• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

E. Howard Hunt and JFK

skepticalcriticalguy

Graduate Poster
skepticalcriticalguy
Joined
Jan 9, 2007
Messages
1,319
I went back 4 or 5 pages, and searched the forum, and found nothing on the E. Howard Hunt tape that his son has gone public with. Now, before I get scolded, I use an "alternate" browser, and I wonder sometimes if forum searches work the way they should with this browser.

Anyway, can somebody steer me to the thread where you guys debunk the new E. Howard Hunt tape, regarding the JFK assassination? I'm sure it's been widely discussed and thoroughly discredited, but I can't find the discussions.

Thank you for your time on this matter.
 
I hadn't heard of this, so I can't speak for whether or not it has been discussed.

The forum search option should work regardless of your browser I think - what browser do you use?
 
Have you searched in the History forum? It´s probably there, seeing as the JFK conpsiracy is not a "conspiracy theory" :)
 
here you go, from wiki´s JFK page

"...the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded in 1979 that there may have been a conspiracy"

May? Fools. Does anyone actually believe the official story?
 
I've kept my ear close to the JFK ground here for a few years now, and I'm pretty sure I haven't seen a thread mentioning Howard Hunt. Is there some recent news story you'd like to link to?
 
Hunt's son, Saint John, recently claimed to have an audio recording of his father describing the alleged role of the CIA in the JFK assassination. He's peddling the tale over at his own website, where- for just $20 you can obtain a DVD of an interview with Saint John.

An excerpt from the recording which Saint John played on a recent "Coast to Coast" program was far from convincing, Hunt's other children charge that Saint John manipulated a heavily medicated and confused old man, and the LA Times story on the matter noted that the Saint John's materials were "inconclusive."
 
This is like third guy who is claiming his dad did the JFK murder.

I think one problem I had with it is that it confirms almost perfectlywith the most recent 'conspiracy scenario' the latest JFK 'researchers' have come up with.

Also, these 'deathbed confessions' (or close to deathbed) tend to lack details such as type of weapon, where they shot from, etc.

There's also still the complete lack of physical evidence for Hunt's involvement.

Overall, not impressed.
 
But of course he was involved! Here's the proof:
His son was Lamar Hunt, who founded the American Football League, and owned the Dallas Texans. In 1963, he moved the Texans to Kansas City and re-named them the Chiefs. Later that year, in Dallas, JFK was shot.
Coincidence? I think not!
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
I went back 4 or 5 pages, and searched the forum, and found nothing on the E. Howard Hunt tape that his son has gone public with. Now, before I get scolded, I use an "alternate" browser, and I wonder sometimes if forum searches work the way they should with this browser.

Anyway, can somebody steer me to the thread where you guys debunk the new E. Howard Hunt tape, regarding the JFK assassination? I'm sure it's been widely discussed and thoroughly discredited, but I can't find the discussions.

Thank you for your time on this matter.
Click to expand...

Liszt said:
Have you searched in the History forum? It´s probably there, seeing as the JFK conpsiracy is not a "conspiracy theory" :)
Click to expand...

And once again, some people clearly demonstrate that they do not understand what skeptical/critical thinking is. You both demonstrate confirmation bias, and project that bias on to others.

The questions you should be asking are:
* Has this been discussed here, or is anyone here familiar with this?
* Does it stand up to logical and factual scrutiny?
 
Liszt said:
May? Fools. Does anyone actually believe the official story?
Click to expand...
I think you'll find that pretty much ever single person on this forum who has some familiarity with the JFK story agrees with the official story, that Oswald was the only shooter, and that he was not involved with any other people in planning his actions.

By the way, the HSCA conclusion that you quoted from, in 1979, that there may have been a conspiracy, is basing that "may" completely on one acoustic analysis that was soon after vacated because it was shown, without a doubt, to be recorded not when they thought it was? And that without that analysis, the HSCA had zero evidence of a conspiracy?
 
CurtC said:
I think you'll find that pretty much ever single person on this forum who has some familiarity with the JFK story agrees with the official story, that Oswald was the only shooter, and that he was not involved with any other people in planning his actions.

By the way, the HSCA conclusion that you quoted from, in 1979, that there may have been a conspiracy, is basing that "may" completely on one acoustic analysis that was soon after vacated because it was shown, without a doubt, to be recorded not when they thought it was? And that without that analysis, the HSCA had zero evidence of a conspiracy?
Click to expand...

And if Wikipedia doesn't include that information, then it is a massive oversight. It wouldn't even have to take a position, but it should at least note 1) why the HSCA came to the conclusion they did (as Curt says, they basically said, yeah, it looks like the Warren report said it did, but then there is this acoustic data that we can't explain; the only explanation we have is that there must have been a second shooter, even though we have no other evidence for it), and 2) subsequent relevations that question the reliability of the acoustic evidence (for example, the supposed gun shots found on the recording are timed to be more than a minute after the shooting occured, and the fact that the guy with the supposed open mike wasn't in the position they attributed him to be at the time of the shooting, and, in fact, denies that his mike was stuck open (the ID of the guy with the open mike is apparently known - there is a great website by a guy who was a Dallas cop at the time and lays it all out - all indications are that the open mike wasn't on a motorbike in Dealey Plaza but was on a 3-wheeler sitting at the Trade Mart (where the motorcade was supposed to be going)))
 
A Speech was delivered by Robert F. Kennedy on 4 April 1968, Indianapolis, IN, concernig the murder of Martin Luther King.

QUOTE
".......... those of you who are black and are tempted to be filled with hatred and mistrust of the injustice of such an act, against all white people, I would only say that I can also feel in my own heart the same kind of feeling. I had a member of my family killed, but he was killed by a white man. "

Well at least he was honest !

I guess what is being said, is that if you have a family member killed, it is best to choose the right color such that racism does not come into the picture.
 
MINISTERofTRUTH said:
A Speech was delivered by Robert F. Kennedy on 4 April 1968, Indianapolis, IN, concernig the murder of Martin Luther King.

QUOTE
".......... those of you who are black and are tempted to be filled with hatred and mistrust of the injustice of such an act, against all white people, I would only say that I can also feel in my own heart the same kind of feeling. I had a member of my family killed, but he was killed by a white man. "

Well at least he was honest !

I guess what is being said, is that if you have a family member killed, it is best to choose the right color such that racism does not come into the picture.
Click to expand...

What the... You really think this is an admission from RFK that he had his brother assassinated, rather than just relaxed speech? Just another case of Accidental Confession Syndrome?

"I had a member of my family [who was] killed. . ."

For 99.99% of the people on this planet, leaving out those two words would get a mocking correction from grammar Nazis, not suspicion from conspiracy theorists.
 
I spent many years studying truth, and eventually studied the use of relaxed speech as you called it, and the findings that were revealed by assuming that the relaxed speech was not relaxed at all, were extraordinaire.

It was all related to the Intentional Design of this reality, and an intended goal that could not succeed without the practice of deceit. Relaxed speech was the tool that was needed to be used extensively for the plan to succeed.

Imagine a society that functions flawlessly and therefore does not lie. For an opponent to enter such a society, they must follow the same rules but must take advantage any weakness within the system.

It was fascinating to listen to some criminals who were being interviewed on certain TV shows as they spoke in relaxed speech. To the audience, they were clearly saying that they were innocent, but if you took what they said literally, they were actually admitting to being guilty right there on TV. At the same time they were laughing to themselves due to taking advantage of the slack minds across the globe as they spoke to them and deceived them.

But that is just a small sample, just a small piece of a grand sized puzzle. It could be another 100 years before the majority on this planet are ready to hear the rest of the story.

Like you said, the case concerning RFK sounds ridiculous, but it does so no longer if you assemble the complete puzzle. It takes many years to do so.

Keep an ear open for statements like a criminal saying to an officer " I didn't steal nothing ! ", which means of course that the criminal stole something rather than nothing. But like I said, that is just a start, and it takes many years to recognized a pattern of vast intelligence within it all.

Just checking to see if anyone else was catching on.
 
Last edited:
MINISTERofTRUTH:

You have no idea how the English language, and dialects thereof, functions and is structured.

As a basic example, "I didn't steal nothing!" is an example of a non-standard use of English whereby a double negative is employed for emphasis, not to negate a negation.

I suggest you enrol in some basic linguistics classes, especially focusing on syntax, semantics, and discourse analysis before you make any more of a fool of yourself.

Peace Out

M7
 
MINISTERofTRUTH said:
I spent many years studying truth, and eventually studied the use of relaxed speech as you called it, and the findings that were revealed by assuming that the relaxed speech was not relaxed at all, were extraordinaire.
Click to expand...

Your post doesn't describe anything remotely like "studying truth". The closest claim you could make is "studying language", but that's still way out in left field, because you're actually doing no such thing. All you're doing is taking the words people say literally.

That's not any kind of study. That's actually quite the opposite.

To the audience, they were clearly saying that they were innocent, but if you took what they said literally, they were actually admitting to being guilty right there on TV.
Click to expand...

That's your problem. Literal interpretations of statements aren't necessarily the "truth".

When someone says, "Man, that movie sucks," do you interpret that as meaning the movie literally sucks?

Keep an ear open for statements like a criminal saying to an officer " I didn't steal nothing ! ", which means of course that the criminal stole something rather than nothing. But like I said, that is just a start, and it takes many years to recognized a pattern of vast intelligence within it all.
Click to expand...

It takes absolutely no study and no intelligence to take a person's statement literally. It does take experience to recognize different dialects.

Just checking to see if anyone else was catching on.
Click to expand...

Your arrogance is astounding. What kind of education or experience is required to take statements literally? Seriously...

masteroftheobviousec3.jpg
 
Last edited:
MINISTERofTRUTH said:
I spent many years studying truth...
Click to expand...

All I had to do was read that first phrase of the first sentence of this guy's post to know that everything following after would be pure bull****. No rational, down-to-earth persons says something like that. The kook detector just went way off the charts.
 
MINISTERofTRUTH said:
I spent many years studying truth, and eventually studied the use of relaxed speech as you called it, and the findings that were revealed by assuming that the relaxed speech was not relaxed at all, were extraordinaire.

It was all related to the Intentional Design of this reality, and an intended goal that could not succeed without the practice of deceit. Relaxed speech was the tool that was needed to be used extensively for the plan to succeed.

Imagine a society that functions flawlessly and therefore does not lie. For an opponent to enter such a society, they must follow the same rules but must take advantage any weakness within the system.

It was fascinating to listen to some criminals who were being interviewed on certain TV shows as they spoke in relaxed speech. To the audience, they were clearly saying that they were innocent, but if you took what they said literally, they were actually admitting to being guilty right there on TV. At the same time they were laughing to themselves due to taking advantage of the slack minds across the globe as they spoke to them and deceived them.

But that is just a small sample, just a small piece of a grand sized puzzle. It could be another 100 years before the majority on this planet are ready to hear the rest of the story.

Like you said, the case concerning RFK sounds ridiculous, but it does so no longer if you assemble the complete puzzle. It takes many years to do so.

Keep an ear open for statements like a criminal saying to an officer " I didn't steal nothing ! ", which means of course that the criminal stole something rather than nothing. But like I said, that is just a start, and it takes many years to recognized a pattern of vast intelligence within it all.

Just checking to see if anyone else was catching on.
Click to expand...

Weeee!
So much material there, one doesn't know where to start. And with that in mind, I'm going to resist temptation and just let that post stand on its own. It's a classic example of something. I just can't figure out what.
 
Mobyseven said:
MINISTERofTRUTH:

You have no idea how the English language, and dialects thereof, functions and is structured.

As a basic example, "I didn't steal nothing!" is an example of a non-standard use of English whereby a double negative is employed for emphasis, not to negate a negation.

I suggest you enrol in some basic linguistics classes, especially focusing on syntax, semantics, and discourse analysis before you make any more of a fool of yourself.

Peace Out

M7
Click to expand...

Thank you, M7. You saved me the trouble.
 
gumboot said:
It was hardly his deathbed. Although virtually every media outlet is reporting it as such, he made the tape three years before he died.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

Since we're nitpicking, it wasn't three years.

"Virtually every media outlet?" What media outlets have reported this?
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
Why? James Randi sells T-shirts.
Click to expand...
Are you serious? Can you seriously be comparing t-shirts being sold by a foundation that promotes education and critical thinkg to someone making a buck off of 'earth shattering' evidence that would implicate people in the assassination of a US President?
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
Why? James Randi sells T-shirts.

We're not talking $50 here. $20 to burn a disc and mail it, pretty much the going rate for anything. I doubt he's getting rich from this, considering the tape can be heard online.
Click to expand...
100 DVDs = $24 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817132389)
Priority mail flat-rate envelope = $4.05 (http://postcalc.usps.gov/mailpiecedimensions.asp#PriorityFlatRate)

Once you've paid for the PC to burn them (which many people have anyone, so it's not really fair to claim it as a cost of production) you are look at at most US$4.29/DVD to produce and ship.

ETA: and mark your edit next time
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
You're right, we should be nitpicking...


Source?
Click to expand...

It was mailed to his son in January of 2004. Hunt died January 23, 2007. So unless we know the exact date the tape was mailed, or received by Hunt's son, we can't conclusively say that three years passed!

My point, badly made I admit, is that if we're going to nitpick, let's go all the way.

Was it a "deathbed confession?" When I started this thread, I almost fell into that cliche. I almost wrote "deathbed confession." But I just knew somebody here would jump all over that. Gumboot did, even though I didn't write it.

So, if a guy is sick, and "confesses," (or spills the beans, whichever the case may be), but doesn't die for roughly three years, and dies in a different bed than the one he "confessed" in, technically, it isn't a "deathbed confession!" Right?

I still want to know about all these media outlets that are using the term "deathbed confession." Gumboot?
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
It was mailed to his son in January of 2004. Hunt died January 23, 2007. So unless we know the exact date the tape was mailed, or received by Hunt's son, we can't conclusively say that three years passed!

My point, badly made I admit, is that if we're going to nitpick, let's go all the way.

Was it a "deathbed confession?" When I started this thread, I almost fell into that cliche. I almost wrote "deathbed confession." But I just knew somebody here would jump all over that. Gumboot did, even though I didn't write it.

So, if a guy is sick, and "confesses," (or spills the beans, whichever the case may be), but doesn't die for roughly three years, and dies in a different bed than the one he "confessed" in, technically, it isn't a "deathbed confession!" Right?

I still want to know about all these media outlets that are using the term "deathbed confession." Gumboot?
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, you must have missed this in my wall of text, but I believe the gist of what I was enquiring about was a SOURCE to substantiate your claim, not an exposition.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
100 DVDs = $24 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817132389)
Priority mail flat-rate envelope = $4.05 (http://postcalc.usps.gov/mailpiecedimensions.asp#PriorityFlatRate)

Once you've paid for the PC to burn them (which many people have anyone, so it's not really fair to claim it as a cost of production) you are look at at most US$4.29/DVD to produce and ship.

ETA: and mark your edit next time
Click to expand...

Add in the value of time, time going to Post Office, etc. Opportunity costs. All that. $20 isn't outrageous.
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
Add in the value of time, time going to Post Office, etc. Opportunity costs. All that. $20 isn't outrageous.
Click to expand...
Equivocation. We're not discussing if US$20 is a "fair" price for a homegrown DVD production, we are discussing that this yahoo is making a profit off of evidence that would supposedly implicate people in the assassination of a US President rather than.. oh.. I don't know... telling EVERYONE AND THEIR DOGDANGED GRANDMOTHER ABOUT IT!
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Are you serious? Can you seriously be comparing t-shirts being sold by a foundation that promotes education and critical thinkg to someone making a buck off of 'earth shattering' evidence that would implicate people in the assassination of a US President?
Click to expand...

OK, forget the Educational Foundation." Mr. Randi sells lots of books, DVDs and tapes.

The point is, if people want this DVD from St. John Hunt, he has to put forth an effort to get it to the person who wants it. That takes time. $20 isn't that much in today's economy.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Equivocation. We're not discussing if US$20 is a "fair" price for a homegrown DVD production, we are discussing that this yahoo is making a profit off of evidence that would supposedly implicate people in the assassination of a US President rather than.. oh.. I don't know... telling EVERYONE AND THEIR DOGDANGED GRANDMOTHER ABOUT IT!
Click to expand...

Seems to me this yahoo is telling anybody who will listen. Which does not include you, apparently. Or the media.
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
OK, forget the Educational Foundation." Mr. Randi sells lots of books, DVDs and tapes.

The point is, if people want this DVD from St. John Hunt, he has to put forth an effort to get it to the person who wants it. That takes time. $20 isn't that much in today's economy.
Click to expand...

skepticalcriticalguy said:
Seems to me this yahoo is telling anybody who will listen. Which does not include you, apparently. Or the media.
Click to expand...
You are excusing someone who, supposedly, has evidence implicating people in the assassination of a US President and has not sent this evidence to every single media outlet worldwide and you claim that his asking US$20 for this evidence is reasonable? If he has this evidence, not only is it unreasonable, it is unlawful to withhold it, let alone charge for access to it.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
You are excusing someone who, supposedly, has evidence implicating people in the assassination of a US President and has not sent this evidence to every single media outlet worldwide and you claim that his asking US$20 for this evidence is reasonable? If he has this evidence, not only is it unreasonable, it is unlawful to withhold it, let alone charge for access to it.
Click to expand...

If it is unlawful to withhold it, then the media is unlawful, since nobody is picking up this story. (But then, this is nothing new).

Well, except Coast To Coast and Prison Planet, thus far (that I'm aware of).

Is James Randi breaking the law by withholding evidence of fraud, and instead peddling it in books?
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
If it is unlawful to withhold it, then the media is unlawful, since nobody is picking up this story. (But then, this is nothing new).
Click to expand...
The media can't without evidence that they don't have. Remember, this guys charging for it? The whole point to this tangent?

skepticalcriticalguy said:
Well, except Coast To Coast and Prison Planet, thus far (that I'm aware of).
Click to expand...
[sarcasm]Ah yes, paragons of journalistic integrity those two sites.[/sarcasm]

skepticalcriticalguy said:
Is James Randi breaking the law by withholding evidence of fraud, and instead peddling it in books?
Click to expand...
No, his books are recounting his public exposing of the hoaxsters. Further equivocation on your part. It's getting tiresome and you're not fooling anyone with this junior-high arguing antics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom