Finished Reading RH
Papa Andy
1) VB's lists are not that convincing. His list of proofs that LHO is
guilty contains 2 items that do no such thing. This is without
checking, just reading the list.
Not taking a lie detector test is not proof of anything
Not doing any work that day is not proof of murder
several of the others look dubious as well
2) VB claims that since it is beyond doubt that LHO was the LN killer,
that therefore there is no reason to discuss much of the evidence that
the critics have uncovered
Since LHO did it, it must have been possible -- the end
This is very self-serving and a prime example of circular logic
It makes very little sense in a 1500+ page book to eliminate all
discussion
It gives the impression that VB is not serious, especially since he
has time for Martians, Venusians and CTs that few have heard of and
certainly are not influential
3) VB claims his book is different from other LN books because his is
an anti-conspiracy book. He means that he is opposed to various
conspiracy theories and he claims to have dismissed all of them.
In attempting this, he often claims to be applying logic
He says things like 'if you were going to kill the President of the
United States, you would never employ anyone like LHO' or 'if you
were......, you would arrange a better escape route' or alternatively
'you would kill the killer as soon as possible'
How you or I or VB might kill a president is truly irrelevant
Defense attornies often claim that no sensible person (their client)
would commit a crime in the manner of the crime they are charged
with. This nver convinces the DA (VB was a DA) and doesn't do that
well with juries either
In the same vein, if a defense attorney said that the character of a
witness was bad, the DA might retort that nuns and Nobel Prize winners
are seldom around to witness such crimes
So, if per VB, LHO was a 'bad' choice, this does not mean he wasn't
chosen
Choices may be limited
4) VB has a double standard for people who change their story. If
they change to an LN perspective they are OK, otherwise they are
either liars or silly
The same applies to those who come forward years later with their
stories
5) In his 1.5 million words (his figure, I didn't count), VB says a
few favorable things about Harold Weisberg. He finds bits that seem
to endorse the LN side and uses them against any CT
Yet, he never discusses (yet alone explains) why Weisberg had to spend
years in court just to get a look at important evidence in the case.
If it is proven beyond doubt that LHO was the LN, why bother hiding
the evidence?
VB then ignores the evidence that was uncovered. VB claims that CE399
is not pristine and shows us the bottom of the 'magic' bullet.
Weisberg discovered that the missing metal was removed by the FBI for
testing and had nothing to do with any wounds.
VB mentions the nick on JFK's tie, but not the evidence that shows
that nurse cut the tie or the evidence that no bullet residue was
found in the 'nick'
If RH was the only book you read on the case, you'd never even know
about this sort of evidence suppression. All you would hear about is
Oliver Stone and the demand to open up the evidence afer the movie JFK
6) RH does not add any new evidence to the WCR. Even LNs are not
persuaded by VB's analysis of when the shots were fired
7) VB ignores the real controversy about the wound in JFK's. He only
mentions the location of the wound described by the FBI agents at the
autopsy -- below the shoulder -- in a caption to one of the pictures
If that was the true location of the wound and Weisberg again spent
years in court to get a look at some of the evidence that indicates
that it was, then a lot more than the SBT goes out the windows.
Yet VB goes on for pages about how the pictures and x-rays show that
the autopsy docs were off by small amounts here and there in their
description of the wound
8) VB loves to triumphantly proclaim that any claims of ther shots
fail because there are no other bullets found
Yet he claims 3 shots and only has 2 bullets to show for it
In the end, RH contributes nothing to the controversy. If people read
it, which seems unlikely because of its great length, it may damage
the LN cause as its slopshod reasoning is exposed
A
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Now that I've read RH from cover to cover, here are a few points:
>
>1) VB's lists are not that convincing. His list of proofs that LHO is
>guilty contains 2 items that do no such thing. This is without
>checking, just reading the list.
>Not taking a lie detector test is not proof of anything
>Not doing any work that day is not proof of murder
>
>several of the others look dubious as well
>
>2) VB claims that since it is beyond doubt that LHO was the LN killer,
>that therefore there is no reason to discuss much of the evidence that
>the critics have uncovered
>Since LHO did it, it must have been possible -- the end
>This is very self-serving and a prime example of circular logic
>It makes very little sense in a 1500+ page book to eliminate all
>discussion
>It gives the impression that VB is not serious, especially since he
>has time for Martians, Venusians and CTs that few have heard of and
>certainly are not influential
>
>3) VB claims his book is different from other LN books because his is
>an anti-conspiracy book. He means that he is opposed to various
>conspiracy theories and he claims to have dismissed all of them.
And yet, since it's clear that he was aware of the "16 Smoking Guns" ... yet
refused to touch any of them - it seems that he stayed well clear of anything
that he couldn't "refute."
I'd label that cowardice.
>In attempting this, he often claims to be applying logic
>
>He says things like 'if you were going to kill the President of the
>United States, you would never employ anyone like LHO' or 'if you
>were......, you would arrange a better escape route' or alternatively
>'you would kill the killer as soon as possible'
>
>How you or I or VB might kill a president is truly irrelevant
>
>Defense attornies often claim that no sensible person (their client)
>would commit a crime in the manner of the crime they are charged
>with. This nver convinces the DA (VB was a DA) and doesn't do that
>well with juries either
>
>In the same vein, if a defense attorney said that the character of a
>witness was bad, the DA might retort that nuns and Nobel Prize winners
>are seldom around to witness such crimes
>
>So, if per VB, LHO was a 'bad' choice, this does not mean he wasn't
>chosen
>
>Choices may be limited
>
>4) VB has a double standard for people who change their story. If
>they change to an LN perspective they are OK, otherwise they are
>either liars or silly
>
>The same applies to those who come forward years later with their
>stories
LNT'ers, even when they accept that the earliest statements are the most
valuable and accurate - can't really *use* that position... since the earliest
statements are *exactly* those that refute LNT'er positions.
>5) In his 1.5 million words (his figure, I didn't count), VB says a
>few favorable things about Harold Weisberg. He finds bits that seem
>to endorse the LN side and uses them against any CT
>
>Yet, he never discusses (yet alone explains) why Weisberg had to spend
>years in court just to get a look at important evidence in the case.
>If it is proven beyond doubt that LHO was the LN, why bother hiding
>the evidence?
Bugliosi made virtually the same argument in his *PRO-CONSPIRACY* stance taken
in court on the RFK case.
>VB then ignores the evidence that was uncovered. VB claims that CE399
>is not pristine and shows us the bottom of the 'magic' bullet.
>Weisberg discovered that the missing metal was removed by the FBI for
>testing and had nothing to do with any wounds.
>
>VB mentions the nick on JFK's tie, but not the evidence that shows
>that nurse cut the tie or the evidence that no bullet residue was
>found in the 'nick'
>
>If RH was the only book you read on the case, you'd never even know
>about this sort of evidence suppression. All you would hear about is
>Oliver Stone and the demand to open up the evidence afer the movie JFK
>
>6) RH does not add any new evidence to the WCR. Even LNs are not
>persuaded by VB's analysis of when the shots were fired
>
>7) VB ignores the real controversy about the wound in JFK's. He only
>mentions the location of the wound described by the FBI agents at the
>autopsy -- below the shoulder -- in a caption to one of the pictures
The Warren Commission also ignored the FBI agents' report of the autopsy ...
they found no place for it in either the WCR or the 26 volumes. Sometimes it's
downright hilarious to see what the 26 volumes DOESN'T contain!
>If that was the true location of the wound and Weisberg again spent
>years in court to get a look at some of the evidence that indicates
>that it was, then a lot more than the SBT goes out the windows.
>
>Yet VB goes on for pages about how the pictures and x-rays show that
>the autopsy docs were off by small amounts here and there in their
>description of the wound
>
>8) VB loves to triumphantly proclaim that any claims of ther shots
>fail because there are no other bullets found
>
>Yet he claims 3 shots and only has 2 bullets to show for it
>
>In the end, RH contributes nothing to the controversy. If people read
>it, which seems unlikely because of its great length, it may damage
>the LN cause as its slopshod reasoning is exposed
>
>A
*Every* LNT'er author has damaged the LNT'er cause. They've *ALL* been guilty
of misrepresenting the evidence in the very least - and in many cases, simply
giving outright lies.
cdddraftsman
> Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwnnnnnnn !
aeffects
yes, one of the biggest problems WCR supporters, Lone Nutter's have.
Hiding evidence paints two scenarios a] others are involved in the
assassination (conspiracy) -or- b] LHO was NOT involved (patsy)
> VB then ignores the evidence that was uncovered. VB claims that CE399
> is not pristine and shows us the bottom of the 'magic' bullet.
> Weisberg discovered that the missing metal was removed by the FBI for
> testing and had nothing to do with any wounds.
an inconvenience, avoided at ALL costs..... thanks for your review
Papa Andy
aeffects
right or wrong, after Helter Skelter I never read anything by the
overblown EGO. Didn't know that...
>
> >VB then ignores the evidence that was uncovered. VB claims that CE399
> >is not pristine and shows us the bottom of the 'magic' bullet.
> >Weisberg discovered that the missing metal was removed by the FBI for
> >testing and had nothing to do with any wounds.
>
> >VB mentions the nick on JFK's tie, but not the evidence that shows
> >that nurse cut the tie or the evidence that no bullet residue was
> >found in the 'nick'
>
> >If RH was the only book you read on the case, you'd never even know
> >about this sort of evidence suppression. All you would hear about is
> >Oliver Stone and the demand to open up the evidence afer the movie JFK
>
> >6) RH does not add any new evidence to the WCR. Even LNs are not
> >persuaded by VB's analysis of when the shots were fired
>
> >7) VB ignores the real controversy about the wound in JFK's. He only
> >mentions the location of the wound described by the FBI agents at the
> >autopsy -- below the shoulder -- in a caption to one of the pictures
>
> The Warren Commission also ignored the FBI agents' report of the autopsy ...
> they found no place for it in either the WCR or the 26 volumes. Sometimes it's
> downright hilarious to see what the 26 volumes DOESN'T contain!
>
JFK death certificate per chance?
Ben Holmes
says...
You'll find some quotes from that case by Bugliosi in another thread I did not
too long ago. You may recall that thread.
>> >VB then ignores the evidence that was uncovered. VB claims that CE399
>> >is not pristine and shows us the bottom of the 'magic' bullet.
>> >Weisberg discovered that the missing metal was removed by the FBI for
>> >testing and had nothing to do with any wounds.
>>
>> >VB mentions the nick on JFK's tie, but not the evidence that shows
>> >that nurse cut the tie or the evidence that no bullet residue was
>> >found in the 'nick'
>>
>> >If RH was the only book you read on the case, you'd never even know
>> >about this sort of evidence suppression. All you would hear about is
>> >Oliver Stone and the demand to open up the evidence afer the movie JFK
>>
>> >6) RH does not add any new evidence to the WCR. Even LNs are not
>> >persuaded by VB's analysis of when the shots were fired
>>
>> >7) VB ignores the real controversy about the wound in JFK's. He only
>> >mentions the location of the wound described by the FBI agents at the
>> >autopsy -- below the shoulder -- in a caption to one of the pictures
>>
>> The Warren Commission also ignored the FBI agents' report of the autopsy ...
>> they found no place for it in either the WCR or the 26 volumes. Sometimes
>> it's downright hilarious to see what the 26 volumes DOESN'T contain!
>>
>
>JFK death certificate per chance?
Yep... amazing, isn't it? 27 volumes on the death of JFK - and no-place to stick
a one-page death certificate.
Also not contained is any testimony by the President's own doctor - who happened
to be at *BOTH* Parkland and Bethesda.
Nor was any testimony from the *CLOSEST NON-LIMO EYEWITNESS*, who also happened
to be a policeman...
It goes without saying that no photographs or X-rays of the autopsy were
included.
The list is much longer... it would be interesting to compile it.
aaronhi...@yahoo.com
> guilty contains 2 items that do no such thing. This is without
> checking, just reading the list.
> Not taking a lie detector test is not proof of anything
> Not doing any work that day is not proof of murder
What is the proof that LHO did no work that day?
> several of the others look dubious as well
>
> 2) VB claims that since it is beyond doubt that LHO was the LN killer,
> that therefore there is no reason to discuss much of the evidence that
> the critics have uncovered
So why didn't he just make it a one page pamphlet?
snip
> It gives the impression that VB is not serious, especially since he
> has time for Martians, Venusians and CTs that few have heard of and
> certainly are not influential
snip
> He says things like 'if you were going to kill the President of the
> United States, you would never employ anyone like LHO' or 'if you
> were......, you would arrange a better escape route' or alternatively
> 'you would kill the killer as soon as possible'
>
> How you or I or VB might kill a president is truly irrelevant
You would employ LHO. To take the fall. Kill the killer as soon as
possible?
THEY DID!
> Defense attornies often claim that no sensible person (their client)
> would commit a crime in the manner of the crime they are charged
> with. This nver convinces the DA (VB was a DA) and doesn't do that
> well with juries either
>
> In the same vein, if a defense attorney said that the character of a
> witness was bad, the DA might retort that nuns and Nobel Prize winners
> are seldom around to witness such crimes
And we know from the JFK medical evidence, and even the audio tape
controversy, that physical evidence can stink, too. That is why we
count of juries of ordinary people to sort out that !@#$.
snip
> The same applies to those who come forward years later with their
> stories
Who are only alive to do so because they didn't tell their stories in
1963.
snip
> Yet he claims 3 shots and only has 2 bullets to show for it
Tell that to the guy in that picture in TKOAP who is picking the
bullet out of the grass in Dealey Plaza!
Aaron Hirshberg
aeffects
> In article <1185900002.713467.74...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, aeffects
I believe your 45 questions makes for a good beginning-basis on that
compilation, eh.....
eca...@tx.rr.com
latest Ben Holmes lie I just posted on
your "deathbed confessions" claim.
Here's my post Ben:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/189fc0e590f2d1e7
MR ;~D
1345Jul3107
On Jul 31, 11:00 am, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
> In article <1185896622.653772.253...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, Papa Andy
> giving outright lies.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
aeffects
> Ben don't try to act like you missed the
> latest Ben Holmes lie I just posted on
> your "deathbed confessions" claim.
you've posted it 60 times, dolt -- again, Welsh and you are
irrelevant, about Robinson's Fading Away though... say, aren't you a
photo retouch expert? LMFAO!
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>On Jul 31, 11:46 am, ecag...@tx.rr.com wrote:
>> Ben don't try to act like you missed the
>> latest Ben Holmes lie I just posted on
>> your "deathbed confessions" claim.
>
>you've posted it 60 times, dolt -- again, Welsh and you are
>irrelevant, about Robinson's Fading Away though... say, aren't you a
>photo retouch expert? LMFAO!
I have a sneaking suspicion that Eddie hasn't figured out that he's been
killfiled. Or why.
aeffects
> In article <1185908122.734846.253...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, aeffects
> says...
>
>
>
> >On Jul 31, 11:46 am, ecag...@tx.rr.com wrote:
> >> Ben don't try to act like you missed the
> >> latest Ben Holmes lie I just posted on
> >> your "deathbed confessions" claim.
>
> >you've posted it 60 times, dolt -- again, Welsh and you are
> >irrelevant, about Robinson's Fading Away though... say, aren't you a
> >photo retouch expert? LMFAO!
>
> I have a sneaking suspicion that Eddie hasn't figured out that he's been
> killfiled. Or why.
I'm not going to tell'em :)
Bud
Papa Andy wrote:
> Now that I've read RH from cover to cover, here are a few points:
>
> 1) VB's lists are not that convincing. His list of proofs that LHO is
> guilty contains 2 items that do no such thing. This is without
> checking, just reading the list.
> Not taking a lie detector test is not proof of anything
> Not doing any work that day is not proof of murder
Indications. Kooks call for absolute proof, and ignore dozens of
indications. Kooks remind me of "Bruce Almighty", when the Jim Carrey
character keeps asking for a sign, while ignoring all the signs around
him. How can there be so many indications of Oz guilt, and him be
innocent? Were there really that many people working against him?
Where are they ?
> several of the others look dubious as well
>
> 2) VB claims that since it is beyond doubt that LHO was the LN killer,
> that therefore there is no reason to discuss much of the evidence that
> the critics have uncovered
> Since LHO did it, it must have been possible -- the end
Since no kook book written can make all the evidence Bugs lays out
to conform to a conspiracy theory, Oz was guilty.
> This is very self-serving and a prime example of circular logic
> It makes very little sense in a 1500+ page book to eliminate all
> discussion
> It gives the impression that VB is not serious, especially since he
> has time for Martians, Venusians and CTs that few have heard of and
> certainly are not influential
>
> 3) VB claims his book is different from other LN books because his is
> an anti-conspiracy book. He means that he is opposed to various
> conspiracy theories and he claims to have dismissed all of them.
Yah, I think this is the greatest failing of this book. Bugliosi
should have written a history book, a crime book, but not an anti-kook
book. You can`t kill the kooks, they are like hydras, they grow two
heads for every one you cut off.
> In attempting this, he often claims to be applying logic
>
> He says things like 'if you were going to kill the President of the
> United States, you would never employ anyone like LHO' or 'if you
> were......, you would arrange a better escape route' or alternatively
> 'you would kill the killer as soon as possible'
>
> How you or I or VB might kill a president is truly irrelevant
Then you agree that when CT call on LN to provide Oz`s motive, it
is really a non-issue, right?
> Defense attornies often claim that no sensible person (their client)
> would commit a crime in the manner of the crime they are charged
> with. This nver convinces the DA (VB was a DA) and doesn't do that
> well with juries either
>
> In the same vein, if a defense attorney said that the character of a
> witness was bad, the DA might retort that nuns and Nobel Prize winners
> are seldom around to witness such crimes
>
> So, if per VB, LHO was a 'bad' choice, this does not mean he wasn't
> chosen
>
> Choices may be limited
>
> 4) VB has a double standard for people who change their story. If
> they change to an LN perspective they are OK, otherwise they are
> either liars or silly
>
> The same applies to those who come forward years later with their
> stories
>
> 5) In his 1.5 million words (his figure, I didn't count), VB says a
> few favorable things about Harold Weisberg. He finds bits that seem
> to endorse the LN side and uses them against any CT
>
> Yet, he never discusses (yet alone explains) why Weisberg had to spend
> years in court just to get a look at important evidence in the case.
> If it is proven beyond doubt that LHO was the LN, why bother hiding
> the evidence?
Maybe it became evident that these conspiracy authors were not
really interested in what occurred, but were merely interested in
information to exploit in crackpot conspiracy books..
eca...@tx.rr.com
> Ben don't try to act like you missed the
> latest Ben Holmes lie I just posted on
> your "deathbed confessions" claim.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/189fc0e590f2d1e7
No response on this one huh Ben?
We're not surprised.
MR ;~D
1645Jul3107
On Jul 31, 1:46 pm, ecag...@tx.rr.com wrote:
> Ben don't try to act like you missed the
> latest Ben Holmes lie I just posted on
> your "deathbed confessions" claim.
On Jul 31, 3:19 pm, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
> In article <1185908122.734846.253...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, aeffects
David Von Pein
>>> "Now that I've read RH from cover to cover, here are a few points: 1) VB's lists are not that convincing. ... Not doing any work that day is not proof of murder." <<<
That's not at all what Vincent Bugliosi says in his book, "Reclaiming
History". You're misrepresenting what Vince said. In his comprehensive
53-item list of things that lead toward Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt (in
the chapter called "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt"), Bugliosi's 44th
numbered item among the 53 reads like this.....
"44. Oswald's clipboard was found on the sixth floor after the
assassination. Three orders for Scott, Foresman & Company were on the
clipboard, all dated November 22, 1963. Oswald had not filled any of
the orders." -- Page 965 of "RH"
So, based on that 44th item on VB's list, Vince isn't saying that
Oswald didn't do any work ALL DAY LONG on November 22nd. VB is only
saying that the three orders on LHO's clipboard had not been filled.
And I see nothing else on VB's list that has anything specifically to
do with Oswald's lack of work performed on 11/22/63.
Vince could have actually strengthened a few of the 53 items on his
list by adding certain other facts relating to some of the
items....with that 44th item being one such time.
I.E.: Vince could have significantly strengthened that item about the
clipboard (which he did not do in the "Summary" chapter) by reminding
readers exactly WHERE on the sixth floor the clipboard was found--very
near the back staircase where Oswald hid the rifle after the shooting.
In fact, the precise LOCATION of the clipboard when it was discovered,
to me, is the most significant thing about the whole "clipboard"
topic. It's my own opinion that Oswald probably left his clipboard in
that location near the stairs at the same time he pre-arranged his
little "nook" that he planned on using to hide the rifle.
He arranged the boxes in just such a fashion where it would be fast
and easy to drop his rifle down between box stacks. It was during this
"pre-arranging" of those boxes that Oswald very likely left his
clipboard in the same general area.*
* = IMO, that is. Yes, it's just a guess. But given the sum total of
all evidence surrounding Oswald's obvious guilt, I think the above
scenario makes a good deal of sense. YMMV, of course.
FOOTNOTE RE. VB's "BIG 53" --- It's my opinion that only one thing on
Vincent's 53-item list of incriminating evidence against Oswald
doesn't really belong there....and that is item #41 (re. the paraffin
test). Here's a passage from my review of "RH" concerning that
subject:
~~~~~
"The only item on Vince's list that I think really doesn't belong
there is #41, where VB talks about the results of the paraffin test on
Oswald's hands being positive. In my opinion, it was a mistake for
Vince to have placed that particular item on his list because he knows
that paraffin tests are not considered very reliable. And VB even
discusses the unreliability of such tests on page 164.
"However, in VB's defense of including the paraffin test results on
his 53-item list, I'd like to add this .... While it is, indeed, true
that paraffin tests are inherently unreliable (since the presence of
nitrates on a person's hands can be caused by various other things
besides just gunpowder residue) -- I'd also ask this question with
respect to Lee Oswald's "positive" paraffin results in this case:
"What do you suppose the odds are of something OTHER than gunpowder
residue causing that "positive" result in his paraffin test when we
also know that Lee Oswald was CARRYING A GUN ON HIM when he was
apprehended in the Texas Theater on November 22nd, 1963?
"I'd say, given these circumstances (plus the fact that the very gun
Oswald had on him when he was arrested was determined beyond all doubt
to be the weapon that killed Officer J.D. Tippit), the odds would be
pretty doggone low that something other than gunpowder resulted in
that positive paraffin conclusion.
"I think Vince Bugliosi should have probably included the above "What
are the odds?" argument as an addendum to his 41st item on page 965,
but he did not include any such addendum." -- DVP; June 2007
=========================
>>> "2) VB claims that since it is beyond doubt that LHO was the LN killer, that therefore there is no reason to discuss much of the evidence that the critics have uncovered." <<<
The exact VB quote from "RH" concerning that matter is re-printed
below....and it makes a good deal of (common) sense to me:
"With respect to the Kennedy assassination, once you establish and
know that Oswald is guilty, as has been done, then you also
NECESSARILY know that there is an answer (whether the answer is known
or not) compatible with this conclusion for the endless alleged
discrepancies, inconsistencies, and questions the conspiracy theorists
have raised through the years about Oswald's guilt." -- Page 953 of
"RH"
Now, of course, the above Bugliosi statement doesn't negate the notion
that there might have been some kind of conspiracy BEHIND Oswald's
lone-gunman actions. But I think it's a statement that makes a lot of
sense from the standpoint of arriving at the FACT that Lee Oswald shot
JFK (which is a raw fact that so many conspiracists simply refuse to
accept).
As everyone here knows very well, there are many CTers who love to
engage in the hobby of micro-analyzing every tiny thing surrounding
the JFK murder case. Everything is looked at by these curious people
with a wary eye of potential "conspiracy"; when, in fact, all of these
things that CTers "over-manage" (IMO) do not necessarily lead down a
"CT" path at all.
For example -- Take two very small incidents that Vince mentions (at
some length too) in his book -- the "Dial Ryder" incident (where an
Oswald-like person had a scope mounted on a rifle prior to November
22)...and the "Bogard" incident (which has "Oswald" taking a high-
speed test drive in a new car shortly before the assassination).
Those things are certainly "fringe" things, at best. But to hear the
conspiracy-loving kooks tell it, these things (in some way) "prove" a
conspiracy existed, with these "imposter Oswalds" running all around
Dallas.
But CTers fail to see the built-in illogic being exhibited by any
string-pullers and "patsy"-creators when it comes to incidents like
this. The CTers who think things like this lead down a CT path must
also think that the plotters were performing these NEEDLESS acts of
silliness to frame Oswald, even though each of these incidents goes
AGAINST the grain of the overall patsy plot they are trying to pull
off.
Example: The "used car" incident has Oswald apparently telling the car
dealer he'd be coming into some money in "2 or 3 weeks". That'd be
silly for any plotters to do....i.e., to essentially tell people that
Oswald will be PAID for something he'll be doing right about the time
of the assassination! Just...dumb.
And in the Ryder example, evidently some Oswald imposter was getting a
scope mounted on a NON-Carcano rifle (which is a weapon the plotters
won't be using to frame their patsy with on 11/22 anyway).
So what were these plotters trying to do here? Were they trying to
blow their plot wide open by announcing to the world (in a fashion)
that Oswald had a SECOND rifle in his possession, when we know he
really had only one rifle, his Carcano?
Anyway, those are just two of the dozens of similar examples of things
that GO NOPLACE, but CTers love to dredge them up anyway...because
such CTers fail to see the inherent illogic of these things (not to
mention the totally-MEANINGLESS nature of peripheral silliness like
the incidents mentioned above).
And those same CTers, let's face it, WANT a conspiracy to exist in the
JFK case. They NEED it. And they'll do whatever it takes and skew as
much evidence as possible in order to work the word "conspiracy" into
this murder case. Simple as that.
Because, to borrow from VB once again, to face the Oswald-Probably-Did-
It-Alone reality is, for them, to forfeit a large section of their
lives. And who likes the idea of doing that?
=========================
>>> "He {VB} says things like 'if you were going to kill the President...you would never employ anyone like LHO' or 'if you were....., you would arrange a better escape route' or alternatively 'you would kill the killer as soon as possible'. How you or I or VB might kill a president is truly irrelevant." <<<
But Vince's GENERAL IDEA of how a PROFESSIONAL TEAM OF HITMEN who were
going to try to pull off the biggest murder in the history of the
country would LIKELY approach such a major assassination project
cannot be brushed aside...and that's because VB makes sense!
Perhaps you (or others), if they had to map out a Presidential killing
weeks/months in advance, would want to choose a marginally-decent (but
certainly not an "expert") gunman with an old 1940 Mannlicher-Carcano
to perform the biggest "hit" in history.
But I doubt a lot of people would want to rely on Mr. Oswald to get
the President killed -- and, after all, the NUMBER ONE objective of
this "hit" is to have a dead President Kennedy by the end of the day,
isn't it?
Did the "Frame The Patsy" plot actually SUPERCEDE the importance of
the "KENNEDY MUST DIE" objective/goal in the minds of these behind-the-
scenes conspirators (conspirators that almost all CTers think existed
in the days, weeks, and months before November 22)?
That type of mindset amongst so-called "pro" assassination plotters
doesn't seem too logical to me. Seems as though the plotters got their
priorities mixed up.
And if "they" were going to frame a solo patsy for the murder, why on
this Earth would they have used multiple shooters firing from both
front and rear? That is SUICIDE...plain and simple.
No patsy plan could succeed under those conditions....which are
conditions fully endorsed, incredibly, by Jim Garrison and Oliver
Stone, and many others as well.
=========================
>>> "4) VB has a double standard for people who change their story. If they change to an LN perspective they are OK, otherwise they are either liars or silly." <<<
Have you got any specific examples you could provide here?
I'm not saying this particular argument of yours is without some
degree of merit (it probably is), but while trying to recall the many
pages of VB's book from memory right now, I cannot think of many such
examples.
It is, indeed, possible that Vince is guilty of this "double standard"
to a degree. (He's only human, after all.) One possible example
(although I'm not entirely sure as of this writing) could be with
respect to the Parkland doctors who appeared on the NOVA PBS-TV
program in 1988 and stated, in essence, that they were mistaken in
their earlier observations about a BOH wound in JFK's head.
=========================
>>> "The same applies to those who come forward years later with their stories." <<<
Again, can you provide an example or two? Offhand, I can think of only
one such example -- Jack Tatum.
There could be others, I suppose; but right now I'm drawing a blank.
Maybe Andy can refresh my memory.
=========================
>>> "5) If it is proven beyond doubt that LHO was the LN, why bother hiding the evidence?" <<<
Examples?? What evidence of a dastardly conspiracy was "hidden"?
A better question might be -- WHY in the world didn't the conspirators
merely DESTROY such plot-proving evidence, instead of leaving it lying
around somewhere for Harold Weisberg and others to uncover years
later?
=========================
>>> "VB claims that CE399 is not pristine and shows us the bottom of the 'magic' bullet. Weisberg discovered that the missing metal was removed by the FBI for testing and had nothing to do with any wounds." <<<
And did Weisberg know (and prove beyond all doubt) that all of the
approx. 2.4 missing metal from CE399 was "removed by the FBI for
testing"? First I've heard of that.
In fact, such a bold declaration re. CE399 is utterly impossible.
Why?
Because, given that pesky SUM TOTAL of everything that makes up the
mosaic of "evidence" in this case (a "sum total" that CTers love to
skew and/or completely ignore, while they throw ordinary common sense
down the toilet in the process as well), Bullet 399 HAD to have been
inside Governor Connally on 11/22/63.
There is simply no way around this basic fact surrounding this not-at-
all-"magic" bullet called CE399. (At least there's no way around this
fact when it comes to reasonable people looking at the evidence who
aren't in the habit of shouting "It Was Planted" at every fork in the
road.)
THE NON-MAGIC NATURE OF CE399: www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7bf79593cce78406
=========================
>>> "VB mentions the nick on JFK's tie, but not the evidence that shows that {a} nurse cut the tie or the evidence that no bullet residue was found in the 'nick'." <<<
Very minor points overall.
Why?
Because VB emphasizes that the SBT is true (without a shred of a
doubt)....and that a bullet (which was CE399 without a speck of a
doubt, for various reasons, which are detailed nicely in "RH")
obviously HAD to have come out of JFK's throat (tie nick or no tie
nick).
And the damage to both President Kennedy's shirt and tie are fully
consistent with the exiting point for the bullet. So the CT argument
concerning the tie damage doesn't go anywhere useful at all, because
given the totality of evidence, that single bullet DID come out of
JFK's throat and went into John Connally.
FOOTNOTE --- Vince could have buttressed his overall pro-SBT arguments
some more, IMO, by including some additional info about the importance
of CE903 (which is a Commission exhibit that depicts a workable SBT
bullet path, without doubt).
Vince does mention the "1964 photograph" (CE903) on page #502 of
"Reclaiming History", but doesn't go into any major details about what
the photo depicts. Exploring a few more of the details of that
important Commission exhibit in his book would have aided Mr. Bugliosi
to some extent, IMO.
CE903 Talk: www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c65419db537d4abf
=========================
>>> "6) RH does not add any new evidence to the WCR." <<<
Nor does the book really need to add any "new evidence". What possible
"NEW" evidence could be unearthed at this post-1963 stage anyway? I
suppose it's possible something brand-new could pop up; but I can't
imagine anything earthshaking coming up 44 years after the murder.
But a task that Vince does skillfully perform in "Reclaiming History"
is to (quoting Vince): "Organize and analyze the evidence in such a
way that it makes Oswald's guilt irresistible".
I, naturally, agree. But CTers no doubt think that Vince's "in such a
way" comment indicates that he has ignored a bunch of stuff that some
people say leads down a conspiracy path.
But, of course, there are also about 1,200 or so pages (including the
CD's endnotes) that have Vince addressing and debunking gobs of
conspiracy theories.
And it's surprising how many of the silly theories being purported by
conspiracy-favoring authors can be debunked by way of ordinary, garden-
variety common sense ALONE. Mellen, Garrison, Armstrong, Horne, and
Waldron to name but a few examples.
=========================
>>> "Even LNs are not persuaded by VB's analysis of when the shots were fired." <<<
I disagree with Vince about a few minor points regarding the SBT
timeline. But when it comes down to the brass tacks of the shooting
(e.g., 3 shots coming from Rifle C2766; the first shot at Z160; the
SBT is a rock-solid fact; a total shooting timeline of 8.4 seconds), I
agree 100% with VB.
But I will say this -- Upon reflecting on Mr. Bugliosi's unwillingness
to pin himself down to one single frame on the Zapruder Film for the
SBT shot (he thinks the SBT shot came within a range of frames, Z210-
Z222), I'm inclined to respect him for that ambiguity. Because he's
admitting, in essence, "I don't know when the SBT shot occurred, but I
know from all the evidence it DID occur".
That's not necessarily a bad thing to admit. The Warren Commission
said the very same thing (although with a slightly-different "range"
of Z-Film frames, Z210-Z225).
The WC admitted to the world that they couldn't positively pinpoint
the exact place on the film when the SBT occurred...but that doesn't
mean the SBT is wrong. Far from it.
The overall mountain of evidence (and basic common-sense factors too)
that favor the SBT being true simply cannot be ignored...with or
without Z-Film evaluation. And Vince knows this full well, too. (And
so do I.).....
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0b30398a449c05b7
=========================
>>> "7) VB ignores the real controversy about the wound in JFK's {back}. He only mentions the location of the wound described by the FBI agents at the autopsy--below the shoulder. ... If that was the true location of the wound and Weisberg...indicates that it was, then a lot more than the SBT goes out the window." <<<
And yet at the end of all the wrangling we're still left with the
following official evidence and information and testimony:
1.) This autopsy photo of JFK's back:
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg
2.) This declaration from the HSCA in 1978:
"From the reports of the experts' analyses of the autopsy photographs
and X-rays, the evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-
rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and
that they had not been altered in any manner."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy2.txt
3.) And the all-important written-in measurements on this Face Sheet
(written on the Face Sheet by Dr. Boswell on 11/22/63):
http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/autopdescript1.gif
"14 cm. from rt. acromion; 14 cm. below tip of rt. mastoid process."
And when we add up all three of the above things, the TRUE location of
John F. Kennedy's back wound can easily be located. And that location
does NOT debunk the Single-Bullet Theory in any way.
So much for Mr. Weisberg.
=========================
>>> "8) VB loves to triumphantly proclaim that any claims of {non-Oswald} shots fail because there are no other bullets found. Yet he claims 3 shots and only has 2 bullets to show for it." <<<
Well, quite obviously, Vince is talking about bullets that WENT INTO
VICTIMS' BODIES when he's talking about no non-C2766 bullets (or
fragment thereof) being found.
Common sense tells a reasonable person that any shots that totally
missed everyone and everything in Dealey Plaza do not have a very good
chance of being recovered and placed into evidence.
But almost all CTers have a much rougher road to hoe in this "Lack Of
Bullets" regard. The CTers say that JFK was hit from multiple
directions (and, hence, multiple weapons)....and yet they (the CTers)
have absolutely no non-C2766-consistent bullets or fragments to show
anybody to back up such multi-shooter claims.
THAT'S what Vincent Bugliosi is talking about when he berates CTers
about the lack of "other" bullets. And, as usual, he makes a lot of
sense. Because if JFK were hit by one or more non-Oswald
bullets.....WHAT HAPPENED TO THOSE BULLETS AND/OR FRAGMENTS?
In the final analysis (with or without NAA analysis factored in;
because NAA is completely unneeded to support the following statement)
---
There is not a single bullet or bullet fragment connected with John F.
Kennedy's assassination that can be declared as having positively come
from a weapon other than Lee Harvey Oswald's C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle. All bullets and bullet fragments connected with JFK's murder
are either conclusively linked to Rifle #C2766 to the exclusion of all
other weapons, or are consistent with having come from that very same
Carcano rifle.
The above statement is (and always has been) rooted in 100% fact.
=========================================
"RECLAIMING HISTORY": FACTS AND EVIDENCE....NOT FANTASY (BOOK REVIEW):
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/showpost.php?p=3200858
=========================================
MSwanberg
things happened, there are several ideas that you have to grasp if you
are to see and understand legitimate and logical CT theory.
But first, the #44 thing... I gotta say, so freakin what? It's noon
on a Friday and three orders haven't been filled? Let's explore two
possibilities here. One, when do the orders get filled, per se? Are
they checked off and then the work performed? Or is it the other way
around? Just because the jobs haven't been checked off doesn't mean
he wasn't working. After all, I do my timesheet at the end of the
week... that doesn't mean that I wasn't in the office Monday-
Thursday. Two, it's Friday and a good percentage of the staff is not
working but is rather setting up their viewpoint of the motorcade.
So, I guess anyone who goofs off on Friday is an assassin?
Okay, back to the original idea.
Let's take a basic premise here. It seems to me that Bugliosi, and by
extension you, believe that the conspiracy, had one existed, was a
complete 100% setup from start to finish, all I's dotted and all T's
crossed. This would lead to such statements as "If you wanted to
frame someone, LHO would be the last person you would choose."
Basically, the point here is that the conspirators would choose
someone who could do the shooting, right? But YOU believe LHO did
it. So what's the disconnect here? The WC and Bugliosi have
convinced you that LHO did the deed. So why is it so hard to believe
or understand that perhaps the conspirators convinced the WC and
Bugliosi? Essentially, you can't have it both ways. Either LHO is
believable or he isn't. If you say he did it, then you obviously
believe he was capable. If you believe he was incapable, then how can
you believe he did it?
The truth of the matter, as I see it, is that the conspiracy was not a
complete 100% snowjob from start to finish. The conspirators are not
this grand Illuminati-type organization that can manipulate everything
and everyone. That's ridiculous. In fact, in my opinion, they did a
completely shoddy job of it. Horrible. But they always have the
trump card, which is that the "official" report says what they wanted
it to say, and that convinces a lot of people. In fact, it convinced
everyone at first.
But people read it.
That was what they didn't count on. People actually waded their way
through the volumes of testimony and drivel and started to realize
that a lot was missing, and that many of the conclusions did not fit
the evidence and/or testimony. The people didn't sleep through it,
they actually opened their eyes and started asking questions.
But there's always that trump card sitting back there: the official
report.
As well, the conspiracy does not consist of scores or people all
knowing what happened and covering it up to save their own asses.
No. Through many degrees of separation, people were coerced into
going along with the official findings for a variety of reasons. Most
anyone who is in politics is desirous of gaining favor with higher-ups
in government. As well, most any politician would prefer there not be
an in-depth investigation of the government at large, lest their own
dirty laundry get exposed.
As for John Q Citizen who saw something or knows something, well, they
can be controlled in a variety of ways. They can be threatened,
bribed, killed, or discredited. And in a case such as this, it is so
easy to discredit almost anyone, just by saying they were mistaken or
caught up in the moment or following the herd.
As for Bugliosi making the statement that "Oswald did it, so anything
new that says otherwise must have some explanation as to why it just
isn't so," (my paraphrase) well that just makes my skin crawl.
Backing into an argument from the conclusion is no way to learn
anything. If you have a pre-ordained idea of the conclusion, then
pretty much any piece of evidence can be made to fit, or else
discarded as misleading. It's only when you traverse the logic in the
other direction that you start to see things for what they truly are.
I try to look at each idea and piece of information in and of itself,
judge it for what it is, and then see how it fits the picture. Then I
look at that picture to see what it says to me. I don't take the
puzzle pieces and see where they fit my pre-conceived picture and then
discard any that don't match. That's a disservice.
I have seen written in this newsgroup that Bugliosi's book wasn't to
convince anyone, but was rather to address the CT ideas. Well, for
him to just dismiss new ideas just because they don't fit his notion
is a big failing toward that endeavor.
In my opinion...
-Mike
aeffects
as Harold Weisberg duly noted and told me years ago... great reminder!
Ben Holmes
says...
And sadly, he failed quite miserably... after all, he even mentions the "16
Smoking Guns", then fails to address them.
Rather cowardly for someone who wishes to dispose of CT'er ideas...
Gil Jesus
>> Backing into an argument from the conclusion is no way to learn
>> anything. If you have a pre-ordained idea of the conclusion, then
>> pretty much any piece of evidence can be made to fit, or else
>> discarded as misleading. It's only when you traverse the logic in the
>> other direction that you start to see things for what they truly are.
>> picture and then discard any that don't match. That's a
disservice.
Mike, sounds like your describing the the FBI investigation and its
rubber-stamping Warren Commission
MSwanberg
Definitely. :-)
I applaud DVP for actually writing assassination-related stuff here
and there rather than just insults, and for taking the time to defend
and/or illuminate the LN side. I am very eager to hear the arguments
on both sides as my mind is not 100% made-up (although it's about 90%
made-up).
What gets me is the typical exchange I see in this newsgroup of the
following nature:
LN Guy: "There hasn't been any evidence contrary to the WCR. If so,
show me some and let's discuss it."
CT Guy: <presents a glut of stuff>
LN Guy: "That's just conjecture and hearsay. I win!"
That belies a pre-conceived idea of the truth. As it is, we don't
know the real truth about 11/22/63... the shooters probably don't know
much of anything themselves. We are still, after 40+ years, piecing
together what happened.
And after all is said and done, even if LHO did shoot JFK and even if
he did act alone, there are certainly tons of tidbits that need to be
sorted out. For instance, the fact that LBJ believed in a conspiracy
yet coerced the WC to decide there wasn't one... well, that's just
obstruction of justice! Pure and simple. And even if the conclusions
of the WC are correct, there is still a lot more to answer for.
So, for anyone to just sit back and say, "ah, it's all said and done,
and here's the answer" obviously has not thoroughly thought this stuff
through.
Again, just my $0.02.
-Mike
David Von Pein
But Bugliosi isn't saying that a "conspiracy" is totally DISPROVED by
proving that Oswald is guilty of being the ONLY SHOOTER (or at least
the only shooter who HIT a victim, which he, of course, was).
Vince was attacking and debunking the many "Anybody BUT Oswald"
conspiracy clowns when he said this.....
"With respect to the Kennedy assassination, once you establish and
know that Oswald is guilty, as has been done, then you also
NECESSARILY know that there is an answer (whether the answer is known
or not) compatible with this conclusion for the endless alleged
discrepancies, inconsistencies, and questions the conspiracy theorists
have raised through the years about Oswald's guilt." -- VB
IOW, once Oswald's guilt is known for a fact (i.e., beyond a
reasonable doubt)...and it certainly is known to be a fact, per the
evidence, in the JFK and Tippit crimes....then any further talk about
Oswald being totally "innocent" of shooting anybody on November 22 is
pointless, groundless, baseless, and just a plain waste of energy.
(Not to mention, just plain silly.) Period.
But, as mentioned, that doesn't mean there couldn't have been a
"conspiracy" too (with people urging Oswald on, etc.). But once LHO's
guilt is established and confirmed beyond all reasonable doubt...why
does further discussion on THAT singular issue need to be debated
further? It doesn't.
Oswald did the crimes. Stamp them with Dragnet's "Mark VII" hammer.
As for any possible "conspiracy behind Oswald" angle -- Vince covers
that very well elsewhere in "Book Two" (the latter one-third) of
"Reclaiming HIstory".
Can the existence of such a lower-level "plot" involving Oswald and
someone else ever be completely refuted? No. Probably not. But is such
a conspiracy likely to have occurred? No. It is not.
For confirmation of that last "No", just read Chapter 5 of "Reclaiming
History", plus all of Jean Davison's "Oswald's Game".
That guy named Lee worked solo. You can pretty much take that to the
bank.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9c2238388f0a72c3
David Von Pein
Or is evidence that Oswald left his clipboard there at some other
time.
Why on Earth does it have be evidence of "innocence"? Or that he left
it there before coming down "for lunch"? That's crazy. Esp.
considering WHERE the clipboard was found. And even more especially
considering the evidence saying Oswald killed Kennedy from that 6th
Floor.
>>> "It simply makes no sense that Oswald would pick up his clipboard after firing some shots, and then leave it in the stairwell." <<<
Why on Earth do you think something like that happened?
He obviously left the clipboard where it was found PRIOR to shooting
at JFK.
>>> "Bugliosi's use of the clipboard as evidence against Oswald is symptomatic of his desperation." <<<
Desperation certainly isn't required to solve this case. Oswald signed
his name to the crimes (including Tippit's, of course). It's a popcorn
trail to Oswald that never ends.
Now, all that theorists have to do is prove that the popcorn was
PLANTED there by evil, unseen forces. Right? And that's what the CTers
have tried to do for decades. And have come up empty for decades.
THAT'S what is known as true "desperation", Pat.
As Vince B. once said -- "You could throw 80% of the evidence against
him {LHO} out the window and there would still be more than enough
left to convince any reasonable person of his sole role in the crime."
>>> "He {Evil Vince} is no more rational than the CTs he seems to despise." <<<
And yet VB has every bullet in his favor. How many do CTs have?
Bud
I like this line of conjecture, it does make sense in some ways.
The boxes where the rifle was found were arranged so that the rifle
could be slid into the hiding place from the end, without having to
take time to move boxes around. I start to think about the sequencing
of things, trying to figure what is plausible, what is not. After the
flooring crew leave the 6th, Oz is in the upper floor alone for
probably 5 minutes before Givens returns to interupt him. Then maybe 5
minutes between Givens leaving, and Williams arriving. So, if Oz was
near the stairwell arranging the boxes to hide the rifle when the time
came, and he heard Williams coming (I think the elevator is likely,
but it doesn`t say if he took the elevator or stairs that I could find
in his testimony). It`s possible he had to flee to the west corner to
avoid being detected by Williams (this is where Rowland sees Oz), and
BRW hunkers down on the two wheeler to eat. Now, it`s around 12:15,
and Oz has to make a decision soon... does he shoot Williams to get to
his preferred shooting location, or does he shoot from where he is?
Fortunately for Oz, (but unfortunately for others) Williams hears the
other guys on the 5th and leaves to meet up with them, freeing Oz to
move back to where he wanted to be, possibly too late to take a shot
at the President coming up Houston, but in time to shoot him in the
back.
<SNIP>
David Von Pein
All very possible, Bud, except for that last part re. Houston Street.
Because we know (via Brennan) that Oswald was certainly in place at
the SN at least a few MINUTES prior to the motorcade arriving in DP.
So Oswald wouldn't have needed to sprint for the southeast Nest after
the cars were on Houston St. Or am I misinterpreting your scenario,
Bud? Sounds like you're saying Oz was on the west end right up to
12:30:00. That's not possible (via the accounts of Brennan, Fischer,
and Edwards).
Here's a re-post of my full "OSWALD 11/22 TIMELINE":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3a3d654f3c43ed16
aeffects
3000 more posts aren't going to change reality, David.... Bugliosi and
RC is finished
David Von Pein
I'm still wondering why a certain kook thinks "History" starts with a
"C"?
tomnln
Howard Brennan is a LIAR.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1186023721....@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
aeffects
> I'm still wondering why a certain kook thinks "History" starts with a
> "C"?
Not "C" David.... History starts with Mark Lane... your favorite
CT'er. You know, the one you Nutter's are terrified of.
David Von Pein
Markham's arm off to get a little "bush"??
Is THAT the Lane you look up to so much, Mr. Kook?
Great role model. Just be-a-u-ti-ful.
Ben Holmes
says...
It's downright funny to see how many outright lies and misrepresentations of the
evidence are needed to make such a post.
>3000 more posts aren't going to change reality, David.... Bugliosi and
>RC is finished
The *real* problem is that DVP is unable and unwilling to *support* his wacky
theories when a knowledgeable CT'er points out the flaws.
aeffects
> In article <1186023850.581055.39...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, aeffects
MSwanberg
I would have to say that, in the absence of a defense attorney to
cross-examine and refute prosecution's findings, LHO would probably be
convicted in a court of law. However, it is also my opinion that if
the prosecution brought the WC's findings as evidence and if LHO had a
decent attorney, at the very least Oswald would be playing golf with
OJ right now.
But the most common aspects of most conspiracy theories involving this
case is that the CIA and FBI were complicitous and hence withheld and/
or doctored evidence. Even Blakey, whom last I heard believes that
LHO did the deed, is certain that the CIA withheld many things from
the HSCA. And some of this pertains directly to LHO's ties to the
governmental intelligence community.
So, if and when you accept that, it changs the entire landscape and
casts into doubt a good number of the claims about LHO. And as such,
it changes the ideas surrounding much of the evidence against him.
I do hope you are taking this into account when formulating your
opinion. It would definitely go a long way toward solidifying your
position if you made it very apparent that you consider these
possibilites. If you then reject them, and have reasons, then I can
certainly respect that. But it just sounds a lot of the time that you
are maintaining the premise of LHO's guilt (as does Bugliosi) without
stopping to think about what any light new evidence might have to cast
upon it.
Sure, if you do not allow your beliefs in LHO's guilt as the sole and
lone trigger-puller to be challenged, then I can see how anything
outside that purview seems absurd or false.
As for the idea that perhaps LHO had confederates that may have helped
him or urged him on, that is a huge thing. Those people are still at
large (probably) and we need to figure it out.
-Mike
aeffects
Correct, had LHO been tried in Texas he would of been convicted then
executed. Little doubt in my mind either....
> But the most common aspects of most conspiracy theories involving this
> case is that the CIA and FBI were complicitous and hence withheld and/
> or doctored evidence. Even Blakey, whom last I heard believes that
> LHO did the deed, is certain that the CIA withheld many things from
> the HSCA. And some of this pertains directly to LHO's ties to the
> governmental intelligence community.
perhaps a few aroubnd here should find a copy of Mark Lane's Plausible
Denial, interesting reading....
> So, if and when you accept that, it changs the entire landscape and
> casts into doubt a good number of the claims about LHO. And as such,
> it changes the ideas surrounding much of the evidence against him.
>
> I do hope you are taking this into account when formulating your
> opinion. It would definitely go a long way toward solidifying your
> position if you made it very apparent that you consider these
> possibilites. If you then reject them, and have reasons, then I can
> certainly respect that. But it just sounds a lot of the time that you
> are maintaining the premise of LHO's guilt (as does Bugliosi) without
> stopping to think about what any light new evidence might have to cast
> upon it.
>
> Sure, if you do not allow your beliefs in LHO's guilt as the sole and
> lone trigger-puller to be challenged, then I can see how anything
> outside that purview seems absurd or false.
>
> As for the idea that perhaps LHO had confederates that may have helped
> him or urged him on, that is a huge thing. Those people are still at
> large (probably) and we need to figure it out.
agreed....
> -Mike
Ben Holmes
says...
I'm not convinced of this. The most "devastating" evidence that the WCR had
would never have been allowed in court. And rightly so. Marina, for example,
was a star witness for the WC, despite the numerous contradictions in her
testimony - she basically told the WC what they wanted to hear. None of that
would have been in evidence.
Ballistically, one of the cartridges would have been destroyed by the defense,
the *real* autopsy report would have been entered into evidence - and along with
the real autopsy photos & x-rays - (for it would, even *today* - be sheer
madness to submit the altered photos & x-rays to the adversarial process).
All of this would be quite damaging - not to LHO - but to the prosecution of
LHO. And since a trial would *ALSO* have allowed LHO to bring in eyewitnesses
who saw him eating lunch, any decent defense counsel would be in a position to
prove that LHO wasn't on the 6th floor. (as indeed, even what little evidence
we *now* have shows...) Had LHO lived to go to trial, there would be far *MORE*
evidence than we now have.
>> But the most common aspects of most conspiracy theories involving this
>> case is that the CIA and FBI were complicitous and hence withheld and/
>> or doctored evidence. Even Blakey, whom last I heard believes that
>> LHO did the deed, is certain that the CIA withheld many things from
>> the HSCA. And some of this pertains directly to LHO's ties to the
>> governmental intelligence community.
>
>
>perhaps a few aroubnd here should find a copy of Mark Lane's Plausible
>Denial, interesting reading....
Actually, you can go all the way back to "Rush to Judgement" - which has never
been refuted by the LNT'er camp. The information it contains has held up
remarkably - considering all that we know today...
MSwanberg
>
> perhaps a few aroubnd here should find a copy of Mark Lane's Plausible
> Denial, interesting reading....
>
I'm about half way through "Rush to Judgement" right now and I am
flabbergasted at how much contradiction and obvious error there was in
the WCR. And I really doubt that anything that was withheld for the
"75 years" will change that or uncover the path to their conclusions.
I'll put "Plausible Denial" on the list. I love the way Lane handles
his points. He introduces, then lists all of the evidentiary points,
and then concludes directly and concisely.
-Mike
aeffects
> On Aug 2, 1:23 pm, aeffects <aeffe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > perhaps a few aroubnd here should find a copy of Mark Lane's Plausible
> > Denial, interesting reading....
>
> I'm about half way through "Rush to Judgement" right now and I am
> flabbergasted at how much contradiction and obvious error there was in
> the WCR. And I really doubt that anything that was withheld for the
> "75 years" will change that or uncover the path to their conclusions.
ole Mark Lane is a known CT commodity, he's debated the best the Lone
Nutter's have, including Warren Commission staff attorneies no-less!
Debates where Lane was under the severest restrictions and handicaps,
and he STILL killed them.....
> I'll put "Plausible Denial" on the list. I love the way Lane handles
> his points. He introduces, then lists all of the evidentiary points,
> and then concludes directly and concisely.
you'll not regret it -- hardly any footnotes though....
>
> -Mike
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>On Aug 2, 1:23 pm, aeffects <aeffe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> perhaps a few aroubnd here should find a copy of Mark Lane's Plausible
>> Denial, interesting reading....
>>
>
>I'm about half way through "Rush to Judgement" right now and I am
>flabbergasted at how much contradiction and obvious error there was in
>the WCR. And I really doubt that anything that was withheld for the
>"75 years" will change that or uncover the path to their conclusions.
What is truly amazing is that very little of what Lane revealed in "Rush to
Judgement" has needed revision as we've learned more.
LNT'er authors stay far away from Rush to Judgement - it's a solidly written
book that they can't refute.
David Von Pein
>>> "If VB doesn't say that LHO didn't do any work all day long, why comment on an unfilled order when half a day's work remains to be done?" <<<
Fair point, Gerry, I'll readily admit that.
>>> "Did VB speak further on this?" <<<
I don't think so. But it's possible he mentions it further in an
endnote. There's so much stuff in the book, it's difficult to say for
sure if one particular small sub-topic is dealt with or not. It's
possible that it is dealt with further; but I just cannot recall at
this time.
But, IMO, the biggest factor re. the clipboard "incident" (if we can
even call it an "incident"; I'd prefer to say the "clipboard
placement") is, in fact, the LOCATION where that clipboard was found
-- very near those stairs and very near the boxes where Oswald
(without a shred of a doubt, given the sum total of evidence that
tells us he's guilty) stashed the rifle after the shooting.
Whether or not there were 3 or 33 unfilled orders on the clipboard
isn't really too germane to this issue, in my view. I suppose it could
be considered a small factor in the wake of the events that did
transpire that same day...i.e., LHO's mind was elsewhere (on killing a
President and figuring out how he could do it in privacy) on November
22; therefore he shirked his regular TSBD duties.
But we know that Oswald did at least a little bit of regular TSBD work
on November 22. We know this via the following portion of James
Jarman's WC testimony:
MR. BALL -- "Did you talk to Oswald that morning {11/22/63}?"
MR. JARMAN -- "I did."
MR. BALL -- "When?"
MR. JARMAN -- "I had him to correct an order. I don't know exactly
what time it was."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/jarman.htm
~~~~~
I suppose I could start speculating further on this rather peripheral
matter of Oswald needing to have one of his November 22nd TSBD book
orders "corrected" by the "checker" (which was Jarman's job at the
Book Depository at the time).
Perhaps I should start talking about how Oswald's mind was on other
things that morning....and therefore he wasn't able to concentrate on
filling his book orders accurately....and therefore one or more of his
orders had to be "corrected" after Checker James Jarman took a look at
them.
That could conceivably move in the direction of Lee Harvey Oswald's
11/22 mindset too....don't you agree?
Could be. But nobody can know for sure, of course.
MSwanberg
I finished Rush To Judgment on Friday and was astounded to learn of
the "Oswald was an FBI informant for $200 a month" idea. I thought
that fact came out in the ARRB days, not during the WC investigation!
And I was beside myself to learn that Ford talked about it in his book
at the time and also full-on admitted that the WC didn't debate
WHETHER to bury that info, but rather debated HOW to bury it.
How can anyone face this and believe that the Warren Commission was
anything other than a snow job?
-Mike
Ben Holmes
says...
Yep... it's funny to hear people claim that they used to be CT'ers - then took
the time to learn the evidence, and turned into LNT'ers...
Bigdog is a recent example, and he didn't know that the Fiber direction on JFK's
jacket WAS NOT IN THE ORIGINAL FBI REPORT.
He DID NOT KNOW that Dr. Humes described a photo that no longer exists.
There's more, but those are the ones that come to mind...
aeffects
> In article <1186081653.578384.71...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, MSwanberg
> says...
>
>
>
> >On Aug 2, 1:23 pm, aeffects <aeffe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> perhaps a few aroubnd here should find a copy of Mark Lane's Plausible
> >> Denial, interesting reading....
>
> >I'm about half way through "Rush to Judgement" right now and I am
> >flabbergasted at how much contradiction and obvious error there was in
> >the WCR. And I really doubt that anything that was withheld for the
> >"75 years" will change that or uncover the path to their conclusions.
>
> What is truly amazing is that very little of what Lane revealed in "Rush to
> Judgement" has needed revision as we've learned more.
>
> LNT'er authors stay far away from Rush to Judgement - it's a solidly written
> book that they can't refute.
Rush to Judgement, published in 1966, no-less. Indeed the do stay
away, as FAR away as POSSIBLE.... Another interesting book by Mark
Lane, A Citizen's Dissent: Mark Lane Replies to the Defenders of the
Warren Report, interesting how he, Lane took on WCR staff members and
defenders (and the press) in public debate. (usually with unfair
restrictions placed on Lane, and he STILL won
> >I'll put "Plausible Denial" on the list. I love the way Lane handles
> >his points. He introduces, then lists all of the evidentiary points,
> >and then concludes directly and concisely.
heartell he's no a bad lawyer, either!
> >-Mike