abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Because it is yet another unevidenced claim which is required to support the nonsense.
Psychic power, how else?
See above.
Make crap up, prove me wrong. Standard CT behaviour.
God.
Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III
- Thread starter HSienzant
- Start date
- Status
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
The ball is still in your court, Robert. Please present your entire coherent alternative hypothesis for JFK's assassination. Make sure it addresses all of the evidence.
While we're waiting, we'll make fun of your fallacies.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
You have confused me with someone playing your game, including putting words in my mouth.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
I would have characterized it more as that desperate for attention. It's fairly apparent at this point that Harris' approach is purely theater.
Robert Harris
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2015
- Messages
- 867
This is not a good analogy, since Marcello was in charge of the entire SE section of the country, including New Orleans and Dallas. Schultz was not, which is why he had to request that the hit be done.
Marcello didn't need anyone's permission.
Look, there is no need to post all these lengthy stories. I will stipulate that it was not the mob's usual policy to kill prominent members of govt. But this case was much different.
Consider the fact that Robert Blakey, who is recognized as one of the nation's top experts on organized crime, disagrees with you and in his book on the assassination, concluded that Marcello was behind the assassination. Blakey's background (Wikipedia):
In 1960, after law school, Blakey joined the United States Department of Justice under its Honor Program, and he became a Special Attorney in the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the Criminal Division of the Department. After Robert F. Kennedy became Attorney General, the Department began a major effort to bring criminal prosecutions against organized crime members, corrupt political figures, and faithless union officials. The Section assigned Blakey to the effort.[6] He remained at Justice until 1964, leaving the summer after the November 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy.[1]
Subsequently, numerous states passed racketeering legislation with Blakey's assistance modeled on the federal statute. In addition, under the close supervision of McClellan, Blakey also drafted Title III on wiretapping of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. Numerous states, too, have wiretapping legislation modeled on the federal statute, and Blakey aided in those efforts.
I'm thinking that this guy probably knows a bit more about Marcello and the mob, than you and I.
Also consider that the mob had safeguards, one of which was J. Edgar Hoover. Many investigators believe and there is compelling evidence that Hoover was gay and that the mob had photos which would destroy his career if they were made public. That notion is corroborated by Hoover's outrageous statements, denying that the mafia even existed, and the absence of any serious attempt by the FBI, to bring down the mob or its leaders, like Bobby did.
Another, is the compelling argument by Lamar Waldron that the mob knew that in 1963, General Juan Almeida, the third ranking member of the Cuban Council of State, had provided information to the CIA, in support of their attempts to assassinate Castro, and could have exposed him if the govt. came after them. Waldron discusses that in this interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAdEBzQYj0A
and this,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exXDcu-yRiw
They probably didn't.
Interesting, so who was it that put a circle of bullet holes around his mouth, 5 days before he was to testify before the Church committee?
That was the same Traffiicante who was BFF with Marcello and told Frank Ragano that he and Marcello were behind the assassination. What a coincidence, eh
And what evidence is it that convinced "most investigators" to believe that? Funny, isn't it, that they waited until 5 days prior to Giancana testifying.
I don't see how those speculations are relevant to anything.
I don't see any relevance to anything here. This is all speculation.
Of course there are. But think about the timing of these murders, which occurred just days after talking publicly about the mob's role in the assassination or a few days prior - Giancana 5 days prior, Nicoletti within 24 hours of the HSCA calling mob figures to locate him, Ferrie almost immediately following the announcement that he was being investigated on the JFK case. Roselli, within a month, after telling the Washington Post that the mob ordered Ruby to kill Oswald.
I'm not sure how to calculate the probability of all that being a coincidence, but I doubt that an 8 digit calculator would be sufficient
Robert Harris
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2015
- Messages
- 867
I cannot imagine what it must feel like to support a theory that is so weak, than I realize I can't defend it.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
You have confused me with someone who is playing your game, including putting words in my mouth.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
What theory?
Robert Harris
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2015
- Messages
- 867
Because he showed blatant signs of deception when he denied knowing Oswald and being part of the conspiracy. Did you even read the article?
1. Did you know Oswald before November 22, 1963?
Answer. No.
2. Did you assist Oswald in the assassination?
Answer. No.
Herndon concluded that Ruby's replies were honest, despite an immediate and normally, damning rise in Ruby's blood pressure. But, the FBI operator dismissed that reaction by pointing to a similar rise in blood pressure following one of his his provocative control questions.
This is how the panel described it:
"Herndon concluded from his analysis of the charts that Ruby was truthful in answering these two relevant questions. He arrived at this conclusion by comparing Ruby's response to the control question, "Have you ever been arrested?" Answer: Yes.
(99) As previously noted, the panel believed this to be an extremely poor control question.
(100) Herndon testified that Ruby's physiological response to this control question was recorded on the charts in terms of a "noticeable rise in his blood pressure." (127) The panel took issue with this conclusion because the rise in blood pressure occurred at least 7 seconds after Ruby answered. A response normally never occurs this long after the question. The typical reaction, would be in 1 or 2 seconds. Further, the panel noted that at the point of the rise in blood pressure, Herndon indicated on the chart (as "MF") that Ruby moved his feet. The panel believed that the rise in blood pressure most likely was caused by Ruby's movement and not his physiological reaction to the "control" question. This conclusion is corroborated by the fact that Ruby's breathing remained relaxed at the time of the rise in blood pressure, and the Galvanic skin response showed no reaction."
IOW, Herndon was trying very lamely, to rationalize why he did not call Ruby's answers to these questions, out and out lies. The panel continued,
"In fact, the reactions to the preceding question--(Did you assist Oswald in the assassination?)--showed the largest valid GSR reaction in test series No. 1. In addition, there is a constant suppression of breathing and a rise in blood pressure at the time of this crucial relevant question. From this test, it appeared to the panel that Ruby was possibly lying when answering "no" to the question, 'Did you assist Oswald in the assassination ?' This is contrary to Herndon's opinion that Ruby was truthful when answering that question."
It wasn't "minds" I was reading. It was the conclusions from the HSCA panel of polygraph experts. You should consider doing the same.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
This is not a good analogy, since Marcello was in charge of the entire SE section of the country, including New Orleans and Dallas. Schultz was not, which is why he had to request that the hit be done.
Marcello didn't need anyone's permission.
Look, there is no need to post all these lengthy stories. I will stipulate that it was not the mob's usual policy to kill prominent members of govt. But this case was much different.
Consider the fact that Robert Blakey, who is recognized as one of the nation's top experts on organized crime, disagrees with you and in his book on the assassination, concluded that Marcello was behind the assassination. Blakey's background (Wikipedia):
In 1960, after law school, Blakey joined the United States Department of Justice under its Honor Program, and he became a Special Attorney in the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the Criminal Division of the Department. After Robert F. Kennedy became Attorney General, the Department began a major effort to bring criminal prosecutions against organized crime members, corrupt political figures, and faithless union officials. The Section assigned Blakey to the effort.[6] He remained at Justice until 1964, leaving the summer after the November 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy.[1]
Subsequently, numerous states passed racketeering legislation with Blakey's assistance modeled on the federal statute. In addition, under the close supervision of McClellan, Blakey also drafted Title III on wiretapping of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. Numerous states, too, have wiretapping legislation modeled on the federal statute, and Blakey aided in those efforts.
I'm thinking that this guy probably knows a bit more about Marcello and the mob, than you and I.
Also consider that the mob had safeguards, one of which was J. Edgar Hoover. Many investigators believe and there is compelling evidence that Hoover was gay and that the mob had photos which would destroy his career if they were made public. That notion is corroborated by Hoover's outrageous statements, denying that the mafia even existed, and the absence of any serious attempt by the FBI, to bring down the mob or its leaders, like Bobby did.
Another, is the compelling argument by Lamar Waldron that the mob knew that in 1963, General Juan Almeida, the third ranking member of the Cuban Council of State, had provided information to the CIA, in support of their attempts to assassinate Castro, and could have exposed him if the govt. came after them. Waldron discusses that in this interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAdEBzQYj0A
and this,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exXDcu-yRiw
They probably didn't.
Interesting, so who was it that put a circle of bullet holes around his mouth, 5 days before he was to testify before the Church committee?
That was the same Traffiicante who was BFF with Marcello and told Frank Ragano that he and Marcello were behind the assassination. What a coincidence, eh
And what evidence is it that convinced "most investigators" to believe that? Funny, isn't it, that they waited until 5 days prior to Giancana testifying.
I don't see how those speculations are relevant to anything.
I don't see any relevance to anything here. This is all speculation.
Of course there are. But think about the timing of these murders, which occurred just days after talking publicly about the mob's role in the assassination or a few days prior - Giancana 5 days prior, Nicoletti within 24 hours of the HSCA calling mob figures to locate him, Ferrie almost immediately following the announcement that he was being investigated on the JFK case. Roselli, within a month, after telling the Washington Post that the mob ordered Ruby to kill Oswald.
I'm not sure how to calculate the probability of all that being a coincidence, but I doubt that an 8 digit calculator would be sufficient
The assertion that Marcello stood above Commission policy is flat out baseless - Marcello could and did insist that certain niceties of LCN etiquette be followed (LCN members coming to NOLA needed to notify Marcello in advance) be observed, and he also had a very strict policy about - surprise - other LCN outfits' business being settled w/ violence in NOLA, but there's no way that Marcello had authority above that of the Commission to go after fish as big as POTUS - Marcello was much beholden to Frank Costello, NYC family head and commission member for his position as the Commission's franchise holder in NOLA. If you have evidence that Marcello held more power than his Patron, please feel free to post same.
I know the old "Hoover was gay" nugget has much traction today, but what is more plausible and more in character with Hoover's known actions wrt criminal prosecutions is that Hoover had observed how LCN money had corrupted and subverted efforts to enforce Prohibition, and the over-riding concern of Hoover was that his agency was never to be seen as corruptible, and that when the agency set their sight on Public Enemy whatever, the bad actor was as good as gone.
Simply put, Hoover had observed first hand the reality that LCN could not be defeated, and he found it to his and the FBI's advantage to ignore LCN for as long as possible.
I've had the opportunity to ask questions of old timer FBI agents. Their take on the Hoover as a closeted gay meme was that Hoover simply had no interest in anything past his personal power, and interpersonal relationships (my word, my uncle said "broads") took up time w/ no reward he was into. The recent movie w/ DiCaprio was entertaining, but I'm not buying the old the "Mafia had a picture of him in drag!" rumor.
I've read Legacy of Secrecy.
Hartman's and Waldron's conclusions based on faith don't impress me anymore than your's.
Robert Harris
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2015
- Messages
- 867
Well, why don't YOU put some words in your mouth then?
Tell everyone what really caused those reactions following 285.
Tell us why Dr. Alvarez just happened to identify Zapruder's reaction in the same 1/18th of a second that the passengers' reactions began.
Tell us how at least one of Oswald's 130 decibel, high powered rifle shots went unnoticed by most of the witnesses.
Tell us why none of the early shots provoked reactions, even remotely like the ones following 285 and 313.
Tell us why "most" of the witnesses reported "closely bunched" shots at the end of the attack, that directly contradict the Posner/Bugliosi theory.
Belz...
Fiend God
Actually you know exactly how that feels.
Belz...
Fiend God
The experts knew what he expected beforehand ?
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Yes, answer the questions, Robert. Stop running away from answering.
Do you feel that your evidence would cause the FBI to reopen the investigation?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Asked and answered. I have formed my opinion regarding your claims, and have additionally concluded that further engagement with you is unlikely to change that opinion. You do not get to demand engagement. You do not get to enjoy infinite opportunities to address your critics. If I decline to put any more words in my mouth than I have already, you don't get to step in and put what you want in there.
Robert Harris
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2015
- Messages
- 867
Your opinion is duly noted. But have you invested more time and effort researching the mob than folks like Blakey, Anthony Summers and Lamar Waldron?
If not, then with all due respect, I think I'll go with them.
Yes, that's because he was the head of the entire SE region. But who did Marcello have to notify in advance?
Uh huh. I guess he must have been terrified of being murdered for failing to get permission, as he was telling everyone that he was going to kill JFK and later, telling Frank Ragano and other mafioso that he did it
Even in prison, they could have got to him after he told Laningham that he ordered the hit.
He didn't have to hold "more" power. All that matters is that he didn't need to get anyone's permission and obviously, wasn't at all concerned about getting it.
So, let me see if I have this right.
Hoover figured that he couldn't whoop the mafia, so he decided to tell everyone that they didn't exist??
And you guys claim our theories are crazy
Robert Harris
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2015
- Messages
- 867
Yes I do Jay. That is exactly how debate works, or at least that's how it works among honest participants in a debate forum.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
You have confused me with someone who is playing your game.
Robert Harris
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2015
- Messages
- 867
Read post #3530 which includes verbatim statements from the HSCA polygraph panel, that Mr. Belz deleted in his reply.
Sandy McCroskey
Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2015
- Messages
- 188
This is incredible. You are actually saying that in an honest debate, people are allowed to put words in their opponents' mouths.
How wrong can one man be?!
- Status