Robches wrote:
> Essex Lad wrote:
>
> > I think that what escapes you is the sheer number of people
> > needed in almost any conspiracy - look at how much has come
> out
> > in history because someone can't keep a secret. Bugliosi said
> > that three men can keep a secret, as long as two are dead.
> You
> > say that Hunt has spoken out about a JFK conspiracy but not
> > about Watergate - how do you know he was telling the truth
> > about the death of the president?
>
> If you don't believe Hunt was telling the truth, fine, just
> don't say that no one has ever admitted knowing about a plot to
> kil the president.
Perhaps if Hunt had given a few more details, he might have been more credible. And you haven't answered the point about how many people would need to keep the secret.
>
> As to Vince, he has not progressed beyond attacking the HSCA
> and defending the Warren Commission. He does not use a
> computer, and keeps all his notes on file cards. The ARRB seems
> to have passed him by entirely.
The fact that he doesn't use a computer is relevant how?
>
> You have to bear in mind that Vince, and also Posner, are
> lawyers, not historians. Their brief was to defend the Warren
> Commission. Vince in particular is often rude and abusive
> towards anyone who disagrees with him, he's a tough advocate,
> but no historian.
Their brief is from whom? Or are you saying their client was the American government and they are part of a conspiracy to cover up a conspiracy. When Bugliosi prosecuted Oswald (defended by Gerry Spence) for LWT, a jury of Dallas citizens believed that the case had been proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
Conspiracy Theories
Re: Plots
Robches wrote:
> Essex Lad wrote:
>
>
> Serrano later withdrew her story. On
> > 20 June 1968, she underwent a lie detector test administered
> by
> > a Sergeant Hernandez.
>
> Sandy Serrano was bullied and forced to retract her statement
> in an outrageus manner. I take it you have heard the tape of
> her questioning by the LAPD? They did not treat her like a
> witness, but as someone whose testimony had to be eradicated at
> all costs. The fact that after all that she "failed" a
> polygraph administered by the LAPD itself is hardly a surprise.
> But if you believe a man who never got closer than a few feet
> to RFK shot him from a distance of one inch, I suppose anything
> is possible.
Have you heard other LAPD interrogations from the time?
Sirhan did get close to Kennedy; that has already been established if not more so than by Sirhan himself before he claimed amnesia.
> Essex Lad wrote:
>
>
> Serrano later withdrew her story. On
> > 20 June 1968, she underwent a lie detector test administered
> by
> > a Sergeant Hernandez.
>
> Sandy Serrano was bullied and forced to retract her statement
> in an outrageus manner. I take it you have heard the tape of
> her questioning by the LAPD? They did not treat her like a
> witness, but as someone whose testimony had to be eradicated at
> all costs. The fact that after all that she "failed" a
> polygraph administered by the LAPD itself is hardly a surprise.
> But if you believe a man who never got closer than a few feet
> to RFK shot him from a distance of one inch, I suppose anything
> is possible.
Have you heard other LAPD interrogations from the time?
Sirhan did get close to Kennedy; that has already been established if not more so than by Sirhan himself before he claimed amnesia.
Re: Plots
Robches wrote:
> Essex Lad wrote:
>
>
> > But the HSCA stated that without the Dictabelt, there was NO
> > conspiracy.
>
> Robert Blakey thought that. It was not the opinion of his
> researchers such as Gaeton Fonzi and Eddie Lopez. They knew
> they had developed far more evidence of conspiracy involving
> the CIA, which Blakey would not touch with a barge pole.
Ah so Blakey was in on it, too...
>
> >
> > But if you appointed all Democrats you would claim that how
> > could people who loved JFK come to an unbiased opinion?
>
> Are you seriously arguing that Allen Dulles was the only man
> they could find for the Warren Commission. Please think about
> it. He had been Director of Central Intelligence, and JFK
> sacked him in disgrace after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. He hated
> JFK with a vengeance, and yet he was meant to be an impartial
> arbiter of the evidence about JFK's assassination?
I don't see a problem. If anything, he would less biased than most.
>
>
> > You haven't said who "they" are? There is no evidence that
> > Oswald was ever involved in any CIA operations. Indeed, even
> > his wife says he was utterly unreliable and couldn't be
> trusted
> > to do anything/keep anything secret. Or do you believe that
> she
> > is part of the conspiracy as well?
>
> You may care to consult the report Eddie Lopez compiled for the
> HSCA about Oswald and Mexico City.
>
> >
> > Those who believe that Jack the Ripper was a conspiracy point
> > to the destruction of most of Scotland Yard notes as part of
> > the cover-up. The notes regarding the foundation of the MCC
> > have also been destroyed. The BBC has destroyed most of its
> > output from the 50s and 60s because it did not have the space
> > to store them including some very important historical
> > programmes. If the LAPD believed that the case was closed,
> then
> > they would have seen no reason to keep all the evidence. As I
> > said in my first post, most conspiracies are actually
> cock-ups.
>
> I think your argument makes no sense at all. There is no
> comparison between a TV programme and evidence from the murder
> of a major national figure. Sirhan Sirhan is still alive, and
> new evidence could come to light at any time. The idea that the
> LAPD could not find the space to store vital physical evidence
> from the crime scene is unbelievable.
You're missing my point. Evidence/notes can be destroyed for any number of reasons - some even innocent. You choose to see only malign ones. Sirhan is still alive but if you believe that he is going to talk now, I think you will be waiting a long time. Do you think every police force keeps every bit of evidence in case something comes along 40-odd years later?
>
>
> >
> > YOu must believe that there was nothing on the
> > > photos Scott Enyart took that night, which the LAPD
> > > confiscated, kept for 25 years, and which, after they were
> > > forced by a court to return them, were "stolen" en route.
> But
> > > you are quite free to believe all this if you wish, it's a
> > > free-ish country.
> > >
> Any thoughts?
Well, there is a dispute between him and the LAPD over how many pictures were taken. He says 3 rolls, they say one. He says he was in the pantry, they are adamant that he wasn't. Indeed, Sirhan says the reason he didn't shoot Kennedy between the eyes is because he turned his head at the last moment. On film, Enyart says that he saw Kennedy "twisting" - doesn't that confirm what Sirhan said is true?
> Essex Lad wrote:
>
>
> > But the HSCA stated that without the Dictabelt, there was NO
> > conspiracy.
>
> Robert Blakey thought that. It was not the opinion of his
> researchers such as Gaeton Fonzi and Eddie Lopez. They knew
> they had developed far more evidence of conspiracy involving
> the CIA, which Blakey would not touch with a barge pole.
Ah so Blakey was in on it, too...
>
> >
> > But if you appointed all Democrats you would claim that how
> > could people who loved JFK come to an unbiased opinion?
>
> Are you seriously arguing that Allen Dulles was the only man
> they could find for the Warren Commission. Please think about
> it. He had been Director of Central Intelligence, and JFK
> sacked him in disgrace after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. He hated
> JFK with a vengeance, and yet he was meant to be an impartial
> arbiter of the evidence about JFK's assassination?
I don't see a problem. If anything, he would less biased than most.
>
>
> > You haven't said who "they" are? There is no evidence that
> > Oswald was ever involved in any CIA operations. Indeed, even
> > his wife says he was utterly unreliable and couldn't be
> trusted
> > to do anything/keep anything secret. Or do you believe that
> she
> > is part of the conspiracy as well?
>
> You may care to consult the report Eddie Lopez compiled for the
> HSCA about Oswald and Mexico City.
>
> >
> > Those who believe that Jack the Ripper was a conspiracy point
> > to the destruction of most of Scotland Yard notes as part of
> > the cover-up. The notes regarding the foundation of the MCC
> > have also been destroyed. The BBC has destroyed most of its
> > output from the 50s and 60s because it did not have the space
> > to store them including some very important historical
> > programmes. If the LAPD believed that the case was closed,
> then
> > they would have seen no reason to keep all the evidence. As I
> > said in my first post, most conspiracies are actually
> cock-ups.
>
> I think your argument makes no sense at all. There is no
> comparison between a TV programme and evidence from the murder
> of a major national figure. Sirhan Sirhan is still alive, and
> new evidence could come to light at any time. The idea that the
> LAPD could not find the space to store vital physical evidence
> from the crime scene is unbelievable.
You're missing my point. Evidence/notes can be destroyed for any number of reasons - some even innocent. You choose to see only malign ones. Sirhan is still alive but if you believe that he is going to talk now, I think you will be waiting a long time. Do you think every police force keeps every bit of evidence in case something comes along 40-odd years later?
>
>
> >
> > YOu must believe that there was nothing on the
> > > photos Scott Enyart took that night, which the LAPD
> > > confiscated, kept for 25 years, and which, after they were
> > > forced by a court to return them, were "stolen" en route.
> But
> > > you are quite free to believe all this if you wish, it's a
> > > free-ish country.
> > >
> Any thoughts?
Well, there is a dispute between him and the LAPD over how many pictures were taken. He says 3 rolls, they say one. He says he was in the pantry, they are adamant that he wasn't. Indeed, Sirhan says the reason he didn't shoot Kennedy between the eyes is because he turned his head at the last moment. On film, Enyart says that he saw Kennedy "twisting" - doesn't that confirm what Sirhan said is true?
Re: Conspiracy Theories
JamesW wrote:
> Robches wrote:
>
> > You are still not an expert in photoanalysis, and neither am
> I.
>
>
> And neither was Jack White, but that didn't stop him did it?
>
> It's a bit cowardly of you to suggest that you aren't up to the
> task of assessing his claims, when many children could manage
> it.
>
>
I am not a coward and not a child. You on the other hand are not worth talking to. Get it?
> Robches wrote:
>
> > You are still not an expert in photoanalysis, and neither am
> I.
>
>
> And neither was Jack White, but that didn't stop him did it?
>
> It's a bit cowardly of you to suggest that you aren't up to the
> task of assessing his claims, when many children could manage
> it.
>
>
I am not a coward and not a child. You on the other hand are not worth talking to. Get it?
Re: Robches
Essex Lad wrote:
>
> Perhaps if Hunt had given a few more details, he might have
> been more credible. And you haven't answered the point about
> how many people would need to keep the secret.
I don't know how many people would be in on it. The CIA was a compartmentalised organisation, with dedicated assassination teams. Removing governments they deemed unhelpful was what they did.
y.
>
> The fact that he doesn't use a computer is relevant how?
How easy do you find it to keep up with things without one? Vince's refusal to use a computer or email means he is writing in splendid isolation. He has not really moved much beyond the 1970s in his sources.
>
> Their brief is from whom? Or are you saying their client was
> the American government and they are part of a conspiracy to
> cover up a conspiracy. When Bugliosi prosecuted Oswald
> (defended by Gerry Spence) for LWT, a jury of Dallas citizens
> believed that the case had been proved beyond all reasonable
> doubt.
Vince seems convinced that he somehow convicted Oswald, as if a TV show counted. Having a dead client might have hampered the defence a bit. As to who Posner might have been working for, he's pretty much a gun for hire. He notoriously used material prepared by the American Bar Association in his book Case Closed as if it were his own. We do know for a fact that the CIA maintained friendly assets in major newspapers and TV channels, whether Posner was being paid in some way by them one can only surmise. He's under no obligation to show us his tax returns, then again, for some odd reason Lee Harvey Oswald's tax returns are still embargoed after all these years. I wonder why?
>
> Perhaps if Hunt had given a few more details, he might have
> been more credible. And you haven't answered the point about
> how many people would need to keep the secret.
I don't know how many people would be in on it. The CIA was a compartmentalised organisation, with dedicated assassination teams. Removing governments they deemed unhelpful was what they did.
y.
>
> The fact that he doesn't use a computer is relevant how?
How easy do you find it to keep up with things without one? Vince's refusal to use a computer or email means he is writing in splendid isolation. He has not really moved much beyond the 1970s in his sources.
>
> Their brief is from whom? Or are you saying their client was
> the American government and they are part of a conspiracy to
> cover up a conspiracy. When Bugliosi prosecuted Oswald
> (defended by Gerry Spence) for LWT, a jury of Dallas citizens
> believed that the case had been proved beyond all reasonable
> doubt.
Vince seems convinced that he somehow convicted Oswald, as if a TV show counted. Having a dead client might have hampered the defence a bit. As to who Posner might have been working for, he's pretty much a gun for hire. He notoriously used material prepared by the American Bar Association in his book Case Closed as if it were his own. We do know for a fact that the CIA maintained friendly assets in major newspapers and TV channels, whether Posner was being paid in some way by them one can only surmise. He's under no obligation to show us his tax returns, then again, for some odd reason Lee Harvey Oswald's tax returns are still embargoed after all these years. I wonder why?
Re: Plots
Essex Lad wrote:
>
> Have you heard other LAPD interrogations from the time?
So we accept that the LAPD was a brutal and bullying organisation? Maybe their treatment of Sandy Serrano was all in a day's work for them, it doesn't make it right. Years later the Ramparts Division was revealed as a hotbed of violence and corruption, so we shouldn't be too surprised. The only thing which surprises me is the trust you show in this corrupt police force.
>
> Have you heard other LAPD interrogations from the time?
So we accept that the LAPD was a brutal and bullying organisation? Maybe their treatment of Sandy Serrano was all in a day's work for them, it doesn't make it right. Years later the Ramparts Division was revealed as a hotbed of violence and corruption, so we shouldn't be too surprised. The only thing which surprises me is the trust you show in this corrupt police force.
Re: Plots
Essex Lad wrote:
> Ah so Blakey was in on it, too...
Blakey was pretty keen not find evidence of a conspiracy, the dictabelt findings were what finally swung it for him. Now he realises that the CIA duped him, but it's only 30 years too late. Still, he got there in the end.
>
> I don't see a problem. If anything, he would less biased than
> most.
Less biased how? He hated JFK, and the CIA was virtually his personal creation. Do you think he would be keen to get beyond Oswald? Dulles' position on the Warren Commission more than anything shows it was not a serious attempt to find the truth.
>
> You're missing my point. Evidence/notes can be destroyed for
> any number of reasons - some even innocent. You choose to see
> only malign ones. Sirhan is still alive but if you believe that
> he is going to talk now, I think you will be waiting a long
> time. Do you think every police force keeps every bit of
> evidence in case something comes along 40-odd years later?
Frankly, I would expect evidence from Special Unit Senator to be kept. Even the Warren Commission did not destroy physical evidence, the LAPD plumbed a new low in cover ups.
>
> Well, there is a dispute between him and the LAPD over how many
> pictures were taken. He says 3 rolls, they say one. He says he
> was in the pantry, they are adamant that he wasn't. Indeed,
> Sirhan says the reason he didn't shoot Kennedy between the eyes
> is because he turned his head at the last moment. On film,
> Enyart says that he saw Kennedy "twisting" - doesn't that
> confirm what Sirhan said is true?
You will be aware that the LAPD tried to claim that Scott Enyart was never there that night, and even that he was mentally unbalanced. When, after a court case, they were finally forced to concede that he was there, he did take photographs, they had the photographs, and they would return them, you might have thought the case was closed. But no, the car they sent to pick the photos up from the archives was stolen from a gas station on its way back. What are the odds? If Scott Enyart's photos showed nothing more than the official story, the LAPD sure went out of their way to prevent the world seeing them. I wonder why?
> Ah so Blakey was in on it, too...
Blakey was pretty keen not find evidence of a conspiracy, the dictabelt findings were what finally swung it for him. Now he realises that the CIA duped him, but it's only 30 years too late. Still, he got there in the end.
>
> I don't see a problem. If anything, he would less biased than
> most.
Less biased how? He hated JFK, and the CIA was virtually his personal creation. Do you think he would be keen to get beyond Oswald? Dulles' position on the Warren Commission more than anything shows it was not a serious attempt to find the truth.
>
> You're missing my point. Evidence/notes can be destroyed for
> any number of reasons - some even innocent. You choose to see
> only malign ones. Sirhan is still alive but if you believe that
> he is going to talk now, I think you will be waiting a long
> time. Do you think every police force keeps every bit of
> evidence in case something comes along 40-odd years later?
Frankly, I would expect evidence from Special Unit Senator to be kept. Even the Warren Commission did not destroy physical evidence, the LAPD plumbed a new low in cover ups.
>
> Well, there is a dispute between him and the LAPD over how many
> pictures were taken. He says 3 rolls, they say one. He says he
> was in the pantry, they are adamant that he wasn't. Indeed,
> Sirhan says the reason he didn't shoot Kennedy between the eyes
> is because he turned his head at the last moment. On film,
> Enyart says that he saw Kennedy "twisting" - doesn't that
> confirm what Sirhan said is true?
You will be aware that the LAPD tried to claim that Scott Enyart was never there that night, and even that he was mentally unbalanced. When, after a court case, they were finally forced to concede that he was there, he did take photographs, they had the photographs, and they would return them, you might have thought the case was closed. But no, the car they sent to pick the photos up from the archives was stolen from a gas station on its way back. What are the odds? If Scott Enyart's photos showed nothing more than the official story, the LAPD sure went out of their way to prevent the world seeing them. I wonder why?
Re: Conspiracy Theories
Robches wrote:
> I am not a coward and not a child. You on the other hand are
> not worth talking to. Get it?
That sounds like total surrender. I guess you're pretty much out of options at this stage though and had no other choice.
Anyway, just some brief notes on Jack White.
1. Jack's only qualifications were in journalism and history.
2. Jack's claims regarding Apollo photography derive from photogrammetric analysis, shadow analysis and perspective analysis. Jack freely admitted he had no qualifications or expertise in these areas.
3. Jack's assertions regarding the Apollo photographs are frequently absurd and in many cases it's clear that he didn't understand what various Apollo equipment was or what it was used for.
4. Despite living close to NASA, Jack never once took the time to examine any piece of Apollo hardware such as the lunar module, nor did he ever check any of his claimed facts with NASA.
5. Some of Jack's claimed anomalies derive from his own changes to the photos, as in some cases he edited and composed the photos in a way which created "anomalies" which weren't there previously. For example, he cropped and resized 2 photos of the same lunar mountain in order to argue that the mountain changed size between the 2 photos, suggesting the same studio backdrop was used in 2 different occasions. In fact when the unaltered original NASA photos are examined the mountain is proportionally the same size.
6. Jack frequently cropped the NASA reference out of pictures to make it difficult to check on whether he was using a NASA original or a photo which had been altered in some way.
7. Jack's own website does not allow any discussion of his claims.
8. Jack made many fundamental errors regarding Apollo operations. In the example quoted by Robches above he claimed that the lunar rover was packed in quad 4 when it was actually in quad 1. Robches blindly repeated this error.
> I am not a coward and not a child. You on the other hand are
> not worth talking to. Get it?
That sounds like total surrender. I guess you're pretty much out of options at this stage though and had no other choice.
Anyway, just some brief notes on Jack White.
1. Jack's only qualifications were in journalism and history.
2. Jack's claims regarding Apollo photography derive from photogrammetric analysis, shadow analysis and perspective analysis. Jack freely admitted he had no qualifications or expertise in these areas.
3. Jack's assertions regarding the Apollo photographs are frequently absurd and in many cases it's clear that he didn't understand what various Apollo equipment was or what it was used for.
4. Despite living close to NASA, Jack never once took the time to examine any piece of Apollo hardware such as the lunar module, nor did he ever check any of his claimed facts with NASA.
5. Some of Jack's claimed anomalies derive from his own changes to the photos, as in some cases he edited and composed the photos in a way which created "anomalies" which weren't there previously. For example, he cropped and resized 2 photos of the same lunar mountain in order to argue that the mountain changed size between the 2 photos, suggesting the same studio backdrop was used in 2 different occasions. In fact when the unaltered original NASA photos are examined the mountain is proportionally the same size.
6. Jack frequently cropped the NASA reference out of pictures to make it difficult to check on whether he was using a NASA original or a photo which had been altered in some way.
7. Jack's own website does not allow any discussion of his claims.
8. Jack made many fundamental errors regarding Apollo operations. In the example quoted by Robches above he claimed that the lunar rover was packed in quad 4 when it was actually in quad 1. Robches blindly repeated this error.
UK Babe Channels - <http://www.babechannels.co.uk>
Re: Conspiracy Theories
JamesW wrote:
>
> That sounds like total surrender. I guess you're pretty much
> out of options at this stage though and had no other choice.
>
Yes, you are right, I surrender totally to your analytical genius. Now can you please just shut the fuck up, or is that too much to ask?
>
> That sounds like total surrender. I guess you're pretty much
> out of options at this stage though and had no other choice.
>
Yes, you are right, I surrender totally to your analytical genius. Now can you please just shut the fuck up, or is that too much to ask?
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
James W/Robches
Either of you lads got any views about the death of Princess Di?
Bumped off by a palace hit squad, commissioned by the Dook?
Bumped off by a palace hit squad, commissioned by the Dook?