Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Bugliosi's "Conclusion of No Conspiracy" Intro  (Read 1304 times)

Online Rob Caprio

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1424
  • You only receive flak when you are over the target
Re: Bugliosi's "Conclusion of No Conspiracy" Intro
« Reply #50 on: June 12, 2018, 05:43:07 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What "WC claim" are you referring to?

Duh, the one that said that LHO shot and killed JFK from behind. Playing games won't save you.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Bugliosi's "Conclusion of No Conspiracy" Intro
« Reply #50 on: June 12, 2018, 05:43:07 PM »


Online Rob Caprio

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1424
  • You only receive flak when you are over the target
Re: Bugliosi's "Conclusion of No Conspiracy" Intro
« Reply #51 on: June 12, 2018, 05:45:48 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The HSCA said that there was ONE shot from the front, and that it missed. And that was based on a novel scientific approach that was later shown to be untenable, given the data.

The HSCA also said that there was NO recognizable human figure in the sixth floor window. Funny how you choose to ignore that.

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1114
Re: Bugliosi's "Conclusion of No Conspiracy" Intro
« Reply #52 on: June 12, 2018, 07:36:19 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Wow, Tim.  You left this out:

The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy.

Michael, I left that out because I haven't seen you argue against it. It's not germane to the point I was making. You claim that the government got it right with its report in 1978 . Yet you argue against its concrete findings.

I. FINDINGS OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS IN THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY IN DALLAS, TEX., NOVEMBER 22, 1963

ēA. Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy. The second and third shots he fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President.
  • 1.President Kennedy was struck by two rifle shots fired from behind him.
    2.The shots that struck President Kennedy from behind him were fired from the sixth floor window of the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository building.
    3.Lee Harvey Oswald owned the rifle. that was used to fire the shots from the sixth floor window of the southeast comer of the Texas School Book Depository building.
    4.Lee Harvey Oswald, shortly before the assassination, had access to and was present on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository building.
    5.Lee Harvey Oswald's other actions tend to support the conclusion that he assassinated President Kennedy.

Online Bill Brown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 830
Re: Bugliosi's "Conclusion of No Conspiracy" Intro
« Reply #53 on: June 12, 2018, 07:51:32 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Duh, the one that said that LHO shot and killed JFK from behind. Playing games won't save you.

You're the one playing games when you attribute things to me that I have not said.  Grow up.

Online Mitch Todd

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 98
Re: Bugliosi's "Conclusion of No Conspiracy" Intro
« Reply #54 on: June 13, 2018, 12:36:00 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The HSCA also said that there was NO recognizable human figure in the sixth floor window. Funny how you choose to ignore that.

I responded to his assertion that the HSCA concluded that there were shots (note plural) fired from the GK. As you are aware, I noted that the HSCA only committed to one shot from the GK, and that was purely on the basis of the WA acoustic study, which turned out to be in error.

But speaking of funny...

What's really, truly funny is that you assumed that the discussion must be about whatever random pet windmill you've chosen to tilt at this minute...whether it had anything to do with the conversation or not.

What's even funnier is, your own source makes clear that there are no photos showing the SN window during the assassination, so there is no reason to expect to see a "recognizable human figure" of an assassin in those photos. You simply have no point.




JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Bugliosi's "Conclusion of No Conspiracy" Intro
« Reply #54 on: June 13, 2018, 12:36:00 AM »


Offline Ross Lidell

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 67
  • JFK : Profile In Courage
Re: Bugliosi's "Conclusion of No Conspiracy" Intro
« Reply #55 on: June 13, 2018, 05:39:37 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ross , you are right about the  Warren Report ( Main report that he handed LBJ ) having an index but I don't think the 26 volumes of testimonies and diagrams and pictures has an index. If you find out about the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission Report having an index , I would appreciate it if you let me know. Thanks Ross

Mike,

This is additional information.



Warren Commission Hearings and Exhibits

The Warren Commission published 26 volumes of hearings and exhibits within a few months after issuing its report. Volumes 1 - 5 are hearings conducted by the Commission members in Washington DC. Volumes 6 - 15 are hearings conducted by staff attorneys on location in Dallas, New Orleans, and other places. Volume 15 also contains an index to names and exhibits. Volumes 16 - 26 contain photographed Commission Exhibits, usually abbreviated to CE (i.e., CE 399), plus other exhibits organized by name.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login



Sylvia Meagher was a research analyst at the UNís World Health Organization. She took a strong interest in the assassination of John F. Kennedy and read the twenty-six volumes of the hearings and exhibits of the Warren Commission: "It was appalling to find how many of the Commission's statements were unsupportable or even completely contradicted by the testimony and/or exhibits... I began to list what is now a long list of deliberate misrepresentations, omissions, distortions, and other defects demonstrating not only extreme bias, incompetence, and carelessness but irrefutable instances of dishonesty."

In 1965 Meagher published Subject Index to the Warren Report and Hearings and Exhibits. As Meagher pointed out, studying the entire twenty-six volumes without a subject index would be "tantamount to a search for information in the Encylopedia Britannica if the contents were untitled, unalphabetized, and in random sequence."

A deep study of the Warren Commission Report convinced her that the its detailed evidence contradicted its general conclusions. Meagher therefore published Accessories After the Fact: The Warren Commission, the Authorities, and the Report (1967). Meagher was unconvinced that Lee Harvey Oswald had been a lone gunman and concluded that the Warren Commission had attempted to cover-up details of the real people behind the assassination. Meagher believed that John F. Kennedy had been killed by a group Anti-Castro exiles.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login



Question: Why wasn't Sylvia Meager killed before she could complete her work? After the Warren Report was published: Conspirators were said to be rubbing-out anyone who might expose the conspiracy!

Offline Gary Craig

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 369
  • The human mind is our fundamental resource. JFK
Re: Bugliosi's "Conclusion of No Conspiracy" Intro
« Reply #56 on: June 14, 2018, 02:04:05 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Mike,

This is additional information.



Warren Commission Hearings and Exhibits

The Warren Commission published 26 volumes of hearings and exhibits within a few months after issuing its report. Volumes 1 - 5 are hearings conducted by the Commission members in Washington DC. Volumes 6 - 15 are hearings conducted by staff attorneys on location in Dallas, New Orleans, and other places. Volume 15 also contains an index to names and exhibits. Volumes 16 - 26 contain photographed Commission Exhibits, usually abbreviated to CE (i.e., CE 399), plus other exhibits organized by name.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login



Sylvia Meagher was a research analyst at the UNís World Health Organization. She took a strong interest in the assassination of John F. Kennedy and read the twenty-six volumes of the hearings and exhibits of the Warren Commission: "It was appalling to find how many of the Commission's statements were unsupportable or even completely contradicted by the testimony and/or exhibits... I began to list what is now a long list of deliberate misrepresentations, omissions, distortions, and other defects demonstrating not only extreme bias, incompetence, and carelessness but irrefutable instances of dishonesty."

In 1965 Meagher published Subject Index to the Warren Report and Hearings and Exhibits. As Meagher pointed out, studying the entire twenty-six volumes without a subject index would be "tantamount to a search for information in the Encylopedia Britannica if the contents were untitled, unalphabetized, and in random sequence."

A deep study of the Warren Commission Report convinced her that the its detailed evidence contradicted its general conclusions. Meagher therefore published Accessories After the Fact: The Warren Commission, the Authorities, and the Report (1967). Meagher was unconvinced that Lee Harvey Oswald had been a lone gunman and concluded that the Warren Commission had attempted to cover-up details of the real people behind the assassination. Meagher believed that John F. Kennedy had been killed by a group Anti-Castro exiles.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login



Question: Why wasn't Sylvia Meager killed before she could complete her work? After the Warren Report was published: Conspirators were said to be rubbing-out anyone who might expose the conspiracy!


"Question: Why wasn't Sylvia Meager killed before she could complete her work? After the Warren Report was published: Conspirators were said to be rubbing-out anyone who might expose the conspiracy!"






DISPATCH                           CLASSIFICATION            PROCESSING ACTION
                                     TOP SECRET            MARKED FOR INDEXING
TO       Chiefs, Certain Stations and Bases             X  NO INDEXING REQUIRED
INFO                                                       ONLY QUALIFIED DESK
                                                           CAN JUDGE INDEXING
FROM     The Director of Central Intelligence              MICROFILM
SUBJECT  Countering Criticism of the Warren Report
ACTION REQUIRED - REFERENCES

PSYCH

     1. Our Concern.   From the day of President Kennedy's assassination on,
there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder.  Although
this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report (which appeared at
the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the
Commission's published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning,
and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission's
findings.  In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some
kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was
involved.  Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren
Commission's Report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the
American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of
those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved.
Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse, results.

     2.  This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government,
including our organization.  The members of the Warren Commission were naturally
chosen for their integrity, experience, and prominence.  They represented both
major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections
of the country.  Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to
impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of
American society.  Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint
that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have
benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination.  Innuendo of
such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole
reputation of the American government.  Our organization itself is directly
involved:  among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation.
Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for
example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us.  The aim of
this dispatch is to provide material for countering and discrediting the claims
of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in
other countries.  Background information is supplied in a classified section and
in a number of unclassified attachments.

     3.  Action.  We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination ques-
tion be initiated where it is not already taking place.  Where discussion is
active, however, addressees are requested:
 
                         DISPATCH SYMBOL AND NUMBER   DATE
9 attachments h/w                                         4/1/67
1 - classified secret              CLASSIFICATION     HQS FILE NUMBER
8 - Unclassified                     TOP SECRET           DESTROY WHEN NO LONGER 
                                                          NEEDED
CONTINUATION OF                    CLASSIFICATION     DISPATCH SYMBOL AND NUMBER
DISPATCH                             TOP SECRET

a.  To discuss the publicity problem with liaison and friendly elite contacts
(especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission
made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the
critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion
only plays into the hands of the opposition.  Point out also that parts of the
conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists.
Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible
speculation.

b.  To employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the
critics.  Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for
this purpose.  The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide
useful background material for passage to assets.  Our play should point out,
as applicable, that the critics are (i) wedded to theories adopted before the
evidence was in, (ii) politically interested, (iii) financially interested, (iv)
hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (v) infatuated with their own theories.
In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful
strategy may be to single out Epstein's theory for attack, using the attached
Fletcher Knebel article and Spectator piece for background.  (Although Mark
Lane's book is much less convincing than Epstein's and comes off badly where
contested by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer
as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.)

4.  In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or
in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments
should be useful:

a.  No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not
consider.  The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten
and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the
attacks on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits
have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics.
(A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire
of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, A.J.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt)
now believe was set by Van der Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for
either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists,
but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the
Nazis were to blame.)

b.  Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others.  They tend
to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual eyewitnesses (which
are less reliable and more divergent -- and hence offer more hand-holds for
criticism) and less on ballistic, autopsy, and photographic evidence.  A close
examination of the Commission's records will usually show that the conflicting
eyewitness accounts are quoted out of context, or were discarded by the Commis-
sion for good and sufficient reason.

c.  Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to con-
ceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large
royalties, etc.  Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and
John F. Kennedy's brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any
conspiracy.  And as one reviewer pointed out, Congressman Gerald R. Ford would
hardly have held his tongue for the sake of the Democratic administration, and
Senator Russell would have had every political interest in exposing any misdeeds
on the part of Chief Justice Warren.  A conspirator moreover would hardly choose
a location for a shooting where so much depended on conditions beyond his con-
trol:  the route, the speed of the cars, the moving target, the risk that the
assassin would be discovered.  A group of wealthy conspirators could have
arranged much more secure conditions.

d.  Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride:  they
light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commis-
sion because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one
way or the other.  Actually, the make-up of the Commission and its staff was
an excellent safeguard against over-commitment to any one theory, or against
the illicit transformation of probabilities into certainties.



                                   CLASSIFICATION                       PAGE NO.
FORM                                 TOP SECRET                           TWO
8-64 53a USE PREVIOUS EDITION.                          X   CONTINUED

CONTINUATION OF                    CLASSIFICATION     DISPATCH SYMBOL AND NUMBER
DISPATCH                             TOP SECRET

e.  Oswald would not have been any sensible person's choice for a co-
conspirator.  He was a "loner," mixed up, of questionable reliability
and an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service.

f.  As to charges that the Commission's report was a rush job, it emerged
three months after the deadline originally set.  But to the degree that
the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to
the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases
coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now
putting out new criticism.

g.  Such vague accusations as that "more than ten people have died mysteri-
ously" can always be explained in some more natural way:  e.g., the indi-
viduals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes; the Com-
mission staff questioned 418  witnesses (the FBI interviewed far more
people, conducting 25,000 interviews and reinterviews), and in such a
large group, a certain number of deaths are to be expected.  (When Penn
Jones, one of the originators of the "ten mysterious deaths" line, ap-
peared on television, it emerged that two of the deaths on his list were
from heart attacks, one from cancer, one was from a head-on collision on
a bridge, and one occurred when a driver drifted into a bridge abutment.)

5.  Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the
Commission's Report itself.  Open-minded foreign readers should still be
impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Com-
mission worked.  Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their
account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far
superior to the work of its critics.



                                   CLASSIFICATION                       PAGE NO.
FORM                                 TOP SECRET                           THREE
8-64 53a USE PREVIOUS EDITION.                              CONTINUED
(40)




Document Number 1035-960
for FOIA Review on SEP 1976


Online Rob Caprio

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1424
  • You only receive flak when you are over the target
Re: Bugliosi's "Conclusion of No Conspiracy" Intro
« Reply #57 on: June 14, 2018, 03:57:19 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You're the one playing games when you attribute things to me that I have not said.  Grow up.

You mocked an idea that said a shot from the front could drive JFK back and to the left, and yet, that is what the Z-film shows happening. I then said that you believe that a shot from behind could do this to JFK however.

That is not putting words into your mouth as you SUPPORT the WC's conclusion and that is where they said the shots came from.

You are the one playing games, but who can blame you since your position is ridiculous?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Bugliosi's "Conclusion of No Conspiracy" Intro
« Reply #57 on: June 14, 2018, 03:57:19 AM »


Online Rob Caprio

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1424
  • You only receive flak when you are over the target
Re: Bugliosi's "Conclusion of No Conspiracy" Intro
« Reply #58 on: June 14, 2018, 04:02:39 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I responded to his assertion that the HSCA concluded that there were shots (note plural) fired from the GK. As you are aware, I noted that the HSCA only committed to one shot from the GK, and that was purely on the basis of the WA acoustic study, which turned out to be in error.

But speaking of funny...

What's really, truly funny is that you assumed that the discussion must be about whatever random pet windmill you've chosen to tilt at this minute...whether it had anything to do with the conversation or not.

What's even funnier is, your own source makes clear that there are no photos showing the SN window during the assassination, so there is no reason to expect to see a "recognizable human figure" of an assassin in those photos. You simply have no point.

They saw NO human figure immediately before or immediately after. How do you explain that if you continue to ridiculously claim that LHO was there (and of course there isn't a shred of evil to show that he was)?  Was he Houdini?

Online Mitch Todd

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 98
Re: Bugliosi's "Conclusion of No Conspiracy" Intro
« Reply #59 on: June 14, 2018, 04:28:56 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
They saw NO human figure immediately before or immediately after. How do you explain that if you continue to ridiculously claim that LHO was there (and of course there isn't a shred of evil to show that he was)?  Was he Houdini?

It's your assertion. It is up to *you* to explain that we *should* *expect* to see a "recognizable human figure" in any photos of the TSBD, and why we should expect to see it. How long after the last shot was the earliest after-the-fact photo taken? When was the last before-the-fact photo taken of that window? I doubt the sniper spent too much time setting up or bugging out. If the no photo is taken soon enough before or after, there is no good reason to expect anyone to be in the window at the first place.

And, you have to consider the various possible stances the sniper could take, visual obstructions like the boxes in the window or the wall to the east of the window, and the angle of the photographer with the TSBD WRT to these visual obstacles.  You may have a photo showing some part of a person up there, just not a "recognizable human figure," because most of that figure is hidden by some combination of boxes, walls, window mullions, and shadow. You've done none of that. You've simply assert whatever, then petulantly whined that I don't take your assertion seriously.

Which is yet another good reason for me to not to take your assertions seriously.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Bugliosi's "Conclusion of No Conspiracy" Intro
« Reply #59 on: June 14, 2018, 04:28:56 AM »