egafd.com

Flat_Eric wrote:

> Robches wrote:
>
> > It wasn't on his death bed, but he was ill and knew he had a
> > few months left.
>
> Hair-splitting.

Not really, he was not in extremis, it was a freely made decision to make his statement.

>
> > Hunt had long been thought to have been
> > involved in some way in JFK's death, and had in fact lost a
> > libel case he brought in the 1970s on this very point. The
> fact
> > that, towards the end of his life, he admitted that there had
> > been a CIA plot, and that he knew of it but did not take part
> > in it, is, to say the least, instructive.
>
>
> You may be right, you may not be. But at the end of the day
> it's all just conjecture isn't it? "He said / she said" kind of
> stuff, and uncorroborated. We'll probably never know for sure
> either way on the JFK shooting.
>
> - Eric

The problem is that people who support the Wareen Commission cannot accept any new evidence. Howard Hunt had a long career at the CIA, why should he suddenly decide to lie about a plot to kill JFK at the end of his life if it had no basis in fact?

Robches - you appear to be quite happy to accept that we have the technology and know-how to build spacecraft capable of carrying human beings on a quarter-million mile journey through the cold vacuum of space to the Moon, suatain them on that journey, land them on the surface of the Moon and then bring them safely back home again.

Yet at the same time - and given all of the above - you seem to think that it's a bit of a stretch that we could actually come up with a camera set-up good enough to take enough decent photos on the Moon's surface so that we don't have to resort to using fake photos afterwards.

Why is that? Because I find such thinking quite strange. Bizarre even.

- Eric

Robches wrote:

[quote]Howard Hunt had a long career at the CIA, why should he suddenly decide to lie about a plot to kill JFK at the end of his life if it had no basis in fact?[/quote]

I don't know Robches. You'd have to ask him. Although admittedly that would be a bit difficult given that he's brown bread.

I do know though that people lie for all kinds of reasons, some of which may seem hard for others to fathom.

Once again we're back to it being conjecture aren't we?

- Eric

Flat_Eric wrote:

> Robches - you appear to be quite happy to accept that we have
> the technology and know-how to build spacecraft capable of
> carrying human beings on a quarter-million mile journey through
> the cold vacuum of space to the Moon, suatain them on that
> journey, land them on the surface of the Moon and then bring
> them safely back home again.
>
> Yet at the same time - and given all of the above - you seem to
> think that it's a bit of a stretch that we could actually come
> up with a camera set-up good enough to take enough decent
> photos on the Moon's surface so that we don't have to resort to
> using fake photos afterwards.
>
> Why is that? Because I find such thinking quite strange.
> Bizarre even.
>
> - Eric

I don't see any great problem. The cameras and film were standard, the idea that they might have had problems taking photos on the moon is not so strange, neither is the idea that a government agency might sex up the data a bit. You have not mentioned the problem of the moon buggy which was deployed yet the foil wrapping on the LEM had not been opened. There are several photos with such anomalies, but a bit of photo manipulation by NASA seems more plausible than faking the entire lunar programme.

Flat_Eric wrote:

> Robches wrote:
>
> [quote]Howard Hunt had a long career at the CIA, why should he
> suddenly decide to lie about a plot to kill JFK at the end of
> his life if it had no basis in fact?[/quote]
>
> I don't know Robches. You'd have to ask him. Although
> admittedly that would be a bit difficult given that he's brown
> bread.
>
> I do know though that people lie for all kinds of reasons, some
> of which may seem hard for others to fathom.
>
> Once again we're back to it being conjecture aren't we?
>
> - Eric
>
>

My problem with the Warren Commission supporters is that they insist the case was closed in 1964. Thus they simply reject any and all new evidence which comes to light. Even if Howard Hunt had provided doumentary evidence they would have dismissed it as fake. In fact the CIA was well versed in setting up assassinations of this kind, it presented no major logistical or practical challenge.

Robches wrote:

> any and all new evidence which comes to light.


You misunderstand the meaning of the word evidence.

As explained above, even Hunt himself did not regard his claims as evidence. He said his claims were made as an "article of faith".

And you still haven't explained why you think that getting to the Moon and back should (apparently) be easier than being able to take a few decent photos once there.

Truly bizarre.

- Eric

Eric:

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

James:

Thanks for your comments.

The HSCA did indeed rely on the accoustic work of BBN and Weiss & Aschkenasy. The DoJ, which of course did not wish to reopen the JFK at all, used a report by the National Research Council to refute their findings. But you may wish to consult the more recent work of D B Thomas which supports the HSCA's experts.

The HSCA did find that JFK was killed as a result of conspiracy, but cleared the CIA. However, Dr Blakey, the chairman, has since said that he feels badly let down by the CIA's use of George Joannides as their liaison with the HSCA, when it turns out he was deeply involved in the CIA's JM/WAVE Anti-Casto programme in Florida. His eyes have finally been opened to the CIA's duplicity, he really did not think they would lie to him, but now he knows better.

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.

Robches wrote:

> The HSCA did indeed rely on the accoustic work of BBN and Weiss
> & Aschkenasy. The DoJ, which of course did not wish to reopen
> the JFK at all, used a report by the National Research Council
> to refute their findings. But you may wish to consult the more
> recent work of D B Thomas which supports the HSCA's experts.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dr Thomas's work has been thoroughly debunked. Unfortunately, like the HSCA, he got the timeline wrong and because of that the noises on the tape which have been claimed could be gunshots actually happened far too late to be anything to do with the Kennedy assassination. It's now known that the sound recordings did not come from Dealy Plaza anyway, regardless of the timeline, so Dr Thomas's work is irrelevant for that reason also. Dr Thomas no longer defends his work and admits it's now outdated.