JFK's assassination: your thoughts

[ladmo]

The WC maintains that LHO visited the Cuban and Soviet Embassys on September 28th; CIA records show that there were 10 opportunities to capture pictures of LHO either entering or leaving those sites. Cameras were set up (both pulse and manual) to cover the entrances at the Embassys and the Cuban Consulate. Cameras were in working condition even though the CIA initially said they were broken; then through the HoSCA the documents became available which provided proof that the cameras were in deed operational. Telephones were also monitored and a conversation was intercepted with LHO asking about an update of something that was sent to Washington by the Soviet Embassy. How the CIA knew it was LHO was because he gave his name as "Lee Oswald" on the phone.

The recording of this conversation is not available but transcripts have been made by the CIA; no photographs were found to be that of LHO (only the famous non-LHO photo that we have seen on a number of occassions was located).

LHO being in Mexico City was the cornerstone of the WC Report when laying a foundation of LHO disenchantment with the USA, attempting to get visas for Cuba and the Soviet Union, money for travel, his frustration due the visa rejection and so on. Now that we know there was never any evidence of LHO being in Mexico City, should there not be some sort of revision of this entire episode that the CIA, the FBI, and the WC created?

 

[Robrob]

So the lack of evidence for your theory is evidence for the theory?

 

[SpitfireIX]

So the lack of evidence for your theory is evidence for the theory?

It's also evidence for the cover-up.

 

[catsmate]

So the lack of evidence for your theory is evidence for the theory?

Congrats, you've passed CT 101. Have a muffin.

 

[ladmo]

So the lack of evidence for your theory is evidence for the theory?

When your basis for an opinion is found to be wrong, this should be addressed.

 

[ladmo]

Congrats, you've passed CT 101. Have a muffin.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/162724fb2ad0e1c8ec.png[/qimg]

You are jumping to a conclusion. The WC based their assumption around events that cannot be proven. If you feel this is correct then you haven't even passed Debunking 99. Eat your own muffin.

 

[ladmo]

It's also evidence for the cover-up.

Who mentioned coverup? Not me.

 

[BStrong]

The WC maintains that LHO visited the Cuban and Soviet Embassys on September 28th; CIA records show that there were 10 opportunities to capture pictures of LHO either entering or leaving those sites. Cameras were set up (both pulse and manual) to cover the entrances at the Embassys and the Cuban Consulate. Cameras were in working condition even though the CIA initially said they were broken; then through the HoSCA the documents became available which provided proof that the cameras were in deed operational. Telephones were also monitored and a conversation was intercepted with LHO asking about an update of something that was sent to Washington by the Soviet Embassy. How the CIA knew it was LHO was because he gave his name as "Lee Oswald" on the phone.

The recording of this conversation is not available but transcripts have been made by the CIA; no photographs were found to be that of LHO (only the famous non-LHO photo that we have seen on a number of occassions was located).

LHO being in Mexico City was the cornerstone of the WC Report when laying a foundation of LHO disenchantment with the USA, attempting to get visas for Cuba and the Soviet Union, money for travel, his frustration due the visa rejection and so on. Now that we know there was never any evidence of LHO being in Mexico City, should there not be some sort of revision of this entire episode that the CIA, the FBI, and the WC created?

LHO in Mexico may go to motive, but any mistakes (we knew it was him because he said his name in the phone call?) in no way negates what happened in Dealy Plaza.

You can read all sorts of CT hawker books that "prove" it was LHO in Mexico as well as stories that "prove" it was a look-alike (another level of complexity allowing failure and/or disclosure) so it's nothing more than a pink 'em on this aspect, but LHO squeezed the trigger and went 2 for 3 in Texas.

 

[ladmo]

LHO in Mexico may go to motive, but any mistakes (we knew it was him because he said his name in the phone call?) in no way negates what happened in Dealy Plaza.

You can read all sorts of CT hawker books that "prove" it was LHO in Mexico as well as stories that "prove" it was a look-alike (another level of complexity allowing failure and/or disclosure) so it's nothing more than a pink 'em on this aspect, but LHO squeezed the trigger and went 2 for 3 in Texas.

I understand what you are saying but it does not pertain to what I said. You forget that the WC only made a speculation, they make that perfectly clear in their qualifying statements prior to providing their conclusion (LHO lone gunman). The DOJ made a statement less than 3 days after the assassination of JFK that LHO acted alone with no counterfeits. When the top agency of our justice makes this ascertain, it provides strength to develop a scenario that fits a lone gunman theory.

 

[ladmo]

You can read all sorts of CT hawker books that "prove" it was LHO in Mexico as well as stories that "prove" it was a look-alike (another level of complexity allowing failure and/or disclosure) so it's nothing more than a pink 'em on this aspect, but LHO squeezed the trigger and went 2 for 3 in Texas.

My information is not from any CT hawker book; it is straight from files released via FOIA. The FBI, the CIA, and the WH have submitted files which speak to the sham in Mexico and the need to have LHO exposed as a lone gunman. One file, written by Nicolas Katzenbaum to Bill Moyers on 11/25, openly states the need to have LHO as the only person who killed JFK. How is that for being innocent until proven guilty?

 

[BStrong]

I understand what you are saying but it does not pertain to what I said. You forget that the WC only made a speculation, they make that perfectly clear in their qualifying statements prior to providing their conclusion (LHO lone gunman). The DOJ made a statement less than 3 days after the assassination of JFK that LHO acted alone with no counterfeits. When the top agency of our justice makes this ascertain, it provides strength to develop a scenario that fits a lone gunman theory.

Federal Agency ***** Up isn't exactly a headline you'll read on the front page of a newspaper - not because it isn't true, but because of the language.

The sideshow anomalies do not change the end result - LHO was the shooter.

 

[BStrong]

My information is not from any CT hawker book; it is straight from files released via FOIA. The FBI, the CIA, and the WH have submitted files which speak to the sham in Mexico and the need to have LHO exposed as a lone gunman. One file, written by Nicolas Katzenbaum to Bill Moyers on 11/25, openly states the need to have LHO as the only person who killed JFK. How is that for being innocent until proven guilty?

Once again, I have to point out that perfection doesn't exist, especially when events overtake the ability of the person(s) involved to operate competently.

Katzenbaums's comment could be taken in different ways, and I don't recall if he ever explained his comment on the record, but if you want to get on the "innocent until"...caveat, you need to quote the whole Amendment - "in a court of law."

LHO was dead and gone at the time Katzenbaum wrote that note.

All this "connect the dot" "investigational" technique practiced years later by individuals that are not trained investigators are not valid - and if you want to get down to cases there are more than few CT hawkers that are in this for the money and self-aggrandizement, and the one guy that I actually know that came up with his personal BS story about the assassination made himself persona non grata in his own professional circle, but made him some coin, which I strongly suspect was the motivating factor in the first place.

 

[JayUtah]

You are jumping to a conclusion. The WC based their assumption around events that cannot be proven.

...as is the case for any investigation of a happenstance occurrence. Hence the notion of parsimony. Is the single-shooter hypothesis more parsimonious than any of the myriad alternatives proposed over the past 50 years?

If you feel this is correct then you haven't even passed Debunking 99. Eat your own muffin.

"Correct" is the wrong word. "Inevitable" is a better word. Parsimony works this way. I want my muffin back.

 

[JayUtah]

My information is not from any CT hawker book; it is straight from files released via FOIA.

Well unless you yourself submitted the FOIA request yourself and have the documents in hand, you're getting them from a third-party source and you should be prepared to answer questions about selective quotation and framing. Given that nearly everyone here who challenges the Warren Commission findings does so by mining from secondary sources, people who protest that they have original sources are naturally treated with some skepticism.

 

[ladmo]

Federal Agency ***** Up isn't exactly a headline you'll read on the front page of a newspaper - not because it isn't true, but because of the language.

The sideshow anomalies do not change the end result - LHO was the shooter.

No sideshow anomalies; you should provide some sound reasoning as to why incorrect information should not be discounted. What happened in Dealey Plaza was that our President was shot... period. Who did it is still up in the air. All Committees after the WC (they accessed greater and more detailed information) have said that it is not clear as to who were all the players in the killing. J. Edgar Hoover told LBJ, in less than 24 hours of the assassination, that LHO had to shown to the world to be the lone gunman. In less than 24 hours... case solved. That is a joke and if it doesn't concern you, then you are fortunate.

 

[ladmo]

Well unless you yourself submitted the FOIA request yourself and have the documents in hand, you're getting them from a third-party source and you should be prepared to answer questions about selective quotation and framing. Given that nearly everyone here who challenges the Warren Commission findings does so by mining from secondary sources, people who protest that they have original sources are naturally treated with some skepticism.

Understood about the 3rd party acquisition, the method of obtaining the information is not in question, the questioning should be aimed at the documents (are they factual or fake). As I have been told before; that this group is not my research department but I will provide information so that people can "google" it. Google "katzenbach, moyers, jfk"

 

[ladmo]

...as is the case for any investigation of a happenstance occurrence. Hence the notion of parsimony. Is the single-shooter hypothesis more parsimonious than any of the myriad alternatives proposed over the past 50 years?

I am in favor of simplified approaches and most answers are fairly basic, that is why I am against sanctifying incorrect information. "lone gunman" Theorists don't speak in those terms, they are absolute, there is no wiggle room... just look at BStrong's response.



"Correct" is the wrong word. "Inevitable" is a better word. Parsimony works this way. I want my muffin back.[/QUOTE]I can also live with this insertion but I do feel that parsimony blocks details and in depth discussions.

My original question may not get a direct response, this is not aimed at you as you have not made derailing comments but when someone completely ignores it or calls it a sideshow anomaly then it degenerates into something else.

 

[ladmo]

Once again, I have to point out that perfection doesn't exist, especially when events overtake the ability of the person(s) involved to operate competently.

Katzenbaums's comment could be taken in different ways, and I don't recall if he ever explained his comment on the record, but if you want to get on the "innocent until"...caveat, you need to quote the whole Amendment - "in a court of law."

and this was certainly no court of law.

LHO was dead and gone at the time Katzenbaum wrote that note.

dead and gone for less than 24 hours.

All this "connect the dot" "investigational" technique practiced years later by individuals that are not trained investigators are not valid - and if you want to get down to cases there are more than few CT hawkers that are in this for the money and self-aggrandizement, and the one guy that I actually know that came up with his personal BS story about the assassination made himself persona non grata in his own professional circle, but made him some coin, which I strongly suspect was the motivating factor in the first place.

You don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Your attempt at arguing from authority will not work. Years after the fact can provide a greater amount of information and if you wish to ignore it, then that is your decision. You are not in a position to judge if someone is qualified or not.

 

[ladmo]

LHO was dead and gone at the time Katzenbaum wrote that note.

If being "dead and gone" is your critical criteria for the notion of making LHO the "lone gunman" perfectly fine; then explain why J. Edgar Hoover expressed the need to blame this on LHO to LBJ, this was less than 24 hours after our President was killed and a full 24 hours prior to LHO being gunned down. In that same conversation, JEH told LBJ that the case against LHO was not strong. At this time, the FBI had: the gun (actually 2 guns, the other being the one used on Tippet), the shells, the information on buying the gun (A. Heidel), and LHO. JEH also expressed that LHO has denied everything...

The conversation between LBJ and JEH was erased but the transcripts survived. Can this be explained away by "events overtake the ability of the person(s) involved to operate competently."?

 

[Axxman300]

The ground doesn't lie.

From the 6th Floor of the School Book Depository it was an easy shot.

Period.

The picket fence was not capable of concealing shooters from view, and they would have been visible - clearly - in every photograph taken there that day.

Dealey Plaza has a nasty echo as the Oliver Stone sound guys found out when shooting the movie, so the people who heard sounds coming from locations other than the Depository probably did, but it doesn't mean that the shots came from anywhere else.

Oswald was chased out of a parking garage one night a few weeks before the assassination which means he was scouting for a good location to shoot from. Oswald didn't own a car, why would he be in a parking garage?