Vicki Adams: The Lost Interview

[Martin Weidmann]

What a ludicrously naïve and excessively ignorant comment!

It's no assumption that Oswald defected to the enemy at the height of the cold war.
It's no assumption that Oswald slashed his wrist, when denied entry to Russia.
It's no assumption that Oswald wrote a letter to his brother that under certain circumstances Oswald would "Kill any American".
It's no assumption that Oswald hit his wife.
It's no assumption that Oswald ordered and purchased a rifle.
It's no assumption that Oswald ordered and purchased a revolver.
It's no assumption that Oswald was photographed with a 40 inch Carcano.
It's no assumption that Oswald was photographed with a handgun.
It's no assumption that Oswald's camera took photos of Walker's residence.
It's no assumption that Oswald had a map with an "X" marking Walker's residence.
It's no assumption that Oswald's handwriting was on a note indicating what Marina had to do after Oswald could potentially be arrested or killed.
It's no assumption that Marina saw the end of a rifle wrapped in a blanket in the Paine garage.
It's no assumption that Oswald for the first time since being employed at the Texas School Book Depository went home mid week.
It's no assumption that Oswald left the majority of his money and his wedding ring with Marina on the morning of the assassination.
It's no assumption that Oswald carried a long brown package to work on the morning of the assassination, to which Frazier said  "I didn't pay too much attention"
It's no assumption that Oswald lied about telling Frazier the Curtain rod story.
It's no assumption that Oswald lied about the contents of his long package.
It's no assumption that Oswald lied about putting the long package on the back seat of Frazier's car.
It's no assumption that Oswald had no alibi.
It's no assumption that Oswald's rifle was discovered on the 6th floor.
It's no assumption that Oswald's prints were discovered on Oswald's rifle.
It's no assumption that Oswald's prints were discovered on the long package.
It's no assumption that Oswald's fresh prints were discovered on 1 of the rifle rest boxes, which were moved over 40 feet.
It's no assumption that Oswald's fresh prints were on top of the rifle rest box were oriented down Elm street
It's no assumption that Oswald was positively identified by Howard Brennan in his testimony under oath.
It's no assumption that Brennan's close description of Oswald was broadcast at 12:45.
It's no assumption that Oswald was in the act of flight immediately after the assassination.
It's no assumption that Oswald got on and off a bus.
It's no assumption that Oswald got out of his cab way past his Rooming House.
It's no assumption that Oswald retrieved his revolver.
It's no assumption was zipping up his jacket when he left the Rooming House.
It's no assumption that Oswald killed a cop and why would anyone have the need to kill a cop doing a random check?
It's no assumption that Oswald was positively identified either at or leaving the Tippit crime scene.
It's no assumption that Oswald's jacket was discovered in a parking lot that Oswald was seen entering.
It's no assumption that Oswald was arrested without his jacket.
It's no assumption that Oswald went into a dark theater.
It's no assumption that Oswald punched a cop when the cop was simply approaching.
It's no assumption that Oswald pulled out his revolver and pulled the trigger.
It's no assumption that Oswald lied about owning a rifle.
It's no assumption that Oswald lied about the backyard photos.
It's no assumption that Oswald lied about living at Neely street, the location of the backyard photos.
It's no assumption that Oswald lied about killing Tippit.
It's no assumption that Oswald was a dirty rotten double murderer!!!

JohnM

Sorry, John, but I can't deal with this much stupidity. There are so many assumptions in your list that I would have to write a book to explain them all to you. But I won't do that because you will never ever understand it.

If you want to be this superficial, go right ahead, but don't ask me to come down to your level.

[Martin Weidmann]

Hilarious! I see that Martin is still persisting with this absurd claim?

Martin with every post, day after day, month after month, year after year, decade after decade, has actively promoted a conspiracy thus Martin's theory is that there was a conspiracy therefore he's a Conspiracy Theorist! 

Just because Martin or for that matter any CT, doesn't have the deductive reasoning skills to define who did what, doesn't detract from the fact, that they are all Conspiracy Theorist's.

You'd think that after the most investigated murder of all time with millions of hours spent researching, interviewing and speculating that the CT's would have come to some sort of collective conclusion but yet, they still haven't, what a waste of so many lives!

JohnM

Not everybody who does not agree with your biased, narrow-minded view of the evidence is automatically a conspiracy theorist. To be one, one needs to actually have a conspiracy theory! Or is that already way over your head?
It is true that when you scrutinize the evidence in a way you clearly have never done, you also have to consider the possibility of evidence being manipulated, which in turn would suggest a conspiracy as that is the only alternative for Oswald being the lone gunman. But accepting that there is a possibility that there could have been been a conspiracy is something completely different than claiming there was an actual conspiracy. (Still with me, or is this too complicated for you?).

Your "if you are not with me, you are against me" attitude is childish and without reason. Five year olds argue that way! I fully understand why you would want to color all skeptics as conspiracy theorists, because that makes them easier for you to ridicule, which is of course the true reason why you are here. If you have to deal with a skeptic you actually need to argue the case and we both know that beyond one liners and ridicule you haven't got much.

You'd think that after the most investigated murder of all time with millions of hours spent researching, interviewing and speculating, LNs like you would have come up with a plausible and conclusive scenario that is persuasive enough to win over the skeptics, but instead all you seem to be able to do is regurgitate the same superficial arguments that the spindoctors at the WC and your High Priest Bugliosi have given you to swallow without questioning any of it.

[Jack Nessan]

Not everybody who does not agree with your biased, narrow-minded view of the evidence is automatically a conspiracy theorist. To be one, one needs to actually have a conspiracy theory! Or is that already way over your head?
It is true that when you scrutinize the evidence in a way you clearly have never done, you also have to consider the possibility of evidence being manipulated, which in turn would suggest a conspiracy as that is the only alternative for Oswald being the lone gunman. But accepting that there is a possibility that there could have been been a conspiracy is something completely different than claiming there was an actual conspiracy. (Still with me, or is this too complicated for you?).

Your "if you are not with me, you are against me" attitude is childish and without reason. Five year olds argue that way! I fully understand why you would want to color all skeptics as conspiracy theorists, because that makes them easier for you to ridicule, which is of course the true reason why you are here. If you have to deal with a skeptic you actually need to argue the case and we both know that beyond one liners and ridicule you haven't got much.

You'd think that after the most investigated murder of all time with millions of hours spent researching, interviewing and speculating, LNs like you would have come up with a plausible and conclusive scenario that is persuasive enough to win over the skeptics, but instead all you seem to be able to do is regurgitate the same superficial arguments that the spindoctors at the WC and your High Priest Bugliosi have given you to swallow without questioning any of it.

MW--“LNs like you would have come up with a plausible and conclusive scenario that is persuasive enough to win over the skeptics, but instead all you seem to be able to do is regurgitate the same superficial arguments that the spindoctors at the WC and your High Priest Bugliosi have given you to swallow without questioning any of it”

How could anyone mistake you for a Conspiracy Theorist. It could not be more obvious how neutral you are. Nothing but a fantasy storyline is an acceptable understanding.

 A lone person firing two shots with two hits is a completely implausible scenario. LHO owns the rifle found on the 6th floor with his fingerprints all over the SN, palmprint on the rifle, prints on the bag used to bring the rifle, no alibi at time of shooting, states he was coming down to see what the commotion was about after the shooting, and then trying to disappear afterwards. Who would suspect that guy?

[Martin Weidmann]

MW--“LNs like you would have come up with a plausible and conclusive scenario that is persuasive enough to win over the skeptics, but instead all you seem to be able to do is regurgitate the same superficial arguments that the spindoctors at the WC and your High Priest Bugliosi have given you to swallow without questioning any of it”

How could anyone mistake you for a Conspiracy Theorist. It could not be more obvious how neutral you are. Nothing but a fantasy storyline is an acceptable understanding.

 A lone person firing two shots with two hits is a completely implausible scenario. LHO owns the rifle found on the 6th floor with his fingerprints all over the SN, palmprint on the rifle, prints on the bag used to bring the rifle, no alibi at time of shooting, states he was coming down to see what the commotion was about after the shooting, and then trying to disappear afterwards. Who would suspect that guy?

You really have nothing new to offer.

The only thing you have is the same old official story which IMO has too many holes in it to be conclusive and a true representation of what actually happened. It didn't convince most people 60 years ago and it still doesn't convince them today.

Who would suspect that guy?

Suspecting somebody is a completely different thing than proving his actual guilt. Of course Oswald would be a suspect and he actual may even be guilty, but you need conclusive authentic evidence to prove it. And the simple fact of the matter is that you haven't got that. All you've got is a bunch of assumptions and speculation.

How could anyone mistake you for a Conspiracy Theorist. It could not be more obvious how neutral you are.

I am neutral enough to accept the possibility that Oswald was the lone gunman, despite the fact that I do not believe the official narrative for one second. I am also neutral enough to accept most of the evidence as not falsified, despite the fact that some of it could very well have been manipulated or taken out of context.

Now, how about your own neutrality? Do you accept there is a possibility that there could have been a conspiracy before the fact and a cover up after the fact?

[Jack Nessan]

You really have nothing new to offer.

The only thing you have is the same old official story which IMO has too many holes in it to be conclusive and a true representation of what actually happened. It didn't convince most people 60 years ago and it still doesn't convince them today.

Who would suspect that guy?

Suspecting somebody is a completely different thing than proving his actual guilt. Of course Oswald would be a suspect and he actual may even be guilty, but you need conclusive authentic evidence to prove it. And the simple fact of the matter is that you haven't got that. All you've got is a bunch of assumptions and speculation.

That would be enough to hang him. What speculation? His are the only fingerprints found. He owned the rifle. Good bye Lee Harvey.

[Martin Weidmann]

That would be enough to hang him. What speculation? His are the only fingerprints found. He owned the rifle. Good bye Lee Harvey.

Stop being so superficial. You can't even provide evidence that puts Oswald on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. And even if Oswald owned that particular rifle in March 1963 (which is a very big "if"), you can not produce a shred of evidence that it was still in his possession on 11/22/63. Again, all you've got are assumptions and you seem to lack the intelligence to even understand that.

[Jack Nessan]

Stop being so superficial. You can't even provide evidence that puts Oswald on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. And even if Oswald owned that particular rifle in March 1963 (which is a very big "if"), you can not produce a shred of evidence that it was still in his possession on 11/22/63. Again, all you've got are assumptions and you seem to lack the intelligence to even understand that.

Fingerprints are evidence. He built the SN. The bag that brought the rifle had his palm print and fingerprints exactly as described in how he held the bag. You are the only one talking about how innocent he is and is beyond doubt.

[Martin Weidmann]

Fingerprints are evidence. He built the SN. The bag that brought the rifle had his palm print and fingerprints exactly as described in how he held the bag. You are the only one talking about how innocent he is and is beyond doubt.

Fingerprints are indeed evidence but they are not automatically proof.

Prints found on boxes that Oswald had to handle as part of his job are of very limited evidentiary value. And that's not only my opinion. Wesley Liebeler made exactly that point when discussing the weakness of some of the evidence. The evidentiary value is even further reduced because there were also other prints on the boxes that could not be identified. They could just as easily have been from somebody else.

There was no palm print found on the rifle. The FBI examined the rifle in the night after the shooting and found no prints or even residue of a print that had been lifted. That Day, several days later, produced an evidence card with a palmprint on it and claimed that he had lifted from the rifle is not particularly convincing. The chief forensic officer of the DPD finds a palmprint on the presumed murder rifle (which would be crucial evidence) and then just puts it in his desk. Really?

As far as the bag goes, the preponderance of evidence is against Oswald carrying the bag found at the TSBD on Friday morning. The TSBD bag was made out of materials found and used at the TSBD, but nobody saw Oswald make such a bag. Even worse, the last opportunity Oswald would have had to make the bag was Thursday afternoon. On Friday afternoon the DPD took samples of the TSBD materials and found a perfect match of the cut of the wrapping paper on the machine with that of the bag. This would mean that since Thursday afternoon no wrapping paper was used. Not a single piece during the entire Friday morning. Hardly a likely tale! I don't know how Oswald's prints got on that bag, or if they really did, but I can think of several scenarios. Frazier did not see Oswald having a folded bag with him during the trip to Irving on Thursday and there actually was no reason for Oswald to make that bag. Seven months earlier Oswald is supposed to have carried the rifle on public transport to New Orleans. Whatever container he used at that time, would have sufficed.

This is the problem with the LN "logic"; it never goes beyond superficial and it never looks at the entirety of the available information. As long as it points to Oswald it's so-called "evidence" with no need to dig deeper any maybe find something you don't like.

You are the only one talking about how innocent he is and is beyond doubt.

There you go again. Another assumption that simply isn't true. Ever since I joined this forum I have never stated that Oswald was innocent or that there had been a conspiracy. I challenge you to find one post in which I did!

In the meantime you still haven't explained where Adams and Styles were during 4 minutes after the shots, if they did not go down the stairs immediately. Remember this;

The evidence that Adams and Styles never left the 4th floor until four minutes after is everywhere.

Do you really think that people just believe you when you make baseless claims without providing any evidence for it?