A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Pres. Kerry's NASA



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #351  
Old March 7th 04, 04:34 PM
Terrell Miller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT: JFK books (was Pres. Kerry's NASA)

"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
...

But they never provd Oswald fired a shot due to the lack of powder burns.
And the match to Oswald's gun was done days later after several vollyes
back and forth between Dallas and DC with the evidence. The screwups smack
big-time of a coverup.


"coverup" "conspiracy". I would be the first to agree that there was a
coverup of lots of things by the FBI, Secret Service, etc. But what they
were covering was only their own asses for failing to protect POTUS,
especially since the guy who did it was someone that the FBI had been
keeping tabs on. That's the kind of thing that makes a government official
crap his pants, so everybody was busy pointing fingers and trying to pretend
they didn't make any mistakes.

That is orders of magnitude different than saying that JFK was murdered by a
conspiracy, however. CTers never seem to understand the difference, mainly
because none of them seem to have any common sense.

: 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.

: He liked Kennedy's politics so much he tried to start a Fair Play
: for Cuba chapter in New Orleans.

That whole ting was a charade. Didn't you see the film JFK where Oswald's
literature had Bannister's address stamped on it? An anti Castro operation
tolerating Oswald renting a room in their building?!?!? Sheep-dipping!


Eric, if you're basing your opinions on that movie you are truly beyond
help. Stone readily admitted that he wasn't interested in presenting an
objective analysis of the case, he was just mythologizing it. IOW, he wasn't
making a documentary, he was making a *drama*.

Put it this way: Kevin Costner crying and making an impassioned speech to
the jury about th eloss of his country or whatever is much more gripping and
"good theater" than Costner reading off a long list of facts about the case.
That's all Stone cared about, was the melodrama.

: Eric, there were plenty of people there. People *do* have memories.
: Appendix XI of the WCR reproduces various reports of Oswald's
: interrogation.

But no one felt that it should be written down. Why?


sigh now you're just being argumentative for the hell of it. We've
patiently explained all this to you several times in this thread. If you
need attention this badly, why don't you go down to your local bar and chat
up the waitress or something?

: What makes you think that my scepticism got tossed? Because I
: didn't come to the same conclusions you did?

No, because you haven't shown the ability to look at things objectively.
That appears to be a symptom of those that believe in the LNT.


irony meter offscale high here

: "It can't happen
: here" is at the root of your belief that Kennedy was killed by a
: lone nut.

: And how, pray tell, could you possibly know that?

Is the US capable of having a coup on its soil?


capable, sure. Compelling evidence this has ever happened, nope.

: : I treat official pronouncements from the US government with
: : great scepticism *regardless* of the conclusions drawn.
:
: You seem to give the WC findings a pass in this case.

: Really, why does it seem that way? Because I don't reject their
: findings out of hand?

No, because you don't question them.


part of the scientific method is to always querstion your assumptions and
conclusions. That, however, is very different from *rejecting* them just
because you don't like what they say.

So for the LNT/WCR/yadda, of course you should question the conclusion that
Oswald acted alone. And as I've repeatedly stated, there are lots of little
details that the WC muffed. But the hypothesis has not been falsified (in
the scientific meaning of the term, i.e. proven to be inaccurate), so we
must continue to accept it as valid.

: Penn Jones spent half a lifetime putting together a list of
: starnge deaths in the case.

: None of which are strange, many of which are "in the case" only by
: the most tenuous of connections, and one which might not even be a
: death.

Who is on Jones' list that isn't dead?


At least one: Karen "Little Lynn" Carlin, one of Ruby's strippers, who also
went under the name Teresa Nichols. Marrs included both names on his list,
though they were in fact the same person. Carlin testified to the WC *after*
the supposed date of her death (for which there are no records), and in 1992
someone claiming to be Carlin got in touch with Gary Shaw, though there was
no way to corroborate that person's identity).

--
Terrell Miller


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


  #352  
Old March 9th 04, 06:50 PM
Eric Chomko
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT: JFK books (was Pres. Kerry's NASA)

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


  #353  
Old March 9th 04, 07:06 PM
Eric Chomko
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT: JFK books (was Pres. Kerry's NASA)

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

: But they never provd Oswald fired a shot due to the lack of powder burns.
: And the match to Oswald's gun was done days later after several vollyes
: back and forth between Dallas and DC with the evidence. The screwups smack
: big-time of a coverup.

: "coverup" "conspiracy". I would be the first to agree that there was a
: coverup of lots of things by the FBI, Secret Service, etc. But what they
: were covering was only their own asses for failing to protect POTUS,
: especially since the guy who did it was someone that the FBI had been
: keeping tabs on. That's the kind of thing that makes a government official
: crap his pants, so everybody was busy pointing fingers and trying to pretend
: they didn't make any mistakes.

It is deeper than that. They went out of their way to cover up the fact
that there had been a coup. They HAD to describe the assassination as a
lone nut killing. Further, the intelligence that was created out of Mexico
City had them compromised on that point. It forced the issue of a coverup.
What the conspirators didn't expect was that the US would not invade Cuba
after the assassination as was their plan by trying to lay the blame on
Castro. No invasion further admits that the assassination was a coup of
domestic orgins.

: That is orders of magnitude different than saying that JFK was murdered by a
: conspiracy, however. CTers never seem to understand the difference, mainly
: because none of them seem to have any common sense.

We don't all agree on every point, but that doesn't mean that LHOLN is
correct. The Lone Nut Theory has little leeway for interpretation. And
that is part of its problem. It is a theory with an answer and then the
facts must be twisted in order to fit the conclusion.

: : 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.
:
: : He liked Kennedy's politics so much he tried to start a Fair Play
: : for Cuba chapter in New Orleans.
:
: That whole ting was a charade. Didn't you see the film JFK where Oswald's
: literature had Bannister's address stamped on it? An anti Castro operation
: tolerating Oswald renting a room in their building?!?!? Sheep-dipping!

: Eric, if you're basing your opinions on that movie you are truly beyond
: help. Stone readily admitted that he wasn't interested in presenting an
: objective analysis of the case, he was just mythologizing it. IOW, he wasn't
: making a documentary, he was making a *drama*.

A drama based upon the events of the day. Sure he didn't get every single
fact correct. But the basics are there.

: Put it this way: Kevin Costner crying and making an impassioned speech to
: the jury about th eloss of his country or whatever is much more gripping and
: "good theater" than Costner reading off a long list of facts about the case.
: That's all Stone cared about, was the melodrama.

Heck, why not just say that you're sick of hearing "back and to the
left" and therefore it all must be false? That is the lone nutter creed,
you know.

: : Eric, there were plenty of people there. People *do* have memories.
: : Appendix XI of the WCR reproduces various reports of Oswald's
: : interrogation.
:
: But no one felt that it should be written down. Why?

: sigh now you're just being argumentative for the hell of it. We've
: patiently explained all this to you several times in this thread. If you
: need attention this badly, why don't you go down to your local bar and chat
: up the waitress or something?

: : What makes you think that my scepticism got tossed? Because I
: : didn't come to the same conclusions you did?
:
: No, because you haven't shown the ability to look at things objectively.
: That appears to be a symptom of those that believe in the LNT.

: irony meter offscale high here

You've seen the Zapruder film and watched the head snap, yet you are
convinced a shot came from the right front. Who is the one with the closed
mind?

: : "It can't happen
: : here" is at the root of your belief that Kennedy was killed by a
: : lone nut.
:
: : And how, pray tell, could you possibly know that?
:
: Is the US capable of having a coup on its soil?

: capable, sure. Compelling evidence this has ever happened, nope.

More than enough in the JFK assassinaton.

: : : I treat official pronouncements from the US government with
: : : great scepticism *regardless* of the conclusions drawn.
: :
: : You seem to give the WC findings a pass in this case.
:
: : Really, why does it seem that way? Because I don't reject their
: : findings out of hand?
:
: No, because you don't question them.

: part of the scientific method is to always querstion your assumptions and
: conclusions. That, however, is very different from *rejecting* them just
: because you don't like what they say.

Do you know when the magic bullet theory was created? It was in 1964 many
months after the assassination.

: So for the LNT/WCR/yadda, of course you should question the conclusion that
: Oswald acted alone. And as I've repeatedly stated, there are lots of little
: details that the WC muffed. But the hypothesis has not been falsified (in
: the scientific meaning of the term, i.e. proven to be inaccurate), so we
: must continue to accept it as valid.

Some do, most don't.

: : Penn Jones spent half a lifetime putting together a list of
: : starnge deaths in the case.
:
: : None of which are strange, many of which are "in the case" only by
: : the most tenuous of connections, and one which might not even be a
: : death.
:
: Who is on Jones' list that isn't dead?

: At least one: Karen "Little Lynn" Carlin, one of Ruby's strippers, who also
: went under the name Teresa Nichols. Marrs included both names on his list,
: though they were in fact the same person. Carlin testified to the WC *after*
: the supposed date of her death (for which there are no records), and in 1992
: someone claiming to be Carlin got in touch with Gary Shaw, though there was
: no way to corroborate that person's identity).

Geez, someone uses an alias and there is a foulup. Hardly grounds for
tossing the whole thing as false.

Eric

: --
: Terrell Miller
:

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


  #354  
Old March 9th 04, 07:08 PM
Eric Chomko
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Pres. Kerry's NASA

TKalbfus ) wrote:
: : It does since there's no evidence of communication or collusion with
: : Thyssen's German (and hence Nazi) efforts!
:

: Criticising ones ancestors is a cheap shot. How does anyone know what one's
: ancestors did. What if one of your ancestors was a cannable, what if he kept
: slaves? What if one of your ancestors worshipped some pagan deity and made
: human sacrifices to that god? Can I say therefore a person with ancestors like
: that would make a lousy President? Nothing can be done about one's ancestors,
: so examining ones lineage is a cheap form of attack that proves nothing.

They have been doing that with the Kennedys for a long time. Why should
the Bushes get a pass?

Eric

: Tom
  #355  
Old March 11th 04, 08:05 PM
Eric Chomko
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT: JFK books (was Pres. Kerry's NASA)

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

: : since Newman is a professor at Maryland where the Archives are now
: housed,
: : that's hardly surprising. Posner lives in NYC and is a freelance
: : investigative journalist and attorney, he's moved on to other things in
: his
: : career.
:
: Peter Dale Scott lives and teaches in CA, yet he gets to the archives. It
: is the difference between a true researcher and a huckster. Like Richard
: Hoagland, Posner is a huckster.

: no, it just means that Peter Dale Scott has made the JFK case his one big
: hobby that he spends a lot of time on. Posner wrote a book about it and
: moved on. That doesn't make the man a huckster, it just means he's not an
: obsessive-compulsive personality like a lot of CTers.

Scott writes about a lot more than the JFK assassination. He's big on
exposing inherent corruption in politics, stuff like Iran/Contra. Watch
that resurface if Kerry gets elected.

: : But the WCH is the BEST eveidence for a conspiracy. You ought to read
: it
: : sometimes.
:
: : been there, done that
:
: What did Lee Bowers see while in his tower?

: he saw three cars enter the area, circle around like they were looking for a
: parking place and then turn around and leave, then after the third shot he
: saw some sort of commotion that he couldn't describe but that made him think
: something had happened there. That's not much to base a conspiracy theory
: on, sport. Especially since he couldn't even reliably determine the time
: that the three cars appeared.

I'm talking about the "flash of light, commotion and something out of the
ordinary" that happened behind the picket fence when the motorcade passed
by. Pretty damn interesting if you ask he. THAT is in the WCH and not in
the WR. It is evidence from eyewitnesses that the LNers simply explain
away as if nothing happened. Sorry, it did happen and matched with other
eyewitness testimony in the WCH and the Zfilm, I believe a shot was fired
from the front.

: And especially since he seemed to be trying hard not to come out and say
: that while the TSBD was being renovated he did a little moonlighting as a
: laborer while he was clocked in on the Railroad's dime

And the relavency of that is??

: And *most* especially since he went into some detail about how you often
: cannot tell where a sound in DP was coming from:

: Mr. BELIN - And were you able to form an opinion as to the source of the
: sound or what direction it came from, I mean?
: Mr. BOWERS - The sounds came either from up against the School Depository
: Building or near the mouth of the triple underpass.
: Mr. BALL - Were you able to tell which?
: Mr. BOWERS - No; I could not.
: Mr. BALL - Well, now, had you had any experience before being in the tower
: as to sounds coming from those various places?
: Mr. BOWERS - Yes; I had worked this same tower for some 10 or 12 years, and
: was there during the time they were renovating the School Depository
: Building, and had noticed at that time the similarity of sounds occurring in
: either of those two locations.
: Mr. BALL - Can you tell me now whether or not it came, the sounds you heard,
: the three shots came from the direction of the Depository Building or the
: triple underpass?
: Mr. BOWERS - No; I could not.
: Mr. BALL - From your experience there, previous experience there in hearing
: sounds that originated at the Texas School Book Depository Building, did you
: notice that sometimes those sounds seem to come from the triple underpass?
: Is that what you told me a moment ago?
: Mr. BOWERS - There is a similarity of sound, because there is a
: reverberation which takes place from either location.
: Mr. BALL - Had you heard sounds originating near the triple underpass
: before?
: Mr. BOWERS - Yes; quite often. Because trucks backfire and various
: occurrences.

It is what Bowers heard, it is what he saw. But you knew that!

: so your "star witness" just confirmed a major rebuttal of the Grassy Knoll
: Shooter theory g

Uh no, and you're seriously kidding yourself if you believe that what
Bowers heard or didn't hear is what is important. It is about what he saw.
Explain that away.

: : : And people in Dealey Plaza heard a varying number of shots from a
: : varying
: : : number of locations. Moral of the story: people don't all remember
: the
: : same
: : : event the same way, and eyewitness testimony is unreliable.
: :
: : Yes, and no. There were too many people that said a shot came from the
: : Grassy Knoll to dismiss that area as a possibility of having a
: shooter.

: ahem

Right, one simply cannot say no shooter was there. Are you open to a
second shooter being on the GK, now?

: : Second, *none* of the ballistics evidence supports a shot from the
: front.
: : The "back and to the left" thing that's repeated ad infinitum is based
: on
: : simple ignorance,
:
: False. YOU got tired of hearing it, it IS in the Zfilm.

: sorry, I didn't explain that thoroughly. Yes, JFK's body moves back and to
: the left after the head shot. No, that doesn't prove that the shot came from
: the right front, or anywhere else for that matter.

Well, it sure as heck does for me. I don't know about any jet effect that
can explain that.

: *That* is what is based on simple ignorance, people just assume that an
: object will push whatever it impacts forward in a straight line.

Ah, no. Sorry to inform you, but that is just basic physics. Anyone that
would tell you otherwise is either ignorant, mistaken or a liar.

: Very simple physics experiment to disprove the universality of that: take a
: glass of water and drop something in it. Which way does the water splash?
: Right, it's directly *toward* the source of the impacting object, not in a
: straight line away from it.

Kennedy's head is not a glass of water. And the movement is his whole body
after the impact. THAT is what goes in the same direction as the force of
the projectile. I believe that it was a frangible bullet.

: And no, that doesn't *prove* that the head shot came from the TSBD either,
: it just illustrates that there are many more variables involved than where
: the bullet came from.

Seems pretty simple to me, Tom Snyder and millions of other viewers who
saw it for the first time back in the late 70s on late night TV.

: xamination of the actual evidence (for
: : instance, it totally ignored the fact that a large chunk of JFK's skull
: flew
: : straight *up*, as can clearly be seen in the Zapruder film. That doesn't
: : support a shot from the GK.
:
: Why not? The Harper Fragmant was found behind where the vehicle was and in
: the infield area. Motorcycle cop on that side get splattered. Up and back
: and to the left fits pefect with ALL the evidence better than from the
: Sniper's Nest.

: except that the motorcade was moving. The head matter got left behind and
: smacked into the next vehicles.

The motorcade was not moving that fast at zframe 312-313.

: Another experiment for you: while you and a friend are driving in tandem in
: your subdivision, wait until you get to an easy landmark (your mailbox or
: something) and throw a handful of dirt straight up out of the window. Will
: the dirt hit your friend's car? Sure, because after you release the dirt it
: suddenly loses the forward momentum your car gives it, and meanwhile your
: friend's forward momentum brought him up to the point where the dirt is
: still swirling in the air, so he gets hit by it.

The experiment only works if the car is going 11 MPH.

: : Third, Dealey Plaza is an echo chamber, it's very hard to tell with any
: : certainty where sounds are coming from, especially during a sudden,
: : stressful event like the assassination with all the crowd noise,
: automobile
: : motors, "ricochets" of every sound, etc.
:
: It is not an echo chamber. It has tall building but on behind not in
: front.

: see above

: : Being in New Orleans in the summer of 63.
:
: : Oswald grew up a gypsy, his mother moved them all over the place, back
: and
: : forth, all of LHO's life. He was just in NO looking to make a living for
: his
: : family, nothing more sinister than that.
:
: Right, he just up and leaves Dallas to go get a job there at that time and
: he ends up handing out communist literature as a hobby. Sounds like he was
: doing some kind of low level operration to me.

: Sounds like he was desperately trying to fit in *somewhere* and basically
: losing it to me.

The problem is if Oswald isn't getting paid to hand out leaflets, where is
he getting money to live in NO, travel to Mexico, etc.? That has never
been explained. Oswald as a low level spook being set up as a patsy,
though farfetched on the face of it, actually makes much more sense than
his actually doing all the things that he was purported to do.

: : Moving him around as an agent would be
: : simple in fact. That is assuming he and others think that he's merely
: : trying to expose communists by pretending to be one.
:
: : hell of an unsubstantiated assumption there, sport.
:
: Fits perfect with his being babysat by CIA agents with Russian backgrounds
: and his constant dealings with the FBI.

: um, his "constant dealings" with the FBI amounted to him telling Hosty to go
: get stuffed and leave his wife alone IIRC.

That note like too many other aspects of this case simply got destroyed,
you know like Oswald got destroyed before he could testify.

Speaking of notes, what of the Mr. Hunt note? Something else that gets
explained away. Sure fits well with my low level operator scenario. Hell,
just about everything fits well with it except is being a lone nut commie
anarchist as is what your theory claims.

: : : That all fits with the visit to Mexico City as well.
: :
: : : why would a "sheep dipped" assassin take a Greyhound bus all the way
: : across
: : : Mexico?
: :
: : To look like he is trying to redefect, but this time to Cuba. There is
: no
: : proof that Oswald ever actually went. In fact, the only photo of
: someone
: : that was Oswald in MC looks more like Al Bundy that LHO. Surely you
: have
: : sen the photo?
:
: : Sure, and there is also no proof that the Al Bundy clone (glad someone
: else
: : noticed that g) who's in that picture claimed to be LHO.
:
: The voice on the tapes did NOT sound like Oswald as they were much deeper.

: you've heard the tapes, then?

No, I'm describing what Hoover told LBJ about the tapes within 24 hours
after that assassination regarding Oswald's visit to MC. This never came
out during the WC.

In fact, when the HSCA got wind of this back in 79 it was squelched.

: : So in this case, anything the CIA did wrt the MC SovEmb while LHO was in
: MC
: : is therefore somehow involved with LHO,
:
: Wait. It seems that someone wanted to have Oswald setting off alarms
: within the intelliegnce community and it worked. The CIA, at least the
: part involved in covert activities in MC, were being used to create an
: image of Oswald as a communist defector. Where was the press lady
: equilvalent in MC as was in Moscow?

: Oswald walking into the US Embassy in Moscow and saying he wants to become a
: good prole is a news story. Oswald taking the bus down to MC and then
: bugging people at the Cuban and Soviet consulated for a few days and being
: rebuffed is quite another. Short answer: by that time LHO was old news and
: nobody cared.

Yet, not a single real photo places him in MC. And to think he's at two
embassies! You sure as heck know he was under surveillance.

: ; and therefore a sign of conspiracy.
: : But at the same time, the CT literature is rife with examples of people
: : treating the JFK case as if it existed in a vacuum, totally ignoring
: that
: : lots of daily-grind, random, totally unconnected events were happening
: all
: : around the events that did have a bearing on the case.
:
: Sorry, it is just that when one is told that a lone nut killed another
: lone nut that killed the president, and there was no conspiracy involved;
: well, let's just say "no, we want to take another look."

: Absolutely, take another look. But when you do you see there's really
: nothing there.

Didn't the WC make a vault with evidence in it not to be opened for 75
years? Didn't the HSCA do the same with a 50 year window?

No, this is not over. Posner's attempt to close the case has been seen
threw.

: : yep, among other places it's in the photo spread in Case Closed. So
: what?
: : Looks like someone wanted to protect Walker's privacy is all.
:
: What does his license plate ripped off a picture have to do with his
: privacy. Surely, his license plate would be expected to be on a car?

: sigh Eric, are you just desperate for attention, is htat why you ask so
: many totally moronic questions? Even you should be able to figure out that
: somebody could look at a picture of Walker's care, get his license tag
: number, and find out where he lived.

Naw, somebody went to great lengths to remove clues. Its obvious.

: : I am not buying that. We simply don't accept people back like that.
:
: : And your evidence for that assertion is...?
:
: My dad worked in Oberammagau in the Army/G2. Good starting place, no?

: depends on what he did in G2 and whether he had any knowledge of the
: protocols for handling returning defectors, if there indeed were any
: protocols.

: My father worked for the Air Force for thirty five years. That doesn't mean
: he knew how to fly a fighter jet, if you get my meaning.

Is you're dad a lone nutter?

: : But his showing up (supposedly) in Mexico City was no joke. It scared
: the
: : hell out of US officials.
:
: : not really, they just automatically perked up when an American starts
: : hanging around the Cuban and Sov embassies talking about wanting to go
: to
: : Russia. It would be stupid if they *didn't* pay attention to him, but
: there
: : is no evidence that LHO's trip "scared the hell out of" anybody.
:
: On 11/22/63 the incident of Mexico City scared the hell out of the CIA.

: you're wavering between two different things here, sport: there's the CIA
: reaction the weekend when LHO was in MC, and there's CIA's reaction right
: after the assassination when they learned about LHO's trip.

No, no!! There is the reaction to the weekend and then there is the
reaction to the weekend AFTER Oswald was accused of being the assassin of
the president on 11/22/63. The first reaction was in early October. Six
weeks isn't the point, the fact that he's the accused assassin of the
president is!

: The former
: created nothing but routine surveillance. The latter was just part of the
: "track down any leads" chaos of that weekend after the assassination.

Right. It is the fact that they knew that the LHO in MC might not have
been the real Oswald. Where does that leave them?

: : Can you say "compromised"?
:
: : can you say "routine surveillance"?
:
: You need to read Newman's book, "Oswald and the CIA".

: Eric, please do us all a favor and actually read the entire post ebfore you
: start replying to it. And then go back and proofread your reply before you
: hit the Send key. You'll look like less of an impulsive idiot that way.

I see. If you can't attack the content of the debate, then attack the
debater.

Do you honetsly think that the evidence of the LNT holds serious weight?

: : LHO goes down to MC
: : and sets off all kinds of alarms, yet we can't place him there.
:
: : wrong and wrong
:
: please provide a reference to your opinion.

: you first, since it's your theory...

Where is a single photo of Oswald in MC? The real Oswald! He's in two
embassies and we can't get a single real photo?

: : : Ah, no... LHO to return to the US in the manner in which he did
: : : MUST have cut a deal with the State Dept. and act in some official
: : : capacity upon return.
: :
: : : sheesh.
: :
: : No, a fact. They even gave him a loan to make the move. Why can't we
: see
: : his tax records of 1963 if he was such a loser nobody?
:
: : because he was a loser nobody who assassinated a President, and all his
: : personal records were classified and then declassified according to the
: JFK
: : Records Act.
:
: All? Not his tax records. All the records have NOT been declassified. Much
: has but not all.

: shrug so what is it you think a tax form is gonna tell you, anyway?

Sure, if he's a goverment agent like his mother claimed he was you would.
Hell, I'd like to see where he worked at just the places we know like the
coffee company, the TSBD, etc. THAT would support they LNT, but we get
NOTHING WRT taxes. Why? Part of the ongoing coverup.

: : Newman shows all the classic blunder patterns of a CTer.
:
: Yet, he was in the military, in intel and spends loads of time doing
: research. Can we say more qualifed than ANY lone nut author. All of them
: in fact.

: I'll put it this way: Phil Corso was in Army intel and then spent a number
: of years in a classified R&D office at the Pentagon. He wrote a book that
: claims that every major scientific advance of the last fifty years was
: pirated off the crashed UFO at Roswell, adn he claims to have personally
: seen the corpses of the little green men.

I thought that they were either gray or brown?

: Is he more qualified than anybody that says the UFO stuff is a crock of
: ****?

Well, I won't pair up Roswell with the JFK assassination, I'll leave that
for you guys.

: Again, Eric: most people spend their entire lives being only barely adequate
: at their jobs. Some people are not only just marginal performers, but
: they're crazy as loons to boot. That specifically includes people who write
: books.

Are you admitting something here about your work performance? Because, in
all honesty YOU are the only one qualified enough to talk about your work
abilities and have make any sense, absolutely, in these terms.

I know how much research Newman does and I know how little research Posner
does. He gave you guys fodder and you bought it.

: : * he claims that hte CIA impersonated LHO and/or the Cuban consulate
: staff
: : in several of those calls; unfortunately, that would indicate that LHO
: was
: : *not* in any way connected to the CIA.
:
: Why is that? The concept of 'need to know' has the CIA keeping secrets
: from itself. All the time. Are you really THAT clueless??
:
: : If they indeed were "fishing" for
: : information on what he had been up to, that indicates they had no clue
: who
: : he was or what he was doing.
:
: The group in MC? Sure, I can buy that.
:
: : If LHO had been part of a CIA-involved
: : conspiracy, I'm sure the local agents would have been given strict
: : instructions that they never saw or heard about him being in MC.
:
: Which is EXACTLY what they did, until the tapes showed up and they could
: not explain the tapes away. They had to admit Oswald was there, yet cannot
: prove that the real Oswald was there.

: so in other words you agree with me that the CIA knew nothing about LHO, but
: you want to twist it into something sinister regardless. Sheesh.

You miss the whole point! I'm saying that Oswald was set up by someone
that knew how to manipulate the intelligence in MC. Whether they were
active in the CIA when they did it is hard to tell.

Is it so difficult to believe that someone in the agency or recently out
of the agency could not be working a different agenda? Even the HSCA
eludes to "rogue elements, but not the agency as a whole" in reference to
its finding a conspiracy.

: : * if the CIA had tried to impersonate Oswald and/or Sylvia Duran to get
: : information from the Soviet officials...that would be incredibly stupid
: of
: : them. Why on Earth would someone that for all they know sounds nothing
: like
: : the actual people involved risk a call to someone who had been speaking
: with
: : Oswald and Duran over the last couple of days?
:
: The CIA officially has never been accused of killing JFK. To think so
: would be to claim JFK called for his demise, a suicide if you will. What
: makes you think those with an intel background, involved with the plot,
: would not know how to sound alarms about LHO in MC? IOW, a faction in
: intel not acting within an official capacity? These folks know how to keep
: secrets.

: someone please parse this into coherent English for me willya, and also
: 'splain what it remotely has to do with my point?

You know what it means!

: : If they had been doing some
: : sort of "fishing" expedition, they would hav epretended to be some other
: : Cuban official doing a follow-up call, not the actual people involved.
: Also,
: : whoever was "impersonating" Oswald got his disjointed speech patterns
: and
: : Narluns amnnerisms down pretty damn well. If you listen to the radio
: : interview he did in New Orleans, or to the tapes his Russian friends
: made of
: : him, or to the interviews in teh Dallas PD building the weekend of the
: : assassination, tehy sound an awful lot like the Oswald that called the
: : Soviet embassy while sitting in teh Cuban embassy.
:
: Not according to Hoover. Much deeper voice.

: Ah, that's what you were thinking about. Again: there was an awful lot of
: bad information being pronounced by an awful lot of official people that
: weekend. Rumors were flying and took on lives of their own, nobody had the
: slightest clue what was going on, everybody was panicking and strressed to
: the max, and everybody was desperately trying to grab pieces, any pieces,
: and fit them together into a coherent picture. That specifically includes
: the FBI and their sister agencies.

Except Hoover analyzed the tapes back in October and knew that the
Oswald in MC was suspect.

: : * Newman draws a lot of his "analysis" on subtle anomalies in the
: : transcripts of LHO's phone calls in MC. But those are English
: transcripts of
: : conversations done in Spanish and pidgin Russian, recorded with very
: low-fi
: : equipment. It's simply not feasible to draw any meaning from strange
: turns
: : of phrase. FOr instance, Newman points out that Duran at one point tells
: her
: : Soviet counterpart that "There is an American here who says he has been
: to
: : the Russian consulate", and then asks why she would use "says he has
: been"
: : when she had spoken with her Russian counterparts about it just the day
: : before? But she was speaking SPanish, and there may well be a turn of
: phrase
: : in Spanish where that doesn't mean "he claims to have..." but has some
: other
: : mundane nuance that an English translation doesn't pick up on. Newman
: also
: : goes to great length to point out that when "Oswald" was then put on the
: : line he made a bunch of totally meaningless remarks that are
: inconsistent
: : with the events that had happened in the last 24 hours, such as asking
: : whether he had given the Sovs his address. But what Newman totally fails
: to
: : remember (though he mentions the fact several places, including in the
: : middle of this very transcript!) is that Oswald's Russian was very poor,
: he
: : had very little fluency in the language. The transcript sounds exactly
: like
: : someone trying like hell to remember the few words of Russian he knows
: and
: : use them to convey a meaning that they just won't fit into. IOW, he was
: : trying to make sense but he didn't have the Russian vocabulary to get
: his
: : point across, so he just flailed away using the few words he could
: muster.
: : Then the Russian consulate got fed up and just asked him to come over in
: : person.
:
: Right and meet with Valerie Kostikov, head of KGB assassinations in the
: western hemisphere. THAT is what scared the CIA and LBJ.

: okay, that's a plausible explanation. It still doesn't prove that there was
: any real connection between teh two men, though. All accounts are that
: Kostikov, probably because he happened to be the senior official on duty
: when LHO arrived, only spoke a few words with him and dumped him off on an
: underling at the first opportunity.

I just wonder what he promised (still promise) the Russians to keep quiet
on this one? I bet they have a photo of Oswald.

: Again: ships pass in the night. I've got a photograph of me standing next to
: Bob Dole, who exchanged probably as many words with me as Kostikov did with
: Oswald. Absolutely no connection or involvement, just a brief, random
: interaction.

Except you have a photo. Where is the Oswald photo? Again, I wonder what
we mortgage each fall to keep that photo out of the spotlight.

: : *Newman points out several times that Oswald repeatedly asked about the
: : status of his visa request, even though he never filled out the
: paperwork
: : the Soviet officials offered him. That could be interpreted as an
: impostor
: : fishing for information, but it also is classic Oswlad: he never filled
: out
: : the paperwork to renounce his American citizenship while he was in
: Russia
: : trying to defect, he apparently botched his request to emigrate back to
: : America and had to wait over a year to get approval, IIRC there was some
: : sort of foulup in getting his discharge papers from the Marines, etc.
: etc.
:
: The Marines didn't feel like granting a defector anything beneficial to
: him. THAT is the screwup.

: Wrong. LHO got his discharge papers a week or two *before* he left for
: Europe, and for all anybody in the Marines knew he was going to go to school
: in Switzerland or wherever it was he applied to. The defection happened
: after Oswald was already in Moscow, not before. And by that time he was
: officially discharged from the USMC.

: : And he repeatedly showed an almost instinctual use of bluffing and
: bullying
: : to try to get things done instead of going through "proper channels" all
: his
: : life. He was a consummate BS artist (though he never could get the hang
: of
: : getting any actual results out of all the bluffing), and so when he went
: to
: : the Cuban embassy he told them that the Sovs had already approved his
: : transit visa, when they had done no such thing. then instead of filling
: out
: : the paperwork and waiting several months, he just kept bluffing until it
: was
: : obvious that he was getting nowhere.
:
: And all this caused lots of intel sensitive traffic that got noticed.

: Not lots, and it didn't make much of a splash apparently, other than as I
: say a slightly elevated level of surveillance.

Right, with no exacting photo. What if a Oswald in MC photo revealed a
double, what then?

: : *Newman mentions that Oswald told the Cubans that someone was trying to
: kill
: : him back home adn almost begged them to let him into the vountry. So
: riddle
: : me this: if he were so afraid of getting killed by THEM...then why the
: hell
: : did he even show up to work on the morning of 11/22?!?
:
: No doubt to be in the lunchroom on the 2nd floor while the real assassins
: were on the 6th. But be there he must so as to get the deed pinned on him.

: Eric, you do realize that you just suggested that Oswald *wanted* to be
: framed, yes?

Or, he was following orders and WAS framed. The actions fit both, except
you don't know if he wanted anything.

: Otherwise, as I suggested, he would have invented an excuse to
: either not show up that morning or leave early. He would have been away from
: the TSBD at the time the motorcade passed the building. You really outdid
: yourself on this one, sparky.

You are assuming he knows that JFK is planned to be assassinated and by
whom. How can you assume that? For all you know, if Oswald was in on an
assassination attempt, it could be Connolly as the target.

: : He had to have known
: : by that point that JFK's motorcade route would pass literally in front
: of
: : the building where he worked. At the very least he would have learned
: about
: : it when he came to work that morning. Oswald had long been a big fan of
: spy
: : novels, and he would have almost certainly either have seen or known
: about
: : "The Manchurian Candidate", which hit the screen a year earlier. Oswald
: was
: : smart enough to have immediately realized that he would be the perfect
: : Manchurian Candidate (actually Parallax View, but that movie was a
: decade in
: : the future) if somebody wanted to get rid of JFK. JFK zooning right by
: his
: : office would be too much of a coincidence if LHO was somehow "dirty" and
: : also feared he was getting set up for something.
:
: "I'm a patsy."

: I'd rather not know that much about you, sport g

I don't know rumor has it...

: : So why didn't he just
: : either call in sick that day, or show up for work and then invent some
: : excuse to have to go hoome at lunch?
:
: Wasn't there a guy who did that? Went into a bank and fired some shots and
: got locked up in Sept. of that year?

: ?!?

The Man That Knew Too Much, Richard Case Nagell, a book by Dick Russell.

: There was another TSBD employee who called in sick that day. No idea who it
: was, but I'd imagine that was a common occurrence, as it still is in most
: offices today. You hardly ever get everybody showing up for work at the same
: time.

: : His rooming house was an easy bus trip
: : from Dealey Plaza, he could have just spilled some food on his shirt and
: : asked to take a long lunch to go home and change, or whatever. Then when
: he
: : gets to the rooming house he makes sure that he's seen while the
: motorcade
: : is in progress. Easy alibi if he was worried about being set up for a
: crime
: : he wasn't going to commit.
:
: Why be in the 2nd flooe lunchroom at the time of the assassination buying
: a coke? Not outside with everybody else?

: Because he wasn't in the lunchroom during the assassination, that's another
: garbled "fact" that one CTer claimed long ago, and others have quoted as
: "evidence" ever since.

But he was buying a coke calmly in that lunchroon 90 seconds after the
assassination. There are witnesses to that.

: The officer who ran into the TSBD (Hargis?) testified that he saw LHO
: *entering* the lunchroom (which is actually a break room, it's about the
: size of your living room) and called him over.

No, he was in the lunchroom and it was the superintendent truly with a
police officer.

: The only people who recalled seeing LHO right before the assassination can't
: place him at the time, only a few minutes before. The building is small
: enough that in two or three minutes you can be anywhere in the building
: after starting ffrom anywhere else. It's a *small* building, I don't have to
: tell you that since you've been there.

It is not THAT small. It has six floors and is fairly wide. But I get
your point. An assassin could have escaped undetected with a spotter
easily enough.

: : Or Alek Hidell was his alias.
:
: : that's a tautology, he ordered the Carcano and his pistol under that
: name
: : IIRC. THe point is that him using an alias doesn't make him a spook,
: just a
: : petty criminal. Lots of people do that.
:
: Hosty's note probably indicates more about LHO having been a spook.

: another two-wheel screech around a corner, sport. All the "Hosty note" thing
: proves is that the FBI had been maintaining contact with LHO (for perfectly
: normal reasons, i.e. keeping occasional tabs on a former defector who had
: been arrested for handing out Communist material in NO), and after LHO was
: murdered whoever was Hosty's boss decided (in finest bureaucratic tradition)
: to cover his an dhis office's ass by getting rid of the note.

: Again, nothing more than typical government CYA, no reason to read anything
: else into it.

CYA is one thing. Destroying evidence is another.

: : a) Kostikoff was under diplomatic cover, which means he also had to
: spend a
: : lot of time doing his "day job" at the embassy; b) Kostikoff very
: briefly
: : conferred with Oswald in the lobby, then turned him over to
: Nechiporenko.
: : Then Kostikoff had later discussions with Nechiporenko and Duran about
: : Oswald's requests. The assertion that LHO "supposedly met with" the head
: KGB
: : assassin is misleading and bordering on downright disengenuous. Jim
: MacNeil
: : "met with" LHO just minutes after the assassin, does that mean that
: Oswlad
: : was an NBC operative? hell no, it just means that ships pass in the
: night.
:
: Then why was LBJ scared about it if there was nothing to be scared about?

: uh, because LBJ was a typical bully who was terrified that something bad was
: going to happen to *him*?

Suspecting a conspiracy of course. Sort of like Connolly's, "THEY are
going to kill is all" comment.

: I don't believe that Kostikov meeting with Oswals was sinister in and of
: itself. What I believe is that someone else wanted to make it appear to be
: sinister. And it worked.

: you startred off fine, then drifted once again. Guess that's an improvement
: though.

No, it fits better than any other scenario. What do you suggest?

: : There are
: : several recordings that were intercepted that have the two meeting,
: Oswald
: : identifying himself my name, and not sounding anything like LHO!
:
: : I've never heard these recordings, nor seen transcripts that prove
: : conclusively that the person claiming to be LHO was in fact someone
: else.
: : There are, however, plenty of transcripts and notes about conversations
: : where the American doesn't state his name, just mentions his previous
: : contact. You can read into that what you will, I read into it that
: : surveillance is a very imprecise art and people don't give the
: information
: : you'd want them to in normal conversation.
:
: Wasn't Kerry Thornley thougt to be an Oswald double?

: nope, Thornley was the Marine who enjoyed debating religion and politics
: with LHO while they were both in the Corps. That ended when LHO got his
: feelings hurt after Thornley made fun of him.

: : Now,
: : after the assassination of JFK guess
: : what comes out of the FBI by way of Mexico City? Those recordings from
: : early October 1963 of Oswald and Kostikoff! THAT is how LBJ convinced
: : Warren to head the commission.
:
: : Here's the relevant part of LBJ's conversation with Hoover on 11/23/63
: (the
: : day after the assassination when things were still total chaos and
: nobody
: : had a clue what was going on):
:
: : JOHNSON: Have you established any more about the [Oswald] visit to the
: : Soviet Embassy in Mexico in September?
:
: : HOOVER: No, that's one angle that's very confusing for this reason. We
: have
: : up here the tape and the photograph of the masn who was at the Soviet
: : embassy, using Oswald's name. That picture and the tape do not
: correspond to
: : this man's voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that
: : there is a second person who was at the Soviet Embassy.
:
: Right. That is pretty telling.

: except that there's no indication that the second person at the Soviet
: Embassy had anything whatsoever to do with Oswald or vice versa. Hoover got
: a highly scrambled account of the surveillance is all.

Not according to what I read. He seemed pretty sure that Oswald wasn't the
one on the tape even though the transcript and tape recording indicates
otherwise. In one part what is heard in a deep voice is, "this is Oswald".

: : This seems awfully suspicious until you remember just how chaotic that
: : weekend was. Rumors and bad "facts" were flying all over the place just
: like
: : they always do when a disaster happens. The probability is that the MC
: field
: : office had at some point (either in October while LHO was in MC, or in a
: : rush to compile all available data in teh hours after the assassination)
: : conflated two separate visits by two totally unconnected men. In short,
: the
: : FBI got it wrong, which they have an annoying tendency to do, especially
: : during crunch time. Nothing more mysterious than that.
:
: Too convenient for the lone nut theory. It is another case when evidence
: conflicts with your point of view, then ignore it. Believe me, as head of
: the coverup, the last thing Hoover wants is evidence of a conspiracy. But
: that is exactly what he is talking about when he's dicsussing the tapes
: and photos.

: So now you're saying that Hoover was the "head" of teh conspiracy?!?

No, Hoover was head of the coverup but he realized without question that
there was a conspiracy WRT to the assassination. Once the dust settled and
LBJ, Hoover's friend, took office the two men discussed the need for the
coverup. Hoover complied. Further, Hoover having no great love for the
Kennedys felt no need to bring to justice the true killers. Certainly not
out of any feelings of fondness to JFK or for a need for real justice in
the case. Hoover would later play the same role in the RFK assassination.
I'll go so far as to say that he enjoyed having not found the real killers
and playing the role of head of the coverup in both cases. Having no
justice in his mind was probably a sense of justice due to his feelings of
hatred toward the Kennedys. Yes, I believe Hoover was that vindictive.

: : no, it doesn't. FOr the simple reason that a coup requires many more
: people
: : to not only be involved but to keep their mouths shut about it
: afterwards.
: : Two losers trying to be the Lone Ranger is much more likely. Less fun to
: : think about, but oh well.
:
: But people can keep their mouths shut. And how big does this coup have to
: be people-wise, IYO?

: Depends on which alleged coup you mean. A mafia hit, a couple dozen people.

The problem there is the coverup. How does the mafia get the coverup?

: Any of the different flavors of They, you're talking several times that
: many.

But, all on a need-to-know basis. IOW, at the top only a few need to know
the whole scenario. Each of them can give orders to others and the whole
thing them follows along. Do you think someone that was on the inside but
not at the top would talk after a few others he knew got murdered?

Didn't Ferrie and a Cuban get killed on the same day?

: : To that I say:
: : The folks that state that the lone nut theory is true can't handle the
: : possibility that a coup d'etat happened in their great USA.
:
: : sure we can, but the evidence simply does not support the conclusion.
:
: Wrong! You filter the evidence until it fits your belief. The conspiracy
: theories are based upon all that you ignore.

: oh nok, we don't ignore it, we *laugh at it*

Yes, that is the difference as we cry at it. Coups are no laughing
matters. At least not to all of us.

: : Coups are
: : the byproducts of backward Banana Republic nations, not the greatest
: : country on Earth. Not only was it a coup but it was one that they got
: away
: : with as well.
:
: : Here's the huge, huge problem with a coup: what if it fails, which they
: : usually do?
:
: Do they? No, the only ones that you know about are the ones that fail.

: coughDiemcough

What of it? Tell me your take on Diem.

: : Surely, read "Lyndon" by Merle Miller, around page 321. I can get the
: : exact page if you like.
:
: : since you were talking about what the WCR (or at least Earl Warren)
: says,
: : why should I want you to quote from a biography of LBJ?
:
: Because it is Warren talking about the assassination. Your approach
: reminds me of the Christians that haven't read any other book than the
: Bible. Great book but didn't help us get to the Moon.

: ?!?

Evidence in this case and others can be found in many unlikely places.

: There is plenty of evidence of a coup. Where was LBJ from

: a small town in Texas IIRC

: and how and who put him into power?

: he was originally elected to teh Senate in 1948 if memory serves, before
: that he'd been in teh state legislature. I forget "who" got him elected, but
: he had been in teh Senate for two terms when he got tabbed to be JFK's
: running mate.

Repeat after me, "Texas oil money". That is what got LBJ into power.
People like Murchison and Hunt.

: : No doctor, bloodstains or not, destroys forensic evidence. It is NOT
: his
: : place to do so.
:
: : According to whom? First, he didn't *destroy* the evidence, he simply
: : recopied it. And for the umpteenth time, in 1963 there was very little
: : understanding of "forensics" (if that term had even been coined yet) as
: we
: : know it today. Chain of custody procedures and evidence-handling
: procedures
: : were primitive by today's standards. You have to apply the standards
: that
: : were in place at the time, sport.
:
: IOW, don't look at the mishandling with suspicion, make it fit your
: theory. There is too much to ignore and try and explain away.

: Eric, what part of "there were no formal procedures in place in 1963 to
: handle something like an assassination investigation" don't you understand?

I doubt there are any now based upon your analysis. But since Hoover is
dead I suspect we'd get a better investigation now rather than a coverup
as what happened then.

: You're Monday-morning quarterbacking based on what we know and understand
: well after the events in Dallas. But at the time nobody had a clue what they
: were doing, so they did things they thought were for the best. That's not
: conspiracy, just well-intentioned ignorance.

False! The conspiractors knew exactly what they were doing.

: As opposed to the other kind...

....you're referring to those that believe in the LNT.

: : Nobody "officially" performed surgery on the head, yet evidence that
: : surgery was performed on the head exists.
:
:
: : Citations, please...?
:
: The FBI Siebert report, see: http://www.jfklancer.com/LNE/

: Sibert's partner that day, Francis O'Neill, told Posner that "(w)e weren't
: doctors, and it was weither Humes or Boswell, but I just wrote it down as I
: understaood it. There wasn't any surgery on the head, only my
: misunderstanding of what the doctors were talking about".

Huh, no surgery but they talked about it. Sounds like no conspiracy yet
they talked about it. Same logic!

: The chief forensic pathologist on the HSCA (which concluded that the
: assassination was probably a conspiracy, so you probably believe them) says
: flat out that David Lifton, who based huge chunks of his book on the Sibert
: memo of 11/26/63, "just doesn't know what he is talking about".

On the same token the Dallas doctors and the Bethesda doctors never agreed
to the forensics. So Lifton's 'medical forgery' theory has merit.

: Even Cyril Wecht totally dismisses Lifton's claims, if that makes you feel
: any better.

Well that should make you suspect that Lifton has some facts based upon
the way the LN authors trash Wecht.

: : I see you haven't changed your position.
:
: : actually I have, I used to believe the "Mortal error" scenario (the head
: : shot accidentally fired by one of JFK's bodyguards) until I saw the
: Bronson
: : film. Before that, the very first CT book I ever read was Crenshaw's,
: and
: : for awhile I believed that one until I read more about the case.
:
: Read Summers' book "Conspiracy".

: don't even get me started g

It is well written.

: : Right makes me think a entrance shot to the right rear could NOT exit
: the
: : right front.
:
: : have you looked at the models? Did you look out the sixth floor windows
: down
: : to the mark on the street?
:
: Yes. I bullet that enters the rear right will exit the front left not the
: front right.

: Only if the bullet entered the skull from the 3-6 o'clock quadrant. That
: simply wasn't the case, it was coming in on a right-to-left trajectory wrt
: the skull's centerline. Again, that's because of the curve of Elm and
: Kennedy's tilt to his left at the time of the headshot.

The exit should have been on the left or center when entering the right.

: : I have. Connolly saying "no,no" is after JFK was holding his hands to
: his
: : throat. How could a man say "no,no" if he were hit by the same bullet?
:
: : well, he is widely quoted as having said "they're going to kill us all!"
: : after he had collapsed, go figure
:
: But, "no, no" was before he was hit and after JFK was hit. Interesting to
: do with a single bullet theory.

: only if you don't know when each man was hit.

Your side had to invent a single shot that hit both men.

: : Weisberg, Newman, Lane, Epstein,
: : Summers, Buchanan, Josiah Thompson, Peter
: : Dale Scott: read "Deep Politics and the Death of JFK". It is truely an
: : enlightning book.
:
: : I think you mean it's *truly* an *enlightening* book, and I would advise
: you
: : that so is a basic grammar text.
:
: You going for grammer flames is even low for you. You can't %$^# spell the
: word, "the" as you spelled it "teh" several times.

: sheesh, of course I can spell "the".

Based upon results, I question that.

: What you are describing is a phenomenon
: I call "computer dyslexia". I have no idea what the proper terrm is
: (assuming there even is a proper term), but as best as I can suss it, here's
: how it happens:

: You start to type a word on the keyboard. Before you're finished typing the
: word your mind has gone on to either the next word or, quite often,
: something extraneous (the phone rings or somebody walks by in the hall,
: whatever). At that point, as you finish typing the word, your brain has
: moved that thought from the "current" buffer to the "cache", and to dig it
: out your brain has to "rewind" as it were. So you type the next few letters
: in reverse order because that's the way your brain is now accessing that
: information, last-in-first-out.

I honestly think that it is a non-brain, nervous system related motor
function involving your fingers and their typing speed WRT to the layout
of the keyword. I often capitalize the second letter of a name or word in
general that has the first letter capitalized (i.e. first word of a
sentence). I'd rather do that than these folks that think their E.E.
Cummings that are Unix brainwashed wannabes, that never capitalize any
words.

: That's a very, very common phenomenon with computers. It happens to a wide
: variety of people, none of whom (myself included) seem to show any signs of
: "standard" dyslexia. It's just that the speed with which we interact with
: computers has occasionally gotten faster than our brain's ability to clear
: out the "current" buffer, if you get my meaning.

Again, I suspect its at the nervous system level and motor-related rather
than in the brain.

: So: if I put a few "teh"s in a post it's not because I don't know how to
: spell the word, Eric. It's just a neurological phenomenon unique to typing
: words on a computer keyboard.

Understood. Then refrain from your spelling flames and all can be
forgotten short of your malady of being a lone nutter.

: Now if I used "they're" when I should have used "their", or "truely" instead
: of spelling it the correct way with the "e" dropped, *that* is bad grammar.

: So get off the
: superiority kick before I slap you around with some razor sharp wit!

: as if g

Some humor was needed at that point.

: : I'm wondering if you come from the school that says:
: :
: : liberal = dumb
: : conservative = smart
:
: : no, I come from the school that says that if the liberals didn't exist,
: teh
: : conservatives would have to invent them.
:
: The again. Well, same could be said of conservatives, etc.

: exactly

It's a yin-yan thing?

: : One of my favorite memories from college, one that I can share, at any
: rate
: : - one day in an economics class someone asked the professor (a member
: of
: : the Cato Institute) whether he was a Democrat or Republican. His answer:
: : "I'm an economist".
:
: : Classic g
:
: I haven't heard of the Economist Party. Is it libertarian?

: sigh the point he was making was that he isn't a politician, he's just an
: economist.

: Just assume it's funny

I guess you had to be there. I'd love to see the reaction on Wall Street
if Greenspan decided to be THAT funny.

: : Well, let me put it this way:
: : We all start out as liberals. Then we learn a few things and we become
: : conservatives. Most stop right there. Others of us continue to grow
: and
: : become liberals again!
:
: : So what you're saying is that you're in your second childhood, that
: figures
: :
:
: Right, and that will make me live longer as well. Liberals live longer
: than conservatives.

: well, the longest life expectancy on the planet is supposed to be the
: Chinese, so I guess you're right about that

Chinese are liberals? Could have fooled me.

: : Earth as well, but probably someplace where the air hasn't fouled up
: my
: : ability for critical thought.
:
: : coughBerkeleycough
:
: Well, so you can go and debate Peter Dale Scott on the assassination as he
: is right where you live. Isn't Berkeley a hotbed of liberalism?

: I have no idea, I've never been anywhere near Berkeley.

Isn't that where you live?

: : Buchanan's book was huge in Europe. I suspect that it, like "Farewell
: : America" (ever read it?), was frowned upon and was difficult to get
: when
: : it came out.
:
: : shrug the regview sounds like it's just garden-variety CT drivel, no
: : different than all the others.
:
: Except he's not afraid to tie it into Texas oil money.

: neither was whoever wrote "The Texas Connection", which was just as moronic
: and intellectually-challenged as any other CT tome.

I'm not sure that Buchanan names LBJ as a suspect. I know Jack Valenti
went ballistic when that claim was made.

: : I am anything but close-minded, I assure you. I go to enormous lengths
: to
: : study all aspects of a topic, ussally well past the point where each
: side is
: : starting to repeat itself.
:
: Do you know anything about experiential learning?

: in a nutshell, "experience begats reflection begats action". Nice idea, but
: in practice it seems to be just one fo those rationalizations why making
: stupid students take exams "lowers their self-esteem". **** that ****, you
: want self esteem you go do something to earn it.

It is not an idea in practice. You must do it. If you try to
intellectualize it, you missed it completely. Sort of like reading a
romance novel and then claiming you are no longer a virgin.

LNers are a lot like virgins, but...

: But we digress g

Quite...

Eric

: --
: Terrell Miller
:

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


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 April 2nd 04 12:01 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 February 2nd 04 04:33 AM
Selected Restricted NASA Videotapes Michael Ravnitzky Space Shuttle 5 January 16th 04 05:28 PM
Selected Restricted NASA Videotapes Michael Ravnitzky Space Station 5 January 16th 04 05:28 PM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 September 12th 03 01:37 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.