Replies

Sorry it was testified to immediately afterwards by several people not a couple of years later.

A musket would have been about as useful as the PoS Carcano claimed to have been used, a garbage gun if ever there was one.

I have seen no REAL evidence that Oswald was the killer only hypothetical statements and insinuations which do not bear scrutiny. Certainly nothing which would stand up in a court of law.

1) No evidence that the rifle claimed to have been found was the rifle claimed to have been ordered by Oswald;
2) No evidence that he ever picked up the rifle at the P.O., it was sent to a name not authorized to receive mail at that box;
3) No evidence that Oswald ever fired a rifle that day;
4) No evidence that Oswald ever bought ammunition OR had ammunition for the rifle;
5) No evidence that Oswald ever PRACTICED with the rifle;
6) No evidence that ANYONE ever duplicated this shooting with THAT rifle or that it could have done the deed with no chance to properly sight it in after re-assembly on the 22d;
7) No evidence that Oswald had ANY motive to do this;
8) No credible explanation of the Oswald "doubles" seen when it could not have been him. These "doubles" were ALWAYS acting in ways that would incriminate him or imply him capable of doing the deed;
9) No credible explanation as to why JFK's brains/skull were not blown all over the inside of the car from a shot from the back;
10) No explanation as to why the autopsy's were not conducted by competent forensic pathologists rather than paper pushing bureaucrats or how the "autopsy photos" showed the face unaffected by a shot from the rear.
11) No explanation as to why Hoover routinely suppressed information from his own informants about the plans for the assassination. Information which informations heard DIRECTLY from the lips of two of the most powerful Mafia dons. He was charged to deliver information on such threats to the Secret Service but relegated them to his "personal files."

That is just for starters. These are reasonable questions which would have to be answered in a fair trial though not in a smear job or kangeroo court. You want to take a crack at them or do you just prefer to attack the questioners?

From the looks of it, you're batting 1000 in the 'conspiracy promulgation' department. You're also proving out to be 'certifiable' ("certifiably insane" in my book). I'm surprised you can function in normal society, actually work a computer and heck, even tie your shoes given the GROSS abuse of factual evidence available to every free man who wants to access it.

From:

The Unofficial JFK Assassination FAQ #19
Copyright (c) 1997 by John Locke

- - - - - - -

8. COMMON CONSPIRACY BOOK DECEPTIONS

The circumstances surrounding the JFK assassination have always
seemed suspicious--a former defector to the Soviet Union is charged
with the crime before he, himself, is quickly murdered. However suspi-
cious a crime seems, though, however many rumors are swirling about,
a sober accounting of the event can only follow a thorough understand-
ing of the evidence. Unfortunately, this caution has rarely been ob-
served by the public in regards to the assassination. Before virtually
anything was known about the assassination, many people became con-
vinced that a conspiracy of some sort was behind it. Thus, disappoint-
ment greeted the WC's conclusion--ten months following the
assassination--that LHO, acting alone, was guilty.

Before the WR was released, authors were already exploiting the cli-
mate of suspicion with books arguing that a conspiracy had existed.
Whatever effect the report had on dampening those suspicions was
soon overwhelmed by a new wave of books denouncing the report. The
myth of conspiracy became firmly planted in the public mind. Over
three decades later, and after the publication of hundreds of conspiracy
books, a number of them bestsellers, the JFK assassination remains a
topic of intense curiosity.

The only catch is that the central conclusion of the WC--that LHO
alone committed the crime--remains unchallenged by responsible,
competent scholarship. The countless conspiracy books which strenu-
ously argue to the contrary constitute one of the largest bodies of fraud-
ulent work ever created. That is not to say that they don't make for
compelling reading. They often do. They have much more to offer in
the way of intrigue and excitement than the mundane conclusion that a
loser stuck a gun out the window and shot the president.

Since the WC had irrefutable physical evidence on its side, and since
their theory is the only conceivable one that fits that evidence, the ap-
proach of the conspiracy authors has been to pretend the WC perpetrat-
ed a lie of monstrous proportions. They have attacked the WC on
virtually every front to promote wholesale disbelief that a single indi-
vidual could have committed the crime. They present no clear affirma-
tive proof of conspiracy, relying instead on an inverse conclusion: if
one individual could not have done it, then more than one must have.
They leave the who, what, when, where, and why to the reader's willing
imagination and exhort others--the government--to get the complete
"truth" out.

Rather than rebutting specific charges, which is done elsewhere
throughout the FAQ, this section lists a number of the dizzying array of
deceptive techniques used in conspiracy books. These techniques are
unacceptable because they violate the fundamental methodologies of
responsible research which all competent scholars and journalists fol-
low. That approach, in short, requires examining all relevant evidence,
weighing it carefully, forming conclusions where possible, and only
then speculating on what can't be determined from the facts. The reader
is not discouraged from examining conspiracy books for whatever in-
terest they may yield, but is instead encouraged to be aware of the tech-
niques used and to hold all authors to the highest standards of research
before putting any faith in their work.

MORE: Do a search on John Locke, JFK and FAQ