In 54 years has anyone ever admitted to manufacturing or planting evidence?

[Jerry Organ]

Repost since you don?t want to read the whole thread:

- The paper sack allegedly used to transport the rifle to TSBD
http://dealeyplazauk.org.uk/pdfArticles/The%20Paper%20bag%20that%20never%20was!.pdf

- The "Magic bullet" discovered at Parkland Hospital
https://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm

- The Palm Print that the FBI didn't find until after Oswald's death
http://www.garvandwane.com/conspiracy/oswalds_palm_prints.html

- Oswald's wallet with the incriminating Hiddell ID. Was it found at the Tippit murder scene or did he have it when he was arrested?
http://jfkfacts.org/oswalds-wallet-planted-at-the-tippit-crime-scene/

- The broken chain of evidence for the Shells found near the Tippit murder scene
http://jfkfacts.org/jerry-hills-lies-heart-tippit-shooting/

I'm sure there's more but those are a few of the most well known inconsistencies.

The closest anyone has come to admitting to planting (or staging) of evidence is the Wallet mystery. Ofc Croy says an unknown person handed him Oswald's wallet at the Tippit murder scene.

So this list is "evidence YOU think was probably tampered with," as Howard asked you.

I'm a bit confused because I thought you had been trying to disassociate yourself with being a full-blown kook:

• "I'm a Left-leaning guy who rejects most Conspiracy Theories"
• "I would never argue that Oswald couldn?t have done it all alone
   and I haven?t seen many plausible arguments that he was framed"
• "I love the John McAdams site and I?ve read portions of
   Reclaiming History but not the entire book"
• "I prefer not to read Conspiracy Theory books"
• "I'm not endorsing the idea that Kennedy's murder was an inside job"
• "I personally am about 50/50 or so on the Conspiracy question
   in the Kennedy assassination"
• "I accept the plausibility of Oswald alone shooting JFK"

[Jon Banks]

So this list is "evidence YOU think was probably tampered with," as Howard asked you.

I'm a bit confused because I thought you had been trying to disassociate yourself with being a full-blown kook:

• "I'm a Left-leaning guy who rejects most Conspiracy Theories"
• "I would never argue that Oswald couldn?t have done it all alone
   and I haven?t seen many plausible arguments that he was framed"
• "I love the John McAdams site and I?ve read portions of
   Reclaiming History but not the entire book"
• "I prefer not to read Conspiracy Theory books"
• "I'm not endorsing the idea that Kennedy's murder was an inside job"
• "I personally am about 50/50 or so on the Conspiracy question
   in the Kennedy assassination"
• "I accept the plausibility of Oswald alone shooting JFK"

I?m not a conspiracy theorist. I have no theory about what ?really? happened. As far as I?m concerned, we can?t possibly know the whole truth because of the many ways the various investigations were mishandled.

What I am is a skeptic. A lot of the evidence in the Kennedy assassination stinks. There are inconsistencies everywhere.

With that said, I accept that it?s still possible that Oswald acted alone despite the probable evidence tampering and coverups that occurred. I just don?t believe supporters of the LoneNut narrative can build a convincing argument of ?No Conspiracy? when all the inconsistencies in the evidence are taken into consideration. It?s not possible to rule out a Conspiracy based on what little we know...

[Howard Gee]

Jon, do you actually believe the items on the list you posted are examples of 'probable' evidence tampering ?

Personally, I think they're paranoid kook delusions.

I'm guessing you don't actually believe they're probable, much less genuine, examples of evidence tampering, but you're just playing devil's advocate.

If you actually believe they're probable or genuine then you believe there was a conspiracy to frame Saint Patsy.

Either way, you're certainly entitled to your beliefs.

As far as completely ruling out a conspiracy, the WC agrees with you.

The WC didn't conclude that a conspiracy could be ruled out.

The WC concluded that no credible evidence of a conspiracy, foreign or domestic, could be found.

55 years later, the WC is still correct.

[John Iacoletti]

But after 55 years, no one has admitted to planting evidence, nor has anyone been able to prove that any evidence was planted.

So what?  After 55 years, nobody has been able to prove that Oswald did it either.

And considering the amount of evidence that would have to be planted for Saint Patsy to be innocent...well, you do the math.

This is just a Big Lie created by those who continually fail to provide a coherent argument that Oswald is guilty.

[Jon Banks]

Jon, do you actually believe the items on the list you posted are examples of 'probable' evidence tampering ?

Personally, I think they're paranoid kook delusions.

You?re welcome to tell me why the examples I gave are wrong.

Name-calling may make you feel good but it doesn?t advance your argument.

I have an open mind and I await your explanations for the examples I cited...

[Allan Fritzke]

You?re welcome to tell me why the examples I gave are wrong.

Name-calling may make you feel good but it doesn?t advance your argument.

I have an open mind and I await your explanations for the examples I cited...

Jon,

You better jump off the fence.  You can't be a LNer and a CTer at the same time.   If you don't believe that LHO acted alone and had some handlers, then you are a CTer!  Should be a fairly simple jump.   Find his Driver's license and his tax records to dis-spell who actually employed him and how he found himself working in the TSBD at the same time.    As well, how he made a great living working in Russia, changing passports? and traveling throughout the world!  Pretty intelligent patsy really (or at least financially) I must say - and he just happened to be at the right place and    AT  THE   RIGHT   TIME in order to complete what he intended and set out to do (His life's mission)!

He even enjoyed his last McChicken sandwich behind the boxes in the Sniper's Nest before becoming the madman that he was!

[Howard Gee]

You?re welcome to tell me why the examples I gave are wrong.

Name-calling may make you feel good but it doesn?t advance your argument.

I have an open mind and I await your explanations for the examples I cited...

Alright, I'll ignore your avoidance of stating whether you believe the examples cited are 'probable' evidence of tampering.

Let's start with the 'probable' planting of the magic bullet.

How on earth would the conspirators know whether any bullets were found in JFK or Connally at the time the 'magic bullet' would have had to be planted ?

They couldn't.

If a bullet was found in JFK and/or Connally that would mean that Saint Patsy would have had to get off even more than the 3 shots that the CT's already doubt he could have done. More shots = less chance Saint Patsy was a lone assassin. So why would they plant an additional bullet ?

Additionally, think about what the planting would entail.

Did the conspirators fire CE399 into some cotton wadding or water before the assassination and have it laying around somewhere so that Ruby or whoever could plant it ?

Did they have a bullet planting team waiting in Parkland ?

And if you're going to claim they substituted CE399 for the bullet Tomlinson found, you have to explain how they knew Tomlinson was going to find a bullet, or was he part of the conspiracy too ?

So I ask you, is the magic bullet planting scenario 'probable', or is it delusional kookery ?

What do you think, Jon ?

[John Iacoletti]

Speaking of delusional kookery, here come the fantasy strawman conspirators again.

Why would CE 399 even have to exist prior to the assassination, given that there's no evidence that it ever went through Kennedy or Connally?

Tomlinson found a bullet on an unrelated stretcher at Parkland Hospital and gave it to O.P. Wright.  Wright said that the bullet he got from Tomlinson was pointed.