• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

Status
Not open for further replies.
How do you know what the *correct clothing* was, and how did you determine that? A lot of them got the floor wrong too, but we both know how that happened. The first floor had a façade and counting up, many people started counting with the first floor of windows visible to people on the street, which was the second floor.




Numerous people gave a description fitting Oswald. And as he was the only person to leave a rifle behind on the sixth floor, he appears to be the most likely candidate for the person in the window - unless you can name some other more likely candidates.

Robert Edwards:
Today, November 22nd, 1963, I was with Ronald Fischer, and we were on the corner at Elm and Houston, and I happened to look up there at the building, the Texas School Book Depository Building, and I saw a man at the window on the fifth floor, the window was wide open all the way; there was a stack of boxes around him, I could see. Bob remarked that he must be hiding from somebody. I noticed that he had on a sport shirt, it was light colored, it was yellow or white, something to that effect, and his hair was rather short; I thought he might be something around twenty-six, as near as I could tell.

Edwards testimony filled out the description:
Mr. BELIN - Could you describe this individual at all? Was he a white man or a Negro?
Mr. EDWARDS - White man.
Mr. BELIN - Tall or short, if you know?
Mr. EDWARDS - I couldn't say.
Mr. BELIN - Did he have anything in his hand at all that you could see?
Mr. EDWARDS - No.
Mr. BELIN - Could you see his hands?
Mr. EDWARDS - I don't remember.
Mr. BELIN - What kind of clothes did he have on?
Mr. EDWARDS - Light colored shirt, short sleeve and open neck.
Mr. BELIN - How much of him could you see? Shoulder up, waist up, knees up, or what?
Mr. EDWARDS - From the waist on. From the abdomen or stomach up what,
Mr. BELIN - Was the man fat, thin, or average in size?
Mr. EDWARDS - Oh, about average. Possibly thin.
Mr. BELIN - Could you tell whether he was light skinned or medium skin or if you couldtell?
Mr. EDWARDS - No.
Mr. BELIN - Was the sun shining in or not, if you know?
Mr. EDWARDS - Don't know.
Mr. BELIN - Was the sun out that day?
Mr. EDWARDS - Yes.
Mr. BELIN - What color hair did the man have?
Mr. EDWARDS - Light brown.
Mr. BELIN - Light brown hair?
Mr. EDWARDS - That is what I would say; yes, sir.
...


Ron Fischer:
Today, November 22nd, 1963, I was with Robert E. (Bob) Edwards, we were standing on the corner of Elm and Houston, on the southwest corner; about thirty seconds before the motorcade came by, Bob turned to me and said that there was a man on the fifth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, at the window there, and I looked up and saw the man. I looked up at the window and I noticed that he seemed to be laying down there or in a funny position anyway, because all I could see was his head. I noticed that he was light-headed and that he had on an open-neck shirt, and that was before the motorcade rounded the corner. I noticed his complexion seemed to be clear, and that he was in this twenty's [sic], appeared to be in his twenty's [sic].

Ronald Fischer's testimony:
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember anything about the man? Could you describe his appearance at all? First of all, how much of him could you see?
Mr. FISCHER - I could see from about the middle of his chest past the top of his head.
Mr. BELIN - All right.
Mr. FISCHER - He was in the---as you're looking toward that window, he was in the lower right portion of the window. He seemed to be sitting a little forward.
And he had--he had on an open-neck shirt, but it-uh--could have been a sport shirt or a T-shirt. It was light in color; probably white, I couldn't tell whether it had long sleeves or whether it was a short-sleeved shirt, but it was open-neck and light in color.
Uh---he had a slender face and neck---uh---and he had a light complexion ----he was a white man. And he looked to be 22 or 24 years old.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember anything about the color of his hair?
Mr. FISCHER - His hair seemed to be---uh---neither light nor dark; possibly a light---well, possibly a---well, it was a brown was what it was; but as to whether it was light or dark, I can't say.
Mr. BELIN - Did he have a thick head of hair or did he have a receding hair-line---or couldn't you tell?
Mr. FISCHER - I couldn't tell. He couldn't have had very long hair, because his hair didn't seem to take up much space---of what I could see of his head. His hair must have been short and not long. ...
Mr. BELIN - Now, what about being light-headed?
Mr. FISCHER - By "light-headed," I meant that he didn't have black hair. He didn't have dark--he didn't have well, when I say "dark," I mean black. He didn't have black hair. He didn't have blonde hair. When I said, "light-headed," I didn't mean blonde or I would have said that, but--uh.
Mr. BELIN - What color of hair did you mean? Did you say "light-headed"?
Mr. FISCHER - I believe I did say "light-headed"--because I didn't--like I say--I didn't want it to appear that he was dark.
Mr. BELIN - By "dark," what color do you mean?
Mr. FISCHER - Black.
Mr. BELIN - Well, once again, I'll ask you, to the best of your recollection, what color hair did he have?
Mr. FISCHER - Uh--like I say, it's too hard for me to---uh--to tell one way or the other. At the distance I was, uh--it's just- -it's just too hard for me to--I'm not going to say it because I don't know for sure, just exactly what shade of hair he did have. It wasn't blonde and it wasn't black. Somewhere in between. And it was a shade of brown that as to whether it was a dark brown, a light brown, a medium brown, or whatever you call it--I don't know.


Arnold Rowland saw a man in the window about 15 minutes before the assassination. From his 11/22/63 statement:
This man appeared to be a white man and appeared to have a light colored shirt on, open at the neck. He appeared to be of slender build and appeared to have dark hair.

Rowland's testimony:
Mr. SPECTER - Describe, as best you can, the appearance of the individual whom you saw?
Mr. ROWLAND - He was rather slender in proportion to his size. I couldn't tell for sure whether he was tall and maybe, you know heavy, say 200 pounds, but tall whether he would be and slender or whether he was medium and slender, but in proportion to his size his build was slender.
Mr. SPECTER - Could you give us an estimate on his height?
Mr. ROWLAND - No; I couldn't. That is why I said I can't state what height he would be. He was just slender in build in proportion with his width. This is something I find myself doing all the time, comparing things in perspective.
Mr. SPECTER - Was he a white man or a Negro or what?
Mr. ROWLAND - Seemed, well, I can't state definitely from my position because it was more or less not fully light or bright in the room. He appeared to be fair complexioned, not fair, but light complexioned, but dark hair.
Mr. SPECTER - What race was he then?
Mr. ROWLAND - I would say either a light Latin or a Caucasian.
Mr. SPECTER - And were you able to observe any characteristics of his hair?
Mr. ROWLAND - No; except that it was dark, probably black.


A slender young (mid-twenties) white male with short brown hair is the general description. Sound like anyone you know who happened to leave a rifle behind in the Depository?

Hank
Not one of your examples could track down LHO if those were the only descriptions provided. And your conjecture of LHO leaving the rifle behind is just that... conjecture and not fact.

“We don’t have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did.
Nobody’s yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand.” ― Jesse Curry, Dallas Chief of Police, 1969

You should provide the burden of proof; the Dallas police chief couldn't.
 
Your point is off the subject of the History Channel special, which special seems designed to suck people into believing Oswald had help from the Russians at this point in time by ignoring evidence and making it appear documents that weren't redacted were redacted.

Regarding Gaudet, he wasn't a "CIA AGENT" like you suggest but like thousand of other international travelers during the Cold War period, simply volunteered to furnish information to Domestic Contact Division of the CIA... they would debrief travelers to learn what they could. His most active period was 1948 - 1955, and from 1955 - 1961 he was an infrequent contributor. He had no contact with the CIA after 1961.

He didn't know Oswald, but said he saw him at the Trade Mart distributing literature, and didn't even travel to Mexico at the same time as Oswald. He left a week earlier, and only had a stop-over in Mexico because his destination wasn't Mexico but Central America.

Gaudet's name wasn't left off the FBI report that became Warren Commission Document 75 (CD75) prepared by FBI Agent DeBrueys on 12/2/63. You can see his name for yourself here: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10477#relPageId=577&tab=page

I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but much of it appears erroneous.

The HSCA investigated all this and you can find their conclusions here:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0124b.htm

Hank
WASHINGTON, D.C., THURSDAY, JANUARY 15, 1976

Another JFK Slaying Riddle

Oswald, CIA Trails Crossed;
Shadowy Figure Emerges

By Norman Kempster

Washington Star Staff Writer

Senate investigators are trying to
untangle a perplexing coincidence
that links Lee Harvey Oswald with a
long-time CIA agent who published a
Latin American newsletter as a
“cover” for his intelligence work.

The former agent, William George
Gaudet, received a Mexican tourist
permit with the serial number just
preceding that of one issued to Oswald
on Sept. 17, 1963, about two months
before the assassination of President
John F. Kennedy.

In a telephone interview this week.
Gaudet. wno is now living in retire-
ment in Waveland. Miss., said he
knew Oswald by sight at the time, al-
though he cannot recall if Oswald
was with him in the Mexican consu-
late in New Orleans.

Asked if he was sent by the CIA to
the consulate to keep track of Os-
wald, Gaudet responded. "I was
not.”

THE GAUDET matter is under
study by Sen. Richard Schweiker. R-
Pa., a member of a two-man sub-
committee of the Senate Intelligence
Committee, which is investigating
the relationship between the Warren;
Commission and the CIA and FBI.

The commission, headed by the!
late Chief Justice Earl Warren, con- 1
eluded that Oswald, acting alone,
murdered Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963 J
Oswald was killed by Jack Ruby two
days later.

Continued From A-l

Schweiker has said the
assassination investigation
should be reopened because
of new evidence that has
been discovered since the
Warren Commission pub-
lished its report. He said his
own investigation has found
curious "intelligence fin-
gerprints” on the case.

The Gaudet matter
seems to be one more of the
puzzles that have added to
the controversy that sur-
rounds the Kennedy assas-
sination. The Warren Com-
mission was told that
Oswald went to Mexico City
in October 1963. While there
he contacted the Cuban and
Soviet embassies in an
apparent effort to obtain
permission to go to Cuba.

There is evidence that the
CIA had Oswald under sur-
veillance while he was in
Mexico, although many of
the details of his trip are
still being disputed.


ESPITE GAUDET’S in-
sistance that his trip to
Mexico had nothing to do
with Oswald’s, the coinci-
dence of numbers raises
questions that the commis-
sion apparently did not ask.

Evidence supplied to the
commission concerning
Gaudet is confusing unless
several widely separated
reports are brought togeth-
er. It is impossible to tell
from the face of the docu-
ments whether the FBI,
which served as the investi-
gative arm of the commis-
sion, made the necessary
connections.

Schweiker has complain-
ed that the FBI often sub-
mitted documents to the
commission without helping
the members determine the
significance of the papers.

The commission appar-
ently was informed that
Gaudet had received the
tourist card issued iust be-
fore Oswald’s. But the pub-
lished report gives no indi-
cation that the information
was given more than pass-
ing consideration. Working
only from the originally
published materials, it was
impossible to learn of the
coincidence in serial num-
bers.

GAUDET'S newsletter
operation was headquarter-
ed in New Orleans. He said
he frequently had seen Os-
wald distributing handbills
of the "Fair Play for Cuba
Committee,” a pro-Castro
group, outside of his office.
Gaudet said he knew Os-
wald by name and by sight
although they had never
met.

Gaudet also expressed
some opinions about the
Kennedy assassination that
coincide with the views of
some of the critics of the
Warren Commission.

Despite Oswald's rhetori-
cal support for Cuban
Premier Fidel Castro, Gau-
det said he believes Oswald
actually was involved with
a group of anti-Castro
Cubans.

Gaudet was asked if he
had formed an opinion
about why Kennedy was
killed.

“The only possible idea
that I could have would be
the anti-Castro Cubans
(conspired to kill him) be-
cause of the fiasco at the
Bay of Pigs,’' Gaudet re-
sponded. "If I was an anti-
Castro Cuban, there is no
question I would have been
very bitter about what hap-
pened at the Bay of Pigs."

Gaudet said he had no
way of knowing if Oswald
had contacts with the CIA
because “my work with the
CIA did not involve any-
thing within the United
States "

THE REPORT included
the full text of a letter from
the Mexican government
listing the names, ad-
dresses and as much other
information as possible
about the people who re-
ceived cards numbered
824082, 824083, 824086 and
824087. Oswald received
card numbered 824085. No
mention was made of
824084.

An FBI report submitted
to the commission but not
made public until later said
"no record of 824084 locat-
ed."

But a recently declas-
sed document lists Gaudet
as the holder of card num-
ber 824084, something that
Gaudet readily confirmed.

Another FBI report made
public earlier said Gaudet
received a tourist card on
the same day as Oswald,
but it made no mention of
the similarity in serial
numbers. That document
said Gaudet “indicated that
he has in the past been an
employee of the CIA.’’

In a telephone interview.
Gaudet was bitter about
that FBI report, which he
said should never have been
declassified. He said he
only reluctantly told the
FBI about his CIA back-
ground after the bureau
had agreed to protect his
cover.

"IF THE CIA needed me
to do a job, now that my
cover’s been revealed, I
couldn’t be of any help to
them, even if I wanted to."
Gaudet said. “I’m useless
to them. I couldn’t go back
to Central America.”

At 67, Gaudet is unlikely
to be called out of retire-
ment. He now talks freely
about an intelligence career
that he said spanned 25
years beginning during
World War - II, when he
served in a special Latin
American unit headed by
now Vice President Nelson
Rockefeller.

He said he joined the CIA
shortly after the agency
was created in 1947, and
continued until 1969.

Throughout his career
with the CIA, Gaudet lived
a double life as a spy and as
a journalist who specialized
in Latin American affairs.
He said he provided some
information to the planners
of the Bay of Pigs invasion
of Cuba.

Gaudet was publisher of
Latin American Report, a
newsletter that sold for $15
a week to clients with an
interest in the region. He
also wrote free-lance dis-
patches for several U.S.
publications, including the
Miami Herald. His CIA
connections apparently
were not revealed to publi-
cations that purchased his
articles. Chase Manhattan Bank,
First National City Bank of
New York, Standard Oil Co.
of New Jersey (now Exxon)
and other businesses.

Gaudet declined to go
into detail about his other
financial arrangements
with the CIA. But he said he
spied for patriotic reasons
and not for the money that
he received.

During the years Gaudet
said he was working for the
CIA, the agency frequently
provided journalistic cover
jobs for its agents. CIA
Director William E.‘ Colby
has said that since 1973 the
agency has not employed as
agents full-time staff mem-
bers of major U.S. publica-
tions or broadcast net-
works. But he refused to
rule out the use of employees
of small specialized news-
letters or of foreign publi-
cations.
GAUDET SAID the two
biggest customers for the
newsletter — purchasing
more than 20 subscriptions
each — were the ClA and
the Soviet intelligence serv-
ice. the KGB.

Although the CIA and the
KGB each were paying
more than $15,000 annually
for subscriptions, Gaudet
denied that the money
amounted to a subsidy of
his efforts. He said both
agencies bought the letter
for the information it con-
tained.

Other clients included the
United Fruit Company.

Phone(202) 484-5000

Hank, now you know where some of my information comes from, in this case it was an interview with Gaudet and what I stated is what he stated. He said he knew of LHO, he (Gaudet) was a CIA Agent, he published a newsletter, it was bought by others (the CIA purchasing from itself was common, it was an easy way to pay for Operations and laundry the money), he was employed by the Agency for 25 years.
 
Asking why couldn't Walthers be correct is the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. You want to say she is correct, you need to provide the proof of that. No one needs prove your assertions incorrect.
Frankly, your continuous use and misuse of pointing out fallacies is old and trite. I never said I wanted her to be correct, do not make assumptions or pretend to read my mind. As for my question, it is not shifting the burden of proof, when someone makes a claim Traxy said"Carolyn Walther likely saw a portion of a tall stack of boxes Oswald had positioned around the snipers nest window and mistook it for a person." Since a comment was made, I asked Traxy to support his comment, I am surprised (not really) that you didn't call him out for providing a conjecture.

As for the boxes being positioned, the last time I looked, those boxes were not capable of independent movement, so somebody moved them. We'll never know exactly how many boxes Oswald moved
to make that a useful statement you have to prove that LHO moved at least one box to set up the snipers nest and you can't nor can anybody else.
but since it was his rifle found on the sixth floor, and his weapon that inflicted the head wound on JFK (witness the two fragments found in the limo traceable to his weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons), we can presume Oswald was the one moving the boxes to build the sniper's nest.
you can presume anything and that is all you get... a presumption not fact.
 
Regarding Gaudet, he wasn't a "CIA AGENT" like you suggest but like thousand of other international travelers during the Cold War period, simply volunteered to furnish information to Domestic Contact Division of the CIA... they would debrief travelers to learn what they could. His most active period was 1948 - 1955, and from 1955 - 1961 he was an infrequent contributor. He had no contact with the CIA after 1961.
See my previous post Gaudet acknowledged he was an Employee for the CIA

He didn't know Oswald, but said he saw him at the Trade Mart distributing literature, and didn't even travel to Mexico at the same time as Oswald. He left a week earlier, and only had a stop-over in Mexico because his destination wasn't Mexico but Central America.
The link you provided showed that Gaudet went to Mexico City for one day. which one of your claims is accurate? The document you provided or you saying he went to Central America? It can't be both. CE2123 is the document that the Mexican Government provided to the FBI. One of the questions that the FBI did not ask is why was Gaudet's name left off the list by the Mexican Government? The Mexican document was created on 11/30/63 which trumps your 12/2/63 document prepared by FBI Agent DeBrueys.

Gaudet's name wasn't left off the FBI report that became Warren Commission Document 75 (CD75) prepared by FBI Agent DeBrueys on 12/2/63. You can see his name for yourself here: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10477#relPageId=577&tab=page
This is hard to reconcile after reading the article in the Washington DC newspaper.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but much of it appears erroneous.
Appearances can be deceptive if there is myopia in the Receptor.

The HSCA investigated all this and you can find their conclusions here:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0124b.htm

Hank
thanks Hank I was not aware that the HSCA even existed, your links are invaluable.
 
Are we supposed to not notice you didn't respond to the point?
If you want someone to respond, you first need to ask them a question. What question that was asked to me that I failed to answer?

The person Carolyn Walther said she saw was not a second gunman, unless you think two people had room to shoot from the sniper's nest, both with their own weapons, or they shared the one weapon between them.
I am not making a claim, it was Carolyn Walther who made the claim. I never said she was correct or that I even believed her. Stop telling me what you think I am thinking. Do not attribute your flimsy "straw man" to me.


Walther's statement is quite clear about what she saw. She said she saw only a portion of a man behind the man with the weapon, and this second man was wearing a brown jacket, and she saw no head, no arms, and she described no movement by this second man. Now, no head, no arms, and no movement sounds a lot like boxes, to me. Your mileage may differ.
Mileage may differ? I am not making claims, I posted what somebody told the FBI and since she felt she saw what she said, I only wonder why the WC did not call her to testify. I am not out to prove who shot who when, I am just pointing out inconsistencies and asking about them.

Now, since numerous people said they saw brown boxes behind the shooter or the man in the window, and when the police arrived at the sixth floor to secure the scene, they found brown boxes and no one wearing a brown jacket
they also did not find LHO up there but it does not prevent you from claiming that he was there with the rifle in his hand.
the reasonable conclusion
Reasonable in your eyes, do not attribute your guess with anything other than a guess.
is Walthers saw some boxes and misinterpreted those boxes (which like Walthers' second man, had no head, no arms, and made no independent movement) as a man wearing a brown jacket that she could only see from the shoulders to the waist.
For a person who continuously insists on facts from people, you provide a lot of interpretations all by yourself.

However, if you wish to cling to her eyewitness report, and insist she saw a second man there is no corroborative evidence for, I cannot stop you.
"Cling" I only posted what the FBI provided to the WC. Your insistence on attempting to characterize my post as being a stance is a reckless regard for the facts.

Regardless, however, it still doesn't address the argument made, that of a second gunman being seen.

Got any evidence of one?

Hank
Did I say there was a second gunman? I'll give you the answer... NO! and "Regardless" of what? Walthers said she saw another person, that is not disputed by anyone.
 
Did I say there was a second gunman? I'll give you the answer... NO! and "Regardless" of what? Walthers said she saw another person, that is not disputed by anyone.

So what exactly is your point? If you don't think there was another gunman, then presumably you believe it was Oswald. Secondly, if you think this witness is reliable, then why back off from the claim that there was a second gunman? Third option, she said she saw someone else, but you don't believe her- so why post it?
:confused:
 
So what exactly is your point? If you don't think there was another gunman, then presumably you believe it was Oswald. Secondly, if you think this witness is reliable, then why back off from the claim that there was a second gunman? Third option, she said she saw someone else, but you don't believe her- so why post it?
:confused:
When did I say that I don't think was a second gunman?

I do not think about the credibility of the witness, I am no position to put a value judgement on someone that never interfaced with and a person that I do not know.

I posted it because there was someone who publicly said she saw another person through the window when a Poster said LHO was the only person there (paraphrase).
 
When did I say that I don't think was a second gunman?

I do not think about the credibility of the witness, I am no position to put a value judgement on someone that never interfaced with and a person that I do not know.

I posted it because there was someone who publicly said she saw another person through the window when a Poster said LHO was the only person there (paraphrase).

"Did I say there was a second gunman? I'll give you the answer...No!"
Have you now changed your mind?
 
"Did I say there was a second gunman? I'll give you the answer...No!"
Have you now changed your mind?
You need to read my statement. I did not say "I don't think there was a second gunman" I said that I made no such statement. The sentence is clear "Did I say there was a second gunman? I'll give you the answer... No!" Let's substitute some words and see if it makes it any clearer for you.

1. "Did I say there was a double header today in the Bronx? I'll give you the answer...No!"

2. "Did I say there was a concert today in the Park? I'll give you the answer...No!"

3. "Did I say there was a second gunman? I'll give you the answer...No!"


All 3 statements are true, I never said anything regarding my belief or disbelief of a second gunman, I only posted what was said to the FBI... nothing more.
 
When did I say that I don't think was a second gunman?

I do not think about the credibility of the witness, I am no position to put a value judgement on someone that never interfaced with and a person that I do not know.

I posted it because there was someone who publicly said she saw another person through the window when a Poster said LHO was the only person there (paraphrase).

Your paraphrase is not close to accurate. See the first quote in the below.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11814060&postcount=3207

The point being made (that you responded with the change of subject about Walther) was that if there was a second shooter somewhere else in the plaza, he should have been seen. You did not address that point at all. In fact, you proclaim you avoided addressing that point:

"Did I say there was a second gunman? I'll give you the answer...No!"

Hank
 
Last edited:
"Did I say there was a second gunman? I'll give you the answer...No!"
Have you now changed your mind?

When did I say that I don't think was a second gunman?

I do not think about the credibility of the witness, I am no position to put a value judgement on someone that never interfaced with and a person that I do not know.

I posted it because there was someone who publicly said she saw another person through the window when a Poster said LHO was the only person there (paraphrase).


Ok, now what?

We have about ten witnesses who only saw one man in the window (or just the weapon) and one witness who saw two men in the window.

What does this have to do with a second shooter, and why should we not point out your ham-fisted attempt to change the subject?

Given you don't know any of the witnesses, are you agnostic only on Walthers testimony,or on everyone's?

Do you avoid reaching any conclusions in everyday life or is this approach restricted solely to the JFK assassination?

Hank
 
Last edited:
Your paraphrase is not close to accurate. See the first quote in the below.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11814060&postcount=3207

The point being made (that you responded with the change of subject about Walther) was that if there was a second shooter somewhere else in the plaza, he should have seen. You did not address that point at all. In fact, you proclaim you avoided addressing that point.

Hank
My comment was a stand-alone comment; there was no requirement to respond. You may wish to address your comment about Gaudet only working for the CIA as a business asset. If you have not read articles and testimonies that state Bill Gaudet was an employee of the CIA then you have not researched it very thoroughly. A document that you provided the link to (the FBI report) showed that he was a CIA employee yet you claim he was doing this like many other people who travel abroad... The only claim I read that had "first-hand knowledge" and stated what you stated is the CIA. Gaudet says he was an employee, the FBI said he was an employee what more do you need?
 
Ok, now what?

We have about ten witnesses who only saw one man in the window (or just the weapon) and one witness who saw two men in the window.

What does this have to do with a second shooter, and why should we not point out your ham-fisted attempt to change the subject?

Given you don't know any of the witnesses, are you agnostic only on Walthers testimony,or on everyone's?

Do you avoid reaching any conclusions in everyday life or is this approach restricted solely to the JFK assassination?

Hank
How many times do I need to repeat? I make no claim, I have no opinion on a second person, I never had and I probably never will because it is not in my interest.

I do not need to reach a conclusion, I only pointed out an inconsistency and it was immediately taken as a position. Understand that I do not have a position on a second gunman.
 
My comment was a stand-alone comment; there was no requirement to respond. You may wish to address your comment about Gaudet only working for the CIA as a business asset. If you have not read articles and testimonies that state Bill Gaudet was an employee of the CIA then you have not researched it very thoroughly. A document that you provided the link to (the FBI report) showed that he was a CIA employee yet you claim he was doing this like many other people who travel abroad... The only claim I read that had "first-hand knowledge" and stated what you stated is the CIA. Gaudet says he was an employee, the FBI said he was an employee what more do you need?

Do you know Gaudet personnally?

If not, I am curious why the differing approaches between Walther's statement and Gaudet's?

With Walther's statement, you stop short of claiming she is an accurate witness, saying you can't vouch for her credibility, but you don't appear to question Gaudet's credibility, citing his claims to a reporter as if they are gospel, apparently - As if every claim everyone ever made to a reporter was always 100% accurate and never ever self-serving.

So Gaudet said he was CIA. So what?

Where's the evidence of that?

Hank
 
Last edited:
How many times do I need to repeat? I make no claim, I have no opinion on a second person, I never had and I probably never will because it is not in my interest.

I do not need to reach a conclusion, I only pointed out an inconsistency and it was immediately taken as a position. Understand that I do not have a position on a second gunman.

What inconsistency?

Walther said nothing about a second shooter.

You didn't bring up a inconsistency, you changed the subject.

Hank
 
Do you know gaudiest personnally?
I presume you mean Gaudet... no

If not, I am curious why the differing approaches between Walther's statement and Gaudet's?
One statement is about what she thought she saw and was provided to the FBI. The other statements or comments is someone talking about their experiences also provided to the FBI.

With Walther's statement, you stop short of claiming she is an accurate witness
let me make this clear, I made no claims about her and certainly not about being an accurate witness (show me where I stopped short of claiming she is an accurate witness)
saying you can't vouch for her credibility, but you don't appear to question Gaudet's credibility, citing his claims to a reporter as if they are gospel, apparently.
There you go again, making attributes to my comments when I did not provide them. By the way, Gaudet is on record with multiple sources saying the same thing. The article was only one source.

Please respond to the many questions I have posed to you.

As if every claim everyone ever made to a reporter was always 100% accurate and never self-serving.

So Gaudet said he was CIA. So what?

Where's the evidence of that?

Hank
So what? You said he wasn't an Agent only a businessman who was doing what many other businessmen did for the CIA. Are you changing your stance?

As for evidence, you provided the evidence when you posted the link the FBI report that provided the names of the people who applied for Tourist Cards. Did you read the FBI report?
 
What inconsistency?

Walther said nothing about a second shooter.

You didn't bring up a inconsistency, you changed the subject.

Hank
You are correct, Walthers did not call what she saw a second shooter. She claimed she saw someone else and that is what I posted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom