[Hollywood]

(03-31-2017, 03:26 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(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.

 "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.

---

(03-31-2017, 04:25 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  

(03-31-2017, 03:26 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(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.

 "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.

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)