"Aren't hard facts and evidence always more believable than wild speculation and conjecture? And aren't many/most/all [JFK] conspiracy theories created out of just that -- speculation?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S SOLE GUILT....
POINT-BY-POINT:
Judyth, 1963
Lee H.Oswald, 11/22/63THIS MAN -- LEE HARVEY OSWALD-- HAD NO MOTIVE TO KILL KENNEDY. HE ADMIRED KENNEDY. HE DENIED KILLING KENNEDY.
BELOW, YOU WILL FIND COGENT ARGUMENTS REFUTING THE SO-CALLED EVIDENCE.
PART ONE: THE FIRST FIVE ARGUMENTS
DVP WROTE: "When one piece of evidence that favors Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt is piled atop another, and another, and another....I'm just curious to know how many pieces of evidence that show Oswald killed President John F. Kennedy in 1963 it takes to sway a person away from the notion of conspiracy? Or, if nothing else, to sway that person away from the "Oswald is completely innocent" claims?"
==CORRECTION: Calling faked information 'evidence' does not make it so. When one piece of faked evidence is piled atop another, and another, and another... we must question the veracity and honesty of the person who dares pretend such evidence is solid, real and irrefutable.==
DVP: "From everything I can see, it's a veritable mountain of "Oswald Is Guilty" evidence (both circumstantial and physical). And not a single speck of it has been shown to be refutable with 100% absolute certainty."
OH, REALLY? DVP WROTE: "Not a single speck of it has been shown to be refutable with 100% absolute certainty." That's a pretty high standard. And it's unreasonable. When determining the guilt of the accused, a wide variety of evidence is tendered to the court. DVP mentions 'circumstantial and physical' kinds of evidence. He accepts this evidence and will not allow it to be rejected unless it has been proven to be 100% wrong.
Consider two people describing what a burglar stole from a house. Each is asked to describe what was stolen from them. One says her jewelry was stolen. The other says his watch and wallet were stolen. DVP's argument would say this evidence is not 100% acceptable because the witnesses described different items as being stolen. However--and it is important--the witnesses were responding to the question "What was stolen from you?" They were not asked "Can you list everything that was stolen?"
Evidence-gathering can be subjective. It is not subject,in other words, to a stringent standard where "100%" agreement is necessary in order to accept the evidence. What is accepted as evidence? What is rejected? What honest researchers have learned, in the case of Oswald's so-called guilt, is that many statements, matters of evidence, and witnesses were rejected, not considered,or never identified.
VIEW HERE JUST A FEW OF THE DOZENS OF EXAMPLES OF HOW LEE OSWALD WAS FRAMED
WE MUST CONSIDER THE NATURE OF EVIDENCE, AND WHY EVIDENCE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE 100% IRREFUTABLE IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED.
THIS IS A TWO-EDGED SWORD: MUCH OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST LEE OSWALD MUST BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY, JUST AS MUCH OF THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS FOR HIS INNOCENCE MUST BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.
DEFINITION OF EVIDENCE(SKIP THIS PART IF YOU UNDERSTAND THAT MOST EVIDENCE IS 'NOT' 100% IRREFUTABLE.
Relevant Evidence
- The most basic rule of evidence requires that proposed evidence be relevant to the case. This means that you can introduce only evidence that tends to make a fact in the case more or less likely. Relevant evidence does not have to be particularly strong, it just has to be related in some way to the fact it is being offered to prove or disprove. The judge decides whether the proposed evidence is relevant. However, even relevant evidence is not allowed if another rule of evidence requires its exclusion.
Real Evidence
- Real evidence is a tangible object that played a part in the dispute. Examples of real evidence include the weapon used in a crime or the actual contract that was breached.
Demonstrative Evidence
- Demonstrative evidence is used in conjunction with the testimony of a witness. Demonstrative evidence helps the judge or jury understand to what the witness is testifying. Demonstrative evidence is admissible when it is a fair and accurate representation of the witness's testimony. A map or photograph used during witness testimony would be considered demonstrative evidence.
Documentary Evidence
- Documentary evidence is usually a piece of writing that documents a fact or event that is in dispute. Common examples of documentary evidence include deeds, leases, ticket stubs, licenses and contracts. In some instances in which documentary evidence is present, it is the only evidence allowed on that issue. For example, if a lease is admitted into evidence in a renter's dispute, no one can testify about the contents of the lease.
Testimonial Evidence
- Testimonial evidence is verbal evidence given by a witness. Testimonial evidence is only admitted when the witness takes an oath to be honest and the witness has personal knowledge about what she is testifying. The witness must be able to remember and communicate what she perceived. Generally, witnesses may not testify to hearsay, that is, about what they heard another person say. There are exceptions to the hearsay rule, but they are quite complicated and require the expertise of a lawyer or judge to determine.
NOW, BACK TO DVP:
HE WRITES: "Does the average researcher just simply ignore all of the evidence that supports Oswald's lone guilt (and every bit of hard evidence supports it), or is the idea of a conspiracy in JFK's assassination so ingrained into subsequent generations of people since the event took place that they feel they have no choice BUT to go with the flow and believe the conspiracy theorists?"
LET'S EXAMINE THE ABOVE STATEMENT.
"Does the average researcher just simply ignore all of the evidence that supports Oswald's lone guilt...?"
DVP ARGUES THAT THE EVIDENCE (THAT DVP ACCEPTS) IS 'IGNORED' BY THE 'AVERAGE' RESEARCHER. WHAT IS AN 'AVERAGE' RESEARCHER? WE ASSUME HE MEANS THIS:
"One who conducts scholarly or scientific investigation or
inquiry. See Synonyms at inquiry. 2. Close, careful study."
(definition 'researcher')
THE VERY MEANING OF 'RESEARCH' IS TO CONDUCT CLOSE,
CAREFUL STUDY, DVP ASKS IF "ALL OF THE EVIDENCE THAT
SUPPORTS OSWALD'S LONE GUILT" IS BEING IGNORED BY THE
'AVERAGE RESEARCHER.'
BASED ON THE DEFINITION OF A RESEARCHER, DVP'S QUESTION
IS INAPPROPRIATE.
DVP'S NEXT STATEMENT:
DVP:"For I ask --- How could ALL of the following evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald have been either fabricated, planted, distorted, or in some manner faked? There's just TOO MUCH stuff here on the "Oswald Did It" table to ignore.
DVP PRESENTS A LOGICAL FALLACY (BIFURCATION) BY ASKING HOW COULD 'ALL' THE EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN PLANTED, DISTORTED, OR IN SOME MANNER FAKED? (HE LEAVES OUT 'IGNORED' AND 'UNFOUNDED.').
BIFURCATION: (either-or, black or white, all or nothing fallacy)
assumes that two categories are mutually exclusive and exhaustive.
(BIFURCATION)
DVP REPEATS HE FALLACY AGAIN:
DVP: "Granted, I'd agree that perhaps one or two of these things could have been manufactured to set up a patsy. But ALL of these items?! And complete silence be maintained by the many, many operatives who must certainly have been involved in the acts themselves and ensuing 40-year cover-up?!"
NOTE WELL: NUMEROUS OPERATIVES OVER THE YEARS HAVE SPOKEN OUT, SUCH AS DON ADDAMS, RICHARD HELMS AND E. HOWARD HUNT:
THE CIA'S E. HOWARD HUNT CONFESSED THAT OSWALD DIDN'T DO IT
NOW, WHO'S IGNORING EVIDENCE?
DVP CONTINUES IN THE SAME FALLACIOUS VEIN:
DVP: "Common sense (to me) dictates otherwise. And the "otherwise" leads anybody who isn't prone to cry "Conspiracy!" at every turn in the road to finally envision the fact that 24-year-old Lee Oswald was a lone nut who DID indeed pull off what the majority of people say couldn't happen in a million years."
DVP NOW CALLS ON 'AUTHORITY' TO BOLSTER HIS ARGUMENT:
"Author and ballistics expert Larry M. Sturdivan said it very well in his 2005 book"The JFK Myths", when he said this on page 246:
"While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated whole...with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence that is in complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- Larry Sturdivan"
DVP USES: "APPEAL TO AUTHORITY": (ipse dixit --also called ad verecundiam sometimes) attempts to justify an argument by citing a highly admired or well-known (but not necessarily qualified) figure who supports the conclusion being offered.
LARRY M. STURDIVAN is a wound ballistics expert who appears in TV specials arguing that Oswald killed JFK. All well and good. His argument assumes that the faked evidence is "perfectly coordinated." But this is not the case. Had it been so,we would not be exerting ourselves to defend Oswald.It would have been an open-and-shut case. Since that is not the case, Sturdivant's statement is merely an appeal to authority, since it has nothing to do with his expertise on ballistics.
DVP then gives us a long list of statements that he presents as solid fact. He begins with this statement:
"Lee Harvey Oswald murdered President John F.
Kennedy without the assistance of others in November of
1963 in Dallas, Texas, USA."
"The evidence against Lee H. Oswald includes these
subtle tidbits:"
'SUBTLE?' 'TIDBITS'? THE SERIOUS CHARGES, BELOW, ARE LISTED AS FACTS. OUR COMMENTS ARE IN RED AND UNDERLINED.
1.) Lee Harvey Oswald owned the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository on Friday afternoon, November 22, 1963.
AS A WITNESS MYSELF, I KNEW LEE HARVEY OSWALD AND HIS TASTE IN GUNS. HE SPOKE WITH CRESCENT CITY GARAGE OWNER ADRIAN ALBA ABOUT BUYING A FINE RIFLE. I NEVER SAW A RIFLE BELONGING TO LEE OSWALD. FURTHER, YOU CANNOT FIND A LOGICAL WAY FOR THE RIFLE TO HAVE REACHED NEW ORLEANS FROM TEXAS, AND THEN TO HAVE BEEN RETURNED TO TEXAS VIA RUTH PAINE'S CAR, WITHOUT ITS EVER BEING SEEN.
MARINA TOLD THE WARREN COMMISSION THAT LEE SAT WITH THE RIFLE DAY AFTER DAY IN BROAD VIEW OF A BUSY ROAD, YET NOT A SINGLE NOSY NEIGHBOR--AND THERE WERE PLENTY OF THEM--EVER SAW A RIFLE IN LEE'S HANDS. THEY KNEW WHEN HE HAD VISITORS, THEY SAID THEY SAW HIM READING ON THE PORCH FOR HOURS, AND THEY EVEN KNEW HOW MANY SUITCASES LEE TOOK WITH HIM WHEN HE LEFT FOR GOOD. BUT THEY NEVER REPORTED A RIFLE IN NEW ORLEANS. EVEN IF THE RIFLE REMAINED IN TEXAS, WE HAVE ONLY THE WORD OF THE DEMOHRENSCHILDTS AND MARINA THAT IT EVER EXISTED, THE DEMOHRENSCHILDTS ARE THE ONLY PERSONS TO HAVE SUPPLIED A BACKYARD PHOTO THAT WAS OBVIOUSLY MADE FROM A NEGATIVE THAT COULD BE LINKED TO THE SUSPICIOUS CAMERA 'FOUND' WEEKS LATER OH-SO-CONVENIENTLY IN RUTH PAINE'S GARAGE.
LEE OSWALD WOULD NEVER HAVE PURCHASED A TRACEABLE, CLUMSY, INFERIOR RIFLE BY MONEY ORDER, FURTHER, IT WAS ORDERED UNDER THE NAME 'HIDELL'-- BUT OSWALD'S LIST OF RECIPIENTS AT THE POST OFFICE BOX HAD NO SUCH NAME,SO HOW WAS THE RIFLE DELIVERED? CONVENIENTLY, THE POST OFFICE HAD NO RECORD OF ITS DELIVERY,OR OF THE HANDGUN THAT SUPPOSEDLY CAME THE SAME DAY (CAN'T HAVE 'TWO''LOST' RECEIPTS, CAN WE? SO THEY WERE ANNOUNCED TO HAVE BEEN DELIVERED ON THE SAME DAY-- EVEN THOUGH THE TWO ITEMS WERE ORDERED WEEKS APART FROM EACH OTHER.).
MIRACULOUSLY, THE RIFLE ORDER REACHED CHICAGO, AND THE MONEY ORDER WITH IT WAS PROCESSED --AND RIFLE PACKED --ONE DAY LATER, THOUGH THE MAIL ORDER WAS SUPPOSEDLY SENT ALL THE WAY FROM DALLAS TO CHICAGO BY REGULAR MAIL,USING A POSTBOX DROP MILES FROM WHERE OSWALD, WHO HAD NO CAR, WORKED AT THE TIME. DVP GETS AROUND ALL OF THIS BY SIMPLY STATING THIS HAIRY RIFLE PROBLEM AS 'FACT.'
THIS GIVES THE READER A GOOD INDICATION OF HOW ACCURATE THE REST OF HIS LONG PROPAGANDA PIECE WILL BE. FOR FULL INFORMATION, SEE THESE LINKS:
"FAULTY EVIDENCE: THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD" by Michael T.Griffith
"The Rifle" by Gil Jesus
"The Spent Rifle Shells"by Gil Jesus
MARINA OSWALD DID ADMIT TO TAKING PHOTOS. BUT WHAT DVP DOESN'T TELL YOU IS THAT MARINA SAID SHE TOOK HER PHOTOS FROM A DIFFERENT DIRECTION: SEE:
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/fraud.htm
AND FOR A GOOD GENERAL SUMMARY, SEE:
"The Backyard Photos of Lee Harvey Oswald Are Fakes" by John Kays
AS WELL AS MY OWN ESSAY:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38733842/Farid-s-Folly-and-the-Lee-Harvey-Oswald-Backyard-Photo-Fiasco
SEE YOUTUBE CHANNEL LOLA4JVB4LHO FOR VIDEOS CONCERNING LEE OSWALD'S INNOCENCE.
