JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends II

[BStrong]

I don't mean to make that insinuation. When Garrison took Clay Shaw to trial, the CIA denied that Clay Shaw had worked for them. Decades later Richard Helms came out and said that Clay Shaw was a contractor for the CIA as he provided information on an irregular basis. In your post to Hank, I agree that many businessmen provided input, it is still happening today but when there is a flat denial and that denial was one of the many hinges that unhinged Garrison's case, it establishes the element that the CIA will lie when it is to their benefit. Allen Dulles says this explicitly in one of the Executive Sessions. There are many speculations as to Clay Shaw's role with the CIA but the only thing I know is that he provided scattered travel observations.

The post was to you ladmo.

The denial was that Shaw was a CIA agent, which was correct.

Garrison tried to hang his hat on the premise that if Shaw was CIA, he would be ipso facto a conspirator in JFK's assassination.

Garrison should have stuck with local crimes he couldn't successfully prosecute.

 

[ladmo]

Abaddon's understanding of the difference between a hypothesis and a theory is correct. "Just a theory" is indeed all one needs to hear to realize that the speaker is using the popular definition of "theory," not the one used in a more rigorous epistemology of investigation, especially as contrasted with "hypothesis." Since you also tried to tell me that inductive reasoning is the wrong form for investigating happenstance events, I really do not consider you very knowledgeable or experienced in the practice of actual investigation. Hence I don't rely on your naked assertions for what is or should be proper practice, nor your attempts to correct the regulars here.

First, I do not need your approval and in fact, I wear it as a badge of honor that you feel the way you do.

Second, your attempt to rewrite the English language is quite remarkable. When did you make up popular definition of theory? Abba said that theory and hypothesis is proved... he meant proven and now you agree with him. This is wonderful as both of you are clueless. You need to back up your claim with some references that they are in deed "proven". Theories are not laws, they can explain some tendencies and actions but they are always under a greater set of knowledge if one is presented.

Third, I didn't try to tell you that inductive reasoning is the wrong form... I did tell you it was the wrong form. Inductive is only used when facts are not available. Proof is not needed for inductive reasoning and I will say, you adhere to this approach.

Fourth, I do distance myself from you for all of the above reasons.

Further, you tipped your hand to me way back in October that you would be using a "divide and conquer" strategy here. You're desperately trying to style me as the leader of some flock, and then to characterize that flock as sheepish followers and shame them away from agreeing with me. You have no actual point here. You're just trying to stir things up among the skeptic regulars, which is now why you're pleading for us to fight amongst ourselves.

You are the leader of the ones who cannot think for themselves, they seek your approval and make attempts to model their responses after yours. They make the same mistakes that you do (inductive reasoning and wacky definitions of words are few examples). You make declarations without support and your opinions are always to set you up as an expert which you are not.

Finally, when I do take it upon myself to correct another regular skeptic, you let that pass in abject silence. You're so enamored with shoehorning the Kennedy evidence into a predetermined conclusion that you've taken the shoehorning approach as well with your meta-debate. You're so dead-set on characterizing your opponents as a flock of sheep that you can't abide any evidence to the contrary on that point either.

I have provided evidence a number of times, your continued denial is tiresome and quite juvenile. One of the other differences is that I will admit when I call someone a Liar, you on the other hand will third party the insult.

 

[HSienzant]

I have read it and it is cognizant. I will drop you a note...

A response to the forum is preferred.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I don't want to sound rude; this issue with Clay Shaw had to do with something back in another month with Jay...

I doubt if JayUtah brought up Shaw. And you're bringing him up here now.

So could you explain why? He has nothing to do with an assassination of JFK. And you avoided all my other points about Shaw entirely.

What's he got to do with an assassination attempt on JFK?

Nothing, right?

Was his rifle found in the building?
Were his prints found on a bag in the building?
Were shells traceable to his weapon found in the building?
Were fragments traceable to his weapon found in the limo?
Was a nearly whole bullet traceable to his weapon found at the hospital the two victims were taken to?

I fail to see any evidence connecting Shaw to the JFK assassination.

I am unclear why you bring him up or try to connect him with the CIA, as there is no evidence connecting him to the assassination.

You do dismiss any and all evidence pointing to Oswald on some specious grounds. But any evidence against Shaw, no matter how flimsy, will now be paraded before us as evidence of his connection to this supposed plot, right?

I remind you that you like to point out there was no court case and no jury verdict for Oswald.
There was a court case and a jury verdict for Shaw. He was found Not Guilty.
Try to remember that when you argue about what's admissible in court.

Hank

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

there were no witnesses to a "large" paper bag... My claim is perfectly clear. Wes and his sister witnessed a bag that was no more than 27" long.

And where did you come up with this allowable diviation? Two ways to look at this additional length: either an additional 33% of the length was added or or the 36" is 25% longer than what was testified both are drastically at odds.

So among your other arguments, 27 inches does not qualify a bag as 'large'.

What length would?

And as pointed out here:

You do realize you are arguing over a difference of 9" - absolutely within the margin of error for a lay person to make well after the fact in an off the cuff observation?

An estimated difference of 25% smaller than the found bag in existence is too much to allow? So what's the appropriate cutoff in estimating that witnesses can't make errors greater than?

And can you provide a citation to a study where it was determined that witnesses never err on the small side by more than X% ?

Or absent any such citation, are you just arguing that Frazier and Randle must be correct, because otherwise, the conclusion would be inescapable that Oswald brought the rifle to the TSBD and you don't like that conclusion?

Thanks!

Hank

 

[JayUtah]

I don't mean to make that insinuation. When Garrison took Clay Shaw to trial, the CIA denied that Clay Shaw had worked for them.

That is correct; Shaw never worked for the CIA in any meaningful sense of the word. That he was an occasional voluntary informant does not establish a contractual or employment relationship.

Decades later Richard Helms came out and said that Clay Shaw was a contractor for the CIA as he provided information on an irregular basis.

I provided a document explaining the particulars of the relationship between the CIA and the group of people to which Shaw belonged. "Contractor" is not a proper characterization of the relationship. You have consistently failed to accommodate this detailed information into your claims, and instead rely on your homegrown notions of what you think the relationship must have been.

...it establishes the element that the CIA will lie when it is to their benefit.

Meaningless -- almost all people and groups will sometimes lie when it is to their benefit, the CIA included. This is not proof that they have lied a particular way on a particular occasion.

In this case the CIA later stated that they did not want to compromise the value of the program that Shaw occasionally gave reports to, by making it generally known. I find this to be an acceptable justification. Do you agree that keeping intelligence-gathering methods as secret as possible is a desirable goal?

 

[Mudcat]

I've forgotten - has JB investigated and explained his zombie death bed confession assertion?

Not so far, also no investigation or explanation of a time traveler's death bed confession.

 

[HSienzant]

I don't mean to make that insinuation. When Garrison took Clay Shaw to trial, the CIA denied that Clay Shaw had worked for them. Decades later Richard Helms came out and said that Clay Shaw was a contractor for the CIA as he provided information on an irregular basis. In your post to Hank, I agree that many businessmen provided input, it is still happening today but when there is a flat denial and that denial was one of the many hinges that unhinged Garrison's case, it establishes the element that the CIA will lie when it is to their benefit. Allen Dulles says this explicitly in one of the Executive Sessions. There are many speculations as to Clay Shaw's role with the CIA but the only thing I know is that he provided scattered travel observations.

My rebuttal is still unanswered. Why exactly are we discussing Clay Shaw in the JFK assassination thread?

What's he got to do with an assassination attempt on JFK?

Nothing, right?

Was his rifle found in the building?
Were his prints found on a bag in the building?
Were shells traceable to his weapon found in the building?
Were fragments traceable to his weapon found in the limo?
Was a nearly whole bullet traceable to his weapon found at the hospital the two victims were taken to?

I fail to see any evidence connecting Shaw to the JFK assassination.

I am unclear why you bring him up or try to connect him with the CIA, as there is no evidence connecting him to the assassination.

You do dismiss any and all evidence pointing to Oswald on some specious grounds. But any evidence against Shaw, no matter how flimsy, will now be paraded before us as evidence of his connection to this supposed plot, right?

I remind you that you like to point out there was no court case and no jury verdict for Oswald.
There was a court case and a jury verdict for Shaw. He was found Not Guilty.
Try to remember that when you argue about what's admissible in court.

Hank

 

[Robrob]

You are immaterial.

So, no actual response or rebuttal?

 

[abaddon]

So, no actual response or rebuttal?

He has departed down the ad hom rabbit hole. Pretty much every post contains at least one. Suicide by mod? Maybe, if anyone is reporting them. I'm not. It's more amusing to observe.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Haha, well you know he's talking about Czar Jay and his drove of faithful, unthinking minions here at JREF. It's about time for you all to bow down before me, isn't it?

Note: I actually made this more than five years ago, long before you joined JREF, in response to the following (facetious, for those who don't know sts60) post about my citing you as an authority:

That's because you're a mindless JayUtah minion - part of his adoring fan club.

 

[Rich_C]

Give it up on your rhetoric; go back and read the entire thread. I covered his testimony and I will paraphrase it. Wes initially said 22" to 24"; then he got pressed by the attorney Ball or Belin and the 27" was introduced as it did not exceed this amount. Wes had the measurement determined as to how the package laid in his back seat.

So do not go forward and make state lie as "if you had read the actual testimony". I read it and stated it in previous posts, so if you care to jump in go back get it right.

I was in this thread way before you ever showed up. I've read the whole thread. You are wrong about what Wesley Frazier said about the bag.

Here is where you can find what he actually said:

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/frazierb1.htm

But I say like I said I just roughly estimate and that would be around two feet, give and take a few inches.

Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word

Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.

That's all he says about the package.

So let's review your statements.
Initially he said 22 to 24 inches? Nope.
Changed it to 27 inches? Nope.

He said it was about 2 feet and he didn't pay much attention to it.

I understand why someone would want to believe there is a conspiracy involved. I used to think that, too, before I looked at the case closer. But I don't get questioning the rifle or Tippit's murder. Those are easily provable facts, ad questioning those just reflects on the desperateness of the questioner.

 

[LSSBB]

I was in this thread way before you ever showed up. I've read the whole thread. You are wrong about what Wesley Frazier said about the bag.

Here is where you can find what he actually said:

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/frazierb1.htm







That's all he says about the package.

So let's review your statements.
Initially he said 22 to 24 inches? Nope.
Changed it to 27 inches? Nope.

He said it was about 2 feet and he didn't pay much attention to it.

I understand why someone would want to believe there is a conspiracy involved. I used to think that, too, before I looked at the case closer. But I don't get questioning the rifle or Tippit's murder. Those are easily provable facts, ad questioning those just reflects on the desperateness of the questioner.

I used to think a conspiracy was plausible, having seen JFK and all that. Watching every CT theorist go down looking or swinging every time they came to bat on this thread cured me of that. The only evidence that has withstood the tests of time all is consistent with LHO dunnit all by his lonesome.

 

[dreitzes]

What's he got to do with an assassination attempt on JFK?

Nothing, right?

Was his rifle found in the building?
Were his prints found on a bag in the building?
Were shells traceable to his weapon found in the building?
Were fragments traceable to his weapon found in the limo?
Was a nearly whole bullet traceable to his weapon found at the hospital the two victims were taken to?

I fail to see any evidence connecting Shaw to the JFK assassination.

I am unclear why you bring him up or try to connect him with the CIA, as there is no evidence connecting him to the assassination.

You do dismiss any and all evidence pointing to Oswald on some specious grounds. But any evidence against Shaw, no matter how flimsy, will now be paraded before us as evidence of his connection to this supposed plot, right?

I remind you that you like to point out there was no court case and no jury verdict for Oswald.
There was a court case and a jury verdict for Shaw. He was found Not Guilty.
Try to remember that when you argue about what's admissible in court.

Hank

The case against Shaw was so flimsy that several of the jurors later stated that they couldn't understand how Shaw had been indicted in the first place. My website has a ton of research resources on the Shaw prosecution, including the transcripts of the Shaw preliminary hearing and trial, key grand jury testimony, analysis, and a whole lot more:

http://www.jfk-online.com/garrison.html

Most of the leading lights of the JFK research community strongly condemned Garrison, but his extremely deceitful 1988 memoirs and Oliver Stone's highly imaginative film adaptation gave him an unexpected comeback. My website examines in detail the many ways Stone's movie is misinformed and misleading:

http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.html

Dave

 

[dreitzes]

I don't mean to make that insinuation. When Garrison took Clay Shaw to trial, the CIA denied that Clay Shaw had worked for them. Decades later Richard Helms came out and said that Clay Shaw was a contractor for the CIA as he provided information on an irregular basis. In your post to Hank, I agree that many businessmen provided input, it is still happening today but when there is a flat denial and that denial was one of the many hinges that unhinged Garrison's case, it establishes the element that the CIA will lie when it is to their benefit. Allen Dulles says this explicitly in one of the Executive Sessions. There are many speculations as to Clay Shaw's role with the CIA but the only thing I know is that he provided scattered travel observations.

At Clay Shaw's trial, the prosecution did not utter the words "CIA" or "Central Intelligence Agency" even a single time. Their indictment of Shaw did not reference the CIA. They did not refer to the CIA at Shaw's preliminary hearing. Garrison's case against Shaw had absolutely nothing to do with the CIA. You don't have to take my word for it: the transcripts are at my website:

http://www.jfk-online.com/garrison.html

I don't recall the CIA denying that Shaw worked for them (although that would have been accurate, as someone providing information to a government agency doesn't work for that agency anymore than an eyewitness to a crime works for the police he reports it to). Can you steer me towards your source for that?

Dave

 

[Henri McPhee]

What "corrupt forensic evidence" are you claiming exists and are willing to debate?

I'm pretty certain all of ladmo's claims have been shown to be nonsense regarding any corruption of the evidence concerning the bag. If I've missed any, or if you have new points of evidence to discuss (and attempt to dismiss), feel free to bring them up.

Hank

I don't have a definite opinion about the bag, but it hardly seems like conclusive evidence to me. I can understand ladmo's doubts about the matter.

The forensics in the JFK case are unsafe. Many people are mystified by the fingerprint and palm print examination. There were three different witnesses who thought it was a Mauser rifle in the book depository. There are those who think Oswald was stitched up with regard to his supposed order of an Italian rifle. The photos of Oswald holding a rifle have been described by two different experts as fakes. There are doubts about the bullets which killed Office Tippit.

The autopsy was not thorough, or professional. It was like something from the nineteenth century. The brain and photos have vanished. Nobody seems terribly sure about the exact location of entrance, or exit wounds, and even if you discount the grassy knoll theory, some have said as many as five shots were fired.

There is more controversial evidence about the acoustics of the shots which I also don't have a definite opinion because I don't know enough about it.

It's like the way the FBI fabricated forensic evidence, like so-called pajama-like fibers on the wooden club murder weapon in the Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald wrongful conviction case.

The Secret Service whisked the car away and there was never any proper examination of the bullet hole in the windscreen. The Warren Commission was not profound enough and it looked biased. The CIA people involved in the murder, like Bush or Phillips, were never relentlessly pursued. Anybody who was about to be questioned, like the Nazi CIA agent de Mohrenschildt experienced a mysterious suicide.

It's partly the fault of American journalists and politicians. They only seem interested in never reporting electronic bugging, and only in celebrity gossip and adoring waffle about Mandela, without ever reporting the frequent anti-white murder of white farmers in South Africa and Zimbabwe.

I suppose the JFK murder is quite a long time ago now. In theory the forensic investigation would be different now, even though the UK government has recently closed down the Forensic Science DNA research experts in Birmingham, UK to cut government spending. There is a bit about all this on the internet:

"Today, techniques such as multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) can help trace the path of the bullet to estimate the shooter's angle and distance from the victim, and to determine whether a wound was due to the exit or entrance of the bullet."

 

[Henri McPhee]

There is an interesting analysis of all this at these websites with which I agree:

http://www.ctka.net/reviews/hay_review.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-jfk-assassination-beware-of-an-obvious-plot/5358071

 

[LSSBB]

There is an interesting analysis of all this at these websites with which I agree:

http://www.ctka.net/reviews/hay_review.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-jfk-assassination-beware-of-an-obvious-plot/5358071

Global research.ca . Why not also metapedia, veteranstoday, naturalnews, and whale.to? Or David Icke.

 

[Garrison]

I don't have a definite opinion about the bag, but it hardly seems like conclusive evidence to me. I can understand ladmo's doubts about the matter.

Really? Then please explain it to the rest of us.

Oswald was in possession of a large paper bag on the day of the assassination that he carried into the book depository that he claimed contained curtain rods. The curtain rods in question are later found untouched at the place he claimed to be picking them up from but his rifle that was also at that location is gone and it turns out Oswald doesn't need curtain rods to begin with.

After the assassination a large bag with Oswald's prints on it is found as is Oswald's rifle, there are no curtain rods found.

Against this we have the fact that someone picked up the bag before it was photographed in situ and the witness 'guesstimate' of the size of the bag.

So please explain how Ladmo and yourself can entertain any reasonable doubt about this evidence?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...So please explain how Ladmo and yourself can entertain any reasonable doubt about this evidence?

CIA and nazis. Duh.