JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

Except where he did



Not really important.



and? Where was this Mauser? Boone did not find the rifle.



Craig told many tales. I am not impressed. Read this and his contradictory statements: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/craig.htm

I'll give you that one. Weitzman said what he said on youtube after being brow-beaten as to the official script, like so many others, by the FBI. But what is on Youtube is not a sworn statement. His WC document is and it is very specific betraying more than just a "glance." As a police officer Mr. W. knows very well that when you swear that something is true, that means it's true. An un-sworn statement is virtually worthless if in a court of law.

Mr. W.also had some mental problems.
"Document # 180-10077-10208 Is the 25 page statement of Dr. Charles Laburda. Dr. Laburda told Mr. Matthews that Mr. Weitzman was a chronic schizophrenic. He was constantly in fear of his life. Also, he would tell people some things to make them happy and get them to go away. "

-- ARRB 13th Batch
The Federal Register February 20,1996 p. 6346-6347

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp....e/arrb_13.html

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

You do understand the word "latent" don't you?

A moment ago you were saying there was no palm print.

Quote:

The FBI's Sebastian Latona examined the prints and found them to be worthless.
His WC Testiomny:
:
Mr. LATONA. I could see faintly ridge formations there. However, examination disclosed to me that the formations, the ridge formations and characteristics, were insufficient for purposes of either effecting identification or a determination that the print was not identical with the prints of people. Accordingly, my opinion simply was that the latent prints which were there were of no value.

That would be because the Dallas police had already lifted the prints. Latona got them second hand.

Quote:

As to the alleged palm print

It had no chain of evidence,

Yes it did. The problems that rise stem from the FBI demanding the weapon and the CTer confusion over the matter

Quote:

and the Dallas police did not tell the FBI about the print until AFTER Oswald was dead.

DPD didn't care much for the FBI.

Quote:

There is evidence that suggests the palm print was obtained from Oswald's dead body at the morgue, or later at the funeral home (Lifton 354-356 n; cf. Meagher 120-127). So suspicious was the palm print that even the WC privately had doubts about the manner in which it was obtained (Garrison 113; Marrs 445; cf.

Moreover:

"..."Miller Funeral Home director Paul Groody told this author that the FBI fingerprinted Oswald's corpse. Groody said 'I had a heck of time getting the black fingerprint ink off of Oswald's hands.' In 1978, FBI agent Richard Harrison confirmed to researcher Gary Mack that he had personally driven another Bureau agent and the 'Oswald' rifle to the Miller Funeral Home. Harrison said at the time he understood that the other agent intended to place Oswald's palm print on the rifle 'for comparison purposes.' Oswald had been fingerprinted three times while alive and in Dallas police custody. There has been no explanation for this postmortem fingerprinting."-- from "Crossfire" by Jim Mars

This is laughable. The dead sweat in Mars & Garrisons world, apparently.

Try reading this: http://www.jfk-online.com/prints.html

[Tomtomkent]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

"Conspiracy Theorists are just nuts...', eh? So all you do is to confirm what I have said, that you guys just offer name calling, with no evidence, save for one person who brought up the rifle ID. So, what do you have? In terms of "evidence.' Nothing, I'm sure.

So just to be clear, which pieces of evidence offered by walter and discussed at length here by the "established history" side of the discussion were invalidated by the post you are rebutting? Assuming that is what you meant by "us guys". Even if you have deliberately misread the post and assumed it was name calling (rather than the intensded warning of how you will sound if you continue to not provide evidence…) it is hard to understand how you can ignore the wealth of data already discussed at length. Which you have refered to in your own posts!

Claiming "nothing" has been offered a few posts after discussing "something" is called a "lie". Please try to avoid those.

[bynmdsue]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

I only claim it was a conspiracy, which I will shortly get into.

C'mon! Bring it in, set it on the table and open it up! I've waited twenty-odd yrs, now wow me.

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

I'll give you that one. Weitzman said what he said on youtube after being brow-beaten as to the official script, like so many others, by the FBI. But what is on Youtube is not a sworn statement. His WC document is and it is very specific betraying more than just a "glance." As a police officer Mr. W. knows very well that when you swear that something is true, that means it's true.

Really? So if I swear to something and I am wrong (not lying, just wrong) that means it is actually true? How interesting.

Quote:

An un-sworn statement is virtually worthless if in a court of law.

Well you know what trumps a sworn statement with an error in it? A complete lack of evidence for a Mauser - no Mauser, no Mauser brass, no Mauser bullets, etc.

[timhau]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

You were given more than enough evidence by Walter Ego on post 53 and it was quoted several times. Pretending its not there doesn't impress us.

Speak for yourself. I've always found flat-out denial of reality highly impressive. Impressive in the wrong way, but impressive nonetheless.

[I Ratant]

Based on the incredibly shallow and thoughtless "research" RP has spent several minutes on, his culprit will be Colonel Mustard in the library with the candlestick.

[Tomtomkent]

There is also a burden of proof issue here. The status quo is that the available evidence points towards LHO acting alone, the established course of events. The null is that we have no reason to doubt these conclusions. The burden of evidence is for the null to be disproven, not for the most likely course of events to be made an absolute. RP seems to be expecting evidence to be provided to move the LHO case from beyond reasonable doubt, as it stands, to beyond any doubt (an impossibility inalmost any historical event) whatsoever.

And no evidence has yet been produced to sway us from the null. If it's coming why has it not been posted?

[Walter Ego]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

You do understand the word "latent" don't you?

Yes, I do.

Quote:

Although the word latent means hidden or invisible, in modern usage for forensic science the term latent prints means any chance or accidental impression left by friction ridge skin on a surface, regardless of whether it is visible or invisible at the time of deposition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint#Latent_prints

What did you think "latent" meant? Did you even read the article by Gary Savage on the fingerprint evidence I linked? I'm beginning to doubt that you did.

Quote:

As to the alleged palm print

It had no chain of evidence, and the Dallas police did not tell the FBI about the print until AFTER Oswald was dead.

"...journalists assigned to the Dallas police station were reporting that, according to their police sources, Oswald's prints had NOT been found on the rifle (Lifton 356 n).

There is evidence that suggests the palm print was obtained from Oswald's dead body at the morgue, or later at the funeral home (Lifton 354-356 n; cf. Meagher 120-127). So suspicious was the palm print that even the WC privately had doubts about the manner in which it was obtained (Garrison 113; Marrs 445; cf.

Moreover:

"..."Miller Funeral Home director Paul Groody told this author that the FBI fingerprinted Oswald's corpse. Groody said 'I had a heck of time getting the black fingerprint ink off of Oswald's hands.' In 1978, FBI agent Richard Harrison confirmed to researcher Gary Mack that he had personally driven another Bureau agent and the 'Oswald' rifle to the Miller Funeral Home. Harrison said at the time he understood that the other agent intended to place Oswald's palm print on the rifle 'for comparison purposes.' Oswald had been fingerprinted three times while alive and in Dallas police custody. There has been no explanation for this postmortem fingerprinting."-- from "Crossfire" by Jim Mars

Btw, an "alleged palm print" of Oswald's was also found on one of the boxes in the sniper's nest on the 6th floor of the TSBD. Did the conspirators drag Oswald's corpse back up there too?

You are still having problems with proper citation but at least you give page numbers of the conspiracy books you are quoting... and that's part of the problem. What is this "evidence" that "suggests the palm print was obtained from Oswald's dead body at the morgue, or later at the funeral home"? You don't say. You merely quote Lifton and Marrs. Once again this is merely another assertion.

You do understand the different between evidence and mere assertion, don't you? I'm beginning to think you don't. Do you own the books by Marrs and Lifton? If so, maybe you can check to see if they give any sources for this "evidence."

All this talk of fingerprints reminded me of the PBS documentary Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald? which can be viewed on You Tube and which, as it happens, features both Gary Savage and former Dallas Police Crime Lab Detective Rusty Livingston.

I've cued up the clip to the relevant segment and you can view it here. The advantage of this clip (for you at least) is that it doesn't require any reading.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by Walter Ego

Yes, I do.




What did you think "latent" meant? Did you even read the article by Gary Savage on the fingerprint evidence I linked? I'm beginning to doubt that you did.





Btw, an "alleged palm print" of Oswald's was also found on one of the boxes in the sniper's nest on the 6th floor of the TSBD. Did the conspirators drag Oswald's corpse back up there too?

You are still having problems with proper citation but at least you give page numbers of the conspiracy books you are quoting... and that's part of the problem. What is this "evidence" that "suggests the palm print was obtained from Oswald's dead body at the morgue, or later at the funeral home"? You don't say. You merely quote Lifton and Marrs. Once again this is merely another assertion.

You do understand the different between evidence and mere assertion, don't you? I'm beginning to think you don't. Do you own the books by Marrs and Lifton? If so, maybe you can check to see if they give any sources for this "evidence."

All this talk of fingerprints reminded me of the PBS documentary Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald? which can be viewed on You Tube and which, as it happens, features both Gary Savage and former Dallas Police Crime Lab Detective Rusty Livingston.

I've cued up the clip to the relevant segment and you can view it here. The advantage of this clip (for you at least) is that it doesn't require any reading.

So, in a few words, exactly what is your point?

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

There is also a burden of proof issue here. The status quo is that the available evidence points towards LHO acting alone, the established course of events. The null is that we have no reason to doubt these conclusions. The burden of evidence is for the null to be disproven, not for the most likely course of events to be made an absolute. RP seems to be expecting evidence to be provided to move the LHO case from beyond reasonable doubt, as it stands, to beyond any doubt (an impossibility inalmost any historical event) whatsoever.

And no evidence has yet been produced to sway us from the null. If it's coming why has it not been posted?

No, the burden is on those who make the accusation.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

Really? So if I swear to something and I am wrong (not lying, just wrong) that means it is actually true? How interesting.



Well you know what trumps a sworn statement with an error in it? A complete lack of evidence for a Mauser - no Mauser, no Mauser brass, no Mauser bullets, etc.

Weitzman was mistaken more than once. He was mistaken when he stated on the CBS program that it was proven that he was wrong about the rifle ID. It was not "proven." He was only told by the FBI that it was proven. Weitzman was never allowed to see the rifle in question to affirm that it was or was not the rifle that he observed. Thus, it was not proven to him, only told to him. Perhaps he was not so paranoid to fear what might happen to him if he didn't recant his sworn statement, what actually did happen to Roger Craig who never recanted his recollection that the rifle was indeed a Mauser and that he observed the inscription 'Mauser, 7.65.

[Scott Sommers]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

So, in a few words, exactly what is your point?

I don't really understand this. I get Walter's point and I don't know anything about this Kennedy stuff. And you haven't said a single thing in response to him. I guess that means you beat. What else could it mean?

Good show their Walter. Strike another blow for the mighty Canadian.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

So just to be clear, which pieces of evidence offered by walter and discussed at length here by the "established history" side of the discussion were invalidated by the post you are rebutting? Assuming that is what you meant by "us guys". Even if you have deliberately misread the post and assumed it was name calling (rather than the intensded warning of how you will sound if you continue to not provide evidence…) it is hard to understand how you can ignore the wealth of data already discussed at length. Which you have refered to in your own posts!

Claiming "nothing" has been offered a few posts after discussing "something" is called a "lie". Please try to avoid those.

This is a small space. Name one item, not a thousand.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

A moment ago you were saying there was no palm print.



That would be because the Dallas police had already lifted the prints. Latona got them second hand.



Yes it did. The problems that rise stem from the FBI demanding the weapon and the CTer confusion over the matter



DPD didn't care much for the FBI.



This is laughable. The dead sweat in Mars & Garrisons world, apparently.

Try reading this: http://www.jfk-online.com/prints.html

No, first try to make a point.

[Chaos]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

No, the burden is on those who make the accusation.

Then the burden is on you to show there were additional assassins.

And "show" means provide evidence, not spam a couple of unsupported claims.

[timhau]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

No, the burden is on those who make the accusation.

You says there is a conspiracy, you proves there is a conspiracy. Simple as that, really.

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Weitzman was mistaken more than once. He was mistaken when he stated on the CBS program that it was proven that he was wrong about the rifle ID. It was not "proven." He was only told by the FBI that it was proven. Weitzman was never allowed to see the rifle in question to affirm that it was or was not the rifle that he observed.

Yawn. There were plenty of chances for him to see the rifle and by his own admission he was not an expert. He saw what looked like a Mauser, being less than 20 years out of WW2 Mausers were probabaly the 1st bolt action rifle that would come to an average American detective's mind, especially when presented with a rifle of very similar design. This is not a strech, so you don't need any fanciful nonsense like this:

Quote:

Thus, it was not proven to him, only told to him. Perhaps he was not so paranoid to fear what might happen to him if he didn't recant his sworn statement,

Speculative, paranoid nonsense that cannot even remotely be taken seriously. This is the dreck 'evidence' we are to expect from you?!

There was no evidence of a Mauser, no Mauser brass, and no Mauser bullets to be found anywhere in Dealy plaza. The Carcano resembles a Mauser and it is an easy mistake to make.

Quote:

what actually did happen to Roger Craig who never recanted his recollection that the rifle was indeed a Mauser and that he observed the inscription 'Mauser, 7.65.

Craig told a lot of tales, as my previous link on him showed. but your silly, paranoid fantasy ramblings about his suicide being an asassination is ludicrous.

And Craig was contradictory about it being a Mauser: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/craig.htm#mauser

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

No, first try to make a point.

I answered your points and destroyed them. Game-playing won't win you any points here.

I wonder if you actually think you are being clever?

[Tomtomkent]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

No, the burden is on those who make the accusation.

The burden for proving a conspiracy lays with you. It's your claim, prove it.

[Tomtomkent]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

No, first try to make a point.

A point was already made. Why do you need conditions to be met to read the evidence you asked for? Any chance of you proving this conspiracy allegation of yours any time soon? Or is there no evidence to sway from the null?

[Tomtomkent]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

This is a small space. Name one item, not a thousand.

So you admit the weight of evidence is a thousand to none in favour of LHO being the shooter? Ok so what is wrong with the thousand pieces of evidence against you? What is your problem with the size of space in these posts?

Where is your one piece of evidence?

Let me make it easy.… all you have to do is say "this proves a conspiracy" and provide a single piece of evidence. Go ahead.

Until then the Warren comission and material evidence, despite a number of minor failings and gaps, almost entirely from unreliable eye witness statements, place LHO with a rifle in his hand.

[I Ratant]

From the source:
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk...html#testimony
.
Warren Commission Report
Chapter 3.
"The Shots from the Texas School Book Depository"
.
Description of Rifle

The bolt-action, clip-fed rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository, described more fully in appendix X, is inscribed with various markings, including "MADE ITALY," "CAL. 6.5," "1940" and the number C2766.126 (See Commission Exhibit Nos. 1303, 541(2) and 541 (3), pp. 82-83.) These markings have been explained as follows: "MADE ITALY" refers to its origin; "CAL. 6.5" refers to the rifle's caliber; "1940" refers to the year of manufacture; and the number C2766 is the serial number. This rifle is the only one of its type bearing that serial number.127 After review of standard reference works and the markings on the rifle, it was identified by the FBI as a 6.5-millimeter model 91/38 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.128 Experts from the FBI made an independent determination of the caliber by inserting a Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5-millimeter cartridge into the weapon for fit, and by making a sulfur cast of the inside of the weapon's barrel and measuring
the cast with a micrometer.129 From outward appearance, the weapon would appear to be a 7.35-millimeter rifle, but its mechanism had been rebarreled with a 6.5-millimeter barrel.
130 Constable Deputy Sheriff Weitzman, who only saw the rifle at a glance and did not handle it, thought the weapon looked like a 7.65 Mauser bolt-action rifle.131
(See chapter V, p. 235.)
.
After making independent examinations, both Frazier and Nicol positively identified the nearly whole bullet from the stretcher and the two larger bullet fragments found in the Presidential limousine as having been fired in the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found in the Depository to the exclusion of all other weapons.142 Each of the two bullet fragments had sufficient unmutilated area to provide the basis for an identification.
.
Easy, innit?
.
I visited two local gun shops looking for a Mauser today.
Found 4.
None were the 1896 carbine that had the below-stock magazine, but also, none of them had the name "MAUSER" nor the caliber visible on any part of the action.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by I Ratant

From the source:
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk...html#testimony
.
Warren Commission Report
Chapter 3.
"The Shots from the Texas School Book Depository"
.
Description of Rifle

The bolt-action, clip-fed rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository, described more fully in appendix X, is inscribed with various markings, including "MADE ITALY," "CAL. 6.5," "1940" and the number C2766.126 (See Commission Exhibit Nos. 1303, 541(2) and 541 (3), pp. 82-83.) These markings have been explained as follows: "MADE ITALY" refers to its origin; "CAL. 6.5" refers to the rifle's caliber; "1940" refers to the year of manufacture; and the number C2766 is the serial number. This rifle is the only one of its type bearing that serial number.127 After review of standard reference works and the markings on the rifle, it was identified by the FBI as a 6.5-millimeter model 91/38 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.128 Experts from the FBI made an independent determination of the caliber by inserting a Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5-millimeter cartridge into the weapon for fit, and by making a sulfur cast of the inside of the weapon's barrel and measuring
the cast with a micrometer.129 From outward appearance, the weapon would appear to be a 7.35-millimeter rifle, but its mechanism had been rebarreled with a 6.5-millimeter barrel.
130 Constable Deputy Sheriff Weitzman, who only saw the rifle at a glance and did not handle it, thought the weapon looked like a 7.65 Mauser bolt-action rifle.131
(See chapter V, p. 235.)
.
After making independent examinations, both Frazier and Nicol positively identified the nearly whole bullet from the stretcher and the two larger bullet fragments found in the Presidential limousine as having been fired in the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found in the Depository to the exclusion of all other weapons.142 Each of the two bullet fragments had sufficient unmutilated area to provide the basis for an identification.
.
Easy, innit?
.
I visited two local gun shops looking for a Mauser today.
Found 4.
None were the 1896 carbine that had the below-stock magazine, but also, none of them had the name "MAUSER" nor the caliber visible on any part of the action.

Apparently there was an m/c found at the TSBD. But on a lower floor. I question the "exclusion of all other weapons" assertion, but nonetheless, doesn't prove Oswald it, nor to the exclusion of of other shooters.

[Tomtomkent]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Apparently there was an m/c found at the TSBD. But on a lower floor. I question the "exclusion of all other weapons" assertion, but nonetheless, doesn't prove Oswald it, nor to the exclusion of of other shooters.

And that assertion is?

The ballistics tie to the rifle. The rifle ties to Oswald. No evidence has been supplied to suggest an alternative weapon. The word "Apparently" is not evidence.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

So you admit the weight of evidence is a thousand to none in favour of LHO being the shooter? Ok so what is wrong with the thousand pieces of evidence against you? What is your problem with the size of space in these posts?

Where is your one piece of evidence?

Let me make it easy.… all you have to do is say "this proves a conspiracy" and provide a single piece of evidence. Go ahead.

Until then the Warren comission and material evidence, despite a number of minor failings and gaps, almost entirely from unreliable eye witness statements, place LHO with a rifle in his hand.

You might interpret a thousand items of evidence as leading to one single shooter or a single perp. I would suggest that all those items of evidence could also point to the framing of a patsy. I have two items of evidence proving a conspiracy. The first I can summarize in just two words. But first, I want to hear from all you "critical thinkers" just what ipso facto evidence you have for your Lone Nutter dogma.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

Yawn. There were plenty of chances for him to see the rifle and by his own admission he was not an expert. He saw what looked like a Mauser, being less than 20 years out of WW2 Mausers were probabaly the 1st bolt action rifle that would come to an average American detective's mind, especially when presented with a rifle of very similar design. This is not a strech, so you don't need any fanciful nonsense like this:



Speculative, paranoid nonsense that cannot even remotely be taken seriously. This is the dreck 'evidence' we are to expect from you?!

There was no evidence of a Mauser, no Mauser brass, and no Mauser bullets to be found anywhere in Dealy plaza. The Carcano resembles a Mauser and it is an easy mistake to make.



Craig told a lot of tales, as my previous link on him showed. but your silly, paranoid fantasy ramblings about his suicide being an asassination is ludicrous.

And Craig was contradictory about it being a Mauser: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/craig.htm#mauser

You'll get a better response from me if you stick to one point at a time. JFK Assassination Careerist Debunker Macadams cites Craig's statement that
". A few years later, when he was interviewed for "Two Men in Dallas," Craig claimed to have viewed the rifle close-up and seen the notation "7.65 Mauser."

Just what I pointed out.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by Chaos

Then the burden is on you to show there were additional assassins.

And "show" means provide evidence, not spam a couple of unsupported claims.

Thanks. I'll keep that in mind when I give my proof in just two words.

[Tomtomkent]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Thanks. I'll keep that in mind when I give my proof in just two words.

Will it be any time soon? As I can't see any reason for you having failed to produce it so far.

Two words leaves little room for citation however. And as "no evidence" is now truly debunked your work is cut out.

[Tomtomkent]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

You might interpret a thousand items of evidence as leading to one single shooter or a single perp. I would suggest that all those items of evidence could also point to the framing of a patsy. I have two items of evidence proving a conspiracy. The first I can summarize in just two words. But first, I want to hear from all you "critical thinkers" just what ipso facto evidence you have for your Lone Nutter dogma.

BUZZZZZ! And we have an epic fail! Conclusive proof for a lone shooter is not required because LHO IS THE ONLY SHOOTER FOR WHICH THERE IS ANY EVIDENCE. Leaving the only reasonable surmisation not to be "Patsy" for which you have supplied NO EVIDENCE AT ALL.

Telling us you have evidence is worth zero. If it is coherent evidence there is absolutely no reason why it would require our opinions to be heard first. Supply it, or leave. What is there not to get?

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Thanks. I'll keep that in mind when I give my proof in just two words.

Super. Could you at least tell us the date for the upcoming big reveal of your "proof in just two words?" I want to make sure I'm tuned in, refreshing the screen so as not to miss it. This news could rock the world.

Thanks in advance.

[Tomtomkent]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

You'll get a better response from me if you stick to one point at a time. JFK Assassination Careerist Debunker Macadams cites Craig's statement that
". A few years later, when he was interviewed for "Two Men in Dallas," Craig claimed to have viewed the rifle close-up and seen the notation "7.65 Mauser."

Just what I pointed out.

And you will get better responses from us when you:
1) Supply evidence.
2) Offer reasonable hypothosis based upon evidence.
3) Stop making pathetic excuses about there being TOO MUCH evidence against you. You know what, if people offer too many points addres them one at a time. But don't complain about how much evidence is being supplied. Especially when you supply NONE.

[Tomtomkent]

As lets be honest, it can "suggest" the framing of the patsy, but with out evidence this happened, we might as well say "It points to a robot from the future!" When that "evidence" for framing the patsy includes only claims post mortem palm prints, and a rifle that was NOT connected to Oswald apparently framing him, with no tangible (or sensible) reason why this would be the case, no evidence of a conspiracy, no evidence of conspiritors to do the framing, no evidence of need for a patsy, and no reason to discount the most obvious conclusion (itself supported by TOO MUCH evidence apparently) why do we assume "conspiracy", or "werewolves", "vampires", "time travelling robots", "Dave Lister", "angles", "UFOS", or literally anything else it COULD point to with out evidence?



Because a guy promises evidence at some point? Nope. Not good enough.

The burden of proof is proving a conspiracy before proving LHO was the patsy. The burden has yet to be carried.

[Monza]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Thanks. I'll keep that in mind when I give my proof in just two words.

I have this sinking feeling that those words are going to be, "You Tube".

[Tomtomkent]

Or worse another "Two Oswalds!" mallarky. Urgh.

[Walter Ego]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

So, in a few words, exactly what is your point?

Oh, I see, you don't like to read posts with more than one paragraph. Is English your second language? You also have trouble expressing yourself clearly. And you still haven't provided any evidence for whatever conspiracy theory you're peddling. (Hint: Unsourced assertions from books by conspiracy writers is not evidence.)

You need help, Robert. You are heading towards an epic fail. Do you have any conspiracy-minded buds who could drop by and give you a helping hand?

Quote:

The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal witnesses on the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all that is explained. Page xliii

Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy by Vincent Bugliosi

[Monza]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Here's a question I submit no one dare answer: What is the one single strongest piece of evidence proving a lone assassin?

You seem to be avoiding Walter Ego's post #53. But to summarize his list into a "single piece of evidence"... The bullet that struck Kennedy and Connaly originated from the location where a rifle (owned by Oswald with his prints on it) was found and where Oswald was seen that day.

[Tomtomkent]

Originally Posted by Monza

You seem to be avoiding Walter Ego's post #53. But to summarize his list into a "single piece of evidence"... The bullet that struck Kennedy and Connaly originated from the location where a rifle (owned by Oswald with his prints on it) was found and where Oswald was seen that day.

My statement would be: "There is no single piece of evidence, to claim thus would be to have unrealistic expectations. There are however many smaller pieces that fit together to give a case which is proven beyond reasonable doubt, with no other satisfactory alternative, and no evidence to support further layers of conspiracy."

To expect a single piece of magic evidence is to misunderstand the process entirely. And by extension to misunderstand how reality tends to work. The palm prints on the rifle that fired the shots, in the location the shots were fired from, is more than reasonable.

[Mudcat]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

No, the burden is on those who make the accusation.

You are making the accusation here, no one else, of a conspiracy so that would be your cue to start producing evidence.... you know, just in case you got confused by hard wards or distracted by a shiny object or something.

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Apparently there was an m/c found at the TSBD. But on a lower floor. I question the "exclusion of all other weapons" assertion, but nonetheless, doesn't prove Oswald it, nor to the exclusion of of other shooters.

.
You are lost forever in the conspiracy sewers.
"Warren Commission Report
Chapter 3.
"The Shots from the Texas School Book Depository"
.
Description of Rifle

The bolt-action, clip-fed rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository, described more fully in appendix X, is inscribed with various markings, including "MADE ITALY," "CAL. 6.5," "1940" and the number C2766.126 (See Commission Exhibit Nos. 1303, 541(2) and 541 (3), pp. 82-83.)