Basic facts that seem like conspiracy-killers to me

[Guest]

On 1/19/2023 at 1:32 PM, Sean Coleman said:

But good ole Buell n Linnie May didn’t not see no broke down rifle…..

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Matt Allison]

2 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

The good old "Oh, yeah, what about THIS?" ploy. I think Mexico City is an entirely different topic, eh?

You claim there's no reason to suspect conspiracy, so no, it's not an entirely different topic.

We'll all just assume you can't explain it.

[Michael Griffith]

3 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

You have launched into a complete "conspiratorial defense" that, after the first couple of paragraphs, has nothing to do with the topic at hand. This is a typical CTer tactic, but it is tedious and only serves to weaken the CT position.

When Oswald bought the rifle, I would imagine that assassinating anyone with it was not in the forefront of his mind, even if he did take a shot at Walker a month later. He was simply buying a cheap, mail-order rifle because he wanted one. On the day of the assassination, I doubt he much cared whether he'd left a paper trail of ownership.

A "well-oiled gun" doesn't mean "dripping with oil." It means well-maintained. My guns were exceedingly well-oiled because I'm almost a fanatic, but I made sure they weren't going to muck up the nifty cases in which I kept them. If the rifle had never been in the paper bag until the night of the assassination, which I feel sure it hadn't, there is no reason to suppose it would've been oil-stained.

The dented shell is an interesting problem. One theory is that only two shots were fired, and the dented shell was one Oswald had kept in the gun for dry-firing. It was ejected when he worked the bolt to load the first live bullet. Other tests have demonstrated that the Carcano ejector will, in fact, dent a percentage of shells in that manner. Hence, I don't see this as a problem.

If you've handled guns, you know that a properly oiled gun wrapped in a bag, disassembled no less, is going to leave some oil on the bag. Similarly, even a minimally oiled gun wrapped in a blanket for weeks is going to leave some trace of oil on the blanket. Let's get real. 

Your comments about the dented shell suggest you didn't read the link I provided. No, other tests have not proved that the Carcano rifle will dent some shells as much as CE 543 is dented--not even close. There's also the problem that the marks on the bottom of CE 543 were not found on the two other shells nor on any of the shells that were ejected from the rifle in the WC test firings. And there's also the problem that CE 543 does not have the alleged murder weapon’s characteristic chambering mark on its side but that the other shells do, which indicates that the shell was never chambered in the rifle. 

I notice you didn't comment on the implausible scenario of Oswald buying his gun via mail order vs. simply buying one in a gun store. Oswald was highly intelligent. The lone-gunman story about the rifle's purchase defies common sense and is too pat and convenient. 

A few other suspicious facts about the case against Oswald:

-- Not a single spare bullet for the Carcano was found on Oswald's person, at his rooming house, or among his belongings. Not one.

-- Only two stores in the Dallas area sold ammo suitable for the Carcano rifle, and both stores were certain they had never seen Oswald or sold ammo to him.

-- No fingerprints were found on the spent shells nor on the live round that was left in the rifle's chamber. 

-- No cleaning supplies or gun oil were found among Oswald's possessions or at his rooming house. None. 

-- The one and only Oswald print allegedly found on the rifle was not photographed before it was lifted, in violation of the most basic standard procedure. Lt. Day photographed the worthless trigger-guard prints but not the print on the barrel.

-- This alleged print, a palmprint, was on a part of the rifle that would not have been handled while firing it--it was on a part of the barrel that could only be accessed by removing the wooden stock.

-- When the FBI got the rifle, Latona found no evidence that the rifle had even been processed for prints. He also saw no trace of a print on the barrel, even though Lt. Day claimed the print was still visible after he allegedly lifted it. 
 

Edited January 20, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Benjamin Cole]

5 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

This is sort of my whole point: You posit a conspiracy and cover-up but don't address what sort of conspirators would leave Oswald's participation to a last-minute rifle retrieval with umpteen risks and opportunities for failure.

 

I don't believe it raises any serious questions. Yes, he managed to walk it into the TSBD that morning without being observed, and Mr. Ockham agrees. Frazier saw him carrying a long, stiff package that appeared to be tucked under his armpit but may well have extended above it because Frazier testified repeatedly he was paying little attention. If Dougherty saw nothing, that's inconsistent with Frazier - and even with Oswald, who said he was carrying his lunch - and Mr. Ockham says Dougherty wasn't paying much attention either. For all we know, Oswald may have stashed the wrapped rifle and retrieved it later in the morning.

Side question:  I have only fired a few different types of guns in my life, but I have heard this from expert types:

After a gun is dis-assembled and re-assembled, it has to be "dialed in." That is, the sights, especially a scope, will take a few shots at the practice range and then adjustments, to get back "on target." 

We can assume LHO (or other shooter) did not use the 4-power scope on a moving target, and it would have been out of alignment anyway. 

That leaves the "iron sights."  Would they need to be adjusted also? 

[Guest]

On 1/18/2023 at 7:06 PM, Greg Doudna said:

Pat Speer on the curtain rods: https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4h-the-curtain-rod-story. Me on the curtain rods: forthcoming.

Bye

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Guest]

On 1/19/2023 at 3:08 PM, Matt Allison said:

You claim there's no reason to suspect conspiracy, so no, it's not an entirely different topic.

We'll all just assume you can't explain it.

Bye

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Guest]

On 1/19/2023 at 5:00 PM, Michael Griffith said:

If you've handled guns, you know that a properly oiled gun wrapped in a bag, disassembled no less, is going to leave some oil on the bag. Similarly, even a minimally oiled gun wrapped in a blanket for weeks is going to leave some trace of oil on the blanket. Let's get real. 

Your comments about the dented shell suggest you didn't read the link I provided. No, other tests have not proved that the Carcano rifle will dent some shells as much as CE 543 is dented--not even close. There's also the problem that the marks on the bottom of CE 543 were not found on the two other shells nor on any of the shells that were ejected from the rifle in the WC test firings. And there's also the problem that CE 543 does not have the alleged murder weapon’s characteristic chambering mark on its side but that the other shells do, which indicates that the shell was never chambered in the rifle. 

I notice you didn't comment on the implausible scenario of Oswald buying his gun via mail order vs. simply buying one in a gun store. Oswald was highly intelligent. The lone-gunman story about the rifle's purchase defies common sense and is too pat and convenient. 

A few other suspicious facts about the case against Oswald:

-- Not a single spare bullet for the Carcano was found on Oswald's person, at his rooming house, or among his belongings. Not one.

-- Only two stores in the Dallas area sold ammo suitable for the Carcano rifle, and both stores were certain they had never seen Oswald or sold ammo to him.

-- No fingerprints were found on the spent shells nor on the live round that was left in the rifle's chamber. 

-- No cleaning supplies or gun oil were found among Oswald's possessions or at his rooming house. None. 

-- The one and only Oswald print allegedly found on the rifle was not photographed before it was lifted, in violation of the most basic standard procedure. Lt. Day photographed the worthless trigger-guard prints but not the print on the barrel.

-- This alleged print, a palmprint, was on a part of the rifle that would not have been handled while firing it--it was on a part of the barrel that could only be accessed by removing the wooden stock.

-- When the FBI got the rifle, Latona found no evidence that the rifle had even been processed for prints. He also saw no trace of a print on the barrel, even though Lt. Day claimed the print was still visible after he allegedly lifted it. 
 

Bye

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Matt Allison]

 

Hmm, I think you're confused; you seem agitated. My intention was not to trigger you, but to see if you could explain LHO's alleged trip to Mexico City.

 

1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

This is, of course, Tedious Gambit #23 on the part of CTers. We will attempt to derail your thread with the "Oh, yeah, what about THIS?" ploy, even though there happens to be another active thread about Mexico City to which I have contributed my $0.02. When you decline to play our game, we pronounce you "unable to explain" our challenge and declare victory.

What a hoot you people are.

 

[Greg Doudna]

4 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Assuming Oswald actually went after curtain rods, we would have to ask:

Just to be clear, I think Oswald told Frazier he was going out Thu to get curtain rods, and I think he did get curtain rods, but I do not think that is why Oswald went to Irving on Thu night. 

[Pat Speer]

15 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

I've scrolled through Pat’s curtain rods piece and remain unmoved. As with virtually all conspiracy-oriented speculation, it’s essentially a defense brief intended to create reasonable doubt. Since juries are unpredictable, it might well succeed. Not with a jury of twelve Lances, however.

Assuming Oswald actually went after curtain rods, we would have to ask:

1. Why was it so important for him to do this on a Thursday, the evening before the assassination, when he wasn’t expected or wanted at the Paine home? I believe the speculation pretty much collapses right here, on the launching pad.

2. Given what cheap curtain rods cost in 1963 – less than $1, surely, since they are only $2-$4 at Walmart today – why would he undertake this journey and steal the rods from Ruth, thereby jeopardizing his already shaky relationship with Marina and her relationship with Ruth?

3. Would Oswald even have known there were curtain rods on a shelf in Ruth’s garage? Is there any evidence of this? Even if he did, why would he steal them rather than simply asking Ruth or asking Marina to ask Ruth?

4. Why would he deny telling Frazier he was going after curtain rods if he really was? I believe it was because he had decided on the “lunch” alibi and knew he’d brought only one package. The idea that he was “protecting Marina” seems far-fetched past the vanishing point. He's being charged with murder but fears the consequences to Marina if Ruth learns he stole $2.29 worth of curtain rods - really?

Moving on to Pat’s piece:

1. He speculates Oswald really wanted the curtain rods for an apartment he would soon rent. Do people buy curtain rods for an apartment before they actually have one or know what windows it will have? Really?

The fact is, Oswald’s relationship with Marina was on thin ice. He hoped to reconcile with her and did talk of getting an apartment if she would join him. She rebuffed him. He was not at Ruth’s on a mission to obtain curtain rods.

2. We know Oswald was a habitual xxxx. When he lied to Frazier about wanting to get curtain rods, why would we suppose he didn’t also lie when he said he needed them for “an apartment” or “his residence”?

3. Pat has apparently interacted with the latter-day Frazier and gives him more credence than I would. Typical of so many of those involved in the JFKA, Frazier’s story has only gotten “better” as the years roll by, to the point that I have zero interest in anything he has to say.

4. A proposed alternative is that Oswald was really going to replace a curtain rod he had damaged in his room at the rooming house. Mrs. Johnson said it had been damaged by the DPD, but Pat speculates Oswald may have damaged it – and was so concerned he had to arrange a trip to Ruth’s house on a Thursday and steal her rods? Really?

5. No curtain rods were ever found (yes, I did read Pat’s speculation). As with Prayer Man, why wouldn’t Oswald have screamed “For God’s sake, all I brought into the building were two curtain rods I found in Ruth's garage! Go look in the second-floor vestibule where I placed them for the day!”

6. The extensive discussion of whether the curtain rods actually were in Ruth’s garage after the assassination, how they had been packaged, who lied and altered documents, how the WC manipulated things – I’m sorry, this sort of stuff just loses me.

Turning to the actual “problems”:

1. OK, Frazier and Randle both had the package roughly 8” shorter than a 35” disassembled Carcano. However, Randle also had it almost touching the ground as Oswald carried it, and Frazier had it extending from Oswald’s cupped hand to up under his armpit. It clearly wasn’t a lunch. It was clearly longish and stiff. I am willing to acknowledge the Frazier/Randle “problem” and accept that their estimations on the basis of cursory observations simply weren’t accurate. Their estimations don’t drive the bus – we know Oswald damn well wasn’t carrying a sandwich and an apple, and his rifle did end up in the building and fire the identifiable bullets.

2. The bag. OK, there are all sorts of issues with it. I have no real answers for all the speculation that surrounds the bag as to whether it was constructed from TSBD paper, whether Oswald could have concealed it on his ride with Frazier, whether it matches what Frazier and Randle saw, whether it should have oil on it, whether it was planted, etc., etc. It just doesn’t drive the bus or even interest me much when Oswald had no plausible reason for going after curtain rods, denied he’d said anything about curtain rods to Frazier, and his rifle did end up in the building and fire the identifiable bullets.

I admire Pat’s effort and zeal, but it’s a defense attorney’s zeal. I really don’t understand the “Oswald defense attorney” mentality of so much of the conspiracy community. I don’t care about “reasonable doubt” in a criminal trial context, which bears little to no relation to “real doubt” in a real-world context. To beat my usual drum, the “curtain rods defense” simply makes no sense to me.

I didn't approach it like a defense attorney. I tried to uncover the truth of the situation. 

The late John Judge used to say that yes, he was a conspiracy theorist, but that those pushing Oswald as a lone assassin were "coincidence theorists".

I mean, think about it.

Oswald is purported to have brought wrapping paper out to Irving on the 21st, only no one saw him take the paper from the TSBD and no one saw him with the paper in Irving. LNTs say that's a coincidence.

Oswald is also purported to have used this paper to wrap a rifle on the night of the 21st, and bring it into work the next morning. Well, once again, no one noticed him doing this and the only people to see him with a package the next day said this package was far too small to have held the rifle.  LNTs say yeah, well, that's another coincidence.

It is purported further that Oswald hid out on the sixth floor during the lunch period, unwrapped his rifle in the sniper's nest, and fired the deadly shots. Only, guess what, none of the first responders on the scene saw this bag, and Oswald was seen by multiple people on the bottom two floors during the lunch period. And wait, it gets worse--the only witness who said he could ID the shooter refused to ID Oswald for a week or so after Oswald was murdered, and then only did so after the FBI paid him a visit at his home. Well, heck that's another coincidence. And so on. And so on. 

I don't know what happened. But I think we can all feel confident the so-called "official" story is malarkey. It's coincidence after coincidence, square pegs stuffed in round hole after round hole. In my experience, moreover, those clinging to the "official" solution do so because they feel they'd rather have an answer--even if it's incorrect--than admit they just don't know. When one studies history, and the history of science in particular, one sees that generations of "thinkers' shared what now appear to be silly ideas, whether it be the Earth being flat, or witches being made of wood. Well, it's clear to me the single-assassin solution is a modern-day equivalent. People believe it because they need to believe it--not because it has any basis in reality. 

 

Edited January 20, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Greg Doudna]

Flip de May in two books, Cold Case Kennedy (2013) and The Lee Harvey Oswald Files (2016), takes up in turn three propositions, all three of which must be correct for Oswald to be guilty of the assassination of JFK:

• The Carcano that was found is Oswald's Carcano
• Shots that were fired at Kennedy were fired from that Carcano
• The shots that were fired from that Carcano were fired by Oswald

De May argues that the first two propositions are correct but that the third is not, on the basis of evidence and argument. The main difference between the two books is that in the first (2013) he incorrectly argued the Carcano in the Backyard Photos was not the same Carcano on the sixth floor of the TSBD. In his second book (2015) de May corrected that, showing that the Carcano of the BYP is the Carcano of the sixth floor. In the second book de May argues that the notion of Oswald bringing a disassembled rifle into the TSBD and assembling it that morning makes accurate shooting unlikely, but that the Carcano fully-assembled and sighted-in was capable of accurate shooting by a good marksman. However, bringing the Carcano in to the TSBD fully assembled rules out Oswald as the mechanism for the Carcano entering the TSBD. Therefore de May concludes the rifle entered the TSBD before Fri Nov 22, not from Oswald, even though it had been his rifle. 

"Based on the analysis of the facts, we can confirm the first two items. There were indeed shots from the sniper's nest, and they were more than likely fired with the Carcano. But, objectively speaking, we must conclude that the claim that Oswald was the gunman is contrary to the findings. All the objective elements we have investigated point in the same direction: Oswald did not fire the Carcano himself, and he was not at the crime scene [6th floor]. The fact that this assumption is quite outrageous is not a valid counter-argument. Anyone who wants to disregard this conclusion must rebut, in detail and with reference to the source, the answers we have provided to the seven questions in the section headed 'Could Oswald have shot with the Carcano?" (. . .) The most surprising finding is the answer to question 2 above: the shots were fired with the Carcano. This answer interrelates with the assumption that the Carcano was brought into the building assembled and perfectly adjusted. This cancels out the otherwise insurmountable questions regarding the precarious reassembly, the lack of fingerprints, the questionable accuracy of the weapon and the insufficient length of the package Oswald had with him that morning. The above leads to the unexpected conclusion that the Carcano was indeed used for the shots, but that it was not Oswald who took the shots. This possibility has never before been considered by the conspiracists. Those who don't believe in Oswald's guilt felt compelled to run with the pack and cry out that the Carcano is an unreliable weapon, but the facts contradict this. Oswald was at best a mediocre shot, but the Carcano is not that bad if it is properly adjusted. That precludes that the Carcano entered the building disassembled. If the Carcano was indeed smuggled into the building in twelve pieces, the conspiracists are right in saying that the weapon was unusable for the assassination. (. . .) The main intention behind the use of the Carcano could then have been to point directly towards Oswald, the scapegoat." (Flip de May, The Lee Harvey Oswald Files [2016], pp. 115-116)

[Pat Speer]

38 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

Flip de May in two books, Cold Case Kennedy (2013) and The Lee Harvey Oswald Files (2016), takes up in turn three propositions, all three of which must be correct for Oswald to be guilty of the assassination of JFK:

• The Carcano that was found is Oswald's Carcano
• Shots that were fired at Kennedy were fired from that Carcano
• The shots that were fired from that Carcano were fired by Oswald

De May argues that the first two propositions are correct but that the third is not, on the basis of evidence and argument. The main difference between the two books is that in the first (2013) he incorrectly argued the Carcano in the Backyard Photos was not the same Carcano on the sixth floor of the TSBD. In his second book (2015) de May corrected that, showing that the Carcano of the BYP is the Carcano of the sixth floor. In the second book de May argues that the notion of Oswald bringing a disassembled rifle into the TSBD and assembling it that morning makes accurate shooting unlikely, but that the Carcano fully-assembled and sighted-in was capable of accurate shooting by a good marksman. However, bringing the Carcano in to the TSBD fully assembled rules out Oswald as the mechanism for the Carcano entering the TSBD. Therefore de May concludes the rifle entered the TSBD before Fri Nov 22, not from Oswald, even though it had been his rifle. 

"Based on the analysis of the facts, we can confirm the first two items. There were indeed shots from the sniper's nest, and they were more than likely fired with the Carcano. But, objectively speaking, we must conclude that the claim that Oswald was the gunman is contrary to the findings. All the objective elements we have investigated point in the same direction: Oswald did not fire the Carcano himself, and he was not at the crime scene [6th floor]. The fact that this assumption is quite outrageous is not a valid counter-argument. Anyone who wants to disregard this conclusion must rebut, in detail and with reference to the source, the answers we have provided to the seven questions in the section headed 'Could Oswald have shot with the Carcano?" (. . .) The most surprising finding is the answer to question 2 above: the shots were fired with the Carcano. This answer interrelates with the assumption that the Carcano was brought into the building assembled and perfectly adjusted. This cancels out the otherwise insurmountable questions regarding the precarious reassembly, the lack of fingerprints, the questionable accuracy of the weapon and the insufficient length of the package Oswald had with him that morning. The above leads to the unexpected conclusion that the Carcano was indeed used for the shots, but that it was not Oswald who took the shots. This possibility has never before been considered by the conspiracists. Those who don't believe in Oswald's guilt felt compelled to run with the pack and cry out that the Carcano is an unreliable weapon, but the facts contradict this. Oswald was at best a mediocre shot, but the Carcano is not that bad if it is properly adjusted. That precludes that the Carcano entered the building disassembled. If the Carcano was indeed smuggled into the building in twelve pieces, the conspiracists are right in saying that the weapon was unusable for the assassination. (. . .) The main intention behind the use of the Carcano could then have been to point directly towards Oswald, the scapegoat." (Flip de May, The Lee Harvey Oswald Files [2016], pp. 115-116)

Strange... DeMay says "The above leads to the unexpected conclusion that the Carcano was indeed used for the shots, but that it was not Oswald who took the shots. This possibility has never before been considered by the conspiracists." Well, heck, this is not true. This line of thinking was explored on my website 6 years or more before the publication of DeMay's books, and I know DeMay is famixxxx with my website because he ran up to me at a convention and gave me a copy of his first book, which included illustrations taken from my website. So... is it that he doesn't consider me a "conspiracist"? Is that what's going on?

Can you tell us, Greg, if by "conspiracist" he means certain people named elsewhere, and if I'm even mentioned in the book? I must admit I'm curious.  

[Joseph McBride]

Oswald didn't own a gun.

[Greg Doudna]

20 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Strange... DeMay says "The above leads to the unexpected conclusion that the Carcano was indeed used for the shots, but that it was not Oswald who took the shots. This possibility has never before been considered by the conspiracists." Well, heck, this is not true. This line of thinking was explored on my website 6 years or more before the publication of DeMay's books, and I know DeMay is famixxxx with my website because he ran up to me at a convention and gave me a copy of his first book, which included illustrations taken from my website. So... is it that he doesn't consider me a "conspiracist"? Is that what's going on?

Can you tell us, Greg, if by "conspiracist" he means certain people named elsewhere, and if I'm even mentioned in the book? I must admit I'm curious.  

Pat--In his main top-level text he mainly makes his arguments from evidence directly and engages the Warren Commission and HSCA, does not do back-and-forth debating with other secondary authors, but in footnotes he cites a number of familiar-name secondary authors. I don't see your name in the index of either book. I am sorry he made that statement without acknowledgement to you. I would guess this kind of thing is a mistake rather than malevolent or knowing in most cases. I don't see an unusual meaning in his use of "conspiracist" that would not include you as well as himself (meant non-pejoratively to refer to critics of the LN position).

[Michael Griffith]

10 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Yep, those dang conspirators - diabolical geniuses at those steps where being diabolical geniuses fits the conspiracy theory, fumbling fools where being fumbling fools fits it better. My personal theory is that they were so unbelievably clever they intentionally left 14,000 clues for subsequent generations of theorists to drool over, thereby spawning at least 38 diametrically opposed conspiracy theories and ensuring The Truth Will Never Be Known. I really can't picture who could've been that clever except - wait for it - yes, that's right, aliens. 

IOW, you won't accept clear evidence that Oswald was framed because you prefer to believe that a conspiracy would have done a better job of framing him, and because you cannot provide a reasonable explanation for that evidence. If police detectives adopted your approach toward crimes that resulted from conspiracies, few such crimes would ever be solved. 

If gun oil had been found on the paper bag and the blanket, you would logically cite that as evidence that the rifle had been inside those items, but you can't explain why no traces of oil were found on those items, and you refuse to accept the logical conclusion that no oil was found on those items because the rifle was never inside them. 

If a reenactment with the Carcano rifle had produced a shell that had fired a bullet and had emerged as dented as CE 543, you would argue that this proves the dented shell could have fired a bullet during the assassination, but you refuse to deal with the fact that no reenactment has ever produced such a dented shell, nor do you offer any explanation for the other problems with CE 543. CE 543 is hard physical evidence that the sixth-floor gunman could have only fired two shots, but the lone-gunman theory demands that he fired three shots.

You declined to address the fact that the Zapruder film shows that JFK was hit and began to reach toward his throat during the period when the sixth-floor gunman's view of JFK would have been obstructed by the oak tree. This pre-Z190 shot poses an enormous problem for the lone-gunman view because JFK is visibly knocked forward in Z226-232 in the second-most dramatic, obvious reaction in the film, clearly indicating a shot fired at Z224. Obviously, the pre-Z190 shot was the throat shot and the Z224 shot was the back shot, but lone-gunman theorists cannot accept this because it destroys their theory of the shooting.

And on and on we could go. The problem is that your anti-conspiracy bias is so strong that you will not logically and objectively analyze the evidence. When you are confronted with evidence that you cannot explain, you fall back on the argument that no conspiracy would have left behind credible evidence, much less obvious evidence, of a frame-up and a cover-up.

You make the strawman assumption of a gigantic conspiracy that included hundreds of obedient participants, even at the lower and intermediate levels, whereas most WC critics posit no such conspiracy. Much of the evidence of conspiracy resulted from the fact that most of the local and government personnel who handled evidence or took part in investigative activity were not part of the plot. 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 20, 2023 by Michael Griffith