> >On Jan 27, 8:01 pm, Mack A. Damia <
mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> As was said many times, in almost fifty years of investigating, not
> >> ONE iota of credible evidence has ever been established to suggest a
> >> conspiracy except the tortured (and distorted) souls of many
> >> Americans.
>
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 20:12:33 -0800 (PST), John Doherty
>
> >from wiki:
>
> >"Contrary to the Warren Commission, the United States House Select
> >Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in 1979 concluded that President
> >John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.
> >[3] The HSCA found both the original FBI investigation and the Warren
> >Commission Report to be seriously flawed. While agreeing with the
> >Commission that Oswald fired all the shots which caused the wounds to
> >Kennedy and Governor Connally, it stated that there were at least four
> >shots fired and that there was a "high probability" that two gunmen
> >fired at the President. No gunmen or groups involved in the conspiracy
> >were identified by the committee, but the CIA, Soviet Union, organized
> >crime and several other groups were said to be not involved, based on
> >available evidence. The assassination is still the subject of
> >widespread debate and has spawned numerous conspiracy theories and
> >alternative scenarios."
>
> >That was more than tortured souls-- that was based on a review of
> >available info then. Has there been a government review since that
> >refuted this conclusion?
>
On Jan 28, 12:21 am, Mack A. Damia <
mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Except.....there's no credible evidence except what they happen to
> think.
You are old enough to remember the era, Mack. There was widespread
enormous cynicism in the wake of the sorry end of the Viet Nam War
after the Pentagon Papers, My Lai, Secret Bombing of Cambodia, the
many threads of Watergate that lead to Nixon's resignation, etc. The
American people were hungry for less BS and more unvarnished truth, or
the closest we could get to it.
In that light, the Committee conducted a meticulous analysis of all
allegations of conspiracy to date, and came up with many of the points
you are trying to make here, such as :
"1. Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy.
The second and third shots he fired struck the President. The third
shot he fired killed the President."
>
> Yes, they were tortured souls, and they were addressing the demands of
> the American people - that it was a conspiracy.
The demand was not to arrive at a conclusion, it was to screen out
some of the BS that the Warren Commission and every other government
functionary had been shoveling for 15 years.
>
> Trouble is, it wasn't,
Not sure if you've read this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_Assassinations
It's funny that you think this committee started from a conclusion.
From what I've seen here, and your statements of hyperbole (like the
still unaddressed comment of "undisputed fact" that only the
intellectual impaired believe in conspiracy theories), it seems like
it's you that starts with a conclusion, and that you embrace & reject
available evidence on the basis of how close it hews to the conclusion
you like.
Your bullishness in this argument that only the dullards out there
don't share your complete confidence in "Oswald Acting Alone" flies in
the face of the vast body of evidence that is available in the
assassination of JFK.
If you proceeded from a perspective that you could see how it's so
murky that many people of good faith could believe otherwise, that the
so many interconnecting links between mob figures, Oswald, nutty Bay
of Pigs holdovers, CIA ops and Lee Oswald do create some intriguing
suggestion, then your conviction would hold more weight.
In the end, the House Committee, which was obviously not "tortured
souls", believed that Oswald did fire upon and hit the president, but
that he did not act alone.
"2. Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that
at least two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other
scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen
firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific
conspiracy allegations."
I personally don't think Oswald was innocent; he likely fired at the
president that day, and probably hit him and or Connolly. But I do not
share your confidence that no one else was involved, even if I do not
have all the answers.
Life is often like that-- we search to understand things and do not
have all the answers. People are still piecing together the Lincoln
assassination and its aftermath.