Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

Status
Not open for further replies.
I say that in spite of the fact that you are in a small minority and want to contradict the head of the HSCA, who wrote that Carlos Marcello ordered the assassination, even before Marcello confessed to an FBI informant, that he did it.

I never said it was in the HSCA report. He said it in his book on the assassination, written shortly after the HSCA closed down. I do not currently have that book, but this might be helpful to you,

Tovin Lapan for the Las Vegas Sun (quoting Blakey):

"I think the mob set Oswald up as a patsy. It's not that I think (Oswald) didn't shoot (Kennedy), but that I think he was set up so (investigators) would focus on the Cuban connections (and not the mob). "

David Talbot for Salon:

"[Blakey] would emerge as the Warren Report's most authoritative critic and a firm believer that Kennedy had died as the result of a conspiracy, masterminded by [New Orleans Godfather Carlos] Marcello and his Mafia ally, Santo Trafficante, the Florida godfather who had been driven out of the lucrative Havana casino business by Castro and who had been recruited in the CIA plot to kill the Cuban leader."

You should also find this interview with Blakey by PBS, to be quite interesting. In it, he speaks a lot about Marcello.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/biographies/oswald/interview-g-robert-blakey/

Sorry, Blakey's views are not evidence. They are his opinion only. And he was hardly unbiased in that regard, as he served under RFK in the Justice Dept, and RFK's animus toward the mob is well-known. Isn't it?

And the HSCA was all set to conclude that Oswald committed the assassination alone until the accoustic evidence was studied, and as you admit, the wrong conclusion reached there.

Hank
 
Sorry, Blakey's views are not evidence. They are his opinion only. And he was hardly unbiased in that regard, as he served under RFK in the Justice Dept, and RFK's animus toward the mob is well-known. Isn't it?

And the HSCA was all set to conclude that Oswald committed the assassination alone until the accoustic evidence was studied, and as you admit, the wrong conclusion reached there.

Hank

I will be happy to debate that with you if you have the integrity to debate on a level playing field.

My rules for a level playing field.

I WILL DEBATE NO ONE WHO DOES NOT AGREE TO THEM.

1. I will debate one person at a time, until he or I decide he is done.

2. I will debate no one whose posts are about Robert Harris and are in any way derogatory. Nor will I post anything that is derogatory about them.

3. I may presume that I am right just as my adversaries may presume that they are right.

4. I will debate anyone whose theory is different than mine-conspiracy or lone nut, with each of us bearing the burden of proving their own belief.

These rules may be subject to change as I deem necessary.

I will begin debating with the first person who agrees to these rules.
 
...you say in your debate response to turingtest, who has not agreed to any such rules. Can we finally agree that these "rules" are just your latest rhetorical dog-and-pony show and that no one -- not eve you -- has the slightest inclination to pay any attention to them?

There's one rather easy way to find out.
 
Marcello confessed (unwittingly), to an FBI informant, Jack Laningham, that he did indeed, order the assassination and that he only wished that he could have killed JFK, personally. Anthony Summers BTW, interviewed FBI people who confirmed what Laningham said and stated that they believed him, but did not (for no apparent reason) believe Marcello.

So the supposed confession is only hearsay, as reported by a man named Laningham? Am I understanding that correctly? Is that evidence, or is that hearsay?

Hank
 
Why are skeptics lone nutters?

I have been baffled that skeptics here are so overwhelming lone nut believers. I mean, you all admit that there isn't a shred of evidence that isolates Oswald as the only shooter.

In addition to the fact that you drive away anyone who disagrees, I think I've stumbled across the reason!

http://jfkhistory.com/moses.png

Edited by zooterkin: 
Edited for Rule 5. Do not hotlink unless the site specifically allows it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So the supposed confession is only hearsay, as reported by a man named Laningham? Am I understanding that correctly? Is that evidence, or is that hearsay?

Hank

It will take courage Hank.
Edited by Agatha: 
Removed breach of rule 0 and Rule 12. Mr Harris, please refresh your memory with the rules of this site to which you agreed on signing up. Clickety-link to the Membership Agreement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So the supposed confession is only hearsay, as reported by a man named Laningham? Am I understanding that correctly? Is that evidence, or is that hearsay?

Hank

Laningham was doing a bit in the same facility as CM, negotiated a deal with the FBI to do a little jailhouse snitching and the FBI provided him with a bugged radio that he kept in his cell.

The big noise about this piece of the story is largely dependent on knowledge of mafiosi behavior (if you take the position of the FBI) or the desire for wish fulfillment (if you're a CTist)

Marcello (on tape) told Laningham and another convict exactly what our new moderator described - he had JFK killed and wished he'd done it sooner.

The FBI couldn't understand why CM, an old time Capo if there ever was one, would talk outside of his thing with two convicts that not only weren't LCN associates or members, they weren't Sicilian and they were both low level criminals.

The FBI wrote off CM's "confession" as braggadocio.

If one is a CTist, any statement that supports their fantasy is unassailable, and anything else is well, no big whoop.

There's something else to consider in RW facts that certain parties want to ignore wrt FBI and Justice Department information gleaned through wire taps (legal and otherwise) back in the day.

For all the thousands of hours of wiretaps, although hatred of Kennedy was much in evidence (in the house I grew up in too) there was not one single actionable piece of intelligence that pointed towards a real world LCN conspiracy to hit JFK.

I was raised to believe that LCN did the deed, but the faith-based belief in that version of events doesn't stand up to the actual evidence.

JFK is only the most well known example of someone killed by a nobody for reasons only the nobody knew.
 
I will be happy to debate that with you if you have the integrity to debate on a level playing field.

My rules for a level playing field.

I WILL DEBATE NO ONE WHO DOES NOT AGREE TO THEM.

1. I will debate one person at a time, until he or I decide he is done.

2. I will debate no one whose posts are about Robert Harris and are in any way derogatory. Nor will I post anything that is derogatory about them.

3. I may presume that I am right just as my adversaries may presume that they are right.

4. I will debate anyone whose theory is different than mine-conspiracy or lone nut, with each of us bearing the burden of proving their own belief.

These rules may be subject to change as I deem necessary.

I will begin debating with the first person who agrees to these rules.

Gentlemen,

We have reached an impasse. I can think of only one man who has the skill set necessary to further this debate.

Robert Harris meet Jabba. Jabba, allow me to introduce you to Robert Harris ...
 
My rules for a level playing field.

I WILL DEBATE NO ONE WHO DOES NOT AGREE TO THEM.

1. I will debate one person at a time, until he or I decide he is done.

2. I will debate no one whose posts are about Robert Harris and are in any way derogatory.

3. I may presume that I am right just as my adversaries may presume that they are right.

4. I will debate anyone whose theory is different than mine-conspiracy or lone nut, with each of us bearing the burden of proving their own belief.

These rules may be subject to change as I deem necessary.

I will begin debating with the first person who agrees to these rules.

You won't be having anything resembling a debate then.

Hank
 
Last edited:
It is interesting and enlightening that Dr. Alvarez, for all his brilliance, misidentified two false positives, thinking they were gunshots.


If he could do that, why can't you? Like with the Z285 gunshot you conjecture?
How did you determine they were false positives, Robert? With three shooters or more, wouldn't somebody be shooting more than once?


Look closely at his chart. With much better resources and decent resolution copies of the Zapruder film, most researchers today, reject his theory that shots were fired at frames 177 and 250.

And that's not evidence of anything except their opinion. Why do you mention it?


Of course, the reason for his error is obvious. There were no high powered rifle shots fired, prior to frame 285.

Still committing that logical fallacy known as begging the question, Robert.

Hank
 
Sure, it's called begging the question, and has nothing to do with asking questions, either, as Bob erroneously thought.

Hank

He's convinced he has all the answers, he's convinced he is entitled by some interpretation of the ISF terms of service to set the conditions of discussion in a thread he didn't even start and he uses terms he clearly doesn't understand.

It's the trifecta of conspiracy theorist delusions of grandeur.
 
Mr. Strong, just to be clear, I am quite certain that Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty. It is easy to prove however, that he did not act alone.

Great. Post the evidence. Not the hearsay. Or the conjectures. Or the logical fallacies (like begging the question). The *evidence*.

We'll wait.

Hank
 
There's one rather easy way to find out.

You didn't even read the question. You're blatantly disobeying your own rules, so why should anyone else bother with them? It's buffoonery. At this point it's evident you're just going to spam them in response to every question you can't answer.

Earlier I told you that you would have to prove you're worth being taken seriously. Do you really think your strategy here comes across any different than a child holding his breath until his mommy buys him a toy?
 
As someone who's had my own run-ins with Robert on alt.assassination.jfk, I just wanted to point out a couple of items that he is attempting to be misleading on.

Firstly, every time Robert claims that his Z285 shot is supported by the "expert opinion" of Alvarez's jiggle analysis he's being untruthful. Alvarez actually ruled out a shot at Z285, Robert simply claims that Alvarez was wrong but his own analysis of Alvarez's work is correct.

Here's a link to Alvarez's paper if anyone would like to see if they can find anything about a shot at Z285 in it.

http://jfkhistory.com/alvarez.pdf

Secondly, it has also been pointed out to Robert many (many, many, many, many, many) times that there are large differences between involuntary startle reactions and, more colloquially, being startled. Involuntary startle reactions are more commonly very small muscular contractions like gritting your teeth, or tensing the muscles in your neck. Given the resolution of Zapruder's camera, true involuntary startle reactions probably wouldn't be visible in the Zapruder film if Zapruder was sitting in the car with them, let alone from the distance that he was filming from. On the other hand, reacting to being startled can take anywhere up to a couple of seconds depending on the circumstances. The people in the car were undoubtedly reacting to being fired upon, but it doesn't really do much to narrow down the time frame no matter how much Robert wishes it were different.



This next bit is not intended as an attack on Robert Harris, more of a warning of what people can expect, although I'm sure he'll take it as an attack. What people on ISF call a "fringe reset" is commonly called a "Harris Award" on alt.assassination.jfk. His M.O. is to start a new thread with his theory, get his head handed to him over the course of a couple of days, mostly by the people that have made the exact same arguments against his theory dozens of times, then he'll take a break for a day or two and start another thread stating the same theory almost word for word as if it's brand new information. Just a warning of what to expect.
 
I changed my thinking in 1995, to be exact.

I should probably correct that. I believed and believe that he was probably guilty.

In fact, there are only a few things that I believe with absolute certainty.

Let me guess... one is a shot at Z285, right?

What did I win?

Hank
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom