Conspiracy Theories

[Robches]

James:

Interesting, do you have any links? I was not aware that Thomas had rejected his earlier findings.

The HSCA did indeed rely heavily on the accoustics. That was because Dr Blakey was very reluctant to see a conspiracy unless he had some sort of concrete physical evidence. Many of his researchers were convinced of conspiracy based on what they had found, such as the evidence of Sylvia Odio, the role of George de Mohrenschildt, and Oswald's journey to Mexico City, detailed in the Lopez Report, which is still largely classified. Gaeton Fonzi's book The Last Investigation is a good overview of this. But Blakey would brook no mention of US government agencies being involved in the assassination in any way, though he was happy to pin it on the mob.

[Flat_Eric]

Robches wrote:

> How can the moon buggy be both deployed and still packed away
> on the LEM?


Not having seen the photo you're talking about, it's hard to comment on it.

Nevertheless, I've done you the courtesy of googling to find out how the moon buggys were stowed on and deployed from the lunar modules (LMs) to try and answer it for you. And it appears that only the thermal blanket (the "foil") on Quadrant 1 (the section of the LM containing the buggy) needed to be removed.

It could a simple matter of the buggy photo having been taken from an angle that concealed Quadrant 1 (the part of the LM from which the foil had been removed in order to get the buggy out) - the buggy having been driven to the opposite side of the LM in the time between its deployment and the photo being taken.

So maybe you'll now be good enough to explain why you're insisting that while we have the technology to get to another world and return again, said technology is not so far advanced to enable us to take some decent snaps when we get there?

Why is that such a stretch for you? I'm genuinely puzzled.

- Eric

[JamesW]

Robches wrote:

> James:
>
> Interesting, do you have any links?


Try this one: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/odell/

It's rather technical in parts but it's worth the read.

[Ken Shabby]

There's plenty of others though: Roswell, Jack the Ripper, Bigfoot even....

[Essex Lad]

Robches wrote:

> As to E. Howard Hunt, his statement is evidence inasmuch as it
> is not hearsay, it was what he knew of the plot. But there is
> no paperwork or anything like that to back him up, you would
> hardly expect the CIA to keep memos about a presidential
> assassination plot. The fact is that a man deeply involved in
> CIA black ops, who was long suspected of having involvement in
> JFK's assassination, eventually came clean and admitted
> involvement. However, for the Warren Commission supporters,
> that means nothing. If it wasn't in the Warren Commission in
> 1964, it didn't hapen.

No, you wouldn't expect the CIA to keep memos about a plot that never happened.

[s rougier]

> The fact is that a man deeply involved in
> CIA black ops, who was long suspected of having involvement in
> JFK's assassination, eventually came clean and admitted
> involvement.


That's not true at all. I thought he denied any involvement and blamed it on a list of people who had all died long ago. So much for coming clean. I thought the only thing he supposedly confessed to was knowing about it.

[Robches]

JamesW wrote:

> Robches wrote:
>
> > James:
> >
> > Interesting, do you have any links?
>
>
> Try this one: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/odell/
>
> It's rather technical in parts but it's worth the read.
>

You will be aware no doubt that McAdams is a fanatical Warren Commission supporter. He would never publish anything which favoured the anti-WC side. I do not see from this paper any indication that Thomas has repudiated his 2001 paper. Did I miss it?

[Robches]

s rougier wrote:

> > The fact is that a man deeply involved in
> > CIA black ops, who was long suspected of having involvement
> in
> > JFK's assassination, eventually came clean and admitted
> > involvement.
>
>
> That's not true at all. I thought he denied any involvement and
> blamed it on a list of people who had all died long ago. So
> much for coming clean. I thought the only thing he supposedly
> confessed to was knowing about it.

You are right, inasmuch as he admitted he knew of the CIA plot, but declined to take part. The important thing is he admitted he knew of a plot, and indeed he implicated himself, as anyone with knowledge of a plot to kill the president has a duty to report it, which he did not. Instead he kept quiet at the time, only admitting it when he knew he did not have very long to live.

You will be aware that Hunt was not a minor figure, he worked very closely in the early 60s with David Atlee Phillips, the head of the CIA's Western Hemisphere Division, and the man thought by some to have been the lynchpin of a plot involving the CIA, Mafia and anti-Castro Cubans.

[Robches]

Flat_Eric wrote:

> Robches wrote:
>
> > How can the moon buggy be both deployed and still packed away
> > on the LEM?
>
>
> Not having seen the photo you're talking about, it's hard to
> comment on it.
>
> Nevertheless, I've done you the courtesy of googling to find
> out how the moon buggys were stowed on and deployed from the
> lunar modules (LMs) to try and answer it for you. And it
> appears that only the thermal blanket (the "foil") on Quadrant
> 1 (the section of the LM containing the buggy) needed to be
> removed.
>
> It could a simple matter of the buggy photo having been taken
> from an angle that concealed Quadrant 1 (the part of the LM
> from which the foil had been removed in order to get the buggy
> out) - the buggy having been driven to the opposite side of the
> LM in the time between its deployment and the photo being
> taken.
>
> So maybe you'll now be good enough to explain why you're
> insisting that while we have the technology to get to another
> world and return again, said technology is not so far advanced
> to enable us to take some decent snaps when we get there?
>
> Why is that such a stretch for you? I'm genuinely puzzled.
>
> - Eric
>

My problem here is that I am no sort of photographic expert, yet I can see the anomalies detailed by Jack White in the photographic record at www.aulis.com. Now I don't have the knowledge to know if there are good explanations of these anomalies or not, but it does occcur to me that evidence of fakery in the photographic record is not in itself evidence that the lunar missions were faked, but might be explained with reference to a desire to present better photos that could be achieved on the moon. I don't know if that is the case, and I don't have a strong position on it, because, as I said, I don't have the photographic knowledge. All I know is that the anomalies seem real to me, but I admit I am a layman in these matters.

[Essex Lad]

Robches wrote:
> You are right, inasmuch as he admitted he knew of the CIA plot,
> but declined to take part. The important thing is he admitted
> he knew of a plot, and indeed he implicated himself, as anyone
> with knowledge of a plot to kill the president has a duty to
> report it, which he did not. Instead he kept quiet at the time,
> only admitting it when he knew he did not have very long to
> live.
>
> You will be aware that Hunt was not a minor figure, he worked
> very closely in the early 60s with David Atlee Phillips, the
> head of the CIA's Western Hemisphere Division, and the man
> thought by some to have been the lynchpin of a plot involving
> the CIA, Mafia and anti-Castro Cubans.

We are getting into Alice In Wonderland here. Look at this: