Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
92
I truly have no dog in the fight - and am not even sure what the fight is - but in the clips on page 6 of this thread it certainly looks to me as though the other women are doing "Yoo-hoo!" waving at something in the motorcade (I suppose LBJ had his fans too) and not pointing up at the sixth floor window. I'll bow out, but it does seem to me that these disputes over what the films and photographs show and what the witnesses said eventually turn into Rorshach exercises.
93



Anyone seriously think ironclad proof of a Mafia conspiracy would put an end to all this?


No, it wouldn't. The controversy will continue forever regardless. There will continue to be inconsistencies in the evidence. That is normal and expected, but people will continue to try and make something out of the inconsistencies. And if there are no inconsistencies in the evidence, then some people will still claim that the evidence is faked. Bottom line is that some people will believe what they want to believe no matter what.

On the other hand, I believe that most LNers would be able to accept a conspiracy that still had LHO as the only shooter. Perhaps a conspiracy where LHO was encouraged to do the deed by either the Cubans or the mob. But I think that a conspiracy with another shooter involved would be difficult for LNers to believe at this point in time based on what we know of the existing evidence. The evidence that constitutes "ironclad proof" for one person might not be adequate for another person to come to the conclusion that it is "ironclad proof." In other words, "proof" is in the mind of each person.

Thanks, Charles! I'm so used to being ignored that I'm deeply touched by any response.  :D

Part of my thought experiment is the assumption that the Marcello conspiracy actually IS proven beyond doubt- so to deny it is to deny reality in the same way that claiming the earth is flat is to deny reality. In my experiment, therefore, proof is not really just in the eye of the beholder.

I think this actually is an interesting question for each of us: If a Mafia conspiracy (or any other explanation I now reject) were established beyond any doubt, what would be my reaction - and what does this say about my involvement with JFKA research? What is really my purpose for being involved?

The LN narrative has survived for more than 60 years and has convinced many of the best minds who have dived into the matter. Yet at damn near every stage of the LN narrative, there are puzzles, inconsistencies and improbabilities - logical, evidential, you name it. There are, it seems to me, far more genuine puzzles than would be found in a typical murder case or the best Agatha Christie novel.

Part of this, as I always say, is that JFK was hated by so many diverse individuals and groups, and so many stood to benefit from his demise, that weaving a reasonably plausible conspiracy theory is child's play. Hence, we have umpteen reasonably plausible conspiracy theories at war with each other as well as with the LN narrative.

As a provisional LNer, I nevertheless cannot avoid the nagging feeling that there are just too many puzzles, inconsistencies and improbabilities for the LN narrative to be the entire answer. Since the Marcello scenario that I described is my best guess at what the "something more" may have been, I'd obviously have no problem accepting it! The challenge for me would be if something like Harvey & Lee, which I now regard as flat-out nutty, were actually established as true.

Would I shrug and say, "Hard to believe, but Armstrong and his minions were right"? Yes, I think I would, but I don't think I have the level of interest or commitment as those for whom the JFKA has ideological significance or is a consuming, quasi-religious interest.

Perhaps instead of posting my thought experiment, I should've simply asked people to fill in the blank: "I am interested in the JFKA to the extent of spending a great deal of time on it and participating on a forum such as this because _______________." The problem would be to get people to answer honestly, as opposed to what they think they "should" say. I suppose I'd say "because I find the case so full of puzzles, inconsistencies and improbabilities that it's the ultimate jigsaw puzzle - really just this and nothing more, little different from my interest in several other subjects like UFOs that I find intellectually challenging."

As you suggest, and I firmly believe, there never will be the sort of unequivocal proof my experiment posits. The puzzles, inconskistencies and improbabilities will never allow this.
94
   Possibly pointing in the general direction of the TSBD is not, "pointing upwards towards the sniper's nest window". The TSBD has a very large footprint and sits on higher ground vs the downhill grade of Elm St. This higher ground includes the bushes/shrubs/garden that runs directly across from the TSBD.


The angle of their arms has them pointing at the sniper's nest window. I have tested this on two different 3D computer models that are quite accurate.
95


There are two older ladies that are pointing upwards towards the sniper’s nest window. One of them has a white handkerchief in her left hand and thrusts her right hand pointing upwards towards the sniper’s nest window as she is backing up. They are also looking in an entirely different direction which is way, way, way, behind the JFK limo. There is a large gap in the motorcade between the Queen Mary and LBJ’s vehicle at that point in time. Nobody is there in that gap for them to be waving at. So it appears to me that, if they are waving, that it is possible that they could be trying to get the attention of the SS agents in the Queen Mary to alert them to the sniper. Or perhaps they were able to see LBJ’s vehicle approaching and wanted to get his attention; but I believe that the crowd was in the way such that they couldn’t yet see LBJ’s vehicle. These same two ladies can be seen hanging out in that same area in the pre-motorcade segment of the Zapruder film. I think it is possible that they (like Brennan) also noticed LHO in the window before the motorcade arrived, then saw him aiming his rifle.

   Possibly pointing in the general direction of the TSBD is not, "pointing upwards towards the sniper's nest window". The TSBD has a very large footprint and sits on higher ground vs the downhill grade of Elm St. This higher ground includes the bushes/shrubs/garden that runs directly across from the TSBD.
96
As your self-appointed philosopher-in-residence (this week, anyway), Michael’s thread about the respective psychological motivations of CTers and LNers prompted this thought exercise. We philosophers are prone to thought exercises when inclement weather prevents us from hitting 5-irons into our backyard nets. But, hey, thought exercises are how Einstein hit upon his theory of relativity – so show a little respect for this effort, willya?

If there were an actual conspiracy, the most likely and plausible scenario by far – by far, I repeat – is a tight Mafia hit organized by Marcello. In terms of motive and means, the Mafia in general and Marcello in particular are way at the top of the list. A hit on JFK would have been little more than business as usual. It would have required minimal planning and no more than a bare handful of highly trusted associates.

Oswald? My guess would be that his high-profile activities in New Orleans started wheels turning that otherwise might not have turned. “Good Lord, if we can pin the assassination on this preening pro-Castro punk, it just might have the added bonus of bringing down Castro and restoring our lucrative Cuban empire. This is too good to pass up.”

Hence, even though the original plan was just to have a pro whack JFK to avenge RFK’s humiliation of Marcello and get the damn DOJ to back off on organized crime, now we’re going to include this Oswald dope. He’ll think he’s part of a pro-Castro hit with our pro in the Dal Tex building being just a fellow Castro fanatic with dreams of escaping to Cuba. If he’s caught or captured, it makes no difference because all he could ever say is “Viva Fidel!” – exactly what we want him to say. It’s perfect, I tell ya.

(Ruby, of course, is not part of this scenario. Let’s have a little respect for Marcello’s professionalism, OK? Ruby just did what he did for his own purposes and we here in the Marcello camp don’t really care one way or the other.)

I’m not saying this is what occurred, mind you, but it’s certainly the most plausible conspiracy scenario by far. There is no need for oodles and gobs of participants or any evidence-tampering or cover-up. It’s just a standard, easy-shot hit of the sort our pro pulls off eight times a year. There are virtually no risks. Our pro is going to be in and out of the Dal Tex building in four minutes, tops. Bada boom, bada bing.

For our thought exercise, let’s assume this conspiracy is established beyond any reasonable doubt, to the extent that the verdict of history is actually changed. The history books now say that Marcello had JFK whacked, the hitman escaped and Oswald was a dupe.

Do you think Newman, Morley, Simpich, DiEugenio, Stone, the Harvey & Lee crowd and all the other LBJ/CIA/Etc. ideologues are now happy? Do you think they’re going to crawl back into their holes and say “I’ll be damned, it’s been solved.” Do you think they are even going to miss a beat? Hell, no. They will shift their fury toward the “crazy Marcello narrative” and go right on peddling their conspiratorial wares. Books, blogs, websites, podcasts, conferences!

How about the LN ideologues? Well, they’re probably happier than the Big Conspiracy folks because a Mafia hit doesn’t really challenge their worldview. I’m not sure how they would react, after spending decades vehemently defending every last nut-and-bolt of the LN narrative and dismissing CTers as crackpots. My guess is, there would still be some LN resistance, although it's hard to see what form it might take.

How about those of us for whom the JFKA is mostly just an interesting whodunnit, more like a big jigsaw puzzle? Our hobby is now gone, and the puzzle turned out to be not nearly as interesting as most of us had hoped. Are we happy? Will the entire cottage industry called “JFKA research” now disappear – no more books, no more conferences, no more podcasts, no more forums? I kind of doubt it.

My guess is that the cottage industry called “JFKA research” is now so entrenched, so much a part of the fabric of the participants’ lives, that little would change. People would not simply shrug and move on to UFOs, Bigfoot and 9/11 to see what they’re all about.

There’s a famous social psychology book from 1956 called When Prophecy Fails. It concerns an apocalyptic UFO cult, “The Seekers.” They were firmly committed to a massively destructive worldwide flood on December 21, 1954. When that didn’t happen, did the cult go poof? Absolutely not. They chugged right along, making excuses, altering their beliefs as necessary and winning new converts. This scenario has repeated itself umpteen times, right up to the level of more than one Christian denomination with millions of followers.

There is no reason to think anything would cause the “JFKA research” industry (or hobby, or cult, or whatever) to collapse. To a very large extent – almost entirely, I would say – the whole thing at this point is really not about the JFKA at all. It has a momentum of its own.

Anyone seriously think ironclad proof of a Mafia conspiracy would put an end to all this?




Anyone seriously think ironclad proof of a Mafia conspiracy would put an end to all this?


No, it wouldn't. The controversy will continue forever regardless. There will continue to be inconsistencies in the evidence. That is normal and expected, but people will continue to try and make something out of the inconsistencies. And if there are no inconsistencies in the evidence, then some people will still claim that the evidence is faked. Bottom line is that some people will believe what they want to believe no matter what.

On the other hand, I believe that most LNers would be able to accept a conspiracy that still had LHO as the only shooter. Perhaps a conspiracy where LHO was encouraged to do the deed by either the Cubans or the mob. But I think that a conspiracy with another shooter involved would be difficult for LNers to believe at this point in time based on what we know of the existing evidence. The evidence that constitutes "ironclad proof" for one person might not be adequate for another person to come to the conclusion that it is "ironclad proof." In other words, "proof" is in the mind of each person.
97
[...]

Dear FPR,

Do you agree with President Trump and FBI Director Patel, respectively, that the Democrats and the FBI are to blame for Jan 6?

Regardless, speaking of the KGB's* ability to eavesdrop back in the day, we know from what Greville Wynne told his British debriefers after he was released from a Soviet prison for his involvement with the CIA's and MI6's spy, GRU Lt. Col. Oleg Penkovsky, that your beloved humanitarian organization placed such a hi-tech vase-or-ashtray-ensconced "bug" on his and Penkovsky's Moscow restaurant table two weeks after the latter's April 1961 recruitment in London that it was able to pick up, without any background noise, Penkovsky's asking Wynne (or perhaps the other way around) about "Zeph" (short for Stephanie, a London bargirl with whom Penkovsky had been smitten two weeks earlier), and which the Soviets mistook for "Zepp," a possible mole or double-agent penetration of your beloved world-class (pardon the pun) organization.

The interesting thing is that false-defector-in-place in June 1962 in Geneva / false (or perhaps rogue) physical defector to the U.S. in February 1964, Yuri "The KGB Had Nothing to Do with Lee Harvey Oswald in the USSR" Nosenko, asked his primary case officer -- Tennent H. Bagley -- and (probable mole) George Kisevalter about "Zepp" in June 1962 at that CIA safehouse in Geneva.

You can read more about "The Zepp Incident" in my Wikipedia article on Tennent H. Bagley.

*Today's SVR and FSB  :D

-- Tom
98
The Soviets and the Cubans were the last people on Earth who had any motive to kill JFK. Khrushchev had grown to like JFK and saw a real possibility for detente with JFK.

From Mark Riebling's 1994 book, Wedge: The Secret War Between the FBI and CIA:

But what would the Soviets possibly gain from Kennedy’s death that would be worth the risk of U.S. retaliation? From a pragmatic Western perspective, there seemed little profit indeed, but James Angleton thought about the problem with more subtlety. First of all, the nuclear age precluded any massive U.S. retaliation — as Johnson’s craven cover-ups of all possible communist connections were already demonstrating. Second, if the Soviets had truly penetrated the Soviet Division at CIA, as Angleton believed, the KGB might even have hoped to steer U.S. investigation of the crime. As for the Soviet motive: Out was Kennedy, a charismatic leader who could “sell” a socially conscious anticommunism in the Third World and even to Western liberals. In was Johnson, who would only “heighten the contradictions” between East and West and therefore hasten (by Leninist dialectical reasoning) the ultimate collapse of late capitalism. Angleton also took seriously the observations marshaled in a November 27 memo by defector Pyotr Deriabin, who cited the Kennedy administration’s opposition to long-term credits to the Soviets, which he said were vital to survival of the USSR. Johnson, by contrast, came from an agricultural state and had always supported grain sales to Russia. Moreover, Western pressure on the USSR “would automatically ease up” if the KGB murdered the president. As evidence, Deriabin noted a “conciliatory telegram” by a frightened and disoriented Lyndon Johnson to Khrushchev. A more amenable America would “strengthen Khrushchev’s hand” at a time when the Soviet leader was under intensifying internal pressures because of mismanagement of the 1963 harvest and disputes with China. Kennedy’s death, as Deriabin put it, thus “effectively diverts the Soviets’ attention from their internal problems. It directly affects Khrushchev’s longevity.” Finally, Deriabin ventured that “the death of President Kennedy, whether a planned operation or not, will serve the most obvious purpose of providing proof of the power and omniscience of the KGB.” Much later, Angleton would obliquely compare the Soviets’ probable motivation to a famous scene in Mario Puzo’s novel The Godfather, in which a Mafia chieftain puts a horse’s head into the bed of a stubborn film producer, in order to demonstrate “pure power.”

99
Ya gotta love it, don't you, folks? I absolutely ream Michael a new one and he doesn't even miss a beat! He just shifts merrily to the tired "the HSCA found a conspiracy" meme, which has zero to do with this thread and has to be among the flimsiest of conspiracy memes (love that Dictabelt!). If Michael didn't exist, I'd have to invent him just to make the points he unwittingly makes for me. You, Michael, are a hoot! And your sheer hootness is appreciated, at least by me.

Oh, you did make one mistake: While I would not classify myself as a LN theorist per se, I do in fact largely accept "what the federal government says" about UFOs. I'm not dogmatic about this, but my suspicion is that the federal government is largely clueless about UFOs and that what may appear to be a cover-up is in fact more of an unwillingess to admit to this cluelessness. All the Luna Committee stuff and brouhaha about retrieved craft and alien bodies will, I suspect, prove to be much ado about nothing as it always does. I'd love to be wrong, but history is firmly on my side. Even the true dean of serious ufologists, Jacques Vallee, has made a complete fool of himself with "crashed saucer" tales in recent years, and newcomers like Diana Pasulka (and, of course, Cutie Pie Luna) are credulous dolts.

I do have two words for the UFO phenomenon that I keep pasted firmly inside my hat (or golf visor, as the case may be): DECEPTIVE and MANIPULATIVE. Stanislaw Lem, author of that wonderful novel Solaris (forget the Hollywood movie, watch the Russian version) said his entire point (completely lost on Hollywood) was that if we ever encounter an alien intelligence, we may not even realize we have encountered it and, if we do, may never have the faintest idea what it is up to or why. Bingo. Tarkovsky's Russian movie is faithful to the novel and captures this beautifully.
100
This is curious: Most lone-gunman theorists believe nearly everything the federal government says. However, in the case of the JFK shooting, they reject the conclusions of the last official federal investigation into the assassination, i.e., the two-year investigation done by House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) from 1977 to 1979. They reject the HSCA's conclusions but accept the Warren Commission's (WC's) conclusions, even though the HSCA did a far more thorough investigation than did the WC.

The HSCA concluded that there were two gunmen, that four shots were fired, that one of the shots came from the grassy knoll, that the Odio sisters' account was credible, that Ruby lied about how he entered the police basement to shoot Oswald, that Ruby lied about why he shot Oswald, that someone was moving boxes around in the sixth-floor window shortly after the shooting at a time when Oswald could not have been the one moving the boxes, that Oswald associated with virulent right-wing extremists David Ferrie and Guy Banister, that the first shot was fired at a time when the sixth-floor gunman's view of JFK would have been obstructed by the oak tree on Elm Street, that Howard Brennan's identification of Oswald as the sixth-floor gunman was unreliable (this was a tacit but clear HSCA conclusion), and that two of the shots were fired only 1.66 seconds apart.

Also, we now know that the HSCA staffers who investigated Oswald's activities in Mexico City concluded that someone had impersonated Oswald in Mexico City, and that the Lee Harvey Oswald who called the Soviet Embassy was not the real Oswald.





 
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]