David Josephs Wrote:While putting all eggs into one proverbial basket may be considered an "error"... Too many baskets with too many eggs will simply confuse the issue... IMO
You're preaching to the choir.
But I STRONGLY disagree that the quote from JEH you suggest -- or indeed, ANY Hoover quote -- belongs among our best proofs. Among other problems with such a decision: It would leave us open to the charge of cherry-picking endorsements from a man who more than likely was an accessory to the murder of JFK.
I could not endorse any presentation of "best evidence" for conspiracy that included Hoover statements or, for that matter, citation of holes in JFK's clothing as prima facie evidence of conspiracy.
Even though the latter may very well be prima facie evidence of conspiracy.
There are many considerations to take into account when selecting the best of the best evidence.
Preaching to the choir is the one thing I am most concerned about with any presentation of "evidence" that extends beyond a few simple sentences. While we can all sing along... Joe Streetcorner may have trouble with the tune.
As you know, I happen to believe that Hoover's obvious involvement AND his declaration of concern over the CIA-created FALSE Mexico City conspiracy story
elevates the importance of such a contradiction beyond those of Brennen, Klein's or anything else for that matter.
We have an obvious conspirator with numerous examples of his personal involvement in the twisting of evidence gravely concerned there is a Communist Conspiracy afoot,
which dovetails into LBJ's concern over starting WWIII with the Russians/Cubans over it.
The Nation's Commie Hunter has a connected one in his sights... and is summarily told to find another solution that does not include that option.
And the FBI's report on the assassiantion is born. This passage alone supports the conclusion CE399 never touched Connally... How many times does Hoover and the FBI have to tell us that bullet did NOT transit?
And finally... who was in a position to tell Hoover to exclude his suspicions from the FBI's report?
Immediately after President Kennedy and Governor Connally were admitted to
Parkland Memorial Hospital, a bullet was found on one of the stretchers. Medical examination of the President's body revealed that one of the
bullets had entered just below his shoulder to the right of the spinal
column at an angle of 45 to 60 degrees downward, that there was no point of
exit, and that the bullet was not in the body. An examination of this
bullet by the FBI Laboratory determined that it had been fired from the
rifle owned by Oswald. (Exhibit 23)
XI. Scope of Investigation
Since the assassination of President Kennedy, more than 2,000 people have
been interviewed by the FBI In the investigation of Lee Harvey Oswald.
These individuals have included (1) his wife and relatives; (2)
schoolmates; (3) associates and acquaintances both before and after his
trip to Russia; (4) fellow employees both before and after his trip to
Russia; (5) fellow Marines; (6) persons. who traveled with him on the ship
to Europe in 1959 and on the buses to and from Mexico City in 1963; (7).
witnesses to the assassination; (8) persons connected with organizations
with which Oswald was in communication; (9) persons connected with
financial institutions, communication facilities, and business concerns who
were considered as possibly having information relating to Oswald; (10)
individuals who volunteered information concerning Oswald or persons or
situations which they believed were connected with Oswald.
In addition, investigation has included a detailed examination and analysis
of Oswald's personal effects and correspondence, and analyses of his
finances and connections with other persons and organizations.
Investigation has (1) developed detailed background information concerning
Oswald from his birth to his death; (2) strengthened the evidence that
Oswald was the assassin of the President although no clear-cut motive has
been established; and (3) despite numerous allegations which have been
investigated, developed no sound evidence indicating that he received any
financial assistance or that any other person, group, or foreign government
inspired or directed the assassination or was cognizant of his plan to
assassinate President Kennedy.O[B]n the contrary, the data developed strongly
indicates that he acted on his own initiative or impulse with little
advance planning. [/B]Also, investigation has disclosed no evidence that
Oswald, while residing in Russia, was recruited by the Soviet intelligence
services or received any assignment or training from the intelligence
services. Further, investigation has developed no proof of any prior
contact or association between Oswald and his murderer, Jack Leon Ruby.
Leads are still being covered, and the FBI will continue to check out any
additional allegations or information which come to its attention.
I said I personally believe Oswald was the assassin; that the second aspect as to whether he was the only man gives me great concern; that we have several letters, not in the report because we were not able to prove it, written to him from Cuba referring to the job he was going to do, his good marksmanship, and stating when it was all over he would be brought back to Cuba and presented to the chief; but we do not know if the chief was Castro and cannot make an investigation because we have no intelligence operation in Cuba; that I did not put this into the report because we did not have proof of it and didn't want to put speculation in the report; that this was the reason I urged strongly that we not reach conclusion Oswald was the only man.
You're making the critical and all-too-common mistake that three generations of JFK researchers have made when attempting not just to prove conspiracy, but also to define and deliver justice in this matter: You're getting ahead of yourself.
Please re-read my post # 1 on this thread. Note in particular what I suggest must be our first step:
STEP A -- HOW was JFK killed? In other words, agree upon and share unassailable evidence for CONSPIRACY. This must NOT be about exonerating Lee Harvey Oswald or anyone else. This must NOT be about inculpating any individuals or systems. Rather, it must be a sober presentation of science-based evidence that demonstrates, beyond all doubt and to the degree of metaphysical certitude, that JFK was shot by two or more individuals acting in concert.
Like countless others, you neither differentiate between nor prioritize within strategic context the "how" and "who" questions.
Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in this case who does not conclude that JFK was killed by conspirators -- including, at the highest level of Facilitators in the Sponsor/Facilitator/Mechanic model, civilian and military components of the international security state -- is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.
I concur. Those insisting upon proof beyond what is refelected in a thousand facets are presenting as The Princess and the Pea, the dog-collared shrieking fairies of the Mockingbird Tabernacle Choir of David's Conspiracy In Action.
The Church Lady's rice bowl runneth over. In Jim DiEugenio's account of Caesar in the Senate we see limitless supply of the unscrupulous liars available to the CIA effort to quash the only productive trial in the case.
Although, come to think of it, what did Mark Lane show with his jury deciding E. Howard Hunt, Company Cable Forger, was not shopping for Chinese.
Conspiracy deniers are all in the stripe of Allen Welsh Dulles' "You've shown me nothing! You've got nothing!"
The updated version Castle 2.1.0.3 states "what does it matter?"
Quite a lot really. I stipulate it's the tried and true century-old model.
And the new song sings no connection between the third thoracic and the tracheal rings
Though Specter's Route 666 winds from Chicago's Ruby to L.A.'s Roselli
More than two thousand lies along the way
The funny thing is
the Castle hides between the false schism of partisanship
that a Harkin could find impeachment a heap of dung but no problem with JFK, 911 and so on and so forth and scoobie doobie doo
while the Hershettes are in denial that JFK exorcised Vietnam with NSAM 263
which LBJ drug bleeding back to the sacrificial altar
on which the nation lies
waiting for justice
The Sword and the Shield of the Cabal
stands between that justice
and ourselves
You're making the critical and all-too-common mistake that three generations of JFK researchers have made when attempting not just to prove conspiracy, but also to define and deliver justice in this matter: You're getting ahead of yourself.
Please re-read my post # 1 on this thread. Note in particular what I suggest must be our first step:
STEP A -- HOW was JFK killed? In other words, agree upon and share unassailable evidence for CONSPIRACY. This must NOT be about exonerating Lee Harvey Oswald or anyone else. This must NOT be about inculpating any individuals or systems. Rather, it must be a sober presentation of science-based evidence that demonstrates, beyond all doubt and to the degree of metaphysical certitude, that JFK was shot by two or more individuals acting in concert.
Like countless others, you neither differentiate between nor prioritize within strategic context the "how" and "who" questions.
I'm curious though Charles...
Given the conspiracy and the impossibility of determining what occurred from the evidence available to us... How does one go about determining HOW to piece together the elements that caused his death when the pieces we are using to build this conclusion are not even from this puzzle?
We've been at this a long long time Charles....
Have you discovered any unassailable evidence that JFK was hit from the front other than the eye witness testimony and HSCA acoustics (which have both been assailed repeatedly over the years).
Are we to say the Zapruder (and Nix/Muchmore) films constitute this level of evidence - when at the same time we claim what Zfilm we have is not even to be the original film?
"Sober, science based evidence"
The physical reality of the coat/shirt/back added to the anatomically impossible path from back to front without hitting anything,
and the complete lack of a channel of transit... AND the FBI reports AND Hoover telling us that Oswald NOT be considered the only man involved....
seems at least to me... the only "sober, science based evidence" that reaches our conclusion and is unassailable.
Specter holds the point on the man's shoulder to get it to reach Connally correctly... (attached)
Do we not at least agree that an unassailable proof the SBT is impossible in a real, physical world constitutes the kind of evidence we desire?
Turning now to WHO
Other than readying Palamara... how do we show SS involvement....? IMO, back to CE399's chain of evidence.
CE399 comes into existence with Chief Rowley handing it to Elmer Todd and Frazier receiving it from Todd AFTER he's already received it. (as well as docs talking about the two bullets, one found behind JFK's ear)
Is there any other "sober, science based evidence" of SS involvement, or not, in the conspiracy?
I don't think we can use the SS agent "sightings" thru witness testimony as ironclad proof someone was impersonating an SS agent...
these witnesses COULD be reaching their own conclusions as to what they heard or thought they saw...
So again... some from the SS had to be involved... you want to introduce the casket charade to this easily presented argument....
Once the SBT is soundly defeated, which it most certainly has, we have the cornerstone of our "position".
And I submit that the few things brought to this conversation related to Hoover, the autopsy and CE399 create an equally unassailable position
describing the elements of the conspiracy related to hiding the fact that more than one person was involved.
It talks nothing of Oswald other than his relationship to "A" conspiracy eminating from Cuba as understood by Hoover
It traces CE399 from its actual origin to its place in history
and finally makes it impossible for a single person to have accomplished the described results...
Hoover: No, the president wasn't hit with the second one
LBJ: I say, if Connally hadn't been in his way
Hoover: Oh yes... yes.. the President would not doubt have been hit...
and thanks to Hoover yet again... we see that both he and LBJ concede that if JC was not in the way... sitting a foot or two in front of him in the limo, JFK gets hit again.
Why again would Hoover describing the actual shooting positions of the men in DP along with the acknowledgement of physical evidence that "someone" is using Oswald's name in Mexico City as well as receiving $$ for killing JFK as well as Rowley bringing CE399 into the picture... how does thisNOT meet our needs of the type of evidence you think we should compile?
What esle does Joe Streetcorner need to understand... and if Joe Streetcorner is not our audience... Charles, who is... Those that understand?, those that don't and won't? Those on the fence?
As I said in my first post on the subject...
Until we know who we are talking to... how can a message be fashioned with any effectiveness?
Basic Marketing 101
CV: My last post at the EF was the morning of the 9th. My first post here was two days later.
Hardly "the precise moment," surely.
​If you go back and read what I wrote, this is, again, not what I said or meant.
And when I said the Kennedy case was of super human complexity, what I meant was the carrying out of the actual plot and the cover up afterwards, which I consider to have been planned in advance.
And as John Newman does, I think the key to the cover up was Mexico City.
The second key was the amazing alacrity with which Hoover jumped on board.
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:CV: My last post at the EF was the morning of the 9th. My first post here was two days later.
Hardly "the precise moment," surely.
​If you go back and read what I wrote, this is, again, not what I said or meant.
And when I said the Kennedy case was of super human complexity, what I meant was the carrying out of the actual plot and the cover up afterwards, which I consider to have been planned in advance.
And as John Newman does, I think the key to the cover up was Mexico City.
The second key was the amazing alacrity with which Hoover jumped on board.
What I've been saying since word go.... on these and EF threads. Not in search of credit... it simply amazes me that we can't have a serious conversation
about Hoover and his activities and notes those first few weeks...
When one of the obvious plotters/conspirators is so willing to accomodate our need for ironclad physical evidence detailing the size and style of the emperor's new clothes
and does so for all of posterity
How can that be compared to anything the "community" concludes or offers?
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:And when I said the Kennedy case was of super human complexity, what I meant was the carrying out of the actual plot and the cover up afterwards, which I consider to have been planned in advance.
There was a cinch to be complexity when two cover-up narratives started competing soon after the assassination -- Oswald as lone nut/un-connected to the Reds, and Oswald as agent of Fidel.
I think the complexities of the actual murder pale to that of the cover-ups.
Quote:And as John Newman does, I think the key to the cover up was Mexico City.
The all important Kostikov connection. It wouldn't do to just blame Castro. They had to implicate the Soviets in order to get them back on their heels at the UN, prior to any Cuban bombing campaign JFK's murder might trigger.
Or so I speculate on the basis of...
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Lyman Lemnitzer, memorandum to Secretary of
Defense Robert McNamara, April 10, 1962 (emphasis added):
Quote:The Joint Chiefs of Staff believe that the Cuban problem must be solved
in the near future...Further, they see no prospect of early success in
overthrowing the present communist regime either as a result of internal
uprising or external political, economic or psychological pressures.
Accordingly they believe that military intervention by the United States
will be required to overthrow the present communist regime...The Joint
Chiefs of Staff believe that the United States can undertake military
intervention in Cuba without risk of general war. They also believe
that the intervention can be accomplished rapidly enough to minimize
communist opportunities for solicitation of U.N. action.
Once Oswald was captured alive the Kostikov connection was dead in the water. That was the kind of frame that could only be hung on a dead man.
Quote:The second key was the amazing alacrity with which Hoover jumped on board.
Hoovers actions that day are fascinating. From McKnight's Breach of Trust:
Quote: What is historically important about the director's second call to Hickory Hill, which came at 4:01 pm (EST), was that the director told RFK that the assassin was in custody. "We," Hoover grandly announced, "had the man," overlooking the fact that it was the Dallas police who had arrested Lee Harvey Oswald. Hoover also made calls to James J Rowley, the head of the Secret Service, and Norbert A Schlei, assistant attorney general, Office of Legal Counsel.
...Nevertheless, on the day of the assassination DeLoach's unerring, machinelike director unaccountably broke down. He had shots coming from the fourth and fifth floors of the book depository building and a Winchester rifle as the murder weapon rather than the now famous Mannlicher-Carcano allegedly owned by Oswald. He had Oswald shuffling back and forth to Castro's Cuba, when in fact Oswald's one effort to get to Cuba from Mexico in the fall of 1963 had proven futile. There is no FBI or any other government record made public that documents Oswald ever being in Cuba. Hoover told Rowley that the assassin had gunned down a Secret Service agent when in fact is was actually a Dallas cop, J D Tippit, who was killed.
Correct me if I have this wrong, but I believe the FBI was hot on the chain of possession for the MC while at the same time Hoover was speaking of a Winchester and shots from different floors.
Hoover's willingness to claim that Oswald had been in Cuba shows me a guy itching to pin Oswald to Fidel.
My question is: at what time would Hoover had been ordered to get aboard the Oswald-as-lone-nut scenario?
"But a small group of FBI agents in New Orleans and Dallas (with Organized Crime, CIA, military intelligence, and anti-Castro connections) were actual parties to the assassination. And the principle [sic] accessory before the fact in the Bureau was J. Edgar Hoover himself, with prior knowledge of the assassination." (From Perfect Cover)
"J. Edgar Hoover (and the FBI): A False Sponsor, especially since Director Hoover had prior assassination knowledge; some FBI agents were involved at the facilitating order; finally, Hoover directed the FBI/Warren Commission cover-up." (From Perfect Cover)
I feel somewhat better about the term when it is defined thus: "Debates with LNers constitute Assassination Porn".
It fits kind of in a concept I hold of "Mayhem Porn", bloodfests of "the news" and slasher flicks.
I don't "do" Mayhem Porn.
No need for titillation by violent death, nor the portrayals of same in Hollywood efforts to separate the patron from their money. No "1000 ways to die" crap played in this house.
I've seen enough of those things in reality on the job Ironworking and know the BS representations of dying fostered by the Wurlitzer. As Captain Miller (Tom Hanks) dies in "Saving Private Ryan" at peace knowing victory was won.
Most likely BS. I have to doubt that version of events a la big screen. But "they" made a pile of money...
We will all face death, why glorify mayhem? I just don't get it.
I don't get endless LN debate either. I learned from the concept that I don't "do" Assassination Porn either.
Thanks and Best Regards.
Jim
Read not to contradict and confute;
nor to believe and take for granted;
nor to find talk and discourse;
but to weigh and consider.
FRANCIS BACON
13-02-2013, 11:37 AM (This post was last modified: 13-02-2013, 05:24 PM by Charles Drago.)
David Josephs Wrote:
Charles Drago Wrote:David,
You're making the critical and all-too-common mistake that three generations of JFK researchers have made when attempting not just to prove conspiracy, but also to define and deliver justice in this matter: You're getting ahead of yourself.
Please re-read my post # 1 on this thread. Note in particular what I suggest must be our first step:
STEP A -- HOW was JFK killed? In other words, agree upon and share unassailable evidence for CONSPIRACY. This must NOT be about exonerating Lee Harvey Oswald or anyone else. This must NOT be about inculpating any individuals or systems. Rather, it must be a sober presentation of science-based evidence that demonstrates, beyond all doubt and to the degree of metaphysical certitude, that JFK was shot by two or more individuals acting in concert.
Like countless others, you neither differentiate between nor prioritize within strategic context the "how" and "who" questions.
I'm curious though Charles...
Given the conspiracy and the impossibility of determining what occurred from the evidence available to us...
I don't accept your "given" insofar as the phrase "the impossibility of determining what occurred" is at best impossibly vague and in fact patently false.
We KNOW -- as oppose to theorize -- that JFK was shot from two or more firing positions by two or more gunmen.
How do we KNOW this?
Through study of the medical evidence -- legitimate and tainted.
David Josephs Wrote:How does one go about determining HOW to piece together the elements that caused his death when the pieces we are using to build this conclusion are not even from this puzzle?
I don't mean to be unkind, but this sentence is worthy of "Albert Doyle" in its opaqueness and absence of internal logic.
David Josephs Wrote:Have you discovered any unassailable evidence that JFK was hit from the front other than the eye witness testimony and HSCA acoustics (which have both been assailed repeatedly over the years).
Yes.
The fact that you would ask this question at this point in time is ... curious.
Read Salandria.
Then move on to Mantik.
For starters.
And get rid of this "unassailable" bullshit! Understand that no piece of evidence is "unassailable." The enemy's goal is to preserve doubt. Indefinitely. So assail they will ... over and over and over again. This is the tactic used by Holocaust deniers. Proof? WHAT proof? Naysay ad infinitum.
How do you defeat this tactic? Expose it. Ridicule it. Expose and ridicule those who use it. Deny the enemy the illusion of a level playing field.
Turn the oppressed against the oppressors.
Lead! Or be lead to the slaughter.
David Josephs Wrote:Are we to say the Zapruder (and Nix/Muchmore) films constitute this level of evidence - when at the same time we claim what Zfilm we have is not even to be the original film?
No.
David Josephs Wrote:The physical reality of the coat/shirt/back added to the anatomically impossible path from back to front without hitting anything,and the complete lack of a channel of transit... AND the FBI reports AND Hoover telling us that Oswald NOT be considered the only man involved.... seems at least to me... the only "sober, science based evidence" that reaches our conclusion and is unassailable.
There is absolutely NOTHING "scientific" or "unassailable" about the evidentiary value of a quote by JEH.
On the other hand, science-based repudiation of the SBT is of inestimable evidentiary value.
David Josephs Wrote:Turning now to WHO
Before you make your turn, please share with us your working model of the conspiracy's structure.
David Josephs Wrote:Other than readying [sic] Palamara... how do we show SS involvement....? IMO, back to CE399's chain of evidence.
Where, in your conspiracy model, do you place the SS? Using the Evica/Drago model, would you describe the SS as an assassination Sponsor, False Sponsor, Facilitator, or Mechanic?
I might add that "the Secret Service" was no more involved in the JFK assassination conspiracy than was "the Central Intelligence Agency."
Do you understand the distinction I'm making? Its deeper implications for our work?
Rock-solid specificity is the sine qua non for successful development of the case you wish to make. And I see vagueness and undisciplined vacillation in the majority of your presentation so far.
David Josephs Wrote:So again... some from the SS had to be involved... you want to introduce the casket charade to this easily presented argument....
Again, you need to focus on the placement of the SS within the larger conspiracy model.
David Josephs Wrote:Once the SBT is soundly defeated, which it most certainly has, we have the cornerstone of our "position".
Perhaps. But you must appreciate the importance of redundancy to this effort. Setting up any single piece of evidence as a "cornerstone" allows the enemy to concentrate fire. Identify your forces in terms of their inherent strengths and deploy them wisely.
David Josephs Wrote:And I submit that the few things brought to this conversation related to Hoover, the autopsy and CE399 create an equally unassailable position describing the elements of the conspiracy related to hiding the fact that more than one person was involved.
FUCK Hoover. At least in terms of formulating a response to the "how" question.
And let me be clear: When I ask, "HOW was JFK killed?" I'm asking, in essence, "Was JFK killed by one gunman acting alone, or was JFK killed by conspirators?"
Step One.
Very simple.
Direct and to the point.
Maintain operational discipline.
David Josephs Wrote:What esle does Joe Streetcorner need to understand... and if Joe Streetcorner is not our audience... Charles, who is... Those that understand?, those that don't and won't? Those on the fence?
As I said in my first post on the subject...
Until we know who we are talking to... how can a message be fashioned with any effectiveness?
Basic Marketing 101
This last quote amounts to quite the revealing and disturbing diatribe, I'm afraid.
I shall take no part in denigrating or assuming a patronizing stance toward our audience -- the extended victims of JFK's assassination. To do so is to guarantee failure. "Joe Streetcorner"??? I reject the characterization categorically.
And spare me your lecture on "Marketing 101." The myriad weaknesses of your undisciplined approach, including but not limited to the absences of basic definitions, objectives, and structured, reasoned strategies and tactics, combined with your patronizing and indeed insulting references to the people who you would address and, ultimately, serve, strip you of all credibility in this regard.
In closing, and with the hope that the exercise may be enlightening, permit me to reiterate, in slightly modified form, the central portion of my original post on this thread:
1. LONG TERM OBJECTIVES -- To reveal and remove from power the assassination's Sponsors; to energize, protect, and empower the people, who comprise the "collateral damage" of the attack on JFK, to re-take control of their political and cultural systems.
2. SHORT TERM OBJECTIVES -- To appeal to the hearts and minds of the people (not "Joe Streetcorner") so as to engender outrage and, quickly thereafter, righteous indignation, which in turn can be focused into coordinated national and eventually global campaigns of non-violent protest and political and cultural action.
3. HOW TO TELL THE TRUTH -- We must supplant the chaos that rules our "community" with the highest degree of operational discipline -- a simple (as opposed to simple-minded) strategic communications plan scrupulously adhered to and structured as follows:
STEP A -- HOW was JFK killed? In other words, agree upon and share unassailable evidence for CONSPIRACY. This must NOT be about exonerating Lee Harvey Oswald or anyone else. This must NOT be about inculpating any individuals or systems. Rather, it must be a sober, scientific presentation of evidence that demonstrates, beyond all doubt and to the degree of metaphysical certitude, that JFK was shot by two or more individuals acting in concert.
STEP B -- Provide and explain a working model of the conspiracy. For the purposes of this mini-essay, I propose the Sponsor/Facilitator/Mechanic model in its entirety (including sub-categories).
STEP C -- WHO killed JFK? This question is best answered by REVERSE-ENGINEERING the shooting. WHO could have done it the way it was done? Who could have stripped security? Who could have selected the motorcade route? Who could have selected the perfect patsy? Who could have covered up the conspiracy and protected its Sponsors and Facilitators? The best rhetorical device to answer these questions might be to ask, "Who could NOT have done these things as they were done?" Or, if you prefer, "Who did NOT have the means AND motive AND opportunity to do the deed as it was done?"
STEP D -- WHY was JFK killed?
STEP E -- How should we define "justice" in this case?
[/B]
