No Real Investigation...
Ben Holmes
The former U.S. ambassador to Mexico, Thomas Mann:
"You know, I don't think the United States was very forthcoming to me about
Oswald... The great puzzle in all this, for me, is why J. Edgar Hoover would
say, 'Leave it alone.'" [Question: What do you mean?] "Basically, the message I
received from Hoover, very soon after the assassination, was, 'We don't want to
hear any more about this case. And tell the Mexican government not to do any
more investigating, we just want to hush it up.' Well, I hadn't reached any
conclusions, and that's why it surprised me so much. It was the only time
anything like this ever happened to me in all my years in government."
This fits in very well with two other pieces of evidence, the Katzenbach memo,
and the Courtney Evans memo.
Memo from FBI Assistant Director Courtney Evans:
"One of the dangers which Katzenbach sees is the possibility that the state
hearing to be held in Texas may develop some pertinent information not now
known. In an effort to minimize this, he is having Assistant Attorney General
Miller confer with the state officials in Texas in an effort to have them
restrict their hearing to the proposition of showing merely that Oswald killed
the President."
People who believe a *real* investigation was performed might be surprised by
the truth...
Bud
What did Katzenbach say he meant? A paragraph of a memo where Evans
outlines his understanding of what Katzenbach said or wrote. Did he
get it right, according to Katzenbach? Does Miller and the state
officials coroborate Evan`s understanding?
Ben Holmes
What, have words stopped having a meaning? What *could* he say? Do you have
problems understanding what is meant by the memo?
>A paragraph of a memo where Evans outlines his understanding of what
>Katzenbach said or wrote. Did he get it right, according to Katzenbach?
By all means, take a look at what the WC said about this memo... or
Katzenbach... get back to us.
>Does Miller and the state officials coroborate Evan`s understanding?
Feel free to research it. While you're at it, be sure to corroborate the former
ambassador to Mexico's statements as well. After all, perhaps he merely
*misunderstood* Hoover.
All three of these memos/statements are saying the same thing. I'm sure you
don't want to hear the message... but it's there in black & white.
Bud
Since words have meaning, those meanings cannot be misunderstood?
> What *could* he say?
He could clarify what he said. Which he did.
> Do you have
> problems understanding what is meant by the memo?
Of course, some of the points are unclearly made. If, as you
assert, it is foundation for coverup, where is the gameplan, where is
the stategy to achieve this? What did he mean when he said this?...
"It is important that all facts surrounding President Kennedy`s
Assassination be made public in a way that will satisfy people in the
United States and abroad that all the facts have been told and a
statement to that effect be made now."
> >A paragraph of a memo where Evans outlines his understanding of what
> >Katzenbach said or wrote. Did he get it right, according to Katzenbach?
>
> By all means, take a look at what the WC said about this memo... or
> Katzenbach... get back to us.
Yah, I did that. He said he wanted to get all the facts out quickly
before the rumor took hold. He thought speed was necessary to head off
the speculation.
> >Does Miller and the state officials coroborate Evan`s understanding?
>
> Feel free to research it.
I do feel free to do so, just not inclined. But since I`ve haven`t
seen the coroboration produced by CT, I`ll assume there is none.
> While you're at it, be sure to corroborate the >former
> ambassador to Mexico's statements as well.
How, ask Hoover?
> After all, perhaps he merely
> *misunderstood* Hoover.
Absolutely possible. Or he "understood" more than Hoover said.
> All three of these memos/statements are saying the same thing.
As you interpret thier meaning.
> I'm sure you
> don't want to hear the message... but it's there in black & white.
Is the message you derive the message intended by Katzenbach? You
think so, would he agree?
Ben Holmes
Certainly they can be... in any ONE memo or statement. But when you have a
multitude of sources all saying essentially the same thing, sooner or later you
need to merely accept it.
Can you admit that former ambassador Thomas Mann's statements about Hoover match
the Katzenbach and Evan's memos?
>> What *could* he say?
>
> He could clarify what he said. Which he did.
Go ahead, post a "clarification" of his stated fear that the Texas state hearing
would develop new *pertinent* information NOT related to the allegation that
Oswald shot the President.
This will be amusing, should you actually *do* so. But, like all trolls, you're
merely spouting off here...
>> Do you have
>> problems understanding what is meant by the memo?
>
> Of course, some of the points are unclearly made. If, as you
>assert, it is foundation for coverup, where is the gameplan, where is
>the stategy to achieve this? What did he mean when he said this?...
>
> "It is important that all facts surrounding President Kennedy`s
>Assassination be made public
[But not, as is clear from the Evan's memo, any *pertinent* information that
would not relate to 'Oswald as the assassin'.]
>in a way that will satisfy people in the United States
Yep... the stated purpose is to "satisfy" the American people. They failed...
didn't they?
>and abroad that all the facts have been told
Even as the WC made plans to hide a large portion of this evidence and testimony
away for 75 years...
>and a statement to that effect be made now."
Yep... there was a faction within the FBI/Justice Dept. that wanted to pressure
the WC by announcing the initial findings of the FBI "investigation".
>> >A paragraph of a memo where Evans outlines his understanding of what
>> >Katzenbach said or wrote. Did he get it right, according to Katzenbach?
>>
>> By all means, take a look at what the WC said about this memo... or
>> Katzenbach... get back to us.
>
> Yah, I did that.
Evidently not. Since you've said ZILCH about Katzenbach's fear of "pertinent"
information being developed by the Texas hearing.
>He said he wanted to get all the facts out quickly
>before the rumor took hold. He thought speed was necessary to head off
>the speculation.
Again... anachronistic. The Katzenbach memo was, as I recall, was written just
three days later.
The "speculation" that they *wanted* to quash was that this was a military or
Vice Presidential coup, IMO. And there's *proof* that they wanted to quash any
foreign involvement speculation.
>> >Does Miller and the state officials coroborate Evan`s understanding?
>>
>> Feel free to research it.
>
> I do feel free to do so, just not inclined. But since I`ve haven`t
>seen the coroboration produced by CT, I`ll assume there is none.
I've *provided* the corroboration. The former ambassador to Mexico, and those
two memos, all say essentially the same thing. They CORROBORATE EACH OTHER.
Feel free to produce any evidence whatsoever that illustrates otherwise.
>> While you're at it, be sure to corroborate the former
>> ambassador to Mexico's statements as well.
>
> How, ask Hoover?
>
>> After all, perhaps he merely
>> *misunderstood* Hoover.
>
> Absolutely possible. Or he "understood" more than Hoover said.
I've often commented on how many improbabilities you have to believe in to be a
LN'er... once again, you're illustrating that concept.
>> All three of these memos/statements are saying the same thing.
>
> As you interpret thier meaning.
Feel free to provide an alternative meaning that people can believe.
What hurts LN'ers is that words have meanings... you can't *change* those
meanings... this is why the WC was forced to coverup so much of their
evidence... it didn't match their "conclusions".
>> I'm sure you
>> don't want to hear the message... but it's there in black & white.
>
> Is the message you derive the message intended by Katzenbach?
"derive"???
Do you speak the English language natively?
Feel free to provide an alternative "message" that you can "derive" from these
two memos and the statements of Thomas Mann
>You think so, would he agree?
Do you commonly require the agreement of the person making the statement to
understand his words?
Bud
secondhand, or worse, subject to misinterpretation (you should
appreciate how easy that is to do). The Mexican can`t corrorate your
interpretation of what Katzenbach says, because it is a different
conversation, with a different person. Katzenbach`s intentions, as
outlined in the memo, are clear. Clearly, you misinterpret them.
> >> What *could* he say?
> >
> > He could clarify what he said. Which he did.
>
> Go ahead, post a "clarification" of his stated fear that the Texas state hearing
> would develop new *pertinent* information NOT related to the allegation that
> Oswald shot the President.
Supply the quote of Katzenbach saying anything about the state
hearing and "pertinent" information. And, while you are at it, since
words have meaning, tell me what Katzenbach meant when he kept
refering to "all facts".
> This will be amusing, should you actually *do* so. But, like all trolls, you're
> merely spouting off here...
Just pointing out the flaws in your thinking. If you weren`t so
biased, they would be as apparent to you as they are to me.
> >> Do you have
> >> problems understanding what is meant by the memo?
> >
> > Of course, some of the points are unclearly made. If, as you
> >assert, it is foundation for coverup, where is the gameplan, where is
> >the stategy to achieve this? What did he mean when he said this?...
> >
> > "It is important that all facts surrounding President Kennedy`s
> >Assassination be made public
>
> [But not, as is clear from the Evan's memo, any *pertinent* information that
> would not relate to 'Oswald as the assassin'.]
So what Katzenbach says firsthand is superseded by what someone
*said* he said? Katzenbach said "all facts", which trumps Evan`s
second hand interpretation of what Katzenbach said. Sometimes people
supply thier own spin, derive thier own gist, of what is told to them.
That could explain the way both Evans, and the Mexican diplomat, both
misconstrued what was told to them, as you, Walt, and others
misconstrue what you read or hear.
> >in a way that will satisfy people in the United States
>
> Yep... the stated purpose is to "satisfy" the American people. They failed...
> didn't they?
Oh, Yah. In fact, they never could compete with the natural
suspicion they tried to counter with facts. As useless an exercise
then as now.
> >and abroad that all the facts have been told
>
> Even as the WC made plans to hide a large portion of this evidence and testimony
> away for 75 years...
Yah, gripe about the Warren Commision for forty more years.
> >and a statement to that effect be made now."
>
> Yep... there was a faction within the FBI/Justice Dept. that wanted to pressure
> the WC by announcing the initial findings of the FBI "investigation".
Yah, to head off speculation, rumor, ect., some wanted to present
the evidence implicating Oz out as soon as possible. You read thier
motivations, yet disregard it in favor of your own interpretations.
You get to where you want to go using any means possible.
> >> >A paragraph of a memo where Evans outlines his understanding of what
> >> >Katzenbach said or wrote. Did he get it right, according to Katzenbach?
> >>
> >> By all means, take a look at what the WC said about this memo... or
> >> Katzenbach... get back to us.
> >
> > Yah, I did that.
>
> Evidently not. Since you've said ZILCH about Katzenbach's fear of "pertinent"
> information being developed by the Texas hearing.
You keep, using "pertinent", but that, I believe, is from Evans,
not Katzenbach. Katzenbach said "all facts".
> >He said he wanted to get all the facts out quickly
> >before the rumor took hold. He thought speed was necessary to head off
> >the speculation.
>
> Again... anachronistic. The Katzenbach memo was, as I recall, was written just
> three days later.
I think that is correct. Would you hold it against a weatherman who
predicts rain, when it in fact downpours?
> The "speculation" that they *wanted* to quash was that this was a military or
> Vice Presidential coup, IMO. And there's *proof* that they wanted to quash any
> foreign involvement speculation.
Then you are getting away from what Katzenbach said, and inserting
your own motivations. Katzenbach`s motivations are stated.
> >> >Does Miller and the state officials coroborate Evan`s understanding?
> >>
> >> Feel free to research it.
> >
> > I do feel free to do so, just not inclined. But since I`ve haven`t
> >seen the coroboration produced by CT, I`ll assume there is none.
>
> I've *provided* the corroboration. The former ambassador to Mexico, and those
> two memos, all say essentially the same thing. They CORROBORATE EACH OTHER.
They only corroborate the information if you misinterpret the
information. Is Evan`s memo commenting on the Katzenbach memo, or
something he heard directly from Katzenbach, or from some third party?
And, the only way to corroborate what Hoover told the Mexican
ambassador, would be a witness or transcript to that conversation.
First, establish that the Mexican got what Hoover said right, then
compare it to your interpretation of what others said.
> Feel free to produce any evidence whatsoever that illustrates otherwise.
I can work fine with what you provide. As usual, the problem isn`t
with the evidence. It is your interpretations, assumptions, ect. That
is why it is unnecessary to study the case, if you interpret so poorly
here, wouldn`t I expect it in all aspects of the case? If I can`t get
you to see your misinterpretations here, should I expect to have
better results with other aspects of the case? If the desired result
is to prove you wrong, how can that be done when the entire case is
rendered to opinion?
> >> While you're at it, be sure to corroborate the former
> >> ambassador to Mexico's statements as well.
> >
> > How, ask Hoover?
> >
> >> After all, perhaps he merely
> >> *misunderstood* Hoover.
> >
> > Absolutely possible. Or he "understood" more than Hoover said.
>
> I've often commented on how many improbabilities you have to believe in to be a
> LN'er... once again, you're illustrating that concept.
Once again, you assign probabilities. Why would we dismiss the idea
that Mexican ambassador misconstrued Hoover`s intentions?
> >> All three of these memos/statements are saying the same thing.
> >
> > As you interpret thier meaning.
>
> Feel free to provide an alternative meaning that people can believe.
So, you illustrate that it is all a matter of opinion. Believability
is in the eye of the beholder. But, I don`t need to provide an
alternate meaning to the Katzenbach memo, his meaning is clear, as is
your misinterpretation of his meaning.
> What hurts LN'ers is that words have meanings... you can't *change* those
> meanings... this is why the WC was forced to coverup so much of their
> evidence... it didn't match their "conclusions".
Katzenbach said "all facts". Twice, in his opening sentence. What
did he mean by those two words, Ben?
> >> I'm sure you
> >> don't want to hear the message... but it's there in black & white.
> >
> > Is the message you derive the message intended by Katzenbach?
>
> "derive"???
>
> Do you speak the English language natively?
Naively. The word cofuses you? I admit, I used "derive" because I
don`t like to continue to use the same word I was often using;
"interpret". By my dictionary, it means "infer, deduce". By all means,
if "derive" doesn`t fit the bill, please substitute "interpret". I
don`t want the English language to come between my points, and your
ability to understand them. The point being, is what Katzenbach
intended by what he wrote identical to your reading (if you don`t like
"reading", substitute "interpretation") of what he wrote.
> Feel free to provide an alternative "message" that you can "derive" from these
> two memos and the statements of Thomas Mann
You don`t like "message" either? Getting academic on me? Use
"gist", or "meaning". But, you lump these things together as similar
items. Are the similarities only in your mind?
> >You think so, would he agree?
>
> Do you commonly require the agreement of the person making the statement to
> understand his words?
I normally don`t. It seems apparent you should.
Walt
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:fc87368f.04040...@posting.google.com...
> Ben Holmes <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:<c4nl2...@drn.newsguy.com>...
> > In article <fc87368f.04040...@posting.google.com>, Bud
says...
> > >
> > >Ben Holmes <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
> > >news:<c4ljp...@drn.newsguy.com>...
> > >> In article <fc87368f.04040...@posting.google.com>, Bud
says...
> > >> >
> > >> >Ben Holmes <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
> > >> >news:<c4k1c...@drn.newsguy.com>...
> >
hearing
> > would develop new *pertinent* information NOT related to the allegation
that
> > Oswald shot the President.
>
> Supply the quote of Katzenbach saying anything about the state
> hearing and "pertinent" information. And, while you are at it, since
> words have meaning, tell me what Katzenbach meant when he kept
> refering to "all facts".
>
> > This will be amusing, should you actually *do* so. But, like all
trolls, you're
> > merely spouting off here...
>
Ben, thank God for this ignorant troll!!..... My guess is that 99% of the
readers can clearly understand the Katzenbach and Evans memos..... Ol dud
just provides an excellent sounding board to broadcast them.....
> Just pointing out the flaws in your thinking. If you weren`t so
> biased, they would be as apparent to you as they are to me.
>
> > >> Do you have
> > >> problems understanding what is meant by the memo?
> > >
> > > Of course, some of the points are unclearly made. If, as you
> > >assert, it is foundation for coverup, where is the gameplan, where is
> > >the stategy to achieve this? What did he mean when he said this?...
> > >
> > > "It is important that all facts surrounding President Kennedy`s
> > >Assassination be made public
> >
> > [But not, as is clear from the Evan's memo, any *pertinent* information
that
> > would not relate to 'Oswald as the assassin'.]
>
> So what Katzenbach says firsthand is superseded by what someone
> *said* he said? Katzenbach said "all facts", which trumps Evan`s
> second hand interpretation of what Katzenbach said. Sometimes people
> supply thier own spin, derive thier own gist, of what is told to them.
> That could explain the way both Evans, and the Mexican diplomat, both
> misconstrued what was told to them, as you, Walt, and others
> misconstrue what you read or hear.
>
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,...... "WE" misconstrue the meaning of words???.... Thank
you, Dud, I needed a good laugh.
Walt
Robert Harris
I wonder if we are misunderstanding Hoover's words, then:
"The thing I am most concerned about, and Mr. Katzenbach, is having
something issued so that they can convince the public that Oswald is
the real assassin"
Robert Harris
NoKetch
>
>"The thing I am most concerned about, and Mr. Katzenbach, is having
>something issued so that they can convince the public that Oswald is
>the real assassin"
>
>Robert Harris
>
That says it all. Hoover's most important concern was, not whether Oswald was
actually guilty, not whether there was a conspiracy, not whether there were
murderers still at large, but to "convince the public". So he was only
concerned with PR, not a real investigation. Not surprising, really, since when
a coup takes place, the most important thing is "deceiving the public".
Dave
Ben Holmes
Both Hoover AND Katzenbach are on record as saying the same thing... the
"Mexican", as you refer to the U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, Thomas Mann, was
discussing his conversation with Hoover.
Your reference to "the Mexican" makes it clear what your knowledge and literacy
are...
>> >> What *could* he say?
>> >
>> > He could clarify what he said. Which he did.
>>
>> Go ahead, post a "clarification" of his stated fear that the Texas
>> state hearing would develop new *pertinent* information NOT related
>> to the allegation that Oswald shot the President.
>
> Supply the quote of Katzenbach saying anything about the state
>hearing and "pertinent" information.
I did. It was in the Courtney Evans memo. You then stated that Katzenbach
could "clarify" what he said, and that he *did so*.
Now, when asked to back up this statement... you evade.
Looks like you lied about Katzenbach "clarifying" this statement. Didn't you?
>And, while you are at it, since
>words have meaning, tell me what Katzenbach meant when he kept
>refering to "all facts".
Certainly... all the facts that he and the FBI wanted put out for release...
that LHO was a lone nut, had no confederates, no foreign involvement... that
sort of thing.
>> This will be amusing, should you actually *do* so. But, like all
>> trolls, you're merely spouting off here...
Yep... my crystal ball has been working overtime again. You lied when you
asserted that Katzenbach had "clarified" his statements.
> Just pointing out the flaws in your thinking. If you weren`t so
>biased, they would be as apparent to you as they are to me.
Lies are apparent to everyone. When you can't supply a citation or quote what
you refer to...
>> >> Do you have
>> >> problems understanding what is meant by the memo?
>> >
>> > Of course, some of the points are unclearly made. If, as you
>> >assert, it is foundation for coverup, where is the gameplan, where is
>> >the stategy to achieve this? What did he mean when he said this?...
>> >
>> > "It is important that all facts surrounding President Kennedy`s
>> >Assassination be made public
>>
>> [But not, as is clear from the Evan's memo, any *pertinent* information that
>> would not relate to 'Oswald as the assassin'.]
>
> So what Katzenbach says firsthand is superseded by what someone
>*said* he said? Katzenbach said "all facts",
You stopped reading too soon. He said: "It is important that all of the facts
surrounding President Kennedy's Assassination be made public in a way which will
satisfy people in the United States and abroad that all the facts have been told
and that a statement to this effect be made now.
Let's requote that: "It is important that ALL OF THE FACTS surrounding President
Kennedy's Assassination BE MADE PUBLIC IN A WAY WHICH WILL SATISFY PEOPLE in the
United States and abroad that ALL THE FACTS HAVE BEEN TOLD and that a statement
to this effect be made now."
IOW's, you miss the motivation... Katzenbach, and Hoover as well, weren't
interested in the TRUTH, they were interested in closing the case to everyone's
satisfaction.
>which trumps Evan`s second hand interpretation of what Katzenbach said.
You seem confused... Katzenbach was STATING IN ADVANCE OF THE INVESTIGATION JUST
WHAT THAT INVESTIGATION WOULD REVEAL.
Can't get around that simple fact.
And what was *done* was precisely what the Courtney Evan's memo stated.
>Sometimes people
>supply thier own spin, derive thier own gist, of what is told to them.
>That could explain the way both Evans, and the Mexican diplomat, both
>misconstrued what was told to them, as you, Walt, and others
>misconstrue what you read or hear.
They all tell the same story. It's amusing to see how many improbabilities you
are forced to believe in to hold LN'er beliefs.
>> >in a way that will satisfy people in the United States
>>
>> Yep... the stated purpose is to "satisfy" the American people.
>> They failed... didn't they?
>
> Oh, Yah. In fact, they never could compete with the natural
>suspicion they tried to counter with facts.
You seem sure that they *got* the facts. Since no real investigation *was*
conducted, you're mistaken.
>As useless an exercise then as now.
Nope, not at all. It's the evidence that *DID* make it into the 26 volumes
which demonstrates the conspiracy.
Who knows what might have been uncovered had a *real* investigation been
conducted?
>> >and abroad that all the facts have been told
>>
>> Even as the WC made plans to hide a large portion of this evidence
>> and testimony away for 75 years...
>
> Yah, gripe about the Warren Commision for forty more years.
Just a simple fact. And contrary to YOUR theory that they wanted to get all the
facts out to the public.
>> >and a statement to that effect be made now."
>>
>> Yep... there was a faction within the FBI/Justice Dept. that wanted
>> to pressure the WC by announcing the initial findings of the FBI
>> "investigation".
>
> Yah, to head off speculation, rumor, ect., some wanted to present
>the evidence implicating Oz out as soon as possible.
There *WAS* at that point in time (Hoover's conversation with LBJ's aide) very
little tying LHO to the crime.
But LHO was dead, and that makes for a *very* convenient scapegoat.
>You read thier motivations, yet disregard it in favor of your own
>interpretations. You get to where you want to go using any means possible.
Actually, you *missed* the motivation that Katzenbach STATED was the reason he
wanted to get "all the facts" out to the public. Don't you think you should
learn to use critical thinking skills?
>> >> >A paragraph of a memo where Evans outlines his understanding of what
>> >> >Katzenbach said or wrote. Did he get it right, according to Katzenbach?
>> >>
>> >> By all means, take a look at what the WC said about this memo... or
>> >> Katzenbach... get back to us.
>> >
>> > Yah, I did that.
>>
>> Evidently not. Since you've said ZILCH about Katzenbach's fear
>> of "pertinent" information being developed by the Texas hearing.
>
> You keep, using "pertinent", but that, I believe, is from Evans,
>not Katzenbach. Katzenbach said "all facts".
It *was* from Katzenbach... merely reported by Evans. You keep missing
Katzenbach's OWN WRITTEN MOTIVATION for getting out "all the facts".
>> >He said he wanted to get all the facts out quickly
>> >before the rumor took hold. He thought speed was necessary to head off
>> >the speculation.
>>
>> Again... anachronistic. The Katzenbach memo was, as I recall, was
>> written just three days later.
>
> I think that is correct. Would you hold it against a weatherman who
>predicts rain, when it in fact downpours?
You don't seem to understand the point. That's okay. You've already indicated
your anachronistic belief that the public didn't trust the government in 1963.
>> The "speculation" that they *wanted* to quash was that this was a
>> military or Vice Presidential coup, IMO. And there's *proof* that
>> they wanted to quash any foreign involvement speculation.
>
> Then you are getting away from what Katzenbach said, and inserting
>your own motivations. Katzenbach`s motivations are stated.
Yep... I see you're not even familiar with the memo you are willing to defend...
"2. Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off, and we should
have some basis for rebutting thought that this was a Communist conspiracy or
(as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a right-wing conspiracy to blame it on he
Communists. Unfortunately the facts on Oswald seem about too pat-- too obvious
(Marxist, Cuba, Russian wife, etc.). The Dallas police have put out statements
on the Communist conspiracy theory, and it was they who were in charge when he
was shot and thus silenced."
Now, if you can't see that this is *PROOF* that they wanted to quash any foreign
involvement speculation, then you are even dumber than is supposed on this
newsgroup. Wrong, weren't you?
>> >> >Does Miller and the state officials coroborate Evan`s understanding?
>> >>
>> >> Feel free to research it.
>> >
>> > I do feel free to do so, just not inclined. But since I`ve haven`t
>> >seen the coroboration produced by CT, I`ll assume there is none.
>>
>> I've *provided* the corroboration. The former ambassador to Mexico,
>> and those two memos, all say essentially the same thing. They
>> CORROBORATE EACH OTHER.
>
> They only corroborate the information if you misinterpret the
>information. Is Evan`s memo commenting on the Katzenbach memo, or
>something he heard directly from Katzenbach, or from some third party?
>And, the only way to corroborate what Hoover told the Mexican
>ambassador,
Well, I suppose this is better than calling Thomas Mann "the Mexican". But he
is *NOT* the "Mexican ambassador" either. He's the U.S. ambassador TO Mexico.
The Mexican ambassador during that timeframe was Antonio Carillo Flores. Who,
as a google search will quickly demonstrate, has NEVER come up in this newsgroup
before...
>would be a witness or transcript to that conversation.
Yep... someone who served as an Ambassador from the United States does not have
enough character to be listened to when he speaks...
Did you ever wonder why he wasn't questioned by the WC, even though the
following exchange *DID* happen:
Mr. RANKIN. After the assassination, did you have direct communications with
Ambassador Thomas Mann while he was still Ambassador at Mexico?
Secretary RUSK. Yes; we had a number of exchanges with Ambassador Mann connected
with the presence in Mexico of Mr. Oswald. I say those messages, and over a
period of some days had daily consultations about them with our Deputy Under
Secretary for Political Affairs, Mr. U. Alexis Johnson. Mr. Johnson is my
principal representative in our dealings with the various intelligence and
security agencies of the government and with the Pentagon, and he has an office
very near mine on the seventh floor of the Department of State. These exchanges
raised questions of the most far-reaching character involving the possibility of
the implications of another government, and so I had a very deep personal
interest in that at the time. Our principal concern was to be sure that the FBI
and the CIA who were the principal agencies investigating this matter would have
every possible facility at their disposal, and would--and that our Ambassador
would be given the fullest support from us in facilitating the investigation at
the Mexican end. So I was for a period, until this particular trail ran its
course, very much involved in those exchanges."
Once again: "These exchanges raised questions of the most far-reaching character
involving the possibility of the implications of another government,"... as I've
previously mentioned, Thomas Mann was recalled from his post by LBJ... recalled
on Dec 22, 1963. Seems that *his* investigation was getting rather more
"pertinent information" than some people wanted.
So... can you explain why the WC didn't question the former ambassador?
>First, establish that the Mexican
Oops... you're back to "the Mexican"
Please pay attention, and learn to read.
>got what Hoover said right, then
>compare it to your interpretation of what others said.
I rarely doubt what an ambassador from the United States to another country has
to say, unless there is *reason* to doubt.
>> Feel free to produce any evidence whatsoever that illustrates otherwise.
>
> I can work fine with what you provide.
Here... let me translate that: "I'm unable to provide any evidence contrary to
what you are providing."
You should jump over to the censored newsgroup, and ask for help...
>As usual, the problem isn`t
>with the evidence. It is your interpretations, assumptions, ect. That
>is why it is unnecessary to study the case, if you interpret so poorly
>here, wouldn`t I expect it in all aspects of the case?
ROTFLMAO!!! A justification for NOT studying this case!!! AMAZING!!!
>If I can`t get
>you to see your misinterpretations here, should I expect to have
>better results with other aspects of the case? If the desired result
>is to prove you wrong, how can that be done when the entire case is
>rendered to opinion?
You seem confused that "interpretation" is being done here. Words have
meanings, that's a simple fact that you can't get away from.
>> >> While you're at it, be sure to corroborate the former
>> >> ambassador to Mexico's statements as well.
>> >
>> > How, ask Hoover?
>> >
>> >> After all, perhaps he merely
>> >> *misunderstood* Hoover.
>> >
>> > Absolutely possible. Or he "understood" more than Hoover said.
>>
>> I've often commented on how many improbabilities you have to believe
>> in to be a LN'er... once again, you're illustrating that concept.
>
> Once again, you assign probabilities. Why would we dismiss the idea
>that Mexican ambassador misconstrued Hoover`s intentions?
Because for one, it was the U.S. ambassador, not the Mexican ambassador.
Second, the U.S. ambassador was recalled by LBJ... this was less than a month
after Richard Helms sent a cable to CIA station chief Winston Scott
in Mexico City. It read: "For your private information, the distinct feeling
here in all three agencies [CIA, FBI, State] that Ambassador [Thomas Mann] is
pushing this case too hard ... and that we could well create flap with Cubans
which could have serious repercussions."
These facts corroborate what the U.S ambassador said. You could also note what
Rusk testified to... and remember that the Katzenbach memo states that even at
that early date, the Justice Dept. and Hoover were trying to SHUT DOWN such
"speculation" as foreign involvement.
Must bug you that all of this *fits* together... but that's the way it usually
happens with facts... they tend to fit together.
>> >> All three of these memos/statements are saying the same thing.
>> >
>> > As you interpret thier meaning.
>>
>> Feel free to provide an alternative meaning that people can believe.
>
> So, you illustrate that it is all a matter of opinion.
Nope. Remember, I'm the one who believes that words have meanings. It's YOU
that keep saying that these memos are merely an interpretive problem. So I'm
asking you to *provide* that alternative meaning.
>Believability
>is in the eye of the beholder. But, I don`t need to provide an
>alternate meaning to the Katzenbach memo, his meaning is clear, as is
>your misinterpretation of his meaning.
Yep... it's unfortunate for you that Katzenbach's memo *IS* rather clear.
Denying and shutting down any investigation into areas that they COULD NOT
POSSIBLY KNOW THE FACTS AT THAT POINT IN TIME.
>> What hurts LN'ers is that words have meanings... you can't *change* those
>> meanings... this is why the WC was forced to coverup so much of their
>> evidence... it didn't match their "conclusions".
>
> Katzenbach said "all facts". Twice, in his opening sentence. What
>did he mean by those two words, Ben?
He himself went on to describe what he meant. I quoted it above several
times... do you need a refresher course in the Katzenbach memo?
>> >> I'm sure you
>> >> don't want to hear the message... but it's there in black & white.
>> >
>> > Is the message you derive the message intended by Katzenbach?
>>
>> "derive"???
>>
>> Do you speak the English language natively?
>
> Naively.
I suggest that you use a dictionary if you don't know a word. I wrote
"natively", I meant "natively".
>The word cofuses you? I admit, I used "derive" because I
>don`t like to continue to use the same word I was often using;
>"interpret". By my dictionary, it means "infer, deduce". By all means,
>if "derive" doesn`t fit the bill, please substitute "interpret". I
>don`t want the English language to come between my points, and your
>ability to understand them. The point being, is what Katzenbach
>intended by what he wrote identical to your reading (if you don`t like
>"reading", substitute "interpretation") of what he wrote.
I well understand at this point that you believe Katzenbach's memo has to be
"interpreted" correctly...
But words have meanings... he said what he meant. And his memo cannot be
"massaged" into a non-conspiratorial innocent memo.
>> Feel free to provide an alternative "message" that you can "derive"
>> from these two memos and the statements of Thomas Mann
>
> You don`t like "message" either? Getting academic on me? Use
>"gist", or "meaning". But, you lump these things together as similar
>items. Are the similarities only in your mind?
Evading again. I see that you are unwilling to provide an alternative
explanation for all these statements and memos.
>> >You think so, would he agree?
>>
>> Do you commonly require the agreement of the person making the statement to
>> understand his words?
>
> I normally don`t. It seems apparent you should.
Silly.
Ben Holmes
As I've often remarked, IMO this is the purpose for these LN trolls... to allow
us to get the information out to lurkers who are looking for answers.
And even though I *say* this, these trolls keep coming out of the woodwork,
argue for awhile, then disappear again. I notice that Jerry is finally making a
comeback here... but I suspect that he'll duck back to the censored group.
>> Just pointing out the flaws in your thinking. If you weren`t so
>> biased, they would be as apparent to you as they are to me.
>>
>> > >> Do you have
>> > >> problems understanding what is meant by the memo?
>> > >
>> > > Of course, some of the points are unclearly made. If, as you
>> > >assert, it is foundation for coverup, where is the gameplan, where is
>> > >the stategy to achieve this? What did he mean when he said this?...
>> > >
>> > > "It is important that all facts surrounding President Kennedy`s
>> > >Assassination be made public
>> >
>> > [But not, as is clear from the Evan's memo, any *pertinent* information
>that
>> > would not relate to 'Oswald as the assassin'.]
>>
>> So what Katzenbach says firsthand is superseded by what someone
>> *said* he said? Katzenbach said "all facts", which trumps Evan`s
>> second hand interpretation of what Katzenbach said. Sometimes people
>> supply thier own spin, derive thier own gist, of what is told to them.
>> That could explain the way both Evans, and the Mexican diplomat, both
>> misconstrued what was told to them, as you, Walt, and others
>> misconstrue what you read or hear.
>>
>
>Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,...... "WE" misconstrue the meaning of words???.... Thank
>you, Dud, I needed a good laugh.
>
>Walt
I'm particularly amused by his constant confusion ... "the Mexican", or "the
Mexican ambassador" ... or, in another post, confusing "natively" with
"naively".
Bud
Katzenbach were concerned about convincing the public of this. They
were right to be concerned, wrong that it was in thier power to
control.
AnthonyMarsh
Correct. Hoover himself believed it was a conspiracy.
> Dave
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
Robert Harris
How can you be sure of that, Bud?
More importantly, how can you be sure that he was the only assassin?
My point is that you are putting all your money on a noninvestigation.
Do you really think it was impossible for them to overlook other
suspects, or even some kind of frameup, with an attitude like that?
Did you know it took the FBI nearly a year to apprehend a (apparent)
conspirator in the OK City bombing, and that three years later, they
are still find things about the 9/11 conspiracy?
Yet, Hoover was closing his investigation almost before JFK's corpse
was cold.
This is why I am always so amazed at the nutters who exhibit absolute
certainty that there was no-one else involved - which would be a
nonfalsifiable, even if there had been a legitimate investigation.
Robert Harris
Ben Holmes
The troll misses the point...
Bud
"Amabassaor from Mexico". I read the most important part, the quote, I
often skip the names as I am unlikely to retain them. With so many
people introduced into these threads, I don`t usually take note of
names I will forget one minute after I finish reading them.
> >> >> What *could* he say?
> >> >
> >> > He could clarify what he said. Which he did.
> >>
> >> Go ahead, post a "clarification" of his stated fear that the Texas
> >> state hearing would develop new *pertinent* information NOT related
> >> to the allegation that Oswald shot the President.
> >
> > Supply the quote of Katzenbach saying anything about the state
> >hearing and "pertinent" information.
>
> I did. It was in the Courtney Evans memo.
That`s not a quote. That Evans saying that Katzenbach said. It`s
attributed, at best.
> You then stated that Katzenbach
> could "clarify" what he said, and that he *did so*.
Liar! You fucking liar! Wait a minute, I did say that. Sorry.
> Now, when asked to back up this statement... you evade.
>
Well, since what you write means so little to me, I assume what I
write is as equally unimportant to you. If pressed, I may comply to
your demands, or ignore them, whichever suits me.
> Looks like you lied about Katzenbach "clarifying" this statement. Didn't you?
You`re wound tighter than the inside of a golf ball, aren`t you
Shirley? What I meant was that Katzenbach explained his motivations,
and the context to what he wrote in that memo in his testimony to the
House Commitee. It`s available on McAdams site, if you`re interested.
I just was barely enough interested to read what the guy said. It
exceeds my interest to explain to you what he said. I`m sure you
prefer your interpretation to what he said to his explaination and
context to what he wrote in that memo.
> >And, while you are at it, since
> >words have meaning, tell me what Katzenbach meant when he kept
> >refering to "all facts".
>
> Certainly... all the facts that he and the FBI wanted put out for release...
> that LHO was a lone nut, had no confederates, no foreign involvement... that
> sort of thing.
Are you sure that is the extent of what he meant by "all facts"?
> >> This will be amusing, should you actually *do* so. But, like all
> >> trolls, you're merely spouting off here...
>
> Yep... my crystal ball has been working overtime again. You lied when you
> asserted that Katzenbach had "clarified" his statements.
Shirley, I can understand why you felt it necessary to study
martial arts. It was easier for you than developing a personality.
> > Just pointing out the flaws in your thinking. If you weren`t so
> >biased, they would be as apparent to you as they are to me.
>
> Lies are apparent to everyone. When you can't supply a citation or quote what
> you refer to...
Shirley, why do you confuse my laziness with dishonesty? You
misinterpret my motivations as badly as you do Katzenbach`s. I`m not
going to convince you the errors of your ways whether I do a little
research, or a lot. And even if an effort by me could bring you
enlightenment, I`m afraid you would have to stay in the dark.
> >> >> Do you have
> >> >> problems understanding what is meant by the memo?
> >> >
> >> > Of course, some of the points are unclearly made. If, as you
> >> >assert, it is foundation for coverup, where is the gameplan, where is
> >> >the stategy to achieve this? What did he mean when he said this?...
> >> >
> >> > "It is important that all facts surrounding President Kennedy`s
> >> >Assassination be made public
> >>
> >> [But not, as is clear from the Evan's memo, any *pertinent* information that
> >> would not relate to 'Oswald as the assassin'.]
> >
> > So what Katzenbach says firsthand is superseded by what someone
> >*said* he said? Katzenbach said "all facts",
>
> You stopped reading too soon. He said: "It is important that all of the facts
> surrounding President Kennedy's Assassination be made public in a way which will
> satisfy people in the United States and abroad that all the facts have been told
> and that a statement to this effect be made now.
>
> Let's requote that: "It is important that ALL OF THE FACTS surrounding President
> Kennedy's Assassination BE MADE PUBLIC IN A WAY WHICH WILL SATISFY PEOPLE in the
> United States and abroad that ALL THE FACTS HAVE BEEN TOLD and that a statement
> to this effect be made now."
>
> IOW's, you miss the motivation... Katzenbach, and Hoover as well, weren't
> interested in the TRUTH, they were interested in closing the case to everyone's
> satisfaction.
Who would not be satisfied with the guilty party being found
guilty? Besides kooks, that is.
> >which trumps Evan`s second hand interpretation of what Katzenbach said.
>
> You seem confused... Katzenbach was STATING IN ADVANCE OF THE INVESTIGATION JUST
> WHAT THAT INVESTIGATION WOULD REVEAL.
No evidence gathered that early indicated Oz`s guilt? Wasn`t he
picked out of line-ups for shooting a cop to death less than a hour
after the assassination? I guess they didn`t have the CT mentality to
just dismiss the witnesses to that killing, and the pictures of Oz
holding the murder weapon, ect. Should have been focusing the search
on Mexico.
> Can't get around that simple fact.
>
> And what was *done* was precisely what the Courtney Evan's memo stated.
The Texas state officials got these instructions, and carried them
out?
> >Sometimes people
> >supply thier own spin, derive thier own gist, of what is told to them.
> >That could explain the way both Evans, and the Mexican diplomat, both
> >misconstrued what was told to them, as you, Walt, and others
> >misconstrue what you read or hear.
>
> They all tell the same story. It's amusing to see how many improbabilities you
> are forced to believe in to hold LN'er beliefs.
The probability that you would misinterpret them all to mean
conspiracy is very high.
> >> >in a way that will satisfy people in the United States
> >>
> >> Yep... the stated purpose is to "satisfy" the American people.
> >> They failed... didn't they?
> >
> > Oh, Yah. In fact, they never could compete with the natural
> >suspicion they tried to counter with facts.
>
> You seem sure that they *got* the facts. Since no real investigation *was*
> conducted, you're mistaken.
>
Whether they did or didn`t get the facts was irrelevant, wasn`t it?
As you like to point out, the American people believe in conspiracy
despite the facts presented by the WC, as the general public is
largely unaware of the facts presented by the WC.
> >As useless an exercise then as now.
>
> Nope, not at all. It's the evidence that *DID* make it into the 26 volumes
> which demonstrates the conspiracy.
>
Yet the general public is unaware of this evidence. Yet they come
to the conclusion of conspiracy. How do you suppose that happened?
> Who knows what might have been uncovered had a *real* investigation been
> conducted?
Who knows what Kennedy would have done if Oswald`s rifle jammed.
That topic gets beat to death here also.
> >> >and abroad that all the facts have been told
> >>
> >> Even as the WC made plans to hide a large portion of this evidence
> >> and testimony away for 75 years...
> >
> > Yah, gripe about the Warren Commision for forty more years.
>
> Just a simple fact. And contrary to YOUR theory that they wanted to get all the
> facts out to the public.
Katzenbach says "all facts".
> >> >and a statement to that effect be made now."
> >>
> >> Yep... there was a faction within the FBI/Justice Dept. that wanted
> >> to pressure the WC by announcing the initial findings of the FBI
> >> "investigation".
> >
> > Yah, to head off speculation, rumor, ect., some wanted to present
> >the evidence implicating Oz out as soon as possible.
>
> There *WAS* at that point in time (Hoover's conversation with LBJ's aide) very
> little tying LHO to the crime.
Just a little old cop killing shortly after the crime.
> But LHO was dead, and that makes for a *very* convenient scapegoat.
The poor railroaded patsy. It would have been interesting to see if
you could convince a jury to see him that way. But, since we can`t
convict a dead guy, I`d like to see you guys bag a conspirator. Some
of them must still be living, no?
> >You read thier motivations, yet disregard it in favor of your own
> >interpretations. You get to where you want to go using any means possible.
>
> Actually, you *missed* the motivation that Katzenbach STATED was the reason he
> wanted to get "all the facts" out to the public. Don't you think you should
> learn to use critical thinking skills?
I am critical of your thinking skills.
> >> >> >A paragraph of a memo where Evans outlines his understanding of what
> >> >> >Katzenbach said or wrote. Did he get it right, according to Katzenbach?
> >> >>
> >> >> By all means, take a look at what the WC said about this memo... or
> >> >> Katzenbach... get back to us.
> >> >
> >> > Yah, I did that.
> >>
> >> Evidently not. Since you've said ZILCH about Katzenbach's fear
> >> of "pertinent" information being developed by the Texas hearing.
> >
> > You keep, using "pertinent", but that, I believe, is from Evans,
> >not Katzenbach. Katzenbach said "all facts".
>
> It *was* from Katzenbach... merely reported by Evans. You keep missing
> Katzenbach's OWN WRITTEN MOTIVATION for getting out "all the facts".
To head off rumor and speculation? But Katzenbach mentions no fear
of pertinant information in his memo. Where do you think Evans got
that idea? From a conversation with Katzenbach? From what someone else
may have told him of Katzenbach`s intentions? What is the source of
Evan`s understanding of Katzenbach`s intentions?
> >> >He said he wanted to get all the facts out quickly
> >> >before the rumor took hold. He thought speed was necessary to head off
> >> >the speculation.
> >>
> >> Again... anachronistic. The Katzenbach memo was, as I recall, was
> >> written just three days later.
> >
> > I think that is correct. Would you hold it against a weatherman who
> >predicts rain, when it in fact downpours?
>
> You don't seem to understand the point. That's okay. You've already indicated
> your anachronistic belief that the public didn't trust the government in 1963.
The potential was there, obviously, since you constantly cite the
polls indicating it. Hoover and Katzenbach foresaw that potential, yet
they receive no credit from you for being so foresightful. Strange.
> >> The "speculation" that they *wanted* to quash was that this was a
> >> military or Vice Presidential coup, IMO. And there's *proof* that
> >> they wanted to quash any foreign involvement speculation.
> >
> > Then you are getting away from what Katzenbach said, and inserting
> >your own motivations. Katzenbach`s motivations are stated.
>
> Yep... I see you're not even familiar with the memo you are willing to defend...
I`m going to insert some comments in the quote below...
> "2. Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off,
Speculation about whether Oz was an agent of a foreign power ought
to be nipped in the bud with the immediate release of the
incriminating evidence against Oz. I believe this is close to what
Katzenbach was trying to say. I think
how you interpret what Katzenbach has to say is not what he intended
when he wrote that memo.
>and we should
> have some basis for rebutting thought that this was a Communist conspiracy or
> (as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a right-wing conspiracy to blame it on he
> Communists. Unfortunately the facts on Oswald seem about too pat-- too obvious
> (Marxist, Cuba, Russian wife, etc.). The Dallas police have put out statements
> on the Communist conspiracy theory, and it was they who were in charge when he
> was shot and thus silenced."
>
> Now, if you can't see that this is *PROOF* that they wanted to quash any foreign
> involvement speculation, then you are even dumber than is supposed on this
> newsgroup. Wrong, weren't you?
About what? Did I contest that they wanted to quash foreign
involvement speculation?
> >> >> >Does Miller and the state officials coroborate Evan`s understanding?
> >> >>
> >> >> Feel free to research it.
> >> >
> >> > I do feel free to do so, just not inclined. But since I`ve haven`t
> >> >seen the coroboration produced by CT, I`ll assume there is none.
> >>
> >> I've *provided* the corroboration. The former ambassador to Mexico,
> >> and those two memos, all say essentially the same thing. They
> >> CORROBORATE EACH OTHER.
> >
> > They only corroborate the information if you misinterpret the
> >information. Is Evan`s memo commenting on the Katzenbach memo, or
> >something he heard directly from Katzenbach, or from some third party?
> >And, the only way to corroborate what Hoover told the Mexican
> >ambassador,
>
> Well, I suppose this is better than calling Thomas Mann "the Mexican". But he
> is *NOT* the "Mexican ambassador" either. He's the U.S. ambassador TO Mexico.
>
> The Mexican ambassador during that timeframe was Antonio Carillo Flores.
Yeah, everybody knows that.
> Who,
> as a google search will quickly demonstrate, has NEVER come up in this newsgroup
> before...
>
> >would be a witness or transcript to that conversation.
>
> Yep... someone who served as an Ambassador from the United States does not have
> enough character to be listened to when he speaks...
A title conveys character? When did this guy (henceforth refered by
me as "The Mexican") make these claims about what Hoover said? Was
Hoover alive? Did "The Mexican" harbor any kind of ill will towards
Hoover?
> Did you ever wonder why he wasn't questioned by the WC, even though the
> following exchange *DID* happen:
>
> Mr. RANKIN. After the assassination, did you have direct communications with
> Ambassador Thomas Mann while he was still Ambassador at Mexico?
> Secretary RUSK. Yes; we had a number of exchanges with Ambassador Mann connected
> with the presence in Mexico of Mr. Oswald. I say those messages, and over a
> period of some days had daily consultations about them with our Deputy Under
> Secretary for Political Affairs, Mr. U. Alexis Johnson. Mr. Johnson is my
> principal representative in our dealings with the various intelligence and
> security agencies of the government and with the Pentagon, and he has an office
> very near mine on the seventh floor of the Department of State. These exchanges
> raised questions of the most far-reaching character involving the possibility of
> the implications of another government, and so I had a very deep personal
> interest in that at the time. Our principal concern was to be sure that the FBI
> and the CIA who were the principal agencies investigating this matter would have
> every possible facility at their disposal, and would--and that our Ambassador
> would be given the fullest support from us in facilitating the investigation at
> the Mexican end. So I was for a period, until this particular trail ran its
> course, very much involved in those exchanges."
>
> Once again: "These exchanges raised questions of the most far-reaching character
> involving the possibility of the implications of another government,"... as I've
> previously mentioned, Thomas Mann was recalled from his post by LBJ... recalled
> on Dec 22, 1963. Seems that *his* investigation was getting rather more
> "pertinent information" than some people wanted.
Seems like this episode appears sinister to you. The pertinant
information his investigation uncovered was...? Did his mining
expedition produce any nuggets, or just more fool`s gold?
> So... can you explain why the WC didn't question the former ambassador?
>
I was not a member on that illustrious panel.
> >First, establish that the Mexican
>
> Oops... you're back to "the Mexican"
My pet name for him.
> Please pay attention, and learn to read.
Yah, like it`s that easy.
> >got what Hoover said right, then
> >compare it to your interpretation of what others said.
>
> I rarely doubt what an ambassador from the United States to another country has
> to say, unless there is *reason* to doubt.
See, I`m just the opposite. I don`t believe them until they give me
a reason.
> >> Feel free to produce any evidence whatsoever that illustrates otherwise.
> >
> > I can work fine with what you provide.
>
> Here... let me translate that: "I'm unable to provide any evidence contrary to
> what you are providing."
No wonder you can`t understand what Katzenbach wrote. You can`t even
translate English into English. A more accurate rendering of my
position would be I see no point expending any effort in an attempt to
convince yourself, or others, that Oswald killed JFK. But, what do you
care, your propaganda is reaching the weak-minded...
> You should jump over to the censored newsgroup, and ask for help...
I`ll try, but you are not well-liked over there, I don`t think
they`ll help you.
> >As usual, the problem isn`t
> >with the evidence. It is your interpretations, assumptions, ect. That
> >is why it is unnecessary to study the case, if you interpret so poorly
> >here, wouldn`t I expect it in all aspects of the case?
>
> ROTFLMAO!!! A justification for NOT studying this case!!! AMAZING!!!
>
Not a justification, I don`t justify myself to numbnuts. It`s an
explaination of why I don`t study the case.
> >If I can`t get
> >you to see your misinterpretations here, should I expect to have
> >better results with other aspects of the case? If the desired result
> >is to prove you wrong, how can that be done when the entire case is
> >rendered to opinion?
>
> You seem confused that "interpretation" is being done here.
Actually, that is where you get yourself confused. You`re doing a
lot of it without thinking you are.
> Words have
> meanings, that's a simple fact that you can't get away from.
Yah, and behind the word are intentions. Do you really believe what
you are reading into that memo are the points he was attempting to
express?
> >> >> While you're at it, be sure to corroborate the former
> >> >> ambassador to Mexico's statements as well.
> >> >
> >> > How, ask Hoover?
> >> >
> >> >> After all, perhaps he merely
> >> >> *misunderstood* Hoover.
> >> >
> >> > Absolutely possible. Or he "understood" more than Hoover said.
> >>
> >> I've often commented on how many improbabilities you have to believe
> >> in to be a LN'er... once again, you're illustrating that concept.
> >
> > Once again, you assign probabilities. Why would we dismiss the idea
> >that Mexican ambassador misconstrued Hoover`s intentions?
>
> Because for one, it was the U.S. ambassador, not the Mexican ambassador.
>
> Second, the U.S. ambassador was recalled by LBJ... this was less than a month
> after Richard Helms sent a cable to CIA station chief Winston Scott
> in Mexico City. It read: "For your private information, the distinct feeling
> here in all three agencies [CIA, FBI, State] that Ambassador [Thomas Mann] is
> pushing this case too hard ... and that we could well create flap with Cubans
> which could have serious repercussions."
>
> These facts corroborate what the U.S ambassador said.
It might corroborate that agencies had problems with "The Mexican".
It doesn`t corroborate what he claimed Hoover said. He seems a early
conspracy kook. Did all his "pushing hard" accomplish anything besides
pissing off some people? One last question, was "..." in that
statement a pause, or were some words left out there?
> You could also note what
> Rusk testified to... and remember that the Katzenbach memo states that even at
> that early date, the Justice Dept. and Hoover were trying to SHUT DOWN such
> "speculation" as foreign involvement.
>
> Must bug you that all of this *fits* together... but that's the way it usually
> happens with facts... they tend to fit together.
Elephants, beavers and ostriches can all be found at the zoo, so
that makes them all the same?
> >> >> All three of these memos/statements are saying the same thing.
> >> >
> >> > As you interpret thier meaning.
> >>
> >> Feel free to provide an alternative meaning that people can believe.
> >
> > So, you illustrate that it is all a matter of opinion.
>
> Nope. Remember, I'm the one who believes that words have meanings. It's YOU
> that keep saying that these memos are merely an interpretive problem. So I'm
> asking you to *provide* that alternative meaning.
And this is me telling you "no". Why listen to me? Have you ever
tried to find out what Katzenbach himself said he intended to be
conveyed by that memo?
> >Believability
> >is in the eye of the beholder. But, I don`t need to provide an
> >alternate meaning to the Katzenbach memo, his meaning is clear, as is
> >your misinterpretation of his meaning.
>
> Yep... it's unfortunate for you that Katzenbach's memo *IS* rather clear.
> Denying and shutting down any investigation into areas that they COULD NOT
> POSSIBLY KNOW THE FACTS AT THAT POINT IN TIME.
Forty years later, those very "facts" are still up in the air. Can
we shut it down now?
> >> What hurts LN'ers is that words have meanings... you can't *change* those
> >> meanings... this is why the WC was forced to coverup so much of their
> >> evidence... it didn't match their "conclusions".
> >
> > Katzenbach said "all facts". Twice, in his opening sentence. What
> >did he mean by those two words, Ben?
>
> He himself went on to describe what he meant. I quoted it above several
> times... do you need a refresher course in the Katzenbach memo?
Just the parts about covering up a conspiracy.
> >> >> I'm sure you
> >> >> don't want to hear the message... but it's there in black & white.
> >> >
> >> > Is the message you derive the message intended by Katzenbach?
> >>
> >> "derive"???
> >>
> >> Do you speak the English language natively?
> >
> > Naively.
>
> I suggest that you use a dictionary if you don't know a word. I wrote
> "natively", I meant "natively".
You are a humorless stiff.
> >The word confuses you? I admit, I used "derive" because I
> >don`t like to continue to use the same word I was often using;
> >"interpret". By my dictionary, it means "infer, deduce". By all means,
> >if "derive" doesn`t fit the bill, please substitute "interpret". I
> >don`t want the English language to come between my points, and your
> >ability to understand them. The point being, is what Katzenbach
> >intended by what he wrote identical to your reading (if you don`t like
> >"reading", substitute "interpretation") of what he wrote.
>
> I well understand at this point that you believe Katzenbach's memo has to be
> "interpreted" correctly...
My work here is done.
> But words have meanings... he said what he meant. And his memo cannot be
> "massaged" into a non-conspiratorial innocent memo.
Damn, spoke too soon.
> >> Feel free to provide an alternative "message" that you can "derive"
> >> from these two memos and the statements of Thomas Mann
> >
> > You don`t like "message" either? Getting academic on me? Use
> >"gist", or "meaning". But, you lump these things together as similar
> >items. Are the similarities only in your mind?
>
> Evading again. I see that you are unwilling to provide an alternative
> explanation for all these statements and memos.
If you want me to straighten out your misconceptions on these
matters, I`ll need to get some more information from you. It`ll be
good, because maybe some of the lurkers have similar questions. The
two most pressing questions I have, and I`ve asked them above, so you
may have addressed them, is by what means did Evans
get the information in his memo. Katzenbach directly, Katzenbach by
memo, other?
Secondly, when did "The Mexican" disclose this conversation he alleges
he had with Hoover?
Bud
That was a mistake. My poor computing skills don`t allow me the
versatility to leave an already started response to check a fact in
another post.
> or, in another post, confusing "natively" with
> "naively".
That was on purpose. It was attempt at humor. It amused me, which
was the purpose.
Bud
Yah, well, trolls are like that. But, perhaps you miss Hoover`s
point. Assume, for one moment, that Oswald is the lone assassin. Now,
read what Hoover said. Does it make sense to you now?
Walt
>
> > "2. Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off,
>
> Speculation about whether Oz was an agent of a foreign power ought
> to be nipped in the bud with the immediate release of the
> incriminating evidence against Oz. I believe this is close to what
> Katzenbach was trying to say.
Damn!!!! Bud, did your mother have any other morons, or are you her only
embarrassment?
If Katzenbach had reason to suspect a foreign power was responsible for the
assassination......Then it was his duty to work to expose the
culprit.....Not cover up for that "foreign power"......and then work to
blame it on an American citizen.
Walt
Doug Gosha
What? Ben read John McAdam's site? Sir, I must ask you to step outside! That's
blasphemy! The CT gods would strike him down just as sure as the CIA, FBI, JCs,
Mafia, LBJ, DPD, Hoover, Katzenbach, the Badge Man, the 9-15 feet west of the
corner of the fence Man, Greer, Tippit, and other assorted dregs of society
were involved in the assassination!
Doug
<snip>
Robert Harris
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 03:06:42 GMT, AnthonyMarsh <ama...@quik.com>
wrote:
Once every two or three years, I find myself in total agreement with
Tony:-)
It's interesting to consider that Hoover told LBJ, in a recorded phone
conversation, that the stretcher bullet at Parkland had fallen out of
JFK's back.
Whether it did or not, Hoover (and therefore, the FBI) obviously,
believed it did. But since there was only one back wound, that left
him with no alternatives - the neck wound, by his reasoning, *HAD* to
have come from the front.
That might also explain why the FBI switched the stretcher bullet for
CE-399, as confirmed by the fact that every one of the four people who
handled it before the FBI did, refused to acknowledge CE399 as the
same bullet.
Hoover was all too aware of wiretaps recorded by his own agents, of
mobsters discussing their upcoming plans to kill Kennedy. That subject
is well documented in Mark North's *Act of Treason*, as is the fact
that he failed to inform the Secret Service of their plans.
Robert Harris
Ben Holmes
I'd say that without knowing *who* is saying something, more than half of the
importance is stripped away.
>> >> >> What *could* he say?
>> >> >
>> >> > He could clarify what he said. Which he did.
>> >>
>> >> Go ahead, post a "clarification" of his stated fear that the Texas
>> >> state hearing would develop new *pertinent* information NOT related
>> >> to the allegation that Oswald shot the President.
>> >
>> > Supply the quote of Katzenbach saying anything about the state
>> >hearing and "pertinent" information.
>>
>> I did. It was in the Courtney Evans memo.
>
> That`s not a quote. That Evans saying that Katzenbach said. It`s
>attributed, at best.
You can believe that Courtney Evans was mistaken or lying, feel free.
That his statements blend well with what others were saying, and what actually
*happened*, is something that will be harder to ignore.
>> You then stated that Katzenbach
>> could "clarify" what he said, and that he *did so*.
>
> Liar! You fucking liar! Wait a minute, I did say that. Sorry.
Makes you a liar... as well as a troll.
>> Now, when asked to back up this statement... you evade.
>>
> Well, since what you write means so little to me, I assume what I
>write is as equally unimportant to you. If pressed, I may comply to
>your demands, or ignore them, whichever suits me.
Yep... typical troll behavior.
>>Looks like you lied about Katzenbach "clarifying" this statement. Didn't you?
>
> You`re wound tighter than the inside of a golf ball, aren`t you
>Shirley? What I meant was that Katzenbach explained his motivations,
>and the context to what he wrote in that memo in his testimony to the
>House Commitee. It`s available on McAdams site, if you`re interested.
You can "mean" anything you want. When you can't *cite*, you're just a scumbag.
>I just was barely enough interested to read what the guy said. It
>exceeds my interest to explain to you what he said.
If you're "barely interested" enough to spout an assertion, you'd better be
"barely interested" enough to cite for it.
>I`m sure you
>prefer your interpretation to what he said to his explaination and
>context to what he wrote in that memo.
What someone says about his motivations for an act many years prior is not going
to be of the same concern to me as that same person's *actions* many years
prior.
I note, you *still* haven't cited for this alleged explanation. Why is that,
Bud?
>> >And, while you are at it, since
>> >words have meaning, tell me what Katzenbach meant when he kept
>> >refering to "all facts".
>>
>> Certainly... all the facts that he and the FBI wanted put out for release...
>> that LHO was a lone nut, had no confederates, no foreign involvement... that
>> sort of thing.
>
> Are you sure that is the extent of what he meant by "all facts"?
As the Courtney Evan's memo makes clear, and his actions make clear, yes.
>> >> This will be amusing, should you actually *do* so. But, like all
>> >> trolls, you're merely spouting off here...
>>
>> Yep... my crystal ball has been working overtime again. You lied when you
>> asserted that Katzenbach had "clarified" his statements.
>
> Shirley, I can understand why you felt it necessary to study
>martial arts. It was easier for you than developing a personality.
Bud... the very definition of yellow coward.
>> > Just pointing out the flaws in your thinking. If you weren`t so
>> >biased, they would be as apparent to you as they are to me.
>>
>> Lies are apparent to everyone. When you can't supply a citation
>> or quote what you refer to...
>
> Shirley, why do you confuse my laziness with dishonesty?
Because I *don't* confuse your lying with anything other than a lie.
You've put your finger on the problem... now, if only you knew more about the
evidence in the case, you wouldn't look so stupid right about now...
>> >which trumps Evan`s second hand interpretation of what Katzenbach said.
>>
>> You seem confused... Katzenbach was STATING IN ADVANCE OF THE
>> INVESTIGATION JUST WHAT THAT INVESTIGATION WOULD REVEAL.
>
> No evidence gathered that early indicated Oz`s guilt? Wasn`t he
>picked out of line-ups for shooting a cop to death less than a hour
>after the assassination? I guess they didn`t have the CT mentality to
>just dismiss the witnesses to that killing, and the pictures of Oz
>holding the murder weapon, ect. Should have been focusing the search
>on Mexico.
I understand that your merely a troll, and are spouting WC nonsense rather than
actually understanding the evidence. You *think* you've answered my statement,
yet you haven't.
>> Can't get around that simple fact.
>>
>> And what was *done* was precisely what the Courtney Evan's memo stated.
>
> The Texas state officials got these instructions, and carried them
>out?
Feel free to cite the Texas hearing into the death of JFK.
If you can't, you're merely a yellow coward who lies...
>> >Sometimes people
>> >supply thier own spin, derive thier own gist, of what is told to them.
>> >That could explain the way both Evans, and the Mexican diplomat, both
>> >misconstrued what was told to them, as you, Walt, and others
>> >misconstrue what you read or hear.
>>
>> They all tell the same story. It's amusing to see how many
>> improbabilities you are forced to believe in to hold LN'er beliefs.
>
> The probability that you would misinterpret them all to mean
>conspiracy is very high.
>
>> >> >in a way that will satisfy people in the United States
>> >>
>> >> Yep... the stated purpose is to "satisfy" the American people.
>> >> They failed... didn't they?
>> >
>> > Oh, Yah. In fact, they never could compete with the natural
>> >suspicion they tried to counter with facts.
>>
>> You seem sure that they *got* the facts. Since no real investigation *was*
>> conducted, you're mistaken.
>>
> Whether they did or didn`t get the facts was irrelevant, wasn`t it?
>As you like to point out, the American people believe in conspiracy
>despite the facts presented by the WC, as the general public is
>largely unaware of the facts presented by the WC.
Hogwash, and a lie.
>> >As useless an exercise then as now.
>>
>> Nope, not at all. It's the evidence that *DID* make it into the 26 volumes
>> which demonstrates the conspiracy.
>>
> Yet the general public is unaware of this evidence. Yet they come
>to the conclusion of conspiracy. How do you suppose that happened?
They paid attention to the facts.
Multiple lone nuts running around shooting people...
>> Who knows what might have been uncovered had a *real* investigation been
>> conducted?
>
> Who knows what Kennedy would have done if Oswald`s rifle jammed.
>That topic gets beat to death here also.
>
>> >> >and abroad that all the facts have been told
>> >>
>> >> Even as the WC made plans to hide a large portion of this evidence
>> >> and testimony away for 75 years...
>> >
>> > Yah, gripe about the Warren Commision for forty more years.
>>
>> Just a simple fact. And contrary to YOUR theory that they wanted
>> to get all the facts out to the public.
>
> Katzenbach says "all facts".
LOL!!
He's also afraid of "pertinent information" that might be uncovered by an
investigation he doesn't control.
>> >> >and a statement to that effect be made now."
>> >>
>> >> Yep... there was a faction within the FBI/Justice Dept. that wanted
>> >> to pressure the WC by announcing the initial findings of the FBI
>> >> "investigation".
>> >
>> > Yah, to head off speculation, rumor, ect., some wanted to present
>> >the evidence implicating Oz out as soon as possible.
>>
>> There *WAS* at that point in time (Hoover's conversation with LBJ's aide)
>> very little tying LHO to the crime.
>
> Just a little old cop killing shortly after the crime.
Which has NOTHING to do with JFK's assassination - assuming for the moment that
LHO killed Tippit. (Which is not at all proven)
>> But LHO was dead, and that makes for a *very* convenient scapegoat.
>
> The poor railroaded patsy. It would have been interesting to see if
>you could convince a jury to see him that way. But, since we can`t
>convict a dead guy, I`d like to see you guys bag a conspirator. Some
>of them must still be living, no?
>
>> >You read thier motivations, yet disregard it in favor of your own
>> >interpretations. You get to where you want to go using any means possible.
>>
>> Actually, you *missed* the motivation that Katzenbach STATED was
>> the reason he wanted to get "all the facts" out to the public. Don't
>> you think you should learn to use critical thinking skills?
>
> I am critical of your thinking skills.
And you're a yellow coward who lies all the time... but who cares?
>> >> >> >A paragraph of a memo where Evans outlines his understanding of what
>>>> >> >Katzenbach said or wrote. Did he get it right, according to Katzenbach?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> By all means, take a look at what the WC said about this memo... or
>> >> >> Katzenbach... get back to us.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yah, I did that.
>> >>
>> >> Evidently not. Since you've said ZILCH about Katzenbach's fear
>> >> of "pertinent" information being developed by the Texas hearing.
>> >
>> > You keep, using "pertinent", but that, I believe, is from Evans,
>> >not Katzenbach. Katzenbach said "all facts".
>>
>> It *was* from Katzenbach... merely reported by Evans. You keep missing
>> Katzenbach's OWN WRITTEN MOTIVATION for getting out "all the facts".
>
> To head off rumor and speculation? But Katzenbach mentions no fear
>of pertinant information in his memo. Where do you think Evans got
>that idea? From a conversation with Katzenbach? From what someone else
>may have told him of Katzenbach`s intentions? What is the source of
>Evan`s understanding of Katzenbach`s intentions?
Read the memo. Evan's makes it *crystal* clear. Your illiteracy is popping up
again.
>> >> >He said he wanted to get all the facts out quickly
>> >> >before the rumor took hold. He thought speed was necessary to head off
>> >> >the speculation.
>> >>
>> >> Again... anachronistic. The Katzenbach memo was, as I recall, was
>> >> written just three days later.
>> >
>> > I think that is correct. Would you hold it against a weatherman who
>> >predicts rain, when it in fact downpours?
>>
>> You don't seem to understand the point. That's okay. You've
>> already indicated your anachronistic belief that the public didn't
>> trust the government in 1963.
>
> The potential was there, obviously, since you constantly cite the
>polls indicating it. Hoover and Katzenbach foresaw that potential,
No, they didn't. Nor can you demonstrate that they did.
>yet they receive no credit from you for being so foresightful. Strange.
>
>> >> The "speculation" that they *wanted* to quash was that this was a
>> >> military or Vice Presidential coup, IMO. And there's *proof* that
>> >> they wanted to quash any foreign involvement speculation.
>> >
>> > Then you are getting away from what Katzenbach said, and inserting
>> >your own motivations. Katzenbach`s motivations are stated.
>>
>>Yep... I see you're not even familiar with the memo you are willing to defend...
>
> I`m going to insert some comments in the quote below...
>
>> "2. Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off,
>
> Speculation about whether Oz was an agent of a foreign power ought
>to be nipped in the bud with the immediate release of the
>incriminating evidence against Oz. I believe this is close to what
>Katzenbach was trying to say. I think
>how you interpret what Katzenbach has to say is not what he intended
>when he wrote that memo.
He said what he said. Rewriting it to make it less conspiratorial is fine for
you. Have at it.
>> and we should
>> have some basis for rebutting thought that this was a Communist
>> conspiracy or (as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a right-wing
>> conspiracy to blame it on he Communists. Unfortunately the facts
>> on Oswald seem about too pat-- too obvious (Marxist, Cuba, Russian
>> wife, etc.). The Dallas police have put out statements on the Communist
>> conspiracy theory, and it was they who were in charge when he
>> was shot and thus silenced."
>>
>> Now, if you can't see that this is *PROOF* that they wanted to quash
>> any foreign involvement speculation, then you are even dumber than is
>> supposed on this newsgroup. Wrong, weren't you?
>
> About what? Did I contest that they wanted to quash foreign
>involvement speculation?
Yep... you not only *DID*, but this is another example of how much you're
willing to lie. Quoted from just above:
**************************
>> >> And there's *proof* that
>> >> they wanted to quash any foreign involvement speculation.
>> >
>> > Then you are getting away from what Katzenbach said, and inserting
>> >your own motivations. Katzenbach`s motivations are stated.
**************************
>> >> >> >Does Miller and the state officials coroborate Evan`s understanding?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Feel free to research it.
>> >> >
>> >> > I do feel free to do so, just not inclined. But since I`ve haven`t
>> >> >seen the coroboration produced by CT, I`ll assume there is none.
>> >>
>> >> I've *provided* the corroboration. The former ambassador to Mexico,
>> >> and those two memos, all say essentially the same thing. They
>> >> CORROBORATE EACH OTHER.
>> >
>> > They only corroborate the information if you misinterpret the
>> >information. Is Evan`s memo commenting on the Katzenbach memo, or
>> >something he heard directly from Katzenbach, or from some third party?
>> >And, the only way to corroborate what Hoover told the Mexican
>> >ambassador,
>>
>> Well, I suppose this is better than calling Thomas Mann "the Mexican".
>> But he is *NOT* the "Mexican ambassador" either. He's the U.S.
>> ambassador TO Mexico.
>>
>> The Mexican ambassador during that timeframe was Antonio Carillo Flores.
>
> Yeah, everybody knows that.
We know you're a liar, you don't have to continually demonstrate it.
>> Who, as a google search will quickly demonstrate, has NEVER come up
>> in this newsgroup before...
>>
>> >would be a witness or transcript to that conversation.
>>
>> Yep... someone who served as an Ambassador from the United States
>> does not have enough character to be listened to when he speaks...
>
> A title conveys character? When did this guy (henceforth refered by
>me as "The Mexican") make these claims about what Hoover said? Was
>Hoover alive? Did "The Mexican" harbor any kind of ill will towards
>Hoover?
The number of improbabilities that LN'ers are forced to accept is simply
incredible... you don't even *see* them...
Feel free to cite it from the WC testimony... surely the WC "investigated"
this... *OR* did they follow Katzenbach's lead, and ignore any foreign
involvement?
Once again, testimony corroborates memos, that corroborate statements... they
*ALL* tie together, yet you lie about it.
>Did his mining expedition produce any nuggets, or just more fool`s gold?
>
>> So... can you explain why the WC didn't question the former ambassador?
>>
> I was not a member on that illustrious panel.
Defend it, or admit that this illustrates the lack of investigation.
>> >First, establish that the Mexican
>>
>> Oops... you're back to "the Mexican"
>
> My pet name for him.
>
>> Please pay attention, and learn to read.
>
> Yah, like it`s that easy.
>
>> >got what Hoover said right, then
>> >compare it to your interpretation of what others said.
>>
>> I rarely doubt what an ambassador from the United States to another
>> country has to say, unless there is *reason* to doubt.
>
> See, I`m just the opposite. I don`t believe them until they give me
>a reason.
Yellow coward, and a liar to boot... You must be proud of yourself.
>> >> Feel free to produce any evidence whatsoever that illustrates otherwise.
>> >
>> > I can work fine with what you provide.
>>
>> Here... let me translate that: "I'm unable to provide any evidence
>> contrary to what you are providing."
>
> No wonder you can`t understand what Katzenbach wrote. You can`t even
>translate English into English. A more accurate rendering of my
>position would be I see no point expending any effort in an attempt to
>convince yourself, or others, that Oswald killed JFK. But, what do you
>care, your propaganda is reaching the weak-minded...
Bud "No Cite" Coward...
>> You should jump over to the censored newsgroup, and ask for help...
>
> I`ll try, but you are not well-liked over there, I don`t think
>they`ll help you.
Illiteracy racks the LN'er crowd, doesn't it?
>> >As usual, the problem isn`t
>> >with the evidence. It is your interpretations, assumptions, ect. That
>> >is why it is unnecessary to study the case, if you interpret so poorly
>> >here, wouldn`t I expect it in all aspects of the case?
>>
>> ROTFLMAO!!! A justification for NOT studying this case!!! AMAZING!!!
>>
> Not a justification, I don`t justify myself to numbnuts. It`s an
>explaination of why I don`t study the case.
Yet you are willing to make assertions about something you justify not learning
about. This is what demonstrates you to be the yellow coward and liar that you
are...
Saying so doesn't make it so. It most certainly *does*.
How could a person doing an investigation into the facts surrounding the
assassination of JFK be "a problem" to those who were "investigating" the facts
surrounding the assassination of JFK?
Only a troll could ignore such irony.
>He seems a early conspracy kook.
Newsflash: Almost *EVERYONE* was that first day. Particularly eyewitnesses.
>Did all his "pushing hard" accomplish anything besides
>pissing off some people? One last question, was "..." in that
>statement a pause, or were some words left out there?
>
>> You could also note what
>> Rusk testified to... and remember that the Katzenbach memo states
>> that even at that early date, the Justice Dept. and Hoover were
>> trying to SHUT DOWN such "speculation" as foreign involvement.
>>
>> Must bug you that all of this *fits* together... but that's the way
>> it usually happens with facts... they tend to fit together.
>
> Elephants, beavers and ostriches can all be found at the zoo, so
>that makes them all the same?
Cowardly liar, aren't you?
>> >> >> All three of these memos/statements are saying the same thing.
>> >> >
>> >> > As you interpret thier meaning.
>> >>
>> >> Feel free to provide an alternative meaning that people can believe.
>> >
>> > So, you illustrate that it is all a matter of opinion.
>>
>> Nope. Remember, I'm the one who believes that words have meanings.
>> It's YOU that keep saying that these memos are merely an interpretive
>> problem. So I'm asking you to *provide* that alternative meaning.
>
> And this is me telling you "no".
Yep... cowardly AND a liar.
>Why listen to me? Have you ever tried to find out what Katzenbach himself
>said he intended to be conveyed by that memo?
>
>> >Believability
>> >is in the eye of the beholder. But, I don`t need to provide an
>> >alternate meaning to the Katzenbach memo, his meaning is clear, as is
>> >your misinterpretation of his meaning.
>>
>> Yep... it's unfortunate for you that Katzenbach's memo *IS* rather clear.
>> Denying and shutting down any investigation into areas that they COULD NOT
>> POSSIBLY KNOW THE FACTS AT THAT POINT IN TIME.
>
> Forty years later, those very "facts" are still up in the air.
Yep... that's what happens when you don't actually perform an investigation.
>Can we shut it down now?
>
>> >> What hurts LN'ers is that words have meanings... you can't *change* those
>> >> meanings... this is why the WC was forced to coverup so much of their
>> >> evidence... it didn't match their "conclusions".
>> >
>> > Katzenbach said "all facts". Twice, in his opening sentence. What
>> >did he mean by those two words, Ben?
>>
>> He himself went on to describe what he meant. I quoted it above several
>> times... do you need a refresher course in the Katzenbach memo?
>
> Just the parts about covering up a conspiracy.
Liar, aren't you?
>> >> >> I'm sure you
>> >> >> don't want to hear the message... but it's there in black & white.
>> >> >
>> >> > Is the message you derive the message intended by Katzenbach?
>> >>
>> >> "derive"???
>> >>
>> >> Do you speak the English language natively?
>> >
>> > Naively.
>>
>> I suggest that you use a dictionary if you don't know a word. I wrote
>> "natively", I meant "natively".
>
> You are a humorless stiff.
And you are an illiterate troll. A liar, too...
>> >The word confuses you? I admit, I used "derive" because I
>> >don`t like to continue to use the same word I was often using;
>> >"interpret". By my dictionary, it means "infer, deduce". By all means,
>> >if "derive" doesn`t fit the bill, please substitute "interpret". I
>> >don`t want the English language to come between my points, and your
>> >ability to understand them. The point being, is what Katzenbach
>> >intended by what he wrote identical to your reading (if you don`t like
>> >"reading", substitute "interpretation") of what he wrote.
>>
>> I well understand at this point that you believe Katzenbach's memo has to be
>> "interpreted" correctly...
>
> My work here is done.
>
>> But words have meanings... he said what he meant. And his memo cannot be
>> "massaged" into a non-conspiratorial innocent memo.
>
> Damn, spoke too soon.
Yep... words *STILL* have meanings...
>> >> Feel free to provide an alternative "message" that you can "derive"
>> >> from these two memos and the statements of Thomas Mann
>> >
>> > You don`t like "message" either? Getting academic on me? Use
>> >"gist", or "meaning". But, you lump these things together as similar
>> >items. Are the similarities only in your mind?
>>
>> Evading again. I see that you are unwilling to provide an alternative
>> explanation for all these statements and memos.
>
> If you want me to straighten out your misconceptions on these
>matters, I`ll need to get some more information from you. It`ll be
>good, because maybe some of the lurkers have similar questions. The
>two most pressing questions I have, and I`ve asked them above, so you
>may have addressed them, is by what means did Evans
> get the information in his memo. Katzenbach directly, Katzenbach by
>memo, other?
Feel free to *read* Evan's memo.
>Secondly, when did "The Mexican" disclose this conversation he alleges
>he had with Hoover?
I'll be happy to provide citations for people who provide citations.
Ben Holmes
Since it's a well known propaganda site, there's no reason for me to spend time
reading lies and nonsense.
I've read far too many posts from people here who've corrected McAdam's nonsense
on one URL or another, only to find that McAdams won't correct his own text. If
McAdams isn't interested in keeping his site accurate, why should people who are
interested in the truth visit it?
>Sir, I must ask you to step outside! That's blasphemy! The CT gods would
>strike him down just as sure as the CIA, FBI, JCs,
>Mafia, LBJ, DPD, Hoover, Katzenbach, the Badge Man, the 9-15 feet west of the
>corner of the fence Man, Greer, Tippit, and other assorted dregs of society
>were involved in the assassination!
It's nonsense such as this that allow idiots like you to keep your multiple
LN'ers theory.
>Doug
>
><snip>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Bud
intentions in what you wrote. I was addressing the first, the one you
left out... "The "speculation" they wanted to quash was that this was
a military or Vice Presidential coup". You must have suspected this,
yet purposly left it out.
Ben Holmes
And yet, you failed to supply your statement FOLLOWING that first statement.
Nor did you bother to STATE that you were addressing the first statement.
So you were misleading, weren't you?
Do you really expect others to fail to fault you for your poor literacy skills?
>the one you
>left out... "The "speculation" they wanted to quash was that this was
>a military or Vice Presidential coup".
I *also* left out the entire first half of the post.
>You must have suspected this, yet purposly left it out.
LOL!!! You foul up, and you think everyone is going to just *know* what you
tried to say...
Bud
If you were mislead, it was misleading, wasn`t it?
> Do you really expect others to fail to fault you for your poor literacy skills?
If I was worried about people finding fault with my poor literacy
skills, I wouldn`t display them, would I?
> >the one you
> >left out... "The "speculation" they wanted to quash was that this was
> >a military or Vice Presidential coup".
>
> I *also* left out the entire first half of the post.
>
> >You must have suspected this, yet purposly left it out.
>
> LOL!!! You foul up, and you think everyone is going to just *know* what you
> tried to say...
Yah, I should have been clearer. But, look on the bright side, you
got to call me a liar about it, that seems to make you happy.