JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Colin Crow on May 30, 2019, 11:11:45 AM
-
We all know of the Katzenbach memo......
"J. Edgar Hoover, the director of the FBI when John F. Kennedy was assassinated, was adamant that the American public needed to believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in shooting the president and stated that concern in an internal memo on Nov. 24, 1963—the day Jack Ruby killed Oswald. Hoover said: “There is nothing further on the Oswald case except that he is dead.” Hoover referred to the Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach helping ensure that the public did not believe there was any wider plan to help Oswald: “The thing I am concerned about, and so is Mr. Katzenbach, is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin.”"
https://www.thedailybeast.com/j-edgar-hoover-public-has-to-believe-lee-harvey-oswald-acted-alone (https://www.thedailybeast.com/j-edgar-hoover-public-has-to-believe-lee-harvey-oswald-acted-alone)
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-one-thing-in-politics-most-americans-believe-in-jfk-conspiracies/ (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-one-thing-in-politics-most-americans-believe-in-jfk-conspiracies/)
After 56 years........looks like a solid F to me.
-
We all know of the Katzenbach memo......
"J. Edgar Hoover, the director of the FBI when John F. Kennedy was assassinated, was adamant that the American public needed to believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in shooting the president and stated that concern in an internal memo on Nov. 24, 1963—the day Jack Ruby killed Oswald. Hoover said: “There is nothing further on the Oswald case except that he is dead.” Hoover referred to the Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach helping ensure that the public did not believe there was any wider plan to help Oswald: “The thing I am concerned about, and so is Mr. Katzenbach, is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin.”"
https://www.thedailybeast.com/j-edgar-hoover-public-has-to-believe-lee-harvey-oswald-acted-alone (https://www.thedailybeast.com/j-edgar-hoover-public-has-to-believe-lee-harvey-oswald-acted-alone)
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-one-thing-in-politics-most-americans-believe-in-jfk-conspiracies/ (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-one-thing-in-politics-most-americans-believe-in-jfk-conspiracies/)
After 56 years........looks like a solid F to me.
Let's look at just some of the evidence at that stage.
Oswald was charged with two murders.
It was Oswald's rifle.
Oswald had no alibi.
Oswald lied throughout the interrogation.
Oswald fled in a bus and after being stuck in traffic, he got out and then transferred to a cab.
Oswald lived alone in a rooming house.
Given those facts, it's pretty clear that Oswald did it and the fact that he had no one to help him get outta town, conclusively proves he was a one man show, imo.
JohnM
-
Let's look at just some of the evidence at that stage.
Oswald was charged with two murders.
It was Oswald's rifle.
Oswald had no alibi.
Oswald lied throughout the interrogation.
Oswald fled in a bus and after being stuck in traffic, he got out and then transferred to a cab.
Oswald lived alone in a rooming house.
Given those facts, it's pretty clear that Oswald did it and the fact that he had no one to help him get outta town, conclusively proves he was a one man show, imo.
JohnM
John,,......it’s the majority of the wider public that don’t believe. If Walter and Dan can’t convince them who can? After 56 years no less. JEH placed the essential criteria for success on day 3, now after more than 20,000 days.......the key KPI is still a miss. That’s the fact.
-
It is important that all the facts surrounding President Kennedy's assassination be made public...
(https://i.postimg.cc/Pxzd3RFm/memo.jpg)
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62268#relPageId=29
JohnM
-
It is important that all the facts surrounding President Kennedy's assassination be made public...
(https://i.postimg.cc/Pxzd3RFm/memo.jpg)
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62268#relPageId=29
JohnM
And a big Fail. The numbers don’t lie. It was JEH who set the KPI.
A 4 year investigation conducted a decade after the event concluded.
The responsibility of the Secret Service to investigate the assassination was terminated when the Federal Bureau of Investigation assumed primary investigative responsibility.
The Department of Justice failed to exercise initiative in supervising and directing the investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the assassination.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation performed with varying degrees of competency in the fulfillment of its duties.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation adequately investigated Lee Harvey Oswald prior to the assassination and properly evaluated the evidence it possessed to assess his potential to endanger the public safety in a national emergency.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted a thorough and professional investigation into the responsibility of Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation failed to investigate adequately the possibility of a conspiracy to assassinate the President.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation was deficient in its sharing of information with other agencies and departments.
The Central Intelligence Agency was deficient in its collection and sharing of information both prior to and subsequent to the assassination.
The Warren Commission performed with varying degrees of competency in the fulfillment of its duties.
The Warren Commission conducted a thorough and professional investigation into the responsibility of Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination.
The Warren Commission failed to investigate adequately the possibility of a conspiracy to assassinate the President. This deficiency was attributable in part to the failure of the Commission to receive all the relevant information that was in the possession of other agencies and departments of the Government.
The Warren Commission arrived at its conclusions, based on the evidence available to it, in good faith.
The Warren Commission presented the conclusions in its report in a fashion that was too definitive.
-
And a big Fail. The numbers don’t lie. It was JEH who set the KPI.
A 4 year investigation conducted a decade after the event concluded.
The responsibility of the Secret Service to investigate the assassination was terminated when the Federal Bureau of Investigation assumed primary investigative responsibility.
The Department of Justice failed to exercise initiative in supervising and directing the investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the assassination.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation performed with varying degrees of competency in the fulfillment of its duties.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation adequately investigated Lee Harvey Oswald prior to the assassination and properly evaluated the evidence it possessed to assess his potential to endanger the public safety in a national emergency.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted a thorough and professional investigation into the responsibility of Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation failed to investigate adequately the possibility of a conspiracy to assassinate the President.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation was deficient in its sharing of information with other agencies and departments.
The Central Intelligence Agency was deficient in its collection and sharing of information both prior to and subsequent to the assassination.
The Warren Commission performed with varying degrees of competency in the fulfillment of its duties.
The Warren Commission conducted a thorough and professional investigation into the responsibility of Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination.
The Warren Commission failed to investigate adequately the possibility of a conspiracy to assassinate the President. This deficiency was attributable in part to the failure of the Commission to receive all the relevant information that was in the possession of other agencies and departments of the Government.
The Warren Commission arrived at its conclusions, based on the evidence available to it, in good faith.
The Warren Commission presented the conclusions in its report in a fashion that was too definitive.
What, a government investigation, how can they be trusted?
What's their motivation?
Who's paying for it?
Are they simply pandering to a small but vocal section of the community?
JohnM
-
What, a government investigation, how can they be trusted?
What's their motivation?
Who's paying for it?
Are they simply pandering to a small but vocal section of the community?
JohnM
At least you didn’t raise the dictabelt......but not much of an argument either. Numerous polls over the 56 years prove beyond doubt the failure of the WC. The pas/fail criteria for the WC clearly stated by JEH on 24 November 1963.
-
Let's look at just some of the evidence at that stage.
Oswald was charged with two murders.
This is evidence?
It was Oswald's rifle.
LOL
Oswald had no alibi.
Neither did at least 6 other people in the TSBD alone.
Oswald lied throughout the interrogation.
"Lie" defined as contradicting Mytton's assumptions about what happened.
Oswald fled in a bus and after being stuck in traffic, he got out and then transferred to a cab.
This is "evidence"?
:D
Don't ever serve on a jury.
-
John,,......it’s the majority of the wider public that don’t believe. If Walter and Dan can’t convince them who can? After 56 years no less. JEH placed the essential criteria for success on day 3, now after more than 20,000 days.......the key KPI is still a miss. That’s the fact.
It doesn't matter what the "wider public" believes fifty plus years after the fact. Most don't care who assassinated JFK. Very few could tell you even the most basic facts much less the pedantic details that are agonized over in forums like this one. People believe lots of things that are not true. Polls often show that a majority of people believe in UFOs, ghosts, Bigfoot etc. It's more fun to believe in these things or at least profess a belief than not. Harder to prove the negative with certainty. How many cable TV shows are there about ghosts? If they went ghost hunting every week and never found a ghost, the show wouldn't last very long. The basic evidence in this case is solid. The implications of the alternative narratives are wildly implausible even if there were any credible evidence of a conspiracy. Many people will just never be convinced by any amount of evidence. They need or want a conspiracy. It doesn't matter because those beliefs don't change the facts. Either Oswald pulled the trigger or he did not. The historical truth of which fact is correct is not impacted by how many people believe in one or the other. All the more so when most people expressing an opinion have very little knowledge of the actual evidence.
-
It doesn't matter what the "wider public" believes fifty plus years after the fact. Most don't care who assassinated JFK. Very few could tell you even the most basic facts much less the pedantic details that are agonized over in forums like this one. People believe lots of things that are not true. Polls often show that a majority of people believe in UFOs, ghosts, Bigfoot etc. It's more fun to believe in these things or at least profess a belief than not. Harder to prove the negative with certainty. How many cable TV shows are there about ghosts? If they went ghost hunting every week and never found a ghost, the show wouldn't last very long. The basic evidence in this case is solid. The implications of the alternative narratives are wildly implausible even if there were any credible evidence of a conspiracy. Many people will just never be convinced by any amount of evidence. They need or want a conspiracy. It doesn't matter because those beliefs don't change the facts. Either Oswald pulled the trigger or he did not. The historical truth of which fact is correct is not impacted by how many people believe in one or the other. All the more so when most people expressing an opinion have very little knowledge of the actual evidence.
I believe you will find it is the minority who believe in big foot, flat earth, UFOs (although by definition they are unidentified, I suspect you mean visitors from another world), Bermuda Triangle, fake moon landing etc. Oh and also in that category would be those that believe Oswald acted alone. But don’t let the facts get in the way of your story.
-
I believe you will find it is the minority who believe in big foot, flat earth, UFOs (although by definition they are unidentified, I suspect you mean visitors from another world), Bermuda Triangle, fake moon landing etc. Oh and also in that category would be those that believe Oswald acted alone. But don’t let the facts get in the way of your story.
Oh and also in that category would be those that believe Oswald acted alone. But don’t let the facts get in the way of your story.
Feel free to prove that anyone other than the shooter knew there was going to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day. But don’t let the facts get in the way of your story.
-
I believe you will find it is the minority who believe in big foot, flat earth, UFOs (although by definition they are unidentified, I suspect you mean visitors from another world), Bermuda Triangle, fake moon landing etc. Oh and also in that category would be those that believe Oswald acted alone. But don’t let the facts get in the way of your story.
You are missing the point. If 100 percent of the population believed that Oswald was innocent, that would have no bearing whatsoever on whether he pulled the trigger or not. He either did or didn't back on 11.22. No poll will ever change an historical fact. They also shed very little light on the truth in this case because most of the public has little or no information about the JFK case. I think you will find that among those that believe in fake moon landings etc you will find a much higher percentage of JFK CTers than those who accept the overwhelming evidence of Oswald's guilt. So that is a terrible analogy. And, although they are almost pointless, I believe the recent trend in these polls is a growing acceptance of Oswald's guilt. The truth usually erodes these types of fantasies over time. Consistent with the conclusion of every historian outside the kooky, self-appointed CT "researcher" community.
-
We all know of the Katzenbach memo......
"J. Edgar Hoover, the director of the FBI when John F. Kennedy was assassinated, was adamant that the American public needed to believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in shooting the president and stated that concern in an internal memo on Nov. 24, 1963—the day Jack Ruby killed Oswald. Hoover said: “There is nothing further on the Oswald case except that he is dead.” Hoover referred to the Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach helping ensure that the public did not believe there was any wider plan to help Oswald: “The thing I am concerned about, and so is Mr. Katzenbach, is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin.”"
https://www.thedailybeast.com/j-edgar-hoover-public-has-to-believe-lee-harvey-oswald-acted-alone (https://www.thedailybeast.com/j-edgar-hoover-public-has-to-believe-lee-harvey-oswald-acted-alone)
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-one-thing-in-politics-most-americans-believe-in-jfk-conspiracies/ (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-one-thing-in-politics-most-americans-believe-in-jfk-conspiracies/)
After 56 years........looks like a solid F to me.
The Katzenbach memo is confusing unless one cherrypicks it as you have done here.
-
Oh and also in that category would be those that believe Oswald acted alone. But don’t let the facts get in the way of your story.
Feel free to prove that anyone other than the shooter knew there was going to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day. But don’t let the facts get in the way of your story.
When did Colin ever claim that anyone other than the shooter knew there was going to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day?
How about you feel free to prove that Oswald "probably" shot JFK.
-
You are missing the point. If 100 percent of the population believed that Oswald was innocent, that would have no bearing whatsoever on whether he pulled the trigger or not. He either did or didn't back on 11.22. No poll will ever change an historical fact.
No handwaving suppositional argument will make any of this a "historical fact".
They also shed very little light on the truth in this case because most of the public has little or no information about the JFK case. I think you will find that among those that believe in fake moon landings etc you will find a much higher percentage of JFK CTers than those who accept the overwhelming evidence of Oswald's guilt.
That's an interesting claim. Any evidence to support it?
-
I believe you will find it is the minority who believe in big foot, flat earth, UFOs (although by definition they are unidentified, I suspect you mean visitors from another world), Bermuda Triangle, fake moon landing etc. Oh and also in that category would be those that believe Oswald acted alone. But don’t let the facts get in the way of your story.
On Youtube, after millions of views and thousands of votes the final tally on the following JFK video seems to reflect the polls.
(https://i.postimg.cc/B6SDhQWq/jfk-assassanation.jpg)
Which hilariously is reflected in these video voting results. I wonder how the JFK CT's feel to be standing tall next to the Moon non-believers, Reptile people and Chemtrails? You're all KOOKS!
(https://i.postimg.cc/0jrSsW-2F/chemtrail.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/SR5MN6ns/icke-lizard-poeple.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/DwGq0MdK/nasa.jpg)
JohnM
-
Which hilariously is reflected in these video voting results. I wonder how the JFK CT's feel to be standing tall next to the Moon non-believers, Reptile people and Chemtrails? You're all KOOKS!
Wait....what? Are you trying to claim that the same individual people are making the upvotes on the different videos? I hope not, because that would be an incredibly ridiculous argument.
-
This is evidence?
LOL
Neither did at least 6 other people in the TSBD alone.
"Lie" defined as contradicting Mytton's assumptions about what happened.
This is "evidence"?
:D
Don't ever serve on a jury.
HUH?? You've lost it John, what's any of this got to do with John Mytton in 2019, the point is what they had to work with 2 days later and the case was solid.
The rifle was sent to Oswald's PO Box.
The rifle of the exact same type was photographed with Oswald.
The rifle was missing from the blanket it was held in.
The rifle was found on the 6th floor of Oswald's workplace.
The rifle had fresh fibers which matched the fibers in Oswald's shirt.
Oswald had no alibi, the other 6+ may have had no alibi but they don't tick the other boxes, see how this works John?
Oswald's desperate attempt of flight out of Dallas.
Oswald being positively identified as the Man who shot a Police Officer.
The shells at scene that were seen being dropped by Oswald was exclusively matched to Oswald's revolver.
Oswald owned the revolver.
Oswald dropped his Jacket in a car park, clearly trying to change his appearance.
When arrested Oswald punched a cop and tried to shoot him.
Oswald lied about owning the rifle.
Oswald lied about the contents of the package.
Oswald lied about where he placed the package.
Oswald lied about the backyard photographs.
And this is just a partial list off the top of my head, what other conclusion could they have come up with?
JohnM
-
Wait....what? Are you trying to claim that the same individual people are making the upvotes on the different videos? I hope not, because that would be an incredibly ridiculous argument.
???
How the Feck did you come to that conclusion?
The numbers speak for themselves, you and all your friends are extremely gullible and not incredibly bright.
JohnM
-
HUH?? You've lost it John, what's any of this got to do with John Mytton in 2019, the point is what they had to work with 2 days later and the case was solid.
The rifle was sent to Oswald's PO Box.
There's no evidence that this particular rifle went through the postal system, was delivered to any particular PO box, or was ever picked up by Oswald or anyone else.
The rifle of the exact same type was photographed with Oswald.
There's no evidence that the rifle in the photograph is the "exact same type". What does that even mean?
The rifle was missing from the blanket it was held in.
There's no evidence that this particular rifle was ever in that particular blanket.
The rifle was found on the 6th floor of Oswald's workplace.
Not sure what you think this is evidence of.
The rifle had fresh fibers which matched the fibers in Oswald's shirt.
Which couldn't be conclusively matched to any particular shirt. And where did you get "fresh fibers" from?
Oswald had no alibi, the other 6+ may have had no alibi but they don't tick the other boxes, see how this works John?
Yes they do. It was their workplace too.
Oswald's desperate attempt of flight out of Dallas.
No evidence of any desperation.
Oswald being positively identified as the Man who shot a Police Officer.
In unfair, biased lineups. But that tells you nothing about who shot JFK anyway.
The shells at scene that were seen being dropped by Oswald was exclusively matched to Oswald's revolver.
No, the shells that were claimed to have come from the scene were matched to a revolver which was claimed to be Oswald's.
Oswald owned the revolver.
No evidence of that.
Oswald dropped his Jacket in a car park, clearly trying to change his appearance.
No evidence that this was Oswald's jacket or that he dropped it there.
When arrested Oswald punched a cop and tried to shoot him.
No, Oswald tried to defend himself from an illegal search and there is no evidence whatsoever that he tried to shoot anyone in the theater. Claims aren't evidence.
Oswald lied about owning the rifle.
Preassumes that Oswald owned the rifle.
Oswald lied about the contents of the package.
Preassumes that you know the contents of the package.
Oswald lied about where he placed the package.
Preassumes that you know where he placed the package, and that you know what he said during interrogation.
Oswald lied about the backyard photographs.
Preassumes that you know what he said during interrogation and that you know the photographs are legitimate.
This isn't a "solid case", it's hyperbolic rhetoric.
-
How the Feck did you come to that conclusion?
The numbers speak for themselves, you and all your friends are extremely gullible and not incredibly bright.
What gives you the idea that me and all of my friends watched and upvoted even one of these videos much less all of them? You're making even less sense than usual.
-
What gives you the idea that me and all of my friends watched and upvoted even one of these videos much less all of them? You're making even less sense than usual.
As I said, not incredibly bright. LOL™
JohnM
-
HUH?? You've lost it John, what's any of this got to do with John Mytton in 2019, the point is what they had to work with 2 days later and the case was solid.
The rifle was sent to Oswald's PO Box.
The rifle of the exact same type was photographed with Oswald.
The rifle was missing from the blanket it was held in.
The rifle was found on the 6th floor of Oswald's workplace.
The rifle had fresh fibers which matched the fibers in Oswald's shirt.
Oswald had no alibi, the other 6+ may have had no alibi but they don't tick the other boxes, see how this works John?
Oswald's desperate attempt of flight out of Dallas.
Oswald being positively identified as the Man who shot a Police Officer.
The shells at scene that were seen being dropped by Oswald was exclusively matched to Oswald's revolver.
Oswald owned the revolver.
Oswald dropped his Jacket in a car park, clearly trying to change his appearance.
When arrested Oswald punched a cop and tried to shoot him.
Oswald lied about owning the rifle.
Oswald lied about the contents of the package.
Oswald lied about where he placed the package.
Oswald lied about the backyard photographs.
And this is just a partial list off the top of my head, what other conclusion could they have come up with?
JohnM
Even if just a partial list............ guilty as charged.
-
Even if just a partial list............ guilty as charged.
I gather you are another of the 30% or so that were convinced. After 56 years, surely your group must be frustrated to be still in the minority. After all the forum postings, TV specials, books, seems people are pretty much stuck in their ways.
-
I gather you are another of the 30% or so that were convinced. After 56 years, surely your group must be frustrated to be still in the minority. After all the forum postings, TV specials, books, seems people are pretty much stuck in their ways.
Again, the truth is not dependent on how many people believe in something. It is a matter of facts and evidence. And those who make the "TV specials" and write the "books" typically know more about the case than the random public. I wouldn't be surprised if half of the public couldn't even name the city in which JFK was assassinated. It would be like asking people for their opinion on how a nuclear reactor works and then concluding that has some bearing on how it actually works despite the scientific evidence to the contrary.
-
I gather you are another of the 30% or so that were convinced. After 56 years, surely your group must be frustrated to be still in the minority. After all the forum postings, TV specials, books, seems people are pretty much stuck in their ways.
If 99% of the public believed that Oswald alone killed JFK, that he had no help, would you change your opinion on the matter?
Or to put it differently: how does 99% of the public believing in a conspiracy OR believing in a lone assassination alter the facts or evidence in the event? What does public opinion have to do with what actually happened?
-
If 99% of the public believed that Oswald alone killed JFK, that he had no help, would you change your opinion on the matter?
Or to put it differently: how does 99% of the public believing in a conspiracy OR believing in a lone assassination alter the facts or evidence in the event? What does public opinion have to do with what actually happened?
If 99% believed there would be a strong chance I would be one of them...... ;D
-
As I said, not incredibly bright. LOL™
No, just your usual nonsensical analysis. Just like your "probability" exercise on the four lineups.
LOLTM
-
Again, the truth is not dependent on how many people believe in something. It is a matter of facts and evidence.
Everything on "Mytton's" list is a subjective opinion. Every . . . thing.
-
Yes, indeed, the Katzenbach and Hoover memos suggest some mischief is afoot...and that the reality is NOT simply that the one, essentially "pre-selected" suspect—Oswald--was the sole perpetrator. Something very dark seems to be at work here....and there are people in the Johnson administration (and FBI) who CLEARLY would like to put the JFK assassination matter "to bed" very quickly...w/o further scrutiny or complaint.
-
If 99% believed there would be a strong chance I would be one of them...... ;D
Why? The facts on an event stand or fall on their own and not whether "X" percent of people believe them. Would you change your view on the assassination based on a poll?
Surely you know that history shows that vast numbers of people, the overwhelming majority in many cases, have believed in things that simply were not true.
-
Why? The facts on an event stand or fall on their own and not whether "X" percent of people believe them. Would you change your view on the assassination based on a poll?
Surely you know that history shows that vast numbers of people, the overwhelming majority in many cases, have believed in things that simply were not true.
To throw the public off I am turning into an Oswald the commie done it believer from now on. I just can't take the bullying anymore, it's not going away you know.
-
Why? The facts on an event stand or fall on their own and not whether "X" percent of people believe them. Would you change your view on the assassination based on a poll?
Surely you know that history shows that vast numbers of people, the overwhelming majority in many cases, have believed in things that simply were not true.
Take the Trump base, for instance
-
Why? The facts on an event stand or fall on their own and not whether "X" percent of people believe them. Would you change your view on the assassination based on a poll?
Surely you know that history shows that vast numbers of people, the overwhelming majority in many cases, have believed in things that simply were not true.
My answer is self evident. Your original premise calls for a 99:1 ratio, ergo the chances for anyone must be strongly in favour of one group over another......doh.....just stating the bleeding obvious.
56 years and the numbers are pretty much what they were. That’s a fact. Can you provide an example where "vast numbers of people, the overwhelming majority in many cases, have believed in things that simply were not true."?
-
John...I dunno about his statements being "subjective," but virtually ALL of them are untrue...but merely reflect the (EXTREMELY FLAWED) Official Narrative. The evidence that the M-C carbine was Oswald's is extremely tenuous. E.g., initially NO PRINTS were found on the weapon (Oswald's or ANYONE'S), Maria's testimony reflected a denial that her husband owned a rifle (and only changed later...apparently after being brow-beaten by fed. agents, who reminded her that her staying in the USA might well be dependent upon her testimony). Incidentally, the Warren Commission legal staff noted that Maria's testimony changed dramatically from time to time, and was NOT reliable! This guy insists that LHO said nothing about being elsewhere than on the sixth floor...an absolute untruth, as Oswald said that he'd been on the first floor (and witnesses corroborated this). The shells found near the shooting of the police officer DID NOT match Oswald's revolver, but were from two diff. handguns. It is patently clear that this guy...along with most "Lone Nutter" nuts, I'm sorry to say-- is "coming from" ("a priori") dogma, not from disinterested analysis of the evidence.
BOTTOM LINE, in American criminal jurisprudence, a suspect is considered innocent, unless proven "beyond a reasonable doubt." The evidence against suspect Oswald was ANYTHING BUT compelling and did NOT meet the usual standard. Effectively, Oswald (post mortem) was subjected to "Star Chamber" justice by the Warren Commission. From Dallas to Washington, LHO was the "fall-guy," and he was very quickly dispatched (murdered) (thus avoiding the very inconvenient possibility of his receiving legal counsel, and MAYBE (half-way) legitimate treatment in court. This MUST NOT be allowed to occur, regardless of whatever else developed. QED.
My best to all here. ; )
-
John...I dunno about his statements being "subjective," but virtually ALL of them are untrue...but merely reflect the (EXTREMELY FLAWED) Official Narrative. The evidence that the M-C carbine was Oswald's is extremely tenuous. E.g., initially NO PRINTS were found on the weapon (Oswald's or ANYONE'S), Maria's testimony reflected a denial that her husband owned a rifle (and only changed later...apparently after being brow-beaten by fed. agents, who reminded her that her staying in the USA might well be dependent upon her testimony). Incidentally, the Warren Commission legal staff noted that Maria's testimony changed dramatically from time to time, and was NOT reliable! This guy insists that LHO said nothing about being elsewhere than on the sixth floor...an absolute untruth, as Oswald said that he'd been on the first floor (and witnesses corroborated this). The shells found near the shooting of the police officer DID NOT match Oswald's revolver, but were from two diff. handguns. It is patently clear that this guy...along with most "Lone Nutter" nuts, I'm sorry to say-- is "coming from" ("a priori") dogma, not from disinterested analysis of the evidence.
BOTTOM LINE, in American criminal jurisprudence, a suspect is considered innocent, unless proven "beyond a reasonable doubt." The evidence against suspect Oswald was ANYTHING BUT compelling and did NOT meet the usual standard. Effectively, Oswald (post mortem) was subjected to "Star Chamber" justice by the Warren Commission. From Dallas to Washington, LHO was the "fall-guy," and he was very quickly dispatched (murdered) (thus avoiding the very inconvenient possibility of his receiving legal counsel, and MAYBE (half-way) legitimate treatment in court. This MUST NOT be allowed to occur, regardless of whatever else developed. QED.
My best to all here. ; )
From the Legal Dictionary for "beyond a reasonable doubt": ( Link (https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/beyond+a+reasonable+doubt) )
The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a
criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived
from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby
overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
Note "no other logical explanation" meaning alternative theories (in our case, JFK conspiracy theories) must be weighed and subjected to an equal amount of scrutiny as the prosecution case. When a defense attorney submits to the court a theory that exonerates his client and implicates a new suspect, it is expected that he had better have some proof of that, otherwise the judge may not allow it or a jury may dismiss it.
the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence
or proof by clear and convincing evidence.
Plenty of preponderance of actual legitimate evidence in the Warren Report and books like "Case Closed", "JFK First Day Evidence" and "Reclaiming Evidence." Also it's not necessary to dispel all doubt, and it is expected that a jury be comprised of reasonable people, not people like JFK conspiracy loons, who are beyond convincing.
-
That's just fractally wrong. The defense does not have to prove some alternate theory. The defense has no burden whatsoever.
Here's the problem: The "Oswald did it" explanation cannot be derived from the facts. It is solely derived from assumptions and conjectures made from the facts. Big difference.
And no, preponderance is a lesser standard than beyond a reasonable doubt, and is not sufficient in a criminal trial.
Calling people who don't accept handwaving and conjecture "loons" doesn't actually advance your argument.
-
If all that were true, why do you need the word kooky? Are you sure you spelled that correctly? What's self-appointed about wanting to know? Didn't you say most people don't care and what they believe isn't relevant anyways? What is relevant? The badge they wear? The authority invested in them? I'm very confused by your process, your mission, your words, your determination to drain enthusiasm for the research community, the case closed nostrum that routinely, not saying you, derides love of Kennedy. How could you possibly miss the shoddy evidence management, even if you insist on denying it was tampering? It seems to me contempt. Did your grand uncle clean the limo? Is this personal?
Have either of you considered the possibility that the (apparently Oswald-blaming) evidence appears to have been handled shoddily and/or tampered with because ... well ... it was handled shoddily, and because J. Edgar Hoover (no lover of JFK and RFK, btw) ordered it to be spun/tampered with in order to help him "save face" (for not having monitored Oswald more closely) and to obviate the need for the U.S. to invade USSR-backed Cuba and / or nuke the Kremlin?
-- MWT ;)
-
That's just fractally wrong. The defense does not have to prove some alternate theory. The defense has no burden whatsoever.
Here's the problem: The "Oswald did it" explanation cannot be derived from the facts. It is solely derived from assumptions and conjectures made from the facts. Big difference.
And no, preponderance is a lesser standard than beyond a reasonable doubt, and is not sufficient in a criminal trial.
Calling people who don't accept handwaving and conjecture "loons" doesn't actually advance your argument.
'Fractually' and factually. ;)
And WTF do trials have to do with the truth, anyway. Trials are about who wins the argument.
-
The "Oswald did it" explanation cannot be derived from the facts. It is solely derived from assumptions and conjectures made from the facts. Big difference.
Iacoletti,
How many undeniable facts are you aware of in the case?
That the three gals near the Stemmons sign in the Zapruder film are, "uh ... probably Carol Reed, definitely Gloria Calvery, and definitely me, Karen Westbrook!"?
Anything else?
LOL
-- MWT
-
Belief is all one has in the absence of actual evidence.
When one claims “I believe in conspiracy”, they do not provide evidence to support it. Hence, it’s a belief only.
-
Belief is all one has in the absence of actual evidence.
When one claims “I believe in conspiracy”, they do not provide evidence to support it. Hence, it’s a belief only.
Unless enough people (likely voters) to matter are persuaded otherwise, belief is independent of the facts, belief under great brained stewardship.
Also consider the implications if the bulk of those who voted for and still support this...:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-marine-one-departure-45/
Remarks by President Trump Before Marine One Departure
Issued on: May 30, 2019
…..
Q Do you still think Robert Mueller behaved honorably?
THE PRESIDENT: I think he’s totally conflicted. Because, as you know, he wanted to be the FBI Director, and I said no. As you know, I had a business dispute with him. After he left the FBI, we had a business dispute. Not a nice one. He wasn’t happy with what I did, and I don’t blame him. But I had to do it because that was the right thing to do. But I had a business dispute.
And he loves Comey. You look at the relationship with those two. So whether it’s love or deep like, but he was conflicted.
Look, Robert Mueller should’ve never been chosen because he wanted the FBI job and he didn’t get it. And the next day, he was picked as Special Counsel. So you tell somebody, “I’m sorry, you can’t have the job.” And then, after you say that, he’s going to make a ruling on you? It doesn’t work that way. Plus, we had a business dispute. Plus, his relationship with Comey was extraordinary.
Now, one other thing I’ll say: Why didn’t he investigate Strzok, and Page, and McCabe, and Comey and all the lies, and Brennan and the lies, and Clapper and the lies to Congress, and all of the things that happened to start this investigation? Why didn’t Comey come clean? Why didn’t Comey come clean and say the things that he knows are fact? Why didn’t Mueller investigate Comey, his best friend or his very good friend? And there are so many other things.
(http://jfkforum.com/images/MuellerJobInterviewMay16BannonTestimony.jpg)
Here’s a question. This is a study of Russia. Why didn’t they invest the insurance policy? In other words, should Hillary Clinton lose, we’ve got an insurance policy. Guess what? What we’re in right now is the insurance policy.
Lisa Page explains why she and Strzok talked 'insurance policy' about Trump
March 12, 2019
…….
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/12/politics/lisa-page-peter-strzok-insurance-policy/index.html
Q Do you think he behaved dishonorably?
THE PRESIDENT: I think he is a total conflicted person. I think Mueller is a true Never Trumper. He’s somebody that dislikes Donald Trump. He’s somebody that didn’t get a job that he requested that he wanted very badly, and then he was appointed. And despite that — and despite $40 million, 18 Trump haters, including people that worked for Hillary Clinton and some of the worst human beings on Earth — they got nothing. It’s pretty amazing....
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/06/don-mcgahn-must-testify.html
Don McGahn Must Testify
The president can’t silence the former White House counsel while attacking his testimony to Mueller.
By William Saletan June 19, 2019
…In the ABC interview, Trump also challenged Bannon’s account of a separate incident. On May 16, 2017, a day before he was appointed as special counsel, Mueller went to the White House to speak with Trump about replacing James Comey, the FBI director Trump had just fired. Bannon later told investigators that “the White House had invited Mueller to speak to the President to offer a perspective on the institution of the FBI. Bannon said that, although the White House thought about beseeching Mueller to become Director again, he did not come in looking for the job,” according to Mueller’s report.
But in the ABC interview, Trump told a different story. “Robert Mueller wanted the job. He wanted to go back as the FBI director,” said the president. “But I told him no.” Trump dismissed Bannon’s contrary account: “Steve Bannon has no idea. Steve Bannon was not in the room.” Again, Trump claimed to have witnesses who could confirm his version of events. He assured Stephanopoulos, “I can get you two people that work in the White House office, in the Oval Office, to tell you [Mueller] was standing in line along with other people applying for the job.” ...
….are not the bulk of those voters who believe in JFKA or subsequent investigation conspiracy / cover up.
-
'Fractually' and factually. ;)
Fractally wrong. That means it's wrong no matter how you look at it. You probably have to be a computer nerd to get the joke.
And WTF do trials have to do with the truth, anyway. Trials are about who wins the argument.
Agreed, but the discussion was about standards of evidence in a trial. Did you fall asleep while reading again?
-
Iacoletti,
How many undeniable facts are you aware of in the case?
That the three gals near the Stemmons sign in the Zapruder film are, "uh ... probably Carol Reed, definitely Gloria Calvery, and definitely me, Karen Westbrook!"?
Anything else?
LOL
-- MWT
(https://emojipedia-us.s3.dualstack.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/twitter/185/yawning-face_1f971.png)
Get over it, Captain Obsession.
-
Belief is all one has in the absence of actual evidence.
When one claims “I believe in conspiracy”, they do not provide evidence to support it. Hence, it’s a belief only.
Same goes for "I believe Oswald did it".
-
Same goes for "I believe Oswald did it".
It's really cute how you think you're Oswald's defence lawyer.
JohnM
-
It's really cute how you think you're Oswald's defence lawyer.
Not nearly as cute as you thinking you're his prosecution lawyer.
-
Fractally wrong. That means it's wrong no matter how you look at it. You probably have to be a computer nerd to get the joke.
Agreed, but the discussion was about standards of evidence in a trial. Did you fall asleep while reading again?
Touchy, touchy... and why would you use a nerd-word on a forum that no one would 'get'?
-
Not nearly as cute as you thinking you're his prosecution lawyer.
Which, in turn, isn't nearly as cute as you trying to inform everybody what witnessess really saw and really thought
-
Which, in turn, isn't nearly as cute as you trying to inform everybody what witnessess really saw and really thought
Says the guy who informs everybody that Frazier lied about the length of the package to cover his ass.
-
Thanks, John. Yep, the standard in American jurisprudence is "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" (a much higher "threshold" than "preponderance of evidence"), and the Burden of Proof does, indeed, lie with the Prosecution. In the Kennedy assassination case, the Prosecution (in the form of both Texas and Federal investigators, and--ultimately--in the form of the WC (in a kind of post mortem trial)) decided in 'a priori fashion that there was one, crazed killer, firing only THREE shots (from behind)(with no foreign involvement and no conspiracy). Like someone presenting a foolish "proof for the existence of God," the reasoning lies strongly along "Special Pleading" lines.
It is also very like the "SIGNATURE" behavior of members of a cult, who will provide a creed statement, then produce all kinds of "evidence," such as excerpts from scripture, or little parables in an attempt to bolster the "formula." This is the VERY antithesis of legitimate reasoning (as well as the scientific method and the principles of legit. criminal investigation). It is "backwards reasoning" and COMPLETELY and UTTERLY bogus. Put another way, the "default position" in this case should be that Mr. Oswald is innocent. Now let's see if the Prosecution can produce a case which "blows out of the water" this assumption. They are NEVER, EVER able to accomplish this. In fact, 'tis even worse than this in that all the other suspects were summarily released, there was ample manipulation of the evidence in this case (such as missing or altered photographic documentation, broken chains of possession, and impugned witness testimony) (and the sole suspect was denied "due process" (including legal representation)), and was never even properly arrested and indicted (for either Texas murder). Echoes from the Dreyfus case, anyone?
Finally, in this SNAFU of a case (a BLATANT 'burlesque of justice" with strong suggestion of duplicity on many fronts), Mr. Oswald was merely the "poor schnook" who was given the role of assigned perpetrator...the "schlemiel" who was to be the scapegoat, to put the case to bed...and assuage the fears of the traumatized American public. ;D
-
Says the guy who informs everybody that Frazier lied about the length of the package to cover his ass.
No, I suggested that would be the smart move; not that he actively went ahead and did it.
Go ahead, cite your claim. And don't pull an O'Brian by truncating my sentences.
-
Thanks, John. Yep, the standard in American jurisprudence is "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" (a much higher "threshold" than "preponderance of evidence"), and the Burden of Proof does, indeed, lie with the Prosecution. In the Kennedy assassination case, the Prosecution (in the form of both Texas and Federal investigators, and--ultimately--in the form of the WC (in a kind of post mortem trial)) decided in 'a priori fashion that there was one, crazed killer, firing only THREE shots (from behind)(with no foreign involvement and no conspiracy). Like someone presenting a foolish "proof for the existence of God," the reasoning lies strongly along "Special Pleading" lines.
It is also very like the "SIGNATURE" behavior of members of a cult, who will provide a creed statement, then produce all kinds of "evidence," such as excerpts from scripture, or little parables in an attempt to bolster the "formula." This is the VERY antithesis of legitimate reasoning (as well as the scientific method and the principles of legit. criminal investigation). It is "backwards reasoning" and COMPLETELY and UTTERLY bogus. Put another way, the "default position" in this case should be that Mr. Oswald is innocent. Now let's see if the Prosecution can produce a case which "blows out of the water" this assumption. They are NEVER, EVER able to accomplish this. In fact, 'tis even worse than this in that all the other suspects were summarily released, there was ample manipulation of the evidence in this case (such as missing or altered photographic documentation, broken chains of possession, and impugned witness testimony) (and the sole suspect was denied "due process" (including legal representation)), and was never even properly arrested and indicted (for either Texas murder). Echoes from the Dreyfus case, anyone?
Finally, in this SNAFU of a case (a BLATANT 'burlesque of justice" with strong suggestion of duplicity on many fronts), Mr. Oswald was merely the "poor schnook" who was given the role of assigned perpetrator...the "schlemiel" who was to be the scapegoat, to put the case to bed...and assuage the fears of the traumatized American public. ;D
Names of shooters and conspirators, anyone?
What, too soon?
Feel free to name anyone other than [your shooter] who knew there was going to an attempt made on Kennedy that day.
-
Thanks, John. Yep, the standard in American jurisprudence is "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" (a much higher "threshold" than "preponderance of evidence"), and the Burden of Proof does, indeed, lie with the Prosecution.
Now define "reasonable".
In the Kennedy assassination case, the Prosecution (in the form of both Texas and Federal investigators, and--ultimately--in the form of the WC (in a kind of post mortem trial)) decided in 'a priori fashion that there was one, crazed killer, firing only THREE shots (from behind)(with no foreign involvement and no conspiracy). Like someone presenting a foolish "proof for the existence of God," the reasoning lies strongly along "Special Pleading" lines.
Hardly. They didn't just sit on the first-day evidence. The FBI conducted thousands of interviews. There was just no solid conspiracy leads.
Put another way, the "default position" in this case should be that Mr. Oswald is innocent.
Then it would be impossible to arrest anyone. Only the jury is instructed to assume innocence of the suspect; the rest of the world can assume anything they want. And unless you've invented mind-reading, we only have the jury members' word that they're honoring the presumption of innocence.
Now let's see if the Prosecution can produce a case which "blows out of the water" this assumption. They are NEVER, EVER able to accomplish this. In fact, 'tis even worse than this in that all the other suspects were summarily released, there was ample manipulation of the evidence in this case (such as missing or altered photographic documentation, broken chains of possession, and impugned witness testimony) (and the sole suspect was denied "due process" (including legal representation)), and was never even properly arrested and indicted (for either Texas murder). Echoes from the Dreyfus case, anyone?
Finally, in this SNAFU of a case (a BLATANT 'burlesque of justice" with strong suggestion of duplicity on many fronts), Mr. Oswald was merely the "poor schnook" who was given the role of assigned perpetrator...the "schlemiel" who was to be the scapegoat, to put the case to bed...and assuage the fears of the traumatized American public. ;D
So Oswald would have been martyred in the courtroom through effusive emotionalism and farfetched suspicions of the Deep State?
-
Now define "reasonable".
Hardly. They didn't just sit on the first-day evidence. The FBI conducted thousands of interviews. There was just no solid conspiracy leads.
Then it would be impossible to arrest anyone. ....
The "investigation" was, almost from the third shot, tainted by a foregone conclusion. Maybe that satisfies you, but....
(http://www.jfkforum.com/images/OswaldBowenLibraryCard.jpg)
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=45&search=ryder_and+scope#relPageId=238&tab=page
(http://www.jfkforum.com/images/OswaldBowenRyderTestimony.jpg)
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=137474&relPageId=58&search=bowen_and
(http://www.jfkforum.com/images/OswaldJackBowenFBIFledaMantooth.jpg)
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/29053767/fleta-l_-mantooth
(http://www.jfkforum.com/images/DialRyderJackBowenJohnGrossi.jpg)
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/29053767/fleta-l_-mantooth
14 Aug 2008 (aged 85)
Olney, Young County, Texas, USA
BURIAL Restland Cemetery
Olney, Young County, Texas, USA
Fleta was the daughter of Homer Richard and Magdalena Jeanetta (Baehr) Ryder and raised with one brother and six sisters. She married Roy Lee Mantooth December 13, 1963, in Albany, Texas. He preceded her in death on March 10, 1979.
......
At time of death she was survived by one son, Glenn Lewis Mantooth and wife, Nicole of Abilene, Texas; two daughters, Dixie Kirby and husband DeWayne of Olney, Texas and Gypsie Fomby and husband Dale of Clyde, Texas; one brother, Dial Ryder of Irving, Texas; four sisters, Magdelene Beanblossom of Decatur, Illinois, Iseaphene Kutz of Olney, Illinois, Marcella Farrar of Poteau, Oklahoma and Velma Douglas of Killeen, Texas.
https://www.familysearch.org/search/record/results?givenname=glenn&surname=bowen&birth_place=texas&birth_year_from=1954&birth_year_to=1956&mother_surname=ryder&count=20
(http://www.jfkforum.com/images/OswaldBowenLibrarCardSonBirth.jpg)
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/63051718/roy-lee-mantooth
Roy Lee Mantooth
BIRTH 14 Feb 1922
DEATH 10 Mar 1979 (aged 57)
BURIAL Abilene Municipal Cemetery
Abilene, Taylor County, Texas, USA....
....
-
The "investigation" was, almost from the third shot, tainted by a foregone conclusion. Maybe that satisfies you, but....
....
I'll go with conspiracy to assassinate and cover-up if there was some concrete evidence of it. I have to go the LN way because--50 years on--it has provided what I consider reasonable evidence for the lone-assassin scenario.
I have a dim view of American exceptionalism, so I would not be bothered much if I could place stock in the conspiracy evidence.
-
The evidence of Oswald's guilt was overwhelming. His guilt is a foregone conclusion from that perspective. The authorities were understandably concerned that WWIII not be started on the basis of false rumors disseminated by kooks of the involvement of Russia or Cuba. That is a perfectly legitimate reason to want the public to be satisfied of Oswald's guilt. Not because it was false, but because it was true.
-
The evidence of Oswald's guilt was overwhelming. His guilt is a foregone conclusion from that perspective. The authorities were understandably concerned that WWIII not be started on the basis of false rumors disseminated by kooks of the involvement of Russia or Cuba. That is a perfectly legitimate reason to want the public to be satisfied of Oswald's guilt. Not because it was false, but because it was true.
My reasonable doubt is reasonable, I can support that the investigation was shoddy in major areas....the rifle and scope,
and Bowen/Grossi and Bowen/Osborne, both reportedly seen with Oswald. How, other than the WC report, do you come by such confidence?
You write as if you drive down the road, perceiving your view out of any window of your vehicle, especially the view through
the windshield is the world. You trust your view to provide you with discernment in when to, and the degree of steering and stop, go, speed level, and even when to switch wipers on and adjust wiper speed. You don't know what you don't know, an example is if you have no view of
the sky directly above from your driver's seat. You don't consider what you don't know, not even giving that blind spot/info gap a thought, maybe because you are quite satisfied from your experience avoiding accidents, or even close brushes with collision. You've got this!
The investigative responsibilities of the WC, especially with foreign threats including an evenly nuclear weapons armed, super power rival constantly competing for advantage on every level, were not similar to driving a car. A lone male suspect, a former USMC enlistee who
was freshly returned with a Soviet wife, a suspect with the weight of Priscilla Johnson's and Richard Schneider's impressions of this suspect's
mindset in the same week in Moscow in late 1959, misguided, diverging from expectations of a USMC volunteer like the ones they both were so accustomed to seeing in their dress blues, ever present in the Moscow embassy.
I don't know about you but I do my homework with the goal of learning what questions I need to ask. Reading the well supported evidence I already have posted in this thread, and considering the following, how would you rate the FBI's handling of its purported "Bowen Investigation" component of the thorough inquiry the WC depended on the FBI to conduct and share the results of and be responsive to WC followup questions prompting additional investigation. The only key agency performing more incompetently, on the surface where no suspicion diminished confidence in either agency, was the CIA during the Sept, 1963 weekend the FBI and CIA seemed to conclude Oswald
had visited Mexico City during the allegedly unique window of time during and after which the CIA demonstrated an inability to conduct or
preserve per SOP, either visual or audio surveillance of Oswald's alleged interactions with personnel in two foreign missions in MC, both under constant CIA supervised or conducted surveillance.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=137390&relPageId=16&search=mantooth_and%20harboring
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldBowenMrsHomerRyderFBI.jpg)
Because the FBI performed so poorly in investigating the Bowen dimension of their investigation, we'll never know why Dial Ryder
actually made his claim or why John Howard Bowen was born in Jan., 1880 on his WWI draft reg. document and in 1878 on his Death Cert.
and gravesttone. Consider the image I included below, proof impersonator Osborne gave FBI in Feb, 1964 same D.O.B. as on
WWI draft card.
Last year I called the SSA to report the 1962 death of John Howard Bowen. The SSA clerk I talked with confirmed no notification of
Bowen's death was ever received. I informed the SSA clerk of 3 or 4 Bowen SS #s and pointed her to the Terminal, NC place of Bowen's
death and of the cemetery address. She informed me the SSA has a purge program of all recipients over 120 years old. Did SSA continue
to send checks to Bowen in Terminal, NC from his 1962 death until 2018?
https://www.wenFBIfailsChesterPA.png[/img]maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10715&search=morgue_and+chester#relPageId=2&tab=page
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldBowenFBIfailsChesterPA.png)
....and next page: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10715&search=morgue_and+chester#relPageId=3&tab=page
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldBowenFBIfailsChesterPA2.jpg)
1915 Newspaper article:
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldBowenWifeChester1915.jpg)
Self Explanatory:
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldBowenDraft1918.jpg)
1934:
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldBowenWife1934Obit.jpg)
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/32875262/john-howard-bowen
John Howard Bowen
BIRTH 1878
DEATH 1962 (aged 83–84)
BURIAL
Lawn Croft Cemetery
Linwood, Delaware County, Pennsylvania, USA
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/32875265/fannie-bowen
Fannie Hall Bowen
BIRTH 1885
DEATH 1934 (aged 48–49)
BURIAL
Lawn Croft Cemetery
Linwood, Delaware County, Pennsylvania, USA
Google Maps Link (https://www.google.com/search?ei=tHAaXc7ZLsG3ggfV96HgCg&q=distance+chester+pa+to+linwood+pa&oq=distance+chester+pa+to++linwoo&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.33i160l2j33i10.7799.44467..46461...0.0..1.195.3650.35j6......0....1..gws-wiz.....0..0i71j0i67j0j0i131j0i7i30j0i7i10i30j0i13j0i22i30j0i22i10i30j33i22i29i30.fpKVF0FkqAs)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldBowenFBImissed.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldBowen1962TerminalNCdeathCert.jpg)
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1141&relPageId=602&search=bowen_and%20montgomery
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldBowenFBIreportParentsDOB1880.jpg)
-
My reasonable doubt is reasonable, I can support that the investigation was shoddy in major areas....the rifle and scope,
and Bowen/Grossi and Bowen/Osborne, both reportedly seen with Oswald. How, other than the WC report, do you come by such confidence?
You write as if you drive down the road, perceiving your view out of any window of your vehicle, especially the view through
the windshield is the world. You trust your view to provide you with discernment in when to, and the degree of steering and stop, go, speed level, and even when to switch wipers on and adjust wiper speed. You don't know what you don't know, an example is if you have no view of
the sky directly above from your driver's seat. You don't consider what you don't know, not even giving that blind spot/info gap a thought, maybe because you are quite satisfied from your experience avoiding accidents, or even close brushes with collision. You've got this!
The investigative responsibilities of the WC, especially with foreign threats including an evenly nuclear weapons armed, super power rival constantly competing for advantage on every level, were not similar to driving a car. A lone male suspect, a former USMC enlistee who
was freshly returned with a Soviet wife, a suspect with the weight of Priscilla Johnson's and Richard Schneider's impressions of this suspect's
mindset in the same week in Moscow in late 1959, misguided, diverging from expectations of a USMC volunteer like the ones they both were so accustomed to seeing in their dress blues, ever present in the Moscow embassy.
I don't know about you but I do my homework with the goal of learning what questions I need to ask. Reading the well supported evidence I already have posted in this thread, and considering the following, how would you rate the FBI's handling of its purported "Bowen Investigation" component of the thorough inquiry the WC depended on the FBI to conduct and share the results of and be responsive to WC followup questions prompting additional investigation. The only key agency performing more incompetently, on the surface where no suspicion diminished confidence in either agency, was the CIA during the Sept, 1963 weekend the FBI and CIA seemed to conclude Oswald
had visited Mexico City during the allegedly unique window of time during and after which the CIA demonstrated an inability to conduct or
preserve per SOP, either visual or audio surveillance of Oswald's alleged interactions with personnel in two foreign missions in MC, both under constant CIA supervised or conducted surveillance.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=137390&relPageId=16&search=mantooth_and%20harboring
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldBowenMrsHomerRyderFBI.jpg)
Because the FBI performed so poorly in investigating the Bowen dimension of their investigation, we'll never know why Dial Ryder
actually made his claim or why John Howard Bowen was born in Jan., 1880 on his WWI draft reg. document and in 1878 on his Death Cert.
and gravesttone. Consider the image I included below, proof impersonator Osborne gave FBI in Feb, 1964 same D.O.B. as on
WWI draft card.
Last year I called the SSA to report the 1962 death of John Howard Bowen. The SSA clerk I talked with confirmed no notification of
Bowen's death was ever received. I informed the SSA clerk of 3 or 4 Bowen SS #s and pointed her to the Terminal, NC place of Bowen's
death and of the cemetery address. She informed me the SSA has a purge program of all recipients over 120 years old. Did SSA continue
to send checks to Bowen in Terminal, NC from his 1962 death until 2018?
https://www.wenFBIfailsChesterPA.png[/img]maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10715&search=morgue_and+chester#relPageId=2&tab=page
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldBowenFBIfailsChesterPA.png)
....and next page: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10715&search=morgue_and+chester#relPageId=3&tab=page
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldBowenFBIfailsChesterPA2.jpg)
1915 Newspaper article:
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldBowenWifeChester1915.jpg)
Self Explanatory:
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldBowenDraft1918.jpg)
1934:
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldBowenWife1934Obit.jpg)
Google Maps Link (https://www.google.com/search?ei=tHAaXc7ZLsG3ggfV96HgCg&q=distance+chester+pa+to+linwood+pa&oq=distance+chester+pa+to++linwoo&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.33i160l2j33i10.7799.44467..46461...0.0..1.195.3650.35j6......0....1..gws-wiz.....0..0i71j0i67j0j0i131j0i7i30j0i7i10i30j0i13j0i22i30j0i22i10i30j33i22i29i30.fpKVF0FkqAs)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldBowenFBImissed.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldBowen1962TerminalNCdeathCert.jpg)
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1141&relPageId=602&search=bowen_and%20montgomery
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldBowenFBIreportParentsDOB1880.jpg)
Extraordinary findings, Tom. OK, the sunroof in my car is open....... what questions do you ask from the abovementioned information on Bowen et. al. ?
Oh, bytheway..... I notice that Mssr. Halle is still a 'senior member' of Ralph Cinque's "cultish" 'OIC', I see. I wonder if the CAPA convention will have Dr. Cinque speak of his 'Oswald in the Doorway' obsession? Naaaaah...... he ain't got a prayer, man !!!
-
Names of shooters and conspirators, anyone?
What, too soon?
Another mark of cultish faith.
"I'm automatically correct unless you can prove something different is true".
-
The evidence of Oswald's guilt was overwhelming.
Please enumerate this "overwhelming evidence" (without misrepresenting it).
-
Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds
by James Clear | Decision Making, Life Lessons
The economist J.K. Galbraith once wrote, “Faced with a choice between changing one’s mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy with the proof.”
Leo Tolstoy was even bolder: “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.”
What's going on here? Why don't facts change our minds? And why would someone continue to believe a false or inaccurate idea anyway? How do such behaviors serve us?
The Logic of False Beliefs
Humans need a reasonably accurate view of the world in order to survive. If your model of reality is wildly different from the actual world, then you struggle to take effective actions each day.
However, truth and accuracy are not the only things that matter to the human mind. Humans also seem to have a deep desire to belong.
In Atomic Habits, I wrote, “Humans are herd animals. We want to fit in, to bond with others, and to earn the respect and approval of our peers. Such inclinations are essential to our survival. For most of our evolutionary history, our ancestors lived in tribes. Becoming separated from the tribe—or worse, being cast out—was a death sentence.”
Understanding the truth of a situation is important, but so is remaining part of a tribe. While these two desires often work well together, they occasionally come into conflict.
In many circumstances, social connection is actually more helpful to your daily life than understanding the truth of a particular fact or idea. The Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker put it this way, “People are embraced or condemned according to their beliefs, so one function of the mind may be to hold beliefs that bring the belief-holder the greatest number of allies, protectors, or disciples, rather than beliefs that are most likely to be true.”
We don't always believe things because they are correct. Sometimes we believe things because they make us look good to the people we care about.
I thought Kevin Simler put it well when he wrote, “If a brain anticipates that it will be rewarded for adopting a particular belief, it's perfectly happy to do so, and doesn't much care where the reward comes from — whether it's pragmatic (better outcomes resulting from better decisions), social (better treatment from one's peers), or some mix of the two.”
False beliefs can be useful in a social sense even if they are not useful in a factual sense. For lack of a better phrase, we might call this approach “factually false, but socially accurate.” When we have to choose between the two, people often select friends and family over facts.
This insight not only explains why we might hold our tongue at a dinner party or look the other way when our parents say something offensive, but also reveals a better way to change the minds of others.
Facts Don't Change Our Minds. Friendship Does.
Convincing someone to change their mind is really the process of convincing them to change their tribe. If they abandon their beliefs, they run the risk of losing social ties. You can’t expect someone to change their mind if you take away their community too. You have to give them somewhere to go. Nobody wants their worldview torn apart if loneliness is the outcome.
The way to change people’s minds is to become friends with them, to integrate them into your tribe, to bring them into your circle. Now, they can change their beliefs without the risk of being abandoned socially.
The British philosopher Alain de Botton suggests that we simply share meals with those who disagree with us:
“Sitting down at a table with a group of strangers has the incomparable and odd benefit of making it a little more difficult to hate them with impunity. Prejudice and ethnic strife feed off abstraction. However, the proximity required by a meal – something about handing dishes around, unfurling napkins at the same moment, even asking a stranger to pass the salt – disrupts our ability to cling to the belief that the outsiders who wear unusual clothes and speak in distinctive accents deserve to be sent home or assaulted. For all the large-scale political solutions which have been proposed to salve ethnic conflict, there are few more effective ways to promote tolerance between suspicious neighbours than to force them to eat supper together.”
Perhaps it is not difference, but distance that breeds tribalism and hostility. As proximity increases, so does understanding. I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln's quote, “I don't like that man. I must get to know him better.”
Facts don't change our minds. Friendship does.
The Spectrum of Beliefs
Years ago, Ben Casnocha mentioned an idea to me that I haven't been able to shake: The people who are most likely to change our minds are the ones we agree with on 98 percent of topics.
If someone you know, like, and trust believes a radical idea, you are more likely to give it merit, weight, or consideration. You already agree with them in most areas of life. Maybe you should change your mind on this one too. But if someone wildly different than you proposes the same radical idea, well, it's easy to dismiss them as a crackpot.
One way to visualize this distinction is by mapping beliefs on a spectrum. If you divide this spectrum into 10 units and you find yourself at Position 7, then there is little sense in trying to convince someone at Position 1. The gap is too wide. When you're at Position 7, your time is better spent connecting with people who are at Positions 6 and 8, gradually pulling them in your direction.
The most heated arguments often occur between people on opposite ends of the spectrum, but the most frequent learning occurs from people who are nearby. The closer you are to someone, the more likely it becomes that the one or two beliefs you don't share will bleed over into your own mind and shape your thinking. The further away an idea is from your current position, the more likely you are to reject it outright.
When it comes to changing people's minds, it is very difficult to jump from one side to another. You can't jump down the spectrum. You have to slide down it.
Any idea that is sufficiently different from your current worldview will feel threatening. And the best place to ponder a threatening idea is in a non-threatening environment. As a result, books are often a better vehicle for transforming beliefs than conversations or debates.
In conversation, people have to carefully consider their status and appearance. They want to save face and avoid looking stupid. When confronted with an uncomfortable set of facts, the tendency is often to double down on their current position rather than publicly admit to being wrong.
Books resolve this tension. With a book, the conversation takes place inside someone's head and without the risk of being judged by others. It's easier to be open-minded when you aren't feeling defensive.
Arguments are like a full frontal attack on a person's identity. Reading a book is like slipping the seed of an idea into a person's brain and letting it grow on their own terms. There's enough wrestling going on in someone's head when they are overcoming a pre-existing belief. They don't need to wrestle with you too.
Why False Ideas Persist
There is another reason bad ideas continue to live on, which is that people continue to talk about them.
Silence is death for any idea. An idea that is never spoken or written down dies with the person who conceived it. Ideas can only be remembered when they are repeated. They can only be believed when they are repeated.
I have already pointed out that people repeat ideas to signal they are part of the same social group. But here's a crucial point most people miss:
People also repeat bad ideas when they complain about them. Before you can criticize an idea, you have to reference that idea. You end up repeating the ideas you’re hoping people will forget—but, of course, people can’t forget them because you keep talking about them. The more you repeat a bad idea, the more likely people are to believe it.
Let's call this phenomenon Clear's Law of Recurrence: The number of people who believe an idea is directly proportional to the number of times it has been repeated during the last year—even if the idea is false.
Each time you attack a bad idea, you are feeding the very monster you are trying to destroy. As one Twitter employee wrote, “Every time you retweet or quote tweet someone you’re angry with, it helps them. It disseminates their BS. Hell for the ideas you deplore is silence. Have the discipline to give it to them.”
Your time is better spent championing good ideas than tearing down bad ones. Don't waste time explaining why bad ideas are bad. You are simply fanning the flame of ignorance and stupidity.
The best thing that can happen to a bad idea is that it is forgotten. The best thing that can happen to a good idea is that it is shared. It makes me think of Tyler Cowen's quote, “Spend as little time as possible talking about how other people are wrong.”
Feed the good ideas and let bad ideas die of starvation.
The Intellectual Soldier
I know what you might be thinking. “James, are you serious right now? I'm just supposed to let these idiots get away with this?”
Let me be clear. I'm not saying it's never useful to point out an error or criticize a bad idea. But you have to ask yourself, “What is the goal?”
Why do you want to criticize bad ideas in the first place? Presumably, you want to criticize bad ideas because you think the world would be better off if fewer people believed them. In other words, you think the world would improve if people changed their minds on a few important topics.
If the goal is to actually change minds, then I don't believe criticizing the other side is the best approach.
Most people argue to win, not to learn. As Julia Galef so aptly puts it: people often act like soldiers rather than scouts. Soldiers are on the intellectual attack, looking to defeat the people who differ from them. Victory is the operative emotion. Scouts, meanwhile, are like intellectual explorers, slowly trying to map the terrain with others. Curiosity is the driving force.
If you want people to adopt your beliefs, you need to act more like a scout and less like a soldier. At the center of this approach is a question Tiago Forte poses beautifully, “Are you willing to not win in order to keep the conversation going?”
Be Kind First, Be Right Later
The brilliant Japanese writer Haruki Murakami once wrote, “Always remember that to argue, and win, is to break down the reality of the person you are arguing against. It is painful to lose your reality, so be kind, even if you are right.”
When we are in the moment, we can easily forget that the goal is to connect with the other side, collaborate with them, befriend them, and integrate them into our tribe. We are so caught up in winning that we forget about connecting. It's easy to spend your energy labeling people rather than working with them.
The word “kind” originated from the word “kin.” When you are kind to someone it means you are treating them like family. This, I think, is a good method for actually changing someone's mind. Develop a friendship. Share a meal. Gift a book.
Be kind first, be right later.
https://jamesclear.com/why-facts-dont-change-minds?fbclid=IwAR37Ut16F-oHGR_FF1jHitCrOtZNh5Kjz1BsD80eBdhhNyFwXGlSVLSzKlY (https://jamesclear.com/why-facts-dont-change-minds?fbclid=IwAR37Ut16F-oHGR_FF1jHitCrOtZNh5Kjz1BsD80eBdhhNyFwXGlSVLSzKlY)