JFK's assassination: your thoughts

[Robrob]

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."?

Or, as a normal person might say - it's an example of the head of the investigation wanting to get this thing done and over before public outcry causes too much turmoil?

You are conflating (accidentally I'm sure) a casual statement about getting a nationally important investigation sewn up quickly with some kind of public confession of conspiratorial guilt.

 

[RoboTimbo]

What happened in Dealey Plaza was that our President was shot... period. Who did it is still up in the air.

No, not at all. The totality of evidence overwhelmingly beyond a shadow of doubt points to Oswald being the lone assassin. Nobody has ever been able to show otherwise or come up with a coherent alternative theory.

Who knows, maybe you'll be different. What is your proof that Oswald didn't shoot JFK and what is your coherent alternative theory?

 

[John Jones]

Family history and the JFK assassination.

I had an unusual childhood.
[snip]

Cool story, bro.

 

[JayUtah]

I am in favor of simplified approaches and most answers are fairly basic...

That's not what "simple" means in the context of Occam's Razor. "Simple" in that context means harboring the fewest untestable premises. The most tenable theory is not devoid of loose ends; it just has fewer than others.

"lone gunman" Theorists don't speak in those terms, they are absolute, there is no wiggle room... just look at BStrong's response.

Straw man.

My original question may not get a direct response, this is not aimed at you as you have not made derailing comments...

Irrelevant. If you post in a public forum you don't have the luxury of "aiming" comments at anyone. Especially when you single out one poster and presume we all fly his banner.

 

[JayUtah]

Understood about the 3rd party acquisition, the method of obtaining the information is not in question...

Of course it is. The source of one's information regarding the Kennedy assassination is quite important given the amount of turbulent argumentation, pseudoscience, and speculation on the subject.

Google "katzenbach, moyers, jfk"

This just dresses up the admission that you didn't obtain the documents directly from a primary source, but merely Googled for it and accepted the convenient source at face value. Framing and thoroughness are ultimately at issue in that mode of research.

 

[JayUtah]

You don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing.

Begs the question that dot-connecting is straightforward. The number of different ways decades of conspiracy theorists have connected various selected dots refutes that. If the path through the dots were as straightforward as you insinuate, there would be only one JFK conspiracy theory to which all the theorists subscribe. There isn't. The only thing they can agree on is that the Warren Commission got the wrong answer. They can't agree on what the right answer is instead.

You are not in a position to judge if someone is qualified or not.

Nonsense. There are clear and well-established principles for laying a foundation for expertise, as a matter of reasonable objective standards. Conspiracy theorists habitually eschew actual expertise in favor of intuition and "common sense."

 

[ladmo]

Or, as a normal person might say - it's an example of the head of the investigation wanting to get this thing done and over before public outcry causes too much turmoil?

You are conflating (accidentally I'm sure) a casual statement about getting a nationally important investigation sewn up quickly with some kind of public confession of conspiratorial guilt.

Wrapping up quickly and wrapping up quickly with a "guilty" person in mind are two different things.

 

[ladmo]

No, not at all. The totality of evidence overwhelmingly beyond a shadow of doubt points to Oswald being the lone assassin. Nobody has ever been able to show otherwise or come up with a coherent alternative theory.

Who knows, maybe you'll be different. What is your proof that Oswald didn't shoot JFK and what is your coherent alternative theory?

An alternative theory is not required to show that JEH, LBJ and NK already had a story made up. I am not into making up conclusions that cannot be proven; unlike others.

 

[ladmo]

Of course it is. The source of one's information regarding the Kennedy assassination is quite important given the amount of turbulent argumentation, pseudoscience, and speculation on the subject.

you don't judge the messenger, you judge the message.

This just dresses up the admission that you didn't obtain the documents directly from a primary source, but merely Googled for it and accepted the convenient source at face value. Framing and thoroughness are ultimately at issue in that mode of research.

False conclusion. I did not file for the FOIA. I actually wrote in those key words just prior to the post, in order to see if those words worked. You are totally incorrect in your conjecture.

 

[ladmo]

Begs the question that dot-connecting is straightforward. The number of different ways decades of conspiracy theorists have connected various selected dots refutes that. If the path through the dots were as straightforward as you insinuate, there would be only one JFK conspiracy theory to which all the theorists subscribe. There isn't. The only thing they can agree on is that the Warren Commission got the wrong answer. They can't agree on what the right answer is instead.

I have provided no theory; I have only provided historical data. What theory have I set forth? I have debunk an element of the WC Report.

Nonsense. There are clear and well-established principles for laying a foundation for expertise, as a matter of reasonable objective standards. Conspiracy theorists habitually eschew actual expertise in favor of intuition and "common sense."

I am not promoting myself as some sort of expert but the poster made a conclusion about me that was incorrect.

 

[Anders Lindman]

"They pinned the assassination of Kennedy on the right wing, the Birchers. It was done by a Communist and it was the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated." -- Richard Nixon, Source: http://www-cgi.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0202/28/ip.00.html

Did Nixon by hoax mean that the JFK assassination was staged and faked?

 

[Mudcat]

Just a passing thought, but anyone else notice the number of open JFK assassination discussion threads have increased? Does this mean we'll get a new supper special sub-forum for JFK conspiracy theories like we have for 9/11 now?

 

[SpitfireIX]

No, it just means that we're experiencing a totally predictable spike in discussion of the topic incident to the approach of the 50th anniversary.

 

[yodaluver28]

"They pinned the assassination of Kennedy on the right wing, the Birchers. It was done by a Communist and it was the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated." -- Richard Nixon, Source: http://www-cgi.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0202/28/ip.00.html

Did Nixon by hoax mean that the JFK assassination was staged and faked?

No, that's not what he meant, didn't you even read it? Nixon was angry because he felt that Oswald's communist sympathies weren't focused on by the media and by this point conspiracy theorists were blaming right-wingers in the military and intelligence apparatus so Nixon wanted to blame the Wallace assassination on liberals.That's what this collection of quotes, including the one you highlighted (in truncated form) means:



MORTON: In 1972, Arthur Bremer, who had once thought of shooting Nixon, shoots presidential candidate George Wallace. Nixon wants to make sure the liberals are blamed.

RICHARD NIXON, FMR. PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Why don't we play the game a bit smarter for a change. They pinned the assassination of Kennedy on the right wing, the Birchers. It was done by a Communist and it was the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated. And I respectfully suggest, can't we pin this on one of theirs?

MORTON: Aide Chuck Colson reports to the president on Bremer.

CHUCK COLSON, FMR. PRESIDENTIAL AIDE FOR RICHARD NIXON: Ah, he is obviously demented.

NIXON: Is he a left-winger or a right-winger?

COLSON: Well, he's going to be a left-winger by the time we get through, I think.

NIXON: Ah, good. Keep at that. Keep at that.

MORTON: The president with his wife, Pat.

NIXON: Bad people did it.

PAT NIXON, RICHARD NIXON'S WIFE: Who did it?

NIXON: The liberals.

 

[Bingowings]

Reading for comprehension isn't one of Anders' strengths.

What Nixon said:

They pinned the assassination of Kennedy on the right wing, the Birchers. It was done by a Communist and it was the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated.

What he meant:

They pinned the assassination of Kennedy on the right wing, the Birchers. It was done by a Communist and it was the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated.

What Anders may have thought he meant:

ALIENS!!!!

 

[RoboTimbo]

An alternative theory is not required to show that JEH, LBJ and NK already had a story made up. I am not into making up conclusions that cannot be proven; unlike others.

You'll need to show that Oswald wasn't the shooter if that's what you're trying to accomplish. You don't have anything that would show that null hypothesis to be incorrect? You have no alternate coherent theory at all? Just... nothing?

 

[Anders Lindman]

No, that's not what he meant, didn't you even read it? Nixon was angry because he felt that Oswald's communist sympathies weren't focused on by the media and by this point conspiracy theorists were blaming right-wingers in the military and intelligence apparatus so Nixon wanted to blame the Wallace assassination on liberals.

Would that really be "the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated"? Sounds like you are describing a minor issue. Nixon could have been exaggerating in his description but to call it the biggest hoax ever is a bit over the top, don't you think?

 

[ladmo]

You'll need to show that Oswald wasn't the shooter if that's what you're trying to accomplish. You don't have anything that would show that null hypothesis to be incorrect? You have no alternate coherent theory at all? Just... nothing?

The WC couldn't even show that Oswald the shooter (what the WC provided was that Oswald could have been and was most likely the killer). The entire report is laced with caveats in regards to their findings. And NO I do not have to show it; when the research has proven to be flawed(selective,omitted, ignored, incorrect), you don't endorse it especially when there is "new" (new since the WC Report) which shows an intended conclusion within 23 hours of the crime.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The WC couldn't even show that Oswald the shooter (what the WC provided was that Oswald could have been and was most likely the killer).

Yes, the WC did find that Oswald was the lone assassin of JFK, using the rifle he bought mail order. Then he killed officer Tippit with the revolver Oswald owned as he was trying to make his escape. Why did you think otherwise? There is a link a page or two back to the WC report if you'd like to read it.

The entire report is laced with caveats in regards to their findings. And NO I do not have to show it; when the research has proven to be flawed(selective,omitted, ignored, incorrect), you don't endorse it especially when there is "new" (new since the WC Report) which shows an intended conclusion within 23 hours of the crime.

And yet you have no more coherent theory to advance that would overturn the null hypothesis? Nothing at all? A pity, I was hoping for something new from the CT crowd, not the same old, same old.

 

[BStrong]

and this was certainly no court of law.

dead and gone for less than 24 hours.

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.

Funny, in all the times I testified in court as to facts relating to firearms and ballistic evidence my bona fides and training was never called into question.

Must be the different rules of evidence from an actual courtroom to an internet forum.

"Years after the fact." can indeed bring new information, but then the question becomes whether the "new information" is exculpatory or inculpatory, or is simply background noise with no true value to the investigation in question.

Fact: The FBI has Carlos Marcello on tape while he was in federal custody admitting he had JFK assassinated (Legacy of Secrecy, Waldron and Hartmann)

http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Secrecy-Long-Shadow-Assassination/dp/B00EBFKV90

So that's it, case closed right?

Marcello was on the downward slide of dementia, he was a typical Mafiosi in that braggadocio was sop, and the inmate(s) he made the confession to were not members of LCN and other than braggadocio there is no reason for Marcello to have had the conversation with them.

Do we now act on that admission of guilt?

Waldron and Hatmann believe they hit the mother load, maybe they did, but the FBI listened to the tape and determined that this wasn't anything but an old man in prison trying to impress inmates as to his importance -which under the circumstances makes a hell of a lot of sense to me.

YMMV.

The inconsistency of various pieces of WC evidence and the later date "revelations" by witnesses and others fall farther down the reliability ladder in determining validity, and try as you might ladmo, in one little corner of the discussion (ballistics and marksmanship) I'm very well qualified to have an opinion on the subject and to judge the qualifications of other commentators.