Terrell Miller ) wrote:
: "Eric Chomko" wrote in message
: ...

: : 2. The motive could very well have been political. Kennedy was
: : strongly anti-communist and Oswald rabidly pro-Marxist.
:
: On the same token Oswald said to Dohrenschildt (who would up dead
: supposedly of suicide before testifying to the HSCA back in 78)
: that he liked Kennedy and his politics.

: I think you mean DeMohrenschildt

Right.

: : Sure, and Brad Guth suspects that many a believer in the Apollo
: : moon landings would never believe it were it not the official
: : explanation.
:
: Ah, make ALL conspiracy theories on the same level as the Roswell alien
: hoax. Are you following a script? Are you to become predictable now?

: Guth has nothing to do with the Roswell thing unless I've missed something.
: He thinks the Apollo landings were faked and his meisterwerk is the one
: about Venus being an inhabited tropical paradise, but some sort of "out of
: focus lens" effect makes it look like a cloudcovered hellhole. Or something.
: I'm sure he'll be more than happy to tell you all about it.

I've read his stuff and believe none of it. In fact I questioned him at
length about the fact that Venus's atmosphere is 90 times that of the
Earth and that the surface temperature is several hundred degrees
Fahrenheit. He never was able to respond convincingly about how humans
would overcome that given a manned flight to Venus.

: : Yes, a suspect has a *right* to counsel, but he has no *obligation*
: : to obtain one. A suspect has a *right* to remain silent but he has
: : no *obligation* to do so. There is no evidence that Oswald was not
: : given ample opportunity to obtain counsel and overwhelming evidence
: : that he was given ample opportunity to obtain counsel.
:
: Yet, no one was there and neither are there any transcripts. Not only does
: the aspect of remaining silent carry the rejoinder that any information
: can be used against you. The latter implies that it will be written down
: or taped; recorded in some fashion.

: now you're getting stuff out of order again. The "anything you say can be
: used against you" thing is part of the Miranda warning. Miranda was only
: arrested a few months before the JFK assassination, and the Supreme Court
: didn't even hadn down its decision until 1966. It was only in the late '60s
: that the phrase you are talking about had any meaning, in 1963 it hadn't
: even been invented yet.

: And as we've stated several times now, in 1963 Texas state law specifically
: prohibited any material from a pretrial interrogation from being used in
: court, so state law was even *more* protective of suspects than the Miranda
: rights.

The whole point is that after 12 hours of interrogation, there appears to
be very little of anything about it ijn the public record.

: Yet, we are to believe that on the
: evening of 11/22/63 and the morning of 11/23/63 in DPD NOTHING was ever
: reorded and that that was noraml for the time. No!!!!

: again, Eric, please try to comprehend what people are telling you instead of
: just getting all het up with the same old inaccurate crap for the umpteenth
: time, okay?

Sure, as long as you keep and open mind.

: Close enough. It wasn't days or weeks later. The point is that he never
: admitted to doing so. And that is rare in politcal assassinations.
: His one chance as a loser to get heard and he denies it.

: he also denied being a communist on the NO radio debate until the host

He always said he was a Marxist and not a communist. That was his
distinction.

: forced him to admit that he had not been honorably discharged from the
: Marines and had defected to Russia. Since the Russia thing was LHO's
: crowning achievement, one would think that he would have been bragging about
: it on a radio interview, but instead he tried to pretend it never happened.
: Why? Because he thought it would suit him best at the time.

The whole radio debate smacks of a setup if you ask me. Really, who cares
if Oswald is a communist Marxist or otherwise? Other than some one trying
to paint him as one. Who set up the debate? How exactly was it done.

I would have rather heard a debate with Hinckley than Oswald.

: And then he is
: silenced. Even you must find this at odds with the Lone Nut Theory. Either
: that or your truely have Orwellian-level abilities of brainwashing
: inherent.

: or we have a much better understanding of the random dip****ness that makes
: up the vast majority of human behaviour...

Or, a total lack of the lengths of reach of those in power.

: Penn Jones spent half a lifetime putting together a list of starnge
: deaths in the case. But since he was just a general in the Army, what does
: he know?

: erm, he was a magazine editor, not an Army officer. ANd the eighteen people
: he listed were mostly only tangentially connected to the case (i.e. they
: were one of the cast of thousands interivewed by the WC), and they didn't
: die mysteriously.

Check: http://www.jfk-info.com/Pennobit.txt

: Jim Marrs expanded the list to over 100 people, and again out of thousands
: who were somehow involved in the case, it's normal that a couple hundred
: would die in the intervening years.

Some were stranger than others.

: Most of the people on the "mystery death" list died years or decades later.
: There were only fourteen people who died within a year of the assassination,
: which is the period one would think they would be at the greatest risk of
: being "silenced".

Right, Bannister within one year and Ferrie at the time of Garrison's
investigation. Those two were much better to build a case against than was
Clay Shaw.

: And most of the people on the list had nothing to do with teh assassination,
: they were in teh friend-of-a-friend bucket.


: : The guy on the GK right after the assassination with SS
: : credentials while all the SS in Dallas that day were in the
: : motorcade.
:
: : Yet another change of subject. What guy is that?
:
: The only guy to stop people from going to the parking lot by flashing
: credentials immeditaley after the assassination. It is in several books,
: moat notably Josiah Thompson's "Six Seconds in Dallas".

: this is another classic pattern in the CT literature. One "researcher" will
: make an unsubstantiated claim or ask a rhetorical question or something, and
: later "researchers" will quote it, totally out of context, as demonstrated
: fact.

No, those researchers looked at the Warren Commission Hearing testimony
closer than did those who wrote the Warren Report.

That is another indication of conpsiracy. The WR isn't based upon the WCH
it is based upon Hoover's FBI report that came out on the order of days to
weeks after the assassination.

Researchers have been writing books over the years interpretting the WCH.
Those are the ones that have correctly described the assassination as a
conspiracy.

Eric

: --
: Terrell Miller
:

: "It's one thing to burn down the **** house and another thing entirely to
: install plumbing"
: -PJ O'Rourke