FW Star-Telegram - Nov. 1963

4 views
Skip to first unread message

Chris Bellomy

unread,
Sep 29, 1993, 11:43:59 PM9/29/93
to
From the Evening Edition of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Nov. 22, 1963:

President John F. Kennedy is dead.

He was killed by a single shot from a 30-30 rifle on Dallas' west side at
the freeway intersection of Commerce, Elm and Main about 12:15 p.m.

He died about one hour and a half later in Parkland Hospital.

Kennedy was gunned down by an assassin apparently standing on the overpass
above the freeway. [I take this to mean the triple overpass -- C.B.]


From a Nov. 23 story:

A question about a possible...conspiracy brought this emphatic reply (from
Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade): "No, it is this man and this
man alone (in reference to Oswald)."


Boy, it didn't take Henry long to gather HIS evidence!

I'm interested in reading informed comment about the rifle ID, the initial
report of a gunman in front, and of course Wade's hasty final conclusion.

Have at it gentlemen!

--Chris

Paul Collacchi

unread,
Sep 30, 1993, 3:46:36 PM9/30/93
to

In article <1993Sep29...@vaxb.acs.unt.edu>, cbel...@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (Chris Bellomy) writes:
|>
|> I'm interested in reading informed comment about the rifle ID, the initial
|> report of a gunman in front, and of course Wade's hasty final conclusion.
|>
|> Have at it gentlemen!
|>


The most extensive informed comment on the rifle can be found in Evica,
"And We Are All Mortal" who writes about four chapters on it, its introduction
onto the record, its history from Italy etc. He draws from another source,
"The Gun" by Baumgartner who traced the history of the gun to its origin
in Italy and in History. Evica also covers extensively the Andreotti/S.I.F.A.R
report, from Italian intelligence which states that the gun was originally
mis-identified.

Both books are hard to find, the AARC has them, and there are still a few
copies of Evica's book at the University of Hartford bookstore. For a single
book, it is the very finest I have read, covering both micro and macro-analysis.
Thanks to Alan Rogers for turning me on to it.

Meagher writes a nice chapter on the vanishing reports and Weitzman's mis
identification, plus the Commission's "explanation."

The HSCA photo analysis confirming the gun was done by C. S. McCamy. It appears
in Volume 6, I believe, pp 63-107.

Paul Collacchi

John McAdams

unread,
Sep 30, 1993, 8:41:47 PM9/30/93
to
In article <1993Sep29...@vaxb.acs.unt.edu>,
cbel...@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (Chris Bellomy) writes:

You seem to accept the inaccuracies in the Star-Telegram account as
evidence of a conspiracy.

If what *first* was reported is at variance with what *later* was
reported, then it must mean that The Conspiracy was scrambling to get
it's ducks in line.

Am I interpreting you correctly?

Or are you putting us on? Did the Fort Worth paper actually print an
account with so many absurd inaccuracies?

.John

Chris Bellomy

unread,
Oct 3, 1993, 9:24:58 PM10/3/93
to
>> = Me (Chris Bellomy)
> = John McAdams

>>From the Evening Edition of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Nov. 22, 1963:
>>
>> President John F. Kennedy is dead.
>>
>> He was killed by a single shot from a 30-30 rifle on Dallas' west side at
>> the freeway intersection of Commerce, Elm and Main about 12:15 p.m.
>>
>> He died about one hour and a half later in Parkland Hospital.
>>
>> Kennedy was gunned down by an assassin apparently standing on the overpass
>> above the freeway. [I take this to mean the triple overpass -- C.B.]
>>
>>
>>From a Nov. 23 story:
>>
>> A question about a possible...conspiracy brought this emphatic reply (from
>> Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade): "No, it is this man and this
>> man alone (in reference to Oswald)."
>>
>>
>>Boy, it didn't take Henry long to gather HIS evidence!
>>
>>I'm interested in reading informed comment about the rifle ID, the initial
>>report of a gunman in front, and of course Wade's hasty final conclusion.
>>
>>Have at it gentlemen!
>>
>
> You seem to accept the inaccuracies in the Star-Telegram account as
> evidence of a conspiracy.

Inaccuracies? Do you call the reporting "inaccurate" because it is
contradictory to your argument? OK, they blew it with the time, but the rest
of their account is consistent with the testimony of eyewitnesses. Their story
IS evidence of a conspiracy because it illustrates to what degree the
government had to work to get their story accepted as fact -- reread the Wade
quote as the most compelling evidence of a "stonewall" campaign.

> If what *first* was reported is at variance with what *later* was
> reported, then it must mean that The Conspiracy was scrambling to get
> it's ducks in line.
>
> Am I interpreting you correctly?

In this case, yes. Not so much because the FWST's account supports a gunman in
front as because of Wade's incredibly early and unalterable assertion that LHO
acted alone. Have you ever heard of a DA wrapping up a murder case in less
than one day? Why the rush?



> Or are you putting us on? Did the Fort Worth paper actually print an
> account with so many absurd inaccuracies?

Aw, John, c'mon! You're a better gadfly than that! Accord me just a little
respect, OK?

> .John

--Chris

John McAdams

unread,
Oct 3, 1993, 11:41:29 PM10/3/93
to
In article <1993Oct3...@vaxb.acs.unt.edu>,
cbel...@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (Chris Bellomy) writes:

>
>>>From the Evening Edition of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Nov. 22, 1963:
>>>
>>> President John F. Kennedy is dead.
>>>
>>> He was killed by a single shot from a 30-30 rifle on Dallas' west side at
>>> the freeway intersection of Commerce, Elm and Main about 12:15 p.m.
>>>

Not just the time, but the rifle.

Even the standard conspiracy line is that it was "really" a 7.65 mm.
Mauser.


>>> He died about one hour and a half later in Parkland Hospital.
>>>

He was pronounced dead 30 minutes after he was shot.


>>> Kennedy was gunned down by an assassin apparently standing on the overpass
>>> above the freeway. [I take this to mean the triple overpass -- C.B.]
>>>

Oh . . . you *take* this to mean the triple overpass!

That's not what it says. Go back and look at the description of the
location above. They apparently didn't know Kennedy was shot in
Dealey Plaza, rather than after he had gone through the Triple
Underpass.

BTW, do you believe an assassin shot from the Triple Underpass? If
so, he was in plain view of the cop standing there, and Sam Holland,
and several other railroad employees.


[text omitted]

>>
>> You seem to accept the inaccuracies in the Star-Telegram account as
>> evidence of a conspiracy.
>
>Inaccuracies? Do you call the reporting "inaccurate" because it is
>contradictory to your argument?


Inconsistent with my argument, inconsistent with the vast majority of
conspiracy theories, and inconsistent with the known facts.

>OK, they blew it with the time, but the rest
>of their account is consistent with the testimony of eyewitnesses. Their story
>IS evidence of a conspiracy because it illustrates to what degree the
>government had to work to get their story accepted as fact -- reread the Wade
>quote as the most compelling evidence of a "stonewall" campaign.
>


The Fort Worth paper didn't have a clue, when this story was written,
what it was doing. There had to have been at least a half-dozen
reporters, and/or writers, and/or editors who should have been fired
for publishing such an error-laden piece.

>> If what *first* was reported is at variance with what *later* was
>> reported, then it must mean that The Conspiracy was scrambling to get
>> it's ducks in line.
>>
>> Am I interpreting you correctly?
>
>In this case, yes. Not so much because the FWST's account supports a gunman in
>front as because of Wade's incredibly early and unalterable assertion that LHO
>acted alone. Have you ever heard of a DA wrapping up a murder case in less
>than one day? Why the rush?
>


I've never heard of *any* murder case like this one.

As for "why the rush:" maybe because the media were demanding to know
in an extremely insistent fashion.


>> Or are you putting us on? Did the Fort Worth paper actually print an
>> account with so many absurd inaccuracies?
>
>Aw, John, c'mon! You're a better gadfly than that! Accord me just a little
>respect, OK?
>

But I was.

.John

Mitchell S Todd

unread,
Oct 3, 1993, 11:52:00 PM10/3/93
to
cbel...@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (Chris Bellomy) writes...

>> = John McAdams
>>>From the Evening Edition of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Nov. 22, 1963:
>>> President John F. Kennedy is dead.
>>> He was killed by a single shot from a 30-30 rifle on Dallas' west side at
>>> the freeway intersection of Commerce, Elm and Main about 12:15 p.m.

>>> Kennedy was gunned down by an assassin apparently standing on the


>>> overpass above the freeway. [I take this to mean the triple overpass -- C.B.]

>>>From a Nov. 23 story:

>>> A question about a possible...conspiracy brought this emphatic reply
>>> (from Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade): "No, it is this man
>>> and this man alone (in reference to Oswald)."

>> You seem to accept the inaccuracies in the Star-Telegram account as
>> evidence of a conspiracy.

>Inaccuracies? Do you call the reporting "inaccurate" because it is
>contradictory to your argument? OK, they blew it with the time, but the rest
>of their account is consistent with the testimony of eyewitnesses. Their story
>IS evidence of a conspiracy because it illustrates to what degree the
>government had to work to get their story accepted as fact -- reread the Wade
>quote as the most compelling evidence of a "stonewall" campaign.

Um, Chris, think of it this way: the Star-Telegram reporter probably
had less than three hours to gather information, write the story,
and submit it. I doubt he had time to run down the facts, and just
reported whatever he heard, rumors and otherwise. This isn't really
uncommon in the history of journalism.

Then look at what _Wade_ knew by Nov 23. He had Oswald, Oswald's
rifle, three spent shells, etc, etc. He knew that LHO was
an avowed communist, so a conspiracy involving the far right
was pretty unlikely. The DPD had searched the home of at least
one communist that had some connection to Oswald, but no evidence
of conspiracy popped up there. Further, no other sniper's position
was found. What would you conclude?


_____ _____
\\\\\\/ ___/___________________
Mitchell S Todd \\\\/ / _____/__________________________
________________ \\/ / mst4298@zeus._____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_'_/
\_____ \__ / / tamu.edu _____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_/
\__________\__ / / _____/_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_/
\_ / /__________/
\/____/\\\\\\
\\\\\\
------

Chris Bellomy

unread,
Oct 4, 1993, 1:26:18 AM10/4/93
to

Oh, now it makes sense. The Dallas County D.A. wraps up the most important
murder investigation in 20th century American history in 24 hours because THE
MEDIA WERE DEMANDING TO KNOW. Well then, now it makes sense. Sheesh.


--Chris

John McAdams

unread,
Oct 4, 1993, 12:56:30 AM10/4/93
to

I didn't say he had "wrapped it up." And he didn't say he had
"wrapped it up."

What actually happened is that he told some media types there was no
conspiracy. Why? Because they were demanding to know. QED

.John

Chris Bellomy

unread,
Oct 4, 1993, 8:18:50 PM10/4/93
to

>>>> = Chris Bellomy
>>> = John McAdams
>> = Chris
> = Mitchell S. Todd


>>>>From the Evening Edition of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Nov. 22, 1963:
>>>> President John F. Kennedy is dead.
>>>> He was killed by a single shot from a 30-30 rifle on Dallas' west side at
>>>> the freeway intersection of Commerce, Elm and Main about 12:15 p.m.
>
>>>> Kennedy was gunned down by an assassin apparently standing on the
>>>> overpass above the freeway. [I take this to mean the triple overpass -- C.B.]
>
>>>>From a Nov. 23 story:
>
>>>> A question about a possible...conspiracy brought this emphatic reply
>>>> (from Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade): "No, it is this man
>>>> and this man alone (in reference to Oswald)."
>
>>> You seem to accept the inaccuracies in the Star-Telegram account as
>>> evidence of a conspiracy.
>
>>Inaccuracies? Do you call the reporting "inaccurate" because it is
>>contradictory to your argument? OK, they blew it with the time, but the rest
>>of their account is consistent with the testimony of eyewitnesses. Their story
>>IS evidence of a conspiracy because it illustrates to what degree the
>>government had to work to get their story accepted as fact -- reread the Wade
>>quote as the most compelling evidence of a "stonewall" campaign.
>
> Um, Chris, think of it this way: the Star-Telegram reporter probably
> had less than three hours to gather information, write the story,
> and submit it. I doubt he had time to run down the facts, and just
> reported whatever he heard, rumors and otherwise. This isn't really
> uncommon in the history of journalism.

Your point is well taken, but it doesn't address the point that I have
henceforth failed to articulate well: that there was never a concensus about
JFK being shot from above and behind. The conflicting stories of eyewitnesses
would seem to discredit a single-assassin theory, because such a theory must
plausibly address the credible testimony of the witnesses who believed that JFK
was hit from the front. Remember that at the time of the shooting these people
had no way to know whether their testimony contradicted the official account,
and had no motive to falsify their stories.

> Then look at what _Wade_ knew by Nov 23. He had Oswald, Oswald's
> rifle, three spent shells, etc, etc. He knew that LHO was
> an avowed communist, so a conspiracy involving the far right
> was pretty unlikely. The DPD had searched the home of at least
> one communist that had some connection to Oswald, but no evidence
> of conspiracy popped up there. Further, no other sniper's position
> was found. What would you conclude?

He had Oswald. He may or may not have had his rifle. LHO's political leanings
were highly questionable; at that point to rule anything out was foolhardy.
The DPD searched the home of *one* communist to no avail. Is that really
enough?

The notion that Wade had assembled all the necessary evidence and then
logically deduced that a conspiracy was out of the question - in one day - is
patently absurd. This is a clear-cut case of knowing your conclusion before
you begin, and selecting your evidence accordingly.

--Chris

LANCE DONALD GILLETTE

unread,
Oct 5, 1993, 1:05:08 AM10/5/93
to
In article <009737C7...@vms.csd.mu.edu> 6489mc...@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams) writes:
>From: 6489mc...@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams)
>Subject: Re: FW Star-Telegram - Nov. 1963
>Date: 4 Oct 1993 03:41:29 GMT

Mitchell S Todd

unread,
Oct 5, 1993, 3:14:00 PM10/5/93
to
cbel...@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (Chris Bellomy) writes...

>>>>> = Chris Bellomy
>>>> = John McAdams

>>>>>From the Evening Edition of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Nov. 22, 1963:

>>>>> President John F. Kennedy is dead. He was killed by a single shot
>>>>> from a 30-30 rifle on Dallas' west side at the freeway intersection
>>>>> of Commerce, Elm and Main about 12:15 p.m. Kennedy was gunned down by
>>>>> an assassin apparently standing on the overpass above the freeway.

>>>>>From a Nov. 23 story:

>>>>> A question about a possible...conspiracy brought this emphatic reply
>>>>> (from Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade): "No, it is this man
>>>>> and this man alone (in reference to Oswald)."

[...]

>>>Their story IS evidence of a conspiracy because it illustrates to what
>>>degree the government had to work to get their story accepted as fact --
>>>reread the Wade quote as the most compelling evidence of a "stonewall"
>>>campaign.

>> Um, Chris, think of it this way: the Star-Telegram reporter probably
>> had less than three hours to gather information, write the story,
>> and submit it. I doubt he had time to run down the facts, and just
>> reported whatever he heard, rumors and otherwise. This isn't really
>> uncommon in the history of journalism.

>Your point is well taken, but it doesn't address the point that I have
>henceforth failed to articulate well: that there was never a concensus about
>JFK being shot from above and behind. The conflicting stories of eyewitnesses
>would seem to discredit a single-assassin theory, because such a theory must
>plausibly address the credible testimony of the witnesses who believed that JFK
>was hit from the front. Remember that at the time of the shooting these people
>had no way to know whether their testimony contradicted the official account,
>and had no motive to falsify their stories.

The thing is, there is no way of knowing where the Star Telegram
reporter got his information. It is presumptuous to believe that
the reporter's story wasn't passing on gossip and rumor. During
crises and similar events, rumor, Wild-assed guesswork, and other
sources of misinformation very often cause reports that bear little
resemblence to the original event.

Think about the identification of the rifle as a .30-30. This ID
came from a DPD officer's interpetation of what Howard Brennan
told him. Since Brennan was 90 feet away and 60 feet below the
asasssin, and only saw the rifle for a few seconds, I wouldn't
place to much credence in the itnitial report. Would you?

As the saying goes "itnitial reports are nearly always wrong."

Again, the Star Telegram reporter had very little time to run
down the facts of his story, while Wade had the rest of Nov 22,
and some of Nov 23.


>> Then look at what _Wade_ knew by Nov 23. He had Oswald, Oswald's
>> rifle, three spent shells, etc, etc. He knew that LHO was
>> an avowed communist, so a conspiracy involving the far right
>> was pretty unlikely. The DPD had searched the home of at least
>> one communist that had some connection to Oswald, but no evidence
>> of conspiracy popped up there. Further, no other sniper's position
>> was found. What would you conclude?

>He had Oswald. He may or may not have had his rifle. LHO's political leanings
>were highly questionable; at that point to rule anything out was foolhardy.
>The DPD searched the home of *one* communist to no avail. Is that really
>enough?

LHO's political leanings questionable? Not to Wade on Nov 23. Even
the conspiracy mongers like to claim that Oswald was "set up"
effectively as a commie, to confuse the likes of Wade and the rest of
us (not that I find these assertions very credible). The only
person whose house they searched was the only communist they could
find who had any chance of a personal link to LHO. Oswald did not
have a large number of acquaintences, of course, so it was not
hard to start tracking the people around him down.


>The notion that Wade had assembled all the necessary evidence and then
>logically deduced that a conspiracy was out of the question - in one day - is
>patently absurd. This is a clear-cut case of knowing your conclusion before
>you begin, and selecting your evidence accordingly.

No, it is evidence that Wade and the DPD had found no credible evidence
of conspiracy by Nov 23. Hence his statement. No credible evidence
of conspiracy has been found since, either.

Mark Singer

unread,
Oct 5, 1993, 6:07:22 PM10/5/93
to
In article <5OCT1993...@zeus.tamu.edu> mst...@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>cbel...@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (Chris Bellomy) writes...


>>> Um, Chris, think of it this way: the Star-Telegram reporter probably
>>> had less than three hours to gather information, write the story,
>>> and submit it. I doubt he had time to run down the facts, and just
>>> reported whatever he heard, rumors and otherwise. This isn't really
>>> uncommon in the history of journalism.
>

[brief rebuttal deleted...]

>
> The thing is, there is no way of knowing where the Star Telegram
> reporter got his information. It is presumptuous to believe that
> the reporter's story wasn't passing on gossip and rumor. During
> crises and similar events, rumor, Wild-assed guesswork, and other
> sources of misinformation very often cause reports that bear little
> resemblence to the original event.


This is not exactly an endorsement of the integrity of the fourth
estate. Mind you, I agree.

I also believe things haven't changed much in past thirty years.

>
> Think about the identification of the rifle as a .30-30. This ID
> came from a DPD officer's interpetation of what Howard Brennan
> told him. Since Brennan was 90 feet away and 60 feet below the
> asasssin, and only saw the rifle for a few seconds, I wouldn't
> place to much credence in the itnitial report. Would you?


If this is what was reported, the editors certaily could have
attributed the report to an eyewitness, rather than wording it
as fact. Better yet, it could have been labelled as "a DPD
officer related an eyewitness report..."

That would, incongruously, be accurate.


> Again, the Star Telegram reporter had very little time to run
> down the facts of his story, while Wade had the rest of Nov 22,
> and some of Nov 23.

That should do it.


>
> LHO's political leanings questionable? Not to Wade on Nov 23. Even
> the conspiracy mongers like to claim that Oswald was "set up"
> effectively as a commie, to confuse the likes of Wade and the rest of
> us (not that I find these assertions very credible). The only
> person whose house they searched was the only communist they could
> find who had any chance of a personal link to LHO. Oswald did not

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


> have a large number of acquaintences, of course, so it was not

^^^^^^^^^^^^^


> hard to start tracking the people around him down.


Really? Do you mean he did not have a large number of acquaintences
in Dallas, or in life? Are you representing that Wade, or any other
investigator, could have determined how widespread Oswald's acquaintences
were by November 23?

>
>
>>The notion that Wade had assembled all the necessary evidence and then
>>logically deduced that a conspiracy was out of the question - in one day - is
>>patently absurd. This is a clear-cut case of knowing your conclusion before
>>you begin, and selecting your evidence accordingly.


If in this statement Chris is implying that Wade or the DPD had any
knowledge of the events other than what their own resources provided,
I would tend to disagree. I think the Dallas officials rose to
their own level of incompetence. Nothing more.

>
> No, it is evidence that Wade and the DPD had found no credible evidence
> of conspiracy by Nov 23. Hence his statement. No credible evidence

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


> of conspiracy has been found since, either.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Are you saying that of all of the evidence surrounding the assassination
that might indicate that LHO did not act alone in the manner concluded
by the WC, that absolutely none of it is credible?

Or are you saying that there is no such evidence?

Either way, I find this statement astounding. There is so much involved
in this case and the people related to the case, and there are so many
questions about the evidence and its reliability, that I have a hard
time with any such absolute statement.

--
Mark Singer
m...@netcom.com

Mitchell S Todd

unread,
Oct 6, 1993, 2:33:00 PM10/6/93
to
m...@netcom.com (Mark Singer) writes...

>mst...@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>>cbel...@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (Chris Bellomy) writes...

>>>> Um, Chris, think of it this way: the Star-Telegram reporter probably
>>>> had less than three hours to gather information, write the story,
>>>> and submit it. I doubt he had time to run down the facts, and just
>>>> reported whatever he heard, rumors and otherwise. This isn't really
>>>> uncommon in the history of journalism.

>[brief rebuttal deleted...]

>> The thing is, there is no way of knowing where the Star Telegram
>> reporter got his information. It is presumptuous to believe that
>> the reporter's story wasn't passing on gossip and rumor. During
>> crises and similar events, rumor, Wild-assed guesswork, and other
>> sources of misinformation very often cause reports that bear little
>> resemblence to the original event.

>This is not exactly an endorsement of the integrity of the fourth
>estate. Mind you, I agree.

>I also believe things haven't changed much in past thirty years.

I agree. Just look at ex-Star-Telegram reporter Jim Marrs. ;->


>> Think about the identification of the rifle as a .30-30. This ID
>> came from a DPD officer's interpetation of what Howard Brennan
>> told him. Since Brennan was 90 feet away and 60 feet below the
>> asasssin, and only saw the rifle for a few seconds, I wouldn't
>> place to much credence in the itnitial report. Would you?

>If this is what was reported, the editors certaily could have
>attributed the report to an eyewitness, rather than wording it
>as fact. Better yet, it could have been labelled as "a DPD
>officer related an eyewitness report..."

>That would, incongruously, be accurate.

To cut the fourth estate some slack, they really didn't
have much time to niggle about with getting everything
perfectly correct.


>> Again, the Star Telegram reporter had very little time to run
>> down the facts of his story, while Wade had the rest of Nov 22,
>> and some of Nov 23.

>That should do it.

Actually, that's truer than you might first think. Generally,
conspiracies are unmasked soon after the first suspect is
arrested. For example, in the WTC bombing, the NYPD/FBI/ATF
found considerable evidence of cnspiracy well within a day of
the first suspect's arrest.

>> LHO's political leanings questionable? Not to Wade on Nov 23. Even
>> the conspiracy mongers like to claim that Oswald was "set up"
>> effectively as a commie, to confuse the likes of Wade and the rest of
>> us (not that I find these assertions very credible). The only
>> person whose house they searched was the only communist they could
>> find who had any chance of a personal link to LHO. Oswald did not
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> have a large number of acquaintences, of course, so it was not
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> hard to start tracking the people around him down.


>Really? Do you mean he did not have a large number of acquaintences
>in Dallas, or in life? Are you representing that Wade, or any other
>investigator, could have determined how widespread Oswald's acquaintences
>were by November 23?

All they would have had to do was interview the Paines, Marina,
LHO's landlady, and Oswald's co-workers to figure out the
extent of his acquaintences in Dallas. They seem to have done that.
All of them would have told the DPD that Oswald had few, if any
friends, and would ahve been able to point these people out.

As for out of town contacts, LHO didn't do anything that would
suggest such a connection. Statements from Oswald's house-mates
indicate that he rarely went anywhere, and when he did it was
generally to Irving. LHO's activity on the phone is similarly
sparse, and seems to have been exclusively directed to Marina
and the Paines.


>>>The notion that Wade had assembled all the necessary evidence and then
>>>logically deduced that a conspiracy was out of the question - in one day - is
>>>patently absurd. This is a clear-cut case of knowing your conclusion before
>>>you begin, and selecting your evidence accordingly.

>If in this statement Chris is implying that Wade or the DPD had any
>knowledge of the events other than what their own resources provided,
>I would tend to disagree. I think the Dallas officials rose to
>their own level of incompetence. Nothing more.

They just didn't have anything to base a conspiracy on.

Put yourself at Dallas City Hall on the morning of Nov 23,
1963. Imagine yourself knowing only what was already known
by the average Joe at that time. Now, you are listening in
to DA Wade and Capt Fritz recieving a summary report from
their chief investigator.

Wade: what have you found about the sniper's nest in the TSBD.

CI: Well, we found a rifle that seems to match with the rifle
that LHO is posing with in the backyard photos. Further,
we found three spent shells for this rifle lying on the
floor of the sniper's nest.

Fritz: What about reports of a rifleman shooting from the
Underpass area?

CI: Well, we haven't heard from anybody who claims to have
seen anyone shooting from the overpass. Some witnesses
think that they heard shots from behind the fence on
the north side of Elm near the railroad tracks, however,
we haven't found any evidence of a gunman there. Further,
witness statements agree that three shots were fired,
and the three shells at the TSBD would account for
all of them. I think we can rule out a second shooter.

Wade: Have you found any suspicious ties between LHO and anyone
else?

CI: We interviewed his wife, the people that she lives with,
his landlady, and his co-workers. All of them say that
he was a loner and had no acquaintences that appear to
be suspicious.

Wade: So we can rule out a conspiracy?

CI: I think so.


Granted that this is just me playing Joe McGuiness, but is this
scenario so hard to beleive?

>> No, it is evidence that Wade and the DPD had found no credible evidence
>> of conspiracy by Nov 23. Hence his statement. No credible evidence
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> of conspiracy has been found since, either.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>Are you saying that of all of the evidence surrounding the assassination
>that might indicate that LHO did not act alone in the manner concluded
>by the WC, that absolutely none of it is credible?

>Or are you saying that there is no such evidence?

>Either way, I find this statement astounding. There is so much involved
>in this case and the people related to the case, and there are so many
>questions about the evidence and its reliability, that I have a hard
>time with any such absolute statement.

Let me rephrse it a bit. There is no credible evidence that points
to a conspiracy that does not also point to a non-conspiracy.

Most of the staunch pro-conspiracy eyewitnesses, Jean Hill for
instance, have major credibility problems and/or their stories
are contradicted by hard evidence. Some of the hard evidence,
such as the z-film, has been interpeted to "prove" a conspiracy,
but on closer inspection, these interpetations are generally
juvenile and are as improbable and convoluted (if not moreso)
as anything that the WC devised.

The chain-of-evidence problems are generally products of
wishful thinking and misinterpetation. For instance, Guinn
told the HSCA that he did not use the same samples for NAA that
the FBI did in 64. Marrs took that to mean that Guinn
said that the fragments that Guinn used were different
than those that existed in '64. Guinn's testimony to
the HSCA discounts such an interpeation.

This is not to say that there is no possibility of a conspiracy.
LHO could well have acted alone in Dealy, but still have been
a part of a plot. The evidence for such a plot, however, seems
to elude us. Further, this also does not say that there is
ironclad proof for each and every contention of the commission
or its supporters. Some aspects of the case are so poorly
understood from a lack of concrete evidence that any explanation
for them is going to be fabricated from the thin cloth of
conjecture and speculation. The Tague shot is the most commonly
seen example of this.

John McAdams

unread,
Oct 6, 1993, 2:54:50 PM10/6/93
to
In article <mssCEG...@netcom.com>,
m...@netcom.com (Mark Singer) writes:

>>
>> No, it is evidence that Wade and the DPD had found no credible evidence
>> of conspiracy by Nov 23. Hence his statement. No credible evidence
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> of conspiracy has been found since, either.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
>
>Are you saying that of all of the evidence surrounding the assassination
>that might indicate that LHO did not act alone in the manner concluded
>by the WC, that absolutely none of it is credible?
>
>Or are you saying that there is no such evidence?
>


Maybe I should go over to the philosophy department sometimes, and see
if I can find somebody who can explain the difference between
"evidence exists, but has no credibility" and "no evidence exists."

I'm sure an analytic philosopher would insist that the statements are
identical in meaning. But maybe I can find an old Jesuit who can give
the jesuitical interpretation. It would probably be more interesting
:-).

.John

Chris Bellomy

unread,
Oct 6, 1993, 9:37:53 PM10/6/93
to
First, I want to repost the original quote that Wade made on November 23.
(From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:)


A question about a possible...conspiracy brought this emphatic reply (from
Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade): "No, it is this man and this
man alone (in reference to Oswald)."

Note his phrasing, as he left no room for doubt. He did not say, "We have
found no evidence of a conspiracy," or even, "At this juncture we feel certain
Oswald acted alone." What the words he *did* use suggest to me is that he was
essentially finished with the investigation. He certainly left himself no room
for error or oversight.

Am I alone in finding this extremely odd?

Anyway...

What we know is that Wade declared, beyond any doubt, that LHO had acted alone
only one day after the shooting. He made this declaration in spite of the
testimony of credible witnesses that shots had been fired from behind the
grassy knoll, before a thorough background check of LHO could have been
completed, and with no discernible reason for making as brash an assertion as
he did.

I see two possible explanations for this behavior:

1: Wade was thoroughly convinced of his case, and was just brash;
2: Wade knew where he wanted to go with the case from the beginning.

(I must leave the computer for now -- check for part two coming soon.)

--Chris

Mark Singer

unread,
Oct 6, 1993, 9:00:24 PM10/6/93
to
In article <6OCT1993...@zeus.tamu.edu> mst...@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>m...@netcom.com (Mark Singer) writes...
>>mst...@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:


>
>>This is not exactly an endorsement of the integrity of the fourth
>>estate. Mind you, I agree.
>
>>I also believe things haven't changed much in past thirty years.
>
> I agree. Just look at ex-Star-Telegram reporter Jim Marrs. ;->

No argument from me, there. Oh. I mean, if I'm allowed to actually
disagree with a particular conspiracy writer and still be unsatisifed
with the Case Closed conclusions.

>
>>That would, incongruously, be accurate.
>
> To cut the fourth estate some slack, they really didn't
> have much time to niggle about with getting everything
> perfectly correct.


You mean, not like Posner who has had thirty years?


But I don't think they deserve slack here. Their job is not to
get "everything perfectly correct". Their job is to be accurate.
If there is speculation, it should be labelled as such. Sources
should be noted, and when protection is required they should at
least be noted in representational, non-specific manner.


I'm not sure exactly what words to use to describe the difference
between responsible journalism and tabloids. From what I've read
ont his thread, I would think the FW Star Telegram was closer to
the latter on this issue.


>>> Again, the Star Telegram reporter had very little time to run
>>> down the facts of his story, while Wade had the rest of Nov 22,
>>> and some of Nov 23.
>
>>That should do it.
>
> Actually, that's truer than you might first think. Generally,
> conspiracies are unmasked soon after the first suspect is
> arrested. For example, in the WTC bombing, the NYPD/FBI/ATF
> found considerable evidence of cnspiracy well within a day of
> the first suspect's arrest.


You're kidding me. You didn't really mean that paragraph, did you?


If you did, duck and cover!

>>> find who had any chance of a personal link to LHO. Oswald did not
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> have a large number of acquaintences, of course, so it was not
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> hard to start tracking the people around him down.
>
>
>>Really? Do you mean he did not have a large number of acquaintences
>>in Dallas, or in life? Are you representing that Wade, or any other
>>investigator, could have determined how widespread Oswald's acquaintences
>>were by November 23?
>
> All they would have had to do was interview the Paines, Marina,
> LHO's landlady, and Oswald's co-workers to figure out the
> extent of his acquaintences in Dallas. They seem to have done that.
> All of them would have told the DPD that Oswald had few, if any
> friends, and would ahve been able to point these people out.

Of course. Because Oswald was an open, honest kind of guy. Wouldn't
conceal anything from his wife. Or his landlady. Or his co-workers.
Of course not.


He had a history of being honest and forthcoming with those "sources",
right?

Or wrong?


>
> As for out of town contacts, LHO didn't do anything that would
> suggest such a connection. Statements from Oswald's house-mates
> indicate that he rarely went anywhere, and when he did it was
> generally to Irving. LHO's activity on the phone is similarly
> sparse, and seems to have been exclusively directed to Marina
> and the Paines.


Where do you get this stuff?

> They just didn't have anything to base a conspiracy on.
>
> Put yourself at Dallas City Hall on the morning of Nov 23,
> 1963. Imagine yourself knowing only what was already known
> by the average Joe at that time. Now, you are listening in
> to DA Wade and Capt Fritz recieving a summary report from
> their chief investigator.

[wonderful dialogue deleted...]


> Granted that this is just me playing Joe McGuiness, but is this
> scenario so hard to beleive?


Not at all. It probably resembles very closely what did happen.

That doesn't exactly validate the DPD and the DA doing what the
"average Joe" would do.

>
> Let me rephrse it a bit. There is no credible evidence that points
> to a conspiracy that does not also point to a non-conspiracy.

But there is evidence that points to a non-conspiracy that does not
also point to a conspiracy?

> This is not to say that there is no possibility of a conspiracy.
> LHO could well have acted alone in Dealy, but still have been
> a part of a plot. The evidence for such a plot, however, seems
> to elude us. Further, this also does not say that there is

^^

It seems to elude *you* and others who are already convinced that
a conspiracy didn't exist.

Open the files. Open your mind. Learn about the intelligence
community that did include LHO at least on its periphery.

Evidence exists. It may not be conclusive of anything, but *we* will
never know until it is examined thoroughly and appropriately. If
you take that opinion to reflect negatively on both of our
government's investigations, you're right.


--
Mark Singer
m...@netcom.com

Chris Bellomy

unread,
Oct 6, 1993, 11:33:05 PM10/6/93
to
I left off earlier with this:

> I see two possible explanations for this behavior:
>
> 1: Wade was thoroughly convinced of his case, and was just brash;
> 2: Wade knew where he wanted to go with the case from the beginning.

Now, I am not going to hypothesize here about which of the two possibilities
above is correct, because to do so is to claim to have this case solved, which
it most certainly is NOT. That it is not solved, in fact, is my point.

The true story behind the assassination of JFK is not *known* to anyone (or at
least not to anyone willing to come forward with it). LHO is dead; Jack Ruby
is dead; Clay Shaw is dead, etc. (I am not trying to assert that Shaw or even
Ruby necessarily knew what happened in Dallas, only that they knew the extent
of their own involvement, whatever that may or may not have been.) The result
is that the story is subject to endless speculation by honest, intelligent
people all over the world, some of whom are faithful followers of this
newsgroup. **No one - not the WC, not the HSCA, not Jim Garrison - no one has
produced a theory that is coherent and consistent enough to gain popular
belief.** After 30 years, we are no closer to achieving a concensus about what
happened that day than those eyewitnesses in Dealey Plaza were.

And Henry Wade had it worked out in *one day*.

Those of you who contend that Wade was correct may find nothing odd about that
at all. You may find that all the speculation that has taken place for the
last 30 years has done nothing to erode what he "accomplished" so quickly. If
so, that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. But I, for one, think a lot
of pertinent questions have arisen that put Wade's conclusion in serious doubt.
That Wade had Oswald tagged as the lone assassin before these questions were
even ASKED strikes me as at best ironic, and at worst suspicious.

--Chris

Chris Bellomy

unread,
Oct 6, 1993, 11:57:07 PM10/6/93
to
In article <mssCEI...@netcom.com>, m...@netcom.com (Mark Singer) writes:
>
> I'm not sure exactly what words to use to describe the difference
> between responsible journalism and tabloids. From what I've read
> ont his thread, I would think the FW Star Telegram was closer to
> the latter on this issue.

Yikes! I should have known better than to trot out the FWST. (Or as we call
it here in FW, the Startle Gram.) MY ONLY POINT in posting their Nov. 22
reports was to emphasize the lack of concensus among eyewitnesses about what
had happened. OF COURSE they should have qualified their statements rather
than pretend that they could verify them. I agree that their reporting was
just good enough for the bird cage; it's just that sometimes there's something
worth considering hidden within the garbage.

> --
> Mark Singer
> m...@netcom.com

-- Chris

Mark Singer

unread,
Oct 6, 1993, 11:58:12 PM10/6/93
to


I'm not into philosophy or theology. I just sometimes cannot
understand the language used. What constitutes "evidence" of a
conspiracy?


There were three separate, unrelated predictions of the assassination.
Between them, they provided the time, location, method and the
assassin. Are they evidence of a conspiracy? If not, why not?
If they are, why are they not credible?

1. Joseph Milteer, on November 9, was recorded telling a
police informant that JFK would be shot from an office
building with a high-powered rifle, and that the
assassination was "in the working".

Granted, Milteer was a right-wing fanatic. But what is
relevant is the source of the information, who happened
to be the Captain of Miami's Police Intelligence Division.
The threat was reported to the FBI and the SS; both
agencies thought enough of the report to investigate
prior to the Dallas trip.

2. Rose Cheramie, on November 20 and again on November 21,
told of two Latins whom she overheard discussing a plot
to kill JFK in Dallas, their destination at that time.

Cheramie was a heroin addict, but the HSCA investigated
her story thoroughly and corroborated many aspects of it.
Again, we can paint Cheramie herself as someone unreliable,
but the statements she made were supported by her doctor
and the arresting officer. Lt. Fruge thought enough of
her story to report it to the DPD, and when they were
uninterested to investigate it himself.

3. Richard Case Nagell, in September 1963, sent a registered
letter to Hoover advising him of a pending plot to kill
JFK that involved Lee Harvey Oswald, whom he further
identified. He predicted the assassination would take
place in late September; that, of course, was proven
incorrect.

Nagell represents he can verify the date of the letter
by the registration receipt if not by the records of
the FBI, who acknowledged the letter was in their
possession by releasing a copy through the FOIA.


These predictions are extraordinary because they included details
that were proven to be accurate, and also because they were communicated
to law enforcement authorities (admittedly, unknowingly in Milteer's
case).


So as I understand your position, either all three of these actions
are not credible, or they are credible and not evidence of a
conspiracy. Which is it?


And why?


--
Mark Singer
m...@netcom.com

Brady Hamilton

unread,
Oct 7, 1993, 12:57:55 PM10/7/93
to
>mst...@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:

>>If in this statement Chris is implying that Wade or the DPD had any
>>knowledge of the events other than what their own resources provided,
>>I would tend to disagree. I think the Dallas officials rose to
>>their own level of incompetence. Nothing more.

They just didn't have anything to base a conspiracy on.

Mitchell -

What a load of tripe! If the scenerio below describes the competency of the DPD, then I'm surprised that they could investigate jaywalking.



Put yourself at Dallas City Hall on the morning of Nov 23,
1963. Imagine yourself knowing only what was already known
by the average Joe at that time. Now, you are listening in
to DA Wade and Capt Fritz recieving a summary report from
their chief investigator.

Wade: what have you found about the sniper's nest in the TSBD.

Ah, Wade has already decided that the TSBD *was* the sniper's nest. Great way
to start an impartial investigation.

CI: Well, we found a rifle that seems to match with the rifle
that LHO is posing with in the backyard photos. Further,
we found three spent shells for this rifle lying on the
floor of the sniper's nest.

Seems to match. Good work, CI. That'll get us a conviction. Hope the defense
attorney doesn't use the "maybe it doesn't" argument, though.



Fritz: What about reports of a rifleman shooting from the
Underpass area?

CI: Well, we haven't heard from anybody who claims to have
seen anyone shooting from the overpass.

We've had our 6 cups of coffee and a dozen doughnuts waiting, but nobody has come
forth yet. Good thing the department doesn't make us actually take a pro-active
approach to this and expect us to *investigate* on our own.


Some witnesses
think that they heard shots from behind the fence on
the north side of Elm near the railroad tracks, however,
we haven't found any evidence of a gunman there.

Well, OK, some people have made claims. But, hell's bells chief, I looked around
the railroad tracks and I didn't see anything. We both know that an assassin
always leaves spent shells, gum wrappers, and business cards behind. And, our
kits for taking plaster casts of footprints is still on loan to Mayberry.
Besides, I walked all over the place and messed them up anyway. Why should I
waste my time by the fence; it's not the "sniper's nest".



Further,
witness statements agree that three shots were fired,

Really? Nobody said anything other than three?

and the three shells at the TSBD would account for
all of them. I think we can rule out a second shooter.

Ironclad innuendo and pretty decent circumstancial evidence. That's usually
enough for a conviction, eh chief? Well, hell, it's good enough for me, anyway.
I mean, look chief, three shells, three shots heard by someone. Where there's
smoke there's fire! Except at the fence.

Wade: Have you found any suspicious ties between LHO and anyone
else?

Nothing suspicious about his tie to Ferry and Bannister; it was a *strong* tie.

CI: We interviewed his wife, the people that she lives with,
his landlady, and his co-workers. All of them say that
he was a loner and had no acquaintences that appear to
be suspicious.

They all looked honest to me. I'm sure that I could find dozens of people that
would swear he is a loner. And, as we all know, that fits our description of an
assassin. And if these fine people don't know of any suspicious aquaintences
of LHO's, then they must not exist.

Wade: So we can rule out a conspiracy?

CI: I think so.

I think the only thing that was ruled out here was an investigation.

Mitchell, I carried an EBI (extensive background investigation) clearance at one
time, just to work on some computer programs for the government. That
investigation took over a month to complete. The agent interviewed my neighbors,
*all* former employers, friends, and people with whom I was working. Each
interview took almost an hour. I have *never* committed a crime, and yet the
level of investigation of me was far greater than what was done by the DPD on
Oswald.

It's exactly that type of scenerio that you describe above that lead some of us to doubt the WC. A seemingly total lack of serious investigation. Hell, the only thing that the NTSB can tell us the day after a plane crash is that it will take at least six months to determine cause. And all they have to investigate is
*physical* evidence. There's no motive, witnesses, or other human factors.
We expected a little more for the murder of the President; we didn't get it.

**************************************************************************
* Brady Hamilton - br...@skylinx16.skylinx.sa.com *
* Scientific-Atlanta, Melbourne FL *
**************************************************************************

Mitchell S Todd

unread,
Oct 7, 1993, 3:01:00 PM10/7/93
to
cbel...@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (Chris Bellomy) writes...

>Those of you who contend that Wade was correct may find nothing odd about that
>at all. You may find that all the speculation that has taken place for the
>last 30 years has done nothing to erode what he "accomplished" so quickly. If
>so, that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. But I, for one, think a lot
>of pertinent questions have arisen that put Wade's conclusion in serious doubt.
>That Wade had Oswald tagged as the lone assassin before these questions were
>even ASKED strikes me as at best ironic, and at worst suspicious.

I assume that Chris is talking about me here. For the sake of arguing
this point, my contention is not that Wade was necessarily correct
about the existence of a conspiracy, but that, based on the evidence
he had at the time, it is quite reasonable to suspect that he found
it possible to rule out a conspiracy, and that his announcement should
not be treated with the sort of jaundiced eye that has been pointed
towards it.

Mitchell S Todd

unread,
Oct 7, 1993, 2:54:00 PM10/7/93
to
m...@netcom.com (Mark Singer) writes...
>mst...@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>>m...@netcom.com (Mark Singer) writes...

>>>That would, incongruously, be accurate.

>> To cut the fourth estate some slack, they really didn't
>> have much time to niggle about with getting everything
>> perfectly correct.

>You mean, not like Posner who has had thirty years?

Posner only had two years, and had to run down far more stories
than the -Telegram reporter. And of course he's not perfect.


>But I don't think they deserve slack here. Their job is not to
>get "everything perfectly correct". Their job is to be accurate.
>If there is speculation, it should be labelled as such. Sources
>should be noted, and when protection is required they should at
>least be noted in representational, non-specific manner.

No, their job is to get the scoop first and sell newspapers.
Obviously, this does not always lead to the most accurate reporting.


>>>> Again, the Star Telegram reporter had very little time to run
>>>> down the facts of his story, while Wade had the rest of Nov 22,
>>>> and some of Nov 23.

>>>That should do it.

>> Actually, that's truer than you might first think. Generally,
>> conspiracies are unmasked soon after the first suspect is
>> arrested. For example, in the WTC bombing, the NYPD/FBI/ATF
>> found considerable evidence of cnspiracy well within a day of
>> the first suspect's arrest.

>You're kidding me. You didn't really mean that paragraph, did you?
>If you did, duck and cover!

Fire away, if you dare.

>>>Really? Do you mean he did not have a large number of acquaintences
>>>in Dallas, or in life? Are you representing that Wade, or any other
>>>investigator, could have determined how widespread Oswald's acquaintences
>>>were by November 23?

>> All they would have had to do was interview the Paines, Marina,
>> LHO's landlady, and Oswald's co-workers to figure out the
>> extent of his acquaintences in Dallas. They seem to have done that.
>> All of them would have told the DPD that Oswald had few, if any
>> friends, and would ahve been able to point these people out.

>Of course. Because Oswald was an open, honest kind of guy. Wouldn't
>conceal anything from his wife. Or his landlady. Or his co-workers.
>Of course not.

While this is a reasonable reply to make, if you read the testimony,
you can understand why it really isn't an appropriate reply.

The interviews of Oswald's housemates reveled that he never went
anywhere other than Irving, and that only on the weekends. Nor
did Oswald make any phone calls, other than to his wife. The Paines
and Marina tell a similar tale, as do the workers at the TSBD.

If Oswald was conspiring with someone to kill JFK, that means that
he has to communicate with them somehow. Further, it means he would
have more than a passing relationship with the other plotters.
The interviews with LHO's associates in Irving, Oak Cliff, and the
TSBD argue strongly that he had very little or no reasonable
opportunity to communicate with the conspiracy, and that he had
no associations other than those already mentioned.

Or was Oswald sitting in his room on Beckley telepathically
chatting with Dave Ferrie in the high ether?


>> As for out of town contacts, LHO didn't do anything that would
>> suggest such a connection. Statements from Oswald's house-mates
>> indicate that he rarely went anywhere, and when he did it was
>> generally to Irving. LHO's activity on the phone is similarly
>> sparse, and seems to have been exclusively directed to Marina
>> and the Paines.

>Where do you get this stuff?

Read the interviews in the WC.


>> Let me rephrse it a bit. There is no credible evidence that points
>> to a conspiracy that does not also point to a non-conspiracy.

>But there is evidence that points to a non-conspiracy that does not
>also point to a conspiracy?

Obviously there has been. The Zapruder film, for instance, has been
interpeted nine ways from Sunday to prove just about anything you
can imagine.

What we're really looking for is some real, hard indication of
a conspiracy, like finding freshly spent rifle shells on the GK,
or seeing a skull defect in the autopsy materials that indicates,
to the exclusion of other interpetations, that a shot came
from somewhere besides the TSBD. The problem with conspiracy
theories is that this kind of thing really doesn't exist.


>> This is not to say that there is no possibility of a conspiracy.
>> LHO could well have acted alone in Dealy, but still have been
>> a part of a plot. The evidence for such a plot, however, seems
>> to elude us. Further, this also does not say that there is
> ^^

>It seems to elude *you* and others who are already convinced that
>a conspiracy didn't exist.

>Open the files. Open your mind. Learn about the intelligence
>community that did include LHO at least on its periphery.

>Evidence exists. It may not be conclusive of anything, but *we* will
>never know until it is examined thoroughly and appropriately. If
>you take that opinion to reflect negatively on both of our
>government's investigations, you're right.

Actually, I used to have more sympathy for the conspiracy theories
than I do know. The more I found out about the hard evidence, the
less appreciation I had for conspiracy charges. The more I began
to read through the original materials, the less I believed in
conspiracy theories. The more I began to put the hard evidence
stuff together, the better the WC looked.

The folks who do conspiracy-related research are by and large
honest slat-of-the-earth folks, but they aren't always equipped
to make some of the conclusions they do, and they often miss
things trying to get the evidence of conspiracy to hang together.
Generally, their theories wear down and fall apart under close
scrutiny. For example, look at Jack White vs. the HSCA photography
panel.

Obviously, there could still be a conspiracy out there. Even if
Oswald was alone in Dealey, it obviously doesn't prove that he
had not plotted with anyone else in the meantime, or that others
were waiting to whisk him away from Dallas. The thing is, the
evidence for such assertions is almost vaporous, once you get down
to it.

Mark Singer

unread,
Oct 7, 1993, 3:08:06 PM10/7/93
to
In article <6OCT1993...@zeus.tamu.edu> mst...@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>
> They just didn't have anything to base a conspiracy on.
>
> Put yourself at Dallas City Hall on the morning of Nov 23,
> 1963. Imagine yourself knowing only what was already known
> by the average Joe at that time. Now, you are listening in
> to DA Wade and Capt Fritz recieving a summary report from
> their chief investigator.
>
> Wade: what have you found about the sniper's nest in the TSBD.
>
> CI: Well, we found a rifle that seems to match with the rifle
> that LHO is posing with in the backyard photos. Further,
> we found three spent shells for this rifle lying on the
> floor of the sniper's nest.
>
> Fritz: What about reports of a rifleman shooting from the
> Underpass area?
>
> CI: Well, we haven't heard from anybody who claims to have
> seen anyone shooting from the overpass. Some witnesses

> think that they heard shots from behind the fence on
> the north side of Elm near the railroad tracks, however,
> we haven't found any evidence of a gunman there. Further,

> witness statements agree that three shots were fired,
> and the three shells at the TSBD would account for
> all of them. I think we can rule out a second shooter.
>
> Wade: Have you found any suspicious ties between LHO and anyone
> else?
>
> CI: We interviewed his wife, the people that she lives with,
> his landlady, and his co-workers. All of them say that
> he was a loner and had no acquaintences that appear to
> be suspicious.


Wade: But he did belong to the Free Cuba committee.

CI: That's Fair Play for Cuba Committee, Mr. Wade. A pro-Castro
group, not an anti-Castro group. Remember? Jack Ruby
corrected you on that point last night.

>
> Wade: So we can rule out a conspiracy?
>
> CI: I think so.
>
>

> Granted that this is just me playing Joe McGuiness, but is this
> scenario so hard to beleive?
>

BTW, from Posner:

"District Attorney Wade said that Oswald belonged to the
'Free Cuba Commitee'. A few reporteres corrected Wade,
pointing out that early press reports said it was Fair
Play for Cuba. (32) Yet one person who spoke from the
back row was not even a reporter, but instead a Dallas
nightclub owner who had sneaked into the press conference.
His name was Jack Ruby. "

Footnote (32) refers to the author's contemporary interview with
former ADA Bill Alexander.

I am unaware of any other reports that it was "a few" reporters
who corrected Wade; my understanding has always been that it was
only Ruby.

I am also unaware of any press reports that could have reflected
this information prior to that press conference, which took place
approximately 12 hours following the assassination. I do know
that there was an FPCC membership in Oswald's wallet, but how
would that information have gotten out in time for a "press
report"?

The obvious and better question is, how would that information
have gotten to Ruby? Posner tries to account for almost every
minute of Ruby's day, and I do not recall anywhere in the book
where Ruby caught "press reports" about Oswald.


(Not to mention that Ruby "sneaked" in. It doesn't seem to me
that he had to sneak anywhere that night.)

> or its supporters. Some aspects of the case are so poorly
> understood from a lack of concrete evidence that any explanation
> for them is going to be fabricated from the thin cloth of
> conjecture and speculation.

Sort of like Posner has done in this example?

--
Mark Singer
m...@netcom.com

Mark Singer

unread,
Oct 7, 1993, 8:24:33 PM10/7/93
to
In article <7OCT1993...@zeus.tamu.edu> mst...@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>m...@netcom.com (Mark Singer) writes...
>>mst...@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>>>m...@netcom.com (Mark Singer) writes...
>
>
>
>>But I don't think they deserve slack here. Their job is not to
>>get "everything perfectly correct". Their job is to be accurate.
>>If there is speculation, it should be labelled as such. Sources
>>should be noted, and when protection is required they should at
>>least be noted in representational, non-specific manner.
>
> No, their job is to get the scoop first and sell newspapers.
> Obviously, this does not always lead to the most accurate reporting.


FALSE. At least, if the FW Star-Telegram represents itself to be
a responsible member of the "press" rather than a tabloid, FALSE.

Some elements of the media have self-imposed standards that are
higher than the procurement of a buck. Your representation of
their "job" is, sadly, a reflection of the goals and priorities
of one subset of the media. If you are including this particular
paper in that subset, fine. But then it doesn't bear discussion on
this newsgroup.

I intended my comment to be a reflection of the responsible press,
which in the wake of the JFK assassination, in general behaved
very irresponsibly. As did this particular newspaper.


>>>>Really? Do you mean he did not have a large number of acquaintences
>>>>in Dallas, or in life? Are you representing that Wade, or any other
>>>>investigator, could have determined how widespread Oswald's acquaintences
>>>>were by November 23?
>
>>> All they would have had to do was interview the Paines, Marina,
>>> LHO's landlady, and Oswald's co-workers to figure out the
>>> extent of his acquaintences in Dallas. They seem to have done that.
>>> All of them would have told the DPD that Oswald had few, if any
>>> friends, and would ahve been able to point these people out.
>
>>Of course. Because Oswald was an open, honest kind of guy. Wouldn't
>>conceal anything from his wife. Or his landlady. Or his co-workers.
>>Of course not.
>
> While this is a reasonable reply to make, if you read the testimony,
> you can understand why it really isn't an appropriate reply.
>
> The interviews of Oswald's housemates reveled that he never went
> anywhere other than Irving, and that only on the weekends. Nor
> did Oswald make any phone calls, other than to his wife. The Paines
> and Marina tell a similar tale, as do the workers at the TSBD.


His landlady was the one who testified about the police car outside
at 1pm, right? And we are supposed to believe that she maintained
sufficient oversight to a border that she would have definitive
knowledge of his nighttime activities?

Marina Oswald has long ago come to the conclusion that her husband
lied to her regarding many issues. While she and Mrs. Paine were
"housemates" prior to the move to New Orleans, he was living in their
house for only a few days following the return to Dallas.

As far as I have read, Oswald had no social contact with any co-workers.

But all of this missed the point of Oswald's acquaintences outside
of Dallas. As in New Orleans. Where huge blocks of his time were
unaccounted for. Or is it inconceivable to you that Oswald in
Dallas was merely following a path outlined in New Orleans?

>
> If Oswald was conspiring with someone to kill JFK, that means that
> he has to communicate with them somehow. Further, it means he would
> have more than a passing relationship with the other plotters.
> The interviews with LHO's associates in Irving, Oak Cliff, and the
> TSBD argue strongly that he had very little or no reasonable
> opportunity to communicate with the conspiracy, and that he had
> no associations other than those already mentioned.


In other words, these associates have accounted for some percentage
of LHO's time. Since they did not testify to anything that wuold
be consistent with a conspiracy during that period of time, we can
extrapolate their experiences to cover 100% of Oswald's time.

Uh-huh. Posnerese.


>
> Or was Oswald sitting in his room on Beckley telepathically
> chatting with Dave Ferrie in the high ether?


Naw. But maybe he was in the company of David Atlee Phillips as
has been reported by an eyewitness.

Maybe he was at the apartment of Ms. Odio.

Another of those acquaintences he didn't have.


>
>
>>> As for out of town contacts, LHO didn't do anything that would
>>> suggest such a connection. Statements from Oswald's house-mates
>>> indicate that he rarely went anywhere, and when he did it was
>>> generally to Irving. LHO's activity on the phone is similarly
>>> sparse, and seems to have been exclusively directed to Marina
>>> and the Paines.
>
>>Where do you get this stuff?
>
> Read the interviews in the WC.

Oh. I forgot. The "authoritative" source on LHO.

> What we're really looking for is some real, hard indication of
> a conspiracy, like finding freshly spent rifle shells on the GK,
> or seeing a skull defect in the autopsy materials that indicates,
> to the exclusion of other interpetations, that a shot came
> from somewhere besides the TSBD. The problem with conspiracy
> theories is that this kind of thing really doesn't exist.
>


And it never will. If its *absence* is proof to you that a
conspiracy didn't exist, then your mind is forever set.

Personally, I don't think we will ever know with any degree of
certainty what happened in Dealy Plaza that afternoon. At least
not any more than we now know. And for some of us, there are
just too many questions remaining about the kind of hard
evidence you reference to accept the apparent conclusion.

But we can know more about Oswald and Ruby, and we should. As
we learn more about these two principals, perhaps we will come
to the same conclusions as did Posner. For some of us, perhaps
not.


>>Open the files. Open your mind. Learn about the intelligence
>>community that did include LHO at least on its periphery.
>
>>Evidence exists. It may not be conclusive of anything, but *we* will
>>never know until it is examined thoroughly and appropriately. If
>>you take that opinion to reflect negatively on both of our
>>government's investigations, you're right.
>
> Actually, I used to have more sympathy for the conspiracy theories
> than I do know. The more I found out about the hard evidence, the
> less appreciation I had for conspiracy charges. The more I began
> to read through the original materials, the less I believed in
> conspiracy theories. The more I began to put the hard evidence
> stuff together, the better the WC looked.

That is a reasonable statement, but the error in it is that it
places total reliance on the "hard evidence". And the problem
with that level of reliance, is that we have since learned that
the investigative bodies were *not* reliable. They have been
revealed to have a history of disinformation and concealment
on many criminal activities, including the JFK assassination.

By placing such a level of reliance on the information that the
agencies revealed, and by not giving same weight to the information
that has subsequently been revealed by other sources, you are
placing yourself in a position of bias. If you want to find
the truth, you have to weigh *all* of the evidence in relation
to the source. The CIA and FBI activities surrounding LHO and
Ruby and New Orleans and Mexico City are indeed relevant. As
we learn more of the truth about them, they continue to cast
the "hard evidence" on which you rely in a dimmer light.

*That* is the problem.


>
> The folks who do conspiracy-related research are by and large
> honest slat-of-the-earth folks, but they aren't always equipped
> to make some of the conclusions they do, and they often miss
> things trying to get the evidence of conspiracy to hang together.
> Generally, their theories wear down and fall apart under close
> scrutiny. For example, look at Jack White vs. the HSCA photography
> panel.


I agree with that, and I plead guilty to treating Posner the same
way. What I encourage everyone I know to do is to stop relying
on particular books or perspectives, and to think it through
themselves. I've only been on this net a short time, and I
understand that you have done a lot of research and given the
matter a lot of thought. So to you I say that you should be
careful about how much reliance you put on the "official"
evidence, and stop grouping the conspiracy with those whom you
believe to be "charlatans" of some type. Read about the CIA
and Mexico City and the FBI oversight of Oswald. Read about
the anti-Castro exiles and Hunt and Sturgis. Give that which
has come out on these topics at least equal weight to what has
been revealed by the "official" sources.


>
> Obviously, there could still be a conspiracy out there. Even if
> Oswald was alone in Dealey, it obviously doesn't prove that he
> had not plotted with anyone else in the meantime, or that others
> were waiting to whisk him away from Dallas. The thing is, the
> evidence for such assertions is almost vaporous, once you get down
> to it.
>
>

One man's vapor is another man's meat.

Have *you* gotten "down to it"?


--
Mark Singer
m...@netcom.com

John McAdams

unread,
Oct 8, 1993, 11:31:05 AM10/8/93
to
In article <1993Oct6...@vaxb.acs.unt.edu>,
cbel...@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (Chris Bellomy) writes:

>First, I want to repost the original quote that Wade made on November 23.
>(From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:)
>
> A question about a possible...conspiracy brought this emphatic reply (from
> Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade): "No, it is this man and this
> man alone (in reference to Oswald)."
>
>Note his phrasing, as he left no room for doubt. He did not say, "We have
>found no evidence of a conspiracy," or even, "At this juncture we feel certain
>Oswald acted alone." What the words he *did* use suggest to me is that he was
>essentially finished with the investigation. He certainly left himself no room
>for error or oversight.
>
>Am I alone in finding this extremely odd?
>


Why don't you ask yourself, for a minute, what conspiratorialists
would be saying if Wade had given anything less than an unequivocal
denial of a conspiracy.

They would be saying "see, even Henry Wade had reason to doubt the
'official version' of Oswald as the lone gunman!"

Just a few days ago somebody posted on this board a claim that "J.
Edgar Hoover had doubts about Oswald in Mexico City."

So if anybody in an official capacity has "doubts" about Oswald as the
lone gunman, that's evidence of a conspiracy.

But if somebody in an official capacity expresses *no doubts* about
Oswald being the lone gunman, *that too* is evidence of a conspiracy.

It's a game called You Can't Win.

It's conspiratorialists favorite game.

It's the tipoff to the fact that *anything* will be interpreted by
conspiratorialists as sinister. They are fundamentally starting with
the *assumption* that there was a conspiracy, and forcing all evidence
into that mould.

IOW, the notion of a conspiracy is non-falsifiable, given the
methodology of conspiratorialists.

>Anyway...
>
>What we know is that Wade declared, beyond any doubt, that LHO had acted alone
>only one day after the shooting. He made this declaration in spite of the
>testimony of credible witnesses that shots had been fired from behind the
>grassy knoll, before a thorough background check of LHO could have been
>completed, and with no discernible reason for making as brash an assertion as
>he did.
>


Nobody said that "shots had been fired from behind the grassy knoll."

A fair number of people said they thought the shots came from the
direction of the knoll. A larger number said from the direction of
the TSBD. Only a tiny handful though the shots came from two
directions.

The only people who claimed to have seen a gunman saw him in the TSBD.


.John

John McAdams

unread,
Oct 8, 1993, 2:07:10 PM10/8/93
to
In article <mssCEI...@netcom.com>,
m...@netcom.com (Mark Singer) writes:

>>>
>>>Are you saying that of all of the evidence surrounding the assassination
>>>that might indicate that LHO did not act alone in the manner concluded
>>>by the WC, that absolutely none of it is credible?
>>>
>>>Or are you saying that there is no such evidence?
>>>
>>
>>Maybe I should go over to the philosophy department sometimes, and see
>>if I can find somebody who can explain the difference between
>>"evidence exists, but has no credibility" and "no evidence exists."
>>
>>I'm sure an analytic philosopher would insist that the statements are
>>identical in meaning. But maybe I can find an old Jesuit who can give
>>the jesuitical interpretation. It would probably be more interesting
>>:-).
>>
>
>
>I'm not into philosophy or theology. I just sometimes cannot
>understand the language used. What constitutes "evidence" of a
>conspiracy?
>

I was just trying to say that I don't see any difference between there
being "evidence, but none of it is credible" and there being "no
evidence." If it isn't credible, it isn't really evidence.


>
>There were three separate, unrelated predictions of the assassination.
>Between them, they provided the time, location, method and the
>assassin. Are they evidence of a conspiracy? If not, why not?
>If they are, why are they not credible?
>
>
>
>1. Joseph Milteer, on November 9, was recorded telling a
> police informant that JFK would be shot from an office
> building with a high-powered rifle, and that the
> assassination was "in the working".
>
> Granted, Milteer was a right-wing fanatic. But what is
> relevant is the source of the information, who happened
> to be the Captain of Miami's Police Intelligence Division.
> The threat was reported to the FBI and the SS; both
> agencies thought enough of the report to investigate
> prior to the Dallas trip.
>

Well, he first said Kennedy would be shot in Miami, and when that
didn't happen said Dallas.

If it hadn't happened in Dallas, he doubtless would have then named
the next city Kennedy was to visit.

And after Kennedy was shot, Milteer "explained" what had happened. He
said the the "patriots" (me meant right-wingers) had infiltrated a
communist group, and had the communists do it.

Good for the "patriots" since they would get off scot free.

Does this sound to you like a plausible account of what happened?


>2. Rose Cheramie, on November 20 and again on November 21,
> told of two Latins whom she overheard discussing a plot
> to kill JFK in Dallas, their destination at that time.
>
> Cheramie was a heroin addict, but the HSCA investigated
> her story thoroughly and corroborated many aspects of it.
> Again, we can paint Cheramie herself as someone unreliable,
> but the statements she made were supported by her doctor
> and the arresting officer. Lt. Fruge thought enough of
> her story to report it to the DPD, and when they were
> uninterested to investigate it himself.
>


To begin with, Cheramie said some impossible things. She not only
said that both Oswald and Ruby were homosexuals (possible) but that
they had been "shacking up for years."

Oswald hadn't been in Dallas for "years."

Cheramie tried to be an FBI informant. But the FBI found that she
couldn't supply any useful information.

Then there is the basic question of whether two real assassins would
pal around with a prostitute, tell her about a plot to kill Kennedy,
and then just toss her out of a car.

Did they want her to go tell somebody? Would they have had scruples
about killing her to keep her quiet?

>3. Richard Case Nagell, in September 1963, sent a registered
> letter to Hoover advising him of a pending plot to kill
> JFK that involved Lee Harvey Oswald, whom he further
> identified. He predicted the assassination would take
> place in late September; that, of course, was proven
> incorrect.
>
> Nagell represents he can verify the date of the letter
> by the registration receipt if not by the records of
> the FBI, who acknowledged the letter was in their
> possession by releasing a copy through the FOIA.
>
>

Nagell didn't make the cut as a credible witness for *Jim Garrison.*

Garrison, you will remember is the guy who gave us Perry Russo, and
the New York accountant who had been fingerprinting his children
because he thought some conspiracy was substituting ringers to spy on
him.

Garrison put both of these people on the stand! But not Nagell.

>
>
>These predictions are extraordinary because they included details
>that were proven to be accurate, and also because they were communicated
>to law enforcement authorities (admittedly, unknowingly in Milteer's
>case).
>

And they included lots of absurd and nonsensical stuff.

>
>So as I understand your position, either all three of these actions
>are not credible, or they are credible and not evidence of a
>conspiracy. Which is it?
>
>

Not credible.

When I find conspiratorialists rattling off "evidence" such as this, I'm
reminded of the old story of a lawyer whose client was accused of
borrowing a pot and returning it cracked.

In his opening address to the jury he explained why it should acquit
his client:

"Ladies and gentlemen, my client is innocent. He never borrowed that
pot. Further, ladies and gentlemen, the pot was already cracked when
he borrowed it. Finally, I intend to prove conclusively that my
client returned the pot in perfect condition. The only possible
verdict it 'not guilty.'"

Have you ever tried thinking about whether all these accounts of
people with "foreknowledge" are consistent, rather than mutually
contradictory?


.John

Mitchell S Todd

unread,
Oct 8, 1993, 4:48:00 PM10/8/93
to
m...@netcom.com (Mark Singer) writes...
>mst...@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>>m...@netcom.com (Mark Singer) writes...

>>>But I don't think they deserve slack here. Their job is not to
>>>get "everything perfectly correct". Their job is to be accurate.
>>>If there is speculation, it should be labelled as such. Sources
>>>should be noted, and when protection is required they should at
>>>least be noted in representational, non-specific manner.

>> No, their job is to get the scoop first and sell newspapers.
>> Obviously, this does not always lead to the most accurate reporting.

>FALSE. At least, if the FW Star-Telegram represents itself to be
>a responsible member of the "press" rather than a tabloid, FALSE.

>Some elements of the media have self-imposed standards that are
>higher than the procurement of a buck. Your representation of
>their "job" is, sadly, a reflection of the goals and priorities
>of one subset of the media. If you are including this particular
>paper in that subset, fine. But then it doesn't bear discussion on
>this newsgroup.

>I intended my comment to be a reflection of the responsible press,
>which in the wake of the JFK assassination, in general behaved
>very irresponsibly. As did this particular newspaper.

Mark, what color is the sky in your world?

Regular newspapers obvoiusly try to be responsible in the
printing of their stories. Otherwise, people stop buying them.
However, there is tremendous pressure to "get the scoop."
Often, this pressure results in incorrect information being
reported. That's how you get things like the Washington Post
retracting a Pulitzer-winning feature, admitting that the
story was essentially a fabrication. It's also how you get
things like the Hitler diary, or the reports that Jim Brady
was killed in 1981.


>>>> All they would have had to do was interview the Paines, Marina,
>>>> LHO's landlady, and Oswald's co-workers to figure out the
>>>> extent of his acquaintences in Dallas. They seem to have done that.
>>>> All of them would have told the DPD that Oswald had few, if any
>>>> friends, and would ahve been able to point these people out.

>>>Of course. Because Oswald was an open, honest kind of guy. Wouldn't
>>>conceal anything from his wife. Or his landlady. Or his co-workers.
>>>Of course not.

>> The interviews of Oswald's housemates reveled that he never went

>> anywhere other than Irving, and that only on the weekends. Nor
>> did Oswald make any phone calls, other than to his wife. The Paines
>> and Marina tell a similar tale, as do the workers at the TSBD.

>His landlady was the one who testified about the police car outside
>at 1pm, right? And we are supposed to believe that she maintained
>sufficient oversight to a border that she would have definitive
>knowledge of his nighttime activities?

She didn't start the police car thing until Aynesworth
interviewd her.

While she probably cannot be expected to account for every minute
of Oswald's time, her testimony indicates that he stayed home all
the time, except for when he went to Irving on the weekend. This
does not argue conclusively against conspiracy, but it argues
strongly against it. LHO would have had to have had more than a
passing relationship with whoever he would have plotted with
(would you want to plot the death of a president with a complete
stranger, and would you form a conspiracy with not plan?),
which indicates that he would need a noticable amount of contact
with this person or persons.

>Marina Oswald has long ago come to the conclusion that her husband
>lied to her regarding many issues. While she and Mrs. Paine were
>"housemates" prior to the move to New Orleans, he was living in their
>house for only a few days following the return to Dallas.

Still, they account for Oswald's activities on the wekends.


>As far as I have read, Oswald had no social contact with any co-workers.

>But all of this missed the point of Oswald's acquaintences outside
>of Dallas. As in New Orleans. Where huge blocks of his time were
>unaccounted for. Or is it inconceivable to you that Oswald in
>Dallas was merely following a path outlined in New Orleans?

At the least, the details of the trip to Dallas were unfinalized
when LHO moved back ot Texas. At the most, any band of plotters
would have been totally unaware of such a trip. How could they have
plotted for it? Even if they had known, LHO would have had to expect
finding employment at the TSBD, or at least somewhere overlooking
the motorcade route. How likely do you find that? Further, Oswald's
"conenctions" begin to fall apart under close scrutiny --that's
*exactly* why the Clay Shaw trial failed so dismally.


>> If Oswald was conspiring with someone to kill JFK, that means that
>> he has to communicate with them somehow. Further, it means he would
>> have more than a passing relationship with the other plotters.
>> The interviews with LHO's associates in Irving, Oak Cliff, and the
>> TSBD argue strongly that he had very little or no reasonable
>> opportunity to communicate with the conspiracy, and that he had
>> no associations other than those already mentioned.

>In other words, these associates have accounted for some percentage
>of LHO's time. Since they did not testify to anything that wuold
>be consistent with a conspiracy during that period of time, we can
>extrapolate their experiences to cover 100% of Oswald's time.

>Uh-huh. Posnerese.

You don't need 100% of Oswald's time. By the morning of Nov 23
1963, Wade did not know of any people that LHO was associated
with who could have been implicated in plot. Further, witness
testimony notes that LHO didn't ever seem to go anywhere, or
call or otherwise consort with some suspicious character.
What do you think Wade would conclude?


>> Or was Oswald sitting in his room on Beckley telepathically
>> chatting with Dave Ferrie in the high ether?

>Naw. But maybe he was in the company of David Atlee Phillips as
>has been reported by an eyewitness.

Marilyn Monroe was seen with Elvis by an eyewitness just a few
days ago, too.


>Maybe he was at the apartment of Ms. Odio.

As Sylvia Odio said after the assassination. If you look at how the
FBI got hold of the story, you might well be less impressed.
Sylvia, she says, would not tell the FBI for fear if the story got
out, she would be killed. So she told the whole neighborhood about
the meeting. Kind of odd, isn't it? Odio does not inspire much
confidence.


>> What we're really looking for is some real, hard indication of
>> a conspiracy, like finding freshly spent rifle shells on the GK,
>> or seeing a skull defect in the autopsy materials that indicates,
>> to the exclusion of other interpetations, that a shot came
>> from somewhere besides the TSBD. The problem with conspiracy
>> theories is that this kind of thing really doesn't exist.

>And it never will. If its *absence* is proof to you that a
>conspiracy didn't exist, then your mind is forever set.

Mark, please take a reading comprehension course. Or read what I've
bee posting with more care. I've noted that there is always the
possibility of a conspiracy, even if LHO acted alone. However
I find that the "evidence" of the usual conspiracies is rumor
compounded by willful interpetation. For the most part, the
conspiracies that are generally proffered become so convoluted
and arbitrary that I find little reason to believe in them.


>Personally, I don't think we will ever know with any degree of
>certainty what happened in Dealy Plaza that afternoon. At least
>not any more than we now know. And for some of us, there are
>just too many questions remaining about the kind of hard
>evidence you reference to accept the apparent conclusion.

And which questions are those? The critical community used to use
the hard stuff to note discrepencies in the WC. Later, as files
and records, and especially the autopsy materials were released
and studied, they supported the WC, at least at the most basic
level. Then the critics began to start claiming that everything was
forged, etc etc. Once you begin to look into things, then the
forged evidence accusations fall away.

>>>Evidence exists. It may not be conclusive of anything, but *we* will
>>>never know until it is examined thoroughly and appropriately. If
>>>you take that opinion to reflect negatively on both of our
>>>government's investigations, you're right.

>> Actually, I used to have more sympathy for the conspiracy theories
>> than I do know. The more I found out about the hard evidence, the
>> less appreciation I had for conspiracy charges. The more I began
>> to read through the original materials, the less I believed in
>> conspiracy theories. The more I began to put the hard evidence
>> stuff together, the better the WC looked.

>That is a reasonable statement, but the error in it is that it
>places total reliance on the "hard evidence". And the problem
>with that level of reliance, is that we have since learned that
>the investigative bodies were *not* reliable. They have been
>revealed to have a history of disinformation and concealment
>on many criminal activities, including the JFK assassination.

The hard evidence can be easily checked. If photos are forged,
then the forgeries can be unmasked with little trouble. If
CE399 did not produce the fragments found in Connelly, then
NAA should show that. If autopsy x-rays are not of JFK, then
they should show that. The HSCA went a long way to do this, and
the HSCA is important not only because they went to so much trouble
to asertain the authenticity of the evidence, but because they
went to great lengths to show why and how they made their conclusions.
Other, idenpendent bodies have perfomed in a similar vein, like
the Baltimore Globe's panel of photo experts, of Failure Analysis
Associates.

The hard evidence is the *most* important, since it is by far the
least suseptible to distortions in the perceptive lens. It can
also be tested for verity much better than can eyewitness reports.
For these reasons, the hard evidence is the core of any case you
can make.

>By placing such a level of reliance on the information that the
>agencies revealed, and by not giving same weight to the information
>that has subsequently been revealed by other sources, you are
>placing yourself in a position of bias. If you want to find
>the truth, you have to weigh *all* of the evidence in relation
>to the source. The CIA and FBI activities surrounding LHO and
>Ruby and New Orleans and Mexico City are indeed relevant. As
>we learn more of the truth about them, they continue to cast
>the "hard evidence" on which you rely in a dimmer light.

>*That* is the problem.

The thing is that each bit of evidence should be weighed on
it's own merits. Much of the evidence produced in the intervening
years has fallen through the cracks, the product of undue speculation,
tall-tale-telling, misinterpetation, and similar follies.


>> The folks who do conspiracy-related research are by and large
>> honest slat-of-the-earth folks, but they aren't always equipped
>> to make some of the conclusions they do, and they often miss
>> things trying to get the evidence of conspiracy to hang together.
>> Generally, their theories wear down and fall apart under close
>> scrutiny. For example, look at Jack White vs. the HSCA photography
>> panel.

>I agree with that, and I plead guilty to treating Posner the same
>way.

And it should be. Posner isn't perfect, doesn't always tell you
everything, etc. He does have perhaps the most complete LHO
biography anyone's ever done, including the book by Robert Oswald.
Not all of his witnesses are reliable (I wouldn't believe Gordon
Novel if he told me that the sky was blue. I'd also count my fingers
if I ever shook hands with the man). Posner should get credit
for running down several important stories, like the "VD in the
line of duty" thing.


>What I encourage everyone I know to do is to stop relying
>on particular books or perspectives, and to think it through
>themselves. I've only been on this net a short time, and I
>understand that you have done a lot of research and given the
>matter a lot of thought. So to you I say that you should be
>careful about how much reliance you put on the "official"
>evidence

The official story always needs a careful reading. If they don't
have it right, it shows, although it make take some elbow grease
to take the gloss off the story.

>and stop grouping the conspiracy with those whom you believe to be
>"charlatans" of some type.

Well, the conspiracy would have to be a load of charletans, wouldn't
they?

Actually, most of the work done after 1975 is inferior. In some cases
it's because the authors are out of their element, as Kurtz obviously
is in Crime of the Century. Others, like Mark Lane, are not to be
trusted at all. Harrison Livingstone seems to be skirting the bounds
of reality.


>Read about the CIA
>and Mexico City and the FBI oversight of Oswald. Read about
>the anti-Castro exiles and Hunt and Sturgis. Give that which
>has come out on these topics at least equal weight to what has
>been revealed by the "official" sources.

I give any story the weight it *deserves*. Don't beleive anything
the government says, conversly, don't believe everything people
say about the government.


>> Obviously, there could still be a conspiracy out there. Even if
>> Oswald was alone in Dealey, it obviously doesn't prove that he
>> had not plotted with anyone else in the meantime, or that others
>> were waiting to whisk him away from Dallas. The thing is, the
>> evidence for such assertions is almost vaporous, once you get down
>> to it.

>One man's vapor is another man's meat.

But the vaporvore usually starves in short order.

>Have *you* gotten "down to it"?

I get down to it bit by bit. There's a huge amount of stuff out there,
I mean, really huge. My own specialty is the hard evidence. For the most
part, I have run down complaints about the hard evidence, the various
claims about what it means, and outside information related to the
HE. So far, the critics have tumbled. Then again, the official versions
have had "conclusions" picked off.

Tommy Usher

unread,
Oct 11, 1993, 5:04:00 AM10/11/93
to
In article <00973B65...@vms.csd.mu.edu>,
6489mc...@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams) writes:

JM> Well, he first said Kennedy would be shot in Miami, and when that
JM> didn't happen said Dallas.

John, listen very carefully. I am only going to say this once. When
Kennedy came to Miami, they made changes in the plans because of
security. He was taken by helicopter rather than motorcade. Miami
escaped being the city where Kennedy died, not because Milteer was
wrong, but possibly because someone thought he was right.

JM> If it hadn't happened in Dallas, he doubtless would have then named
JM> the next city Kennedy was to visit.

This shows that you have no interest in the truth, only in proving the
WR to be true.

JM> And after Kennedy was shot, Milteer "explained" what had happened. He
JM> said the the "patriots" (me meant right-wingers) had infiltrated a
JM> communist group, and had the communists do it.

JM> Good for the "patriots" since they would get off scot free.

JM> Does this sound to you like a plausible account of what happened?

Given Oswald's background, the clear fact that he was involved, the
questions surrounding his own possible involvement, etc. Yes, it
sounds quite plausible. Far more plausible than the SBT in fact.
I don't think Milteer knew as much as he thought he did. I think he
had involvment at the fringes. But he knew enough.

JM> And they included lots of absurd and nonsensical stuff.

Not in Milteer's case. You just don't want to admit that there is even
the hint of a possiblity that the WC was wrong.

---
. SLMR 2.1a . "You summoned me, Captain?" asked T. Earl Grey, hotly.

Chris Bellomy

unread,
Oct 11, 1993, 10:30:44 PM10/11/93
to
>> = Chris Bellomy (me)
> = John McAdams

>>First, I want to repost the original quote that Wade made on November 23.
>>(From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:)
>>
>> A question about a possible...conspiracy brought this emphatic reply (from
>> Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade): "No, it is this man and this
>> man alone (in reference to Oswald)."
>>
>>Note his phrasing, as he left no room for doubt. He did not say, "We have
>>found no evidence of a conspiracy," or even, "At this juncture we feel certain
>>Oswald acted alone." What the words he *did* use suggest to me is that he was
>>essentially finished with the investigation. He certainly left himself no room
>>for error or oversight.
>>
>>Am I alone in finding this extremely odd?
>
> Why don't you ask yourself, for a minute, what conspiratorialists
> would be saying if Wade had given anything less than an unequivocal
> denial of a conspiracy.
>
> They would be saying "see, even Henry Wade had reason to doubt the
> 'official version' of Oswald as the lone gunman!"

Huh? Either of the quotes that I mentioned earlier would have sufficed to
convince me of Wade's beliefs without causing suspicion. And what is it with
the way you dismiss all conspiracy theorists with such
recklessness? I see no reason for you to keep your flame thrower with you at
all times, John. In fact it diminishes whatever good points you make.



> So if anybody in an official capacity has "doubts" about Oswald as the
> lone gunman, that's evidence of a conspiracy.
>
> But if somebody in an official capacity expresses *no doubts* about
> Oswald being the lone gunman, *that too* is evidence of a conspiracy.
>
> It's a game called You Can't Win.
>
> It's conspiratorialists favorite game.

Bullshit. You're foaming at the mouth here.



>>Anyway...
>>
>>What we know is that Wade declared, beyond any doubt, that LHO had acted alone
>>only one day after the shooting. He made this declaration in spite of the
>>testimony of credible witnesses that shots had been fired from behind the
>>grassy knoll, before a thorough background check of LHO could have been
>>completed, and with no discernible reason for making as brash an assertion as
>>he did.
>
> Nobody said that "shots had been fired from behind the grassy knoll."
>
> A fair number of people said they thought the shots came from the
> direction of the knoll. A larger number said from the direction of
> the TSBD. Only a tiny handful though the shots came from two
> directions.

"Direction of the knoll." Excuse me.

> .John

--Chris

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages