Research Help

[Bud]

Several years back I think .John McAdams posted a document from the HSCA
where they were ready to rubberstamp the WC`s findings, and then the
acoustical evidence became available and changed their conclusions. It may
have been a rough draft of the findings they were preparing to release.
Any know of either the post or the document?

[John McAdams]

It was a dissent from a member of the Committee.

Check here:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=800#relPageId=528

And this is what I think you have in mind:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=800#relPageId=531

It shows that the Committee was about to rule "no conspiracy" before
the "acoustic evidence" came in, and the turned on a dime.

People like Blakey claim there was "other evidence." But before the
acoustics came in, it was "insufficient evidence" to rule conspiracy.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Bud]

Thanks for taking the time to look that information up for me, .John.
When I get home from work I`ll look at it in detail.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/22/2018 11:15 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 22 May 2018 23:03:42 -0400, Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>> Several years back I think .John McAdams posted a document from the HSCA
>> where they were ready to rubberstamp the WC`s findings, and then the
>> acoustical evidence became available and changed their conclusions. It may
>> have been a rough draft of the findings they were preparing to release.
>> Any know of either the post or the document?
>
> It was a dissent from a member of the Committee.
>
> Check here:
>
> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=800#relPageId=528
>

Thanks. Yes, Edgar was one of the WC defenders sent to destroy the HSCA.
But it's hard to remember back to 1978 and who voted which way for which
reason. Is Edgar one of the WC defenders who said that there may have been
a shot from the grassy knoll, but if there was it missed so therefore
there was no conspiracy? Anybody make a list of the opinions of the HSCA
members?

> And this is what I think you have in mind:
>
> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=800#relPageId=531
>
> It shows that the Committee was about to rule "no conspiracy" before
> the "acoustic evidence" came in, and the turned on a dime.
>

Yes, most people are not old enough to remember that there were two HSCAs.

> People like Blakey claim there was "other evidence." But before the
> acoustics came in, it was "insufficient evidence" to rule conspiracy.
>

BTW, I think Blakey was hinting at the Ruby phone records and Mafia
contacts.

Just because the Mafia threatened to assassinate the President and then
took credit for it afterwards is not proof that they actually did it.

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Bud]

On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 11:15:16 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:

I think the second cite is the one I remember, it was years back. I
searched the archives for quite a while but couldn`t locate it, I
appreciate you digging it up. I`ll likely be using it in discussions (to
use the term loosely) over the nuthouse. Thanks again!

[Bud]

Ruby didn`t kill Kennedy, how would this speak to a conspiracy in the
assassination?

And did this phone conversation evidence between Ruby and Mafia types
become available between December 13th, 1978 when they were going to
conclude no conspiracy and December 29th, 1978 when they changed their
finding to a high probability of conspiracy?

[Anthony Marsh]

His theory was about Oswald's uncle being friendly with the Mafia.
Ruby comes into this just to silence Oswald so that he can't reveal the
Mafia connection.

> And did this phone conversation evidence between Ruby and Mafia types
> become available between December 13th, 1978 when they were going to
> conclude no conspiracy and December 29th, 1978 when they changed their
> finding to a high probability of conspiracy?
>

I would guess it raised it from about 4-7 against to 7-5 for.

[Bud]

Did Oswald`s uncle take the Mafia to the movies?

> Ruby comes into this just to silence Oswald so that he can't reveal the
> Mafia connection.

Yes, having Oswald shot by a Mafia associate would certainly shut down
scrutiny down that avenue.

> > And did this phone conversation evidence between Ruby and Mafia types
> > become available between December 13th, 1978 when they were going to
> > conclude no conspiracy and December 29th, 1978 when they changed their
> > finding to a high probability of conspiracy?
> >
>
> I would guess it raised it from about 4-7 against to 7-5 for.

It would need to be information that became available during the 16 days
between their "conspiracy" finding and their "conspiracy" finding in order
for it to sway them, right. Other than the acoustic evidence what became
available in that time frame that could have influenced them?

[BOZ]

HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT CONSULTING ROSSLEY'S WEBSITE FOR A COMEDY OF
SPELLING ERRORS

[Bud]

This should have been "no conspiracy".

> >finding and their "conspiracy" finding in order
> > for it to sway them, right. Other than the acoustic evidence what became
> > available in that time frame that could have influenced them?
> >
> >
> > > >> Just because the Mafia threatened to assassinate the President and then
> > > >> took credit for it afterwards is not proof that they actually did it.
> > > >>
> > > >>> .John
> > > >>> -----------------------
> > > >>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
> > > >>>
> > > >
> > > >
>
> HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT CONSULTING ROSSLEY'S WEBSITE FOR A COMEDY OF
> SPELLING ERRORS

<snicker> It has been a bad week. In the other post I wrote...

"Yah, it wouldn`t even please be [sic] to hear that Ben Holmes died."

I need to hire a proof reader. I wonder if Sandy McCrofsky is available
(c`mon Sandy, pop in an give me a "You couldn`t afford me."

[Anthony Marsh]

If you don't believe in science. The WC defenders brought in a couple of
experts from the CIA to try to question the validity of the evidence,
but their arguments were childish. So in the end they had to admit that
there was a shot from the grassy knoll. But they still would not admit
conspiracy because they said it missed.

>>> finding and their "conspiracy" finding in order
>>> for it to sway them, right. Other than the acoustic evidence what became
>>> available in that time frame that could have influenced them?
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Just because the Mafia threatened to assassinate the President and then
>>>>>> took credit for it afterwards is not proof that they actually did it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> .John
>>>>>>> -----------------------
>>>>>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>> HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT CONSULTING ROSSLEY'S WEBSITE FOR A COMEDY OF
>> SPELLING ERRORS
>
> <snicker> It has been a bad week. In the other post I wrote...
>
> "Yah, it wouldn`t even please be [sic] to hear that Ben Holmes died."
>
> I need to hire a proof reader. I wonder if Sandy McCrofsky is available
> (c`mon Sandy, pop in an give me a "You couldn`t afford me."
>

Aren't you luck that the Grammar Nazis and the trolls only attack
conspiracy believers and never fellow WC defenders?

But your misspellings are rather normal and boring. Nothing as
spectacular as Roosley. You need to try harder.

Just for a change of pace try all lower case or spelling words backwards.

[Anthony Marsh]

I've seen it before. It pops up in some Google searches.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, as I pointed out it was a matter of tiping the balance.

[Bud]

I routinely omit whole words completely.