egafd.com

Essex Lad wrote:


> >
> 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.

Yes, there was a shared interest between the CIA, Mob and anti-Castro Cubans. The problem was that after the Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK had given his word that the USA would not overthrow the Castro regime. For them, there was no way to get rid of Castro without also getting rid of JFK.

>
> 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?

As far as I can see from the evidence developed by the HSCA, David Atlee Phillips of the Western Hemisphere Division was involved, how far up it went who can say?


> 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?

I am saying that the Warren Commission was not a true attempt to find out who had killed JFK, it was designed to show that Oswald did it alone. Can you think of a good reason to appoint a man JFK sacked, and who hated him, to the commission meant to investigate his death?


> 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.

Watergate is a good case. Howard Hunt was involved, and went to prison, but he did not talk. Nor did any of the Cubans arrested in the Watergate building. How many CIA operatives have ever talked about their roles in Italy, Iran, Guatemala, Chile, South Vietnam, Indonesia, or any of the other countries where they organised coups and/or assassinations?


>
> 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.

If you read the likes of Posner, Moldea and Vince I am not surprised. If you read Bill Pepper on MLK you may change your mind, not that I am saying you have to. I would strongly recommend Fonzi's book The Last Investigation, which has just been reprinted and updated.

As to RFK, whilst Sirhan Sirhan was there, in front of RFK, and never closer than a few feet, firing a .22 pistol, we know that all the four .22 bullets which hit RFK were fired from behind him, from the right travelling left, and at a distance of about an inch. We also know that the security guard Thane Eugene Cesar was armed with a .22 pistol and was standing in that exact spot, yet his gun was never examined by the LAPD. Any thoughts?

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

I think she should have worn a seatbelt.

Robches wrote:

> 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.


What like this you mean ......



Seriously though, dig around and - as usual - any of these so-called "conspiracy anomalies" can be and have been easily debunked.

- Eric

Robches wrote:

> 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.


Well why don't you give a couple more examples of these anomalies that seem valid to you? Then the matters in question can be explained and cleared up for you.

Eric:

That's very funny. Very funny indeed. Do you do bar mitzvahs?

James:

As I said, Jack White's photo analysis is at aulis.com, I can hardly detail it all here.

Robches wrote:

> As I said, Jack White's photo analysis is at aulis.com, I can
> hardly detail it all here.


You would be wasting your time anyway. Jack White's unshakable belief in a conspiracy made him incapable of seeing the obvious and prone to seeing things which simply didn't exist. His analyses and conclusions are hopelessly incompetent and often just plain silly. Just as one example, he puts two photos side-by-side and claims that the background hills are identical when in fact it's pretty obvious to most people with normal eyesight that they aren't identical.

You claim that you can't judge these things yourself because you're not an expert, but in most cases you don't need to be an expert in anything to evaluate Jack White's claims. You just need normal eyesight.

Jack White died earlier this year. As a conspiracy theorist yourself, you no doubt suspect that his death was suspicious and that he was possibly murdered by sinister forces to try and protect the moon conspiracy.

I can recommend 'Why People Believe Weird Things - Pseudo-science, Superstition and other confusions of our time' by Michael Shermer, a 'Skeptic' of very high order. He devotes a chapter to asking 'Why SMART People Believe Weird Things' and comes to the conclusion '...because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons'.

JamesW wrote:

> Robches wrote:
>
> > As I said, Jack White's photo analysis is at aulis.com, I can
> > hardly detail it all here.
>
>
> You would be wasting your time anyway. Jack White's unshakable
> belief in a conspiracy made him incapable of seeing the obvious
> and prone to seeing things which simply didn't exist. His
> analyses and conclusions are hopelessly incompetent and often
> just plain silly. Just as one example, he puts two photos
> side-by-side and claims that the background hills are identical
> when in fact it's pretty obvious to most people with normal
> eyesight that they aren't identical.
>
> You claim that you can't judge these things yourself because
> you're not an expert, but in most cases you don't need to be an
> expert in anything to evaluate Jack White's claims. You just
> need normal eyesight.
>
> Jack White died earlier this year. As a conspiracy theorist
> yourself, you no doubt suspect that his death was suspicious
> and that he was possibly murdered by sinister forces to try and
> protect the moon conspiracy.
>

As I said, I am not photgraphic expert, and by the tone of your comments, neither are you. I find the tone of your comments with regard to a man who has just died rather distasteful. You may not agree with his work, that is no reason to mock his passing.

andy at handiwork wrote:

> I can recommend 'Why People Believe Weird Things -
> Pseudo-science, Superstition and other confusions of our time'
> by Michael Shermer, a 'Skeptic' of very high order. He devotes
> a chapter to asking 'Why SMART People Believe Weird Things' and
> comes to the conclusion '...because they are skilled at
> defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons'.

I imagine Shermer accepts that Watergate, Iran Contra et al were conspiracies, ie he accepts that conspiracies can and do exist. Given that, the question is whether a given event such as the assassination of JFK was a conspiracy or not, and the answer depends on the evidence. I am satisfied based on the evidence I have seen that there was such a conspiracy. That does not make me a "conspiracy theorist", since we must accept that conspiracies happen, merely that I am persuaded that in a specific instance, given a set of evidence, that it points towards conspiracy in that case.

Robches wrote:

> As I said, I am not photgraphic expert


And as I've said, you don't need to be a photographic expert. You only need normal eyesight.

How much expertise do you think you need to tell if two photos have the same hill in them or not?

Many people believe in a god, or gods - it doesn't get any weirder than that.