I gave the rationale behind my interpretation. Where's yours?
I don't accept your rationale and my acceptance is not necessary to move this forward just as your acceptance of my rationale is not needed.
Your approval is not something I require.
I never asked for it and certainly would not expect it.
The comment is salient because, as I said, the only premise shared by all the conspiracy theories is that the Warren Commission got it wrong. Exactly how they got it wrong and what they should have concluded instead is a matter of widespread disagreement among its detractors, many of whom don't seem to know much about the investigation they're critiquing.
There appears to be a common ground.
The proof of the pudding is in the tasting. Proof that one really knows how someone else erred is found in that person's exceptional demonstration of the better way. After five decades, the combined forces of all these people who think they know so much better how the case should have been investigated have failed to identify the real perpetrator. And it has gotten to the point where they say they aren't even trying. To me that disqualifies it as a serious pursuit of truth.
What a disingenuous comment. Documents are still being pursued under the FOIA which are being challenged on a weekly basis by all of the organizations (FBI, CIA, Department of Treasury, et al). The researchers do not have the capacity or authority to subpena testimony, most do not work for law enforcement agencies or if they did, they could not pursue under that flag, the researchers work independently and out in the open whereas the government departments are not accountable to the public. There are a whole host of reasons why a conclusion has not been reached and to pretend that advancement has not been made in the past 5 decades is not true.
You mentioned Clay Shaw in one of the earlier posts today or late yesterday. Are you claiming that Clay Shaw had no dealings with the CIA or was never paid by the CIA?
Have you actually read what the Warren Commission was charged to do? As I've said repeatedly, you keep trying to shoehorn the existing investigation into a hypothetical court case, apply those rules to it, and declare yourself the victorious attorney who has vindicated Oswald.
Yes and the entire premise was modified as the Commission went forward but you already know that. Yes, I shoehorn the evidence into a hypothetical court case because the Warren Commission is worthless and if we are to discuss testimony, evidence, etc then there has to be level of decorum or it would be anarchy. Frankly, most of the posters who do disagree with me take your approach and do not feel they are required to provide: proof, don't intentionally distort comments, provide accurate and meaningful definitions to words, work within a recognized framework.
On a related note, how does one go about determining that a body has been "contrived" to produce a certain thing, when they produce that thing, without it simply being a second-guess argument?
When the Assistant Attorney General of the USA goes in front of the Commission and states that LHO is the lone gunman within a few days of the creation of the Committee and the Committee comes back with the exact same conclusion and when a member (Allen Dulles) provides a book with all of the assassination attempts on US Presidents and says that LHO fits this mold prior to the first witnesses testimony... that is way to see if it is contrived or not.[/quote]
All your attempts to undermine the Warren Commission, toward whatever purprose, amount to, "I would have done it differently." And we know you're not qualified to do it, so I wonder how you think your approach is even remotely persuasive.
Good to see the good ol' Jay back, you really had me going there for a moment. Whew, I feel so much better when you slam me, I guess there is some masochism in me that just needs to be satisfied. By the way Jay, you do not have a clue about my qualifications and if the facts are not persuasive to you, then you need to deal with it. Put on your man-pants and stick to adult-like conversations instead of attacking me. Is your next lecture going to be how abba knows the true definitions of "theory" and "hypothesis"?
