JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Dickie Felder on August 16, 2023, 02:41:24 AM
-
I've been lurking on this forum for a while, and finally decided to participate. I've read numerous threads, read a lot of comments from LNs claiming that LHO was a loner seeking fame, wanted to make a name for himself, wanted to go down in history, would have shot any president given the chance, etc. etc.
If this was the case, then why would he deny his involvement? Why not just come right out and say "Yep, I did it." Why all the denials on camera and in the supposed interrogations?
I'm not saying this proves he's innocent or anything, it just doesn't make any sense to me for this given theory. Any thoughts?
-
I don't believe Oswald assassinated Kennedy simply because he wanted to be famous and/or make a name for himself.
Oswald's motive for shooting at General Walker was the same as he had for assassinating the President. Marxism and Cuba. Oswald wanted the United States Government to keep it's hands off of Cuba.
Oswald told Capt. Will Fritz that he was a Marxist, that he belonged to the Fair Play For Cuba organization and that he was in favor of Fidel Castro's revolution.
Before the revolution, Castro, with his Marxist beliefs, condemned social and economic inequality in Cuba. He adopted the Marxist view that meaningful political change could only be brought about by proletariat revolution.
While Castro was imprisoned for the failed attack on the Moncada Barracks in Cuba, his wife took employment with the Ministry of the Interior. Castro was enraged and insulted. His Marxist beliefs were so strong that filed for divorce. Mirta (Castro's wife) took custody of their son Fidelito. The thought of his son growing up in a bourgeois environment further enraged Castro.
Oswald agreed strongly with the Marxist beliefs of Castro.
During the revolution, the U.S. Government feared that Castro was a socialist.
In early January of 1959, Batista was overthrown by the rebels and he fled.
The revolution was a crucial turning point in relations between the U.S. and Cuba. Originally, the U.S. government was willing to recognize Castro's new government. However, the U.S. government would eventually fear that Communist insurgencies would spread through Latin America, as they had in Southeast Asia.
On March 5, 1963, Major General Edwin Walker gave a speech where he called on the White House to "liquidate the (communist) scourge that has descended upon the island of Cuba." Walker was obviously referring to Fidel Castro. Oswald ordered his rifle seven days later.
Captain Fritz told the Warren Commission:
"I got the impression that he was doing it because of his feeling about the Castro revolution, and I think that he felt, he had a lot of feeling about that revolution.
I think that was the reason. I noticed another thing. I noticed a little before when Walker was shot, he had come out with some statements about Castro and about Cuba and a lot of things and if you will remember the President had some stories a few weeks before his death about Cuba and about Castro and some things, and I wondered if that didn't have some bearing.
I have no way of knowing that other than just watching him and talking to him. I think it was his feeling about his belief in being a Marxist, he told me he had debated in New Orleans, and that he tried to get converts to this Fair Play for Cuba organization, so I think that was his motive. I think he was doing it because of that."
-
I've been lurking on this forum for a while, and finally decided to participate. I've read numerous threads, read a lot of comments from LNs claiming that LHO was a loner seeking fame, wanted to make a name for himself, wanted to go down in history, would have shot any president given the chance, etc. etc.
If this was the case, then why would he deny his involvement? Why not just come right out and say "Yep, I did it." Why all the denials on camera and in the supposed interrogations?
I'm not saying this proves he's innocent or anything, it just doesn't make any sense to me for this given theory. Any thoughts?
There is a distinction between historical credit and legal responsibility. Oswald was getting all the attention that he desired as the suspected assassin. Oswald was not going to assist the authorities in sending him to the electric chair. He also had no idea that he would only have a couple of days to live. For all he knew, he had months or even years to bargain a confession with the authorities. The only card that he had left to play was his confession and the details of his crime which had historical implications. He was not going to give that away on the first weekend. He likely would have followed the James Earl Ray model by confessing to save his skin and then playing conspiracy theorists for suckers for the rest of his life in return for attention and sympathy. Also keep in mind that assassinating the president as Oswald did is not a rational act. Therefore, there can never be any neat and tidy explanation for everything that he did.
-
I've been lurking on this forum for a while, and finally decided to participate. I've read numerous threads, read a lot of comments from LNs claiming that LHO was a loner seeking fame, wanted to make a name for himself, wanted to go down in history, would have shot any president given the chance, etc. etc.
If this was the case, then why would he deny his involvement? Why not just come right out and say "Yep, I did it." Why all the denials on camera and in the supposed interrogations?
I'm not saying this proves he's innocent or anything, it just doesn't make any sense to me for this given theory. Any thoughts?
Welcome to the forum.
No one knows what Oswald’s motive was (assuming he was involved).
Like you, I’ve also wondered why he would deny responsibility if he was allegedly motivated by fame or politics. The pattern of most politically motivated assassins or terrorists is that they proudly claim responsibility for their actions. Oswald didn’t do that at all. He even went further by claiming to be a patsy.
I don’t think we’ll ever know why…
-
I've been lurking on this forum for a while, and finally decided to participate. I've read numerous threads, read a lot of comments from LNs claiming that LHO was a loner seeking fame, wanted to make a name for himself, wanted to go down in history, would have shot any president given the chance, etc. etc.
If this was the case, then why would he deny his involvement? Why not just come right out and say "Yep, I did it." Why all the denials on camera and in the supposed interrogations?
I'm not saying this proves he's innocent or anything, it just doesn't make any sense to me for this given theory. Any thoughts?
Hi Dickie,
I advise you to look up Bill Simpich's State Secret. There, you'll find how it all went down for Lee Oswald. He was "in the system." Doesn't mean he was like a top-level James Bond. But they used him to dangle some Commie stuff when he did his fake defection to Russia. Only to be welcomed back with literally open arms. Do you realize how hot the Cold War was back then? It was very hot, indeed. Yet, he waltzed right back to America with a Russian wife to boot.
When he came back, and because he was doing low-level "intel" stuff, he made a perfect foil. Very, very easy to manipulate him around. He already had the legend built from his fake defection. And he thought he was doing "something" useful. All they needed to do was steer him around here and there, get him a job in the building, set up some fake photos [he himself said he knew how to do it when they showed him the photos], throw some shells down on the 6th floor and PRESTO - they had their man.
That's why he was genuinely pissed all weekend until he was shot. Denying everything, saying "the only reason why they have me is because I lived in Russia" and on and on. Of course the usual people here want it both ways - they'll say he was rabid, a wife beater, wanted attention, etc. But when you ask them directly, they'll then play innocent and go all "Well, we really don't know." Ridiculous.
And by the way, the Kennedys were absolutely loathed by DC insiders. They hated the father, the brothers, the whole fucking family. These insiders really believed that the Kennedys were going to "ruin" America as they knew it. So there's the real motive for the insiders who planned his murder out.
So who were the "insiders?" LBJ? Hoover? Nixon? Dulles? The Cubans? The Mafia? Who cares. The larger point is that the murder was a conspiracy and Oswald was the perfect foil for it.
-
There is a distinction between historical credit and legal responsibility. Oswald was getting all the attention that he desired as the suspected assassin. Oswald was not going to assist the authorities in sending him to the electric chair. He also had no idea that he would only have a couple of days to live. For all he knew, he had months or even years to bargain a confession with the authorities. The only card that he had left to play was his confession and the details of his crime which had historical implications. He was not going to give that away on the first weekend. He likely would have followed the James Earl Ray model by confessing to save his skin and then playing conspiracy theorists for suckers for the rest of his life in return for attention and sympathy. Also keep in mind that assassinating the president as Oswald did is not a rational act. Therefore, there can never be any neat and tidy explanation for everything that he did.
Also keep in mind that assassinating the president as Oswald did is not a rational act. Therefore, there can never be any neat and tidy explanation for everything that he did.
Well said. This is quite often forgotten.
-
There is a distinction between historical credit and legal responsibility. Oswald was getting all the attention that he desired as the suspected assassin. Oswald was not going to assist the authorities in sending him to the electric chair. He also had no idea that he would only have a couple of days to live. For all he knew, he had months or even years to bargain a confession with the authorities. The only card that he had left to play was his confession and the details of his crime which had historical implications. He was not going to give that away on the first weekend. He likely would have followed the James Earl Ray model by confessing to save his skin and then playing conspiracy theorists for suckers for the rest of his life in return for attention and sympathy. Also keep in mind that assassinating the president as Oswald did is not a rational act. Therefore, there can never be any neat and tidy explanation for everything that he did.
Well that solves the problem of trying to pin down a motive.
When all else fails, fall back on the "lone-nut" defense.
Jack Ruby was a "lone-nut" too apparently.
Maybe something was in the water in Dallas that week... ;)
-
Well that solves the problem of trying to pin down a motive.
When all else fails, fall back on the "lone-nut" defense.
Jack Ruby was a "lone-nut" too apparently.
Maybe something was in the water in Dallas that week... ;)
It's not necessary to prove motive. Particularly in crimes committed by nut jobs like Oswald. The evidence confirms beyond any doubt that LHO assassinated JFK. It is almost impossible to contemplate how there could be more evidence. After nearly 60 years of CTers beating the bushes, there is no credible evidence of the involvement of any other person. Oswald did it. We don't have to understand why to reach this conclusion because the evidence proves it. State of mind as some contrarian loons remind us can't be known with certainty. But we don't have to understand the motivations of murders to conclude that they are guilty when they leave ample evidence to reach that conclusion.
-
It's not necessary to prove motive. Particularly in crimes committed by nut jobs like Oswald. The evidence confirms beyond any doubt that LHO assassinated JFK. It is almost impossible to contemplate how there could be more evidence. After nearly 60 years of CTers beating the bushes, there is no credible evidence of the involvement of any other person. Oswald did it. We don't have to understand why to reach this conclusion because the evidence proves it. State of mind as some contrarian loons remind us can't be known with certainty. But we don't have to understand the motivations of murders to conclude that they are guilty when they leave ample evidence to reach that conclusion.
If you don’t think motives matter then maybe you should sit this discussion out.
The thread was started with a question related to potential motives.
-
If you don’t think motives matter then maybe you should sit this discussion out.
The thread was started with a question related to potential motives.
I never said it didn't matter. Everything Oswald did is of interest. His decision to assassinate the president made him a person of historical interest. Exactly as he wanted. Again, what I very clearly said was that it is not necessary to prove his motive with certainty (nor is it possible to do so with certainty) but that in no way precludes us from concluding that he was guilty of the act. It is certainly not necessary to prove his motive to biased CTers who apply their subjective standards to the topic. CTers want to go down another rabbit hole. It goes like this. We can never know Oswald's motive, so that somehow casts doubt on his guilt and makes all the evidence go away. And he didn't act exactly like they think he should have. This was a guy who decided to assassinate the president from a building. He is not exactly acting like a rational person but CTers expect him to have done everything like a rational person. It's all the old CTer trope to mix apples and oranges to get grapes.
-
It's not necessary to prove motive. Particularly in crimes committed by nut jobs like Oswald. The evidence confirms beyond any doubt that LHO assassinated JFK.
LOL.
The evidence confirms beyond any doubt that "Richard" is delusional.
-
He is not exactly acting like a rational person but CTers expect him to have done everything like a rational person.
So say the same people whose "evidence" consists mostly of the way they interpret how Oswald "acted" that day.
-
So here we can go again. The usual people say one thing to fit a square peg into a round hole. Then on another thread they'll say something to fit a round peg into a square hole.
There's always a motive.
The Kennedys were despised. They thought he gave the game away during the Bay of Pigs. They also thought he was too soft during the Cuban Missile Crisis. They knew he was going to win again in 1964. Then, there was a possible Bobby run into the decade. Way too much Kennedy. They couldn't depend on the media to create a controversy about him with any maritial affairs he was having because, the Kennedys had good connections in the media.
And they thought he was soft, that he going to ruin the country in their warped minds.
Oswald didn't know what was going down on 11/22. Look at the pictures of him coming out of the theater.
-
I've been lurking on this forum for a while, and finally decided to participate. I've read numerous threads, read a lot of comments from LNs claiming that LHO was a loner seeking fame, wanted to make a name for himself, wanted to go down in history, would have shot any president given the chance, etc. etc.
If this was the case, then why would he deny his involvement? Why not just come right out and say "Yep, I did it." Why all the denials on camera and in the supposed interrogations?
I'm not saying this proves he's innocent or anything, it just doesn't make any sense to me for this given theory. Any thoughts?
Dickie, this reply from Mr Walton is the best you're probably get in answer to your question.
I completely agree with Mr Walton. In a nut shell ....Lee Oswald was a sucker who was used by rich and powerful men .......at the top of that list is LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover. Lee Oswald probably did even know who had made a "patsy " of him.
-
So here we can go again. The usual people say one thing to fit a square peg into a round hole. Then on another thread they'll say something to fit a round peg into a square hole.
There's always a motive.
The Kennedys were despised. They thought he gave the game away during the Bay of Pigs. They also thought he was too soft during the Cuban Missile Crisis. They knew he was going to win again in 1964. Then, there was a possible Bobby run into the decade. Way too much Kennedy. They couldn't depend on the media to create a controversy about him with any maritial affairs he was having because, the Kennedys had good connections in the media.
And they thought he was soft, that he going to ruin the country in their warped minds.
Oswald didn't know what was going down on 11/22. Look at the pictures of him coming out of the theater.
You can look at a picture and conclude that Oswald "didn't know what was going on"? Wow. Of course there were people who disagreed with JFK's policies. Every president is disliked by someone. That is not evidence of a conspiracy to assassinate them. Don't you think that if Oswald was a Marxist that he might have some of these same reasons for disliking JFK or does this work only one way?
-
Thank you Bill for taking the time to respond.
Oswald's motive for shooting at General Walker was the same as he had for assassinating the President. Marxism and Cuba. Oswald wanted the United States Government to keep it's hands off of Cuba.
This does makes sense to me about Walker, however, not with Kennedy. How does killing Kennedy make US relations with Cuba any better? Was there an expectation that JFK was going to increase tensions at the time?
-
Hi Dickie,
I advise you to look up Bill Simpich's State Secret. There, you'll find how it all went down for Lee Oswald. He was "in the system." Doesn't mean he was like a top-level James Bond. But they used him to dangle some Commie stuff when he did his fake defection to Russia. Only to be welcomed back with literally open arms. Do you realize how hot the Cold War was back then? It was very hot, indeed. Yet, he waltzed right back to America with a Russian wife to boot.
When he came back, and because he was doing low-level "intel" stuff, he made a perfect foil. Very, very easy to manipulate him around. He already had the legend built from his fake defection. And he thought he was doing "something" useful. All they needed to do was steer him around here and there, get him a job in the building, set up some fake photos [he himself said he knew how to do it when they showed him the photos], throw some shells down on the 6th floor and PRESTO - they had their man.
That's why he was genuinely pissed all weekend until he was shot. Denying everything, saying "the only reason why they have me is because I lived in Russia" and on and on. Of course the usual people here want it both ways - they'll say he was rabid, a wife beater, wanted attention, etc. But when you ask them directly, they'll then play innocent and go all "Well, we really don't know." Ridiculous.
And by the way, the Kennedys were absolutely loathed by DC insiders. They hated the father, the brothers, the whole fucking family. These insiders really believed that the Kennedys were going to "ruin" America as they knew it. So there's the real motive for the insiders who planned his murder out.
So who were the "insiders?" LBJ? Hoover? Nixon? Dulles? The Cubans? The Mafia? Who cares. The larger point is that the murder was a conspiracy and Oswald was the perfect foil for it.
Thank you for the reply. I'm definitely going to read Bill Simpich's State Secret. It was pretty easy to find.
If anyone else is interested:
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret.html
I've always wondered about LHO's defection and ease of returning to the US, Russian bride on his arm. Seems he should have been detained or at the minimum questioned by American authorities immediately upon his return.
I'll openly admit that I don't have a lot of knowledge on the subject, this occured 25 years before I was born.
I'll return after reading Bill's work
-
Thank you Bill for taking the time to respond.
This does makes sense to me about Walker, however, not with Kennedy. How does killing Kennedy make US relations with Cuba any better? Was there an expectation that JFK was going to increase tensions at the time?
In the Dallas Herald Times on the 19th of November 1963.
(https://i.postimg.cc/gjNRQCJn/WH-Vol26-0053a.gif)
JohnM
-
In the Dallas Herald Times on the 19th of November 1963.
(https://i.postimg.cc/gjNRQCJn/WH-Vol26-0053a.gif)
This NB!
Pres. Kennedy in Miami was mood-musicking ahead of what was going to happen in Dallas on the 22nd-----------or rather: what he thought was going to happen there.
Mr. Oswald was on Team Kennedy.
-
Dickie, you may want to watch the film The Good Shepherd. Although a work of fiction, it kind of shows you how the good old boys network has always worked in the State Department and CIA.
I'm not saying either of those agencies were involved in Kennedy's murder. But I am saying that a legend was already built for Oswald. They even had a photo of him and his hot sexy Russian wife upon his return waving and smiling. I mean, really? Yes, he returned way before 11/22 but they were building a legend for some type of use for him later. And there's not doubt in my mind that this happened with other low-level intel folks too. Not for Kennedy's murder but for whatever they may find useful for them. I'm sure the others just faded into the background when they were never used.
But that's obviously not the case with Oswald. He ended up being the perfect foil. I used to think Ruby shot Oswald because Lee knew all about the murder. Another researcher has now convinced me otherwise - that Lee knew absolutely nothing about what was going to happen on 11/22. He was, though, a low-level intel guy running around, doing the fake leaflet handing in NO and so on. There's no doubt that this would have come out eventually, so he needed to be silenced. How would it look if the so-called madman Commie was also doing intel work? After all, he was supposed to only be a Marxist warehouse worker looking for fame, right?
-
It doesn’t make sense unless Oswald was a schizo who didn’t know that JFK WAS keeping hands off Cuba and JFK DID give a big speech implying more cooperation with USSR to prevent future conflict was possible.
And Oswald must not have known that LBJ had a much more war hawk attitude towards USSR and Cuba than JFK.
The reason (allegedly heard by Marina )for Oswald to shoot at General Walker was an association of Walker with Hitler.
However there is nothing (heard by Marina ) about Oswald associating JFK with Walker and the fact that JFK forced Walker to resign and committed him to an insane asylum , would surely be an act that Oswald would approve of.
Also , JFK removing the CIA director Alan Dulles would surely have been something a Marxist Oswald would have approved of.
So it’s seems rather illogical for Oswald to shoot the president who is doing actions that Oswald would approve of , and yet no shots ever taken at LBJ who was closer in line with Walkers anti communist Warhawk stance than JFK was.
-
Dickie, you may want to watch the film The Good Shepherd. Although a work of fiction, it kind of shows you how the good old boys network has always worked in the State Department and CIA.
I'm not saying either of those agencies were involved in Kennedy's murder. But I am saying that a legend was already built for Oswald. They even had a photo of him and his hot sexy Russian wife upon his return waving and smiling. I mean, really? Yes, he returned way before 11/22 but they were building a legend for some type of use for him later. And there's not doubt in my mind that this happened with other low-level intel folks too. Not for Kennedy's murder but for whatever they may find useful for them. I'm sure the others just faded into the background when they were never used.
But that's obviously not the case with Oswald. He ended up being the perfect foil. I used to think Ruby shot Oswald because Lee knew all about the murder. Another researcher has now convinced me otherwise - that Lee knew absolutely nothing about what was going to happen on 11/22. He was, though, a low-level intel guy running around, doing the fake leaflet handing in NO and so on. There's no doubt that this would have come out eventually, so he needed to be silenced. How would it look if the so-called madman Commie was also doing intel work? After all, he was supposed to only be a Marxist warehouse worker looking for fame, right?
Yes. The Good Shepherd is such a good movie Michael. I just watched it again a couple of weeks ago with my son.
I'm on chapter 3 of Bill Simpich State Secret. Lots of interesting information.
-
It doesn’t make sense unless Oswald was a schizo who didn’t know that JFK WAS keeping hands off Cuba and JFK DID give a big speech implying more cooperation with USSR to prevent future conflict was possible.
And Oswald must not have known that LBJ had a much more war hawk attitude towards USSR and Cuba than JFK.
I believe Oswald, like most Americans, assumed that LBJ was a bigger anti-communist Cold War hawk than JFK.
LBJ also was known to have previously supported segregation, something that Lee strongly opposed based on his writings and things he told people close to him. No one predicted that Johnson's Presidency would be as good for the Civil Rights movement as it became.
Civil Rights was one of the areas where Oswald approved of JFK's policies. Kennedy didn't live to see the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed but the groundwork for that legislation began being layed during his Presidency.
Also worth mentioning that AG Robert Kennedy hated Gen. Edwin Walker and tried to have him committed to a mental institution. Dislike of Gen. Walker is another point where Oswald agreed with Kennedy.
-
Not sure what Mr Myttons opinion about the newspaper article is so I will have to guess that the relevance is that Oswald read the article and concluded that despite an earlier speech by JFK suggesting an attitude of cooperation with the U.S.S.R. to avoid future nuclear conflict , Oswald concluded JFK was another Walker that needed to be shot .
-
I've been lurking on this forum for a while, and finally decided to participate. I've read numerous threads, read a lot of comments from LNs claiming that LHO was a loner seeking fame, wanted to make a name for himself, wanted to go down in history, would have shot any president given the chance, etc. etc.
If this was the case, then why would he deny his involvement? Why not just come right out and say "Yep, I did it." Why all the denials on camera and in the supposed interrogations?
I'm not saying this proves he's innocent or anything, it just doesn't make any sense to me for this given theory. Any thoughts?
I'm a lurker as well, but I think the mafia was behind the shooting and yes Oswald fired the shots. He wanted the fame and they wanted JFK dead. Of course they could not take any chances of Oswald squawking and Ruby was sent in to silence him forever.
All that other garbage on coverups, frontal shots, and stuff is BS.
My opinion
-
Not sure what Mr Myttons opinion about the newspaper article is so I will have to guess that the relevance is that Oswald read the article and concluded that despite an earlier speech by JFK suggesting an attitude of cooperation with the U.S.S.R. to avoid future nuclear conflict , Oswald concluded JFK was another Walker that needed to be shot .
Walker and JFK were polar opposites politically. No reason to assume that of Oswald.
"In September 1961 Walker organized the protests against the enrollment of James Meredith at the University of Mississippi. Another incident the following year resulted in two reporters being killed. Attorney General Robert Kennedy responded by issuing a warrant for Walker's arrest on the charges of seditious conspiracy, insurrection, and rebellion.
Walker now became a leading figure in the fight against what he considered to be the liberal establishment. Based in Dallas, he gave many speeches around the country denouncing communism and liberalism. In February 1962 Walker stood for governor of Texas. Although he gained the support of Barry Goldwater, Walker finished last and John Connally went on to be governor".
https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKwalker.htm
-
@Mr. Banks: I generally agree with you and that’s why it seems unlikely to me that Oswald would , if he had earlier (theoretically) held a favorable opinion of JFK because JFK was doing things that Oswald would have approved of, that Oswald would suddenly flip his opinion and be enraged by just one newspaper article.
And enraged enough that he would contemplate shooting JFK.
That is, presuming Oswald was NOT suffering from a bipolar disorder or some other metal problem.
-
Not sure what Mr Myttons opinion about the newspaper article is so I will have to guess that the relevance is that Oswald read the article and concluded that despite an earlier speech by JFK suggesting an attitude of cooperation with the U.S.S.R. to avoid future nuclear conflict , Oswald concluded JFK was another Walker that needed to be shot .
Oswald was a political kook. He had demonstrative a willingness to commit a political assassination with Walker. That is a big step separating him from 99% of other loons. Oswald selected Walker because of his right-wing views and he was a target of opportunity because he lived in Dallas. JFK was largely a target of opportunity because he literally came to Oswald. Oswald did not select him. JFK, as president of the United States, literally drove by Oswald's place of employment in an open car. Oswald must have thought he was the luckiest guy in the world. The opportunity to kill the head of the political system that he despised dropped right into his lap.
-
The opportunity to kill the head of the political system that he despised dropped right into his lap.
The same guy who okayed the Bay of Pigs invasion and stared down Castro and the Russians in '62. I don't think this was lost on Oswald.
-
@Mr. Banks: I generally agree with you and that’s why it seems unlikely to me that Oswald would , if he had earlier (theoretically) held a favorable opinion of JFK because JFK was doing things that Oswald would have approved of, that Oswald would suddenly flip his opinion and be enraged by just one newspaper article.
And enraged enough that he would contemplate shooting JFK.
That is, presuming Oswald was NOT suffering from a bipolar disorder or some other metal problem.
You're presuming: A) that Oswald read the news article and B), that it changed his mind about Kennedy.
Both rely too much on assumptions in my humble opinion.
We have zero evidence that Oswald disliked JFK or was even angry at him in 1963. And we know that Oswald's political views were closer to JFK's than Walker's. We also know that Oswald was aware after the assassination that killing JFK wouldn't change US policies towards Cuba (per Capt. Will Fritz's testimony).
Edwin Walker was a rightwing extremist who hated JFK. For all we know, he might've been involved in a rightwing plot against JFK and planted the story that Oswald took a shot at him in order to deflect suspicions about his own involvement in the Kennedy assassination.
-
The same guy who okayed the Bay of Pigs invasion and stared down Castro and the Russians in '62. I don't think this was lost on Oswald.
If that's true, why did Lee speak positively of JFK in 1962 and 1963?
If he was so pro-Cuba, one wouldn't expect him to have told Marina and others that he liked Kennedy.
-
If that's true, why did Lee speak positively of JFK in 1962 and 1963?
If he was so pro-Cuba, one wouldn't expect him to have told Marina and others that he liked Kennedy.
So what? You don't think OJ ever spoke positively about Nicole? Things change.
-
So what? You don't think OJ ever spoke positively about Nicole? Things change.
The “what” is that there’s evidence that counters your assumption and no evidence that he disliked JFK.
Whatever Oswald’s true feelings about Cuba, neither the Bay of Pigs, nor the Cuban Missile Crisis mattered to him apparently.
-
Oswald was a political kook.
Not nearly as politically kooky as “Richard Smith”.
He had demonstrative a willingness to commit a political assassination with Walker.
LOL
-
If that's true, why did Lee speak positively of JFK in 1962 and 1963?
If he was so pro-Cuba, one wouldn't expect him to have told Marina and others that he liked Kennedy.
Oswald could have "liked" JFK the person, but still committed the act. The assassination was a political act. If it had been Nixon, LBJ or anyone else in that car as President, he would have still committed the act. It was not personal but political. Even if you disagree with that and think Oswald was behaving in some inconsistent way from how you think that assassin would have acted, it does not eliminate the evidence which links Oswald to the crime beyond any doubt. His rifle was left at the scene of the crime.
-
Oswald could have "liked" JFK the person, but still committed the act. The assassination was a political act. If it had been Nixon, LBJ or anyone else in that car as President, he would have still committed the act. It was not personal but political. Even if you disagree with that and think Oswald was behaving in some inconsistent way from how you think that assassin would have acted, it does not eliminate the evidence which links Oswald to the crime beyond any doubt. His rifle was left at the scene of the crime.
Even though it is only an educated guess, a lot of people have stated what they believe was going through LHO’s mind. Here is what his brother Robert Oswald had to say on page 214 of his book “Lee”:
At that moment, Lee was not shooting at a human being but at a prominent political figure who was receiving the applause of the crowd.
This was his final protest to a world that had ignored him, sometimes mocked him, and always failed to acknowledge his superiority.
Sadly, for JD Tippit and his friends and family, it was not his final act of violence. And while Jack Ruby was very wrong to take justice into his own hands, it is understandable how someone with Ruby’s temperament could ambush LHO as he did.
-
Oswald could have "liked" JFK the person, but still committed the act.
Correct. I'm not arguing that the lack of a clear political motive exonerates him.
All I'm saying is, it's difficult to pin down a motive (if he did it) because there's really no evidence that he had a negative opinion of JFK.
-
Oswald could have "liked" JFK the person, but still committed the act. The assassination was a political act. If it had been Nixon, LBJ or anyone else in that car as President, he would have still committed the act. It was not personal but political. Even if you disagree with that and think Oswald was behaving in some inconsistent way from how you think that assassin would have acted, it does not eliminate the evidence which links Oswald to the crime beyond any doubt. His rifle was left at the scene of the crime.
His rifle was left at the scene of the crime.
It has not been proven that the carcano was owned by Lee Oswald, but for the for this rebuttal I'll accept that it was Lee's rifle.
IF ?? It was his rifle and he fired it from the sixth floor window? ...... Don't you think he would have known a a far better place to stash the rifle than under a pallet of boxes of books that was clearly along the path he would have taken to escape the sixth floor. Doesn't that seem just a bit strange to you???
It absolutely SCREAMS of a staged scene and yet very few recognize it as such.
Whoever stashed that rifle beneath those boxes of books WANTED it to be found and point to Lee Oswald.
-
And if that MC rifle was actually inside of the pallet rather than where they photographed it between 2 rows of boxes then that’s a real problem to explain.
Because if the rifle was inside a pallet stacked full of boxes it’s impossible Oswald could have put it there post shots because that takes way too long and he would certainly NOT have been able to get to the 2nd floor lunchroom by 90 sec post shots even if he used an elevator with an accomplice returning elevator to 5th floor after dropping Oswald off on the 2nd floor.
So then there’s basically only 2 options left unless it can be proved the rifle was planted post shots by the Will Fritz/Lt.Day tag team.
1. Oswald planted the MC rifle BEFORE shots were fired for some reason
2. The conspirator shooter planted the rifle beforehand
In Either case, the MC rifle was therefore not the weapon used to shoot JFK
Question why would either Oswald or a conspirator shooter plant a rifle that wasn’t fired recently and plant the rifle wedged inside a pallet of boxes, if the purpose was to make it look like that rifle was the murder weapon?
-
His rifle was left at the scene of the crime.
It has not been proven that the carcano was owned by Lee Oswald, but for the for this rebuttal I'll accept that it was Lee's rifle.
IF ?? It was his rifle and he fired it from the sixth floor window? ...... Don't you think he would have known a a far better place to stash the rifle than under a pallet of boxes of books that was clearly along the path he would have taken to escape the sixth floor. Doesn't that seem just a bit strange to you???
It absolutely SCREAMS of a staged scene and yet very few recognize it as such.
Whoever stashed that rifle beneath those boxes of books WANTED it to be found and point to Lee Oswald.
Oswald is linked to the rifle in every conceivable way absent a time machine. What better place was available for him to hide the rifle under the circumstances? Of course it was going to be found no matter where he left it in the building. He had just assassinated the president. The authorities would have turned that place upside down until they found it. Here is a better question than why he didn't hide his rifle better. Why was his rifle there at all? Oswald was given a chance to explain but instead he lied about owing a rifle. Why would he do that? There are fired shell casings found next to the window from which witnesses saw the rifle pointed at JFK motorcade at the moment of the assassination. Oswald is the only TSBD employee to leave identifiable prints on the SN boxes. He fled the scene. Murdered a police officer. It is a slam dunk of guilt.
-
“His rifle”. LOL.
-
Oswald is linked to the rifle in every conceivable way absent a time machine. What better place was available for him to hide the rifle under the circumstances? Of course it was going to be found no matter where he left it in the building. He had just assassinated the president. The authorities would have turned that place upside down until they found it. Here is a better question than why he didn't hide his rifle better. Why was his rifle there at all? Oswald was given a chance to explain but instead he lied about owing a rifle. Why would he do that? There are fired shell casings found next to the window from which witnesses saw the rifle pointed at JFK motorcade at the moment of the assassination. Oswald is the only TSBD employee to leave identifiable prints on the SN boxes. He fled the scene. Murdered a police officer. It is a slam dunk of guilt.
What better place was available for him to hide the rifle under the circumstances? Of course it was going to be found no matter where he left it in the building.
I don't know details of the TSBD .....But you can bet Lee Oswald would have known of a better place to hide the rifle IF he had been planning to fire it from the sixth floor....I'M MERELY POINTING OUT that the rife was left on the obvious path an escaping assassin would have taken. And I think that's smacks of a frame up.
-
What better place was available for him to hide the rifle under the circumstances? Of course it was going to be found no matter where he left it in the building.
I don't know details of the TSBD .....But you can bet Lee Oswald would have known of a better place to hide the rifle IF he had been planning to fire it from the sixth floor....I'M MERELY POINTING OUT that the rife was left on the obvious path an escaping assassin would have taken. And I think that's smacks of a frame up.
You are right about one thing. The "rifle was left on the obvious path an escaping assassin would have taken." That's because Oswald was the assassin, and he left there while leaving the floor. If someone were going to frame Oswald for this crime, why hide the rifle at all? Why not just drop it by the window with the shell casings?
-
If Oswald was confident enough that the rifle couldn’t not be traced to himself, then he would not really need to hide it anyway.
And if he wore some gloves and covered his face with mask, he wouldn’t have to worry about being photographed in the SN window nor have to worry about wiping prints off the rifle.
So the suspicion of conspiracy or cover up starts with how incredibly stupid the plan seems be in the first place, which seems contradictory to the abilities of Oswald such as speaking and understanding Russian language , which indicates someone with above average intelligence.
( unless he was a Russian Oswald double)
-
If Oswald was confident enough that the rifle couldn’t not be traced to himself, then he would not really need to hide it anyway.
And if he wore some gloves and covered his face with mask, he wouldn’t have to worry about being photographed in the SN window nor have to worry about wiping prints off the rifle.
So the suspicion of conspiracy or cover up starts with how incredibly stupid the plan seems be in the first place, which seems contradictory to the abilities of Oswald such as speaking and understanding Russian language , which indicates someone with above average intelligence.
( unless he was a Russian Oswald double)
In which we learn once again that there was so much evidence against Oswald that we can only conclude he was innocent. Oswald made a decision to shoot the president from his place of employment. Any person with "average intelligence" would understand that there was no getting away with this and returning to his normal life like nothing happened. It didn't matter how well he hid his rifle. The FBI was already aware of Oswald and keeping tabs on him. Oswald knew that. He knew that he would become the prime suspect once the FBI learned he worked in the building from which the shots were fired and that he was unaccounted for. He couldn't carry the rifle out of the building under the circumstances. In making the decision to carry this out, Oswald would have understood that it entailed his death or arrest. At best, he might have made it out of Dallas before they found him, but his days were numbered. He was just playing his cards out because he had nothing to lose. Thankfully the great police work of Tippit led to his quick arrest.
-
You are right about one thing. The "rifle was left on the obvious path an escaping assassin would have taken." That's because Oswald was the assassin, and he left there while leaving the floor. If someone were going to frame Oswald for this crime, why hide the rifle at all? Why not just drop it by the window with the shell casings?
I have explained that for you many times....I'm not going to explain it again.
Suffice it to say that I've told you that the carcano was never fire that day , and it was hidden beneath that pallet of boxes of books BEFORE the shooting. I guess you're simply not bright enough to understand.
-
I have explained that for you many times....I'm not going to explain it again.
Suffice it to say that I've told you that the carcano was never fire that day , and it was hidden beneath that pallet of boxes of books BEFORE the shooting. I guess you're simply not bright enough to understand.
You haven't "explained" anything. You voiced a baseless opinion that Oswald would have hidden the rifle better if he were the assassin. HA HA HA. Then when asked where he might have done that under the circumstances with law enforcement converging on the TSBD, you acknowledged you didn't have a clue. He just would have. We should take your word. Implying that if Oswald assassinated JFK he could have hidden the rifle somewhere that it couldn't ever be found, and then go about his normal life. Unreal.
-
From May 2013....
WALT CAKEBREAD SAID:
It would have taken several minutes to place the rifle in position and then cover it with paper and boxes of books.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Absolute nonsense. You make it sound like he was constructing the Pyramids.
FWIW, it's my own opinion (based on LHO's clipboard being found very near this same area of the stairs and rifle) that Oswald likely pre-arranged his rifle-stashing area near the stairwell in advance of 12:30 PM.
But even if he didn't pre-arrange it, Walt's theory is just more of the same over-the-top dreck that Walt always utilizes in order to keep from having to admit what the evidence so plainly shows--and that is:
Walt's favorite "patsy" was, in truth, the assassin of President Kennedy -- and Oswald himself hid his own rifle in those boxes before fleeing down the nearby stairway.
Simple and Occam-like. But Walt likes the "Pyramids" approach better.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-743.html
-
You haven't "explained" anything. You voiced a baseless opinion that Oswald would have hidden the rifle better if he were the assassin. HA HA HA. Then when asked where he might have done that under the circumstances with law enforcement converging on the TSBD, you acknowledged you didn't have a clue. He just would have. We should take your word. Implying that if Oswald assassinated JFK he could have hidden the rifle somewhere that it couldn't ever be found, and then go about his normal life. Unreal.
You haven't "explained" anything.
This sounds familiar. Looking in the mirror, were you?
You voiced a baseless opinion that Oswald would have hidden the rifle better if he were the assassin. HA HA HA.
And you voiced a baseless opinion (allegedly "based" on non-existing evidence) that Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired. HA HA HA.
We should take your word.
Just like we are supposed to take yours time after time?
-
Bonus Blast From The Past (featuring more Cakebread Crackpottery)....
From July 2009....
WALT CAKEBREAD SAID:
The fact that the TSBD was set up as the place where the shots were fired from is a strong indication that there was a conspiracy. Obviously Oswald didn't want to take credit for shooting JFK. He adamantly denied that he had anything to do with any shooting.
Therefore, if he really had been one of the assassins and didn't want to be connected with the crime, he would not have shot JFK from the building where he was employed, because he was smart enough to know that the cops would question every employee in that building in search of the killer.
If Oswald had been the assassin, he would have found another site to shoot from...one that he was not connected to.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The amount of "denial" and "evidence ignoring" that exists in Walt's above post is staggering.
Here are some of the things that a kook like Walt must totally ignore (or pretend were "faked" and/or "planted") in order for his above paragraph of garbage to be considered true:
1.) Lee Harvey Oswald's prints all over the EXACT place in the TSBD from where an assassin was firing a rifle at President Kennedy.
2.) Oswald's very own rifle found on the same floor from where an assassin was shooting at JFK.
3.) Three bullet shells from Oswald's rifle found directly underneath the same window from where an assassin was firing a rifle at JFK.
4.) The empty brown paper bag (with LHO's prints on it!) found under the window from where a person was shooting at Kennedy.
5.) Howard Brennan's positive identification of Lee Oswald as the TSBD assassin.
6.) Oswald's fleeing the building within minutes of the assassination. This action taken by Oswald, plus all of his other post-12:30 actions on 11/22/63, reek of guilt (except to conspiracists who WANT Sweet Lee to be free from all blame in both the JFK and Tippit murders).
7.) Oswald's many lies that he told the authorities after his arrest. Particularly his lies concerning his Carcano rifle, which are lies that also reek of guilt, as LHO was obviously attempting to distance himself as much as humanly possible from the weapon that killed John F. Kennedy. And why would an INNOCENT Lee Oswald need to distance himself from the weapon if he didn't use it HIMSELF to kill the President?
Sadly, Walter Cakebread will continue to remain a charter member of the "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy club (which was established in 1966 and helmed by Earling Carothers "Jimbo" Garrison, of course), despite the seven items of rock-solid physical and circumstantial evidence against JFK's murderer that are displayed in my list above.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-628.html
-
Bonus Blast From The Past (featuring more Cakebread Crackpottery)....
From July 2009....
WALT CAKEBREAD SAID:
The fact that the TSBD was set up as the place where the shots were fired from is a strong indication that there was a conspiracy. Obviously Oswald didn't want to take credit for shooting JFK. He adamantly denied that he had anything to do with any shooting.
Therefore, if he really had been one of the assassins and didn't want to be connected with the crime, he would not have shot JFK from the building where he was employed, because he was smart enough to know that the cops would question every employee in that building in search of the killer.
If Oswald had been the assassin, he would have found another site to shoot from...one that he was not connected to.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The amount of "denial" and "evidence ignoring" that exists in Walt's above post is staggering.
Here are some of the things that a kook like Walt must totally ignore (or pretend were "faked" and/or "planted") in order for his above paragraph of garbage to be considered true:
1.) Lee Harvey Oswald's prints all over the EXACT place in the TSBD from where an assassin was firing a rifle at President Kennedy.
2.) Oswald's very own rifle found on the same floor from where an assassin was shooting at JFK.
3.) Three bullet shells from Oswald's rifle found directly underneath the same window from where an assassin was firing a rifle at JFK.
4.) The empty brown paper bag (with LHO's prints on it!) found under the window from where a person was shooting at Kennedy.
5.) Howard Brennan's positive identification of Lee Oswald as the TSBD assassin.
6.) Oswald's fleeing the building within minutes of the assassination. This action taken by Oswald, plus all of his other post-12:30 actions on 11/22/63, reek of guilt (except to conspiracists who WANT Sweet Lee to be free from all blame in both the JFK and Tippit murders).
7.) Oswald's many lies that he told the authorities after his arrest. Particularly his lies concerning his Carcano rifle, which are lies that also reek of guilt, as LHO was obviously attempting to distance himself as much as humanly possible from the weapon that killed John F. Kennedy. And why would an INNOCENT Lee Oswald need to distance himself from the weapon if he didn't use it HIMSELF to kill the President?
Sadly, Walter Cakebread will continue to remain a charter member of the "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy club (which was established in 1966 and helmed by Earling Carothers "Jimbo" Garrison, of course), despite the seven items of rock-solid physical and circumstantial evidence against JFK's murderer that are displayed in my list above.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-628.html
1.) Lee Harvey Oswald's prints all over the EXACT place in the TSBD from where an assassin was firing a rifle at President Kennedy.
First of all, this is a (not unexpected) massive exaggeration, which not only conveniently ignores that Oswald worked in the building as his job was handling boxes (with books) including those on the 6th floor. It also misrepresents the evidence as there were more prints found on boxes but they remained unidentified, which implies the possibility that somebody else was in the so-called sniper's nest.
2.) Oswald's very own rifle found on the same floor from where an assassin was shooting at JFK.
There is no conclusive evidence that shows that the rifle found at the TSBD was owned by Oswald. You can try to spin this anyway you like, but the fact remains that all there is;
(1) the questionable opinion of an FBI questioned documents experts who claimed it was Oswald who wrote an order form of which the original couldn't even be examined.
(2) Waldman 7, which is not only also a photocopy of which the authenticity never was or can be conclusively established, with a serial number handwritten on it.
(3) three poor quality photos, taken in March 1963, of Oswald holding a rifle of which it can not be determined who the owner was
That's it. Everything else is window dressing and speculative claims not supported by evidence.
3.) Three bullet shells from Oswald's rifle found directly underneath the same window from where an assassin was firing a rifle at JFK.
When were those shells fired by that rifle? And which shells are we talking about exactly? The ones Fritz picked up or the ones he threw down in the sniper's nest?
4.) The empty brown paper bag (with LHO's prints on it!) found under the window from where a person was shooting at Kennedy.
Another dubious claim. The first six officers who were in or near the sniper's nest did not see a paper bag. Only after Studebaker arrived other officers began to see the paper bag.
According to Studebaker, who failed to photograph it in situ, the bag was folded up, but when it was brought out of the TSBD it was unfolded and clearly had something in it to hold it up.
The only two witnesses who actually saw the bag Oswald carried gave descriptions of the bag they saw which do not match the bag found at the TSBD. One of those witnesses, Buell Frazier, was shown the TSBD bag during his polygraph interrogation and he absolutely denied it was the bag he had seen. In fact, he still denies that to this day.
5.) Howard Brennan's positive identification of Lee Oswald as the TSBD assassin.
Utter BS. Brennan was not a credible witness. He made a false claim about where he was sitting on the wall. He claimed he saw the shooter fire one of the shots, when in fact he can be seen in the Zapruder video as looking at the limo as it went down Elm street. He also either lied when he first said he couldn't identify Oswald or when he later said that he could identify him. In either case, the man was a lair.
6.) Oswald's fleeing the building within minutes of the assassination. This action taken by Oswald, plus all of his other post-12:30 actions on 11/22/63, reek of guilt (except to conspiracists who WANT Sweet Lee to be free from all blame in both the JFK and Tippit murders).
There is no conclusive evidence to show that Oswald left the building "within minutes of the assassination" and there most certainly isn't any evidence that he was "fleeing the building". Besides, your opinion of what you think actually happened after the assassination isn't evidence of anything else but your willingness to believe anything that you are told, regardless if there is evidence for it or not
7.) Oswald's many lies that he told the authorities after his arrest.
You don't know what Oswald really told the interrogators. All you have to go on are reports, written days later and from memory, which on key points conflict with eachother. This means that you have no sound basis to justify your conclusion that Oswald lied to the interrogators. And, again, your opinions are not evidence.
Particularly his lies concerning his Carcano rifle, which are lies that also reek of guilt, as LHO was obviously attempting to distance himself as much as humanly possible from the weapon that killed John F. Kennedy. And why would an INNOCENT Lee Oswald need to distance himself from the weapon if he didn't use it HIMSELF to kill the President?
So you assume that the carcano found at the TSBD belonged to Oswald and use that assumption to argue that "LHO was obviously attempting to distance himself as much as humanly possible from the weapon that killed John F. Kennedy". Nice circular "logic" which of course completely ignores the possibility that Oswald did indeed not own a rifle as he told his interrogators. If he didn't own it, he wouldn't have to distance himself from it, would he now.
the seven items of rock-solid physical and circumstantial evidence against JFK's murderer that are displayed in my list above.
Except you are seriously lacking actual physical evidence. All you really have is a rifle, three shells and a paper bag. Everything else is conjecture. And circumstantial evidence is in reality nothing more than a story. It seems to me that your entire story has more holes in it that Swiss cheese, not that you will ever admit or except that.....
-
You haven't "explained" anything. You voiced a baseless opinion that Oswald would have hidden the rifle better if he were the assassin. HA HA HA.
Says the guy who voiced a baseless opinion about Oswald “playing his cards out because he had nothing to lose”. HA HA HA.
-
Nice takedown of DVP’s usual propaganda, Martin.
He will ignore it and just regurgitate the same all over again at a later time.
-
DVP...will ignore it and just regurgitate the same all over again at a later time.
I sure will.
And CTers like John I. and Martin W. will, as always, continue to bask in their denial of Oswald's all-too-obvious guilt.
Why someone would want to bask in such denial, I haven't the foggiest. But most Internet CTers perpetually enjoy doing it.
-
I sure will.
And CTers like John I. and Martin W. will, as always, continue to bask in their denial of Oswald's all-too-obvious guilt.
Why someone would want to bask in such denial, I haven't the foggiest. But most Internet CTers perpetually enjoy doing it.
Your inability to counter any of my factual remarks with solid arguments is duly noted. You, rather pathetically, tried to provoke a response from Walt by ridiculing him and now that you and your silly arguments have been blown out of the water you run like a weasel.
Your opinion about Oswald's guilt is no better, no more significant and no more superior than the opinions of those who disagree with you.
Besides, John and I have never claimed that Oswald was innocent or guilty. All we do is challenge the BS that fools like you call "evidence" and simply can't defend with a coherent argument.
For the life of me, I do not understand why LNs are always desperately making claims that are not supported by the evidence as well as massive leaps of faith.
-
Oswald's rifle was positively the JFK murder weapon.....and yet Mr. Martin Weidmann (incredibly) thinks that my thinking the owner of that rifle is guilty of the murder is (somehow) a "massive leap of faith".*
Strange logic there indeed.
* Naturally, Martin will continue to argue that there's not an ounce of proof to show that LHO owned Rifle #C2766, and Martin will also no doubt contend that there is no proof at all that Rifle C2766 was the Kennedy murder weapon. But Martin will, of course, continue to be dead wrong in those two utterly absurd assertions (quite naturally).
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle.html
-
Oswald's rifle was positively the JFK murder weapon.....and yet Mr. Martin Weidmann (incredibly) thinks that my thinking the owner of that rifle is guilty of the murder is (somehow) a "massive leap of faith".*
Strange logic there indeed.
* Naturally, Martin will continue to argue that there's not an ounce of proof to show that LHO owned Rifle #C2766, and Martin will also no doubt contend that there is no proof at all that Rifle C2766 was the Kennedy murder weapon. But Martin will, of course, continue to be dead wrong in those two utterly absurd assertions (quite naturally).
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle.html
Oswald's rifle was positively the JFK murder weapon.....and yet Mr. Martin Weidmann (incredibly) thinks that my thinking the owner of that rifle is guilty of the murder is (somehow) a "massive leap of faith".*
Actually, the first leap of faith is the flawed conclusion that Oswald owned a rifle to begin with. Things may be different in your delusional world, but filling out an order form in the name of somebody else (if that's what Oswald did) doesn't automatically result in ownership of the ordered item. And, btw, what makes you even think that if a person owns a rifle in March 1963, he must still own it in November 1963?
The second leap of faith is that the rifle found at the TSBD is the one Oswald allegedly owned. The last time anybody saw Oswald with a rifle was in the BY photos, taken in March 1963 and even those photos do not show the serial number of the rifle Oswald is holding. Besides, the only reference to the serial number of the rifle found at the TSBD is a handwritten addition on a microfilm copy of an unauthenticated internal order document, we now know as Waldmann 7
The third one is that the rifle found at the TSBD was actually fired on 11/22/63. Did they bother to check or is it just an assumption that the rifle was actually fired?
And the fourth (and most pathetic one) is that you seem to believe that an owner or former owner of a rifle must be automatically guilty of a crime that was committed with that rifle.
Strange logic there indeed.
Only for somebody like you, who clearly doesn't know the first thing about logic.
* Naturally, Martin will continue to argue that there's not an ounce of proof to show that LHO owned Rifle #C2766,
Yes indeed, I will continue to argue that there isn't any proof to show that Oswald owned C 2766, simply because there isn't any. If there was, you and your ilk would have presented it a long time ago instead of jumping to all sorts of conclusions that are not supported by the actually available evidence.
You may possibly be able to show (but I doubt it) that Oswald filled out a Klein's order form and you may be able to show that he was photographed with a rifle, possibly perhaps even C 2766, in March 1963, but that still does not even begin to prove that he owned a rifle or even that particular rifle and still did on 11/22/63. For that, you need more leaps of faith, flawed conclusions and a massive number of assumptions that are based on wishful thinking.
Btw, since you seem to attach such great importance to Waldmann 7, can you provide a solid chain of custody for the microfilm where that document was copied from? The FBI took it with them on 11/23/63 and Waldmann didn't see it again until his WC testimony, several months later. So, what happened to it?
Also, I seriously wonder if you actually understand the difference between confirming the content of a document and actually authenticating the document itself. So, let's find out; who authenticated Waldmann 7? And while we're on this subject, do you agree that photocopied documents can be manipulated?
and Martin will also no doubt contend that there is no proof at all that Rifle C2766 was the Kennedy murder weapon.
And no, I do not contend that C 2766 was or was not the rifle used to kill Kennedy, because I simply do not know. All I do know is that there isn't any evidence that this rifle was actually fired on 11/22/63 and you can't provide any evidence to show otherwise. Perhaps you can tell me how you can kill somebody with a rifle if that rifle wasn't fired? Well....
You may want to give up your feeble attempts to predict what I will or will not argue, as you are not very good at it and your "predictions" make for pretty useless strawman.
But Martin will, of course, continue to be dead wrong in those two utterly absurd assertions (quite naturally).
Why don't you actually try to prove me wrong instead of just saying that I am (which is a meaningless opinion of a propagandist).? Well.....
-
Oswald's rifle was positively the JFK murder weapon.....and yet Mr. Martin Weidmann (incredibly) thinks that my thinking the owner of that rifle is guilty of the murder is (somehow) a "massive leap of faith".*
Actually, the first leap of faith is the flawed conclusion that Oswald owned a rifle to begin with. Things may be different in your delusional world, but filling out an order form (if that's what Oswald did) doesn't automatically result in ownership of the ordered item. And, btw, what makes you even think that if a person owns a rifle in March 1963, he must still own it in November 1963?
The second one leap of faith is that the rifle found at the TSBD is the one Oswald allegedly owned.
The third one is that the rifle found at the TSBD was actually fired on 11/22/63
And the fourth (and most pathetic one) is that you seem to believe that an owner or former owner of a rifle must be automatically guilty of a crime that was committed with that rifle.
Oswald is pictured holding the rifle. His print was found on the rifle. Klein's confirmed that the rifle found in the TSBD is the same one sent to Oswald's PO Box via a matching serial number. Oswald's own wife confirms that he possessed a rifle in this timeframe. There is no accounting for that rifle EXCEPT as the one found in TSBD. What happened to it if it was a different rifle from the one found? Martin doesn't have a clue. He doesn't even care. It's impossible to understand how there could be more evidence that links Oswald to the rifle found on the 6th floor than exists. But in the contrarian fantasy world, it takes a "leap of faith" to link Oswald to this rifle. How would any criminal ever be linked to a gun using this insane standard of proof? It couldn't be done absent a time machine. It's unreal. Apply endlessly to any fact that lends itself to Oswald's guilt. In contrast, every contrarian alternative is entertained no matter how absurd or lacking in support. But Martin is just a neutral arbiter of the facts. Just ask him.
-
Oswald is pictured holding the rifle. His print was found on the rifle. Klein's confirmed that the rifle found in the TSBD is the same one sent to Oswald's PO Box via a matching serial number. Oswald's own wife confirms that he possessed a rifle in this timeframe. There is no accounting for that rifle EXCEPT as the one found in TSBD. What happened to it if it was a different rifle from the one found? Martin doesn't have a clue. He doesn't even care. It's impossible to understand how there could be more evidence that links Oswald to the rifle found on the 6th floor than exists. But in the contrarian fantasy world, it takes a "leap of faith" to link Oswald to this rifle. How would any criminal ever be linked to a gun using this insane standard of proof? It couldn't be done absent a time machine. It's unreal. Apply endlessly to any fact that lends itself to Oswald's guilt. In contrast, every contrarian alternative is entertained no matter how absurd or lacking in support. But Martin is just a neutral arbiter of the facts. Just ask him.
Oswald is pictured holding the rifle.
No, he is photgraphed holding a rifle (of which the serial number can not be seen). There is a difference. At least to normal reasonable people there is.
His print was found on the rifle.
No it wasn't. The FBI examined the rifle within 24 hours after the murder and found no prints or even residue of a print that was lifted. Day didn't produce an evidence card with a print (allegedly taken from the rifle) until a week later and after Oswald was killed.
Klein's confirmed that the rifle found in the TSBD is the same one sent to Oswald's PO Box via a matching serial number.
Klein's confirmed no such thing
Oswald's own wife confirms that he possessed a rifle in this timeframe.
In March 1963, you mean?.... WOW that's powerful evidence that he owned C2766 in November 1963..... Pffff Not really.
There is no accounting for that rifle EXCEPT as the one found in TSBD. What happened to it if it was a different rifle from the one found?
Really? The last time anybody saw Oswald holding a rifle was in March 1963. Since then he went to New Orleans and Mexico. The only one who would know what happened to the rifle, he was photographed with, it would be Oswald. Everybody else can only speculate.
It's impossible to understand how there could be more evidence that links Oswald to the rifle found on the 6th floor than exists.
That's not the only thing you clearly do not understand
How would any criminal ever be linked to a gun using this insane standard of proof?
Criminals don't always have to be linked to a weapon. Alex Murdaugh was convicted of a double murder despite the two weapons used ever being found. They convincingly used circumstantial and direct evidence to place him at the scene of the crime. So, it's not an "insame standard of proof".
But Martin is just a neutral arbiter of the facts.
Indeed and that's something you can't handle.
-
For the life of me, I do not understand why LNs are always desperately making claims that are not supported by the evidence as well as massive leaps of faith.
Because that’s all they’ve got. That and false bravado.
-
Oswald's rifle was positively the JFK murder weapon.....and yet Mr. Martin Weidmann (incredibly) thinks that my thinking the owner of that rifle is guilty of the murder is (somehow) a "massive leap of faith".*
Strange logic there indeed.
It is a leap of faith. There’s nothing positive about it. The fragments removed from JFK’s head were too tiny to identify what weapon fired the bullet or bullets they came from.
* Naturally, Martin will continue to argue that there's not an ounce of proof to show that LHO owned Rifle #C2766, and Martin will also no doubt contend that there is no proof at all that Rifle C2766 was the Kennedy murder weapon. But Martin will, of course, continue to be dead wrong in those two utterly absurd assertions (quite naturally).
Naturally, your only “proof” is unscientific and biased handwriting "analysis" of two block-written letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon (from microfilm that is now "missing") for a similar but not identical rifle.
-
Oswald is pictured holding the rifle.
You forgot to actually demonstrate that this is “the rifle”.
His print was found on the rifle.
No, his partial print was found on an index card a week later.
Klein's confirmed that the rifle found in the TSBD is the same one sent to Oswald's PO Box via a matching serial number.
No, they “confirmed” that a copy of a document from microfilm that is now “missing” has “C2766” handwritten in and the letters “PP” are circled.
Oswald's own wife confirms that he possessed a rifle in this timeframe.
No, she claimed that he possessed some kind of rifle months earlier.
There is no accounting for that rifle EXCEPT as the one found in TSBD.
Translation: “I can’t prove it’s the same rifle, therefore I will just assume that it is unless you can prove it isn’t.”
What happened to it if it was a different rifle from the one found?
Argument from ignorance.
Martin doesn't have a clue. He doesn't even care. It's impossible to understand how there could be more evidence that links Oswald to the rifle found on the 6th floor than exists.
Not impossible at all. You just want your speculation and handwaving to be considered “evidence”, because it’s all you have.
But in the contrarian fantasy world, it takes a "leap of faith" to link Oswald to this rifle. How would any criminal ever be linked to a gun using this insane standard of proof?
Through conclusive, authenticatible evidence, not rhetoric and wishful thinking.
-
Oswald is pictured holding the rifle.
No, he is photgraphed holding a rifle (of which the serial number can not be seen). There is a difference. At least to normal reasonable people there is.
His print was found on the rifle.
No it wasn't. The FBI examined the rifle within 24 hours after the murder and found no prints or even residue of a print that was lifted. Day didn't produce an evidence card with a print (allegedly taken from the rifle) until a week later and after Oswald was killed.
[
What happened to this rifle that Oswald is shown holding? His own wife confirmed it was his rifle and that he later kept it in the Paine's garage. If it was a DIFFERENT rifle from the one found in in the TSBD, then what happened to Oswald's rifle? Why did he lie to the DPD and tell them that he didn't own any rifle? Let me guess. You don't have a clue or care. It is just "possible" it could be some other rifle even though all the evidence and circumstances are to the contrary and there is zero evidence that Oswald owned any other rifle in this timeframe. It is also "possible" that the DPD lied about Oswald's explanation of the rifle. But you are not alleging a conspiracy. Just that all the evidence was fabricated to frame Oswald. Wow.
And you really are basing your silly claim that no print was found on the rifle by citing to that fact that Day found Oswald's print on the rifle? What difference does it make that the "evidence card" wasn't produced until a week later? HA HA HA. That is the height of stupidity. Even if true, and you haven't proven that, how does this mean Oswald's print wasn't found on the rifle? Imagine the astounding stupidity of citing the evidence card that confirms Oswald's print was found on the rifle to suggest that Oswald's print wasn't found on the rifle. It's breathtaking in absurdity and twisted logic. I can't believe you are for real.
I've asked before, but you are suggesting that Day or someone fabricated this "evidence card." That would mean a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the crime. But there is more. You are also suggesting that this was done AFTER Oswald was already dead and there would be no trial. Why would Day and whomever else was involved need to risk their careers, reputations, and commit a crime to frame Oswald AFTER he was dead and there would be no trial? The DPD was already satisfied with his guilt. There was no reason to fabricate any more evidence. It is insane to believe that is what happened. There is also absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Day fabricated and lied about this. You suggest that we are supposed to accept as a fact this because it allegedly took a "week" produce the card. Produce it to whom? The investigation was in process. How do you even know that Day didn't produce or mention this to someone during that week? You don't. But again, EVEN if he didn't mention it to anyone else for a week, that doesn't mean it is fabricated. Good grief. You should be embarrassed to peddle this nonsense.
-
What happened to this rifle that Oswald is shown holding? His own wife confirmed it was his rifle and that he later kept it in the Paine's garage. If it was a DIFFERENT rifle from the one found in in the TSBD, then what happened to Oswald's rifle? Why did he lie to the DPD and tell them that he didn't own any rifle? Let me guess. You don't have a clue or care. It is just "possible" it could be some other rifle even though all the evidence and circumstances are to the contrary and there is zero evidence that Oswald owned any other rifle in this timeframe. It is also "possible" that the DPD lied about Oswald's explanation of the rifle. But you are not alleging a conspiracy. Just that all the evidence was fabricated to frame Oswald. Wow.
And you really are basing your silly claim that no print was found on the rifle by citing to that fact that Day found Oswald's print on the rifle? What difference does it make that the "evidence card" wasn't produced until a week later? HA HA HA. That is the height of stupidity. Even if true, and you haven't proven that, how does this mean Oswald's print wasn't found on the rifle? Imagine the astounding stupidity of citing the evidence card that confirms Oswald's print was found on the rifle to suggest that Oswald's print wasn't found on the rifle. It's breathtaking in absurdity and twisted logic. I can't believe you are for real.
I've asked before, but you are suggesting that Day or someone fabricated this "evidence card." That would mean a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the crime. But there is more. You are also suggesting that this was done AFTER Oswald was already dead and there would be no trial. Why would Day and whomever else was involved need to risk their careers, reputations, and commit a crime to frame Oswald AFTER he was dead and there would be no trial? The DPD was already satisfied with his guilt. There was no reason to fabricate any more evidence. It is insane to believe that is what happened. There is also absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Day fabricated and lied about this. You suggest that we are supposed to accept as a fact this because it allegedly took a "week" produce the card. Produce it to whom? The investigation was in process. How do you even know that Day didn't produce or mention this to someone during that week? You don't. But again, EVEN if he didn't mention it to anyone else for a week, that doesn't mean it is fabricated. Good grief. You should be embarrassed to peddle this nonsense.
What happened to this rifle that Oswald is shown holding?
Who cares? Oswald is holding a rifle in March 1963..... Wow! Big deal...
Several years ago I was photographed holding a rifle. It wasn't mine and I haven't got a clue what happened to it.
His own wife confirmed it was his rifle and that he later kept it in the Paine's garage.
No she didn't. She was shown the rifle found at the TSBD a few hours after the assassination and she couldn't identify it. Stop misrepresenting the evidence. You are not very good at it and it makes you look foolish.
If it was a DIFFERENT rifle from the one found in in the TSBD, then what happened to Oswald's rifle?
Who knows... If Oswald did indeed own a rifle in March 1963, only he would be able to tell us what happened to it. Nobody has seen Oswald with a rifle, any rifle, since late March 1963. You don't get to speculate that the TSBD rifle was his, simply because you can't figure out what happened to the rifle Oswald allegedly had in March 1963.
Why did he lie to the DPD and tell them that he didn't own any rifle?
What makes you so sure he lied?
It is just "possible" it could be some other rifle even though all the evidence and circumstances are to the contrary and there is zero evidence that Oswald owned any other rifle in this timeframe.
Which again falsely assumes that Oswald owned a rifle to begin with and that's an assumption for which you have no credible evidence.
And you really are basing your silly claim that no print was found on the rifle by citing to that fact that Day found Oswald's print on the rifle? What difference does it make that the "evidence card" wasn't produced until a week later? HA HA HA. That is the height of stupidity.
I'm glad you understand and admit that what you just wrote is indeed the height of stupidity. Day claimed that he found the print on the rifle and then, instead of handing it over to the FBI on Friday evening, with all the other evidence, put it in his desk drawer and "forgot all about it" for a week. He then, rather conveniently "remembered" after Oswald was dead. And you accept that "cop said so" BS at face value... HAHAHAHAHAHA The most important murder case of the century and this cop "forgets" about crucial evidence for an entire week? Give me a break.....
Even if true, and you haven't proven that, how does this mean Oswald's print wasn't found on the rifle?
Trying to shift the burden of proof again..... You are the one who claimed Oswald's print was found on the rifle. You need to prove that and you can't. It's as simple as that!
Imagine the astounding stupidity of citing the evidence card that confirms Oswald's print was found on the rifle to suggest that Oswald's print wasn't found on the rifle.
Again, you, rather foolishly, claimed that Oswald's print was found on the rifle. I merely pointed out that this is not true. Instead his print was found on an evidence card that was suddenly produced after Oswald's death when it was clear there wasn't going to be a trial. And that evidence card does not, in no way shape or form, confirm that Oswald's print was found on the rifle.
I've asked before, but you are suggesting that Day or someone fabricated this "evidence card." That would mean a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the crime.
Wow, did you figure that out all by yourself, Sherlock?
But there is more. You are also suggesting that this was done AFTER Oswald was already dead and there would be no trial.
I am not suggesting anything of the kind for the simple reason that I don't know, due to the sloppy work of a DPD officer. I am stating as a matter of absolute fact that the evidence card was not presented by Day until 11/26/63, which is indeed after Oswald was killed.
Why would Day and whomever else was involved need to risk their careers, reputations, and commit a crime to frame Oswald AFTER he was dead and there would be no trial?
What makes you think Day and perhaps others would risk their careers? The innocence project has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that DPD officers and Henry Wade did manufacture evidence in a large number of cases in which people were convicted only to be proven innocent many years later. I don't know any DPD officer who lost his career over it. Do you?
The DPD was already satisfied with his guilt.
So what? Investigators are always satisfied with the guilt of a suspect before they pass the case on to a prosecutor. They are frequently proven wrong, which makes their opinion meaningless.
There was no reason to fabricate any more evidence.
More evidence? What evidence was there already that conclusively showed Oswald killed Kennedy and did it by himself?
It is insane to believe that is what happened.
What is really utterly insane is dismissing possibilities simply because you don't like them.
You suggest that we are supposed to accept as a fact this because it allegedly took a "week" produce the card. Produce it to whom?
Accept what as a fact? I have no idea what you are babbling on about. And as for the evidence card, it didn't show up until nearly a week after the murder. That is a fact. And you don't think that's even the least bit remarkable?
How do you even know that Day didn't produce or mention this to someone during that week? You don't.
True. I don't know... but that's exactly the point. Oswald's print on the rifle would be crucial evidence. The FBI had already examined the rifle and found no print or residue of a print being lifted. They concluded there was no print on the rifle. Don't you think that if Day had told anybody about the print on the evidence card it would have come out by now? If he had told somebody, why would that person also keep his mouth shut?
But again, EVEN if he didn't mention it to anyone else for a week, that doesn't mean it is fabricated.
It also doesn't mean it isn't fabricated. So, what makes you so sure that it isn't fabricated?
-
What happened to this rifle that Oswald is shown holding?
Nobody knows. It can’t be exclusively identified.
His own wife confirmed it was his rifle
November 22: “it could be the same rifle but I’m not sure”.
and that he later kept it in the Paine's garage.
False. Six weeks earlier she saw part of a wooden stock that she took to be a rifle.
If it was a DIFFERENT rifle from the one found in in the TSBD, then what happened to Oswald's rifle?
You can either prove it is the same one or you cannot. And you cannot.
Why did he lie to the DPD and tell them that he didn't own any rifle?
Circular. It doesn’t just follow that possessing a rifle in March (or even October) means that you own one in November.
Let me guess. You don't have a clue or care. It is just "possible" it could be some other rifle even though all the evidence and circumstances are to the contrary
What “evidence and circumstances”?
and there is zero evidence that Oswald owned any other rifle in this timeframe.
There is also zero evidence that Oswald owned that rifle.
Imagine the astounding stupidity of citing the evidence card that confirms Oswald's print was found on the rifle to suggest that Oswald's print wasn't found on the rifle. It's breathtaking in absurdity and twisted logic.
What’s astoundingly stupid is the argument that “cop said so” makes a claim factual, regardless of any other considerations.
I've asked before, but you are suggesting that Day or someone fabricated this "evidence card." That would mean a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the crime.
A conspiracy of one? Do you even understand what conspiracy means?
There is also absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Day fabricated and lied about this.
Wrong again, “Richard”.
Carl Day didn't turn it over to the FBI with the other evidence that night, nor did he even tell FBI agent Drain of its existence. He didn't photograph it in place or cover it with cellophane. He claimed that there were still visible ridges left after doing his lift. Furthermore, Sebastian Latona examined the rifle and said that area didn't look like it had been processed at all. He found no traces of ridges there. Then a week later, Latona receives (separately from all the other evidence) an index card with a partial print on it. When asked by the WC to sign an affidavit regarding his handling of the print, Day refused.
In light of all this, “cop said so” doesn’t cut it.
How do you even know that Day didn't produce or mention this to someone during that week?
Day claimed that he told both Fritz and Curry about the print, but both Fritz and Curry were asked about prints on the 23rd and both answered negative. The first recorded mention of any palmprint is by Wade on Sunday, after Oswald’s death.
-
What happened to this rifle that Oswald is shown holding?
Who cares? Oswald is holding a rifle in March 1963..... Wow! Big deal...
Several years ago I was photographed holding a rifle. It wasn't mine and I haven't got a clue what happened to it.
His own wife confirmed it was his rifle and that he later kept it in the Paine's garage.
No she didn't. She was shown the rifle found at the TSBD a few hours after the assassination and she couldn't identify it. Stop misrepresenting the evidence. You are not very good at it and it makes you look foolish.
If it was a DIFFERENT rifle from the one found in in the TSBD, then what happened to Oswald's rifle?
Who knows... If Oswald did indeed own a rifle in March 1963, only he would be able to tell us what happened to it. Nobody has seen Oswald with a rifle, any rifle, since late March 1963. You don't get to speculate that the TSBD rifle was his, simply because you can't figure out what happened to the rifle Oswald allegedly had in March 1963.
Why did he lie to the DPD and tell them that he didn't own any rifle?
What makes you so sure he lied?
It is just "possible" it could be some other rifle even though all the evidence and circumstances are to the contrary and there is zero evidence that Oswald owned any other rifle in this timeframe.
Which again falsely assumes that Oswald owned a rifle to begin with and that's an assumption for which you have no credible evidence.
And you really are basing your silly claim that no print was found on the rifle by citing to that fact that Day found Oswald's print on the rifle? What difference does it make that the "evidence card" wasn't produced until a week later? HA HA HA. That is the height of stupidity.
I'm glad you understand and admit that what you just wrote is indeed the height of stupidity. Day claimed that he found the print on the rifle and then, instead of handing it over to the FBI on Friday evening, with all the other evidence, put it in his desk drawer and "forgot all about it" for a week. He then, rather conveniently "remembered" after Oswald was dead. And you accept that "cop said so" BS at face value... HAHAHAHAHAHA The most important murder case of the century and this cop "forgets" about crucial evidence for an entire week? Give me a break.....
Even if true, and you haven't proven that, how does this mean Oswald's print wasn't found on the rifle?
Trying to shift the burden of proof again..... You are the one who claimed Oswald's print was found on the rifle. You need to prove that and you can't. It's as simple as that!
Imagine the astounding stupidity of citing the evidence card that confirms Oswald's print was found on the rifle to suggest that Oswald's print wasn't found on the rifle.
Again, you, rather foolishly, claimed that Oswald's print was found on the rifle. I merely pointed out that this is not true. Instead his print was found on an evidence card that was suddenly produced after Oswald's death when it was clear there wasn't going to be a trial. And that evidence card does not, in no way shape or form, confirm that Oswald's print was found on the rifle.
I've asked before, but you are suggesting that Day or someone fabricated this "evidence card." That would mean a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the crime.
Wow, did you figure that out all by yourself, Sherlock?
But there is more. You are also suggesting that this was done AFTER Oswald was already dead and there would be no trial.
I am not suggesting anything of the kind for the simple reason that I don't know, due to the sloppy work of a DPD officer. I am stating as a matter of absolute fact that the evidence card was not presented by Day until 11/26/63, which is indeed after Oswald was killed.
Why would Day and whomever else was involved need to risk their careers, reputations, and commit a crime to frame Oswald AFTER he was dead and there would be no trial?
What makes you think Day and perhaps others would risk their careers? The innocence project has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that DPD officers and Henry Wade did manufacture evidence in a large number of cases in which people were convicted only to be proven innocent many years later. I don't know any DPD officer who lost his career over it. Do you?
The DPD was already satisfied with his guilt.
So what? Investigators are always satisfied with the guilt of a suspect before they pass the case on to a prosecutor. They are frequently proven wrong, which makes their opinion meaningless.
There was no reason to fabricate any more evidence.
More evidence? What evidence was there already that conclusively showed Oswald killed Kennedy and did it by himself?
It is insane to believe that is what happened.
What is really utterly insane is dismissing possibilities simply because you don't like them.
You suggest that we are supposed to accept as a fact this because it allegedly took a "week" produce the card. Produce it to whom?
Accept what as a fact? I have no idea what you are babbling on about. And as for the evidence card, it didn't show up until nearly a week after the murder. That is a fact. And you don't think that's even the least bit remarkable?
How do you even know that Day didn't produce or mention this to someone during that week? You don't.
True. I don't know... but that's exactly the point. Oswald's print on the rifle would be crucial evidence. The FBI had already examined the rifle and found no print or residue of a print being lifted. They concluded there was no print on the rifle. Don't you think that if Day had told anybody about the print on the evidence card it would have come out by now? If he had told somebody, why would that person also keep his mouth shut?
But again, EVEN if he didn't mention it to anyone else for a week, that doesn't mean it is fabricated.
It also doesn't mean it isn't fabricated. So, what makes you so sure that it isn't fabricated?
So many words. So far down the rabbit hole. Here is the bottom line. You are contending that because Day didn't "produce" the evidence card for a week (whatever that means and even assuming it is true) that means he fabricated Oswald's print on the rifle. That level of absurdity is astounding. Find a dark place to assume the fetal position and give what you are suggesting some thought. If you have any friends or family members, tell them your theory and let us know what they say. Or better yet. Take this to the NY Times or some media outlet and make your case that you have demonstrated that Oswald was framed. Get back to us with their response.
-
So many words. So far down the rabbit hole. Here is the bottom line. You are contending that because Day didn't "produce" the evidence card for a week (whatever that means and even assuming it is true) that means he fabricated Oswald's print on the rifle. That level of absurdity is astounding. Find a dark place to assume the fetal position and give what you are suggesting some thought. If you have any friends or family members, tell them your theory and let us know what they say. Or better yet. Take this to the NY Times or some media outlet and make your case that you have demonstrated that Oswald was framed. Get back to us with their response.
Here is the bottom line. You are contending that because Day didn't "produce" the evidence card for a week (whatever that means and even assuming it is true) that means he fabricated Oswald's print on the rifle.
I don't need you to tell me what I am contending.
That level of absurdity is astounding.
What exactly would be absurd about it? I bet you can't even provide an answer to that question, without making a complete fool of yourself
If you have any friends or family members, tell them your theory and let us know what they say.
Unlike you, my friends and family are reasonable intelligent people and they all find it utterly absurd to believe (as you do) that a forensic officer would simply "forget" to report, for a whole week, that he "found" crucial evidence in one of the most important murder cases of the century.
-
If you have any friends or family members, tell them your theory and let us know what they say.
Unlike you, my friends and family are reasonable intelligent people and they all find it utterly absurd to believe (as you do) that a forensic officer would simply "forget" to report, for a whole week, that he "found" crucial evidence in one of the most important murder cases of the century.
There is no basis to conclude that Day "forgot" to report anything. This is just a baseless claim. You haven't proven that he didn't mention it to anyone. This was also in the very initial stages of the investigation. A lot was going on. And EVEN if he did "forget" to report it as you stupidly assume, that in no way confirms that he fabricated the print taken from Oswald's rifle. A delay in reporting the print doesn't mean by implication that it was fabricated. That is tin foil hat nonsense. But again, take this claim to the NY Times and tell them that you have demonstrated a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the crime. Why bother with this forum if you believe you have demonstrated the print was fabricated? Failing to do so demonstrates some dim awareness of the absurdity of your idiotic claim. It is very amusing. You claim that you have evidence of a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the crime of the century but won't make that case outside an Internet forum. HA HA HA.
-
There is no basis to conclude that Day "forgot" to report anything. This is just a baseless claim. You haven't proven that he didn't mention it to anyone. This was also in the very initial stages of the investigation. A lot was going on. And EVEN if he did "forget" to report it as you stupidly assume, that in no way confirms that he fabricated the print taken from Oswald's rifle. A delay in reporting the print doesn't mean by implication that it was fabricated. That is tin foil hat nonsense. But again, take this claim to the NY Times and tell them that you have demonstrated a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the crime. Why bother with this forum if you believe you have demonstrated the print was fabricated? Failing to do so demonstrates some dim awareness of the absurdity of your idiotic claim. It is very amusing. You claim that you have evidence of a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the crime of the century but won't make that case outside an Internet forum. HA HA HA.
So, you can't answer my question. Got it!
There is no basis to conclude that Day "forgot" to report anything.
Except for the fact that he claims to have lifted the print on 11/22/63 and did not present it to anybody until 11/26/63. If he didn't forget to report the print, are you claiming he kept it back on purpose?
This is just a baseless claim.
For you, maybe, but only because you don't like it.
And EVEN if he did "forget" to report it as you stupidly assume, that in no way confirms that he fabricated the print taken from Oswald's rifle. A delay in reporting the print doesn't mean by implication that it was fabricated. That is tin foil hat nonsense.
It is indeed tin foil hat nonsense, and it's all coming from you. You are, once again, making stuff up and pretending I made such a claim.
But again, take this claim to the NY Times and tell them that you have demonstrated a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the crime. Why bother with this forum if you believe you have demonstrated the print was fabricated?
Every time you get stuck, you bring out this NY Times BS. It is a sure sign that you know you've already lost the argument.
You claim that you have evidence of a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the crime of the century but won't make that case outside an Internet forum.
Where did I claim to have evidence of a conspiracy to frame Oswald? The answer is of course; ONLY IN YOUR IMAGINATION! Stop making stuff up, will ya!
The real bottom line is that you don't have a clue about where Day got that print from. All you have is that he claims to have lifted it from the rifle and, as far as you are concerned, what this cop said is good enough for you. Never mind that he did held back a crucial piece of evidence for several days! There isn't an investigation in the world where such conduct by a forensic officer would be acceptable but for "Richard Smith" it not a problem at all..... Pathetic!
-
So many words.
This is why it’s a waste of time to engage with “Richard”. He’s a zealot. He’s not interested in any of the details. “Cop said so” is good enough for him. Cop said it, “Richard” believes it, and that settles it.
It’s like listening to the same church sermon over and over again for 15 years.
-
So, you can't answer my question. Got it!
There is no basis to conclude that Day "forgot" to report anything.
Except for the fact that he claims to have lifted the print on 11/22/63 and did not present it to anybody until 11/26/63. If he didn't forget to report the print, are you claiming he kept it back on purpose?
This is just a baseless claim.
For you, maybe, but only because you don't like it.
And EVEN if he did "forget" to report it as you stupidly assume, that in no way confirms that he fabricated the print taken from Oswald's rifle. A delay in reporting the print doesn't mean by implication that it was fabricated. That is tin foil hat nonsense.
It is indeed tin foil hat nonsense, and it's all coming from you. You are, once again, making stuff up and pretending I made such a claim.
But again, take this claim to the NY Times and tell them that you have demonstrated a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the crime. Why bother with this forum if you believe you have demonstrated the print was fabricated?
Every time you get stuck, you bring out this NY Times BS. It is a sure sign that you know you've already lost the argument.
You claim that you have evidence of a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the crime of the century but won't make that case outside an Internet forum.
Where did I claim to have evidence of a conspiracy to frame Oswald? The answer is of course; ONLY IN YOUR IMAGINATION! Stop making stuff up, will ya!
The real bottom line is that you don't have a clue about where Day got that print from. All you have is that he claims to have lifted it from the rifle and, as far as you are concerned, what this cop said is good enough for you. Never mind that he did held back a crucial piece of evidence for several days! There isn't an investigation in the world where such conduct by a forensic officer would be acceptable but for "Richard Smith" it not a problem at all..... Pathetic!
Laughable. You claimed that Day didn't "report" the finding of Oswald's print for a week AND that somehow proves that he must have fabricated the print. A completely baseless and absurd conclusion. Compounded by the fact that you haven't even proven that Day didn't report it to someone. How exactly is it holding back evidence to report the print in the very first week of the investigation? HA HA HA. That one is a knee slapper. Particularly given all that was going on including the murder of Oswald. Can you demonstrate to us that Day's conduct, even as you have characterized it without knowing the facts, was outside the normal investigative process of the DPD in 1963? Of course not.
-
Laughable. You claimed that Day didn't "report" the finding of Oswald's print for a week AND that somehow proves that he must have fabricated the print. A completely baseless and absurd conclusion. Compounded by the fact that you haven't even proven that Day didn't report it to someone. How exactly is it holding back evidence to report the print in the very first week of the investigation? HA HA HA. That one is a knee slapper. Particularly given all that was going on including the murder of Oswald. Can you demonstrate to us that Day's conduct, even as you have characterized it without knowing the facts, was outside the normal investigative process of the DPD in 1963? Of course not.
Answer the question I asked. Here it is again;
Day claimed to have lifted the print on 11/22/63 and did not present it to anybody until 11/26/63. If he didn't forget to report the print, are you claiming he kept it back on purpose?
You claimed that Day didn't "report" the finding of Oswald's print for a week AND that somehow proves that he must have fabricated the print. A completely baseless and absurd conclusion.
Another false claim by "Richard Smith".... Stop lying. I never claimed anything of the kind. You just made it up.
How exactly is it holding back evidence to report the print in the very first week of the investigation? HA HA HA.
Hey stupid, all the evidence was supposed to be shipped to the FBI in Washington on Friday evening. That would also include an evidence card with a print on it.
Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun.
We know for a fact that Day's evidence card wasn't part of the evidence the FBI received. So, if Day didn't "forget" about it and did not hold it back, then what in the world was going on?.....
And there is more... if Day did in fact lift that print from the rifle on Friday afternoon, don't you think Captain Fritz, who at that time was interrogating Oswald, would have loved to have known about a positive match? Day had Oswald's prints on file by then and he could have easily determined if there was a match or not, but instead we are supposed to believe that he just lifted the print and then just put it in his desk's drawer despite to being told to hand over the evidence to the FBI.
In what alternate universe is it possible to consider this behavior part of "the normal investigative process of the DPD"?
Could it be, perhaps, just maybe that the evidence card simply did not yet exist?
-
Laughable. You claimed that Day didn't "report" the finding of Oswald's print for a week AND that somehow proves that he must have fabricated the print.
Strawman “Smith” strikes again. Martin made no such claim.
Can you demonstrate to us that Day's conduct, even as you have characterized it without knowing the facts, was outside the normal investigative process of the DPD in 1963?
Day was instructed to turn ALL the evidence over to the FBI that night, was he not?
-
Strawman “Smith” strikes again. Martin made no such claim.
Day was instructed to turn ALL the evidence over to the FBI that night, was he not?
Carl Day “No More Silence” by Larry Sneed, page 238:
Around 11:30 that night I received orders which merely said, “Release the rifle to the FBI.” Shortly thereafter I handed it over to Vince Drain of the FBI.
-
Carl Day “No More Silence” by Larry Sneed, page 238:
Around 11:30 that night I received orders which merely said, “Release the rifle to the FBI.” Shortly thereafter I handed it over to Vince Drain of the FBI.
That's not what he said in his WC testimony. Why you would want to ignore testimony under oath and go with a quote in a book is beyond me.
But even if that was true, he had already lifted the print from the rifle, right? So, why not check it against Oswald's prints instead of putting it in his desk drawer for several days?
It makes no sense.
-
That's not what he said in his WC testimony. Why you would want to ignore testimony under oath and go with a quote in a book is beyond me.
It would seem Mr. Collins gives credence to some morphing memories after all!
-
That's not what he said in his WC testimony. Why you would want to ignore testimony under oath and go with a quote in a book is beyond me.
But even if that was true, he had already lifted the print from the rifle, right? So, why not check it against Oswald's prints instead of putting it in his desk drawer for several days?
It makes no sense.
Same page as the above quote from “No More Silence” the paragraph just before that quote:
Before I got the picture made, another message came in: “Drop everything! Don’t do anything else!” It must have been 9:00 o’clock or later. “Drop everything! Don’t do anything else!” This came through my captain, Captain Doughty, but it probably came to him from Deputy Chief Lumpkin. So we didn’t complete what we were trying to do. I’d have probably been working on it all night if I’d had the time.
-
Answer the question I asked. Here it is again;
Day claimed to have lifted the print on 11/22/63 and did not present it to anybody until 11/26/63. If he didn't forget to report the print, are you claiming he kept it back on purpose?
Whew. So now it is not a week but four whole days! I'm not claiming he kept it back on purpose or that he kept it back at all (whatever that means). Kept it back from who? He may very well have mentioned it to someone, but it was not documented. He may have been busy under the circumstances. It takes months for DNA results to be returned in modern investigations. Does that mean the delay means the result must be faked? You have no clue whatsoever what Day did or said with print. BUT even if he didn't mention it to anyone for several days, that does not mean he faked the print. That is insane. There was an ongoing investigation. The DPD detectives were collecting evidence. The "reporting" part was ongoing. If it took a few days to gather all the evidence that would be understandable. To suggest it must mean that he fabricated the print is complete lunacy.
-
Same page as the above quote from “No More Silence” the paragraph just before that quote:
Before I got the picture made, another message came in: “Drop everything! Don’t do anything else!” It must have been 9:00 o’clock or later. “Drop everything! Don’t do anything else!” This came through my captain, Captain Doughty, but it probably came to him from Deputy Chief Lumpkin. So we didn’t complete what we were trying to do. I’d have probably been working on it all night if I’d had the time.
More morphing memories....
It still doesn't make any sense. What picture is he talking about? And even if he is told to "drop everything", how would that be enough to discontinue an examination of a print he allegedly found on the rifle. He was told to turn over all the evidence to the FBI, that same night, but according to his WC testimony he did not follow that instruction and held back the evidence card with the print.
Apart for anything else, as a forensic officer he must have understood the significance of a print found on the alleged murder weapon, yet he does nothing and keeps it in his desk drawer for days.... really?
-
More morphing memories....
It still doesn't make any sense. What picture is he talking about? And even if he is told to "drop everything", how would that be enough to discontinue an examination of a print he allegedly found on the rifle. He was told to turn over all the evidence to the FBI, that same night, but according to his WC testimony he did not follow that instruction and held back the evidence card with the print.
Apart for anything else, as a forensic officer he must have understood the significance of a print found on the alleged murder weapon, yet he does nothing and keeps it in his desk drawer for days.... really?
The words in “No More Silence” are Carl Day’s words. Not Larry Sneed’s or anyone else’s. You made a claim that Day was told to turn over all the evidence. Who do you think told him that? And cite your source.
-
Apart for anything else, as a forensic officer he must have understood the significance of a print found on the alleged murder weapon, yet he does nothing and keeps it in his desk drawer for days.... really?
Investigations take months or even years. You are stupidly claiming because Day didn't report the print immediately that it must mean that he somehow fabricated evidence in the assassination of the president of the United States and brought it to light after the suspect was dead. Risking his own career and prison to frame a dead man for a crime that the authorities were already satisfied he committed. LOL. This is comedy gold.
-
Investigations take months or even years. You are stupidly claiming because Day didn't report the print immediately that it must mean that he somehow fabricated evidence in the assassination of the president of the United States and brought it to light after the suspect was dead. Risking his own career and prison to frame a dead man for a crime that the authorities were already satisfied he committed. LOL. This is comedy gold.
Investigations take months or even years.
Not when the suspect is killed within 48 hours in the basement of the police station
You are stupidly claiming because Day didn't report the print immediately that it must mean that he somehow fabricated evidence in the assassination of the president of the United States and brought it to light after the suspect was dead. Risking his own career and prison to frame a dead man for a crime that the authorities were already satisfied he committed.
You're an idiot who can not deal with the known facts and constantly keeps on repeating pathetic made up strawman arguments which have already been debunked.
It's ironic that you keep fighting so hard against the possibility of a conspiracy in the Kennedy case while at the same time supporting a guy who claims the entire Government, all the courts, prosecutors and God knows who else is conspiring against him.
-
Investigations take months or even years.
Not when the suspect is killed within 48 hours in the basement of the police station
You are stupidly claiming because Day didn't report the print immediately that it must mean that he somehow fabricated evidence in the assassination of the president of the United States and brought it to light after the suspect was dead. Risking his own career and prison to frame a dead man for a crime that the authorities were already satisfied he committed.
You're an idiot who can not deal with the known facts and constantly keeps on repeating pathetic made up strawman arguments which have already been debunked.
It's ironic that you keep fighting so hard against the possibility of a conspiracy in the Kennedy case while at the same time supporting a guy who claims the entire Government, all the courts, prosecutors and God knows who else is conspiring against him.
Isn't it late in "Europa"? LOL. I've never suggested that there couldn't be a conspiracy in the JFK assassination. There is simply no credible evidence. If you want to accept the "official" story that the current US government and justice system is not corrupt, then knock yourself out, but the fact that I leave open the possibility of governmental abuse means that I have an open mind on the subject. Rather than acting like a robot and entertaining only those narratives that I wish to be true.
-
Rather than acting like a robot and entertaining only those narratives that I wish to be true.
That is exactly what you do with your “Oswald did it” narrative.
-
The words in “No More Silence” are Carl Day’s words. Not Larry Sneed’s or anyone else’s. You made a claim that Day was told to turn over all the evidence. Who do you think told him that? And cite your source.
CE 3145, p.7:
“Lt. DAY stated he received instructions from Chief of Police JESSE B. CURRY, Dallas Police Department, Dallas, Texas, to turn over all of the evidence collected that he was examining, which related to LEE HARVEY OSWALD, to the FBI shortly before midnight on November 22, 1963.”
-
That is exactly what you do with your “Oswald did it” narrative.
Thumb1:
-
CE 3145, p.7:
“Lt. DAY stated he received instructions from Chief of Police JESSE B. CURRY, Dallas Police Department, Dallas, Texas, to turn over all of the evidence collected that he was examining, which related to LEE HARVEY OSWALD, to the FBI shortly before midnight on November 22, 1963.”
Those words were apparently written by Vincent Drain on 9/8/64. The words in “No More Silence” by Larry Sneed are Carl Day’s words.
-
Those words were apparently written by Vincent Drain on 9/8/64. The words in “No More Silence” by Larry Sneed are Carl Day’s words.
Says who?
-
Says who?
CE 3145
-
CE 3145
Oh boy... Who says that the words in “No More Silence” by Larry Sneed are Carl Day’s words ?
-
Oh boy... Who says that the words in “No More Silence” by Larry Sneed are Carl Day’s words ?
The introduction section of that book describes how he videotaped the interviews and what we read in that book are essentially transcripts of the interviews.
-
The introduction section of that book describes how he videotaped the interviews and what we read in that book are essentially transcripts of the interviews.
So, it's Larry Sneed who says it.... Got it!
essentially transcripts of the interviews
Stange choice of words. There are transcripts of the interviews in the book or there are not.
The use of the word "essentially" doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence.
-
So, it's Larry Sneed who says it.... Got it!
essentially transcripts of the interviews
Stange choice of words. There are transcripts of the interviews in the book or there are not.
The use of the word "essentially" doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence.
Thanks to https://www.patspeer.com/jahs-chapter-23 for this:
Oral History Interview of Lt. J.C. Day for the Sixth Floor Museum (7-11-06)
"I do definitely remember telling Drain there's a palm print on the underside of the barrel, when you lift it out of the stock. You could see a little of it sticking out when I put the powder on and then I took it out of the stock and then more of it came out...I did not send the palm print in. They said give him the rifle and I gave him the rifle. I didn't write any reports or anything like that. I didn't have time to. But I told Drain, definitely I remember, showing, pointing there and saying there's a palm print under there...But he didn't hear me or pay attention to me..."
Why would he pay attention? It's only a palmprint on the alleged murder weapon!
:D
-
So, it's Larry Sneed who says it.... Got it!
essentially transcripts of the interviews
Stange choice of words. There are transcripts of the interviews in the book or there are not.
The use of the word "essentially" doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence.
From the introduction of “No More Silence”:
In converting the information from the transcripts to the narratives, occasional reorganization was necessary since the interviews sometimes meandered from one subject to another. As a result, transitional sentences were inserted to facilitate continuity. Nothing was changed to alter any substance from the original transcripts.
-
From the introduction of “No More Silence”:
In converting the information from the transcripts to the narratives, occasional reorganization was necessary since the interviews sometimes meandered from one subject to another. As a result, transitional sentences were inserted to facilitate continuity. Nothing was changed to alter any substance from the original transcripts.
Says Larry Sneed :D
-
Says Larry Sneed :D
Says “Martin” ::)
-
Says “Martin” ::)
You need a time machine to convince Martin from "Europa" (he stays up late) of any fact that lends itself to Oswald's guilt. Even if Day didn't mention the print to anyone for a week that in no way means that he fabricated the print as Martin stupidly suggests. That is tin foil hat nonsense.
-
Says Larry Sneed :D
From the transcript from the Sixth Floor Museum:
J. “Carl” Day
August 15, 1996
By Bob Porter
Carl: Yes, I'd known Drain a long time. And I told him at the time, there's a print here. I showed him where it is, where it was. But I don't know whether it registered with him or not. Anyway, he took the gun. But that's all that I turned over. I didn't turn over the lift that I'd previously made of that dim print, because I thought that they would find that under there and come up with their own print. My orders were turn over the gun, and so I don't remember if I gave them anything else or not - there may have been one or two other things. But I didn't even think of giving them this print that I had lifted off of there.
-
You need a time machine to convince Martin from "Europa" (he stays up late) of any fact that lends itself to Oswald's guilt. Even if Day didn't mention the print to anyone for a week that in no way means that he fabricated the print as Martin stupidly suggests. That is tin foil hat nonsense.
Engaging with either one of the naysayers is an exercise in futility. They appear to already have their minds made up that the authorities are not to be believed. The only reason to engage them is for the benefit of someone who has an open mind that might be reading these posts.
-
From the transcript from the Sixth Floor Museum:
J. “Carl” Day
August 15, 1996
By Bob Porter
Carl: Yes, I'd known Drain a long time. And I told him at the time, there's a print here. I showed him where it is, where it was. But I don't know whether it registered with him or not. Anyway, he took the gun. But that's all that I turned over. I didn't turn over the lift that I'd previously made of that dim print, because I thought that they would find that under there and come up with their own print. My orders were turn over the gun, and so I don't remember if I gave them anything else or not - there may have been one or two other things. But I didn't even think of giving them this print that I had lifted off of there.
So it took until 1996 to morph into this...:D
-
So it took until 1996 to morph into this...:D
No morph involved. Show us where Carl Day ever said whatever you think it morphed from. I won’t hold my breath.
-
No morph involved. Show us where Carl Day ever said whatever you think it morphed from. I won’t hold my breath.
I get it. Nutter witnesses don't morph, how convenient.
Yet, regarding Frazier: "I simply cannot imagine that he could have possibly forgotten that." :D
-
Says “Martin” ::)
The way you twist and turn to "answer" a simple question without actually answering it, by posting quotes from a book, is telling enough.
Who wrote the damned book? Sneed, right?... So, if he didn't say what you quoted, who did?
-
From the transcript from the Sixth Floor Museum:
J. “Carl” Day
August 15, 1996
By Bob Porter
Carl: Yes, I'd known Drain a long time. And I told him at the time, there's a print here. I showed him where it is, where it was. But I don't know whether it registered with him or not. Anyway, he took the gun. But that's all that I turned over. I didn't turn over the lift that I'd previously made of that dim print, because I thought that they would find that under there and come up with their own print. My orders were turn over the gun, and so I don't remember if I gave them anything else or not - there may have been one or two other things. But I didn't even think of giving them this print that I had lifted off of there.
Anyway, he took the gun. But that's all that I turned over.
So, he did hold back the print he later claimed to have lifted.... Thanks for the confirmation!
I didn't turn over the lift that I'd previously made of that dim print, because I thought that they would find that under there and come up with their own print.
Well, they didn't. The FBI could not find any print or even residue of a print being lifted. Ain't that something....
-
You need a time machine to convince Martin from "Europa" (he stays up late) of any fact that lends itself to Oswald's guilt. Even if Day didn't mention the print to anyone for a week that in no way means that he fabricated the print as Martin stupidly suggests. That is tin foil hat nonsense.
Except Martin did not suggest that.... It's just another classic "Richard Smith" strawman.
-
Engaging with either one of the naysayers is an exercise in futility. They appear to already have their minds made up that the authorities are not to be believed. The only reason to engage them is for the benefit of someone who has an open mind that might be reading these posts.
Engaging with either one of the naysayers is an exercise in futility.
Coming from a fanatical zealot, this is hilarious!
Why is it that LNs who can not make a convincing argument always resort to attacking the people who disagree with them and/or expose their claims as being bogus?
They appear to already have their minds made up that the authorities are not to be believed.
As if you haven't made your mind up that the authorities are always telling the truth..... even when they are blatantly lying. :D
The only reason to engage them is for the benefit of someone who has an open mind that might be reading these posts.
That's exactly the reason why I keep calling you and your ilk out. Someone with an open mind needs to understand that what you are feeding him or her is nothing but propaganda and claims that are not supported by the evidence.
-
The way you twist and turn to "answer" a simple question without actually answering it, by posting quotes from a book, is telling enough.
Who wrote the damned book? Sneed, right?... So, if he didn't say what you quoted, who did?
Carl Day said it. Larry Sneed is conveying Day’s words to the public in his book. Same thing with the oral history from the Sixth Floor Museum.
-
Carl Day said it. Larry Sneed is conveying Day’s words to the public in his book. Same thing with the oral history from the Sixth Floor Museum.
How dishonest can you get....
Larry Sneed wrote the book. He claimed that he conveyed what Carl Day said.
How is that any different from Drain writing in his report what Day said?
Day said it and Drain reported what he said....
Day said it and Sneed wrote in his book what he said.....
-
How dishonest can you get....
Larry Sneed wrote the book. He claimed that he conveyed what Carl Day said.
How is that any different from Drain writing in his report what Day said?
Day said it and Drain reported what he said....
Day said it and Sneed wrote in his book what he said.....
The difference is that both Sneed’s book and the Sixth Floor Museum’s oral history transcript are reporting Carl Day’s words. Drain’s report is not.
-
Except Martin did not suggest that.... It's just another classic "Richard Smith" strawman.
You are not claiming that Day fabricated the print because he didn't "report" to it to anyone? If not, what is the basis of your silly claim that Day didn't lift Oswald's print from the rifle?
-
The difference is that both Sneed’s book and the Sixth Floor Museum’s oral history transcript are reporting Carl Day’s words. Drain’s report is not.
You keep going on about the Sixth Floor Museum, when we are discussing what Sneed and Drain wrote? Why are you trying to muddy the waters....
Btw, the difference between the Sixth Floor Museum transcript and Sneed's alleged verbatim quotes us that the Sixth Floor Museum's oral history series are all verifiable as they are on video as well.
The bottom line is that Sneed basically said he quoted Day verbatim (except when he edited the information for "occasional reorganization", whatever that means) but it can't be verified. You just take his word for it.
Drain just reported what Day had told him. Are you claiming that Drain was lying when he wrote that in his report?
One more comment. Drain wrote his report in 1964 and Day testified before the WC that same year. What he told Drain and the WC does not match what he said in the Oral History video (in 1996) or what
Sneed claims (in 1998) what he told him..... You were saying about morphing memories?
-
You are not claiming that Day fabricated the print because he didn't "report" to it to anyone? If not, what is the basis of your silly claim that Day didn't lift Oswald's print from the rifle?
You are not claiming that Day fabricated the print because he didn't "report" to it to anyone?
Correct. That's all just you trying to put words in my mouth. You are the one who is constantly jumping to conclusions, not I!
I am merely stating, for now, that Day was told to hand over the evidence to the FBI on Friday evening and he didn't.
what is the basis of your silly claim that Day didn't lift Oswald's print from the rifle?
Where exactly did I make that claim?
As per usual you are simply lying about what I allegedly have claimed. The truth is that you, rather foolishly, claimed that Oswald's print was found on the rifle. I merely pointed out that this is not true. Instead his print was found on an evidence card that was suddenly produced after Oswald's death when it was clear there wasn't going to be a trial. And that evidence card does not, in no way shape or form, confirm that Oswald's print was found on the rifle.
Btw, in the oral history video Day said that the FBI visited him at home to ask about the print on the evidence card, because they were puzzled about how Day could have lifted that print of the rifle after the weapon came back from Washington. Rather telling, don't you think?
-
You keep going on about the Sixth Floor Museum, when we are discussing what Sneed and Drain wrote? Why are you trying to muddy the waters....
Btw, the difference between the Sixth Floor Museum transcript and Sneed's alleged verbatim quotes us that the Sixth Floor Museum's oral history series are all verifiable as they are on video as well.
The bottom line is that Sneed basically said he quoted Day verbatim (except when he edited the information for "occasional reorganization", whatever that means) but it can't be verified. You just take his word for it.
Drain just reported what Day had told him. Are you claiming that Drain was lying when he wrote that in his report?
One more comment. Drain wrote his report in 1964 and Day testified before the WC that same year. What he told Drain and the WC does not match what he said in the Oral History video (in 1996) or what
Sneed claims (in 1998) what he told him..... You were saying about morphing memories?
The bottom line is that you haven’t shown one single time that Carl Day actually said what you claimed. I have shown two instances where he says otherwise.
-
The bottom line is that you haven’t shown one single time that Carl Day actually said what you claimed. I have shown two instances where he says otherwise.
BS... I have shown you his WC testimony which matches exactly with what Vincent Drain wrote in his report.
All you have shown me is an oral history recorded 32 years after the fact and the claim by a book author that he was quoting Day verbatim 36 years after the fact.
Amazing how you favor a 32 year recollection and the word of an author over contemporary testimony under oath, but I guess you are not just another fanatical zealot for nothing.
I ask again, are you claiming that Drain was lying when he wrote his report?
-
BS... I have shown you his WC testimony which matches exactly with what Vincent Drain wrote in his report.
All you have shown me is an oral history recorded 32 years after the fact and the claim by a book author that he was quoting Day verbatim 36 years after the fact.
Amazing how you favor a 32 year recollection and the word of an author over contemporary testimony under oath, but I guess you are not just another fanatical zealot for nothing.
I ask again, are you claiming that Drain was lying when he wrote his report?
If you showed me any WC testimony where Carl Day said what you are claiming, I must have missed it.
Drain was not quoting Carl Day verbatim. There are numerous incidents in the WC testimonies where the witness does not confirm what the FBI reports indicated the witnesses said. I think if Carl Day were asked by the WC under oath to verify what Drain wrote, that Carl Day would not confirm it. And I think that Carl Day would tell the WC the same things he told Sneed and the Sixth Floor Museum Oral History.
-
If you showed me any WC testimony where Carl Day said what you are claiming, I must have missed it.
Drain was not quoting Carl Day verbatim. There are numerous incidents in the WC testimonies where the witness does not confirm what the FBI reports indicated the witnesses said. I think if Carl Day were asked by the WC under oath to verify what Drain wrote, that Carl Day would not confirm it. And I think that Carl Day would tell the WC the same things he told Sneed and the Sixth Floor Museum Oral History.
Some posts seem to have disappeared, so I'll try this again.
Drain was not quoting Carl Day verbatim.
So, if a quote is not verbatim, it can't be true.... is that what you are saying?
-
You are not claiming that Day fabricated the print because he didn't "report" to it to anyone? If not, what is the basis of your silly claim that Day didn't lift Oswald's print from the rifle?
The palmprint that Day took on the 22nd.
(https://i.postimg.cc/QtGjvGDk/palm-print-a.jpg)
The print that the FBI took directly from Oswald's rifle.
(https://i.postimg.cc/KvJvjH7x/palm-rifle-print-match.jpg)
Random marks from Day's print is a perfect match to the prints take from Oswald's rifle by the FBI.
(https://i.postimg.cc/3JKxKTvt/fbi-rifle-1.gif)
And besides the above Incredibly Powerful Indisputable Evidence, Vincent Scalice with high resolution photos taken with multiple exposures of Oswald's rifle proved again beyond all doubt that Oswald's prints were on the Trigger Guard of Oswald's rifle!!!
SLAM DUNK!
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/UnluckyTenseJoey-max-1mb.gif)
JohnM
-
A couple of snips from the interview of Vincent Drain in “No More Silence” by Larry Sneed:
This is apparently what Drain was talking about in his September 1964 report when he refers to Carl Day’s instructions to turn over all the evidence [that was requested] in CE 3145:
Earlier in the evening [11/22/63], about 8:00 o’clock, the division chief had talked to me on the telephone and informed me that the FBI in Washington demanded that we bring to them for examination the rifle, the revolver that was used to kill Tippit, as well as the different paraphernalia such as identification cards and other small items that Oswald had on him. I discussed it with the police chief and told him that we’d keep the chain of evidence intact and that I would pick them up there myself and wait for them until they were examined in Washington then bring them back. So it was turned over to us.
It wasn’t until after LHO was murdered that the FBI requested all of the evidence. Here is another snip from the Vincent Drain section of “No More Silence” by Larry Sneed:
The next day I was the representative of the FBI at Tippit’s funeral. I remember riding back from the cemetery in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas to the police department with a newspaperman named Jerry O’Leary of the Washington Star. As we were talking and listening to the radio, Waggoner Carr, who was the attorney general of Texas at the time, said that he was going to open up a hearing himself. Put it this way: There was quite a bit of competition at that time between the police department, the local district attorney’s office, and the Texas attorney general. As a result, after Oswald was killed, the FBI wanted to get all of the evidence and have it brought back to Washington because I think they wanted to preserve it for posterity’s sake.
-
A couple of snips from the interview of Vincent Drain in “No More Silence” by Larry Sneed:
This is apparently what Drain was talking about in his September 1964 report when he refers to Carl Day’s instructions to turn over all the evidence [that was requested] in CE 3145:
Earlier in the evening [11/22/63], about 8:00 o’clock, the division chief had talked to me on the telephone and informed me that the FBI in Washington demanded that we bring to them for examination the rifle, the revolver that was used to kill Tippit, as well as the different paraphernalia such as identification cards and other small items that Oswald had on him. I discussed it with the police chief and told him that we’d keep the chain of evidence intact and that I would pick them up there myself and wait for them until they were examined in Washington then bring them back. So it was turned over to us.
It wasn’t until after LHO was murdered that the FBI requested all of the evidence. Here is another snip from the Vincent Drain section of “No More Silence” by Larry Sneed:
The next day I was the representative of the FBI at Tippit’s funeral. I remember riding back from the cemetery in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas to the police department with a newspaperman named Jerry O’Leary of the Washington Star. As we were talking and listening to the radio, Waggoner Carr, who was the attorney general of Texas at the time, said that he was going to open up a hearing himself. Put it this way: There was quite a bit of competition at that time between the police department, the local district attorney’s office, and the Texas attorney general. As a result, after Oswald was killed, the FBI wanted to get all of the evidence and have it brought back to Washington because I think they wanted to preserve it for posterity’s sake.
This is apparently what Drain was talking about in his September 1964 report
Apparently? In your opinion of course, right?
In your mind, there is no way that, 36 years after the fact, Drain (if he was quoted verbatim to begin with) wasn't all that precise in his general description, right?
I wonder what he meant with "the different paraphernalia"....
-
Isn't it just remarkable that Lt Day, in his oral history interview, states that he told Drain that there was a print visible on the rifle, but that Drain wasn't really interested?
So, not only does Day tell Drain about a print still on the rifle, but he completely fails to tell him about the print he had already lifted.
And then, when the rifle is examined at the FBI lab in Washington, no print or even residue of a print was found.... Go figure.
No wonder that they visited Day at home, for an explanation, after he had made them aware of the existence of the evidence card.
-
Isn't it just remarkable that Lt Day, in his oral history interview, states that he told Drain that there was a print visible on the rifle, but that Drain wasn't really interested?
So, not only does Day tell Drain about a print still on the rifle, but he completely fails to tell him about the print he had already lifted.
And then, when the rifle is examined at the FBI lab in Washington, no print or even residue of a print was found.... Go figure.
No wonder that they visited Day at home, for an explanation, after he had made them aware of the existence of the evidence card.
You find this more remarkable than what you are implying happened. That Day, for some as yet unspecified reason, somehow fabricated Oswald's print and falsely claimed that he took it from the rifle. Thereby committing a potential crime to fabricate evidence in the most important case in his career AFTER the suspect that he was framing was already dead and there would be no trial. In addition, Day knew that the DPD as the investigative authority had sufficient evidence to link Oswald to the crime and were satisfied of his guilt. But Day decides to fabricate more evidence to frame a dead person risking his career and prison? Wow.
Then we have the FBI, who you have also implied were involved in framing Oswald, for some reason won't play along here and confirm the discovery of Oswald's prints on the rifle. HA HA HA. That is your idiotic narrative. You find it sinister that it took the investigators a few days to sort out the evidence in the midst of all that was going on that week including the murder of their suspect. Amazing. And, of course, if the FBI had found the print on the rifle, you would be here ranting that it was fabricated and arguing it wouldn't have been possible after Day had taken the print. And on and on and on down the endless rabbit holes.
-
You find this more remarkable than what you are implying happened. That Day, for some as yet unspecified reason, somehow fabricated Oswald's print and falsely claimed that he took it from the rifle. Thereby committing a potential crime to fabricate evidence in the most important case in his career AFTER the suspect that he was framing was already dead and there would be no trial. In addition, Day knew that the DPD as the investigative authority had sufficient evidence to link Oswald to the crime and were satisfied of his guilt. But Day decides to fabricate more evidence to frame a dead person risking his career and prison? Wow.
Then we have the FBI, who you have also implied were involved in framing Oswald, for some reason won't play along here and confirm the discovery of Oswald's prints on the rifle. HA HA HA. That is your idiotic narrative. You find it sinister that it took the investigators a few days to sort out the evidence in the midst of all that was going on that week including the murder of their suspect. Amazing. And, of course, if the FBI had found the print on the rifle, you would be here ranting that it was fabricated and arguing it wouldn't have been possible after Day had taken the print. And on and on and on down the endless rabbit holes.
Get back to me when you can write a post without telling me (incorrectly) what I am supposed to be claiming or implying.
In addition, Day knew that the DPD as the investigative authority had sufficient evidence to link Oswald to the crime and were satisfied of his guilt.
Wow, in other posts you have been telling us what Oswald was thinking and now you tell us what Day knew...... That's some amazing talent. Either that or you are just making stuff up.
Btw, you completely failed to see and understand the absolute contradiction in these statements;
"Day knew that the DPD as the investigative authority had sufficient evidence to link Oswald to the crime and were satisfied of his guilt."
"You find it sinister that it took the investigators a few days to sort out the evidence in the midst of all that was going on that week"
Hilarious.... :D
-
Snips from “JFK First Day Evidence” bit Gary Savage:
A quote from R.W. Livingston, Crime Lab Detective, DPD, page 77:
“…I am sure that Lieutenant Day, who was in charge of the Crime Lab, dusted the rifle that was found on the sixth floor of the
School Book Depository, and lifted a partial palm print off the underside of the barrel after the rifle was taken apart. They had the actual print there in the office that night. Compared it myself with Oswald’s palm print. I thin all the other people on the day shift had already looked at the palm print before I arrived that night, but I went ahead and looked at the palm print myself and was satisfied that it was Oswald’s.”
Another assertion, this one by the author, Gary Savage, page 79:
…most, if not all, other Crime Lab Officers saw and compared the palm print themselves, including Rusty, Pete Barnes, H. R. Williams, and Bobby Brown. Ample opportunity to compare the palm print lifted from the rifle existed since it remained in the Crime Lab Office for several days, and each officer recalled the lift and had no doubt that it was Oswald’s.
-
Snips from “JFK First Day Evidence” bit Gary Savage:
A quote from R.W. Livingston, Crime Lab Detective, DPD, page 77:
“…I am sure that Lieutenant Day, who was in charge of the Crime Lab, dusted the rifle that was found on the sixth floor of the
School Book Depository, and lifted a partial palm print off the underside of the barrel after the rifle was taken apart. They had the actual print there in the office that night. Compared it myself with Oswald’s palm print. I thin all the other people on the day shift had already looked at the palm print before I arrived that night, but I went ahead and looked at the palm print myself and was satisfied that it was Oswald’s.”
Another assertion, this one by the author, Gary Savage, page 79:
…most, if not all, other Crime Lab Officers saw and compared the palm print themselves, including Rusty, Pete Barnes, H. R. Williams, and Bobby Brown. Ample opportunity to compare the palm print lifted from the rifle existed since it remained in the Crime Lab Office for several days, and each officer recalled the lift and had no doubt that it was Oswald’s.
They had the actual print there in the office that night. Compared it myself with Oswald’s palm print.
Amazing... so, if this is true (which is a big "if"), it means that they had already identified the print on the evidence card as belonging to Oswald before the rifle was handed over to the FBI on Friday evening, and nobody come up with thought that it might be a good idea to, perhaps, tell Fritz or the FBI about it? Is that even credible?
Even worse, in his oral history interview, Lt Day himself said that he was in the process of photographing the print, when he was told to stop what he was doing. This was of course on Friday evening, which makes you wonder what the people on the day shift saw (if anything). A bit later on in the same interview, Day says that he never found out that the print came back to Oswald until the FBI examined the evidence card, after 11/26/63. Go figure...
So, how does one reconcile these two statements? In my mind the only explanation is morphed and blurred memories, 32 to 36 years after the fact.
Another assertion, this one by the author, Gary Savage, page 79:
…most, if not all, other Crime Lab Officers saw and compared the palm print themselves, including Rusty, Pete Barnes, H. R. Williams, and Bobby Brown. Ample opportunity to compare the palm print lifted from the rifle existed since it remained in the Crime Lab Office for several days, and each officer recalled the lift and had no doubt that it was Oswald’s.
So, now we are going with a claim by an author of a book published 30 years after the fact? Really? What happened to all that verbatim stuff?
-
Get back to me when you can write a post without telling me (incorrectly) what I am supposed to be claiming or implying.
In addition, Day knew that the DPD as the investigative authority had sufficient evidence to link Oswald to the crime and were satisfied of his guilt.
Wow, in other posts you have been telling us what Oswald was thinking and now you tell us what Day knew...... That's some amazing talent. Either that or you are just making stuff up.
Btw, you completely failed to see and understand the absolute contradiction in these statements;
"Day knew that the DPD as the investigative authority had sufficient evidence to link Oswald to the crime and were satisfied of his guilt."
"You find it sinister that it took the investigators a few days to sort out the evidence in the midst of all that was going on that week"
Hilarious.... :D
Oswald was arrested and charged for the crime on Nov. 22. There is no doubt whatsoever that Day, as everyone else in America, knew that meant the DPD believed they had sufficient evidence to link him to the crime. It takes no "talent" but merely a functioning brain to reach that conclusion. That is where you are struggling mightily. There is no reason for Day to fabricate evidence when he knows:
1) Oswald had been arrested and charged with the crime because the DPD concluded that they had sufficient evidence to do so;
2) Oswald was dead meaning that there would never be a trial in which evidence would be needed to convict him;
3) Fabricating evidence is a crime that would have resulted in potential prison time or, at the very least, the loss of his job and reputation; and
4) The FBI would also be searching the rifle for prints.
Lastly there is no evidence, as in zero, that Day fabricated the print and lied about taking it from the rifle. You haven't even tried to offer any such evidence. You merely cite the alleged (and apparently false) claim that Day did not disclose the existence of the print for a few days. You somehow twist is into a claim that he fabricated it.
-
Oswald was arrested and charged for the crime on Nov. 22. There is no doubt whatsoever that Day, as everyone else in America, knew that meant the DPD believed they had sufficient evidence to link him to the crime. It takes no "talent" but merely a functioning brain to reach that conclusion. That is where you are struggling mightily. There is no reason for Day to fabricate evidence when he knows:
1) Oswald had been arrested and charged with the crime because the DPD concluded that they had sufficient evidence to do so;
2) Oswald was dead meaning that there would never be a trial in which evidence would be needed to convict him;
3) Fabricating evidence is a crime that would have resulted in potential prison time or, at the very least, the loss of his job and reputation; and
4) The FBI would also be searching the rifle for prints.
Lastly there is no evidence, as in zero, that Day fabricated the print and lied about taking it from the rifle. You haven't even tried to offer any such evidence. You merely cite the alleged (and apparently false) claim that Day did not disclose the existence of the print for a few days. You somehow twist is into a claim that he fabricated it.
Oswald was arrested and charged for the crime on Nov. 22. There is no doubt whatsoever that Day, as everyone else in America, knew that meant the DPD believed they had sufficient evidence to link him to the crime.
Utter BS... Yes, they charged Oswald for Kennedy's murder, but at that time they didn't even have anything to to link Oswald to the rifle. In fact, J.E. Hoover told Johnson the next day that they had no solid evidence yet. You do understand that you can arrest somebody on a suspicion and subsequently let him go if no evidence against that person is found. Don't you think Day would have known that also?
Lastly there is no evidence, as in zero, that Day fabricated the print and lied about taking it from the rifle. You haven't even tried to offer any such evidence.
Why would I try to do that when I never made the claim? It's you who is constantly and desperately trying to come up with idiotic reasons to justify what I said Day did.
You merely cite the alleged (and apparently false) claim that Day did not disclose the existence of the print for a few days.
There is nothing false about it.
You're all over the place... claiming Day knew Oswald was guilty on day one, when he himself said in the oral history interview that he only learned of the connection between Oswald and the rifle after the FBI examined the print on the evidence card. And at the same time you argue that the FBI and other investigators needed a couple of days to sort out the evidence..... Hilarious HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
-
Snips from “JFK First Day Evidence” bit Gary Savage:
A quote from R.W. Livingston, Crime Lab Detective, DPD, page 77:
“…I am sure that Lieutenant Day, who was in charge of the Crime Lab, dusted the rifle that was found on the sixth floor of the
School Book Depository, and lifted a partial palm print off the underside of the barrel after the rifle was taken apart. They had the actual print there in the office that night. Compared it myself with Oswald’s palm print. I thin all the other people on the day shift had already looked at the palm print before I arrived that night, but I went ahead and looked at the palm print myself and was satisfied that it was Oswald’s.”
Another assertion, this one by the author, Gary Savage, page 79:
…most, if not all, other Crime Lab Officers saw and compared the palm print themselves, including Rusty, Pete Barnes, H. R. Williams, and Bobby Brown. Ample opportunity to compare the palm print lifted from the rifle existed since it remained in the Crime Lab Office for several days, and each officer recalled the lift and had no doubt that it was Oswald’s.
…I am sure that Lieutenant Day, who was in charge of the Crime Lab, dusted the rifle that was found on the sixth floor of the School Book Depository, and lifted a partial palm print off the underside of the barrel
This statement By Detective Livingston is absolutely true..... We have the film footage taken by Tom Alyea that shows Detective Day dusting the rifle INSIDE the sixth Floor just minutes after the rifle was discovered BENEATH the pallet of boxes of books. Alyea said the he watched as Detective Day LIFTED a print from the rifle with Scotch tape and place that lift on a small white card .
We can be sure that this lift is the "palm print" that was presented to the WC . The official tale says that detective Day didn't tell the FBI about the lift and he lied about disassembling the and finding the print on the barrel after the rifle was disassembled.
after the rifle was taken apart. They had the actual print there in the office that night.
-
…I am sure that Lieutenant Day, who was in charge of the Crime Lab, dusted the rifle that was found on the sixth floor of the School Book Depository, and lifted a partial palm print off the underside of the barrel
This statement By Detective Livingston is absolutely true..... We have the film footage taken by Tom Alyea that shows Detective Day dusting the rifle INSIDE the sixth Floor just minutes after the rifle was discovered BENEATH the pallet of boxes of books. Alyea said the he watched as Detective Day LIFTED a print from the rifle with Scotch tape and place that lift on a small white card .
We can be sure that this lift is the "palm print" that was presented to the WC . The official tale says that detective Day didn't tell the FBI about the lift and he lied about disassembling the and finding the print on the barrel after the rifle was disassembled.
after the rifle was taken apart. They had the actual print there in the office that night.
I'm confused, Walt. Isn't the print supposed be have come from a metal part of the rifle that can only be reached when the rifle is disassembled? Doesn't that mean that Day must have taken the rifle apart at the TSBD?
Or is it your opinion that the print came from somewhere else?
-
Engaging with either one of the naysayers is an exercise in futility. They appear to already have their minds made up that the authorities are not to be believed. The only reason to engage them is for the benefit of someone who has an open mind that might be reading these posts.
Says the special pleader trying to make the argument that Day quoted by Sneed decades later is somehow more legitimate than Day quoted by Drain in 1964.
The same guy who acknowledges morphing memories, but only when it suits him.
-
And besides the above Incredibly Powerful Indisputable Evidence,
Superimposing arrows on top of J. Edgar’s smudge doesn’t prove a damn thing.
Vincent Scalice with high resolution photos taken with multiple exposures of Oswald's rifle proved again beyond all doubt that Oswald's prints were on the Trigger Guard of Oswald's rifle!!!
Vincent Scalise was given photographs of unknown provenance or custody 3 decades later and then didn’t show any of his work. That doesn’t prove a damn thing “beyond all doubt”.
-
In addition, Day knew that the DPD as the investigative authority had sufficient evidence to link Oswald to the crime
How would you know that Day knew this? It’s not even true.
-
Snips from “JFK First Day Evidence” bit Gary Savage:
A quote from R.W. Livingston, Crime Lab Detective, DPD, page 77:
“…I am sure that Lieutenant Day, who was in charge of the Crime Lab, dusted the rifle that was found on the sixth floor of the
School Book Depository, and lifted a partial palm print off the underside of the barrel after the rifle was taken apart. They had the actual print there in the office that night. Compared it myself with Oswald’s palm print. I thin all the other people on the day shift had already looked at the palm print before I arrived that night, but I went ahead and looked at the palm print myself and was satisfied that it was Oswald’s.”
But you can’t prove that Livingston actually said that. Two can play that game.
This is amazing though, considering that Day said he only told Fritz and Curry about the print that night. Must be more morphing memories.
-
Oswald was arrested and charged for the crime on Nov. 22. There is no doubt whatsoever that Day, as everyone else in America, knew that meant the DPD believed they had sufficient evidence to link him to the crime.
No, it meant that the DPD didn’t give a rat’s ass about probable cause.
-
Fact is that Drain signed an affidavit while Day was unwilling to do so.
One would think that when handing off a key piece of evidence that a print had been lifted from , that some kind of Note or document would have been included with the item so that even if Drain did not HEAR Day say anything, that Drain would still be informed and or FBI informed by the attached note.
-
I'm confused, Walt. Isn't the print supposed be have come from a metal part of the rifle that can only be reached when the rifle is disassembled? Doesn't that mean that Day must have taken the rifle apart at the TSBD?
Or is it your opinion that the print came from somewhere else?
The so called "Palm Print" was discovered on the rifle by detective Day IN THE TSBD when he was dusting the rifle for finger prints just minutes after it was removed from BENEATH the pallet that had boxes of books stacked on it. Day knew that the logical place to look for a palm print was on the foregrip of the rifle so he concentrated his search in that area with his magnifying glass. He found a smudge that he thought could be a print but he wanted to exam that smudge in the lab. He knew that the wood of the foregrip could absorb the oil from the "print" so he lifted that "print" and placed it on a small white card, as Tom Alyea watched. He jotted down the pertinent data about the "print" on the white card.
THAT is the source of the so called Palm Print and that's why the FBI could find no trace of a print on the metal barrel and they could find no evidence that a lift had been made from the metal barrel. BUT they needed "something" to link that rifle to Lee Oswald so they concocted the stupid story that 99% of researchers believe.
-
The so called "Palm Print" was discovered on the rifle by detective Day IN THE TSBD when he was dusting the rifle for finger prints just minutes after it was removed from BENEATH the pallet that had boxes of books stacked on it. Day knew that the logical place to look for a palm print was on the foregrip of the rifle so he concentrated his search in that area with his magnifying glass. He found a smudge that he thought could be a print but he wanted to exam that smudge in the lab. He knew that the wood of the foregrip could absorb the oil from the "print" so he lifted that "print" and placed it on a small white card, as Tom Alyea watched. He jotted down the pertinent data about the "print" on the white card.
THAT is the source of the so called Palm Print and that's why the FBI could find no trace of a print on the metal barrel and they could find no evidence that a lift had been made from the metal barrel. BUT they needed "something" to link that rifle to Lee Oswald so they concocted the stupid story that 99% of researchers believe.
So, you are in fact saying that Oswald's print was indeed on the rifle?
-
So, you are in fact saying that Oswald's print was indeed on the rifle?
Well duh, of course Oswald's print was on Oswald's rifle, whose print would you expect to see, perhaps the Pope, Elvis Presley or the Queen of England? Hahaha!
JohnM
-
So, you are in fact saying that Oswald's print was indeed on the rifle?
NO! Emphatically NO!
Detective Day saw a SMUDGE on the wooden foregrip that he imagined to be a palm print while dusting the rifle in the TSBD. He lifted that SMUDGE "Palm print" wit scotch tape as Tom Alyea watched. He placed the lifted smudge on a small white card ( Now know as CE 639). He turned that white card, along with all of the evidence, over to FBI agent Vince Drain at midnight on 11/22/63. The FBI were unable to find a useful print on that card.
But they did manage to change that smudge into the palm print of Lee Oswald after they sent all of the evidence back to the DPD. and concoct the tale about Day disassembling the rifle and lifting that print from the metal barrel of the carcano.
A person can't believe a damned thing the police said about the evidence most of it is created by the lies.
-
But they did manage to change that smudge into the palm print of Lee Oswald after they sent all of the evidence back to the DPD
Mr. Cakebread, are you saying they used photographic trickery to superimpose Mr. Oswald's palm print onto the smudge on Lt. Day's white card--------and the result was CE639?
-
NO! Emphatically NO!
Detective Day saw a SMUDGE on the wooden foregrip that he imagined to be a palm print while dusting the rifle in the TSBD. He lifted that SMUDGE "Palm print" wit scotch tape as Tom Alyea watched. He placed the lifted smudge on a small white card ( Now know as CE 639). He turned that white card, along with all of the evidence, over to FBI agent Vince Drain at midnight on 11/22/63. The FBI were unable to find a useful print on that card.
But they did manage to change that smudge into the palm print of Lee Oswald after they sent all of the evidence back to the DPD. and concoct the tale about Day disassembling the rifle and lifting that print from the metal barrel of the carcano.
A person can't believe a damned thing the police said about the evidence most of it is created by the lies.
Thanks for the explanation, Walt.
I wasn't aware of that scenario and, honestly, it seems somewhat far fetched. What is your source for this?
-
Mr. Cakebread, are you saying they used photographic trickery to superimpose Mr. Oswald's palm print onto the smudge on Lt. Day's white card--------and the result was CE639?
NO! OPEN your eyes and LOOK at the print on the white card (CE 639).... See those parallel lines at the left? Those were made by the bayonet groove that is cut into the foregrip of the model 91/38 carcano rifle. And that proves that the "palm print" lift was taken from the WOODEN foregrip.
-
Thanks for the explanation, Walt.
I wasn't aware of that scenario and, honestly, it seems somewhat far fetched. What is your source for this?
Most of it is the statements of Tom Alyea and about what he saw Detective Day doing in the TSBD that afternoon.
I don't blame you for finding it hard to believe..... You're still too trusting in the statements of the authorities.
-
NO! OPEN your eyes and LOOK at the print on the white card (CE 639).... See those parallel lines at the left? Those were made by the bayonet groove that is cut into the foregrip of the model 91/38 carcano rifle. And that proves that the "palm print" lift was taken from the WOODEN foregrip.
So what EXACTLY do you mean when you say that "they did manage to change that smudge into the palm print of Lee Oswald after they sent all of the evidence back to the DPD"?
-
So what EXACTLY do you mean when you say that "they did manage to change that smudge into the palm print of Lee Oswald after they sent all of the evidence back to the DPD"?
That is the only way Walt can avoid admitting it was Oswald's print. Imagine the narrative behind this line of events.
-
That is the only way Walt can avoid admitting it was Oswald's print. Imagine the narrative behind this line of events.
The vaunted FBI said that the smudge was Lee's palm print. (After the evidence was sent back to the DPD but when the FBI first examined the smudge on the white card they declared that it was worthless for ID purposes) Lee Oswald had already been cast in the public eye, as a deranged killer by the authorities. So who would doubt that his prints were on the rifle even though that was simply a damned lie.
-
The vaunted FBI said that the smudge was Lee's palm print. (After the evidence was sent back to the DPD but when the FBI first examined the smudge on the white card they declared that it was worthless for ID purposes) Lee Oswald had already been cast in the public eye, as a deranged killer by the authorities. So who would doubt that his prints were on the rifle even though that was simply a damned lie.
Why wouldn't the FBI just claim they found Oswald's prints all over the rifle if they are going to fabricate evidence and had that capability? They could have claimed they found a dozen of his prints on the rifle. Why go through this fantasy charade?
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/W3SsFVCr/Day-partial-print.png)
-
Still waiting for an explanation from Mr. Cakebread of what exactly he means when he says that "they did manage to change that smudge into the palm print of Lee Oswald after they sent all of the evidence back to the DPD"..................
-
Why wouldn't the FBI just claim they found Oswald's prints all over the rifle if they are going to fabricate evidence and had that capability? They could have claimed they found a dozen of his prints on the rifle. Why go through this fantasy charade?
Why ....Why...Go eat a fly... And then deny that you ate a fly.
-
Still waiting for an explanation from Mr. Cakebread of what exactly he means when he says that "they did manage to change that smudge into the palm print of Lee Oswald after they sent all of the evidence back to the DPD"..................
Lt Day was at this time at the TSBD and the rifle was at the DPD police station.
WHEN??? I ask you WHEN was the rifle out of Lt Day's possession?? He kept the rifle in his possession after it's discovery until he took it to the DPD headquarters.
-
Still waiting for an explanation from Mr. Cakebread of what exactly he means when he says that "they did manage to change that smudge into the palm print of Lee Oswald after they sent all of the evidence back to the DPD"..................
I am Sorry.... I didn't intend to create a mystery.
What I'm saying is;.... The authorities could change evidence on a whim like a deranged magician. An example would be the flat out lie of Henry Wade ...." Oh,...and ... "Did I mention that we've found his prints on the gun"
They had found NO identifiable prints on the rifle.... But That Didn't prevent the Dallas DA, Henry Wade, from telling reporters that They had found Lee Oswald's prints on the rifle. And once he'd blurted out that damned lie it became a FACT .... And that lie lives on to this very day.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/W3SsFVCr/Day-partial-print.png)
Alan, this makes the whole thing even more confusing.
The official story is that Lt Day took the palmprint of the rifle, at the DPD, but didn't process it completely because he was told to drop everything and turn the evidence over to the FBI, who subsequently found not prints or even residue of a print on the rifle.
If this is an accurate communication to SAC Dallas on the day of the assassination, at first glance, it seems to support the official story, but the last sentence (Lt Day was at this time at the book despository and the gun was at the PD) actually destroys the official narrative.
As Walt pointed out is that Day left the TSBD with the rifle and he never returned to the building. So, what the hell is going on here?
Can you post the entire memo?
-
Day left the TSBD with the rifle and he never returned to the building.
Really?
-
Really?
You know different?
-
Alan, this makes the whole thing even more confusing.
The official story is that Lt Day took the palmprint of the rifle, at the DPD, but didn't process it completely because he was told to drop everything and turn the evidence over to the FBI, who subsequently found not prints or even residue of a print on the rifle.
If this is an accurate communication to SAC Dallas on the day of the assassination, at first glance, it seems to support the official story, but the last sentence (Lt Day was at this time at the book despository and the gun was at the PD) actually destroys the official narrative.
As Walt pointed out is that Day left the TSBD with the rifle and he never returned to the building. So, what the hell is going on here?
Can you post the entire memo?
"So what the hell is going on here?"
It's very clear to me that the authorities were lying and doing what ever was necessary tp frame Lee Oswald.
They were the guilty party and their necks were in the noose.....
-
You know different?
Mr. BELIN. What else did you do, or what was the next thing you did after you completed photographing and inspecting the rifle on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building for whatever prints you could find, what did you do next?
Mr. DAY. I took the gun at the time to the office and locked it up in a box in my office at Captain Fritz' direction.
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?
Mr. DAY. I went back to the School Book Depository and stayed there. It was around three that I got back, and I was in that building until about 6, directing the other officers as to what we needed in the way of photographs and some drawing, and so forth.
-
Mr. BELIN. What else did you do, or what was the next thing you did after you completed photographing and inspecting the rifle on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building for whatever prints you could find, what did you do next?
Mr. DAY. I took the gun at the time to the office and locked it up in a box in my office at Captain Fritz' direction.
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?
Mr. DAY. I went back to the School Book Depository and stayed there. It was around three that I got back, and I was in that building until about 6, directing the other officers as to what we needed in the way of photographs and some drawing, and so forth.
Ok, so what's the point you are trying to make?
-
There were a number of latent and semi-smudged prints on the rifle but the FBI examiner was an old-school stickler requiring a certain degree of lift quality and number of identification points. For a print to be considered for lifting at the FBI then, it had to be visible on the object with enough points through a hand-held magnifying glass.
Sounds like reasonable doubt. There’s a reason for those standards.
Latona dismissed the trigger-guard housing fingerprints as "of no value" despite his own efforts to photograph them and having Day's photos. It was not until 1993 that the trigger-guard prints were better analyzed by combining the high-quality pictures taken by Day. The results were presented in the outstanding 1993 PBS documentary "Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?".
Not “better analyzed”, just much weaker criteria. Photos with no provenance stashed in a briefcase for 30 years and no disclosure on how many points matched or where they were.
-
Sounds like reasonable doubt. There’s a reason for those standards.
Not “better analyzed”, just much weaker criteria. Photos with no provenance stashed in a briefcase for 30 years and no disclosure on how many points matched or where they were.
Well said. Lowering the standards for evidence is prevalent in every aspect of the LN case.
I'm just about sure that if the case against Oswald had ever gone to trial, the prosecution would not be able to get a conviction.
-
Well said. Lowering the standards for evidence is prevalent in every aspect of the LN case.
I'm just about sure that if the case against Oswald had ever gone to trial, the prosecution would not be able to get a conviction.
I'm just about sure that if the case against Oswald had ever gone to trial, the prosecution would not be able to get a conviction.
You're so right..... And the perpetrators knew that, and that's why they could not allow to let Lee Oswald live.
Even after they had murdered him they realized that the American people needed to be convinced that Lee Oswald was simple a lone nut who killed John Kennedy for no reason...... And that's the reason LBJ created the Warren Commission. It's a pity that so many researchers fall back on the lies that were created by the DPD and Hoover's FBI and propped up by the Warren Commission.
-
By "no provenance", you mean some scenario like no one stood guard at "Rusty" Livingstone's house for 30 years to prevent the photos being planted, or "Rusty" (who was the DPD's photo-developer) fabricated the trigger-guard photos before he sealed the briefcase.
The provenance is about as good as it gets within normal reason. The briefcase was in "Rusty's" possession for all that time. He didn't even know the potential of what was in the case; his nephew Gary Savage brought the material forward. Too bad for your hero-patsy Oswald that whenever evidence that's better-quality shows up or when forensic techniques (ballistic testing; 3D trajectory analysis) improve with science done by professionals, it always reinforces the LN scenario.
The briefcase was in "Rusty's" possession for all that time. He didn't even know the potential of what was in the case; his nephew Gary Savage brought the material forward.
Do you understand the contradiction of what you have written here?
-
I'm just about sure that if the case against Oswald had ever gone to trial, the prosecution would not be able to get a conviction.
You're so right..... And the perpetrators knew that, and that's why they could not allow to let Lee Oswald live.
Even after they had murdered him they realized that the American people needed to be convinced that Lee Oswald was simple a lone nut who killed John Kennedy for no reason...... And that's the reason LBJ created the Warren Commission. It's a pity that so many researchers fall back on the lies that were created by the DPD and Hoover's FBI and propped up by the Warren Commission.
Actually they were the mafia and had Ruby murder him. At the beginning the Government was afraid it could be an international plot so it's reasonable what they did to calm the waters.
-
By "no provenance", you mean some scenario like no one stood guard at "Rusty" Livingstone's house for 30 years to prevent the photos being planted, or "Rusty" (who was the DPD's photo-developer) fabricated the trigger-guard photos before he sealed the briefcase.
The provenance is about as good as it gets within normal reason. The briefcase was in "Rusty's" possession for all that time. He didn't even know the potential of what was in the case; his nephew Gary Savage brought the material forward. Too bad for your hero-patsy Oswald that whenever evidence that's better-quality shows up or when forensic techniques (ballistic testing; 3D trajectory analysis) improve with science done by professionals, it always reinforces the LN scenario.
What a load of BS. There was no new “technique” here. It was the same kind of fingerprint analysis the FBI did in 1964.
And who said the briefcase was sealed for 30 years, and how would you know? How would you or anybody else know where those photos came from?
Oh yeah — cop said so.