egafd.com

Essex Lad wrote:

> 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:
>

You can fling insults round if you like. I have read widely around this subject and come to my own conclusions based on evidence. You are welcome to have a differing opinion, I won't insult you and would expect the same in return.

Robches wrote:

> 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?


McAdams did not publish that paper. It was independently published. McADams putting a copy on his website does not make him the publisher. If I put a copy on my website it would not make me the publisher either.

There are other comprehensive rebuttals of Thomas's work. He gave interviews defending his work until 2007, when he admitted that he couldn't explain the police words on the tape alongside the supposed gunshot, when it's known for a fact that the words weren't spoken until a minute or two later.

s rougier wrote:

> 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. He blamed it on an improbably long list of people and freely admitted that there was zero evidence to support his claims.

I really wasn't insulting you and if you felt that I was, I unreservedly apologise.

I would humbly suggest that you haven't read the evidence because if you had, then there is only one possible conclusion to the assassination of President Kennedy and that Lee Harvey Oswald was acting alone.

There is no evidence that Oswald had connections with the mafia or the CIA or are you suggesting that he didn't fire the bullets from the Texas School Book Depository?

As Vincent Bugliosi says if he had been in cahoots, don't you think that they would have whisked him out of the area as soon as possible rather than letting him wander the streets of Dallas before shooting a policeman?

Robches wrote:
>
> The House Select Committee on Assassinations found that the JFK
> assassination was as a result of conspiracy,

In fact, the House Select Committee on Assassinations specifically stated that the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, mafia, anti-Castro Cubans, Cuba, etc were not involved in any conspiracy to kill the president. The committee's belief in a conspiracy was based solely on their view that there was a "high probability" (their words) that a fourth shot was fired based on the analysis (discussed elsewhere) of the police Dictabelt. If you ignore that piece of "evidence" then their conclusion was that Oswald shot the president and there was no evidence that he conspired with anyone else - identical to the Warren Commission.

Essex Lad wrote:

> As Vincent Bugliosi says if he had been in cahoots, don't you
> think that they would have whisked him out of the area as soon
> as possible rather than letting him wander the streets of
> Dallas before shooting a policeman?


Exactly. If there had been any conspirators then the gunman is likely to have been in Mexico within 2 hours of the shooting. That is the most important point of all to be made in any discussion of this subject.

The chances of conspirators somehow failing to arrange a getaway car and leaving the gunman to fall into the hands of the Dallas police are frankly zero. Even conspiracy theorists should be able to understand that.

JamesW wrote:

> Essex Lad wrote:
>
> > As Vincent Bugliosi says if he had been in cahoots, don't you
> > think that they would have whisked him out of the area as
> soon
> > as possible rather than letting him wander the streets of
> > Dallas before shooting a policeman?
>
>
> Exactly. If there had been any conspirators then the gunman is
> likely to have been in Mexico within 2 hours of the shooting.
> That is the most important point of all to be made in any
> discussion of this subject.
>
> The chances of conspirators somehow failing to arrange a
> getaway car and leaving the gunman to fall into the hands of
> the Dallas police are frankly zero. Even conspiracy theorists
> should be able to understand that.
>
>

It's actually worse than that. Lee Harvey Oswald was a nutcase. He defected to the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War and when he was refused asylum, he slit his wrists.

The presidential trip was announced on 26 September 1963. Oswald was in Mexico until at least 1 October, trying to get to Cuba so no conspiracy could have been hatched before then - just seven weeks before President Kennedy's death. It took seven years to organise the 2012 Olympics and still things are going wrong. Could the CIA, mafia, anti-Castro Cubans et al have began a conspiracy and found a reliable assassin (and another reliable assassin to kill the assassin) in just seven weeks?

In that small time scale they had to find a killer, make sure he didn't mention the plot to anyone, and also ensure that they only told those conspirators who could be relied upon to keep their mouths shut - so not one smalltime mafia hood could be told because he might make a deal with the authorities or an informer mention the president was going to be assassinated in Dallas to his FBI/CIA handler (unless, of course, every single FBI/CIA agent was in on it and have all kept their mouths shut for 49 years).

Oswald began working at the Texas School Book Depository on 15 October 1963, so obviously the conspirators can pull strings to get him in the right place at the right time. But no! Hang on! The decision to drive past the TSBD was not taken until 18 November and published in Dallas Morning News on 19 November so the conspirators must have hatched and executed their plan in THREE DAYS. Unless, of course, Oswald was hired to track and kill the president wherever he was in Dallas, which is preposterous.

Apologies, I missed your excellent evaluation of the HSCA (hence my posting the self same thing albeit linked to a Robches posting).

As for Howard Hunt - as you say he was a Watergate conspiracy. And that unravelled in about a fortnight, despite being known only to President Nixon's closest supporters - yet it leaked. For a CIA conspiracy to have validity, how many dozens even hundreds of agents mist have kept schtum - something that they could not manage in 1972.

JamesW wrote:

> Robches wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
>
> McAdams did not publish that paper. It was independently
> published. McADams putting a copy on his website does not make
> him the publisher. If I put a copy on my website it would not
> make me the publisher either.
>
> There are other comprehensive rebuttals of Thomas's work. He
> gave interviews defending his work until 2007, when he admitted
> that he couldn't explain the police words on the tape alongside
> the supposed gunshot, when it's known for a fact that the words
> weren't spoken until a minute or two later.
>


It is still the case that McAdams would never publish or carry a pro conspiracy paper, he is a diehard Warren Commission man. If Thomas admitted he could not explain something, I don't think that amounts to him repudiating his entire thesis, as you implied. However, it is fair to say that the whole acoustic evidence argument is one which is hard for laymen to follow at times.

Essex Lad wrote:

> I really wasn't insulting you and if you felt that I was, I
> unreservedly apologise.
>
> I would humbly suggest that you haven't read the evidence
> because if you had, then there is only one possible conclusion
> to the assassination of President Kennedy and that Lee Harvey
> Oswald was acting alone.
>
> There is no evidence that Oswald had connections with the mafia
> or the CIA or are you suggesting that he didn't fire the
> bullets from the Texas School Book Depository?
>
> As Vincent Bugliosi says if he had been in cahoots, don't you
> think that they would have whisked him out of the area as soon
> as possible rather than letting him wander the streets of
> Dallas before shooting a policeman?

Fair enough, but what do you mean by evidence? If you mean the Warren Report and Vince's book you are hardly looking at all the evidence.

There was, for instance, evidence that Oswald was seen with Ruby, who himself had deep links to the Chicago Mob. There is evidence that Oswlad knew David Atlee Phillips of the CIA, all of which was developed by investigators at the HSCA, but suppressed by Robert Blakey. You maybe have to read around the subject a bit more.