JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Tomtomkent]

And according to Rogers:
"Katzenbach is clearly saying here that the facts do not support the conspiracy theory, and that the facts should be released in full so as to end speculation when the true identity of the sole assassin is already known. It only looks like a whitewash if you start from the presumption that there was a conspiracy..."

The K memo asserts that facts do not support the conspiracy theory even before there was any investigation of the facts and bear in mind the memo was written NOv. 25th, one day after the assassination. Talk about a Rush to Judgement. And the true identity of the assassin is already known only by the un-proven assertions of the cover-uppers themselves. It certainly must look like a whitewash if you start from the presumption that there not only was one shooter,and that he/'she had no accomplices. And I don't know how Rogers got away with quoting the entire memo. Perhaps you do. FAct is, the entire memo is far more incriminating to a govt. cover-up than the portion I quoted. And then we also have the J Edgar Hoover memo which commands the attention of all to the same official script:

"The thing I am most concerned about, and SO IS Mr. Katzenbach, is having something issued so that WE can convince the pubic that Oswald is the real assassin." (HSCA, vol 3, pp 471-473. This memo was apparently prepared by Hoover at 4 pm.)

I see nowhere in the memo that it suggests a time limit for how long the facts can take to come out. Nor do I see anything to suggest that LHO being the gunman is the only viable outcome of investigation, just the one that K. quite rightly seems to think early reports are indicating.

You do realise that in the overwhelming majority of murder cases the prime suspect has been established with in a 24-48 hour period? And the remaining weeks and months are spent ensuring evidence has been collected? What exactly do you think the varying investigations had been doing for those 24 hours since the murder? Waiting for other possible suspects to announce themselves?

There was no evidence to even suggest further shooters at that point. Within 24 hours Police knew the shots had come from behind, they had the rifle, they had the shooter, and they were on their way to having a plethora of evidence tying LHO to the rifle, the casings and the shots.

Robert, at no point in this thread have you managed to deliver a single piece of material evidence to support your claims. You offer your opinion of what you think the memo meant. You are clearly wrong.

Do you have ANY material evidence at all?

 

[bynmdsue]

And I don't know how Rogers got away with quoting the entire memo. Perhaps you do.

The JREF forum mods are part of a conspiracy.

A conspiracy out to get you! Booga-Booga!

 

[HSienzant]

When dealing with children, or immature adults for that matter, repetition is often necessary when repeatedly asked the same dumb questions.

You have *no idea* how much I agree with you right now.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

"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."

Try as you will, to turn truth into falsehood, the statement speaks for itself. Forget everything else. We must convict Oswald in the court of public opinion and the quest for the truth be damned. That is what any fair minded observer would conclude.

:

What part of the first sentence of that memo did you not understand?

"It is important for all the facts surrounding President Kennedy's assassnation 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 that effect is to be made now."


What part of his explanation of that memo to the HSCA and how the critics took certain sentences out of context did you not understand?

You can read his testimony here:
http://www.history-matters.com/arch...24-10010-10135/html/124-10010-10135_0002a.htm

 

[HSienzant]

And according to Rogers:
"Katzenbach is clearly saying here that the facts do not support the conspiracy theory, and that the facts should be released in full so as to end speculation when the true identity of the sole assassin is already known. It only looks like a whitewash if you start from the presumption that there was a conspiracy..."

The K memo asserts that facts do not support the conspiracy theory even before there was any investigation of the facts and bear in mind the memo was written NOv. 25th, one day after the assassination. Talk about a Rush to Judgement.

Wow. You don't know much about the assassination, do you?

JFK was shot and killed on 11/22/63. Novemeber 25th, when Katzenbach wrote his memo, was already three days after the assassination. There was already plenty of investigation of the facts by that time.

By the time that memo was written, Oswald had already been in custody for nearly 48 hours, interrogated for nearly 12 hours total, Oswald was already dead, and JFK's funeral on Monday, 11/25 was underway.

The police already had Oswald's rifle, obtained from the Book Depository from where shots were fired. They already had three shells found at the sniper's nest window, and they already had a palmprint from that rifle was was Lee Oswald's. They had a long paper bag found near the sniper's nest window with Oswald's prints on it, and the rifle had been traced from Klein's, where it was ordered, to Oswald's PO box, where it was shipped. They already had shells traceable to Oswald's revolver recovered at the scene of the Tippit shooting. They already had arrested Oswald in the Texas theatre after he slugged a cop and attempted to pull his revolver on that cop, and they had numerous witnesses who had already ID'ed Oswald in lineups as the shooter of Tippit. They had the backyard photos in evidence, showing Oswald with that rifle and a revolver, and they also had numerous provable lies of Oswald in custody - like he brought no package to the Depository that morning, despite the fact that two people - Buell Wesley Frazier and his sister Linnie Mae Randle - bought saw him with a long package that morning. Clearly the evidence *at that time* indicated that Oswald had fired the shots, and there was no evidence *at that time* to indicate Oswald, a loner with no close associates, was involved in a conspiracy.

You are wrong on so many levels, and the sad thing is you don't even realize it through that haze of falsehoods in conspiracy writings you read and believe.

All the best,
Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The first line is just as incriminating as the rest of it. "...told in such a way." How about an open minded investigation to wherever it leads. That is not a part of the K memo and you know it.

Don't put stuff in quotes that you just made up.

Hank

 

[Robert Prey]

Wow. You don't know much about the assassination, do you?

JFK was shot and killed on 11/22/63. Novemeber 25th, when Katzenbach wrote his memo, was already three days after the assassination. There was already plenty of investigation of the facts by that time.

By the time that memo was written, Oswald had already been in custody for nearly 48 hours, interrogated for nearly 12 hours total, Oswald was already dead, and JFK's funeral on Monday, 11/25 was underway.

The police already had Oswald's rifle, obtained from the Book Depository from where shots were fired. They already had three shells found at the sniper's nest window, and they already had a palmprint from that rifle was was Lee Oswald's. They had a long paper bag found near the sniper's nest window with Oswald's prints on it, and the rifle had been traced from Klein's, where it was ordered, to Oswald's PO box, where it was shipped. They already had shells traceable to Oswald's revolver recovered at the scene of the Tippit shooting. They already had arrested Oswald in the Texas theatre after he slugged a cop and attempted to pull his revolver on that cop, and they had numerous witnesses who had already ID'ed Oswald in lineups as the shooter of Tippit. They had the backyard photos in evidence, showing Oswald with that rifle and a revolver, and they also had numerous provable lies of Oswald in custody - like he brought no package to the Depository that morning, despite the fact that two people - Buell Wesley Frazier and his sister Linnie Mae Randle - bought saw him with a long package that morning. Clearly the evidence *at that time* indicated that Oswald had fired the shots, and there was no evidence *at that time* to indicate Oswald, a loner with no close associates, was involved in a conspiracy.

You are wrong on so many levels, and the sad thing is you don't even realize it through that haze of falsehoods in conspiracy writings you read and believe.

All the best,
Hank

Except for the dating error, everything in your post is either false or irrelevant baloney. But even if true, there is not one scintilla of evidence that would exclude other accomplices which by focusing on one subject only, was the whole purpose of the intended whitewash. And you very well know it. You are a victim of government brainwash. Admit it.

 

[jargon buster]

The K memo asserts that facts do not support the conspiracy theory even before there was any investigation of the facts and bear in mind the memo was written NOv. 25th, one day after the assassination.

That one sentence there should tell you all you need to know about Roberts motives in this thread.

 

[Robert Prey]

What part of the first sentence of that memo did you not understand?

"It is important for all the facts surrounding President Kennedy's assassnation 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 that effect is to be made now."


What part of his explanation of that memo to the HSCA and how the critics took certain sentences out of context did you not understand?

You can read his testimony here:
http://www.history-matters.com/arch...24-10010-10135/html/124-10010-10135_0002a.htm

The stated purpose was to focus on one suspect only, to the exclusion of any and all possible accomplices. The statement is a bold faced admission to create a whitewash.

 

[jargon buster]

the memo was written NOv. 25th, one day after the assassination.

 

[Robert Prey]

I see nowhere in the memo that it suggests a time limit for how long the facts can take to come out. Nor do I see anything to suggest that LHO being the gunman is the only viable outcome of investigation, just the one that K. quite rightly seems to think early reports are indicating.

You do realise that in the overwhelming majority of murder cases the prime suspect has been established with in a 24-48 hour period? And the remaining weeks and months are spent ensuring evidence has been collected? What exactly do you think the varying investigations had been doing for those 24 hours since the murder? Waiting for other possible suspects to announce themselves?

There was no evidence to even suggest further shooters at that point. Within 24 hours Police knew the shots had come from behind, they had the rifle, they had the shooter, and they were on their way to having a plethora of evidence tying LHO to the rifle, the casings and the shots.

Robert, at no point in this thread have you managed to deliver a single piece of material evidence to support your claims. You offer your opinion of what you think the memo meant. You are clearly wrong.

Do you have ANY material evidence at all?

Of course there is a mountain of prima facia evidence of an intended cover-up including, but not limited to the K memo. You, on the other hand, have nothing but the assertions of a bunch of under color of law cover-uppers. You have nothing else. and absolutely nothing that would exclude accomplices save for the head in sand approach of the authorities.

 

[HSienzant]

And according to Rogers:
"Katzenbach is clearly saying here that the facts do not support the conspiracy theory, and that the facts should be released in full so as to end speculation when the true identity of the sole assassin is already known. It only looks like a whitewash if you start from the presumption that there was a conspiracy..."

The K memo asserts that facts do not support the conspiracy theory even before there was any investigation of the facts and bear in mind the memo was written NOv. 25th, one day after the assassination. Talk about a Rush to Judgement. And the true identity of the assassin is already known only by the un-proven assertions of the cover-uppers themselves. It certainly must look like a whitewash if you start from the presumption that there not only was one shooter,and that he/'she had no accomplices. And I don't know how Rogers got away with quoting the entire memo. Perhaps you do. FAct is, the entire memo is far more incriminating to a govt. cover-up than the portion I quoted. And then we also have the J Edgar Hoover memo which commands the attention of all to the same official script:

"The thing I am most concerned about, and SO IS Mr. Katzenbach, is having something issued so that WE can convince the pubic that Oswald is the real assassin." (HSCA, vol 3, pp 471-473. This memo was apparently prepared by Hoover at 4 pm.)

As Katzenbach explained under oath, and which you have avoided,

Mr: DODD: Can you tell this committee, or help us try and straighten out what your motivation was at that moment that you wrote those words-and this is 3 days after the assassination- `the public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin." Why was it so important that the public be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin?
Mr. KATZENBACH: Because, very simply, if that was the conclusion that the FBI was going to come to, then the public had to be satisfied that that was the correct conclusion My whole attitude in that memorandum, and I think it is contained or reflected in other paragraphs that you mentioned, I think it was reflected in other conversations, other memorandums that you have, one overwhelming feeling that I had, and that was in the assassination of the President of the United States, all of the facts, all of the evidence, everything that was relevant to that had to be made public.... somebody else was going to reveal them. Now, if there was a conspiracy, there was a conspiracy, and you put those facts out. But if you were persuaded Oswald was a lone killer, you had better put all of the facts out and you better not cover up anything, and you better say now all of the facts are going to be made public.
That was the advice I was giving Moyers and that was the advice I was giving the President and that was the motivation for the Warren Commission.


Ignore his explanation all you want while you continue to quote out of context excerpts from his memorandum of 11/25/1963.

 

[HSienzant]

Except for the dating error, everything in your post is either false or irrelevant baloney. But even if true, there is not one scintilla of evidence that would exclude other accomplices which by focusing on one subject only, was the whole purpose of the intended whitewash. And you very well know it. You are a victim of government brainwash. Admit it.

No, Robert. You asserted there was no investigation at the time Katzenbach wrote the memo in question:

"The K memo asserts that facts do not support the conspiracy theory even before there was any investigation of the facts and bear in mind the memo was written NOv. 25th, one day after the assassination."

That entire statement is a falsehood. A big one. I pointed out there had already been plenty of investigation done, and plenty of evidence accumulated, irrespective of the date error, and the facts accumulated to that time Katzenbach wrote the memo all pointed to one conclusion - Oswald assassinated the President, and did not have any help doiing it.

Here it is, nearly 50 years later, and that conclusion hasn't been overturned.

You need to understand the conspiracy books you read are lying to you. For instance, did any one of them mention what the first sentence in Katzenbach's memo said, or did they cover it up and just give you the excerpts they said pointed to conspiracy?

I will tell you flatly none of the conspiracy books mention that first sentence. If you believe differently, cite one book that mentions that Katzenbach's first sentence puts everything that follows in the context of revealing everything known, warts and all:

"It is important for all 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 that effect is to be made now."


Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Oh , don't forget to quote this paragraph, either:

"I think, however, that a statement that all the facts will be made public property in an orderly and responsible way should be made now. We need something to head off public speculation or Congressional hearings of the wrong sort."

Do any of your conspiracy books quote that?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Except for the dating error, everything in your post is either false or irrelevant baloney. But even if true, there is not one scintilla of evidence that would exclude other accomplices which by focusing on one subject only, was the whole purpose of the intended whitewash. And you very well know it. You are a victim of government brainwash. Admit it.

Oswald bringing a long package to the TSBD and *his rifle* being discovered there is which? False? or Irrelevant Baloney, Robert?

Please advise how you reached that conclusion.

The available evidence says those two pieces of information are both true and very relevant.

Hank

 

[Walter Ego]

True Believers And Rationalists

Robert posted this on a different forum.

For those who believe, no proof is required. For those who do not believe, no proof will suffice.

I would fix that by striking one word.

For those who believe, no proof is required. For those who do not believe, no proof will suffice.

Robert is a True Believer. He really doesn't need any proof that there was a conspiracy's to kill JFK but in order to argue on a skeptical forum that his beliefs are true he needs some talking points. All of the "truths" on his flashcards come from his small collection of conspiracy books (totaling no more than 3 or 4 volumes as far as I can tell) or from whatever conspiracy websites he happens to surfing at any given moment.

He also faces a dilemma. Since he has no facts or evidence on his side, he must falsify the actual evidence of the case even if he has to do so in preposterous and ridiculous ways. He must prevaricate. He must dissemble. He must use disingenuous methods like quote mining. All in the higher service of fidelity to his "truth."

The rationalist (the term I prefer to skeptic) on the other hand does not have to stoop to deception. If the conspiracy advocates could come up with some convincing evidence and logical arguments for a conspiracy, the rationalist would concur with their conclusions with no loss of self-esteem. The True Believer, however, would face a loss of self-esteem by admitting his cherished beliefs are wrong because of his emotional investment in his "truth."

That the conspiracy advocates have had almost half a century to prove their case and have utterly failed to do so is telling. That they must resort to dishonestly and denial of reality in the service of their "truth" is merely sad, some would say pathetic.

Speaking only for myself, whether Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone shooter or there was a conspiracy is not a matter of great importance. The evidence points to Oswald as the sole culprit. Robert's frantic, though impassioned, efforts to prove otherwise have failed to impress... to put it mildly.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Of course there is a mountain of prima facia evidence of an intended cover-up including, but not limited to the K memo. You, on the other hand, have nothing but the assertions of a bunch of under color of law cover-uppers. You have nothing else. and absolutely nothing that would exclude accomplices save for the head in sand approach of the authorities.

The K memo which does not say what you claim? "The assertions of white washers"?

So let's just be clear:
The photographs of LHO holding THE rifle and pistol used for the crimes, which you have been unable to prove to be faked (nor a reason for faking them because apparently there were other genuine photos of him holding the SAME weapons) are assertions?

The z film is an assertion?

The murder weapons and fingerprints are assertions?

The polaroid is an asseretion?

The autopsy photographs you lied about and tried to crop and rotate are assertions?

The bullet fragments and shell casings are assertions?

All you have are quotes taken out of context and unsubstantiated claims about people, peppered with the same tired old witness statements.

Lets try again until you answer the question asked: Do you have any MATERIAL evidence to support your claims of a conspiracy? Anything MATERIAL to place a second shooter, or an alternate shooter on the scene, or that indicates the destruction or tampering of evidence. No opinions, no misunderstanding of perfectly clear documents, no quotes or what somebody thinks they remember, but material evidence.

If you dont understand material evidence admit so now, to avoid wasting any further time.

 

[Tomtomkent]

And that post should also indicate if the silly "one question" thingcounts on rhetorical questions.

 

[Robert Prey]

The K memo which does not say what you claim? "The assertions of white washers"?

So let's just be clear:
The photographs of LHO holding THE rifle and pistol used for the crimes, which you have been unable to prove to be faked (nor a reason for faking them because apparently there were other genuine photos of him holding the SAME weapons) are assertions?

The z film is an assertion?

The murder weapons and fingerprints are assertions?

The polaroid is an asseretion?

The autopsy photographs you lied about and tried to crop and rotate are assertions?

The bullet fragments and shell casings are assertions?

All you have are quotes taken out of context and unsubstantiated claims about people, peppered with the same tired old witness statements.

Lets try again until you answer the question asked: Do you have any MATERIAL evidence to support your claims of a conspiracy? Anything MATERIAL to place a second shooter, or an alternate shooter on the scene, or that indicates the destruction or tampering of evidence. No opinions, no misunderstanding of perfectly clear documents, no quotes or what somebody thinks they remember, but material evidence.

If you dont understand material evidence admit so now, to avoid wasting any further time.

None of the above is "material" evidence but only false assertions as to what you claim is evidence. And not a scintilla of evidence for a Lone Nut. On the other hand, the observations of medical personnel at Parkland as to the head wounds is superior to everything else because it proves conspiracy beyond any reasonable doubt.

 

[Robert Prey]

Oswald bringing a long package to the TSBD and *his rifle* being discovered there is which? False? or Irrelevant Baloney, Robert?

Please advise how you reached that conclusion.

The available evidence says those two pieces of information are both true and very relevant.

Hank

None of that minutia points to one Lone Nut. But the head wounds observed by medical personnel at Parkland prove conspiracy beyond any reasonable doubt.