egafd.com

Robches wrote:
> Are you aware of the Miami and Chicago plots?

So, basically, your thesis is that there were several plots all orchestrated by the CIA (have you said what their motive was?) to kill President John F. Kennedy and if Oswald hadn't succeeded, someone else would have. Is that what you believe? That must have taken some logistical planning.

I find it difficult to countenance that in 49 years not one FBI/CIA agent has broken ranks (apart from your Mr Hunt) to spill the beans. To arrange all these plots must have involved dozens if not hundreds of personnel, all of whom have stayed silent. Since November 1963, not one agent has spoken out; not one attorney-general has decided to investigate; not one Democratic president has bothered to expose the CIA's malfeasance - not even President Clinton, to whom President Kennedy was a hero. The president appointed the director of the CIA (and indeed President Kennedy appointed a Republican one) yet not one occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has ever bothered to expose the renegade agency. Wouldn't the president or attorney-general who exposed the CIA become a national hero? Look at the public adulation given to Woodward and Bernstein. After 49 years, the truth would finally be out. But no, nothing, silence.

By now, there must be thousands keeping the guilty secret yet all have stayed silent. Not one disgruntled ex-wife or ex-mistress or homosexual lover has ever broken ranks to reveal the pillow talk of a conspirator. Not one conspirator has boasted about his role in the assassination of President Kennedy - to impress a lover or get someone into bed. "Listen, do you want to know a secret? Where were you when Kennedy was shot? Lemme tell you where I was..."

It really is beyond belief that if there had been a conspiracy, that by no one would have blabbed.

Conspiracies
Lincoln assassination
Cato St Conspiracy
Gunpowder Plot
Tolpuddle Martyrs
Watergate
Operation Valkyrie
Munich Beer Hall Putsch

No conspiracy
Assassination of President Kennedy
Assassination of Senator Kennedy
Assassination of Martin Luther King
Moon landing
9/11
and most others.

Essex Lad wrote:
>
> By now, there must be thousands keeping the guilty secret yet
> all have stayed silent. Not one disgruntled ex-wife or
> ex-mistress or homosexual lover has ever broken ranks to reveal
> the pillow talk of a conspirator. Not one conspirator has
> boasted about his role in the assassination of President
> Kennedy - to impress a lover or get someone into bed. "Listen,
> do you want to know a secret? Where were you when Kennedy was
> shot? Lemme tell you where I was..."
>
And if you don't believe that people would boast about criminality or links to crimes, look how many people claim to have been friends of the Krays... even now.

Essex Lad wrote:

> Robches wrote:
>
> You seem to think Oswald was the
> > triggerman, not the fall guy.
>
> So you are saying Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy?

I have come to the conclusion that he didn't. As you know, he was found in the lunch room of the TBSD less then two minutes after the assassination, and Victoria Adams, a secretary at the TBSD, was on the back stairs he is meant to have used, and did not see him. The Warren Commission was uninterested in her testimony. The Warren Commisssion was uninterested in any evidence which did not implicate Oswald.

Robches wrote:

> Essex Lad wrote:
>
> > Robches wrote:
> >
> > You seem to think Oswald was the
> > > triggerman, not the fall guy.
> >
> > So you are saying Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy?
>
> I have come to the conclusion that he didn't. As you know, he
> was found in the lunch room of the TBSD less then two minutes
> after the assassination, and Victoria Adams, a secretary at the
> TBSD, was on the back stairs he is meant to have used, and did
> not see him. The Warren Commission was uninterested in her
> testimony. The Warren Commisssion was uninterested in any
> evidence which did not implicate Oswald.

So who was the gunman (gunmen?) in your opinion?

Essex Lad wrote:

> Robches wrote:
> > Are you aware of the Miami and Chicago plots?
>
> So, basically, your thesis is that there were several plots all
> orchestrated by the CIA (have you said what their motive was?)
> to kill President John F. Kennedy and if Oswald hadn't
> succeeded, someone else would have. Is that what you believe?
> That must have taken some logistical planning.

Yes, there do seem to have been plots in Miami and Chicago.

The CIA's problem with JFK was that he wanted to break it up after the Bay of Pigs. They despised him for his "weakness" over Communism in Cuba, and in this they had allies in the Mob and anti-Castro Cubans. You would no doubt once have dismissed the idea that the CIA, Mob and anti-Castro Cubans would conspire to assassinate Fidel Castro, and yet it's true.

The CIA was well versed in assassination and regime change, and they had a sniper training programme in Mexico code named ZR/RIFLE to provide assassins as and when needed.



>
> I find it difficult to countenance that in 49 years not one
> FBI/CIA agent has broken ranks (apart from your Mr Hunt) to
> spill the beans. To arrange all these plots must have involved
> dozens if not hundreds of personnel, all of whom have stayed
> silent. Since November 1963, not one agent has spoken out; not
> one attorney-general has decided to investigate; not one
> Democratic president has bothered to expose the CIA's
> malfeasance - not even President Clinton, to whom President
> Kennedy was a hero. The president appointed the director of the
> CIA (and indeed President Kennedy appointed a Republican one)
> yet not one occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has ever
> bothered to expose the renegade agency. Wouldn't the president
> or attorney-general who exposed the CIA become a national hero?
> Look at the public adulation given to Woodward and Bernstein.
> After 49 years, the truth would finally be out. But no,
> nothing, silence.

The default position of the US government has been cover-up. The idea that the CIA might have assassinated the president simply could not be countenanced. It happens in other countries, but not the USA. JFK sacked Allen Dulles as Director of Central Intelligence after the Bay of Pigs, yet he was appointed to the Warren Commission. The cynicism is too obvious.

>
> By now, there must be thousands keeping the guilty secret yet
> all have stayed silent. Not one disgruntled ex-wife or
> ex-mistress or homosexual lover has ever broken ranks to reveal
> the pillow talk of a conspirator. Not one conspirator has
> boasted about his role in the assassination of President
> Kennedy - to impress a lover or get someone into bed. "Listen,
> do you want to know a secret? Where were you when Kennedy was
> shot? Lemme tell you where I was..."
>
> It really is beyond belief that if there had been a conspiracy,
> that by no one would have blabbed.

Apart from Howard Hunt? If anyone had talked (and not been rubbed out), you would dismiss them as easily as you dismiss Howard Hunt. What sort of evidence could they provide? Written orders from David Phillips to assassinate the president? Really though, how many people do you think this needed? Hardly thousands, or even hundreds. The CIA is a tightly compartmentalised organisation. People could be working on logistics projects and have no knowledge of the bigger picture


>
> Conspiracies
> Lincoln assassination
> Cato St Conspiracy
> Gunpowder Plot
> Tolpuddle Martyrs
> Watergate
> Operation Valkyrie
> Munich Beer Hall Putsch
>
> No conspiracy
> Assassination of President Kennedy
> Assassination of Senator Kennedy
> Assassination of Martin Luther King
> Moon landing
> 9/11
> and most others.

You may be amazed, but I disagree about Robert Kennedy and Dr King. And 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy? How many people do you think were involved (clue: it was more than one)?

Robches wrote:

> Essex Lad wrote:
>
> > Robches wrote:
> > > Are you aware of the Miami and Chicago plots?
> >
> > So, basically, your thesis is that there were several plots
> all
> > orchestrated by the CIA (have you said what their motive
> was?)
> > to kill President John F. Kennedy and if Oswald hadn't
> > succeeded, someone else would have. Is that what you believe?
> > That must have taken some logistical planning.
>
> Yes, there do seem to have been plots in Miami and Chicago.
>
> The CIA's problem with JFK was that he wanted to break it up
> after the Bay of Pigs. They despised him for his "weakness"
> over Communism in Cuba, and in this they had allies in the Mob
> and anti-Castro Cubans. You would no doubt once have dismissed
> the idea that the CIA, Mob and anti-Castro Cubans would
> conspire to assassinate Fidel Castro, and yet it's true.
>
> The CIA was well versed in assassination and regime change, and
> they had a sniper training programme in Mexico code named
> ZR/RIFLE to provide assassins as and when needed.
>
You could and probably would argue that the mafia wanted Castro gone because he threw them out of all the mob-run casinos in Havana and they lost an immense amount of revenue. Similarly, anti-Castro Cubans would want him gone in the same way anti-Gadaffi Libyans, anti-Mubarak Egyptians, anti-Assad Syrians want(ed) them gone.

I don't accept the idea that the CIA plotted to kill the president because he wanted to break up the organisation. Was it the whole of the CIA? Or just a few renegades?

>
>
> >
> > I find it difficult to countenance that in 49 years not one
> > FBI/CIA agent has broken ranks (apart from your Mr Hunt) to
> > spill the beans. To arrange all these plots must have
> involved
> > dozens if not hundreds of personnel, all of whom have stayed
> > silent. Since November 1963, not one agent has spoken out;
> not
> > one attorney-general has decided to investigate; not one
> > Democratic president has bothered to expose the CIA's
> > malfeasance - not even President Clinton, to whom President
> > Kennedy was a hero. The president appointed the director of
> the
> > CIA (and indeed President Kennedy appointed a Republican one)
> > yet not one occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has ever
> > bothered to expose the renegade agency. Wouldn't the
> president
> > or attorney-general who exposed the CIA become a national
> hero?
> > Look at the public adulation given to Woodward and Bernstein.
> > After 49 years, the truth would finally be out. But no,
> > nothing, silence.
>
> The default position of the US government has been cover-up.
> The idea that the CIA might have assassinated the president
> simply could not be countenanced. It happens in other
> countries, but not the USA. JFK sacked Allen Dulles as Director
> of Central Intelligence after the Bay of Pigs, yet he was
> appointed to the Warren Commission. The cynicism is too
> obvious.
>
So you are saying Dulles was sacked by President Kennedy and then appointed to the Warren Commission so that he could continue the cover-up?

> >
> > By now, there must be thousands keeping the guilty secret yet
> > all have stayed silent. Not one disgruntled ex-wife or
> > ex-mistress or homosexual lover has ever broken ranks to
> reveal
> > the pillow talk of a conspirator. Not one conspirator has
> > boasted about his role in the assassination of President
> > Kennedy - to impress a lover or get someone into bed.
> "Listen,
> > do you want to know a secret? Where were you when Kennedy was
> > shot? Lemme tell you where I was..."
> >
> > It really is beyond belief that if there had been a
> conspiracy,
> > that by no one would have blabbed.
>
> Apart from Howard Hunt? If anyone had talked (and not been
> rubbed out), you would dismiss them as easily as you dismiss
> Howard Hunt. What sort of evidence could they provide? Written
> orders from David Phillips to assassinate the president? Really
> though, how many people do you think this needed? Hardly
> thousands, or even hundreds. The CIA is a tightly
> compartmentalised organisation. People could be working on
> logistics projects and have no knowledge of the bigger picture
>

But no one has talked. And you would need dozens to have plots in Dallas, Miami and Chicago. Look how many were involved in Watergate, multiply that by three and that's a substantial number already.
>
> >
> > Conspiracies
> > Lincoln assassination
> > Cato St Conspiracy
> > Gunpowder Plot
> > Tolpuddle Martyrs
> > Watergate
> > Operation Valkyrie
> > Munich Beer Hall Putsch
> >
> > No conspiracy
> > Assassination of President Kennedy
> > Assassination of Senator Kennedy
> > Assassination of Martin Luther King
> > Moon landing
> > 9/11
> > and most others.
>
> You may be amazed, but I disagree about Robert Kennedy and Dr
> King. And 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy? How many people do you
> think were involved (clue: it was more than one)?

Sorry, I meant there was no conspiracy by the American government in 9/11.

No, I'm not surprised that you disagree with me on RFK and MLK. But having read and written extensively on all three cases (JFK, RFK and MLK), I'm in agreement with Dan Moldea, Gerald Posner, Mel Ayton and Vincent Bugliosi that all three were killed by loners.

On a slightly different tack, what do you think of the death of Diana, Princess of Wales?

Flat_Eric wrote:

> 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.


Good post Flat_Eric for which I thank you but it's not exactly correct.

You are right that the moon buggys were stowed on Quadrant 1. Where Robches is confused is in not knowing one quad from another and therefore falling into foolish error.

The foil which Robches continually refers to as not having been unpacked is foil which covered Quadrant 4. In the image he refers to there is indeed foil covering Quadrant 4. However, as you correctly point out, the moon buggys were stowed in Quadrant 1 - which in the image in question is not covered in foil.

Basically, Robches has made a silly error and confused Quad 4 for Quad 1. His entire argument rests on that fundamental mistake. In the image he keeps referencing Quad 1 is clearly unpacked. As a matter of fact the image in question was actually taken some time after Quad 1 was unpacked and the lunar buggy deployed.

'On a slightly different tack, what do you think of the death of Diana, Princess of Wales?'

Dont get them started. We'll never hear the end of it.

Thanks you JamesW for that clarification. I was sure that there had to be some kind of logical explanation for it (as there almost invariably is with these "conspiracy" things).

- Eric

JamesW wrote:


>
> Good post Flat_Eric for which I thank you but it's not exactly
> correct.
>
> You are right that the moon buggys were stowed on Quadrant 1.
> Where Robches is confused is in not knowing one quad from
> another and therefore falling into foolish error.
>
> The foil which Robches continually refers to as not having been
> unpacked is foil which covered Quadrant 4. In the image he
> refers to there is indeed foil covering Quadrant 4. However, as
> you correctly point out, the moon buggys were stowed in
> Quadrant 1 - which in the image in question is not covered in
> foil.
>
> Basically, Robches has made a silly error and confused Quad 4
> for Quad 1. His entire argument rests on that fundamental
> mistake. In the image he keeps referencing Quad 1 is clearly
> unpacked. As a matter of fact the image in question was
> actually taken some time after Quad 1 was unpacked and the
> lunar buggy deployed.
>

As I said, I don't claim to be any sort of expert in this area, and the moon buggy photo was just one which had stayed in my mind. Since then I have looked again at Jack White's analysis of numerous photos in which he detects anomalies. To a layman such as myself, they seem valid, but since I am not an expert, I can't judge it for sure.