Serious question for JFK assassination conspiracists

[SDuderstadt]

What would it take to convince you that LHO was the shooter and acted alone?

[BobbyBoring]

1. Dude, The same thing it would take

For me to believe the official story of 9/11. An honest debunking of all evidence to the contrary!

[SDuderstadt]

2. I already gave you one...

and all the other "evidence to the contrary" has been repeatedly debunked. Are you open to it?

I'll rebut anything you throw at me.

[BobbyBoring]

3. I'm missing something

You gave me what?

[SDuderstadt]

4. I debunked the...

"fighter jets were not scrambled" myth in the PCR "article".

[BobbyBoring]

5. OK

How about the buildings collapsing and fires burning for months in WT 1 and 2? Building 7 was never hit and collapsed in free fall

How about countless pilots with 1,000s of Hrs. in 757s 767s unable to hit buildings in sims? The "plane" that hit the second tower could not have made the turn it made due to compression. At the speed they said it was going, the control surfaces would do nothing.

How about no 757 at the Pentagram or in Ohio?

How about the angle cut beams in all towers and traces of thermite?

How about all the explosions heard by police and firemen in the sub floors after the crash?

How about all the put options on American and United days before 9/11?

I got plenty more!

[SDuderstadt]

6. Dude...

I am not going to refute a date dump.

One claim at a time:

There are 100+ eyewitnesses who saw the American Airlines jetliner hit the Pentagon.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/sgydk.html

[BobbyBoring]

12. Not so!

How many of those listed "SAW" a plane hit the Pentagram?

Go here and read a bit http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

[SDuderstadt]

13. Oh, bullshit...

100+ people (that we know of) didn't imagine they saw AA 77 hit the Pentagon.

Sorry, dude. Not buying it.

[BobbyBoring]

14. Try this then

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=49&MMN_position=80:80

[SDuderstadt]

15. Dude...

The beams were cut by workers at that angle during the cleanup. You have no pictures taken before the cleanup that show them like that.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRUTNpC1WMcFrf_4dMchP8bOtRuXUBantw6QI5cXo-NjbgbBgmm

[Nathan_Hale]

7. It would take a....

..more cogent explanation than offered in Gregory Douglas book, Regicide.

This book is KISS.

Perpetrators: CIA's mafia connections est. probably during planning of Sicily invasion '43. Several shooters, from Marseille, front & back. Only one of them gets away from their handlers and avoids the crab pots.

CIA's motive: CIA discovered through laid traps that Jack and Bobby were corresponding directly with Moscow, this started, wholly unannounced, after the missile crisis. To the truest of capitalist cold warriors (was not the OSS just Donovan's cronies from the Big Board after all?), this was treason. And, it bypassed them. Not good. Stature endangered. Backlash.

Why I believe this account.

1. Douglas' (alleged) information from ex CIA Exec Robert Crowley has never been disproven
2. Crowley's account throughout the narrative remains consistent and presents rather simple scenarios
3. Crowley's account does correspond on some accounts to know public information (some of his remarks in the transcript wander...)
4. The existence of a KGB accounting of the assassination and its events is certainly plausible and reading it certainly seems to have a non-English source but nevertheless parallels Crowley's account, albeit without details.
5. I have known many of Crowley's generation, some very closely, and they all shared that tight-lipped patriotic secret, whatever detail it might contain. That these men of this generation would view something as stated in the book as treason, I wouldn't expect otherwise.

On a side note,
I'm in D.C. TDY right now and finally took the time to go through Arlington Cemetery after having gone by or done other stuff until now. Heading to Kennedy's grave one is first awed by the huge green meadow leading up to Robert E. Lee's house. The mind swirls through that strange and tragic history, Lee laying down his commission and riding south. Suddenly you are in front of the steps and a shiver runs your spine. Your chest swells and your head feels heavy and as you step out on top for the first time, it just breaks loose, and you cry there in the hot sun behind your Ray Bans, not looking up because it's your relationship to the man, then, at that point in time.

Peace.

[Nathan_Hale]

8. forgot....

...at least one apostrophe there...

[k-robjoe]

9. Something that struck me yesterday

I was watching this clip from CBS :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRljtjQIg_8 ( 2 min )

What struck me is ; If there was only one shooter, why would he fire three shots in such a hurry?

If there was only one shooter, wouldn´t he have taken the extra second or two to aim properly? It seems to me that all the tests are establishing that it is possible to fire three shots in those six seconds or so. And I haven´t seen anyone asking the question ; Why would he fire three shots so rapidly that there´s no time for aiming?

It´s not like the shooter knows that it´s going to take three shots.

Ofcourse, you could say that the shooter doesn´t know that his target will not duck down at any moment...

But even so, he would need to aim...

[LARED]

10. A wild thought here

Maybe LHO thought that the once he fired the first shot, people might hear the rifle shot and take cover. Or if he missed but hit something or someone close it might not give him time to aim again.

[k-robjoe]

11. People might take cover

I wrote that Kennedy might "duck down" at any point.

Seems to me that your "wild thought" isn´t all that wild. Just repeating what I allready said.

Edit : But there is still a big difference. The shooters in the test know that they are going to fire three shots, very rapidly.

But a "single shooter" would not know that he was going to fire three shots. He would be thinking that he would get one shot, and would have to hit. So after firing the first shot, he would have to get the target back in the scope. And he doesn´t even know if the target is still in the same place, or if it is still in sight at all. ( He doesn´t know if a second shot is needed. ) Very different from the tests, where the shooters know that they are going to fire three times, very rapidly, and they know where the target will be.

[k-robjoe]

18. New link

The videoclip was "removed by user". But the same clip came up again at this link :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWb8G80G3B8

---------

Another interesting clip :

"FBI Agent Frank O'Neill demonstrates JFK head wound"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSU0w_rI-Dg

[JackRiddler]

16. As an empiricist & not a "conspiracist," the question's not aimed for me, but just to play...

I think a bad head trauma, some North Korean torture sessions, or late-stage Alzheimer's might cause me to believe in the fictional reality that you seem to prefer.

[SDuderstadt]

17. Thanks for admitting your lack of open-mindedness and the

gratuitous smear, dude.

Let us know when you blow the lid off this thing.

[Ter]

19. It would take Jesus Himself coming down and telling me LHO acted alone

What would it take for you to believe in the Ancient Astronaut theory? It's insanity to believe the pyramids (and many, many other things) were build by primitive humans. We had help.

[SDuderstadt]

20. Dude...

If Jesus himself came down and told you that LHO acted, you'd think to yourself, "Damn...they got to him, too!".

[spooked911]

21. Dude-- you can't put the genie back in the bottle

clearly, it was a major conspiracy, the only way one would believe LHO acted alone would be by ignoring oodles of evidence. Which is what you and others do here, routinely.

[SDuderstadt]

22. Spooked...

5 investigations have all concluded that LHO killed JFK.

Your fantasies are not investigations.

[William Seger]

24. Baloney

As someone once said, all of the evidence that would be conclusive if it were true is doubtful, and all of the evidence that isn't in doubt just isn't conclusive of a conspiracy. I've been a "JFK conspiracist" myself (twice actually), so I can understand why some people consider it a possibility, but anyone who thinks the evidence is conclusive is simply not being realistic. In the end, CTs always seem to fall short of what would be required, while the case against LHO remains solid. This is why the history books still say LHO was the lone assassin, and if JFK CTists can't make a better case than the "grassy knoll" horseshit, then I think they need to get over it and find something productive to do with their time.

[spooked911]

41. the case against LHO is solid because the govt supports that case

and few people say Oswald was purely innocent in the affair. And lots of researchers have moved on past the "grassy knoll".

The question is, was LHO the killer gunman, did he act alone without any governmental connections, and the answer is very clearly no.

[SDuderstadt]

42. Dude...

Five separate investigations (Warren, Clark, Rockefeller, Church and HSCA) have all confused otherwise.

Enough.

[spooked911]

43. "confused otherwise"?

Freudian slip there? :)


In any case, is there any doubt that if members of the US govt ran five investigations into 9/11, that they would all conclude that Al Qaeda did it by hijacking planes?

The JFK legend and the 9/11 legend are not going to be toppled by govt investigations.

[SDuderstadt]

45. Nope...

stupid HTC EVO phone tries to "guess" what I am writing.

Spooked, do you honestly believe none of those entities wanted to get to the bottom of the assassination? Look up "genetic fallacy"

[spooked911]

47. I like your phone's translation, anyway. Seems more appropriate.

Anyway, the whole point is that govt agents control the outcome of these investigations. It's not that there aren't some honest people on the committees who want to do good work, the point is that they are blocked from the truth, or misled from the truth, by agents. Or the honest ones may even be personally threatened about going too far.

If govt institutions are complicit in a crime, then you simply can't trust them to investigate the crime.

[SDuderstadt]

48. More bullshit...

Spooked.

The committees themselves control the investigations.

[BobbyBoring]

44. All 5 of those

had an interest in the outcome Dood!

[SDuderstadt]

46. Oh, please...

You are smearing those committees and their staffs.

You are also smearing Ted Kennedy who unequivocally stated his belief in the Warren Committee's findings in his memoir.

[spooked911]

23. actually, probably it would take what they did to you

I'm guessing a lobotomy and several decades of mainstream media propaganda.

:)

[AntiFascist]

25. LHO could have been a lone shooter and still be part of a conspiracy...

your post deflects from the mass of evidence, much of which is still kept under wraps, that LHO had connections to anti-Castro elements of the CIA, working under cover as a pro-Marxist. Also, was LHO the lone gunman in the shooting of (at) Gen. Edwin Walker? LHO could not drive, yet 2 men were witnessed driving away from that scene.

[SDuderstadt]

26. "much of which is still under wraps" = CTspeak for...

"I don't really have any evidence of this, so I'll just claim it is being 'kept' from us".

[AntiFascist]

28. Let's analyze some facts....

1. The CIA witheld valuable evidence from both the Warren Commission and the HSCA related to anti-Castro operations. This information is still being witheld today because, they claim, it would disclose too much information to our enemies about CIA methodology. If you don't believe me then maybe you'll believe G. Robert Blakey's 2003 addendum to his interview by the ever so CT-ish website: pbs.org

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/interviews/blakey.html#addendum

2. While both the CIA and the Mafia were investigated as potential conspiratorial entities, information was witheld about programs where the CIA and Mafia actually overlapped. It seems like Blakey had no clue about these.

3. The HSCA actually concluded that there likely was a conspiracy consisting of rogue elements from these various factions. What ties them together? The answers may be found from the earliest investgations conducted by Jim Garrison possibly under the direction of RFK, pointing toward right-wing paramilitary organizations based around New Orleans.

[SDuderstadt]

29. Please prove claim #3...

The HSCA did no such thing and specifically concluded that neither the CIA nor the Mafia had anything to do with it. Now, you're just making shit up.

[AntiFascist]

31. I never said that the CIA or the Mafia were directly responsible...

only that small, rogue factions of these organizations may have been involved. From the conclusions:

"Aspects of the investigation did suggest that the conspiracy may have been relatively limited, but to state with precision exactly how small was not possible. Other aspects of the committee's investigation did suggest, however, that while the conspiracy may not have involved a major group, it may not have been limited to only two people. These aspects of the committee's investigation are discussed elsewhere."

[SDuderstadt]

32. Dude...

I'm not going to waste the rest of the weekend quibbling with you about this.

Let us know when you blow the lid off this thing.

[AntiFascist]

34. SDude is giving up?

That's a first!

[SDuderstadt]

36. No, dude...

blowing you off.

[SDuderstadt]

30. Debunking your nonsense...

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0080a.htm

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0089a.htm

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0106a.htm

[AntiFascist]

33. I'm not sure what you are trying to debunk....

and of course you don't explain.

Your links discuss anti-Castro operations in certain detail, but I don't see any mention of mafia assassins being recruited by the CIA.

[SDuderstadt]

37. Dude...

see my post above about blowing you off.

I'm not kidding.

[AntiFascist]

39. ok fine, I'll take that as a compliment....

since you obviously have more fun engaging the more extreme CTers.

[SDuderstadt]

40. Dude...

If you would have attention to the OP, I asked what it would take for someone to believe LHO was the lone shooter.

I'm really not interested in having to debunk your conspiracy theories one-by-one.

[AntiFascist]

49. Obviously my point is...

until we have full disclosure about LHO's connections, and specifics about the anti-Castro operations (particularly those that may implicate Richard Nixon), then I'll have to conclude that there is much yet to be uncovered. What about "The Bay of Pigs thing"? Beginning when Nixon was Vice President he desperately wanted to stage an invasion of Cuba. Operation 40 was probably only the tip of the spear, so to speak. There were covert paramilitary armies being funded and trained based around Lake Ponchartrain. Contracting mafia assassins? Gun running activities? Development of cancer-causing bioweapons? What is it about these activities that may disclose too much damaging information about the CIA?

[SDuderstadt]

50. Dude...

No less than five investigations have exhaustively studied LHO's "connections" and found NOTHING!

Why in the world would you think the CIA would hire anyone as inept as Oswald?? He had to flee the the assassination site on foot and by bus and taxi?? Does that remotely make sense?

[AntiFascist]

51. duplicate

[SDuderstadt]

53. Dude...

It's been nearly fifty fucking years.

[AntiFascist]

54. Right....

and only relatively recently (within the last decade?) have people begun to discover, or at least talk about, the mafia-CIA connections and where this could lead.

[BeFree]

74. Both are shadowy groups

..... which survive by being deceitful and threatening people.

Not to mention the 'free' money that flows their way.

[BeFree]

91. See "Blood Feud" Story line was.....

Fella by the name of Hoffa was hounded by the Kennedy's - Robert and Jack.

J. Edgar Hoover was shy about taking on Organized Crime, and crooked labor.

The movie lead one into the world of 'free' money that flowed among Labor and the Mafia and showed how the labor and mafia were damn well pissed at the Kennedy's because the Kennedy's cost the crooks a hell of a lot of money.

And as any fool knows, the DoJ hardly ever did a damn thing until Robert Kennedy made it happen.

The Kennedy's made some serious enemies of folks who were as crooked as any before bushco came along.

So really the question on everyone's mind should be: Give us one good reason to believe the mafia didn't take out the Kennedy's. They had the means, the motive and the opportunity. To think that LHO was the mastermind and sole player behind the plot is just gawddamn stupid.

[zappaman]

92. "Give us one good reason to believe the mafia didn't take out the Kennedy's."

Easy.
Cuz there is no evidence that the mafia did, while there is plenty of solid evidence LHO did.
Btw, plenty of folks had the means, the motive and the opportunity.
Takes more than that to make a case.
Well, for clear thinking individuals, it takes more than that to make a case.

[BeFree]

93. Nope

Do you know anything about the mafia+labor+Cia? Anything at all?

You sound like you don't have a clue. Not one damn clue.
Or, you just sound ridiculous. Take your pick.

[zappaman]

94. do you know anything about the evidence in the JFK case? Anything at all?

You sound like you don't have a clue. Not one damn clue.
Or, you just sound ridiculous. Take your pick.

[BeFree]

96. How original!!

You do make for a good laugh, dudette. That's about it.

I know that with J Edgar Hoover in charge and the fact that Ruby was allowed access to LHO, the PTB evidence is tainted and suspect. Very suspect.

[AntiFascist]

52. You are assuming that I believe that the CIA was behind the assassination...

and again I want to point out that it may have been rogue factions paying allegiance to Nixon that were responsible. How Oswald fits into the mix is complicated, to say the least. Oswald was a former Marine with sharpshooter experience. As an overtly pro-Marxist who once defected to the Soviet Union, he may have been useful to the CIA as a "double agent" infiltrating various groups to learn of their motives. The anti-Castro groups he was 'surrounded' by may have had plans to have him sent to Cuba. There was evidence of a connection with Carlos Bringuier of the DRE.

[BeFree]

55. That's right... you wrote

"""3. . The HSCA actually concluded that there likely was a conspiracy consisting of rogue elements from these various factions. """

So the false claim leveled on you has been thoroughly discounted.
Heck, if they had just done a careful read they wouldn't now be eating their words, eh?

[William Seger]

58. LOL

Presumably, it would not have been the entire CIA involved, and the ones who were would not have been acting under official orders to do so, so "rogue elements" is a pointless distinction.

But more importantly, AntiFascist's claim about the HSCA's conclusion is utter bullshit, and qualifying it with "rogue elements" doesn't change the falseness of that clam. It's ironic that you should scold someone one for not reading carefully when you completely missed the whole point.

[AntiFascist]

59. Please see my post 31 above....

that quote was taken directly from the HSCA's conclusions. Granted, the conclusions may not be definitive, but the statements are made as "conclusions" nonetheless.

"...while the conspiracy may not have involved a major group, it may not have been limited to only two people..."

The main reason the HSCA is not able to draw on definitive evidence, which is backed up by recent statements made by G. Robert Blakey, may be because the CIA was witholding valuable evidence, assigning George Joannides as the CIA gatekeeper to the HSCA. If the CIA discovered that there were "rogue elements" amongst its ranks, possibly related to their 'mafia assassin' and other anti-Castro programs, doesn't it make sense that they would then try to cover this up? If any government agency is expert at maintaining secrecy, it's the CIA.

[William Seger]

60. What am I supposed to see in #31? Claim #3 in post #29 is bullshit.

Are you retracting it?

[AntiFascist]

61. Claim #3 included the word "likely"....

there was nothing definitive even in my statement. The CIA and the Mafia, as complete entities, were considered suspects under the HSCA investigation, unfortunately they were unable to analyze factions where the two overlapped.

[William Seger]

62. The HSCA did not reach the conclusion you claimed, "likely" or otherwise

Why do you think emphasizing "likely" turns your false statement true?

[AntiFascist]

63. They used the term "probably". From the conclusions....

"C. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy.

...

3. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved.
4. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved.

...

The investigation into the possibility of conspiracy in the assassination was inadequate.

...

G. The Central Intelligence Agency was deficient in its collection and sharing of information both prior to and subsequent to the assassination.

[AntiFascist]

65. Would you be happy if I restated my claim #3 as follows:

"3. The HSCA actually concluded that there probably was a conspiracy, possibly consisting of rogue elements from these various factions. What ties them together?..."


This is the dungeon after all, not a court of law, and I don't pass my comments by an attorney before posting them.

[William Seger]

66. No, you're still misrepresenting your own speculations as a conclusion of the HSCA

They did not "conclude" that "rogue elements" of the CIA and/or Mafia were "likely" or even "possibly" involved.

And anyway, the HSCA conspiracy conclusion was based on an inaccurate analysis of the police dictabelt recording, so that conclusion is itself doubtful.

[AntiFascist]

67. Whether or not the HSCA conclusion is itself doubtful is beside the point...

my statement was soley about the HSCA conclusion in and of itself, and that conclusion specifically stated that there was probably a conspiracy. Furthermore, the HSCA explicitely carved out the possibility that individual actors who were members of the mafia or anti-Castro groups may also have been involved. This "carving out" of possibility was based on their analysis of Oswald's associations as well as those of Jack Ruby, which the committee felt was inadequately done by the Warren Commission. For instance, they did not explicitely carve out the same possibility that invidivual members of the FBI or Secret Service may have been involved because they did not run across any significant evidence supporting those instances. So, you're statement that the conclusion was only based on the dictabelt recording is itself false. The dictabelt recording was the "smoking gun", so to speak, supporting the cnclusion of conspiracy, but there was also plenty of other material underlying their conclusions. As I mentioned at the beginning of this thread, even if Oswald was the lone gunman, he could have still been involved in a conspiracy, and the fact that valuable information is being witheld to this day, relating to CIA associations, should be a significant issue.

[William Seger]

68. Read what you quoted again

3. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved.
4. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved.

The available evidence also "does not preclude the possibility" that individual members of the Shriners, Odd Fellows, or Mormon Tabernacle Choir "may have been involved," but what you claimed was:

3. The HSCA actually concluded that there likely was a conspiracy consisting of rogue elements from these various factions.

And it is not beside the point that the HSCA's conspiracy conclusion is doubtful. The "plenty of other material" you're referring to was weak and inconclusive circumstantial evidence. The dictabelt recording analysis was the primary basis for their conclusion, but it turned out to be neither a gun nor smoking.

[BeFree]

69. Do you realize?

How ridiculous you sound....

[William Seger]

70. Try reading it very slowly, several times (n/t)

[BeFree]

71. Yep. Ridiculous

I know. I know. You don't think 'rogue elements' ever did anything.

How ridiculous is that? Very. But not funny. Sickening actually. Fucked up. Dude.

[zappaman]

72. wow

you trying to take away SPOOKED's irony crown?
:rofl:

[BeFree]

73. From you?

You wear it awfully well.

Why is it you sound ridiculous, too?

[AntiFascist]

76. Sorry, but you are dead wrong about the HSCA...

the dictabelt recording may have been used as the smoking gun that allowed them to pursue the avenue of conspiracy, but the material covered went into great depth about Oswald's associations, so much so that G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel to the HSCA in the 2003 addendum to his PBS interview, feels that the entire investigation would have taken a different path had the CIA really cooperated with them:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/interviews/blakey.html#addendum

"The committee focused, among other things, on (1) Oswald, (2) in New Orleans, (3) in the months before he went to Dallas, and, in particular, (4) his attempt to infiltrate an anti-Castro group, the Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil or DRE.

These were crucial issues in the Warren Commission's investigation; they were crucial issues in the committee's investigation. The Agency knew it full well in 1964; the Agency knew it full well in 1976-79. Outrageously, the Agency did not tell the Warren Commission or our committee that it had financial and other connections with the DRE, a group that Oswald had direct dealings with!

...

For these reasons, I no longer believe that we were able to conduct an appropriate investigation of the Agency and its relationship to Oswald. Anything that the Agency told us that incriminated, in some fashion, the Agency may well be reliable as far as it goes, but the truth could well be that it materially understates the matter."

[William Seger]

77. Uh, that's exactly the "weak and inconclusive circumstantial evidence" I mentioned.

You seem to have left out the part where you explain how I'm "dead wrong."

[AntiFascist]

78. I'll give you 'inconclusive', but it is neither weak nor circumstantial...

it seems obvious, from Blakey's remarks, that one of the goals of the HSCA was to investigate the CIA itself and its relationships surrounding Oswald. The fact that Blakey learned later that the CIA had assigned no less than the individual in charge of running the DRE on behalf of the CIA as the gatekeeper to the HSCA itself, only underlines the importance of this avenue of the investigation and raises even more questions. This has nothing to do with the dictabelt acoustical evidence.

I've always maintained that the conclusions are not definitive, therefore they become somewhat subjective. Blakey still maintains that, even if the acoustical evidence is weak, there is still ample evidence of multiple shooters, therefore there was some sort of conspiracy, therefore the conclusion of the HSCA still stands. I'm not that concerned about the number of shooters myself. I'm more concerned with the right-wing associations surrounding Oswald and how these have been covered up in an attempt to protect the various groups involved (mostly Republicans).

[William Seger]

80. Yes, it's both weak and circumstantial

Circumstantial evidence is evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or the intervening inference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

Even if you had incontrovertible evidence of LHO being a CIA asset (which you don't, which is why it's weak), that would NOT be "direct evidence" that the CIA was involved in the assassination.

[AntiFascist]

82. Once again you are assuming that I believe "the CIA" as a group was responsible...

and once again I point out that I believe it was right-wing factions, most likely paying allegiance to Nixon, that were responsible. Also, as I've pointed out many times, the conclusions are not definitive mainly because the information has been witheld, or covered up, by the CIA. (In this case, the CIA as a group IS responsible for the lack of cooperation.) Also, in this case, inference is not required to support non-definitive conclusions. There was sufficient direct evidence to allow the HSCA to carve out the possibility of factions of anti-Castro and factions of mafia organization involvement. How these factions overlapped with the CIA remains to be seen, but there has been plenty of evidence made available in the meantime to strongly indicate that it deserves much more scrutiny.

[William Seger]

83. Once again my point had absolutely no such assumption

As I said to BeFree, "rogue element" is s distinction without any practical difference. However, you do seem to be accusing "the CIA as a group" of covering up.

[AntiFascist]

84. I strongly disagree, 'rogue elements' make all the difference in the world....

During the time of the Watergate scandal, the public developed a strong mistrust of government. Also, a large portion of the population believed that some sort of conspiracy was behind the Kennedy brothers and MLK assassinations. One of the primary goals of the HSCA was to investigate each governmental group that was suspect, as well as the mafia, and determine if any could have been behind the assassination plots. A secondary goal was to determine the nature of the conspiracy, if there was one, but I think it is clear from the HSCA statements that uncovering a conspiracy consisting of a small group of independent individuals was less important than finding evidence implicating the major groups.

Unfortunately, I believe, the HSCA was not focused on the proper group. The HSCA seemed to be kept diverted, for whatever reasons, from the covert, ultra right-wing apparatus that Nixon had set into motion around 1960 when he was then Vice President and planning an invasion of Cuba. Funding for this covert apparatus was allowed to happen because of the threat of communism taking hold right next door to the United States. This may have been the start of what some now refer to as the "Shadow Government", when it began to develop some real teeth. As part of this program the CIA developed some unsavory ties to the mafia, Cuban ultra right wing elements, and ultra right-wing southern groups that probably despised everything the Kennedys and MLK stood for.

The CIA is very compartmentalized and, I believe, that the plotting of any of the assassinations under investigation did not come from the top. The HSCA covered plenty of material regarding anti-Castro operations, but they were prevented from seeing the real core and the extent of the iceberg they were dealing with. The pro-Nixon people that were involved, at the time, likely could not stomach the thought of 8 years of the country being run under JFK and possibly another 8 years under his attorney general, RFK.

[William Seger]

85. Well, at least now we're down to your opinions on what the HSCA should have concluded

... rather than false claims about what they did conclude.

Excuse me, this is my stop.

[AntiFascist]

86. I stand by my revised statement way back in Post #65....

"3. The HSCA actually concluded that there probably was a conspiracy, possibly consisting of rogue elements from these various factions. What ties them together?..."


That statement is precisely correct. Your whole argument against me was based on the missing word: possibly. You should have stopped long ago.

Again, I must point out that the HSCA was incapable of concluding anything more definitive primarilly because the CIA was blocking them.

[William Seger]

87. The HSCA "concluded" that they had NO idea who the alleged conspirators were

The clear intent of both versions of your claim was to tell a rather different story. The first version was bullshit. The "improved" version is highly misleading at best, inviting the reader to fall for a logical fallacy. However, here's a version I could agree with:

"3. The HSCA actually concluded that there probably was a conspiracy, possibly consisting of rogue elements from these various factions" (i.e. CIA and organized crime) or any other known or unknown groups or factions.

Which is to say, in the absence of evidence, you cannot logically "conclude" anything about specific group membership, so there's really no point in dragging any particular group (or "rogue members" thereof) into the argument if all you can state is that no evidence rules them out. And in fact, the HSCA statements you posted are actually saying that they COULDN'T "conclude" anything at all about "these various factions" OR "rogue elements." That is the basis of my argument against both your claims.

All of which is moot anyway, if the HSCA's conspiracy conclusion is not sound, and I don't believe it is.

Try to grab a ring this time around.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AntiFascist]

89. Your statements are simply not true...

obviously the HSCA had some idea, otherwise the conclusions would not have been as thorough as they were. They specifically carved out the possibility of individuals from anti-Castro groups and organized crime, period. All other groups under consideration were completely cleared (with the exception of defense intelligence?), and much later the Chief Counsel to the HSCA was doubtful of the conclusions related to the CIA, for reasons mentioned above.

[William Seger]

90. Baloney!

The HSCA said very explicitly what their findings were and your, uh, interpretation of those findings is simply not accurate.

[AntiFascist]

95. Right, and there's nothing I can find that supports your statement...

that they had "no idea". They were unable to identify definitively who the other assassins (if any) were, but I've never indicated otherwise. As for the nature of the probable conspiracy, it seems pretty clear from Section 1.C. that they focused their conclusions on 7 major groups: the Soviet government, the Cuban government, anti-Castro groups, organized crime, the Secret Service, the FBI, and the CIA. All of these groups were completely cleared with the exception of anti-Castro groups and organized crime where they explicitely stated the possibility that individuals from these two groups (and these two groups ONLY) could have been involved.

It's also clear from Chief Counsel's later statements that if they had known about the extent of the CIA's programs with organized crime (also directly involving anti-Castro groups) that the investigation would have likely followed a different path.

It's also clear from HSCA's statements that they were less focused on investigating factions or individuals acting independently. For this reason, and since Richard Nixon was a private citizen at the time without any overt relatonship to these groups, it's probably the case that they were not pursuing Nixon's ties to organized crime, the CIA, or covert anti-Castro activities.

[William Seger]

97. Jeez, it's right here: "The committee is unable to identify the other gunman..."

"... or the extent of the conspiracy."

Your misrepresentation of the committee findings centers around what I claim is just faulty logic on your part concerning the phrase "available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved" being added for two of the groups but not the others. You would like to attach special significance to that usage, whereas I claim that's just the unavoidable result of having zero evidence to "identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy," and that it applies to ANY group you care to name. Well, let's put your interpretation to the test: If your interpretation is correct, then that would imply there was some "available evidence" that DID "preclude the possibility" that individuals from the other groups mentioned were involved. What was this evidence, please, for any one of the other groups mentioned?

And I hate to bring this up again, but I think there's a very good (and obvious) reason why neither the committee nor the large army of JFK "researchers" have been able to identify the "other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy."

[AntiFascist]

98. I never said that the HSCA had any ideas about other gunman...

nor the EXTENT of the conspiracy. This does NOT mean, however, that they had no ideas about the nature of the probable conspiracy itself! Because of the simple fact that Oswald had connections to anti-Castro groups, and Jack Ruby had connections to organized crime and Cuban activities, contributed to the reasoning for the HSCA to spell out the possibility for these two groups. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/jfk9/hscv9c.htm

As to the the extent of the conspiracy, I don't think anyone knows for sure except for deep insiders. The problem here, based on my own beliefs which I will repeat again, is that it was likely those paying allegiance to Nixon and who believed that the Kennedy brothers were committing treason, that were involved in the conspiracy. Since Nixon was, himself, a private citizen at the time of the assassination, he had no overt ties to any organizations, so this is why only factions would have been involved. How far these factions extended to the top of the respective organizations would determine "the EXTENT". Until a proper investigation can be conducted when all of the necessary records can be unsealed (CIA as well as those related to Nixon) then no one may be able to say for sure.

[William Seger]

99. The reason you can't provide the requested evidence...

... is that the only way to rule out the alleged conspirators' membership in specific groups is to identify the alleged conspirators. You are misrepresenting your own speculations as the HSCA findings.

With the dictabelt analysis no longer being credible (and at the time, I myself thought it was), there is no credible evidence of a conspiracy, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that the HSCA could not identify any conspirators. If they could not identify any conspirators, then your claim that they "possibly" were members of an anti-Castro group or organized crime is pointless because they could just as "possibly" be members of any other group or totally unaffiliated -- if they exist at all, that is. But if you can't see why that's so, I don't think there's anything to be gained by repeating it over and over. So unless you have something substantive to back up your contentions, I think we're finished.

[AntiFascist]

100. There is direct and credible evidence....

that the CIA is covering something up, and has been outright lying about their interest and dealings with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to the assassination, as related to anti-Castro groups. This direct evidence has only come to public light within the past decade, but the HSCA had enough information at the time to specifically carve out the possibility of individuals in these groups as suspects, even while being deflected away from CIA involvement with the help of George Joannides. How can anyone identify specific conspirators when the records (financial and otherwise) are sealed? There is much to be learned outside of Dealey Plaza. The best way to track down the root of any conspiracy is usually to find out who was paid and why.

Sorry but we are far from finished, unless of course you are growing tired. You keep hammering on the dictabelt recording, but you seem oddly incurious about the information that Joannides wanted to be kept hidden, perhaps leading all the way up to Richard Helms, then Deputy Director of Plans.

[William Seger]

104. I'm not interested in discussing your speculations

... about who was involved in your imaginary conspiracy. I'll remain "oddly incurious" about that until you give me at least one good reason to think there WAS a conspiracy. As I mentioned, there was a time when I thought the HSCA had done that with the dictabelt analysis. But sorry, it didn't hold up.

The issue was your misrepresenting your speculations about who was involved as findings of the HSCA. If you want to persist in doing that, I'll persist in calling you on it.

[AntiFascist]

105. I'm simply pointing out the direct evidence that support my "speculations"...

as you call them, of why the HSCA specifically carved out the possibilities of involvement of certain individuals from certain groups. Also, this direct evidence relates primarilly to Lee Harvey Oswald himself, the only individual found directly responsible for the shooting. My statements, and the evidence supporting them, are not based on the assumption that there were other shooters present. The whole point of my thread, from the very beginning, was that there could be a conspiracy even if Oswald was the lone shooter. As far as I'm concerned, the dictabelt evidence neither proves nor disproves my argument, and has no bearing on it whatsoever. My argument moves beyond the findings of the HSCA, and my statement about the HSCA is not the end all be all of my arguments. If you want to continue to limit yourself to your own Merry Go Round HSCA argument, then have fun.

[BeFree]

106. You've heard of Disney World?

You've just been on a ride at 'Seger World'.

A merry go round that is pure fantasy. Just reading it makes one dizzy.

Back in the real world, the fact is that the whole body of evidence pertaining to this case will not be released until there is not one living soul from 1963 alive to care. It was designed that way.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AntiFascist]

108. What about "that memo" mentioned by Victor Marchetti in his Spotlight magazine article?

Keep in mind that a jury actually found him to be credible, in a retrial, after Spotlight was sued for libel by E. Howard Hunt. "we were compelled to conclude that the CIA had indeed killed President Kennedy."

Said memo signed off by none other than Richard Helms and James Angleton, but never released to the public.

Again, I want to point out that I personally believe it may have been a faction.

[BeFree]

27. When do we get to see all the evidence?

Something like 2050? What are they hiding? Why are they hiding it from us?

I think they want to make sure there are no riots. Because by 2050 everyone will be like: "We knew that." Everyone except a few on the internet, that is.....

[AntiFascist]

35. If things keep going the way they are...

by 2050 we will become a banana republic which the extreme right wing has been so good at controlling.

[BeFree]

38. True that.

Well, all I can say is: never give up!

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

57. The question was...

"what would it take to convince you that LHO was the lone JFK assassin?".

I have no idea what this other stuff you're rambling about is.

[jberryhill]

64. "The Joos Did It"

[SDuderstadt]

75. Is that a real...

sign/picture?

[johnnie]

79. LOL "Serious question"

From the dude...

[greyl]

81. This thread doesn't matter. nt

[JonLP24]

101. Nothing. I know where the people on the grassy knoll are at

Them boys on the Grassy Knoll they were dead within three hours, buried in the damned desert, unmarked graves out past Terlingua.

[SDuderstadt]

102. Yet...

There is zero physical evidence of any shots coming from other than the TSBD.

[JonLP24]

103. OK - that response is hard to work with

I won't pull your chain any longer. I was hoping you'd ask, "How do you know?", asking how I know the boys on the Grassy Knoll were dead within 3 hours and buried in unmarked graves. In which case I would answer "I still got the shovel".

It's a line from a movie(which I know is fictional in-case you're wondering).
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0822854/

[johnnie]

109. I don't quite understand the question

Can you elaborate? Thank you.

[Bonobo]

110. Yeah, DUDE, what do you mean?

I'll be conducting a seance to ask you to elaborate. Bwahaha.

[Nostradammit]

111. OOOOH! I wanna be there when you do it !

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:


What's that you said, DUDE? I Can't Hear You!

(Just found out today, and it really lifted my spirits!)