If I had planned the conspiracy ...

[Tom Mahon]

Five bullet fragments were found in the President's limousine. The cartridge cases, the nearly whole bullet and the bullet fragments were all subjected to firearms identification analysis by qualified experts. It was the unanimous opinion of the experts that the nearly whole bullet, the two largest bullet fragments. and the three cartridge cases were definitely fired in the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository Building to the exclusion of all other weapons.

But . . . but . . . but . . . WHERE DID THE THREE SMALLER FRAGMENTS COME FROM?

EH?

AH HA!!!!

GOT YA!!!!!!!!

AND WHO FOUND THEM!!!!!??

EH??

[Steve M. Galbraith]

I think YOU need to tell ME your proof that "Oswald was manipulated" into ordering the rifle. Isn't that how it usually works when a rather outlandish claim is made? The person making the claim has the burden of proof.

I think we all see that his "conclusive evidence" and "absolute proof" standards have just vanished, disappeared. Now it's back to possibilities. Not "conclusive evidence" Oswald was manipulated into the rifle purchase; but the mere possibility of manipulation. And we're supposed to use these mere possibilities when examining the evidence and if they don't surmount that "possibility" standard that evidence can be dismissed. Must be dismissed. How can someone absolutely prove (his standard) that Oswald wasn't manipulated into ordering the rifle? We don't have a time machine. Even if he was, how does that exonerate him from using it that November day in Dallas?

One impossible absolute standard, one that's not even used in a court of law, for judging evidence against Oswald; a completely different arbitrary "possible" standard when judging evidence that exonerates him.

[Martin Weidmann]

And away we go, down, down, down the rabbit hole where the majority of every type of law enforcement connected with this case wanted Kennedy dead and they all wanted to blame Oswald. Your psychotic paranoia and complete lack of evidence for each of your many, many suspicions is really entertaining, keep it up!

THE PRESIDENTIAL AUTOMOBILE

After the Presidential car was returned to Washington on November 22, 1963, Secret Service agents found two bullet fragments in the front seat. One fragment, found on the seat beside the driver, weighed 44.6 grains and consisted of the nose portion of a bullet.92 The other fragment, found along the right side of the front seat, weighed 21.0 grains and consisted of the base portion of a bullet.93 During the course of an examination on November 23, agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation found three small lead particles, weighing between seven-tenths and nine-tenths of a grain each, on the rug underneath the left jump seat which had been occupied by Mrs. Connally.94 During this examination, the Bureau agents noted a small residue of lead on the inside surface of the laminated windshield and a very small pattern of cracks on the outer layer of the windshield immediately behind the lead residue.95 There was a minute particle of glass missing from the outside surface, but no penetration. The inside layer of glass was not broken.96 The agents also observed a dent in the strip of chrome across the top of the windshield, located to the left of the rear view mirror support.97

EXPERT EXAMINATION OF RIFLE, CARTRIDGE CASES, AND BULLET FRAGMENTS

On the sixth floor of the Depository Building, the Dallas police found three spent cartridges and a rifle. A nearly whole bullet was discovered on the stretcher used to carry Governor Connally at Parkland Hospital. As described in the preceding section, five bullet fragments were found in the President's limousine. The cartridge cases, the nearly whole bullet and the bullet fragments were all subjected to firearms identification analysis by qualified experts. It was the unanimous opinion of the experts that the nearly whole bullet, the two largest. bullet fragments. and the three cartridge cases were definitely fired in the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository Building to the exclusion of all other weapons.

JohnM

And away we go, down, down, down the rabbit hole where the majority of every type of law enforcement connected with this case wanted Kennedy dead and they all wanted to blame Oswald. Your psychotic paranoia and complete lack of evidence for each of your many, many suspicions is really entertaining, keep it up!

You know what, John? You are absolutely right. As long as evidence supports the "Oswald did it alone" narrative, who cares where it came from, who found it and whether it is authentic or not. It must be a complete mystery to you why they ever invented that pesky cumbersome chain of evidence and authentication stuff, when you can just use "Oswald left his wedding ring in a cup" as one of 53 pieces of "evidence" that "prove" his guilt?

Nobody in their right mind would wonder about a jacket (described in radio traffic as white), - found by somebody who could possibly be a police officer, who pointed it out to Capt. Westbrook, who didn't know where it was found exactly and who in turn gave it to another unknown officer and couldn't identify either man in his WC testimony, - that resurfaced at the DPD HQ as a grey jacket with the initials of 7 men on it, when all we know is that only three persons handled the jacket. And what does it matter how it came to be that it was Westbrook himself who submitted the jacket to the evidence room at (according to the receipt) 3 PM, more than an hour after Oswald had been brought in to the DPD HQ.

Similarly, Gerald Hill testified to the WC that he put his mark on the S & W revolver at around 4 PM and that he had the weapon on his person ever since Bob Carroll gave it to him at the Texas Theater, after Oswald was arrested. So, what does it matter that Officer Davenport submitted that same S & W revolver and 8 or 9 bullets (my eyes are letting me down when I try to read the receipt) to the evidence room at 3.30 PM, right? I'm sure you can provide a perfectly plausible explanation to show just how silly my psychotic paranoia is!

I must say, you've got it figured out. Just ignore all the details and just declare Oswald guilty simply because he is, right John?

Don't you have a moonwalk to defend somewhere?

[Martin Weidmann]

I think we all see that his "conclusive evidence" and "absolute proof" standards have just vanished, disappeared. Now it's back to possibilities. Not "conclusive evidence" he was manipulated; but the possibility of it. And we're supposed to use these mere possibilities when examining the evidence and if they don't surmount that standard they can be dismissed. How can someone absolutely prove (his standard) that Oswald wasn't manipulated into ordering the rifle? We don't have a time machine. Even if he was, how does that exonerate him from using it that November day in Dallas?

One impossible absolute standard, one that's not even used in a court of law, for judging evidence against Oswald; a completely different arbitrary "possible" standard when judging evidence that exonerates him.

And another one who doesn't understand that an investigation is a process of elimination. The more possibilities that can be ruled out, the stronger and more conclusive the evidence becomes.
But something as basic and simple goes completely over your head, doesn't it?

How can someone absolutely prove (his standard) that Oswald wasn't manipulated into ordering the rifle?

I didn't ask for "absolute proof" that Oswald wasn't manipulated. I wanted to know from David von Pein on what basis he dismissed the possibility that Oswald was manipulated.
If you don't understand the difference, then there isn't much I can do....

[John Mytton]

And away we go, down, down, down the rabbit hole where the majority of every type of law enforcement connected with this case wanted Kennedy dead and they all wanted to blame Oswald. Your psychotic paranoia and complete lack of evidence for each of your many, many suspicions is really entertaining, keep it up!

You know what, John? You are absolutely right. As long as evidence supports the "Oswald did it alone" narrative, who cares where it came from, who found it and whether it is authentic or not. It must be a complete mystery to you why they ever invented that pesky cumbersome chain of evidence and authentication stuff, when you can just use "Oswald left his wedding ring in a cup" as one of 53 pieces of "evidence" that "prove" his guilt?

Nobody in their right mind would wonder about a jacket (described in radio traffic as white), - found by somebody who could possibly be a police officer, who pointed it out to Capt. Westbrook, who didn't know where it was found exactly and who in turn gave it to another unknown officer and couldn't identify either man in his WC testimony, - that resurfaced at the DPD HQ as a grey jacket with the inintials of 7 men on it, when all we know is that only three persons handled the jacket. And what does it matter how it came to be that it was Westbrook himself who submitted the jacket to the evidence room at (according to the receipt) 3 PM, more than an hour after Oswald had been brought in to the DPD HQ.

Similarly, like Gerald Hill, who testified to the WC that he put his mark on the S & W revolver at around 4 PM and that he had the weapon on his person ever since Bob Carroll gave it to him at the Texas Theater, after Oswald was arrested. So, what does it matter that Officer Davenport submitted that same S & W revolver and 8 or 9 bullets (my eyes are letting me down when I try to read the receipt) to the evidence room at 3.30 PM, right? I'm sure you can provide a perfectly plausible explanation to show just how silly my psychotic paranoia is!

I must say, you've got it figured out. Just ignore all the details and just declare Oswald guilty simply because he is, right John?

Don't you have a moonwalk to defend somewhere?

Here we go again, so not only did the secret service agents lie and plant evidence, but the Dallas Police also lied about different pieces evidence, what pray tell is your connection between these vastly different law enforcement agencies and where does all your suspicions lead, surely by now you must have some inkling about who was the grand mastermind with all this power who was behind the assassination, well?

JohnM

[Richard Smith]

I haven't read all of Martin from "Europe's" gibberish here but from past encounters his standard of proof is that all alternative possibilities that he can dream up - no matter how baseless, improbable or contrary to the existing evidence - must be completely eliminated as a possibility to accept any evidence that lends itself to Oswald's guilt.  An impossible defense attorney standard that they would want to be applied to a client that he knows is stone cold guilty.  No fact in human history could ever be proven under that standard.  It's always at least theoretically possible that something else occurred.  So doubt is always the result promoted by the contrarian types.  Most amazing is that they appear to be entirely uninterested in entertaining the direct consequences of any of these alternative possibilities having validity.  The sole objective is to conjure doubt by any means.  They don't bother themselves in reconciling all the conflicting evidence, circumstances, conspiracies that must be accounted for if Oswald was not responsible and the evidence against him was the product of a frame up.  If X didn't happen as they contend, then something like Y or Z must have occurred instead to explain it, but no interest at all in that.  Why?  Because they know better than anyone that Oswald did it.  This is just an endless game in which they play the contrarian and take more intelligent people down their rabbit hole.

[Martin Weidmann]

Here we go again, so not only did the secret service agents lie and plant evidence, but the Dallas Police also lied about different pieces evidence, what pray tell is your connection between these vastly different law enforcement agencies and where does all your suspicions lead, surely by now you must have some inkling about who was the grand mastermind with all this power who was behind the assassination, well?

JohnM

Here we go again, so not only did the secret service agents lie and plant evidence, but the Dallas Police also lied about different pieces evidence,

Now who is being paranoid? I never said that. All I did in my previous post is provide information from the official record, but it's telling that you seem to believe that no law enforcement agent could or would ever lie.

For crying out loud, Hoover, who ran the FBI back then, was the biggest criminal of them all. Using his office to spy on politicians etc and even black mailing Presidents. To you he must be a quireboy!
And just how many of verdicts obtained by Henry Wade, with false and/or manipulated evidence have been overturned by now? Another quireboy, in your mind, I'm sure.

There were several officers who claimed that they found the paper bag at the sniper's nest, but none of them lied, right?

DPD claimed that the backyard photos (and negatives) were found during the second search (the one with the warrant) on SaPersonay afternoon, yet Fritz showed Oswald a blow up of one of the photos on SaPersonay morning and Micheal Paine confirmed in a tv interview many years later that a FBI officer had shown him a photo showing Oswald holding a rifle on Friday evening, because he wanted to know if Paine knew where the photo was taken. Fritz actually, to some extend, confirmed that the already knew the location before he showed the picture to Oswald.

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; we had heard of the Neely Street address but we didn't know that that was the place where the picture was taken. But later on, Mr. Sorrels and some of the Secret Service men called me and they had found out, I believe from Marina, that that is where the picture was made and they called me and asked me to go with them and we made some other pictures out there to show the place.

And how is it possible that Oswald's grey jacket had the initials of seven officers on it, when all we know is that only two unidentified officers and Capt. Westbrook ever handled the jacket?

And Hill didn't lie when he testified under oath that he kept the S & W revolver on his person all the time, when the receipt of the evidence room tells a different story. What's that like; to believe that Hill and Davenport didn't lie when they actually contradict what the other said?

As for the Secret Service agents; they followed orders when they returned the President's limousine, which was a crime scene, illegally to Washington and then had one of their own search tamper with that crime scene without documenting anything. But I'm sure, for you, that's all totally insignificant, right? All that matters is that Frazier was given fragments of bullets they said were found in the limousine. 

It's like I said earlier; you've got it figured out. Just ignore all the details and just declare Oswald guilty simply because he is, right John?

[Martin Weidmann]

I haven't read all of Martin from "Europe's" gibberish here but from past encounters his standard of proof is that all alternative possibilities that he can dream up - no matter how baseless, improbable or contrary to the existing evidence - must be completely eliminated as a possibility to accept any evidence that lends itself to Oswald's guilt.  An impossible defense attorney standard that they would want to be applied to a client that he knows is stone cold guilty.  No fact in human history could ever be proven under that standard.  It's always at least theoretically possible that something else occurred.  So doubt is always the result promoted by the contrarian types.  Most amazing is that they appear to be entirely uninterested in entertaining the direct consequences of any of these alternative possibilities having validity.  The sole objective is to conjure doubt by any means.  They don't bother themselves in reconciling all the conflicting evidence, circumstances, conspiracies that must be accounted for if Oswald was not responsible and the evidence against him was the product of a frame up.  If X didn't happen as they contend, then something like Y or Z must have occurred instead to explain it, but no interest at all in that.  Why?  Because they know better than anyone that Oswald did it.  This is just an endless game in which they play the contrarian and take more intelligent people down their rabbit hole.

Living permanently in your head, rent free, I frequently encounter idiotic thoughts like the BS displayed above. Do you think it's possible I could get a bit more room in your head to avoid this madness?