Basic facts that seem like conspiracy-killers to me

[Michaleen Kilroy]

The JFKA is about the ‘best’ assassination planners in history with unlimited resources, no oversight and no morals framing one little guy to kill a president they despised. 
 

IMHO.

[Bob Ness]

18 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

You ignore the fact that, according to the lone-gunman theory, the rifle was disassembled before being placed and carried in the bag. So, according to you, you have the several parts of the disassembled well-oiled rifle wrapped and carried in a bag for at least half an hour, yet not one speck of oil was found inside or outside the bag. Anyone who has any experience with guns knows this is an extremely far-fetched scenario

Point Griffith.

DVP - ignores Griffith response. That's another point Griffith.

[Steve Roe]

On 1/25/2023 at 5:48 PM, David Von Pein said:

Indeed she did. And that's something I mentioned to DiEugenio when we engaged in a debate on this very subject more than ten years ago.

Let's get into my Time Machine and have a gander at the very silly things Jim D. said back in 2012:

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

More Blah blah blah from DVP.

You never answered my question, did you?

Wonder why?

As per [sic] throwing words back at me, isn't everyone a bit tired of this shopworn technique from a guy who is so imbalanced he cannot even understand what is on his own site? [DVP Interjection -- Huh? I can only shake my head and wonder why on Earth Jimmy made such a goofy utterance.]

Read the testimony DVP quotes by Randle.

Then go to WC VOL 2 p. 248 at History Matters.

Tell me if Linnie said this with [Joseph] Ball questioning her:

WC: Did you see him go to the car?

LMR: Yes.

WC: What did he do?

LMR: He opened the right back door and I just saw he was laying the package down. ...

Now go to CE 446 and CE 447 in the volumes. Then explain to me how LMR could see through two walls of a carport to Wesley's car which WAS PARKED ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CARPORT! [Jimmy's wrong; there was only one wall, not two, between the kitchen door and Frazier's car.]

Davey, the chicken man, leaves that testimony out since it proves she was lying.

Now, in the real world--which you have little relation to--who would be disbarred, Davey?

What is so sick about you is that you know all this. I went through it before. But you never get tired of being exposed as a cheap flim flam man, do you?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Jimbo, once again, wants to pretend that the ONLY time Linnie Mae saw Oswald with a package was after she looked into the carport from her kitchen door. It's obvious that DiEugenio, in the quote below, wants people to believe that Randle NEVER saw LHO walking across the street:

"Linnie could not have seen Oswald with a bag that day, unless she had x-ray vision." -- Jim DiEugenio; October 3, 2012

And Jim also now wants to pretend that I have never addressed Linnie Mae's testimony regarding her supposed "X-ray vision" as she looked into the carport. But Jim knows (or should) that I have addressed that testimony. I wrote a post about that very subject more than three years ago, on October 21, 2009. And I even linked to that 2009 post (below) when I put together Part 79 of my DVP Vs. Jim D. series in October of this year:

WHAT COULD LINNIE MAE RANDLE HAVE SEEN FROM HER KITCHEN DOOR?

So, as we can see via the above post from back in 2009, I haven't left out anything. But James sure did when he said this in 2012:

"Linnie [Randle] could not have seen Oswald with a bag that day, unless she had x-ray vision."

The above quote is just a blatant misrepresentation of Linnie Randle's observations, because Randle saw Oswald as he CROSSED THE STREET heading to the Randle carport area. Was she lying about seeing LHO crossing the street too, Jim? And, of course, Jim needs to paint Wesley Frazier as a big fat L-word too, because Frazier has always said he saw Oswald with a package.

So who is really the flimflam man when it comes to the topic of Oswald's package? The answer is obvious, because James DiEugenio of Los Angeles will do and say ANYTHING to take that package (rifle) out of Oswald's hands. Anything at all. And Jimmy doesn't care how many people he has to call li@rs in order to accomplish his ludicrous "There Was No Package At All" goal.

--DVP; November 2012

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/11/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-80.html

 

As Mr. DiEugenio would say, good one! 

[Michael Griffith]

The refusal of WC apologists to deal logically and objectively with the evidence of conspiracy reminds me of the refusal of a small band of Nixon diehards who still refuse to admit that the 18-minute gap in the 6/20/72 Watergate tape resulted from a deliberate criminal act.

When people don't want to admit the occurrence of a criminal act, virtually no amount of evidence will cause them to change their minds. As long as the innocent explanation is theoretically possible, they will cling to it, no matter how wildly improbable and ridiculous it is.

It is theoretically possible that Rose Mary Woods accidentally erased 18.5 minutes of the 6/20/72 Watergate tape by mistakenly pushing the "record" button and then holding her foot on the recording machine's pedal while allegedly talking on the phone. Nearly everyone then and now rejects this explanation because experts determined that the tape had been erased in five distinct places, that the erasure consisted of five separate segments, and because Ms. Woods herself said she could not have erased more than 5 minutes of the tape.

However, Nixon diehards can argue that perhaps Ms. Woods was telling a white lie when she said she could not have erased more than 5 minutes of the tape. After all, maybe she didn't want to admit that she had gabbed on the phone for over 18.5 minutes. 

The fact that the erasure was not continuous but was split into five segments is compelling evidence to logical people, to virtually everyone in this case, that the erasure was not accidental. However, someone determined to reject the sinister explanation could say that Ms. Woods took her foot off the machine's pedal several times and that this is why the erasure consisted of five segments.

The explanations offered by WC apologists to explain the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray, for example, are even more strained and unbelievable than the tale that Ms. Woods accidentally caused the 18.5-minute gap on the 6/20/72 tape. At least the Woods story includes a possible method by which the 18.5 minutes could have been erased--it's very unlikely that this method occurred, but it could have happened.

[David Von Pein]

On 1/26/2023 at 8:29 AM, Michael Griffith said:

You ignore the fact that, according to the lone-gunman theory, the rifle was disassembled before being placed and carried in the bag. So, according to you, you have the several parts of the disassembled well-oiled rifle wrapped and carried in a bag for at least half an hour, yet not one speck of oil was found inside or outside the bag. Anyone who has any experience with guns knows this is an extremely far-fetched scenario.

Here's some of the late Vincent Bugliosi's always-insightful logic regarding the topic of "The Well-Oiled Rifle":

 

Commission Exhibit No. 2974 can be seen HERE.

 

Edited January 28, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

On 1/25/2023 at 6:47 AM, Jake Hammond said:

I do however urge CTers to really look at [Oswald's] actions, mental state and situation leading up to the assassination. They really do paint a guilty picture.

 

Jake,

Could you give us examples of things leading to the conclusion that Oswald was behaving like a guilty person?

The reason I ask is because, as I've ticked off things to explore over the years, so far I haven't come across anything that makes Oswald look guilty of anything, with one exception. And that is that Oswald was working for intelligence, CIA most likely. And it was the CIA that perpetrated the assassination.

So Oswald was indeed a patsy as he declared. But I don't know whether or not he had some other role in the plot as well.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

10 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Jake,

Could you give us examples of things leading to the conclusion that Oswald was behaving like a guilty person?

 

Never mind Jake. I saw from your later post that you get your information from television shows.

You should know better than trusting that kind of information a TV show might try to portray.

 

[Charles Blackmon]

1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Never mind Jake. I saw from your later post that you get your information from television shows.

You should know better than trusting that kind of information a TV show might try to portray.

 

This is what Jake said when I asked something similar to what you asked: "he (LHO) really does seem to be at his wits end and really not functioning brilliantly. He seems like a man with nowhere to go in life and a lot of faults. "

Sounds like criminal behavior to me does it sound criminal to you as well?

[Sandy Larsen]

59 minutes ago, Charles Blackmon said:

This is what Jake said when I asked something similar to what you asked: "he (LHO) really does seem to be at his wits end and really not functioning brilliantly. He seems like a man with nowhere to go in life and a lot of faults. "

Sounds like criminal behavior to me does it sound criminal to you as well?

 

Yeah, I'm sure that if I watched such a show, I would be left feeling the way the screenwriter intended for me to feel. So if the screenwriter thought that Oswald was a criminal, then so would I after watching the show.

Which is not a good thing if you're searching for the truth. It leaves you with a bias.

That's the reason I purposely didn't watch Oliver Stone's JFK when it came out. I didn't want it to give me a pro-CT bias before I had a chance to research the assassination for myself.

I had seen a San Francisco news report (KRON ?) in the 1980s which showed a number of medical professionals at Parkland saying JFK left Dallas in an ornamental casket, but with a number of medical professionals at Bethesda saying he arrived in a simple casket. And a couple other oddities. I decided at that time that I would search for the truth myself in the future -- unbiased -- when I retired. And that's what I'm doing now.

 

[Joe Bauer]

9 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Yeah, I'm sure that if I watched such a show, I would be left feeling the way the screenwriter intended for me to feel. So if the screenwriter thought that Oswald was a criminal, then so would I after watching the show.

Which is not a good thing if you're searching for the truth. It leaves you with a bias.

That's the reason I purposely didn't watch Oliver Stone's JFK when it came out. I didn't want it to give me a pro-CT bias before I had a chance to research the assassination for myself.

I had seen a San Francisco news report (KRON ?) in the 1980s which showed a number of medical professionals at Parkland saying JFK left Dallas in an ornamental casket, but with a number of medical professionals at Bethesda saying he arrived in a simple casket. And a couple other oddities. I decided at that time that I would search for the truth myself in the future -- unbiased -- when I retired. And that's what I'm doing now.

 

The second I watched Jack Ruby whack Lee Harvey Oswald right inside the Dallas Police Department building basement on live national TV at the age of 12...I instinctively felt there was something totally wrong with the JFK assassination beyond that which the MSM was telling us ( or not telling us.) 

I became a conspiracy believer right then and there and have never wavered in that belief for the next 60 years!

Edited January 28, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Charles Blackmon]

15 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Yeah, I'm sure that if I watched such a show, I would be left feeling the way the screenwriter intended for me to feel. So if the screenwriter thought that Oswald was a criminal, then so would I after watching the show.

Which is not a good thing if you're searching for the truth. It leaves you with a bias.

That's the reason I purposely didn't watch Oliver Stone's JFK when it came out. I didn't want it to give me a pro-CT bias before I had a chance to research the assassination for myself.

I had seen a San Francisco news report (KRON ?) in the 1980s which showed a number of medical professionals at Parkland saying JFK left Dallas in an ornamental casket, but with a number of medical professionals at Bethesda saying he arrived in a simple casket. And a couple other oddities. I decided at that time that I would search for the truth myself in the future -- unbiased -- when I retired. And that's what I'm doing now.

 

Keep up the good work, Sandy. Folks here are paying attention!

[Ken Davies]

5 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

The second I watched Jack Ruby whack Lee Harvey Oswald right inside the Dallas Police Department building basement on live national TV at the age of 12...I instinctively felt there was something totally wrong with the JFK assassination beyond that which the MSM was telling us ( or not telling us.) 

I became a conspiracy believer right then and there and have never wavered in that belief for the next 60 years!

Joe,

 I was 10 years old at the time, and had the same response as you, based on the old Gagney, Bogart, Robinson, Raft movies that were staples of our 2 t.v. stations. Typical mob rub out of a guy who could rat on the gang. Ruby's shooting stance even looked like something he copied from a movie.🤫

 

 

 

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

5 hours ago, Charles Blackmon said:

Keep up the good work, Sandy. Folks here are paying attention!

 

Wow Charles, thanks for the encouraging words!

 

[Jake Hammond]

21 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Wow Charles, thanks for the encouraging words!

 

I'll get on it tomorrow chaps, don't think I'm ignoring anyone ! Weekends are normally a bit hectic  Essentially I was making the point that if you look at all the conspiracy stuff that lets face it doesn't really fit together then you can point a lot of fingers. Also, unfortunately ( I mean that genuinely) Ruth Paine and Marina both have to be bare faced XXXXX and completely compromised in order for Oswald to not have being up to something that day and have taken a gun to work. There is very much a wider conspiracy to cover up after the fact, there was also at least an element of fore knowledge of something by the alphabet agencies. Oswalds behaviour and ( apparent) state of mind suggest he was part of it in some way.  I'll try and find the show I was thinking of. The deleted word rhymed with tyres. 

Edited January 29, 2023 by Jake Hammond

[Sandy Larsen]

On 1/29/2023 at 1:01 PM, Jake Hammond said:

Also, unfortunately ( I mean that genuinely) Ruth Paine and Marina both have to be bare faced XXXXX and completely compromised in order for Oswald to not have being up to something that day and have taken a gun to work.

 

I don't know why some people take exception to the idea that Marina and Ruth, among others, lied in their testimonies. There was, after all, a coverup. And witnesses do lie in coverups.

And there are others who take exception to the idea that evidence was tampered with and fabricated. Those things happen in coverups.