Reasonable doubts about Lee Harvey Oswald

[David Josephs]

(To P. Dragoo and D. Joesphs)

The study you refer to is based on the expertise of the those conducting it. Just repeating the work of others is not any deeper than someone reading a book and repeating what is says. All this various facts about the Carcano even with the additional items you present does not prove Oswald never fired it, nor does it prove it has to be a conspiracy. You do not respond to my questions and still seem determined to prove that I am wrong about some item you believe is relevant. I have done all I could to be reasonable, I have not insulted or determined your work speculation even despite your many claims without any official sources. A single study does not prevail, no matter how believable or trusted their results for example the Warren Commission. It also takes not just many disqualifying pieces of evidence from the Carcano but the entire case. So if you wish to have a conversation I am happy to, however repeated criticism without presenting repeated items of official evidence is just using sources you deem superior. This does not prove your claims, and is not the standard for investigation. You seem to want things only you find acceptable, a standard I find unreasonable and irrelevant to determine the actual events. While I believe in a conspiracy it is from studying evidence from both sides of the debate. The facts speak for themselves they do not require personal approval from anyone.

As you can see CS, posting a rebuttal to the DVPs of the world simply doesn't fly here... there are plenty of forums where scores of WCR defenders will gladly debate you. After a little time you will recognize the patterns and tactics they employ to get people like you and me into nonsensical discussions about those 8 points and hundreds more... wear you down and dance their victory dance.

I spent YEARS addressing these innaccuracies and being called kook more times than I can count... I came to learn there are those who want to know and those that don't.
Those that want to and are not complete lumps of coal will look farther than DVP and the History Channel for their information.

Those that don't want to know - WILL NEVER KNOW. You think DVP reads your rebuttal and goes, "OK CS, got ya... I must be wrong" ?? You might want to have a conversation with one Gary Mack aka Larry Dunkel of the 6th floor Museum if you want a first hand experience with one of the leaders of the WCR defenders. Better yet, DVP has his own site and forum... debate him there and see how it goes....

I wnet back to your 19 points of evidence just to see what exactly you were using as "evidence"

12 of the references are to witness testimony... none of the physical evidence matches their descriptions... and most of these in the section about damage to the LEFT SIDE resulting from a shot from the RIGHT... (again DVP not only makes up the facts but answers the question IN the question) if one read each and every reference we find descriptions of the wound at PARKLAND but nothing to refute DVPs bogus assertion. Also-if JFK had been shot from the infamous "Grassy Knoll"(which was located to the right-front of Kennedy's car at the time he was shot)why wasn't there any damage to the LEFT side of President Kennedy's head?"

1 is an assumption he did not practice with the rifle

This one is confusing to me: a reference is usually to support the thought conveyed... I do not know what you are saying here.
A conspiracy the Warren Commission found not to exist.[iii] [iii] Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, Chapter 4, pg.143-147, archives.gov
not on these pages nor in VOL 4 p143-147 which is Connally's testimony

1 has to do with LATONA telling us there were no latent prints of any value on the rifle... under the section titled 1. "Lee Harvey Oswald owned the rifle found on the sixth floor ofthe Texas Schoolbook Depository..."
What does there not being any of OSWALD's prints on the rifle have to do with his OWNING the rifle ?

1 has to do with the illegal removal of the body to refute the "Plus: This massive task of removing all non-Oswald wounds and bullets"

1 more has to do with the WALKER bullet being STEEL versus COPPER jacketed... and this being withheld for years... As you can see DVP assumes that if LHO shot at Walker he MUST have killed JFK...
Since he can prove neither it is easier to simply connect them and make LHO look more dangerous and more possible as the shooter. DVP's comeback? "So he used steel jacketed ammo that time, prove otherwise" (prove the negative)

Then there is this one:
At Bet[B]hesda hospital, removal of thepresident's brain occurs. The brain could define the exact bullet trajectorypaths. The president's brain was officially misplaced. Perhaps the mostimportant piece of forensic evidence was later lost or taken. This was just onesuspicious error in a series of changing statements and vanishingevidence.[xviii] [xviii] Hearings of the House Select Committee onAssassinations, Volume VII, pg.33

Here is the link to that source: [/B]http://www.history-matters.com/archive/j..._0022a.htm
This page discusses how ROBERT KENNEDY took these materials, destroyed them and/or made them inaccessible. and is a response to #6 again from above - where we have 12 statements about the damage seen and whetehr or not there was damage to the LEFT side of JFK.
(Curious CS - are you aware of what the Last Rites father, Altgens and Dr. McClelland said about the LEFT SIDE of JFK's head? Or what Humes and Boswell show as the GUNSHOT DAMAGE resulting in their not having to saw the skull yet what is actually necessary to have happen for a brain to FALL out of a carnium? (Read BEST EVIDENCE for a fantastic step by step of what needed to be disconnected on BOTH SIDES of the head for this to occur. There is much stronger evidence of LEFT SIDE DAMAGE than the missing Brain...)

and finally you have BAKER saying it took longer to get to the TSBD and stairs than the 90 seconds. You finish with:
If Baker had more time, so did Oswald, thus more than 90 seconds. So Van
Pein's claim is only proven speculation.

DVP cannot get Oswald on the 6th floor shooting the rifle - so he makes the discussion about Baker's timing.
You give validity to the ascertion by adding "so did Oswald", yet you also cannot put Oswald at that window at that time...

You want the physical evidence that proves both Baker and Truly are lying?

Baker's affidavit from the DAY of the assassination - please point out the lunchroom, the lunchroom's automatic door, the door's window, Oswald with a coke, etc...
and this is followed by the one person who saw Oswald leaving.. Mrs. REID. Baker taking longer to give Oswald time to get down from the 6th floor is a TACTIC to get you to either forget about the following or never look for it.

As we reached the third or fourth floor I saw a man walking away from the
stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back toward me. The
manager said, "I know that man, he works here." I then turned the man loose and
went up to the top floor. The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years
old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket.

Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what clothes he had on when you saw him?
Mrs. REID. What he was wearing, he had on a white T-shirt and some kind of wash trousers. What color I couldn't tell you.
Mr. BELIN. I am going to hand you what has been marked Commission Exhibit, first 157 and then 158, and I will ask you if either or both look like they might have been the trousers that you saw him wear or can you tell?
Mrs. REID. I just couldn't be positive about that. I would rather not say, because I just cannot.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember whether he had any shirt or jacket on over his T-shirt?
Mrs. REID. He did not. He did not have any jacket on.

CS - we ae not insulting you at all... we are expecting you to also hear what we are saying. The PROOF of the conspiracy is in the evidence offered by the WCR and related docs. Allowing Baker more time is not the issue but the WCR wants you to think it is... so you will never ask what BAKER's affidavit means.... or what REID says and why it contradicts the description of the one perosn BAKER and TRULY did see and stop.

Playing with the big boys requires a shift in POV... There is no rebuttal for the BAKER/REID conflict... other than "they were mistaken" - which you will get more often than not... and is why we stopped playing those games here
and do not allow the DVPs to poison the well.

Try posting this information - your first post - at the JFKassassinationforum, or the educationforum and get a real sense of the LNer tactics first hand, if you haven't already.

We're on the same side CS and we are trying to accomplish the same things... just think of this place as graduate school, where we know what happened, we know there was a conspiracy, we know there is a mountain of evidence to support this conclusion... so we spend much more time uncovering the machine put in place to churn out the cover-up all these 50 years... and the WHY... then bothering with the DVPs.

I respect what you are doing, really... but I dont know that this forum is the place to cut teeth.