JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[HSienzant]

Hank wrote:


1. No Patsy. No evidence is better than planted evidence, which might reveal the conspiracy, because the planters overlooked something.

Comment:

So under your plan, no Patsy means that the case must be an opened ended investigation, which could not be silenced by setting up, then killing the Patsy. That's how you would do it, eh?
I suggest you keep your day job.

Setting up and killing the supposed patsy didn't stop the investigation. It broadened it. Before Oswald was shot, it was a local investigation, run by the Dallas Police. After he was shot, the Feds took over.
Your premise that this would work to cut off the investigation is false.

Instead, all it would do is put a lot of faked evidence into the hands of the investigators. One mistake (like planting too many bullets) could reveal the whole plot. So why would the conspirators do it that way, when a simpler way is to simply shoot JFK from the sixth floor window, leaving behind NO weapon (or even Oswald's weapon), and NOTHING else?

It also means there doesn't have to be two brains, two autopsies, two rifles, multiple Oswald impersonators, altered films and photos from Dealey Plaza, altering Connally's wounds, altering JFK's wounds... etc, ad nauseum.

Your entire argument is a house of cards.

It has no logical basis in fact.

Hank

 

[Robert Prey]

Setting up and killing the supposed patsy didn't stop the investigation. It broadened it. Before Oswald was shot, it was a local investigation, run by the Dallas Police. After he was shot, the Feds took over.
Your premise that this would work to cut off the investigation is false.

Instead, all it would do is put a lot of faked evidence into the hands of the investigators. One mistake (like planting too many bullets) could reveal the whole plot. So why would the conspirators do it that way, when a simpler way is to simply shoot JFK from the sixth floor window, leaving behind NO weapon (or even Oswald's weapon), and NOTHING else?

It also means there doesn't have to be two brains, two autopsies, two rifles, multiple Oswald impersonators, altered films and photos from Dealey Plaza, altering Connally's wounds, altering JFK's wounds... etc, ad nauseum.

Your entire argument is a house of cards.

It has no logical basis in fact.

Hank

Oh, contraire!! Your entire argument confirms suspicion tha LHO was set up as a Patsy. I remind you, that after the Patsy (Oswald) was killed, he had no lawyer, nor rules of evidence, no trial. Just what the real conspirators wanted and planned.

 

[Robert Prey]

...
Is it not a fact that the whole purpose of CIA in its' intell gathering mission, is to deceive???
QUOTE]

No, they leave that to their own Dept of Naval Intel Dept.

You have no clue what the mission of the CIA is, do you?

It appears you get all your info from conspiracy books.

Whew!!! What naivete!!! Unprecedented!.

 

[Robert Prey]

How do you know the memo you cited is the gospel truth, Robert?
It looks to be fake to me, as we cannot validate it's from a legitimate source. It does contradict everything we have valid evidence for.

You cannot cite any evidence to support the claims (not the facts, as you falsely described them) described in the March 3 memo.

Oswald didn't work for Naval Intel at any time.
He had no connections to the CIA or Naval Intel.
None.
Anyone who says there is evidence of that is just reading into the record what they want it to say.

Hank

Then who was he working for at the Atsugi Naval base tracking the top secret U2 spy planes sponsored by CIA? McDonalds??????

 

[Robert Prey]

It is supposed to be, but sometimes isn't. Just like when some people swear they were involved in a plot to assassinate Kennedy and/or cover it up.



Organizations don't lie. People that belong to organizations do.



Generally, intelligence organizations answer such questions with "No comment" or "I cannot confirm or deny.." to maintain operational security. If the matter is one where a definite answer can be given as it does not impact on OPSEC (such as a case where someone does not work for the organization, has not worked for the organization, and is likely to never be considered for such a position) then they are likely to say no.



Possibly, are you implying that Texas is a foreign land?



It can best be characterized as a foreign intelligence organization.



No, it's purpose is to gather intelligence.

Deception is a tool that may be employed to do so, but deception is not the purpose of the organization. A socket wrench is a tool, it is not the purpose of the mechanic.



Just to make sure I understand your logic - if the CIA had said that LHO was an operative/agent/etc who was to assassinate JFK for whomever we should believe them, if the CIA says that LHO was not such a person we should disbelieve them. What would you have said if the organization had said nothing at all?



So what is this evidence?

One question at a time.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Then who was he working for at the Atsugi Naval base tracking the top secret U2 spy planes sponsored by CIA? McDonalds??????

His service record shows he was working for the Marine Corps.

You know that the people flying the plane, the people who asked for the plane to be flown, and the guy in the con-tower can all have different employers right?

 

[Tomtomkent]

One question at a time.

Why?

 

[Robert Prey]

The quoted memo says the information contained therein should not be volunteered to the Warren Commission, but it goes on to say that if the Commission requests that information it should not be withheld.

Read it again.

The Warren Commission did request that information.

That establishes the supposed memo is false, because the memo itself says "if the Commission asks, we should tell".

Quoting the memo: "I recommend that unless the Commission makes a specific request for specific information contained herein, that this information not be volunteered... it woud be in the national interest to withhold it at this time -- unless there is, of course, a specific request made."

I'll ask again, what info do you possess that establishes this memo is legit?
Do you have anything at all?

Hank

Nothing except that it is truthful, while the May 8 memo is not.

 

[HSienzant]

There is so much evidence of Oswald's connections to CIA that it took an entire book to document it all (Oswald and the CIA, by John Newman).

Why don't you just cite the two or three strongest pieces of evidence that Oswald had connections to the CIA, Robert?

I've read the book [twice] and I could not find anything that would pass muster.

Hank

 

[Robert Prey]

I don't think you know what the word in bold means. The word you actually mean to use is 'allegedly'. In order to prove that those things you need something called evidence. But then that's another word that you don't know the meaning of.

About the only thing you've proved is that the title of this thread is correct.

One backyard photo was forged and I proved it. Logically, all of them were forged or altered just like the autopsy photos.

 

[HSienzant]

Why?

It's his standard dodge when he can't answer any of them.

He also might fall back on "Google it", or "It's common knowledge", or "Do your own homework".

When really stuck, he has the ever-present "Baloney!"

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

One backyard photo was forged and I proved it. Logically, all of them were forged or altered just like the autopsy photos.

When and where did you prove it, Robert?

Hank

 

[Worm]

When an officer of the CIA swears that something is true, does that mean it's true???

Has the CIA ever lied?

When the CIA is questioned as to whether a certain person is in its' employ or an informant, can the CIA be relied upon to tell the truth????

If the CIA did tell the truth about such persons, would that not put these persons in danger, especially if in foreign lands?????

Could the CIA be best characterized as a Fountain of Truth or the Father of Lies????

Is it not a fact that the whole purpose of CIA in its' intell gathering mission, is to deceive???

I'd say, that the obverse is the more probable. If McCone swears that Oswald had absolutely no connection to CIA, then it's probably more likely that he did. And the way the agency operates, how would he even necessarily know?

There is plenty of other evidence that LHO had connections to CIA besides his work for Naval Intell at Asugi. No. I can't authenticate the veracity of the March 3rd memo any more than you can authenticate the truthfulness of the May 18th, memo, except to say that there is plenty of evidence to support the facts described in the the March 3 memo, and plenty of facts to contradict the May 18 memo.

One question at a time.

Hmm, quite some turnaround of approach you have there Mr Prey.

 

[HSienzant]

Nothing except that it is truthful, while the May 8 memo is not.

So the March 3rd memo is legit because it is truthful, while the May 8th memo is not legit because it is not truthful?

How do you know it is truthful, Robert? Because it it is legit, or because it is confirms your bias?

Or is it both?

Hank

 

[Border Reiver]

One question at a time.

I was able to answer 7 of your questions at once - all it takes is a little organization.

You should be able to answer my 2 (the one about Texas being rhetorical):

a. Based on your logic of "if the CIA confirms it - it must be true" and "if the CIA denies it - it must be true" - what do you infer if the CIA says nothing? and

b. What evidence do you have that the facts in the May 3 memo are true and the May 18 memo are false?

My 8 year old can answer two part questions - why can't you? (Note, this is rhetorical and does not require an anwer to be posted, but you may wish to work it our for yourself anysways)

 

[HSienzant]

There is so much evidence of Oswald's connections to CIA that it took an entire book to document it all (Oswald and the CIA, by John Newman).

Gee, Robert, there is so much evidence of Oswald's guilt in the assassination that the Warren Commission filled a whole book, AND 26 volumes of evidence to document it all.

I am starting to understand how your mind works, so the above should be sufficient to prove Oswald was guilty.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Whew!!! What naivete!!! Unprecedented!.

Robert, you sum up your whole approach to the assassination and evidence nicely here.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Then who was he working for at the Atsugi Naval base tracking the top secret U2 spy planes sponsored by CIA? McDonalds??????

Well, duh --- The U.S.Marine Corps.

You do understand they are a branch of the military (specifically, of the Department of the Navy), right?
And he was stationed at the Atsugi NAVAL base?
You understand the meaning of the word "Naval" in the above, or do you want to contemplate this awhile?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Oh, contraire!! Your entire argument confirms suspicion tha LHO was set up as a Patsy. I remind you, that after the Patsy (Oswald) was killed, he had no lawyer, nor rules of evidence, no trial. Just what the real conspirators wanted and planned.

Please explain how anything I wrote "confirms suspicion" that Oswald was set up as a patsy.

You do understand that you just admitted you only have suspicions, not evidence, by your own wording above. Otherwise, I fail to understand why you wrote what you did.

Or why you would need me to confirm it.

Wouldn't the hard evidence you and other critics have accumulated over the past five decades confirm it?

Oh, what's that? You don't have any hard evidence?

Why didn't you say so to start?

And Robert, why would the conspirators not shoot from the sixth floor and just walk away, leaving behind Oswald's weapon and shells, and NOT have to bother with altering films, altering x-rays, altering the body, forging photos, planting evidence, killing witnesses, etc, etc? Wouldn't that approach save a lot of time, effort, and money? Why did they adopt a Rube Goldbergian plan like you suggest?

oops - too many questions - dodge ball time for Robert.

Hank

 

[Border Reiver]

One backyard photo was forged and I proved it. Logically, all of them were forged or altered just like the autopsy photos.

I think may that one photo of a series could possibly have been altered in some way, so all the photos are forged?

Sorry, you logic is very flawed there - go back and try again.