Customer Discussions > History forum

Ten Common Untruths Repeated by Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy Cultists and the Truth Behind Them


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-14 of 14 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Nov 18, 2012 9:47:21 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 19, 2012 12:47:58 AM PST
Since 1963 the conspiracy cult of believers have refused to let disproven falsehoods die easily. Rarely do the cultists allow the truth and facts get in the way of a good allegation. And even though ALL of the following claims have been thoroughly and completely disproven with opposing evidence they continue to pop up in conspiracy literature, nearly fifty years after Kennedy's death.

1. Claim: There were two rifles found in the TSBD, one, the REAL murder weapon (a Mauser) and the other, a planted weapon meant to frame the innocent Oswald (a Mannlicher-Carcano traceable to Oswald.)

Truth: No there wasn't. When Oswald's rifle was found hidden between stacks of boxes nearly an hour after the assassination, the two officers to first see it misidentified it as a Mauser. But neither of these two officers (Boone and Weitzman) ever picked up the weapon, handled it, or examined it in any way. And even though their initial impressions were that it was a Mauser BOTH later conceded that they had spoken too soon and upon further examination agreed that the weapon was in fact a Mannlicher-Carcano. Of course it would make NO sense to leave behind a Mauser since ALL bullets matched Oswald's M-C rifle and NO fragments have ever been found that matched a Mauser.

2. Claim: Oswald was arrested for no good reason and had clearly been identified by the Dallas Police Department ahead of time as the scapegoat.

Truth: Again...this allegation is illogical and totally without any factual basis. Let's say for a moment that the DPD did frame Oswald and were going to arrest him all along. Why would they let their "scapegoat" leave the Texas School Book Depository to wander the streets of Dallas, risking his escape and departure from the country? Of course common sense dictates that IF Oswald were being set up to be immediately arrested afterwards they would have never let him out of the building but would have had an officer stationed at each exit to nab him as he fled. But of course if Oswald WERE innocent.....why would he have fled the building within three minutes of the assassination anyway?
The reasons for Oswald's arrest at the Texas Theater was related to his murder of Officer Tippit a few minutes previous--NOT for the his role in the assassination of President Kennedy (which had not yet been established at that early hour). While most officers on the scene could easily connect the dots proving that the SAME person that killed the president would have been the person to murder a police officer routinely stopping to question him on a residential street, the fact remains that Oswald was approached in the theater because of the fact that Johnny Brewer said he appeared suspicious and had entered the theater without buying a ticket. It was only later that the assassinaiton weapon would be matched to Oswald.

3. Claim: There is no hard evidence linking the murder weapon to Lee Harvey Oswald.

Truth: False. The rifle recovered on the sixth floor of the TSBD contained Oswald fingerprints on the trigger guard and his palm print on the barrel. In addition, Klein's Sporting Goods store in Chicago had on file the order forms sent the previous February for the purchase of the Mannlicher-Carcano later found with Oswald's finger and palm prints on it. The handwriting AND the cursive penmanship on the order form was matched by FBI handwriting analysists to Lee Harvey Oswald. Additionally, the rifle was mailed to a post office box opened and maintained by Lee Harvey Oswald...no one else. Plus Marina testified that she had seen the rifle in Oswald possession numerous times between March of 1963 and the time of the assassination. And she knew exactly where it had been kept in Ruth Paine's garage in Irving. However when she led police there and they picked up the blanket the rifle had been kept in it fell limp across their arms. The rifle was gone.

4. Claim: Oswald wouldn't have had enough time to fire three accurate shots and therefore he couldn't be the lone assassin.

Facts: Two falsehoods are combined in this claim. First, that Oswald wouldn't have the time to fire three shots. In the first place most conspiracy cultists don't have any idea what the time frame is for Oswald to get off three shots--they have simply heard from others that there wasn't enough time and that is sufficient research for them. But the facts, as usual, contradict the conspiracy cultists' claim. Based on the testimony of Governor Connally, Ladybird Johnson. Rosemary Willis, and Virgie Rachley as well as the visual evidence in the Zapruder film it appears that the first shot (the missed shot) was fired near Z160. Governor Connally stated that he HEARD the first shot when he was looking to his left, towards the south side of Elm street. He then said he recognized it as a rifle shot originating from his right. He said upon hearing the FIRST shot he turned his head immediately to his right in an attempt to ascertain the source of the sound. A careful viewing of the Zapruder film reveals Connally looking to his left (just as his testimony stated) then in over the space of six frames beginning with Z160 Connally's head makes a dramatic shift to his right--very fast--about a quarter of a second, until he was looking to his right. Based on Kennedy and Connally's demeanor it is clear neither Kennedy nor Connally were struck by this bullet. Then as the limousine re-emerged from behind the Stemmens Freeway sign Kennedy and Connally both show signs of reacting to the SECOND shot fired. And of course Kennedy shows clear evidence of the third and final shot at Z313. Since FBI testing determined that Zapruder's camera operated at 18.3 fps and the first shot was fired at Z160 and the final shot fired at Z312 (Kennedy struck a frame later) that leaves a total of 152 elapsed frames between the first and last shot. Dividing 152 by the number of frames to pass by Zapruder's camera's iris in a second (18.3) that leaves Oswald with a total time of 8.3 seconds to fire three shots.

Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano required approximately 2.3 seconds to work the bolt mechanism (although some tests proved the bolt could be operated in as little as 1.6 seconds). And since the bolt only has to be operated TWO times to fire three shots (remember the first shot doesn't count because a bullet was already in the chamber at the time the shooting began) therefore only a MAXIMUM of 4.6 seconds was required to work the bolt twice--leaving Oswald nearly four full seconds to aim twice. Remember the aiming time for the FIRST shot doesn't count since Oswald could sit all day preparing for the FIRST shot. Knowing Oswald was a trained Marine sharpshooter (second-highest level of marksmanship in the Marines) it leaves little doubt to honest researchers regarding the amount of time Oswald had to get off three shots.

Now for the second point in this claim. Cultists always make the allegation that Oswald got off three GOOD shots. This is blatantly false--he only got off ONE good shot. The evidence proves that the first shot missed entirely; the second shot missed Oswald's intended target (Kennedy's head) and only the third shot hit its mark. So out of three shots, one hit means Oswald fired at a 33% success rate. Hardly commendable shooting.

5. Claim: The medical evidence proves that Kennedy was struck from the front by at least one bullet. There is no doubt about this.

Fact: Actually there is a LOT of doubt about this claim--since it is demonstrably false. It is true that some (not all) of the Parkland Hospital doctors and nurses thought they saw evidence of a back-of-head exit wound to Kennedy, but the evidence just doesn't support such a belief.
A. Kennedy's body was NEVER turned over while being worked on at Parkland Hospital in Dallas. Therefore at first blush it sounds incredible that doctors would make the claim that they SAW a wound to the back of the head when no one ever turned over the president's body and actually LOOKED at the back of the head.
B. ALL doctors to make allegations of a back of head wound were looking at Kennedy's head in its original condition--meaning with smeared brain, blood, and bone material enmeshed into his thick locks of hair. Since Jackie had been holding Kennedy's head, and since Kennedy had been lying on his back, and since the skull gradually fell apart more and more as the head was jostled around and the body was worked on, it stands to reason that some of the doctors would falsely assume that what they saw was actually an open wound to the back of the head. Of course when the head was washed and the wound was fully exposed, free of brain matter, blood, and loose bone it was immediately clear that the wound matched that which was seen clearly in the Zapruder film and matching the testimony of several eyewitnesses who said they saw the president's head open up on the right side above his ear. The autopsy answered the questions concerning the location of the head wound. This is the exact REASON WHY we have autopsies--because doctors working in emergency rooms are not trained nor expected to ascertain specific details of wounds.
C. The autopsy photographs and X-rays supported the conclusions of the autopsy surgeons--namely that Kennedy was struck two and ONLY two times, both times from above and behind from the right rear. Additioinally, the Warren Commission's medical team agreed when they too examined the original autopsy materials (not including autopsy photographs which they never saw). Additionally, the Clark Commission in 1968 examined the autopsy materials and they too agreed with the original autopsy surgeons findings. Additionally the Rockefeller Commission in 1975 examined the autopsy materials and agreed as well. Additionally, the HSCA assembled the most highly-trained group of forensic pathologists EVER assembled, including noted conspiracy cultist, Dr. Cyril Wecht, and every menber (even Wecht) concurred that the medical evidence proved beyond any and ALL doubt that Kennedy was NOT struck from the right front but only from the right rear (Oswald's location).
D. The Zapruder film bears this fact out and reveals Kennedy's head wound perhaps more clearly than any eyewitness testimony could ever detail. The exit wound to Kennedy's head was to the right front, above his right ear and extending forward. Claims that some sort of Zapruder film alteration have not weathered expert examination of the film very well. As of today's date there is not ONE, NOT ONE, recognized photographic expert that has found ANY evidence of photographic alteration in ANY of the Zapruder film's 400+ frames. The same can be said of the autopsy photographs and X-rays. The only individuals to claim such alterations took place are totally and without question lacking ANY formal training or expertise to make the very claims they so loudly allege.
E. Zapruder himself testified that what he saw take place with his own eyes matched perfectly with what his film reveals. His secretary Marilyn Sitzman agrees 100% and concures with Zapruder's testimony of a right frontal exit wound.

Due to the length of such a detailed post I will resume with points six thru eight in a follow-up post.

Posted on Nov 18, 2012 9:50:45 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 19, 2012 1:02:59 AM PST
Ten Common Untruths Repeated by Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy Cultists and the Truth Behind Them
Part II

6. Claim: Oswald couldn't have been the gunman because he appears in a photograph standing in the doorway of the TSBD at the time of the shooting. After the assassination, the conspiracy responsible for the president's murder purloined this photograph (taken by AP photographer James Altgens) and altered it to conceal Oswald's face and supplant it with that of TSBD co-worker Billy Lovelady.

Fact: This claim has been bobbing to the surface in the conspiracy swamp for nearly fifty years, but even a superficial knowledge of the facts expose this for the nonsense it is. One of the most famous photographs taken of the motorcade (and arguably the clearest) was snapped by AP photographer James "Ike" Algtens standing west of the TSBD on the south side of Elm street. Shortly after the second shot Altgens snapped a photograph which clearly revealed both the president and Governor Connally reacting to the shot that passed through both men. In the background leaning out of the doorway is a man that some originally claimed was Lee Harvey Oswald. The conspiracy cultists jumped in the air and clicked their heels upon seeing this photographic "proof" of Oswald's whereabouts at the time of the shooting. However there were some problems with this claim:
A. Oswald himself, the one that would have KNOWN where he was at this time, never, ever, ever said he was watching the motorcade from the doorway at the time of the assassination. This fact alone with no additional information or further contradictory evidence is sufficient to disprove the "Oswald was in the doorway" claim. But conspiracy cultists seldom let the truth or common sense stand in the way of a good theory.
B. Oswald in fact DID say where he was at the time of the shooting when he said he was in the first floor breakroom eating his lunch (which he told Wesley Frazier he never brought to work that day.) Of course careful Kennedy assassination researchers also know that Oswald slipped up during questioning and told Postal Inspector Harry Holmes that immediately after the assassination he came DOWNSTAIRS to see what happened. This of course contradicts his earlier statement that he came UPSTAIRS to buy a Coke following the assassination. But neither of these lies help Oswald regarding the allegations that he was in the doorway at the time of the shooting.
C. Desperate to salvage a dead theory, recent cultists such as philosopher Jimmy Fetzer and chiropractor Ralph Cinque have taken conspiracy lunacy to a new level with their claims that the Altgens photograph was somehow stolen from Altgens, altered right there in Dealey Plaza in a portable photographic lab (according to Jimmy Fetzser) and then returned to Altgens camera (which has been in Altgens possession all this time) without his knowledge--all within a twenty minute window of opportunity (since we know the Altgens photograph was wired across the globe at 1:03--only thirty minutes after the assassination.) Of course no self-respecting scholar can muster the energy or interest to respond to such mindless and fanciful claims. Therefore I leave that theory for the cultists to enjoy.
7. Claim: Several witnesses reported seeing a gunman or gunmen firing at the motorcade from behind the stockade fence atop the grassy knoll. And to further support these sightings several films reveal Dealey Plaza witnesses racing up the grassy knoll in pursuit of the gunman (men) they saw firing from that location.

Fact: Again there are multiple untruths imbedded in one statement. First.
A. On 11/22/63 both the Dallas Police Department and the FBI took statements from hundreds of witnesses to the assassination. While some DID claim they HEARD shots originating from the right-front of the motorcade, NOT ONE single eyewitness said they SAW anyone firing from the right front. NOT ONE. Even though dozens and dozens of people saw the shooting and several were facing the grassy knoll and the stockade fence, not one of them said in their initial statements (when the facts would have been the most accurate and most clear) that they ever saw any such gunman firing. Additionally, not one eyewitness said on 11/22/63 that they saw a rifle anywhere other than the SE corner window of the TSBD (the location where Oswald's prints were found on boxes, a paper bag, and three spent cartridges were recovered that matched Oswald's fingerprint-covered rifle, also found on the sixth floor.)
B. Days, months, and even years later several alleged "witnesses" did come forth with varying accounts of gunmen firing from the grassy knoll or from behind the stockade fence (although they couldn't agree and the details of their varying accounts were contradictory and illogical in many instances.) Jean Hill, the "Lady in Red" stood on the south side of Elm at the time of the assassination. On 11/22/63 she told a Dallas television station that she HEARD shots but did NOT see any rifle NOR did she see any gunman. But as time passed and as Hill began to read of the many allegations of a grassy knoll gunman her story began to change. Somehow the law of entropy was suspended and Hill's memory actually got BETTER over time. By 1964 when she testified before the Warren Commission she now claimed she saw a gunman firing from behind the stockade fence on the grassy knoll. By the time of the Clay Shaw trial in 1969 she now added a puff of smoke (to match S.M. Holland's claim), then by 1978 she added a flash of light. Everytime a new conspiracy book was published Hill's version of events changed to incorporate any new details she heard about. Soon she claimed she also saw Jack Ruby on the grassy knoll. Of course such silliness does not warrant a serious rebuttal of any kind.
Another professional "witness" was Ed Hoffman. Hoffman was a deaf mute who didn't come forth with his fanciful account until 1966 when he decided to go to a local FBI office in Dallas and tell the authorities, for the first time, that he was standing on the Stemmens Freeway, some 600 yards (nine basketball court lengths--SIX football fields) from the back of the stockade fence at the time of the assassination. Exactly HOW Hoffman would have known it was during the motorcade is unclear since Elm Street (and hence the motorcade) was not even visible to Hoffman from his vantage point. His inability to see Kennedy notwithstanding, Hoffman claimed he saw two men firing at the motorcade from behind the stockade fence. One was dressed in a suit and another in a pair of railroad worker's coveralls. After the shooting (which of course Hoffman wouldn't have heard since he was deaf) the two men disassembled the rifle, placed it in a long black container, and fled behind the TSBD. Of course this tale is ridiculous even on the surface since Hoffman would have never had any reason to pay attention to two men standing 600 (nearly a third of a mile) away. And not knowing that the president's motorcade was even IN Dealey Plaza at the time it is miraculous that Hoffman would have put two and two together to figure out that these men were firing a rifle at the president's morotcade. Lee Bowers, a railroad signal booth employee was looking DIRECTLY at the location Hoffman claimed to have seen two men firing from and he said he never saw anything. To think that Lee Bowers, who was less than two hundred feet from the back of the stockade fence NEVER saw anything suspicious, yet a deaf-mute standing 900 feet WAS able to see an assassination gunman firing stretches the gullibility of even the most die-hard conspiracy cultist. It is no wonder why serious scholars reject Hoffman's story out of hand.
Beverly Oliver is yet another of the conspiracy cult's brightest stars. Silent until 1969 (apparently she never felt it was important to tell anyone that she saw the real assassin of Kennedy until six years after the fact) Oliver stepped cautiously onto history's stage in 1969 with an equally-amazing tale. She claimed that she saw a gunman (not two as Hoffman claimed) firing from the grassy knoll (NOT behind the stockade fence as Hoffman and Hill claimed) at the president. She claimed she was the infamous "Babushka Lady" filming the assassination from the south side of Elm Street. Oliver, who at the time was a 19 year-old stripper at a local club in Dallas, has no explanation why the Babushka lady in photographs and films appears to be middle-aged, matronly, and rather heavyset. Later Oliver changed her story and denied that she was the Babushka Lady. Possibly sensing that she was losing out on speaking opportunities she changed her mind again, around 1978, and stated that now she remembered that she WAS the Babushka Lady. Such testimonial gymnastics do not warrant factual rebuttal. Beverly Oliver's worst enemy is Beverly Oliver. She doesn't need me to impugn her credibility.
Lastly, Gordon Arnold. Arnold also is one of the great professional "witnesses" who, much like Beverly Oliver, chose to keep silent about his observations on 11/22/63. Arnold doesn't go public with his account until he spoke with Earl Golz, a Dallas reporter during the 1978 HSCA reinvestigation of the Kennedy assassination. Arnold's story is perhaps the most humorous. Arnold said he was on leave from the military while stationed in Alaska. According to his account he was located on the triple underpass awaiting the motorcdade when a secret service agent told him he had leave the area (later Arnold learned there WERE no secret service agents in Dealey Plazxa prior to the arrival of the motorcade so he promptly changed that part of his story to be an FBI agent that spoke to him.) Arnold then said he relocated to the grassy knoll where he awaited the president holding his camera. As the motorcade passed he heard a shot whiz past his ear and knew immediately it came from behind him (from behind the stockade fence--the same location Ed Hoffman had claimed he saw one man in a suit and one in a railroad worker's outfit firing.) After the shooting Arnold said he lay on the grass on the knoll when a police officer suddenly appeared in front of him with a shotgun pointed at him demanding he turn over the camera (which apparently would reveal evidence of the conspiracy--even though Arnold would have had his back to the shooter(s) at the time.) Arnold did not want to anger the shotgun toting officer so he complied and handed over the camera and film. Arnold said it was his impression that the officer had leaped from over the stockade fence when he saw Arnold shooting pictures of the motorcade. Arnold's account is of course at odds with that of Ed Hoffman who stated that he saw TWO men and neither of whom was dressed as a police officer and neither of whom jumjped the fence with a loaded shotgun in hand. Neither Jean Hill nor Beverly Oliver (or anyone else for that matter) supports Arnold's wild account. Arnold's credibility is further damaged by the fact that he does not appear in one single photograph, among the dozens and dozens of pictures taken before, during, and after the assassination. Additionally, one would think that at least one or more eyewitness would have reported seeing a witness cowering on the grass in the face of a shotgun wielding police officer, but strangely not one eyewitness corroborates Arnold's amazing tale. When asked why Arnold didn't come forth with his tale until 1978 he told Golz that he had heard of many witnesses dying under mysterious circumstances and he didn't want to be one of them. But this response makes no sense, since allegations of disappearing witnesses was NEVER talked about until Dallas writer Penn Jones made that allegation in his book "Forgive My Grief" which wasn't published until several years AFTER the assassination. Therefore on 11/22/63 or the days following Arnold COULDN'T have heard about mysterious deaths of witnesses since none were talked about for several years. As of November 19, 2012 there is no evidence Gordon Arnold was even in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination. None.

Now for the second part of this falsehood.

Conspiracy cultists love to show film footage of witnesses racing up the grassy slope towards the stockade fence followed by the allegation that these witnesses were "chasing the gunman" as they fled. But the evidence simply doesn't support such a claim. Motorcycle patrolman Harkness was among the very first to race up the grassy knoll. And why did he do it? He stated that after the shooting he quickly scanned Dealey Plaza and learned in a heartbeat that the ONLY possible site that an assassin could conceal themselves would be behind the stockade fence on the grassy knoll. The railroad underpass was filled with people. There was nowhere on the south side of Elm from which to fire, and therefore by a process of elimination, the north side of Elm was the only possible spot to hide a gunman. He than raced up there hoping to see a fleeing gunman. Other interested individuals, seeing the OFFICER (not any assassin or co-conspirator) running up there followed to see what he saw. Of course he saw NOTHING. There was nothing to see, but the film footage gives the impression that Harkness was in hot pursuit of a gunman. Among those that raced up the slope NOT ONE ever said they went there in pursuit of any assassin--that conclusion was formed in the fertile and fanciful minds of conspiracy cultists. Not in the real world of facts, evidence, and common sense.

(a third installment of this post is required)

Posted on Nov 18, 2012 11:16:53 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 19, 2012 1:10:06 AM PST
8. Claim: Oswald was an innocent man, manipulated, set-up, and subsequently framed for the assassination which was really carried out by ________________ (fill in the blank depending which cultist theory you believe). Following the assassination, to preserve the secrecy, Oswald had to be killed thus Ruby was hired to "hit" Oswald and keep him from talking.

Fact: This claim is one of the articles of faith of the conspiracy cult but it is arguably the least logical and the most easily disproven using common sense. If Oswald had been set up (and remember there is not one speck of evidence he was...NONE) and if he had been manipulated (again, no such evidence of manipulation exists at all) and he was totally innocent, then why would Oswald have to be silenced? If he knew nothing, then what are the conspirators afraid he would talk about? My grandmother was alive at the time of the assassination (as was I and my parents and siblings). Why didn't Jack Ruby kill them also? If Oswald was innocent and didn't know anything of the assassination and yet deserved to be killed, when they wasn't my grandmother, who was also innocent and didn't know anything of the assassination also killed by a hired "hitman"? Of course the hired-killer claim is silly and totally devoid of logic or supporting evidence.

9. Claim: The evidence doesn't support the Single Bullet Theory. Therefore there must have been a frontal gunman AND a rear gunman firing to account for all the wounds to Kennedy and Connally.

Fact: Wrong. To claim there were both frontal and rear gunmen requires a belief in magical bullets that inflict their damage and then simply vanish into thin air never to be seen again. Let me explain:
A. EVERYONE, even the nuttiest of the nutty cultist, agrees that Kennedy was struck from above and behind causing his upper back wound. I know of NO conspiracy nuts that claim that this was an exit wound.

Therefore...

If Kennedy were shot from above and behind and that bullet did NOT transverse Kennedy's body and go on to strike either Connally (who was seated DIRECTLY in front of Kennedy) or at least the vehicle, then what happened to THAT bullet? No intact bullet(s) were found in the limousine and none were recovered from Dealey Plaza or the president's body...so where is it? Disappeared into thin air?

And...

If Kennedy was struck in the throat from a frontal shot (as virtually ALL conspiracy cultists believe,) but Kennedy's back wound was NOT one of exit, then what happened to THAT bullet as well? We already know with 100% certainty that NO bullets were still in Kennedy's body (none were removed at Parkland and none showed up in a full body X-ray conducted at Bethesda) so what happened to THAT bullet. That's TWO disappearing bullets.

And...

If the same bullet that struck Kennedy from behind did NOT go on to strike Connally and if Connally was seated directly in front of Kennedy, there where on earth could an assassin be located so that he/she could fire a bullet that WOULD strike Connally behind the right armpit yet NOT strike Kennedy first? Predictably, the conspiracy cult is noticably silent on this inconvenient point of explanation.

And to think that the cultists call CE 399 a "magic bullet"? The cultists have bullets that enter and then vanish into thin air...bullets that zig and zag around President Kennedy only to strike Connally right in line with Kennedy's body.

All told the only explanation that agrees with the physical evidence in this case IS the single bullet explanation.

10. Claim: Oswald's alleged murder of Tippit is all circumstantial evidence and there is really no hard evidence placing Oswald at the Tippet murder site or linking with Tippit's murder.

Fact: False. The evidence against Oswald in Tippit's murder FAR exceeds the evidence against Oswald in the Kennedy assassination.
A. As Hank Sienzant as pointed out elsewhere, Oswald was seen wearing a tan jacket when he left his boarding house shortly after 1:00. Later when arrested, that jacket was NOT on Oswald's person, but it WAS found directly between the Tippit murder site and the Texas Theater where Oswald was arrested. How did it get there?
B. Twelve eyewitnesses either saw Oswald shooting Tippit or fleeing the Tippit murder scene and several of these eyewitnesses picked Oswald out of a police lineup later that night. ALL witnesses to the Tippit shootinig that gave a clothing description mentioned the tan jacket, but those that saw Oswald's flight down Jefferson Blvd. en route to the Texas Theater did NOT see him wearing a jacket.
C. The cartridges recovered from the lawn of Barbera and Virginia Davis' home matched the revolver Oswald had on his person when arrested at the Texas Theater less than twenty minutes following the Tippit shooting. This fact, all alone with no other evidence, establishes Oswald's guilt in the Tippit slaying.
D. When arrested, Oswald attempted to also shoot and kill Officer Nick McDonald inside the Texas Theater. Oswald's resistance during routine questioning screams guilt on Oswald's part. And keep in mind that when asked to "stand up" Oswald reportedly said, "Well it's all over now." Assuming Oswald was innocent, how does one logically explain this comment on Oswald's part?

As this lengthy list and discussion proves, the conspiracy cult's claims do not hold up well when exposed to the light of actual evidence. In ALL instances cultist allegations fall woefully short of evidentiary support and logical analysis. There is not a single cultist claim in the Kennedy assassination that does not have a logical, evidence-based rebuttal. None. By definition there cannot be one. Since we already KNOW based on the evidence that Oswald murdered Kennedy alone, therefore it stands to reason that ALL evidence must point to Oswald's guilt when examined in light of all other evidence. If conspiracy cultists claim otherwise they are either misinterpreting evidence or making up factoids to support their claims.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 19, 2012 6:14:02 AM PST
Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy

Book Description
Release Date: May 15, 2007
For over forty years the truth about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy has been obscured. This book releases us from a crippling distortion of American history.

This extraordinary and historic book required twenty years to research and write. The oft-challenged findings of the Warren Commission-Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, shot and killed President John F. Kennedy-are here confirmed beyond all doubt. But Reclaiming History does much more than that. In addition to providing a powerful and unprecedented narrative of events and a biography of the assassin, it confronts and destroys every one of the conspiracy theories that have grown up since the assassination, exposing their selective use of evidence, flawed logic, and outright deceptions. So thoroughly documented, so compellingly lucid in its conclusions, Reclaiming History is, in a sense, the investigation that completes the work of the Warren Commission. In it, Vincent Bugliosi, the nation's foremost prosecutor, takes on the most important murder in American history.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 19, 2012 8:47:46 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 19, 2012 9:37:34 PM PST
Nice try, but there is not one recognized photographic expert in the country that agrees with this tire and lonhg-since disproven claim. In fact the OPPOSITE is true. While there are many that CLAIM the backyard photographs were faked not one of them has any recognized training in photographic analysis. YOU certainly can't produce the name(s) of any recognized and credentialed experts that have found evidence of fakery. If you DID have such names you would have produced them.

Here are the names and credentials of REAL experts that examined the backyard photograph ORIGINALS in 1978 and reached the unanimous conclusion that there was NO EVIDENCE of any kind that supported the silly claims that the backyard photographs had been faked.

Dr. Harry C. Andrews, Ph. D., Image Processing Institute, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California

Richard J. Blackwell, B.S., M.S., Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California

Thomas N. Canning, B.S., M.S., National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Moffett Field, California

Robert Chiralo, B.S., M.S., the Aerospace Corporation, Los Angeles, California

David B. Eisendrath, B.A. consultant in technical and scientific photography, Brooklyn, New York

Dr. Ronald Francis, Ph. D., School of Photographic Sciences, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, New York

Dr. William K. Hartmann, B.S., M.S., Ph. D., senior scientist, Planetary Science Institute, Tucson, Arizona

Dr. Bob R. Hunt, B.S., M.S. Ph. D., professor, systems and industrial engineering and optical sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona

Dr. Donald H. Janney, Ph. D., Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, University of California, Los Angeles

Dr. Ellis Kerley B.S., M.S., Ph. D., chairman, Department of Anthropology, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland

Sgt. Cecil W. Kirk, Mobile Crime Lab, District of Columbia, Metropolitan Police Department

Charles J. Leontis, B.S., M.S., the Aerospace Corporation, Los Angeles, California

C.S. McCamy, B.C.E., M.S., vice president science and technology, Macbeth Corporation, Kollmorgan Corporation, Newburgh, New York

Dr. Gerald M. McDonnel, M.D., department of radiology, The Hospital of the Good Samaritan, Los Angeles, California

Everett Merritt, retired scientist in analytical photogrammetry, geodesy, and astrophysics, Ridge, Maryland

Dr. Paul Roetling, B.A., Ph. D., principal scientist, image processing area, Xerox Corporation, Rochester, New York

Frank Scott, B.S., M.S., the Perkin-Elmer Corporation West Redding, Connecticut

Robert H. Selzer, B.S. M.S., M.A., Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Los Angeles, California

Bennett Sherman, B.S., M.S., consultant on optics and allied sciences, Elmhurst, New Jersey

Dr. Philip N. Slater, M.S., Ph. D., professor optical science, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona

Dr. Clyde C. Snow, B.S., M.S., Ph. D., Chief Physical Anthropology Division, Civil Aeronautical Institute, Federal Aviation Administration, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Dr. George W. Stroke, B.S. Ph. D., former professor of medical biophysics and electrical sciences at Harvard University and State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York

So...among the photographic panel the HSCA assembled we have eleven Ph. D. holders, numerous college professors, NASA scientists, scientists from the Jet Propulsion Labratory, photographic experts from Xerox, biophysicians, experts in optical science, radiologists trained to examine x-rays, and crime lab experts. Twenty-two highly trained, recognized, certified, credentialed, and decorated scholars all concluded after carefully subjecting the backyard photographs, the autopsy photographs, the autopsy x-rays, and the Zapruder film to every known method of ascertaining forgery that NOT ONE of these photographic records showed ANY sign of tampering, alteration, or forgery.

Now...andthehorseirodeinontoo...who are YOUR experts?

Additionally, how do you account for the fact that in 1964 Marina Oswald testified that she took the backyard photographs with Oswald's Imperial Reflex Camera and as late as 2000 she STILL tells the same true story that SHE took the backyard photographs. Even today, when she is convinced that her husband was framed she has NEVER changed her story but still maintains that she took the backyard photographs.

Any ideas why should would make such a statement if it werenb't true?

I'll be curious to read your list of photographic experts and also your explanation for Marina's stoic stance that SHE took the backyard photographs.

I'll be right here when you post your information, horse.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 20, 2012 2:30:09 PM PST
Debunker says:
horse...try to get some "proof" that hasn't been proven false numerous times in the past.

Thanks.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 20, 2012 3:15:54 PM PST
logical fallacy

appeal to authority

the fact is that you cannot KNOW that the picture was real
so cannot use it to prove anything

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 20, 2012 3:17:05 PM PST
you cannot prove that evidence false

nor can you prove it true

it is evidence
believe it or dont

but do not ASSume it proves anything

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 20, 2012 4:44:21 PM PST
So let me get this straight, if your mother shows symptoms of cancer and fifteen noted oncologists agreed that she had early stages of cancer, YOU would feel no need to trust their opinion since it would fall under the logical fallacy of appealing to authority? And your response to the assembled team of cancer specialists' analysis of the evidence inside your mother's body would be to say to them:

"you cannot prove that evidence false
nor can you prove it true
it is evidence
believe it or dont
but do not ASSume it proves anything "

Clearly you and I live in two different worlds of reality.

If you ever find anything concrete to discuss concerning Oswald's murder of President Kennedy I will be right here. Until then I don't have the time or the interest to debate with a first semester Logic 101 student spending his time gymnastically wrestling with the known evidence. Waste someone else's time. I'm too busy and I find you boring.

Posted on Nov 20, 2012 4:52:24 PM PST
Omnimus says:
Read Final Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 20, 2012 6:36:15 PM PST
Debunker says:
Horse is a stranger to reality.

Posted on Nov 20, 2012 10:08:07 PM PST
G. Burke says:
Bravo S.V. Anderson. Boo-yah!

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 11, 2012 7:39:35 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 11, 2012 7:41:45 PM PST
andthehorseirodeinontoo? says: "logical fallacy -- appeal to authority"

No. You simply don't understand what that means. You're just throwing nonsense against the wall and hoping it will stick.

http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html
-- quote --
Appeal to Improper Authority (Argumentum Ad Verecundium, literally "argument from that which is improper"): An appeal to an improper authority, such as a famous person or a source that may not be reliable. This fallacy attempts to capitalize upon feelings of respect or familiarity with a famous individual. It is not fallacious to refer to an admitted authority if the individual's expertise is within a strict field of knowledge. On the other hand, to cite Einstein to settle an argument about education or economics is fallacious. To cite Darwin, an authority on biology, on religious matters is fallacious. To cite Cardinal Spellman on legal problems is fallacious...
-- unquote --

Please note where it says "It is not fallacious to refer to an admitted authority if the individual's expertise is within a strict field of knowledge."

In other words, citing an physicist on physics issues is not an improper appeal to authority.
Citing a dentist on what causes cavities is not an improper appeal to authority. Citing oncologists on cancer isn't an improper appeal to authority. And citing actual experts in photographic analysis is not an improper appeal to authority, either.

You want another citation? Try this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
-- quote --
Fallacious appeal to authority -- Fallacious arguments from authority often are the result of failing to meet at least one of the required two conditions (legitimate expertise and expert consensus) structurally required in the forms of a statistical syllogism. First, when the inference fails to meet the first condition (inexpert authority), it is an appeal to inappropriate authority, which occurs when an inference relies upon a person or a group without relevant expertise or knowledge of the subject matter under discussion.
-- unquote --

Note what it says: A legitimate appeal to authority meets required two conditions (legitimate expertise and expert consensus).

That is true in the case of the backyard photographs. All legitimate photographic experts who have examined the actual negatives and the actual first-generation photos have concluded the photos are not faked. Let me repeat that in case you did not understand the import the first time: All legitimate photographic experts who have examined the actual negatives and the actual first-generation photos have concluded the photos are not faked.

All of them.

No exceptions.

None.

You can rely on anything else you wish, including the word of the accused ("That's not my head in those photos"), but really, is it beyond your ken that accused people sometimes lie in custody to make themselves look innocent? I think that you need to understand that those claiming the photos are faked actually have no background in the sciences necessary to make that claim. And that the first man to utter that claim did have incentive to lie over the legitimacy of the photos.

His wife will affirm - to this day - she took the backyard photos.

Hank
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  7
Total posts:  14
Initial post:  Nov 18, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 11, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions