DUH, why not state the obviousOriginally Posted by LuvRPgrl
In particular, the various investigations performed by the U.S. government were faulted for insufficient consideration of the possibility of a conspiracy in each case. The Committee in its report also made recommendations for legislative and administrative improvements, including making some assassinations Federal crimes.
The Chief Counsel of the Committee later changed his views that the CIA was being cooperative and forthcoming with the investigation when he learned that the CIA's special liaison to the Committee researchers, George Joannides, was actually involved with some of the organizations that Lee Harvey Oswald was involved with in the months leading up to the assassination, including an anti-Castro group, the DRE, which was linked to the CIA, where the liaison, Joannides, worked in 1963. Chief Counsel Blakey later stated that Joannides, instead, should have been interviewed by the Committee, rather than serving as a gatekeeper to the CIA's evidence and files regarding the assassination. He further disregarded and suspected all the CIA's statements and representations to the Committee, accusing it of obstruction of justice. [2]Try a dictionary, look up the word MIGHT, when you claim something might have happened or might not have happened it is by definition NOT a certainty..
Thanks for your OPINION
You should apply your statement to Ruby , his motive for shooting oswald is weak at best.
foul play, actually in most cases yes.
Apparentlly the HSCA disagrees with you
Again, they disagree
Under such circumstances the question is not how can one prove he acted alone but instead what proof is there of a conspiracy. The answer is none..[/QUOTE]Wrong
repeating yourself doesnt make it true.[/QUOTE]
- Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that at least two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations.
- 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. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy.
You need to grasp the difference between facts and opinion it is you presenting opiniond I presnted facts.
No one is able to fault the various investigations as you claim with any evidence.
The fact is the ibvestigated the possibility of conspiracy to an exhaustive degree and the only people challenging that fact ( without proof ) is theorists who wish to sell books.
If you ignore facts I presented than it bears repeating and you have.
The final REVISED report of the HSCA has been debunked and proven wrong. The acoustic evidence used to reach that conclusion was ruined by the necessary conditions which were placed on the evidence by the very experts who found and presented the evidence.
This evidence was a recording of the sounds picked up by a motorcycle officer who'se shoulder mic was stuck in the transmit position. In order to determine where the shots came from the acoustics experts stated that the specific officer HAD to be located in a two meter circle near the intersection of Elm and Houston Streets. Unfortunately it was later determined he was no where near that two meter circle he was in fact at the coner of MAin and Houston Streets when the shooing ended. This is proven by photographs which showthe officer in that position as the limo was entering the underpassby which time of course all shooting had stopped.. In addtion many other experts dispute these findings for the simple reason that no gun shots are heard on the recording and such recordings easily and clearly pick up gun shots as distinct sounds.
The final report was revised based on the acoustic evidence and no other evidence. Since the evidence is proven false so is the final report. The original report BTW stated the fact that there is no evidence of a conspiracy. And that fact stioll stands.
I stated the obvious because you seem to ignore it. Motive is not enough to prove murder or conspiracy. Those with the most to gain in ANY murder are generally not the guilty party. Once again as you ignored a rich guy dies of foul play they may investigate his heirs but they usually are not guilty. Might haves mean nothing evidence means everything and no evidence supports any conspiracy theory.
Reply With Quote
