"Known" Vs. "Unknown" Evidence In The JFK Case

[David Von Pein]

Many conspiracy theorists seem to enjoy attempting to exonerate a
double-murderer named Lee Harvey Oswald when it comes to the two killings
he committed on 11/22/63.

Rabid CTers will do everything they can to skew the reality of the events
that occurred on that autumn day in 1963 -- meaning: many CTers will take
the massive supply of physical and circumstantial evidence (which is
evidence that indicates, without any doubt, that a man with the initials
"LHO" murdered two people on November 22nd) and attempt to taint all of
this "official" evidence by casting doubt on the reliability of every
single scrap of it (particularly the ballistics/bullet evidence in both
the JFK and Tippit crimes, which is evidence that leads to only guns owned
by Lee Harvey Oswald).

Is that the way to realistically approach a murder case? Is it reasonable
to think that many, many people "plotted" to frame an innocent man named
Oswald by planting several pieces of evidence favoring his guilt?

In my view, that crazy conspiracy approach is just downright silly. (Not
to mention wholly unsupportable and unprovable.)

More....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/08/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1258.html

[mainframetech]

Now there's a good example of the rabid LN going crazy over evidence
that doesn't exist. As far as bullet evidence goes, there's nothing wrong
with the bullet evidence, but it doesn't prove what the rabid LNs would
like it to prove. The evidence is really 2 empty shells on the TSBD 6th
floor near the window that probably was where a rifle was fired from. As
a proud CT I have no problem with that evidence. But it doesn't prove who
fire a rifle from that window. A rifle was found nearby among a bunch of
boxes of books, but that doesn't prove who fired a rifle out the window.

A bullet with little damage was found on a gurney at the hospital, but
that doesn't prove that that bullet hit or hurt anyone, and it certainly
doesn't prove who fired it, or even what day it was fired. Bits of a
bullet were found in the wrist of Connally, but it doesn't prove who fired
that bullet, though coming apart in little pieces suggests it was NOT an
FMJ bullet like the ones that were being used in the MC rifle. Bits of a
bullet were left in a path of tiny particles in the ehad of JFK shown in
X-rays, but they don't prove who fire that bullet, and they don't suggest
that they came from an FMJ bullet either, like were used in the MC rifle.

All in all, there is practically no bullet evidence at all that points
to any person, and so all the talk above simply shows that the speaker has
little knowledge of the case.

Chris

[Robert Harris]

David Von Pein wrote:
> Many conspiracy theorists seem to enjoy attempting to exonerate a
> double-murderer named Lee Harvey Oswald when it comes to the two killings
> he committed on 11/22/63.

How did you confirm that Oswald was the one who fired the
shot that killed JFK?




Robert Harris

[Ace Kefford]

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 10:28:12 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:

A great point, David.

No one would investigate a murder case or a historical event in the way of
the conspiracy buffs. The buffs would not do it for any other event in
history, except of course for those who see a conspiracy in every event
like Presidential advisor Alex Jones. And no one does it in their own
daily lives and interactions with people where they have to assess what
likely happened.

Nope, they just do it for the JFK assassination because they want "their
side" to "win". No interest in reality and what actually happened, just
"winning an argument" (which they don't actually do) and keeping the
doubts alive.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/28/2017 10:28 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
> Many conspiracy theorists seem to enjoy attempting to exonerate a
> double-murderer named Lee Harvey Oswald when it comes to the two killings
> he committed on 11/22/63.
>

On the other hand, you like to frame innocent people just for the giggles.

[mainframetech]

How strange! As a proud CT I have given cites and links for any new
info I put forward to show something. Those cites can be argued about,
but they are real evidence, and yet here you are saying that they are in
effect made up. Think that through before saying that and try to explain
the cites and links I provide.

Chris

[bigdog]

On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 5:53:41 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 10:28:12 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > Many conspiracy theorists seem to enjoy attempting to exonerate a
> > double-murderer named Lee Harvey Oswald when it comes to the two killings
> > he committed on 11/22/63.
> >
> > Rabid CTers will do everything they can to skew the reality of the events
> > that occurred on that autumn day in 1963 -- meaning: many CTers will take
> > the massive supply of physical and circumstantial evidence (which is
> > evidence that indicates, without any doubt, that a man with the initials
> > "LHO" murdered two people on November 22nd) and attempt to taint all of
> > this "official" evidence by casting doubt on the reliability of every
> > single scrap of it (particularly the ballistics/bullet evidence in both
> > the JFK and Tippit crimes, which is evidence that leads to only guns owned
> > by Lee Harvey Oswald).
> >
> > Is that the way to realistically approach a murder case? Is it reasonable
> > to think that many, many people "plotted" to frame an innocent man named
> > Oswald by planting several pieces of evidence favoring his guilt?
> >
> > In my view, that crazy conspiracy approach is just downright silly. (Not
> > to mention wholly unsupportable and unprovable.)
> >
>
>
>
> Now there's a good example of the rabid LN going crazy over evidence
> that doesn't exist. As far as bullet evidence goes, there's nothing wrong
> with the bullet evidence, but it doesn't prove what the rabid LNs would
> like it to prove. The evidence is really 2 empty shells on the TSBD 6th
> floor near the window that probably was where a rifle was fired from.

Three empty shells.

> As
> a proud CT I have no problem with that evidence. But it doesn't prove who
> fire a rifle from that window.

No, we have lots of other evidence that tells us that and it ALL points to
Oswald.

> A rifle was found nearby among a bunch of
> boxes of books, but that doesn't prove who fired a rifle out the window.
>

No, it's just one more piece of the puzzle and when you put the pieces
together you get a clear picture of the shooter. Conspiracy hobbyists
never like to try to put the pieces together. They pick up one piece and
saw this piece doesn't prove anything. Of course it doesn't by itself. You
have to put the pieces of the puzzle together and when you do that you
have a clear picture of Oswald. The pieces don't go together any other way
and there is no one else in the picture.

> A bullet with little damage was found on a gurney at the hospital, but
> that doesn't prove that that bullet hit or hurt anyone, and it certainly
> doesn't prove who fired it, or even what day it was fired.

That's right. Keep looking at one piece of the puzzle at a time. No wonder
you remain confused. You are either unwilling or unable to put the pieces
together.

> Bits of a
> bullet were found in the wrist of Connally, but it doesn't prove who fired
> that bullet,

Attaboy!!! Put one piece down and pick up another. Don't ever try to put
the pieces together.

> though coming apart in little pieces suggests it was NOT an
> FMJ bullet like the ones that were being used in the MC rifle.

Says the guy who pretends he knows something about ballistics.

> Bits of a
> bullet were left in a path of tiny particles in the ehad of JFK shown in
> X-rays, but they don't prove who fire that bullet, and they don't suggest
> that they came from an FMJ bullet either, like were used in the MC rifle.
>

And still another piece that by itself doesn't prove who shot JFK.

> All in all, there is practically no bullet evidence at all that points
> to any person, and so all the talk above simply shows that the speaker has
> little knowledge of the case.
>

Not when you refuse to put the pieces together. You will need to take that
step if you want to see what the picture looks like. But I think you
already know that and you aren't going to like what the picture will show.
Best not to assemble those pieces.

[Anthony Marsh]

So, you've never heard of any real conspiracy.
I like your idea that all conspiracies are committed by Republicans and
Democrats are just trying to retaliate. Like Watergate. Like anything
ending in -gate. Nice theory.

>

[David Von Pein]

The *evidence* indicates Oswald fired that shot. (Where have you been?)

How did CE567 and CE569 manage to get into the front seat of JFK's car on
11/22/63, Bob? You think somebody *else* besides the rifle's owner fired
that bullet into the automobile, is that it?

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/09/ce567-and-ce569.html

[Jonny Mayer]

David the reason that people beleive that LHO did not kill JFK is because
(as I'm sure you already know) of the cover up.

The cover up is real and admitted. We knew we were being lied to so why
should we beleive any of it?

[Anthony Marsh]

No, you haven't and you are afraid to answer questions. You can't back
up what you say.

Tell me where the Italian town of Carcano is.

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/30/2017 2:21 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 5:54:05 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>> David Von Pein wrote:
>>> Many conspiracy theorists seem to enjoy attempting to exonerate a
>>> double-murderer named Lee Harvey Oswald when it comes to the two killings
>>> he committed on 11/22/63.
>>
>> How did you confirm that Oswald was the one who fired the
>> shot that killed JFK?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Robert Harris
>
> The *evidence* indicates Oswald fired that shot. (Where have you been?)
>

You have no evidence to prove that Oswald fired any shot from the TSBD.

> How did CE567 and CE569 manage to get into the front seat of JFK's car on
> 11/22/63, Bob? You think somebody *else* besides the rifle's owner fired
> that bullet into the automobile, is that it?
>

Hmm, could be a miss. Could have hit Connally's wrist and broken up.
No proof they hit JFK.

> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/09/ce567-and-ce569.html
>

[David Von Pein]

JOHN CORBETT SAID:

Keep looking at one piece of the puzzle at a time. No wonder you

[Chris/Mainframe] remain confused. You are either unwilling or unable to
put the pieces together.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Bingo!

ISOLATING THE EVIDENCE: A CONSPIRACIST'S FORTE....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/isolating-evidence.html

[mainframetech]

Excuse me. 3 empty shells.

> > As
> > a proud CT I have no problem with that evidence. But it doesn't prove who

> > fired a rifle from that window.

>
> No, we have lots of other evidence that tells us that and it ALL points to
> Oswald.
>

Let's move on to that evidence then. This point doesn't do it, as you
admit.

> > A rifle was found nearby among a bunch of
> > boxes of books, but that doesn't prove who fired a rifle out the window.
> >
>
> No, it's just one more piece of the puzzle and when you put the pieces
> together you get a clear picture of the shooter.

You still haven't found anything that helps your beliefs. How can you
get a clear picture of a shooter, when you haven't a clue who left the
rifle? Or do you start with a belief and then try to fit evidence to it?

> Conspiracy hobbyists
> never like to try to put the pieces together. They pick up one piece and
> saw this piece doesn't prove anything. Of course it doesn't by itself. You
> have to put the pieces of the puzzle together and when you do that you
> have a clear picture of Oswald. The pieces don't go together any other way
> and there is no one else in the picture.
>

I think that may be a reasonable idea. So taking all you've said above
in a 'big picture'....how does it prove who fired the MC rifle out the
window? I think what you want just isn't there. But you're welcome to
try and explain it to us.

> > A bullet with little damage was found on a gurney at the hospital, but
> > that doesn't prove that that bullet hit or hurt anyone, and it certainly
> > doesn't prove who fired it, or even what day it was fired.
>
> That's right. Keep looking at one piece of the puzzle at a time. No wonder
> you remain confused. You are either unwilling or unable to put the pieces
> together.
>

I feel no confusion, maybe you're putting your feelings onto me.
Take my word for it, I'm considering each one of these useless little
tidbits in a 'big picture', but nothing solid is forming.

> > Bits of a
> > bullet were found in the wrist of Connally, but it doesn't prove who fired
> > that bullet,
>
> Attaboy!!! Put one piece down and pick up another. Don't ever try to put
> the pieces together.
>

I repeat...because you don't listen while you're talking: I'm
considering the.......'big picture'. And all those little pieces no
matter if they fit each other or not, DO NOT say who fired the rifle out
the window! If you think they do, then explain it.

> > though coming apart in little pieces suggests it was NOT an
> > FMJ bullet like the ones that were being used in the MC rifle.
>
> Says the guy who pretends he knows something about ballistics.
>

I never pretend that sort of thing, either I know something or I
don't. And in some cases there's no need to know something since it's so
simple anyone could figure it out. Weell, most everyone.



> > Bits of a
> > bullet were left in a path of tiny particles in the head of JFK shown in
> > X-rays, but they don't prove who fired that bullet, and they don't suggest

> > that they came from an FMJ bullet either, like were used in the MC rifle.
> >
>
> And still another piece that by itself doesn't prove who shot JFK.
>

True for a change! But even as part of the "puzzle" it doesn't prove
who fired into Dealey Plaza with the MC rifle.

> > All in all, there is practically no bullet evidence at all that points
> > to any person, and so all the talk above simply shows that the speaker has
> > little knowledge of the case.
> >
>
> Not when you refuse to put the pieces together. You will need to take that
> step if you want to see what the picture looks like. But I think you
> already know that and you aren't going to like what the picture will show.
> Best not to assemble those pieces.

WRONG! See above. And here at the end when all my comments can be
taken all together, we can look at the 'big picture' that it makes, and we
still can't get a name out of those bits and pieces we assembled into a
"puzzle". Each fact separately, and together, don't tell us a name that
fired the MC rifle at the motorcade.

Chris

[bigdog]

You assume there was a cover up. There is no evidence of one.

[bigdog]

You and I are of like mind on this. I have often made the analogy between
the evidence in the JFK case and a jigsaw puzzle. A single piece of a
jigsaw puzzle by itself doesn't create much of a picture just as a single
piece of evidence by itself can't establish Oswald's guilt. When you start
to put the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle together, then a picture does begin
to form and when you put the pieces of evidence in the JFK assassination
together we see that it is all pointing at Oswald. As it is with a jigsaw
puzzle, there is only one correct solution. The pieces only go together
one way. You can try to force fit pieces together but if you do that, the
rest of the pieces don't fit. When the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle are all
assembled, they present a clear picture. When the pieces of evidence are
put together, they too present a clear picture and it tells us Oswald was
the assassin. We do have a few pieces of this puzzle that are missing,
such as what Oswald's motive was or where did he buy his ammo. We can
speculate what those pieces might look like but we can never be certain.
Even with a few missing pieces, the rest of the pieces when assembled
still present a clear and definitive picture.

This is the reason conspiracy hobbyists never try putting the pieces
together. They can't put them together in a way that creates the picture
they want to see and if they do put the pieces together in the only way
they fit together it creates a picture they do NOT want to see.

Another analogy I have used is comparing the evidence to a box of pencils.
A single pencil by itself isn't very strong. It is easy to break the
pencils if you do it one at a time. However, if one puts the pencils
together in a bundle, it becomes very difficult to break them. Each pencil
serves to reinforce the bundle. Vincent Bugliosi put 53 "pencils" together
in a bundle. Collectively, they are impossible to break. That's why the
conspiracy hobbyists never try to break them that way. They always go at
them one at a time.

[bigdog]

No one piece of evidence by itself establishes Oswald's guilt. It is when
you assemble the pieces collectively that it becomes clear that Oswald was
the assassin. The pieces only go together one way and when you assemble
them there is no doubt Oswald was the assassin. If the pieces of evidence
could be put together in another way that doesn't lead to the conclusion
that Oswald was the assassin, it would have been done by now. That is why
no conspiracy hobbyist will even try. If they did they would be forced to
throw out one piece of evidence after another. That is what you do best.
Invent excuses to dismiss evidence.

>
>
>
> > > A rifle was found nearby among a bunch of
> > > boxes of books, but that doesn't prove who fired a rifle out the window.
> > >
> >
> > No, it's just one more piece of the puzzle and when you put the pieces
> > together you get a clear picture of the shooter.
>
>
>
>
> You still haven't found anything that helps your beliefs. How can you
> get a clear picture of a shooter, when you haven't a clue who left the
> rifle?

Just because you don't have a clue doesn't mean the rest of the world
suffers from the same problem.

> Or do you start with a belief and then try to fit evidence to it?
>

No, that is the conspiracy hobbyist approach. When one follows the
evidence and connects the dots, it invariably leads to the conclusion that
Oswald was the assassin.

>
>
>
> > Conspiracy hobbyists
> > never like to try to put the pieces together. They pick up one piece and
> > saw this piece doesn't prove anything. Of course it doesn't by itself. You
> > have to put the pieces of the puzzle together and when you do that you
> > have a clear picture of Oswald. The pieces don't go together any other way
> > and there is no one else in the picture.
> >
>
>
>
> I think that may be a reasonable idea. So taking all you've said above
> in a 'big picture'....how does it prove who fired the MC rifle out the
> window? I think what you want just isn't there. But you're welcome to
> try and explain it to us.
>

There is simply no way all that evidence would be pointing to Oswald if he
was not the assassin. His rifle, his prints on the rifle, the rifle bag,
the boxes in the nest. Fibers from his shirt on the butt plate of the
rifle. Shells from that rifle on the floor of the sniper's nest. A
fragmented bullet from that rifle on the floor of the limo and another
whole bullet found at the hospital where the victims were taken. A
witness who IDed him as the shooter. His fleeing the scene immediately
after the shooting, his fetching of his revolver which he used to murder
the first cop that stopped him and with which he tried to murder another
cop when being arrested. That's not even the complete list but let me see
you assemble all those facts into a scenario in which Oswald was not the
shooter.

>
>
>
> > > A bullet with little damage was found on a gurney at the hospital, but
> > > that doesn't prove that that bullet hit or hurt anyone, and it certainly
> > > doesn't prove who fired it, or even what day it was fired.
> >
> > That's right. Keep looking at one piece of the puzzle at a time. No wonder
> > you remain confused. You are either unwilling or unable to put the pieces
> > together.
> >
>
>
>
> I feel no confusion, maybe you're putting your feelings onto me.
> Take my word for it, I'm considering each one of these useless little
> tidbits in a 'big picture', but nothing solid is forming.
>

Because you are confused.

>
>
>
> > > Bits of a
> > > bullet were found in the wrist of Connally, but it doesn't prove who fired
> > > that bullet,
> >
> > Attaboy!!! Put one piece down and pick up another. Don't ever try to put
> > the pieces together.
> >
>
>
> I repeat...because you don't listen while you're talking: I'm
> considering the.......'big picture'. And all those little pieces no
> matter if they fit each other or not, DO NOT say who fired the rifle out
> the window! If you think they do, then explain it.
>

OK, let's see you put all those pieces together to reach a conclusion in
which Oswald is not the shooter.

>
>
>
> > > though coming apart in little pieces suggests it was NOT an
> > > FMJ bullet like the ones that were being used in the MC rifle.
> >
> > Says the guy who pretends he knows something about ballistics.
> >
>
>
>
> I never pretend that sort of thing, either I know something or I
> don't. And in some cases there's no need to know something since it's so
> simple anyone could figure it out. Weell, most everyone.
>

If you are a conspiracy hobbyist, not only is it not necessary to know
something, it is in fact a hindrance. Ignorance is bliss.

>
>
> > > Bits of a
> > > bullet were left in a path of tiny particles in the head of JFK shown in
> > > X-rays, but they don't prove who fired that bullet, and they don't suggest
> > > that they came from an FMJ bullet either, like were used in the MC rifle.
> > >
> >
> > And still another piece that by itself doesn't prove who shot JFK.
> >
>
>
> True for a change! But even as part of the "puzzle" it doesn't prove
> who fired into Dealey Plaza with the MC rifle.
>

It does when you fit the pieces together which is something you never try
to do.

>
>
>
> > > All in all, there is practically no bullet evidence at all that points
> > > to any person, and so all the talk above simply shows that the speaker has
> > > little knowledge of the case.
> > >
> >
> > Not when you refuse to put the pieces together. You will need to take that
> > step if you want to see what the picture looks like. But I think you
> > already know that and you aren't going to like what the picture will show.
> > Best not to assemble those pieces.
>
>
>
> WRONG! See above. And here at the end when all my comments can be
> taken all together, we can look at the 'big picture' that it makes, and we
> still can't get a name out of those bits and pieces we assembled into a
> "puzzle". Each fact separately, and together, don't tell us a name that
> fired the MC rifle at the motorcade.
>

Still waiting for you to assemble those pieces into a scenario in which
Oswald is NOT the assassin.

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, because it is impossible to LIE about everything. Some little
parts must be true. It is our job to sort through the mess and point out
what was true and what was false.

[Beyond Wikipedia]

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 10:28:12 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:

The reality of the EOP wound establishes a huge problem with the shooting
evidence. The entry wound in the back of JFK's head described by the
doctors was near the EOP, not the cowlick. That alone almost certainly
debunks a single-assassin theory.

[Anthony Marsh]

Many people have admitted that there was a cover-up. You are proud of
the cover-up. It prevented WWIII.

[mainframetech]

DVP said: Bingo....


Chris Said: Because he failed to read the complete post where Chris
replied about using the 'big picture' which still did NOT supply a name to
blame as the shooter of the MC rifle from the 6th floor window. Putting
all the little pieces of 'evidence' that bd tried to make look like
something, it still doesn't make a picture of anything, and doesn't blame
anyone for being a shooter.

And as usual, bd tries to save DVP's butt and fails again.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

It is when you have to tamper with and destroy evidence that you know
they are framing the suspect.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/31/2017 7:47 PM, bigdog wrote:

So you claim that no one has ever been framed. Physically impossible?
So you say that Dreyfus really was guilty.
And The Innocence Project freed guilty men.

[Anthony Marsh]

There was no wound on the back of the head.

[bigdog]

That argument is a little sketchy. I think you need to connect the dots
and fill in a few details.

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 9:35:04 PM UTC-4, Beyond Wikipedia wrote:

LOL! Well, let's look at the 'leaked' photo of the BOH and see if you
can pick out that bullet hole. Here's the photo:

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4KxfSQ8rk6Y/WKBmzGwCPlI/AAAAAAABLZc/qKDW6GOY1Jo9MXruuRXpP7RX0R7Iiv91wCLcB/s1600/JFK-Autopsy-Photograph-BOH-Red-Spot-Photo-2.jpg

A bit hard to pick out isn't it? But it was a bullet hole you thought
was there, so why can't you find it? I can help...here's the drawing that
was made by Ida Dox and it shows where the bullet hole was:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TCdfw9dZX-I/AAAAAAAAEcg/DsMiY_zlogQ/s400/Ida+Dox+Drawing.jpg


Real easy to find in the drawing, right? But oh...it's at the
cowlick!! What will you do now? Time to admit the 'leaked' photos were
altered, and that the 'large hole' in the BOH that was seen by over 39
witnesses has the real story on the BOH.

Talk with bd...together you 2 might find an answer that is plausible
to this problem.

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG! How ridiculous can you get? Explain how assembling the pieces
of your little list of 'evidence' tells us who was the shooter at the
motorcade. And you've been told hundreds of times that I don't throw out
evidence, though I may use it differently than you. So far, your little
list has not pointed out a shooter even after being assembled into a whole
picture.

> >
> >
> >
> > > > A rifle was found nearby among a bunch of
> > > > boxes of books, but that doesn't prove who fired a rifle out the window.
> > > >
> > >
> > > No, it's just one more piece of the puzzle and when you put the pieces
> > > together you get a clear picture of the shooter.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > You still haven't found anything that helps your beliefs. How can you
> > get a clear picture of a shooter, when you haven't a clue who left the
> > rifle?
>
> Just because you don't have a clue doesn't mean the rest of the world
> suffers from the same problem.
>

WRONG! Once again you fail to explain how the pieces go together and
implicate Oswald as the shooter who fired on the motorcade.

> > Or do you start with a belief and then try to fit evidence to it?
> >
>
> No, that is the conspiracy hobbyist approach. When one follows the
> evidence and connects the dots, it invariably leads to the conclusion that
> Oswald was the assassin.
>

Ah! Then you'll be able to follow the dots for us, so that we can
understand how your little list of 'evidence' shows anyone as the shooter.

> > > Conspiracy hobbyists
> > > never like to try to put the pieces together. They pick up one piece and
> > > saw this piece doesn't prove anything. Of course it doesn't by itself. You
> > > have to put the pieces of the puzzle together and when you do that you
> > > have a clear picture of Oswald. The pieces don't go together any other way
> > > and there is no one else in the picture.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > I think that may be a reasonable idea. So taking all you've said above
> > in a 'big picture'....how does it prove who fired the MC rifle out the
> > window? I think what you want just isn't there. But you're welcome to
> > try and explain it to us.
> >
>
> There is simply no way all that evidence would be pointing to Oswald if he
> was not the assassin. His rifle, his prints on the rifle, the rifle bag,
> the boxes in the nest. Fibers from his shirt on the butt plate of the
> rifle. Shells from that rifle on the floor of the sniper's nest. A
> fragmented bullet from that rifle on the floor of the limo and another
> whole bullet found at the hospital where the victims were taken.

Amazing how you actually think that there is no scenario that covers
that list of circumstantial stuff without Oswald being the shooter. I
described the scenario in a book called "The Men on the Sixth Floor" by
Collum and Sample, and they say that their source was there and was part
of the group on the 6th floor. The scenario works fine and has someone
else doing the shooting. So there goes your efforts to produce any
'evidence'. You've produced a lot of circumstantial stuff some of which
mentions Oswald's name. Nothing that puts the rifle in his hands and
nothing that has him shooting out the window. The scenario works whether
they are truthful or not in the book.

> A
> witness who IDed him as the shooter.

WRONG! We've been over that and Brennan was discredited by himself as
explained to you many times over.

> His fleeing the scene immediately
> after the shooting, his fetching of his revolver which he used to murder
> the first cop that stopped him and with which he tried to murder another
> cop when being arrested. That's not even the complete list but let me see
> you assemble all those facts into a scenario in which Oswald was not the
> shooter.
>

As you well know, fleeing the scene may have ben because he realized
he was being set up as a 'patsy' and he got out to stop himself from being
arrested or shot before he straightened the problem out, which he no doubt
had in mind when he got his gun and walked out.

> > > > A bullet with little damage was found on a gurney at the hospital, but
> > > > that doesn't prove that that bullet hit or hurt anyone, and it certainly
> > > > doesn't prove who fired it, or even what day it was fired.
> > >
> > > That's right. Keep looking at one piece of the puzzle at a time. No wonder
> > > you remain confused. You are either unwilling or unable to put the pieces
> > > together.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > I feel no confusion, maybe you're putting your feelings onto me.
> > Take my word for it, I'm considering each one of these useless little
> > tidbits in a 'big picture', but nothing solid is forming.
> >
>
> Because you are confused.
>

Oh give up the baloney. Sounds more like you're confused trying to
make up all these bits and pieces....and just try to put them in a
coherent whole, and then show how that proves anything about who fired out
the window.

> > > > Bits of a
> > > > bullet were found in the wrist of Connally, but it doesn't prove who fired
> > > > that bullet,
> > >
> > > Attaboy!!! Put one piece down and pick up another. Don't ever try to put
> > > the pieces together.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I repeat...because you don't listen while you're talking: I'm
> > considering the.......'big picture'. And all those little pieces no
> > matter if they fit each other or not, DO NOT say who fired the rifle out
> > the window! If you think they do, then explain it.
> >
>
> OK, let's see you put all those pieces together to reach a conclusion in
> which Oswald is not the shooter.
>

I see. You have no clue how to put the pieces together, so you hope
I'll do it for you. I put them together for my purposes, and found they
pointed to no one who fired the MC rifle out the window at the motorcade.
I have asked you to put them together and explain how they show who the
shooter was. You have yet to do it, and I doubt you can.

The simple fact of Oswald getting the rifle for someone else completely
ruins all your list of 'evidence' and where it points.

> > > > though coming apart in little pieces suggests it was NOT an
> > > > FMJ bullet like the ones that were being used in the MC rifle.
> > >
> > > Says the guy who pretends he knows something about ballistics.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > I never pretend that sort of thing, either I know something or I
> > don't. And in some cases there's no need to know something since it's so
> > simple anyone could figure it out. Weell, most everyone.
> >
>
> If you are a conspiracy hobbyist, not only is it not necessary to know
> something, it is in fact a hindrance. Ignorance is bliss.
>
> >
> >
> > > > Bits of a
> > > > bullet were left in a path of tiny particles in the head of JFK shown in
> > > > X-rays, but they don't prove who fired that bullet, and they don't suggest
> > > > that they came from an FMJ bullet either, like were used in the MC rifle.
> > > >
> > >
> > > And still another piece that by itself doesn't prove who shot JFK.
> > >
> >
> >
> > True for a change! But even as part of the "puzzle" it doesn't prove
> > who fired into Dealey Plaza with the MC rifle.
> >
>
> It does when you fit the pieces together which is something you never try
> to do.
>

I've asked you time and time again to go ahead and put the pieces
together and show us how they show who was the shooter. You have failed
every time to do that. You have run away from the question. Somewhere
back there you listed the items again, and because Oswald's name came up a
few ties, you acted like that proved that he was the shooter. Well, that
didn't prove anything of the kind. You were unable to use the 'evidence'
to put the MC rifle into the hands of Oswald and put him a the window
firing at the motorcade.

> > > > All in all, there is practically no bullet evidence at all that points
> > > > to any person, and so all the talk above simply shows that the speaker has
> > > > little knowledge of the case.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not when you refuse to put the pieces together. You will need to take that
> > > step if you want to see what the picture looks like. But I think you
> > > already know that and you aren't going to like what the picture will show.
> > > Best not to assemble those pieces.
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! See above. And here at the end when all my comments can be
> > taken all together, we can look at the 'big picture' that it makes, and we
> > still can't get a name out of those bits and pieces we assembled into a
> > "puzzle". Each fact separately, and together, don't tell us a name that
> > fired the MC rifle at the motorcade.
> >
>
> Still waiting for you to assemble those pieces into a scenario in which
> Oswald is NOT the assassin.

You can't do any assembling I see. Put together as a whole, the
little list of 'evidence' you supplied showed only that the MC rifle was
on the 6th floor (probably) at the time of the shooting, and the empty
shells were from the MC rifle, and the rifle was probably the one that
fired 3 shots into Dealey Plaza. But you haven't even proved that Oswald
was present on the 6th floor, particularly because there was a witness to
him being elsewhere at 12:15pm or thereabouts, with no opportunity to go
to the 6th floor window without having to deal with the 2 men with a gun
that were already there.

So you and DVP have some work to do it looks like.

Chris

[mainframetech]

A useless demonstration if the pencils don't write, as in the case of
the silly list of 'evidence' you 2 came up with. Even taking that list as
a whole and looking at the 'big picture', no one is targeted by it as the
shooter from the 6th floor window. Go see Springbok for decent puzzles.

Chris

[Ace Kefford]

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 10:28:12 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> Many conspiracy theorists seem to enjoy attempting to exonerate a
> double-murderer named Lee Harvey Oswald when it comes to the two killings
> he committed on 11/22/63.
>
> Rabid CTers will do everything they can to skew the reality of the events
> that occurred on that autumn day in 1963 -- meaning: many CTers will take
> the massive supply of physical and circumstantial evidence (which is
> evidence that indicates, without any doubt, that a man with the initials
> "LHO" murdered two people on November 22nd) and attempt to taint all of
> this "official" evidence by casting doubt on the reliability of every
> single scrap of it (particularly the ballistics/bullet evidence in both
> the JFK and Tippit crimes, which is evidence that leads to only guns owned
> by Lee Harvey Oswald).
>
> Is that the way to realistically approach a murder case? Is it reasonable
> to think that many, many people "plotted" to frame an innocent man named
> Oswald by planting several pieces of evidence favoring his guilt?
>
> In my view, that crazy conspiracy approach is just downright silly. (Not
> to mention wholly unsupportable and unprovable.)
>

> More....
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/08/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1258.html

Oh, sure, but what about the Mauser? HAR!

[FNG]

Bigdog, the problem with your analogy is that the picture was painted
first as Oswald from the sixth floor shooting the MC at JFK. That picture
was then carved up into various jigsaw pieces and evidence to the contrary
was excluded or corrupted. And then the pieces were given to the WC to
reassemble...

[bigdog]

It's really simple, Chris. If one constructs a scenario that incorporates
ALL the evidence, the only plausible conclusion one can reach is that
Oswald was the assassin. Whether you believe he was acting on behalf of
others or not, that is the inevitable conclusion. If it were possible to
construct a plausible scenario from the entire body of evidence what
didn't include Oswald as the shooter, someone would have done it by now.
Instead, the Oswald deniers are forced to either attack the evidence
piecemeal or invent excuses to dismiss many of the pieces of evidence. If
you dispute that, all you have to do to prove me wrong is come up with an
alternative scenario that incorporates the entire body of evidence and
doesn't require one to dismiss large amounts of evidence. The other option
would be to point to someone else who has come up with such a scenario.
Which ever option you choose, I wish you luck. You're going to need it.

[Beyond Wikipedia]

>
> LOL! Well, let's look at the 'leaked' photo of the BOH and see if you
> can pick out that bullet hole. Here's the photo:
>
> https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4KxfSQ8rk6Y/WKBmzGwCPlI/AAAAAAABLZc/qKDW6GOY1Jo9MXruuRXpP7RX0R7Iiv91wCLcB/s1600/JFK-Autopsy-Photograph-BOH-Red-Spot-Photo-2.jpg
>
> A bit hard to pick out isn't it? But it was a bullet hole you thought
> was there, so why can't you find it? I can help...here's the drawing that
> was made by Ida Dox and it shows where the bullet hole was:
>
> http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TCdfw9dZX-I/AAAAAAAAEcg/DsMiY_zlogQ/s400/Ida+Dox+Drawing.jpg
>
>
> Real easy to find in the drawing, right? But oh...it's at the
> cowlick!! What will you do now? Time to admit the 'leaked' photos were
> altered, and that the 'large hole' in the BOH that was seen by over 39
> witnesses has the real story on the BOH.
>
> Talk with bd...together you 2 might find an answer that is plausible
> to this problem.
>
> Chris

Mainframetech, you should know that Dr. Humes, Dr. Bosell, Dr. Finck, John
Stringer, and John Ebersole all specifically denied that the 'red spot' is
an entry wound. Surely you know this. Boswell stated matter-of-factly to
the HSCA and ARRB that the red spot was a wound in the scalp related to
the large defect. There is also no photographic study showing that the red
spot correlates to the defect on the X-ray the HSCA thinks is an entry
wound (it appears to be some centimeters lower). And for every person
presented as an expert who thinks the X-rays shows an entry in that upper
area, there is another who examined the X-rays and couldn't identify any
particular entry wound. Forensic pathologist Dr. Peter Cummings got to
view the autopsy collection at the National Archives and believes it can
be compatible with the EOP wound.

On the BOH photographs, if the EOP wound is not one of the two
semicircular dark spots in the lower hairline, it could be hiding under a
bit of hair. In fact, it looks to me like the perfect location for the EOP
wound has a bit of hair covering it. Surely you know that there are
missing autopsy photographs; statements from the autopsy crew indicate
that close-up photos of the entry wound in the scalp and skull were
taken.

[Beyond Wikipedia]

Even if you think that Humes, Boswell and Finck were capable of completely
inventing a wound through lies, John Stringer, Fancis X. O'Neil, Roy
Kellerman, Richard Lipsey, Charles Boyers, and George Burkley gave
statements indicating the existence of an entry wound in the back of the
head, all supporting the same general location, the lower head area near
the EOP.

[OHLeeRedux]

Anthony Marsh
- show quoted text -

There was no wound on the back of the head.

Nonsense. If you ever figure out what you're talking about, let us know.

[mainframetech]

A foolish idea. You were unable to "connect the dots" yourself, why
try to get someone else to do it? Here's a 'leaked' photo of the BOH.
Why don't you try to find the bullet hole there, and then you can say you
have connected some dots? Here's the photo:

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4KxfSQ8rk6Y/WKBmzGwCPlI/AAAAAAABLZc/qKDW6GOY1Jo9MXruuRXpP7RX0R7Iiv91wCLcB/s1600/JFK-Autopsy-Photograph-BOH-Red-Spot-Photo-2.jpg


And if you're having a hard time finding the bullet hole (we know
that's a tough one for you), here's a drawing by Ida Dox of that photo and
there's that roguish bullet hole, hiding right in plain sight in the
cowlick:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TCdfw9dZX-I/AAAAAAAAEcg/DsMiY_zlogQ/s400/Ida+Dox+Drawing.jpg

Of course, not a single LN will wonder why the bullet hole is seen in a
drawing that was of a photo that did NOT show the same bullet hole. The
OBVIOUS answer is that the photo was altered to fool folks that the BOH
had no injuries, and that the 'large hole' seen there by over 39 witnesses
wasn't really there.

Oh, BTW, the little red spot on the photo was discarded by Humes as
meaning nothing and was not considered by him to be anything of any
importance. Of course, he was the one who had to change his location of
the bullet hole between the EOP and the cowlick!

Chris

[bigdog]

On my worst day not as ridiculous as you one your best.

> Explain how assembling the pieces
> of your little list of 'evidence' tells us who was the shooter at the
> motorcade. And you've been told hundreds of times that I don't throw out
> evidence, though I may use it differently than you. So far, your little
> list has not pointed out a shooter even after being assembled into a whole
> picture.
>

When all the arrows point at one man, that man is the culprit. His rifle.
shells from his rifle. Recovered bullets from his rifle. His prints on the
rifle, the rifle bag, the boxes in the nest. Fibers matching his shirt on
the butt plate of the rifle. Fleeing the scene immediately after the
shooting. Fetching his revolver and killing the first cop to confront him.
Trying to kill the cops who came to arrest him. Oh, yeah. Eyewitnesses who
saw him fire the shots that killed JFK and JDT or saw him fleeing the
scene of the JDT murder. His possession of the JDT murder weapon when
arrested. Little things like that. But no amount of evidence could ever
convince a dedicated Oswald denier such as yourself. You will invent
excuses to dismiss each and every piece of that evidence and you don't
care how many excuses you need. When you have to invent so many excuses,
your denials become ludicrous. This is why Oswald deniers never want to
look at the entire body of evidence. Just as it is with the evidence,
their excuses to dismiss individual pieces of evidence can seem plausible
in stand alone mode. When they have to be piled one on top of another, it
becomes completely ridiculous.

If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck,
it's a duck. Oswald deniers see that and say "What duck?".

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > A rifle was found nearby among a bunch of
> > > > > boxes of books, but that doesn't prove who fired a rifle out the window.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > No, it's just one more piece of the puzzle and when you put the pieces
> > > > together you get a clear picture of the shooter.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You still haven't found anything that helps your beliefs. How can you
> > > get a clear picture of a shooter, when you haven't a clue who left the
> > > rifle?
> >
> > Just because you don't have a clue doesn't mean the rest of the world
> > suffers from the same problem.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! Once again you fail to explain how the pieces go together and
> implicate Oswald as the shooter who fired on the motorcade.
>

I can't explain it so a dedicated Oswald denier like you could understand.
I'm sure I could explain it to your average fifth grader and they would
have no problem comprehending it.

>
>
>
> > > Or do you start with a belief and then try to fit evidence to it?
> > >
> >
> > No, that is the conspiracy hobbyist approach. When one follows the
> > evidence and connects the dots, it invariably leads to the conclusion that
> > Oswald was the assassin.
> >
>
>
>
>
> Ah! Then you'll be able to follow the dots for us, so that we can
> understand how your little list of 'evidence' shows anyone as the shooter.
>

The dots have been laid out for you. You just refuse to follow them. I
can't help you.

>
>
>
> > > > Conspiracy hobbyists
> > > > never like to try to put the pieces together. They pick up one piece and
> > > > saw this piece doesn't prove anything. Of course it doesn't by itself. You
> > > > have to put the pieces of the puzzle together and when you do that you
> > > > have a clear picture of Oswald. The pieces don't go together any other way
> > > > and there is no one else in the picture.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think that may be a reasonable idea. So taking all you've said above
> > > in a 'big picture'....how does it prove who fired the MC rifle out the
> > > window? I think what you want just isn't there. But you're welcome to
> > > try and explain it to us.
> > >
> >
> > There is simply no way all that evidence would be pointing to Oswald if he
> > was not the assassin. His rifle, his prints on the rifle, the rifle bag,
> > the boxes in the nest. Fibers from his shirt on the butt plate of the
> > rifle. Shells from that rifle on the floor of the sniper's nest. A
> > fragmented bullet from that rifle on the floor of the limo and another
> > whole bullet found at the hospital where the victims were taken.
>
> Amazing how you actually think that there is no scenario that covers
> that list of circumstantial stuff without Oswald being the shooter.

Why is that amazing when in over 53 years nobody has been able to come up
with one.

> I
> described the scenario in a book called "The Men on the Sixth Floor" by
> Collum and Sample, and they say that their source was there and was part
> of the group on the 6th floor.

Well gee, if they said it, it must be true. You can't write something in a
book that isn't true.

> The scenario works fine and has someone
> else doing the shooting. So there goes your efforts to produce any
> 'evidence'. You've produced a lot of circumstantial stuff some of which
> mentions Oswald's name. Nothing that puts the rifle in his hands and
> nothing that has him shooting out the window. The scenario works whether
> they are truthful or not in the book.
>

That last sentence speaks for itself and it speaks volumes about your
mindset.

>
>
>
> > A
> > witness who IDed him as the shooter.
>
>
>
>
>
> WRONG! We've been over that and Brennan was discredited by himself as
> explained to you many times over.
>

Just because you refuse to believe him doesn't discredit Brennan. Just one
more of your excuses to dismiss one more piece of evidence of Oswald's
guilt.

>
>
>
> > His fleeing the scene immediately
> > after the shooting, his fetching of his revolver which he used to murder
> > the first cop that stopped him and with which he tried to murder another
> > cop when being arrested. That's not even the complete list but let me see
> > you assemble all those facts into a scenario in which Oswald was not the
> > shooter.
> >
>
>
>
> As you well know, fleeing the scene may have ben because he realized
> he was being set up as a 'patsy' and he got out to stop himself from being
> arrested or shot before he straightened the problem out, which he no doubt
> had in mind when he got his gun and walked out.
>

And still more excuses. Keep them coming.

>
>
>
> > > > > A bullet with little damage was found on a gurney at the hospital, but
> > > > > that doesn't prove that that bullet hit or hurt anyone, and it certainly
> > > > > doesn't prove who fired it, or even what day it was fired.
> > > >
> > > > That's right. Keep looking at one piece of the puzzle at a time. No wonder
> > > > you remain confused. You are either unwilling or unable to put the pieces
> > > > together.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I feel no confusion, maybe you're putting your feelings onto me.
> > > Take my word for it, I'm considering each one of these useless little
> > > tidbits in a 'big picture', but nothing solid is forming.
> > >
> >
> > Because you are confused.
> >
>
>
>
> Oh give up the baloney. Sounds more like you're confused trying to
> make up all these bits and pieces....and just try to put them in a
> coherent whole, and then show how that proves anything about who fired out
> the window.
>

As I have said, that was done a long time ago by the WCR and more recently
by Vincent Bugliosi. No reasonable person can look at the case that was
laid out and have any doubt about Oswald's guilt. It is only those who
refuse to accept what the evidence tells us who continue to deny he was
the assassin. We could have ten times the evidence of Oswald's guilt and
you people would still deny it. No amount of evidence could ever get you
to drop your denials.

>
>
>
>
> > > > > Bits of a
> > > > > bullet were found in the wrist of Connally, but it doesn't prove who fired
> > > > > that bullet,
> > > >
> > > > Attaboy!!! Put one piece down and pick up another. Don't ever try to put
> > > > the pieces together.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I repeat...because you don't listen while you're talking: I'm
> > > considering the.......'big picture'. And all those little pieces no
> > > matter if they fit each other or not, DO NOT say who fired the rifle out
> > > the window! If you think they do, then explain it.
> > >
> >
> > OK, let's see you put all those pieces together to reach a conclusion in
> > which Oswald is not the shooter.
> >
>
>
>
> I see. You have no clue how to put the pieces together, so you hope
> I'll do it for you.

Spare us. The pieces have been put together in the only way they can be
put together and they present a clear picture of Oswald's guilt. Those
pieces only fit one way and you know it but you don't like the picture
that it produces.

> I put them together for my purposes, and found they
> pointed to no one who fired the MC rifle out the window at the motorcade.
> I have asked you to put them together and explain how they show who the
> shooter was. You have yet to do it, and I doubt you can.
>

The way you put the pieces together makes it look like a Jackson Pollock
painting.

> The simple fact of Oswald getting the rifle for someone else completely
> ruins all your list of 'evidence' and where it points.
>

That is another excuse you invented to dismiss the rifle as a piece of
evidence incriminating Oswald. You have no evidence he provided his rifle
to anybody else. That excuse also fails to explain the fibers matching his
shirt on the butt plate. But you have an excuse for that too.

>
> > > > > though coming apart in little pieces suggests it was NOT an
> > > > > FMJ bullet like the ones that were being used in the MC rifle.
> > > >
> > > > Says the guy who pretends he knows something about ballistics.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I never pretend that sort of thing, either I know something or I
> > > don't. And in some cases there's no need to know something since it's so
> > > simple anyone could figure it out. Weell, most everyone.
> > >
> >
> > If you are a conspiracy hobbyist, not only is it not necessary to know
> > something, it is in fact a hindrance. Ignorance is bliss.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Bits of a
> > > > > bullet were left in a path of tiny particles in the head of JFK shown in
> > > > > X-rays, but they don't prove who fired that bullet, and they don't suggest
> > > > > that they came from an FMJ bullet either, like were used in the MC rifle.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > And still another piece that by itself doesn't prove who shot JFK.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > True for a change! But even as part of the "puzzle" it doesn't prove
> > > who fired into Dealey Plaza with the MC rifle.
> > >
> >
> > It does when you fit the pieces together which is something you never try
> > to do.
> >
>
>
> I've asked you time and time again to go ahead and put the pieces
> together and show us how they show who was the shooter.

Time and time again I have done that and time and time again you deny what
it clearly shows. You simply invent more excuses to dismiss the evidence.
Excuses are all you have. There is no evidence on your side.

> You have failed
> every time to do that. You have run away from the question.

Bullshit!!!

Oh, excuse me. I said I was going to clean up my act. I said that instead
of saying "bullshit" I would say "That's marvelous" instead.

That's marvelous.

> Somewhere
> back there you listed the items again, and because Oswald's name came up a
> few ties, you acted like that proved that he was the shooter. Well, that
> didn't prove anything of the kind. You were unable to use the 'evidence'
> to put the MC rifle into the hands of Oswald and put him a the window
> firing at the motorcade.
>

Deny, deny, deny.

> > > > > All in all, there is practically no bullet evidence at all that points
> > > > > to any person, and so all the talk above simply shows that the speaker has
> > > > > little knowledge of the case.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Not when you refuse to put the pieces together. You will need to take that
> > > > step if you want to see what the picture looks like. But I think you
> > > > already know that and you aren't going to like what the picture will show.
> > > > Best not to assemble those pieces.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! See above. And here at the end when all my comments can be
> > > taken all together, we can look at the 'big picture' that it makes, and we
> > > still can't get a name out of those bits and pieces we assembled into a
> > > "puzzle". Each fact separately, and together, don't tell us a name that
> > > fired the MC rifle at the motorcade.
> > >
> >
> > Still waiting for you to assemble those pieces into a scenario in which
> > Oswald is NOT the assassin.
>
>
> You can't do any assembling I see.

I've done it numerous times and just did it again earlier in this reply.
You continue to deny.

> Put together as a whole, the
> little list of 'evidence' you supplied showed only that the MC rifle was
> on the 6th floor (probably) at the time of the shooting, and the empty
> shells were from the MC rifle, and the rifle was probably the one that
> fired 3 shots into Dealey Plaza. But you haven't even proved that Oswald
> was present on the 6th floor, particularly because there was a witness to
> him being elsewhere at 12:15pm or thereabouts, with no opportunity to go
> to the 6th floor window without having to deal with the 2 men with a gun
> that were already there.
>

Deny, deny, deny.

> So you and DVP have some work to do it looks like.
>

Convincing you of Oswald's guilt is Mission: Impossible.

[bigdog]

On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 9:12:18 PM UTC-4, FNG wrote:
> Bigdog, the problem with your analogy is that the picture was painted
> first as Oswald from the sixth floor shooting the MC at JFK.

Yes, that is what the evidence clearly shows.

> That picture
> was then carved up into various jigsaw pieces and evidence to the contrary
> was excluded or corrupted. And then the pieces were given to the WC to
> reassemble...

No evidence was excluded or corrupted. That is just the excuse the
conspiracy hobbyists invented because they know the evidence as is
establishes Oswald's guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. The conspiracy
hobbyists want an alternate reality to believe so they are forced to
dismiss the real evidence and instead resort to assumptions, speculations,
and imagination to form their beliefs. It's been going on for over 50
years. No reason to think it will change.

[mainframetech]

You might want to check a list I made quite a long time ago, which
shows over 39 witnesses to the 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK, many of
whom were medically trained. Many of the names you quoted above are on
that list. The list supplies the name of the witness, the location online
where they were quoted saying the phrase or text, and the text itself they
used to describe the 'large hole'.


As to the prosectors, I've already proved that Humes faked an AR under
orders, and the others were ordered to sign off on it. They then had to
carry that fakery through various trials and hearings. In the case of
Humes, in one hearing they caught him and he had to change his statement
of the location of the bullet wound in the BOH, which was never there in
the first place. Boswell's method of covering up for the 'leaked' and
altered autopsy photos was to say the BOTH photo that showed NO bullet
wound was him pulling the scalp forward to make it look like it was a
normal BOH. If you look at it, you have to realize that it's not pulled
forward at all. There's no depression for the huge wound that they made
on the right side of the head, and the one at the BOH.

Chris

[mainframetech]

First of all, I just now above said that the red spot' was nothing, and
Humes said it too. So we agree that the 'red spot' is nothing. I showed
the photo and the drawing of that photo to prove that games were played by
the authorities with altering photos and other things they did to try and
cover up the proof of multiple shooters and the plotters. On the photo
above, there is NO place that shows a bullet hole anywhere high or low.
One of the reasons is that the bullet hole was in the forehead/temple area
over the right eye forward of the right ear. By ENLARGING the
'stare-of-death' autopsy photo and looking at the are under the hair on
the right side of the forehead, you'll see the bullet hole that was the
final kill shot. Here's the photo:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg



The entry was that bullet hole (about 5mm diameter), and the exit was
the BOH 'large hole' seen by over 39 witnesses. The old rule is true in
this case, where the entry was small, and the exit was large.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 3:39:38 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 4:57:04 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 11:01:11 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > JOHN CORBETT SAID:
> > >
> > > Keep looking at one piece of the puzzle at a time. No wonder you
> > > [Chris/Mainframe] remain confused. You are either unwilling or unable to
> > > put the pieces together.
> > >
> > >
> > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > >
> > > Bingo!
> > >
> > > ISOLATING THE EVIDENCE: A CONSPIRACIST'S FORTE....
> > >
> > > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/isolating-evidence.html
> >
> >
> >
> > DVP said: Bingo....
> >
> >
> > Chris Said: Because he failed to read the complete post where Chris
> > replied about using the 'big picture' which still did NOT supply a name to
> > blame as the shooter of the MC rifle from the 6th floor window. Putting
> > all the little pieces of 'evidence' that bd tried to make look like
> > something, it still doesn't make a picture of anything, and doesn't blame
> > anyone for being a shooter.
> >
> > And as usual, bd tries to save DVP's butt and fails again.
> >
>
> It's really simple, Chris. If one constructs a scenario that incorporates
> ALL the evidence, the only plausible conclusion one can reach is that
> Oswald was the assassin.

Here you go again repeating what you've already said, but you haven't
put anything 'together' so far. and you haven't made a 'big picture' that
proves that Oswald was the shooter of the MC rifle at the motorcade. I
gave you examples of other scenarios that were plausible and you go back
to repeating what you have already said that failed. When do you assemble
the pieces as you said and get something different than what you had to
begin with?

> Whether you believe he was acting on behalf of
> others or not, that is the inevitable conclusion.

Nope. That's NOT inevitable. Think for a change. There are many
scenarios that would cause Oswald to give his rifle over, or to hide it on
the 6th floor for someone else to use. And based on proofs that I've
offered already to you many times over, those are much more plausible
scenarios, since it would be difficult for Oswald to get to the 6th floor
and have to fight for the window position with the 2 men with a gun.

> If it were possible to
> construct a plausible scenario from the entire body of evidence what
> didn't include Oswald as the shooter, someone would have done it by now.

Yup. Me. And I showed it all to you, and you couldn't handle it.

> Instead, the Oswald deniers are forced to either attack the evidence
> piecemeal or invent excuses to dismiss many of the pieces of evidence. If
> you dispute that, all you have to do to prove me wrong is come up with an
> alternative scenario that incorporates the entire body of evidence and
> doesn't require one to dismiss large amounts of evidence. The other option
> would be to point to someone else who has come up with such a scenario.
> Which ever option you choose, I wish you luck. You're going to need it.

WRONG! I've already done it, and it fits, not one scenario but a few.
Sadly, you have such a major love attachment to the WCR that no matter
what I prove to you won't mater, because you'll dismiss it in favor of the
theories in the WCR.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Some of the pieces of the puzzle are missing and some were thrown away.
Maybe you can find some of them at a Puzzle Palace.

[Amy Joyce]

Chris, what is the evidence of two men being on the 6th floor?

[Amy Joyce]

> > > > A rifle was found nearby among a bunch of
> > > > boxes of books, but that doesn't prove who fired a rifle out the window.
> > > >
> > >
> > > No, it's just one more piece of the puzzle and when you put the pieces
> > > together you get a clear picture of the shooter.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > You still haven't found anything that helps your beliefs. How can you
> > get a clear picture of a shooter, when you haven't a clue who left the
> > rifle?
>
> Just because you don't have a clue doesn't mean the rest of the world
> suffers from the same problem.
>

> > Or do you start with a belief and then try to fit evidence to it?
> >
>
> No, that is the conspiracy hobbyist approach. When one follows the
> evidence and connects the dots, it invariably leads to the conclusion that
> Oswald was the assassin.
>
> >
> >
> >

> > > Conspiracy hobbyists
> > > never like to try to put the pieces together. They pick up one piece and
> > > saw this piece doesn't prove anything. Of course it doesn't by itself. You
> > > have to put the pieces of the puzzle together and when you do that you
> > > have a clear picture of Oswald. The pieces don't go together any other way
> > > and there is no one else in the picture.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > I think that may be a reasonable idea. So taking all you've said above
> > in a 'big picture'....how does it prove who fired the MC rifle out the
> > window? I think what you want just isn't there. But you're welcome to
> > try and explain it to us.
> >
>
> There is simply no way all that evidence would be pointing to Oswald if he
> was not the assassin. His rifle, his prints on the rifle, the rifle bag,
> the boxes in the nest. Fibers from his shirt on the butt plate of the
> rifle. Shells from that rifle on the floor of the sniper's nest. A
> fragmented bullet from that rifle on the floor of the limo and another

> whole bullet found at the hospital where the victims were taken. A
> witness who IDed him as the shooter. His fleeing the scene immediately

> after the shooting, his fetching of his revolver which he used to murder
> the first cop that stopped him and with which he tried to murder another
> cop when being arrested. That's not even the complete list but let me see
> you assemble all those facts into a scenario in which Oswald was not the
> shooter.

Hi Bd, regarding the bullet found on the stretcher at the hospital, which
one is it supposed to be? If it was the miss it couldn't have ended up at
the hospital after striking the pavement. Also, my assumption is that it
would be extremely damaged if it caused the head damage to Kennedy or
multiple wounds on Connolly. What is it I'm missing?

> >
> >
> >
> > > > A bullet with little damage was found on a gurney at the hospital, but
> > > > that doesn't prove that that bullet hit or hurt anyone, and it certainly
> > > > doesn't prove who fired it, or even what day it was fired.
> > >
> > > That's right. Keep looking at one piece of the puzzle at a time. No wonder
> > > you remain confused. You are either unwilling or unable to put the pieces
> > > together.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > I feel no confusion, maybe you're putting your feelings onto me.
> > Take my word for it, I'm considering each one of these useless little
> > tidbits in a 'big picture', but nothing solid is forming.
> >
>
> Because you are confused.
>
> >
> >
> >

> > > > Bits of a
> > > > bullet were found in the wrist of Connally, but it doesn't prove who fired
> > > > that bullet,
> > >
> > > Attaboy!!! Put one piece down and pick up another. Don't ever try to put
> > > the pieces together.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I repeat...because you don't listen while you're talking: I'm
> > considering the.......'big picture'. And all those little pieces no
> > matter if they fit each other or not, DO NOT say who fired the rifle out
> > the window! If you think they do, then explain it.
> >
>
> OK, let's see you put all those pieces together to reach a conclusion in
> which Oswald is not the shooter.
>
> >
> >
> >

> > > > though coming apart in little pieces suggests it was NOT an
> > > > FMJ bullet like the ones that were being used in the MC rifle.
> > >
> > > Says the guy who pretends he knows something about ballistics.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > I never pretend that sort of thing, either I know something or I
> > don't. And in some cases there's no need to know something since it's so
> > simple anyone could figure it out. Weell, most everyone.
> >
>
> If you are a conspiracy hobbyist, not only is it not necessary to know
> something, it is in fact a hindrance. Ignorance is bliss.
>
> >
> >
> > > > Bits of a
> > > > bullet were left in a path of tiny particles in the head of JFK shown in
> > > > X-rays, but they don't prove who fired that bullet, and they don't suggest
> > > > that they came from an FMJ bullet either, like were used in the MC rifle.
> > > >
> > >
> > > And still another piece that by itself doesn't prove who shot JFK.
> > >
> >
> >
> > True for a change! But even as part of the "puzzle" it doesn't prove
> > who fired into Dealey Plaza with the MC rifle.
> >
>
> It does when you fit the pieces together which is something you never try
> to do.
>
> >
> >
> >

[bigdog]

The original autopsy team located the bullet hole in the BOH and it had
inward beveling, a telltale sign of an entrance wound. The review panels
saw far more photos and x-rays than the few that have been leaked to the
public and had no trouble finding the entrance wound. More recently Dr.
Peter Cummings reviewed the autopsy materials and also had not trouble
identifying the entrance wound or the fracture lines radiating from it,
another telltale sign of an entrance wound. But let's dismiss all that
because you have looked at one photo and can't see an entrance wound.

>
> And if you're having a hard time finding the bullet hole (we know
> that's a tough one for you), here's a drawing by Ida Dox of that photo and
> there's that roguish bullet hole, hiding right in plain sight in the
> cowlick:
>

I don't give a rat's ass what the Ida Dox drawing shows. It is not an
original material and can't prove anything one way or another. Fortunately
we have plenty of real evidence that unmistakably shows there was an
entrance wound in the BOH, your amateurish opinions not withstanding.

> http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TCdfw9dZX-I/AAAAAAAAEcg/DsMiY_zlogQ/s400/Ida+Dox+Drawing.jpg
>
> Of course, not a single LN will wonder why the bullet hole is seen in a
> drawing that was of a photo that did NOT show the same bullet hole.

The drawing was made many years after the original autopsy and can't
change the reality one way or another. Why you continue to obsess over it
is a mystery.

> The
> OBVIOUS answer is that the photo was altered to fool folks that the BOH
> had no injuries, and that the 'large hole' seen there by over 39 witnesses
> wasn't really there.
>

Oh it's obvious. That's the little red flag that tells us you are making a
statement for which you have no supporting evidence.

> Oh, BTW, the little red spot on the photo was discarded by Humes as
> meaning nothing and was not considered by him to be anything of any
> importance. Of course, he was the one who had to change his location of
> the bullet hole between the EOP and the cowlick!
>

I'm not competent to dispute the anything Humes had to say. Of course
neither are you. The difference is that one of us realizes that.

[Anthony Marsh]

The difference is that I have the autiopsy photos and X-rays. You don't.
There is no bullet hole in the back of the head. What Humes saw was a dab
of tissue on top of the hair which he thought was brain matter oozing out
of a bullet hole. There is no bullet hole there on the X-rays.

No Forensic Pathologist puts a bullet hole near the EOP.

[Anthony Marsh]

Oh well, that's better. So they were HIDING the bullet hole under his
hair!

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/2/2017 3:51 PM, Beyond Wikipedia wrote:
>
>>

Do you know what the skull is? SHow me the bullet hole on the skull.
Or is this a magic bullet that only makes a hole in the scalp and stops
at the skull?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/2/2017 3:39 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 4:57:04 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 11:01:11 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>>> JOHN CORBETT SAID:
>>>
>>> Keep looking at one piece of the puzzle at a time. No wonder you
>>> [Chris/Mainframe] remain confused. You are either unwilling or unable to
>>> put the pieces together.
>>>
>>>
>>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>>
>>> Bingo!
>>>
>>> ISOLATING THE EVIDENCE: A CONSPIRACIST'S FORTE....
>>>
>>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/isolating-evidence.html
>>
>>
>>
>> DVP said: Bingo....
>>
>>
>> Chris Said: Because he failed to read the complete post where Chris
>> replied about using the 'big picture' which still did NOT supply a name to
>> blame as the shooter of the MC rifle from the 6th floor window. Putting
>> all the little pieces of 'evidence' that bd tried to make look like
>> something, it still doesn't make a picture of anything, and doesn't blame
>> anyone for being a shooter.
>>
>> And as usual, bd tries to save DVP's butt and fails again.
>>
>
> It's really simple, Chris. If one constructs a scenario that incorporates
> ALL the evidence, the only plausible conclusion one can reach is that

How can we incorporate all the evidence when you have destroyed so much
of it.

> Oswald was the assassin. Whether you believe he was acting on behalf of
> others or not, that is the inevitable conclusion. If it were possible to
> construct a plausible scenario from the entire body of evidence what
> didn't include Oswald as the shooter, someone would have done it by now.

Been there, done that.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/2/2017 8:55 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 9:12:18 PM UTC-4, FNG wrote:
>> Bigdog, the problem with your analogy is that the picture was painted
>> first as Oswald from the sixth floor shooting the MC at JFK.
>
> Yes, that is what the evidence clearly shows.
>
>> That picture
>> was then carved up into various jigsaw pieces and evidence to the contrary
>> was excluded or corrupted. And then the pieces were given to the WC to
>> reassemble...
>
> No evidence was excluded or corrupted. That is just the excuse the

You really are a denier. What about the damn limo?

[Anthony Marsh]

You mean like Drefyus? Have you ever heard of The Innocence Project?
You probably say they were really guilty and should be hanged before
they can get a new trial.

> shells from his rifle. Recovered bullets from his rifle. His prints on the

Show me all these recovered bullets. You talk big, but never produce the
evidence. Did you eat the evidence?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/2/2017 8:55 PM, bigdog wrote:

You are a Denialist.

>

[FNG]

"On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 9:12:18 PM UTC-4, FNG wrote:
> Bigdog, the problem with your analogy is that the picture was painted
> first as Oswald from the sixth floor shooting the MC at JFK.

Yes, that is what the evidence clearly shows."

As it was intended. That doesn't eliminate a cover-up.

"> That picture
> was then carved up into various jigsaw pieces and evidence to the contrary
> was excluded or corrupted. And then the pieces were given to the WC to
> reassemble...

No evidence was excluded or corrupted. That is just the excuse the
conspiracy hobbyists invented because they know the evidence as is
establishes Oswald's guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. The conspiracy
hobbyists want an alternate reality to believe so they are forced to
dismiss the real evidence and instead resort to assumptions, speculations,
and imagination to form their beliefs. It's been going on for over 50
years. No reason to think it will change."

How do you explain (not dismiss) Carolyn Arnold's statements? (I know you
have covered this in the past, but Ralph just brought it up on another
thread, but I'd rather engage with you while I prove him wrong.)

[mainframetech]

And yet all that list of stuff could be true and yet Oswald may have
given his rifle to someone he trusted, who then made him a 'patsy'. You
know that such things happen in human society. Or it's possible that he
was convinced to bring in the rifle and hide it for someone to look over,
or trace or buy, or who knows what. Then they might use it to implicate
Oswald in some crime. That is plausible. Using others as 'patsys' is
standard fare for humans. So what we have is you hugging the WCR to your
chest, and listening to it telling you what to think, and then spitting it
out as if it was your own independent thinking.

Your list of 'evidence' comes down to a few circumstantial items that
mention Oswald's name, but don't pin any crime on him.

> Fleeing the scene immediately after the
> shooting.

Well now, that may be because he got enough info to se that he was
being set up, and so he got out of there to keep his freedom and find the
person that may have got him into the problem in the first place. That
does NOT mean that he shot JFK, or even fired any bullets at anything.

> Fetching his revolver and killing the first cop to confront him.

Well now there's some doubt about that whole Tippit scenario.
Witnesses that were ignored and so forth.

> Trying to kill the cops who came to arrest him.

Now, you don't know that, almighty guru that you think you are, you
just can't read minds from 50 odd years ago. Whether Oswald had in mind
to kill a cop, which would be a very stupid move under the circumstances,
is doubtful. As well, the cop who supposedly put his hand on Oswald's
which was holding a gun, said that the hammer fell but he stopped it with
his thumb. So he can become a hero. That'll get him advanced and get
more pay for sure. We know that the hammer never fell on a bullet in his
gun. That was checked.

> Oh, yeah. Eyewitnesses who
> saw him fire the shots that killed JFK and JDT or saw him fleeing the
> scene of the JDT murder. His possession of the JDT murder weapon when
> arrested. Little things like that. But no amount of evidence could ever
> convince a dedicated Oswald denier such as yourself.

You seem to think that having some possible involvement in the killing
of Tippit means that Oswald was guilty of killing JFK, yet the 2 crimes
are far apart, and Oswald had no reason to kill JFK, since he thought of
him as a 'great leader' and said that he liked him. Amazing how you
always forget that, or dismiss it.

> You will invent
> excuses to dismiss each and every piece of that evidence and you don't
> care how many excuses you need. When you have to invent so many excuses,
> your denials become ludicrous. This is why Oswald deniers never want to
> look at the entire body of evidence. Just as it is with the evidence,
> their excuses to dismiss individual pieces of evidence can seem plausible
> in stand alone mode. When they have to be piled one on top of another, it
> becomes completely ridiculous.
>

As you know by now, I've tried to get you to assemble the pieces of
the puzzle that you insist will prove that Oswald killed JFK, and having
done so, I find nothing of the sort is true. When YOU tried to put the
pieces together you came up with nothing too.

> If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck,
> it's a duck. Oswald deniers see that and say "What duck?".

It's a silly phrase that doesn't prove anything, it's just used to try
and win arguments. When a group uses someone as a 'patsy' they have to
make that person look like a 'duck' walk like a duck and quack like a
duck, but they know it's NOT realty a duck. Their hope is the dumb idiots
will think it's a duck and their job will be done.

> > > > > > A rifle was found nearby among a bunch of
> > > > > > boxes of books, but that doesn't prove who fired a rifle out the window.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > No, it's just one more piece of the puzzle and when you put the pieces
> > > > > together you get a clear picture of the shooter.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You still haven't found anything that helps your beliefs. How can you
> > > > get a clear picture of a shooter, when you haven't a clue who left the
> > > > rifle?
> > >
> > > Just because you don't have a clue doesn't mean the rest of the world
> > > suffers from the same problem.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! Once again you fail to explain how the pieces go together and
> > implicate Oswald as the shooter who fired on the motorcade.
> >
>
> I can't explain it so a dedicated Oswald denier like you could understand.
> I'm sure I could explain it to your average fifth grader and they would
> have no problem comprehending it.
>

Well, that phony excuse has failed. You can't explain it. Well, I
believe that.

> > > > Or do you start with a belief and then try to fit evidence to it?
> > > >
> > >
> > > No, that is the conspiracy hobbyist approach. When one follows the
> > > evidence and connects the dots, it invariably leads to the conclusion that
> > > Oswald was the assassin.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Ah! Then you'll be able to follow the dots for us, so that we can
> > understand how your little list of 'evidence' shows anyone as the shooter.
> >
>
> The dots have been laid out for you. You just refuse to follow them. I
> can't help you.
>

I believe you that you can't help. You can't even connect the dots!

While rumor and hearsay and all that can be used by a detective during
the hunt for the killer, when you think you've found him/her, then you
have to forge REAL evidence to convince a jury or judge that you've found
the real killer. Your little list might get some foolish people to accept
as rumor or suggestive info, but in court it wouldn't amount to a hill of
beans. The proof is missing that Oswald was on the 6th floor pointing the
MC rifle out the window and firing it at the motorcade. he one witness
that might have said that discredited himself for many reasons.

> > > > > Conspiracy hobbyists
> > > > > never like to try to put the pieces together. They pick up one piece and
> > > > > saw this piece doesn't prove anything. Of course it doesn't by itself. You
> > > > > have to put the pieces of the puzzle together and when you do that you
> > > > > have a clear picture of Oswald. The pieces don't go together any other way
> > > > > and there is no one else in the picture.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think that may be a reasonable idea. So taking all you've said above
> > > > in a 'big picture'....how does it prove who fired the MC rifle out the
> > > > window? I think what you want just isn't there. But you're welcome to
> > > > try and explain it to us.
> > > >
> > >
> > > There is simply no way all that evidence would be pointing to Oswald if he
> > > was not the assassin. His rifle, his prints on the rifle, the rifle bag,
> > > the boxes in the nest. Fibers from his shirt on the butt plate of the
> > > rifle. Shells from that rifle on the floor of the sniper's nest. A
> > > fragmented bullet from that rifle on the floor of the limo and another
> > > whole bullet found at the hospital where the victims were taken.
> >
> > Amazing how you actually think that there is no scenario that covers
> > that list of circumstantial stuff without Oswald being the shooter.
>
> Why is that amazing when in over 53 years nobody has been able to come up
> with one.
>

WRONG! I've come up with a number of them, and one of them is real.
Stop giving out false info.

> > I
> > described the scenario in a book called "The Men on the Sixth Floor" by
> > Collum and Sample, and they say that their source was there and was part
> > of the group on the 6th floor.
>
> Well gee, if they said it, it must be true. You can't write something in a
> book that isn't true.
>

h challenge that you made above was not to solve the case, but to come
up with a scenario, which was done. Don't try to change the subject so
you can escape the truth, You lose again.

The rest of this is repetitive, so I'm outa here.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Simply amazing that you can sit right there and say that when you
haven't got a pot to pee in as far as evidence goes. Your case is weak to
the point of falling apart.

Chris

[bigdog]

None of your scenarios incorporate the evidence. Instead they incorporate
your excuses for dismissing evidence. CE399 was planted, the autopsy
report was falsified, the Zapruder film was altered, Brennan lied, etc.
etc. You are forced to do that for so many pieces of evidence that your
scenarios become laughable. Any straight forward explanation of the
evidence inevitably leads to the conclusion that Oswald was the
assassin.

>
>
>

> > If it were possible to
> > construct a plausible scenario from the entire body of evidence what
> > didn't include Oswald as the shooter, someone would have done it by now.
>
>
>
> Yup. Me. And I showed it all to you, and you couldn't handle it.
>

I just explained why you haven't.

>
>
>
> > Instead, the Oswald deniers are forced to either attack the evidence
> > piecemeal or invent excuses to dismiss many of the pieces of evidence. If
> > you dispute that, all you have to do to prove me wrong is come up with an
> > alternative scenario that incorporates the entire body of evidence and
> > doesn't require one to dismiss large amounts of evidence. The other option
> > would be to point to someone else who has come up with such a scenario.
> > Which ever option you choose, I wish you luck. You're going to need it.
>
>
>
> WRONG! I've already done it, and it fits, not one scenario but a few.

Really. In Conspiracyland, just how many different ways did the
assassination happen?

> Sadly, you have such a major love attachment to the WCR that no matter
> what I prove to you won't mater, because you'll dismiss it in favor of the
> theories in the WCR.
>

I have major love attachment to historical truth and the WC gave that to
us. It has required no revisions since it was first published and it never
will. Conspiracy books on the other hand come and go like changing
fashions.

[bigdog]

I hope you get as big a chuckle out of his "proof" as the rest of us have.

[mainframetech]

On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 2:23:57 PM UTC-4, Amy Joyce wrote:

There are 3 witnesses to the 2 men or 2 men with a with a gun in the
6th floor window. The first is John Powell who was in the 6th floor of
the jail across the way from the TSBD. The second was Ruby Henderson, and
it was stated that

"She said she does not know what floor of the building the men were on,
but doesn't recall seeing anyone on a floor higher up than the one they
were on." Which translated out to the 6th floor, since no one was seen on
the 7th floor, but were seen on the 6th.

That third witness is the most controversial to many LNs because they
need to somehow discredit the proof of more than one man on the 6th.
Carolyn Walther said she saw 2 men with a gun on the third or fourth
floor. Since there was no one that saw anyone on those floors with a gun,
and since many saw a man with a gun on the 6th floor, it is assumed that
she meant the 6th floor and made a mistake on the floor.

If Walther had been right, then there were 2 teams of shooters waiting
for the motorcade in the TSBD, a fact that would be disputed by most
people.

To fit with the witnesses to 2 men with a gun on the 6th floor, there
is a book detailing the experience of an American Indian Lawrence Loy
Factor, who stated he was one of the men on the 6th floor with others, led
by a man he called 'Mac' Wallace. The book is called "The Men on the
Sixth Floor" by Collum and Sample. Factor was interviews 2 times by the
authors up a couple weeks before he died. He said he was given $10,000 to
participate and was checked as to his accuracy with a rifle. He stated
that a woman Ruth Martinez was with them and used a walkie-talkie to
signal other shooting teams around Dealey Plaza to begin shooting
together.

The scenario in the book matches the information from witnesses that
said there were 2 men with a gun in the 6th floor of the TSBD just before
the shooting.

Chris

[bigdog]

The stretcher bullet is the single bullet, aka CE399. Having passed
through two torsos and a JBC's wrist it had been slowed enough that it
only made a shallow penetration into is thigh and worked it's way out.
When they cutoff his pants in ER2 the bullet was probably in the pants and
ended up on the stretcher.

Critics point to the condition of the bullet and say there is no way a
bullet could have done all that damage and come out "pristine". That is
true. However the bullet was far from pristine. It was flattened on one
side of its base and slightly bent. The critics point to examples of
bullets fired directly into bone and they all are badly deformed at the
nose of the bullet. CE399 wasn't fired directly into bone. It hit nothing
but soft flesh in going through JFK's body. When a bullet passes through
soft tissue it destabilizes and begins to yaw upon exiting. This has been
repeated experimentally numerous times. The entry wound on JBC's back is
elongated indicating he was hit by a bullet that was tumbling. The first
bone it hit was Connally's rib cage and from there it struck his wrist
bone before deflecting into his left thigh. One of those bone strikes, my
guess the wrist bone, is what caused the bullet to flatten at the base and
become bent. It's really simple. What ever part of the bullet hits a hard
is going to flatten. In most cases, it is the nose that first strikes a
hard object but in this case because the bullet tumbled before hitting
anything hard it was the base of the bullet that got flattened.

[bigdog]

Nobody was hiding anything. The photos that have been leaked to the public
are just a small subset of all the photos taken during the autopsy.
Different photos were taken to show different things. I'm not sure what
that particular photo was supposed to show but I doubt it was the entry
wound. That wound likely showed up in other photos taken which the public
has never seen.

To me one of the legitimate criticisms of the WC is that the autopsy
materials were not included in either the report or the 26 volumes of
supporting evidence. It certainly would have cleared up a lot of these
issues had that been done. As I understand it, that was Warren's call and
I'm sure he did it out of a sense of decency but in hindsight it has
allowed critics to speculate about just what the autopsy showed since they
are unwilling to accept the verdict of the autopsy team.

[Anthony Marsh]

Even the janitor is competent to dipute Humes. DId YOU really fall for
his Ice Bullet Theory? Please tell me you're not THAT stupid.

[Anthony Marsh]

That is wrong. Humes said the red dot was a blood clot.
Why don't you know the basic testimony?

[OHLeeRedux]

Anthony Marsh
- show quoted text -

The difference is that I have the autiopsy photos and X-rays. You don't.

You have what you downloaded from the Interet, the same things that
everyone with a computer can access.

[bigdog]

On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 8:47:54 PM UTC-4, FNG wrote:
> "On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 9:12:18 PM UTC-4, FNG wrote:
> > Bigdog, the problem with your analogy is that the picture was painted
> > first as Oswald from the sixth floor shooting the MC at JFK.
>
> Yes, that is what the evidence clearly shows."
>
> As it was intended. That doesn't eliminate a cover-up.
>

There is no evidence of a cover up.

>
> "> That picture
> > was then carved up into various jigsaw pieces and evidence to the contrary
> > was excluded or corrupted. And then the pieces were given to the WC to
> > reassemble...
>
> No evidence was excluded or corrupted. That is just the excuse the
> conspiracy hobbyists invented because they know the evidence as is
> establishes Oswald's guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. The conspiracy
> hobbyists want an alternate reality to believe so they are forced to
> dismiss the real evidence and instead resort to assumptions, speculations,
> and imagination to form their beliefs. It's been going on for over 50
> years. No reason to think it will change."
>
> How do you explain (not dismiss) Carolyn Arnold's statements? (I know you
> have covered this in the past, but Ralph just brought it up on another
> thread, but I'd rather engage with you while I prove him wrong.)

Carolyn Arnold gave two contemporaneous statements to the FBI about what
she saw. One of them was summarized in an FBI report and it indicates she
told them she MIGHT have seen Oswald near the door on the first floor some
time before the shooting. Very vague. In the other statement which she
signed there was no mention of seeing Oswald in the lunchroom. Fast
forward to 1978 if I remember right. Suddenly her memory is much more
vivid. She not only "remembers" where she saw him but about what time she
saw him. I'm not claiming she was lying. I think she believed she was
telling the truth. The problem is that people do develop false memories
and those memories are often influenced by things a person learns later
on.

[bigdog]

You can imagine all sorts of things if you don't limit yourself to what
the evidence shows. There is no evidence that anybody duped Oswald into
bringing his rifle into work. The patsy angle doesn't explain why Oswald's
shirt fibers are on the butt plate of the rifle. It doesn't explain why
his fingerprints were on the TOPS of the boxes in the sniper's nest
oriented exactly as they would be if he were looking down Elm St. Just a
coincidence I suppose. It doesn't explain why he fled the scene. It
doesn't explain why he went to fetch his revolver. It doesn't explain why
he would kill the first cop that confronted him and the officers who were
arresting him. In short the body of evidence is exactly what we would
expect it to be if Oswald were the assassin. Everything we would expect to
be in that body of evidence is there. There is nothing in the body of
evidence that doesn't fit with Oswald being the assassin. The body of
evidence is what it is because Oswald was the assassin. Nobody can force
you to believe that but it doesn't allow you an alternative reality
because there is no such thing.

> You
> know that such things happen in human society. Or it's possible that he
> was convinced to bring in the rifle and hide it for someone to look over,
> or trace or buy, or who knows what. Then they might use it to implicate
> Oswald in some crime.

It's possible that herds of pink unicorns are roaming the ground beneath
the clouds of Venus but I wouldn't bet on it. If you want to believe
things based entirely on faith that is your choice. I prefer to stick with
what the evidence tells us happened.

> That is plausible.

Not given the body of evidence which tells us Oswald brought the rifle in
to kill JFK with because all the evidence is exactly what we would expect
it to be had he done it.

> Using others as 'patsys' is
> standard fare for humans. So what we have is you hugging the WCR to your
> chest, and listening to it telling you what to think, and then spitting it
> out as if it was your own independent thinking.
>

I'm "hugging the WCR" because it is evidence based and the only
explanation of the crime ever presented that meets that criteria.

> Your list of 'evidence' comes down to a few circumstantial items that
> mention Oswald's name, but don't pin any crime on him.
>

A few? As in the entire body of evidence. 53 pieces of such evidence by
Bugliosi's count.

>
>
>
> > Fleeing the scene immediately after the
> > shooting.
>
>
>
>
> Well now, that may be because he got enough info to se that he was
> being set up, and so he got out of there to keep his freedom and find the
> person that may have got him into the problem in the first place. That
> does NOT mean that he shot JFK, or even fired any bullets at anything.
>

Maybe. Could be. What if. The building blocks of your belief system. No
evidence in that mix.

>
>
>
> > Fetching his revolver and killing the first cop to confront him.
>
>
>
> Well now there's some doubt about that whole Tippit scenario.
> Witnesses that were ignored and so forth.
>

There is zero doubt about that. Lot's of witnesses and rock solid forensic
evidence tell us that with certainty.

>
>
> > Trying to kill the cops who came to arrest him.
>
>
>
>
> Now, you don't know that, almighty guru that you think you are, you
> just can't read minds from 50 odd years ago.

Having just killed one cop why would we doubt the word of the arresting
officer who said Oswald tried to kill him? Having already killed two
people what reason is there to think Oswald would stop there?

> Whether Oswald had in mind
> to kill a cop, which would be a very stupid move under the circumstances,
> is doubtful. As well, the cop who supposedly put his hand on Oswald's
> which was holding a gun, said that the hammer fell but he stopped it with
> his thumb.

No, he said the webbing between his thumb and forefinger slipped between
the hammer and the firing pin preventing it from firing the gun.

> So he can become a hero. That'll get him advanced and get
> more pay for sure. We know that the hammer never fell on a bullet in his
> gun. That was checked.
>

And just what is your evidence that MacDonald lied about the event? What
is your evidence he was motivated by a pay increase? The same evidence on
which you base all of your beliefs. Zero. Zip. Nada. You dreamed it up. If
you can conceive it, you will believe it.

>
>
>
>
> > Oh, yeah. Eyewitnesses who
> > saw him fire the shots that killed JFK and JDT or saw him fleeing the
> > scene of the JDT murder. His possession of the JDT murder weapon when
> > arrested. Little things like that. But no amount of evidence could ever
> > convince a dedicated Oswald denier such as yourself.
>
>
>
>
> You seem to think that having some possible involvement in the killing
> of Tippit

Having some involvement? As in he shot Tippit five times? Give me a break.

> means that Oswald was guilty of killing JFK,

No it is just one more piece in the puzzle all pointing to Oswald's guilt
in the assassination.

> yet the 2 crimes
> are far apart, and Oswald had no reason to kill JFK, since he thought of
> him as a 'great leader' and said that he liked him. Amazing how you
> always forget that, or dismiss it.
>

Oswald had a reason. We just don't know what it was. Nor do we need to.
Mark Chapman was a fan of John Lennon. He got his autograph a few hours
before he shot him dead. Why would you think a screwball's mind works like
a normal person's?

>
>
>
> > You will invent
> > excuses to dismiss each and every piece of that evidence and you don't
> > care how many excuses you need. When you have to invent so many excuses,
> > your denials become ludicrous. This is why Oswald deniers never want to
> > look at the entire body of evidence. Just as it is with the evidence,
> > their excuses to dismiss individual pieces of evidence can seem plausible
> > in stand alone mode. When they have to be piled one on top of another, it
> > becomes completely ridiculous.
> >
>
>
>
> As you know by now, I've tried to get you to assemble the pieces of
> the puzzle that you insist will prove that Oswald killed JFK, and having
> done so, I find nothing of the sort is true. When YOU tried to put the
> pieces together you came up with nothing too.
>

The pieces of the puzzle were put together by the WC a long time ago. I
have summarized for you just some of the key pieces of evidence of his
guilt in the assassination numerous times and all you do in response is
offer excuses to dismiss those pieces. One at a time. You've never been
able to explain why ALL of that evidence is pointing at Oswald if he were
truly innocent.

>
>
> > If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck,
> > it's a duck. Oswald deniers see that and say "What duck?".
>
>
>
> It's a silly phrase that doesn't prove anything, it's just used to try
> and win arguments.

It wins lots of arguments. Like this one.

> When a group uses someone as a 'patsy' they have to
> make that person look like a 'duck' walk like a duck and quack like a
> duck, but they know it's NOT realty a duck. Their hope is the dumb idiots
> will think it's a duck and their job will be done.
>

Since all the evidence points to one man, in order to frame him so
thoroughly that group would have to control ALL the evidence. Evidence was
gathered by numerous federal and local law enforcement agencies. Three
departments of the federal government, Justice, Treasury, and Defense, as
well as the local law enforcement took part in the investigation. The
Warren Commission was comprised of members from all three branches of the
federal government. For key pieces of forensic evidence, such as
fingerprinting and ballistics, the WC turned to other state and local
crime labs to offer second opinions and the concurred with the findings of
the FBI. Just what group was so powerful that they could not only martial
all of those forces to frame poor little old Lee Harvey Oswald but also
knew ahead of time they would be able to do so. Because in order to
believe that Oswald was framed, ALL of the evidence would have to be
fraudulent and all of the above entities would have to be onboard with the
cover up. Either that happened or Oswald shot JFK. One of those choices is
plausible and one is not.

>
>
>
> > > > > > > A rifle was found nearby among a bunch of
> > > > > > > boxes of books, but that doesn't prove who fired a rifle out the window.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, it's just one more piece of the puzzle and when you put the pieces
> > > > > > together you get a clear picture of the shooter.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You still haven't found anything that helps your beliefs. How can you
> > > > > get a clear picture of a shooter, when you haven't a clue who left the
> > > > > rifle?
> > > >
> > > > Just because you don't have a clue doesn't mean the rest of the world
> > > > suffers from the same problem.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! Once again you fail to explain how the pieces go together and
> > > implicate Oswald as the shooter who fired on the motorcade.
> > >
> >
> > I can't explain it so a dedicated Oswald denier like you could understand.
> > I'm sure I could explain it to your average fifth grader and they would
> > have no problem comprehending it.
> >
>
>
> Well, that phony excuse has failed. You can't explain it. Well, I
> believe that.
>

It was first explained by the WCR many years ago and you have steadfastly
refused to read it. I have given you the Reader's Digest version of the
WCR many times and each and every time you counter with your excuses to
dismiss the evidence of Oswald's guilt just as you are doing now.

>
>
>
>
> > > > > Or do you start with a belief and then try to fit evidence to it?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > No, that is the conspiracy hobbyist approach. When one follows the
> > > > evidence and connects the dots, it invariably leads to the conclusion that
> > > > Oswald was the assassin.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ah! Then you'll be able to follow the dots for us, so that we can
> > > understand how your little list of 'evidence' shows anyone as the shooter.
> > >
> >
> > The dots have been laid out for you. You just refuse to follow them. I
> > can't help you.
> >
>
>
>
> I believe you that you can't help. You can't even connect the dots!

That was done a long time ago.

>
> While rumor and hearsay and all that can be used by a detective during
> the hunt for the killer, when you think you've found him/her, then you
> have to forge REAL evidence to convince a jury or judge that you've found
> the real killer. Your little list might get some foolish people to accept
> as rumor or suggestive info, but in court it wouldn't amount to a hill of
> beans. The proof is missing that Oswald was on the 6th floor pointing the
> MC rifle out the window and firing it at the motorcade. he one witness
> that might have said that discredited himself for many reasons.
>

The evidence is all on my side of this argument. The only things in your
tool box are imagination, speculation, and assumption. You imagine Oswald
was duped into sneaking his rifle into the TSBD. You speculate that all
the entities taking part in the investigation conspired to frame Oswald.
Then you assume all of those things you imagined and speculated really did
happen.

>
>
> > > > > > Conspiracy hobbyists
> > > > > > never like to try to put the pieces together. They pick up one piece and
> > > > > > saw this piece doesn't prove anything. Of course it doesn't by itself. You
> > > > > > have to put the pieces of the puzzle together and when you do that you
> > > > > > have a clear picture of Oswald. The pieces don't go together any other way
> > > > > > and there is no one else in the picture.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think that may be a reasonable idea. So taking all you've said above
> > > > > in a 'big picture'....how does it prove who fired the MC rifle out the
> > > > > window? I think what you want just isn't there. But you're welcome to
> > > > > try and explain it to us.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > There is simply no way all that evidence would be pointing to Oswald if he
> > > > was not the assassin. His rifle, his prints on the rifle, the rifle bag,
> > > > the boxes in the nest. Fibers from his shirt on the butt plate of the
> > > > rifle. Shells from that rifle on the floor of the sniper's nest. A
> > > > fragmented bullet from that rifle on the floor of the limo and another
> > > > whole bullet found at the hospital where the victims were taken.
> > >
> > > Amazing how you actually think that there is no scenario that covers
> > > that list of circumstantial stuff without Oswald being the shooter.
> >
> > Why is that amazing when in over 53 years nobody has been able to come up
> > with one.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! I've come up with a number of them, and one of them is real.
> Stop giving out false info.
>

No you haven't. All of your scenarios require you to dismiss evidence.
CE399 was planted. The AR was falsified. The Zapruder film was altered.
Brennan lied. Etcetera, etcetera. Yada, yada, yada.

>
>
>
> > > I
> > > described the scenario in a book called "The Men on the Sixth Floor" by
> > > Collum and Sample, and they say that their source was there and was part
> > > of the group on the 6th floor.
> >
> > Well gee, if they said it, it must be true. You can't write something in a
> > book that isn't true.
> >
>
>
>
> h challenge that you made above was not to solve the case, but to come
> up with a scenario, which was done. Don't try to change the subject so
> you can escape the truth, You lose again.
>

The scenario they presented doesn't incorporate any of the evidence. It is
based entirely on unsubstantiated claims.

> The rest of this is repetitive, so I'm outa here.
>

Good move.

[mainframetech]

LOL! The problem isn't that I can't find any bullet hole in the BOH.
The problem is that YOU can't find it with a good quality photo of the
BOH! My question to you was for you to find the bullet hole in the BOH,
which I know doesn't exist. YOU don't know that, so you keep talking like
there is something there even when there isn't. You're in a terrible
state. You can't see the bullet hole in the forehead/temple area, and you
think there is a bullet hole in the BOH.

> >
> > And if you're having a hard time finding the bullet hole (we know
> > that's a tough one for you), here's a drawing by Ida Dox of that photo and
> > there's that roguish bullet hole, hiding right in plain sight in the
> > cowlick:
> >
>
> I don't give a rat's ass what the Ida Dox drawing shows. It is not an
> original material and can't prove anything one way or another. Fortunately
> we have plenty of real evidence that unmistakably shows there was an
> entrance wound in the BOH, your amateurish opinions not withstanding.
>

WRONG! The Ida Dox drawing proves something alright, but you don't
want to admit it! That drawing was commissioned by the HSCA, an official
body, yet they had to direct her to add a bullet wound that wasn't there
in the original photo (which is good enough quality to see the hole)
proving that we have an official cover up. So either the photo that was
copied was altered and incorrect, or there was no bullet hole there to
start with. Amazing how you always try to duck back away from the
OBVIOUS!

Now is the time for you to show me the proof you just spoke of, that
"unmistakably shows there was an entrance wound in the BOH". Of course,
you can't do that and will claim that it's there in the archives that we
can't see. Baloney! Quote any person that viewed the evidence in the
archives that actually saw the bullet hole in the BOH photo. ANY photo.
Naturally you can't do it, yet you claim there is such a photo. The
photos that mattered were removed from evidence early in the case. The
'leaked' photo wee put out to shut some people up and to 'prove' that the
BOH didn't have a major 'large hole' which was an exit from a bullet that
struck in the forehead/temple area.

But the person that put out the photos must have been in a hurry,
because they forgot a lot of things. An example is that they let the
photo get out that shows a clear bullet hole in the forehead/temple area.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TCdfw9dZX-I/AAAAAAAAEcg/DsMiY_zlogQ/s400/Ida+Dox+Drawing.jpg

> >
> > Of course, not a single LN will wonder why the bullet hole is seen in a
> > drawing that was of a photo that did NOT show the same bullet hole.
>
> The drawing was made many years after the original autopsy and can't
> change the reality one way or another. Why you continue to obsess over it
> is a mystery.
>

Ah! So you have NO opposing facts to quote for us? No proof that
there is no problem with a copy of the photo showing a bullet hole when
the photo copied shows none? And please don't try your phony story that
the photo was of bad quality. Looking at it, you can see clearly there
are no holes in the BOH that could be an entry. Even if Boswell pulled
the scalp forward in that photo (he didn't) it would only make the bullet
hole even more clear to see if it were there. What it sounds like is
you're running away as fast as you can from having to prove anything about
any entry hole in the BOH where Humes and Boswell stated it was. And
Humes was caught lying and had to correct himself and relocate the
supposed wound in the BOH that wasn't there.

> > The
> > OBVIOUS answer is that the photo was altered to fool folks that the BOH
> > had no injuries, and that the 'large hole' seen there by over 39 witnesses
> > wasn't really there.
> >
>
> Oh it's obvious. That's the little red flag that tells us you are making a
> statement for which you have no supporting evidence.
>

LOL! You're so used to repeating yourself that you didn't think that
one through before you blatted it out! The proof is the photo we're
discussing right now! It's plenty good quality to tell that there is NO
bullet hole in it, and that the HSCA faked a drawing showing a bullet hole
when they thought no one would ever see the real photo. The idiot that
'leaked' the photos didn't clean them up properly and left the proof for
anyone to see.

> > Oh, BTW, the little red spot on the photo was discarded by Humes as
> > meaning nothing and was not considered by him to be anything of any
> > importance. Of course, he was the one who had to change his location of
> > the bullet hole between the EOP and the cowlick!
> >
>
> I'm not competent to dispute the anything Humes had to say. Of course
> neither are you. The difference is that one of us realizes that.

WRONG! Running away won't be allowed here. Humes made statements to
the effect that the little red spot meant nothing to him, who supposedly
had seen the body and the head at autopsy. I have no need to make any
assumptions of conclusions about what Humes says, Here's the story:

"Gazing together at the photograph showing the all but unblemished rear of
JFK’s skull, Humes, with Boswell sitting alongside him, responded:
“I don’t know what that [red spot] is. No. 1, I can assure
you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no
defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I don’t
know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don’t, I
just don’t know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance.”

So both Humes and Boswell concur that the red spot was nothing.
Corroboration. So the question remains open to you...where is the bullet
hole in the BOH that you think is an entry? Or why not admit that the
photo of the BOH has been altered so it doesn't show the 'large hole' in
the BOH which was an exit for the entry in the forehead/temple area.

Chris

[bigdog]

Never has so much irony been crammed into such a short post.

[Anthony Marsh]

Or maybe Oswald brought his rifle in to give to the assassin.

> know that such things happen in human society. Or it's possible that he
> was convinced to bring in the rifle and hide it for someone to look over,
> or trace or buy, or who knows what. Then they might use it to implicate

Well, it was Take Your Rifle to Work Week.
Show and Tell.

> Oswald in some crime. That is plausible. Using others as 'patsys' is
> standard fare for humans. So what we have is you hugging the WCR to your
> chest, and listening to it telling you what to think, and then spitting it
> out as if it was your own independent thinking.
>

I seriously doubt that any of the WC defenders here have actually read it.

> Your list of 'evidence' comes down to a few circumstantial items that
> mention Oswald's name, but don't pin any crime on him.
>

Law enforcement loves to use circumstantial evidence to frame people.
Just pick someone at random and if they don't have a solid alibi they
are automatically guilty. Especially if they are black.

>
>
>
>> Fleeing the scene immediately after the
>> shooting.
>

Givens. They put out an APB on Givens. And Euins said the shooter was a
black man.

>
>
>
> Well now, that may be because he got enough info to se that he was
> being set up, and so he got out of there to keep his freedom and find the
> person that may have got him into the problem in the first place. That
> does NOT mean that he shot JFK, or even fired any bullets at anything.
>

He didn't need any info. He was paranoid.

>
>
>
>> Fetching his revolver and killing the first cop to confront him.
>
>
>
> Well now there's some doubt about that whole Tippit scenario.
> Witnesses that were ignored and so forth.
>
>
>
>> Trying to kill the cops who came to arrest him.
>
>
>
>
> Now, you don't know that, almighty guru that you think you are, you
> just can't read minds from 50 odd years ago. Whether Oswald had in mind
> to kill a cop, which would be a very stupid move under the circumstances,

Well, I'm not an expert on intent, but I tend to think that when someone
pulls out a gun and points it at you and pulls the trigger, that means
he wants to kill you. Unless he was aiming the gun up in the air then
it's just to scare you.

> is doubtful. As well, the cop who supposedly put his hand on Oswald's
> which was holding a gun, said that the hammer fell but he stopped it with
> his thumb. So he can become a hero. That'll get him advanced and get

Why do you keep saying silly things? Buy a book on anatomy. Or Google
it. The web of skin between the fingers is not called a thumb.

The area between the thumb and index finger (digitus secundus manus,
pointer finger, or forefinger), is called the thenar space. The skin is
called webbing. In other sources it is called thumb webbing. The muscles
at the base of the thumb form the thenar eminence.

http://image.slidesharecdn.com/hand-infections-130123205246-phpapp01/95/hand-infections-37-638.jpg?cb=1358974577

> more pay for sure. We know that the hammer never fell on a bullet in his
> gun. That was checked.
>

Learn something about guns. The hammer never falls on the bullet.
It falls on the primer. It can leave a dent without igniting it.




Copyright 2015 ?? Gilbert Jesus. All rights reserved.
HOME / MENU

Why on earth would Boyd have to identify cartridges that he had already
identified two months earlier ?

The absence of copper on the bullets speaks for itself, so I'd like to
comment on the corrosion on the shells. My experience has taught me that
such corrosion is caused by moisture being trapped between the leather
holder and the shell and it occurs over an extended length of time.

If you look at the bullets in the gun belt, you can see that the shells
are covered by the holder in exactly the same position as the red box above.

The corrosion reveals that the shells were in either a bullet slide (
above, top right ) or a gun belt ( above, bottom right ) for a long
period of time.

In fact, no evidence exists that Oswald either owned a bullet slide or a
gun belt and neither was ever found by authorities among Oswald's
possessions.

But such items WERE used by police. In addition, the unfired bullets
allegedly found on Oswald's person were .38 Specials, the choice among
police departments.

During testimony regarding the unfired .38 rounds, Warren Commissioner
Hale Boggs seems to take a line of questioning suggesting that police
had planted the bullets on Oswald. Giving the testimony is the FBI's
Firearms ID expert Cortlandt Cunningham:

Representative BOGGS. Is this a police weapon as well?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; and a very good one. Not in that particular
caliber. In other words, the caliber----

Representative BOGGS. That is what I meant.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. 38 S&W is not a popular cartridge in this country. The
.38 Special is.

Representative BOGGS. 38 Special is?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. That cartridge.

Representative BOGGS. With police forces?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We use it. Most of your larger police forces use the .38
Special. It is a better cartridge.

( 3 H 478 )

Then Commission counsel Eisenberg changes the subject before this line
of questioning can continue.

There appears to be more problems with these unfired rounds. Like so
much of the other evidence in this case, there's a problem with the
chain of custody. During his testimony, Dallas Police Detective Elmer
Boyd testified that he had removed the unfired rounds from Oswald's
pants pocket as they were getting ready to enter the showup room for the
first lineup.

The first lineup was at 4pm. Oswald was arrested at 1:47pm. Why did the
Dallas Police wait over two hours to search Oswald's person ?

Boyd testified that he removed the rounds from Oswald's pocket and put
them in his own. He further stated that he marked the shells when he
returned to the office and identified those shells ( CE 592 ) in his
testimony by his mark. ( 7 H 126 )

But what happened to them next is interesting. Boyd testifies that he
turned them over to "someone in the police department":

Mr. BALL. And turned them over to whom?

Mr. BOYD. Well, let me see---it seems like we had a drawer there where
we had some more property, where we put it all in there you know, where
they had the other stuff--I have forgotten just exactly where it would be.

Mr. BALL. You turned them over to someone in the police department?

Mr. BOYD. Yes, sir.

( 7 H 126 )

Who that "someone" was is anybody's guess. For Boyd to testify that
Police had "a drawer" where all the evidence was kept but he "forgot"
where it was located sounds dubious. All evidence in the case should
have been secured in a single location and kept under the tightest
security.Anyone and everyone who handled the evidence should have marked
it and such handling should have been documented with the date, time and
signature of the person handling it.

But this was not apparently done.

Detective Richard Simms, Boyd's partner who was present during the
search of Oswald, likewise could shed no light on what happened to the
unfired rounds:

Mr. BALL. And what about the five rounds of live ammunition, what did
you do with those?

Mr. SIMS. It was also placed in the envelope.

Mr. BALL. And turned over to whom--Fritz?

Mr. SIMS. I don't know who that was turned over to.

( 7 H 173 )

So here we have a serious problem with the chain of custody.

In fact, FBI Headquarters didn't receive the unfired rounds until
November 30th, eight days after the assassination.They received them
from the Dallas Office of the FBI. The FBI's expert, Cortlandt
Cunningham, testified that he had "no first hand knowledge" whether or
not the shells actually originated with the Dallas Police, but the FBI
report stated that they had:

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us who you received them from?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The Dallas office of the FBI. I have no first-hand
knowledge. I know that they were received from the Dallas Police
Department--but that was due to what I have read in an FBI investigative
report. The laboratory received them from the Dallas office on November 30.

( 3 H 460 )

How could Cunningham have expressed such doubt as to the origin of the
shells if Elmer Boyd had marked them as he said he did ? Shouldn't
Cunningham have seen Boyd's marks ? Shouldn't Cunningham have noted the
marks in his description of the shells ?

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you describe the bullets in Exhibit 592, Mr.
Cunningham?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; all five of them are Western .38 Special
cartridges, which are loaded with copper-coated lead bullets.

( 3 H 459 )

Period. That's it. No marks, no initials, just the shells.

Here's something else interesting.

Boyd gave his testimony identifying the unfired rounds on April 6, 1964
at 11am. That testimony is found in 7 H 119. Two months later, on June
12, 1964, Boyd is again shown the shells by Dallas FBI agent Bardwell
Odum and identifies his mark and the shells as the ones he took from Oswald.

"Five additional live cartridges were found in Oswald's pocket, all of
which were Western .38 Specials, loaded with copper-coated bullets.. The
Western and Remington-Peters .38 Special cartridges are virtually
identical--the copper coating on the Western bullets is not a full
jacket, but only a gilding metal, put on principally for sales appeal."

( Report, pg. 559 )

There are two main problems that I see with this evidence. The first is
that although the photograph is in color, there appears to be no copper
coating on the bullets. The second involves the corrosion on the shells.
Type your paragraph here.

Bullets in the pocket

PROOF THE DALLAS POLICE FALSIFIED EVIDENCE AGAINST OSWALD

"Insinuations that Dallas police officials and District Attorney Henry
M. Wade fabricated or altered evidence to establish the guilt of Oswald
were baseless." ( WC Report, pg. 654 )



The "Misfired" Round

Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested inside the Texas Theater at about 1:47 PM
on November 22, 1963 after a scuffle with police during which the police
allege that Oswald pulled a .38 caliber handgun and attempted to kill
the arresting officers.

One of those Dallas Police officers, N.M. McDonald, testified in Volume
3 page 301, that he examined the six unfired cartridges that were in the
chambers of Oswald's revolver after his arrest and that one of them had
a dent in the primer, indicating Oswald had pulled the trigger but the
weapon misfired.

Mr. BALL. And did you look at the ammunition in the revolver, the six
rounds in the cylinder?

Mr. McDONALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Did you notice anything unusual about any one of them?

Mr. McDONALD. I noticed on the primer of one of the shells it had an
indentation on it, but not one that had been fired or anything--not that
strong of an indentation.


On the next page, McDonald identifies one of the bullets in Commission
Exhibit 145 as the bullet with the indentation:

Mr. BALL. And there are two cartridges that have been marked as
Commission Exhibit 145 that the witness is also examining. Now, on one
of the cartridges that have come from Commission's Exhibit 145,
consisting of two cartridges, one of these you identify as a cartridge
with a dent in it?

Mr. McDONALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. How can you tell this?

Mr. McDONALD. From the center of this-of the primer there-it is a small
indentation, and some of the metal is blurred or not polished.

>
>
>
>
>> Oh, yeah. Eyewitnesses who
>> saw him fire the shots that killed JFK and JDT or saw him fleeing the
>> scene of the JDT murder. His possession of the JDT murder weapon when
>> arrested. Little things like that. But no amount of evidence could ever
>> convince a dedicated Oswald denier such as yourself.
>
>
>
>
> You seem to think that having some possible involvement in the killing
> of Tippit means that Oswald was guilty of killing JFK, yet the 2 crimes
> are far apart, and Oswald had no reason to kill JFK, since he thought of
> him as a 'great leader' and said that he liked him. Amazing how you
> always forget that, or dismiss it.
>

It is a common defect with WC defenders. Conflating. Trying to use one
thing to prove the other.

>
>
>
>> You will invent
>> excuses to dismiss each and every piece of that evidence and you don't
>> care how many excuses you need. When you have to invent so many excuses,
>> your denials become ludicrous. This is why Oswald deniers never want to
>> look at the entire body of evidence. Just as it is with the evidence,
>> their excuses to dismiss individual pieces of evidence can seem plausible
>> in stand alone mode. When they have to be piled one on top of another, it
>> becomes completely ridiculous.
>>
>
>
>
> As you know by now, I've tried to get you to assemble the pieces of
> the puzzle that you insist will prove that Oswald killed JFK, and having
> done so, I find nothing of the sort is true. When YOU tried to put the
> pieces together you came up with nothing too.
>
>
>
>> If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck,
>> it's a duck. Oswald deniers see that and say "What duck?".
>
>
>
> It's a silly phrase that doesn't prove anything, it's just used to try
> and win arguments. When a group uses someone as a 'patsy' they have to
> make that person look like a 'duck' walk like a duck and quack like a
> duck, but they know it's NOT realty a duck. Their hope is the dumb idiots
> will think it's a duck and their job will be done.
>

I think he's been binge watching Duck Dynasty all weekend. Nothing else
to do on the Labor Day weekend.

A dirty detective always has a cold piece to plant next to the body.

[bigdog]

None of the other prisoners said they saw what Powell did an Powell didn't
come forward with this story until 15 years later. Yet Chris finds him
credible. Too much.

> The second was Ruby Henderson, and
> it was stated that
>
> "She said she does not know what floor of the building the men were on,

This is the operative phrase.

> but doesn't recall seeing anyone on a floor higher up than the one they
> were on." Which translated out to the 6th floor, since no one was seen on
> the 7th floor, but were seen on the 6th.
>

No, it doesn't translate to any specific floor. If she couldn't see
anybody on the 6th or 7th floors that would make it the 5th floor. If
there had been only on such floor above where she saw the men, I think she
could have told us that more definitely.

> That third witness is the most controversial to many LNs because they
> need to somehow discredit the proof of more than one man on the 6th.
> Carolyn Walther said she saw 2 men with a gun on the third or fourth
> floor. Since there was no one that saw anyone on those floors with a gun,
> and since many saw a man with a gun on the 6th floor, it is assumed that
> she meant the 6th floor and made a mistake on the floor.

This is what Chris does with witnesses who don't tell stories that fit
with his beliefs. He changes their accounts around until they do. The key
phrase in the above statement is "it is assumed". That is mostly what
Chris does.

>
> If Walther had been right, then there were 2 teams of shooters waiting
> for the motorcade in the TSBD, a fact that would be disputed by most
> people.
>

What Chris refuses to consider is that she was wrong about the men she saw
on a lower floor having a gun. Her companion that day said Walther had
made no mention to her about seeing two men with a gun.

> To fit with the witnesses to 2 men with a gun on the 6th floor, there
> is a book detailing the experience of an American Indian Lawrence Loy
> Factor, who stated he was one of the men on the 6th floor with others, led
> by a man he called 'Mac' Wallace. The book is called "The Men on the
> Sixth Floor" by Collum and Sample. Factor was interviews 2 times by the
> authors up a couple weeks before he died. He said he was given $10,000 to
> participate and was checked as to his accuracy with a rifle. He stated
> that a woman Ruth Martinez was with them and used a walkie-talkie to
> signal other shooting teams around Dealey Plaza to begin shooting
> together.
>

Since the authors conveniently waited until their star witness had died
before publishing their book, they could make up just about any story they
wanted knowing he wasn't around to refute them. There is no corroboration
for this story. Even I Loy Factor did tell this story, he also named
Oswald as one of the gunman but neither the authors nor Chris want to
accept that. So they do what Chris always does with inconvenient
statements. He "corrects" them.

> The scenario in the book matches the information from witnesses that
> said there were 2 men with a gun in the 6th floor of the TSBD just before
> the shooting.
>

I bet I could find some outlier witnesses and make up a story that fits
what they said too. That would give me "corroboration".

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/3/2017 8:47 PM, FNG wrote:
> "On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 9:12:18 PM UTC-4, FNG wrote:
>> Bigdog, the problem with your analogy is that the picture was painted
>> first as Oswald from the sixth floor shooting the MC at JFK.
>
> Yes, that is what the evidence clearly shows."
>
> As it was intended. That doesn't eliminate a cover-up.
>

There would have to be a cover-up whether it was really a conspiracy or
not. Just the rumors that it was a conspiracy could spark WWIII.

>
> "> That picture
>> was then carved up into various jigsaw pieces and evidence to the contrary
>> was excluded or corrupted. And then the pieces were given to the WC to
>> reassemble...
>
> No evidence was excluded or corrupted. That is just the excuse the

Then please let me examine the chrome topping of the limo. And the hole
in the floor pan.

When I went to the National Archives to examine them the archivist told
me that the public would never be allowed to see them.

> conspiracy hobbyists invented because they know the evidence as is
> establishes Oswald's guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. The conspiracy
> hobbyists want an alternate reality to believe so they are forced to
> dismiss the real evidence and instead resort to assumptions, speculations,
> and imagination to form their beliefs. It's been going on for over 50
> years. No reason to think it will change."
>
> How do you explain (not dismiss) Carolyn Arnold's statements? (I know you
> have covered this in the past, but Ralph just brought it up on another
> thread, but I'd rather engage with you while I prove him wrong.)
>

Well, the best thing for them to do is LIE about what she said.
If they tell the truth about what she actually said it doesn't sound as
exciting.

>

[Anthony Marsh]

I think some people LIE about what she said.

[Anthony Marsh]

Silly boy, I'm the one who uploaded them to the InterNet.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, that is false. Connally's wound does not indicate tumbling. It was
not as elongated as WC liars claim.

> bone it hit was Connally's rib cage and from there it struck his wrist
> bone before deflecting into his left thigh. One of those bone strikes, my

Yeah, show me YOUR diagram of the path. Do you agree with this one?

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/6a00d83451cd3769e201156fbfc82f970c-500wi.jpg

> guess the wrist bone, is what caused the bullet to flatten at the base and
> become bent. It's really simple. What ever part of the bullet hits a hard

Then why can't you duplicate it?

> is going to flatten. In most cases, it is the nose that first strikes a
> hard object but in this case because the bullet tumbled before hitting
> anything hard it was the base of the bullet that got flattened.
>

Not true.

>
>

[FNG]

Excellent summary. Thank you.
Now I will show the truth of it. Listen for the ring (if you don't hear it, that's on you...):

I submit that her story has never changed and she has always told the
truth.

For the first statement that FBI agent Harrison on 11/26/1963 ascribed to
her to be accurate, would indicate that a 20 year old female that was 8
months pregnant with her first child chose for no particular reason to
lie/falsify a report on her first encounter with the FBI during an
official investigation into the assignation of the president.

Everyone (such as Ralph) are so concerned over the "revelation" that
Oswald could have been on the first floor (he wasn't) that they fail to
grasp the overplaying of the discredit/cover-up efforts of the last 2
statements:

"or any other information concerning OSWALD, whom she stated she did not
know and had merely seen him working in the building." She was not shown
this statement.

There was no reason for the FBI/cover-up artists/ the notorious
"they/them" to know that he frequently went to her to get change (and
would never take pennies). Oswald wouldn't have had any 'professional'
reason to interact with her and "they" used these last statements to
discredit her, fit the narrative, and insure she wouldn't be called to
testify. And it worked so well that the HSCA didn't call her in '78 even
though she clearly felt it was alright to speak that year. Though it may
not have been.

The March '64 statement was done in a Joe Friday "Just the facts, ma'am."
style:
6 specific questions were asked and 6 specific answers were given.
No embellishments were requested nor given. (And she is now a first time
mother to a 3 month old...)

The 12:25 estimate in '64 was in relation to what time she exited the
building (ie left through the glass double doors and stepped onto the
sidewalk). 12:15 is the estimate she gave for getting up from her desk.

Being pregnant and needing water and then working her way to the elevator
(being 8 months pregnant, she did not walk down the stairs in
heels...which elevator/who did she ride with? What route out did she
take?), it likely felt longer than it was, but maybe not.

She was not shown her previous '63 statement at this time. She may have
signed this '64 statement, though I haven't seen her signature anywhere.

When/what is the first evidence of her being outside?

'78 is the first time with any accuracy that her statement was
reported/recorded. At this point, her previous statements are shown to her
and the first ('63) is so ridiculous that she immediately and
spontaneously corrects it; which she likely would have done in '64 if it
had been shown to her. She refutes the '63 statement totally; in its
entirety (Sorry Ralph). She places Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom
shortly before the assassination; not on the 1st floor.


(Side question: how much do you remember about your actions the morning of
11-Sep-2001? Kinda sticks with you, doesn't it?)


To summarize: her story never changed.
She told the truth in '63 & what was reported was not what she said at all.
She told the truth in '64 & what was asked was so limited in scope to be
almost useless.
She told the truth in '78 & was not called before the HSCA to clear up any
discrepancies.

I'll move on to suppositions later, but the following die to lack of cite
should probably qualify:

I found somewhere in my journey (and now lack the cite) that the original
time stamp on the '63 statement had it saying that the observation (brief
glimpse) of Oswald on the first floor by the glass doors was possibly
12:37. It may have been a notation on the original notes of Harrison.

But if valid/validated then it was likely a statement made by someone else
relating to Oswald exiting the TSBD after his encounter with Baker in the
2ND floor lunchroom and then misattributed to Carolyn Arnold. It would
then have needed to be 'massaged' into its reported state.

[mainframetech]

Talking to (hopefully) an audience? We don't know what the other
prisoners had to say, since no one went to interview the from the FBI.
You haven't pointed out a fact. There are reasons for prisoners to avoid
getting involved in being witnesses in any trial.

> > The second was Ruby Henderson, and
> > it was stated that
> >
> > "She said she does not know what floor of the building the men were on,
>
> This is the operative phrase.
>
>
> > but doesn't recall seeing anyone on a floor higher up than the one they
> > were on." Which translated out to the 6th floor, since no one was seen on
> > the 7th floor, but were seen on the 6th.
> >
>
> No, it doesn't translate to any specific floor. If she couldn't see
> anybody on the 6th or 7th floors that would make it the 5th floor. If
> there had been only on such floor above where she saw the men, I think she
> could have told us that more definitely.
>

WRONG! You won't get anywhere by trying to say something that is
false. We know that no one was seen on the 7th floor, but were seen on
the 5th and 6th. And it won't do you any good trying to tell her what YOU
think she would have said. Deal with what we have as evidence, not your
made up junk. As to the lower floors like 4 or 3, if she saw men there for
all we know they were a second shooting team! Doubtful!

> > That third witness is the most controversial to many LNs because they
> > need to somehow discredit the proof of more than one man on the 6th.
> > Carolyn Walther said she saw 2 men with a gun on the third or fourth
> > floor. Since there was no one that saw anyone on those floors with a gun,
> > and since many saw a man with a gun on the 6th floor, it is assumed that
> > she meant the 6th floor and made a mistake on the floor.
>
> This is what Chris does with witnesses who don't tell stories that fit
> with his beliefs. He changes their accounts around until they do. The key
> phrase in the above statement is "it is assumed". That is mostly what
> Chris does.
>

Poor bd has to get his shots in to make up for a lack of evidence and
logic. My comments above stand.

> >
> > If Walther had been right, then there were 2 teams of shooters waiting
> > for the motorcade in the TSBD, a fact that would be disputed by most
> > people.
> >
>
> What Chris refuses to consider is that she was wrong about the men she saw
> on a lower floor having a gun. Her companion that day said Walther had
> made no mention to her about seeing two men with a gun.
>

So now YOU are trying to change a witness's statement!@ Amazing that
you come out saying others are doing it, then you do it when it suits you!
Give it up. You've lost it.

> > To fit with the witnesses to 2 men with a gun on the 6th floor, there
> > is a book detailing the experience of an American Indian Lawrence Loy
> > Factor, who stated he was one of the men on the 6th floor with others, led
> > by a man he called 'Mac' Wallace. The book is called "The Men on the
> > Sixth Floor" by Collum and Sample. Factor was interviews 2 times by the
> > authors up a couple weeks before he died. He said he was given $10,000 to
> > participate and was checked as to his accuracy with a rifle. He stated
> > that a woman Ruth Martinez was with them and used a walkie-talkie to
> > signal other shooting teams around Dealey Plaza to begin shooting
> > together.
> >
>
> Since the authors conveniently waited until their star witness had died
> before publishing their book, they could make up just about any story they
> wanted knowing he wasn't around to refute them.

WRONG! They didn't wait for him to die, he died a couple weeks after
they talked to him last. No way they could publish in that time, so
that's plain stupid.

> There is no corroboration
> for this story. Even I Loy Factor did tell this story, he also named
> Oswald as one of the gunman but neither the authors nor Chris want to
> accept that. So they do what Chris always does with inconvenient
> statements. He "corrects" them.
>

Factor did NOT list Oswald was one of the gunmen, he just said he was
there. And the authors after doing the interviews believe that Factor was
trying to lay off some of the blame by mentioning Oswald, and they were
not sure he was even there. That' the part bd keeps forgetting...just
coincidentally.

> > The scenario in the book matches the information from witnesses that
> > said there were 2 men with a gun in the 6th floor of the TSBD just before
> > the shooting.
> >
>
> I bet I could find some outlier witnesses and make up a story that fits
> what they said too. That would give me "corroboration".

However, you didn't, and I doubt you would be published.

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG! Let's see if we can get to the truth instead. Carolyn Arnold
was told in 1978 by reporters that she had made a statement saying certain
things at the time of the shooting. She immediately corrected that
misimpression by giving her proper statement to them. She said that she
was leaving for lunch and saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom at about
12:15pm. The statements that were attributed to her by the FBI she
laughed at and aid they were silly.

The FBI makes up reports called '302' reports. Those reports are NOT
seen by the public when they are made up. The first report said Arnold
had been out on the steps at the time, and the second one said something
different and was very vague. It is doubtful that either were signed by
anyone.

If one wants to believe that one of the statements that Arnold said
were 'silly', was signed, then show the document and the signature.
Otherwise I'm going with Carolyn Arnold's version of her statement.

The FBI in this case has been recorded as doing many thing that would
support the 'lone nut' theory while downing any other version.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Lordee! The guru of forensic pathology and Wound Ballistics! Since
it has ben shown that the bullet that hit JFK in the upper back and
stopped at the pleura di NOT go further, the silly 'single bullet' theory
is dead. But separately, the bullet recovered from the WRONG gurney at
Parkland is still not part of the crime. The bullet that was proposed to
have gone through 2 men 67 times and striking 2 bones, should have more
damage than the little bit that you can find.

As matter of fact, the CE399 bullet (from the WRONG gurney), was argued
not to be the original, and to prove that it was, the authorities took out
that bullet and had it looked at for identification by 4 of the men that
had seen and handled the bullet on the fateful day. All 4 men refused to
identify the bullet. and one of them said it as the wrong shape, that it
was round nosed when the original was pointy nosed! As well, 2 of the
people that handled the bullet were Secret Service and knew to ID a piece
of evidence by initialing it. the bullet shown to them did not have their
initials. It had only the initials of the FBI lab people on it.

Another coincidental fact is that the next day after the shooting, the
FBI bullet custodian had tested the MC rifle of Oswald's with over 60
shots. This gave him a store of that many test bullets.

By replacing the bullet (CE399) in his custody with a test bullet from
the MC rifle, he could, in one move, implicate Oswald by the bullet now
matching his rifle that was found on the WRONG gurney. Of course, this
new bullet wouldn't have the initials of the SS agents on it.

Now to another coincidence, it turns out that the CE399 bullet and a
tst bullet both have identical slight flattening and a bend in th emiddle,
and they voth have a bit of material missing from the tail end. Here's a
WC photo of the CE399 bullet first, then the test bullet:

https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*PjuNZgH2CM_WzYAH5h1-Cw.jpeg

Chris

[mainframetech]

It's amazing that you actually tell people that there are moves that
could have made everything look alright! The entry bullet hole is in the
photo and isn't going to go away. That means that since the entry is the
small hole in the forehead/temple area, the matching exit would be the
'large hole' in the BOH seen by over 39 witnesses.

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG! Do you think if the purpose was to make Oswald a 'patsy', that
they would announce it to the world? There wouldn't be anything to flatly
state he was being manipulated. So you've said nothing so far.

> The patsy angle doesn't explain why Oswald's
> shirt fibers are on the butt plate of the rifle.

WRONG! The rifle was Oswald's and well might have fibers from Oswald
on it. We don't know when those fibers got there.

> It doesn't explain why
> his fingerprints were on the TOPS of the boxes in the sniper's nest
> oriented exactly as they would be if he were looking down Elm St. Just a
> coincidence I suppose.

WRONG! on tops of boxes can be from any number of movements of boxes
whether to pile them up or to look through them for books or whatever.
And putting every box into position while looking down Elm street is
rather funny.

> It doesn't explain why he fled the scene.

WRONG! That is explained by him seeing the cop who was searching with
Truly, and probably knowing that his rifle would be found and they would
think he was the shooter, so he got out of there to have freedom of
movement.

> It
> doesn't explain why he went to fetch his revolver.

A good reason for getting his revolver (which he didn't have any need
for earlier) was to go hunt down the person(s) that set him up, maybe Jack
Ruby, since his apartment was in the direction that Oswald was going in.
He might need protection during that conversation.

> It doesn't explain why
> he would kill the first cop that confronted him and the officers who were
> arresting him.

WRONG! While the Tippit murder was not the JFK murder, there are also
other explanations for the Tippit scene and it isn't resolved at this
time.

> In short the body of evidence is exactly what we would
> expect it to be if Oswald were the assassin.

WRONG! The evidence (what little there is there) is completely
circumstantial and fits also the scenario od Oswald being set up as the
shooter of JFK.

> Everything we would expect to
> be in that body of evidence is there. There is nothing in the body of
> evidence that doesn't fit with Oswald being the assassin. The body of
> evidence is what it is because Oswald was the assassin. Nobody can force
> you to believe that but it doesn't allow you an alternative reality
> because there is no such thing.
>

The alternative has been explained and fits the meager bits of
evidence you've mentioned. No jury would convict on that circumstantial
stuff.

> > That is plausible.



> > You

> > know that such things happen in human society. Or it's possible that he
> > was convinced to bring in the rifle and hide it for someone to look over,
> > or trace or buy, or who knows what. Then they might use it to implicate
> > Oswald in some crime.
>
> It's possible that herds of pink unicorns are roaming the ground beneath
> the clouds of Venus but I wouldn't bet on it. If you want to believe
> things based entirely on faith that is your choice. I prefer to stick with
> what the evidence tells us happened.
>

Wait a minute! You're taking the WCR on faith, why not this scenario
of conspiracy?

>
> Not given the body of evidence which tells us Oswald brought the rifle in
> to kill JFK with because all the evidence is exactly what we would expect
> it to be had he done it.
>

WHOA! You've just said "Oswald brought the rifle in to kill JFK" with
no proof of that contention! Are you trying to brainwash everyone into a
phony belief? Because the evidence is what you expected is not a good
reason for convicting someone. I expect Trump to kill many people in his
future in his position as president. Is that a fact because I expect it?




> > Using others as 'patsies' is

> > standard fare for humans. So what we have is you hugging the WCR to your
> > chest, and listening to it telling you what to think, and then spitting it
> > out as if it was your own independent thinking.
> >
>
> I'm "hugging the WCR" because it is evidence based and the only
> explanation of the crime ever presented that meets that criteria.
>

And depends on theories, which are guesses.

> > Your list of 'evidence' comes down to a few circumstantial items that
> > mention Oswald's name, but don't pin any crime on him.
> >
>
> A few? As in the entire body of evidence. 53 pieces of such evidence by
> Bugliosi's count.
>

Counting 53 by picking out and making up sentences doesn't make it 53
bits of evidence, only questions.

> > > Fleeing the scene immediately after the
> > > shooting.
> >
> >
> >
> >

> > Well now, that may be because he got enough info to see that he was

> > being set up, and so he got out of there to keep his freedom and find the
> > person that may have got him into the problem in the first place. That
> > does NOT mean that he shot JFK, or even fired any bullets at anything.
> >
>
> Maybe. Could be. What if. The building blocks of your belief system. No
> evidence in that mix.
>

LOL! You seem to miss the point that there is not much evidence in
your list of bitsies either.

> > > Fetching his revolver and killing the first cop to confront him.
> >
> >
> >
> > Well now there's some doubt about that whole Tippit scenario.
> > Witnesses that were ignored and so forth.
> >
>
> There is zero doubt about that. Lot's of witnesses and rock solid forensic
> evidence tell us that with certainty.
>

Believe me, your saying so doesn't make it so. Not by a mile.

> > > Trying to kill the cops who came to arrest him.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Now, you don't know that, almighty guru that you think you are, you
> > just can't read minds from 50 odd years ago.
>
> Having just killed one cop why would we doubt the word of the arresting
> officer who said Oswald tried to kill him? Having already killed two
> people what reason is there to think Oswald would stop there?
>

It is still unknown about the first cop.

> > Whether Oswald had in mind
> > to kill a cop, which would be a very stupid move under the circumstances,
> > is doubtful. As well, the cop who supposedly put his hand on Oswald's
> > which was holding a gun, said that the hammer fell but he stopped it with
> > his thumb.
>
> No, he said the webbing between his thumb and forefinger slipped between
> the hammer and the firing pin preventing it from firing the gun.
>

We'll never know if he as feathering his nest of not.

This is all repetitive, so I'm outa here. Chris

[bigdog]

Who said anything about her lying?

> Everyone (such as Ralph) are so concerned over the "revelation" that
> Oswald could have been on the first floor (he wasn't) that they fail to
> grasp the overplaying of the discredit/cover-up efforts of the last 2
> statements:
>
> "or any other information concerning OSWALD, whom she stated she did not
> know and had merely seen him working in the building." She was not shown
> this statement.
>
> There was no reason for the FBI/cover-up artists/ the notorious
> "they/them" to know that he frequently went to her to get change (and
> would never take pennies). Oswald wouldn't have had any 'professional'
> reason to interact with her and "they" used these last statements to
> discredit her, fit the narrative, and insure she wouldn't be called to
> testify. And it worked so well that the HSCA didn't call her in '78 even
> though she clearly felt it was alright to speak that year. Though it may
> not have been.
>

Even if her 1978 statement was dead on accurate, it wouldn't preclude
Oswald from being in the sniper's nest at 12:30 firing the fatal shots. So
why would anybody bother to falsify what Arnold said when there is no
record of anything she ever said that would have given Oswald an alibi.

> The March '64 statement was done in a Joe Friday "Just the facts, ma'am."
> style:
> 6 specific questions were asked and 6 specific answers were given.
> No embellishments were requested nor given. (And she is now a first time
> mother to a 3 month old...)
>

What the hell does that have to do with anything.

> The 12:25 estimate in '64 was in relation to what time she exited the
> building (ie left through the glass double doors and stepped onto the
> sidewalk). 12:15 is the estimate she gave for getting up from her desk.
>
> Being pregnant and needing water and then working her way to the elevator
> (being 8 months pregnant, she did not walk down the stairs in
> heels...which elevator/who did she ride with? What route out did she
> take?), it likely felt longer than it was, but maybe not.
>

I have no idea where you are going with this.

> She was not shown her previous '63 statement at this time. She may have
> signed this '64 statement, though I haven't seen her signature anywhere.
>
> When/what is the first evidence of her being outside?
>
> '78 is the first time with any accuracy that her statement was
> reported/recorded.

Why do you say it was the first time her statement was accurately recorded.

> At this point, her previous statements are shown to her
> and the first ('63) is so ridiculous that she immediately and
> spontaneously corrects it; which she likely would have done in '64 if it
> had been shown to her. She refutes the '63 statement totally; in its
> entirety (Sorry Ralph). She places Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom
> shortly before the assassination; not on the 1st floor.
>

That's how false memories work. But even if her memory was accurate, it
would not provide an alibi for Oswald. He would have had 15 minutes to go
from the second floor to the sixth before JFK arrived. At most it would
have taken him about two minutes.

>
> (Side question: how much do you remember about your actions the morning of
> 11-Sep-2001? Kinda sticks with you, doesn't it?)
>

There is much I remember and much I do not. I remember almost no details
of that morning prior to learning of the attacks. Why would I. Likewise,
why would Arnold remember details of that day prior the assassination.
There was nothing that would have seemed the least bit important to her at
the time. Why would she take note of what time any of these
pre-assassination events took place or whom she saw in the lunchroom at
12:15. I can't imagine anything that would have seemed less important to
her.

>
> To summarize: her story never changed.
> She told the truth in '63 & what was reported was not what she said at all.
> She told the truth in '64 & what was asked was so limited in scope to be
> almost useless.
> She told the truth in '78 & was not called before the HSCA to clear up any
> discrepancies.
>

How do you know her 1978 memories were accurate?

> I'll move on to suppositions later, but the following die to lack of cite
> should probably qualify:
>
> I found somewhere in my journey (and now lack the cite) that the original
> time stamp on the '63 statement had it saying that the observation (brief
> glimpse) of Oswald on the first floor by the glass doors was possibly
> 12:37. It may have been a notation on the original notes of Harrison.
>

If that is what she said, she might have seen him on his way out the door.

> But if valid/validated then it was likely a statement made by someone else
> relating to Oswald exiting the TSBD after his encounter with Baker in the
> 2ND floor lunchroom and then misattributed to Carolyn Arnold. It would
> then have needed to be 'massaged' into its reported state.

Nothing needed to be massaged. None of Arnold's statements amounted to a
hill of beans whether accurate or not. None of them established Oswald's
whereabouts at 12:30. None of them created an alibi for him.

[mainframetech]

FBI '302' reports of witness statements were not normally shown to the
public. They were made by FBI agents and filed. Nor are they signed by
the witness. Nowhere will you find Arnold's statement with a signature on
it.

Chris

[bigdog]

There are also reasons people crawl out of the woodwork many years later
with fantastic tales.

>
>
>
> > > The second was Ruby Henderson, and
> > > it was stated that
> > >
> > > "She said she does not know what floor of the building the men were on,
> >
> > This is the operative phrase.
> >
> >
> > > but doesn't recall seeing anyone on a floor higher up than the one they
> > > were on." Which translated out to the 6th floor, since no one was seen on
> > > the 7th floor, but were seen on the 6th.
> > >
> >
> > No, it doesn't translate to any specific floor. If she couldn't see
> > anybody on the 6th or 7th floors that would make it the 5th floor. If
> > there had been only on such floor above where she saw the men, I think she
> > could have told us that more definitely.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! You won't get anywhere by trying to say something that is
> false. We know that no one was seen on the 7th floor, but were seen on
> the 5th and 6th.

You've never explained why it is not possible that Ruby Henderson simply
didn't see people who were above the men she saw even though you've been
invited to do so many times. It is simply illogical to assume that because
Henderson didn't see someone on a particular floor that is proof no one
was there. If the men she saw were on the sixth floor, I think she could
have quite easily specified that the floor she saw them on was just below
the top floor but she didn't do that.

> And it won't do you any good trying to tell her what YOU
> think she would have said. Deal with what we have as evidence, not your
> made up junk. As to the lower floors like 4 or 3, if she saw men there for
> all we know they were a second shooting team! Doubtful!
>

I thought we were talking about Henderson. Try to stay focused.

>
>
> > > That third witness is the most controversial to many LNs because they
> > > need to somehow discredit the proof of more than one man on the 6th.
> > > Carolyn Walther said she saw 2 men with a gun on the third or fourth
> > > floor. Since there was no one that saw anyone on those floors with a gun,
> > > and since many saw a man with a gun on the 6th floor, it is assumed that
> > > she meant the 6th floor and made a mistake on the floor.
> >
> > This is what Chris does with witnesses who don't tell stories that fit
> > with his beliefs. He changes their accounts around until they do. The key
> > phrase in the above statement is "it is assumed". That is mostly what
> > Chris does.
> >
>
>
>
> Poor bd has to get his shots in to make up for a lack of evidence and
> logic. My comments above stand.
>

On their head. You've got everything upside down.

>
>
>
> > >
> > > If Walther had been right, then there were 2 teams of shooters waiting
> > > for the motorcade in the TSBD, a fact that would be disputed by most
> > > people.
> > >
> >
> > What Chris refuses to consider is that she was wrong about the men she saw
> > on a lower floor having a gun. Her companion that day said Walther had
> > made no mention to her about seeing two men with a gun.
> >
>
>
>
> So now YOU are trying to change a witness's statement!@ Amazing that
> you come out saying others are doing it, then you do it when it suits you!
> Give it up. You've lost it.
>

I'm not changing anything. I am simply pointing out possibilities which
you refuse to consider because they don't fit with your beliefs. I'm not
the one trying to use Walther to make my case. I have solid evidence to do
that.

>
>
>
> > > To fit with the witnesses to 2 men with a gun on the 6th floor, there
> > > is a book detailing the experience of an American Indian Lawrence Loy
> > > Factor, who stated he was one of the men on the 6th floor with others, led
> > > by a man he called 'Mac' Wallace. The book is called "The Men on the
> > > Sixth Floor" by Collum and Sample. Factor was interviews 2 times by the
> > > authors up a couple weeks before he died. He said he was given $10,000 to
> > > participate and was checked as to his accuracy with a rifle. He stated
> > > that a woman Ruth Martinez was with them and used a walkie-talkie to
> > > signal other shooting teams around Dealey Plaza to begin shooting
> > > together.
> > >
> >
> > Since the authors conveniently waited until their star witness had died
> > before publishing their book, they could make up just about any story they
> > wanted knowing he wasn't around to refute them.
>
>
>
>
> WRONG! They didn't wait for him to die, he died a couple weeks after
> they talked to him last. No way they could publish in that time, so
> that's plain stupid.
>

My statement is absolutely correct. They knew before the book was
published that Factor was dead and couldn't refute anything they claimed
he said.

>
>
>
> > There is no corroboration
> > for this story. Even I Loy Factor did tell this story, he also named
> > Oswald as one of the gunman but neither the authors nor Chris want to
> > accept that. So they do what Chris always does with inconvenient
> > statements. He "corrects" them.
> >
>
>
> Factor did NOT list Oswald was one of the gunmen, he just said he was
> there. And the authors after doing the interviews believe that Factor was
> trying to lay off some of the blame by mentioning Oswald, and they were
> not sure he was even there. That' the part bd keeps forgetting...just
> coincidentally.
>

You keep "forgetting" that Factor said Oswald was part of the shooting
team, at least according to what Collum and Sample wrote. We really don't
know if any of what they wrote is true.

>
>
>
> > > The scenario in the book matches the information from witnesses that
> > > said there were 2 men with a gun in the 6th floor of the TSBD just before
> > > the shooting.
> > >
> >
> > I bet I could find some outlier witnesses and make up a story that fits
> > what they said too. That would give me "corroboration".
>
>
>
> However, you didn't, and I doubt you would be published.
>

As if that would matter.

[Amy Joyce]

I was just reading the FBI report on HENDERSON. I think it can be deduced
which floor she was referring to. It wasn't 2, 3, 4, or 7. She said she
didn't see anyone in the window above the one she saw the men, so it
couldn't have been the 7th floor. Likewise, 2, 3, and 4 had the blinds
down. That leaves the 5th or the 6th floor. From the last paragraph of
the report: "she could not definitely state one of the men she saw in the
window of the Texas School Book Depository was not a Negro". It reads odd
but I think she's saying that one of the men was only possibly a "negro",
meaning she's not sure, but the implication was that the man other wasn't
negro. She also said the men in question appeared to be working, and the
men on the 5th floor were watching the parade and on their lunch break.

If she had testified before the WC this confusion this probably would have
been cleared up. The same goes for Carolyn Walther who saw two men on an
upper floor and one with a gun, which is very important. Why didn't she
testify and who made the decision to not have Walther and Ruby Henderson
testify? It isn't clear (to me) if the WC was even aware that there were
many witnesses with sightings of multiple suspects in the building windows
from which it was assumed the shots were fired.

The FBI knew that James Powell was a witness and a report states that
there were several possible witnesses in the jail. However none of their
statements were even taken, by way of the agent's discretion. Powell may
have made more of an effort to have his story heard 15 years later, but
the FBI knew about it at the time and it wasn't Powell's doing that left
it off the record. The agent was gas lighting him in the report he did
make, not including what he or others at the jail saw but demeaning their
value as a witness. That appears poor work and I'm suspicious that it
reflects Hoover's view (and possible order) that only one person, Lee
Oswald, should be determined the assassin. His letter to the WC may have
come at a later date but knowing that he had such a strong opinion makes
me suspicious that a similar order to agents in his employee could have
come at any time.

Either way it is cheery picking of evidence and it wasn't up to FBI agents
to determine the value of witnesses - especially when those left out
corroborate one another and paint the different picture of there possibly
being two or more assassins (instead of just one).

All the same, one of the men described by Walther, Henderson, and Powell
could have been Oswald. The possibility of two men doesn't disqualify one
of them from being Oswald. That's up to other evidence and witnesses; even
death bed confessions, which should be considered.

[bigdog]

No, I have no delusions about having expertise in those areas which is why
I don't try to substitute my opinions in those areas for those who have
real expertise. You're the other guy.

> Since
> it has ben shown that the bullet that hit JFK in the upper back and
> stopped at the pleura di NOT go further, the silly 'single bullet' theory
> is dead.

You've made that claim countless times even though it flies in the face of
evidence, reason, and logic.

> But separately, the bullet recovered from the WRONG gurney at
> Parkland is still not part of the crime.

Another of your silly ideas.

> The bullet that was proposed to
> have gone through 2 men 67 times and striking 2 bones, should have more
> damage than the little bit that you can find.
>

And another.

> As matter of fact, the CE399 bullet (from the WRONG gurney), was argued
> not to be the original,

You can argue anything you like. It doesn't make it so.

> and to prove that it was, the authorities took out
> that bullet and had it looked at for identification by 4 of the men that
> had seen and handled the bullet on the fateful day. All 4 men refused to
> identify the bullet.

Nobody said it wasn't the bullet they handled. Each man who handled the
bullet testified he gave it to the next man in the chain so to argue that
it is not the bullet found on the guerney one has to argue that one of
those men lied and switched the bullet.

> and one of them said it as the wrong shape, that it
> was round nosed when the original was pointy nosed!

People are not known for perfectly remembering details of events. CE399
was fired by the same rifle that fired the fragmented bullet found in the
limo so we know that rifle was used to shoot at JFK, which makes the
argument that CE399 was a plant pretty silly.

> As well, 2 of the
> people that handled the bullet were Secret Service and knew to ID a piece
> of evidence by initialing it. the bullet shown to them did not have their
> initials. It had only the initials of the FBI lab people on it.
>

Factoid.

> Another coincidental fact is that the next day after the shooting, the
> FBI bullet custodian had tested the MC rifle of Oswald's with over 60
> shots. This gave him a store of that many test bullets.
>

Now show us the evidence one of the bullets is CE399.

> By replacing the bullet (CE399) in his custody with a test bullet from
> the MC rifle, he could, in one move, implicate Oswald by the bullet now
> matching his rifle that was found on the WRONG gurney. Of course, this
> new bullet wouldn't have the initials of the SS agents on it.
>

Why would that need to be done given that there was already another
recovered bullet that had been fired by Oswald's rifle. Why would the FBI
want to frame Oswald?

> Now to another coincidence, it turns out that the CE399 bullet and a
> tst bullet both have identical slight flattening and a bend in th emiddle,
> and they voth have a bit of material missing from the tail end. Here's a
> WC photo of the CE399 bullet first, then the test bullet:
>
> https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*PjuNZgH2CM_WzYAH5h1-Cw.jpeg
>

Show me the test bullet that has the base flattened like CE399.

[bigdog]

Unless you take a reality pill.

> That means that since the entry is the
> small hole in the forehead/temple area, the matching exit would be the
> 'large hole' in the BOH seen by over 39 witnesses.
>

There is no entry hole in the forehead/temple. There isn't even any such
thing as a forehead/temple. You made that up to so you could claim a
bullet hole in the temple was actually in the forehead.

[mainframetech]

I've explained it to you over and over, and now you're repeating your
questions because you have nothing to new to say.

> > And it won't do you any good trying to tell her what YOU
> > think she would have said. Deal with what we have as evidence, not your
> > made up junk. As to the lower floors like 4 or 3, if she saw men there for
> > all we know they were a second shooting team! Doubtful!
> >
>
> I thought we were talking about Henderson. Try to stay focused.
>

WRONG! Get it together! I was talking about Henderson. We spoke of
the 7th and 6th floors, and I made it clear that she couldn't have been
talking about the 3rd and 4th instead.

The rest of this is repetitive, so I'm outa here. Chris

[mainframetech]

Because YOU can't see the hole doesn't mean it's not there, it means
that You're an LN and they are unable to see bullet holes...:)

Chris

[mainframetech]

Oh? Strange then that you didn't leave a cite and link for that long
speech if you got it from a real expert.




> > Since
> > it has been shown that the bullet that hit JFK in the upper back and

> > stopped at the pleura di NOT go further, the silly 'single bullet' theory
> > is dead.
>
> You've made that claim countless times even though it flies in the face of
> evidence, reason, and logic.
>

Evidence is what proved it. And you have heard every bit of that
evidence and had it proved to you. Of course, you forgot it all.

> > But separately, the bullet recovered from the WRONG gurney at
> > Parkland is still not part of the crime.
>
> Another of your silly ideas.
>
> > The bullet that was proposed to

> > have gone through 2 men 7 times and striking 2 bones, should have more

> > damage than the little bit that you can find.
> >
>
> And another.
>

> > As a matter of fact, the CE399 bullet (from the WRONG gurney), was argued not to be the original,

>
> You can argue anything you like. It doesn't make it so.
>
> > and to prove that it was, the authorities took out
> > that bullet and had it looked at for identification by 4 of the men that
> > had seen and handled the bullet on the fateful day. All 4 men refused to
> > identify the bullet.
>
> Nobody said it wasn't the bullet they handled. Each man who handled the
> bullet testified he gave it to the next man in the chain so to argue that
> it is not the bullet found on the guerney one has to argue that one of
> those men lied and switched the bullet.
>

WRONG! Not if the bullet was switched before they saw it.

> > and one of them said it as the wrong shape, that it
> > was round nosed when the original was pointy nosed!
>
> People are not known for perfectly remembering details of events. CE399
> was fired by the same rifle that fired the fragmented bullet found in the
> limo so we know that rifle was used to shoot at JFK, which makes the
> argument that CE399 was a plant pretty silly.
>

WRONG! The replacement CE399 was from the MC rifle and was a test
bullet, the original was from some other gun and was probably destoyed.

> > As well, 2 of the
> > people that handled the bullet were Secret Service and knew to ID a piece
> > of evidence by initialing it. the bullet shown to them did not have their
> > initials. It had only the initials of the FBI lab people on it.
> >
>
> Factoid.
>

Crap. Labels aren't evidence.

> > Another coincidental fact is that the next day after the shooting, the
> > FBI bullet custodian had tested the MC rifle of Oswald's with over 60
> > shots. This gave him a store of that many test bullets.
> >
>
> Now show us the evidence one of the bullets is CE399.
>

That was shown above, where were you? Sleeping again?

>
> > By replacing the bullet (CE399) in his custody with a test bullet from
> > the MC rifle, he could, in one move, implicate Oswald by the bullet now
> > matching his rifle that was found on the WRONG gurney. Of course, this
> > new bullet wouldn't have the initials of the SS agents on it.
> >
>
> Why would that need to be done given that there was already another
> recovered bullet that had been fired by Oswald's rifle. Why would the FBI
> want to frame Oswald?
>

The FBI as an agency had no interest in framing Oswald, but certain
individuals did, starting with Hoover. If the phony bullet that was left
on the gurney was looked at, sooner of later it would be noticed that it
had a pointed nose, and wasn't one of the MC rifle's bullets. then the
fact of multiple shooters would be known. That was the most important
fact to be covered up. Simple.

> > Now to another coincidence, it turns out that the CE399 bullet and a

> > test bullet both have identical slight flattening and a bend in the middle,
> > and they both have a bit of material missing from the tail end. Here's a

> > WC photo of the CE399 bullet first, then the test bullet:
> >
> > https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*PjuNZgH2CM_WzYAH5h1-Cw.jpeg
> >
>
> Show me the test bullet that has the base flattened like CE399.

The 2 bullets are right there in the WC photo. Don't pretend you
don't see them.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Good reading! If you can see what she was saying, then my comments to
bd about his inability to understand the logic of her statement was his
problem.

> If she had testified before the WC this confusion this probably would have
> been cleared up. The same goes for Carolyn Walther who saw two men on an
> upper floor and one with a gun, which is very important. Why didn't she
> testify and who made the decision to not have Walther and Ruby Henderson
> testify? It isn't clear (to me) if the WC was even aware that there were
> many witnesses with sightings of multiple suspects in the building windows
> from which it was assumed the shots were fired.
>

Both the FBI and the WC were instrumental in making sure that no
witness got to the WC and testified about anything that suggested a
conspiracy, or multiple shooters.

[bigdog]

That is not a logical implication at all. I agree the report is worded
rather badly but it speaks only to the race of one of them men when it
says he was possibly a Negro. It is silent about the race of the other man
which means he too could possibly have been it Negro.

> She also said the men in question appeared to be working, and the
> men on the 5th floor were watching the parade and on their lunch break.
>

Again the report is vague. Just what was it the men were doing that led
her to believe they were working. Did she actually seen them doing work or
did she just get that impression?

> If she had testified before the WC this confusion this probably would have
> been cleared up. The same goes for Carolyn Walther who saw two men on an
> upper floor and one with a gun, which is very important. Why didn't she
> testify and who made the decision to not have Walther and Ruby Henderson
> testify? It isn't clear (to me) if the WC was even aware that there were
> many witnesses with sightings of multiple suspects in the building windows
> from which it was assumed the shots were fired.
>

There is nothing in the statements of those two witnesses that indicate
they had anything of value to add to the body of knowledge.

> The FBI knew that James Powell was a witness and a report states that
> there were several possible witnesses in the jail. However none of their
> statements were even taken, by way of the agent's discretion. Powell may
> have made more of an effort to have his story heard 15 years later, but
> the FBI knew about it at the time and it wasn't Powell's doing that left
> it off the record. The agent was gas lighting him in the report he did
> make, not including what he or others at the jail saw but demeaning their
> value as a witness. That appears poor work and I'm suspicious that it
> reflects Hoover's view (and possible order) that only one person, Lee
> Oswald, should be determined the assassin. His letter to the WC may have
> come at a later date but knowing that he had such a strong opinion makes
> me suspicious that a similar order to agents in his employee could have
> come at any time.
>

A cite for this would be nice. This page from the National Archives shows
no file on Johnny Powell or anybody else with the surname of Powell.

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/fbi-files.html

> Either way it is cheery picking of evidence and it wasn't up to FBI agents
> to determine the value of witnesses - especially when those left out
> corroborate one another and paint the different picture of there possibly
> being two or more assassins (instead of just one).
>

It would have been impractical for the WC to have every witness who gave a
statement to the police testify before WC. Judgement calls were made based
on the reports taken as to which witnesses had information of value to
contribute. You may disagree with their judgements but it was their call
to make.

> All the same, one of the men described by Walther, Henderson, and Powell
> could have been Oswald. The possibility of two men doesn't disqualify one
> of them from being Oswald. That's up to other evidence and witnesses; even
> death bed confessions, which should be considered.

To the best of my knowledge there had been no deathbed confessions during
the time the WC was in session so there would have been nothing for them
to consider. E. Howard Hunt whom many believe gave a deathbed confession
actually just made a deathbed accusation. He never said he was involved in
the crime and his story is highly dubious.

[bigdog]

Because you CAN see a hole doesn't mean it's there.

[bigdog]

You've never answer this question and you've never tried. It's easy to
understand why. You have no answer. Henderson seeing the two black
employees on the fifth floor and not noticing anyone on either the 5th or
6th floor fits her statement perfectly. She didn't say there was no one
above the men she saw. She said she didn't SEE any one above those two
men. That is completely different.

>
>
>
> > > And it won't do you any good trying to tell her what YOU
> > > think she would have said. Deal with what we have as evidence, not your
> > > made up junk. As to the lower floors like 4 or 3, if she saw men there for
> > > all we know they were a second shooting team! Doubtful!
> > >
> >
> > I thought we were talking about Henderson. Try to stay focused.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! Get it together! I was talking about Henderson. We spoke of
> the 7th and 6th floors, and I made it clear that she couldn't have been
> talking about the 3rd and 4th instead.
>
> The rest of this is repetitive, so I'm outa here. >

I think that's called a tactical retreat.

[Anthony Marsh]

And they threatened several witnesses and told them what they should not
say and what they should say. It's called suborning perjury.
The same thing that Trump did.

[Anthony Marsh]

It's not his fault. He is not allowed to see the evidence. Have YOU seen
ALL the autopsy photos?

> Chris
>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Hmm, maybe to start a war with Russia?

[mainframetech]

I'm ignoring most of this post since you're repeating yourself over and
over when you run out of points to try. But I will remind you that no one
was seen on the 7th floor with or without a gun, but many saw a man with a
gun on the 6th floor. When Henderson said she saw the men and there was
no one on the floor above them, that fit the 6th floor. It might fit a
lower floor, but it's doubtful she was that far off, and there were surely
not 2 shooting teams in the TSBD. That asks for common sense to be
applied.

OK, you got me to waste time on you, but that's all. I'm outa here.

Chris

[FNG]

(Been busy...)

I'm not saying she lied, sorry if I was unclear. I am stating that the '63
report was either completely fabricated by the FBI or misattributed from
another witness. Either way, the '63 report does not reflect any semblance
of her statement or sentiment.

(For which statements ('63 or '64) did they (FBI) borrow a secretary from
TBSD to take shorthand during the witness interviews? Who was that
secretary and what happened to the original shorthand notes?)

"> Everyone (such as Ralph) are so concerned over the "revelation" that
> Oswald could have been on the first floor (he wasn't) that they fail to
> grasp the overplaying of the discredit/cover-up efforts of the last 2
> statements:
>
> "or any other information concerning OSWALD, whom she stated she did not
> know and had merely seen him working in the building." She was not shown
> this statement.
>
> There was no reason for the FBI/cover-up artists/ the notorious
> "they/them" to know that he frequently went to her to get change (and
> would never take pennies). Oswald wouldn't have had any 'professional'
> reason to interact with her and "they" used these last statements to
> discredit her, fit the narrative, and insure she wouldn't be called to
> testify. And it worked so well that the HSCA didn't call her in '78 even
> though she clearly felt it was alright to speak that year. Though it may
> not have been.
>

Even if her 1978 statement was dead on accurate, it wouldn't preclude
Oswald from being in the sniper's nest at 12:30 firing the fatal shots. So
why would anybody bother to falsify what Arnold said when there is no
record of anything she ever said that would have given Oswald an alibi."

I never said it gave Oswald an alibi. Taken alone, it does not. Taken in
conjunction with other witnesses apparently seeing people/person on the
6th floor at the same time makes it an impossibility for him to be in 2
places at once. Combine that with the fact that the president was
unexpectedly running behind schedule and Oswald was nowhere near in
position to attempt a shot.

"> The March '64 statement was done in a Joe Friday "Just the facts, ma'am."
> style:
> 6 specific questions were asked and 6 specific answers were given.
> No embellishments were requested nor given. (And she is now a first time
> mother to a 3 month old...)
>

What the hell does that have to do with anything."

Which part? The fact that the questions were so narrow as to provide
little useful information or the part about having a 3 month old?

"> The 12:25 estimate in '64 was in relation to what time she exited the
> building (ie left through the glass double doors and stepped onto the
> sidewalk). 12:15 is the estimate she gave for getting up from her desk.
>
> Being pregnant and needing water and then working her way to the elevator
> (being 8 months pregnant, she did not walk down the stairs in
> heels...which elevator/who did she ride with? What route out did she
> take?), it likely felt longer than it was, but maybe not.
>

I have no idea where you are going with this. "

I am showing the fallacy of those that claim she 'changed her statement 3
times'. She did not. 12:15 was the approximate time she gathers herself to
go and gets up from the desk. 12:25 was the approximate time she exits the
building. Which elevator she took down and who she rode with gives
validation to the timeline and route.

"> She was not shown her previous '63 statement at this time. She may have
> signed this '64 statement, though I haven't seen her signature anywhere.
>
> When/what is the first evidence of her being outside?
>
> '78 is the first time with any accuracy that her statement was
> reported/recorded.

Why do you say it was the first time her statement was accurately
recorded. "

Again, my apologies if I was unclear. (Doing this on a phone has some
disadvantages.) It was the first time any details related to Oswald's
whereabouts prior to the assassination and what she saw were reported
accurately. The '64 may have been accurate, but was limited.

"> At this point, her previous statements are shown to her
> and the first ('63) is so ridiculous that she immediately and
> spontaneously corrects it; which she likely would have done in '64 if it
> had been shown to her. She refutes the '63 statement totally; in its
> entirety (Sorry Ralph). She places Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom
> shortly before the assassination; not on the 1st floor.
>

That's how false memories work. But even if her memory was accurate, it
would not provide an alibi for Oswald. He would have had 15 minutes to go
from the second floor to the sixth before JFK arrived. At most it would
have taken him about two minutes."

To get to the 6th floor, set up the sniper's nest, and get in position...while avoiding the people that were already seen up there...
In 15 minutes, that would be impressive, in 2 that would be impossible...again reminded ding you that the motorcade was late and he should have been up there before noon for 1 person to accomplish all of that.
The pushed narrative is that no one can account for Oswald since around 11:45. That is false.

">
> (Side question: how much do you remember about your actions the morning of
> 11-Sep-2001? Kinda sticks with you, doesn't it?)
>

There is much I remember and much I do not. I remember almost no details
of that morning prior to learning of the attacks. Why would I. Likewise,
why would Arnold remember details of that day prior the assassination.
There was nothing that would have seemed the least bit important to her at
the time. Why would she take note of what time any of these
pre-assassination events took place or whom she saw in the lunchroom at
12:15. I can't imagine anything that would have seemed less important to
her."

Were you then subsequently interrogated by federal officials and asked to
recount your activities that morning 3 days later? This forced her to
relive the recent event from getting to work all the way down to locking
eyes with JFK from the sidewalk and getting flashed his big grin. I don't
think your 'false memory' theory takes having to step through that morning
3 days later into account. It solidified the memory; the antithesis of
"false memory"; it was forever locked in place.

">
> To summarize: her story never changed.
> She told the truth in '63 & what was reported was not what she said at all.
> She told the truth in '64 & what was asked was so limited in scope to be
> almost useless.
> She told the truth in '78 & was not called before the HSCA to clear up any
> discrepancies.
>

How do you know her 1978 memories were accurate?"

By what logic do you question them? Because someone who wasn't there gave
you a 'plausible reason' to dismiss it? Doesn't fit your narrative, much
as I have seen you accuse others of doing..cherry picking what is
convenient.

They are the same as her statements told in '63. Unbeknownst to her, they
weren't recorded that way. Have you spoken to her? Have you spoken to her
husband or his parents (her in-laws) at the time? (RE Arnold)

"> I'll move on to suppositions later, but the following die to lack of cite
> should probably qualify:
>
> I found somewhere in my journey (and now lack the cite) that the original
> time stamp on the '63 statement had it saying that the observation (brief
> glimpse) of Oswald on the first floor by the glass doors was possibly
> 12:37. It may have been a notation on the original notes of Harrison.
>

If that is what she said, she might have seen him on his way out the door."

To the contrary, that is not at all what SHE said...but I leave room for
the possibility that it may have been what SOMEONE said.

I don't find it implausible that utilizing tradecraft, "they" manipulated
someone else's statement and assigned it to her. If it were ever revealed,
"they" could then use the excuse that it was 'just a mistake' instead of a
complete fabrication.

"> But if valid/validated then it was likely a statement made by someone else
> relating to Oswald exiting the TSBD after his encounter with Baker in the
> 2ND floor lunchroom and then misattributed to Carolyn Arnold. It would
> then have needed to be 'massaged' into its reported state.

Nothing needed to be massaged. None of Arnold's statements amounted to a
hill of beans whether accurate or not. None of them established Oswald's
whereabouts at 12:30. None of them created an alibi for him. "

That sounds just like the 6 questions in '64... and you are
right...doesn't give an alibi for 12:30. (When was the motorcade scheduled
to arrive again?) But when taken with the other witnesses' accounts of
seeing people on 6th floor and the bone-in chicken sandwich eaten on the
stairs at the 6th floor landing, it makes it IMPOSSIBLE for Oswald to have
been there.

This one overplayed statement fabricated by the FBI about Carolyn Arnold
not knowing Oswald and only seeing him in the building is the veritable
linchpin which from, my perspective, shows both conspiracy and cover-up.

(I probably won't copy and paste the entire thing again...it's a pain on a
phone...)

[Amy Joyce]

I do disagree bd and I'm not convinced it was the FBI's call to make. It
was the responsibility of the WC to determine the facts - thus consider
all of the possibilities, not to just examine evidence that would indicate
a lone shooter, which was the only evidence the FBI supplied them.
Hoover's report and the FBI cherry picking evidence is suspicious enough
but when considering the outcome of the WC report it stinks of a cover-up.
Investigations concern the evaluation of all evidence, not just the
evidence they want to examine or what other organizations think they
should. In essence, the WC presentation reflects more a DA presenting
their case against one man - not a fact finding commission. In the real
word a defense would have had the opportunity to offer their own
witnesses, question the DA's evidence, object to evidence offered, and
offer a rebuttal. Yes, I know this wasn't a trial but that's exactly my
point. People that read the WC should keep the bizarre circumstances in
mind. I personally also try to keep in mind that just because it stinks
like a cover-up to me, that doesn't mean LHO wasn't responsible or
involved.

Regarding the vague reports and the lack of reports of some witnesses,
since the WC didn't question them and decades have passed, the opportunity
to clarify what they saw and if it's relevant is long gone passed. It's
unfortunate but that doesn't mean that today we cannot try to do what
should have been done long ago - examine all of the evidence and consider
all possible witnesses.

[bigdog]

Just because some people saw someone on the sixth floor when they looked
up doesn't mean Henderson would have seen someone on the sixth floor when
she looked up. Anyone on the sixth floor would no necessarily be visible
at all times and even if the were, she might not have noticed them. Your
argument presumes that Henderson would have seen anyone who was on the
sixth floor which makes no sense. The people who saw the man on the 6th
floor saw that he had a rifle. The two men Henderson saw had no rifle.
That would indicate she was probably not looking at the same person(s)
those other people saw.

> When Henderson said she saw the men and there was
> no one on the floor above them, that fit the 6th floor.

And the 5th floor.

> It might fit a
> lower floor, but it's doubtful she was that far off,
>

"doubtful she was that far off"??? So in the ballpark works for you?

> and there were surely
> not 2 shooting teams in the TSBD. That asks for common sense to be
> applied.

Yes it does. When will you start?

> OK, you got me to waste time on you, but that's all. I'm outa here.
>

Still you have presented nothing which precludes Henderson from having
seen the two black employees on the 5th floor. Nothing which indicates she
saw two men with a gun on the 6th floor.

[bigdog]

Why would the FBI fabricate a report about what she told them. Even if she
had told them the same story she told 15 years later it would do nothing
to provide an alibi for Oswald. He would have had 15 minutes after she saw
him to get to the 6th floor. It is also ludicrous to think that 15 years
later she would be able to say to the minute what time she actually saw
Oswald. It would be doubtful she would be able to do that if asked the
next day. Does anybody make note of the exact time they see each and every
person they run into in their workplace. Why would anyone do that? It
wouldn't have seemed the least bit important at the time when she saw
Oswald.

> (For which statements ('63 or '64) did they (FBI) borrow a secretary from
> TBSD to take shorthand during the witness interviews? Who was that
> secretary and what happened to the original shorthand notes?)
>

Does it matter?

>
> "> Everyone (such as Ralph) are so concerned over the "revelation" that
> > Oswald could have been on the first floor (he wasn't) that they fail to
> > grasp the overplaying of the discredit/cover-up efforts of the last 2
> > statements:
> >
> > "or any other information concerning OSWALD, whom she stated she did not
> > know and had merely seen him working in the building." She was not shown
> > this statement.
> >
> > There was no reason for the FBI/cover-up artists/ the notorious
> > "they/them" to know that he frequently went to her to get change (and
> > would never take pennies). Oswald wouldn't have had any 'professional'
> > reason to interact with her and "they" used these last statements to
> > discredit her, fit the narrative, and insure she wouldn't be called to
> > testify. And it worked so well that the HSCA didn't call her in '78 even
> > though she clearly felt it was alright to speak that year. Though it may
> > not have been.
> >
>
> Even if her 1978 statement was dead on accurate, it wouldn't preclude
> Oswald from being in the sniper's nest at 12:30 firing the fatal shots. So
> why would anybody bother to falsify what Arnold said when there is no
> record of anything she ever said that would have given Oswald an alibi."
>
> I never said it gave Oswald an alibi. Taken alone, it does not. Taken in
> conjunction with other witnesses apparently seeing people/person on the
> 6th floor at the same time makes it an impossibility for him to be in 2
> places at once.

Did all these people synchronize their watches? In the minutes leading up
to the shots being fired, why would any of these people think it was
important to note precisely what time they were seeing other people. If
find it rather silly to think we can apply exactitude to these people's
estimates of the times they saw certain things.

> Combine that with the fact that the president was
> unexpectedly running behind schedule and Oswald was nowhere near in
> position to attempt a shot.
>

If Carolyn Arnold said she saw Oswald in the lunchroom about 12:15, even
if she said that the very day of the assassination, it would not establish
that Oswald was in the lunchroom at precisely 12:15. No one takes note of
the time they run across co-workers in their workplace because such a
thing wouldn't be important. It only became important after the shooting
at which time anyone who remembers having seen Oswald earlier would have
to guess what time that was. The only person who can give us a very
accurate time he saw Oswald was Howard Brennan. He saw Oswald fire the
last shot and we know that shot was fired at 12:30pm.

>
> "> The March '64 statement was done in a Joe Friday "Just the facts, ma'am."
> > style:
> > 6 specific questions were asked and 6 specific answers were given.
> > No embellishments were requested nor given. (And she is now a first time
> > mother to a 3 month old...)
> >
>
> What the hell does that have to do with anything."
>
> Which part? The fact that the questions were so narrow as to provide
> little useful information or the part about having a 3 month old?
>

The questions were asked in order to get specific information. They were
not a fishing expedition.

>
> "> The 12:25 estimate in '64 was in relation to what time she exited the
> > building (ie left through the glass double doors and stepped onto the
> > sidewalk). 12:15 is the estimate she gave for getting up from her desk.
> >

Key word: ESTIMATE

In reality it was a guesstimate, especially given the first record of her
saying that was 15 years after the fact.

> > Being pregnant and needing water and then working her way to the elevator
> > (being 8 months pregnant, she did not walk down the stairs in
> > heels...which elevator/who did she ride with? What route out did she
> > take?), it likely felt longer than it was, but maybe not.
> >
>
> I have no idea where you are going with this. "
>
> I am showing the fallacy of those that claim she 'changed her statement 3
> times'. She did not. 12:15 was the approximate time she gathers herself to
> go and gets up from the desk. 12:25 was the approximate time she exits the
> building. Which elevator she took down and who she rode with gives
> validation to the timeline and route.
>

How so? It is still nothing more than a guesstimate unless you know of
someone who was actually marking the time of these mundane events.

>
> "> She was not shown her previous '63 statement at this time. She may have
> > signed this '64 statement, though I haven't seen her signature anywhere.
> >
> > When/what is the first evidence of her being outside?
> >
> > '78 is the first time with any accuracy that her statement was
> > reported/recorded.
>
> Why do you say it was the first time her statement was accurately
> recorded. "
>
> Again, my apologies if I was unclear. (Doing this on a phone has some
> disadvantages.) It was the first time any details related to Oswald's
> whereabouts prior to the assassination and what she saw were reported
> accurately. The '64 may have been accurate, but was limited.
>

How do you know the FBI did not record her 1963 statement accurately. How
do you know that what she told them in 1963 was the same as what she told
a reporter in 1978? Memories fade over time, especially regarding specific
mundane details. If she didn't think it was important to note the exact
time she saw Oswald in the lunchroom, and why would she, why would we
think she could accurately tell us that time in 1978.

>
> "> At this point, her previous statements are shown to her
> > and the first ('63) is so ridiculous that she immediately and
> > spontaneously corrects it; which she likely would have done in '64 if it
> > had been shown to her. She refutes the '63 statement totally; in its
> > entirety (Sorry Ralph). She places Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom
> > shortly before the assassination; not on the 1st floor.
> >
>
> That's how false memories work. But even if her memory was accurate, it
> would not provide an alibi for Oswald. He would have had 15 minutes to go
> from the second floor to the sixth before JFK arrived. At most it would
> have taken him about two minutes."
>
> To get to the 6th floor, set up the sniper's nest, and get in position...while avoiding the people that were already seen up there...
> In 15 minutes, that would be impressive, in 2 that would be impossible...again reminded ding you that the motorcade was late and he should have been up there before noon for 1 person to accomplish all of that.

How do you know it was not already set up? Oswald did none of his assigned
tasks that morning. That would seem to indicate he was preoccupied with
something else.

> The pushed narrative is that no one can account for Oswald since around 11:45. That is false.
>

We don't know what time Oswald was last seen or by whom prior to the
shooting. What we know with certainty is that he was seen firing the shots
that killed JFK at 12:30. We have an eyewitness and lots of forensic
evidence which establishes that. We also have his post-assassination
actions which were to flee the scene, fetch his handgun, and kill a cop.
That explanation fits the entire body of evidence. It is the only
explanation that does.

>
> ">
> > (Side question: how much do you remember about your actions the morning of
> > 11-Sep-2001? Kinda sticks with you, doesn't it?)
> >
>
> There is much I remember and much I do not. I remember almost no details
> of that morning prior to learning of the attacks. Why would I. Likewise,
> why would Arnold remember details of that day prior the assassination.
> There was nothing that would have seemed the least bit important to her at
> the time. Why would she take note of what time any of these
> pre-assassination events took place or whom she saw in the lunchroom at
> 12:15. I can't imagine anything that would have seemed less important to
> her."
>
> Were you then subsequently interrogated by federal officials and asked to
> recount your activities that morning 3 days later?

Even if I was I wouldn't be able to tell them much. I remember first
hearing about the attacks on my car radio while driving from my new home
in Utica, Oh to my old home in Columbus to work on it in preparation for
sale. I think I remember ABOUT where I was on the road but not to a high
level of certainty. I think I could pin in down to about a 5 mile stretch
but that would be about the best I could do. I certainly wouldn't be able
to give a time I heard it since I haven't a clue what time I started the
journey.

> This forced her to
> relive the recent event from getting to work all the way down to locking
> eyes with JFK from the sidewalk and getting flashed his big grin. I don't
> think your 'false memory' theory takes having to step through that morning
> 3 days later into account. It solidified the memory; the antithesis of
> "false memory"; it was forever locked in place.
>

If she hadn't made note of the time she saw Oswald when she actually saw
him, there is no reason to think she would be able to accurately tell
anyone that in the aftermath, even if asked shortly after the event.

> ">
> > To summarize: her story never changed.
> > She told the truth in '63 & what was reported was not what she said at all.
> > She told the truth in '64 & what was asked was so limited in scope to be
> > almost useless.
> > She told the truth in '78 & was not called before the HSCA to clear up any
> > discrepancies.
> >
>
> How do you know her 1978 memories were accurate?"
>
> By what logic do you question them?

Because human memories are not perfect. Our brains are not equipped with
DVRs to precisely record the events in our lives. We remember bits and
pieces and our brains want to fill in the gaps but often they do not do
that accurately. Over time the bits and pieces get smaller and the gaps
get bigger.

> Because someone who wasn't there gave
> you a 'plausible reason' to dismiss it? Doesn't fit your narrative, much
> as I have seen you accuse others of doing..cherry picking what is
> convenient.
>

I have consistently said I don't trust anyone's account unless that
witness can be corroborated. For example Howard Brennan's account is
corroborated by the fact spent shells were later found at the exact window
where he saw the last shot fired from. The guy he IDed was the guy who
owned the rifle that fired those shells as well as the only two recovered
bullets. That guy's fingerprints were also found at the same location
Brennan saw the shooter and they were oriented precisely as they would be
if he were facing down Elm St. That's pretty good corroboration. By itself
I wouldn't place a lot of faith in Brennan's ID of Oswald but in
conjunction with the body of evidence it becomes damning.

> They are the same as her statements told in '63.

You don't know that.

> Unbeknownst to her, they
> weren't recorded that way. Have you spoken to her? Have you spoken to her
> husband or his parents (her in-laws) at the time? (RE Arnold)
>

Why the hell would I want to?

>
> "> I'll move on to suppositions later, but the following die to lack of cite
> > should probably qualify:
> >
> > I found somewhere in my journey (and now lack the cite) that the original
> > time stamp on the '63 statement had it saying that the observation (brief
> > glimpse) of Oswald on the first floor by the glass doors was possibly
> > 12:37. It may have been a notation on the original notes of Harrison.
> >
>
> If that is what she said, she might have seen him on his way out the door."
>
> To the contrary, that is not at all what SHE said...but I leave room for
> the possibility that it may have been what SOMEONE said.
>

Again, you don't know what she said in 1963. We only have the FBI summary
and her 15 year old memory of what she told them and we don't know to what
degree either of those was accurate.

> I don't find it implausible that utilizing tradecraft, "they" manipulated
> someone else's statement and assigned it to her. If it were ever revealed,
> "they" could then use the excuse that it was 'just a mistake' instead of a
> complete fabrication.
>

It makes no sense that anyone would fabricate what Arnold said because
there is no record of her saying anything that would have exonerated
Oswald. Not in 1963 and not in 1978.

>
> "> But if valid/validated then it was likely a statement made by someone else
> > relating to Oswald exiting the TSBD after his encounter with Baker in the
> > 2ND floor lunchroom and then misattributed to Carolyn Arnold. It would
> > then have needed to be 'massaged' into its reported state.
>
> Nothing needed to be massaged. None of Arnold's statements amounted to a
> hill of beans whether accurate or not. None of them established Oswald's
> whereabouts at 12:30. None of them created an alibi for him. "
>
> That sounds just like the 6 questions in '64... and you are
> right...doesn't give an alibi for 12:30. (When was the motorcade scheduled
> to arrive again?) But when taken with the other witnesses' accounts of
> seeing people on 6th floor and the bone-in chicken sandwich eaten on the
> stairs at the 6th floor landing, it makes it IMPOSSIBLE for Oswald to have
> been there.
>

I see logic is not your strong suit.

> This one overplayed statement fabricated by the FBI about Carolyn Arnold
> not knowing Oswald and only seeing him in the building is the veritable
> linchpin which from, my perspective, shows both conspiracy and cover-up.
>

You are building a sandcastle and it wouldn't take Hurricane Irma to knock
it down.

> (I probably won't copy and paste the entire thing again...it's a pain on a
> phone...)

Which is why I don't use a smart phone. I've very content here at my
laptop. I have a simple flip-phone which does everything a cell phone
needs to do. It allows me to make or receive calls when I am away from my
home. I don't need a computer in my pocket. My flip phone does take crappy
photos but since I can't even download them what's the point.

[Anthony Marsh]

What do you mean by set up the sniper's nest? It was already set up
earlier that morning by the floor laying crew. You mean move three boxes?
You think that would take 15 minutes? BTW, Oswald did not know when the
motorcade would drive by. It was running 15 minutes late. If he wanted to
be the assassin he needed to be at that window at 12:15 PM CST. What other
people were up there on the sixth floor at the same time as Oswald?
Givens?

> In 15 minutes, that would be impressive, in 2 that would be impossible...again reminded ding you that the motorcade was late and he should have been up there before noon for 1 person to accomplish all of that.

All of what? The floor laying crew did most of that work. You are
creating false narratives. WHy? Cui bono?

> The pushed narrative is that no one can account for Oswald since around 11:45. That is false.

Sure, like LOTS of people were watching Oswald's every movement.

>
>
> ">
>> (Side question: how much do you remember about your actions the morning of
>> 11-Sep-2001? Kinda sticks with you, doesn't it?)
>>
>
> There is much I remember and much I do not. I remember almost no details
> of that morning prior to learning of the attacks. Why would I. Likewise,

Exactly. You can't remember what you ate for breakfast. You can't remember
where you were and what you were doing when the news came out that JFK had
been shot. Maybe because you were still in the nursery at the hospital and
they didn't tell you the news.

> why would Arnold remember details of that day prior the assassination.
> There was nothing that would have seemed the least bit important to her at
> the time. Why would she take note of what time any of these
> pre-assassination events took place or whom she saw in the lunchroom at
> 12:15. I can't imagine anything that would have seemed less important to
> her."
>

I think some people do remember that when tragedies happen.

> Were you then subsequently interrogated by federal officials and asked to
> recount your activities that morning 3 days later? This forced her to
> relive the recent event from getting to work all the way down to locking
> eyes with JFK from the sidewalk and getting flashed his big grin. I don't

When exactly did she lock eyes with Oswald from the sidewalk?
Do you have any film or photos of this?

> think your 'false memory' theory takes having to step through that morning
> 3 days later into account. It solidified the memory; the antithesis of
> "false memory"; it was forever locked in place.
>

Something like that. Never rely on witnesses.

> ">
>> To summarize: her story never changed.
>> She told the truth in '63 & what was reported was not what she said at all.
>> She told the truth in '64 & what was asked was so limited in scope to be
>> almost useless.
>> She told the truth in '78 & was not called before the HSCA to clear up any
>> discrepancies.
>>
>
> How do you know her 1978 memories were accurate?"
>

How do you know your 1978 memories are accurate?
Can you even remember what your real name is?

> By what logic do you question them? Because someone who wasn't there gave
> you a 'plausible reason' to dismiss it? Doesn't fit your narrative, much
> as I have seen you accuse others of doing..cherry picking what is
> convenient.
>
> They are the same as her statements told in '63. Unbeknownst to her, they
> weren't recorded that way. Have you spoken to her? Have you spoken to her
> husband or his parents (her in-laws) at the time? (RE Arnold)
>
>
> "> I'll move on to suppositions later, but the following die to lack of cite
>> should probably qualify:
>>
>> I found somewhere in my journey (and now lack the cite) that the original
>> time stamp on the '63 statement had it saying that the observation (brief
>> glimpse) of Oswald on the first floor by the glass doors was possibly
>> 12:37. It may have been a notation on the original notes of Harrison.
>>
>
> If that is what she said, she might have seen him on his way out the door."
>

Could be. Then he wouldn't be IN the lunch room.

> To the contrary, that is not at all what SHE said...but I leave room for
> the possibility that it may have been what SOMEONE said.
>
> I don't find it implausible that utilizing tradecraft, "they" manipulated
> someone else's statement and assigned it to her. If it were ever revealed,
> "they" could then use the excuse that it was 'just a mistake' instead of a
> complete fabrication.
>
>
> "> But if valid/validated then it was likely a statement made by someone else
>> relating to Oswald exiting the TSBD after his encounter with Baker in the
>> 2ND floor lunchroom and then misattributed to Carolyn Arnold. It would
>> then have needed to be 'massaged' into its reported state.
>

How exctly would that work?

> Nothing needed to be massaged. None of Arnold's statements amounted to a
> hill of beans whether accurate or not. None of them established Oswald's
> whereabouts at 12:30. None of them created an alibi for him. "
>

Exactly, which is why this thread has been marked SILLY.