[Ben Holmes]

renevil Wrote:I actually thought that the HSCA stated in their conclusion.....

"Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that at least two gunmen fired at the President. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations."

They don't have a sole reliance on acoustical evidence, just that it establishes a high probability at least 2 gunmen fired at the President. It clearly states that, "Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President"

The thing that is of most interest to me though is the wording within their conclusion....

Firstly, they state that the acoustic evidence establishes a high probability of AT LEAST 2 gunmen. Why the, "AT LEAST"? I thought they were saying it was Oswald with 3 shots from the TSBD and 1 unknown from behind the picket fence that missed! Surely the wording should be, "a high probability of 2 gunmen"

While I can't presume to tell you their logic, the evidence they had showed a minimum of two gunmen, but didn't refute the possibility of more. I think the HSCA was simply hedging their statement ... in order to appear accurate as more information comes out. Interestingly, there's still quite a bit of testimony sealed, so the HSCA knew things that they aren't telling us.

renevil Wrote:Secondly, they state, "The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy." Again, that is strangely worded for a Committee that is stating that "probably" 2 shooters had fired at JFK. Why do they say, "the other gunMEN" and not, "the other gunMAN"?

I am from the UK and it may just simply be down to the differences in the way we explain things here compared to the US but it seems to me that they had a very begrudgingly limited hangout in suggesting a second shooter but word it as if there could have been more than 2 gunmen.

Plural of gunman is gunmen... nothing more to it than that.

renevil Wrote:Am I right in saying nothing was allowed to be published unless it had the OK from the CIA?

I'd suspect that you're referring to evidential material provided by the CIA. The CIA had no control over anything else.