JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[HSienzant]

LBJ did not want any further investigation. He was forced to form the WC and then controlled it with Hoover and Earl Warren.

You previously claimed there was no further investigation.

Flip-flopping again, Robert.

Now you're claiming there was investigation, but LBJ controlled the WC with Hoover and Earl Warren (!).

Yeah, LBJ appointed three Republicans, three Democrats, and a Supreme Court Justice because he wanted to control the Commission.

Note you ignored all the other investigations you said didn't happen either.
Did LBJ control the DPD investigation? The Church Committee? The HSCA?

You said all investigation ended with the death of Oswald. Now you are changing your story.

Again.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Thanks for admitting that you have no clue as to when the conspiracy was initially planned.

You have this exactly bass-ackwards, Robert.

You assert the existence of a conspiracy, not I.

I have no clue there was a conspiracy, period, let alone any evidence when they started it.

It is you who needs to put into evidence the existence of planning prior to Oswald purchasing the rifle, otherwise you are just assuming what you need to prove.

I'll say it again: At the time Oswald purchased the rifle, he wasn't working in the Depository, no Presidential trip to Dallas was planned, no Presidential motorcade through Dallas was planned, and certainly no motorcade past the building that Oswald didn't even work at yet was planned.

Therefore, the evidence indicates Oswald purchased that rifle for some other purpose, most likely for his attempt on the life of General Edwin Walker that took place on April 10th.

If you have any evidence of a conspiracy prior to that, please put it into evidence now. Or just admit you are assuming what you need to prove.

I'll be good with either approach.

But merely asserting the planning started before Oswald bought the rifle doesn't fly here.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I don't assert the March memo is authentic. I only assert that it rings true. But I do assert that the May memo is clearly and blatantly false, since it does not admit to any CIA connection to Oswald and even more incriminating, it purports to speak for Hoover's FBI. The memo then must be considered a total lie, even if sworn to by Mr. McCone.

Yep, you're flip-flopping all over the boat, Robert. Maybe it would be best if you were back in the water.

You're not asserting that the memo is authentic now, but you asserted it previously. You cited the March 3, 1964 memo in response to a question about which of the various associations you previously alleged you could PROVE.

If you're not asserting it's authentic, why did you cite when asked for PROOF?

So, out of interest which of those can you actually prove applied to LHO?[my emphasis]

Memo from John McCone, Dir. of CIA to James Rowley, Chief, US Secret Service dated March 3, 1964

Re: "...Lee Oswald's activities and assignments on behalf of this agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation..." [emphasis in the original]

https://sites.google.com/site/knowability/OswaldCIA.jpg[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_526994f55eab02ab0f.jpg[/qimg]

... But I can understand the desperation of the Lone Nutter crowd as well as the cover-uppers to do or say whatever they must to discredit the authenticity of the first memo [emphasis added].

 

[HSienzant]

The guilt of LHO is not the central, crucial question. The question of conspiracy is. Nonetheless, I will point out once again, that there is no evidence that anyone can cite that proves LHO even fired a single shot. Nor can anyone prove he was even on the 6th floor at the time.

Of course the guilt of Oswald is the central, crucial question. If Oswald did it, and acted alone, then there is no conspiracy. If you want to get the conspiracy angle in, you need to post the evidence. Thus far you have failed miserably. But that is not my point here.

Recollect it was your point that the mock trial didn't address the issue of conspiracy. But I am asking how that would have been different if Oswald had lived. The mock trial tried to utilize as many real trial procedures (including calling actual witness) as practical for a television program.

My point is that neither the mock trial nor the real trial would have addressed the issue of conspiracy to any great extent.

You avoid addressing the real question you originally raised, instead preferring to discuss something else - Oswald's guilt or innocence, which wasn't the point of the original post I responded to:

No. What was on trial at the mock trail was Lee Oswald, who was not present to give a defense... But the real question was not on trial, namely, was it a conspiracy? Were there others involved [emphasis added]. And that is the question raised on this board. Not that there is any irrefutable evidence that LHO even fired a single shot.

If Oswald had survived, what would have been different?

Oswald would have been on trial, and what would not be on trial was, "Was it a conspiracy?"

Why? Because that is not germane to Oswald's guilt or innocence at trial.

He was arraigned for the murder of JFK and Tippit. Conspiracy to commit murder was not what he was arraigned for and was not what he would be tried for.

He would have stood trial for those two murders, most likely in two separate cases.

Oswald's lawyer would try to create reasonable doubt or possibly convince Oswald to plead insanity, but Oswald would not go for an insanity defense.

But trying to create reasonable doubt by bringing up, for example, Oswald's supposed CIA connections would be thrown out by the judge as not germane to the case.

The CIA wasn't on trial. Oswald was.

You want to deal with the evidence against Oswald now as if this was a real trial?

Plenty of CTs have tried. None have succeeded in making a case.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Correct. So what exactly is your point????

You say "Correct", but I doubt you understand the man's point at all.

He is asking under what conditions Oswald would claim to be a patsy. You failed to give any. He gives three conditions under which it wouldn't appear Oswald would claim to be a patsy or do it in the way you claim it went down.

So wait a second, if Oswald ordered the rifle knowing he was to be the fall guy for this "hit" on the President why would he admit to being a "patsy" when this would violate the entire purpose of his job (which would be to draw attention AWAY from said conspiracy).

If he ordered the rifle knowing nothing of any gubmint conspiracy AND happened to bring it to the depository AND happened to be trying to kill the president NOT knowing there was a grassy knoll shooter how would he ever KNOW he was a patsy?

If his job was to merely contribute to the conspiracy as one of the assassins and he didn't know that the rest were planning on making him the fall guy, why would he order a rifle in such a manner that it could be linked to him? In fact, in what sort of assassination do the killers order their own cheap rifles from mail order catalogs? One would think a paid killer hired to do a job (or ordered to) would have been given state of the art weaponry that was untraceable and would be easily disassembled so as to be disposed of quickly and quietly.

You see how none of this makes sense correct?

 

[HSienzant]

Yeah, well that's what the government says.

lol.

Robert, do you have any *evidence* to the contrary?

Or, because you say, "Yeah, well that's what the government says", we're supposed to just assume, like you, the government was lying and covering something up?

Clearly, when you are not flip-flopping, you're assuming the Oswald-was-framed position.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Yeah, well that's what the government says.

It's what the evidence says too.

 

[HSienzant]

ONI, CIA -- it's an irrelevant distinction without a difference. Oswald had a security clearance to participate in the tracking of the top secret U2 spy plane operation run by the CIA. Therefore, for Mr. McCone to state he had no connection to CIA is a lie. LHO had connections to CIA, ONI and FBI. The March memo rings true. The May McCone memo is blatantly false. And when or where does a CIA director ever have the knowledge or the authority to speak for FBI??? Especially Hoover's FBI??? Use your head.

I don't assert the March memo is authentic. I only assert that it rings true. But I do assert that the May memo is clearly and blatantly false, since it does not admit to any CIA connection to Oswald and even more incriminating, it purports to speak for Hoover's FBI. The memo then must be considered a total lie, even if sworn to by Mr. McCone.

Here's the May McCone memo again:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0446b.htm

Please cite the pertinent part where McCone speaks for the FBI.
It appears you are just making this up as you go along.

PS: Saying it multiple times doesn't make it any truer.

"The Agency" referred to in the memo is the CIA (the Central Intelligence Agency).
"The Bureau" is the shorthand for the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation).

By the way, the only memo where McCone appears to speak for the FBI is the one you cited, supposedly from March 3, 1964, the one I have been claiming is false all along.

Now you give us good reason to believe you've converted to that position, since you say McCone doesn't have "... the knowledge or the authority to speak for [the] FBI ..."

You were even kind enough to bold-faced the pertinent part in your original post:

.... Memo from John McCone, Dir. of CIA to James Rowley, Chief, US Secret Service dated March 3, 1964

Re: "...Lee Oswald's activities and assignments on behalf of this agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation..."

https://sites.google.com/site/knowability/OswaldCIA.jpg

Hank (I love it when CTers forget what they posted and start arguing against their original position)

 

[HSienzant]

ONI, CIA -- it's an irrelevant distinction without a difference. Oswald had a security clearance to participate in the tracking of the top secret U2 spy plane operation run by the CIA. Therefore, for Mr. McCone to state he had no connection to CIA is a lie. LHO had connections to CIA, ONI and FBI. The March memo rings true. The May McCone memo is blatantly false. And when or where does a CIA director ever have the knowledge or the authority to speak for FBI??? Especially Hoover's FBI??? Use your head.

ONI, CIA -- those are two entirely different agencies, Robert.

Calling it an "irrelevant distinction" isn't the best approach, especially since you haven't cited one piece of verifiable evidence that Oswald was associated with either. And now you're spreading more nonsense, saying the McCone memo speaks for the FBI. That is another falsehood by you.

 

[HSienzant]

Warren Counsel Wesley Liebeler:
“Well, you know if we do find out that this is a conspiracy you know that we have orders from Chief Justice Warren to cover this thing up.”
http://www.ctka.net/pr996-odio.html

Yes, I see that quote in the document you cited.

But what is their source?

I don't see any source cited in the document you cite.

Are you thinking we should just accept it because it's on the internet?

Worse yet, did you accept it as true because it confirms your conspiracy bias?

Hank

 

[LSSBB]

I don't assert the March memo is authentic. I only assert that it rings true.

That ding-a-ling you hear is only in your head.

"Rings true" is a meaningless statement, because it is filtered through your own cognitive biases. Since you are apparently already predisposed to conclude LHO was a patsy, everything you read your mind will align to your beliefs. Guess what? Here's a revelation: you are human, and may err.

 

[BravesFan]

Funny that this "loser" was chosen to track the top secret U2 spy plane. Use your head. Not like this:


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/526994f58ece6d73d0.jpg[/qimg]

evidence?

 

[matt.tansy]

Funny that this "loser" was chosen to track the top secret U2 spy plane.

It doesn't take a high amount of skill to operate a radar. He didn't maintain it or repair it when it broke. He sure as hell didn't design or build it. Any jackass can operate a radar.

The radar he operated had a max range of 200 nm. Russia is 500 nm from Atsugi so any tracking he may have conducted would not amount to much.

 

[HSienzant]

LBJ did not want any further investigation. He was forced to form the WC and then controlled it with Hoover and Earl Warren.



Warren Counsel Wesley Liebeler:
“Well, you know if we do find out that this is a conspiracy you know that we have orders from Chief Justice Warren to cover this thing up.”

http://www.ctka.net/pr996-odio.html

Uh, it appears you inadvertently left out the context of that statement, Robert. I know you wouldn't do that deliberately, so let me put it back.

... he said to this other gentleman, I don't remember his name, he said, "Well, you know if we do find out that this is a conspiracy you know that we have orders from Chief Justice Warren to cover this thing up." (I asked: Liebeler said that?) "Yes, sir, I could swear on that." At the time, she said she thought that maybe it was a bait for her because she had the feeling that they thought she was hiding something more, that she was involved with other Cuban groups perhaps or that she knew more than she was saying. "That was the feeling that I got by the time that they took me to dinner, that maybe if I had a few drinks and the conversation became very casual, I would go ahead and volunteer information he thought I was hiding ... If it was for my sake that he was saying that, it if it was a little game they were playing with me, I don't know...

So while it appears Liebeler may have uttered those words (and remember we only have Odio's statement for that, there is no independent verification of her claim), in context, it appears Odio felt Liebeler was trying to get her to tell him what she knew, not believing she was telling the whole story.

In other words, Liebeler was trying to obtain information, not cover it up.
Leaving out the context leaves the reader with an entirely different impression, which I know you wouldn't want to do.

Ignore my previous message on this subject, as I found the context for the above I was looking for - which you left out entirely - within the very document you cited.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

... Bottom line: Forensics tests for metal fouling. It was not done on the weapon that was found in TSBD. There is no evidence that this rifle was shot from that day. There is sworn testimony that the rifle had rust and corrosion in the barrel.

citation: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0202a.htm

Speak to how the barrel can have corrosion after a round has been shot through the barrel.

Hank, answer this one question and I will go away. Let it be known that I provided a citation so I expect the same from you when you answer the previous sentence.

Well, it appears he is a man of his word. I answered his question and he went away. The above was his last post in this thread (at least, to date).

I answered his question here:

Sure, no problem. Here's my citation.

citation: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0202a.htm

You will note it is the same as yours.

I see nothing where FBI Agent Frazier admitted to RUST or corrosion. What he spoke to was corrosion OR WEAR (e.g., from being used).

That changes the allegation you make into another conspiracy point that doesn't prove what it is alleged is proven.

What Frazier actually said was:

Frazier: ... the lands and the grooves were WORN, the corners were WORN, and the interior of the surface was roughened from CORROSION OR WEAR. [emphasis added by me]

At no point did he mention RUST within the barrel being found. But that was your specific claim. Your claim was quite specific: There is sworn testimony that the rifle had RUST AND CORROSION in the barrel.

Nope. Frazier never said that.

Corrision can come from a number of sources; wear being one of them.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corrode

1: to eat away by degrees as if by gnawing; especially : to wear away gradually usually by chemical action <the metal was corroded beyond repair>
2: to weaken or destroy gradually : undermine <manners and miserliness that corrode the human spirit — Bernard De Voto>

Let me reiterate: At no point did he mention RUST within the barrel being found.

YOUR citation itself shows that. The point you attempt to make is unproven because your own citation does not say what you said it did. No rust was found in the barrel...

Hank

 

[Regnad Kcin]

No. What was on trial at the mock trail was Lee Oswald, who was not present to give a defense. For the Bug man, like shooting fish in a barrel. But the real question was not on trial, namely, was it a conspiracy? Were there others involved. And that is the question raised on this board. Not that there is any irrefutable evidence that LHO even fired a single shot.

You wrote:

"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."

I replied that he was given a lawyer (of extraordinary skill, BTW), rules of evidence were applied, and there was a trial (by jury). And Mr. Bugliosi won a conviction, correct?

 

[Robert Prey]

You wrote:

"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."

I replied that he was given a lawyer (of extraordinary skill, BTW), rules of evidence were applied, and there was a trial (by jury). And Mr. Bugliosi won a conviction, correct?

There should be no cheering the mock conviction of a dead man who could not defend himself. There was another trial where there was no conviction (ABA).

 

[Robert Prey]

Uh, it appears you inadvertently left out the context of that statement, Robert. I know you wouldn't do that deliberately, so let me put it back.

... he said to this other gentleman, I don't remember his name, he said, "Well, you know if we do find out that this is a conspiracy you know that we have orders from Chief Justice Warren to cover this thing up." (I asked: Liebeler said that?) "Yes, sir, I could swear on that." At the time, she said she thought that maybe it was a bait for her because she had the feeling that they thought she was hiding something more, that she was involved with other Cuban groups perhaps or that she knew more than she was saying. "That was the feeling that I got by the time that they took me to dinner, that maybe if I had a few drinks and the conversation became very casual, I would go ahead and volunteer information he thought I was hiding ... If it was for my sake that he was saying that, it if it was a little game they were playing with me, I don't know...

So while it appears Liebeler may have uttered those words (and remember we only have Odio's statement for that, there is no independent verification of her claim), in context, it appears Odio felt Liebeler was trying to get her to tell him what she knew, not believing she was telling the whole story.

In other words, Liebeler was trying to obtain information, not cover it up.
Leaving out the context leaves the reader with an entirely different impression, which I know you wouldn't want to do.

Ignore my previous message on this subject, as I found the context for the above I was looking for - which you left out entirely - within the very document you cited.

Hank

So in your biased opinion, either Liebler was lying or Odio was lying. And Katzenbach and Hoover? They were lying too?

 

[Robert Prey]

Here's the May McCone memo again:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0446b.htm

Please cite the pertinent part where McCone speaks for the FBI.
It appears you are just making this up as you go along.

PS: Saying it multiple times doesn't make it any truer.

"The Agency" referred to in the memo is the CIA (the Central Intelligence Agency).
"The Bureau" is the shorthand for the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation).

By the way, the only memo where McCone appears to speak for the FBI is the one you cited, supposedly from March 3, 1964, the one I have been claiming is false all along.

Now you give us good reason to believe you've converted to that position, since you say McCone doesn't have "... the knowledge or the authority to speak for [the] FBI ..."

You were even kind enough to bold-faced the pertinent part in your original post:




Hank (I love it when CTers forget what they posted and start arguing against their original position)

As to the May memo and the FBI. I'm afraid you are correct. For once.

 

[Robert Prey]

You say "Correct", but I doubt you understand the man's point at all.

He is asking under what conditions Oswald would claim to be a patsy. .

After the innocent Oswald becomes aware of the crime and he is the accused, he simply puts two and two together. Something of a challenge to Lone Nutters.