Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
Comment
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Discord Now Fully Linked With 420chan IRC

The overwhelming evidence of Oswald's guilt

Reply
- Mon, 02 Sep 2019 04:49:52 EST ORI4dGej No.90762
File: 1567414192923.jpg -(3243551B / 3.09MB, 2306x2280) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. The overwhelming evidence of Oswald's guilt
This was not a conclusion I reached easily. The CIA has committed innumerable crimes around the world. Nonetheless, they did not kill John F. Kennedy, nor did anyone else but Lee Oswald. Thanks to the massive amount of evidence generated by this case, as well as the multiple exhaustive examinations, we can reach this conclusion with near historical certainty. I will not attempt to debunk most claims of the buffs, for lack of space and time, as they are extremely numerous, often mutually conflicting, and overwhelmingly focus on negative evidence -- poking holes in the "official story" -- rather than advancing a parsimonious, coherent, and complete theory of the crime. I will very briefly summarize the positive evidence against Oswald, which is unimpeachable -- despite the best efforts of buffs over five decades -- and far more than sufficient to convict him in any court of law.

Oswald:

-Attempted to assassinate General Edwin Walker. He discussed this with his wife Marina, he took photographs of Walker's home, he made a map of the area, he left a note to her (entered into evidence and authenticated) instructing her on what to do should he be captured or killed by the law, and the bullet he fired (barely deflected by the window frame, saving Walker's life) was established by neutron activation analysis to be a Western Ammunition Mannlicher-Carcano bullet, the same brand used to kill Kennedy.

-Had Marina Oswald take photographs, exhaustively authenticated as coming from Lee's Imperial Reflex camera to the exclusion of all other cameras, of himself holding the Carcano rifle and wearing a revolver matching the one recovered from his person after he shot J.D. Tippit.

The day of November 22nd:

-Oswald carried a long paper package to work which he claimed contained "curtain rods" he obtained from Ruth Paine. He had never discussed this with Ms. Paine, Marina Oswald, or his landlady, and there was no need for curtain rods in his rooming house, which were already installed.

-Depository employees Bonnie Ray Williams, James Jarman, and Harold Norman, watching the motorcade from the 5th floor window directly under the sniper's nest, while Oswald was unaccounted for in the building, heard three shots fired from above them. Since the floor was being replaced, in places they were only separated from the sniper by a thin sheet of plywood, and Norman recalled exactly 3 shots, the bolt action being engaged twice, and three spent cartridges clattering to the floor. Norman remained consisted with his testimony his whole life, reporting as much in his affidavit, to the Warren Commission, to CBS, and at Oswald's mock trial.

-Multiple witnesses saw a man, a rifle, or both in the 6th floor window, but most crucial was Howard Brennan, who saw a man, matching Oswald's description, aim and fire three shots from a rifle as the president was killed.

-Within 90 seconds of the shooting, Oswald was seen absconding from the building. This is the first clear evidence of consciousness of guilt. This is a man who had privately expressed a desire to kill Dwight Eisenhower, and yet as Dealey Plaza swarmed with onlookers he showed no interest in what had happened to the president, the rifle shots that had come from inside his workplace, or the location of the assassin. Unbelievably, he told the police he headed home as he concluded there would be no more work for the day. He hailed a cab, which by his own admission he had never done before in his entire life, and directed the driver to drop him off several blocks away from the rooming house.

-Oswald shot and killed officer J.D. Tippit after being stopped. This cinches knowledge of his own guilt. No innocent man in his shoes would take the extreme action of killing a police officer. 11 people either saw Oswald shoot Tippit or saw him fleeing the scene immediately afterwards. He left behind his jacket, identified as his by Marina (he only owned two), and four spent cartridges that were matched to his revolver to the exclusion of all other weapons.

-After his capture, Oswald was (off-camera) aloof, uncooperative, and combative. He appeared to be reveling in the situation. When Marina saw him, she immediately sensed that he was guilty, as he was subdued, not angrily protesting his innocence as she knew he would have done were he falsely imprisoned.

Medical and forensic evidence:

Oswald's fingerprints were on the rifle and the boxes used to construct the sniper nest. Fragments from only two bullets were ever recovered in Dealey Plaza, as established by neutron activation -- 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano bullets manufactured by Western Ammunition. CE 399 was matched to the fragments in Governor Connally's wrist, and to Oswald's Carcano, to the exclusion of all others. The autopsy photos and X-rays of the president -- rigorously authenticated as being of John F. Kennedy to the exclusion of all other human beings, living or dead -- tell the story. Every pathologist who ever examined these, in the many subsequent investigations, concluded that Kennedy was shot twice, and only twice, from behind.
>>
Hedda Clellyford - Mon, 02 Sep 2019 04:50:47 EST ORI4dGej No.90763 Reply
Epilogue: but what about...?

Some may object that while Oswald shot Kennedy, he was just one of multiple conspirators. Some buffs, recognizing there is not a shred of hard evidence, nor any credible and consistent witness testimony to indicate otherwise, maintain that Oswald was the only shooter, but he was put up to it by someone else. This is a minority position among buffs, but perhaps the least incredible. Very briefly, I will show one way that this theory falls on its face.

Unfortunately for President Kennedy, Lee Oswald found a job at the Texas Schoolbook Depository a couple months before the assassination. It was only because his workplace afforded the ideal vantage point that Oswald was able to carry out the shooting. Indeed, some buffs have made hay of this fact, suggesting that someone ensured he'd be in the right place at the right time. But how did Oswald arrive at the depository?

Failing to obtain a Cuban visa in Mexico -- the KGB having informed Cuba that he was a nut -- Oswald returned to Dallas in October. He filed a claim at the Texas Employment Commission, which lined up several jobs for him, all of which were not interested. He applied at a printing company, losing the hire because the superintended phoned his reference, Oswald's former boss Robert Stovall, who reported that he was "peculiar" and possibly a Communist.

October 14th, Marina Oswald had a conversation with Ruth Paine and the neighbors Dorothy Roberts and Linnie Mae Randle about possible job opportunities for Lee. They discussed a few possibilities which Marina rejected on the grounds that Lee Oswald could not drive. Finally, Randle suggested the Depository, where her brother had found work. Ruth Paine phoned the Depository on Marina and Lee's behalf to set up an interview, where Oswald got the job.

So in order for Oswald to have found himself at the Depository as part of a plot -- necessary for almost any conspiracy theory -- Marina Oswald, the neighborhood old ladies, every employer that rejected him, and Roy Truly who hired him must have been in on it, or they were otherwise the luckiest killers in history.
>>
Eliza Bummledock - Mon, 02 Sep 2019 05:56:52 EST qX8/dp4P No.90764 Reply
>>90762
He was involved into something but compartmentalized. Otherwise, you're wrong in so many ways, I read so many books about JFK's assassination, a lot of the 70's and 80's ones have info that kind of disappeared with time, but somebody else who is very well versed into the subject and much older than me, spending their time in JFK/LBJ/Nixon Presidential Libraries and also FOIA's that were already made before but released to unknown people in the past, since a lot of 'em came to him very quickly, boxes of documents etc. has made a doc called "From JFK to 9/11" and every shooter's positions and their names are disclosed. The guy in the gutter hole under elm street is the kid, an 18 year old or so placed there by the conspirators got Kennedy after so many bullets flying by missing their target from many directions. Watch that and the guy's sources and maybe you might drop your cointelpro job.
>>
Wesley Hublingcocke - Mon, 02 Sep 2019 06:36:26 EST GiFhtkG9 No.90768 Reply
>>90764
“He was involved into something”—a very vague claim to make about this man who was at the center of events.

>every shooter’s position and their names are disclosed
This is a weakness, not a strength, of the innumerable buff theories. We have in fact dozens of different people identified by different buffs as the shooter(s). We have supposed shooters in the Depository, multiple buildings in the Plaza, on the knoll, the overpass, in the sewer, and in the Secret Service follow up car. Just about no two buffs can agree on exactly who shot, how, why, and where, nor for that matter, on most other details of the case. Don’t you find this a little embarrassing? Does this speak to the strength of buff theories, or to the laxity of their standard of evidence? You’re free to impugn my motives, but it might serve you, and anyone interested in this case, to take the available evidence and read critically and disinterestedly.
>>
Frederick Demblemog - Wed, 04 Sep 2019 01:04:55 EST w77p4YTU No.90778 Reply
>>90764
>He was involved into something but compartmentalized.
A lot of documentaries say this but it isn't true

>Otherwise, you're wrong in so many ways, I read so many books about JFK's assassination, a lot of the 70's and 80's ones have info that kind of disappeared with time,
Actually those are the dumb sources because the CIA had tons of publishers in their back pockets in the 70's and 80's

>JFK/LBJ/Nixon Presidential Libraries
Oh yeah buddy keep trusting the presidents and their masters, I also hear that drinking bleach can cure your brain AIDS

>got Kennedy after so many bullets flying by missing their target from many directions.
Yes, this is the way assassinations work, get a bunch of people to wildly shoot in ever direction and hope you hit the target. Get fucked mate, this is the real world not call of duty
>>
Cornelius Wonderham - Wed, 04 Sep 2019 02:09:40 EST ORI4dGej No.90784 Reply
>>90779
That post is from me, the OP, I was posting from mobile. You raise a legitimate point. It is unbelievable that 1) a group of well-connected conspirators would have plotted to kill the President by firing at his motorcade from multiple directions in broad daylight, and in full view of about a thousand onlookers, and 2) that this hail of bullets would have resulted in no additional recovered slugs, no casualties in the throngs at Dealey Plaza that were standing directly in the crossfire, and no additional damage to the Presidential limousine or any of the follow-up vehicles.

However, I must ask, just what kind of evidence are you willing to consider? Are you rejecting the output of all official investigation on the matter (hundreds of thousands of pages) and most conspiracy literature to boot because there is good prior reason to do so, or because you find their conclusions infelicitous? For a conspiracy that evidently involves thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people, how can you presume to judge what information is and is not “compromised”?
>>
OP - Wed, 04 Sep 2019 02:43:30 EST ORI4dGej No.90786 Reply
>>90785
Since people seem to be finding this confusing, I’ll take up a name for the purposes of this thread.

I’ll ask again:
-Isn’t it embarrassing that buffs can’t agree on even elementary details of the case? What grounds does one have to favor their particular pet theory over any other?
-If your murder investigation ends up with dozens of potential suspects (whom no one can agree on), doesn’t that indicate something has gone wrong with your evidence-gathering and analysis?
>>
Oliver Fuckingway - Wed, 04 Sep 2019 08:52:05 EST qsdER9kg No.90788 Reply
>>90786
They're trying to take this to a racial place and I won't let them
>>
OP - Wed, 04 Sep 2019 11:38:42 EST YU8cYAkr No.90790 Reply
>>90786
Ok cool, I've also changed my name for clarity in this thread

No one else be OP though because at this point there are 3 or 4 of us in this thread
>>
Edward Pittfoot - Wed, 04 Sep 2019 18:31:08 EST jq5X7XC7 No.90793 Reply
>-Nov 22nd Oswald carried a long paper package to work which he claimed contained "curtain rods"
you forgot what ozzy did from 3:04am until 3:56am : dressed in a brown leotard 2 sizes too small and practiced shooting at moving cars with an air rifle. located in trinity park, hidden in the river, he used a cadet major 1953 0.177 , fired 102 rounds in 52 minutes, and hit none of the targets. he intentionally missed because he didn't want to get caught dong something odd the night before the assassination. After that he climbed one the trees and scratched his thighs.

do some reserch and don't just cook up random shit and expect anyone to believe it

tl;dr it was the hooknoses
>>
OP - Thu, 05 Sep 2019 16:55:00 EST ORI4dGej No.90800 Reply
>>90793
I’ll refer you to CE 2008, the neighbor Linnie Mae Randle’s statement to the FBI (WC volume XXIV, page 407), where she describes seeing Oswald’s package, as well as Wesley Frazier’s testimony in WC volume II, page 228, where Frazier, Oswald’s carpool driver, recounts his conversation with Lee concerning the “curtain rods”. Since you must be familiar with these two independent, corroborating testimonies, I’m confused as to why you would accuse me of inventing this episode out of whole cloth.
>>
Fucking Bleshfuck - Fri, 06 Sep 2019 13:15:25 EST WKpcTIO1 No.90804 Reply
1567790125194.jpg -(46480B / 45.39KB, 257x293) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Surprise Surprise, The psyop is OP to reinforce the story...

This isn't a conclusion i reached lightly.... haha, he was shot from the front homie. Newtonian physics faggot.

The doctors cut a chunk out of JFK's face to damage the evidence between the hospital in Dallas and D.C. The intial attending confirms that how the president looked when he left the hospital, illegally btw, was different than in the autopsy photos in D.C.
>>
Cedric Sicklenone - Sat, 07 Sep 2019 00:40:41 EST VL+AtoWQ No.90814 Reply
>>90804
learn how to use an imageboard, fucking newfag.
>>
Samuel Ferrybatch - Sat, 07 Sep 2019 01:37:55 EST rpARtg9g No.90819 Reply
>>90814
Why don't you Mr. Micropenis

Your Red-dit bullshit is bullshit
>>
OP - Sat, 07 Sep 2019 04:47:46 EST ORI4dGej No.90828 Reply
1567846066405.jpg -(245862B / 240.10KB, 900x1326) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>90804
It is somewhat inevitable that the discussion would come to the dynamics of Kennedy’s injuries, which I dislike going over, because it is gruesome. Nonetheless, this is a persistent misconception, so I will address it here.

Buffs frequently claim that Kennedy must have been shot from the front, because in the Zapruder film the President visibly jerks backward—head and body—after being shot in the cranium at Z-313. This is provably false on a number of points.

First, as Mr. Bleshfuck so crudely alludes to, “Newtonian physics” dictates that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Any bullet that could impart enough energy to hurl its victim backwards would produce a recoil strong enough to throw the gunman back with equal force. As I am sure he’s aware, no small arm on planet Earth is capable of this. In the real world when people are shot, whether with handguns or rifles, they are not bodily knocked back. This is empirically borne out everywhere and universally known to wound ballistics experts. To expect otherwise is 80s action movie physics.

Secondly, between Z-312 and Z-313, it is plainly visible in frame-by-frame viewing that the President’s head moves slightly, but unambiguously, forward as the bullet enters his skull and explodes out. As I said, no bullet in existence can move an entire adult’s body in the manner of Kennedy’s backward lurch, but a small and comparatively light body part like the head can be, and is, moved by the energy imparted by a rifle round. This abrupt jerk forward of about 5cm, coming before the dramatic convulsion backward, is further confirmation that the head shot necessarily came from behind.

So why was the President thrown back? There is one major reason, which is neuromuscular trauma. The violent and near-instantaneous decerebration caused by the Carcano bullet provoked a massive neurological spasm across JFK’s body. As his spinal cord was mechanically stimulated by the shockwave and its motor neurons fired in unison, this resulted in the concurrent extension of all Kennedy’s skeletal muscles. In such an event, the back muscles, which are the strongest in the torso, predominate, and that is exactly what we see happen in the Zapruder film. In rather gruesome experiments performed by shooting anesthetized goats with rifles, Dr. Alfred Olivier was able to experimentally reproduce exactly this reaction. Physicians have long been aware of the abnormal posture that is caused by grievous cerebral damage, in which the muscles of the body are extended and the neck is craned back. Kennedy assumed this decerebrate posture swiftly and violently, in keeping with the swift and violent nature of his injury.

A secondary reason is the so-called “jet effect.” As the bullet fragments exited Kennedy’s skull, along with them came several substantial fragments of bone, and the better part of the right hemisphere of his brain. The upshot of this was analogous to a rocket’s exhaust gases producing thrust along the opposite vector of the ejecta. Nobel Prize-winning physicist Luis Alvarez and physician Dr. John Lattimer were able to reproduce this phenomenon, first with melons, then with human skulls, finding that under appropriate conditions, they will in fact move towards the rifle when shot. Again, Newtonian physics, faggot.

Anyone who is interested in the physical and anatomical factors at play in the JFK assassination is encouraged to check out the physics article here https://www.heliyon.com/article/e00603/ , which, in addition to being a quite thorough overview, deploys some sophisticated mathematical modeling to help explain what is going on.

Finally, as for the frankly incredible, but occasionally repeated claim that JFK’s body was surgically altered between Dallas and the autopsy, I simply observe that from the time it was placed and hermetically sealed in the casket until its arrival at Bethesda, it was constantly attended to by Jackie Kennedy, Brigadier General Godfrey McHugh, and Secret Service agent Richard Johnsen, not to mention the small army of JFK’s aides and staff. Moreover, upon loading, steel cables were placed around the casket to prevent it or its lid from shifting during the flight. Removing these cables and then replacing them would have been a practical impossibility for the conspirators in the narrow time window available. I doubt these bare facts will placate some buffs, who are doubtless capable of constructing a yet more wild and implausible scenario for the theft of the body. I merely note that the reason they raise this issue in the first place is that the evidence provided by the X-rays and autopsy so strongly demonstrates two shots from behind, and is so devastating to any alternative scenario of additional or different wounds, that buffs are cornered into claiming they are somehow illegitimate. Finally, I express my bemusement at Bleshfuck’s claim that “a chunk out of Kennedy’s face” was altered, as his face is clearly undamaged in the autopsy photographs, and such an odd wound would produce no corroborating evidence for the lone gunman theory—on the contrary, it would represent a significant complication for it.
>>
James Randi - Sat, 07 Sep 2019 08:03:13 EST 6Gagrc8D No.90831 Reply
1567857793628.jpg -(62145B / 60.69KB, 600x400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Sorry I'm late to this thread. I like your stuff OP.
Im catching up still.

My opinion is Oswald acted alone in the actual act of firing at JFK but I think law enforcement was totally aware of him as a threat to politicians and at the very least allowed this to happen and at the absolute worst engineered events so that it would happen.
The thing that always bothered me about all of this was Jack Ruby, he's the hanging thread of all of this.
>>
OP - Mon, 09 Sep 2019 05:11:59 EST JHLa9JQQ No.90862 Reply
>>90831
Thanks for the kind words. Let's consider the issue of Mr. Ruby, since as you say he is the locus of your suspicions. This is not entirely unjustified, as Oswald's murder was the catalyst that led many people to suspect a conspiracy in the days that followed. On first glance it does look unusual. At the least it deserves an investigation of the circumstances and Ruby's movements.

Assuming, as a premise, that Jack Ruby was under instructions to kill Oswald, let's examine the reasons why this could not have been the case.

First, let's observe than when he was shot, Oswald had already spent 48 hours in police custody. If he intended to spill the beans, he had ample time to do so. As it turns out, he was combative, uncooperative, and told the police nothing to indicate a plot against the President, but neither Ruby nor anyone else could have known this. Killing one conspirator, live on national television, only to deliver another into the literal arms of the police is manifestly counterproductive, especially after the first has potentially blown the whole plot. One has to seriously question what the conspirators could have hoped to gain by this maneuver.

Secondly, let's recall that on Friday night Ruby was at Dallas Police Headquarters, and, by his own recollection, within two or three feet of Oswald as he passed by. He was armed, as he routinely was, yet took no action. Is it plausible that a hired killer--contracted by the Mafia, let's say--would have passed up his chance? Can we imagine the Mob telling a hitman to fulfill the contract at his leisure?

Thirdly, on Sunday morning, shortly after 11:00 AM, Ruby was at the Western Union office to send a money order to one of his strippers. The clerk recalled he was in no hurry. He left on foot and then arrived in the garage of Police Headquarters just in time, by a margin of seconds, to meet Oswald's departure and kill him. Oswald had in fact been scheduled to transfer hours earlier. A number of setbacks, among them the arrival of armored cars which proved not suitable, and a last-minute interrogation by the postal inspector, delayed it. In fact Oswald spent about 5 minutes dithering by requesting a sweater, rejecting one, then finally selecting another, before him and his police escort finally headed downstairs. Had he not done this, Ruby would have arrived too late. There was no TV or radio at the Western Union office, so Ruby had no way of knowing Oswald's location when he left. Simply put, this would have been the second most wildly lucky conspiratorial killing in history. It has every indication of an excited and impulsive murder by a man who thought he'd be a hero, and none of a planned-out hit.

Lastly, would Ruby make a good conspirator in the crime of the century? The recollection of Ruby's acquaintances and employees would indicate otherwise. The consensus is that he was enormously volatile, erratic, and a motormouth, personality traits doubtless enhanced by his phenmetrazine habit. Rabbi Hillel Silverman, who maintained a close relationship with him up to and during his incarceration, opined that Ruby was the last man he'd trust with anything. Reporter Ted Zoppi recalled that Ruby "couldn't keep a secret for five minutes". Yet Ruby, who like most Americans believed there was a conspiracy to kill the President, insisted until his death that he was innocent of any plot. After more than 50 years buffs have failed to produce any hard evidence that would indicate we should not take him at his word.
>>
OP - Tue, 10 Sep 2019 01:18:09 EST rIq4KZCr No.90876 Reply
>>90831
>My opinion is Oswald acted alone in the actual act of firing at JFK
This is clearly a disinfo campaign

> I think law enforcement was totally aware of him as a threat to politicians and at the very least allowed this to happen and at the absolute worst engineered events so that it would happen.
Learn grammer dickhead

>The thing that always bothered me about all of this was Jack Ruby, he's the hanging thread of all of this.
<this was the moment I realized that tinfoil is retarded>
>>
James Randi - Tue, 10 Sep 2019 05:44:09 EST 6Gagrc8D No.90877 Reply
>>90876
Are you like this all the time or is it just some times?
>>
OP - Wed, 11 Sep 2019 02:50:52 EST JHLa9JQQ No.90882 Reply
Let’s return to the matter of the hybrid lone gunman/conspiracy scenario, since the many multiple gunmen theories are controverted by all forensic evidence, the bulk of witness testimony (the handful of exceptions are highly dubious), common sense, and each other.

6Gagrc8D, you suggested “strong” and “weak” scenarios, respectively that Oswald alone shot and killed John Kennedy, but was directed to do so, and that police knew of Oswald’s plans but did not take action. Starting with the weak scenario, it is very hard to explain how Dallas police, the FBI, or anyone else could have known that Oswald posed a serious threat at all. His attempted assassination of General Walker was known to no one but him and Marina until after Kennedy was killed. Police certainly took an interest in that crime and gave up only for lack of leads. That Oswald planned to kill Kennedy was not even known to Marina, and quite probably he did not make the final decision to carry out the sniper attack until she refused to reconcile with him the night of the 21st. Any evidence that law enforcement knew he was dangerous would be unquestionably explosive, yet none has ever surfaced.

In my second post of this thread, I outlined a key, and I believe fatal difficulty for any conspiracy theory that implicates Oswald to any extent. Oswald would had to have been placed at the Depository deliberately—before any Presidential motorcade route was proposed, much less announced—yet such a scenario would inculpate the Oswalds’ neighbors, their elderly housemate, the Employment Commission, and every employer that turned him down. To my knowledge no buff has ever even attempted to explain how this could be possible. This difficulty is no less acute for the “lone gunman conspiracy” theory. What do we gain with such an explanation that is both less parsimonious and far less plausible?

Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.