Lee Harvey Oswald --- How Far Back Were They Watching Him???

Discussion in 'JFK' started by resisting arrest, Feb 15, 2017.

  1. Your Best Friend

    Your Best Friend Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2016
    Messages:
    14,673
    Likes Received:
    6,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Derp! Just derp! Total nonsense. Lunacy is a female dog.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2017
  2. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    16,631
    Likes Received:
    2,500
    Trophy Points:
    113
    facts just facts crushing your arguments
     
  3. Your Best Friend

    Your Best Friend Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2016
    Messages:
    14,673
    Likes Received:
    6,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is alleged only. NO ONE eye witnessed Oswald on the sixth floor. No one!
    How so if he was not there? You can't prove this.

    https://jfk007.com/wowzer-a-mauser/
    You are so wrong!
    They were found AFTER several FBI agents went to Millers funeral home where Oswald's body was held and they took his finger and palm prints there as testified to by the funeral home owner. https://www.coursehero.com/file/p25...-taken-to-Millers-Funeral-Home-in-Fort-Worth/

    Your explanation is not accepted and if paraffin tests were rejected by the FBI why did they finally discontinue the tests more than forty years after the Kennedy shooting? Anybody would have to admit the FBI kept the test as part of their tools to detect gunfire for a long long time after you claimed they were rejected.

    At any rate Oswald was subjected to more than mere paraffin tests and passed them all with flying colors.
    http://www.22november1963.org.uk/oswald-rifle-and-paraffin-tests
    http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/B Disk/Brussell Mae/Item 25.pdf
    On this point you are especially wrong! Even more so than usual, if that's possible. The links are so numerous and well documented
    the denial of such connections demonstrate either a real willingness to ignore facts or an incredible ignorance of those facts.
    Either way you don't have a clue!

    Huh? Did you say something?
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2017
  4. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Yes. Your contention that Oswald was not the trigger man is humorous. Your reasoning is even more hilarious.
     
  5. Your Best Friend

    Your Best Friend Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2016
    Messages:
    14,673
    Likes Received:
    6,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because the Warren Commission told you otherwise? Think for yourself, do you?
    My "reasoning" (evidence) is based on eye witness testimony, which I've provided.
    How about you? Oh, right....you have none.
     
  6. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    28
    His actions after the assassination sum it up for me. Not to mention his actions before the assassination. If you'd like to address them as an adult this time as I laid them out previously in post #20...feel free. But I've got to tell you, your reasoning that he would be "connected" but not be the trigger man--yet be in the building is, frankly, stupid. There is no charitable way to put it. Sorry. As you may have read with my interactions with Soupnazi, I think there was far more going on here than the WC said as well. However, Oswald's guilt is self evidentiary.

    It's been shown time and again that eye-witness testimony is the most flimsy of evidence.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/
    http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr06/eyewitness.aspx
    https://www.simplypsychology.org/loftus-palmer.html

    There are something like 75 more sources.

    Videos:

    Here is one:


    There are hundreds more.

    Perhaps the reason you're so incorrect (obviously) is that you're relying on eyewitness evidence that has been proven once and again to be shaky at best.

    Oh wait, let me guess, all of the studies, all of the demonstrations are wrong...right?

    Logic also is your enemy as, if Oswald is not the gunman, obviously someone else was; so that enlarges the conspiracy to a degree. The larger the conspiracy, the less likely it remains secretive this long.
     
  7. Your Best Friend

    Your Best Friend Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2016
    Messages:
    14,673
    Likes Received:
    6,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As an adult....you mean like calling someone's opinions "humorous, hilarious, stupid" perhaps? Yes. Very mature of you. It is proper of you to correct me, it looks like.

    At any rate if anyone had actually seen Oswald on the sixth floor instead of on the second floor moments after the shooting, if Oswald's Manlicher-Carcano rifle had been discovered in the shooter's nest (instead of a Mauser 7.56) and if his gun actually had his prints on it and if Oswald hadn't passed a paraffin gunpowder test administered by the Dallas police...IF all those things had happened then I would be more likely to accept the Warren Commission's version of things which of course were filled with lies, manufactured "evidence"
    and a deliberate strategy of NOT calling witnesses that could have exculpated Oswald .

    But to deny all the evidence to the contrary and to accept the WC's version of things....I see no reason to do that. If you want to drink their Kool Aid be my guest. But don't insult me because I won't go along with their coup.



    If you want to disregard ALL eyewitness testimony to the contrary, that contradicts the Warren Commission's false narrative and doctored evidence, be my guest.

    If, for instance, you find it likely that the owner of Miller's Funeral Home in Ft. Worth, Texas would lie or exaggerate an after hours visit by FBI agents (not something someone is likely to forget or imagine) and the fingerprint ink he and assistants washed off of Lee Oswald's
    hands and fingers afterwards, in order to inter him properly, you go ahead and think that.

    It means someone, quite possibly, was on the sixth floor firing the Mauser at Kennedy while Oswald was downstairs in the break room, which is very believable to me considering there were a number of CIA contracted professional killers who had Kennedy in a cross fire.
    Why would the CIA put a very average to poor shooter, at best, above Kennedy in one of the best positions when it had so many other skilled killers in their service? It's senseless and I sincerely believe they would not jeopardize their one and only opportunity to kill the president by putting a rank amateur on their kill.

    The main points: Oswald cannot be put on the sixth floor at the time of the killing. His gun was not found there when detectives first toured the nest (but another rifle was).
    Oswald had not fired a gun that day according to Dallas police detectives and his prints were not on the clunky, antiquated Carcano-Manlicher (until agents added them later).
    For all these reasons I refuse to accept the Warren Commission narrative which is riddled with lies, manufactured and destroyed "evidence" .
    If you want to believe Lee was up on the sixth floor shooting his mail order gun at the president because the people that doctored photos of him, holding a rifle and a communist pamphlet in his back yard, and put it on the cover of Life magazine for all to see say so, be my guest.

    And I won't insult you for your opinion, unlike you've done to me. I'll just disagree with you.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2017
  8. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    28
    After insinuating that I do not "think for myself"; calling your humorous, hilarious, and frankly stupid opinions, humorous, hilarious, and frankly stupid is just my being honest . If you're not wanting to get tagged for a crime that, as you say, he was "connected" to (whatever the hell THAT means--another silly allegation that means nothing)...you would not want to be anywhere near the crime. It's on the first page of any cat burglar's handbook I imagine.

    Thanks.

    The physical evidence is much more damaging than those who saw Oswald kill Tippit.

    Again, if you wish to put on your big boy pants and address the topics in #20, I'll be happy to look at them, Ignoring them...well; you sound a lot like our pervert potus; someone who is relying on what they call "alternate facts" except they are not facts.
     
  9. Your Best Friend

    Your Best Friend Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2016
    Messages:
    14,673
    Likes Received:
    6,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your assumption is that Lee Harvey Oswald knew all about the plan to kill the president and was complicit in it. I make no such assumptions.

    Stop and think about the "wisdom" of having a fall guy like Oswald in on the plot to kill JFK.


    It sounds like you don't have much regard for eye witness testimony, until it supports your own biases. I will look over your other post to see where you are coming from. This should be good.

    Edit: Turns out I already did address post #20 in post #21.
    Amazing you did
    not catch that and you apparently completely ignored an excellent over view of the plot to kill the president in post #24 (which I find egregious for someone
    who acts like he is well informed).

    Sounds to me like you are half right (you realize the killing was done by a
    cabal of people and the notion of Lee the lone assassin is absolute bunk)
    and half wrong (you have no background on the case and don't seem to realize who Lee was involved with and how thoroughly he had been set up and used).
    Whatever.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2017
  10. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    28

    Well, Like all conspiracy whack jobs; you simply want to gloss over and ignore any factual objective evidence that doesn’t fit into your narrative (whatever that narrative is—you, of course, will not lay it all out; again like a good little conspiracy whackjob.

    You said he was “connected” but not the triggerman. That is what you said. Bizarre as it seems. If you’re not essential to being at the scene of the crime, you would be nowhere near the crime scene. Again, it’s criminal behavior 101. I guess your “argument” is that someone else told LHO, “We don’t need you to shoot the President but we do need you to open a door for us so we can do it; at the place where you work….while you’re on duty. Let me ask you a quick question. If you work for a bank or whatever and someone asked you to be complicit in a robbery of said bank, would you show up for work on the day when they were going to knock it over, THEN leave with the robbers after the heist if you’re innocent?

    Again, address his actions after the assassination…Takes a cab, a bus, on foot to his flop house. Gets his jacket, a revolver. Kills a cop. Ditches the jacket, runs into a theater and yells “this is it” when finally being apprehended by the police.
     
  11. Your Best Friend

    Your Best Friend Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2016
    Messages:
    14,673
    Likes Received:
    6,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    After about the fourth time you called me "whackjob" I immediately knew you have some sort of emotional/mental problem that prevents you from looking at and discussing the Kennedy assassination dispassionately (it's wackjob, by the way...I love the way you combine anger with ignorance, and not just on that one word)

    You've shown yourself to be slightly less maladjusted when it comes to this issue than that one other guy, but not by that much.
    So you've proven yourself to be a waste of my time and I really was eager to correct all your errors and baseless assumptions....
    but you are unworthy of the effort and that's too bad for you though I take it anyone who doesn't agree with your childish assumptions is a conspiracy wackjob.
    That sort of biased thinking is no way to go through life. Stop and consider
    why you will be ignored.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2017
  12. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Translation...

    You're copping out. If you could correct anything I said; you would. Since you cannot, we see you're strategy; running away.
    Frankly, if I was trying to play the cards you dealt yourself, I'd fold too. Although I am curious how someone would ever come to the conclusion that LHO was "connected" to the plot to kill the President of the United States but his expertise wasn't to shoot but to somehow be in the building where the shots came from. He may be the patron saint of losers but that doesn't make him qualified to quarterback an operation like this.

    Oh well, I guess that cat will stay in the bag.

    Best of luck to you in the future.
     
  13. Your Best Friend

    Your Best Friend Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2016
    Messages:
    14,673
    Likes Received:
    6,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    :rolleyes: Oh, how sly.... making your many insults and obtuse take on the Kennedy assassination somehow my fault and failing. How clever.

    Only a moron would say Oswald was not connected to the plot, if only as the patsy, which Oswald correctly surmised while in custody of the Dallas police.
    Oswald's entire value to the plot was as a fall guy....he was not an exceptional marksman in any way and had not fired a weapon the day
    of the assassination according to the Dallas police who performed high tech tests on him trying to prove otherwise (they failed). How many times should I repeat that for you?
    Because the Warren Commission told you Lee Oswald alone shot the president (along with hundreds of other lies) you are convinced he was the shooter? How gullible are you? Very, very gullible obviously and your agenda is showing.

    What a bizarre statement that displays your vast ignorance. Who is claiming Oswald "quarterbacked" anything? Not me!
    I gave you a very good video which explains much and asked you twice to watch it (with no acknowledgment at all). I don't think you are interested in answers. You have an agenda. Good luck with your lie.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2017
  14. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    16,631
    Likes Received:
    2,500
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Quite wrong and proven so.

    Yes he was seen by many witnesses on the sixth floor and that is fact not allegation. He was also proven to have been there by physical evidence which is something none of your assertions is supported by.

    HE did fire 3 shots once again proven by evidence which all of your claims lack.

    They found no Mauser sonny boy they found his carcano. This has been proven many times and the very officer whgo found it openly admitted to making a minor mistake due to cosmetic similarities between the two weapons.

    You lost that one badly and the facts prove you wrong.

    They lifted his prints from the gun and your claim that they planted them has no evidence whatsoever to support it.

    SO one more time since you have failed to name one lie from the WC do so now.

    Since you have presented no evidence do so now
     
  15. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    16,631
    Likes Received:
    2,500
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When will you stop being dishonest and answer?

    Name one such lie from the WC
     
  16. Your Best Friend

    Your Best Friend Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2016
    Messages:
    14,673
    Likes Received:
    6,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I already named the magic bullet in another post but the whole of the Warren Commission narrative itself is a lie so how can anyone name just one? The most basic lie is that Lee Harvey Oswald was the pro communist assassin firing bullets at the president from his nest up on the sixth floor. That's the whole case in one sentence and it's a lie on so many levels.

    No one can place him on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting or thereabouts. In fact there is eye witness testimony of Lee on the second floor in the employee breakroom having a Coca Cola just seconds after the shooting.

    No one can place his rifle there hidden away, though when sheriff's deputies and FBI people first get to the shooter's nest a Mauser rifle
    is found and claimed as Oswald's weapon (it's not until later that the narrative catches up and the Mauser is never mentioned again).

    No one can find a trace of gunpowder nitrates on Oswald's cheek, which would necessarily be present on anyone firing a rifle, even though
    the Dallas police tested him with not only the common paraffin nitrate test but also a more sophisticated Neutron Activation Analysis
    (which finds gunpowder residue in quantities too small to be picked up by spectrographic analysis alone)..
    The Warren Commission noted this: The result was reported in an internal Warren Commission memo: “At best, the analysis shows that Oswald may have fired a pistol, although this is by no means certain. … There is no basis for concluding that he also fired a rifle.”

    And lest someone disingenuously tries to suggest that Oswald washed his face thoroughly to remove incriminating evidence (though there is no evidence that would remove all traces of gunpowder) Oswald's hands tested positive for nitrates, from the printer's ink he handled
    all morning as part of his work. How do his hands test positive but not his face? We presume Oswald would have to wash his hands also
    when washing his own face.

    Lie. Lie. Lie. Check, check, check. http://www.22november1963.org.uk/oswald-rifle-and-paraffin-tests
     
  17. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    16,631
    Likes Received:
    2,500
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When will you stop being dishonest and answer?

    Name one such lie from the WC
    No it is not all a lie you cannot name one because there is no lie to be found within it.

    As pointed out before you are ignorant of what is contained in the report yet you keep making accusations you cannot support.

    The magic bullet theory is NOT in the warren commission report it was in fact made up by conspiracy theorists and is a lie by THEM not by the wc.

    Several witnesses placed him on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting so it is you lying about that.

    Physical evidence places him there further proving you are lying about it.

    His rifle was found there and no mauser was found the officer who found it merely admitted to have mis identifying it and nothing more which is not illogical.

    You ignore the proven fact that paraffin tests were not reliable and therefore nitrates would not necessarily have been there whether he fired a rifle or not.

    Those are all facts and they destroy your claim.

    So since you have been proven wrong name one specific lie from the WC and try to present some evidence which you have failed to do
     

Share This Page