Who Is More Exasperating - LN'ers or CT'ers ?

[hrtshpdbox]

From what I can see, and I'll admit I haven't studied the phenomena for
very long,CT'ers and LN'ers each have their own flaw in logic. A
psychologist might be able to easily predict which camp a person they
observed would fall into. But putting aside the typical "profile" of a
conspiracy theorist (which is certainly less than a flattering one), when
it comes to the specifics of the JFK case I think it might be fair to say
that the CT flaw is that there's a certain grasping of straws present, one
that allows multiple perceived discrepancies to live side-by-side even
when the accumulated result of that scenario ceases to make any coherent
sense. The ultimate example of that, perhaps, is Stone's film. As for the
LN, the flaw is that it's important that nothing ever come up that might
even be mildly interesting - in fact, nothing can be interesting, as that
might undermine some conclusion of the WC, thus creating a chink in the
armor.

For the LN, that leads to the demands that a theory or suspicion be
proven, and if it can't be proven then it shouldn't have been raised in
the first place. As Bugliosi says, on p. 1439, "...when there is no
evidence of something, although not conclusive, this itself is very, very
persuasive that the alleged "something" does not exist". And that's true
enough on its face, though it's diametric opposite would be Carl Sagan's
admonition (not regarding the assassination specifically, of course) that
"the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". And Sagan, needless
to say, is also correct.

The CT flaw manifests itself in broad and easy to recognize strokes, and
the members of this forum are quick to pounce - fair enough. Here's an
example, though, of the LN flaw, in my opinion - I just read Dale Myers'
and Gus Russo's article "Drums of Conspiracy" linked to at McAdams home
page:

http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2013/08/drums-of-conspiracy.html

The authors want to make sure you understand, before they begin their
article in earnest, that CT'ers are nuisances who'd like to disrupt
respectful activities in Dealey Plaza as part of the 50th anniversary. And
they then touch on and lament a few theories, but what I found most
interesting is their take on Jefferson Morley's interest in unreleased
files relating to George Joannides. You can always spot where bias has
taken over when an author says something preposterous which they
presumably hope you'll just pay no attention to; after noting that 5,000
pages of withheld docs represent just a tenth of one percent of the docs
released to ARRB, the authors note that, "One thousand of these 5,000
withheld pages (a fraction of a tiny fraction) relate to deceased CIA case
officer George Joannides." OK, maybe 20% is a fraction, but it's not an
insignificant fraction. And 1,000 pages, no matter how the author would
like to slice it, isn't a small number of pages. But they try to make it
so - this is part and parcel of the "nothing to see here" approach that
I'm talking about. From there, relative to Morley's interest in the
Joannides docs, the authors do a dizzying back-and-forth; Morley is right
to be interested, and perhaps the subject matter is interesting, but
there''s NO PROOF OF ANYTHING. True, Joannides was based in Miami, and
there's perhaps some indication that he was in New Orleans in '64 when the
WC was interviewing people there about Oswald's DRE contacts, but there's
NO PROOF OF ANYTHING. And while Morley doesn't make any direct
accusations, merely saying that he'd like to see the files to get a better
understanding of what happened, he shouldn't bother because there's NO
PROOF OF ANYTHING.

I not only will tell you that I'm no expert about Morley, I'll tell you I
know nothing about him at all except what I just read in Myers' and
Russo's article. So if, since the article was published, Morley has been
confined to a sanitarium or issued a statement that he was just kidding
about caring about the Joannides files, so be it - I'm just citing an
example of typical LN methodology when dealing with CT'ers.

[David Von Pein]

^^^^^^^
Good post.

[Bud]

On Saturday, January 4, 2014 9:33:59 PM UTC-5, hrtshpdbox wrote:
> From what I can see, and I'll admit I haven't studied the phenomena for
>
> very long,CT'ers and LN'ers each have their own flaw in logic. A
>
> psychologist might be able to easily predict which camp a person they
>
> observed would fall into. But putting aside the typical "profile" of a
>
> conspiracy theorist (which is certainly less than a flattering one), when
>
> it comes to the specifics of the JFK case I think it might be fair to say
>
> that the CT flaw is that there's a certain grasping of straws present, one
>
> that allows multiple perceived discrepancies to live side-by-side even
>
> when the accumulated result of that scenario ceases to make any coherent
>
> sense. The ultimate example of that, perhaps, is Stone's film. As for the
>
> LN, the flaw is that it's important that nothing ever come up that might
>
> even be mildly interesting - in fact, nothing can be interesting, as that
>
> might undermine some conclusion of the WC, thus creating a chink in the
>
> armor.

Once the indications of Oswald guilt pile up it becomes obvious that
Oswald took his rifle to his work and assassinated Kennedy from there.
Later he killed a cop. After you figure out these things the rest becomes
trivia, possibly interesting on some level, but also irrelevant to the
larger questions. Did Oswald have a coke, did he descend before or after
Adams, where was he heading when Tippit confronted him, ect, might be nice
to know, but unnecessary to determine what occurred.

> For the LN, that leads to the demands that a theory or suspicion be
>
> proven, and if it can't be proven then it shouldn't have been raised in
>
> the first place.

It`s a silly game to continually churn out issues when the driving force
is the inability to come to grips with Oswald`s guilt.

[hrtshpdbox]

On Sunday, January 5, 2014 8:57:23 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:

> Once the indications of Oswald guilt pile up it becomes obvious that
>
> Oswald took his rifle to his work and assassinated Kennedy from there.
>
> Later he killed a cop. After you figure out these things the rest becomes
>
> trivia, possibly interesting on some level, but also irrelevant to the
>
> larger questions. Did Oswald have a coke, did he descend before or after
>
> Adams, where was he heading when Tippit confronted him, ect, might be nice
>
> to know, but unnecessary to determine what occurred.
>

If you accept, as I do, that Oswald fired the rifle, hid it, then made his
way downstairs, then I agree with that point - it's entirely trivial if he
was drinking a soda or not. I think it's a lot harder to characterize
conjecture about Oswald's movements after leaving the boarding house as
"trivial"; it seems unlikely that his plan was to wander around aimlessly,
forever, with 13 dollars in his pocket. He was heading somewhere,
somewhere that could very possibly be "relevant to the larger questions";
it seems to me entirely natural to be curious about it, and a little
unnatural to have a "Who cares, what difference does it make?" stance.

>
> It`s a silly game to continually churn out issues when the driving force
>
> is the inability to come to grips with Oswald`s guilt.
>

That sentence might be the answer provided by LN'ers to the proposition,
"Define objections to the official version offered regarding the
assassination of JFK". Such an answer presumes not only that all questions
about the assassination are illegitimate, but also that Oswald's guilt
precludes any assistance from or collusion with others. I'm not entirely
sold on that.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Bud, the evidence of Oswald's guilt is, for me, overwhelming. He shot the
president. Period.

But it doesn't necessarily end there. There is the questions of whether
anyone was directly involved with him (I think not) or indirectly involved
(I think it's possible but not very likely).

Did you read Phillip Shenon's book? Some interesting allegations about
Oswald's interaction with Cuban agents while in Mexico.

I don't see any real evidence of Cuban direct involvement in the events on
November 22, 1963. But I do see some shadows of indirect involvement by
perhaps some agents.

Whatever happened in Mexico City is, for me, the key to whether Oswald
alone committed his acts or whether he was guided or directed or pushed to
act.

I'm 100% convinced Oswald shot the president; I'm 99% convinced it was
undertaken solely by his own thoughts.

[Peter Makres]

On Sunday, January 5, 2014 8:57:23 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:

Good post Bud....spot on.

Peter

[Carmine Savastano]

A good article. My answer to your question is the fringe of both sides
are most exasperating. Those who have preconceived notions that fail to
account for contending evidence are largely in my view the problem. I
truly have learned from both Critics and Advocates of conspiracy.
Reasonable members of both groups exist. Unfortunately, they are just
usually drowned in the oceans of speculation and personal insults.

However, the conclusive evidence both sides offer can render greater
insights. The primary evidence of all the investigations (Warren and
Rockefeller Commission, Church and House Select Committees)when considered
in my view dispel some contentions from both sides. The evidence has no
agenda. If the center of both groups worked together we might actually
answer the major questions that remain. Alas, peace and reason are not as
popular as hostility and self righteous pandering to the online choir.

C.S.

[Glenn Sarlitto]

Interesting that you are critiquing all CTers' and LNers'(as you call
them) methodologies based on your small amount of time studying the
phenomena and utilizing your interpretation of just one article as an
example to represent all.

You really need to rethink your own methodology and take the time to study
the phenomena a tad longer before reaching your evidently so Rush to
Judgment regarding EXASPERATION.

GS

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/5/2014 8:57 AM, Bud wrote:
> On Saturday, January 4, 2014 9:33:59 PM UTC-5, hrtshpdbox wrote:
>> From what I can see, and I'll admit I haven't studied the phenomena for
>>
>> very long,CT'ers and LN'ers each have their own flaw in logic. A
>>
>> psychologist might be able to easily predict which camp a person they
>>
>> observed would fall into. But putting aside the typical "profile" of a
>>
>> conspiracy theorist (which is certainly less than a flattering one), when
>>
>> it comes to the specifics of the JFK case I think it might be fair to say
>>
>> that the CT flaw is that there's a certain grasping of straws present, one
>>
>> that allows multiple perceived discrepancies to live side-by-side even
>>
>> when the accumulated result of that scenario ceases to make any coherent
>>
>> sense. The ultimate example of that, perhaps, is Stone's film. As for the
>>
>> LN, the flaw is that it's important that nothing ever come up that might
>>
>> even be mildly interesting - in fact, nothing can be interesting, as that
>>
>> might undermine some conclusion of the WC, thus creating a chink in the
>>
>> armor.
>
> Once the indications of Oswald guilt pile up it becomes obvious that
> Oswald took his rifle to his work and assassinated Kennedy from there.

That's a logical fallacy known as Begging the Question. You assume
something because you can't prove it.

> Later he killed a cop. After you figure out these things the rest becomes
> trivia, possibly interesting on some level, but also irrelevant to the
> larger questions. Did Oswald have a coke, did he descend before or after
> Adams, where was he heading when Tippit confronted him, ect, might be nice
> to know, but unnecessary to determine what occurred.
>

So we can propose any scenario and you can't object? That's comforting.
So you agree that Oswald was down on the first floor at the time of the
shooting?

[Bud]

On Sunday, January 5, 2014 3:22:11 PM UTC-5, hrtshpdbox wrote:
> On Sunday, January 5, 2014 8:57:23 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>
>
>
> > Once the indications of Oswald guilt pile up it becomes obvious that
>
> >
>
> > Oswald took his rifle to his work and assassinated Kennedy from there.
>
> >
>
> > Later he killed a cop. After you figure out these things the rest becomes
>
> >
>
> > trivia, possibly interesting on some level, but also irrelevant to the
>
> >
>
> > larger questions. Did Oswald have a coke, did he descend before or after
>
> >
>
> > Adams, where was he heading when Tippit confronted him, ect, might be nice
>
> >
>
> > to know, but unnecessary to determine what occurred.
>
> >
>
>
>
> If you accept, as I do, that Oswald fired the rifle, hid it, then made his
>
> way downstairs, then I agree with that point - it's entirely trivial if he
>
> was drinking a soda or not. I think it's a lot harder to characterize
>
> conjecture about Oswald's movements after leaving the boarding house as
>
> "trivial"; it seems unlikely that his plan was to wander around aimlessly,
>
> forever, with 13 dollars in his pocket. He was heading somewhere,
>
> somewhere that could very possibly be "relevant to the larger questions";
>
> it seems to me entirely natural to be curious about it, and a little
>
> unnatural to have a "Who cares, what difference does it make?" stance.

I didn`t say "who cares" or "what difference does it make". I said it
would be nice to know. But Oswald didn`t say, likely closing off that
avenue forever. Of course conjecture is possible, and I think he was going
to take another crack at Walker. But since he didn`t make it, what
difference does it make?

>
>
>
>
> >
>

> > It`s a silly game to continually churn out issues when the driving force
>
> >
>
> > is the inability to come to grips with Oswald`s guilt.
>
> >
>
>
>
> That sentence might be the answer provided by LN'ers to the proposition,
>
> "Define objections to the official version offered regarding the
>
> assassination of JFK". Such an answer presumes not only that all questions
>
> about the assassination are illegitimate,

No, it presumes the driving force behind the conspiracy hobby is the
inability of some people to come to grips with Oswald`s guilt. And the
truth of this is affirmed by the conspiracy crowd getting their finding of
conspiracy, and them still being unsatisfied. I think many conspiracy
hobbyists associate themselves with Oswald, a left leaning social misfit,
and since they would never think to harm a hair on Kennedy`s sainted head
they figure Oswald wouldn`t have either. So so they take Oswald`s
proclamation of patsyhood as the only reliable information and proceed
from there.

> but also that Oswald's guilt
>
> precludes any assistance from or collusion with others. I'm not entirely
>
> sold on that.

I wouldn`t try to sell it, although I expect we will all die of old age
without seeing anything tangible and compelling on that front. But if
someone can`t figure out that Oswald killed Kennedy this shows to me a
willful disregard for reality. It isn`t a matter of not having enough
information, they just don`t *want* to come to the obvious conclusion.

[Carmine Savastano]

A good article. My answer to your question is the fringe of both sides are
most exasperating. Those who have preconceived notions that fail to
account for contending evidence are largely in my view the problem. I
truly have learned from both Critics and Advocates of conspiracy.

Reasonable members of both groups exist, they are just usually drowned in

the oceans of speculation and personal insults. However, the conclusive
evidence both sides offer can render greater insights. The primary
evidence of all the investigations (Warren and Rockefeller Commission,
Church and House Select Committees)when considered in my view dispel some
contentions from both sides. The evidence has no agenda. If the center of
both groups worked together we might actually answer the major questions
that remain. Alas, peace and reason are not as popular as hostility and

self righteous pandering to agendas.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

William Manchester put it first, I think: if you put Oswald on one side of
the scale and JFK on the other, it doesn't balance out. There has to be
more than just a jerk with a $12 rifle.

We can add this mythologizing of JFK as some sort of great figure that was
going to put the US in the right direction. Instead, we had these horrors
of more assassinations, Vietnam, race riots...everything wrong seemed to
follow.

If JFK had lived, so this myth goes, none of that would have happened.

Oswald had about $200 to his name when he shot the president. No car. No
house. No possessions. Nothing. And yet we're to believe that he was this
major figure in the CIA or FBI or some group. I guess he was working with
them for free?

He shot the president. That's obvious. Whether he was somehow manipulated
or encouraged or pushed is another question. The answer went with him when
Ruby fired that shot.

Still, I'd like to know more about what he did in Mexico City. There may
be something there - something that still can be found.

[Mike]

There is a third group. That would be Investigators.

Investigators follow leads and backup when they make a wrong turn.

They know that many many mistakes will be made until the correct path is
found.

I suggest you take the attitude of an investigator.

[David Von Pein]

BUD SAID:

If someone can`t figure out that Oswald killed Kennedy this shows to me a

willful disregard for reality. It isn`t a matter of not having enough
information, they just don`t *want* to come to the obvious conclusion.

DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

Bingo. Precisely. Exactly.

I've been getting a few comments on my YouTube videos lately, with some
people asking: How could the police have come to the conclusion so
quickly--in less than one day--that Oswald was guilty?

My response to that question is:

Given the evidence that the police had collected (which all led straight
to Oswald), plus factoring in Oswald's own incriminating actions in the
movie theater where he was arrested, how would it be possible for the
Dallas Police to NOT have arrived at an "Oswald Is Guilty" determination
within 24 hours of JFK's murder?

Was the DPD supposed to just *ignore* the rifle, the revolver in Oswald's
hands, the shells on Tenth Street, the shells in the Depository Sniper's
Nest, the paper bag with Oswald's prints on it, Oswald's own guilty-like
actions, and the eyewitnesses who fingered Oswald?

And the above list doesn't even include Bullet CE399 or the bullet
fragments found in the President's limousine -- because the DPD didn't
even see those bullets on Day 1.

The conspiracy promoters will usually counter with: Well Dave, all of that
stuff you just mentioned was planted, and the witnesses were coerced into
IDing Oswald.

But to that CT response, I say: Hogwash (with a capital H). And I also say
to the CTers: Prove it!

To date, no CTer has ever proven that ANY of the evidence in the JFK and
Tippit cases was planted or faked -- let alone ALL of it.

[Carmine Savastano]

Mike, I was commenting and I forgot one other group as well. Those who
comment to offer patronizing advice and not actually answer the posed
question in favor of online unsolicited rhetorical lessons. I have been a
writer for years working with a historian. I do not require a reminder of
how to conduct unbiased inquiry. I have given you the respect of not
telling you how to conduct your inquiry, I would ask you to do the
same.

As for DVP, have look at my article posted here called "Reasonable Doubts
about Lee Harvey Oswald" if you like. It offer his many contentions and
why they fail to conclusively prove the official story. I would not say it
is decided one way or the other conclusively. Many pieces of primary
evidence contend important findings of the Warren Commission. These were
seemingly ignored in the repeated mistakes and suppression of some
evidence.

C.S.

[Bud]

After 50 years and the millions of hours spent looking into these things
do you see those percentages changing?

I have no problem if people still find the case interesting, I only
bristle at the idea that LN and CT are two sides of the same coin, both
guilty of the same lapse of reasoning.

[Bud]

On Sunday, January 5, 2014 6:38:00 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 1/5/2014 8:57 AM, Bud wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, January 4, 2014 9:33:59 PM UTC-5, hrtshpdbox wrote:
>
> >> From what I can see, and I'll admit I haven't studied the phenomena for
>
> >>
>
> >> very long,CT'ers and LN'ers each have their own flaw in logic. A
>
> >>
>
> >> psychologist might be able to easily predict which camp a person they
>
> >>
>
> >> observed would fall into. But putting aside the typical "profile" of a
>
> >>
>
> >> conspiracy theorist (which is certainly less than a flattering one), when
>
> >>
>
> >> it comes to the specifics of the JFK case I think it might be fair to say
>
> >>
>
> >> that the CT flaw is that there's a certain grasping of straws present, one
>
> >>
>
> >> that allows multiple perceived discrepancies to live side-by-side even
>
> >>
>
> >> when the accumulated result of that scenario ceases to make any coherent
>
> >>
>
> >> sense. The ultimate example of that, perhaps, is Stone's film. As for the
>
> >>
>
> >> LN, the flaw is that it's important that nothing ever come up that might
>
> >>
>
> >> even be mildly interesting - in fact, nothing can be interesting, as that
>
> >>
>
> >> might undermine some conclusion of the WC, thus creating a chink in the
>
> >>
>
> >> armor.
>
> >
>
> > Once the indications of Oswald guilt pile up it becomes obvious that
>
> > Oswald took his rifle to his work and assassinated Kennedy from there.
>
>
>
> That's a logical fallacy known as Begging the Question. You assume
>
> something because you can't prove it.

Since you can`t dispute that the indications of Oswald`s guilt piled up
you can`t show that it isn`t obvious, therefore proven.

> > Later he killed a cop. After you figure out these things the rest becomes
>
> > trivia, possibly interesting on some level, but also irrelevant to the
>
> > larger questions. Did Oswald have a coke, did he descend before or after
>
> > Adams, where was he heading when Tippit confronted him, ect, might be nice
>
> > to know, but unnecessary to determine what occurred.
>
> >
>
>
>
> So we can propose any scenario and you can't object?

My objections seem to have little impact on hobbyist production.

> That's comforting.
>
> So you agree that Oswald was down on the first floor at the time of the
>
> shooting?

I agree that some hobbyists have desperately attempted to float that
idea.

[Bud]

On Sunday, January 5, 2014 11:07:28 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> BUD SAID:
>
>
>
> If someone can`t figure out that Oswald killed Kennedy this shows to me a
>
> willful disregard for reality. It isn`t a matter of not having enough
>
> information, they just don`t *want* to come to the obvious conclusion.
>
>
>
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
>
>
>
> Bingo. Precisely. Exactly.
>
>
>
> I've been getting a few comments on my YouTube videos lately, with some
>
> people asking: How could the police have come to the conclusion so
>
> quickly--in less than one day--that Oswald was guilty?
>
>
>
> My response to that question is:
>
>
>
> Given the evidence that the police had collected (which all led straight
>
> to Oswald), plus factoring in Oswald's own incriminating actions in the
>
> movie theater where he was arrested, how would it be possible for the
>
> Dallas Police to NOT have arrived at an "Oswald Is Guilty" determination
>
> within 24 hours of JFK's murder?
>
>
>
> Was the DPD supposed to just *ignore* the rifle, the revolver in Oswald's
>
> hands, the shells on Tenth Street, the shells in the Depository Sniper's
>
> Nest, the paper bag with Oswald's prints on it, Oswald's own guilty-like
>
> actions, and the eyewitnesses who fingered Oswald?

Even the little things. When the police show up where a suspect had his
belongings and his wife tells them he has a rifle and knows where it is,
and when that location is searched the rifle is not there, this is a huge
red flag. It doesn`t necessarily mean guilt, but it is EXACTLY WHAT THEY
WOULD EXPECT IF THEIR SUSPECT WAS THE GUILTY PARTY. You only need a
handful of indications like this to know you are on the right track, and
when huge billboards like the photo of Oswald holding the murder weapon
come to light the conclusion becomes inescapable. The cops aren`t going to
sit around like jerkoffs figuring this is staged and this is planted, they
leave that for others.

[hrtshpdbox]

Thanks for the exasperating response. An "example" would be one thing that
demonstrates a theme found in others, wouldn't it? Do you think there's
not plenty of examples of LN'ers doing their best to minimize and
delegitimize potentially interesting lines of inquiry into the
assassination, not to mention ridiculing the CT'ers generally (and
personally)? And isn't Myers, co-author of the cited article, a respected
pro-WC commentator? Don't you think the torturous route he takes to make
1,000 pages of documents seem insignificant is a good example of what I'm
talking about? I don't think I've engaged in a Rush to Judgment when
pointing out this modus operandi of LN'ers; I've read plenty of articles.

[hrtshpdbox]

On Monday, January 6, 2014 9:44:22 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:

>
>
> After 50 years and the millions of hours spent looking into these things
>
> do you see those percentages changing?
>
>

For the sake of argument, I think it's fair to say that 50 years is not
quite a long enough period to expect everything that could possibly emerge
about the case to do so; if other people were involved, they might still
be alive, or their relatives reluctant to spill the bean. It took 40 years
for the ARRB docs to get released (and while a WC advocate might say there
was no smoking gun in those docs, I think it's not unreasonable to assume
that we haven't seen everything there is to see just yet).

>
> I have no problem if people still find the case interesting, I only
>
> bristle at the idea that LN and CT are two sides of the same coin, both
>
> guilty of the same lapse of reasoning.

I think each side suffers an entirely different lapse in reasoning.

[Mike]

Ok, so how do you conduct unbiased inquiry?

I am only a mathmatician. I like to think that I am also trained in
unbiased inquiry as well.

[BT George]

Agreed. Excellent comments Dave and Bud about the ABO crowd who wish to
absolve Oswald of guilt. Of course, I also believe that the overall
evidence *strongly* indicates that LHO killed JFK and was acting alone in
the effort.

However, having said that, I don't think inquiry into the possibility of
co-conspirators/backers, is per se illitimate or unworthy of
consideration. I only have a big beef with the *wild/insane* notion that
Oswald did not shoot Kennedy at all, but was really just an innocent
"patsy". All I ask of the "Oswald-as-co-conspirator crowd" is that they
not place conclusive reliance on *ill-supported straw clutching* to ID his
supposed cohorts/backers and that they not dream up elaborate/large scale
plots and cover-ups in the process.

While I doubt such inquiry will ever show any conclusive evidence of a
plot, anyone wanting to examine that possibility in a reasonable manner,
has no ill-will from me.

BT George

[Anthony Marsh]

More nonsense. I have no interest in absolving Oswald or anybody else.
We've proved that it was a conspiracy. The only question now is who was
behind the conspiracy. When you cover up for the conspirators that does
not look good for you.

> However, having said that, I don't think inquiry into the possibility of
> co-conspirators/backers, is per se illitimate or unworthy of
> consideration. I only have a big beef with the *wild/insane* notion that
> Oswald did not shoot Kennedy at all, but was really just an innocent
> "patsy". All I ask of the "Oswald-as-co-conspirator crowd" is that they
> not place conclusive reliance on *ill-supported straw clutching* to ID his
> supposed cohorts/backers and that they not dream up elaborate/large scale
> plots and cover-ups in the process.
>

And who appointed you as the arbiter of the truth when you know so
little about this case?

> While I doubt such inquiry will ever show any conclusive evidence of a
> plot, anyone wanting to examine that possibility in a reasonable manner,
> has no ill-will from me.
>

So you signed the petition and lobbied for the formation of the HSCA?

> BT George
>

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

One of the biggest obstacles over the years in determining whether Oswald
had help is, ironically, the conspiracy crowd.

With all of these goofy theories about body alteration and witnesses being
killed and LBJ's mistress. All of this absolute nonsense.

My guess is that Oswald made the decision to kill JFK 2-3 days before that
day. Not much time to arrange anything with anyone else. Which is why his
"escape plan" consisted of $15 and a revolver. And nothing else.

Frankly, I think he expected to get shot himself during the shooting. He
wouldn't make it alive.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/6/2014 12:21 PM, hrtshpdbox wrote:
> On Monday, January 6, 2014 9:44:22 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> After 50 years and the millions of hours spent looking into these things
>>
>> do you see those percentages changing?
>>
>>
>
> For the sake of argument, I think it's fair to say that 50 years is not
> quite a long enough period to expect everything that could possibly emerge
> about the case to do so; if other people were involved, they might still
> be alive, or their relatives reluctant to spill the bean. It took 40 years
> for the ARRB docs to get released (and while a WC advocate might say there
> was no smoking gun in those docs, I think it's not unreasonable to assume
> that we haven't seen everything there is to see just yet).
>

OTOH the standard WC defender trope is that no one can keep a secret for
more than 5 seconds.

[Bud]

On Monday, January 6, 2014 12:21:38 PM UTC-5, hrtshpdbox wrote:
> On Monday, January 6, 2014 9:44:22 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > After 50 years and the millions of hours spent looking into these things
>
> >
>
> > do you see those percentages changing?
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
> For the sake of argument, I think it's fair to say that 50 years is not
>
> quite a long enough period to expect everything that could possibly emerge
>
> about the case to do so;

It`s been over a hundred years since the Titanic sank, and new
information emerges pretty regularly, due to interest. But I wouldn`t
expect anything to surface that will change the basic idea that she hit an
iceberg and sank.

> if other people were involved, they might still
>
> be alive, or their relatives reluctant to spill the bean. It took 40 years
>
> for the ARRB docs to get released (and while a WC advocate might say there
>
> was no smoking gun in those docs, I think it's not unreasonable to assume
>
> that we haven't seen everything there is to see just yet).

Yah, maybe someone will bag a bigfoot also. I just wouldn`t expect it.

>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > I have no problem if people still find the case interesting, I only
>
> >
>
> > bristle at the idea that LN and CT are two sides of the same coin, both
>
> >
>
> > guilty of the same lapse of reasoning.
>
>
>
> I think each side suffers an entirely different lapse in reasoning.

I see no lapse in reasoning in concluding that Oswald alone killed
Kennedy for his own reasons. Do you think that there should be a search
for Hinckley`s co-conspirators?

[Bud]

The main goal of the hobbyists seems to be to contrive legitimacy for
the idea that Oswald was a patsy. This approach, and those who enagage in
it are deserving of ridicule.

[bigdog]

I said about a month ago I wouldn’t be a regular contributor any more
and I meant that but I do still lurk here occasionally and I feel I have
to throw my two cents into this discussion.

Contrary to what has been alleged in the OP, LNs are not against new
material being brought up that might challenge the findings of the WC. The
problem is that there is no new material being brought up. It’s the same
old crap, year after year, decade after decade. It gets debunked,
resurrected, repackaged, and debunked again. If there was any new evidence
that supported the theory that Oswald did not act alone, most LNs would be
more than happy to see it. We are not supporters of the WC. We are
supporters of the truth. Truth is not a multiple choice exercise. The
assassination of JFK happened only one way. That way one way has not
changed in 50 years and never will change. LNs believe that essentially,
the WC found that truth. What has been learned over the past 50 years and
new technologies which have been used to re-examine the evidence have only
served to bolster those findings.

LNs recognize some very simple truths of the assassination. Despite what
many continue to allege, this was a simple case of murder. The evidence is
overwhelming and conclusive that Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK
and wounded Connally. It is overwhelming and conclusive that a short time
later, he shot and killed Tippit. There is no compelling evidence that
Oswald had any accomplices in these crimes. Despite the lack of evidence
that Oswald had any accomplices, it is theoretically possible he could
have had one or more accomplices and evidence of such has simply not been
uncovered. We find that to be a highly unlikely possibility, given the
amount of time and effort that has been spent by an army of researchers
over the years to find such evidence. But if such evidence exists, I hope
that it would be uncovered. If such new evidence would force us to
re-examine our position, most of us would be more than happy to do
that.

I also take exception to the charge that LNs demand absolute proof from
those with opposing viewpoints. We certainly do not. What we ask for are
theories that explain the evidence, not ones that try to explain it away.
If someone other than Oswald was involved, than give us evidence of such.
Not assumptions. Not speculations. Not convoluted theories. EVIDENCE.
Seems like a reasonable expectation to me.

[BT George]

There's some "nonsense" her all right!

The cospiracy you claim to have "proved" was put forward by the HSCA based
on the flawed Accoustics evidence. Interestingly, you want to embrace one
aspect of their findings, while rejecting key points like your prized GK
shooter completely missing, and *ALL* the shots responsible for killing
JFK and wounding Connally were fired by LHO from the 6th floor of the
TSBD.

>
> > However, having said that, I don't think inquiry into the possibility of
>
> > co-conspirators/backers, is per se illitimate or unworthy of
>
> > consideration. I only have a big beef with the *wild/insane* notion that
>
> > Oswald did not shoot Kennedy at all, but was really just an innocent
>
> > "patsy". All I ask of the "Oswald-as-co-conspirator crowd" is that they
>
> > not place conclusive reliance on *ill-supported straw clutching* to ID his
>
> > supposed cohorts/backers and that they not dream up elaborate/large scale
>
> > plots and cover-ups in the process.
>
> >
>
>
>
> And who appointed you as the arbiter of the truth when you know so
>
> little about this case?
>
>

And who appointed you arbiter of truth when you claim to "know" so much
about this case, yet keep arriving at flawed conclusions---like a frontal
shot and reliance of the (twice) debunked dicatbelt "evidence"?

>
> > While I doubt such inquiry will ever show any conclusive evidence of a
>
> > plot, anyone wanting to examine that possibility in a reasonable manner,
>
> > has no ill-will from me.
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> So you signed the petition and lobbied for the formation of the HSCA?
>
>

Sorta' difficult as I was still 10-12 years old when the HSCA was up and
running. However, what's your excuse for being so proud of lobbying for
it, yet rejecting key aspects of its findings?

Oh...that's right. ...There were TWO HSCA's. The *real* one and the
"other" one that you have imagined in your own head!

>
> > BT George
>
> >

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, slightly. As I predicted Bugliosi's book would bring the percentage
down from 76 percent to 72 percent.

> I have no problem if people still find the case interesting, I only
> bristle at the idea that LN and CT are two sides of the same coin, both
> guilty of the same lapse of reasoning.
>

You don't get out much, do you?

[Anthony Marsh]

As usual you try to use one crime to prove guilt in the other. Killing
Tippit does not prove killing Kennedy.

[Glenn Sarlitto]

To hrtshpdbox

Whoever you are....Re Your: "Thanks for the exasperating response."

Sorry that you misinterpreted my reply as there was/is no anger on my end.

Re your: "An "example" would be one thing that demonstrates a theme found

in others, wouldn't it? Do you think there's not plenty of examples of
LN'ers doing their best to minimize and delegitimize potentially
interesting lines of inquiry into the assassination, not to mention
ridiculing the CT'ers generally (andpersonally)? "

Perhaps during INTERNET/FORUM interaction, but that's typical for the
internet on any given topic. I haven't experienced exasperation when
communicating offline.

Re your: "And isn't Myers, co-author of the cited article, a respected

pro-WC commentator? Don't you think the torturous route he takes to make
1,000 pages of documents seem insignificant is a good example of what I'm
talking about?

Looks like you missed what Judge John Tunheim stated in that there was
"“ nothing in any of the documents that was central to the
assassination".

QUOTE ON

"Judge John Tunheim, of the ARRB, told author Vincent Bugliosi that of the
one-tenth of one percent still being withheld, either he or another member
of the Review Board personally looked at all the redacted material and
that there was “nothing in any of the documents that was central to the
assassination. There’s no smoking gun, and no substantive information
was protected and not released by way of redaction.”

QUOTE OFF

Per Your: "I don't think I've engaged in a Rush to Judgment when pointing

out this modus operandi of LN'ers; I've read plenty of articles."

Make up your mind. You originally posted "I'll admit I haven't studied the
phenomena for very long,...". Good for you in reading plenty of articles.

GS

[Anthony Marsh]

I see you know nothing about the CIA. My father worked them for a
nominal $1.

[Glenn Sarlitto]

Welcome Back...With posts such as yours, be prepared for being accused of
being an Exasperator!!!! :-(

GS

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 1/6/14 4:06 PM, bigdog wrote:
> I said about a month ago I wouldn�t be a regular contributor any more

> and I meant that but I do still lurk here occasionally and I feel I have
> to throw my two cents into this discussion.
>
> Contrary to what has been alleged in the OP, LNs are not against new
> material being brought up that might challenge the findings of the WC. The

> problem is that there is no new material being brought up. It�s the same

Hear, hear!

[cmikes]

This is what always surprises me about CT logic. They can look at all the
evidence against Oswald and completely dismiss it all. We know it was his
rifle as proven by the order forms in his rifle and the authenticated
backyard photos. We know from Frazier's testimony that he carried a large
package into the TSBD. We know from the ballistic evidence that all the
fragments big enough to test and the recovered bullet came from that
rifle. We have his actions after the assassination and the murder of
Tippet. And that doesn't even start to list all the evidence against
Oswald.

And a CT looks at all that evidence.... and says "It's obvious that he
didn't do it!"

[Carmine Savastano]

Mike.

First, I would not claim to be an investigator, I am a researcher and
author. I do not use the term investigator, because that is the term for
law enforcement or those trained in criminal justice. I cannot universally
define what the standards are for every inquiry. Yet I shall attempt to
give you my approach.

First, all primary evidence is viable. Evidence that both supports and
refutes conspiracy must be considered. If such evidence enjoys support
from additional primary evidence from all verified sources (WC, Church
Committee, Rockefeller Commission, HSCA, DOJ, FBI, CIA, some major media
outlets, and publicly verified research) it is credible. While this is not
universal, it is a reasonable standard for discerning what qualifies as
evidence. Since my area of expertise does not lie in ballistics or
photographic evidence, I rely upon expert statements and testimony to
learn the scientific facts. Yet my area of primary knowledge is research
and language with some paralegal training. I do not think you have to be
an expert to understand the case, but if you are not, expert testimony
should be highly regarded in my view. All expert testimony, from verified
and credible experts despite contending ideas should be considered.

Once all the information is verified, my resident historian then checks it
as well. Then we review the information with both critics and advocates of
conspiracy. We then publish our findings, if any part is proven to be in
error we admit the error and post corrections. Thus far, I have admitted
to any errors on various forums. I was unaware of the word coined as a
derogatory term for anyone who supports conspiracy, "Conspiracist". I did
not know someone had actually included it as a viable term in a
dictionary. I suppose Lone Nutter and Hobbyist will be soon added to the
vernacular, despite their meaningless and obviously biased origins.

That brings me to insults. I do not use them; I do not belittle anyone
personally. I do review in my view words and ideas that are untenable or
ridiculous. Those who rely on insults to push their ideas are in my view
desperate and often have insufficient evidence to support their claims. I
have witnessed in a few forums these insults take over topics for days.
Perhaps the most uniformed part of using personal insults is that most
have not met the person. They are speculating based on the dissenting
views of the person, as some do with the case in general.

Another mistake was that I misread an article from a media source and
instead of stating a successful lawsuit had occurred, I should have stated
a successful settlement had occurred. Another was stating an article had
made a grammatical error, when it was not the case. Despite other errors
emerging from the same article, I did mistake the presence of that
particular error, so I admitted it. My largest mistake was in the
assumption that since the President's Commission was not the proper legal
setting for the investigation and did violate the jurisdiction of Texas
authorities, it was based on illegality. However, the Attorney General of
Texas subsequently granted concurrent federal jurisdiction. This legal
move granted the Commission full rights to investigate. Glenn Sarlito from
this forum provided primary evidence to illustrate this. Thus, I reviewed
his evidence against the record and it was solid. I then added this
evidence to my own gathered information and admitted my mistake.

Many seem to think just admitted a mistake discredits or demeans their
character or ideas. I disagree, the entire process of unbiased inquiry
must account for the human element and mistakes being made. In my opinion,
someone who enters with preconceived unchangeable ideas and contentions
cannot hope prove anything conclusively. They have a conclusion, often
based on opinion and little primary evidence. They take any contending
evidence as a personal attack, selective quotation, deception, or unworthy
of support. I appreciate the high standards of discourse some exhibit by
admitting a mistake. We all will make mistakes, only some will admit them.

I attempt to operate by the criminal law standards of reasonable doubt and
the presumption of innocence.

Fourteenth Amendments “[protect] the accused against conviction except
upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute
the crime with which he is charged.”83 “The reasonable doubt standard
plays a vital role in the American scheme of criminal procedure. It is a
prime instrument for reducing the risk of convictions resting on factual
error. The standard provides concrete substance for the presumption of
innocence —that bedrock ‘axiomatic and elementary’ principle whose
‘enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our
criminal law.”’84 In many past cases, this standard was assumed to be
the required one,85 but because it was so widely accepted only recently
has the Court had the opportunity to pronounce it guaranteed by due
process.86 The presumption of inno[p.1762]cence is valuable in assuring
defendants a fair trial,87 and it operates to ensure that the jury
considers the case solely on the evidence.88

I do not base my ideas on the secondary sources of authors, these sources
can support a contention, yet they alone do not suffice as the basis of
inquiry. That is why those who rely on just a pro or anti conspiracy texts
are not completely informed, nor unbiased. Unless we review and accept the
majority of primary evidence, personal bias often influences later
determinations.

You have asked an extensive question. I know there is much more that could
be discussed but I hope this is sufficient. I apologize to the threads
author for this diversion from the original question.

C.S.

Reasonable Doubt footnotes (Cornell University Legal Information Institute
(law.cornell.edu)

83 In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970) .
Supplement: [P. 1761, add to n.83:]

See also Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993) (Sixth Amendment
guarantee of trial by jury requires a jury verdict of guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt).

84 Id. at 363 (quoting Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432, 453 (1895)
). Justice Harlan’s Winship concurrence, id. at 368, proceeded on the
basis that inasmuch as there is likelihood of error in any system of
reconstructing past events, the error of convicting the innocent should be
reduced to the greatest extent possible through the use of the reasonable
doubt standard.

85 Miles v. United States, 103 U.S. 304, 312 (1881) ; Davis v. United
States, 160 U.S. 469, 488 (1895) ; Holt v. United States, 218 U.S. 245,
253 (1910) ; Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 525–26 (1958) .

86 In addition to Winship, see also Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 503
(1976) ; Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U.S. 145, 153 (1977) ; Ulster County
Court v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140, 156 (1979) ; Sandstorm v. Montana, 442 U.S.
510, 520–24 (1979) . On the interrelated concepts of the burden of the
prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and defendant’s
entitlement to a presumption of innocence, see Taylor v. Kentucky, 436
U.S. 478, 483–86 (1978) , and Kentucky v. Whorton, 441 U.S. 786 (1979) .

87 E.g., Deutch v. United States, 367 U.S. 456, 471 (1961) . See also Cage
v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39 (1990) (per curiam) (jury instruction that
explains “reasonable doubt” as doubt that would give rise to a
“grave uncertainty,” as equivalent to a “substantial doubt,” and
as requiring “a moral certainty,” suggests a higher degree of
certainty than is required for acquittal, and therefore violates the Due
Process Clause). Supplement: [P. 1762, add to n.87:]

But see Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1 (1994) (considered as a whole, jury
instructions that define “reasonable doubt” as requiring a “moral
certainty” or as equivalent to “substantial doubt” did not violate
due process because other clarifying language was included.)

88 Holt v. United States, 218 U.S. 245 (1910) ; Agnew v. United States,
165 U.S. 36 (1897) . These cases overturned Coffin v. United States, 156
U.S. 432, 460 (1895) , in which the Court held that the presumption of
innocence was evidence from which the jury could find a reasonable doubt.

[Anthony Marsh]

It's called intellectual honesty.
I don't have to agree with everything they said.

> Oh...that's right. ...There were TWO HSCA's. The *real* one and the
> "other" one that you have imagined in your own head!
>

You know nothing about it because you were not an active researcher then.

[25.1] THE HSCA

* Some conspiracists who were unhappy with Jim Garrison's investigation
of the JFK assassination said it set the field back for years. The
reasoning behind that claim is hard to understand, since the argument
for conspiracy sounded pretty much the same before and after Garrison,
and if the conspiracy argument ever had someplace to go, it hasn't got
there yet. In fact, it could be just as well argued that Garrison saved
the conspiracy movement, giving it wider public reach when it would have
otherwise faded away.

Although the Warren Commission did spend a good deal of time tracking
down various rumors about the assassination, the commission never really
confronted the conspiracy community, partly because it hadn't really
become solidly established by 1964. When the next formal government
investigation, by the HSCA, began in 1976, conspiracy theories were
necessarily part of the agenda. In fact, it was conspiracist Robert
Groden who got the ball rolling to set up the HSCA in the first place.
Groden had been showing a copy of the Zapruder video at college
campuses; through a series of links, he ended up showing it to
Democratic Congressman Thomas Dowding of Virginia. Disturbed, Dowding
had Groden show it to over fifty of his colleagues in the House of
Representatives. Given that assassination conspiracy theories were in
wide circulation at the time, the conclusion was to reopen and examine
the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Dr. Martin
Luther King.

The HSCA was set up by House Resolution 1540 on 17 September 1976, with
Dowding as overall chairman. A subcommittee was set up under Democratic
Congressman Henry Gonzalez of Texas to investigate the JFK
assassination; another subcommittee was set up to investigate Dr. King's
assassination, but nothing was done about Bobby Kennedy's assassination,
presumably because there was so little cause to think he had been
murdered by a conspiracy.

Richard A. Sprague, previously a Philadelphia district attorney, was
appointed chief counsel for the HSCA, with Sprague selecting Robert
Tanenbaum, then a prosecutor with the Manhattan district attorney's
office, as his chief deputy. Sprague and Tanenbaum were seen as
aggressive and impartial -- in fact, conspiracist Mark Lane had
recommended Sprague for the job. Dowding left his position as chairman
in January 1977, with Gonzalez moving up to take his place.

Gonzalez and Sprague didn't get along very well, leading to
confrontations; Gonzalez resigned his chairmanship on 2 March, taking
parting shots at Sprague. A new chairman, Democratic Congressman Louis
Stokes of Ohio, was appointed on 9 March. By that time, the HSCA's
mandate had expired, as was the rule for all House committees, at the
end of the current House term, which had been in January. The
expectation was that the HSCA would be continued in the new term;
however, the committee�s squabbling had escalated into the House.
Sprague was the target of considerable hostility, and he resigned on 29
March 1977.

* The HSCA appeared to have imploded, but House Resolution 433
re-established the committee on 30 March 1977. During all the political
jockeying to that time, the HSCA had unsurprisingly accomplished little;
it wasn't until G. Robert Blakey was appointed chief counsel on 20 June
that it started to move. Blakey was a Cornell law professor who had
worked as a prosecutor for Bobby Kennedy in the Justice Department.
Blakey was regarded as highly competent, energetic, and good pick for
the job.

The HSCA spent more time in its investigation than did the Warren
Commission, but the HSCA had a budget of about $5.8 million USD,
compared to the Warren Commission's $10 million USD, and had a staff of
about 250, compared to the 400 on the Warren Commission. Blakey decided
that he needed to focus on forensics, writing later that the trail had
become obscured since the Warren Commission's work:

BEGIN QUOTE:

It had been trampled into a state of confusion by amateur sleuths,
witnesses who had died, and the memories of those who were still around
had been altered by secondhand perceptions (witnesses, too, read the
conspiracy books) and dimmed by the passage of time; and evidence had
been misplaced or destroyed.

END QUOTE

As noted previously, some witnesses who had little to say to the Warren
Commission were much more talkative when they spoke to the HSCA, only to
generate a good deal of confusion and no worthwhile leads. In
compensation, forensics technology had improved during the time, and so
Blakey decided to focus his relatively limited resources "primarily on
the hard data of science and technology." The HSCA investigation
continued through 1978 and into 1979. Everything the committee turned up
through that time confirmed the judgement of the Warren Commission:
Oswald had performed the assassination on his own, and there was no
credible evidence of a conspiracy.

Then, on 13 July 1978, Dr. James Barger of the acoustical firm of Bolt,
Beranek, & Newman INC in Cambridge, Massachusetts, called to report that
he had obtained "acoustic evidence" that a fourth shot had been fired.
The HSCA found the "acoustic evidence" persuasive; on the strength of
that evidence, when the HSCA's final report was issued on 29 March 1979,
it concluded that JFK was "probably assassinated as a result of a
conspiracy."

That was an abrupt last-minute about-face. Four of the HSCA committee
members -- Representatives Samuel Devine, Robert Edgar, Harold Sawyer,
and Charles Thone -- felt it was much too abrupt, that the conclusion of
a conspiracy was so momentous that the "acoustic evidence" needed to be
given a much more thorough wire-brushing. Edgar commented that the
conclusion of a conspiracy absolutely contradicted everything else the
committee had learned:

BEGIN QUOTE:

We found no evidence to suggest a conspiracy. We found no [other] gunmen
or evidence of a [second] gunman. We found no gun, no shells, no impact
of shots from the grassy knoll. We found no entry wounds from the front
into any person, including President John Kennedy and Governor John
Connally. We found no bullets or fragments of bullets that did not
belong to the Oswald weapon. And we found little, if any, evidence of
partnership with Lee Harvey Oswald. Few credible ear-witness accounts
back up the marginal findings of our acoustics experts.

END QUOTE

The announcement of the "acoustic evidence" created a great of
sensation, but as previously discussed it ultimately lost all
credibility following the release of the CBA report. The HSCA had
claimed the Warren Commission had dropped the ball, only to end up
dropping it themselves instead. The irony was that the HSCA
investigations into possible conspirators and -- aside from the
"acoustic evidence" -- the committee's forensic studies were extremely
valuable, specifically affirming and complementing the work of the
Warren Commission. The HSCA report firmly concluded that:

Oswald fired all the shots that hit JFK, Connally, and Tippit;
neither JFK nor Connally were hit by shots fired from anywhere but the
"sniper's nest" in the TSBD. The CE 399 bullet was fired from Oswald's
Carcano rifle, and the fragments from the "head shot" were from one
bullet compatible with Carcano ammunition.

The "Fascist Hunter" photos were not faked.

The JFK autopsy materials had not been faked, and the conclusions
of the Bethesda autopsy were correct.

Oswald had no provable connections to a conspiracy.

There was no cause to believe any US government organization was
involved in the assassination, and there was no evidence that could
specifically identify any other groups as involved in the assassination.

The bigger irony was that the HSCA was, as far as the public was
concerned, effectively irrelevant, the fuss over the JFK assassination
continuing without skipping a beat. The "acoustic evidence" simply
became part of conspiracy lore, with conspiracists playing it up as
"proof", while completely ignoring the defects of the "acoustic
evidence" and the much larger component of the HSCA's work that backed
up the Warren Report.

In the course of the 1967 CBS News report on the Warren Report, CBS News
had interviewed historian Henry Steele Commager, who perceptively
observed that the "conspiracy mentality will not accept ordinary
evidence ... it forces them to reject the ordinary and find refuge in
the extraordinary ..." CBS News asked Commager if he thought that a
second inquiry would clarify matters. Commager went on to say he thought
not:

BEGIN QUOTE:

... if another investigation were to be held and came to the same
conclusions, as I'm inclined to think it would ... it would be found
just as unsatisfactory ... [conspiracists would say] they're covering
things up. So I see no value, really, in another investigation.

END QUOTE

The HSCA did manage to clarify a number of significant issues for the
historical record, but as far as its public impact went, Commager was
far-sighted, recognizing that it would make no difference; conspiracists
would never believe any inquiry, no matter how thorough and above-board,
that told them what they didn't want to hear. Indeed, all the criticisms
leveled at the Warren Commission in the first place were effectively
irrelevant, because no matter how good a job had been done,
conspiracists still would never have believed the Warren Report. By the
1970s the conspiracy movement had become trapped in an endless loop,
energetically chasing after plots that they could never really uncover
because the plots never really existed. In fact, conspiracists no longer
seemed to care if they did "close the case"; all that mattered was to
keep the conspiracy role-playing game going.
BACK_TO_TOP
[25.2] HSCA WITNESSES: MARITA LORENZ / LARRY HUFF / ROBERT VINSON

* As noted above, many stories about the assassination had come out of
the woodwork in the decade following the assassination, leaving the HSCA
attempting to sort them out. One story was told by Marita Lorenz, a
German-born woman who claimed to have been one of Fidel Castro's
mistresses. There is reason to accept that claim as the truth, since
there are photos of her and Castro together. However, in 1977 she came
forward with an assassination story that wasn't as easy to accept.
According to Lorenz, in September 1963 she hooked up with a group in
Miami that involved anti-Castro Cubans, "CIA agent" Frank Sturgis, "CIA
agent" Gerry Patrick Hemming, and Oswald. In mid-November 1963, the
group left Miami in two cars, to go to Dallas, where Jack Ruby hooked up
with them and Lorenz finally figured out what was really being planned.

Sturgis angrily told the HSCA: "She is an absolute liar." That much
might have been suspected because her story placed Oswald in Miami at
times he was known for certain to have been in Dallas, and there was no
evidence to place him in Miami. Nothing else in Lorenz's story panned
out either, and skeptics also wondered why she waited 14 years to come
forward. Incidentally, Lorenz had Sturgis arrested by New York police in
1978, claiming he had made threatening calls, and she had taped them as
proof; the charges were dropped when the tapes didn't reveal any
threats. The VILLAGE VOICE commented on the incident:

BEGIN QUOTE:

Will the cops dig up information linking Marita Lorenz, Frank Sturgis,
the [NEW YORK] DAILY NEWS and certain members of the New York Police
Department? Will a conspiracy be uncovered at last? Or will the police
report conclude that the whole brouhaha was the work of single dingbat
acting alone? Where is Mark Lane now that we need him?

END QUOTE

The bottom line on Marita Lorenz was delivered by Edwin Lopez of the
HSCA, who told Gerald Posner: "Oh God, we spent a lot of time with
Marita ... It was hard to ignore her because she gave us so much crap,
and we tried to verify it, but let me tell you, she is full of shit.
Between her and Frank Sturgis, we must have spent over one hundred
hours. They were dead ends ... Marita is not credible."

* However, as is not unusual among conspiracy theories, Lorenz's story
refused to die. In 1978 Victor Marchetti, an ex-CIA agent, published an
article in SPOTLIGHT, a weekly published by the Right-wing Liberty
Lobby, that claimed E. Howard Hunt -- the ex-CIA agent implicated in the
Watergate scandal, discussed earlier -- had actually been in Dallas on
22 November 1963, with Marchetti weaving him into the conspiracy theory
proposed by Lorenz.

Hunt had always denied that he'd been in Dallas on 22 November; he sued
both Marchetti and the Liberty Lobby for libel, with the trial taking
place in 1985. The attorney for the defense was Mark Lane. To prove
libel, Hunt had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he hadn't been in
Dallas on 22 November 1963, and he was unable to do so, his suit being
dismissed. Marita Lorenz was one of the witnesses in the case, and she
repeated her story to the court, embellishing the details, in particular
folding in Hunt and playing up the CIA connection.

Lane used the Hunt libel case as the basis for his 1992 book PLAUSIBLE
DENIAL, which had the subtitle: "Was the CIA Involved In The
Assassination of JFK?" -- and which of course answered YES, citing the
verdict in the 1985 trial for support. In reality, the trial proved
nothing about Hunt; it just showed he couldn't decisively disprove the
bad things people were saying about him, absolutely not the same thing
as saying they had been proven.

Incidentally, the HSCA also dealt with Mark Lane, though only relative
to the assassination of Martin Luther King, and found him just as
exasperating as had the Warren Commission:

BEGIN QUOTE:

Many of the allegations of conspiracy the committee investigated were
first raised by Mark Lane, the attorney who represented James Earl Ray
[King's assassin] at the committee�s public hearings. As has been noted,
the facts were often at variance with Lane�s assertions. ... In many
instances, the committee found that Lane was willing to advocate
conspiracy theories publicly without having checked the factual basis
for them. In other instances, Lane proclaimed conspiracy based on little
more than inference and innuendo. Lane�s conduct resulted in public
misperception about the assassination of Dr. King and must be condemned.

END QUOTE

* The HSCA also investigated a much less spectacular tale, told by a
former US Marine air navigator named Larry Huff. Huff claimed that after
the assassination, on 14 December 1963, he was on a flight with about a
dozen military investigators that flew from Hawaii to Japan, the mission
being to look over what Oswald had been doing at Atsugi. The flight
dropped off the investigators and went back to Hawaii, with Huff
returning to Japan on a second flight in late December to take the
investigators back home. Huff claimed that one of the investigators
showed him a classified document that concluded Oswald did not have the
capability to pull off the assassination of JFK alone.

The HSCA looked over the claim, and though military transport flights
between Japan and Hawaii did take place in that timeframe -- they were
nothing unusual -- there was no documentation showing the flights
involved any military investigation, and even the relevant base
commander knew nothing of such a mission. USMC intelligence knew nothing
of such a mission either, and added that Marine intelligence would have
had no jurisdiction to conduct such an investigation. Nobody could find
any trace of the supposed report, and it's unlikely that qualified
investigators would have handed a classified document to nobody in
particular. The Marines did investigate the death of Private Schrand in
the Philippines, discussed earlier, and as mentioned concluded he had
been killed in a freak accident, with no visible connection to Oswald.

* Although it has nothing to do with the HSCA in specific, for want of a
better place to put it, a story with loose similarities to that told by
Huff was written up in the 2006 book FLIGHT FROM DALLAS, by James
Johnston and Jon Roe. The book told the tale of Robert Vinson, who in
1963 was an Air Force staff sergeant. On the morning of 22 November, he
hitched a ride home from Andrews Air Force Base in California to his
duty station in Colorado on a C-54 transport.

According to Vinson, the aircraft was unmarked. During the flight, the
news came in that JFK had been shot, with the plane diverting to Dallas
to pick up two passengers, taking them to Roswell, New Mexico. The
flight terminating there, Vinson took a bus home; when he got back, he
realized from TV reports that one of the passengers picked up by the
C-54 in Dallas was an Oswald "double".

Vinson could not provide any credible validation for his story, and
there was the puzzle of why he had taken so long to come forward -- he
said he had been sworn to secrecy on the matter. More troublesome for
the tale is why the conspiracy would have taken a hitchhiker on board a
covert flight, then paraded an Oswald "double" in front of him, and let
him live to talk later. Only the credulous took Vinson's story seriously.
BACK_TO_TOP
[25.3] HSCA NON-WITNESSES: THOMAS BECKHAM / RICHARD CASE NAGELL

* There was also an interesting list of people the HSCA interviewed but
never bothered to investigate. One was Beverly Oliver, discussed
previously. A second was Thomas "Tommy" Beckham, who claimed he had been
trained as a CIA assassin; had met with Oswald, Ruby, Ferrie, and Shaw;
and that he delivered to Dallas an "informational packet" containing
photos, maps, and other relevant data on Dealey Plaza just before the
assassination. Beckham, it turned out, had a lengthy rap sheet, mostly
listing small-time cons; a fair number of aliases; and a history of
residence in mental institutions.

Beckham claimed to be an associate of Jack Martin and by all appearances
was stamped from the same mold. Jim Garrison had known about Beckham and
had paid no attention to him. When the HSCA spoke with Beckham, he
claimed he had a "doctor of metaphysics" degree; when asked from what
institution, he replied: "Oh boy, I don't know. There's so many on my
wall, you'd have to take a look and see." The counsel also asked him:
"You're an ordained minister, apparently, in most of the world's major
religions?" "Right." When it came down to the people supposedly pulling
the strings in the assassination, the counsel asked him the obvious
question: "Who?" -- and Beckham replied: "If I told you, man, I'd
probably be in more trouble than on Earth." Why Beckham didn't think he
was getting in trouble by dangling hints of forbidden knowledge to the
authorities is an interesting question.

The HCSA didn't mention Beckham in their report. Author Gus Russo hunted
Beckham down in 1992, finding the walls of his office covered with fake
diplomas, with Beckham telling Russo that he had written three top hit
tunes. Russo, who had a background as a musician, knew who the real
authors of the tunes were, and concluded: "For anyone to use him as a
source of anything is staggering." However, unstaggerable author Joan
Mellen made him one of the star players in her 2005 book A FAREWELL TO
JUSTICE.

* Along with Oliver and Beckham, the HSCA also encountered Richard Case
Nagell, an ex-US Army officer who had seen action in the Korean War. He
suffered head injuries in an air crash in 1954 that rendered him
comatose. He got back onto his feet and went into Air Force
intelligence, but it seems he never completely recovered from the
accident, obtaining a discharge on partial disability in 1959.

In 1958 he had married a Japanese woman who he brought back to the USA.
By 1963, they had two kids and a marriage on the rocks. On 20 September
1963, Nagell walked into the State National Bank in El Paso, Texas,
pulled out a revolver, and fired two shots into the wall. He then walked
out of the bank without demanding any money, encountered a policeman,
and gave himself up.

As best as anyone could ever figure out, he was trying to draw attention
to his problems in obtaining custody of his kids. His behavior was so
baffling that he was given a psychiatric examination to see if he was
competent to stand trial; the conclusion was that he was. On 6 May 1964,
he was sentenced to ten years in prison. The conviction was overturned
in 1966 on the basis that he really hadn't been competent to stand
trial; he was retried and convicted again, but the second conviction was
also overturned, with Nagell finally released in 1968.

During his time behind bars, Nagell began to drift into the
assassination conspiracy orbit. It's a little difficult to trace out the
evolution of Nagell's revelations because they involved a number of
retroactive and shifting claims that were generally unverifiable, when
not clearly bogus. Nagell claimed that when he was in Air Force
intelligence he established a relationship with the CIA, which he
retained after leaving the service. He became a double agent, working
with both the CIA and KGB, and claimed he ran into Oswald in various
places, in particular Mexico. On finding out that some dangerous
conspiracy was in progress, Nagell then staged the scene in the bank in
El Paso, presumably in hopes of getting an alibi to ensure that he
wouldn't be caught up in events.

Trying to nail down hard facts from Nagell's story is troublesome. There
is no credible evidence that from the time of his arrest on 20 September
1963 to 22 November 1963, Nagell said a word to anyone about a plot to
kill JFK. In 1967, it is known that he did write a letter to Senator
Richard Russell in which Nagell said he had connected with Oswald in
1962 and 1963, detailing that while JFK had been killed by a conspiracy
and that Oswald was the only gunman, Oswald was not connected to any
extremist groups, nor was he "an agent or informant ... for any
investigative, police, or intelligence agency, domestic or foreign."

In 1968, after getting out of lockup, Nagell met with Jim Garrison on a
park bench in Central Park in New York City, feeding Garrison vague
tales of a conspiracy, but providing little in the way of solid leads.
Garrison didn't bother to follow up the conversation with Nagell; in
fact, Nagell went to New Orleans in 1969 to offer his testimony at Clay
Shaw's trial, but Garrison brushed him off.

In between his two encounters with Garrison's investigation, Nagell had
spent time in lockup again. In the spring of 1968 Nagell had gone to
Europe, showing up at the US consulate in Zurich, claiming to be on a
"secret mission". One of the staff who spoke with Nagell described him
as "seriously incoherent, in fact appears psychotic, possibly dangerous."

Possibly, but mostly dangerous to himself. On 10 June he was in East
Germany, being arrested by East German security personnel, it seems for
attempting to enter an unauthorized area. The East Germans were
notoriously humorless, but the State Department managed to prevail on
them to let him go -- presumably by pointing out that he had a history
of mental instability, which was only too evident even to beady-eyed
East German security. Nagell was released in late October 1968.
Conspiracists thought it "suspicious" that the State Department tried to
help Nagell out of his difficulties, finding it inexplicable that the US
diplomatic service would try to assist an American citizen in trouble in
a foreign country.

In 1975, Nagell claimed he had sent a letter to J. Edgar Hoover to warn
the FBI of a conspiracy in which Lee Harvey Oswald was going to murder
JFK. Nagell had no copy of the letter. In 1976 Congressman Donald
Edwards, then on the HSCA, heard about the letter and contacted the FBI
about the matter, obtaining the response: "Mr. Nagell's allegation is
not new to the FBI. It has been looked into on several occasions over
the years ... No record has ever been found of receipt of his claimed
September, 1963 letter." On investigation, it did turn out that Nagell
had made similar claims of sending a message to the FBI in a letter to
the Warren Commission.

Nagell would eventually be the subject of a conspiracy book, Dick
Russell's 1992 THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH. It appears that the HSCA had
no interest in Nagell because he was perceived as knowing too little.
Nagell claimed an association with the CIA; no records or witnesses bear
that out, nor is there any evidence of an association between Nagell and
Oswald. Indeed, Nagell said he had met Oswald in Mexico, but Nagell had
been arrested in El Paso on 20 September, a week before Oswald went to
Mexico for the first and last time.

Some conspiracists take Nagell's story seriously, but it's hard to
fathom why. Nagell had suffered trauma from an accident that left him
comatose and later caused him to shoot up a bank for no reason he could
coherently explain at the time. After being put behind bars, he was
released (twice) because he was judged unable to understand what he had
been doing in the El Paso bank on 20 September 1963. Nagell claimed that
he could produce a copy of the letter he sent to the FBI in 1963 and
that he could also provide a picture of him and Oswald together -- but
he never did. He died of heart disease in 1995 at age 65. An inspection
of his possessions by ARRB staff with the permission and assistance of
his son and niece turned up nothing of any interest.
BACK_TO_TOP
[25.4] FOOTNOTE: G. ROBERT BLAKEY & THE JFK ASSASSINATION

* Much later, in 2003, the US Public Broadcasting System ran a
biographical show on Lee Harvey Oswald and interviewed Blakey, who
provided a tidy summary of the HSCA's work and conclusions. On the
possibility that Oswald was a spy:

BEGIN QUOTE:

The ultimate judgment on Oswald as a recruited agent is that he was not
-- either by the CIA or by the Soviets. For example, if the Soviets had
recruited him in Japan, the time and place to use him was in Japan, not
to have him defect to Russia to make radios. That just is not what makes
sense. Take a look at his character. The KGB conducted an investigation
of him in the Soviet Union by the wiretapping, the bugging, the
debriefing of all of his neighbors. None of this is consistent with
Oswald having been recruited.

... Would the Americans develop a false defector program and put Oswald
in it? When you look at Oswald's life, he just doesn't seem to be
emotionally stable enough to be the kind of candidate that our people
would recruit.

... We took very seriously the hypothesis that Lee Harvey Oswald was
connected to the CIA or our intelligence services. When we went to the
CIA files, we took very seriously the hypothesis that they had been
edited in some way. We talked to the agents who had created them, we
made sure that each of the agents was given a release from their secrecy
oath and was carefully instructed that if they lied to us, there would
be prosecution. We cross checked the references in files to see what
would be in parallel files. ... We had total access to the agents who
prepared them. ... The records are as they seem.

... [However, the] CIA clearly did lie about the case. ... The CIA
appear to have been not cooperative, to have put out false photographs
of Oswald, to have claimed they had no photographs of Oswald, there were
many cases where they seem to have tried to cover their tracks. ... When
it came time to analyze the candor that the Agency had with us, and the
FBI had with us, it's my judgment that it was difficult. Teeth had to be
pulled, but in the end we had unlimited access.

END QUOTE

Blakey later sent a note to PBS saying his reservations about the CIA's
honesty had grown following his original commentary:

BEGIN QUOTE:

I now no longer believe anything the Agency told the committee any
further than I can obtain substantial corroboration for it from outside
the Agency for its veracity. We now know that the Agency withheld from
the Warren Commission the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro. Had the
commission known of the plots, it would have followed a different path
in its investigation.

END QUOTE

In any case, the interviewer then asked about the destruction of Army
military intelligence file on Oswald:

BEGIN QUOTE:

In 1972, largely as a result of the investigations into military
intelligence activities in the United States, the Defense Department
destroyed all of the military intelligence files that they had about
American citizens and things in the United States, which was shocking
from the point of view of the committee. This general order resulted in
the destruction of historically very valuable files.

... Again, our ultimate conclusion was that in the United States, more
often than not, the better explanation for government action is not
hobnailed boots, but Keystone Cops. It's incredible how our bureaucracy
simply responds in a mindless way without any regard to the historical
significance of what they have.

END QUOTE

On George de Mohrenschildt's association with Oswald:

BEGIN QUOTE:

We looked very carefully into the activity of a man named George de
Mohrenschildt, a Russian ... He was a sophisticated man, a very
articulate man, a world traveler, and George de Mohrenschildt and his
wife befriended Oswald and Marina in this country and we explored very
carefully whether he could have been a contact, an indirect contact,
between the agency and one of its own agents, Lee Harvey Oswald. After a
careful study, we were not able to establish that George de
Mohrenschildt was connected to the CIA. [The HSCA sensibly did not see
his DCD contacts as a connection of significance.]

END QUOTE

On the failure of the CIA to debrief Oswald after he returned from the USSR:

BEGIN QUOTE:

It is unusual for the CIA or military intelligence to debrief Americans.
That was something that the FBI should've done. In fact the FBI did make
an effort, several, to talk [to] Lee Harvey Oswald in this country. So
it's not entirely true that he was not debriefed. He was very
uncooperative with the agents, indeed was very belligerent with them. We
were deeply troubled by the way in which he came back. The government
financed him, they got him a visa, and he came back to this country with
great ease, the CIA then incredibly did not debrief him as such.

In the end, we found this not to be significant. Our defector study of
some 22 other American defectors indicated that it was not uncommon to
facilitate a return, indeed not uncommon that they were not even
debriefed at any time. We drew therefore no sinister evidence inference,
in light of the pattern of the general evidence.

END QUOTE

On Oswald's guilt:

BEGIN QUOTE:

It's an easy case. The prosecution case against Oswald is open and shut.
If he'd shot his brother-in-law in the back seat of a convertible, and
not the President of the United States, he would have been tried,
convicted and forgotten in three days. I'm a former Federal prosecutor,
I've been involved in the investigation and prosecution of criminal
cases for better than 30 years. To be sure, a defense counsel could have
raised issues. But the jury would have been convinced beyond a
reasonable doubt. His rifle did it, to the exclusion of all others. He
was in the book depository with the rifle. He fled the scene. He killed
a police officer. His statements to the police are false. His palm print
is on the gun.

END QUOTE

Concerning Oswald's trip to Mexico City:

BEGIN QUOTE:

The committee took very seriously the critics with suspicions about the
Mexico City trip. The suspicion was that Oswald didn't make it at all.
That there was an imposter, attempting to frame him in Mexico City. Had
that been established, it would indicate a sophisticated effort to frame
Oswald, which would immediately draw attention to American intelligence.
We obtained from Cuban officials the visa application with his
photograph on it and his signature. We verified that it was Oswald's
signature. Oswald, therefore, was in Mexico City.

END QUOTE

On Oswald's connections to organized crime:

BEGIN QUOTE:

... New Orleans was corrupt, and the principle figure behind that
corruption, gambling etc, was Carlos Marcello. Oswald at this time
brushed up against organized crime in its worst forms. Oswald's uncle, a
man named Charles "Dutz" Murret, [was] an ex-prize fighter and promoter
who was also a bookie. He was under the control of Carlos Marcello, who
at that time was the head of the Mafia in New Orleans. These were the
people who were in the sphere of Lee Harvey Oswald's life as a child.

... We took very seriously the possibility that organized crime had a
hand in the President's death. I personally did not believe it at the
time. ... We did a survey of [FBI] electronic surveillance, eight months
before the assassination and six months after. We were looking for some
indication in these men's conversations that would connect them to the
assassination - to either Lee Harvey Oswald, or to Jack Ruby. We found
no evidence in it to connect them to Oswald or Ruby. On the other hand,
what we did find, shockingly, is repeated conversations by these people
that indicated the depth of their hatred for Kennedy, and actual
discussions saying: "he ought to be killed," "he ought to be whacked."

END QUOTE

On Oswald's actions in Dallas:

BEGIN QUOTE:

[Oswald] gets the job at the depository by happenstance. The Kennedy
motorcade in front of the depository is by happenstance. It has none of
the earmarks of a carefully planned assassination. His flight from the
depository is by happenstance. His killing of Tippit is by happenstance.

But then, you find David Ferrie, who is an investigator for Carlos
Marcello, being a boyhood friend to Lee Harvey Oswald and with him that
summer, and with Carlos Marcello at that very point in time. You have an
immediate connection between a man who had the motive, opportunity and
means to kill Kennedy and the man who killed Kennedy.

END QUOTE

On Oswald as a closet Rightist, pretending to be a Marxist:

BEGIN QUOTE:

The most consistent thing through Lee Harvey Oswald's life is his
Marxist position. The effort to talk to the anti-Castro Cubans is an
effort either by Lee Harvey Oswald, in his crazed mind, to be engaging
in subterfuge activity, or it is, in fact, Lee Harvey Oswald acting on
behalf of someone else, infiltrating anti-Castro activities.

The true Lee Harvey Oswald is the Marxist. Oswald engages in a number of
activities in New Orleans. He distributes "Fair Play for Cuba"
literature. He apparently is the head of a unit of "Fair Play for Cuba".
He goes on a radio station and debates on behalf of Castro. All of this
indicates his Marxist pro-Castro leanings.

At the same time, Lee Harvey Oswald makes a contact with Carlos
Bringuier who is an anti-Castro Cuban leader in New Orleans, and this is
documented and unquestioned. Which is Lee Harvey Oswald? Is he
pro-Castro? Is he anti-Castro?

... you have him meeting with Sylvia Odio, who is, in the context, an
anti-Castro Cuban. Within days, he's meeting with high-level people
involved in assassinations in the Soviet Embassy. You see him meeting
with people in the Cuban Embassy. You see him returning to this country.
You have him having conversations on the phone with people in Spanish.

END QUOTE

On the attempt to kill General Walker:

BEGIN QUOTE:

Marina's story is that Oswald shot at Walker. Is there evidence that can
corroborate that? There are two items. One is a note found by Ruth Paine
undated, but is consistent with Marina's story. Second, the bullet
recovered from Walker's house. The evidence apart from Marina's
testimony is substantial. The bullet recovered is consistent with
Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition. We did a study on that.

[That shooting] tends to undermine his possible connections to the KGB,
to the pro-Castro Cubans or the anti-Castro Cubans and indeed even to
organized crime. Here is a man off shooting people almost at random. How
then is he the instrument through which a sinister conspiracy brought
down the President of the United States? On the other hand, that
evidence can be read another way: It shows his propensity to violence
and it also shows that he can be ideologically manipulated into taking
this act.

... We also took very seriously the possibility that Oswald may have had
companions in the Walker shooting. There are police reports of two cars
driving away, and indeed a report from the Walker people that somebody
in a car may have been surveilling the housing before the assassination
effort. The significance here is obvious. Lee Harvey Oswald didn't have
a car and didn't drive. If Oswald was in these cars and fled the scene
in that fashion, he had companions. And if he had companions in the
Walker assassination effort, the inference can be drawn that he had
companions in the Kennedy assassination.

END QUOTE

On the "Fascist Hunter" photos:

BEGIN QUOTE:

There are three photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald taken by Marina, each
holding a rifle and some Communist Party literature. When Oswald himself
was shown those photographs, he denied that he owned a rifle and denies
that this was him in it. He said his head was pasted on it. The critics
of the Warren Commission seized on this and did studies of shadows. The
nature of his chin, with a cleft here and shadows in the background led
to arguing that the photographs were composites or fakes.

We took very seriously these charges. Surely, if they were faked, it
would be an indication of the most sophisticated effort to frame Lee
Harvey Oswald. We had our first bit of evidence examined by the Warren
Commission. Marina testifies that she took it; she identifies the camera
that she used. The FBI was able, to the exclusion of all other cameras,
tie that camera to these photographs.

Assuming that all that was fake, we went further with a photographic
panel and studied very carefully all of the testimony about the shadows
being inappropriate. Our photographic panel indicated in great detail
that these shadows were not inappropriate, that the critics had simply
not understood optics accordingly.

But for me at least the single most important counter indication of a
faked photograph is that we uncovered in the possession of George de
Mohrenschildt a third photograph. On the back of that photograph is an
inscription in Lee Harvey Oswald's handwriting, including his signature.
We had a panel of handwriting experts look at his handwriting over his
whole life, including on that photograph, and their conclusion was
without any doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald had signed that photograph.

... There are microscopic, unique indentations [on the negatives]. Based
on them, if you have the negative and the camera you can -- just like
you can match the grooves in a bullet to the grooves created by the
barrel ballistics -- you can match a camera and a negative or a
photograph. That's precisely the technique that the FBI employed. The
details of it are set out for all to read in the Warren Commission
hearings and report. We undertook a similar analysis on the committee
and the photographic panel's report is set out in our hearings as well.
This is science. This is not memory, this is not perception, and this is
something that anybody with the expertise can replicate for themselves.

END QUOTE

Blakey's comments, in sum, tend to give much more credibility to the
Warren Report than to conspiracy theories. Blakey thought that Oswald
might have been working with a conspiracy, but couldn't identify the
players in the conspiracy; though he complained about CIA dishonesty, he
didn't point a finger in that direction, instead saying that government
agencies were more like "Keystone Cops" than ruthlessly efficient
plotters. Blakey, despite his suspicions of the Mob, flatly said there
was no substantial evidence to link either Oswald or Ruby to organized
crime. The most Blakey could point to was that wiretaps and bugs
recorded gangsters as saying that somebody ought to "whack" JFK -- but
obviously gangsters, being violent-minded, like to talk like that.

To the extent that Blakey saw other suggestions of a conspiracy, his
perceptions seem dubious, asserting that:

The CIA handed over "false photographs" of Oswald: Why Blakey
thought that indicated a conspiracy and not just bungling, when he
admitted that government agencies could bungle things, wasn't clear.

Oswald and Ferrie were friends: They crossed paths in the New
Orleans Civil Air Patrol, but there's no other substantial evidence of a
relationship between them.

Oswald's uncle Dutz Murret worked for Mob boss Carlos Marcello: As
discussed later, there's no strong reason to believe so.

Oswald got phone calls in Spanish: He couldn't speak Spanish beyond
a set of common phrases and couldn't hold a conversation in it.

Oswald's visits to the Cuban and Soviet embassies in Mexico City
were suspicious: Since both embassies were under observation and the
embassy staffs were aware of it, had Oswald been working as a Red agent,
he would have never shown his face there. Since US intelligence quickly
concluded that Cuba hadn't been involved in the assassination, it makes
no sense to suggest it was done as a spook plot to incriminate Cuba.

Blakey referred to "suspicious" incidents relative to the attack on
Walker, but did not and could not say that any of them had amounted to
anything very interesting.

Blakey's suspicions were, as he admitted, vague and unpersuasive, and
they were by no means shared by the rest of the HSCA. Ralph Salerno, an
expert on organized crime who worked for the HSCA, told ABC TV for their
2003 special on the assassination: "I have the greatest respect for
Robert Blakey, but I cannot join him in this hypothesis."

The centerpiece of Blakey's suspicions of Mob involvement was Jack Ruby
and his killing of Oswald, but Salerno couldn't see anything there,
pointing out the obvious that seemed to escape Blakey: Why shut up a
loose cannon and just hand the law another loose cannon in his place?

In the end, Blakey could only conclude on the basis of the evidence that
the case against Oswald was open and shut, "easy" -- there was no doubt
Oswald was the assassin, there was nothing of substance to link Oswald
to a conspiracy -- and only seemed "hard" to the extent that people were
determined to contrive it into appearing so. The fact that Blakey was
personally suspicious of a conspiracy only underlined his verdict on the
case, since such suspicions would be exactly the opposite of what would
be expected of an official engaged in a "coverup".

Again, the HSCA's work effectively backed up the Warren Report; to the
extent it differed, it amounted to little in the end. On the basis of
the track record, it would not be a good bet to think that any new
serious investigation of the JFK assassination would yield different
results.
BACK_TO_TOP

>>
>>> BT George
>>
>>>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/6/2014 4:09 PM, Glenn Sarlitto wrote:
> Re Your: Thanks for the exasperating response.
>
> Sorry that you misinterpreted my reply. No anger here.

>
> "An "example" would be one thing that demonstrates a theme found in
> others, wouldn't it? Do you think there's not plenty of examples of LN'ers
> doing their best to minimize and delegitimize potentially interesting
> lines of inquiry into the assassination, not to mention ridiculing the
> CT'ers generally (and personally)? "
>

> No doubt, based on ONLINE/INTERNET interaction. But that's typical for the

> internet on any given topic.
>

> "And isn't Myers, co-author of the cited article, a respected pro-WC
> commentator? Don't you think the torturous route he takes to make 1,000
> pages of documents seem insignificant is a good example of what I'm
> talking about?
>
>
>

> "Judge John Tunheim, of the ARRB, told author Vincent Bugliosi that of the
> one-tenth of one percent still being withheld, either he or another member
> of the Review Board personally looked at all the redacted material and

> that there was �nothing in any of the documents that was central to the
> assassination. There�s no smoking gun, and no substantive information
> was protected and not released by way of redaction.�
>
>

Because they were not allowed to see the smoking gun document.
Some people wouldn't even recognize it when they see it.

>
>
> I don't think I've engaged in a Rush to Judgment when
>>
>> pointing out this modus operandi of LN'ers; I've read plenty of articles.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/6/2014 3:58 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Monday, January 6, 2014 12:21:38 PM UTC-5, hrtshpdbox wrote:
>> On Monday, January 6, 2014 9:44:22 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> After 50 years and the millions of hours spent looking into these things
>>
>>>
>>
>>> do you see those percentages changing?
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> For the sake of argument, I think it's fair to say that 50 years is not
>>
>> quite a long enough period to expect everything that could possibly emerge
>>
>> about the case to do so;
>
> It`s been over a hundred years since the Titanic sank, and new
> information emerges pretty regularly, due to interest. But I wouldn`t
> expect anything to surface that will change the basic idea that she hit an
> iceberg and sank.
>

Remember the Maine?

[Anthony Marsh]

So what. You didn't even bother to mention the prints he left on the
rifle or his handwriting on the order for the gun. Just the fact that it
was his rifle and it fired some shots does not prove that it was Oswald
firing them.

> And a CT looks at all that evidence.... and says "It's obvious that he
> didn't do it!"
>

Never do we say that. You are the ones who say no matter what the
evidence it is obvious that Oswald was the lone shooter.

[Bud]

Still can`t follow a discussion, eh? I was referring to the percentages
expressed by the poster I was responding to.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, January 7, 2014 12:49:06 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 1/6/2014 3:58 PM, Bud wrote:
>
> > On Monday, January 6, 2014 12:21:38 PM UTC-5, hrtshpdbox wrote:
>
> >> On Monday, January 6, 2014 9:44:22 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> After 50 years and the millions of hours spent looking into these things
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> do you see those percentages changing?
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> For the sake of argument, I think it's fair to say that 50 years is not
>
> >>
>
> >> quite a long enough period to expect everything that could possibly emerge
>
> >>
>
> >> about the case to do so;
>
> >
>
> > It`s been over a hundred years since the Titanic sank, and new
>
> > information emerges pretty regularly, due to interest. But I wouldn`t
>
> > expect anything to surface that will change the basic idea that she hit an
>
> > iceberg and sank.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Remember the Maine?

Do you expect the known facts about that event to change?

[hrtshpdbox]

An entirely reasonable approach, bigdog. Glad I was able to draw you out.
:)

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/7/2014 10:49 AM, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 7, 2014 12:49:06 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 1/6/2014 3:58 PM, Bud wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, January 6, 2014 12:21:38 PM UTC-5, hrtshpdbox wrote:
>>
>>>> On Monday, January 6, 2014 9:44:22 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> After 50 years and the millions of hours spent looking into these things
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> do you see those percentages changing?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> For the sake of argument, I think it's fair to say that 50 years is not
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> quite a long enough period to expect everything that could possibly emerge
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> about the case to do so;
>>
>>>
>>
>>> It`s been over a hundred years since the Titanic sank, and new
>>
>>> information emerges pretty regularly, due to interest. But I wouldn`t
>>
>>> expect anything to surface that will change the basic idea that she hit an
>>
>>> iceberg and sank.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Remember the Maine?
>
> Do you expect the known facts about that event to change?

They did. It incompetence, not sabotage.

[BT George]

On Tuesday, January 7, 2014 1:34:38 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 1/7/2014 10:49 AM, Bud wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, January 7, 2014 12:49:06 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >> On 1/6/2014 3:58 PM, Bud wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> On Monday, January 6, 2014 12:21:38 PM UTC-5, hrtshpdbox wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>> On Monday, January 6, 2014 9:44:22 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> After 50 years and the millions of hours spent looking into these things
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> do you see those percentages changing?
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> For the sake of argument, I think it's fair to say that 50 years is not
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> quite a long enough period to expect everything that could possibly emerge
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> about the case to do so;
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> It`s been over a hundred years since the Titanic sank, and new
>
> >>
>
> >>> information emerges pretty regularly, due to interest. But I wouldn`t
>
> >>
>
> >>> expect anything to surface that will change the basic idea that she hit an
>
> >>
>
> >>> iceberg and sank.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Remember the Maine?
>
> >
>
> > Do you expect the known facts about that event to change?
>
>
>
> They did. It incompetence, not sabotage.
>
>

Yes, but even that "finding" remains inconclusive. The only chance to
determine the truth definitively, came in 1910-1911 when a cofferdam was
placed around the wreck site and the water drained so the actual wreck
could be examined. That inquiry also found that a mine likely caused the
explosion, however, coming only 13 years after the nation went to war with
Spain over the incident, it is hardly likely that pure objectivity was yet
possible.

Some may argue that the various panels (Clark/Rockefeller/HSCA) that
followed came too soon after the assassination to arrive at an unbiased
conclusion. However, the stakes of these later panels finding in favor of
a conspiracy were simply not as high as in the case of the Maine sinking.

Can you imagine the USA (little more than a decade later) having to admit
to Spain and the rest of the world that, instead of being a rallying cry
for war, "Remember the Maine!" should have been something stamped on US
Naval training manuals regarding the proper storage and care of coal on
board its warships!?!

BT George

[Anthony Marsh]

Not really a scientific study. Read the National Geographic study which
found that it was an unattended boiler which heated up the illegal
munitions on the other side of the wall.

> Some may argue that the various panels (Clark/Rockefeller/HSCA) that
> followed came too soon after the assassination to arrive at an unbiased
> conclusion. However, the stakes of these later panels finding in favor of
> a conspiracy were simply not as high as in the case of the Maine sinking.
>

It's not that. It's the people involved. More interested in covering up
for the CIA than finding the truth. The first HSCA panel was actually
look for the CIA conspiracy and got too close so they were shut down.

> Can you imagine the USA (little more than a decade later) having to admit
> to Spain and the rest of the world that, instead of being a rallying cry
> for war, "Remember the Maine!" should have been something stamped on US
> Naval training manuals regarding the proper storage and care of coal on
> board its warships!?!
>

Do you realize that some countries, even the US, do eventually apologize
for things they did many years ago?

> BT George
>

[BT George]

Yet---ironically---it was your second HSCA panel who actually endorsed
conspiracy based on the dicatbelt evidence. Equally ironically, is that
it is the second leader Blakey who remains pro-CT and like you, has never
repudiated the dicatbelt evidence. Hard to see the terrible pro-LN bias
this second HSCA displayed!

>
> > Can you imagine the USA (little more than a decade later) having to admit
>
> > to Spain and the rest of the world that, instead of being a rallying cry
>
> > for war, "Remember the Maine!" should have been something stamped on US
>
> > Naval training manuals regarding the proper storage and care of coal on
>
> > board its warships!?!
>
> >
>
>
>
> Do you realize that some countries, even the US, do eventually apologize
>
> for things they did many years ago?
>
>

Yes. And they often should. However, few do it only 13 years after being
victorious in a war that was considered (at the time) to be a just
retailiation for another nations acts.

By the time an unbiased look was possible and various reviews indicated
that the bulk (but not all) the evidence indicated it was an internal
explosion, more than a century had passed, and it was probably a little
late to be handing out apologies to 19th Century Spain. Who was at the
time---after all---engaged in its own war to keep Cuba and the Phillipines
under colonial rule.

[Anthony Marsh]

Such as? You mean all the war crimes committed by both sides in WWII? I
missed that in my history books. How many years did it take for the US
to apologize for Manzanar or The Tuskegee Syphilis Study?

[BT George]

Sometimes silence is golden. Don't bother breaking it---I'm sure no
admission I am correct is forthcoming.

>
> >>
>
> >>> Can you imagine the USA (little more than a decade later) having to admit
>
> >>
>
> >>> to Spain and the rest of the world that, instead of being a rallying cry
>
> >>
>
> >>> for war, "Remember the Maine!" should have been something stamped on US
>
> >>
>
> >>> Naval training manuals regarding the proper storage and care of coal on
>
> >>
>
> >>> board its warships!?!
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Do you realize that some countries, even the US, do eventually apologize
>
> >>
>
> >> for things they did many years ago?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > Yes. And they often should. However, few do it only 13 years after being
>
> > victorious in a war that was considered (at the time) to be a just
>
> > retailiation for another nations acts.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Such as? You mean all the war crimes committed by both sides in WWII? I
>
> missed that in my history books. How many years did it take for the US
>
> to apologize for Manzanar or The Tuskegee Syphilis Study?
>
>

I don't follow your point. I agreed that when a nation determines it was
wrong about something they SHOULD be willing to apologize. But what has
any of the above got to do with my rather straightforward observation that
few victorious nations (the USA or others) are ever prepared after a mere
13 years to look objectively at controversial evidence that constituted
their main (no pun intended) casus belli?