18-03-2019, 02:41 PM
What I actually said is that I was not convinced that Harriman's statements did not constitute convincing evidence that he ordered the assassination which, as I keep having to remind you, was the original point of this discussion. You don't think I'm acting in good faith but you 1) initially quoted a known CIA mouthpiece and lone nut apologist (Max Holland) to support your argument and 2) conveniently moved the goal posts so that the issue was not whether Harriman had ordered the assassination to whether he was lying about the opinion of Kremlinologists. That is arguing in good faith.
I'm not trying to be Harriman's defense lawyer. I'm simply saying that you can't get from Harriman lying (or being full of shit) about what Kremlinologists though in the immediate aftermath of the assassination to proving that he ordered the assassination without more convincing evidence than you've presented. And being part of the cover up either wittingly or unwittingly does not mean that Harriman "ordered the assassination".
If you want to convince anyone that Harriman ordered the assassination you have to
1) provide convincing evidence of such an order either in documents or testimony from sources with no axe to grind against Harriman.
2) explain what entity or individuals he gave the order to and show that he was in a position to give such an order
All you've done so far is provide evidence that Harriman made unsubstantiated statements about what Kremlinologists thought about Soviet involvement and that he was opposed to Kennedy's Vietnam policy. There could be many other explanations for the first one and the second one hardly makes him unique.
I've conceded that Harriman's actions and statements are worthy or further research. And Barbour could clear this up by simply releasing the documents he claims he has. That' the whole point here.
I'm done with this thread. You can have whatever last word you want.
I'm not trying to be Harriman's defense lawyer. I'm simply saying that you can't get from Harriman lying (or being full of shit) about what Kremlinologists though in the immediate aftermath of the assassination to proving that he ordered the assassination without more convincing evidence than you've presented. And being part of the cover up either wittingly or unwittingly does not mean that Harriman "ordered the assassination".
If you want to convince anyone that Harriman ordered the assassination you have to
1) provide convincing evidence of such an order either in documents or testimony from sources with no axe to grind against Harriman.
2) explain what entity or individuals he gave the order to and show that he was in a position to give such an order
All you've done so far is provide evidence that Harriman made unsubstantiated statements about what Kremlinologists thought about Soviet involvement and that he was opposed to Kennedy's Vietnam policy. There could be many other explanations for the first one and the second one hardly makes him unique.
I've conceded that Harriman's actions and statements are worthy or further research. And Barbour could clear this up by simply releasing the documents he claims he has. That' the whole point here.
I'm done with this thread. You can have whatever last word you want.