[miker]

The US Government consists of three, equal, but separate branches. The Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch.

The HSCA is in the Legislative Branch.
The DOJ is the Judical Branch.

Each branch of government can change acts of the other branches.

In this case the HSCA issued a report in 1979. In their report they asked the Judicial Branch to check their work by conducting their own study.

In 1988, the Judicial Branch closed the case and in so doing stated that their is no evidence of a conspiracy.

That is the last word, so far, on this case.

The worst case scenario: it is not clear what is the official stance of the U.S. Government. Since the Legislative Branch asked the Judicial Branch to review their work and the Judicial Branch has issued the last word on this case, I would assume that the official stance of the U.S. Government is that there was no conspiracy in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

[Ben Holmes]

miker Wrote:The US Government consists of three, equal, but separate branches. The Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch.

The HSCA is in the Legislative Branch.
The DOJ is the Judical Branch.

Each branch of government can change acts of the other branches.

In this case the HSCA issued a report in 1979. In their report they asked the Judicial Branch to check their work by conducting their own study.

In 1988, the Judicial Branch closed the case and in so doing stated that their is no evidence of a conspiracy.

That is the last word, so far, on this case.

The worst case scenario: it is not clear what is the official stance of the U.S. Government. Since the Legislative Branch asked the Judicial Branch to review their work and the Judicial Branch has issued the last word on this case, I would assume that the official stance of the U.S. Government is that there was no conspiracy in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

You're lying again.

The HSCA did NOT ask the DOJ to "review their work". And, per the forum regulations about citing the evidence that someone has just lied, here's what the HSCA asked the DOJ: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0008a.htm">http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/ ... _0008a.htm</a><!-- m -->

Nor can the DOJ, absent an investigation as extensive as the one done by Congress, create a new Government stance on the issue.

And the question STILL remains unanswered... why do believers virtually always cite the Warren Commission, and pretend that the HSCA didn't replace the official Government stance on this issue?

[Ben Holmes]

miker Wrote:The US Government consists of three, equal, but separate branches. The Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch.

The HSCA is in the Legislative Branch.
The DOJ is the Judical Branch.

Each branch of government can change acts of the other branches.

In this case the HSCA issued a report in 1979. In their report they asked the Judicial Branch to check their work by conducting their own study.

In 1988, the Judicial Branch closed the case and in so doing stated that their is no evidence of a conspiracy.

That is the last word, so far, on this case.

The worst case scenario: it is not clear what is the official stance of the U.S. Government. Since the Legislative Branch asked the Judicial Branch to review their work and the Judicial Branch has issued the last word on this case, I would assume that the official stance of the U.S. Government is that there was no conspiracy in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Despite your desperate struggles to avoid the facts... the question STILL remains unanswered.

Why do believers invariably refer to the Warren Commission, and virtually ignore the HSCA's investigation?

[miker]

First of all, I am not desperate, you are and I think the readers can see that.

Second, why do YOU avoid the HSCA?

When I was choosing my status from your list of options I was looking for one that said "HSCA critic". But I did not see one. You only provided, WCR Critic, WCR Supporter or Fence Sitter.

Since I am a HSCA critic I was going to send you a PM asking you to add that as an option. But since you refused my recommendation for a sub forum for Photographic Analysis I figured you would think that I was trying to interfere too much so I did not send you that PM.

But, alas, it worked out that way anyway so I am going to ask you now, would you please provide an option for "HSCA critic" in your status option list.

[Ben Holmes]

Found on the Amazon Forums:

Quote:You have to have the shortest memory of anyone ever to post on these threads. I've told you so many times the case for Oswald has been made. Anyone taking the case that Oswald was the lone shooter is using the very same resources. No one is trying to reinvent what has already been decided.

If the case has been made, why can't believers support that case? Factoid after factoid gets posted by critics, and believers simply presume that their case is still strong. Of course, it never was... public opinion demonstrates that.

Quote:You can claim it has never been decided, but that just shows the level of nonsense you are willing to post. The burden is for you to show a conspiracy of who shot JFK and who was involved if you don't agree with the official conclusions.

The official conclusion is "probable conspiracy". That's established fact.

Quote:Yet every so many posts you will start crying someone hasn't provided proof Oswald was the lone shooter. If that is the case it is only because you don't know the basic resources for this case. And if you don't know that much then you are in over your head trying to post here.

Such a statement can only be cause for amusement! The quote comes from someone who virtually never cites evidence, or debates actual evidence in this case.

I ask again, why is the HSCA just about unknown among believers, and the WCR virtually the only thing ever cited or referred to?

[miker]

You are being completely dis-respectful to the members of YOUR forum when you use it to attack people on the Amazon site.

Reply to the people at Amazon on Amazon.

If the only intent of this forum is for you to use it as your own personal playground then put that in the rules so people know what they are are joining when they join.

If you continue to administer this "forum" in the manner you are trying to do it, you will never get many members and the forum will not succeed.

[Ben Holmes]

miker Wrote:First of all, I am not desperate, you are and I think the readers can see that.

Second, why do YOU avoid the HSCA?

I have a long record of posts about the HSCA online.

miker Wrote:When I was choosing my status from your list of options I was looking for one that said "HSCA critic". But I did not see one. You only provided, WCR Critic, WCR Supporter or Fence Sitter.

Perhaps a valid criticism... but the question I posed still remains unanswered... why do believers almost totally ignore the HSCA and constantly refer back to the WCR?

miker Wrote:Since I am a HSCA critic I was going to send you a PM asking you to add that as an option. But since you refused my recommendation for a sub forum for Photographic Analysis I figured you would think that I was trying to interfere too much so I did not send you that PM.

But, alas, it worked out that way anyway so I am going to ask you now, would you please provide an option for "HSCA critic" in your status option list.

If you can offer a reason for such a suggestion, sure.

But the term "WCR Critic" implies "HSCA Critic" as well... since it's just about impossible to be a critic of the Warren Commission without ALSO being a critic of the HSCA.

But since you claim to be a critic of the HSCA... what are your views of the HSCA lying about the medical testimony?

In particular:

HSCA Wrote:In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted in the photographs; none had differing accounts.

Can you publicly state that this is a lie?

[miker]

You have a very narrow view of this case , in my opinion. Admittedly I know very little about you but that is the impression I am getting.

First of all the term WCR critic does not imply HSCA critic.

You are the administrator of this forum, I am not going to argue with you about YOUR DEFINITIONS of things.

You don't make sense. First you wonder why people don't criticize the HSCA and then you tell me that criticizing the WCR is the same as criticizing the HSCA. You are not consistent Ben. I was expecting more from you but I think was expecting too much.

[Garry Puffer]

miker Wrote:The US Government consists of three, equal, but separate branches. The Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch.

The HSCA is in the Legislative Branch.
The DOJ is the Judical [sic] Branch.

Each branch of government can change acts of the other branches.

I simply do not believe this. Could you cite the U.S. Constitutions for this please. I think your idea of checks and balances is a little skewed, but maybe I'm mistaken. Please quote the appropriate section.

[Ben Holmes]

miker Wrote:You have a very narrow view of this case , in my opinion. Admittedly I know very little about you but that is the impression I am getting.

First of all the term WCR critic does not imply HSCA critic.

You are the administrator of this forum, I am not going to argue with you about YOUR DEFINITIONS of things.

You don't make sense. First you wonder why people don't criticize the HSCA and then you tell me that criticizing the WCR is the same as criticizing the HSCA. You are not consistent Ben. I was expecting more from you but I think was expecting too much.

The objective of "Fence Sitter," "WCR Critic," and "Supporter" is quite basic.

It's to label the various members very quickly as to their basic beliefs in this case.

To label someone a "HSCA critic" is rather nonsensical.

Notice, for example, that you wish to assert that you're a critic of the HSCA - yet when I cited a BLATANT LIE on their part, you refused to even talk about it.

Here it is again:

Ben Holmes Wrote:But since you claim to be a critic of the HSCA... what are your views of the HSCA lying about the medical testimony?

In particular:

HSCA Wrote:In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted in the photographs; none had differing accounts.

Can you publicly state that this is a lie?

And clearly, you're refusing to do so.

So you are not a critic of the HSCA in any traditionally accepted sense. My prediction is that you're really simply a supporter of the WCR, and wish to only "criticize" the "probable conspiracy" portion of the HSCA.

You want to fly under false colors...

You don't want your basic assumptions of the correctness of the Warren Commission to be known.

Time will tell if my prediction is correct.