JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate

The Warren Commission Sham

<< < (12/53) > >>

Dan O'meara:

--- Quote from: Tom Graves on March 28, 2025, 09:27:24 AM ---O'meara,

Does Vladimir Putin pay you, or do you do it for free?

--- End quote ---

 ;D

Tommy the Commie strikes again!

Jack Nessan:

--- Quote from: Dan O'meara on March 28, 2025, 10:43:24 AM ---I wish the theorists would tell us the relevance of the many inconsistencies they cite in the Kennedy case instead of feeling that the inconsistencies are an end in themselves and nothing else has to be shown or argued.

I need to explain the relevance of the Warren Commission ignoring vital evidence in a thread entitled "The Warren Commission Sham"?
Really?

The Warren Commission was a fake investigation in that the result of the investigation had been determined before the investigation had even begun.
Oswald was the lone assassin. Hoover had determined this outcome less than 48 hours after the assassination.
The point of the Warren Commission was to construct the Oswald-Did-It narrative from the available evidence and testimonies.
This thread is going to be a compilation of the evidence/testimonies the Warren Commission had to ignore/manipulate/fabricate in order to make the Oswald-Did-It narrative work.

The discovery of lunch remains on top of the SN had to be ignored because it indicated someone other than Oswald had their lunch in the SN.
To suggest the officers lied in their testimonies and the reports they made the day after the assassination is as wild as any Tinfoil nonsense.

The fabrication of Charles Givens' 'return to the 6th floor' while ignoring the testimonies/statements of the floor-laying crew and Eddie Piper had to be done in order to create a window of opportunity for Oswald to assemble the rifle and prepare the SN. Any testimony showing that Oswald had actually come down to the first floor had to be ignored but worse than that was the fabrication of the Givens nonsense so they could say that the last employee saw Oswald on the 6th floor somewhere near the southeast corner.

The testimony of Arnold Rowland had to be discredited. His observation of the man with the rifle on the 6th floor destroyed the narrative the WC was trying to build. The sleight of hand the WC used to side-step this damning evidence demonstrates the depths they were willing to sink to in order to make the Oswald-Did-It narrative work.

The testimony of Vicki Adams also had to be discredited. This was done by stating an outright lie in the Report - that Lovelady had seen Adams on the first floor when he entered the building (Lovelady had said no such thing). They also ignored the blatant lie both Shelley and Lovelady introduced about Baker and Truly not entering the TSBD building for at least 3 minutes. The Commission knew this was a lie as they had conducted there own time trials showing Baker and Truly entered the building within seconds.

Then there is the manipulation of evidence such as CE399. Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley all refused to identify CE399 as the bullet they handled that day. CE399 was entered into evidence as the bullet found in Parkland "subject to further proof". This proof never materialized and was never going to materialize. It was entered into evidence without being identified by anyone. The most startling aspect of this is the testimony of Darrell Tomlinson, the man who discovered the bullet - he was not asked a single question about the bullet itself. Not one. Even though it was a chance to finally identify CE399 he wasn't shown the bullet or a picture of it or even asked to describe it.

And then there is the mystery of Day's missing palmprint. How was it that the palmprint and black powder on the barrel of the rifle when Day sent it away had completely disappeared by the time it reached Latona? The way this issue was side-stepped reveals more deception.

These are a few things off the top of my head and that's without getting into the witnesses who should have been called.
The Warren Commission was a pantomime of deception. The illusion of an investigation attempting to uncover the truth about the assassination.
If it was the case that Oswald was the lone assassin then none of this deception would have been necessary. It would have been a simple story revealed by a straight forward investigation.
That the Warren Commission Report is rife with deception tells it's own story.

--- End quote ---

Explain again how you know the chicken bones were BRW’s. Bear in mind Mr. Shelley stated where he saw the lunch in the third aisle, and he also shed light on the whole chicken lunch story. As in:
 “ Mr. SHELLEY - .... those colored boys are always eating chicken.”

Nice recap of all of the other failed attempts to prove the WC was misleading the world.

Lance Payette:

--- Quote from: Dan O'meara on March 28, 2025, 09:06:21 AM ---Alyea reporting lunch remains on the 5th floor has no bearing on the testimonies/statements of the six officers who discovered lunch remains on the 6th floor.
It is irrational and desperate to suggest otherwise.
There is zero uncertainty as to where these officers discovered the lunch remains,
Suggesting otherwise is also desperate and irrational.
To suggest that the WC did not ignore the testimonies/statements of these officers regarding the discovery of the lunch remains is also desperate and irrational.
These officers collectively report lunch remains discovered on the Sniper's Nest - fact.
This vitally important evidence is ignored by the WC - fact.
It's a disgrace and is just one example of the deception contained in the Warren Commission Report.

As a Lone Nutter all your eggs are in the Warren Commission basket.
All of them.
Your willingness to suggest these officers were lying is a symptom of the corner you have painted yourself into.

--- End quote ---
You actually cannot see that you are making no sense?

Alyea was a respected local photographer. He had utterly no agenda to lie about anything. He insists the lunch remains were, in fact, found on the 5th floor, which just happens to be where BRW first said he ate lunch. He suggests the officers' heard an erroneous newscast saying the 6th floor, put this in their reports, and then maintained the fiction. If true - and we'll never know, but Alyea was credible and adamant - your "facts" go poof. Moreover, as Bugliosi points out, the totality of the descriptions apart from Alyea do not place the remains where you would like them to be but rather where BRW subsequently said he left them.

In addition, as Bugliosi points out, the lunch remains, even if on the 6th floor, are of no clear significance. You are doing exactly what Bugliosi described - assigning significance to an inconsistency in the evidence while being unable to explain why it is significant. Contrary to your narrative, the WC did not ignore the inconsistency but attempted to resolve it and then left it in the record for all to see. The HSCA likewise failed to see the significance you now see. As a reasonably sane and rational individual, it is difficult for me even to hypothesize any particular significance. And yet, this nothingburger is your lead story for the WC being a sham!

I have a difficult time believing, since I do see intelligence in your posts, that you actually cannot see the absurdity in ones like I have quoted here. "No bearing," "irrational," "desperate," "zero uncertainty," "fact" - come on, you know every one of these statements is false.

In what corner of the LN narrative does this silly issue fit? Wouldn't the WC and the LN community presumably have preferred a consistent narrative with the lunch remains either being found on the 5th floor or where BRW subsequently said, at some distance from the SN? Why would the "sham" WC not have simply cleaned up the issue instead of leaving it for all to see? Like so many CT efforts, yours just makes no sense at all, and you seemingly don't care.

Jake Maxwell:
If I were accused of a crime and my attorney learned that there were memos on file showing that the Chief of Police "ordered" and "exerted pressure" on the police department to "quickly" complete its investigation, so they could issue a public report stating that I was guilty of the crime... AND my attorney didn't see these memos as probable evidence the police department was trying to cover up something, and didn't use this to argue in court for my innocence...

Well... I'll let you come up with the appropriate words to describe my attorney....


This is exactly what FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover did, just hours following the assassination... he "exerted pressure" on his bureau to "quickly" complete the investigation in order to quickly issue a public statement asserting Oswald's guilt...

I'll let you come up with the appropriate words to describe Hoover... and those who believe his report...

Lance Payette:

--- Quote from: Jake Maxwell on March 28, 2025, 03:21:57 PM ---If I were accused of a crime and my attorney learned that there were memos on file showing that the Chief of Police "ordered" and "exerted pressure" on the police department to "quickly" complete its investigation, so they could issue a public report stating that I was guilty of the crime... AND my attorney didn't see these memos as probable evidence the police department was trying to cover up something, and didn't use this to argue in court for my innocence...

Well... I'll let you come up with the appropriate words to describe my attorney....


This is exactly what FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover did, just hours following the assassination... he "exerted pressure" on his bureau to "quickly" complete the investigation in order to quickly issue a public statement asserting Oswald's guilt...

I'll let you come up with the appropriate words to describe Hoover... and those who believe his report...


--- End quote ---

No one is going to argue that Hoover was a saint. For purely personal reasons (i.e., LBJ was a friend and there would be no forced retirement, as well as his disdain for JFK and RFK), I'm sure he shed no tears after the assassination.

HOWEVER, it is entirely possible to put a different spin on your facts. Because of the state of relations with Russia and Cuba, and Oswald's obvious connections to both, the public leaping to a conclusion of conspiracy and demanding retribution (and the military being only too happy to provide it) was a very legitimate fear. It is not at all implausible that this was an immediate fear on the part of LBJ (as he said it was) and that he would convey this to Hoover (as he did). LBJ used this fear to convince Earl Warren to head the WC (and reportedly brought Warren to tears in so doing).

The Katzenbach memo and Hoover's statements just days after the assassination can be viewed in this non-conspiratorial light: It was important to convince the public that Oswald had acted alone to forestall any public outcry about a conspiracy - not to mention the fact that the evidence did tend to suggest he had, and he was dead anyway. Katzenbach specifically expressed concern in his memo because the public outcry was already starting. I tend to believe this is what the "wrap it up and convince the public stuff" was all about.

Are you aware that in documents released in 1977 Hoover (who died in 1972) was revealed to have expressed deep concern about a possible conspiracy. He didn't doubt the LN scenario as far as Dealey Plaza was concerned, but he was very concerned that Cuba was involved. The FBI had received letters - hoaxes, as Hoover suspected - pointing toward Cuban involvement. This NY Times article summarizes the documents: https://www.nytimes.com/1977/12/08/archives/hoover-was-certain-oswald-was-killer-fbi-files-dont-dispute-finding.html.

I quote:

"Two weeks after John F, Kennedy's death, J. Edgar Hoover was convinced that Lee Harvey Oswald had killed the President, but he wondered whether Oswald had had help from secret conspirators in Cuba, according to bureau files released today. The documents show that Mr. Hoover had concluded within hours of Kennedy's death that Oswald had fired the fatal bullets. But the agency later obtained letters written to Oswald from Cuba, and those messages raised the questions about conspiracy that linger to this day."

"Because of the letters and the difficulty in checking their validity, Mr. Hoover, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, said, 'I urged strongly that we not reach the conclusion Oswald was the only man.'"

...

"But on Dec. 12, Mr. Hoover confided to his chief aides that he was troubled by the conspiracy questions and was unsure how to resolve them. Reporting on a conversation with a caller, he wrote: 'I said I personally believe Oswald was the assassin; that the second aspect as to whether he was the only man gives me great concern; that we have several letters ... written to him from Cuba referring to the job he was going to do, his good marksmanship and stating when it was all over, he would be brought back to Cuba and presented to the chief."

"Some of the F.B.I. memos suggest that Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, then the Deputy Attorney General, was putting pressure on the bureau for a prompt public announcement that Oswald, acting alone, was the assassin. Three days after the assassination, he wrote the bureau to express concern about the growing rumors of conspiracy and said that it was important to satisfy the public that Oswald was the assassin and that no conspirators were still at large."

I believe there was (1) an immediate "public face" that Oswald was the lone assassin for the reasons stated above, (2) lingering concern about a possible conspiracy as described by the NY Times; and (3) a more legitimate investigation by the time of the WC, perhaps with a predisposition toward the LN scenario. I don't think the situation is as black-and-white, good-vs.-evil as CTers would like to make it.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page