Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Luna's Ridiculous Hearing  (Read 3608 times)

Offline Fred Litwin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 394
Luna's Ridiculous Hearing
« on: May 21, 2025, 12:47:12 PM »
Advertisement
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/luna-s-ridiculous-hearing

Luna's Ridiculous Hearing
 
I must be a glutton for punishment. I watched the complete two hours+ of the Luna hearing and I thought my brain would explode. I don't know what was worse - the silly testimony of the witnesses or the brainless questions of the committee members.

JFK Assassination Forum

Luna's Ridiculous Hearing
« on: May 21, 2025, 12:47:12 PM »


Offline W. Tracy Parnell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 378
    • W. Tracy Parnell Debunking JFK Conspiracy Theories
Re: Luna's Ridiculous Hearing
« Reply #1 on: May 21, 2025, 04:07:19 PM »
Well, it really was a circus.

There was no semblance of any sort of adversarial process to be seen. Curtis could have been discredited by simply asking him how he concluded that there were shots fried from two (or more?) locations from his brief time with the President.

You nailed the most obvious problem with Hardway’s testimony. Bugliosi pointed this out in his book. I suppose Hardway could say that someone else on the HSCA discovered these facts about the DRE but that doesn’t speak well for the committee as a whole if information was that compartmentalized. Also, he is now claiming that he didn’t even see documents that he signed off on because of the evil Joannides. So, even if one could trace DRE docs to him revealing his knowledge of their operations, he could say he didn’t really see them.

The letter from the CIA person (Delores Nelson) he refers to does exist (I believe) although it may not be online. Robert Reynolds may know where it is. However, what she said about Joannides being involved in a covert operation for the HSCA may simply be her interpretation of the situation and may or may not be correct.

Tunheim’s position on the Joannides file seems to be that parts of it were not given to the ARRB (the month-to-month reports on the DRE) and these should exist so the agency should supply them even though they have said in the past that they don’t have them.

Horne also said that one of the most reliable witnesses was Saundra Spencer. Somehow, her remembrances from 30 years earlier trumped the autopsy materials.

This committee is a joke. The purpose seems to be to assure the American people that conspiracies do exist. Therefore, when certain politicians create conspiracy theories they should be believed. If they want the truth, they should call yourself, Posner, Myers and Reynolds. This group could debunk both hearings in short order.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2025, 04:08:34 PM by W. Tracy Parnell »

Online Steve M. Galbraith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1696
Re: Luna's Ridiculous Hearing
« Reply #2 on: May 21, 2025, 09:45:14 PM »
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/luna-s-ridiculous-hearing

Luna's Ridiculous Hearing
 
I must be a glutton for punishment. I watched the complete two hours+ of the Luna hearing and I thought my brain would explode. I don't know what was worse - the silly testimony of the witnesses or the brainless questions of the committee members.
Given his status, Judge Tunheim's comments were particularly awful. Gosh, what is he thinking here?

Here's probably the worst part: "The FBI was following him [i.e., Oswald] in Dallas because he was a suspect in another shooting. All of this suggests that they had a lot of contact with him ahead of time, and the -- I don't know what that suggests, other than the fact that they wanted to cover that up, the fact that they knew a lot about him ahead of time and didn't do much about it."

A "suspect in another shooting?" The Walker attempt? "Suggests that they had a lot of contact with him"? Why is he saying this? There's no evidence at all that they suspected him in that shooting. Or any shooting. Hosty never mentioned anything about it and he would have known. As I argued before, I don't see any evidence at all that the FBI had a "lot of contact with him" in Dallas. Or much contact at all.

Hosty, the sole agent assigned to monitor him (and Marina) at that time, testified that he had no contact with Oswald at all from November 5 to the assassination. In fact, he said he never met Oswald at all before the assassination. That's from October 3, when Oswald arrived in Dallas from Mexico City, to the assassination. Plus he said he had 25-40 other cases he was dealing with. One agent, 40 cases. Moreover, from that October 3 date to the assassination Hosty said he had *no idea* where he lived during the week. And of course Hoover punished 17 agents due to their failure to keep track of Oswald. So this "lot of contact" claim by Tunheim is just wrong.

From Hosty's WC testimony:

Mr. STERN. Putting that aside for the moment, what was your evaluation of Lee Harvey Oswald based on the work that you had done and the reports that you had made, the information you gathered early in November?
Mr. HOSTY. Well, there were many questions to be resolved. I was quite interested in determining the nature of his contact with the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. I had not resolved that on the 22d of November. We were still waiting to resolve that. Prior to that, I mean that would be the only thing----
Mr. STERN. What had you planned to do after November 5 about this case?
Mr. HOSTY. Well as I had previously stated, I have between 25 and 40 cases assigned to me at any one time. I had other matters to take care of. I had now established that Lee Oswald was not employed in a sensitive industry. I can now afford to wait until New Orleans forwarded the necessary papers to me to show me I now had all the information. It was then my plan to interview Marina Oswald in detail concerning both herself and her husband's background.
Mr. STERN. Had you planned any steps beyond that point?
Mr. HOSTY. No. I would have to wait until I had talked to Marina to see what I could determine, and from there I could make my plans.
Mr. STERN. Did you take any action on this case. between November 5 and November 22?
Mr. HOSTY. No, sir.

And again, Hosty never mentions anything about Oswald being a suspect in a shooting. That's not only not a "lot of contact", that's no contact at all.

« Last Edit: May 22, 2025, 02:10:56 PM by Steve M. Galbraith »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Luna's Ridiculous Hearing
« Reply #2 on: May 21, 2025, 09:45:14 PM »


Online Tom Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1058
Re: Luna's Ridiculous Hearing
« Reply #3 on: May 22, 2025, 12:11:16 AM »
" . . .  Joannides being involved in a covert operation for the HSCA . . . "

Huh?

Online Tom Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1058
Re: Luna's Ridiculous Hearing
« Reply #4 on: May 22, 2025, 12:12:55 AM »
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/luna-s-ridiculous-hearing

Luna's Ridiculous Hearing
 
I must be a glutton for punishment. I watched the complete two hours+ of the Luna hearing and I thought my brain would explode. I don't know what was worse - the silly testimony of the witnesses or the brainless questions of the committee members.

Vladimir Putin is jumping for joy!

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Luna's Ridiculous Hearing
« Reply #4 on: May 22, 2025, 12:12:55 AM »


Online Steve M. Galbraith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1696
Re: Luna's Ridiculous Hearing
« Reply #5 on: May 22, 2025, 03:05:41 PM »
Not to divert this too far but here is Hosty discussing the Walker shooting in his book "Assignment Oswald." From this account (and others) plus his WC testimony it's obvious that the FBI wasn't investigating the shooting; the DPD was. And I would think that Hosty, the lead agent in charge of monitoring Oswald in Dallas, would know about any suspicions involving him? And be involved in any investigation?

Anyway, from this account the DPD focused, based at least in part on what Hosty told them, on someone within the Walker organization as the shooter. Nothing about them or the FBI suspecting it was Oswald.


           
« Last Edit: May 27, 2025, 06:51:37 PM by Steve M. Galbraith »

Offline W. Tracy Parnell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 378
    • W. Tracy Parnell Debunking JFK Conspiracy Theories
Re: Luna's Ridiculous Hearing
« Reply #6 on: May 22, 2025, 03:25:11 PM »
Huh?

In a court filing, Nelson of the CIA said Joannides was "serving undercover" during his HSCA tenure. Was he really or was it her interpretation of something she read? I don't know.

Offline W. Tracy Parnell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 378
    • W. Tracy Parnell Debunking JFK Conspiracy Theories
Re: Luna's Ridiculous Hearing
« Reply #7 on: May 22, 2025, 03:28:51 PM »
Not to divert this too far but here is Hosty discussing the Walker shooting in his book "Assignment Oswald." From his account it's obvious that the FBI wasn't investigating the shooting; the DPD was. And they suspected it was someone within the Walker organization who took the shot.

It's obvious to me that Tunheim is not that well versed on some issues or he believes too many conspiracy writers.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Luna's Ridiculous Hearing
« Reply #7 on: May 22, 2025, 03:28:51 PM »