jfk taken out by mob??? Contains Graphic Images

Dragonblaster · 05-01-2011 10:39pm

@bog master, re. Oswald's "strange" Marine experience, Russia etc:

If he was some kind of underground "plant", he was a pretty crap one.

Supposedly insubordinate and a lousy shot according to you, one step away from getting a dishonorable discharge. Why not the perfect integrated Marine.

And it's not so much that kicked him out of Russia as they weren't even slightly interested about him.

And then this "Fair Play for Cuba" group of which he was about the only member.

A real anonymous "sleeper", capable of slipping in anywhere unnoticed.

johnnyvega86 · 06-01-2011 2:51am

bog master wrote: »

I don't agree with you.

You can no more disagree that Oswald killed Kennedy than disagree that the Earth goes around the Sun.

Now, I just look at evidence and testinony or the changing evidence and testimony and try to work it out in my mind.

What you do is ignore the evidence that you don't like.

Is it logical, does it make sense to me.

Just because you can't see the logic or the sense of the evidence does not invalidate it.
The ballistic evidence shows the bullets fired came from Oswald's gun.
You refuse to accept that evidence when it put to you.
You are not logical.

I dont have the time or funds to research it, go to Dallas, try to look out of the sixth floor of the TSBD, or buy Mannicler Carcanos to test fire. I can only rely on testimony and yes some experts, whom we all agree, tend to be on opposite sides, depending on who is paying them.

People who do have the funds to research it, go to Dallas, looked out the sixth floor window, test fire a MC rifle etc. have done so and other posters have shown you videos of those experiments which prove beyond all doubt that Oswald must have killed Kennedy.

You refuse to accept the evidence out of what can only be a sheer stubborn refusal to accept any evidence that would refute you conspiracy viewpoint.

But you seem to be a reasonable person, so I would ask you, why some
many contradictions and blunders in this investigation?

There are none. The overwhelming evidence shows that Oswald killed JFK.

From Oswald's backround, his trip to Russia at the height of the Cold War, his strange Marine history

Oswald was narcissistic, delusional, violent and psychotic.

the Dallas PD bungling of the evidence

What bungling?

the botched autopsy

The autopsy proved two bullets fired from above and behind and to the right were responsible for JFK's neck and head wounds.

and the evidence from just after the shooting within days that the public must be satisfied that Oswald acted alone.

The investigators of the President's murder knew very early on in the case the only suspect in the murder was Oswald acting alone and they produced a thorough investigation culminating in the Warren Report that proves Oswald was guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

Does this not make you in any suspicious?

I have read the Warren Report.
The case against Oswald is air-tight.

The only people who still claim a conspiracy are people with an axe to grind.

You keep trying to pick holes in the evidence and claiming a counter narrative about a second shooter or a cover up or whatever you like without offering an credible evidence for it.

fergus o brien · 06-01-2011 4:09pm

if your claiming there is no evidence of contradictions between the warren commission conclusions and the 26 vollumes you are patently wrong as this thread clearly shows.

"Oswald was narcissistic, delusional, violent and psychotic."
so prove it.

"The autopsy proved two bullets fired from above and behind and to the right were responsible for JFK's neck and head wounds."

the autopsy also shows that the back wound was shallow and had no exit ,and that the wound was probed using a finger and a surgical probe. so the back wound had no relationship to the throath wound (did oswald have a second magic bullet in his possesion) did this bullet hit jfk in the back go in to reverse gear back out of the wound then swing right and go over his shoulder pull a massive u turn and strike him in the throath .

"The investigators of the President's murder knew very early on in the case the only suspect in the murder was Oswald acting alone and they produced a thorough investigation culminating in the Warren Report that proves Oswald was guilty beyond all reasonable doubt."

i think you will agree that jesse curry was one those investigators this is what he said,

When Jesse Curry retired as police chief of Dallas, Texas, he wrote a book called "JFK Assassination File." In a 1969 interview for the Dallas Morning News around the time of publication, Curry stated,

"We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did.
Nobody's yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand."
"I have read the Warren Report.
The case against Oswald is air-tight."

that is only your opinion and you are entitled to that ,however you will accept because you have an opinion of something that doesnt make it fact.

johnnyvega86 · 06-01-2011 4:16pm

fergus o brien wrote: »

if your claiming there is no evidence of contradictions between the warren commission conclusions and the 26 vollumes you are patently wrong as this thread clearly shows.

"Oswald was narcissistic, delusional, violent and psychotic."
so prove it.

"The autopsy proved two bullets fired from above and behind and to the right were responsible for JFK's neck and head wounds."

the autopsy also shows that the back wound was shallow and had no exit ,and that the wound was probed using a finger and a surgical probe. so the back wound had no relationship to the throath wound (did oswald have a second magic bullet in his possesion) did this bullet hit jfk in the back go in to reverse gear back out of the wound then swing right and go over his shoulder pull a massive u turn and strike him in the throath .

"The investigators of the President's murder knew very early on in the case the only suspect in the murder was Oswald acting alone and they produced a thorough investigation culminating in the Warren Report that proves Oswald was guilty beyond all reasonable doubt."

i think you will agree that jesse curry was one those investigators this is what he said,

When Jesse Curry retired as police chief of Dallas, Texas, he wrote a book called "JFK Assassination File." In a 1969 interview for the Dallas Morning News around the time of publication, Curry stated,
"We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did.
Nobody's yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand."
"I have read the Warren Report.
The case against Oswald is air-tight."

that is only your opinion and you are entitled to that ,however you will accept because you have an opinion of something that doesnt make it fact.

You are just repeating the same garbage you already spouted to other posters.

You're evidently not capable of engaging in any honest debate whatsoever.

fergus o brien · 06-01-2011 4:51pm

i have debated all through this thread and i have been 100% honest and as factual as is humanly possible . all through this thread i posted videos where people have heard what happened that day from the very mouths of the people who were there in dallas that day.
such as john connally (who sat in front of jfk) who said he was not hit by the same bullet that struck jfk .(but maybe connallys a liar)

i have provided links that show evidence of the wound at the back of jfks head ,one such link has photographs where all the staff are clearly indicating with their hands where the head wound was.(they must have all lied too)

i have provided experts testimony from the 26 vollumes ,such as the experts findings that the magic bullet could not have caused all wounds (excluding the head wound) to both jfk and connally ,and the experts findings that they could not concieve of where the fragments taken from connallys wounds would have come from the almost pristine magic bullet. ( i suppose all the experts were wrong then )

if you dont want to believe what you hear from the very mouths of the people who were witnesses that terrible day ,and dont want to believe the expert testimony in the warren commision vollumes that is totally up to you. you seem to be of the same thinking as an earlier poster in this thread silkworm who steadfastly stood by the warren commission conclussions but who refused to acknowledge the testimony and evidence the conclussions were supposed to have been based upon.

you can say what you like call it garbage if you want again thats your opinion and your entitled to it, my posts are here on this thread for all to see and people are entitled to try and refute them if they wish.

bog master · 06-01-2011 11:01pm

johnnyvega86 wrote: »

bog master wrote: »

Oswald was narcissistic, delusional, violent and psychotic.

Strong statement, care to cite some evidence.

What bungling?

Fritz did not mark the rifle or the shells. He picked up the shells before they were photographed, and then threw or placed them on the floor,when photographed it was a re-enactment. And then the Warren Commission has numerous pages of testimony on where the shells might land when ejected from the rifle , all based on a location that
cannot be proven and is most likely false.

The boxes in the "snipers nest" were moved and then put back in order
for the official photograph to be taken.

Fritz testified to the WC he took no notes during the interrogation of Oswald, yet praise the lord, they somehow appear in time for the ARRB
investigation.

A minimum of two officers described the rifle as a Mauser and signed affadvits to the same. Yet Fritz in his WC testimony said upon his initial examination it was clearly a MC.

No photographs exist of the paper bag at the crime scene that Oswald supposedly carried the rifle into the TSBD.

And maybe one more, DPD failed in protecting the most important evidence, Oswald.

The autopsy proved two bullets fired from above and behind and to the right were responsible for JFK's neck and head wounds.

That autopsy has more holes in it than Irish water pipes!
But will leave that for another time.

The investigators of the President's murder knew very early on in the case the only suspect in the murder was Oswald acting alone and they produced a thorough investigation culminating in the Warren Report that proves Oswald was guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

Even many LN's admit the Warren Commission was far from thorough.

I have read the Warren Report.
The case against Oswald is air-tight.

Maybe try reading the testimony and you may see the differences in testimony and the conclusions.

The only people who still claim a conspiracy are people with an axe to grind.

I have no axe to grind, only seek the truth.

You keep trying to pick holes in the evidence and claiming a counter narrative about a second shooter or a cover up or whatever you like without offering an credible evidence for it.

I suppose you could look at it that way. I see it as, the LN/WC has presented evidence that it was Oswald alone, I doubt some of that evidence.

Dragonblaster · 08-01-2011 9:59am

I see it as, the LN/WC has presented evidence that it was Oswald alone, I doubt some of that evidence.

Well you make that sound very reasonable and measured. But it isn't really.

I'm sure if if weren't such an emotive subject, there would be people who'd look at the Ted Bundy case and pick holes in tiny, inconsequential bits of evidence while leaving the vast mass of evidence untouched.

It isn't about, "this shadow isn't quite right, this person said this while that person said that," it's about reducing a horrific and brutal crime to some kind of "Where's Wally?" game.

Dragonblaster · 08-01-2011 10:22am

Oh, BTW, consider Charles Whitman:

Qualified as US Marine Sharpshooter (not Expert)
Fired at members of the public from a tower with a 6mm bolt-action rifle with a 4-power scope (sound familiar?), killed 15 and hit many others
Made shots at ranges of up to 500 yards, including running people
Hit one policemen through a narrow "arrow-slit" at 300 yards

This guy didn't get the ultimate US Marines shooting accolade, yet his marksmanship was gorily uncanny.

The USMC take rifle shooting very, very, very seriously indeed, and getting any kind of rifleman's qualification there puts you considerably above the average good club marksman.

bog master · 08-01-2011 12:07pm

Dragonblaster wrote: »

Oh, BTW, consider Charles Whitman:
Qualified as US Marine Sharpshooter (not Expert)

Fired at members of the public from a tower with a 6mm bolt-action rifle with a 4-power scope (sound familiar?), killed 15 and hit many others

Made shots at ranges of up to 500 yards, including running people

Hit one policemen through a narrow "arrow-slit" at 300 yards

This guy didn't get the ultimate US Marines shooting accolade, yet his marksmanship was gorily uncanny.

The USMC take rifle shooting very, very, very seriously indeed, and getting any kind of rifleman's qualification there puts you considerably above the average good club marksman.

Interesting, I will admit, but just adds more confusion over the issue of Oswald's shooting skills, from evidence of being a rather poor shot to an average shot for a Marine. I accept it is possible he could have carried out the shooting but dont believe it is probable due to the above mentioned conflicting testimony, Hathcock and Roberts statements, the condition of the rifle, the misaligned scope, and no evidence of him practicing with the rifle or even buying the clip and ammo.

In my opinion, it is not the strongest evidence that he did not do the shooting, but as I have often repeated, it is the multitude of conflicting evidence in so many aspects of the case that makes me question the W.C.
conclusions.

Dragonblaster · 09-01-2011 12:16am

bog master wrote: »

Interesting, I will admit, but just adds more confusion over the issue of Oswald's shooting skills, from evidence of being a rather poor shot to an average shot for a Marine. I accept it is possible he could have carried out the shooting but dont believe it is probable due to the above mentioned conflicting testimony, Hathcock and Roberts statements, the condition of the rifle, the misaligned scope, and no evidence of him practicing with the rifle or even buying the clip and ammo.

In my opinion, it is not the strongest evidence that he did not do the shooting, but as I have often repeated, it is the multitude of conflicting evidence in so many aspects of the case that makes me question the W.C.
conclusions.

Whitman hit running people at up to 500 yards, hardly missing any: Oswald's furthest shot was a mere 88 yards, and he missed Kennedy's head twice. So this claim that Oswald was such a crap shot that he couldn't possibly have made the shots is just a non-starter.

bog master · 09-01-2011 6:00pm

Dragonblaster wrote: »

Whitman hit running people at up to 500 yards, hardly missing any: Oswald's furthest shot was a mere 88 yards, and he missed Kennedy's head twice. So this claim that Oswald was such a crap shot that he couldn't possibly have made the shots is just a non-starter.

What rifle and scope was Whitman using? What time span did he have to fire? What field of view did he have? How many of his "kills" and my heart goes out to those killed or injured, but, how many were from the upper shoulders upwards?

Please cite your source that he "hit running people at up to 500 yards, hardly missing any!

How much practice did he have with that rifle?

Its apples and oranges. There has been and will be debate about Oswalds's shooting skills for a long time. Each side has its "experts" with differing opinions. But, at the end of the day, its only one aspect of the case.

Dragonblaster · 09-01-2011 8:42pm

bog master wrote: »

What rifle and scope was Whitman using? What time span did he have to fire? What field of view did he have? How many of his "kills" and my heart goes out to those killed or injured, but, how many were from the upper shoulders upwards?

Remington 6mm bird rifle with x4 scope. Time span wasn't an issue. OK, most shots were in the chest region, but he hit people like Officer Speed in the head when that was all that was visible (Speed between the eyes when he was standing behind a 6-inch wide gap at over 200 yards).

bog master wrote: »

Please cite your source that he "hit running people at up to 500 yards, hardly missing any!

I don't know all his shots, but I know his longest shots were over 400 yards and at least one hit was at 500 yards. My primary reference was a book called "A Sniper in the Tower" by Gary M. Lavergne, pretty much the most detailed work as far as I know.

bog master wrote: »

How much practice did he have with that rifle?

Don't know. I'll have to look it up in the book. However, is it a given that if Oswald had practiced every week with his rifle, he'd have told someone? Again, I don't know, but it seems to be implied.

bog master wrote: »

Its apples and oranges. There has been and will be debate about Oswalds's shooting skills for a long time. Each side has its "experts" with differing opinions. But, at the end of the day, its only one aspect of the case.

Now, Whitman was almost certainly a better marksman than Oswald, but then his shots were so much more difficult with similar equipment. Therefore, I don't cite this as a definitive proof that Oswald fired the shots, but there is a lot of forensic evidence that does that.

However, that forensic evidence is attacked by CT believers on the grounds that:

Oswald (a passed US Marine Marksman who once scored a Sharpshooter norm) was a pathetic shot who didn't know one end of a rifle from the other.
Even if he could shoot, the range was too much, the target was too small, it was moving too fast or whatever.
A 4-power scope was insufficient.
A 6.5mm rifle wasn't powerful enough.

I'm casting doubt, that's all. I do not believe Oswald could not have made the shots. In fact, I am convinced he did make all of them, but that's another story.

bog master · 09-01-2011 10:34pm

Dragonblaster wrote: »

Remington 6mm bird rifle with x4 scope. Time span wasn't an issue. OK, most shots were in the chest region, but he hit people like Officer Speed in the head when that was all that was visible (Speed between the eyes when he was standing behind a 6-inch wide gap at over 200 yards).

I know little about rifles but would I be correct in thinking the Remington
is considered by experts a superior weapon than the Carcano? Again, with
my ignorance, is the scope Whitman used on par with Oswald's as per quality/performance? And sighted in?

I don't know all his shots, but I know his longest shots were over 400 yards and at least one hit was at 500 yards. My primary reference was a book called "A Sniper in the Tower" by Gary M. Lavergne, pretty much the most detailed work as far as I know.

I will agree, it seems to be impressive shooting.

Don't know. I'll have to look it up in the book. However, is it a given that if Oswald had practiced every week with his rifle, he'd have told someone? Again, I don't know, but it seems to be implied.

As far as I know, there was no evidence found that Oswald practiced with the rifle, in fact there is no evidence as to him buying ammo or the clip.
There were some so called false sightings of him at a rifle range, but they have been generally been disproved.

Now, Whitman was almost certainly a better marksman than Oswald, but then his shots were so much more difficult with similar equipment. Therefore, I don't cite this as a definitive proof that Oswald fired the shots, but there is a lot of forensic evidence that does that.

Agree with you to a point, I would be of the opinion that Whitman's rifle and scope were far superior, but only an expert on shooting could say.

Some do, I agee, but both sides of this debate tend to attract the misinformed. My opinion is that he was a poor to average shot for a Marine.

Even if he could shoot, the range was too much, the target was too small, it was moving too fast or whatever.

My problem has always been the time frame and a rifle in poor condition and a misaligned scope. I accept he could have used the open sights.

A 4-power scope was insufficient.

Have never advanced that point and believe it false.

A 6.5mm rifle wasn't powerful enough.

Nonsense, smaller bore rifles can kill with a head shot.

I'm casting doubt, that's all. I do not believe Oswald could not have made the shots. In fact, I am convinced he did make all of them, but that's another story.

Similiar to my line of thinking. It is not impossible that Oswald could have done the shooting, my question is, how likely was it. This combined with many other "probables or possibles" in the case , along with other questionable evidence and testimony makes me doubt the official conclusions of the WR.

By the way, one of the most civil and open minded posts I have seen in a good while. It seems you have an open mind. Fair play !

Dragonblaster · 09-01-2011 10:59pm

bog master wrote: »

Similiar tother "probables or possibles" in the case , along with other questionable evidence and testimony makes me doubt the official conclusions of the WR.

o my line of thinking. It is not impossible that Oswald could have done the shooting, my question is, how likely was it. This combined with many By the way, one of the most civil and open minded posts I have seen in a good while. It seems you have an open mind. Fair play !

I am willing to entertain any reasonable argument from someone as long as they too can maintain an open mind: acknowledging at least the possibility that the "lone Oswald" scenario at least has some evidence on its side.

As far as I know, Remington is a respected firearm brand and they make very good rifles. However, the Carcano was a standard Italian infantry rifle for many years and certainly not rubbish. I would guess it was on a par with the .303 Lee Enfield, which I fired many times at school. It was clunky and heavy, but I could consistently achieve better than 1-inch groups at 200 yards with one.

I never fired a rifle from the time I left school until I bought an air rifle last year - a period of thirty years. And yet the skills I learned at school meant that I could shoot good groups from the off.

One thing I can do is to note where my first shot goes and take account of that in my sight picture. I then aim off by the requisite amount.

The "standard" explanation says Oswald missed the first shot by some distance and hit the kerb. Is it possible - just possible - that Oswald might have noted the disparity in his sight picture and aimed off on his subsequent shots? It's not a particularly esoteric skill: all decent Hunter Field Target air rifle shooters are used to doing it to adjust for the weather, since an air rifle pellet is far more susceptible to the wind than a cartridge rifle bullet. And to get a decent score, you have to adjust QUICKLY!

Dragonblaster · 13-01-2011 9:13pm

fergus o brien wrote: »

ill have to assume as you have had to resort to sarcasm above that you realise i have done my home work .

Not at all - just raising the question of why such a cunning and well-financed operation involving thousands of people that at its core needed to use its mighty resources to frame a totally innocent left-leaning man who just happened recently to have taken a job in a building almost diametrically opposite where the real shots would be coming from (though why that would look like a prime choice of pseudo-sniper location, necessitating the need to confuse the entrance and exit wounds for the public, I cannot for a moment see), knowing he had a Mannlicher-Carcano (a Carcano rifle with a Mauser clip), but not realising it was rusty, unusable, and the scope was nearly falling off, and in any case Oswald never had one, (or so what if he did, there's no evidence that he ever fired it) and replace it with a bright, shiny, fully functional Mauser rifle with well-aligned scope, but then switch it for said rusty, unusable rifle as soon as they realised their error, and then gather up all the real bullets and plant real bullets from the wrong gun that had never been fired and couldn't be fired anyway, and...

It's bloody Keystone Kops stuff. Sarcasm is about the only emotion I can muster from it. More and better planning must have gone into the Charge of the Light Brigade.

Why not:

Steal Oswald's rifle and make it usable, clean the rust and sight in and secure the scope,
Drug Oswald with a Coke or cup of coffee laden with drugs,
Hide the sleeping victim in the sniper's nest,
Get one of the "paid for" cops (cops MUST have been paid for for the CT to work) to use Oswald's rifle while wearing surgical gloves and shoot Kennedy with one clinical shot to the head,
Get Oswald's hand- and fingerprints all over it
Sneak off (as Oswald was able to do during the furore, even if he didn't fire the shots) and allow another paid cop to "find" Oswald and shoot him stone dead, having first taken the precaution of shouting a warning and firing a shot from Oswald's pistol, to be found later.
Put the pistol in Oswald's cooling right hand.

This has the following clear advantages over the silly CT:

There's no need to mess with Kennedy's autopsy
The entry and exit wounds agree completely with the accused man's place of work
The poor patsy is found bang to rights
The rifle (his rifle, without any doubt) is in perfect order, oiled, cleaned and ready to go
Shot by an honest, law-abiding policeman, who shouted a warning before the perpetrator took a shot at him.
Very, VERY few people need to know about this: no killing some witnesses and bribing others, paying off or threatening coroners, doctors, Secret Servicemen, policemen, judges, legislators...

And that's it. No stupid errors necessary (like trying to argue the shots came from the opposite angle to what all "reliable" witnesses think, or which the corpse's wounds imply, or opportunities for the same. How would anyone know?

Now can I get that job as Director of Cunning Plots at the CIA?

fergus o brien · 13-01-2011 10:48pm

"Not at all - just raising the question of why such a cunning and well-financed operation involving thousands of people that at its core needed to use its mighty resources to frame a totally innocent left-leaning man"

can i ask where this cast of thousands came from ? . please explain who these thousands are.

clearly you dont believe there was a conspiracy ok thats your opinion and your entitled to it ,but maybe instead of talking about if there was a conspiracy how the conspirators must have been inept idiots ,or there wasnt a conspiricy oswald did it because he had psychotic and violent tendencies from a young age ,maybe you could detail say 20 reasons why you believe oswald did it and did it alone and back the 20 reasons up with proper factual evidence.

bogmaster has posted a lot of very good information and backed up what he said with factual evidence ,i too have posted a lot of information and evidence on this thread .

people will believe what they want and so will you im not here to try and change your mind ,i mean i have and still do talk with a lot of so called LNers (people who believe oswald was the so called lone nut ) and i could show them a photograph of a guy hanging out of the 3 floor of the dal tex building with a rifle and in 20 years they would still be arguing oswald was the lone nut. the reason why is simple they prefer to argue with so called CTers (so called conspiracy theorists) than to admit what they know is the truth ,its more fun .

Dragonblaster · 17-01-2011 8:19pm

fergus o brien wrote: »

can i ask where this cast of thousands came from ? . please explain who these thousands are.

What about the witnesses who identifed Oswald as Tippit's murderer,
Howard Brennan for saying he saw Oswald pointing the rifle out of the 6th floor TSBD,
The witnesses who swore all the shots came from the TSBD (more than the number who swore they all came from the GK - and they can't both be right.
The witnesses who picked up spent shell cases from the Tippit scene which were later matched to Oswald's .38.
The police who planted the supposed Mauser, then swapped it with Oswald's rifle, who must also have picked up all the 7.65mm shell cases and bullets and replaced them with 6.5mm ones.
The cameraman who filmed the supposed rife discovery,
The 34 main members of the Warren Commission and supposed evidence-gatherers,
The top hierarchy at least of the CIA, and doubtless the FBI and police as well (the police don't like the FBI and the FBI DEFINITELY don't like the CIA - if it's all such an obvious fake, they'd all have to be agreed not to notice)
The GK assassins
Jack Ruby, who evidently agreed in a public-spirited way to take one for the team
The police who led Oswald into an ambush (although if LHO hadn't asked for a sweater, Ruby would have been too late)

Perhaps thousands is an exaggeration, but we're not just talking about a few guys in a smoky room, all sworn to secrecy.

fergus o brien wrote: »

[SNIP...]maybe instead of talking about if there was a conspiracy how the conspirators must have been inept idiots ,or there wasnt a conspiricy oswald did it because he had psychotic and violent tendencies from a young age ,maybe you could detail say 20 reasons why you believe oswald did it and did it alone and back the 20 reasons up with proper factual evidence.

The Warren Commission has far more than 20 reasons, and I think the sheer implausibility of the conspiracy is another - and this has not been addressed. The CT as it stands is audacious, complex, devilishly cunning and mind-blowingly idiotic in my opinion.

You have dismissed those claims of mine, but you haven't addressed them at all. So I'll ask again - why such a complicated scheme that is so riddled with errors when a simple one would have worked as well.

I may give you twenty annotated points when I feel that's been addressed. But most of them will be from the Warren Commission report,
and it would appear that you regard it as a parcel of lies and deceit, so I don't know what good it would do.

fergus o brien wrote: »

bogmaster has posted a lot of very good information and backed up what he said with factual evidence ,i too have posted a lot of information and evidence on this thread .

I have seen a lot of claims, but not a lot of backup. Yes, some people said some things, but others said different. Why should I believe that the first lot are right and the second lot wrong?

fergus o brien wrote: »

people will believe what they want and so will you im not here to try and change your mind

I don't want to believe anything. There is just a lot of convincing evidence that Oswald did this deed, and I don't think the CT side have overbalanced the LN side even nearly yet.

fergus o brien wrote: »

i could show them a photograph of a guy hanging out of the 3 floor of the dal tex building with a rifle and in 20 years they would still be arguing oswald was the lone nut.

I hope you're not including me in that group. That evidence would certainly interest me and could persuade me to change my mind. However, I imagine that was a rhetorical device.

fergus o brien wrote: »

the reason why is simple they prefer to argue with so called CTers (so called conspiracy theorists) than to admit what they know is the truth ,its more fun .

Now that does disturb me, Fergus. Are you saying that anyone who disagrees with the CT is blowing smoke - that they just have to be able to see how false the LN really is?

I have seen this happen with the Lunar Hoax brigade - an attempt to make out that the generally accepted view (deluded or not) as a ludicrous, laughable, paper-thin, poorly cobbled-together fringe view adhered to only by a few dullards and dimwits, and of course the inevitable shills in the pay of NASA. Some people are swayed by this rhetoric alone.

I don't think the "innocent Oswald" argument is by any means the default viewpoint of all thinking people, leaving the LN view as some kind of minority delusion.

For the record, I not only do NOT secretly believe that it is true, I am convinced it isn't.

However, I am also not so wedded to the idea that i can't change my mind.

And also for the record, I don't see myself as a knight in shining armour and you as an evil dragon I have to slay at all costs - I just think you're wrong, that's all. All I'm interested in is a decent civilised debate.

fergus o brien · 17-01-2011 9:40pm

well now we see its not thousands ,not really even hundreds .

as far as im aware only two witnesses said they saw the murder of tippit ,helen markham who said the shooter was short and kind of chunky with bushy hair which is not oswald (and she gave a time of about 1.07 for the shooting ,and did not recognise oswald in a line up) and the other is domingo benavides who said he didnt think he could identify the shooter . there were witnesses who claimed to have seen the killer of tippit run away but they give conflicting descriptions of the man and what he was wearing . i dont think any of these people were involved in a conspiracy but i do believe the line ups were rigged and that people may have changed there stories because they were afraid.

howard brennan saw some one thats clear but he didnt see the shooters face (look at this video can you make out the reporters face standing in the area where brennan was sat ,if we cant see the reporters face brennan couldnt see the snipers face )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BezYOOa8_LE&feature=player_embedded

i dont believe he was apart of any conspiracy either ,but he didnt see the man as clear as he said and didnt want to attend a line up and the warren comission stated their conclussions were not based on his testimony.

im not saying that no shots were fired from behind (clearly they were ,from where is another matter) so a lot of witnesses said they heard a shot from the knoll area and like wise a lot said the book depository area ,these people are not apart of a conspiracy either.

i dont believe the witnesses who picked up the shells at the tippit murder scene were apart of a conspiracy but i do have issue with the bullets taken from tippit and the fifth bullet that the ambulance driver found ,strange only 4 shells were found.

i dont believe the police planted a mauser but i believe 2 rifles were found ,weitzman said he made a simple mistake and that he rectified the mistake (strange then that he was still saying it was a mauser on november 25th three days later) were 7.65 shells found on the 6th floor that i cant say (but a 7.65 shell was found some where in dealey plaza ) and the photographs of the snipers nest seem to be reconstructions why is that).

i dont believe tom alyea is apart of a conspiracy (but he did say that will fritz picked the shells up in his hand to show him and then that he may have put the shells in his pocket (this before the snipers nest was photographed by police photographers ) and im not saying a carcano wasnt found as alyea did film a rifle.

the senior members of the warren commission were most certainly involved in a conspiracy to hide the truth (but i dont believe any of them were apart of a conspiracy to kill jfk) .

certainly people high up in the cia had some involvement as did ruby (what exact part they played i dont know) obviously if there was a shooter or shooters in the knoll area they were apart of a conspiracy to kill jfk unless they didnt know what the thing with the scope on it that was in their hands was .

again i dont believe the cops in the station (while oswald was being moved) were apart of a conspiracy ,but ruby did not come down the ramp he entered from another area and was seen by witnesses and so he had help gaining access.

so now the cast of thousands is a great deal smaller .

when i said detail your 20 reasons i meant like your top 20 reasons ,i havent dismissed any claims i simply asked you to detail maybe 20 reasons why you think oswald was the lone killer of both jfk and tippit and provide what ever evidence you have that you believe proves your reasoning is correct.

"I don't want to believe anything. There is just a lot of convincing evidence that Oswald did this deed, and I don't think the CT side have overbalanced the LN side even nearly yet.

For the record, I not only do NOT secretly believe that it is true, I am convinced it isn't.

However, I am also not so wedded to the idea that i can't change my mind.

And also for the record, I don't see myself as a knight in shining armour and you as an evil dragon I have to slay at all costs - I just think you're wrong, that's all. All I'm interested in is a decent civilised debate."

im a reasonable person and while i say i dont believe oswald was ever on the 6th floor shooting at anyone , and i believe he had no time to get to where tippit was shot i do believe he had some involvement with either or both the cia and fbi maybe as an informant .and that he may have been aware of some kind of plot but he played no part in it.

Dragonblaster · 17-01-2011 10:47pm

OK, Fergus, I accept that you are convinced of the CT side, just as I am of the LN side.

However, I ask again: why frame a man working in a building diametrically opposite where the shots would come? That in itself necessitates faking the autopsy, hiding bullets found on the SBD side of the car and convincing innocent people that the shots came from the other side.

Are we to believe that the CIA knew ahead of time that they could do this? Would not one person point out the far easier prospect of having someone shoot from the same aspect as the patsy's capacious workplace?

And why the need to betray Oswald and kill him to keep his silence (after many hours of interrogation and a press conference - the officers in the cinema could surely have managed to do the job - yet protect the real killer at absolutely all costs? Why not just convince someone disposable like Oswald to do the job, using a fake Communist angle perhaps, and then shoot him on sight?

Will you please at least address this ONE aspect before asking for 20 reasons that I am only going to lift from he Warren Commission Report anyway?

I find the conspiracy theory ridiculously complex and depending on an awful lot of luck, whereas there must have been far simpler ways of getting the evil job done.

If you like, that is reason 1 of 20. If you address that sensibly and with sound logic, I may proffer 2 of 20.

Deal? Or am I being unreasonable?

fergus o brien · 17-01-2011 11:47pm

what i am convinced of is that the warren commissions conclussions of a lone shooter firing 3 shots (of which one missed ,one struck both jfk and connally and one struck jfk in the head) is not reflected in the evidence and testimony in their own 26 vollumes . also im convinced based on testimony and sworn affidavits that tippits killing occured earler than the warren commision maintained . what i believe has nothing to do with a CT side or LN side its do with finding the truth ,its to do with reading the testimony and seeing the evidence and wondering how the commission came to the conclussions they did.

to use a line from the movie jfk by kevin costner who played jim garrison
"i cant believe a man as intelligent as earl warren ever read what was in those vollumes"

"Are we to believe that the CIA knew ahead of time that they could do this? Would not one person point out the far easier prospect of having someone shoot from the same aspect as the patsy's capacious workplace?"

i know you think these guys were idiots ,but i assume if these guys were planning on shooting jfk and framing oswald they would still want to escape wouldnt they ? hence the knoll shooter. i believe the knoll shooter/s were there for 2 reasons ,one as a diversion and two as backup in case the guys firing from behind didnt get a kill shot. of course i cant prove that its just speculation ,and what your asking me to do is speculate and that is not what i want to be doing. thats another reason why i said to you why not give your reasons for believing what you believe .

im not really interested in silly arguments i see them all the time on forums , people saying things like earlene roberts didnt see a police car outside her home and one person saying you cant prove she didnt the other saying you cant prove she did ,that stuff wont get us any where nearer the truth. i always say if the truth shows oswald 100% guilty on all fronts so be it ,but atleast then we will have truth.

i debated on this very thread with silkworm i believe and the problem i had with his argument was that he seemed to whole heartedly stand by the warren commission conclussions but he seemed to have no faith in the testimony in the 26 vollumes especially that of the commissions own experts . he then brought up gary mack in trying to show the single bullet theory to be correct ,but i pointed out that mr mack was the man who gave us badgeman ,so mr mack is saying on one hand the sbt is correct and oswald did it alone but that badgeman was there on the knoll firing aswell (i assume firing at some one some where in dealey that had nothing to do with jfk) and i was called unreasonable.

Dragonblaster · 18-01-2011 12:16am

fergus o brien wrote: »

what i am convinced of is that the warren commissions conclussions of a lone shooter firing 3 shots (of which one missed ,one struck both jfk and connally and one struck jfk in the head) is not reflected in the evidence and testimony in their own 26 vollumes . also im convinced based on testimony and sworn affidavits that tippits killing occured earler than the warren commision maintained . what i believe has nothing to do with a CT side or LN side its do with finding the truth ,its to do with reading the testimony and seeing the evidence and wondering how the commission came to the conclussions they did.

to use a line from the movie jfk by kevin costner who played jim garrison
"i cant believe a man as intelligent as earl warren ever read what was in those vollumes"

"Are we to believe that the CIA knew ahead of time that they could do this? Would not one person point out the far easier prospect of having someone shoot from the same aspect as the patsy's capacious workplace?"

i know you think these guys were idiots ,but i assume if these guys were planning on shooting jfk and framing oswald they would still want to escape wouldnt they ? hence the knoll shooter. i believe the knoll shooter/s were there for 2 reasons ,one as a diversion and two as backup in case the guys firing from behind didnt get a kill shot. of course i cant prove that its just speculation ,and what your asking me to do is speculate and that is not what i want to be doing. thats another reason why i said to you why not give your reasons for believing what you believe .

im not really interested in silly arguments i see them all the time on forums , people saying things like earlene roberts didnt see a police car outside her home and one person saying you cant prove she didnt the other saying you cant prove she did ,that stuff wont get us any where nearer the truth. i always say if the truth shows oswald 100% guilty on all fronts so be it ,but atleast then we will have truth.

i debated on this very thread with silkworm i believe and the problem i had with his argument was that he seemed to whole heartedly stand by the warren commission conclussions but he seemed to have no faith in the testimony in the 26 vollumes especially that of the commissions own experts . he then brought up gary mack in trying to show the single bullet theory to be correct ,but i pointed out that mr mack was the man who gave us badgeman ,so mr mack is saying on one hand the sbt is correct and oswald did it alone but that badgeman was there on the knoll firing aswell (i assume firing at some one some where in dealey that had nothing to do with jfk) and i was called unreasonable.

Again. Why try to frame a man who worked in a building on the opposite side from where the real shooter(s) would be firing?

Why is that a good idea?

Monty Burnz · 18-01-2011 2:45pm

I've a question: why did Oswald say that he was a 'patsy' when he knew he was goosed anyway? He couldn't have hoped to get away with, he knew they had him bang to rights.

I guess the obvious explanation is that he was a desperate man, and could have said anything. But it seems to me a bit odd that:

a) he didn't seem to be prepared to get caught, if you follow me
and
b) he could have said he was innocent, or pretended to be mad or whatever, but he basically went for the conspiracy angle (odd only in the context of everything else).

fergus o brien · 18-01-2011 4:23pm

"Again. Why try to frame a man who worked in a building on the opposite side from where the real shooter(s) would be firing?

Why is that a good idea?"

in my last post i said why i thought there was a shooter on the knoll and the reasons ,in my second last post i said this

"im not saying that no shots were fired from behind (clearly they were ,from where is another matter) so a lot of witnesses said they heard a shot from the knoll area and like wise a lot said the book depository area ,these people are not apart of a conspiracy either"

those two points above would indicate that the shots fired from the book depository area were intended at some stage to lead to oswald where as the knoll shots would provide a distraction and time for the conspirators to make there esape. but again all this is speculation and as i said i would prefer not to speculate on what happened as it wont help get to the truth of what happened.

your asking me why the conspirators would want to frame oswald for the killing of jfk and if your as knowledgeable as i think you are on this subject then you should allready know the answer to that question.

Dragonblaster · 18-01-2011 8:26pm

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I've a question: why did Oswald say that he was a 'patsy' when he knew he was goosed anyway? He couldn't have hoped to get away with, he knew they had him bang to rights.

I guess the obvious explanation is that he was a desperate man, and could have said anything. But it seems to me a bit odd that:

a) he didn't seem to be prepared to get caught, if you follow me
and
b) he could have said he was innocent, or pretended to be mad or whatever, but he basically went for the conspiracy angle (odd only in the context of everything else).

He also seemed to go out of his way to annoy Fritz and the other police with his arrogance and unhelpfulness, whereas I would have imagined a bit of humility, "Please, guys, help me; you've got the wrong man, I've been set up and I don't know why" might have been more helpful to his cause.

Unless all the police were in on it too. Trouble is, if it was a CIA plot, police dislike the CIA intensely, and there is internecine rivalry between FBI and CIA, even though their manors don't theoretically overlap.

Dragonblaster · 18-01-2011 8:36pm

fergus o brien wrote: »

"im not saying that no shots were fired from behind (clearly they were ,from where is another matter) so a lot of witnesses said they heard a shot from the knoll area and like wise a lot said the book depository area ,these people are not apart of a conspiracy either"

That means more bullets, and you STILL have to fake the bullet wounds that do happen to hit from the front: and urgently, too. If anyone spots diametrically opposite wound tracks, the LN theory is absolutely and irreparably blown.

fergus o brien wrote: »

those two points above would indiate that the shots fired from the book depository area were intended at some stage to lead to oswald where as the knoll shots would provide a distraction and time for the conspirators to make there esape

I think Kennedy being assassinated provided quite sufficient panic and confusion without the need for extra shots that increase the chance of the conspiracy being revealed. Oswald, innocent or guilty, got out of the TSBD in the midst of that confusion, so it's reasonable to assume the "real assassin" could have, too.

fergus o brien wrote: »

your asking me why the conspirators would want to frame oswald for the killing of jfk and if your as knowledgeable as i think you are on this subject then you should allready know the answer to that question.

I'm not asking what the motive was, but why frame a man who worked in the TSBD, plant fake evidence in the TSBD, and then have shots coming from a completely different direction.

Monty Burnz · 18-01-2011 8:51pm

Dragonblaster wrote: »

He also seemed to go out of his way to annoy Fritz and the other police with his arrogance and unhelpfulness, whereas I would have imagined a bit of humility, "Please, guys, help me; you've got the wrong man, I've been set up and I don't know why" might have been more helpful to his cause.

Unless all the police were in on it too. Trouble is, if it was a CIA plot, police dislike the CIA intensely, and there is internecine rivalry between FBI and CIA, even though their manors don't theoretically overlap.

So was he a...what's the PC term...a nutjob? I don't see how he thought he would get away once he shot the police officer, and he didn't seem to have any great ideas as to how to escape the Book Depository either (and indeed he didn't).

Look at it this way: myself and a friend once devised a plan to rob a Dunnes Stores where we worked*. We would have made probably less than 20k. We would not have been able to avoid suspicion, but the police would not have know who out of a group of say 6 to 8 people was actually responsible. Now, I'm not a thief, but even if I was I still didn't like those odds, having to face down the Guards in an interview. How many folks were in the Book Depository where Oswald left his rifle? So he would have known that he would have been one of the main suspects, regardless of anything else.

Ok, so he knows he's going to be at least questioned as one of the people in the building where the shooting happened - he's going to need a great story/alibi, or he's got to get out of the United States. Where's his escape plan? It takes him to a cinema in the city?

So he was either a total nutjob or the story is more complicated that it seems.

*just to clarify, this was purely an intellectual exercise to relieve us of the monotonous tedium of the grocery department (me) and drapery (him)

Dragonblaster · 18-01-2011 8:57pm

Monty Burnz wrote: »

So was he a...what's the PC term...a nutjob? I don't see how he thought he would get away once he shot the police officer, and he didn't seem to have any great ideas as to how to escape the Book Depository either (and indeed he didn't).

Look at it this way: myself and a friend once devised a plan to rob a Dunnes Stores where we worked. We would have made probably less than 20k. We would not have been able to avoid suspicion, but the police would not have know who out of a group of say 6 to 8 people was actually responsible. Now, I'm not a thief, but even if I was I still didn't like those odds, having to face down the Guards in an interview. How many folks were in the Book Depository where Oswald left his rifle? So he would have known that he would have been one of the main suspects, regardless of anything else.

Ok, so he knows he's going to be at least questioned as one of the people in the building where the shooting happened - he's going to need a great story/alibi, or he's got to get out of the United States. Where's his escape plan? It takes him to a cinema in the city?

So he was either a total nutjob or the story is more complicated that it seems.

It's OK, Monty - we're on the same page. I vote nutjob. I'm just pointing out that LHO's behaviour immediately after the shooting scarcely tallies with the concept of a bewildered and innocent man panicking after he somehow realises that the President being shot in some way immediately screams out "Hey, Lee: it's YOU!"

Why on earth did Oswald think that seeing the President shot automatically implicated him? After all, his rifle was home, wasn't it? And what about those curtain rods: "Here: THIS is what I brought in today."

Legging it was hardly the act of a sane innocent man.

Dragonblaster · 18-01-2011 8:59pm

Monty Burnz wrote: »

*just to clarify, this was purely an intellectual exercise to relieve us of the monotonous tedium of the grocery department (me) and drapery (him)

LOL! 10 cans of Spam, please, grocer!

Monty Burnz · 18-01-2011 9:06pm

Dragonblaster wrote: »

Legging it was hardly the act of a sane innocent man.

For sure. So he was either nuts and did it, or...(and this is where the CT comes in).

An alternative explanation for his behaviour was that he was really pissed off at being left in the lurch once he was caught, realising that he was being hung out to dry (presumably he was supposed to be spirited away or protected somehow). I know I'd be a tad...annoyed, and possibly be quite rude towards the police (rude up to the point of shooting them?

)

I often wonder what modern forensics and psychology would have made of the whole thing. Probably would have eliminated a lot of the doubts that exist today.

fergus o brien · 18-01-2011 9:40pm

Dragonblaster wrote: »

That means more bullets, and you STILL have to fake the bullet wounds that do happen to hit from the front: and urgently, too. If anyone spots diametrically opposite wound tracks, the LN theory is absolutely and irreparably blown.

I think Kennedy being assassinated provided quite sufficient panic and confusion without the need for extra shots that increase the chance of the conspiracy being revealed. Oswald, innocent or guilty, got out of the TSBD in the midst of that confusion, so it's reasonable to assume the "real assassin" could have, too.

I'm not asking what the motive was, but why frame a man who worked in the TSBD, plant fake evidence in the TSBD, and then have shots coming from a completely different direction.

"

Dragonblaster wrote: »

That means more bullets, and you STILL have to fake the bullet wounds that do happen to hit from the front: and urgently, too. If anyone spots diametrically opposite wound tracks, the LN theory is absolutely and irreparably blown."

atleast one wound was faked (the wound to the rear of jfks head ) when i say faked i mean the autopsy photographs dont show the exit wound in the rear of jfks head. even the guy who took the autopsy photographs acknowleged that. and the parklands staff saw the wound at the rear of the head as well as jackie ,so the lone nut theory is as you say well and truly blown wether you choose to believe it or not.

"I think Kennedy being assassinated provided quite sufficient panic and confusion without the need for extra shots that increase the chance of the conspiracy being revealed. Oswald, innocent or guilty, got out of the TSBD in the midst of that confusion, so it's reasonable to assume the "real assassin" could have, too."

your making assumptions again here ,why do you think the conspirators would be worried about extra shots being heard .yes oswald did leave the building but was stopped twice (first on the second floor) and on attempting to exit the front door ,he was only left leave because truly vouched for him and because he was a staff member . who was going to vouch for the unknown conspirators ?.

jfk taken out by mob??? **Contains Graphic Images**

Comments

jfk taken out by mob??? Contains Graphic Images