Strongest Evidence Against Conspiracy???

***Ben Holmes*** · 09-28-2016, 09:28 PM

Anonymous Believer Wrote:I began seriously doubting that there had been a conspiracy when I learned that Oswald had gotten his job in the TSBD 6 weeks earlier before anyone could have possibly known there would be a motorcade going past the TSBD. I don't believe in clairvoyance so it seemed completely implausible to me that it was anything but chance circumstance that brought JFK into rifle range of Oswald's workplace. I still believe that is one of the strongest arguments against any conspiracy theory.

This is the "strongest evidence" against a conspiracy?

That the patsy took a job overlooking the murder site before the motorcade had been determined???

The silliness of such an argument can be seen when we examine the underlying assumption that has been made:

That a shooter had to have had a job overlooking the motorcade... No matter where the motorcade took place, and no matter where the shooting occurred, does it not seem reasonable to make plans to put the patsy in an appropriate place???

There was no particular need to have the patsy working in a building where the shots came from - only the need to have the patsy credibly there. This means that any building that is reasonably open to strangers walking in would work quite well.

The other implied assumption is that Oswald was the shooter. That's simply not established by the evidence, and indeed; is contradicted by some of the evidence.

It's amusing that this is the "strongest argument" that this anonymous believer can make. It looks pretty weak against the multitudes of witnesses who put the shots as coming from the Grassy Knoll, or the witnesses that heard more than three shots...

It's pretty weak evidence when compared against the provable eyewitness intimidation campaign that both the FBI and the S.S. engaged in.

It's pretty weak evidence when compared to the FACT that the autopsy was controlled by the military - and in a way to avoid any evidence being gathered that supported multiple shooters.

It's pretty weak evidence when compared to the fact that the FBI & CIA culpably hid evidence from the Warren Commission - who weren't all that much impelled to seek out the truth in any case.

I do hope someone will step up and correct this believer... and give the evidence that's stronger than this example...

Because if someone truly thinks that this is the "strongest argument" that can be made... what more needs to be said? [Image: smile.png]

Lee Abbott · 09-29-2016, 01:08 AM

It was 5 weeks prior to the motordade, not 6 (unless Patrick Collins is counting) and of ALL POSSIBLE PLACES the TSBD was exactly where the limo had to slow - almost stop - for a few seconds.

Duh!!!

Patrick C · 09-29-2016, 11:55 AM

(09-28-2016, 09:28 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:
Anonymous Believer Wrote:I began seriously doubting that there had been a conspiracy when I learned that Oswald had gotten his job in the TSBD 6 weeks earlier before anyone could have possibly known there would be a motorcade going past the TSBD. I don't believe in clairvoyance so it seemed completely implausible to me that it was anything but chance circumstance that brought JFK into rifle range of Oswald's workplace. I still believe that is one of the strongest arguments against any conspiracy theory.

This is the "strongest evidence" against a conspiracy?

That the patsy took a job overlooking the murder site before the motorcade had been determined???

The silliness of such an argument can be seen when we examine the underlying assumption that has been made:

That a shooter had to have had a job overlooking the motorcade... No matter where the motorcade took place, and no matter where the shooting occurred, does it not seem reasonable to make plans to put the patsy in an appropriate place???

There was no particular need to have the patsy working in a building where the shots came from - only the need to have the patsy credibly there. This means that any building that is reasonably open to strangers walking in would work quite well.

The other implied assumption is that Oswald was the shooter. That's simply not established by the evidence, and indeed; is contradicted by some of the evidence.

It's amusing that this is the "strongest argument" that this anonymous believer can make. It looks pretty weak against the multitudes of witnesses who put the shots as coming from the Grassy Knoll, or the witnesses that heard more than three shots...

It's pretty weak evidence when compared against the provable eyewitness intimidation campaign that both the FBI and the S.S. engaged in.

It's pretty weak evidence when compared to the FACT that the autopsy was controlled by the military - and in a way to avoid any evidence being gathered that supported multiple shooters.

It's pretty weak evidence when compared to the fact that the FBI & CIA culpably hid evidence from the Warren Commission - who weren't all that much impelled to seek out the truth in any case.

I do hope someone will step up and correct this believer... and give the evidence that's stronger than this example...

Because if someone truly thinks that this is the "strongest argument" that can be made... what more needs to be said?

"It's amusing that this is the "strongest argument" that this anonymous believer can make. It looks pretty weak against the multitudes of witnesses who put the shots as coming from the Grassy Knoll, or the witnesses that heard more than three shots..."

That is absolute BS. There was no multitude. Those people who stated shots came from the Knoll said they thought ALL the shots came from there and not from two locations. Therefore they simply got the source wrong because we know two shots came from the rear.

The actual numbe of people who thought there were two sources - was in the ball park of 10 - if that.

(09-29-2016, 11:55 AM)Patrick C Wrote:
(09-28-2016, 09:28 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:
Anonymous Believer Wrote:I began seriously doubting that there had been a conspiracy when I learned that Oswald had gotten his job in the TSBD 6 weeks earlier before anyone could have possibly known there would be a motorcade going past the TSBD. I don't believe in clairvoyance so it seemed completely implausible to me that it was anything but chance circumstance that brought JFK into rifle range of Oswald's workplace. I still believe that is one of the strongest arguments against any conspiracy theory.

This is the "strongest evidence" against a conspiracy?

That the patsy took a job overlooking the murder site before the motorcade had been determined???

The silliness of such an argument can be seen when we examine the underlying assumption that has been made:

That a shooter had to have had a job overlooking the motorcade... No matter where the motorcade took place, and no matter where the shooting occurred, does it not seem reasonable to make plans to put the patsy in an appropriate place???

There was no particular need to have the patsy working in a building where the shots came from - only the need to have the patsy credibly there. This means that any building that is reasonably open to strangers walking in would work quite well.

The other implied assumption is that Oswald was the shooter. That's simply not established by the evidence, and indeed; is contradicted by some of the evidence.

It's amusing that this is the "strongest argument" that this anonymous believer can make. It looks pretty weak against the multitudes of witnesses who put the shots as coming from the Grassy Knoll, or the witnesses that heard more than three shots...

It's pretty weak evidence when compared against the provable eyewitness intimidation campaign that both the FBI and the S.S. engaged in.

It's pretty weak evidence when compared to the FACT that the autopsy was controlled by the military - and in a way to avoid any evidence being gathered that supported multiple shooters.

It's pretty weak evidence when compared to the fact that the FBI & CIA culpably hid evidence from the Warren Commission - who weren't all that much impelled to seek out the truth in any case.

I do hope someone will step up and correct this believer... and give the evidence that's stronger than this example...

Because if someone truly thinks that this is the "strongest argument" that can be made... what more needs to be said?

"It's amusing that this is the "strongest argument" that this anonymous believer can make. It looks pretty weak against the multitudes of witnesses who put the shots as coming from the Grassy Knoll, or the witnesses that heard more than three shots..."

That is absolute BS. There was no multitude. Those people who stated shots came from the Knoll said they thought ALL the shots came from there and not from two locations. Therefore they simply got the source wrong because we know two shots came from the rear.

The actual numbe of people who thought there were two sources - was in the ball park of 10 - if that.

"The other implied assumption is that Oswald was the shooter. That's simply not established by the evidence, and indeed; is contradicted by some of the evidence."

Again absolute tripe. "not established by the evidence"...........

Oswald's rifle was found in the snipers nest
The rifle fired the shots that struck JFK
Oswald fled
He was charged with shooting a cop
He resited arrest attempting to draw his pistol and use it
He lied to police over an dover

And there are another 40+ points of guilt and you think it is not established - then you misunderstand and misrepresent the evidence or perhaps you are ignoring it!

(09-29-2016, 11:55 AM)Patrick C Wrote:
(09-28-2016, 09:28 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:
Anonymous Believer Wrote:I began seriously doubting that there had been a conspiracy when I learned that Oswald had gotten his job in the TSBD 6 weeks earlier before anyone could have possibly known there would be a motorcade going past the TSBD. I don't believe in clairvoyance so it seemed completely implausible to me that it was anything but chance circumstance that brought JFK into rifle range of Oswald's workplace. I still believe that is one of the strongest arguments against any conspiracy theory.

This is the "strongest evidence" against a conspiracy?

That the patsy took a job overlooking the murder site before the motorcade had been determined???

The silliness of such an argument can be seen when we examine the underlying assumption that has been made:

That a shooter had to have had a job overlooking the motorcade... No matter where the motorcade took place, and no matter where the shooting occurred, does it not seem reasonable to make plans to put the patsy in an appropriate place???

There was no particular need to have the patsy working in a building where the shots came from - only the need to have the patsy credibly there. This means that any building that is reasonably open to strangers walking in would work quite well.

The other implied assumption is that Oswald was the shooter. That's simply not established by the evidence, and indeed; is contradicted by some of the evidence.

It's amusing that this is the "strongest argument" that this anonymous believer can make. It looks pretty weak against the multitudes of witnesses who put the shots as coming from the Grassy Knoll, or the witnesses that heard more than three shots...

It's pretty weak evidence when compared against the provable eyewitness intimidation campaign that both the FBI and the S.S. engaged in.

It's pretty weak evidence when compared to the FACT that the autopsy was controlled by the military - and in a way to avoid any evidence being gathered that supported multiple shooters.

It's pretty weak evidence when compared to the fact that the FBI & CIA culpably hid evidence from the Warren Commission - who weren't all that much impelled to seek out the truth in any case.

I do hope someone will step up and correct this believer... and give the evidence that's stronger than this example...

Because if someone truly thinks that this is the "strongest argument" that can be made... what more needs to be said?

"It's amusing that this is the "strongest argument" that this anonymous believer can make. It looks pretty weak against the multitudes of witnesses who put the shots as coming from the Grassy Knoll, or the witnesses that heard more than three shots..."

That is absolute BS. There was no multitude. Those people who stated shots came from the Knoll said they thought ALL the shots came from there and not from two locations. Therefore they simply got the source wrong because we know two shots came from the rear.

The actual numbe of people who thought there were two sources - was in the ball park of 10 - if that.

(09-29-2016, 11:55 AM)Patrick C Wrote:
(09-28-2016, 09:28 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:
Anonymous Believer Wrote:I began seriously doubting that there had been a conspiracy when I learned that Oswald had gotten his job in the TSBD 6 weeks earlier before anyone could have possibly known there would be a motorcade going past the TSBD. I don't believe in clairvoyance so it seemed completely implausible to me that it was anything but chance circumstance that brought JFK into rifle range of Oswald's workplace. I still believe that is one of the strongest arguments against any conspiracy theory.

This is the "strongest evidence" against a conspiracy?

That the patsy took a job overlooking the murder site before the motorcade had been determined???

The silliness of such an argument can be seen when we examine the underlying assumption that has been made:

That a shooter had to have had a job overlooking the motorcade... No matter where the motorcade took place, and no matter where the shooting occurred, does it not seem reasonable to make plans to put the patsy in an appropriate place???

There was no particular need to have the patsy working in a building where the shots came from - only the need to have the patsy credibly there. This means that any building that is reasonably open to strangers walking in would work quite well.

The other implied assumption is that Oswald was the shooter. That's simply not established by the evidence, and indeed; is contradicted by some of the evidence.

It's amusing that this is the "strongest argument" that this anonymous believer can make. It looks pretty weak against the multitudes of witnesses who put the shots as coming from the Grassy Knoll, or the witnesses that heard more than three shots...

It's pretty weak evidence when compared against the provable eyewitness intimidation campaign that both the FBI and the S.S. engaged in.

It's pretty weak evidence when compared to the FACT that the autopsy was controlled by the military - and in a way to avoid any evidence being gathered that supported multiple shooters.

It's pretty weak evidence when compared to the fact that the FBI & CIA culpably hid evidence from the Warren Commission - who weren't all that much impelled to seek out the truth in any case.

I do hope someone will step up and correct this believer... and give the evidence that's stronger than this example...

Because if someone truly thinks that this is the "strongest argument" that can be made... what more needs to be said?

"It's amusing that this is the "strongest argument" that this anonymous believer can make. It looks pretty weak against the multitudes of witnesses who put the shots as coming from the Grassy Knoll, or the witnesses that heard more than three shots..."

That is absolute BS. There was no multitude. Those people who stated shots came from the Knoll said they thought ALL the shots came from there and not from two locations. Therefore they simply got the source wrong because we know two shots came from the rear.

The actual numbe of people who thought there were two sources - was in the ball park of 10 - if that.

"The other implied assumption is that Oswald was the shooter. That's simply not established by the evidence, and indeed; is contradicted by some of the evidence."

Again absolute tripe. "not established by the evidence"...........

Oswald's rifle was found in the snipers nest
The rifle fired the shots that struck JFK
Oswald fled
He was charged with shooting a cop
He resited arrest attempting to draw his pistol and use it
He lied to police over an dover

And there are another 40+ points of guilt and you think it is not established - then you misunderstand and misrepresent the evidence or perhaps you are ignoring it!

"It's pretty weak evidence when compared against the provable eyewitness intimidation campaign that both the FBI and the S.S. engaged in."

There was no such campaign. I expect it is a pretty normal reaction for an ordinary person to be scared silly when interviewed by the FBI or the DPD after an assassination ......most would find it pretty unpleasent. As for the SS.......exactly when did the SS interview witnesses.....? Sorrels locally was present during investigations, can you cite for examples of SS staff interviewing witnesses and threatening them...?

***Ben Holmes*** · 09-29-2016, 03:22 PM

(09-29-2016, 11:55 AM)Patrick C Wrote:
(09-28-2016, 09:28 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: It's amusing that this is the "strongest argument" that this anonymous believer can make. It looks pretty weak against the multitudes of witnesses who put the shots as coming from the Grassy Knoll, or the witnesses that heard more than three shots...

That is absolute BS. There was no multitude. Those people who stated shots came from the Knoll said they thought ALL the shots came from there and not from two locations. Therefore they simply got the source wrong because we know two shots came from the rear.

The actual numbe of people who thought there were two sources - was in the ball park of 10 - if that.

This is a common tactic preferred by believers... the subtle changing of the topic. Patrick is pretending that I stated that there were multitudes of people who described shots from two locations.

A statement never made, and thus, a strawman argument.

Patrick previously lied about the numbers of eyewitnesses who DOCUMENTED in the first two days where they thought they heard the shots coming from, the vast majority of those numbers pointing to the Grassy Knoll, and a handful to the TSBD.

This is far stronger and more credible evidence for a conspiracy than the proffered reason that Oswald was hired before the decision to run the motorcade past the TSBD. Indeed, it's not even in the same ballpark. Perhaps this is why Patrick lies about those eyewitnesses. (Patrick would rather lie than to admit that Mark Lane told the simple truth.)

(09-29-2016, 11:55 AM)Patrick C Wrote:
(09-28-2016, 09:28 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: The other implied assumption is that Oswald was the shooter. That's simply not established by the evidence, and indeed; is contradicted by some of the evidence.

Again absolute tripe. "not established by the evidence"...........

Oswald's rifle was found in the snipers nest

Presumption on your part, not established. Indeed, this one fact fatally hurts your entire argument. The fact that no paper trail could be credibly established for the supposed "Oswald rifle" is a major problem. The fact that there's no bank endorsements on the money order is still an un-refuted fact.

One that David Von Pein spent weeks trying to refute, and got nowhere...

(09-29-2016, 11:55 AM)Patrick C Wrote: The rifle fired the shots that struck JFK

Certainly possible. JFK was shot by what was undoubtedly rifle fire. Without putting Oswald in the sniper's nest with a rifle, it means virtually nothing...

(09-29-2016, 11:55 AM)Patrick C Wrote: Oswald fled

The evidence shows that you're lying again, Patrick. He stopped to answer a newsman's question, he offered his cab to another person, he ended up "fleeing" in a bus... how silly!!!

But this is what happens when you have faith... you turn ordinary occurences into evidence of guilt. Much like Bugliosi who claimed that a single eyewitness who didn't see Oswald reading a newspaper was evidence for guilt.

(09-29-2016, 11:55 AM)Patrick C Wrote: He was charged with shooting a cop

Being charged is not judicially equal to guilt, as you well know.

(09-29-2016, 11:55 AM)Patrick C Wrote: He resited arrest attempting to draw his pistol and use it

That would "prove" that he was guilty of shoplifting. Again, how silly your presumptions are...

Let's look at what Oswald said:

Quote:"This is it" or "Well, it's all over now." Oswald arrested. (Patrolman M. N. McDonald heard these remarks. Other officers who were at the scene did not hear them.) "I don't know why you are treating me like this. The only thing I have done is carry a pistol into a movie. . . . I don't see why you handcuffed me. . . . Why should I hide my face? I haven't done anything to be ashamed of. . . . I want a lawyer. . . . I am not resisting arrest. . . . I didn't kill anybody. . . . I haven't shot anybody. . . . I protest this police brutality. . . . I fought back there, but I know I wasn't supposed to be carrying a gun. . . . What is this all about?"

Doesn't seem to support your inference, does it?

(09-29-2016, 11:55 AM)Patrick C Wrote: He lied to police over an dover

I frequently lie about dovers... those pesky things should be lied about... right? [Image: smile.png]

Of course, other than having no idea what you're babbling about, all you have is hearsay... and THAT FACT is indisputable.

(09-29-2016, 11:55 AM)Patrick C Wrote: And there are another 40+ points of guilt and you think it is not established - then you misunderstand and misrepresent the evidence or perhaps you are ignoring it!

Then all you have to do is present and cite for it. And I'll be happy to make hash of it as I just did to the ones you raised above.

The NAA test is HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that is exculpatory, and this fact no doubt explains why the Warren Commission refused to address it.

(09-29-2016, 11:55 AM)Patrick C Wrote:
(09-28-2016, 09:28 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: It's pretty weak evidence when compared against the provable eyewitness intimidation campaign that both the FBI and the S.S. engaged in.

There was no such campaign. I expect it is a pretty normal reaction for an ordinary person to be scared silly when interviewed by the FBI or the DPD after an assassination ......most would find it pretty unpleasent.

You're lying again, Patrick. I've quoted & cited many examples in the past... even to a New York Times article on the topic. Eyewitnesses have been quite explicit on this topic.

It's not surprising that believers are CONSTANTLY lying about the fact of eyewitness intimidation... they can't explain it.

(09-29-2016, 11:55 AM)Patrick C Wrote: As for the SS.......exactly when did the SS interview witnesses.....? Sorrels locally was present during investigations, can you cite for examples of SS staff interviewing witnesses and threatening them...?

I'm constantly teaching you about basic facts in this case, aren't I? The Secret Service went to Parkland after the autopsy, and questioned everyone, and forced them to "change" their mind about the throat wound.

Quote:Moore confessed his intimidation of Dr. Perry to a University of Washington graduate student, Jim Gochenaur, with whom he became friendly in Seattle in 1970. Moore told Gochenaur he "had badgered Dr. Perry" into "making a flat statement that there was no entry wound in the neck" (note 556) Moore admitted, "I regret what I had to do with Dr. Perry." (note 557) However, with his fellow agents, he had been given "marching order from Washington." He felt he had no choice: "I did everything I was told, we all did everything we were told, or we'd get our heads cut off." (note 558) In the cover-up the men in suits were both the intimidators and the intimidated.

If Henry had made this claim that the Secret Service didn't interview witnesses, I'd correctly label him a liar... but you, Patrick - you really just didn't know... did you?

Not addressed at all was the fact that the anonymous believer thought that the strongest evidence against conspiracy was the timing of Oswald's hiring at the TSBD. It's no wonder that Patrick didn't address it, he can't come up with anything stronger than that.

I've quite credibly pointed out that the evidence FOR conspiracy is far stronger than this silly timing issue. The shooter could have lived in Los Angeles, driven to Dallas in time to walk into any nearby building with a rifle. Indeed, if Oswald had lived in Los Angeles, and hitch-hiked to Dallas in time to walk into the TSBD with a rifle, and shot the President - THAT is what the Warren Commission would then be asserting. There's evidence for strangers in the TSBD, and Patrick certainly knows this fact.