23-02-2016, 05:43 AM
If it was safer to review it and dismiss it, why didn't the Warren Commission call any of the Grassy Knoll witnesses? Orville Nix? The Neumans? The... Well, I'm not going to try to name them all. Why bother hiding the school records? The tax records? Why would Gerald Ford have to change the location of the wound on the back? They ignored far more evidence than they actually wrote about.
Surely, if it was less risky to "confront-then-belittle" the holes in the case against Oswald, we would have had 52+ volumes of exhibits. And three bullet hits (as planned by the FBI and SS) instead of one plus one magic bullet. You cannot assume that in one incredibly minor part of the overall Commission theory, they had to acknowledge a discrepancy, when all the other stuff was simply swept under the rug.
Surely, if it was less risky to "confront-then-belittle" the holes in the case against Oswald, we would have had 52+ volumes of exhibits. And three bullet hits (as planned by the FBI and SS) instead of one plus one magic bullet. You cannot assume that in one incredibly minor part of the overall Commission theory, they had to acknowledge a discrepancy, when all the other stuff was simply swept under the rug.
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."