JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Tomtomkent]

A confessed state of mind of the Chief Justice and his underlings IS evidence.

No. It isn't. It's an assertion. Connect it to the ACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION with a little thing we call EVIDENCE.
EDIT: For a start supply the document or source for this confession of the state of mind. Or am I to take your word with out question?

 

[Walter Ego]

And it was Katzenbach's suggestion that no one even consider a wider conspiracy.

A suggestion which the Warren Commission ignored. Have you even read the WC Report? I'll bet you if 95% of the report was read to you without attribution you'd agree with it. Can you state the conclusion of the WC re a conspiracy to kill JKF. Google and get back to me if you can't.

 

[Walter Ego]

I cited a statement of a man who worked for the man who formed the Warren Commission and was/is a prime suspect and even named by some of the perps including E. Howard Hunt and by inference, Jack Ruby.

I'll probably regret this but who is this man twice removed from the Warren Commission who was fingered by E. Howard Hunt as a suspect in the conspiracy to kill JFK? Katzenbach? Wesley Liebeler? You don't say.

(Hunt was a notorious liar, btw.)

The man who "formed" the WC was LBJ. Is it Bill Moyers? Jack Valenti? Both worked for Johnson. Or do you think Katzenback "formed" the WC?

 

[Robert Prey]

I'll probably regret this but who is this man twice removed from the Warren Commission who was fingered by E. Howard Hunt as a suspect in the conspiracy to kill JFK? Katzenbach? Wesley Liebeler? You don't say.

(Hunt was a notorious liar, btw.)

The man who "formed" the WC was LBJ. Is it Bill Moyers? Jack Valenti? Both worked for Johnson. Or do you think Katzenback "formed" the WC?

One question at a time, please. I don't understand the first one. As to the 2nd, of course, LBJ formed the WC and LBJ is named by perp Hunt and by inference Ruby as Numero Uno in the conspiracy. I'm shocked at your allegation that Hunt is a liar. Do you know of any choir boys in the CIA that don't lie? Have you ever lied?

 

[Robert Prey]

A suggestion which the Warren Commission ignored. Have you even read the WC Report? I'll bet you if 95% of the report was read to you without attribution you'd agree with it. Can you state the conclusion of the WC re a conspiracy to kill JKF. Google and get back to me if you can't.

Can you state the conclusion of the HSCA on the same question?

 

[Robert Prey]

No. It isn't. It's an assertion. Connect it to the ACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION with a little thing we call EVIDENCE.
EDIT: For a start supply the document or source for this confession of the state of mind. Or am I to take your word with out question?

Is anyone supposed to take the word of a bunch of cover-uppers as to whether or not they are cover-uppers?

 

[Robert Prey]

Suggests. Not proves. And hardly enough to suggest anything more than they thought the guy was crazy and dreamt of hurting the president. They were not party to, or part of his plan. So how about you actually supply some evidence this in any way falls into the definition of conspiracy you gave?

You have to admit, when you make a big show and dance about the definition, then fail to meet it, it is not in any way helpful to your case.

Suggestive of a conspiracy affirmed by guys like HSCA investigator Gaeton Fonzi and CT critic Bugliosi is sufficient for these boards. Actual indictments are for a court of law.

 

[Walter Ego]

One question at a time, please. I don't understand the first one. As to the 2nd, of course, LBJ formed the WC and LBJ is named by perp Hunt and by inference Ruby as Numero Uno in the conspiracy. I'm shocked at your allegation that Hunt is a liar. Do you know of any choir boys in the CIA that don't lie? Have you ever lied?

My first question was very simple assuming you can understand what you yourself wrote. Let me quote you again.

I cited a statement of a man who worked for the man who formed the Warren Commission and was/is a prime suspect and even named by some of the perps including E. Howard Hunt and by inference, Jack Ruby.

We agree that LBJ formed the WC. Correct? Who was the man you cited who worked for LBJ?

As to E. Howard Hunt, we both agree the Hunt's veracity is questionable but when he fingered LBJ as a perp in the JFK assassination it was on one of the rare occasions where he was telling the truth... according to you. So when a known liar confirms your belief in a conspiracy to kill JFK, he is being truthful... again according to you? (That last question was rhetorical. No answer required)

Could someone explain the term "conformation bias" to Robert?

 

[Walter Ego]

Can you state the conclusion of the HSCA on the same question?

So you don't know the WC's conclusion re a conspiracy to kill JFK and you answer my question with another question?

To answer your question, the HSCA concluded that LHO fired three shots at JFK from the sixth floor of the TSBD and the third shot fired by LHO killed the president but based on some acoustic evidence introduced at the last minute which was later discredited the HSCA concluded a fourth shot came from the Grassy Knoll indicating a probable conspiracy.

More specifically.

1.Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy. The second and third shots he fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President.

a.President Kennedy was struck by two rifle shots fired from behind him.

b.The shots that struck President Kennedy from behind him were fired from the sixth floor window of the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository building.

c.Lee Harvey Oswald owned the rifle that was used to fire the shots from the sixth floor window of the southeast comer of the Texas School Book Depository building.

d.Lee Harvey Oswald, shortly before the assassination, had access to and was present on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository building.

e.Lee Harvey Oswald's other actions tend to support the conclusion that he assassinated President Kennedy.

2.Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations.

3.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.

a.The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.

b.The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.

c.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.

d.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.

e.The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation and Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/summary.html

As to the Warren Commission.

The shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald.

The Commission has found no evidence that either Lee Harvey Oswald or Jack Ruby was part of any conspiracy, domestic or foreign, to assassinate President Kennedy.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKwarrenR.htm

So to summarize, the HSCA confirmed the basic findings of the Warren Commission regarding who killed JFK and the Warren Commission found no evidence of a conspiracy which is not the same thing as saying there was not a conspiracy to kill JFK. (If you understand the distinction.)

Glad to have cleared that up for you.

 

[Tomtomkent]

One question at a time, please. I don't understand the first one. As to the 2nd, of course, LBJ formed the WC and LBJ is named by perp Hunt and by inference Ruby as Numero Uno in the conspiracy. I'm shocked at your allegation that Hunt is a liar. Do you know of any choir boys in the CIA that don't lie? Have you ever lied?

Why only one question at a time?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Suggestive of a conspiracy affirmed by guys like HSCA investigator Gaeton Fonzi and CT critic Bugliosi is sufficient for these boards. Actual indictments are for a court of law.

No. Suggestive of a conspiracy is not sufficient for most board users. If you make a claim then critical thinkers expect you to supply evidence. What exactly gives you the right to suggest what is and is not sufficient to convince others? That is as silly as telling people how many questions they can post (then asking three in your response).

You really haven't got the hang of this debunking lark yet have you?

 

[Mudcat]

i only don't answer single questions,

ftfy

 

[Tomtomkent]

Is anyone supposed to take the word of a bunch of cover-uppers as to whether or not they are cover-uppers?

So I notice when you are asked simple questions you can't answer them. I askedif you had any evidence the Warren Comission was a cover up. The two valid answers would have been Yes (with evidence) or No.

Now you have stated again that the commission was a cover up. So again, based on whatevidence? Not the opinions of other writers. Not allegations of what is or is not suggestive. What evidence. What fact.

You show, as Walter pointed out, confirmation bias. You appraoch this conversation and one assumes the topic in general with your conclusion in mind, and any look only for the evidence to support that conclussion. Any questions that counter it you avoid. Any evidence to counter it try to invalidate with out further evidence.

You even reduce your allegations down to two words, presumably so when we areunderwhelmed you can adopt the stance that we didnt google hard enough, rather than admit that no, you don't have evidence of a conspiracy after all.

 

[Dave Rogers]

If the local wacko (or his impersonator) goes ahead and does shoot the president, and you had conversations about it, and he told you he was going to do it but you did nothing about it, that seems fairly conspiratorial to me.

OK, so now you've demonstrated that you don't even understand what a conspiracy is, I think we've got a valuable baseline for assessing any further assertions you make.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Is anyone supposed to take the word of a bunch of cover-uppers as to whether or not they are cover-uppers?

Your conclusion that they are cover-uppers is based on the starting assumption that they are covering something up.

Dave

 

[Robert Prey]

Your conclusion that they are cover-uppers is based on the starting assumption that they are covering something up.

Dave

It's not an assumption. It is a fact.

 

[Robert Prey]

OK, so now you've demonstrated that you don't even understand what a conspiracy is, I think we've got a valuable baseline for assessing any further assertions you make.

Dave

All that is necessary under the law is a "partnership" for criminal purposes. Under the law, it is not even necessary for a Person to have been a part of carrying out the scheme for an indictment, or even to have planned together the details of the scheme. Nor is any formal agreement required.

 

[Dave Rogers]

All that is necessary under the law is a "partnership" for criminal purposes.

If you keep changing your mind about what a conspiracy is, that makes you even less credible.

Dave

 

[Robert Prey]

So I notice when you are asked simple questions you can't answer them. I askedif you had any evidence the Warren Comission was a cover up. The two valid answers would have been Yes (with evidence) or No.

Now you have stated again that the commission was a cover up. So again, based on whatevidence? Not the opinions of other writers. Not allegations of what is or is not suggestive. What evidence. What fact.

You show, as Walter pointed out, confirmation bias. You appraoch this conversation and one assumes the topic in general with your conclusion in mind, and any look only for the evidence to support that conclussion. Any questions that counter it you avoid. Any evidence to counter it try to invalidate with out further evidence.

You even reduce your allegations down to two words, presumably so when we areunderwhelmed you can adopt the stance that we didnt google hard enough, rather than admit that no, you don't have evidence of a conspiracy after all.

"You appraoch this conversation and one assumes the topic in general with your conclusion in mind, and any look only for the evidence to support that conclussion. Any questions that counter it you avoid. Any evidence to counter it try to invalidate with out further evidence."

Exactly how the Warren Commission approached and carried out it's "mandate."

 

[Robert Prey]

So you don't know the WC's conclusion re a conspiracy to kill JFK and you answer my question with another question?

To answer your question, the HSCA concluded that LHO fired three shots at JFK from the sixth floor of the TSBD and the third shot fired by LHO killed the president but based on some acoustic evidence introduced at the last minute which was later discredited the HSCA concluded a fourth shot came from the Grassy Knoll indicating a probable conspiracy.

More specifically.



As to the Warren Commission.



So to summarize, the HSCA confirmed the basic findings of the Warren Commission regarding who killed JFK and the Warren Commission found no evidence of a conspiracy which is not the same thing as saying there was not a conspiracy to kill JFK. (If you understand the distinction.)

Glad to have cleared that up for you.

"2.Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations.

3.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."

That sort of contradicts the WC and also the rest of the HSCA conclusions and your own as well. Thanks.