#31
Conspiracy JFK Forum
Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #37 Refuted.
RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #37 Refuted.
(03-30-2017, 03:51 PM)Hollywood Wrote:(03-30-2017, 03:09 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:(03-30-2017, 02:35 PM)Hollywood Wrote: Lieutenant Day: "the general pattern of the two prints were the same as Oswald's but the ridges just were not clear enough for me to say they were his"
After Latona's initial examination he could see that the pattern formations were consistent with those on Oswald's hands but they were insufficient to make a definitive determination. Latona told the WC that when he received Day's actual lift card on November 29, "the palm print which appears on the lift was identified by me as the right palm print of Lee Harvey Oswald."
Just as with the fibers found in the paper bag, the lack of an absolute positive identification doesn't preclude the obvious, reasonable conclusion from being reached - the preponderance of the evidence incriminates Oswald and cannot be logically denied. Conspiracy theorists inadvertantly admit the evidence points to Oswald or why else would they claim it is all tainted or corrupted?
I have quoted Scalice's findings and when combined with the above citations, a reasonable conclusion can be made - the prints were Oswald's - that is, to REASONABLE people.
Amusingly, you refuse to do a 'reply' to my statements, so that people don't notice the questions you refuse to answer.
And despite claiming that these refutations "haven't been too impressive" - you've refused to explain why you've only responded to ONE of them.
You simply ignore any contrary evidence... and experts who disagree with Scalice, for example... and believe what you want to believe... but you aren't using evidence to do so.
The proof, of course; is that you cannot refute my refutation of Vincent Bugliosi... he had over 20 years to try to come up with the strongest possible evidence of Oswald's lone guilt - and failed.
It is obvious you don't understand the concept of preponderance of evidence - or you don't even consider it for fear of facing the glaring truth - sorry for not clicking on "reply" - my mistake. Bugliosi and the WC BOTH laid out a most convincing case for LHO's guilt - you KNOW that ALL of the evidence in this case points to Oswald - all you can do is try to shoot down that evidence - you have none proving conspiracy - just suspicions, denials and innuendo. Sorry.
If you cannot defend each and every individual bits of evidence, they don't create a preponderance...
No-one denies that the patsy was framed - this certainly would make the evidence appear to be overwhelmingly against Oswald.
But it's still true that you've not responded to the rest of the series that show that Bugliosi is sometimes silly, and other times simply lying about the evidence.
The fact that you cannot acknowledge even the most BLATANT biases against Oswald shows just where your character lies...
As an example, either reading or not reading a newspaper simply isn't evidence against Oswald - and only the most fanatic kook, desperate to find anything and everything, would ever make such a claim.
RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #37 Refuted.
(03-30-2017, 07:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:"No-one denies that the patsy was framed" Excuse me? People who look at this case without an agenda and no preconceived notions deny that wholeheartedly - your bias is showing...(03-30-2017, 03:51 PM)Hollywood Wrote:(03-30-2017, 03:09 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:(03-30-2017, 02:35 PM)Hollywood Wrote: Lieutenant Day: "the general pattern of the two prints were the same as Oswald's but the ridges just were not clear enough for me to say they were his"
After Latona's initial examination he could see that the pattern formations were consistent with those on Oswald's hands but they were insufficient to make a definitive determination. Latona told the WC that when he received Day's actual lift card on November 29, "the palm print which appears on the lift was identified by me as the right palm print of Lee Harvey Oswald."
Just as with the fibers found in the paper bag, the lack of an absolute positive identification doesn't preclude the obvious, reasonable conclusion from being reached - the preponderance of the evidence incriminates Oswald and cannot be logically denied. Conspiracy theorists inadvertantly admit the evidence points to Oswald or why else would they claim it is all tainted or corrupted?
I have quoted Scalice's findings and when combined with the above citations, a reasonable conclusion can be made - the prints were Oswald's - that is, to REASONABLE people.
Amusingly, you refuse to do a 'reply' to my statements, so that people don't notice the questions you refuse to answer.
And despite claiming that these refutations "haven't been too impressive" - you've refused to explain why you've only responded to ONE of them.
You simply ignore any contrary evidence... and experts who disagree with Scalice, for example... and believe what you want to believe... but you aren't using evidence to do so.
The proof, of course; is that you cannot refute my refutation of Vincent Bugliosi... he had over 20 years to try to come up with the strongest possible evidence of Oswald's lone guilt - and failed.
It is obvious you don't understand the concept of preponderance of evidence - or you don't even consider it for fear of facing the glaring truth - sorry for not clicking on "reply" - my mistake. Bugliosi and the WC BOTH laid out a most convincing case for LHO's guilt - you KNOW that ALL of the evidence in this case points to Oswald - all you can do is try to shoot down that evidence - you have none proving conspiracy - just suspicions, denials and innuendo. Sorry.
If you cannot defend each and every individual bits of evidence, they don't create a preponderance...
No-one denies that the patsy was framed - this certainly would make the evidence appear to be overwhelmingly against Oswald.
But it's still true that you've not responded to the rest of the series that show that Bugliosi is sometimes silly, and other times simply lying about the evidence.
The fact that you cannot acknowledge even the most BLATANT biases against Oswald shows just where your character lies...
As an example, either reading or not reading a newspaper simply isn't evidence against Oswald - and only the most fanatic kook, desperate to find anything and everything, would ever make such a claim.
The newspaper issue was listed as an indication that Oswald was doing things foreign to usual routine - a sign of a person contemplating doing something extraordinary...
RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #37 Refuted.
(03-30-2017, 07:29 PM)Hollywood Wrote:(03-30-2017, 07:14 PM)Nick Principe Wrote:(03-30-2017, 03:51 PM)Hollywood Wrote:(03-30-2017, 03:09 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:Bugliosi and the WC BOTH laid out a most convincing case for LHO's guilt.
And therein lies the key problem, which funnily comes straight from your own mouth. It was not the WC's job to lay out a case against LHO. Their job (officially) was to "investigate" the assassination. Yet the notion that it *might* have been someone other than LHO is never even broached. An investigation that refuses to entertain more than one theory, especially considering all the victim's enemies and their motives, is incompetent and irresponsible at best. Corrupt and complicit at worst.
Bugliosi, as the prosecuting attorney, is supposed to lay out a case for Oswald's guilt. Not the WC.
Ironocally, David belin stated that he and others were hired to determine if there was a conspiracy in the assassination - the actual evidence dispelled that notion rather quickly. There was an entire segment of the WC staff whose area of concentration was conspiracy, especially involving foreign countries. They found nothing credible - there IS nothing credible indicating conspiracy.
If he said that, then he was lying.
The outline for the Warren Commission shows very clearly that the conclusions were there from the beginning, and ABSOLUTELY NO investigation was considered for determining if there had been a conspiracy...
Indeed, the very first bombshell for the Commission - and one quite revealing as far as how they were going to operate, is what they did when they discovered evidence that Oswald was an FBI informant.
The claim that there's nothing "credible" to indicate conspiracy is quite a dishonest statement... since you've NEVER (and will never) give a credible reason why James Chaney wasn't ever asked A SINGLE SOLITARY QUESTION for the Warren Commission - you know that the Commission was INTENTIONALLY dodging any evidence of conspiracy.
RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #37 Refuted.
(03-30-2017, 08:55 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:And yet MANY witnesses were called and testified to things contrary to the WC's official conclusion - shots from the bushes, smoke on the GK, people in windows other than the snipr's nest - this belies the Chaney claim. Many of the staff hired by the WC saw this as their chance to make a name for themselves if they uncovered the conspiracy - they found nothing and lost their chance at fame - to a creep like Oswald - sorry.(03-30-2017, 07:29 PM)Hollywood Wrote:(03-30-2017, 07:14 PM)Nick Principe Wrote:(03-30-2017, 03:51 PM)Hollywood Wrote:(03-30-2017, 03:09 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:Bugliosi and the WC BOTH laid out a most convincing case for LHO's guilt.
And therein lies the key problem, which funnily comes straight from your own mouth. It was not the WC's job to lay out a case against LHO. Their job (officially) was to "investigate" the assassination. Yet the notion that it *might* have been someone other than LHO is never even broached. An investigation that refuses to entertain more than one theory, especially considering all the victim's enemies and their motives, is incompetent and irresponsible at best. Corrupt and complicit at worst.
Bugliosi, as the prosecuting attorney, is supposed to lay out a case for Oswald's guilt. Not the WC.
Ironocally, David belin stated that he and others were hired to determine if there was a conspiracy in the assassination - the actual evidence dispelled that notion rather quickly. There was an entire segment of the WC staff whose area of concentration was conspiracy, especially involving foreign countries. They found nothing credible - there IS nothing credible indicating conspiracy.
If he said that, then he was lying.
The outline for the Warren Commission shows very clearly that the conclusions were there from the beginning, and ABSOLUTELY NO investigation was considered for determining if there had been a conspiracy...
Indeed, the very first bombshell for the Commission - and one quite revealing as far as how they were going to operate, is what they did when they discovered evidence that Oswald was an FBI informant.
The claim that there's nothing "credible" to indicate conspiracy is quite a dishonest statement... since you've NEVER (and will never) give a credible reason why James Chaney wasn't ever asked A SINGLE SOLITARY QUESTION for the Warren Commission - you know that the Commission was INTENTIONALLY dodging any evidence of conspiracy.
(03-31-2017, 03:09 PM)Hollywood Wrote:We staffers were anxious and determined and felt the weight of the task ahead of us. Regardless of age or background, all of us would later remember the enthusiasm and excitement of reporting for work at Washington's VFW Memorial Building in early 1964. Many of us voiced our skepticism about the FBl's view that Lee Harvey Oswald had acted alone and were determined to ferret out any conspiracy that the bureau had missed. At our first meeting with Chief Justice Warren on January 20, he told us of his reluctance to assume this nonjudicial responsibility, but went on to say that President Johnson expected the commission to find "the whole truth and nothing but the truth." Warren, a former prosecutor, said emphatically, “That is what I intend to do." He and Rankin would often remind us that "truth is our only client."(03-30-2017, 08:55 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:And yet MANY witnesses were called and testified to things contrary to the WC's official conclusion - shots from the bushes, smoke on the GK, people in windows other than the snipr's nest - this belies the Chaney claim. Many of the staff hired by the WC saw this as their chance to make a name for themselves if they uncovered the conspiracy - they found nothing and lost their chance at fame - to a creep like Oswald - sorry.(03-30-2017, 07:29 PM)Hollywood Wrote:(03-30-2017, 07:14 PM)Nick Principe Wrote:(03-30-2017, 03:51 PM)Hollywood Wrote: Bugliosi and the WC BOTH laid out a most convincing case for LHO's guilt.
And therein lies the key problem, which funnily comes straight from your own mouth. It was not the WC's job to lay out a case against LHO. Their job (officially) was to "investigate" the assassination. Yet the notion that it *might* have been someone other than LHO is never even broached. An investigation that refuses to entertain more than one theory, especially considering all the victim's enemies and their motives, is incompetent and irresponsible at best. Corrupt and complicit at worst.
Bugliosi, as the prosecuting attorney, is supposed to lay out a case for Oswald's guilt. Not the WC.
Ironocally, David belin stated that he and others were hired to determine if there was a conspiracy in the assassination - the actual evidence dispelled that notion rather quickly. There was an entire segment of the WC staff whose area of concentration was conspiracy, especially involving foreign countries. They found nothing credible - there IS nothing credible indicating conspiracy.
If he said that, then he was lying.
The outline for the Warren Commission shows very clearly that the conclusions were there from the beginning, and ABSOLUTELY NO investigation was considered for determining if there had been a conspiracy...
Indeed, the very first bombshell for the Commission - and one quite revealing as far as how they were going to operate, is what they did when they discovered evidence that Oswald was an FBI informant.
The claim that there's nothing "credible" to indicate conspiracy is quite a dishonest statement... since you've NEVER (and will never) give a credible reason why James Chaney wasn't ever asked A SINGLE SOLITARY QUESTION for the Warren Commission - you know that the Commission was INTENTIONALLY dodging any evidence of conspiracy.
From "The American Scholar" by Howard Willens and Richard Mosk - both WC staffers.
This post was last modified: 03-31-2017, 03:19 PM by Hollywood.
RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #37 Refuted.
(03-30-2017, 08:55 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: If he said that, then he was lying.
The outline for the Warren Commission shows very clearly that the conclusions were there from the beginning, and ABSOLUTELY NO investigation was considered for determining if there had been a conspiracy...
Interestingly, you had absolutely nothing to say to this.
(03-31-2017, 03:09 PM)Hollywood Wrote:(03-30-2017, 08:55 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: Indeed, the very first bombshell for the Commission - and one quite revealing as far as how they were going to operate, is what they did when they discovered evidence that Oswald was an FBI informant.
The claim that there's nothing "credible" to indicate conspiracy is quite a dishonest statement... since you've NEVER (and will never) give a credible reason why James Chaney wasn't ever asked A SINGLE SOLITARY QUESTION for the Warren Commission - you know that the Commission was INTENTIONALLY dodging any evidence of conspiracy.
And yet MANY witnesses were called and testified to things contrary to the WC's official conclusion - shots from the bushes, smoke on the GK, people in windows other than the snipr's nest - this belies the Chaney claim.
No - it doesn't. The most CREDIBLE witnesses simply weren't called. It would be silly to ask you to produce a case where a police officer was PHOTOGRAPHED watching the crime occur from less than a dozen feet away, then never asked a single question during the ensuing investigation of that crime.
It would be silly because there's a very good chance Hell will freeze over before such a thing ever happens... with the sole exception of Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.
But rather than try to actually answer my question, you answer a similar, related question that I never asked. I didn't ask you if the Warren Commission took testimony from witnesses who's statements contradicted the Warren Commission's theory.
I asked you to give a credible reason why James Chaney was never even asked a single question for the Warren Commission's investigation.
You didn't answer that question... and indeed, I predict that you won't come back and try...
Another excellent witness that you cannot give a credible reason for the refusal of the Warren Commission to have testify would have been Kennedy's personal physician - the only doctor present at both Parkland and Bethesda, and the one who signed the Death Certificate. But no, once again the Warren Commission didn't want to hear anything from him.
(03-31-2017, 03:09 PM)Hollywood Wrote: Many of the staff hired by the WC saw this as their chance to make a name for themselves if they uncovered the conspiracy - they found nothing and lost their chance at fame - to a creep like Oswald - sorry.
Simply not true.
Indeed, I gave a perfect example above - when the Commission learned of evidence that Oswald was an FBI informant. That would have "made the name" of anyone brave enough to leak such information to the press.
RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #37 Refuted.
(03-31-2017, 03:26 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:"evidence that Oswald was an FBI informant." Obviously that "evidence" wasn't deemed to be credible evidence. Interesting how believers in conspiracy consider ommissions by the WC to be damning evidence of their performance while dismissing a myriad of forensic, credible evidence proving Oswald's guilt.(03-30-2017, 08:55 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: If he said that, then he was lying.
The outline for the Warren Commission shows very clearly that the conclusions were there from the beginning, and ABSOLUTELY NO investigation was considered for determining if there had been a conspiracy...
Interestingly, you had absolutely nothing to say to this.
(03-31-2017, 03:09 PM)Hollywood Wrote:(03-30-2017, 08:55 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: Indeed, the very first bombshell for the Commission - and one quite revealing as far as how they were going to operate, is what they did when they discovered evidence that Oswald was an FBI informant.
The claim that there's nothing "credible" to indicate conspiracy is quite a dishonest statement... since you've NEVER (and will never) give a credible reason why James Chaney wasn't ever asked A SINGLE SOLITARY QUESTION for the Warren Commission - you know that the Commission was INTENTIONALLY dodging any evidence of conspiracy.
And yet MANY witnesses were called and testified to things contrary to the WC's official conclusion - shots from the bushes, smoke on the GK, people in windows other than the snipr's nest - this belies the Chaney claim.
No - it doesn't. The most CREDIBLE witnesses simply weren't called. It would be silly to ask you to produce a case where a police officer was PHOTOGRAPHED watching the crime occur from less than a dozen feet away, then never asked a single question during the ensuing investigation of that crime.
It would be silly because there's a very good chance Hell will freeze over before such a thing ever happens... with the sole exception of Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.
But rather than try to actually answer my question, you answer a similar, related question that I never asked. I didn't ask you if the Warren Commission took testimony from witnesses who's statements contradicted the Warren Commission's theory.
I asked you to give a credible reason why James Chaney was never even asked a single question for the Warren Commission's investigation.
You didn't answer that question... and indeed, I predict that you won't come back and try...
Another excellent witness that you cannot give a credible reason for the refusal of the Warren Commission to have testify would have been Kennedy's personal physician - the only doctor present at both Parkland and Bethesda, and the one who signed the Death Certificate. But no, once again the Warren Commission didn't want to hear anything from him.
(03-31-2017, 03:09 PM)Hollywood Wrote: Many of the staff hired by the WC saw this as their chance to make a name for themselves if they uncovered the conspiracy - they found nothing and lost their chance at fame - to a creep like Oswald - sorry.
Simply not true.
Indeed, I gave a perfect example above - when the Commission learned of evidence that Oswald was an FBI informant. That would have "made the name" of anyone brave enough to leak such information to the press.
(03-31-2017, 04:25 PM)Hollywood Wrote:We staffers were anxious and determined and felt the weight of the task ahead of us. Regardless of age or background, all of us would later remember the enthusiasm and excitement of reporting for work at Washington's VFW Memorial Building in early 1964. Many of us voiced our skepticism about the FBl's view that Lee Harvey Oswald had acted alone and were determined to ferret out any conspiracy that the bureau had missed. At our first meeting with Chief Justice Warren on January 20, he told us of his reluctance to assume this nonjudicial responsibility, but went on to say that President Johnson expected the commission to find "the whole truth and nothing but the truth." Warren, a former prosecutor, said emphatically, “That is what I intend to do." He and Rankin would often remind us that "truth is our only client."(03-31-2017, 03:26 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:"evidence that Oswald was an FBI informant." Obviously that "evidence" wasn't deemed to be credible evidence. Interesting how believers in conspiracy consider ommissions by the WC to be damning evidence of their performance while dismissing a myriad of forensic, credible evidence proving Oswald's guilt.(03-30-2017, 08:55 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: If he said that, then he was lying.
The outline for the Warren Commission shows very clearly that the conclusions were there from the beginning, and ABSOLUTELY NO investigation was considered for determining if there had been a conspiracy...
Interestingly, you had absolutely nothing to say to this.
(03-31-2017, 03:09 PM)Hollywood Wrote:(03-30-2017, 08:55 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: Indeed, the very first bombshell for the Commission - and one quite revealing as far as how they were going to operate, is what they did when they discovered evidence that Oswald was an FBI informant.
The claim that there's nothing "credible" to indicate conspiracy is quite a dishonest statement... since you've NEVER (and will never) give a credible reason why James Chaney wasn't ever asked A SINGLE SOLITARY QUESTION for the Warren Commission - you know that the Commission was INTENTIONALLY dodging any evidence of conspiracy.
And yet MANY witnesses were called and testified to things contrary to the WC's official conclusion - shots from the bushes, smoke on the GK, people in windows other than the snipr's nest - this belies the Chaney claim.
No - it doesn't. The most CREDIBLE witnesses simply weren't called. It would be silly to ask you to produce a case where a police officer was PHOTOGRAPHED watching the crime occur from less than a dozen feet away, then never asked a single question during the ensuing investigation of that crime.
It would be silly because there's a very good chance Hell will freeze over before such a thing ever happens... with the sole exception of Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.
But rather than try to actually answer my question, you answer a similar, related question that I never asked. I didn't ask you if the Warren Commission took testimony from witnesses who's statements contradicted the Warren Commission's theory.
I asked you to give a credible reason why James Chaney was never even asked a single question for the Warren Commission's investigation.
You didn't answer that question... and indeed, I predict that you won't come back and try...
Another excellent witness that you cannot give a credible reason for the refusal of the Warren Commission to have testify would have been Kennedy's personal physician - the only doctor present at both Parkland and Bethesda, and the one who signed the Death Certificate. But no, once again the Warren Commission didn't want to hear anything from him.
(03-31-2017, 03:09 PM)Hollywood Wrote: Many of the staff hired by the WC saw this as their chance to make a name for themselves if they uncovered the conspiracy - they found nothing and lost their chance at fame - to a creep like Oswald - sorry.
Simply not true.
Indeed, I gave a perfect example above - when the Commission learned of evidence that Oswald was an FBI informant. That would have "made the name" of anyone brave enough to leak such information to the press.
From "American Scholar" by Howard Willens & Richard Mosk, staffers for the WC (I posted this earlier and strangely it disappeared)
This post was last modified: 03-31-2017, 04:30 PM by Hollywood.
RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #37 Refuted.
(03-31-2017, 04:25 PM)Hollywood Wrote:(03-31-2017, 03:26 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: Indeed, I gave a perfect example above - when the Commission learned of evidence that Oswald was an FBI informant. That would have "made the name" of anyone brave enough to leak such information to the press.
"evidence that Oswald was an FBI informant." Obviously that "evidence" wasn't deemed to be credible evidence. Interesting how believers in conspiracy consider ommissions by the WC to be damning evidence of their performance while dismissing a myriad of forensic, credible evidence proving Oswald's guilt.
How do you know that it wasn't "deemed to be credible evidence?"
Can you supply a citation to a section in the Warren Report where this was dealt with? Where witnesses were called to testify? Where an actual investigation was performed to determine the worth & credibility of the evidence?
Or did the Warren Commission immediately begin covering this up?
An honest person would look into the facts of the Jan. 22 meeting, and conclude that the Warren Commission had no intention of seeking the truth.
(03-31-2017, 04:25 PM)Hollywood Wrote: We staffers were anxious and determined and felt the weight of the task ahead of us. Regardless of age or background, all of us would later remember the enthusiasm and excitement of reporting for work at Washington's VFW Memorial Building in early 1964. Many of us voiced our skepticism about the FBl's view that Lee Harvey Oswald had acted alone and were determined to ferret out any conspiracy that the bureau had missed. At our first meeting with Chief Justice Warren on January 20, he told us of his reluctance to assume this nonjudicial responsibility, but went on to say that President Johnson expected the commission to find "the whole truth and nothing but the truth." Warren, a former prosecutor, said emphatically, “That is what I intend to do." He and Rankin would often remind us that "truth is our only client."
From "American Scholar" by Howard Willens & Richard Mosk, staffers for the WC (I posted this earlier and strangely it disappeared)
Interestingly, the post where you claim it "disappeared" was edited by you. It's still there.
You can keep quoting Warren Commission staff on their honesty & credibility - but until you actually deal with the HISTORICAL FACTS I present that show a different picture, you're unlikely to convince anyone.
Now, tell us why the Warren Commission wanted to seek out the truth, yet were unwilling to have any independent investigators...
Tell us why the Warren Commission refused to allow any cross-examination of eyewitnesses...
Tell us why the Warren Commission called some of the silliest witnesses, and refused to call the most obvious witnesses... (You can start with James Chaney...)
You want to defend the honor of the Warren Commission - YOU'LL HAVE TO EXPLAIN THEIR ACTIONS WHICH SHOW THEM TO BE LESS THAN HONORABLE.
RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #37 Refuted.
(03-31-2017, 09:47 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:Never made a statement regarding honesty and credibility - just a statement supporting my claim that they began the process LOOKING for a plot.(03-31-2017, 04:25 PM)Hollywood Wrote:(03-31-2017, 03:26 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: Indeed, I gave a perfect example above - when the Commission learned of evidence that Oswald was an FBI informant. That would have "made the name" of anyone brave enough to leak such information to the press.
"evidence that Oswald was an FBI informant." Obviously that "evidence" wasn't deemed to be credible evidence. Interesting how believers in conspiracy consider ommissions by the WC to be damning evidence of their performance while dismissing a myriad of forensic, credible evidence proving Oswald's guilt.
How do you know that it wasn't "deemed to be credible evidence?"
Can you supply a citation to a section in the Warren Report where this was dealt with? Where witnesses were called to testify? Where an actual investigation was performed to determine the worth & credibility of the evidence?
Or did the Warren Commission immediately begin covering this up?
An honest person would look into the facts of the Jan. 22 meeting, and conclude that the Warren Commission had no intention of seeking the truth.
(03-31-2017, 04:25 PM)Hollywood Wrote: We staffers were anxious and determined and felt the weight of the task ahead of us. Regardless of age or background, all of us would later remember the enthusiasm and excitement of reporting for work at Washington's VFW Memorial Building in early 1964. Many of us voiced our skepticism about the FBl's view that Lee Harvey Oswald had acted alone and were determined to ferret out any conspiracy that the bureau had missed. At our first meeting with Chief Justice Warren on January 20, he told us of his reluctance to assume this nonjudicial responsibility, but went on to say that President Johnson expected the commission to find "the whole truth and nothing but the truth." Warren, a former prosecutor, said emphatically, “That is what I intend to do." He and Rankin would often remind us that "truth is our only client."
From "American Scholar" by Howard Willens & Richard Mosk, staffers for the WC (I posted this earlier and strangely it disappeared)
Interestingly, the post where you claim it "disappeared" was edited by you. It's still there.
You can keep quoting Warren Commission staff on their honesty & credibility - but until you actually deal with the HISTORICAL FACTS I present that show a different picture, you're unlikely to convince anyone.
Now, tell us why the Warren Commission wanted to seek out the truth, yet were unwilling to have any independent investigators...
Tell us why the Warren Commission refused to allow any cross-examination of eyewitnesses...
Tell us why the Warren Commission called some of the silliest witnesses, and refused to call the most obvious witnesses... (You can start with James Chaney...)
You want to defend the honor of the Warren Commission - YOU'LL HAVE TO EXPLAIN THEIR ACTIONS WHICH SHOW THEM TO BE LESS THAN HONORABLE.
Don't know why they didn't have independent investigators - you don't either. Just suspicions and innuendo.
It wasn't a trial so, no cross examination of witnesses.
Don't know why Chaney wasn't called - you don't either - you ASSUME it was because of the nature of his testimony - don't assume.
Don't have to explain the actions of anybody - the WC made its case and published it - it's on you to shoot it down - hasn't happened in 54 years so I doubt you'll get anywhere either. I've been posting here for a week or two - you seem like a typical, garden variety theorist - no evidence, just quibbling and cherry picking - not impressive. You seem to have an extremely active, disordered imagination - that's typical of theorists too.
RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #37 Refuted.
(03-31-2017, 10:17 PM)Hollywood Wrote:(03-31-2017, 09:47 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: You can keep quoting Warren Commission staff on their honesty & credibility - but until you actually deal with the HISTORICAL FACTS I present that show a different picture, you're unlikely to convince anyone.
Now, tell us why the Warren Commission wanted to seek out the truth, yet were unwilling to have any independent investigators...
Tell us why the Warren Commission refused to allow any cross-examination of eyewitnesses...
Tell us why the Warren Commission called some of the silliest witnesses, and refused to call the most obvious witnesses... (You can start with James Chaney...)
You want to defend the honor of the Warren Commission - YOU'LL HAVE TO EXPLAIN THEIR ACTIONS WHICH SHOW THEM TO BE LESS THAN HONORABLE.
Never made a statement regarding honesty and credibility - just a statement supporting my claim that they began the process LOOKING for a plot.
No, that's simply not true. Anyone can read the tentative outline for the Warren Commission - and note that no such thing was intended.
They NEVER tried to "look for a plot" - you can't cite any evidence that they did.
(03-31-2017, 10:17 PM)Hollywood Wrote: Don't know why they didn't have independent investigators - you don't either. Just suspicions and innuendo.
If they really wanted to do an investigation - they absolutely needed independent investigators - they didn't trust the FBI, yet they ended up relying on them.
And you can't explain that fact...
(03-31-2017, 10:17 PM)Hollywood Wrote: It wasn't a trial so, no cross examination of witnesses.
Doesn't need to be a "trial".
Adversarial process has long been recognized as the best way to arrive at the truth. The Warren Commission was nothing more than a giant prosecution - they CLEARLY had no desire to find the truth. Time and time again a proper cross-examination would have revealed far more than what we know today.
(03-31-2017, 10:17 PM)Hollywood Wrote: Don't know why Chaney wasn't called - you don't either - you ASSUME it was because of the nature of his testimony - don't assume.
I don't need to assume anything. I CAN GIVE A COMPLETELY CREDIBLE & BELIEVABLE REASON WHY CHANEY WASN'T CALLED TO TESTIFY... you cannot. It's really that simple.
Chaney wasn't called because he was a HIGHLY credible witness who would have presented evidence showing a conspiracy.
(03-31-2017, 10:17 PM)Hollywood Wrote: Don't have to explain the actions of anybody - the WC made its case and published it - it's on you to shoot it down
And it's up to you to defend it.
Quite clearly, you're failing so far... and you'd better not get your hopes up... I know the evidence quite well.
(03-31-2017, 10:17 PM)Hollywood Wrote: ... hasn't happened in 54 years so I doubt you'll get anywhere either.
The Warren Commission has been "shot down" so many times that it's difficult to keep score.
I guess it's time to start posting my "Provable Lies Of The Warren Commission" just to see if you have the courage to make any attempt to save the Warren Commission. My prediction in advance: You won't.
(03-31-2017, 10:17 PM)Hollywood Wrote: I've been posting here for a week or two - you seem like a typical, garden variety theorist - no evidence, just quibbling and cherry picking - not impressive. You seem to have an extremely active, disordered imagination - that's typical of theorists too.
Ad hominem is forbidden in this forum... this will be your only warning, in the future, it will simply be removed.
Labeling a poster a "liar" is allowed, if you can quote the lie, and provide the citation showing that it's a lie.
Labeling a poster a "coward" is permitted, if they have been debating a particular topic, and refuse to address the points raised.
That's it.
RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #37 Refuted.
Here lies Hollywood Hayes
Hits and runs, and gone for days
Dilutes the truth in smoggy haze
When will LNers cease cowardly ways?
Hits and runs, and gone for days
Dilutes the truth in smoggy haze
When will LNers cease cowardly ways?
Users browsing this thread: 5 Guest(s)