JFK's assassination: your thoughts

[BStrong]

It has nothing to do with the assassination.

The term "Exceptional Clearance" describes an established process used by law enforcement agencies and prosecutor's offices to come to a finding of fact where the accused is not available (death of the suspect usually, but it's also used in cases where the accused has escaped or absconded) and it's that process that was used in LHO's case.

If you'd like to dispute any part of the four conditions specified as criteria by the FBI at the link I posted as relating to the JFK assassination I'd entertain that discussion, but I don't believe that you've ever encountered the concept before and may need time to investigate it for yourself.

Might want to look into the concept of trial and conviction and sentencing in absentia too, as it's a judicial cousin of EC.

In the meantime, "EC" explains exactly how LHO is named as JFK's assassin w/o benefit of a trial and conviction.

 

[Mudcat]

an alternative is not required; only in your imagination.

If you can't or won't provide an alternative then the common narrative, aka "Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated president Kennedy and he acted alone", automatically becomes the correct conclusion.

I have no desire to start with a conclusion.

That may not be your desire, but that is what you have done.

My mind is not already made up.

Your mind seems fairly made up already to me.

 

[RoboTimbo]

laughable, downright laughable

Explain.

an alternative is not required; only in your imagination.

LHO not assassinating JFK is in your imagination.

I have no desire to start with a conclusion. My mind is not already made up.

Oh good, then you are not starting with your conclusion that Oswald did not assassinate the President.

Speak to what I posted.

I'll advise you to do the same. I was hoping for a higher quality CT who might finally have the courage of his convictions to propose a coherent alternative theory based on the CT's research. Apparently, their research doesn't point to anything other than the null hypothesis.

 

[BStrong]

147 - 16 LHO as lone shooter v. all other selections combined.

Sure doesn't appear that the CT promoters are making their case well enough to win converts to their pov.

 

[dafydd]

They never found out where Oswald allegedly got the 6.5mm copper jacket bullets. There were only two gun shops in Dallas that sold them and they said they never saw Oswald buy any.

The thought occurs that he may have bought them somewhere else.

 

[ladmo]

You realize it was a list of what you do to prove something is true?

I guess I see why you think that would have nothing to do with your claims.

NO it isn't; it is an FBI clearance procedure.

 

[ladmo]

Heal thyself. You're just here telling us we're all wrong. But you never commit to anything. Your posts are just vast tracts of weasel words. Highly unimpressive, fruitless, and unproductive.

I couldn't say this as nobody has even discussed my original post.

This site is not an intellectually based site; it has a mob mentality. You mention "weasel" words yet you have not once shown how my initial statement was incorrect or how we should not modify the WC conclusions when greater information is now available. Weasel words are when criticism is thrown at a thought without the ability to back up that criticism.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I couldn't say this as nobody has even discussed my original post.

Other than the posts immediately following it.

This site is not an intellectually based site;

Try reading more than your own posts.

it has a mob mentality.

CT's have a certain mentality which also wears thin. Their method is to nitpick at the WC report and yet they have no coherent alternative theory of their own. Wouldn't it be refreshing if a CT came with some actual information that was actionable?

You mention "weasel" words yet you have not once shown how my initial statement was incorrect or how we should not modify the WC conclusions when greater information is now available. Weasel words are when criticism is thrown at a thought without the ability to back up that criticism.

No, that isn't the definition of weasel words. Where are you getting your definitions?

 

[ladmo]

147 - 16 LHO as lone shooter v. all other selections combined.

Sure doesn't appear that the CT promoters are making their case well enough to win converts to their pov.

The poll is funny; trying to convert this group is like the first cartoon in the below link.

http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/b/battle.asp

 

[ladmo]

Explain.

self explainitory

LHO not assassinating JFK is in your imagination.

I never said LHO did not assassinate JFK.

Oh good, then you are not starting with your conclusion that Oswald did not assassinate the President.

You start out with a blank a piece of paper and go from there.

I'll advise you to do the same. I was hoping for a higher quality CT who might finally have the courage of his convictions to propose a coherent alternative theory based on the CT's research. Apparently, their research doesn't point to anything other than the null hypothesis.

Actually, I am surprised that you have stayed on this long. From your perspective one does not need any proof to prove anything(except for math) and you start an investigation with a conclusion.

Really, this is all a joke, right?

 

[ladmo]

The term "Exceptional Clearance" describes an established process used by law enforcement agencies and prosecutor's offices to come to a finding of fact where the accused is not available (death of the suspect usually, but it's also used in cases where the accused has escaped or absconded) and it's that process that was used in LHO's case.

If you'd like to dispute any part of the four conditions specified as criteria by the FBI at the link I posted as relating to the JFK assassination I'd entertain that discussion, but I don't believe that you've ever encountered the concept before and may need time to investigate it for yourself.

Might want to look into the concept of trial and conviction and sentencing in absentia too, as it's a judicial cousin of EC.

In the meantime, "EC" explains exactly how LHO is named as JFK's assassin w/o benefit of a trial and conviction.

Support your claim; I have not seen this applied to LHO.

Records have been kept for a number of years; the state of Texas adopted this in the mid to late 60's. It would have had to been the FBI who assigned it but never the less, support your claim that LHO was processed under this process.

 

[RoboTimbo]

self explainitory

No, it wasn't.

I never said LHO did not assassinate JFK.


You start out with a blank a piece of paper and go from there.

Your piece of paper says there was a conspiracy. Now you're looking for some unconnected dots to connect.

Actually, I am surprised that you have stayed on this long. From your perspective one does not need any proof to prove anything(except for math) and you start an investigation with a conclusion.

Really, this is all a joke, right?

Yes, what you just said was a joke. Proof is for math. I'm not sure where you pulled "you start with a conclusion" from but it must have been dark. So why did you start with the conclusion that there was a conspiracy?

 

[LSSBB]

Ladmo, by saying you are starting from a blank slate, are you saying that the very first time you ever heard of the Kennedy assassination, you thought to yourself "I wonder who did this" and then proceeded to gather the evidence to make a decision?

 

[tsig]

self explainitory



I never said LHO did not assassinate JFK.


You start out with a blank a piece of paper and go from there.


Actually, I am surprised that you have stayed on this long. From your perspective one does not need any proof to prove anything(except for math) and you start an investigation with a conclusion.

Really, this is all a joke, right?

Here you go then:






THIS SPACE LEFT BLANK


















Knock yerself out.

 

[Mudcat]

From your perspective one does not need any proof to prove anything(except for math) and you start an investigation with a conclusion.

Really, this is all a joke, right?

The only thing that's a joke is your incomprehension. Proof is for math. Evidence is for coming to a conclusion about the truth or untruth of a claim. Where's your evidence that Oswald did not act alone or was a patsy? Where is your evidence that there was a conspiracy to kill Kenedy? Where is your evidence that there is an ongoing conspiracy to cover up 'the truth'?

And finally, what is your alternative conclusion in full detail?

 

[Anders Lindman]

A caller on Coast to Coast a few days ago said that Jackie Kennedy was a CIA agent and that she shot JFK point-blank. I have abandoned that theory. It's similar to the claim that the driver shot JFK. My latest theory is that it was a fake assassination and that JFK had been replaced by a plastic dummy. But the tricky thing with that theory is: what happened to the real JFK?

 

[Border Reiver]

Essentially the investigative bodies (DPD, Secret Service and FBI) started out with "The President has been Shot."

From there they gather the physical evidence:

a. The President was hit in the back;
b. The president was hit in the top right of his head; and
c. Three shots were heard (possilbly more, due to the accoustics of the area).

The bullet path suggests that the bullet came from behind the President and from an elevated position. This puts a possible shooter in the TBD. A search of the TBD reveals a very recently fired rifle on the 6th floor. Questioning employees reveals that one employee was working on the 6th floor at the time of the shots, and that said employee is no longer in the building.

If nothing else, this would be a clear reason to bring the employee in to have a chat.

Meanwhile, the three LEA's are trying to figure out which of them is the lead agency, and how to go about sharing info. And of course you've got to get the VP to swear the oath so that he's now the P so taht there is continuity and the people get reassured, that this isn't a prelude to ... something.

Finally, a patrolman comes across a person who's acting suspicious and stops him to find out what's up, and gets shot. The shooter is apprehended shortly and brought in to deal with the cop-killing. Finally, someone is able to connect the dots that the missing TBD employee was also the guy they brought in for the cop-killing. Movement of the prisoner from one facility to another is mishandled, and an angry business kills the alleged killer.

Later tests show that the rifle belonged to the cop-killer, and that this rifle did the shooting.

The lack of closure resulting from not being able to try the shooter in a court of law spawns a rather rich view that "somebody's covering something up!"

From there

 

[SpitfireIX]

A caller on Coast to Coast a few days ago said that Jackie Kennedy was a CIA agent and that she shot JFK point-blank. I have abandoned that theory. It's similar to the claim that the driver shot JFK. My latest theory is that it was a fake assassination and that JFK had been replaced by a plastic dummy. But the tricky thing with that theory is: what happened to the real JFK?

 

[ladmo]

Ladmo, by saying you are starting from a blank slate, are you saying that the very first time you ever heard of the Kennedy assassination, you thought to yourself "I wonder who did this" and then proceeded to gather the evidence to make a decision?

No, not from the very first time I heard about the assassination. I am old enough to remember that day Kennedy was killed, I was young and it had a huge impact on me. It may be different for me due to actually being a part of the fabric in society and that the criticism of the WC has been from day 1.

My position is not to disprove the LHO was a lone gunman; I come from the angle that all information that is available should be used for the solution. It is without argument that many documents have come to light since the WC which have factually altered their conclusions.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Which conclusions are you concluding should be altered and using which new information?