Is the question too difficult for you Hank? I simplified it as much as I could.
Is it your opinion that my articles and presentations are devoid of valid evidence?
A single syllable reply will do nicely.
You're ignoring all the points I made about Katzenbach entirely and simply asking a loaded question again.
Not exactly very persuasive argument.
But predictable. See the original post, which I reproduce below. Note particularly the postscript, which I've boldfaced below:
======= QUOTE =======
The LN theory was not the invention of the perps. It was the product of LBJ, who did not want to face a crisis which might have led to WWIII, since Russia had sworn to defend Cuba. Consider this proclamation from Katzenbach, and the justice department, uttered within about 2 days after the assassination,
"The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial."
...There was a massive coverup, but it may have been benign, at least as far as LBJ knew.
Here's the memo:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62268#relPageId=29
Your assertions are wrong on a number of levels.
First, the date of the memo you reference is 11/25/63. That's three days after the assassination, not within two days of the assassination.
Second, you're just cribbing this argument from numerous conspiracy books without researching it yourself. You're merely treating us to your interpretation of the memo, or rather, the interpretation you gleaned from a conspiracy book somewhere. We know that because conspiracy books, like you, don't quote the statement in context, by failing to quote what came immediately before the statement you do quote.
Third, here's the first paragraph of the memo, which, as I said, you fail to quote, and which puts what you claim into better context:
It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's Assassination be made public in a way that will satisfy people in the United States and abroad that all the facts have been told and that a statement to this effect be made now.
What part of "
all the facts surrounding President Kennedy's assassination be made public" confused you into thinking Katzenbach was advocating a cover-up?
Fourth, Katzenbach was queried extensively before a congressional committee in 1979 and he testified under oath to exactly what he meant.
His testimony can be found here:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol3/html/HSCA_Vol3_0323b.htm
On what planet does fairness entail ignoring explanations by the people you're accusing of being accessories after the fact and participating in a cover-up?
Why do you not confront the testimony of Katzenbach and explain how your interpretation of his memo should be substituted for his statements about what the memo intended to convey? Why should your interpretation of his memo prevail over his interpretation of his memo? Who should know better what he intended to convey? You, or the person who wrote the memo?
Fifth, you're doing it again. You're merely treating us to your interpretation of the memo and pretending it's something greater than it is. It's not. It's simply your own unsupported interpretation of the memo. It's not evidence.
Hank
PS: Now go ahead and snip the bulk of this, select one sentence out of context, and pretend it says something it doesn't. You've got a history of doing that.
======= UNQUOTE =======
You simply committed a different logical fallacy - changing the subject. I thought you wanted to discuss the assassination, Robert. You brought up Katzenbach, and I pointed out five reasons you're wrong. Do you have any rebuttal to that?
Hank
