|
Post by twik on Dec 19, 2011 10:33:41 GMT -4
In case you missed it spectre was the prosecutor and he requested evidence in a murder trial, the state or the people in control said no. Please don't suggest Warren commission was not a murder trial, it found Oswald guilty if JFK assassination, by definition that was a verdict hence a trial. You clearly have no idea about the meaning of words, or else, like Humpty Dumpty, you intend to make them bend to your will and no one else's. A criminal trial is not the only thing that can return a verdict.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 19, 2011 11:03:06 GMT -4
The point is congress had to do an independent inquiry into the JFK assassination. They failed to do their job.I'm confused. This sounds like you are saying Congress didn't do an investigation. When the other day you said they did. I wonder if one might guess why congress investigated the assassination. Please clarify. And tell us why the Warren Commissions bipartisan inclusion of two senators and two representatives was insufficient. Think about the fact that the nation demanded justice, but we allowed the one man who gained the most from the assassination to put Oswald on trial for murder.Speculation and an after the fact rationalization. Please show this to be a fact. Then show what ever gains you are suggesting were in fact a motivation for Johnson. This is typical hoax proponent cart before the horse thinking, to assign a hypothetical motivation as evidence of a crime. That is you have to show Johnson was part of a conspiracy before his motives have any relevance. If you believe the Warren commission was fair...Please tell me who was the lawyer for the defense, who was the lawyer for Oswald?Oswald was dead, therefore not a defendant on trial. There was no need for criminal defense representation. If you believe that the Warren commission has told you the entire truth, you are ignoring a ginormous amount of evidence that does not support the Warren commission conspiracy report. Shifting the burden of proof. The matter has been investigated several times by experts in the field who have come to the same conclusion. The dissent comes from critics who have little experience in forensic investigations with no consensus among them. You'll have to do better than that. Are you are saying you have complete trust in LBJ?
I am saying to you, LBJ's nature is reported to have been corrupt, including connections to multiple murders, why would I trust this man? Nor can I comprehend why any one would. if I wouldn't trust him before he was president why would I trust him once he became president? Typical hoax believer thinking. Focus on "trust" rather than addressing the facts. It is a method designed only to raise doubt, not to enlighten. Your focus on LBJ is interesting. As is your working so hard to make him the unseen manipulator of all things associated with the assassination. To bad for you its all hypothetical rather than factual. How about you put forward an alternate theory that fully addresses the facts of the case and shows how the other investigations missed relevant details. That is what real researchers do.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 19, 2011 11:51:48 GMT -4
you may sooner or later start to wonder how controlled our news media is. "According to the 1976 Church committee's final report, approximately fifty U.S. Journalists had covert relationships with the CIA, about half of which involved money. Watergate investigative reporter Carl Bernstein charged that the total number of U.S. journalists who worked for the CIA was actually much higher."400 was considered a low estimate. If you control the news you control the information, you control the dialog, you can write the history. Yawn! So show us how the reporting on JFK was compromised by some supposed CIA connections, specifically. Raising suspicion is not the same as showing something occurred.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Dec 19, 2011 12:30:52 GMT -4
The non-capitalized word "spectre" usually refers to a ghost. The former senator who was part of the Warren Commission is named Arlen Specter.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Dec 19, 2011 13:00:55 GMT -4
echnaton again you just skip past the most important facts that concern a selected commission and controlled evidence. congress did do an investiagation in 1976 and what did they conclude "I.C. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy." Yes, and it has since been found that that was due to belief in ONE piece of evidence (the audio recording that turned out was taken at the wrong time and place). When that is removed, the 1976 commission has no evidence to support their conclusion. Note that they never felt they had evidence against a particular person or group, and relied on the "fact" (which turned out to be untrue) that there was evidence of a fourth shot. I hope you never get on a jury, playdor. Gasp! LBJ met with another important political figure! Well, that PROVES it. Because they wouldn't have possibly been talking about the normal stuff that people trying to run a country talk about.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Dec 19, 2011 13:45:31 GMT -4
twik why is it that the important point is ignored. You are hardly one to criticise for that, given how many things you have ignored in your time on this board. What?! A senior political figure in the government met with some more senior political figures in the government?! Well it must be a conspiracy then, because politicians never get together at any other time to, you know, do their jobs, do they? Prove that was the objective. I say the Warren Commission conducted an enquiry to find out who did it, and Oswald was the prime suspect. What?! The new President appointed a commission to find out who shot the old President? You're kidding!! Oswald was dead. This was not a trial, it was an enquiry. If you don't understand the difference you have no business arguing your case. Ignored or dismissed for lack of corroboration? Statements to trials and enquiries are often dismissed, based on many factors. The mere fact of their dismissal is not evidence of foul play. The findings of the commission you cited as evidence that there was a conspiracy must be questioned based on the critical analysis of the acoustic evidence. Would you care to acknowledge this?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Dec 19, 2011 14:29:04 GMT -4
If you can't say with absolute certainty why they met, then you can't venture a guess, because you don't know. Why is that a valid argument for you to use against those who disagree with you but not for us to use? We are arguing the same point: NONE of us know why they met, but politicians meeting behind closed doors is NOT suspect: it is a common part of their job.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Dec 19, 2011 15:30:15 GMT -4
so exactly why did they meet and what did they discuss behind closed doors? Well, the number of possibilities OTHER than planning an assassination are, well, about infinite. Probably talked about a Bill of some sort, and whether the Republicans would support it or fight it. I think you're a little unclear on the "burden of proof" thing. Honestly, if you were on a jury, would you be swayed by, "someone short of cash and one of the bank guards met the evening before the bank was robbed. Unless they can prove they DIDN'T talk about robbing the bank, they're clearly guilty."
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 19, 2011 17:11:58 GMT -4
The fact is, the burden of proof is the same regardless of who is on trial for what. That means you aren't allowed to just say "well, the evidence was changed." You have to prove that. If you can't, no one has to take your claim that it was seriously.
LBJ was corrupt in the grand tradition of Texas politics, but the claim that the Warren Commission must therefore have been as well implies that LBJ had anything to do with its day-to-day operation, and he simply didn't. He was busy running the country at the time, and it's certainly not as though he didn't know that there was a conflict of interest. Besides, if Texas politics were really as corrupt as all that, wouldn't Texas politicians be dropping like flies?
And honestly, it's quite likely that LBJ did know about the one lie in the autopsy report--JFK's health--and thought it was possible he might just die of preexisting conditions.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 19, 2011 18:52:24 GMT -4
we are talking about an assassination of a president. Quite to the contrary. We are talking about history. The history of an assassination. This is an examination of documents to be done on the terms of investigative principles of historical scholarship. Under those terms and all other relevant investigative methods that I am aware of, that leaves the burden of proof with the presenter. That is you, playdor. If you want to make the case that this meeting had some sinister content, you need to show that it was true. Casting doubt on the investigators at the time only works if you can show that the were incompetent or deceived about the matter, neither of which you have done. Your post hoc criticism of an investigation, done without out any relevant experience to refer to makes your critique immediately dismissible without further concern. Your attempts to date have been little more than innuendo and guilt by association. Having abandoned your swindler as a reliable testimony, your next best source is taken from a out of print local interest magazine from Philadelphia. Hardly a place to look for reliable information on the event in question and conveniently unavailable for anyone else to check up on. Your methods, shall we say, lack rigor.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Dec 19, 2011 19:45:15 GMT -4
yes the same man who as vice president was under investigation for corruption and links to murders...what happened to that investigation? Irrelevant. Any new President coming into office because his predecessor was killed would be expected to set up a commission to investigate that death, so the fact that LBJ did so is in no way suspect, no matter how many times you say it is.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 19, 2011 20:51:28 GMT -4
echnaton so the possibility of the assassination of JFK being a coup, can not be seriously considered because it was never investigated at the time? so we can only discuss the evidence detailed in the Warren commission report, even after having presented evidence that proves the warren commission was denied access to vital evidence, that evidence was altered and that evidence was hidden? Saying this is a historical investigation is merely to frame the discussion by pointing out that it is not a murder investigation. That is we cannot recreate what investigators did at the time. I am saying is what we have been saying all along. That to prove the accusation, you have the burden of proof. You have to show, not just claim, that the original investigation was wrong. You have to provide the evidence they missed. you have to .... etc. Your innuendo, guilt by association and question begging will not do the job among real investigators.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Dec 19, 2011 20:51:51 GMT -4
so exactly why did they meet and what did they discuss behind closed doors? There are an infinite number of possibilities. Why have you chosen to believe one specific possibility over all of the others?
|
|
|
Post by twik on Dec 20, 2011 0:17:09 GMT -4
So, playdor, you said that any enquiry with a verdict was a "trial". With regards to the House Committee investigation, who did they "convict"? Other than concluding that, although they had no idea who was responsible, that the (now discredited) audio evidence led them to believe that someone must have done it, since they (mistakenly) thought that there had been four shots, not three.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Dec 20, 2011 4:30:37 GMT -4
the warren commission was a trial in every respect, except there was not anyone present for the defense of Oswald. Then by definition it was not a trial. The word 'trial' literally requires three participants: prosecutor, defendant and arbiter. There was no such structure, therefore this was not a trial. history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0048a.htmThere you go. The section of the HSCA report that refers to the acoustical evidence. The only part of said report that refers to any evidence that Oswald was not the only gunman. Go and look it up. There has been much made of it in the past few years. I heard about it eight years ago. First show that there should be one. The committee was dissolved after the report was published. If you don't expect the findings of the HSCA to result in a retraction or alteration of the Warren Commission report, why should you expect such a retraction or alteration of the HSCA report? Because, as usual, you only want reality to conform to your expectations.
|
|