of the sort. List them, why
don't you. I have listed mine, namely Pierre Finck. And others,
depending on which part of the case you want to discuss.

You rely on eyewitnesses who cooked up
> their stories many years later and whom are not supported by other forms
> of evidence. You rely on silly assumptions and then make illogical
> inferences from them to reach your conclusions.

"Cooked up"? So once again you resort to the LN whine that they all
lied! Ridiculous. Thank you for not listing your silly little list of
evidence again, since it proves absolutely nothing, and you know for sure
that I'll make it look like a hill of beans if you do make the list.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Must have been Russian hackers, eh?
Some type of conspiracy aimed at only YOU. Didn't happen to anyone else
that day. They're watching you.

> The things I believe in are supported by real evidence. Forensic evidence.

Nope.

> You have none of that to support your arguments. I have expert testimony
> on my side. You have none of that in your tool box. I rely on eyewitnesses

We have expert testimony. You choose which expert to believe.

> who are corroborated by other forms of evidence and who told their stories

How? You destroyed the evidence.

> at the time of the assassination. You rely on eyewitnesses who cooked up

But you don't like it when witnesses tell their stories at the time of
the assassination. Like Euins saying it was a black man.
You prefer the WC cover up 9 months later to change the back wound to a
neck wound or order Baker to cross out the Coke.

> their stories many years later and whom are not supported by other forms
> of evidence. You rely on silly assumptions and then make illogical
> inferences from them to reach your conclusions.
>

Ok, so only statements withing seconds of the assassination are true.
Like Jean Hill saying she heard 4 shots.

[Anthony Marsh]

But he actually denied it. Now you have nothing.

[bigdog]

Where is your forensic evidence that someone other than Oswald was
involved in the crime.

> I've seen your
> tiny list of evidence and it doesn't prove a thing to do with Oswald, and
> it doesn't prove at all that any MC type bullet hit or hurt anyone. You
> haven't even proven that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots rang
> out. What baloney!
>

I offer forensic evidence. You offer excuses to dismiss it. SOP.

>
>
> I have expert testimony
> > on my side. You have none of that in your tool box. I rely on eyewitnesses
> > who are corroborated by other forms of evidence and who told their stories
> > at the time of the assassination.
>
>
>
>
> "Expert witnesses"? You have nothing of the sort. List them, why
> don't you.

The review panels for the Rockefeller Commision, the HSCA, Dr. Peter
Cummings, Robert Frazier, Seabastian Latona, Arthur Mandella. That's just
for starters. How many more would you like?

> I have listed mine, namely Pierre Finck.

Oh, I forgot all about him. Wasn't he the guy who signed an autopsy report
saying that JFK had been struck by two missiles fired from behind him?

> And others,
> depending on which part of the case you want to discuss.
>

"And others"? <chuckle>

So after demanding I list the experts who have offered expert testimony
incriminating to Oswald, you counter with a guy whose on the record
opinions refute your arguments "and others". Too funny.

>
>
>
> You rely on eyewitnesses who cooked up
> > their stories many years later and whom are not supported by other forms
> > of evidence. You rely on silly assumptions and then make illogical
> > inferences from them to reach your conclusions.
>
>
> "Cooked up"? So once again you resort to the LN whine that they all
> lied!

No, just very specific people. People who crawled out of the woodwork
decades later with uncorroborated stories which conflict with the body of
evidence.

> Ridiculous. Thank you for not listing your silly little list of
> evidence again, since it proves absolutely nothing, and you know for sure
> that I'll make it look like a hill of beans if you do make the list.
>

It is the kind of proof routinely used to convict murderers. You have no
interest in such evidence because it conflicts with what you would rather
believe.

[mainframetech]

WRONG! Try to avoid skating away from the question. When you picture a
smooth butt plate, tell me what a fiber catches on so that it adheres on
the butt plate when the rifle is fired. Doesn't the rifle push the butt
plate back into the shoulder? So just pushing the rifle back wouldn't
cause a fiber to 'catch', but some bit of metal hanging loose from the
butt plate might. In which case it wouldn't be necessary to have any
firing going on.

> > > > and that would catch a
> > > > fiber when the shirt would be slid over the butt plate, not when the plate
> > > > was pushed into the shoulder.
> > > >
> > >
> > > One more silly assumption.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I don't hear you giving out with any detailed information. Can't
> > think of any?
> >
>
> The fact the fibers matching Oswald's shirt were on the butt plate of the
> rifle is detailed enough.
>

Actually, no it's not. It hasn't been explained how the pushing of the
butt plate against the shoulder causes a fiber to adhere to it. It would
be like when people sit down all the time. Their pants would all leave
fibers all over every sitting place in the world. Sorry, your excuse
isn't tenable.

> > > > On
> > > > > top of the fact it was his rifle, his palm print was on the rifle, and his
> > > > > fingerprints were on the boxes in the sniper's nest oriented precisely as
> > > > > they would be if he was the shooter and facing down Elm St. It is
> > > > > impossible to construct a plausible scenario that explains for all that
> > > > > evidence of his guilt if he were innocent.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WRONG! The rifle was his and that means he would get prints on it.
> > > > He worked in the TSBD and he searched for books in many boxes. He
> > > > probably handled almost every box in the place looking for books.
> > > > Whoever constructed the 'nest' would place boxes to satisfy their need.
> > >
> > > That would be Oswald.
> > >
> >
> >
> > You haven't proved that, so don't say it.
> >
>
> If it were necessary to prove the things you say, you wouldn't be allowed
> to post here.
>

WRONG! That's simply a case of sour grapes. You wish you had found
the evidence that I've found that makes all your arguments look
ridiculous.

> > > > Since Mac Wallace had a fingerprint on a box there, maybe he was the one
> > > > that moved the boxes.
> > >
> > > A fingerprint expert has disputed that it was Mac Wallace's on the box.
> > > While it did have a number of matching points to Wallace's fingerprint, it
> > > also had a mismatching point which it would not have if it were Wallace's
> > > print.
> > >
> >
> >
> > A top flight print expert said it was a print of Wallace's. That's
> > good enough for me. I've seen his resume. He didn't even know the name
> > until later after he decided the print was a match.
> >
>
> So we have conflicting expert opinions and your solution is to buy the one
> that fits with what you want to believe rather than examine the analysis
> of the two experts. If you did that you would see why the expert who
> refuted it was Wallace's print came to that conclusion.
>

WRONG! The match was made BEFORE the expert knew whose print he was
matching. That it turned out to be the hit man of LBJ was too much
coincidence.

> > > > Now, as to a plausible scenario, Oswald was
> > > > manipulated into bringing in his rifle that day and hiding it for later.
> > >
> > > Another assumption for which you have produced zero evidence.
> > >
> >
> >
> > There has been a great deal of evidence presented, but you will
> > naturally try to put it down.
> >
>
> Just what form did that evidence take. No one at the TSBD testified that
> Oswald brought the rifle in to sell. That is pure conjecture on your part.
> You assumed it to be true because you need it to be tree.
>

No one was asked, and the person that found a way to convince Oswald to
bring in the rifle wasn't going to admit it. Use your head. I did NOT
say there was only one thing that the rifle was brought in for, I gave a
few possibilities because I don't know what ploy was used. However,
Oswald showed previously that he was not interested in shooting anyone,
which means that he brought the rifle in for some other reason than
shooting the POTUS.

> > > > He told someone where he hid it.
> > >
> > > And another.
> > >
> > > > 3 people went up the back stairs from
> > > > the loading dock entrance, and they got the rifle out of its hiding place
> > > > and then fired on the motorcade leaving 3 shells there at the 'nest'.
> > > > Simple.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Really simple when you don't require evidence for the things you dream up.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I had witnesses tell me that story. They were called Collum and
> > Sample.
> >
>
> Collum and Sample were not witnesses.
>

YOU'RE NOT IN COURT. GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD. Collum and Sample were
witness to what Loy Factor said, especially on his near death bed.

> > > > The body of evidence is exactly
> > > > > what we would expect it to be if he were the shooter.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It would also satisfy a few different scenarios.
> > >
> > > Someday I hope to encounter a conspiracy hobbyist who can offer a COMPLETE
> > > scenario that explains the entire body of evidence but there is probably a
> > > better chance I will discover a Sasquatch living in my basement.
> > > Conspiracy hobbyists can offer alternative explanations for any single
> > > piece of evidence but to date note one I have seen has been able to offer
> > > a plausible scenario to explain ALL the evidence.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! I've given you just such an answer to your wish, but you will
> > never be able to actually receive your wish because your diehard attitude
> > won't let you believe anything but the tired old WCR.
> >
>
> Your scenario dismisses the evidence, it does not conform to the evidence.
>

WRONG! I never dismiss evidence, though I may use it differently than
you.

> > > > It's only your
> > > > opinion that Oswald was the shooter,
> > >
> > > And opinion supported by the entire body of evidence.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Not at all. That tiny list of items doesn't prove that Oswald was even
> > on the 6th floor, so how could it prove he fired a gun out the window, and
> > how can it prove he killed anyone? Your batty ideas will only get you
> > embarrassment. Oswald was elsewhere when the shooting started.
> >
>
> That is what you assume.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > > you have not a single bit of evidence
> > > > that says Oswald was in the window and was firing the MC rifle at the
> > > > motorcade.
> > > >
> > >
> > > A preposterous statement.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Oh? Show me how you proved that Oswald was even at the window on the
> > 6th floor!
> >
>
> His fingerprints were there.
>

Oh bullshit! Those prints could have been made anytime. No wonder
you never had a grasp on this case!

Tell it to Marina. Or Priscilla McMillan.

Sad to tell you, it wasn't necessary! Since Oswald was seen in the
2nd floor lunchroom at about 12:15pm, and Oswald couldn't go to the 6th
floor window because there were 2 men with a gun in that window, he wasn't
on the 6th floor. They would have never let him get near it if he had
tried.

> > > > Since I know
> > > > > Oswald was the assassin, I know they are full of shit.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The trouble with all that is that you have little evidence that Oswald
> > > > was even ON the 6th floor never mind holding the rifle and shooting at the
> > > > motorcade.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The evidence has been listed for you numerous times and your response is
> > > always to invent excuses to dismiss it. You refuse to accept Oswald's
> > > guilt no matter how much evidence of it is presented to you. If there were
> > > 1053 pieces of evidence of his guilt, you would invent 1053 excuses to
> > > dismiss them.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Your "evidence" was NOT "dismissed". It was evidence of your inability
> > to recognize evidence. Your little list of items came to nothing as I
> > showed - item by item.
> >
>
> You responded to the evidence with excuses to ignore it.
>

WRONG! I don't ignore evidence, but I might see something different in
it than you.

Since in our world there are no pink unicorns, you are mistaken.

> > > > Second, many of the facts in the book fit
> > > > other facts, such as the 2 men in the window with a gun, which fits the
> > > > book, and the entry and exit through the loading dock entrance.
> > >
> > > So you are trying to use one myth to support another. Typical.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > I used the term "facts". Try them some time.
> >
>
> You use the term facts to describe your myths.
>
> >
> >
> > > > As well,
> > > > there was a statement that there were other shooters stationed around the
> > > > plaza and they got a signal from Ruth Ann who was with them on the 6th
> > > > floor, which fit the situation again.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Anybody can make statements. Offering evidence to support those statements
> > > is the challenging part.
> > >
> > > > There is no reason to doubt the book's story.
> > >
> > > Other than the authors are full of shit and have offered not a scrap of
> > > evidence to support their bogus story.
> > >
> >
> >
> > You've just made a statement, please back it up. I'm waiting.
> >
>
> Once again you tried to shift the burden. You can't prove their story is
> accurate so you resort to challenging others to disprove it.
>

WRONG! Neither you nor I can prove their story is wrong or a lie.
The story fits with other information available, so it's on the side of
truth until proven wrong.

> >
> >
> > > > There has been no proof
> > > > that either of the 2 men that wrote it did ANYTHING wrong or had ever
> > > > falsified anything.
> > >
> > > Once again, no one has the burden to disprove anyone else's hypothesis is
> > > false. The person(s) offering the hypothesis has the burden of proving it.
> > > You can't disprove my story that I saw a herd of pink unicorns. Does that
> > > give credibility to my story?
> > >
> >
> >
> > No "hypothesis" was offered. a story that was of real events was offered.
> > In the case of your word, we have clear evidence of your frequent errors,
> > so we can easily assume that you're word is no good.
> >
>
> So you arbitrarily decide which stories you choose to believe. I've known
> that for quite some time. It's nice to see you finally admit it.
>

Never arbitrary, always with a reason.

> > > > The story also of Loy Factor identifying Mac Wallace
> > > > as the boss of this little group was also a clue, since without knowing it
> > > > at first, they found out that Wallace was LBJ's hit man, and we know that
> > > > Wallace's finger print was found in the 'nest'.
> > > >
> > >
> > > There is no evidence Wallace was LBJ's hit man and the fact that there
> > > have been rumors, suspicions, and accusations of that have been around for
> > > years. The authors just dovetailed their bullshit story to fit those
> > > accusations.
> > >
> >
> >
> > So you think that what has been said out of Texas about LBJ and Wallace
> > was completely untrue? Can you back up that statement?
>
> I have seen no evidence that LBJ employed Wallace as a hit man and until I
> do I see no reason to believe that is true.
>
> > The authors state
> > that they didn't know that LBJ paid Wallace to kill for him until later.
> > No reason to believe otherwise.
> >
>
> And of course you believe them because they said so.
>

I just said 'no reason to disbelieve them' since their story fits other
things so well.

> > > > > Your double standards are once again on display. For Oswald, you demand
> > > > > proof beyond all possible doubt of his guilt. Yet you are perfectly
> > > > > willing to accept this cockamamie story until somebody can prove it is
> > > > > wrong.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WRONG! I believe Oswald was innocent because the evidence says so.
> > > > He wasn't near the 6th floor when the shots rang out.
> > >
> > > No evidence of that.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! I've presented that evidence.
> >
>
> You have presented people who said they saw him earlier. You have pointed
> to people who same him later. You have pointed to know one who saw him at
> 12:30 and dismissed the only witness who said he saw him at the time the
> shots were fired.
>

You keep trying to forget the logical proof that Oswald did NOT make
his way to the 6th floor window because there were 2 men with a gun there
already, and they would never let him near the window they had staked out
for themselves.

> >
> >
> > > > You have tried to
> > > > concoct evidence against him, as the plotters wanted you to, but it just
> > > > wasn't enough.
> > >
> > > There is no evidence there were any plotters other than Oswald.
> > >
> >
> >
> > The whole case smells of conspiracy. Amazing that you were fooled into
> > changing your belief.
> >
>
> So you are using your olfactory system in lieu of evidence.
>

What? You never heard of olfactory evidence? Sort of like ear
evidence, but with the nose.

> > > > Your witness was discredited, and your other evidence
> > > > amounts to almost nothing.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The fact you dismiss Howard Brennan does not discredit him. He IDed the
> > > location and the shooter and there is ample corroborating evidence for
> > > both of those.
> > >
> >
> >
> > He IDed the location, NOT the shooter.
>
> No, he IDed the shooter too.
>

FALSE! He discredited himself by admitting he had prior information
about Oswald.

> > He discredited his ID of the
> > person on the 6th floor.
>
>
> So right after you said he didn't ID the shooter you said his ID of the
> shooter was discredited.
>

No, I said HE was discredited by his own autobiography.

> >
> >
> >
> > > > You set the bar as high as you possibly can for proof of Oswald's
> > > > > guilt and then lay the bar on the floor for the things you want to
> > > > > believe.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WRONG! That is, of course, more of your useless opinion. Try proof.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That is a statement of fact. You demand proof beyond all possible doubt of
> > > Oswald's guilt yet you accept stories that have absolutely no supporting
> > > evidence solely because you want to believe them.
> >
> >

> > This is a special case where there has been an accusation of falsifying

> > evidence to blame a 'patsy' for the crime, and so careful weighing of the
> > evidence is needed to be sure and catch those that would like to blame the
> > 'patsy' and help to cover up for the guilty plotters.
> >
>
> And since you have no evidence that anybody but Oswald was involved you
> just make it up.

I've been showing evidence for a long, long time. You have learned to
ignore it so that you can tell yourself that your beloved WCR is protected
from my truth.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Experts? Oh, you mean like The Three Stooges?
Ice bullet, really? You fell for that?

>
>
>
> You rely on eyewitnesses who cooked up
>> their stories many years later and whom are not supported by other forms
>> of evidence. You rely on silly assumptions and then make illogical
>> inferences from them to reach your conclusions.
>
>
> "Cooked up"? So once again you resort to the LN whine that they all
> lied! Ridiculous. Thank you for not listing your silly little list of
> evidence again, since it proves absolutely nothing, and you know for sure
> that I'll make it look like a hill of beans if you do make the list.
>

Your habit is to misquote what witnesses have said.

> Chris
>

[bigdog]

And of course you've demonstrated that experimentally. You wouldn't just
be making an unfounded assumption, would you?

>
>
> > > > > and that would catch a
> > > > > fiber when the shirt would be slid over the butt plate, not when the plate
> > > > > was pushed into the shoulder.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > One more silly assumption.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't hear you giving out with any detailed information. Can't
> > > think of any?
> > >
> >
> > The fact the fibers matching Oswald's shirt were on the butt plate of the
> > rifle is detailed enough.
> >
>
>
>
> Actually, no it's not. It hasn't been explained how the pushing of the
> butt plate against the shoulder causes a fiber to adhere to it. It would
> be like when people sit down all the time. Their pants would all leave
> fibers all over every sitting place in the world. Sorry, your excuse
> isn't tenable.
>

It doesn't need to be explained. It was demonstrated. The Carcano was
fired that day and afterward fibers matching the shirt worn by the rifle's
owner were found on the butt plate. That is one of those logical
inferences I spoke of earlier.

>
>
>
> > > > > On
> > > > > > top of the fact it was his rifle, his palm print was on the rifle, and his
> > > > > > fingerprints were on the boxes in the sniper's nest oriented precisely as
> > > > > > they would be if he was the shooter and facing down Elm St. It is
> > > > > > impossible to construct a plausible scenario that explains for all that
> > > > > > evidence of his guilt if he were innocent.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > WRONG! The rifle was his and that means he would get prints on it.
> > > > > He worked in the TSBD and he searched for books in many boxes. He
> > > > > probably handled almost every box in the place looking for books.
> > > > > Whoever constructed the 'nest' would place boxes to satisfy their need.
> > > >
> > > > That would be Oswald.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You haven't proved that, so don't say it.
> > >
> >
> > If it were necessary to prove the things you say, you wouldn't be allowed
> > to post here.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! That's simply a case of sour grapes. You wish you had found
> the evidence that I've found that makes all your arguments look
> ridiculous.
>

You've found nothing. Everything you believe is base on illogical
assumptions.

>
>
> > > > > Since Mac Wallace had a fingerprint on a box there, maybe he was the one
> > > > > that moved the boxes.
> > > >
> > > > A fingerprint expert has disputed that it was Mac Wallace's on the box.
> > > > While it did have a number of matching points to Wallace's fingerprint, it
> > > > also had a mismatching point which it would not have if it were Wallace's
> > > > print.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > A top flight print expert said it was a print of Wallace's. That's
> > > good enough for me. I've seen his resume. He didn't even know the name
> > > until later after he decided the print was a match.
> > >
> >
> > So we have conflicting expert opinions and your solution is to buy the one
> > that fits with what you want to believe rather than examine the analysis
> > of the two experts. If you did that you would see why the expert who
> > refuted it was Wallace's print came to that conclusion.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! The match was made BEFORE the expert knew whose print he was
> matching. That it turned out to be the hit man of LBJ was too much
> coincidence.
>

That does nothing to establish the accuracy of his identification.

>
> > > > > Now, as to a plausible scenario, Oswald was
> > > > > manipulated into bringing in his rifle that day and hiding it for later.
> > > >
> > > > Another assumption for which you have produced zero evidence.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > There has been a great deal of evidence presented, but you will
> > > naturally try to put it down.
> > >
> >
> > Just what form did that evidence take. No one at the TSBD testified that
> > Oswald brought the rifle in to sell. That is pure conjecture on your part.
> > You assumed it to be true because you need it to be tree.
> >
>
>
> No one was asked, and the person that found a way to convince Oswald to
> bring in the rifle wasn't going to admit it.

So you started with the assumption that someone convinced Oswald to bring
the rifle to work and went from there. WTG!!!

> Use your head. I did NOT
> say there was only one thing that the rifle was brought in for, I gave a
> few possibilities because I don't know what ploy was used.

How about Oswald brought the rifle to work to shoot JFK with it? Ever
consider that one?

> However,
> Oswald showed previously that he was not interested in shooting anyone,
> which means that he brought the rifle in for some other reason than
> shooting the POTUS.
>

Another fine example of you supporting one illogical assumption with
another.

>
>
> > > > > He told someone where he hid it.
> > > >
> > > > And another.
> > > >
> > > > > 3 people went up the back stairs from
> > > > > the loading dock entrance, and they got the rifle out of its hiding place
> > > > > and then fired on the motorcade leaving 3 shells there at the 'nest'.
> > > > > Simple.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Really simple when you don't require evidence for the things you dream up.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I had witnesses tell me that story. They were called Collum and
> > > Sample.
> > >
> >
> > Collum and Sample were not witnesses.
> >
>
>
> YOU'RE NOT IN COURT. GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD. Collum and Sample were
> witness to what Loy Factor said, especially on his near death bed.
>

We only have Collum and Sample's word for that.

>
>
> > > > > The body of evidence is exactly
> > > > > > what we would expect it to be if he were the shooter.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It would also satisfy a few different scenarios.
> > > >
> > > > Someday I hope to encounter a conspiracy hobbyist who can offer a COMPLETE
> > > > scenario that explains the entire body of evidence but there is probably a
> > > > better chance I will discover a Sasquatch living in my basement.
> > > > Conspiracy hobbyists can offer alternative explanations for any single
> > > > piece of evidence but to date note one I have seen has been able to offer
> > > > a plausible scenario to explain ALL the evidence.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! I've given you just such an answer to your wish, but you will
> > > never be able to actually receive your wish because your diehard attitude
> > > won't let you believe anything but the tired old WCR.
> > >
> >
> > Your scenario dismisses the evidence, it does not conform to the evidence.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! I never dismiss evidence, though I may use it differently than
> you.
>

You use it to make excuses for disregarding it.

>
>
> > > > > It's only your
> > > > > opinion that Oswald was the shooter,
> > > >
> > > > And opinion supported by the entire body of evidence.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Not at all. That tiny list of items doesn't prove that Oswald was even
> > > on the 6th floor, so how could it prove he fired a gun out the window, and
> > > how can it prove he killed anyone? Your batty ideas will only get you
> > > embarrassment. Oswald was elsewhere when the shooting started.
> > >
> >
> > That is what you assume.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > you have not a single bit of evidence
> > > > > that says Oswald was in the window and was firing the MC rifle at the
> > > > > motorcade.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > A preposterous statement.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Oh? Show me how you proved that Oswald was even at the window on the
> > > 6th floor!
> > >
> >
> > His fingerprints were there.
> >
>
>
> Oh bullshit! Those prints could have been made anytime. No wonder
> you never had a grasp on this case!
>

Doesn't matter. You asked how it was proven Oswald was at the 6th floor
window.

They said he was innocent?

Again you support one silly assumption with another. It's what you do
best.

>
>
> > > > > Since I know
> > > > > > Oswald was the assassin, I know they are full of shit.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The trouble with all that is that you have little evidence that Oswald
> > > > > was even ON the 6th floor never mind holding the rifle and shooting at the
> > > > > motorcade.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The evidence has been listed for you numerous times and your response is
> > > > always to invent excuses to dismiss it. You refuse to accept Oswald's
> > > > guilt no matter how much evidence of it is presented to you. If there were
> > > > 1053 pieces of evidence of his guilt, you would invent 1053 excuses to
> > > > dismiss them.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your "evidence" was NOT "dismissed". It was evidence of your inability
> > > to recognize evidence. Your little list of items came to nothing as I
> > > showed - item by item.
> > >
> >
> > You responded to the evidence with excuses to ignore it.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! I don't ignore evidence, but I might see something different in
> it than you.
>

Yes you do. I look at it logically. You look at it illogically.

Prove there are no pink unicorns.

>
>
> > > > > Second, many of the facts in the book fit
> > > > > other facts, such as the 2 men in the window with a gun, which fits the
> > > > > book, and the entry and exit through the loading dock entrance.
> > > >
> > > > So you are trying to use one myth to support another. Typical.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I used the term "facts". Try them some time.
> > >
> >
> > You use the term facts to describe your myths.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > As well,
> > > > > there was a statement that there were other shooters stationed around the
> > > > > plaza and they got a signal from Ruth Ann who was with them on the 6th
> > > > > floor, which fit the situation again.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Anybody can make statements. Offering evidence to support those statements
> > > > is the challenging part.
> > > >
> > > > > There is no reason to doubt the book's story.
> > > >
> > > > Other than the authors are full of shit and have offered not a scrap of
> > > > evidence to support their bogus story.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You've just made a statement, please back it up. I'm waiting.
> > >
> >
> > Once again you tried to shift the burden. You can't prove their story is
> > accurate so you resort to challenging others to disprove it.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! Neither you nor I can prove their story is wrong or a lie.

Nor have you proven it is true which is what you need to do. Still waiting.

> The story fits with other information available, so it's on the side of
> truth until proven wrong.
>

So you assume it is on the side of truth to prove it is on the side of
proof. A fine example of your "logical" thinking.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > There has been no proof
> > > > > that either of the 2 men that wrote it did ANYTHING wrong or had ever
> > > > > falsified anything.
> > > >
> > > > Once again, no one has the burden to disprove anyone else's hypothesis is
> > > > false. The person(s) offering the hypothesis has the burden of proving it.
> > > > You can't disprove my story that I saw a herd of pink unicorns. Does that
> > > > give credibility to my story?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > No "hypothesis" was offered. a story that was of real events was offered.
> > > In the case of your word, we have clear evidence of your frequent errors,
> > > so we can easily assume that you're word is no good.
> > >
> >
> > So you arbitrarily decide which stories you choose to believe. I've known
> > that for quite some time. It's nice to see you finally admit it.
> >
>
>
>
> Never arbitrary, always with a reason.
>

Your reason is always that you don't want to believe Oswald was the
assassin so you will invent any excuse necessary to reject that idea. You
don't even care if they are good excuses which they never are.

>
>
> > > > > The story also of Loy Factor identifying Mac Wallace
> > > > > as the boss of this little group was also a clue, since without knowing it
> > > > > at first, they found out that Wallace was LBJ's hit man, and we know that
> > > > > Wallace's finger print was found in the 'nest'.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > There is no evidence Wallace was LBJ's hit man and the fact that there
> > > > have been rumors, suspicions, and accusations of that have been around for
> > > > years. The authors just dovetailed their bullshit story to fit those
> > > > accusations.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > So you think that what has been said out of Texas about LBJ and Wallace
> > > was completely untrue? Can you back up that statement?
> >
> > I have seen no evidence that LBJ employed Wallace as a hit man and until I
> > do I see no reason to believe that is true.
> >
> > > The authors state
> > > that they didn't know that LBJ paid Wallace to kill for him until later.
> > > No reason to believe otherwise.
> > >
> >
> > And of course you believe them because they said so.
> >
>
>
> I just said 'no reason to disbelieve them' since their story fits other
> things so well.
>

So you look to find a reason to believe (apologies to Rod Steward). Your
reason is you want to believe Oswald was innocent no matter how much
evidence there is that says he was guilty.

>
>
> > > > > > Your double standards are once again on display. For Oswald, you demand
> > > > > > proof beyond all possible doubt of his guilt. Yet you are perfectly
> > > > > > willing to accept this cockamamie story until somebody can prove it is
> > > > > > wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > WRONG! I believe Oswald was innocent because the evidence says so.
> > > > > He wasn't near the 6th floor when the shots rang out.
> > > >
> > > > No evidence of that.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! I've presented that evidence.
> > >
> >
> > You have presented people who said they saw him earlier. You have pointed
> > to people who same him later. You have pointed to know one who saw him at
> > 12:30 and dismissed the only witness who said he saw him at the time the
> > shots were fired.
> >
>
>
> You keep trying to forget the logical proof that Oswald did NOT make
> his way to the 6th floor window because there were 2 men with a gun there
> already, and they would never let him near the window they had staked out
> for themselves.
>

There is nothing logical about assuming there were two other men in that
window. You have never established that. The only way you can argue that
is by modifying what witnesses said until it fits that hypothesis. If you
have to modify what people say, their accounts don't support your
contention.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > You have tried to
> > > > > concoct evidence against him, as the plotters wanted you to, but it just
> > > > > wasn't enough.
> > > >
> > > > There is no evidence there were any plotters other than Oswald.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The whole case smells of conspiracy. Amazing that you were fooled into
> > > changing your belief.
> > >
> >
> > So you are using your olfactory system in lieu of evidence.
> >
>
>
> What? You never heard of olfactory evidence? Sort of like ear
> evidence, but with the nose.
>

You said you smelled a conspiracy. What does a conspiracy smell like?

>
>
> > > > > Your witness was discredited, and your other evidence
> > > > > amounts to almost nothing.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The fact you dismiss Howard Brennan does not discredit him. He IDed the
> > > > location and the shooter and there is ample corroborating evidence for
> > > > both of those.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > He IDed the location, NOT the shooter.
> >
> > No, he IDed the shooter too.
> >
>
>
>
> FALSE! He discredited himself by admitting he had prior information
> about Oswald.
>

When you say that, you don't discredit Brennan. You discredit yourself.

>
>
> > > He discredited his ID of the
> > > person on the 6th floor.
> >
> >
> > So right after you said he didn't ID the shooter you said his ID of the
> > shooter was discredited.
> >
>
>
> No, I said HE was discredited by his own autobiography.
>

You wrote, "He IDed the location, NOT the shooter.".
Then you wrote, "He discredited his ID of the person on the 6th floor."

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > You set the bar as high as you possibly can for proof of Oswald's
> > > > > > guilt and then lay the bar on the floor for the things you want to
> > > > > > believe.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > WRONG! That is, of course, more of your useless opinion. Try proof.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > That is a statement of fact. You demand proof beyond all possible doubt of
> > > > Oswald's guilt yet you accept stories that have absolutely no supporting
> > > > evidence solely because you want to believe them.
> > >
> > >
> > > This is a special case where there has been an accusation of falsifying
> > > evidence to blame a 'patsy' for the crime, and so careful weighing of the
> > > evidence is needed to be sure and catch those that would like to blame the
> > > 'patsy' and help to cover up for the guilty plotters.
> > >
> >
> > And since you have no evidence that anybody but Oswald was involved you
> > just make it up.
>
>
> I've been showing evidence for a long, long time. You have learned to
> ignore it so that you can tell yourself that your beloved WCR is protected
> from my truth.
>

You have used silly assumptions and twisted logic to arrive at your
conclusions. You have never offered any evidence that anybody except
Oswald was involved. Don't feel bad. In 53 years no one else has been able
to do so either.

[mainframetech]

An example is the MC rifle which still had a misaligned scope from a
bad mounting when it was tested by the army. It also had a sticky bolt
which would not allow rapid firing, which for the 'lone nut' scenario was
needed.

And then there's the CE399 test bullet, and the Walker bullet, both of
which could not be identified by those that saw the original bullet.

Then there's the many strikes in Dealey Plaza, some of which were
photographed before they removed the evidence. And of course, the bullet
hole through the limo windshield and the strike over the windshield in the
chrome.

Probably a lot more if I wanted to think for a while. And what do you
have? A few things on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

> > I've seen your
> > tiny list of evidence and it doesn't prove a thing to do with Oswald, and
> > it doesn't prove at all that any MC type bullet hit or hurt anyone. You
> > haven't even proven that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots rang
> > out. What baloney!
> >
>
> I offer forensic evidence. You offer excuses to dismiss it. SOP.
>

Crap. You offer nothing lf importance.

> > I have expert testimony
> > > on my side. You have none of that in your tool box. I rely on eyewitnesses
> > > who are corroborated by other forms of evidence and who told their stories
> > > at the time of the assassination.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Expert witnesses"? You have nothing of the sort. List them, why
> > don't you.
>
> The review panels for the Rockefeller Commision, the HSCA, Dr. Peter
> Cummings, Robert Frazier, Seabastian Latona, Arthur Mandella. That's just
> for starters. How many more would you like?
>

That is a list of people that failed to find the evidence that was
right in front of them.

> > I have listed mine, namely Pierre Finck.
>
> Oh, I forgot all about him. Wasn't he the guy who signed an autopsy report
> saying that JFK had been struck by two missiles fired from behind him?
>

He was ordered along with the other prosectors to sign. That doesn't
make him any less an expert. He certainly saw the small wound in the
forehead/temple area.

> > And others,
> > depending on which part of the case you want to discuss.
> >
> "And others"? <chuckle>
>
> So after demanding I list the experts who have offered expert testimony
> incriminating to Oswald, you counter with a guy whose on the record
> opinions refute your arguments "and others". Too funny.
>

See above.

> >
> >
> >
> > You rely on eyewitnesses who cooked up
> > > their stories many years later and whom are not supported by other forms
> > > of evidence. You rely on silly assumptions and then make illogical
> > > inferences from them to reach your conclusions.
> >
> >
> > "Cooked up"? So once again you resort to the LN whine that they all
> > lied!
>
> No, just very specific people. People who crawled out of the woodwork
> decades later with uncorroborated stories which conflict with the body of
> evidence.
>

WRONG! Well, now you've said that about an awful lot of witnesses,
it's your favorite way of dismissing evidence when you don't like it.

> > Ridiculous. Thank you for not listing your silly little list of
> > evidence again, since it proves absolutely nothing, and you know for sure
> > that I'll make it look like a hill of beans if you do make the list.
> >
>
> It is the kind of proof routinely used to convict murderers. You have no
> interest in such evidence because it conflicts with what you would rather
> believe.

FALSE! I like evidence that proves that you're basing your beliefs
on almost nothing. It is very useful evidence.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Law enforcement frames innocent people all the time. Nothing new about
that.

[mainframetech]

WRONG! Don't be foolish. There's no need to experiment. We both know
what a butt plate looks like, and also what happens to steel after long
years of use. We should also be familiar with things catching on other
things, and also with plates pushed against something and failing to catch
anything. Or at least I do. You, I'm not so sure of.

> >
> >
> > > > > > and that would catch a
> > > > > > fiber when the shirt would be slid over the butt plate, not when the plate
> > > > > > was pushed into the shoulder.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > One more silly assumption.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't hear you giving out with any detailed information. Can't
> > > > think of any?
> > > >
> > >
> > > The fact the fibers matching Oswald's shirt were on the butt plate of the
> > > rifle is detailed enough.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Actually, no it's not. It hasn't been explained how the pushing of the
> > butt plate against the shoulder causes a fiber to adhere to it. It would
> > be like when people sit down all the time. Their pants would all leave
> > fibers all over every sitting place in the world. Sorry, your excuse
> > isn't tenable.
> >
>
> It doesn't need to be explained. It was demonstrated. The Carcano was
> fired that day and afterward fibers matching the shirt worn by the rifle's
> owner were found on the butt plate. That is one of those logical
> inferences I spoke of earlier.
>

Yes, and full of mistakes of course. You don't know if fibers were
already caught on the butt plate of the rifle. You've got a lot of nerve
pretending that you've made some logical inferences without the proper
backup.

The resume of the print expert does. And you, of course, love experts.

> >
> > > > > > Now, as to a plausible scenario, Oswald was
> > > > > > manipulated into bringing in his rifle that day and hiding it for later.
> > > > >
> > > > > Another assumption for which you have produced zero evidence.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There has been a great deal of evidence presented, but you will
> > > > naturally try to put it down.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Just what form did that evidence take. No one at the TSBD testified that
> > > Oswald brought the rifle in to sell. That is pure conjecture on your part.
> > > You assumed it to be true because you need it to be tree.
> > >
> >
> >
> > No one was asked, and the person that found a way to convince Oswald to
> > bring in the rifle wasn't going to admit it.
>
> So you started with the assumption that someone convinced Oswald to bring
> the rifle to work and went from there. WTG!!!
>

Of course! Where were you when the backup for that was supplied?
Asleep again?

> > Use your head. I did NOT
> > say there was only one thing that the rifle was brought in for, I gave a
> > few possibilities because I don't know what ploy was used.
>
> How about Oswald brought the rifle to work to shoot JFK with it? Ever
> consider that one?
>

Of course. It was the first thing I believed until I learned more of
the case.

> > However,
> > Oswald showed previously that he was not interested in shooting anyone,
> > which means that he brought the rifle in for some other reason than
> > shooting the POTUS.
> >
>
> Another fine example of you supporting one illogical assumption with
> another.
>
> >
> >
> > > > > > He told someone where he hid it.
> > > > >
> > > > > And another.
> > > > >
> > > > > > 3 people went up the back stairs from
> > > > > > the loading dock entrance, and they got the rifle out of its hiding place
> > > > > > and then fired on the motorcade leaving 3 shells there at the 'nest'.
> > > > > > Simple.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Really simple when you don't require evidence for the things you dream up.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I had witnesses tell me that story. They were called Collum and
> > > > Sample.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Collum and Sample were not witnesses.
> > >
> >
> >
> > YOU'RE NOT IN COURT. GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD. Collum and Sample were
> > witness to what Loy Factor said, especially on his near death bed.
> >
>
> We only have Collum and Sample's word for that.
>

Of course! Where have you been?

That didn't prove it. And since there were 2 men with a gun at that
window, there's no chance that Oswald could get there.

They stated a few things that I've passed on to you.

I prove it by saying that it was YOU that said it, and since your word
can't be trusted, it isn't true.

> >
> >
> > > > > > Second, many of the facts in the book fit
> > > > > > other facts, such as the 2 men in the window with a gun, which fits the
> > > > > > book, and the entry and exit through the loading dock entrance.
> > > > >
> > > > > So you are trying to use one myth to support another. Typical.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I used the term "facts". Try them some time.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You use the term facts to describe your myths.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > As well,
> > > > > > there was a statement that there were other shooters stationed around the
> > > > > > plaza and they got a signal from Ruth Ann who was with them on the 6th
> > > > > > floor, which fit the situation again.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Anybody can make statements. Offering evidence to support those statements
> > > > > is the challenging part.
> > > > >
> > > > > > There is no reason to doubt the book's story.
> > > > >
> > > > > Other than the authors are full of shit and have offered not a scrap of
> > > > > evidence to support their bogus story.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You've just made a statement, please back it up. I'm waiting.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Once again you tried to shift the burden. You can't prove their story is
> > > accurate so you resort to challenging others to disprove it.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! Neither you nor I can prove their story is wrong or a lie.
>
> Nor have you proven it is true which is what you need to do. Still waiting.
>

I've supplied the information for that, so if you don't agree, say so,
and argue it or back away from it.

>
> > The story fits with other information available, so it's on the side of
> > truth until proven wrong.
> >
>
> So you assume it is on the side of truth to prove it is on the side of
> proof. A fine example of your "logical" thinking.
>
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > There has been no proof
> > > > > > that either of the 2 men that wrote it did ANYTHING wrong or had ever
> > > > > > falsified anything.
> > > > >
> > > > > Once again, no one has the burden to disprove anyone else's hypothesis is
> > > > > false. The person(s) offering the hypothesis has the burden of proving it.
> > > > > You can't disprove my story that I saw a herd of pink unicorns. Does that
> > > > > give credibility to my story?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No "hypothesis" was offered. a story that was of real events was offered.
> > > > In the case of your word, we have clear evidence of your frequent errors,
> > > > so we can easily assume that you're word is no good.
> > > >
> > >
> > > So you arbitrarily decide which stories you choose to believe. I've known
> > > that for quite some time. It's nice to see you finally admit it.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Never arbitrary, always with a reason.
> >
>
> Your reason is always that you don't want to believe Oswald was the
> assassin so you will invent any excuse necessary to reject that idea. You
> don't even care if they are good excuses which they never are.
>

On and on with your opinions. They never prove anything. Do you
expect to go through life blatting opinions everywhere and hoping someone
will believe them?

The evidence was supplied. You can go with it or pretend there was no
proof. Up to you.

> > > > > > You have tried to
> > > > > > concoct evidence against him, as the plotters wanted you to, but it just
> > > > > > wasn't enough.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is no evidence there were any plotters other than Oswald.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The whole case smells of conspiracy. Amazing that you were fooled into
> > > > changing your belief.
> > > >
> > >
> > > So you are using your olfactory system in lieu of evidence.
> > >
> >
> >
> > What? You never heard of olfactory evidence? Sort of like ear
> > evidence, but with the nose.
> >
>
> You said you smelled a conspiracy. What does a conspiracy smell like?
>

No wonder you can't face conspiracy, you can't smell it!

> >
> >
> > > > > > Your witness was discredited, and your other evidence
> > > > > > amounts to almost nothing.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The fact you dismiss Howard Brennan does not discredit him. He IDed the
> > > > > location and the shooter and there is ample corroborating evidence for
> > > > > both of those.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > He IDed the location, NOT the shooter.
> > >
> > > No, he IDed the shooter too.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > FALSE! He discredited himself by admitting he had prior information
> > about Oswald.
> >
>
> When you say that, you don't discredit Brennan. You discredit yourself.
>

WRONG! You wish, however I've reads his autobiography and he
discredited himself. and I've given you the information and you did not
complain about it at the time. So why is it coming up now? You run out
of phony excuses to make this go on a a few more days in hopes you can
turn another loss into a victory?

Aww. Are you gonna ignore me now? You'll be back. You can't get
away.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

That's known as a Post Hoc Fallacy. The fiber could have gotten there on
any other day that Oswald handled the rifle.

[Anthony Marsh]

You ASSuME that, you don't know that for a fact.
You ASSuME that Humes saw an entrance wound on the back of the head down
near the hairline. But he was wrong and it turned out to be a
dab of fat tissue on top of the hair, not the entrance wound.
If you praise Finck, how could he overlook what you are claiming is a
huge hole in the back of the head?

[bigdog]

You are not offering evidence that someone other than Oswald was involved.
You are challenging the evidence of Oswald's guilt. Two entirely different
things, not that I would expect you to understand the difference.

> Then there's the many strikes in Dealey Plaza, some of which were
> photographed before they removed the evidence. And of course, the bullet
> hole through the limo windshield and the strike over the windshield in the
> chrome.
>

No evidence. Just empty claims.

> Probably a lot more if I wanted to think for a while. And what do you
> have? A few things on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
>

Yes, I'm sure if you tried you could strikeout again.

>
>
> > > I've seen your
> > > tiny list of evidence and it doesn't prove a thing to do with Oswald, and
> > > it doesn't prove at all that any MC type bullet hit or hurt anyone. You
> > > haven't even proven that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots rang
> > > out. What baloney!
> > >
> >
> > I offer forensic evidence. You offer excuses to dismiss it. SOP.
> >
>
>
>
> Crap. You offer nothing lf importance.
>

You are a poor judge of what is important.

>
>
> > > I have expert testimony
> > > > on my side. You have none of that in your tool box. I rely on eyewitnesses
> > > > who are corroborated by other forms of evidence and who told their stories
> > > > at the time of the assassination.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Expert witnesses"? You have nothing of the sort. List them, why
> > > don't you.
> >
> > The review panels for the Rockefeller Commision, the HSCA, Dr. Peter
> > Cummings, Robert Frazier, Seabastian Latona, Arthur Mandella. That's just
> > for starters. How many more would you like?
> >
>
>
> That is a list of people that failed to find the evidence that was
> right in front of them.
>

You asked me to list the experts and I gave them to you. The best you can
do is claim they didn't see something you did. That is an indictment of
you, not them.

>
>
> > > I have listed mine, namely Pierre Finck.
> >
> > Oh, I forgot all about him. Wasn't he the guy who signed an autopsy report
> > saying that JFK had been struck by two missiles fired from behind him?
> >
>
>
> He was ordered along with the other prosectors to sign. That doesn't
> make him any less an expert. He certainly saw the small wound in the
> forehead/temple area.
>

The guy you cited signed a report that refutes what you are claiming and
the best you can do is make up a story that he was ordered to do that.
Face it, you have nobody with any expertise on your side.

>
>
> > > And others,
> > > depending on which part of the case you want to discuss.
> > >
> > "And others"? <chuckle>
> >
> > So after demanding I list the experts who have offered expert testimony
> > incriminating to Oswald, you counter with a guy whose on the record
> > opinions refute your arguments "and others". Too funny.
> >
>
>
> See above.
>

I did. It's still funny.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You rely on eyewitnesses who cooked up
> > > > their stories many years later and whom are not supported by other forms
> > > > of evidence. You rely on silly assumptions and then make illogical
> > > > inferences from them to reach your conclusions.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Cooked up"? So once again you resort to the LN whine that they all
> > > lied!
> >
> > No, just very specific people. People who crawled out of the woodwork
> > decades later with uncorroborated stories which conflict with the body of
> > evidence.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! Well, now you've said that about an awful lot of witnesses,
> it's your favorite way of dismissing evidence when you don't like it.

I haven't said it about anyone who told their story at the time of the
assassination. Just the kooks who jumped into the conspiracy pile.

>
> > > Ridiculous. Thank you for not listing your silly little list of
> > > evidence again, since it proves absolutely nothing, and you know for sure
> > > that I'll make it look like a hill of beans if you do make the list.
> > >
> >
> > It is the kind of proof routinely used to convict murderers. You have no
> > interest in such evidence because it conflicts with what you would rather
> > believe.
>
>
> FALSE! I like evidence that proves that you're basing your beliefs
> on almost nothing. It is very useful evidence.
>

Is there anyone out there who can translate Gibberish into English for me?

[bigdog]

Not when you can just assume what you want is true.

> We both know
> what a butt plate looks like, and also what happens to steel after long
> years of use.

Does it wear out?

> We should also be familiar with things catching on other
> things, and also with plates pushed against something and failing to catch
> anything. Or at least I do. You, I'm not so sure of.
>

Other things are irrelevant to the discussion. We are talking about the
recoil of a rifle forcefully driving the rifle butt into the should of the
shooter.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > > and that would catch a
> > > > > > > fiber when the shirt would be slid over the butt plate, not when the plate
> > > > > > > was pushed into the shoulder.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One more silly assumption.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't hear you giving out with any detailed information. Can't
> > > > > think of any?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The fact the fibers matching Oswald's shirt were on the butt plate of the
> > > > rifle is detailed enough.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Actually, no it's not. It hasn't been explained how the pushing of the
> > > butt plate against the shoulder causes a fiber to adhere to it. It would
> > > be like when people sit down all the time. Their pants would all leave
> > > fibers all over every sitting place in the world. Sorry, your excuse
> > > isn't tenable.
> > >
> >
> > It doesn't need to be explained. It was demonstrated. The Carcano was
> > fired that day and afterward fibers matching the shirt worn by the rifle's
> > owner were found on the butt plate. That is one of those logical
> > inferences I spoke of earlier.
> >
>
>
> Yes, and full of mistakes of course. You don't know if fibers were
> already caught on the butt plate of the rifle.

Which is why I have always said that no one piece of evidence by itself
can prove Oswald was guilty. It is that pattern of evidence that
invariably points in Oswald's direction. Yes it is possible that the
fibers could have been deposited on the butt plate on another day but that
would mean it was just a coincidence that Oswald was wearing the same
shirt he was wearing the last time he fired the rifle. To argue for
Oswald's innocence you need lots of unlikely coincidences. Since we know
the rifle was fired that day the greater likelihood is the fibers were
deposited that day. It would be more significant if those fibers didn't
match his shirt. Then you would have a case that someone else had fired
the rifle. But of course that isn't the case. Fibers matching Oswald's
shirt are what we would expect if Oswald had been the one to fire the

rifle.

> You've got a lot of nerve
> pretending that you've made some logical inferences without the proper
> backup.
>

Since you are unfamiliar with logical inferences, I'm not surprised you
don't recognize one when you see it.

Another fingerprint expert with just as impressive a resume disputes the
identification and he points out why. He identified ridges in the print
taken from the TSBD that aren't on Wallace's fingerprint card. How could
that happen?

>
>
> > >
> > > > > > > Now, as to a plausible scenario, Oswald was
> > > > > > > manipulated into bringing in his rifle that day and hiding it for later.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Another assumption for which you have produced zero evidence.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > There has been a great deal of evidence presented, but you will
> > > > > naturally try to put it down.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Just what form did that evidence take. No one at the TSBD testified that
> > > > Oswald brought the rifle in to sell. That is pure conjecture on your part.
> > > > You assumed it to be true because you need it to be tree.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > No one was asked, and the person that found a way to convince Oswald to
> > > bring in the rifle wasn't going to admit it.
> >
> > So you started with the assumption that someone convinced Oswald to bring
> > the rifle to work and went from there. WTG!!!
> >
>
>
>
> Of course! Where were you when the backup for that was supplied?
> Asleep again?
>

Another question based on a false premise. You've never backed up that
assertion. There is no evidence that anyone persuaded Oswald to bring his
rifle to work and you know it. Just like Marsh, when painted into a corner
you resort to the "I've already answered that" excuse which as is case
when Marsh uses it is never true.

>
> > > Use your head. I did NOT
> > > say there was only one thing that the rifle was brought in for, I gave a
> > > few possibilities because I don't know what ploy was used.
> >
> > How about Oswald brought the rifle to work to shoot JFK with it? Ever
> > consider that one?
> >
>
>
> Of course. It was the first thing I believed until I learned more of
> the case.
>

You should have stuck with your first impression.

>
>
> > > However,
> > > Oswald showed previously that he was not interested in shooting anyone,
> > > which means that he brought the rifle in for some other reason than
> > > shooting the POTUS.
> > >
> >
> > Another fine example of you supporting one illogical assumption with
> > another.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > > He told someone where he hid it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And another.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3 people went up the back stairs from
> > > > > > > the loading dock entrance, and they got the rifle out of its hiding place
> > > > > > > and then fired on the motorcade leaving 3 shells there at the 'nest'.
> > > > > > > Simple.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Really simple when you don't require evidence for the things you dream up.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I had witnesses tell me that story. They were called Collum and
> > > > > Sample.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Collum and Sample were not witnesses.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > YOU'RE NOT IN COURT. GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD. Collum and Sample were
> > > witness to what Loy Factor said, especially on his near death bed.
> > >
> >
> > We only have Collum and Sample's word for that.
> >
>
>
>
> Of course! Where have you been?
>

So you're willing to believe any unsubstantiated story if it is one you
want to believe. I knew that. I didn't expect you to admit it.

Once again we will ignore your fantasy.

But not his innocence.

Once again you show you have no understanding of what constitutes proof.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > > Second, many of the facts in the book fit
> > > > > > > other facts, such as the 2 men in the window with a gun, which fits the
> > > > > > > book, and the entry and exit through the loading dock entrance.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So you are trying to use one myth to support another. Typical.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I used the term "facts". Try them some time.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You use the term facts to describe your myths.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > As well,
> > > > > > > there was a statement that there were other shooters stationed around the
> > > > > > > plaza and they got a signal from Ruth Ann who was with them on the 6th
> > > > > > > floor, which fit the situation again.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anybody can make statements. Offering evidence to support those statements
> > > > > > is the challenging part.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > There is no reason to doubt the book's story.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Other than the authors are full of shit and have offered not a scrap of
> > > > > > evidence to support their bogus story.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You've just made a statement, please back it up. I'm waiting.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Once again you tried to shift the burden. You can't prove their story is
> > > > accurate so you resort to challenging others to disprove it.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! Neither you nor I can prove their story is wrong or a lie.
> >
> > Nor have you proven it is true which is what you need to do. Still waiting.
> >
>
>
> I've supplied the information for that, so if you don't agree, say so,
> and argue it or back away from it.
>

You've supplied nothing that supports the accuracy of this story.

>
>
> >
> > > The story fits with other information available, so it's on the side of
> > > truth until proven wrong.
> > >
> >
> > So you assume it is on the side of truth to prove it is on the side of
> > proof. A fine example of your "logical" thinking.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > There has been no proof
> > > > > > > that either of the 2 men that wrote it did ANYTHING wrong or had ever
> > > > > > > falsified anything.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Once again, no one has the burden to disprove anyone else's hypothesis is
> > > > > > false. The person(s) offering the hypothesis has the burden of proving it.
> > > > > > You can't disprove my story that I saw a herd of pink unicorns. Does that
> > > > > > give credibility to my story?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > No "hypothesis" was offered. a story that was of real events was offered.
> > > > > In the case of your word, we have clear evidence of your frequent errors,
> > > > > so we can easily assume that you're word is no good.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > So you arbitrarily decide which stories you choose to believe. I've known
> > > > that for quite some time. It's nice to see you finally admit it.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Never arbitrary, always with a reason.
> > >
> >
> > Your reason is always that you don't want to believe Oswald was the
> > assassin so you will invent any excuse necessary to reject that idea. You
> > don't even care if they are good excuses which they never are.
> >
>
>
>
> On and on with your opinions. They never prove anything. Do you
> expect to go through life blatting opinions everywhere and hoping someone
> will believe them?
>

I have no expectations that you will ever believe the truth. But your
excuses for rejecting it are an endless source of amusement.

There was no proof. Witness' statements don't prove anything unless you
can prove they are true and when you have to modify those statements they
are even less compelling. You are at once telling us to trust these
witnesses while pointing out they are wrong.

>
>
> > > > > > > You have tried to
> > > > > > > concoct evidence against him, as the plotters wanted you to, but it just
> > > > > > > wasn't enough.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is no evidence there were any plotters other than Oswald.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The whole case smells of conspiracy. Amazing that you were fooled into
> > > > > changing your belief.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > So you are using your olfactory system in lieu of evidence.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > What? You never heard of olfactory evidence? Sort of like ear
> > > evidence, but with the nose.
> > >
> >
> > You said you smelled a conspiracy. What does a conspiracy smell like?
> >
>
>
> No wonder you can't face conspiracy, you can't smell it!
>

No argument there. I have no idea what a conspiracy smells like.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > > Your witness was discredited, and your other evidence
> > > > > > > amounts to almost nothing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The fact you dismiss Howard Brennan does not discredit him. He IDed the
> > > > > > location and the shooter and there is ample corroborating evidence for
> > > > > > both of those.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > He IDed the location, NOT the shooter.
> > > >
> > > > No, he IDed the shooter too.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > FALSE! He discredited himself by admitting he had prior information
> > > about Oswald.
> > >
> >
> > When you say that, you don't discredit Brennan. You discredit yourself.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! You wish, however I've reads his auto

I've read his sworn testimony before the WC.

[mainframetech]

So that comment got you out of making any explanation for the
anomalies mentioned.

> > Then there's the many strikes in Dealey Plaza, some of which were
> > photographed before they removed the evidence. And of course, the bullet
> > hole through the limo windshield and the strike over the windshield in the
> > chrome.
> >
>
> No evidence. Just empty claims.
>

Oh? Are you able to specify what part of my statement is wrong in
your eyes? Or are you just trying to use your opinion in a very general
way? The hole in the windshield was seen by at least 6 witnesses.
Corroboration.

> > Probably a lot more if I wanted to think for a while. And what do you
> > have? A few things on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
> >
>
> Yes, I'm sure if you tried you could strikeout again.
>

Yes, I could strike out most of your items of evidence.

> >
> >
> > > > I've seen your
> > > > tiny list of evidence and it doesn't prove a thing to do with Oswald, and
> > > > it doesn't prove at all that any MC type bullet hit or hurt anyone. You
> > > > haven't even proven that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots rang
> > > > out. What baloney!
> > > >
> > >
> > > I offer forensic evidence. You offer excuses to dismiss it. SOP.
> > >
> >
> >
> >

> > Crap. You offer nothing of importance.

> >
>
> You are a poor judge of what is important.
>
> >
> >
> > > > I have expert testimony
> > > > > on my side. You have none of that in your tool box. I rely on eyewitnesses
> > > > > who are corroborated by other forms of evidence and who told their stories
> > > > > at the time of the assassination.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Expert witnesses"? You have nothing of the sort. List them, why
> > > > don't you.
> > >
> > > The review panels for the Rockefeller Commision, the HSCA, Dr. Peter
> > > Cummings, Robert Frazier, Seabastian Latona, Arthur Mandella. That's just
> > > for starters. How many more would you like?
> > >
> >
> >
> > That is a list of people that failed to find the evidence that was
> > right in front of them.
> >
>
> You asked me to list the experts and I gave them to you. The best you can
> do is claim they didn't see something you did. That is an indictment of
> you, not them.
>
> >
> >
> > > > I have listed mine, namely Pierre Finck.
> > >
> > > Oh, I forgot all about him. Wasn't he the guy who signed an autopsy report
> > > saying that JFK had been struck by two missiles fired from behind him?
> > >
> >
> >
> > He was ordered along with the other prosectors to sign. That doesn't
> > make him any less an expert. He certainly saw the small wound in the
> > forehead/temple area.
> >
>
> The guy you cited signed a report that refutes what you are claiming and
> the best you can do is make up a story that he was ordered to do that.
> Face it, you have nobody with any expertise on your side.
>

As usual you forget the important part of the autopsy where they opened
the body an found that their original conclusion was spot on! They knew
from seeing the PROOF that the back wound bullet did NOT go through JFK,
but was stopped at the pleura. It doesn't matter what Finck signed off on
later when he was under orders, he was one of the men that saw the PROOF!

> > > > And others,
> > > > depending on which part of the case you want to discuss.
> > > >
> > > "And others"? <chuckle>
> > >
> > > So after demanding I list the experts who have offered expert testimony
> > > incriminating to Oswald, you counter with a guy whose on the record
> > > opinions refute your arguments "and others". Too funny.
> > >
> >
> >
> > See above.
> >
>
> I did. It's still funny.
>
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > You rely on eyewitnesses who cooked up
> > > > their stories many years later and whom are not supported by other forms
> > > > of evidence. You rely on silly assumptions and then make illogical
> > > > inferences from them to reach your conclusions.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Cooked up"? So once again you resort to the LN whine that they all
> > > lied!
> >
> > No, just very specific people. People who crawled out of the woodwork
> > decades later with uncorroborated stories which conflict with the body of
> > evidence.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! Well, now you've said that about an awful lot of witnesses,
> it's your favorite way of dismissing evidence when you don't like it.

I haven't said it about anyone who told their story at the time of the
assassination. Just the kooks who jumped into the conspiracy pile.

You'll use whatever tools you can to submerge the truth. The
government needs to give you a citizen's medal for all the voluntary work
you do for them in protecting their tired old WCR.

>
> > > Ridiculous. Thank you for not listing your silly little list of
> > > evidence again, since it proves absolutely nothing, and you know for sure
> > > that I'll make it look like a hill of beans if you do make the list.
> > >
> >
> > It is the kind of proof routinely used to convict murderers. You have no
> > interest in such evidence because it conflicts with what you would rather
> > believe.
>
>
> FALSE! I like evidence that proves that you're basing your beliefs
> on almost nothing. It is very useful evidence.
>

Is there anyone out there who can translate Gibberish into English for me?

Still can't understand what's going on around you?

Chris

[bigdog]

Those are only anomalies inside your head. I have no explanation for what
goes on in there.

>
>
> > > Then there's the many strikes in Dealey Plaza, some of which were
> > > photographed before they removed the evidence. And of course, the bullet
> > > hole through the limo windshield and the strike over the windshield in the
> > > chrome.
> > >
> >
> > No evidence. Just empty claims.
> >
>
>
> Oh? Are you able to specify what part of my statement is wrong in
> your eyes? Or are you just trying to use your opinion in a very general
> way? The hole in the windshield was seen by at least 6 witnesses.
> Corroboration.
>

There is no evidence of any shots in DP other than the three fired by
Oswald. There was a strike on the inside of the windshield but it did not
penetrate through. The fact that some people assumed it was a shot fired
through the windshield is not evidence that happened. Other people's
assumptions are no more valid than yours.

>
>
> > > Probably a lot more if I wanted to think for a while. And what do you
> > > have? A few things on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, I'm sure if you tried you could strikeout again.
> >
>
>
>
> Yes, I could strike out most of your items of evidence.
>

Another way of saying you could make excuses to ignore them which you do
all the time.

They found no such thing. That is your silly interpretation of the medical
evidence which is based on zero expertise.

> They knew
> from seeing the PROOF that the back wound bullet did NOT go through JFK,
> but was stopped at the pleura. It doesn't matter what Finck signed off on
> later when he was under orders, he was one of the men that saw the PROOF!
>

So we should believe what you think Finck determined rather than accept
what Finck signed his name to and later testified to under oath in the
Clay Shaw trial.

>
>
> > > > > And others,
> > > > > depending on which part of the case you want to discuss.
> > > > >
> > > > "And others"? <chuckle>
> > > >
> > > > So after demanding I list the experts who have offered expert testimony
> > > > incriminating to Oswald, you counter with a guy whose on the record
> > > > opinions refute your arguments "and others". Too funny.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > See above.
> > >
> >
> > I did. It's still funny.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > You rely on eyewitnesses who cooked up
> > > > > their stories many years later and whom are not supported by other forms
> > > > > of evidence. You rely on silly assumptions and then make illogical
> > > > > inferences from them to reach your conclusions.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Cooked up"? So once again you resort to the LN whine that they all
> > > > lied!
> > >
> > > No, just very specific people. People who crawled out of the woodwork
> > > decades later with uncorroborated stories which conflict with the body of
> > > evidence.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! Well, now you've said that about an awful lot of witnesses,
> > it's your favorite way of dismissing evidence when you don't like it.
>
> I haven't said it about anyone who told their story at the time of the
> assassination. Just the kooks who jumped into the conspiracy pile.
>
>
>
> You'll use whatever tools you can to submerge the truth. The
> government needs to give you a citizen's medal for all the voluntary work
> you do for them in protecting their tired old WCR.
>

I'll settle for a tax deduction.

>
>
> >
> > > > Ridiculous. Thank you for not listing your silly little list of
> > > > evidence again, since it proves absolutely nothing, and you know for sure
> > > > that I'll make it look like a hill of beans if you do make the list.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It is the kind of proof routinely used to convict murderers. You have no
> > > interest in such evidence because it conflicts with what you would rather
> > > believe.
> >
> >
> > FALSE! I like evidence that proves that you're basing your beliefs
> > on almost nothing. It is very useful evidence.
> >
>
> Is there anyone out there who can translate Gibberish into English for me?
>
>
> Still can't understand what's going on around you?
>

Can't understand what you are telling me is going on.

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

It's always a Mexican stand-off with Anthony. Yo quiero Taco Bell.

I've always suspected that Ozzie did it. I wonder who helped him make up
his mind? Himself, perhaps, but…….

[Anthony Marsh]

Hard to figure out what your insults me. It was a WC defender here who
made me think that maybe Oswald was not involved. When he said that if
it was a conspiracy, Oswald would not be involved.