JFK Assassination Forum

Just who were these "plotters" and how do you know what they were thinking?

Oh, surprise, surprise: One of our two worst resident know-nothing trolls is offering another unserious, frivolous reply.

It is indeed ironic that three of the seven members of the WC, which you claim got everything right, rejected the single-bullet theory, the very foundation of the lone-gunman theory. One of those three, Congressman Hale Boggs, said that FBI director J. Edgar Hoover "lied his eyes out to the Commission, on Oswald, on Ruby, on their friends, the bullet, the gun, you name it." Another of the three, Senator Richard Russell, rejected the lone-gunman theory and the SBT and believed there was a conspiracy. Another of the three, Senator Sherman Cooper, did not believe that Oswald acted alone, did not believe the single-bullet theory, said there was corruption in the WC, said the WC knew about Jack Ruby and the Mafia but did not care, and said that the "true believers" on the Commission stated they were acting for “God and country.”

Who were the plotters? We know who some of them were:

-- Mafia kingpin Carlos Marcello, who told two people, one of them a federal informant, that he was involved in the assassination.

-- Mafia kingpin Santo Trafficante, who was overheard on federal wiretaps talking about the need for JFK to die, and revealed his knowledge of/role in the plot to two people.

The four best books on the evidence that Marcello and Trafficante were involved in the plot are Dr. David Kaiser's The Road to Dallas, Dr. David Scheim's The Mafia Killed President Kennedy, Dr. Richard Mahoney's The Kennedy Brothers, and Lamar Waldron's The Hidden History of the JFK Assassination.

-- Mafia operative Jack Ruby, whose foreknowledge of the assassination was revealed in FBI documents released in 2017. The documents reveal that a federal informant reported to his federal contact in 1977 that Ruby knew about the assassination in advance. The informant logically thought that this vital information would be of interest to the newly formed HSCA, and he assumed the FBI would make the HSCA aware of this information. The Dallas FBI office forwarded the documents about the informant's disclosure to FBI HQ, but FBI HQ did not give them to the HSCA and did not even tell the HSCA about them.

-- High-ranking CIA officer and avowed Kennedy hater William King Harvey. Mark Wyatt, who served as Harvey's aide in 1963, told his children and a French journalist that he saw Harvey on a flight to Dallas in November 1963, and that Harvey made comments to him soon after the assassination that indicated Harvey had either known about the murder in advance or had been involved in it. Wyatt’s daughter urged him to testify to the HSCA, but he could not bring himself to do it because of his sense of loyalty to the CIA.

-- CIA hitman David Sanchez Morales, who proudly admitted to two close associates in 1973 that he and some other CIA personnel "took care" of Kennedy in retribution for Kennedy's alleged treason in the Bay of Pigs operation. The two witnesses were Morales' lifelong friend, Ruben Carbajal, and Morales' attorney, Bob Walton. Morales made this admission to them at the same time in the same room. Both Carbajal and Walton confirmed this to HSCA investigator Gaeton Fonzi. Fonzi discussed this in his book The Last Investigation.

I'm pointing out these things for the sake of others, not because I have any hope that you will read any of the books that document this evidence.

Ignore is such a beautiful feature when it comes to John Corbett.

It comes from knowing where the focus should be placed. I choose to focus on solid evidence, that would be accepted by our criminal courts. That includes forensics, medical evidence, photographic evidence, expert testimony, etc. It also includes eye and ear witness accounts with the caveat that all such accounts should be scrutinized. Having served on four juries, two criminal and two civil, I know that is how judge's instruct jurors to treat such evidence and that is what I try to do with witness statements regarding the JFKA. That excludes the opinions of amateur sleuths and other people offering opinions about the evidence that falls outside their area of expertise.

I was a bit disappointed when I went on Google Earth a year or two ago and discovered the entire neighborhood around 10th and Patton had been razed and replaced with modern houses. It also appeared a new school had been built that cutoff 10th St from Beckley. It looks much different than it did when I visited it in 2008. All the old houses were still standing, probably much the way it looked in 1963. I guess it's unrealistic to think neighborhoods aren't going to change over 60 years.

I had the same feeling when I visited my old home town of Omaha a few years ago. The neighborhood I grew up in was largely the same but so much nearby it had changed dramatically.

Just who were these "plotters" and how do you know what they were thinking?

Oh, my. Weeks ago you rejected the science of optical-density measurement because it proves the autopsy skull x-rays have been altered.

Wrong. I didn't reject the science. I rejected your FUBAR interpretation of he science. You keep claiming you have proved things which you rarely if ever have done.

Then, last week you rejected the science of trajectory analysis because it refutes the idea of a sixth-floor shooter as the only gunman.

Again, I don't reject the science. I reject your looney idea that you are an authority on the science.

And, now, here you are rejecting the science of wound ballistics testing because it refutes an FMJ-bullet head shot (it also refutes the SBT).

And now, you are trying to present yourself as an expert on wound ballistics.

It should tell you something about your version of the shooting that you keep having to reject scientific evidence. Rather than judge science by your theory, why not judge your theory by science?

I do, but unlike you, I leave it to scientists to interpret the science and specifically the scientists who are experts in the field upon which they are experts. For example, I don't turn to a radiation oncologist to interpret the medical forensic evidence. I turn to recognized medical examiners in that field.

This also gets back to your long-standing rejection of the science of acoustical identification of gunfire because it proves there were at least four shots fired during the assassination.

Quote

I'm hardly alone in rejecting that FUBAR study. Even the BBN, who you cited to support that study, concluded there was only a 50% chance there had been a fourth shot from the GK, not the 95% the study claimed. That means there is an equal chance there was not a shot from the GK. The lack of any forensic or eyewitness evidence of a shooter from he GK tilts the probability sharply in favor of the latter possibility.

Quote

You reject it even though you have not even read the HSCA's extensive materials on the acoustical evidence and have not read a single scholarly defense of the acoustical evidence.

What scholar has ever defended the acoustical study?

Quote

You cited the NRC/NAS panel's critique of the acoustical evidence, obviously not realizing that the NAS panel admitted that there was a 93% probability that the timing-moving correlations identified by the BBN acoustical scientists occurred because the dictabelt recorded gunfire in Dealey Plaza, and that there was a 77.7% chance that the 144.9 impulse pattern was gunfire from the grassy knoll.

Wrong. BBN only said there was a 50% chance of a shot from the GK.

Quote

I suspect you still do not know that acoustical science has been used in other gunshot cases to determine the origin of gunfire, such as the 1970 Kent State shooting.

For any readers who are interested in a detailed introduction to the HSCA's acoustical evidence, please see my article "The HSCA’s Acoustical Evidence: Proof of a Second Gunman," https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KvdvH8gTqFgMn-2vTI5ppg_egWxRKg9U/view.

I don't reject acoustical science. I reject FUBAR attempts at it.