Jump to content
The Education Forum

Could a Conspiracy Theory Exist:


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You're being unfair to Jackson, who was in the motorcade and followed the story where it led him. He was out of film, but pointed out the rifle to Tom Dillard, who missed the rifle but snapped the shot of Norman and Williams right after the shots....

Pat, thank you for straigtening me out on Jackson. Yet David Belin was not the only person to think it odd that Jackson did not try to report what he saw to any of the policemen in Dealey Plaza.

Other credible witnesses include Amos Euins, James Worrell and Dearie Cabell. There was a shooter in the sniper's nest. That doesn't mean it was Oswald.

I think Tim Carroll is right on this issue. If these witnesses are reliable, they only prove that there was a man with a rifle in the window. They do not directly prove that he was a shooter, even though it is natural for the human mind to jump to that conclusion.

BTW, If there was a gunman in the window, is it not remarkable how many people did NOT see him? and if Howard Brennan really did see a rifle barrel during the shooting, is it not remarkable that he did not blurt it out to the people beside him? I'm quite sure I would.

BTW I would be hesitant to take the word of Earl Cabell's wife on this, and the Warren Commission, which loved this part of Worrel's testimony, could not use him because he also claimed that he saw a man running from the rear of the TSBD. Pardon me if I'm misremembering, but I think the WC broadly hinted that given Worrel's known movements that day, he was not even in Dealey when the shooting happened. FWIW. That leaves Amos Euins, who saw two men in the window.

But one single teeny weeny photograph would be worth the testimony all these witnesses combined, and a hundred more like them. As it stands, I believe we have photos/film of the 6th floor window just before the shooting and just after the shooting, and these images show no one in the window.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're being unfair to Jackson, who was in the motorcade and followed the story where it led him. He was out of film, but pointed out the rifle to Tom Dillard, who missed the rifle but snapped the shot of Norman and Williams right after the shots....

Pat, thank you for straigtening me out on Jackson. Yet David Belin was not the only person to think it odd that Jackson did not try to report what he saw to any of the policemen in Dealey Plaza.

Other credible witnesses include Amos Euins, James Worrell and Dearie Cabell. There was a shooter in the sniper's nest. That doesn't mean it was Oswald.

I think Tim Carroll is right on this issue. If these witnesses are reliable, they only prove that there was a man with a rifle in the window. They do not directly prove that he was a shooter, even though it is natural for the human mind to jump to that conclusion.

BTW, If there was a gunman in the window, is it not remarkable how many people did NOT see him? and if Howard Brennan really did see a rifle barrel during the shooting, is it not remarkable that he did not blurt it out to the people beside him? I'm quite sure I would.

BTW I would be hesitant to take the word of Earl Cabell's wife on this, and the Warren Commission, which loved this part of Worrel's testimony, could not use him because he also claimed that he saw a man running from the rear of the TSBD. Pardon me if I'm misremembering, but I think the WC broadly hinted that given Worrel's known movements that day, he was not even in Dealey when the shooting happened. FWIW. That leaves Amos Euins, who saw two men in the window.

But one single teeny weeny photograph would be worth the testimony all these witnesses combined, and a hundred more like them. As it stands, I believe we have photos/film of the 6th floor window just before the shooting and just after the shooting, and these images show no one in the window.

I agree that seeing a man with a rifle and hearing a shot might lead one to conclude he'd fired the rifle. I came to conclude that both Worrell and Euins mistakenly attributed at least one of the shots they heard to the shooter in the sniper's nest, when it came from somewhere else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is the old smell test that you hear alot of talk about, ive always had a problem with this due to after firing a weapon, I can put it away for a few days, open the chamber and presto, its smells the same, leaving the bolt open can clear things out.

Ways I have found out that works to see if a gun has been fired recently is by running a patch through it, when a rifle sits for a period of time the residue turns more grey over time (couple days) where is right after the weapon is fired the residue is a deep black and easily removed, hence always clean your rifle after shooting, makes it alot easier. Its also a little more difficult to run a patch through a barrel after it has been sitting without cleaning, due to the residue taking the caked on effect, where is a rifle that has just been fired, the residue, even if it hasnt been recently cleaned prior to, the residue will loosen up due to heat etc.

Also at the crown of the barrel, if a rifle has been recently fired you can take your finger and just touch it, this will produce residue on your finger easily, where is if it sits for a period of time, it tends to cake on and you need your finger nail to scrape it off. Reminds me of the gas port on a AK-47, when needs cleaning, there is a sharp metal tool to scrape out the port..Gun residue aka powder etc, once its left to sit can be a pain in the arse to remove.

I know of no other ways to find this out, I will ask around and see what some friends say. Other then the rifle being "warm" these are the only answers I have at this time, so for that I apologize.

What I ALWAYS find interesting is no cleaning equip, rods, patches, solvents,brushes, nothing for Oswalds guns were ever found, along with no extra ammo etc.

Hope this helps, if not I apologize....Will let you folks know if there are any updates on ways to find out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have not found any literature that supports the methodology used in that paraffin test as accurate. To use it to rule out Oswald firing a rifle would be premature.

Al Carrier's post makes it clear that the paraffin test's unreliability was skewed toward the false positive rather than the false negative.

The problem with the paraffin tests are that they produce too many false positives.... To believe that LHO's cheek tested negative for nitrates in the paraffin tests and believe he still fired a three shot volley is ridiculous.

It seems very unlikely, especially considering Al's points, that Oswald could have fired the Carcano and then have his cheek test negative for any rifle firing.

T.C.

Al is off on this one. Check the research.

There are a number of tests that were showing false negatives as well. The point is that the test conducted by the DPD AT THE TIME, is completely flawed. It was simply unreliable. Al may say that the paraffin test produces too many false positives while other experts proclaim it produced too many false negatives. Either way, that SEVERELY HAMPERS the VALIDITY of the test. Al's point is meaningless given the TEST administered AT THE TIME. I'm sure if Al reads this he will understand what I am saying and modify his response accordingly. He can no more say that the DPD test ruled out Oswald shooting a rifle that day than he can say the test ruled it in because RELIABILITY effects VALIDITY. In one report, in 1965 the CIA were conducting tests on Vietnamese known to have been discharging weapons. The paraffin tests were horribly useless in that they produced a large number of false negatives on the cheek and hand region. They pontificated that testing the inside of the nostrils and checking disturbed ear wax may be a better measure....Yes, I'm serious on this one. Jason Vermeer

Oh my, It's taken me three days to reply to this one as each time I have tried, my computer had locked up on this website, and allowed me access on all others. Jason is comparing paraffin tests from SE Asia to a standard norm. This is apples and oranges. When one looks at situations in the jungles of SE Asia and Rain Forrests in the regions of Central and South America, one must consider the humidity that leaves one WET. Firing a weapon in tropical heat and high humidity will prevent the nitrates from embedding into the skin surface as the pores release great amounts of perspiration which will expell the nitrates from fusing into the skin. I spent several weeks in the rainforests under intense conditions and was never dry and suffered from jungle rot in numerous regions of my body. I was constantly wiping and being brushed off by the fauna and swating at the insects that attracted to my perspiration. Is this at all consistant to a norm test and one that would be done on a shooter in a 60 foot window in Dallas in November?

Al

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have not found any literature that supports the methodology used in that paraffin test as accurate. To use it to rule out Oswald firing a rifle would be premature.

Al Carrier's post makes it clear that the paraffin test's unreliability was skewed toward the false positive rather than the false negative.

The problem with the paraffin tests are that they produce too many false positives.... To believe that LHO's cheek tested negative for nitrates in the paraffin tests and believe he still fired a three shot volley is ridiculous.

It seems very unlikely, especially considering Al's points, that Oswald could have fired the Carcano and then have his cheek test negative for any rifle firing.

T.C.

Al is off on this one. Check the research.

There are a number of tests that were showing false negatives as well. The point is that the test conducted by the DPD AT THE TIME, is completely flawed. It was simply unreliable. Al may say that the paraffin test produces too many false positives while other experts proclaim it produced too many false negatives. Either way, that SEVERELY HAMPERS the VALIDITY of the test. Al's point is meaningless given the TEST administered AT THE TIME. I'm sure if Al reads this he will understand what I am saying and modify his response accordingly. He can no more say that the DPD test ruled out Oswald shooting a rifle that day than he can say the test ruled it in because RELIABILITY effects VALIDITY. In one report, in 1965 the CIA were conducting tests on Vietnamese known to have been discharging weapons. The paraffin tests were horribly useless in that they produced a large number of false negatives on the cheek and hand region. They pontificated that testing the inside of the nostrils and checking disturbed ear wax may be a better measure....Yes, I'm serious on this one. Jason Vermeer

Oh my, It's taken me three days to reply to this one as each time I have tried, my computer had locked up on this website, and allowed me access on all others. Jason is comparing paraffin tests from SE Asia to a standard norm. This is apples and oranges. When one looks at situations in the jungles of SE Asia and Rain Forrests in the regions of Central and South America, one must consider the humidity that leaves one WET. Firing a weapon in tropical heat and high humidity will prevent the nitrates from embedding into the skin surface as the pores release great amounts of perspiration which will expell the nitrates from fusing into the skin. I spent several weeks in the rainforests under intense conditions and was never dry and suffered from jungle rot in numerous regions of my body. I was constantly wiping and being brushed off by the fauna and swating at the insects that attracted to my perspiration. Is this at all consistant to a norm test and one that would be done on a shooter in a 60 foot window in Dallas in November?

Al

Al is partially correct regarding using the tropical environment conditions as an example of a test that produced negative paraffin test results. There are, of course, a number of other instances where false negatives occured under different testing conditions. In fact, false negatives occured when Carcano tests were being run. Al mentions a "standard norm". I have yet to see that for paraffin testing. Where the focus needs to be on the TYPE of test run by the DPD in 1963. As I believe has been demonstrated, recreations of the test have produced numerous false negatives and false positives. This, again, means the VALIDITY of that test is extremely low and CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be used for interpretive purposes. Surely someone on this forum is familiar with basic statistical principles and realizes this to be the case. Jason Vermeer

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason,

Assuming that Oswald fired the rifle even once, can you resolve the issue of Oswald then hurrying across the room, hiding the rifle, and hurrying down the stairs, to be standing calm and collected in the lunch room, despite having just shot at the president and having hurried down from the sniper's nest, in the time allowable?

Ron

Link to post
Share on other sites
Pat, if you can locate the Weisberg documents that would be great because right now all I have is WC testing rapid fire shots out of the Carcano with NO paraffin residue on the cheek as well as a variety of other reviews regarding the lack of sensitivety of the tests...My refusal to attach value to the paraffin tests shouldn't be puzzling at all. The fact that Oswald's hand's tested positive I also refuse to attach value to. If I WERE to attach value to the nitrate test as being an adequate and sensitive measure of nitrates as deposited by gunpowder....well, one might say oswald shot someone with a handgun then. Can't do that though.

Jason, I dug up my copy of Post Mortem. On page 414 Weisberg says that in response to one of his lawsuits, this one seeking records on the NAA tests performed by the AEC for the WC, Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Ryan handed him 400 uncollated and unidentified papers. On page 437, he discusses the fact that Oswald's having no nitrates on his cheek should be considered exculpatory, as "The tests given me show that in seven "control" cases where others fired a rifle this evidence was left on the cheeks." He then spends dozens of pages discussing how the FBI and the WC conspired to hide this evidence. I can't find, however, in Post-Mortem or any of his other books, the actual documents that show that nitrates appeared on all the "control" cheeks.

Perhaps Forum member Gerald McKnight can answer this question on his Breach of Trust thread. All of Weisberg's documents were given over to Hood College, and were used by McKnight for his book.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat,

The data regarding the "control" case are important but not as important as the cases being measured against the "control". The citation of 7 of the control cases having nitrates deposited on the cheeks is not relevant normally because those subjects are not the ones being tested. I would have to know the exact data of the control group such as...where they using semi-autos which eject shells from the side so it would be expected a positive nitrate test would appear? The important point is WHAT made the group the control group. Data from a control group is normally not as significant as that of the test group and the results of the WC test group have been addressed earlier-false negatives. I appreciate your work to locate that though Pat and don't want to appear flippant. Weisberg claiming results from a control group should be further translated as "exculpatory" would be laughed out of the statistical community. Jason Vermeer

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

Brought this back to continue the discussion.

With the "new" Ford book being published that suggests that Ford believed that the CIA was less that forthcomming about what they knew about Oswald yet his conviction that Oswald was the lone shooter I thought that a knew opportunity exists for me to continue to propose that the "Big Fish" was McCloy, who had a motive (arms negotiations) and the means (intelligence connections) and perhaps the knowledge of where Oswald worked (3rd Hosty note that he did not assign a Commission Exhibit number too). Since McCloy had wanted the Paris Summit to fail, which it did, is it to far fetched that he would know why and how it was sabatoged (if it were in fact sabatoged)?

I still find it interesting that at JFK's very first press conference the first man he introduces is John J. McCloy. Just how powerful was McCloy?

That McCloy would, in 1963, have a dispute with Kennedy and Kennedy would end up dead is worth examining very closely!

Jim Root

Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you ever read the book by Hinkley's parents? They published some of his writings. It turned out that Hinkley wasn't trying to impress Jodie by killing Reagan, but by shocking the country into enacting gun control legislation, something to which he was deeply committed. He was trying to impress her with his dedication to a good cause, not with his blood-lust.

After reading that I felt sick. It was clear to me that the media had cooperated with the Reagan White House in ignoring Hinkley's real motivation.

Give me a break.

Kathy

Link to post
Share on other sites
As most of you know my research centers around potential conspriators rather than the actual moments surrounding the death of President Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963.

With this disclaimer I would like to ask those of you who have researced those "moments" of death in Dealey Plaza,

"Do you believe that it is possible that Oswald could have been "A" shooter on that fateful day?"

Jim Root

I'm a Harvey and Lee woman. Lee Oswald shot at the President and was in the company of another man. Lee walked through the TSBD, knowing he looked enough like Harvey, to frame Harvey. I don't know if anyone noticed him, except when he ran out the backdoor, looking for the car that would pick him up, drive him to a small airport, where he flew who knows where.

IMO, the conspirators, in "good conscience," picked Harvey to be the patsy because he was really born in Russia. Maybe his real name was Alek Hidell.

Kathy

Link to post
Share on other sites

"IMO, the conspirators, in "good conscience," picked Harvey to be the patsy because he was really born in Russia. Maybe his real name was Alek Hidell".

Well, forsure this opinion is better than the other you post, a shoot from a pen ( :P )

Anyway, it is obvious LHO did not shoot. You dont need neutron, military tests and more to prove it.

LHO is supposed to have covered his trace using the aka Hidell to buy the Carcano by mail.

Let's "fly" on the fact he "left" proofs - photo - of the Carcano in his hand.

Let's assume after the shoots he was running at home to destroy these pictures after the killing... o no, he went to see a film in a cinema.....

ok, let's fly also on this point :D .

But, who can believe that a man killing the president of the Us brings in his portrait a card with the name Hidell/the proof that links him to the murder rifle?

Or you want to "fly" also on this?

The only possibility, if you want to believe LHO shooted, is that the Hidell-card was a pass-partout.... or something a killer can use to escape.

And this is something Moscow could not provide.

cheers.

ca

Link to post
Share on other sites

My reply in answer to the question posed is of course there could still be a conspiracy even if Oswald was the lone gunman.

He could have been hired, assisted or even encouraged by others for whatever reasons they might have.

Regarding the reason Jim Root resurrected this thread, to renew his argument that John J. McCloy was the "big fish", my response is that that argument is hogwash.

In my opinion, and with respect to Jim's argument, it is tawdry to blacken the reputation of someone merely because he or she had a policy dispute with JFK. Policy disputes regardless of the intensity thereof do not turn civilized, law-abiding men into murderers. You need more that MMO to drag someone into the JFK assassination.

Now this thread is based on the premise IF Oswald was a shooter of JFK. That "IF" is a mghty big word in this context. Based on Pat Speer's magisterial work on the paraffin tests, I believe there is reasonable doubt that LHO shot JFK. In fact, it might even be said that the weight of the evidence tends to refute that LHO shot a rifle on November 22 1963.

Note however that it cannot be EXCLUDED that LHO was part of a conspiracy even if he personally did not shoot JFK.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...