Discussion:
HSCA Conclusions
(too old to reply)
claviger
2018-05-03 19:57:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
NATIONAL ARCHIVES

JFK Assassination Records

FINDINGS

C. The Committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result
of a conspiracy. The Committee is unable to identify the other gunman
or the extent of the conspiracy.

• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of
President Kennedy

• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination of
President Kennedy

• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved in the
assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence
does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have
been involved

• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not
involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but the available
evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members
may have been involved

• The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination
of President Kennedy

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once simply defined
conspiracy as "a partnership in criminal purposes."
(1) That definition is adequate.

Nevertheless, it may be helpful to set out a more precise definition.
If two or more individuals agreed to take action to kill President Kennedy,
and at least one of them took action in furtherance of the plan, and it
resulted in President Kennedy's death, the President would have been
assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.

The committee recognizes, of course, that while the work "conspiracy"
technically denotes only a "partnership in criminal purposes," it also, in
fact, connotes widely varying meanings to many people, and its use has
vastly differing societal implications depending upon the sophistication,
extent and ultimate purpose of the partnership.

For example, a conspiracy to assassinate a President might be a complex
plot orchestrated by foreign political powers; it might be the scheme of a
group of American citizens dissatisfied with particular governmental
policies; it also might be the plan of two largely isolated individuals with
no readily discernible motive.

Conspiracies may easily range, therefore, from those with important
implications for social or governmental institutions to those with no
major societal significance. As the evidence concerning the probability
that President Kennedy was assassinated as a result of a "conspiracy"
is analyzed, these various connotations of the word "conspiracy" and
distinctions between them ought to be constantly borne in mind. Here,
as elsewhere, words must be used carefully, lest people be misled.

A conspiracy cannot be said to have existed in Dealey Plaza
unless evidence exists from which, in Justice Holmes' words,
a "partnership in criminal purposes" may be inferred.

The Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was not
involved in a conspiracy to assassinate the President was, for example,
largely based on its findings of the absence of evidence of significant
association

(2) between Oswald and other possible conspirators and no physical evidence
of conspiracy.

(3) The Commission reasoned, quite rightly, that in the absence of association
or physical evidence, there was no conspiracy.

Even without physical evidence of conspiracy at the scene of the assassination,
there would, of course, be a conspiracy if others assisted Oswald in his efforts.
Accordingly, an examination of Oswald's associates is necessary. The Warren
Commission recognized that a first premise in a finding of conspiracy may be
a finding of association. Because the Commission did not find any significant
Oswald associates, it was not compelled to face the difficult questions posed
by such a finding. More than association is required to establish conspiracy.
There must be at least knowing assistance or a manifestation of agreement
to the criminal purpose by the associate.

[It might be suggested that because of the widely varying meanings attached
to the word "conspiracy," it ought to be avoided. Such a suggestion, however,
raises another objection--the search for euphemistic variations can lead to a
lack of candor. There is virtue in seeing something for what it is, even if the
plain truth causes discomfort.]

Page 96

It is important to realize, too, that the term "associate" may connote widely
varying meanings to different people. A person's associate may be his next
door neighbor and vacation companion, or it may be an individual he has met
only once for the purpose of discussing a contract for a murder. The Warren
Commission examined Oswald's past and concluded he was essentially a loner.
(4) It reasoned, therefore, that since Oswald had no significant associations
with persons who could have been involved with him in the assassination,
there could not have been a conspiracy. (5)

With respect to Jack Ruby, the Warren Commission similarly found no significant
associations, either between Ruby and Oswald or between Ruby and others who
might have been conspirators with him. (8) In particular, it found no connections
between Ruby and organized crime, and it reasoned that absent such associations,
there was no conspiracy to kill Oswald or the president. (9)

The committee conducted a three-pronged investigation of conspiracy in the Kennedy
assassination. On the basis of extensive scientific analysis and an analysis of the
testimony of Dealey Plaza witnesses, the committee found there was a high probability
that two gunmen fired at President Kennedy.

Second, the committee explored Oswald's and Ruby's contact for any evidence
of significant associations. Unlike the Warren Commission, it found certain of
these contacts to be of investigative significance. The Commission apparently
had looked for evidence of conspiratorial association. Finding none on the face
of the associations it investigated, it did not go further. The committee, however,
conducted a wider ranging investigation. Notwithstanding the possibility of a
benign reason for contact between Oswald or Ruby and one of their associates,
the committee examined the very fact of the contact to see if it contained
investigative significance. Unlike the Warren Commission, the committee took
a close look at the associates to determine whether conspiratorial activity in the
assassination could have been possible, given what the committee could learn
about the associates, and whether the apparent nature of the contact should,
therefore, be examined more closely.

Third, the committee examined groups--political organizations, national
governments and so on--that might have had the motive, opportunity and
means to assassinate the President.

The committee, therefore, directly introduced the hypothesis of conspiracy
and investigated it with reference to known facts to determine if it had any
bearing on the assassination.

[The Warren Commission devoted its Appendix XVI to a biography of Jack
Ruby in which his family background, psychological makeup, education and
business activities were considered. While the evidence was sometimes
contradictory, the Commission found that Ruby grew up in Chicago, the son
of Jewish immigrants; that he lived in a home disrupted by domestic strife;
(6) that he was troubled psychologically as a youth and not educated
beyond high school; and that descriptions of his temperament ranged
from "mild mannered" to "violent."(7) In 1963, Ruby was 52 and unmarried.
He ran a Dallas nightclub but was not particularly successful in business.
His acquaintances included a number of Dallas police officers who
frequented his nightclub, as well as other types of people who comprised
his clientele.]

[The committee found associations of both Ruby and Oswald that were
unknown to the Warren Commission.]

Page 97

The committee examined a series of major groups or organizations that
have been alleged to have been involved in a conspiracy to assassinate
the President. If any of these groups or organizations, as a group, had
been involved in the assassination, the conspiracy to assassinate
President Kennedy would have been one of major significance.

As will be detailed in succeeding sections of this report, the committee
did not find sufficient evidence that any of these groups or organizations
were involved in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. Accordingly,
the committee concluded, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Soviet government, the Cuban government, anti-Castro Cuban
groups, and the national syndicate of organized crime were not involved
in the assassination.

Further, the committee found that the Secret Service, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, and the Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in
the assassination.

Based on the evidence available to it, the committee could not preclude
the possibility that individual members of anti-Castro Cuban groups or
the national syndicate of organized crime were involved in the assassination.
There was insufficient evidence, however, to support a finding that any
individual members were involved. The ramifications of a conspiracy
involving such individuals would be significant, although of perhaps less
import than would be the case if a group itself, the national syndicate,
for example had been involved.

The committee recognized that a finding that two gunmen fired
simultaneously at the President did not, by itself, establish that there
was a conspiracy to assassinate the President. It is theoretically possible
that the gunmen were acting independently, each totally unaware of the
other.

It was the committee's opinion, however, that such a theoretical possibility
is extremely remote. The more logical and probable inference to be drawn
from two gunmen firing at the same person at the same time and in the same
place is that they were acting in concert, that is, as a result of a conspiracy.

The committee found that, to be precise and loyal to the facts it established,
it was compelled to find that President Kennedy was probably killed as a
result of a conspiracy.

The committee's finding that President Kennedy was probably assassinated
as a result of a conspiracy was premised on four factors:

(1) Since the Warren Commission's and FBI's investigation into the
possibility of a conspiracy was seriously flawed, their failure to
develop evidence of a conspiracy could not be given independent
weight.

(2) The Warren Commission was, in fact, incorrect in concluding
that Oswald and Ruby had no significant associations, and
therefore its finding of no conspiracy was not reliable.

(3) While it cannot be inferred from the significant associations
of Oswald and Ruby that any of the major groups examined
by the committee were involved in the assassination, a more
limited conspiracy could not be ruled out.

(4) There was a high probability that a second gunman, in fact,
fired at the President. At the same time, the committee candidly
stated, in expressing it finding of conspiracy in the Kennedy
assassination, that it was "unable to identify the other gunman
or the extent of the conspiracy.
mainframetech
2018-05-04 23:29:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
NATIONAL ARCHIVES
JFK Assassination Records
FINDINGS
C. The Committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result
of a conspiracy. The Committee is unable to identify the other gunman
or the extent of the conspiracy.
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of
President Kennedy
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination of
President Kennedy
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved in the
assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence
does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have
been involved
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not
involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but the available
evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members
may have been involved
• The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination
of President Kennedy
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once simply defined
conspiracy as "a partnership in criminal purposes."
(1) That definition is adequate.
Nevertheless, it may be helpful to set out a more precise definition.
If two or more individuals agreed to take action to kill President Kennedy,
and at least one of them took action in furtherance of the plan, and it
resulted in President Kennedy's death, the President would have been
assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.
The committee recognizes, of course, that while the work "conspiracy"
technically denotes only a "partnership in criminal purposes," it also, in
fact, connotes widely varying meanings to many people, and its use has
vastly differing societal implications depending upon the sophistication,
extent and ultimate purpose of the partnership.
For example, a conspiracy to assassinate a President might be a complex
plot orchestrated by foreign political powers; it might be the scheme of a
group of American citizens dissatisfied with particular governmental
policies; it also might be the plan of two largely isolated individuals with
no readily discernible motive.
Conspiracies may easily range, therefore, from those with important
implications for social or governmental institutions to those with no
major societal significance. As the evidence concerning the probability
that President Kennedy was assassinated as a result of a "conspiracy"
is analyzed, these various connotations of the word "conspiracy" and
distinctions between them ought to be constantly borne in mind. Here,
as elsewhere, words must be used carefully, lest people be misled.
A conspiracy cannot be said to have existed in Dealey Plaza
unless evidence exists from which, in Justice Holmes' words,
a "partnership in criminal purposes" may be inferred.
The Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was not
involved in a conspiracy to assassinate the President was, for example,
largely based on its findings of the absence of evidence of significant
association
(2) between Oswald and other possible conspirators and no physical evidence
of conspiracy.
(3) The Commission reasoned, quite rightly, that in the absence of association
or physical evidence, there was no conspiracy.
Even without physical evidence of conspiracy at the scene of the assassination,
there would, of course, be a conspiracy if others assisted Oswald in his efforts.
Accordingly, an examination of Oswald's associates is necessary. The Warren
Commission recognized that a first premise in a finding of conspiracy may be
a finding of association. Because the Commission did not find any significant
Oswald associates, it was not compelled to face the difficult questions posed
by such a finding. More than association is required to establish conspiracy.
There must be at least knowing assistance or a manifestation of agreement
to the criminal purpose by the associate.
[It might be suggested that because of the widely varying meanings attached
to the word "conspiracy," it ought to be avoided. Such a suggestion, however,
raises another objection--the search for euphemistic variations can lead to a
lack of candor. There is virtue in seeing something for what it is, even if the
plain truth causes discomfort.]
Page 96
It is important to realize, too, that the term "associate" may connote widely
varying meanings to different people. A person's associate may be his next
door neighbor and vacation companion, or it may be an individual he has met
only once for the purpose of discussing a contract for a murder. The Warren
Commission examined Oswald's past and concluded he was essentially a loner.
(4) It reasoned, therefore, that since Oswald had no significant associations
with persons who could have been involved with him in the assassination,
there could not have been a conspiracy. (5)
With respect to Jack Ruby, the Warren Commission similarly found no significant
associations, either between Ruby and Oswald or between Ruby and others who
might have been conspirators with him. (8) In particular, it found no connections
between Ruby and organized crime, and it reasoned that absent such associations,
there was no conspiracy to kill Oswald or the president. (9)
The committee conducted a three-pronged investigation of conspiracy in the Kennedy
assassination. On the basis of extensive scientific analysis and an analysis of the
testimony of Dealey Plaza witnesses, the committee found there was a high probability
that two gunmen fired at President Kennedy.
Second, the committee explored Oswald's and Ruby's contact for any evidence
of significant associations. Unlike the Warren Commission, it found certain of
these contacts to be of investigative significance. The Commission apparently
had looked for evidence of conspiratorial association. Finding none on the face
of the associations it investigated, it did not go further. The committee, however,
conducted a wider ranging investigation. Notwithstanding the possibility of a
benign reason for contact between Oswald or Ruby and one of their associates,
the committee examined the very fact of the contact to see if it contained
investigative significance. Unlike the Warren Commission, the committee took
a close look at the associates to determine whether conspiratorial activity in the
assassination could have been possible, given what the committee could learn
about the associates, and whether the apparent nature of the contact should,
therefore, be examined more closely.
Third, the committee examined groups--political organizations, national
governments and so on--that might have had the motive, opportunity and
means to assassinate the President.
The committee, therefore, directly introduced the hypothesis of conspiracy
and investigated it with reference to known facts to determine if it had any
bearing on the assassination.
[The Warren Commission devoted its Appendix XVI to a biography of Jack
Ruby in which his family background, psychological makeup, education and
business activities were considered. While the evidence was sometimes
contradictory, the Commission found that Ruby grew up in Chicago, the son
of Jewish immigrants; that he lived in a home disrupted by domestic strife;
(6) that he was troubled psychologically as a youth and not educated
beyond high school; and that descriptions of his temperament ranged
from "mild mannered" to "violent."(7) In 1963, Ruby was 52 and unmarried.
He ran a Dallas nightclub but was not particularly successful in business.
His acquaintances included a number of Dallas police officers who
frequented his nightclub, as well as other types of people who comprised
his clientele.]
[The committee found associations of both Ruby and Oswald that were
unknown to the Warren Commission.]
Page 97
The committee examined a series of major groups or organizations that
have been alleged to have been involved in a conspiracy to assassinate
the President. If any of these groups or organizations, as a group, had
been involved in the assassination, the conspiracy to assassinate
President Kennedy would have been one of major significance.
As will be detailed in succeeding sections of this report, the committee
did not find sufficient evidence that any of these groups or organizations
were involved in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. Accordingly,
the committee concluded, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Soviet government, the Cuban government, anti-Castro Cuban
groups, and the national syndicate of organized crime were not involved
in the assassination.
Further, the committee found that the Secret Service, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, and the Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in
the assassination.
Based on the evidence available to it, the committee could not preclude
the possibility that individual members of anti-Castro Cuban groups or
the national syndicate of organized crime were involved in the assassination.
There was insufficient evidence, however, to support a finding that any
individual members were involved. The ramifications of a conspiracy
involving such individuals would be significant, although of perhaps less
import than would be the case if a group itself, the national syndicate,
for example had been involved.
The committee recognized that a finding that two gunmen fired
simultaneously at the President did not, by itself, establish that there
was a conspiracy to assassinate the President. It is theoretically possible
that the gunmen were acting independently, each totally unaware of the
other.
It was the committee's opinion, however, that such a theoretical possibility
is extremely remote. The more logical and probable inference to be drawn
from two gunmen firing at the same person at the same time and in the same
place is that they were acting in concert, that is, as a result of a conspiracy.
The committee found that, to be precise and loyal to the facts it established,
it was compelled to find that President Kennedy was probably killed as a
result of a conspiracy.
The committee's finding that President Kennedy was probably assassinated
(1) Since the Warren Commission's and FBI's investigation into the
possibility of a conspiracy was seriously flawed, their failure to
develop evidence of a conspiracy could not be given independent
weight.
(2) The Warren Commission was, in fact, incorrect in concluding
that Oswald and Ruby had no significant associations, and
therefore its finding of no conspiracy was not reliable.
(3) While it cannot be inferred from the significant associations
of Oswald and Ruby that any of the major groups examined
by the committee were involved in the assassination, a more
limited conspiracy could not be ruled out.
(4) There was a high probability that a second gunman, in fact,
fired at the President. At the same time, the committee candidly
stated, in expressing it finding of conspiracy in the Kennedy
assassination, that it was "unable to identify the other gunman
or the extent of the conspiracy.
The HSCA conclusions weren't any better than the WC conclusions. Ands
in some instances they made false information available to avoid proof
that there was a conspiracy.

Chris
bigdog
2018-05-06 01:01:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
NATIONAL ARCHIVES
JFK Assassination Records
FINDINGS
C. The Committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result
of a conspiracy. The Committee is unable to identify the other gunman
or the extent of the conspiracy.
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of
President Kennedy
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination of
President Kennedy
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved in the
assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence
does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have
been involved
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not
involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but the available
evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members
may have been involved
• The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination
of President Kennedy
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once simply defined
conspiracy as "a partnership in criminal purposes."
(1) That definition is adequate.
Nevertheless, it may be helpful to set out a more precise definition.
If two or more individuals agreed to take action to kill President Kennedy,
and at least one of them took action in furtherance of the plan, and it
resulted in President Kennedy's death, the President would have been
assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.
The committee recognizes, of course, that while the work "conspiracy"
technically denotes only a "partnership in criminal purposes," it also, in
fact, connotes widely varying meanings to many people, and its use has
vastly differing societal implications depending upon the sophistication,
extent and ultimate purpose of the partnership.
For example, a conspiracy to assassinate a President might be a complex
plot orchestrated by foreign political powers; it might be the scheme of a
group of American citizens dissatisfied with particular governmental
policies; it also might be the plan of two largely isolated individuals with
no readily discernible motive.
Conspiracies may easily range, therefore, from those with important
implications for social or governmental institutions to those with no
major societal significance. As the evidence concerning the probability
that President Kennedy was assassinated as a result of a "conspiracy"
is analyzed, these various connotations of the word "conspiracy" and
distinctions between them ought to be constantly borne in mind. Here,
as elsewhere, words must be used carefully, lest people be misled.
A conspiracy cannot be said to have existed in Dealey Plaza
unless evidence exists from which, in Justice Holmes' words,
a "partnership in criminal purposes" may be inferred.
The Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was not
involved in a conspiracy to assassinate the President was, for example,
largely based on its findings of the absence of evidence of significant
association
(2) between Oswald and other possible conspirators and no physical evidence
of conspiracy.
(3) The Commission reasoned, quite rightly, that in the absence of association
or physical evidence, there was no conspiracy.
Even without physical evidence of conspiracy at the scene of the assassination,
there would, of course, be a conspiracy if others assisted Oswald in his efforts.
Accordingly, an examination of Oswald's associates is necessary. The Warren
Commission recognized that a first premise in a finding of conspiracy may be
a finding of association. Because the Commission did not find any significant
Oswald associates, it was not compelled to face the difficult questions posed
by such a finding. More than association is required to establish conspiracy.
There must be at least knowing assistance or a manifestation of agreement
to the criminal purpose by the associate.
[It might be suggested that because of the widely varying meanings attached
to the word "conspiracy," it ought to be avoided. Such a suggestion, however,
raises another objection--the search for euphemistic variations can lead to a
lack of candor. There is virtue in seeing something for what it is, even if the
plain truth causes discomfort.]
Page 96
It is important to realize, too, that the term "associate" may connote widely
varying meanings to different people. A person's associate may be his next
door neighbor and vacation companion, or it may be an individual he has met
only once for the purpose of discussing a contract for a murder. The Warren
Commission examined Oswald's past and concluded he was essentially a loner.
(4) It reasoned, therefore, that since Oswald had no significant associations
with persons who could have been involved with him in the assassination,
there could not have been a conspiracy. (5)
With respect to Jack Ruby, the Warren Commission similarly found no significant
associations, either between Ruby and Oswald or between Ruby and others who
might have been conspirators with him. (8) In particular, it found no connections
between Ruby and organized crime, and it reasoned that absent such associations,
there was no conspiracy to kill Oswald or the president. (9)
The committee conducted a three-pronged investigation of conspiracy in the Kennedy
assassination. On the basis of extensive scientific analysis and an analysis of the
testimony of Dealey Plaza witnesses, the committee found there was a high probability
that two gunmen fired at President Kennedy.
Second, the committee explored Oswald's and Ruby's contact for any evidence
of significant associations. Unlike the Warren Commission, it found certain of
these contacts to be of investigative significance. The Commission apparently
had looked for evidence of conspiratorial association. Finding none on the face
of the associations it investigated, it did not go further. The committee, however,
conducted a wider ranging investigation. Notwithstanding the possibility of a
benign reason for contact between Oswald or Ruby and one of their associates,
the committee examined the very fact of the contact to see if it contained
investigative significance. Unlike the Warren Commission, the committee took
a close look at the associates to determine whether conspiratorial activity in the
assassination could have been possible, given what the committee could learn
about the associates, and whether the apparent nature of the contact should,
therefore, be examined more closely.
Third, the committee examined groups--political organizations, national
governments and so on--that might have had the motive, opportunity and
means to assassinate the President.
The committee, therefore, directly introduced the hypothesis of conspiracy
and investigated it with reference to known facts to determine if it had any
bearing on the assassination.
[The Warren Commission devoted its Appendix XVI to a biography of Jack
Ruby in which his family background, psychological makeup, education and
business activities were considered. While the evidence was sometimes
contradictory, the Commission found that Ruby grew up in Chicago, the son
of Jewish immigrants; that he lived in a home disrupted by domestic strife;
(6) that he was troubled psychologically as a youth and not educated
beyond high school; and that descriptions of his temperament ranged
from "mild mannered" to "violent."(7) In 1963, Ruby was 52 and unmarried.
He ran a Dallas nightclub but was not particularly successful in business.
His acquaintances included a number of Dallas police officers who
frequented his nightclub, as well as other types of people who comprised
his clientele.]
[The committee found associations of both Ruby and Oswald that were
unknown to the Warren Commission.]
Page 97
The committee examined a series of major groups or organizations that
have been alleged to have been involved in a conspiracy to assassinate
the President. If any of these groups or organizations, as a group, had
been involved in the assassination, the conspiracy to assassinate
President Kennedy would have been one of major significance.
As will be detailed in succeeding sections of this report, the committee
did not find sufficient evidence that any of these groups or organizations
were involved in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. Accordingly,
the committee concluded, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Soviet government, the Cuban government, anti-Castro Cuban
groups, and the national syndicate of organized crime were not involved
in the assassination.
Further, the committee found that the Secret Service, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, and the Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in
the assassination.
Based on the evidence available to it, the committee could not preclude
the possibility that individual members of anti-Castro Cuban groups or
the national syndicate of organized crime were involved in the assassination.
There was insufficient evidence, however, to support a finding that any
individual members were involved. The ramifications of a conspiracy
involving such individuals would be significant, although of perhaps less
import than would be the case if a group itself, the national syndicate,
for example had been involved.
The committee recognized that a finding that two gunmen fired
simultaneously at the President did not, by itself, establish that there
was a conspiracy to assassinate the President. It is theoretically possible
that the gunmen were acting independently, each totally unaware of the
other.
It was the committee's opinion, however, that such a theoretical possibility
is extremely remote. The more logical and probable inference to be drawn
from two gunmen firing at the same person at the same time and in the same
place is that they were acting in concert, that is, as a result of a conspiracy.
The committee found that, to be precise and loyal to the facts it established,
it was compelled to find that President Kennedy was probably killed as a
result of a conspiracy.
The committee's finding that President Kennedy was probably assassinated
(1) Since the Warren Commission's and FBI's investigation into the
possibility of a conspiracy was seriously flawed, their failure to
develop evidence of a conspiracy could not be given independent
weight.
(2) The Warren Commission was, in fact, incorrect in concluding
that Oswald and Ruby had no significant associations, and
therefore its finding of no conspiracy was not reliable.
(3) While it cannot be inferred from the significant associations
of Oswald and Ruby that any of the major groups examined
by the committee were involved in the assassination, a more
limited conspiracy could not be ruled out.
(4) There was a high probability that a second gunman, in fact,
fired at the President. At the same time, the committee candidly
stated, in expressing it finding of conspiracy in the Kennedy
assassination, that it was "unable to identify the other gunman
or the extent of the conspiracy.
The HSCA conclusions weren't any better than the WC conclusions.
For once you have made a factual statement. In fact, their conclusions were
much worse.
Post by mainframetech
Ands
in some instances they made false information available to avoid proof
that there was a conspiracy.
Why would they do that and then conclude it was a conspiracy?
mainframetech
2018-05-06 23:27:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
NATIONAL ARCHIVES
JFK Assassination Records
FINDINGS
C. The Committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result
of a conspiracy. The Committee is unable to identify the other gunman
or the extent of the conspiracy.
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of
President Kennedy
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination of
President Kennedy
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved in the
assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence
does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have
been involved
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not
involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but the available
evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members
may have been involved
• The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination
of President Kennedy
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once simply defined
conspiracy as "a partnership in criminal purposes."
(1) That definition is adequate.
Nevertheless, it may be helpful to set out a more precise definition.
If two or more individuals agreed to take action to kill President Kennedy,
and at least one of them took action in furtherance of the plan, and it
resulted in President Kennedy's death, the President would have been
assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.
The committee recognizes, of course, that while the work "conspiracy"
technically denotes only a "partnership in criminal purposes," it also, in
fact, connotes widely varying meanings to many people, and its use has
vastly differing societal implications depending upon the sophistication,
extent and ultimate purpose of the partnership.
For example, a conspiracy to assassinate a President might be a complex
plot orchestrated by foreign political powers; it might be the scheme of a
group of American citizens dissatisfied with particular governmental
policies; it also might be the plan of two largely isolated individuals with
no readily discernible motive.
Conspiracies may easily range, therefore, from those with important
implications for social or governmental institutions to those with no
major societal significance. As the evidence concerning the probability
that President Kennedy was assassinated as a result of a "conspiracy"
is analyzed, these various connotations of the word "conspiracy" and
distinctions between them ought to be constantly borne in mind. Here,
as elsewhere, words must be used carefully, lest people be misled.
A conspiracy cannot be said to have existed in Dealey Plaza
unless evidence exists from which, in Justice Holmes' words,
a "partnership in criminal purposes" may be inferred.
The Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was not
involved in a conspiracy to assassinate the President was, for example,
largely based on its findings of the absence of evidence of significant
association
(2) between Oswald and other possible conspirators and no physical evidence
of conspiracy.
(3) The Commission reasoned, quite rightly, that in the absence of association
or physical evidence, there was no conspiracy.
Even without physical evidence of conspiracy at the scene of the assassination,
there would, of course, be a conspiracy if others assisted Oswald in his efforts.
Accordingly, an examination of Oswald's associates is necessary. The Warren
Commission recognized that a first premise in a finding of conspiracy may be
a finding of association. Because the Commission did not find any significant
Oswald associates, it was not compelled to face the difficult questions posed
by such a finding. More than association is required to establish conspiracy.
There must be at least knowing assistance or a manifestation of agreement
to the criminal purpose by the associate.
[It might be suggested that because of the widely varying meanings attached
to the word "conspiracy," it ought to be avoided. Such a suggestion, however,
raises another objection--the search for euphemistic variations can lead to a
lack of candor. There is virtue in seeing something for what it is, even if the
plain truth causes discomfort.]
Page 96
It is important to realize, too, that the term "associate" may connote widely
varying meanings to different people. A person's associate may be his next
door neighbor and vacation companion, or it may be an individual he has met
only once for the purpose of discussing a contract for a murder. The Warren
Commission examined Oswald's past and concluded he was essentially a loner.
(4) It reasoned, therefore, that since Oswald had no significant associations
with persons who could have been involved with him in the assassination,
there could not have been a conspiracy. (5)
With respect to Jack Ruby, the Warren Commission similarly found no significant
associations, either between Ruby and Oswald or between Ruby and others who
might have been conspirators with him. (8) In particular, it found no connections
between Ruby and organized crime, and it reasoned that absent such associations,
there was no conspiracy to kill Oswald or the president. (9)
The committee conducted a three-pronged investigation of conspiracy in the Kennedy
assassination. On the basis of extensive scientific analysis and an analysis of the
testimony of Dealey Plaza witnesses, the committee found there was a high probability
that two gunmen fired at President Kennedy.
Second, the committee explored Oswald's and Ruby's contact for any evidence
of significant associations. Unlike the Warren Commission, it found certain of
these contacts to be of investigative significance. The Commission apparently
had looked for evidence of conspiratorial association. Finding none on the face
of the associations it investigated, it did not go further. The committee, however,
conducted a wider ranging investigation. Notwithstanding the possibility of a
benign reason for contact between Oswald or Ruby and one of their associates,
the committee examined the very fact of the contact to see if it contained
investigative significance. Unlike the Warren Commission, the committee took
a close look at the associates to determine whether conspiratorial activity in the
assassination could have been possible, given what the committee could learn
about the associates, and whether the apparent nature of the contact should,
therefore, be examined more closely.
Third, the committee examined groups--political organizations, national
governments and so on--that might have had the motive, opportunity and
means to assassinate the President.
The committee, therefore, directly introduced the hypothesis of conspiracy
and investigated it with reference to known facts to determine if it had any
bearing on the assassination.
[The Warren Commission devoted its Appendix XVI to a biography of Jack
Ruby in which his family background, psychological makeup, education and
business activities were considered. While the evidence was sometimes
contradictory, the Commission found that Ruby grew up in Chicago, the son
of Jewish immigrants; that he lived in a home disrupted by domestic strife;
(6) that he was troubled psychologically as a youth and not educated
beyond high school; and that descriptions of his temperament ranged
from "mild mannered" to "violent."(7) In 1963, Ruby was 52 and unmarried.
He ran a Dallas nightclub but was not particularly successful in business.
His acquaintances included a number of Dallas police officers who
frequented his nightclub, as well as other types of people who comprised
his clientele.]
[The committee found associations of both Ruby and Oswald that were
unknown to the Warren Commission.]
Page 97
The committee examined a series of major groups or organizations that
have been alleged to have been involved in a conspiracy to assassinate
the President. If any of these groups or organizations, as a group, had
been involved in the assassination, the conspiracy to assassinate
President Kennedy would have been one of major significance.
As will be detailed in succeeding sections of this report, the committee
did not find sufficient evidence that any of these groups or organizations
were involved in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. Accordingly,
the committee concluded, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Soviet government, the Cuban government, anti-Castro Cuban
groups, and the national syndicate of organized crime were not involved
in the assassination.
Further, the committee found that the Secret Service, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, and the Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in
the assassination.
Based on the evidence available to it, the committee could not preclude
the possibility that individual members of anti-Castro Cuban groups or
the national syndicate of organized crime were involved in the assassination.
There was insufficient evidence, however, to support a finding that any
individual members were involved. The ramifications of a conspiracy
involving such individuals would be significant, although of perhaps less
import than would be the case if a group itself, the national syndicate,
for example had been involved.
The committee recognized that a finding that two gunmen fired
simultaneously at the President did not, by itself, establish that there
was a conspiracy to assassinate the President. It is theoretically possible
that the gunmen were acting independently, each totally unaware of the
other.
It was the committee's opinion, however, that such a theoretical possibility
is extremely remote. The more logical and probable inference to be drawn
from two gunmen firing at the same person at the same time and in the same
place is that they were acting in concert, that is, as a result of a conspiracy.
The committee found that, to be precise and loyal to the facts it established,
it was compelled to find that President Kennedy was probably killed as a
result of a conspiracy.
The committee's finding that President Kennedy was probably assassinated
(1) Since the Warren Commission's and FBI's investigation into the
possibility of a conspiracy was seriously flawed, their failure to
develop evidence of a conspiracy could not be given independent
weight.
(2) The Warren Commission was, in fact, incorrect in concluding
that Oswald and Ruby had no significant associations, and
therefore its finding of no conspiracy was not reliable.
(3) While it cannot be inferred from the significant associations
of Oswald and Ruby that any of the major groups examined
by the committee were involved in the assassination, a more
limited conspiracy could not be ruled out.
(4) There was a high probability that a second gunman, in fact,
fired at the President. At the same time, the committee candidly
stated, in expressing it finding of conspiracy in the Kennedy
assassination, that it was "unable to identify the other gunman
or the extent of the conspiracy.
The HSCA conclusions weren't any better than the WC conclusions.
For once you have made a factual statement. In fact, their conclusions were
much worse.
Post by mainframetech
Ands
in some instances they made false information available to avoid proof
that there was a conspiracy.
Why would they do that and then conclude it was a conspiracy?
I believe the admission that there MAY have been a conspiracy was
something to shut up the public who stated it was a conspiracy. But there
was no effort to recommend an investigation, they ended up saying they
couldn't figure out who or how it was done and simply left it lay there.

Consider that there were 2 factions working at the same time, one was
trying to protect the phony 'lone nut' theory, while the other was doing
the usual government thing of lying to the public to keep them quiet and
complacent.

Chris
bigdog
2018-05-08 01:41:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
NATIONAL ARCHIVES
JFK Assassination Records
FINDINGS
C. The Committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result
of a conspiracy. The Committee is unable to identify the other gunman
or the extent of the conspiracy.
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of
President Kennedy
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination of
President Kennedy
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved in the
assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence
does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have
been involved
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not
involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but the available
evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members
may have been involved
• The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination
of President Kennedy
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once simply defined
conspiracy as "a partnership in criminal purposes."
(1) That definition is adequate.
Nevertheless, it may be helpful to set out a more precise definition.
If two or more individuals agreed to take action to kill President Kennedy,
and at least one of them took action in furtherance of the plan, and it
resulted in President Kennedy's death, the President would have been
assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.
The committee recognizes, of course, that while the work "conspiracy"
technically denotes only a "partnership in criminal purposes," it also, in
fact, connotes widely varying meanings to many people, and its use has
vastly differing societal implications depending upon the sophistication,
extent and ultimate purpose of the partnership.
For example, a conspiracy to assassinate a President might be a complex
plot orchestrated by foreign political powers; it might be the scheme of a
group of American citizens dissatisfied with particular governmental
policies; it also might be the plan of two largely isolated individuals with
no readily discernible motive.
Conspiracies may easily range, therefore, from those with important
implications for social or governmental institutions to those with no
major societal significance. As the evidence concerning the probability
that President Kennedy was assassinated as a result of a "conspiracy"
is analyzed, these various connotations of the word "conspiracy" and
distinctions between them ought to be constantly borne in mind. Here,
as elsewhere, words must be used carefully, lest people be misled.
A conspiracy cannot be said to have existed in Dealey Plaza
unless evidence exists from which, in Justice Holmes' words,
a "partnership in criminal purposes" may be inferred.
The Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was not
involved in a conspiracy to assassinate the President was, for example,
largely based on its findings of the absence of evidence of significant
association
(2) between Oswald and other possible conspirators and no physical evidence
of conspiracy.
(3) The Commission reasoned, quite rightly, that in the absence of association
or physical evidence, there was no conspiracy.
Even without physical evidence of conspiracy at the scene of the assassination,
there would, of course, be a conspiracy if others assisted Oswald in his efforts.
Accordingly, an examination of Oswald's associates is necessary. The Warren
Commission recognized that a first premise in a finding of conspiracy may be
a finding of association. Because the Commission did not find any significant
Oswald associates, it was not compelled to face the difficult questions posed
by such a finding. More than association is required to establish conspiracy.
There must be at least knowing assistance or a manifestation of agreement
to the criminal purpose by the associate.
[It might be suggested that because of the widely varying meanings attached
to the word "conspiracy," it ought to be avoided. Such a suggestion, however,
raises another objection--the search for euphemistic variations can lead to a
lack of candor. There is virtue in seeing something for what it is, even if the
plain truth causes discomfort.]
Page 96
It is important to realize, too, that the term "associate" may connote widely
varying meanings to different people. A person's associate may be his next
door neighbor and vacation companion, or it may be an individual he has met
only once for the purpose of discussing a contract for a murder. The Warren
Commission examined Oswald's past and concluded he was essentially a loner.
(4) It reasoned, therefore, that since Oswald had no significant associations
with persons who could have been involved with him in the assassination,
there could not have been a conspiracy. (5)
With respect to Jack Ruby, the Warren Commission similarly found no significant
associations, either between Ruby and Oswald or between Ruby and others who
might have been conspirators with him. (8) In particular, it found no connections
between Ruby and organized crime, and it reasoned that absent such associations,
there was no conspiracy to kill Oswald or the president. (9)
The committee conducted a three-pronged investigation of conspiracy in the Kennedy
assassination. On the basis of extensive scientific analysis and an analysis of the
testimony of Dealey Plaza witnesses, the committee found there was a high probability
that two gunmen fired at President Kennedy.
Second, the committee explored Oswald's and Ruby's contact for any evidence
of significant associations. Unlike the Warren Commission, it found certain of
these contacts to be of investigative significance. The Commission apparently
had looked for evidence of conspiratorial association. Finding none on the face
of the associations it investigated, it did not go further. The committee, however,
conducted a wider ranging investigation. Notwithstanding the possibility of a
benign reason for contact between Oswald or Ruby and one of their associates,
the committee examined the very fact of the contact to see if it contained
investigative significance. Unlike the Warren Commission, the committee took
a close look at the associates to determine whether conspiratorial activity in the
assassination could have been possible, given what the committee could learn
about the associates, and whether the apparent nature of the contact should,
therefore, be examined more closely.
Third, the committee examined groups--political organizations, national
governments and so on--that might have had the motive, opportunity and
means to assassinate the President.
The committee, therefore, directly introduced the hypothesis of conspiracy
and investigated it with reference to known facts to determine if it had any
bearing on the assassination.
[The Warren Commission devoted its Appendix XVI to a biography of Jack
Ruby in which his family background, psychological makeup, education and
business activities were considered. While the evidence was sometimes
contradictory, the Commission found that Ruby grew up in Chicago, the son
of Jewish immigrants; that he lived in a home disrupted by domestic strife;
(6) that he was troubled psychologically as a youth and not educated
beyond high school; and that descriptions of his temperament ranged
from "mild mannered" to "violent."(7) In 1963, Ruby was 52 and unmarried.
He ran a Dallas nightclub but was not particularly successful in business.
His acquaintances included a number of Dallas police officers who
frequented his nightclub, as well as other types of people who comprised
his clientele.]
[The committee found associations of both Ruby and Oswald that were
unknown to the Warren Commission.]
Page 97
The committee examined a series of major groups or organizations that
have been alleged to have been involved in a conspiracy to assassinate
the President. If any of these groups or organizations, as a group, had
been involved in the assassination, the conspiracy to assassinate
President Kennedy would have been one of major significance.
As will be detailed in succeeding sections of this report, the committee
did not find sufficient evidence that any of these groups or organizations
were involved in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. Accordingly,
the committee concluded, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Soviet government, the Cuban government, anti-Castro Cuban
groups, and the national syndicate of organized crime were not involved
in the assassination.
Further, the committee found that the Secret Service, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, and the Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in
the assassination.
Based on the evidence available to it, the committee could not preclude
the possibility that individual members of anti-Castro Cuban groups or
the national syndicate of organized crime were involved in the assassination.
There was insufficient evidence, however, to support a finding that any
individual members were involved. The ramifications of a conspiracy
involving such individuals would be significant, although of perhaps less
import than would be the case if a group itself, the national syndicate,
for example had been involved.
The committee recognized that a finding that two gunmen fired
simultaneously at the President did not, by itself, establish that there
was a conspiracy to assassinate the President. It is theoretically possible
that the gunmen were acting independently, each totally unaware of the
other.
It was the committee's opinion, however, that such a theoretical possibility
is extremely remote. The more logical and probable inference to be drawn
from two gunmen firing at the same person at the same time and in the same
place is that they were acting in concert, that is, as a result of a conspiracy.
The committee found that, to be precise and loyal to the facts it established,
it was compelled to find that President Kennedy was probably killed as a
result of a conspiracy.
The committee's finding that President Kennedy was probably assassinated
(1) Since the Warren Commission's and FBI's investigation into the
possibility of a conspiracy was seriously flawed, their failure to
develop evidence of a conspiracy could not be given independent
weight.
(2) The Warren Commission was, in fact, incorrect in concluding
that Oswald and Ruby had no significant associations, and
therefore its finding of no conspiracy was not reliable.
(3) While it cannot be inferred from the significant associations
of Oswald and Ruby that any of the major groups examined
by the committee were involved in the assassination, a more
limited conspiracy could not be ruled out.
(4) There was a high probability that a second gunman, in fact,
fired at the President. At the same time, the committee candidly
stated, in expressing it finding of conspiracy in the Kennedy
assassination, that it was "unable to identify the other gunman
or the extent of the conspiracy.
The HSCA conclusions weren't any better than the WC conclusions.
For once you have made a factual statement. In fact, their conclusions were
much worse.
Post by mainframetech
Ands
in some instances they made false information available to avoid proof
that there was a conspiracy.
Why would they do that and then conclude it was a conspiracy?
I believe the admission that there MAY have been a conspiracy was
something to shut up the public who stated it was a conspiracy. But there
was no effort to recommend an investigation, they ended up saying they
couldn't figure out who or how it was done and simply left it lay there.
Which is the approach most conspiracy hobbyists take. They don't tell us
what did happen because that would require too much heavy lifting (and
evidence). They just tell us it couldn't have happened the way the WC said
it did and that's good enough for them.
Post by mainframetech
Consider that there were 2 factions working at the same time, one was
trying to protect the phony 'lone nut' theory, while the other was doing
the usual government thing of lying to the public to keep them quiet and
complacent.
How did that work out?
mainframetech
2018-05-08 23:23:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
NATIONAL ARCHIVES
JFK Assassination Records
FINDINGS
C. The Committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result
of a conspiracy. The Committee is unable to identify the other gunman
or the extent of the conspiracy.
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of
President Kennedy
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination of
President Kennedy
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved in the
assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence
does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have
been involved
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not
involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but the available
evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members
may have been involved
• The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination
of President Kennedy
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once simply defined
conspiracy as "a partnership in criminal purposes."
(1) That definition is adequate.
Nevertheless, it may be helpful to set out a more precise definition.
If two or more individuals agreed to take action to kill President Kennedy,
and at least one of them took action in furtherance of the plan, and it
resulted in President Kennedy's death, the President would have been
assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.
The committee recognizes, of course, that while the work "conspiracy"
technically denotes only a "partnership in criminal purposes," it also, in
fact, connotes widely varying meanings to many people, and its use has
vastly differing societal implications depending upon the sophistication,
extent and ultimate purpose of the partnership.
For example, a conspiracy to assassinate a President might be a complex
plot orchestrated by foreign political powers; it might be the scheme of a
group of American citizens dissatisfied with particular governmental
policies; it also might be the plan of two largely isolated individuals with
no readily discernible motive.
Conspiracies may easily range, therefore, from those with important
implications for social or governmental institutions to those with no
major societal significance. As the evidence concerning the probability
that President Kennedy was assassinated as a result of a "conspiracy"
is analyzed, these various connotations of the word "conspiracy" and
distinctions between them ought to be constantly borne in mind. Here,
as elsewhere, words must be used carefully, lest people be misled.
A conspiracy cannot be said to have existed in Dealey Plaza
unless evidence exists from which, in Justice Holmes' words,
a "partnership in criminal purposes" may be inferred.
The Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was not
involved in a conspiracy to assassinate the President was, for example,
largely based on its findings of the absence of evidence of significant
association
(2) between Oswald and other possible conspirators and no physical evidence
of conspiracy.
(3) The Commission reasoned, quite rightly, that in the absence of association
or physical evidence, there was no conspiracy.
Even without physical evidence of conspiracy at the scene of the assassination,
there would, of course, be a conspiracy if others assisted Oswald in his efforts.
Accordingly, an examination of Oswald's associates is necessary. The Warren
Commission recognized that a first premise in a finding of conspiracy may be
a finding of association. Because the Commission did not find any significant
Oswald associates, it was not compelled to face the difficult questions posed
by such a finding. More than association is required to establish conspiracy.
There must be at least knowing assistance or a manifestation of agreement
to the criminal purpose by the associate.
[It might be suggested that because of the widely varying meanings attached
to the word "conspiracy," it ought to be avoided. Such a suggestion, however,
raises another objection--the search for euphemistic variations can lead to a
lack of candor. There is virtue in seeing something for what it is, even if the
plain truth causes discomfort.]
Page 96
It is important to realize, too, that the term "associate" may connote widely
varying meanings to different people. A person's associate may be his next
door neighbor and vacation companion, or it may be an individual he has met
only once for the purpose of discussing a contract for a murder. The Warren
Commission examined Oswald's past and concluded he was essentially a loner.
(4) It reasoned, therefore, that since Oswald had no significant associations
with persons who could have been involved with him in the assassination,
there could not have been a conspiracy. (5)
With respect to Jack Ruby, the Warren Commission similarly found no significant
associations, either between Ruby and Oswald or between Ruby and others who
might have been conspirators with him. (8) In particular, it found no connections
between Ruby and organized crime, and it reasoned that absent such associations,
there was no conspiracy to kill Oswald or the president. (9)
The committee conducted a three-pronged investigation of conspiracy in the Kennedy
assassination. On the basis of extensive scientific analysis and an analysis of the
testimony of Dealey Plaza witnesses, the committee found there was a high probability
that two gunmen fired at President Kennedy.
Second, the committee explored Oswald's and Ruby's contact for any evidence
of significant associations. Unlike the Warren Commission, it found certain of
these contacts to be of investigative significance. The Commission apparently
had looked for evidence of conspiratorial association. Finding none on the face
of the associations it investigated, it did not go further. The committee, however,
conducted a wider ranging investigation. Notwithstanding the possibility of a
benign reason for contact between Oswald or Ruby and one of their associates,
the committee examined the very fact of the contact to see if it contained
investigative significance. Unlike the Warren Commission, the committee took
a close look at the associates to determine whether conspiratorial activity in the
assassination could have been possible, given what the committee could learn
about the associates, and whether the apparent nature of the contact should,
therefore, be examined more closely.
Third, the committee examined groups--political organizations, national
governments and so on--that might have had the motive, opportunity and
means to assassinate the President.
The committee, therefore, directly introduced the hypothesis of conspiracy
and investigated it with reference to known facts to determine if it had any
bearing on the assassination.
[The Warren Commission devoted its Appendix XVI to a biography of Jack
Ruby in which his family background, psychological makeup, education and
business activities were considered. While the evidence was sometimes
contradictory, the Commission found that Ruby grew up in Chicago, the son
of Jewish immigrants; that he lived in a home disrupted by domestic strife;
(6) that he was troubled psychologically as a youth and not educated
beyond high school; and that descriptions of his temperament ranged
from "mild mannered" to "violent."(7) In 1963, Ruby was 52 and unmarried.
He ran a Dallas nightclub but was not particularly successful in business.
His acquaintances included a number of Dallas police officers who
frequented his nightclub, as well as other types of people who comprised
his clientele.]
[The committee found associations of both Ruby and Oswald that were
unknown to the Warren Commission.]
Page 97
The committee examined a series of major groups or organizations that
have been alleged to have been involved in a conspiracy to assassinate
the President. If any of these groups or organizations, as a group, had
been involved in the assassination, the conspiracy to assassinate
President Kennedy would have been one of major significance.
As will be detailed in succeeding sections of this report, the committee
did not find sufficient evidence that any of these groups or organizations
were involved in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. Accordingly,
the committee concluded, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Soviet government, the Cuban government, anti-Castro Cuban
groups, and the national syndicate of organized crime were not involved
in the assassination.
Further, the committee found that the Secret Service, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, and the Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in
the assassination.
Based on the evidence available to it, the committee could not preclude
the possibility that individual members of anti-Castro Cuban groups or
the national syndicate of organized crime were involved in the assassination.
There was insufficient evidence, however, to support a finding that any
individual members were involved. The ramifications of a conspiracy
involving such individuals would be significant, although of perhaps less
import than would be the case if a group itself, the national syndicate,
for example had been involved.
The committee recognized that a finding that two gunmen fired
simultaneously at the President did not, by itself, establish that there
was a conspiracy to assassinate the President. It is theoretically possible
that the gunmen were acting independently, each totally unaware of the
other.
It was the committee's opinion, however, that such a theoretical possibility
is extremely remote. The more logical and probable inference to be drawn
from two gunmen firing at the same person at the same time and in the same
place is that they were acting in concert, that is, as a result of a conspiracy.
The committee found that, to be precise and loyal to the facts it established,
it was compelled to find that President Kennedy was probably killed as a
result of a conspiracy.
The committee's finding that President Kennedy was probably assassinated
(1) Since the Warren Commission's and FBI's investigation into the
possibility of a conspiracy was seriously flawed, their failure to
develop evidence of a conspiracy could not be given independent
weight.
(2) The Warren Commission was, in fact, incorrect in concluding
that Oswald and Ruby had no significant associations, and
therefore its finding of no conspiracy was not reliable.
(3) While it cannot be inferred from the significant associations
of Oswald and Ruby that any of the major groups examined
by the committee were involved in the assassination, a more
limited conspiracy could not be ruled out.
(4) There was a high probability that a second gunman, in fact,
fired at the President. At the same time, the committee candidly
stated, in expressing it finding of conspiracy in the Kennedy
assassination, that it was "unable to identify the other gunman
or the extent of the conspiracy.
The HSCA conclusions weren't any better than the WC conclusions.
For once you have made a factual statement. In fact, their conclusions were
much worse.
Post by mainframetech
Ands
in some instances they made false information available to avoid proof
that there was a conspiracy.
Why would they do that and then conclude it was a conspiracy?
I believe the admission that there MAY have been a conspiracy was
something to shut up the public who stated it was a conspiracy. But there
was no effort to recommend an investigation, they ended up saying they
couldn't figure out who or how it was done and simply left it lay there.
Which is the approach most conspiracy hobbyists take. They don't tell us
what did happen because that would require too much heavy lifting (and
evidence). They just tell us it couldn't have happened the way the WC said
it did and that's good enough for them.
WRONG yet again! You know that at the least, I don' take that tack.
I have always presented evidence and witnesses to what actually happened.
NO THEORIES like the WCR uses.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Consider that there were 2 factions working at the same time, one was
trying to protect the phony 'lone nut' theory, while the other was doing
the usual government thing of lying to the public to keep them quiet and
complacent.
How did that work out?
You don't know your history? The public got nervous that they were
being lied to, which they were, and that's where we are now. The
government hopes that over time as newer generations of people grow up,
they won't know much about the murder and so won't complain that it was
conspiracy that was walked away from by law enforcement.

Chris
bigdog
2018-05-09 23:11:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I believe the admission that there MAY have been a conspiracy was
something to shut up the public who stated it was a conspiracy. But there
was no effort to recommend an investigation, they ended up saying they
couldn't figure out who or how it was done and simply left it lay there.
Which is the approach most conspiracy hobbyists take. They don't tell us
what did happen because that would require too much heavy lifting (and
evidence). They just tell us it couldn't have happened the way the WC said
it did and that's good enough for them.
WRONG yet again! You know that at the least, I don' take that tack.
I have always presented evidence and witnesses to what actually happened.
NO THEORIES like the WCR uses.
You mean like when you accused Mac Wallace and Loy Factor of being two of
the shooters just because a couple of schmuck authors told you they were.
Lots of evidence for that one. <chuckle>

That's the great thing about citing dead people as a source. You don't
have to worry about them refuting you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Consider that there were 2 factions working at the same time, one was
trying to protect the phony 'lone nut' theory, while the other was doing
the usual government thing of lying to the public to keep them quiet and
complacent.
How did that work out?
You don't know your history? The public got nervous that they were
being lied to, which they were, and that's where we are now.
Most of the public doesn't give a rat's ass about the assassination much
less be nervous about it. Few people are still interested in it. We are
the exceptions.
Post by mainframetech
The
government hopes that over time as newer generations of people grow up,
The government is comprised of people who come and go and who have
different agendas yet you want to believe there has been a continuity of
purpose in covering up the assassination for over 50 years. What a strange
place you live in.
Post by mainframetech
they won't know much about the murder and so won't complain that it was
conspiracy that was walked away from by law enforcement.
The ignorance of the American people is the best thing the conspiracy
hobbyists have going for them. If the public was really informed about the
evidence, few would believe it was a conspiracy.
mainframetech
2018-05-11 02:59:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I believe the admission that there MAY have been a conspiracy was
something to shut up the public who stated it was a conspiracy. But there
was no effort to recommend an investigation, they ended up saying they
couldn't figure out who or how it was done and simply left it lay there.
Which is the approach most conspiracy hobbyists take. They don't tell us
what did happen because that would require too much heavy lifting (and
evidence). They just tell us it couldn't have happened the way the WC said
it did and that's good enough for them.
WRONG yet again! You know that at the least, I don' take that tack.
I have always presented evidence and witnesses to what actually happened.
NO THEORIES like the WCR uses.
You mean like when you accused Mac Wallace and Loy Factor of being two of
the shooters just because a couple of schmuck authors told you they were.
Lots of evidence for that one. <chuckle>
Amazing how you can remember things, and then not other things. I made
it clear to you that there was a book that said that, and it was the story
from Factor. However, the book offered a valid method for people to sneak
into the TSBD go to the 6th floor, and fire on the motorcade, and leave.
Post by bigdog
That's the great thing about citing dead people as a source. You don't
have to worry about them refuting you.
Said the guy that uses Howard Brennan as a witness!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Consider that there were 2 factions working at the same time, one was
trying to protect the phony 'lone nut' theory, while the other was doing
the usual government thing of lying to the public to keep them quiet and
complacent.
How did that work out?
You don't know your history? The public got nervous that they were
being lied to, which they were, and that's where we are now.
Most of the public doesn't give a rat's ass about the assassination much
less be nervous about it. Few people are still interested in it. We are
the exceptions.
Well now, I seem to remember YOU quoting that the believers in
conspiracy were down to 61%. A majority.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The
government hopes that over time as newer generations of people grow up,
The government is comprised of people who come and go and who have
different agendas yet you want to believe there has been a continuity of
purpose in covering up the assassination for over 50 years. What a strange
place you live in.
So you don't think that a government can keep its memory intact over
50 or more years? You think they don't maintain logs and journals and set
up reminders for the future? Aside from those gimmicks to keep memory
fresh, the older generation teaches the younger. And it is automatic for
any government to try to get the public to believe whatever they say, and
when they won't, it becomes necessary to keep trying new methods to get
them to come along with the party line.

Forget whether UFOs are real or not, just think back to how many
phony stories the government came p with after the Roswell case. It was
one after another excuse, where they would start out with balloons then it
was something else, and over and over a new object was what caused the
sighting. And I don't think to those day they are finished with coming up
with phony excuses for whatever it was. And no, I don't think they're
real, but I'm good with the Moon landings.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
they won't know much about the murder and so won't complain that it was
conspiracy that was walked away from by law enforcement.
The ignorance of the American people is the best thing the conspiracy
hobbyists have going for them. If the public was really informed about the
evidence, few would believe it was a conspiracy.
Odd, I would say just the opposite.

Chris
bigdog
2018-05-12 03:15:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I believe the admission that there MAY have been a conspiracy was
something to shut up the public who stated it was a conspiracy. But there
was no effort to recommend an investigation, they ended up saying they
couldn't figure out who or how it was done and simply left it lay there.
Which is the approach most conspiracy hobbyists take. They don't tell us
what did happen because that would require too much heavy lifting (and
evidence). They just tell us it couldn't have happened the way the WC said
it did and that's good enough for them.
WRONG yet again! You know that at the least, I don' take that tack.
I have always presented evidence and witnesses to what actually happened.
NO THEORIES like the WCR uses.
You mean like when you accused Mac Wallace and Loy Factor of being two of
the shooters just because a couple of schmuck authors told you they were.
Lots of evidence for that one. <chuckle>
Amazing how you can remember things, and then not other things. I made
it clear to you that there was a book that said that, and it was the story
from Factor. However, the book offered a valid method for people to sneak
into the TSBD go to the 6th floor, and fire on the motorcade, and leave.
And not a scrap of evidence that happened. You have posted nothing in that
book that the authors couldn't have simply made up out of thin air.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
That's the great thing about citing dead people as a source. You don't
have to worry about them refuting you.
Said the guy that uses Howard Brennan as a witness!
Brennan's account is a matter of public record. It was given under oath.
We KNOW what he said.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Consider that there were 2 factions working at the same time, one was
trying to protect the phony 'lone nut' theory, while the other was doing
the usual government thing of lying to the public to keep them quiet and
complacent.
How did that work out?
You don't know your history? The public got nervous that they were
being lied to, which they were, and that's where we are now.
Most of the public doesn't give a rat's ass about the assassination much
less be nervous about it. Few people are still interested in it. We are
the exceptions.
Well now, I seem to remember YOU quoting that the believers in
conspiracy were down to 61%. A majority.
If people are asked they will give an opinion about it. That doesn't mean
they are still interested in the subject.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The
government hopes that over time as newer generations of people grow up,
The government is comprised of people who come and go and who have
different agendas yet you want to believe there has been a continuity of
purpose in covering up the assassination for over 50 years. What a strange
place you live in.
So you don't think that a government can keep its memory intact over
50 or more years?
I don't think the government is of one mind at any given time much less
over a 50 year span where the people in power continue to be rollover.
Post by mainframetech
You think they don't maintain logs and journals and set
up reminders for the future?
Why would anyone in power now want to continue a cover up of a crime they
didn't have anything to do with. I suppose you think the administrations
of Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush41, Clinton, Bush43, Obama,
and Trump have all had a vested interest in keeping secrets about the JFK
assassination.
Post by mainframetech
Aside from those gimmicks to keep memory
fresh, the older generation teaches the younger. And it is automatic for
any government to try to get the public to believe whatever they say, and
when they won't, it becomes necessary to keep trying new methods to get
them to come along with the party line.
You have this strange idea that governments are monolithic. Even within a
given administration, there are competing factions with conflicting
agendas. You want us to believe covering up the JFK assassination is the
one thing that EVERYONE in EVERY administration got on board with.
Post by mainframetech
Forget whether UFOs are real or not,
They are. They do exist. We just don't know what they are. That's why they
are designated UNIDENTIFIED flying objects. If it could be determined what
they are, they wouldn't be unidentified.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_flying_object

No charge for the lesson.
Post by mainframetech
just think back to how many
phony stories the government came p with after the Roswell case. It was
one after another excuse, where they would start out with balloons then it
was something else, and over and over a new object was what caused the
sighting. And I don't think to those day they are finished with coming up
with phony excuses for whatever it was. And no, I don't think they're
real, but I'm good with the Moon landings.
The military came up with those stories and with good reason. Area 51 is
where the experimental military aircraft are flown and the military
doesn't want that information being made public so they concoct cover
stories. Apparently one of those experimental aircraft crashed and they
didn't want the details of it made public.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
they won't know much about the murder and so won't complain that it was
conspiracy that was walked away from by law enforcement.
The ignorance of the American people is the best thing the conspiracy
hobbyists have going for them. If the public was really informed about the
evidence, few would believe it was a conspiracy.
Odd, I would say just the opposite.
Of course you would. You are one of the few. You have seen the evidence
and concocted one excuse after another to dismiss it. I don't believe most
people would take that approach, but maybe I am wrong about that.
mainframetech
2018-05-12 23:55:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I believe the admission that there MAY have been a conspiracy was
something to shut up the public who stated it was a conspiracy. But there
was no effort to recommend an investigation, they ended up saying they
couldn't figure out who or how it was done and simply left it lay there.
Which is the approach most conspiracy hobbyists take. They don't tell us
what did happen because that would require too much heavy lifting (and
evidence). They just tell us it couldn't have happened the way the WC said
it did and that's good enough for them.
WRONG yet again! You know that at the least, I don' take that tack.
I have always presented evidence and witnesses to what actually happened.
NO THEORIES like the WCR uses.
You mean like when you accused Mac Wallace and Loy Factor of being two of
the shooters just because a couple of schmuck authors told you they were.
Lots of evidence for that one. <chuckle>
Amazing how you can remember things, and then not other things. I made
it clear to you that there was a book that said that, and it was the story
from Factor. However, the book offered a valid method for people to sneak
into the TSBD go to the 6th floor, and fire on the motorcade, and leave.
And not a scrap of evidence that happened. You have posted nothing in that
book that the authors couldn't have simply made up out of thin air.
I could write the WCR if I was of a mind to fake out millions of
people. And with a whole government of workers, I could get much help
doing it.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
That's the great thing about citing dead people as a source. You don't
have to worry about them refuting you.
Said the guy that uses Howard Brennan as a witness!
Brennan's account is a matter of public record. It was given under oath.
We KNOW what he said.
That wasn't a good retreat. Same case of other witnesses that have
died, but had made signed statements, and we know that Brennan discredited
himself besides. And he didn't have to be alive for us to find that out.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Consider that there were 2 factions working at the same time, one was
trying to protect the phony 'lone nut' theory, while the other was doing
the usual government thing of lying to the public to keep them quiet and
complacent.
How did that work out?
You don't know your history? The public got nervous that they were
being lied to, which they were, and that's where we are now.
Most of the public doesn't give a rat's ass about the assassination much
less be nervous about it. Few people are still interested in it. We are
the exceptions.
Well now, I seem to remember YOU quoting that the believers in
conspiracy were down to 61%. A majority.
If people are asked they will give an opinion about it. That doesn't mean
they are still interested in the subject.
Oh? In other words, you don't know if they were interested or not.
You only know how they voted.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The
government hopes that over time as newer generations of people grow up,
The government is comprised of people who come and go and who have
different agendas yet you want to believe there has been a continuity of
purpose in covering up the assassination for over 50 years. What a strange
place you live in.
So you don't think that a government can keep its memory intact over
50 or more years?
I don't think the government is of one mind at any given time much less
over a 50 year span where the people in power continue to be rollover.
Post by mainframetech
You think they don't maintain logs and journals and set
up reminders for the future?
Why would anyone in power now want to continue a cover up of a crime they
didn't have anything to do with. I suppose you think the administrations
of Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush41, Clinton, Bush43, Obama,
and Trump have all had a vested interest in keeping secrets about the JFK
assassination.
They definitely had a need to back up the previous presidents and
administrations. And I've explained that to you many times. Here we go
yet again: If governments left outstanding cases where they were proved
wrong or lying, then the faith in the government held by the public would
soon wilt, and folks would not believe whatever the government says.
That has come to be the case now to a degree. And with Trump in control,
it's happening much faster as we go downhill into complete lying about
everything. People would stop paying taxes or pay less than the
government said they owed, because they were probably lying. No one would
join the military because they couldn't believe there would be benefits
and the stats of deaths are wrong and the death rate was really worse than
they said. Any number of problems occur when the public does not believe
the government.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Aside from those gimmicks to keep memory
fresh, the older generation teaches the younger. And it is automatic for
any government to try to get the public to believe whatever they say, and
when they won't, it becomes necessary to keep trying new methods to get
them to come along with the party line.
You have this strange idea that governments are monolithic. Even within a
given administration, there are competing factions with conflicting
agendas. You want us to believe covering up the JFK assassination is the
one thing that EVERYONE in EVERY administration got on board with.
There goes your nitpicking again. It doesn't matter that governments
are made up of factions. When attacked or disbelieved, they close ranks
and circle the wagons and ALL government workers will tell the same story.
Only now and then do you get a whistleblower, like the one that gave away
the fact that the fast increasing rate of Autism is a result of certain
vaccinations (MMR) among other factors. Government and the drug makers
quickly worked together to shut up the whistleblower and to put out many
phony articles proving that it was a false claim. His watered down
statement is still on line here:

https://legislature.vermont.gov/assets/Documents/2016/WorkGroups/House%20Health%20Care/Bills/H.98/Witness%20Testimony/H.98~Jennifer%20Stella~William%20Thompson%20Statement~5-6-2015.pdf
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Forget whether UFOs are real or not,
They are. They do exist. We just don't know what they are. That's why they
are designated UNIDENTIFIED flying objects. If it could be determined what
they are, they wouldn't be unidentified.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_flying_object
No charge for the lesson.
Post by mainframetech
just think back to how many
phony stories the government came up with after the Roswell case. It was
one after another excuse, where they would start out with balloons then it
was something else, and over and over a new object was what caused the
sighting. And I don't think to those day they are finished with coming up
with phony excuses for whatever it was. And no, I don't think they're
real, but I'm good with the Moon landings.
The military came up with those stories and with good reason. Area 51 is
where the experimental military aircraft are flown and the military
doesn't want that information being made public so they concoct cover
stories. Apparently one of those experimental aircraft crashed and they
didn't want the details of it made public.
See? Thanks for helping my point. You were made a believer that the
government told the absolutely truth with the story that they were
covering up area 51, which people have known about for many, many years.
It's no secret anymore. But the stories about UFOs and their cause
continue. Swamp gas, reflected lights, and many other stories. The
government can't have an unexplained event on their territory and look
like fools that haven't a clue, or like babes with a superior technology
flying around them.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
they won't know much about the murder and so won't complain that it was
conspiracy that was walked away from by law enforcement.
The ignorance of the American people is the best thing the conspiracy
hobbyists have going for them. If the public was really informed about the
evidence, few would believe it was a conspiracy.
Odd, I would say just the opposite.
Of course you would. You are one of the few. You have seen the evidence
and concocted one excuse after another to dismiss it. I don't believe most
people would take that approach, but maybe I am wrong about that.
WRONG yet again! Actually, You know I don't dismiss evidence, but you
persist in saying that. And my paying attention to evidence has proven
that the murder of JFK was a conspiracy. I recommend paying attention to
evidence and looking at it carefully.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-14 15:15:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I believe the admission that there MAY have been a conspiracy was
something to shut up the public who stated it was a conspiracy. But there
was no effort to recommend an investigation, they ended up saying they
couldn't figure out who or how it was done and simply left it lay there.
Which is the approach most conspiracy hobbyists take. They don't tell us
what did happen because that would require too much heavy lifting (and
evidence). They just tell us it couldn't have happened the way the WC said
it did and that's good enough for them.
WRONG yet again! You know that at the least, I don' take that tack.
I have always presented evidence and witnesses to what actually happened.
NO THEORIES like the WCR uses.
You mean like when you accused Mac Wallace and Loy Factor of being two of
the shooters just because a couple of schmuck authors told you they were.
Lots of evidence for that one. <chuckle>
Amazing how you can remember things, and then not other things. I made
it clear to you that there was a book that said that, and it was the story
from Factor. However, the book offered a valid method for people to sneak
into the TSBD go to the 6th floor, and fire on the motorcade, and leave.
And not a scrap of evidence that happened. You have posted nothing in that
book that the authors couldn't have simply made up out of thin air.
I could write the WCR if I was of a mind to fake out millions of
people. And with a whole government of workers, I could get much help
doing it.
Maybe you weren't alive then so you don't realize how it was back then. We
had just survived the Cuban Missile Crisis and people were still building
nuclear war bunkers in their back yards and then when JFK was killed a lot
people thought it was part of the Russians attacking the United states.
And the CIA spread rumors that Oswald was working for Castro. If the truth
ever came out it could lead to WWIII. That is the rationale for the
cover-up. For the good of the country the public must be reassured that
Oswald was a lone nut.

That was the marching order given to the Warren Commission.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
That's the great thing about citing dead people as a source. You don't
have to worry about them refuting you.
Said the guy that uses Howard Brennan as a witness!
Brennan's account is a matter of public record. It was given under oath.
We KNOW what he said.
But maybe he said more in private than what he testified to. Maybe they
told him NOT to talk about other things.

Brennan thought it was a Communist plot. The DPD thought it was a
Communist plot. The CIA thought it was a Communist plot. LBJ thought it
was a Communist plot.
Post by mainframetech
That wasn't a good retreat. Same case of other witnesses that have
died, but had made signed statements, and we know that Brennan discredited
himself besides. And he didn't have to be alive for us to find that out.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Consider that there were 2 factions working at the same time, one was
trying to protect the phony 'lone nut' theory, while the other was doing
the usual government thing of lying to the public to keep them quiet and
complacent.
How did that work out?
You don't know your history? The public got nervous that they were
being lied to, which they were, and that's where we are now.
Most of the public doesn't give a rat's ass about the assassination much
less be nervous about it. Few people are still interested in it. We are
the exceptions.
Well now, I seem to remember YOU quoting that the believers in
conspiracy were down to 61%. A majority.
If people are asked they will give an opinion about it. That doesn't mean
they are still interested in the subject.
Oh? In other words, you don't know if they were interested or not.
You only know how they voted.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The
government hopes that over time as newer generations of people grow up,
The government is comprised of people who come and go and who have
different agendas yet you want to believe there has been a continuity of
purpose in covering up the assassination for over 50 years. What a strange
place you live in.
So you don't think that a government can keep its memory intact over
50 or more years?
I don't think the government is of one mind at any given time much less
over a 50 year span where the people in power continue to be rollover.
Post by mainframetech
You think they don't maintain logs and journals and set
up reminders for the future?
Why would anyone in power now want to continue a cover up of a crime they
didn't have anything to do with. I suppose you think the administrations
of Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush41, Clinton, Bush43, Obama,
and Trump have all had a vested interest in keeping secrets about the JFK
assassination.
They definitely had a need to back up the previous presidents and
administrations. And I've explained that to you many times. Here we go
yet again: If governments left outstanding cases where they were proved
wrong or lying, then the faith in the government held by the public would
soon wilt, and folks would not believe whatever the government says.
That has come to be the case now to a degree. And with Trump in control,
it's happening much faster as we go downhill into complete lying about
everything. People would stop paying taxes or pay less than the
government said they owed, because they were probably lying. No one would
join the military because they couldn't believe there would be benefits
and the stats of deaths are wrong and the death rate was really worse than
they said. Any number of problems occur when the public does not believe
the government.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Aside from those gimmicks to keep memory
fresh, the older generation teaches the younger. And it is automatic for
any government to try to get the public to believe whatever they say, and
when they won't, it becomes necessary to keep trying new methods to get
them to come along with the party line.
You have this strange idea that governments are monolithic. Even within a
given administration, there are competing factions with conflicting
agendas. You want us to believe covering up the JFK assassination is the
one thing that EVERYONE in EVERY administration got on board with.
There goes your nitpicking again. It doesn't matter that governments
are made up of factions. When attacked or disbelieved, they close ranks
and circle the wagons and ALL government workers will tell the same story.
Only now and then do you get a whistleblower, like the one that gave away
the fact that the fast increasing rate of Autism is a result of certain
vaccinations (MMR) among other factors. Government and the drug makers
quickly worked together to shut up the whistleblower and to put out many
phony articles proving that it was a false claim. His watered down
https://legislature.vermont.gov/assets/Documents/2016/WorkGroups/House%20Health%20Care/Bills/H.98/Witness%20Testimony/H.98~Jennifer%20Stella~William%20Thompson%20Statement~5-6-2015.pdf
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Forget whether UFOs are real or not,
They are. They do exist. We just don't know what they are. That's why they
are designated UNIDENTIFIED flying objects. If it could be determined what
they are, they wouldn't be unidentified.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_flying_object
No charge for the lesson.
Post by mainframetech
just think back to how many
phony stories the government came up with after the Roswell case. It was
one after another excuse, where they would start out with balloons then it
was something else, and over and over a new object was what caused the
sighting. And I don't think to those day they are finished with coming up
with phony excuses for whatever it was. And no, I don't think they're
real, but I'm good with the Moon landings.
The military came up with those stories and with good reason. Area 51 is
where the experimental military aircraft are flown and the military
doesn't want that information being made public so they concoct cover
stories. Apparently one of those experimental aircraft crashed and they
didn't want the details of it made public.
See? Thanks for helping my point. You were made a believer that the
government told the absolutely truth with the story that they were
covering up area 51, which people have known about for many, many years.
It's no secret anymore. But the stories about UFOs and their cause
continue. Swamp gas, reflected lights, and many other stories. The
government can't have an unexplained event on their territory and look
like fools that haven't a clue, or like babes with a superior technology
flying around them.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
they won't know much about the murder and so won't complain that it was
conspiracy that was walked away from by law enforcement.
The ignorance of the American people is the best thing the conspiracy
hobbyists have going for them. If the public was really informed about the
evidence, few would believe it was a conspiracy.
Odd, I would say just the opposite.
Of course you would. You are one of the few. You have seen the evidence
and concocted one excuse after another to dismiss it. I don't believe most
people would take that approach, but maybe I am wrong about that.
WRONG yet again! Actually, You know I don't dismiss evidence, but you
persist in saying that. And my paying attention to evidence has proven
that the murder of JFK was a conspiracy. I recommend paying attention to
evidence and looking at it carefully.
Chris
claviger
2018-05-15 16:48:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
It was a plot by one true believer in Marxist ideology who hated the US
economic system of Free Enterprise because he never learned how to follow
the rules of common courtesy, civil behavior, and respect for the
chain-of-command within a family, at school, or in a company where he
clashed with supervisors. LHO was not inclined to be a team player, the
reason why I believe he did this crime all by himself.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-17 02:02:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
It was a plot by one true believer in Marxist ideology who hated the US
economic system of Free Enterprise because he never learned how to follow
the rules of common courtesy, civil behavior, and respect for the
chain-of-command within a family, at school, or in a company where he
clashed with supervisors. LHO was not inclined to be a team player, the
reason why I believe he did this crime all by himself.
That's not a polite way to talk about Richard Helms.
mainframetech
2018-05-17 02:05:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
It was a plot by one true believer in Marxist ideology who hated the US
economic system of Free Enterprise because he never learned how to follow
the rules of common courtesy, civil behavior, and respect for the
chain-of-command within a family, at school, or in a company where he
clashed with supervisors. LHO was not inclined to be a team player, the
reason why I believe he did this crime all by himself.
Whew! What a bunch of OPINION!

Chris
claviger
2018-05-18 00:06:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
It was a plot by one true believer in Marxist ideology who hated the US
economic system of Free Enterprise because he never learned how to follow
the rules of common courtesy, civil behavior, and respect for the
chain-of-command within a family, at school, or in a company where he
clashed with supervisors. LHO was not inclined to be a team player, the
reason why I believe he did this crime all by himself.
Whew! What a bunch of OPINION!
Chris
Yes opinions are welcome on this Newsgroup because LNs have all the facts
piled up in long rows. What this Discussion forum boils down to is CT
marshmallow confections vs the LN brickyard of evidence. To date 54 years
later, not one sustainable piece of evidence there was a sniper on top the
Grassy Knoll, down in a storm sewer, inside the Dal Tex Bldg, or some
other location at the TSBD other than the 6th floor window. So after 50+
years looks like all CT theories lead to the same old junkyard filled with
empty bottles once full of carbonated theories. However, all CTs welcome
for entertainment value, kinda like talking mimes.
mainframetech
2018-05-19 01:35:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
It was a plot by one true believer in Marxist ideology who hated the US
economic system of Free Enterprise because he never learned how to follow
the rules of common courtesy, civil behavior, and respect for the
chain-of-command within a family, at school, or in a company where he
clashed with supervisors. LHO was not inclined to be a team player, the
reason why I believe he did this crime all by himself.
Whew! What a bunch of OPINION!
Chris
Yes opinions are welcome on this Newsgroup because LNs have all the facts
piled up in long rows. What this Discussion forum boils down to is CT
marshmallow confections vs the LN brickyard of evidence. To date 54 years
later, not one sustainable piece of evidence there was a sniper on top the
Grassy Knoll, down in a storm sewer, inside the Dal Tex Bldg, or some
other location at the TSBD other than the 6th floor window. So after 50+
years looks like all CT theories lead to the same old junkyard filled with
empty bottles once full of carbonated theories. However, all CTs welcome
for entertainment value, kinda like talking mimes.
Yep. More OPINION. Some day we'll get the LNs to deal with facts and
pay attention to them. Opinions are fine for anyone. But we here are
also (some of us) interested in solving the crime of murder. For that we
need facts.

Chris
claviger
2018-05-20 01:34:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
It was a plot by one true believer in Marxist ideology who hated the US
economic system of Free Enterprise because he never learned how to follow
the rules of common courtesy, civil behavior, and respect for the
chain-of-command within a family, at school, or in a company where he
clashed with supervisors. LHO was not inclined to be a team player, the
reason why I believe he did this crime all by himself.
Whew! What a bunch of OPINION!
Chris
Yes opinions are welcome on this Newsgroup because LNs have all the facts
piled up in long rows. What this Discussion forum boils down to is CT
marshmallow confections vs the LN brickyard of evidence. To date 54 years
later, not one sustainable piece of evidence there was a sniper on top the
Grassy Knoll, down in a storm sewer, inside the Dal Tex Bldg, or some
other location at the TSBD other than the 6th floor window. So after 50+
years looks like all CT theories lead to the same old junkyard filled with
empty bottles once full of carbonated theories. However, all CTs welcome
for entertainment value, kinda like talking mimes.
Yep. More OPINION. Some day we'll get the LNs to deal with facts and
pay attention to them. Opinions are fine for anyone. But we here are
also (some of us) interested in solving the crime of murder. For that we
need facts.
Chris
Someday when you stumble over some real facts please let us know
and we will be happy to discuss them. You're on a mining expedition
and continue offering up Fool's Gold. Everyone knows it but you.
Jason Burke
2018-05-20 22:10:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
It was a plot by one true believer in Marxist ideology who hated the US
economic system of Free Enterprise because he never learned how to follow
the rules of common courtesy, civil behavior, and respect for the
chain-of-command within a family, at school, or in a company where he
clashed with supervisors. LHO was not inclined to be a team player, the
reason why I believe he did this crime all by himself.
Whew! What a bunch of OPINION!
Chris
Yes opinions are welcome on this Newsgroup because LNs have all the facts
piled up in long rows. What this Discussion forum boils down to is CT
marshmallow confections vs the LN brickyard of evidence. To date 54 years
later, not one sustainable piece of evidence there was a sniper on top the
Grassy Knoll, down in a storm sewer, inside the Dal Tex Bldg, or some
other location at the TSBD other than the 6th floor window. So after 50+
years looks like all CT theories lead to the same old junkyard filled with
empty bottles once full of carbonated theories. However, all CTs welcome
for entertainment value, kinda like talking mimes.
Yep. More OPINION. Some day we'll get the LNs to deal with facts and
pay attention to them. Opinions are fine for anyone. But we here are
also (some of us) interested in solving the crime of murder. For that we
need facts.
Chris
Someday when you stumble over some real facts please let us know
and we will be happy to discuss them. You're on a mining expedition
and continue offering up Fool's Gold. Everyone knows it but you.
Oh, no. Chris knows it's hopeless. He just refuses to believe it.
mainframetech
2018-05-21 02:38:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
It was a plot by one true believer in Marxist ideology who hated the US
economic system of Free Enterprise because he never learned how to follow
the rules of common courtesy, civil behavior, and respect for the
chain-of-command within a family, at school, or in a company where he
clashed with supervisors. LHO was not inclined to be a team player, the
reason why I believe he did this crime all by himself.
Whew! What a bunch of OPINION!
Chris
Yes opinions are welcome on this Newsgroup because LNs have all the facts
piled up in long rows. What this Discussion forum boils down to is CT
marshmallow confections vs the LN brickyard of evidence. To date 54 years
later, not one sustainable piece of evidence there was a sniper on top the
Grassy Knoll, down in a storm sewer, inside the Dal Tex Bldg, or some
other location at the TSBD other than the 6th floor window. So after 50+
years looks like all CT theories lead to the same old junkyard filled with
empty bottles once full of carbonated theories. However, all CTs welcome
for entertainment value, kinda like talking mimes.
Yep. More OPINION. Some day we'll get the LNs to deal with facts and
pay attention to them. Opinions are fine for anyone. But we here are
also (some of us) interested in solving the crime of murder. For that we
need facts.
Chris
Someday when you stumble over some real facts please let us know
and we will be happy to discuss them. You're on a mining expedition
and continue offering up Fool's Gold. Everyone knows it but you.
Typical LN ad hominem comments. No facts or evidence.

Chris
claviger
2018-05-22 01:57:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
It was a plot by one true believer in Marxist ideology who hated the US
economic system of Free Enterprise because he never learned how to follow
the rules of common courtesy, civil behavior, and respect for the
chain-of-command within a family, at school, or in a company where he
clashed with supervisors. LHO was not inclined to be a team player, the
reason why I believe he did this crime all by himself.
Whew! What a bunch of OPINION!
Chris
Yes opinions are welcome on this Newsgroup because LNs have all the facts
piled up in long rows. What this Discussion forum boils down to is CT
marshmallow confections vs the LN brickyard of evidence. To date 54 years
later, not one sustainable piece of evidence there was a sniper on top the
Grassy Knoll, down in a storm sewer, inside the Dal Tex Bldg, or some
other location at the TSBD other than the 6th floor window. So after 50+
years looks like all CT theories lead to the same old junkyard filled with
empty bottles once full of carbonated theories. However, all CTs welcome
for entertainment value, kinda like talking mimes.
Yep. More OPINION. Some day we'll get the LNs to deal with facts and
pay attention to them. Opinions are fine for anyone. But we here are
also (some of us) interested in solving the crime of murder. For that we
need facts.
Chris
Someday when you stumble over some real facts please let us know
and we will be happy to discuss them. You're on a mining expedition
and continue offering up Fool's Gold. Everyone knows it but you.
Typical LN ad hominem comments. No facts or evidence.
Chris
The offer still goes. You know where to find us.
mainframetech
2018-05-24 02:51:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
It was a plot by one true believer in Marxist ideology who hated the US
economic system of Free Enterprise because he never learned how to follow
the rules of common courtesy, civil behavior, and respect for the
chain-of-command within a family, at school, or in a company where he
clashed with supervisors. LHO was not inclined to be a team player, the
reason why I believe he did this crime all by himself.
Whew! What a bunch of OPINION!
Chris
Yes opinions are welcome on this Newsgroup because LNs have all the facts
piled up in long rows. What this Discussion forum boils down to is CT
marshmallow confections vs the LN brickyard of evidence. To date 54 years
later, not one sustainable piece of evidence there was a sniper on top the
Grassy Knoll, down in a storm sewer, inside the Dal Tex Bldg, or some
other location at the TSBD other than the 6th floor window. So after 50+
years looks like all CT theories lead to the same old junkyard filled with
empty bottles once full of carbonated theories. However, all CTs welcome
for entertainment value, kinda like talking mimes.
Yep. More OPINION. Some day we'll get the LNs to deal with facts and
pay attention to them. Opinions are fine for anyone. But we here are
also (some of us) interested in solving the crime of murder. For that we
need facts.
Chris
Someday when you stumble over some real facts please let us know
and we will be happy to discuss them. You're on a mining expedition
and continue offering up Fool's Gold. Everyone knows it but you.
Typical LN ad hominem comments. No facts or evidence.
Chris
The offer still goes. You know where to find us.
So now you decided to speak for everyone? :)

Here's a fact for you to play with:

he following videos show how the Z-film was altered:




Chris

claviger
2018-05-22 02:13:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
It was a plot by one true believer in Marxist ideology who hated the US
economic system of Free Enterprise because he never learned how to follow
the rules of common courtesy, civil behavior, and respect for the
chain-of-command within a family, at school, or in a company where he
clashed with supervisors. LHO was not inclined to be a team player, the
reason why I believe he did this crime all by himself.
Whew! What a bunch of OPINION!
Chris
Yes opinions are welcome on this Newsgroup because LNs have all the facts
piled up in long rows. What this Discussion forum boils down to is CT
marshmallow confections vs the LN brickyard of evidence. To date 54 years
later, not one sustainable piece of evidence there was a sniper on top the
Grassy Knoll, down in a storm sewer, inside the Dal Tex Bldg, or some
other location at the TSBD other than the 6th floor window. So after 50+
years looks like all CT theories lead to the same old junkyard filled with
empty bottles once full of carbonated theories. However, all CTs welcome
for entertainment value, kinda like talking mimes.
Yep. More OPINION. Some day we'll get the LNs to deal with facts and
pay attention to them. Opinions are fine for anyone. But we here are
also (some of us) interested in solving the crime of murder. For that we
need facts.
Chris
Someday when you stumble over some real facts please let us know
and we will be happy to discuss them. You're on a mining expedition
and continue offering up Fool's Gold. Everyone knows it but you.
Typical LN ad hominem comments. No facts or evidence.
Chris
You can't even convince other CTs.
mainframetech
2018-05-24 02:50:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
It was a plot by one true believer in Marxist ideology who hated the US
economic system of Free Enterprise because he never learned how to follow
the rules of common courtesy, civil behavior, and respect for the
chain-of-command within a family, at school, or in a company where he
clashed with supervisors. LHO was not inclined to be a team player, the
reason why I believe he did this crime all by himself.
Whew! What a bunch of OPINION!
Chris
Yes opinions are welcome on this Newsgroup because LNs have all the facts
piled up in long rows. What this Discussion forum boils down to is CT
marshmallow confections vs the LN brickyard of evidence. To date 54 years
later, not one sustainable piece of evidence there was a sniper on top the
Grassy Knoll, down in a storm sewer, inside the Dal Tex Bldg, or some
other location at the TSBD other than the 6th floor window. So after 50+
years looks like all CT theories lead to the same old junkyard filled with
empty bottles once full of carbonated theories. However, all CTs welcome
for entertainment value, kinda like talking mimes.
Yep. More OPINION. Some day we'll get the LNs to deal with facts and
pay attention to them. Opinions are fine for anyone. But we here are
also (some of us) interested in solving the crime of murder. For that we
need facts.
Chris
Someday when you stumble over some real facts please let us know
and we will be happy to discuss them. You're on a mining expedition
and continue offering up Fool's Gold. Everyone knows it but you.
Typical LN ad hominem comments. No facts or evidence.
Chris
You can't even convince other CTs.
Haven't tried. I put the info out there and you will or won't check it
out. I can lead you to the water, but won't make you drink.

If you don't get too insulting, I'll even answer questions.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-10 18:55:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
NATIONAL ARCHIVES
JFK Assassination Records
FINDINGS
C. The Committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result
of a conspiracy. The Committee is unable to identify the other gunman
or the extent of the conspiracy.
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of
President Kennedy
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination of
President Kennedy
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved in the
assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence
does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have
been involved
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not
involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but the available
evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members
may have been involved
• The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination
of President Kennedy
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once simply defined
conspiracy as "a partnership in criminal purposes."
(1) That definition is adequate.
Nevertheless, it may be helpful to set out a more precise definition.
If two or more individuals agreed to take action to kill President Kennedy,
and at least one of them took action in furtherance of the plan, and it
resulted in President Kennedy's death, the President would have been
assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.
The committee recognizes, of course, that while the work "conspiracy"
technically denotes only a "partnership in criminal purposes," it also, in
fact, connotes widely varying meanings to many people, and its use has
vastly differing societal implications depending upon the sophistication,
extent and ultimate purpose of the partnership.
For example, a conspiracy to assassinate a President might be a complex
plot orchestrated by foreign political powers; it might be the scheme of a
group of American citizens dissatisfied with particular governmental
policies; it also might be the plan of two largely isolated individuals with
no readily discernible motive.
Conspiracies may easily range, therefore, from those with important
implications for social or governmental institutions to those with no
major societal significance. As the evidence concerning the probability
that President Kennedy was assassinated as a result of a "conspiracy"
is analyzed, these various connotations of the word "conspiracy" and
distinctions between them ought to be constantly borne in mind. Here,
as elsewhere, words must be used carefully, lest people be misled.
A conspiracy cannot be said to have existed in Dealey Plaza
unless evidence exists from which, in Justice Holmes' words,
a "partnership in criminal purposes" may be inferred.
The Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was not
involved in a conspiracy to assassinate the President was, for example,
largely based on its findings of the absence of evidence of significant
association
(2) between Oswald and other possible conspirators and no physical evidence
of conspiracy.
(3) The Commission reasoned, quite rightly, that in the absence of association
or physical evidence, there was no conspiracy.
Even without physical evidence of conspiracy at the scene of the assassination,
there would, of course, be a conspiracy if others assisted Oswald in his efforts.
Accordingly, an examination of Oswald's associates is necessary. The Warren
Commission recognized that a first premise in a finding of conspiracy may be
a finding of association. Because the Commission did not find any significant
Oswald associates, it was not compelled to face the difficult questions posed
by such a finding. More than association is required to establish conspiracy.
There must be at least knowing assistance or a manifestation of agreement
to the criminal purpose by the associate.
[It might be suggested that because of the widely varying meanings attached
to the word "conspiracy," it ought to be avoided. Such a suggestion, however,
raises another objection--the search for euphemistic variations can lead to a
lack of candor. There is virtue in seeing something for what it is, even if the
plain truth causes discomfort.]
Page 96
It is important to realize, too, that the term "associate" may connote widely
varying meanings to different people. A person's associate may be his next
door neighbor and vacation companion, or it may be an individual he has met
only once for the purpose of discussing a contract for a murder. The Warren
Commission examined Oswald's past and concluded he was essentially a loner.
(4) It reasoned, therefore, that since Oswald had no significant associations
with persons who could have been involved with him in the assassination,
there could not have been a conspiracy. (5)
With respect to Jack Ruby, the Warren Commission similarly found no significant
associations, either between Ruby and Oswald or between Ruby and others who
might have been conspirators with him. (8) In particular, it found no connections
between Ruby and organized crime, and it reasoned that absent such associations,
there was no conspiracy to kill Oswald or the president. (9)
The committee conducted a three-pronged investigation of conspiracy in the Kennedy
assassination. On the basis of extensive scientific analysis and an analysis of the
testimony of Dealey Plaza witnesses, the committee found there was a high probability
that two gunmen fired at President Kennedy.
Second, the committee explored Oswald's and Ruby's contact for any evidence
of significant associations. Unlike the Warren Commission, it found certain of
these contacts to be of investigative significance. The Commission apparently
had looked for evidence of conspiratorial association. Finding none on the face
of the associations it investigated, it did not go further. The committee, however,
conducted a wider ranging investigation. Notwithstanding the possibility of a
benign reason for contact between Oswald or Ruby and one of their associates,
the committee examined the very fact of the contact to see if it contained
investigative significance. Unlike the Warren Commission, the committee took
a close look at the associates to determine whether conspiratorial activity in the
assassination could have been possible, given what the committee could learn
about the associates, and whether the apparent nature of the contact should,
therefore, be examined more closely.
Third, the committee examined groups--political organizations, national
governments and so on--that might have had the motive, opportunity and
means to assassinate the President.
The committee, therefore, directly introduced the hypothesis of conspiracy
and investigated it with reference to known facts to determine if it had any
bearing on the assassination.
[The Warren Commission devoted its Appendix XVI to a biography of Jack
Ruby in which his family background, psychological makeup, education and
business activities were considered. While the evidence was sometimes
contradictory, the Commission found that Ruby grew up in Chicago, the son
of Jewish immigrants; that he lived in a home disrupted by domestic strife;
(6) that he was troubled psychologically as a youth and not educated
beyond high school; and that descriptions of his temperament ranged
from "mild mannered" to "violent."(7) In 1963, Ruby was 52 and unmarried.
He ran a Dallas nightclub but was not particularly successful in business.
His acquaintances included a number of Dallas police officers who
frequented his nightclub, as well as other types of people who comprised
his clientele.]
[The committee found associations of both Ruby and Oswald that were
unknown to the Warren Commission.]
Page 97
The committee examined a series of major groups or organizations that
have been alleged to have been involved in a conspiracy to assassinate
the President. If any of these groups or organizations, as a group, had
been involved in the assassination, the conspiracy to assassinate
President Kennedy would have been one of major significance.
As will be detailed in succeeding sections of this report, the committee
did not find sufficient evidence that any of these groups or organizations
were involved in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. Accordingly,
the committee concluded, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Soviet government, the Cuban government, anti-Castro Cuban
groups, and the national syndicate of organized crime were not involved
in the assassination.
Further, the committee found that the Secret Service, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, and the Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in
the assassination.
Based on the evidence available to it, the committee could not preclude
the possibility that individual members of anti-Castro Cuban groups or
the national syndicate of organized crime were involved in the assassination.
There was insufficient evidence, however, to support a finding that any
individual members were involved. The ramifications of a conspiracy
involving such individuals would be significant, although of perhaps less
import than would be the case if a group itself, the national syndicate,
for example had been involved.
The committee recognized that a finding that two gunmen fired
simultaneously at the President did not, by itself, establish that there
was a conspiracy to assassinate the President. It is theoretically possible
that the gunmen were acting independently, each totally unaware of the
other.
It was the committee's opinion, however, that such a theoretical possibility
is extremely remote. The more logical and probable inference to be drawn
from two gunmen firing at the same person at the same time and in the same
place is that they were acting in concert, that is, as a result of a conspiracy.
The committee found that, to be precise and loyal to the facts it established,
it was compelled to find that President Kennedy was probably killed as a
result of a conspiracy.
The committee's finding that President Kennedy was probably assassinated
(1) Since the Warren Commission's and FBI's investigation into the
possibility of a conspiracy was seriously flawed, their failure to
develop evidence of a conspiracy could not be given independent
weight.
(2) The Warren Commission was, in fact, incorrect in concluding
that Oswald and Ruby had no significant associations, and
therefore its finding of no conspiracy was not reliable.
(3) While it cannot be inferred from the significant associations
of Oswald and Ruby that any of the major groups examined
by the committee were involved in the assassination, a more
limited conspiracy could not be ruled out.
(4) There was a high probability that a second gunman, in fact,
fired at the President. At the same time, the committee candidly
stated, in expressing it finding of conspiracy in the Kennedy
assassination, that it was "unable to identify the other gunman
or the extent of the conspiracy.
The HSCA conclusions weren't any better than the WC conclusions.
For once you have made a factual statement. In fact, their conclusions were
much worse.
Post by mainframetech
Ands
in some instances they made false information available to avoid proof
that there was a conspiracy.
Why would they do that and then conclude it was a conspiracy?
I believe the admission that there MAY have been a conspiracy was
something to shut up the public who stated it was a conspiracy. But there
was no effort to recommend an investigation, they ended up saying they
couldn't figure out who or how it was done and simply left it lay there.
Which is the approach most conspiracy hobbyists take. They don't tell us
what did happen because that would require too much heavy lifting (and
evidence). They just tell us it couldn't have happened the way the WC said
it did and that's good enough for them.
WRONG yet again! You know that at the least, I don' take that tack.
I have always presented evidence and witnesses to what actually happened.
NO THEORIES like the WCR uses.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Consider that there were 2 factions working at the same time, one was
trying to protect the phony 'lone nut' theory, while the other was doing
the usual government thing of lying to the public to keep them quiet and
complacent.
How did that work out?
You don't know your history? The public got nervous that they were
being lied to, which they were, and that's where we are now. The
government hopes that over time as newer generations of people grow up,
they won't know much about the murder and so won't complain that it was
conspiracy that was walked away from by law enforcement.
Chris
The public knew within hours that it was a conspiracy.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-07 00:34:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
NATIONAL ARCHIVES
JFK Assassination Records
FINDINGS
C. The Committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result
of a conspiracy. The Committee is unable to identify the other gunman
or the extent of the conspiracy.
??? The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of
President Kennedy
??? The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination of
President Kennedy
??? The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved in the
assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence
does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have
been involved
??? The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not
involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but the available
evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members
may have been involved
??? The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination
of President Kennedy
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once simply defined
conspiracy as "a partnership in criminal purposes."
(1) That definition is adequate.
Nevertheless, it may be helpful to set out a more precise definition.
If two or more individuals agreed to take action to kill President Kennedy,
and at least one of them took action in furtherance of the plan, and it
resulted in President Kennedy's death, the President would have been
assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.
The committee recognizes, of course, that while the work "conspiracy"
technically denotes only a "partnership in criminal purposes," it also, in
fact, connotes widely varying meanings to many people, and its use has
vastly differing societal implications depending upon the sophistication,
extent and ultimate purpose of the partnership.
For example, a conspiracy to assassinate a President might be a complex
plot orchestrated by foreign political powers; it might be the scheme of a
group of American citizens dissatisfied with particular governmental
policies; it also might be the plan of two largely isolated individuals with
no readily discernible motive.
Conspiracies may easily range, therefore, from those with important
implications for social or governmental institutions to those with no
major societal significance. As the evidence concerning the probability
that President Kennedy was assassinated as a result of a "conspiracy"
is analyzed, these various connotations of the word "conspiracy" and
distinctions between them ought to be constantly borne in mind. Here,
as elsewhere, words must be used carefully, lest people be misled.
A conspiracy cannot be said to have existed in Dealey Plaza
unless evidence exists from which, in Justice Holmes' words,
a "partnership in criminal purposes" may be inferred.
The Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was not
involved in a conspiracy to assassinate the President was, for example,
largely based on its findings of the absence of evidence of significant
association
(2) between Oswald and other possible conspirators and no physical evidence
of conspiracy.
(3) The Commission reasoned, quite rightly, that in the absence of association
or physical evidence, there was no conspiracy.
Even without physical evidence of conspiracy at the scene of the assassination,
there would, of course, be a conspiracy if others assisted Oswald in his efforts.
Accordingly, an examination of Oswald's associates is necessary. The Warren
Commission recognized that a first premise in a finding of conspiracy may be
a finding of association. Because the Commission did not find any significant
Oswald associates, it was not compelled to face the difficult questions posed
by such a finding. More than association is required to establish conspiracy.
There must be at least knowing assistance or a manifestation of agreement
to the criminal purpose by the associate.
[It might be suggested that because of the widely varying meanings attached
to the word "conspiracy," it ought to be avoided. Such a suggestion, however,
raises another objection--the search for euphemistic variations can lead to a
lack of candor. There is virtue in seeing something for what it is, even if the
plain truth causes discomfort.]
Page 96
It is important to realize, too, that the term "associate" may connote widely
varying meanings to different people. A person's associate may be his next
door neighbor and vacation companion, or it may be an individual he has met
only once for the purpose of discussing a contract for a murder. The Warren
Commission examined Oswald's past and concluded he was essentially a loner.
(4) It reasoned, therefore, that since Oswald had no significant associations
with persons who could have been involved with him in the assassination,
there could not have been a conspiracy. (5)
With respect to Jack Ruby, the Warren Commission similarly found no significant
associations, either between Ruby and Oswald or between Ruby and others who
might have been conspirators with him. (8) In particular, it found no connections
between Ruby and organized crime, and it reasoned that absent such associations,
there was no conspiracy to kill Oswald or the president. (9)
The committee conducted a three-pronged investigation of conspiracy in the Kennedy
assassination. On the basis of extensive scientific analysis and an analysis of the
testimony of Dealey Plaza witnesses, the committee found there was a high probability
that two gunmen fired at President Kennedy.
Second, the committee explored Oswald's and Ruby's contact for any evidence
of significant associations. Unlike the Warren Commission, it found certain of
these contacts to be of investigative significance. The Commission apparently
had looked for evidence of conspiratorial association. Finding none on the face
of the associations it investigated, it did not go further. The committee, however,
conducted a wider ranging investigation. Notwithstanding the possibility of a
benign reason for contact between Oswald or Ruby and one of their associates,
the committee examined the very fact of the contact to see if it contained
investigative significance. Unlike the Warren Commission, the committee took
a close look at the associates to determine whether conspiratorial activity in the
assassination could have been possible, given what the committee could learn
about the associates, and whether the apparent nature of the contact should,
therefore, be examined more closely.
Third, the committee examined groups--political organizations, national
governments and so on--that might have had the motive, opportunity and
means to assassinate the President.
The committee, therefore, directly introduced the hypothesis of conspiracy
and investigated it with reference to known facts to determine if it had any
bearing on the assassination.
[The Warren Commission devoted its Appendix XVI to a biography of Jack
Ruby in which his family background, psychological makeup, education and
business activities were considered. While the evidence was sometimes
contradictory, the Commission found that Ruby grew up in Chicago, the son
of Jewish immigrants; that he lived in a home disrupted by domestic strife;
(6) that he was troubled psychologically as a youth and not educated
beyond high school; and that descriptions of his temperament ranged
from "mild mannered" to "violent."(7) In 1963, Ruby was 52 and unmarried.
He ran a Dallas nightclub but was not particularly successful in business.
His acquaintances included a number of Dallas police officers who
frequented his nightclub, as well as other types of people who comprised
his clientele.]
[The committee found associations of both Ruby and Oswald that were
unknown to the Warren Commission.]
Page 97
The committee examined a series of major groups or organizations that
have been alleged to have been involved in a conspiracy to assassinate
the President. If any of these groups or organizations, as a group, had
been involved in the assassination, the conspiracy to assassinate
President Kennedy would have been one of major significance.
As will be detailed in succeeding sections of this report, the committee
did not find sufficient evidence that any of these groups or organizations
were involved in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. Accordingly,
the committee concluded, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Soviet government, the Cuban government, anti-Castro Cuban
groups, and the national syndicate of organized crime were not involved
in the assassination.
Further, the committee found that the Secret Service, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, and the Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in
the assassination.
Based on the evidence available to it, the committee could not preclude
the possibility that individual members of anti-Castro Cuban groups or
the national syndicate of organized crime were involved in the assassination.
There was insufficient evidence, however, to support a finding that any
individual members were involved. The ramifications of a conspiracy
involving such individuals would be significant, although of perhaps less
import than would be the case if a group itself, the national syndicate,
for example had been involved.
The committee recognized that a finding that two gunmen fired
simultaneously at the President did not, by itself, establish that there
was a conspiracy to assassinate the President. It is theoretically possible
that the gunmen were acting independently, each totally unaware of the
other.
It was the committee's opinion, however, that such a theoretical possibility
is extremely remote. The more logical and probable inference to be drawn
from two gunmen firing at the same person at the same time and in the same
place is that they were acting in concert, that is, as a result of a conspiracy.
The committee found that, to be precise and loyal to the facts it established,
it was compelled to find that President Kennedy was probably killed as a
result of a conspiracy.
The committee's finding that President Kennedy was probably assassinated
(1) Since the Warren Commission's and FBI's investigation into the
possibility of a conspiracy was seriously flawed, their failure to
develop evidence of a conspiracy could not be given independent
weight.
(2) The Warren Commission was, in fact, incorrect in concluding
that Oswald and Ruby had no significant associations, and
therefore its finding of no conspiracy was not reliable.
(3) While it cannot be inferred from the significant associations
of Oswald and Ruby that any of the major groups examined
by the committee were involved in the assassination, a more
limited conspiracy could not be ruled out.
(4) There was a high probability that a second gunman, in fact,
fired at the President. At the same time, the committee candidly
stated, in expressing it finding of conspiracy in the Kennedy
assassination, that it was "unable to identify the other gunman
or the extent of the conspiracy.
The HSCA conclusions weren't any better than the WC conclusions.
For once you have made a factual statement. In fact, their conclusions were
much worse.
Post by mainframetech
Ands
in some instances they made false information available to avoid proof
that there was a conspiracy.
Why would they do that and then conclude it was a conspiracy?
Maybe you know nothing about the HSCA. There were 2 different HSCAs. The
first HSCA was dedicated to finding a conspiracy. The second was dedicated
to covering up the conspiracy. The second HSCA was all set to rubber stamp
the WC when they accidentally stumbled onto the acoustical evidence.

That tipped the vote from about 8-4 against conspiracy to 7-5 for
conspiracy. To save face the WC defenders admitted that yes there was a
shot from the grassy knoll, but it does not prove the 2 men where
conspiring with each other, just 2 lone nuts who just happened to pick the
same time and the same place to assassinate the Presdident, each for their
own reasons.

Or maybe the grassy knoll shooter was just cleaning his gun and it went
off accidentally.
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-05-07 16:22:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
NATIONAL ARCHIVES
JFK Assassination Records
FINDINGS
C. The Committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result
of a conspiracy. The Committee is unable to identify the other gunman
or the extent of the conspiracy.
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of
President Kennedy
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination of
President Kennedy
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved in the
assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence
does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have
been involved
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not
involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but the available
evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members
may have been involved
• The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination
of President Kennedy
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once simply defined
conspiracy as "a partnership in criminal purposes."
(1) That definition is adequate.
Nevertheless, it may be helpful to set out a more precise definition.
If two or more individuals agreed to take action to kill President Kennedy,
and at least one of them took action in furtherance of the plan, and it
resulted in President Kennedy's death, the President would have been
assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.
The committee recognizes, of course, that while the work "conspiracy"
technically denotes only a "partnership in criminal purposes," it also, in
fact, connotes widely varying meanings to many people, and its use has
vastly differing societal implications depending upon the sophistication,
extent and ultimate purpose of the partnership.
For example, a conspiracy to assassinate a President might be a complex
plot orchestrated by foreign political powers; it might be the scheme of a
group of American citizens dissatisfied with particular governmental
policies; it also might be the plan of two largely isolated individuals with
no readily discernible motive.
Conspiracies may easily range, therefore, from those with important
implications for social or governmental institutions to those with no
major societal significance. As the evidence concerning the probability
that President Kennedy was assassinated as a result of a "conspiracy"
is analyzed, these various connotations of the word "conspiracy" and
distinctions between them ought to be constantly borne in mind. Here,
as elsewhere, words must be used carefully, lest people be misled.
A conspiracy cannot be said to have existed in Dealey Plaza
unless evidence exists from which, in Justice Holmes' words,
a "partnership in criminal purposes" may be inferred.
The Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was not
involved in a conspiracy to assassinate the President was, for example,
largely based on its findings of the absence of evidence of significant
association
(2) between Oswald and other possible conspirators and no physical evidence
of conspiracy.
(3) The Commission reasoned, quite rightly, that in the absence of association
or physical evidence, there was no conspiracy.
Even without physical evidence of conspiracy at the scene of the assassination,
there would, of course, be a conspiracy if others assisted Oswald in his efforts.
Accordingly, an examination of Oswald's associates is necessary. The Warren
Commission recognized that a first premise in a finding of conspiracy may be
a finding of association. Because the Commission did not find any significant
Oswald associates, it was not compelled to face the difficult questions posed
by such a finding. More than association is required to establish conspiracy.
There must be at least knowing assistance or a manifestation of agreement
to the criminal purpose by the associate.
[It might be suggested that because of the widely varying meanings attached
to the word "conspiracy," it ought to be avoided. Such a suggestion, however,
raises another objection--the search for euphemistic variations can lead to a
lack of candor. There is virtue in seeing something for what it is, even if the
plain truth causes discomfort.]
Page 96
It is important to realize, too, that the term "associate" may connote widely
varying meanings to different people. A person's associate may be his next
door neighbor and vacation companion, or it may be an individual he has met
only once for the purpose of discussing a contract for a murder. The Warren
Commission examined Oswald's past and concluded he was essentially a loner.
(4) It reasoned, therefore, that since Oswald had no significant associations
with persons who could have been involved with him in the assassination,
there could not have been a conspiracy. (5)
With respect to Jack Ruby, the Warren Commission similarly found no significant
associations, either between Ruby and Oswald or between Ruby and others who
might have been conspirators with him. (8) In particular, it found no connections
between Ruby and organized crime, and it reasoned that absent such associations,
there was no conspiracy to kill Oswald or the president. (9)
The committee conducted a three-pronged investigation of conspiracy in the Kennedy
assassination. On the basis of extensive scientific analysis and an analysis of the
testimony of Dealey Plaza witnesses, the committee found there was a high probability
that two gunmen fired at President Kennedy.
Second, the committee explored Oswald's and Ruby's contact for any evidence
of significant associations. Unlike the Warren Commission, it found certain of
these contacts to be of investigative significance. The Commission apparently
had looked for evidence of conspiratorial association. Finding none on the face
of the associations it investigated, it did not go further. The committee, however,
conducted a wider ranging investigation. Notwithstanding the possibility of a
benign reason for contact between Oswald or Ruby and one of their associates,
the committee examined the very fact of the contact to see if it contained
investigative significance. Unlike the Warren Commission, the committee took
a close look at the associates to determine whether conspiratorial activity in the
assassination could have been possible, given what the committee could learn
about the associates, and whether the apparent nature of the contact should,
therefore, be examined more closely.
Third, the committee examined groups--political organizations, national
governments and so on--that might have had the motive, opportunity and
means to assassinate the President.
The committee, therefore, directly introduced the hypothesis of conspiracy
and investigated it with reference to known facts to determine if it had any
bearing on the assassination.
[The Warren Commission devoted its Appendix XVI to a biography of Jack
Ruby in which his family background, psychological makeup, education and
business activities were considered. While the evidence was sometimes
contradictory, the Commission found that Ruby grew up in Chicago, the son
of Jewish immigrants; that he lived in a home disrupted by domestic strife;
(6) that he was troubled psychologically as a youth and not educated
beyond high school; and that descriptions of his temperament ranged
from "mild mannered" to "violent."(7) In 1963, Ruby was 52 and unmarried.
He ran a Dallas nightclub but was not particularly successful in business.
His acquaintances included a number of Dallas police officers who
frequented his nightclub, as well as other types of people who comprised
his clientele.]
[The committee found associations of both Ruby and Oswald that were
unknown to the Warren Commission.]
Page 97
The committee examined a series of major groups or organizations that
have been alleged to have been involved in a conspiracy to assassinate
the President. If any of these groups or organizations, as a group, had
been involved in the assassination, the conspiracy to assassinate
President Kennedy would have been one of major significance.
As will be detailed in succeeding sections of this report, the committee
did not find sufficient evidence that any of these groups or organizations
were involved in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. Accordingly,
the committee concluded, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Soviet government, the Cuban government, anti-Castro Cuban
groups, and the national syndicate of organized crime were not involved
in the assassination.
Further, the committee found that the Secret Service, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, and the Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in
the assassination.
Based on the evidence available to it, the committee could not preclude
the possibility that individual members of anti-Castro Cuban groups or
the national syndicate of organized crime were involved in the assassination.
There was insufficient evidence, however, to support a finding that any
individual members were involved. The ramifications of a conspiracy
involving such individuals would be significant, although of perhaps less
import than would be the case if a group itself, the national syndicate,
for example had been involved.
The committee recognized that a finding that two gunmen fired
simultaneously at the President did not, by itself, establish that there
was a conspiracy to assassinate the President. It is theoretically possible
that the gunmen were acting independently, each totally unaware of the
other.
It was the committee's opinion, however, that such a theoretical possibility
is extremely remote. The more logical and probable inference to be drawn
from two gunmen firing at the same person at the same time and in the same
place is that they were acting in concert, that is, as a result of a conspiracy.
The committee found that, to be precise and loyal to the facts it established,
it was compelled to find that President Kennedy was probably killed as a
result of a conspiracy.
The committee's finding that President Kennedy was probably assassinated
(1) Since the Warren Commission's and FBI's investigation into the
possibility of a conspiracy was seriously flawed, their failure to
develop evidence of a conspiracy could not be given independent
weight.
(2) The Warren Commission was, in fact, incorrect in concluding
that Oswald and Ruby had no significant associations, and
therefore its finding of no conspiracy was not reliable.
(3) While it cannot be inferred from the significant associations
of Oswald and Ruby that any of the major groups examined
by the committee were involved in the assassination, a more
limited conspiracy could not be ruled out.
(4) There was a high probability that a second gunman, in fact,
fired at the President. At the same time, the committee candidly
stated, in expressing it finding of conspiracy in the Kennedy
assassination, that it was "unable to identify the other gunman
or the extent of the conspiracy.
The HSCA conclusions weren't any better than the WC conclusions.
For once you have made a factual statement. In fact, their conclusions were
much worse.
Post by mainframetech
Ands
in some instances they made false information available to avoid proof
that there was a conspiracy.
Why would they do that and then conclude it was a conspiracy?
"Why would they do that and then conclude it was a conspiracy?"

This oughta' be good. I imagine the response will be along the lines that
it was a "diversionary conspiracy", intended to misdirect attention from
the "real" one (why? never mind). You know how these people think; there's
always another conspiracy to explain things away. It's conspiracy turtles
all of the way down.

Remember, he's one of the "it was a handful of people involved" conspiracy
believers.

They sure did get around.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-08 17:26:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
NATIONAL ARCHIVES
JFK Assassination Records
FINDINGS
C. The Committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result
of a conspiracy. The Committee is unable to identify the other gunman
or the extent of the conspiracy.
??? The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of
President Kennedy
??? The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination of
President Kennedy
??? The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved in the
assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence
does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have
been involved
??? The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not
involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but the available
evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members
may have been involved
??? The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination
of President Kennedy
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once simply defined
conspiracy as "a partnership in criminal purposes."
(1) That definition is adequate.
Nevertheless, it may be helpful to set out a more precise definition.
If two or more individuals agreed to take action to kill President Kennedy,
and at least one of them took action in furtherance of the plan, and it
resulted in President Kennedy's death, the President would have been
assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.
The committee recognizes, of course, that while the work "conspiracy"
technically denotes only a "partnership in criminal purposes," it also, in
fact, connotes widely varying meanings to many people, and its use has
vastly differing societal implications depending upon the sophistication,
extent and ultimate purpose of the partnership.
For example, a conspiracy to assassinate a President might be a complex
plot orchestrated by foreign political powers; it might be the scheme of a
group of American citizens dissatisfied with particular governmental
policies; it also might be the plan of two largely isolated individuals with
no readily discernible motive.
Conspiracies may easily range, therefore, from those with important
implications for social or governmental institutions to those with no
major societal significance. As the evidence concerning the probability
that President Kennedy was assassinated as a result of a "conspiracy"
is analyzed, these various connotations of the word "conspiracy" and
distinctions between them ought to be constantly borne in mind. Here,
as elsewhere, words must be used carefully, lest people be misled.
A conspiracy cannot be said to have existed in Dealey Plaza
unless evidence exists from which, in Justice Holmes' words,
a "partnership in criminal purposes" may be inferred.
The Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was not
involved in a conspiracy to assassinate the President was, for example,
largely based on its findings of the absence of evidence of significant
association
(2) between Oswald and other possible conspirators and no physical evidence
of conspiracy.
(3) The Commission reasoned, quite rightly, that in the absence of association
or physical evidence, there was no conspiracy.
Even without physical evidence of conspiracy at the scene of the assassination,
there would, of course, be a conspiracy if others assisted Oswald in his efforts.
Accordingly, an examination of Oswald's associates is necessary. The Warren
Commission recognized that a first premise in a finding of conspiracy may be
a finding of association. Because the Commission did not find any significant
Oswald associates, it was not compelled to face the difficult questions posed
by such a finding. More than association is required to establish conspiracy.
There must be at least knowing assistance or a manifestation of agreement
to the criminal purpose by the associate.
[It might be suggested that because of the widely varying meanings attached
to the word "conspiracy," it ought to be avoided. Such a suggestion, however,
raises another objection--the search for euphemistic variations can lead to a
lack of candor. There is virtue in seeing something for what it is, even if the
plain truth causes discomfort.]
Page 96
It is important to realize, too, that the term "associate" may connote widely
varying meanings to different people. A person's associate may be his next
door neighbor and vacation companion, or it may be an individual he has met
only once for the purpose of discussing a contract for a murder. The Warren
Commission examined Oswald's past and concluded he was essentially a loner.
(4) It reasoned, therefore, that since Oswald had no significant associations
with persons who could have been involved with him in the assassination,
there could not have been a conspiracy. (5)
With respect to Jack Ruby, the Warren Commission similarly found no significant
associations, either between Ruby and Oswald or between Ruby and others who
might have been conspirators with him. (8) In particular, it found no connections
between Ruby and organized crime, and it reasoned that absent such associations,
there was no conspiracy to kill Oswald or the president. (9)
The committee conducted a three-pronged investigation of conspiracy in the Kennedy
assassination. On the basis of extensive scientific analysis and an analysis of the
testimony of Dealey Plaza witnesses, the committee found there was a high probability
that two gunmen fired at President Kennedy.
Second, the committee explored Oswald's and Ruby's contact for any evidence
of significant associations. Unlike the Warren Commission, it found certain of
these contacts to be of investigative significance. The Commission apparently
had looked for evidence of conspiratorial association. Finding none on the face
of the associations it investigated, it did not go further. The committee, however,
conducted a wider ranging investigation. Notwithstanding the possibility of a
benign reason for contact between Oswald or Ruby and one of their associates,
the committee examined the very fact of the contact to see if it contained
investigative significance. Unlike the Warren Commission, the committee took
a close look at the associates to determine whether conspiratorial activity in the
assassination could have been possible, given what the committee could learn
about the associates, and whether the apparent nature of the contact should,
therefore, be examined more closely.
Third, the committee examined groups--political organizations, national
governments and so on--that might have had the motive, opportunity and
means to assassinate the President.
The committee, therefore, directly introduced the hypothesis of conspiracy
and investigated it with reference to known facts to determine if it had any
bearing on the assassination.
[The Warren Commission devoted its Appendix XVI to a biography of Jack
Ruby in which his family background, psychological makeup, education and
business activities were considered. While the evidence was sometimes
contradictory, the Commission found that Ruby grew up in Chicago, the son
of Jewish immigrants; that he lived in a home disrupted by domestic strife;
(6) that he was troubled psychologically as a youth and not educated
beyond high school; and that descriptions of his temperament ranged
from "mild mannered" to "violent."(7) In 1963, Ruby was 52 and unmarried.
He ran a Dallas nightclub but was not particularly successful in business.
His acquaintances included a number of Dallas police officers who
frequented his nightclub, as well as other types of people who comprised
his clientele.]
[The committee found associations of both Ruby and Oswald that were
unknown to the Warren Commission.]
Page 97
The committee examined a series of major groups or organizations that
have been alleged to have been involved in a conspiracy to assassinate
the President. If any of these groups or organizations, as a group, had
been involved in the assassination, the conspiracy to assassinate
President Kennedy would have been one of major significance.
As will be detailed in succeeding sections of this report, the committee
did not find sufficient evidence that any of these groups or organizations
were involved in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. Accordingly,
the committee concluded, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Soviet government, the Cuban government, anti-Castro Cuban
groups, and the national syndicate of organized crime were not involved
in the assassination.
Further, the committee found that the Secret Service, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, and the Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in
the assassination.
Based on the evidence available to it, the committee could not preclude
the possibility that individual members of anti-Castro Cuban groups or
the national syndicate of organized crime were involved in the assassination.
There was insufficient evidence, however, to support a finding that any
individual members were involved. The ramifications of a conspiracy
involving such individuals would be significant, although of perhaps less
import than would be the case if a group itself, the national syndicate,
for example had been involved.
The committee recognized that a finding that two gunmen fired
simultaneously at the President did not, by itself, establish that there
was a conspiracy to assassinate the President. It is theoretically possible
that the gunmen were acting independently, each totally unaware of the
other.
It was the committee's opinion, however, that such a theoretical possibility
is extremely remote. The more logical and probable inference to be drawn
from two gunmen firing at the same person at the same time and in the same
place is that they were acting in concert, that is, as a result of a conspiracy.
The committee found that, to be precise and loyal to the facts it established,
it was compelled to find that President Kennedy was probably killed as a
result of a conspiracy.
The committee's finding that President Kennedy was probably assassinated
(1) Since the Warren Commission's and FBI's investigation into the
possibility of a conspiracy was seriously flawed, their failure to
develop evidence of a conspiracy could not be given independent
weight.
(2) The Warren Commission was, in fact, incorrect in concluding
that Oswald and Ruby had no significant associations, and
therefore its finding of no conspiracy was not reliable.
(3) While it cannot be inferred from the significant associations
of Oswald and Ruby that any of the major groups examined
by the committee were involved in the assassination, a more
limited conspiracy could not be ruled out.
(4) There was a high probability that a second gunman, in fact,
fired at the President. At the same time, the committee candidly
stated, in expressing it finding of conspiracy in the Kennedy
assassination, that it was "unable to identify the other gunman
or the extent of the conspiracy.
The HSCA conclusions weren't any better than the WC conclusions.
For once you have made a factual statement. In fact, their conclusions were
much worse.
Post by mainframetech
Ands
in some instances they made false information available to avoid proof
that there was a conspiracy.
Why would they do that and then conclude it was a conspiracy?
"Why would they do that and then conclude it was a conspiracy?"
This oughta' be good. I imagine the response will be along the lines that
it was a "diversionary conspiracy", intended to misdirect attention from
the "real" one (why? never mind). You know how these people think; there's
always another conspiracy to explain things away. It's conspiracy turtles
all of the way down.
Remember, he's one of the "it was a handful of people involved" conspiracy
believers.
They sure did get around.
What if it's always the same group of conspirators in all these cases?
E. Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis seem to pop up in most of these
conspiracies.

Did you know they were CIA agents?
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-05-08 23:56:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
NATIONAL ARCHIVES
JFK Assassination Records
FINDINGS
C. The Committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result
of a conspiracy. The Committee is unable to identify the other gunman
or the extent of the conspiracy.
??? The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of
President Kennedy
??? The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination of
President Kennedy
??? The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved in the
assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence
does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have
been involved
??? The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not
involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but the available
evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members
may have been involved
??? The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination
of President Kennedy
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once simply defined
conspiracy as "a partnership in criminal purposes."
(1) That definition is adequate.
Nevertheless, it may be helpful to set out a more precise definition.
If two or more individuals agreed to take action to kill President Kennedy,
and at least one of them took action in furtherance of the plan, and it
resulted in President Kennedy's death, the President would have been
assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.
The committee recognizes, of course, that while the work "conspiracy"
technically denotes only a "partnership in criminal purposes," it also, in
fact, connotes widely varying meanings to many people, and its use has
vastly differing societal implications depending upon the sophistication,
extent and ultimate purpose of the partnership.
For example, a conspiracy to assassinate a President might be a complex
plot orchestrated by foreign political powers; it might be the scheme of a
group of American citizens dissatisfied with particular governmental
policies; it also might be the plan of two largely isolated individuals with
no readily discernible motive.
Conspiracies may easily range, therefore, from those with important
implications for social or governmental institutions to those with no
major societal significance. As the evidence concerning the probability
that President Kennedy was assassinated as a result of a "conspiracy"
is analyzed, these various connotations of the word "conspiracy" and
distinctions between them ought to be constantly borne in mind. Here,
as elsewhere, words must be used carefully, lest people be misled.
A conspiracy cannot be said to have existed in Dealey Plaza
unless evidence exists from which, in Justice Holmes' words,
a "partnership in criminal purposes" may be inferred.
The Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was not
involved in a conspiracy to assassinate the President was, for example,
largely based on its findings of the absence of evidence of significant
association
(2) between Oswald and other possible conspirators and no physical evidence
of conspiracy.
(3) The Commission reasoned, quite rightly, that in the absence of association
or physical evidence, there was no conspiracy.
Even without physical evidence of conspiracy at the scene of the assassination,
there would, of course, be a conspiracy if others assisted Oswald in his efforts.
Accordingly, an examination of Oswald's associates is necessary. The Warren
Commission recognized that a first premise in a finding of conspiracy may be
a finding of association. Because the Commission did not find any significant
Oswald associates, it was not compelled to face the difficult questions posed
by such a finding. More than association is required to establish conspiracy.
There must be at least knowing assistance or a manifestation of agreement
to the criminal purpose by the associate.
[It might be suggested that because of the widely varying meanings attached
to the word "conspiracy," it ought to be avoided. Such a suggestion, however,
raises another objection--the search for euphemistic variations can lead to a
lack of candor. There is virtue in seeing something for what it is, even if the
plain truth causes discomfort.]
Page 96
It is important to realize, too, that the term "associate" may connote widely
varying meanings to different people. A person's associate may be his next
door neighbor and vacation companion, or it may be an individual he has met
only once for the purpose of discussing a contract for a murder. The Warren
Commission examined Oswald's past and concluded he was essentially a loner.
(4) It reasoned, therefore, that since Oswald had no significant associations
with persons who could have been involved with him in the assassination,
there could not have been a conspiracy. (5)
With respect to Jack Ruby, the Warren Commission similarly found no significant
associations, either between Ruby and Oswald or between Ruby and others who
might have been conspirators with him. (8) In particular, it found no connections
between Ruby and organized crime, and it reasoned that absent such associations,
there was no conspiracy to kill Oswald or the president. (9)
The committee conducted a three-pronged investigation of conspiracy in the Kennedy
assassination. On the basis of extensive scientific analysis and an analysis of the
testimony of Dealey Plaza witnesses, the committee found there was a high probability
that two gunmen fired at President Kennedy.
Second, the committee explored Oswald's and Ruby's contact for any evidence
of significant associations. Unlike the Warren Commission, it found certain of
these contacts to be of investigative significance. The Commission apparently
had looked for evidence of conspiratorial association. Finding none on the face
of the associations it investigated, it did not go further. The committee, however,
conducted a wider ranging investigation. Notwithstanding the possibility of a
benign reason for contact between Oswald or Ruby and one of their associates,
the committee examined the very fact of the contact to see if it contained
investigative significance. Unlike the Warren Commission, the committee took
a close look at the associates to determine whether conspiratorial activity in the
assassination could have been possible, given what the committee could learn
about the associates, and whether the apparent nature of the contact should,
therefore, be examined more closely.
Third, the committee examined groups--political organizations, national
governments and so on--that might have had the motive, opportunity and
means to assassinate the President.
The committee, therefore, directly introduced the hypothesis of conspiracy
and investigated it with reference to known facts to determine if it had any
bearing on the assassination.
[The Warren Commission devoted its Appendix XVI to a biography of Jack
Ruby in which his family background, psychological makeup, education and
business activities were considered. While the evidence was sometimes
contradictory, the Commission found that Ruby grew up in Chicago, the son
of Jewish immigrants; that he lived in a home disrupted by domestic strife;
(6) that he was troubled psychologically as a youth and not educated
beyond high school; and that descriptions of his temperament ranged
from "mild mannered" to "violent."(7) In 1963, Ruby was 52 and unmarried.
He ran a Dallas nightclub but was not particularly successful in business.
His acquaintances included a number of Dallas police officers who
frequented his nightclub, as well as other types of people who comprised
his clientele.]
[The committee found associations of both Ruby and Oswald that were
unknown to the Warren Commission.]
Page 97
The committee examined a series of major groups or organizations that
have been alleged to have been involved in a conspiracy to assassinate
the President. If any of these groups or organizations, as a group, had
been involved in the assassination, the conspiracy to assassinate
President Kennedy would have been one of major significance.
As will be detailed in succeeding sections of this report, the committee
did not find sufficient evidence that any of these groups or organizations
were involved in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. Accordingly,
the committee concluded, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Soviet government, the Cuban government, anti-Castro Cuban
groups, and the national syndicate of organized crime were not involved
in the assassination.
Further, the committee found that the Secret Service, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, and the Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in
the assassination.
Based on the evidence available to it, the committee could not preclude
the possibility that individual members of anti-Castro Cuban groups or
the national syndicate of organized crime were involved in the assassination.
There was insufficient evidence, however, to support a finding that any
individual members were involved. The ramifications of a conspiracy
involving such individuals would be significant, although of perhaps less
import than would be the case if a group itself, the national syndicate,
for example had been involved.
The committee recognized that a finding that two gunmen fired
simultaneously at the President did not, by itself, establish that there
was a conspiracy to assassinate the President. It is theoretically possible
that the gunmen were acting independently, each totally unaware of the
other.
It was the committee's opinion, however, that such a theoretical possibility
is extremely remote. The more logical and probable inference to be drawn
from two gunmen firing at the same person at the same time and in the same
place is that they were acting in concert, that is, as a result of a conspiracy.
The committee found that, to be precise and loyal to the facts it established,
it was compelled to find that President Kennedy was probably killed as a
result of a conspiracy.
The committee's finding that President Kennedy was probably assassinated
(1) Since the Warren Commission's and FBI's investigation into the
possibility of a conspiracy was seriously flawed, their failure to
develop evidence of a conspiracy could not be given independent
weight.
(2) The Warren Commission was, in fact, incorrect in concluding
that Oswald and Ruby had no significant associations, and
therefore its finding of no conspiracy was not reliable.
(3) While it cannot be inferred from the significant associations
of Oswald and Ruby that any of the major groups examined
by the committee were involved in the assassination, a more
limited conspiracy could not be ruled out.
(4) There was a high probability that a second gunman, in fact,
fired at the President. At the same time, the committee candidly
stated, in expressing it finding of conspiracy in the Kennedy
assassination, that it was "unable to identify the other gunman
or the extent of the conspiracy.
The HSCA conclusions weren't any better than the WC conclusions.
For once you have made a factual statement. In fact, their conclusions were
much worse.
Post by mainframetech
Ands
in some instances they made false information available to avoid proof
that there was a conspiracy.
Why would they do that and then conclude it was a conspiracy?
"Why would they do that and then conclude it was a conspiracy?"
This oughta' be good. I imagine the response will be along the lines that
it was a "diversionary conspiracy", intended to misdirect attention from
the "real" one (why? never mind). You know how these people think; there's
always another conspiracy to explain things away. It's conspiracy turtles
all of the way down.
Remember, he's one of the "it was a handful of people involved" conspiracy
believers.
They sure did get around.
What if it's always the same group of conspirators in all these cases?
E. Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis seem to pop up in most of these
conspiracies.
Did you know they were CIA agents?
There is no evidence that Sturgis was a CIA agent.

Everyone here knows about Hunt.

I thought you said that people who call them "agents" instead of
"officers" don't know what they're talking about?
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-10 18:43:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
NATIONAL ARCHIVES
JFK Assassination Records
FINDINGS
C. The Committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result
of a conspiracy. The Committee is unable to identify the other gunman
or the extent of the conspiracy.
??? The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of
President Kennedy
??? The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination of
President Kennedy
??? The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved in the
assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence
does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have
been involved
??? The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not
involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but the available
evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members
may have been involved
??? The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination
of President Kennedy
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once simply defined
conspiracy as "a partnership in criminal purposes."
(1) That definition is adequate.
Nevertheless, it may be helpful to set out a more precise definition.
If two or more individuals agreed to take action to kill President Kennedy,
and at least one of them took action in furtherance of the plan, and it
resulted in President Kennedy's death, the President would have been
assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.
The committee recognizes, of course, that while the work "conspiracy"
technically denotes only a "partnership in criminal purposes," it also, in
fact, connotes widely varying meanings to many people, and its use has
vastly differing societal implications depending upon the sophistication,
extent and ultimate purpose of the partnership.
For example, a conspiracy to assassinate a President might be a complex
plot orchestrated by foreign political powers; it might be the scheme of a
group of American citizens dissatisfied with particular governmental
policies; it also might be the plan of two largely isolated individuals with
no readily discernible motive.
Conspiracies may easily range, therefore, from those with important
implications for social or governmental institutions to those with no
major societal significance. As the evidence concerning the probability
that President Kennedy was assassinated as a result of a "conspiracy"
is analyzed, these various connotations of the word "conspiracy" and
distinctions between them ought to be constantly borne in mind. Here,
as elsewhere, words must be used carefully, lest people be misled.
A conspiracy cannot be said to have existed in Dealey Plaza
unless evidence exists from which, in Justice Holmes' words,
a "partnership in criminal purposes" may be inferred.
The Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was not
involved in a conspiracy to assassinate the President was, for example,
largely based on its findings of the absence of evidence of significant
association
(2) between Oswald and other possible conspirators and no physical evidence
of conspiracy.
(3) The Commission reasoned, quite rightly, that in the absence of association
or physical evidence, there was no conspiracy.
Even without physical evidence of conspiracy at the scene of the assassination,
there would, of course, be a conspiracy if others assisted Oswald in his efforts.
Accordingly, an examination of Oswald's associates is necessary. The Warren
Commission recognized that a first premise in a finding of conspiracy may be
a finding of association. Because the Commission did not find any significant
Oswald associates, it was not compelled to face the difficult questions posed
by such a finding. More than association is required to establish conspiracy.
There must be at least knowing assistance or a manifestation of agreement
to the criminal purpose by the associate.
[It might be suggested that because of the widely varying meanings attached
to the word "conspiracy," it ought to be avoided. Such a suggestion, however,
raises another objection--the search for euphemistic variations can lead to a
lack of candor. There is virtue in seeing something for what it is, even if the
plain truth causes discomfort.]
Page 96
It is important to realize, too, that the term "associate" may connote widely
varying meanings to different people. A person's associate may be his next
door neighbor and vacation companion, or it may be an individual he has met
only once for the purpose of discussing a contract for a murder. The Warren
Commission examined Oswald's past and concluded he was essentially a loner.
(4) It reasoned, therefore, that since Oswald had no significant associations
with persons who could have been involved with him in the assassination,
there could not have been a conspiracy. (5)
With respect to Jack Ruby, the Warren Commission similarly found no significant
associations, either between Ruby and Oswald or between Ruby and others who
might have been conspirators with him. (8) In particular, it found no connections
between Ruby and organized crime, and it reasoned that absent such associations,
there was no conspiracy to kill Oswald or the president. (9)
The committee conducted a three-pronged investigation of conspiracy in the Kennedy
assassination. On the basis of extensive scientific analysis and an analysis of the
testimony of Dealey Plaza witnesses, the committee found there was a high probability
that two gunmen fired at President Kennedy.
Second, the committee explored Oswald's and Ruby's contact for any evidence
of significant associations. Unlike the Warren Commission, it found certain of
these contacts to be of investigative significance. The Commission apparently
had looked for evidence of conspiratorial association. Finding none on the face
of the associations it investigated, it did not go further. The committee, however,
conducted a wider ranging investigation. Notwithstanding the possibility of a
benign reason for contact between Oswald or Ruby and one of their associates,
the committee examined the very fact of the contact to see if it contained
investigative significance. Unlike the Warren Commission, the committee took
a close look at the associates to determine whether conspiratorial activity in the
assassination could have been possible, given what the committee could learn
about the associates, and whether the apparent nature of the contact should,
therefore, be examined more closely.
Third, the committee examined groups--political organizations, national
governments and so on--that might have had the motive, opportunity and
means to assassinate the President.
The committee, therefore, directly introduced the hypothesis of conspiracy
and investigated it with reference to known facts to determine if it had any
bearing on the assassination.
[The Warren Commission devoted its Appendix XVI to a biography of Jack
Ruby in which his family background, psychological makeup, education and
business activities were considered. While the evidence was sometimes
contradictory, the Commission found that Ruby grew up in Chicago, the son
of Jewish immigrants; that he lived in a home disrupted by domestic strife;
(6) that he was troubled psychologically as a youth and not educated
beyond high school; and that descriptions of his temperament ranged
from "mild mannered" to "violent."(7) In 1963, Ruby was 52 and unmarried.
He ran a Dallas nightclub but was not particularly successful in business.
His acquaintances included a number of Dallas police officers who
frequented his nightclub, as well as other types of people who comprised
his clientele.]
[The committee found associations of both Ruby and Oswald that were
unknown to the Warren Commission.]
Page 97
The committee examined a series of major groups or organizations that
have been alleged to have been involved in a conspiracy to assassinate
the President. If any of these groups or organizations, as a group, had
been involved in the assassination, the conspiracy to assassinate
President Kennedy would have been one of major significance.
As will be detailed in succeeding sections of this report, the committee
did not find sufficient evidence that any of these groups or organizations
were involved in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. Accordingly,
the committee concluded, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Soviet government, the Cuban government, anti-Castro Cuban
groups, and the national syndicate of organized crime were not involved
in the assassination.
Further, the committee found that the Secret Service, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, and the Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in
the assassination.
Based on the evidence available to it, the committee could not preclude
the possibility that individual members of anti-Castro Cuban groups or
the national syndicate of organized crime were involved in the assassination.
There was insufficient evidence, however, to support a finding that any
individual members were involved. The ramifications of a conspiracy
involving such individuals would be significant, although of perhaps less
import than would be the case if a group itself, the national syndicate,
for example had been involved.
The committee recognized that a finding that two gunmen fired
simultaneously at the President did not, by itself, establish that there
was a conspiracy to assassinate the President. It is theoretically possible
that the gunmen were acting independently, each totally unaware of the
other.
It was the committee's opinion, however, that such a theoretical possibility
is extremely remote. The more logical and probable inference to be drawn
from two gunmen firing at the same person at the same time and in the same
place is that they were acting in concert, that is, as a result of a conspiracy.
The committee found that, to be precise and loyal to the facts it established,
it was compelled to find that President Kennedy was probably killed as a
result of a conspiracy.
The committee's finding that President Kennedy was probably assassinated
(1) Since the Warren Commission's and FBI's investigation into the
possibility of a conspiracy was seriously flawed, their failure to
develop evidence of a conspiracy could not be given independent
weight.
(2) The Warren Commission was, in fact, incorrect in concluding
that Oswald and Ruby had no significant associations, and
therefore its finding of no conspiracy was not reliable.
(3) While it cannot be inferred from the significant associations
of Oswald and Ruby that any of the major groups examined
by the committee were involved in the assassination, a more
limited conspiracy could not be ruled out.
(4) There was a high probability that a second gunman, in fact,
fired at the President. At the same time, the committee candidly
stated, in expressing it finding of conspiracy in the Kennedy
assassination, that it was "unable to identify the other gunman
or the extent of the conspiracy.
The HSCA conclusions weren't any better than the WC conclusions.
For once you have made a factual statement. In fact, their conclusions were
much worse.
Post by mainframetech
Ands
in some instances they made false information available to avoid proof
that there was a conspiracy.
Why would they do that and then conclude it was a conspiracy?
"Why would they do that and then conclude it was a conspiracy?"
This oughta' be good. I imagine the response will be along the lines that
it was a "diversionary conspiracy", intended to misdirect attention from
the "real" one (why? never mind). You know how these people think; there's
always another conspiracy to explain things away. It's conspiracy turtles
all of the way down.
Remember, he's one of the "it was a handful of people involved" conspiracy
believers.
They sure did get around.
What if it's always the same group of conspirators in all these cases?
E. Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis seem to pop up in most of these
conspiracies.
Did you know they were CIA agents?
There is no evidence that Sturgis was a CIA agent.
Helms said he was, under oath.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Everyone here knows about Hunt.
I thought you said that people who call them "agents" instead of
"officers" don't know what they're talking about?
Someone can go from officer to agent.
YOU don't know what you are talking about.
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-05-11 03:02:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
NATIONAL ARCHIVES
JFK Assassination Records
FINDINGS
C. The Committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result
of a conspiracy. The Committee is unable to identify the other gunman
or the extent of the conspiracy.
??? The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of
President Kennedy
??? The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination of
President Kennedy
??? The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved in the
assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence
does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have
been involved
??? The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not
involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but the available
evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members
may have been involved
??? The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination
of President Kennedy
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once simply defined
conspiracy as "a partnership in criminal purposes."
(1) That definition is adequate.
Nevertheless, it may be helpful to set out a more precise definition.
If two or more individuals agreed to take action to kill President Kennedy,
and at least one of them took action in furtherance of the plan, and it
resulted in President Kennedy's death, the President would have been
assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.
The committee recognizes, of course, that while the work "conspiracy"
technically denotes only a "partnership in criminal purposes," it also, in
fact, connotes widely varying meanings to many people, and its use has
vastly differing societal implications depending upon the sophistication,
extent and ultimate purpose of the partnership.
For example, a conspiracy to assassinate a President might be a complex
plot orchestrated by foreign political powers; it might be the scheme of a
group of American citizens dissatisfied with particular governmental
policies; it also might be the plan of two largely isolated individuals with
no readily discernible motive.
Conspiracies may easily range, therefore, from those with important
implications for social or governmental institutions to those with no
major societal significance. As the evidence concerning the probability
that President Kennedy was assassinated as a result of a "conspiracy"
is analyzed, these various connotations of the word "conspiracy" and
distinctions between them ought to be constantly borne in mind. Here,
as elsewhere, words must be used carefully, lest people be misled.
A conspiracy cannot be said to have existed in Dealey Plaza
unless evidence exists from which, in Justice Holmes' words,
a "partnership in criminal purposes" may be inferred.
The Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was not
involved in a conspiracy to assassinate the President was, for example,
largely based on its findings of the absence of evidence of significant
association
(2) between Oswald and other possible conspirators and no physical evidence
of conspiracy.
(3) The Commission reasoned, quite rightly, that in the absence of association
or physical evidence, there was no conspiracy.
Even without physical evidence of conspiracy at the scene of the assassination,
there would, of course, be a conspiracy if others assisted Oswald in his efforts.
Accordingly, an examination of Oswald's associates is necessary. The Warren
Commission recognized that a first premise in a finding of conspiracy may be
a finding of association. Because the Commission did not find any significant
Oswald associates, it was not compelled to face the difficult questions posed
by such a finding. More than association is required to establish conspiracy.
There must be at least knowing assistance or a manifestation of agreement
to the criminal purpose by the associate.
[It might be suggested that because of the widely varying meanings attached
to the word "conspiracy," it ought to be avoided. Such a suggestion, however,
raises another objection--the search for euphemistic variations can lead to a
lack of candor. There is virtue in seeing something for what it is, even if the
plain truth causes discomfort.]
Page 96
It is important to realize, too, that the term "associate" may connote widely
varying meanings to different people. A person's associate may be his next
door neighbor and vacation companion, or it may be an individual he has met
only once for the purpose of discussing a contract for a murder. The Warren
Commission examined Oswald's past and concluded he was essentially a loner.
(4) It reasoned, therefore, that since Oswald had no significant associations
with persons who could have been involved with him in the assassination,
there could not have been a conspiracy. (5)
With respect to Jack Ruby, the Warren Commission similarly found no significant
associations, either between Ruby and Oswald or between Ruby and others who
might have been conspirators with him. (8) In particular, it found no connections
between Ruby and organized crime, and it reasoned that absent such associations,
there was no conspiracy to kill Oswald or the president. (9)
The committee conducted a three-pronged investigation of conspiracy in the Kennedy
assassination. On the basis of extensive scientific analysis and an analysis of the
testimony of Dealey Plaza witnesses, the committee found there was a high probability
that two gunmen fired at President Kennedy.
Second, the committee explored Oswald's and Ruby's contact for any evidence
of significant associations. Unlike the Warren Commission, it found certain of
these contacts to be of investigative significance. The Commission apparently
had looked for evidence of conspiratorial association. Finding none on the face
of the associations it investigated, it did not go further. The committee, however,
conducted a wider ranging investigation. Notwithstanding the possibility of a
benign reason for contact between Oswald or Ruby and one of their associates,
the committee examined the very fact of the contact to see if it contained
investigative significance. Unlike the Warren Commission, the committee took
a close look at the associates to determine whether conspiratorial activity in the
assassination could have been possible, given what the committee could learn
about the associates, and whether the apparent nature of the contact should,
therefore, be examined more closely.
Third, the committee examined groups--political organizations, national
governments and so on--that might have had the motive, opportunity and
means to assassinate the President.
The committee, therefore, directly introduced the hypothesis of conspiracy
and investigated it with reference to known facts to determine if it had any
bearing on the assassination.
[The Warren Commission devoted its Appendix XVI to a biography of Jack
Ruby in which his family background, psychological makeup, education and
business activities were considered. While the evidence was sometimes
contradictory, the Commission found that Ruby grew up in Chicago, the son
of Jewish immigrants; that he lived in a home disrupted by domestic strife;
(6) that he was troubled psychologically as a youth and not educated
beyond high school; and that descriptions of his temperament ranged
from "mild mannered" to "violent."(7) In 1963, Ruby was 52 and unmarried.
He ran a Dallas nightclub but was not particularly successful in business.
His acquaintances included a number of Dallas police officers who
frequented his nightclub, as well as other types of people who comprised
his clientele.]
[The committee found associations of both Ruby and Oswald that were
unknown to the Warren Commission.]
Page 97
The committee examined a series of major groups or organizations that
have been alleged to have been involved in a conspiracy to assassinate
the President. If any of these groups or organizations, as a group, had
been involved in the assassination, the conspiracy to assassinate
President Kennedy would have been one of major significance.
As will be detailed in succeeding sections of this report, the committee
did not find sufficient evidence that any of these groups or organizations
were involved in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. Accordingly,
the committee concluded, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Soviet government, the Cuban government, anti-Castro Cuban
groups, and the national syndicate of organized crime were not involved
in the assassination.
Further, the committee found that the Secret Service, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, and the Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in
the assassination.
Based on the evidence available to it, the committee could not preclude
the possibility that individual members of anti-Castro Cuban groups or
the national syndicate of organized crime were involved in the assassination.
There was insufficient evidence, however, to support a finding that any
individual members were involved. The ramifications of a conspiracy
involving such individuals would be significant, although of perhaps less
import than would be the case if a group itself, the national syndicate,
for example had been involved.
The committee recognized that a finding that two gunmen fired
simultaneously at the President did not, by itself, establish that there
was a conspiracy to assassinate the President. It is theoretically possible
that the gunmen were acting independently, each totally unaware of the
other.
It was the committee's opinion, however, that such a theoretical possibility
is extremely remote. The more logical and probable inference to be drawn
from two gunmen firing at the same person at the same time and in the same
place is that they were acting in concert, that is, as a result of a conspiracy.
The committee found that, to be precise and loyal to the facts it established,
it was compelled to find that President Kennedy was probably killed as a
result of a conspiracy.
The committee's finding that President Kennedy was probably assassinated
(1) Since the Warren Commission's and FBI's investigation into the
possibility of a conspiracy was seriously flawed, their failure to
develop evidence of a conspiracy could not be given independent
weight.
(2) The Warren Commission was, in fact, incorrect in concluding
that Oswald and Ruby had no significant associations, and
therefore its finding of no conspiracy was not reliable.
(3) While it cannot be inferred from the significant associations
of Oswald and Ruby that any of the major groups examined
by the committee were involved in the assassination, a more
limited conspiracy could not be ruled out.
(4) There was a high probability that a second gunman, in fact,
fired at the President. At the same time, the committee candidly
stated, in expressing it finding of conspiracy in the Kennedy
assassination, that it was "unable to identify the other gunman
or the extent of the conspiracy.
The HSCA conclusions weren't any better than the WC conclusions.
For once you have made a factual statement. In fact, their conclusions were
much worse.
Post by mainframetech
Ands
in some instances they made false information available to avoid proof
that there was a conspiracy.
Why would they do that and then conclude it was a conspiracy?
"Why would they do that and then conclude it was a conspiracy?"
This oughta' be good. I imagine the response will be along the lines that
it was a "diversionary conspiracy", intended to misdirect attention from
the "real" one (why? never mind). You know how these people think; there's
always another conspiracy to explain things away. It's conspiracy turtles
all of the way down.
Remember, he's one of the "it was a handful of people involved" conspiracy
believers.
They sure did get around.
What if it's always the same group of conspirators in all these cases?
E. Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis seem to pop up in most of these
conspiracies.
Did you know they were CIA agents?
There is no evidence that Sturgis was a CIA agent.
Helms said he was, under oath.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Everyone here knows about Hunt.
I thought you said that people who call them "agents" instead of
"officers" don't know what they're talking about?
Someone can go from officer to agent.
YOU don't know what you are talking about.
Re Helm: False, Helms said no such thing. Neither in the deposition or
trial.

Re officer/agent: That's not what you've previously claimed.

You know nothing about honesty, decency, civility and integrity.
mainframetech
2018-05-08 17:28:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
NATIONAL ARCHIVES
JFK Assassination Records
FINDINGS
C. The Committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result
of a conspiracy. The Committee is unable to identify the other gunman
or the extent of the conspiracy.
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of
President Kennedy
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination of
President Kennedy
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved in the
assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence
does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have
been involved
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not
involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but the available
evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members
may have been involved
• The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination
of President Kennedy
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once simply defined
conspiracy as "a partnership in criminal purposes."
(1) That definition is adequate.
Nevertheless, it may be helpful to set out a more precise definition.
If two or more individuals agreed to take action to kill President Kennedy,
and at least one of them took action in furtherance of the plan, and it
resulted in President Kennedy's death, the President would have been
assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.
The committee recognizes, of course, that while the work "conspiracy"
technically denotes only a "partnership in criminal purposes," it also, in
fact, connotes widely varying meanings to many people, and its use has
vastly differing societal implications depending upon the sophistication,
extent and ultimate purpose of the partnership.
For example, a conspiracy to assassinate a President might be a complex
plot orchestrated by foreign political powers; it might be the scheme of a
group of American citizens dissatisfied with particular governmental
policies; it also might be the plan of two largely isolated individuals with
no readily discernible motive.
Conspiracies may easily range, therefore, from those with important
implications for social or governmental institutions to those with no
major societal significance. As the evidence concerning the probability
that President Kennedy was assassinated as a result of a "conspiracy"
is analyzed, these various connotations of the word "conspiracy" and
distinctions between them ought to be constantly borne in mind. Here,
as elsewhere, words must be used carefully, lest people be misled.
A conspiracy cannot be said to have existed in Dealey Plaza
unless evidence exists from which, in Justice Holmes' words,
a "partnership in criminal purposes" may be inferred.
The Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was not
involved in a conspiracy to assassinate the President was, for example,
largely based on its findings of the absence of evidence of significant
association
(2) between Oswald and other possible conspirators and no physical evidence
of conspiracy.
(3) The Commission reasoned, quite rightly, that in the absence of association
or physical evidence, there was no conspiracy.
Even without physical evidence of conspiracy at the scene of the assassination,
there would, of course, be a conspiracy if others assisted Oswald in his efforts.
Accordingly, an examination of Oswald's associates is necessary. The Warren
Commission recognized that a first premise in a finding of conspiracy may be
a finding of association. Because the Commission did not find any significant
Oswald associates, it was not compelled to face the difficult questions posed
by such a finding. More than association is required to establish conspiracy.
There must be at least knowing assistance or a manifestation of agreement
to the criminal purpose by the associate.
[It might be suggested that because of the widely varying meanings attached
to the word "conspiracy," it ought to be avoided. Such a suggestion, however,
raises another objection--the search for euphemistic variations can lead to a
lack of candor. There is virtue in seeing something for what it is, even if the
plain truth causes discomfort.]
Page 96
It is important to realize, too, that the term "associate" may connote widely
varying meanings to different people. A person's associate may be his next
door neighbor and vacation companion, or it may be an individual he has met
only once for the purpose of discussing a contract for a murder. The Warren
Commission examined Oswald's past and concluded he was essentially a loner.
(4) It reasoned, therefore, that since Oswald had no significant associations
with persons who could have been involved with him in the assassination,
there could not have been a conspiracy. (5)
With respect to Jack Ruby, the Warren Commission similarly found no significant
associations, either between Ruby and Oswald or between Ruby and others who
might have been conspirators with him. (8) In particular, it found no connections
between Ruby and organized crime, and it reasoned that absent such associations,
there was no conspiracy to kill Oswald or the president. (9)
The committee conducted a three-pronged investigation of conspiracy in the Kennedy
assassination. On the basis of extensive scientific analysis and an analysis of the
testimony of Dealey Plaza witnesses, the committee found there was a high probability
that two gunmen fired at President Kennedy.
Second, the committee explored Oswald's and Ruby's contact for any evidence
of significant associations. Unlike the Warren Commission, it found certain of
these contacts to be of investigative significance. The Commission apparently
had looked for evidence of conspiratorial association. Finding none on the face
of the associations it investigated, it did not go further. The committee, however,
conducted a wider ranging investigation. Notwithstanding the possibility of a
benign reason for contact between Oswald or Ruby and one of their associates,
the committee examined the very fact of the contact to see if it contained
investigative significance. Unlike the Warren Commission, the committee took
a close look at the associates to determine whether conspiratorial activity in the
assassination could have been possible, given what the committee could learn
about the associates, and whether the apparent nature of the contact should,
therefore, be examined more closely.
Third, the committee examined groups--political organizations, national
governments and so on--that might have had the motive, opportunity and
means to assassinate the President.
The committee, therefore, directly introduced the hypothesis of conspiracy
and investigated it with reference to known facts to determine if it had any
bearing on the assassination.
[The Warren Commission devoted its Appendix XVI to a biography of Jack
Ruby in which his family background, psychological makeup, education and
business activities were considered. While the evidence was sometimes
contradictory, the Commission found that Ruby grew up in Chicago, the son
of Jewish immigrants; that he lived in a home disrupted by domestic strife;
(6) that he was troubled psychologically as a youth and not educated
beyond high school; and that descriptions of his temperament ranged
from "mild mannered" to "violent."(7) In 1963, Ruby was 52 and unmarried.
He ran a Dallas nightclub but was not particularly successful in business.
His acquaintances included a number of Dallas police officers who
frequented his nightclub, as well as other types of people who comprised
his clientele.]
[The committee found associations of both Ruby and Oswald that were
unknown to the Warren Commission.]
Page 97
The committee examined a series of major groups or organizations that
have been alleged to have been involved in a conspiracy to assassinate
the President. If any of these groups or organizations, as a group, had
been involved in the assassination, the conspiracy to assassinate
President Kennedy would have been one of major significance.
As will be detailed in succeeding sections of this report, the committee
did not find sufficient evidence that any of these groups or organizations
were involved in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. Accordingly,
the committee concluded, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Soviet government, the Cuban government, anti-Castro Cuban
groups, and the national syndicate of organized crime were not involved
in the assassination.
Further, the committee found that the Secret Service, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, and the Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in
the assassination.
Based on the evidence available to it, the committee could not preclude
the possibility that individual members of anti-Castro Cuban groups or
the national syndicate of organized crime were involved in the assassination.
There was insufficient evidence, however, to support a finding that any
individual members were involved. The ramifications of a conspiracy
involving such individuals would be significant, although of perhaps less
import than would be the case if a group itself, the national syndicate,
for example had been involved.
The committee recognized that a finding that two gunmen fired
simultaneously at the President did not, by itself, establish that there
was a conspiracy to assassinate the President. It is theoretically possible
that the gunmen were acting independently, each totally unaware of the
other.
It was the committee's opinion, however, that such a theoretical possibility
is extremely remote. The more logical and probable inference to be drawn
from two gunmen firing at the same person at the same time and in the same
place is that they were acting in concert, that is, as a result of a conspiracy.
The committee found that, to be precise and loyal to the facts it established,
it was compelled to find that President Kennedy was probably killed as a
result of a conspiracy.
The committee's finding that President Kennedy was probably assassinated
(1) Since the Warren Commission's and FBI's investigation into the
possibility of a conspiracy was seriously flawed, their failure to
develop evidence of a conspiracy could not be given independent
weight.
(2) The Warren Commission was, in fact, incorrect in concluding
that Oswald and Ruby had no significant associations, and
therefore its finding of no conspiracy was not reliable.
(3) While it cannot be inferred from the significant associations
of Oswald and Ruby that any of the major groups examined
by the committee were involved in the assassination, a more
limited conspiracy could not be ruled out.
(4) There was a high probability that a second gunman, in fact,
fired at the President. At the same time, the committee candidly
stated, in expressing it finding of conspiracy in the Kennedy
assassination, that it was "unable to identify the other gunman
or the extent of the conspiracy.
The HSCA conclusions weren't any better than the WC conclusions.
For once you have made a factual statement. In fact, their conclusions were
much worse.
Post by mainframetech
Ands
in some instances they made false information available to avoid proof
that there was a conspiracy.
Why would they do that and then conclude it was a conspiracy?
"Why would they do that and then conclude it was a conspiracy?"
This oughta' be good. I imagine the response will be along the lines that
it was a "diversionary conspiracy", intended to misdirect attention from
the "real" one (why? never mind). You know how these people think; there's
always another conspiracy to explain things away. It's conspiracy turtles
all of the way down.
Remember, he's one of the "it was a handful of people involved" conspiracy
believers.
They sure did get around.
As usual, nothing but useless opinions, and no evidence or proof of
anything. So easy to sit by and throw in ad hominem comments while having
no idea how they were sucked in by the WCR. It's the typical kooky LN
business.

Chris
bigdog
2018-05-09 14:40:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
NATIONAL ARCHIVES
JFK Assassination Records
FINDINGS
C. The Committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result
of a conspiracy. The Committee is unable to identify the other gunman
or the extent of the conspiracy.
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of
President Kennedy
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination of
President Kennedy
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved in the
assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence
does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have
been involved
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not
involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but the available
evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members
may have been involved
• The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination
of President Kennedy
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once simply defined
conspiracy as "a partnership in criminal purposes."
(1) That definition is adequate.
Nevertheless, it may be helpful to set out a more precise definition.
If two or more individuals agreed to take action to kill President Kennedy,
and at least one of them took action in furtherance of the plan, and it
resulted in President Kennedy's death, the President would have been
assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.
The committee recognizes, of course, that while the work "conspiracy"
technically denotes only a "partnership in criminal purposes," it also, in
fact, connotes widely varying meanings to many people, and its use has
vastly differing societal implications depending upon the sophistication,
extent and ultimate purpose of the partnership.
For example, a conspiracy to assassinate a President might be a complex
plot orchestrated by foreign political powers; it might be the scheme of a
group of American citizens dissatisfied with particular governmental
policies; it also might be the plan of two largely isolated individuals with
no readily discernible motive.
Conspiracies may easily range, therefore, from those with important
implications for social or governmental institutions to those with no
major societal significance. As the evidence concerning the probability
that President Kennedy was assassinated as a result of a "conspiracy"
is analyzed, these various connotations of the word "conspiracy" and
distinctions between them ought to be constantly borne in mind. Here,
as elsewhere, words must be used carefully, lest people be misled.
A conspiracy cannot be said to have existed in Dealey Plaza
unless evidence exists from which, in Justice Holmes' words,
a "partnership in criminal purposes" may be inferred.
The Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was not
involved in a conspiracy to assassinate the President was, for example,
largely based on its findings of the absence of evidence of significant
association
(2) between Oswald and other possible conspirators and no physical evidence
of conspiracy.
(3) The Commission reasoned, quite rightly, that in the absence of association
or physical evidence, there was no conspiracy.
Even without physical evidence of conspiracy at the scene of the assassination,
there would, of course, be a conspiracy if others assisted Oswald in his efforts.
Accordingly, an examination of Oswald's associates is necessary. The Warren
Commission recognized that a first premise in a finding of conspiracy may be
a finding of association. Because the Commission did not find any significant
Oswald associates, it was not compelled to face the difficult questions posed
by such a finding. More than association is required to establish conspiracy.
There must be at least knowing assistance or a manifestation of agreement
to the criminal purpose by the associate.
[It might be suggested that because of the widely varying meanings attached
to the word "conspiracy," it ought to be avoided. Such a suggestion, however,
raises another objection--the search for euphemistic variations can lead to a
lack of candor. There is virtue in seeing something for what it is, even if the
plain truth causes discomfort.]
Page 96
It is important to realize, too, that the term "associate" may connote widely
varying meanings to different people. A person's associate may be his next
door neighbor and vacation companion, or it may be an individual he has met
only once for the purpose of discussing a contract for a murder. The Warren
Commission examined Oswald's past and concluded he was essentially a loner.
(4) It reasoned, therefore, that since Oswald had no significant associations
with persons who could have been involved with him in the assassination,
there could not have been a conspiracy. (5)
With respect to Jack Ruby, the Warren Commission similarly found no significant
associations, either between Ruby and Oswald or between Ruby and others who
might have been conspirators with him. (8) In particular, it found no connections
between Ruby and organized crime, and it reasoned that absent such associations,
there was no conspiracy to kill Oswald or the president. (9)
The committee conducted a three-pronged investigation of conspiracy in the Kennedy
assassination. On the basis of extensive scientific analysis and an analysis of the
testimony of Dealey Plaza witnesses, the committee found there was a high probability
that two gunmen fired at President Kennedy.
Second, the committee explored Oswald's and Ruby's contact for any evidence
of significant associations. Unlike the Warren Commission, it found certain of
these contacts to be of investigative significance. The Commission apparently
had looked for evidence of conspiratorial association. Finding none on the face
of the associations it investigated, it did not go further. The committee, however,
conducted a wider ranging investigation. Notwithstanding the possibility of a
benign reason for contact between Oswald or Ruby and one of their associates,
the committee examined the very fact of the contact to see if it contained
investigative significance. Unlike the Warren Commission, the committee took
a close look at the associates to determine whether conspiratorial activity in the
assassination could have been possible, given what the committee could learn
about the associates, and whether the apparent nature of the contact should,
therefore, be examined more closely.
Third, the committee examined groups--political organizations, national
governments and so on--that might have had the motive, opportunity and
means to assassinate the President.
The committee, therefore, directly introduced the hypothesis of conspiracy
and investigated it with reference to known facts to determine if it had any
bearing on the assassination.
[The Warren Commission devoted its Appendix XVI to a biography of Jack
Ruby in which his family background, psychological makeup, education and
business activities were considered. While the evidence was sometimes
contradictory, the Commission found that Ruby grew up in Chicago, the son
of Jewish immigrants; that he lived in a home disrupted by domestic strife;
(6) that he was troubled psychologically as a youth and not educated
beyond high school; and that descriptions of his temperament ranged
from "mild mannered" to "violent."(7) In 1963, Ruby was 52 and unmarried.
He ran a Dallas nightclub but was not particularly successful in business.
His acquaintances included a number of Dallas police officers who
frequented his nightclub, as well as other types of people who comprised
his clientele.]
[The committee found associations of both Ruby and Oswald that were
unknown to the Warren Commission.]
Page 97
The committee examined a series of major groups or organizations that
have been alleged to have been involved in a conspiracy to assassinate
the President. If any of these groups or organizations, as a group, had
been involved in the assassination, the conspiracy to assassinate
President Kennedy would have been one of major significance.
As will be detailed in succeeding sections of this report, the committee
did not find sufficient evidence that any of these groups or organizations
were involved in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. Accordingly,
the committee concluded, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Soviet government, the Cuban government, anti-Castro Cuban
groups, and the national syndicate of organized crime were not involved
in the assassination.
Further, the committee found that the Secret Service, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, and the Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in
the assassination.
Based on the evidence available to it, the committee could not preclude
the possibility that individual members of anti-Castro Cuban groups or
the national syndicate of organized crime were involved in the assassination.
There was insufficient evidence, however, to support a finding that any
individual members were involved. The ramifications of a conspiracy
involving such individuals would be significant, although of perhaps less
import than would be the case if a group itself, the national syndicate,
for example had been involved.
The committee recognized that a finding that two gunmen fired
simultaneously at the President did not, by itself, establish that there
was a conspiracy to assassinate the President. It is theoretically possible
that the gunmen were acting independently, each totally unaware of the
other.
It was the committee's opinion, however, that such a theoretical possibility
is extremely remote. The more logical and probable inference to be drawn
from two gunmen firing at the same person at the same time and in the same
place is that they were acting in concert, that is, as a result of a conspiracy.
The committee found that, to be precise and loyal to the facts it established,
it was compelled to find that President Kennedy was probably killed as a
result of a conspiracy.
The committee's finding that President Kennedy was probably assassinated
(1) Since the Warren Commission's and FBI's investigation into the
possibility of a conspiracy was seriously flawed, their failure to
develop evidence of a conspiracy could not be given independent
weight.
(2) The Warren Commission was, in fact, incorrect in concluding
that Oswald and Ruby had no significant associations, and
therefore its finding of no conspiracy was not reliable.
(3) While it cannot be inferred from the significant associations
of Oswald and Ruby that any of the major groups examined
by the committee were involved in the assassination, a more
limited conspiracy could not be ruled out.
(4) There was a high probability that a second gunman, in fact,
fired at the President. At the same time, the committee candidly
stated, in expressing it finding of conspiracy in the Kennedy
assassination, that it was "unable to identify the other gunman
or the extent of the conspiracy.
The HSCA conclusions weren't any better than the WC conclusions.
For once you have made a factual statement. In fact, their conclusions were
much worse.
Post by mainframetech
Ands
in some instances they made false information available to avoid proof
that there was a conspiracy.
Why would they do that and then conclude it was a conspiracy?
"Why would they do that and then conclude it was a conspiracy?"
This oughta' be good. I imagine the response will be along the lines that
it was a "diversionary conspiracy", intended to misdirect attention from
the "real" one (why? never mind). You know how these people think; there's
always another conspiracy to explain things away. It's conspiracy turtles
all of the way down.
Remember, he's one of the "it was a handful of people involved" conspiracy
believers.
They sure did get around.
As usual, nothing but useless opinions, and no evidence or proof of
anything.
As usual, the irony is running thick.
Post by mainframetech
So easy to sit by and throw in ad hominem comments while having
no idea how they were sucked in by the WCR. It's the typical kooky LN
business.
You bought all five a Doug Horne's volumes. You ought not be casting
aspersions about other people's gullibility.
mainframetech
2018-05-10 18:57:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
NATIONAL ARCHIVES
JFK Assassination Records
FINDINGS
C. The Committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result
of a conspiracy. The Committee is unable to identify the other gunman
or the extent of the conspiracy.
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of
President Kennedy
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination of
President Kennedy
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved in the
assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence
does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have
been involved
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not
involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but the available
evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members
may have been involved
• The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination
of President Kennedy
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once simply defined
conspiracy as "a partnership in criminal purposes."
(1) That definition is adequate.
Nevertheless, it may be helpful to set out a more precise definition.
If two or more individuals agreed to take action to kill President Kennedy,
and at least one of them took action in furtherance of the plan, and it
resulted in President Kennedy's death, the President would have been
assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.
The committee recognizes, of course, that while the work "conspiracy"
technically denotes only a "partnership in criminal purposes," it also, in
fact, connotes widely varying meanings to many people, and its use has
vastly differing societal implications depending upon the sophistication,
extent and ultimate purpose of the partnership.
For example, a conspiracy to assassinate a President might be a complex
plot orchestrated by foreign political powers; it might be the scheme of a
group of American citizens dissatisfied with particular governmental
policies; it also might be the plan of two largely isolated individuals with
no readily discernible motive.
Conspiracies may easily range, therefore, from those with important
implications for social or governmental institutions to those with no
major societal significance. As the evidence concerning the probability
that President Kennedy was assassinated as a result of a "conspiracy"
is analyzed, these various connotations of the word "conspiracy" and
distinctions between them ought to be constantly borne in mind. Here,
as elsewhere, words must be used carefully, lest people be misled.
A conspiracy cannot be said to have existed in Dealey Plaza
unless evidence exists from which, in Justice Holmes' words,
a "partnership in criminal purposes" may be inferred.
The Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was not
involved in a conspiracy to assassinate the President was, for example,
largely based on its findings of the absence of evidence of significant
association
(2) between Oswald and other possible conspirators and no physical evidence
of conspiracy.
(3) The Commission reasoned, quite rightly, that in the absence of association
or physical evidence, there was no conspiracy.
Even without physical evidence of conspiracy at the scene of the assassination,
there would, of course, be a conspiracy if others assisted Oswald in his efforts.
Accordingly, an examination of Oswald's associates is necessary. The Warren
Commission recognized that a first premise in a finding of conspiracy may be
a finding of association. Because the Commission did not find any significant
Oswald associates, it was not compelled to face the difficult questions posed
by such a finding. More than association is required to establish conspiracy.
There must be at least knowing assistance or a manifestation of agreement
to the criminal purpose by the associate.
[It might be suggested that because of the widely varying meanings attached
to the word "conspiracy," it ought to be avoided. Such a suggestion, however,
raises another objection--the search for euphemistic variations can lead to a
lack of candor. There is virtue in seeing something for what it is, even if the
plain truth causes discomfort.]
Page 96
It is important to realize, too, that the term "associate" may connote widely
varying meanings to different people. A person's associate may be his next
door neighbor and vacation companion, or it may be an individual he has met
only once for the purpose of discussing a contract for a murder. The Warren
Commission examined Oswald's past and concluded he was essentially a loner.
(4) It reasoned, therefore, that since Oswald had no significant associations
with persons who could have been involved with him in the assassination,
there could not have been a conspiracy. (5)
With respect to Jack Ruby, the Warren Commission similarly found no significant
associations, either between Ruby and Oswald or between Ruby and others who
might have been conspirators with him. (8) In particular, it found no connections
between Ruby and organized crime, and it reasoned that absent such associations,
there was no conspiracy to kill Oswald or the president. (9)
The committee conducted a three-pronged investigation of conspiracy in the Kennedy
assassination. On the basis of extensive scientific analysis and an analysis of the
testimony of Dealey Plaza witnesses, the committee found there was a high probability
that two gunmen fired at President Kennedy.
Second, the committee explored Oswald's and Ruby's contact for any evidence
of significant associations. Unlike the Warren Commission, it found certain of
these contacts to be of investigative significance. The Commission apparently
had looked for evidence of conspiratorial association. Finding none on the face
of the associations it investigated, it did not go further. The committee, however,
conducted a wider ranging investigation. Notwithstanding the possibility of a
benign reason for contact between Oswald or Ruby and one of their associates,
the committee examined the very fact of the contact to see if it contained
investigative significance. Unlike the Warren Commission, the committee took
a close look at the associates to determine whether conspiratorial activity in the
assassination could have been possible, given what the committee could learn
about the associates, and whether the apparent nature of the contact should,
therefore, be examined more closely.
Third, the committee examined groups--political organizations, national
governments and so on--that might have had the motive, opportunity and
means to assassinate the President.
The committee, therefore, directly introduced the hypothesis of conspiracy
and investigated it with reference to known facts to determine if it had any
bearing on the assassination.
[The Warren Commission devoted its Appendix XVI to a biography of Jack
Ruby in which his family background, psychological makeup, education and
business activities were considered. While the evidence was sometimes
contradictory, the Commission found that Ruby grew up in Chicago, the son
of Jewish immigrants; that he lived in a home disrupted by domestic strife;
(6) that he was troubled psychologically as a youth and not educated
beyond high school; and that descriptions of his temperament ranged
from "mild mannered" to "violent."(7) In 1963, Ruby was 52 and unmarried.
He ran a Dallas nightclub but was not particularly successful in business.
His acquaintances included a number of Dallas police officers who
frequented his nightclub, as well as other types of people who comprised
his clientele.]
[The committee found associations of both Ruby and Oswald that were
unknown to the Warren Commission.]
Page 97
The committee examined a series of major groups or organizations that
have been alleged to have been involved in a conspiracy to assassinate
the President. If any of these groups or organizations, as a group, had
been involved in the assassination, the conspiracy to assassinate
President Kennedy would have been one of major significance.
As will be detailed in succeeding sections of this report, the committee
did not find sufficient evidence that any of these groups or organizations
were involved in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. Accordingly,
the committee concluded, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Soviet government, the Cuban government, anti-Castro Cuban
groups, and the national syndicate of organized crime were not involved
in the assassination.
Further, the committee found that the Secret Service, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, and the Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in
the assassination.
Based on the evidence available to it, the committee could not preclude
the possibility that individual members of anti-Castro Cuban groups or
the national syndicate of organized crime were involved in the assassination.
There was insufficient evidence, however, to support a finding that any
individual members were involved. The ramifications of a conspiracy
involving such individuals would be significant, although of perhaps less
import than would be the case if a group itself, the national syndicate,
for example had been involved.
The committee recognized that a finding that two gunmen fired
simultaneously at the President did not, by itself, establish that there
was a conspiracy to assassinate the President. It is theoretically possible
that the gunmen were acting independently, each totally unaware of the
other.
It was the committee's opinion, however, that such a theoretical possibility
is extremely remote. The more logical and probable inference to be drawn
from two gunmen firing at the same person at the same time and in the same
place is that they were acting in concert, that is, as a result of a conspiracy.
The committee found that, to be precise and loyal to the facts it established,
it was compelled to find that President Kennedy was probably killed as a
result of a conspiracy.
The committee's finding that President Kennedy was probably assassinated
(1) Since the Warren Commission's and FBI's investigation into the
possibility of a conspiracy was seriously flawed, their failure to
develop evidence of a conspiracy could not be given independent
weight.
(2) The Warren Commission was, in fact, incorrect in concluding
that Oswald and Ruby had no significant associations, and
therefore its finding of no conspiracy was not reliable.
(3) While it cannot be inferred from the significant associations
of Oswald and Ruby that any of the major groups examined
by the committee were involved in the assassination, a more
limited conspiracy could not be ruled out.
(4) There was a high probability that a second gunman, in fact,
fired at the President. At the same time, the committee candidly
stated, in expressing it finding of conspiracy in the Kennedy
assassination, that it was "unable to identify the other gunman
or the extent of the conspiracy.
The HSCA conclusions weren't any better than the WC conclusions.
For once you have made a factual statement. In fact, their conclusions were
much worse.
Post by mainframetech
Ands
in some instances they made false information available to avoid proof
that there was a conspiracy.
Why would they do that and then conclude it was a conspiracy?
"Why would they do that and then conclude it was a conspiracy?"
This oughta' be good. I imagine the response will be along the lines that
it was a "diversionary conspiracy", intended to misdirect attention from
the "real" one (why? never mind). You know how these people think; there's
always another conspiracy to explain things away. It's conspiracy turtles
all of the way down.
Remember, he's one of the "it was a handful of people involved" conspiracy
believers.
They sure did get around.
As usual, nothing but useless opinions, and no evidence or proof of
anything.
As usual, the irony is running thick.
Post by mainframetech
So easy to sit by and throw in ad hominem comments while having
no idea how they were sucked in by the WCR. It's the typical kooky LN
business.
You bought all five a Doug Horne's volumes. You ought not be casting
aspersions about other people's gullibility.
Nope! WRONG again! You'll never learn. I bought only the 4th volume
of 5.

Chris
claviger
2018-05-09 14:41:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Ands in some instances they made false information available to avoid
proof that there was a conspiracy.
Why would they do that and then conclude it was a conspiracy?
"Why would they do that and then conclude it was a conspiracy?"
This oughta' be good. I imagine the response will be along the lines that
it was a "diversionary conspiracy", intended to misdirect attention from
the "real" one (why? never mind). You know how these people think; there's
always another conspiracy to explain things away. It's conspiracy turtles
all of the way down.
Remember, he's one of the "it was a handful of people involved" conspiracy
believers.
They sure did get around.
As usual, nothing but useless opinions, and no evidence or proof of
anything.
You have a gift for irony.
Post by mainframetech
So easy to sit by and throw in ad hominem comments while
having no idea how they were sucked in by the WCR.
Thanks for this free sample.
Post by mainframetech
It's the typical kooky LN business.
Chris
LNs are captivated by factual information called "evidence."
It's the intellectual impulse of their psyche.
CTs not so much.

LNs are addicted to the concept of verifiable evidence.
CTs suffer no such addiction.
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-05-10 19:22:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
NATIONAL ARCHIVES
JFK Assassination Records
FINDINGS
C. The Committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result
of a conspiracy. The Committee is unable to identify the other gunman
or the extent of the conspiracy.
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of
President Kennedy
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination of
President Kennedy
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved in the
assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence
does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have
been involved
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not
involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but the available
evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members
may have been involved
• The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination
of President Kennedy
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once simply defined
conspiracy as "a partnership in criminal purposes."
(1) That definition is adequate.
Nevertheless, it may be helpful to set out a more precise definition.
If two or more individuals agreed to take action to kill President Kennedy,
and at least one of them took action in furtherance of the plan, and it
resulted in President Kennedy's death, the President would have been
assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.
The committee recognizes, of course, that while the work "conspiracy"
technically denotes only a "partnership in criminal purposes," it also, in
fact, connotes widely varying meanings to many people, and its use has
vastly differing societal implications depending upon the sophistication,
extent and ultimate purpose of the partnership.
For example, a conspiracy to assassinate a President might be a complex
plot orchestrated by foreign political powers; it might be the scheme of a
group of American citizens dissatisfied with particular governmental
policies; it also might be the plan of two largely isolated individuals with
no readily discernible motive.
Conspiracies may easily range, therefore, from those with important
implications for social or governmental institutions to those with no
major societal significance. As the evidence concerning the probability
that President Kennedy was assassinated as a result of a "conspiracy"
is analyzed, these various connotations of the word "conspiracy" and
distinctions between them ought to be constantly borne in mind. Here,
as elsewhere, words must be used carefully, lest people be misled.
A conspiracy cannot be said to have existed in Dealey Plaza
unless evidence exists from which, in Justice Holmes' words,
a "partnership in criminal purposes" may be inferred.
The Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was not
involved in a conspiracy to assassinate the President was, for example,
largely based on its findings of the absence of evidence of significant
association
(2) between Oswald and other possible conspirators and no physical evidence
of conspiracy.
(3) The Commission reasoned, quite rightly, that in the absence of association
or physical evidence, there was no conspiracy.
Even without physical evidence of conspiracy at the scene of the assassination,
there would, of course, be a conspiracy if others assisted Oswald in his efforts.
Accordingly, an examination of Oswald's associates is necessary. The Warren
Commission recognized that a first premise in a finding of conspiracy may be
a finding of association. Because the Commission did not find any significant
Oswald associates, it was not compelled to face the difficult questions posed
by such a finding. More than association is required to establish conspiracy.
There must be at least knowing assistance or a manifestation of agreement
to the criminal purpose by the associate.
[It might be suggested that because of the widely varying meanings attached
to the word "conspiracy," it ought to be avoided. Such a suggestion, however,
raises another objection--the search for euphemistic variations can lead to a
lack of candor. There is virtue in seeing something for what it is, even if the
plain truth causes discomfort.]
Page 96
It is important to realize, too, that the term "associate" may connote widely
varying meanings to different people. A person's associate may be his next
door neighbor and vacation companion, or it may be an individual he has met
only once for the purpose of discussing a contract for a murder. The Warren
Commission examined Oswald's past and concluded he was essentially a loner.
(4) It reasoned, therefore, that since Oswald had no significant associations
with persons who could have been involved with him in the assassination,
there could not have been a conspiracy. (5)
With respect to Jack Ruby, the Warren Commission similarly found no significant
associations, either between Ruby and Oswald or between Ruby and others who
might have been conspirators with him. (8) In particular, it found no connections
between Ruby and organized crime, and it reasoned that absent such associations,
there was no conspiracy to kill Oswald or the president. (9)
The committee conducted a three-pronged investigation of conspiracy in the Kennedy
assassination. On the basis of extensive scientific analysis and an analysis of the
testimony of Dealey Plaza witnesses, the committee found there was a high probability
that two gunmen fired at President Kennedy.
Second, the committee explored Oswald's and Ruby's contact for any evidence
of significant associations. Unlike the Warren Commission, it found certain of
these contacts to be of investigative significance. The Commission apparently
had looked for evidence of conspiratorial association. Finding none on the face
of the associations it investigated, it did not go further. The committee, however,
conducted a wider ranging investigation. Notwithstanding the possibility of a
benign reason for contact between Oswald or Ruby and one of their associates,
the committee examined the very fact of the contact to see if it contained
investigative significance. Unlike the Warren Commission, the committee took
a close look at the associates to determine whether conspiratorial activity in the
assassination could have been possible, given what the committee could learn
about the associates, and whether the apparent nature of the contact should,
therefore, be examined more closely.
Third, the committee examined groups--political organizations, national
governments and so on--that might have had the motive, opportunity and
means to assassinate the President.
The committee, therefore, directly introduced the hypothesis of conspiracy
and investigated it with reference to known facts to determine if it had any
bearing on the assassination.
[The Warren Commission devoted its Appendix XVI to a biography of Jack
Ruby in which his family background, psychological makeup, education and
business activities were considered. While the evidence was sometimes
contradictory, the Commission found that Ruby grew up in Chicago, the son
of Jewish immigrants; that he lived in a home disrupted by domestic strife;
(6) that he was troubled psychologically as a youth and not educated
beyond high school; and that descriptions of his temperament ranged
from "mild mannered" to "violent."(7) In 1963, Ruby was 52 and unmarried.
He ran a Dallas nightclub but was not particularly successful in business.
His acquaintances included a number of Dallas police officers who
frequented his nightclub, as well as other types of people who comprised
his clientele.]
[The committee found associations of both Ruby and Oswald that were
unknown to the Warren Commission.]
Page 97
The committee examined a series of major groups or organizations that
have been alleged to have been involved in a conspiracy to assassinate
the President. If any of these groups or organizations, as a group, had
been involved in the assassination, the conspiracy to assassinate
President Kennedy would have been one of major significance.
As will be detailed in succeeding sections of this report, the committee
did not find sufficient evidence that any of these groups or organizations
were involved in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. Accordingly,
the committee concluded, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Soviet government, the Cuban government, anti-Castro Cuban
groups, and the national syndicate of organized crime were not involved
in the assassination.
Further, the committee found that the Secret Service, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, and the Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in
the assassination.
Based on the evidence available to it, the committee could not preclude
the possibility that individual members of anti-Castro Cuban groups or
the national syndicate of organized crime were involved in the assassination.
There was insufficient evidence, however, to support a finding that any
individual members were involved. The ramifications of a conspiracy
involving such individuals would be significant, although of perhaps less
import than would be the case if a group itself, the national syndicate,
for example had been involved.
The committee recognized that a finding that two gunmen fired
simultaneously at the President did not, by itself, establish that there
was a conspiracy to assassinate the President. It is theoretically possible
that the gunmen were acting independently, each totally unaware of the
other.
It was the committee's opinion, however, that such a theoretical possibility
is extremely remote. The more logical and probable inference to be drawn
from two gunmen firing at the same person at the same time and in the same
place is that they were acting in concert, that is, as a result of a conspiracy.
The committee found that, to be precise and loyal to the facts it established,
it was compelled to find that President Kennedy was probably killed as a
result of a conspiracy.
The committee's finding that President Kennedy was probably assassinated
(1) Since the Warren Commission's and FBI's investigation into the
possibility of a conspiracy was seriously flawed, their failure to
develop evidence of a conspiracy could not be given independent
weight.
(2) The Warren Commission was, in fact, incorrect in concluding
that Oswald and Ruby had no significant associations, and
therefore its finding of no conspiracy was not reliable.
(3) While it cannot be inferred from the significant associations
of Oswald and Ruby that any of the major groups examined
by the committee were involved in the assassination, a more
limited conspiracy could not be ruled out.
(4) There was a high probability that a second gunman, in fact,
fired at the President. At the same time, the committee candidly
stated, in expressing it finding of conspiracy in the Kennedy
assassination, that it was "unable to identify the other gunman
or the extent of the conspiracy.
The HSCA conclusions weren't any better than the WC conclusions.
For once you have made a factual statement. In fact, their conclusions were
much worse.
Post by mainframetech
Ands
in some instances they made false information available to avoid proof
that there was a conspiracy.
Why would they do that and then conclude it was a conspiracy?
"Why would they do that and then conclude it was a conspiracy?"
This oughta' be good. I imagine the response will be along the lines that
it was a "diversionary conspiracy", intended to misdirect attention from
the "real" one (why? never mind). You know how these people think; there's
always another conspiracy to explain things away. It's conspiracy turtles
all of the way down.
Remember, he's one of the "it was a handful of people involved" conspiracy
believers.
They sure did get around.
As usual, nothing but useless opinions, and no evidence or proof of
anything. So easy to sit by and throw in ad hominem comments while having
no idea how they were sucked in by the WCR. It's the typical kooky LN
business.
Chris
Once again: someone - that would be you - who defames and smears people
nearly every day has no ground to stand on to complain about "ad hominem."

And nothing I wrote is ad hominem.

Instead of spending your time making words up why not try learning what
our current words mean?
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-06 19:03:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
NATIONAL ARCHIVES
JFK Assassination Records
FINDINGS
C. The Committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result
of a conspiracy. The Committee is unable to identify the other gunman
or the extent of the conspiracy.
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of
President Kennedy
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination of
President Kennedy
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved in the
assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence
does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have
been involved
• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not
involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but the available
evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members
may have been involved
• The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination
of President Kennedy
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once simply defined
conspiracy as "a partnership in criminal purposes."
(1) That definition is adequate.
Nevertheless, it may be helpful to set out a more precise definition.
If two or more individuals agreed to take action to kill President Kennedy,
and at least one of them took action in furtherance of the plan, and it
resulted in President Kennedy's death, the President would have been
assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.
The committee recognizes, of course, that while the work "conspiracy"
technically denotes only a "partnership in criminal purposes," it also, in
fact, connotes widely varying meanings to many people, and its use has
vastly differing societal implications depending upon the sophistication,
extent and ultimate purpose of the partnership.
For example, a conspiracy to assassinate a President might be a complex
plot orchestrated by foreign political powers; it might be the scheme of a
group of American citizens dissatisfied with particular governmental
policies; it also might be the plan of two largely isolated individuals with
no readily discernible motive.
Conspiracies may easily range, therefore, from those with important
implications for social or governmental institutions to those with no
major societal significance. As the evidence concerning the probability
that President Kennedy was assassinated as a result of a "conspiracy"
is analyzed, these various connotations of the word "conspiracy" and
distinctions between them ought to be constantly borne in mind. Here,
as elsewhere, words must be used carefully, lest people be misled.
A conspiracy cannot be said to have existed in Dealey Plaza
unless evidence exists from which, in Justice Holmes' words,
a "partnership in criminal purposes" may be inferred.
The Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was not
involved in a conspiracy to assassinate the President was, for example,
largely based on its findings of the absence of evidence of significant
association
(2) between Oswald and other possible conspirators and no physical evidence
of conspiracy.
(3) The Commission reasoned, quite rightly, that in the absence of association
or physical evidence, there was no conspiracy.
Even without physical evidence of conspiracy at the scene of the assassination,
there would, of course, be a conspiracy if others assisted Oswald in his efforts.
Accordingly, an examination of Oswald's associates is necessary. The Warren
Commission recognized that a first premise in a finding of conspiracy may be
a finding of association. Because the Commission did not find any significant
Oswald associates, it was not compelled to face the difficult questions posed
by such a finding. More than association is required to establish conspiracy.
There must be at least knowing assistance or a manifestation of agreement
to the criminal purpose by the associate.
[It might be suggested that because of the widely varying meanings attached
to the word "conspiracy," it ought to be avoided. Such a suggestion, however,
raises another objection--the search for euphemistic variations can lead to a
lack of candor. There is virtue in seeing something for what it is, even if the
plain truth causes discomfort.]
Page 96
It is important to realize, too, that the term "associate" may connote widely
varying meanings to different people. A person's associate may be his next
door neighbor and vacation companion, or it may be an individual he has met
only once for the purpose of discussing a contract for a murder. The Warren
Commission examined Oswald's past and concluded he was essentially a loner.
(4) It reasoned, therefore, that since Oswald had no significant associations
with persons who could have been involved with him in the assassination,
there could not have been a conspiracy. (5)
With respect to Jack Ruby, the Warren Commission similarly found no significant
associations, either between Ruby and Oswald or between Ruby and others who
might have been conspirators with him. (8) In particular, it found no connections
between Ruby and organized crime, and it reasoned that absent such associations,
there was no conspiracy to kill Oswald or the president. (9)
The committee conducted a three-pronged investigation of conspiracy in the Kennedy
assassination. On the basis of extensive scientific analysis and an analysis of the
testimony of Dealey Plaza witnesses, the committee found there was a high probability
that two gunmen fired at President Kennedy.
Second, the committee explored Oswald's and Ruby's contact for any evidence
of significant associations. Unlike the Warren Commission, it found certain of
these contacts to be of investigative significance. The Commission apparently
had looked for evidence of conspiratorial association. Finding none on the face
of the associations it investigated, it did not go further. The committee, however,
conducted a wider ranging investigation. Notwithstanding the possibility of a
benign reason for contact between Oswald or Ruby and one of their associates,
the committee examined the very fact of the contact to see if it contained
investigative significance. Unlike the Warren Commission, the committee took
a close look at the associates to determine whether conspiratorial activity in the
assassination could have been possible, given what the committee could learn
about the associates, and whether the apparent nature of the contact should,
therefore, be examined more closely.
Third, the committee examined groups--political organizations, national
governments and so on--that might have had the motive, opportunity and
means to assassinate the President.
The committee, therefore, directly introduced the hypothesis of conspiracy
and investigated it with reference to known facts to determine if it had any
bearing on the assassination.
[The Warren Commission devoted its Appendix XVI to a biography of Jack
Ruby in which his family background, psychological makeup, education and
business activities were considered. While the evidence was sometimes
contradictory, the Commission found that Ruby grew up in Chicago, the son
of Jewish immigrants; that he lived in a home disrupted by domestic strife;
(6) that he was troubled psychologically as a youth and not educated
beyond high school; and that descriptions of his temperament ranged
from "mild mannered" to "violent."(7) In 1963, Ruby was 52 and unmarried.
He ran a Dallas nightclub but was not particularly successful in business.
His acquaintances included a number of Dallas police officers who
frequented his nightclub, as well as other types of people who comprised
his clientele.]
[The committee found associations of both Ruby and Oswald that were
unknown to the Warren Commission.]
Page 97
The committee examined a series of major groups or organizations that
have been alleged to have been involved in a conspiracy to assassinate
the President. If any of these groups or organizations, as a group, had
been involved in the assassination, the conspiracy to assassinate
President Kennedy would have been one of major significance.
As will be detailed in succeeding sections of this report, the committee
did not find sufficient evidence that any of these groups or organizations
were involved in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. Accordingly,
the committee concluded, on the basis of the evidence available to it,
that the Soviet government, the Cuban government, anti-Castro Cuban
groups, and the national syndicate of organized crime were not involved
in the assassination.
Further, the committee found that the Secret Service, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, and the Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in
the assassination.
Based on the evidence available to it, the committee could not preclude
the possibility that individual members of anti-Castro Cuban groups or
the national syndicate of organized crime were involved in the assassination.
There was insufficient evidence, however, to support a finding that any
individual members were involved. The ramifications of a conspiracy
involving such individuals would be significant, although of perhaps less
import than would be the case if a group itself, the national syndicate,
for example had been involved.
The committee recognized that a finding that two gunmen fired
simultaneously at the President did not, by itself, establish that there
was a conspiracy to assassinate the President. It is theoretically possible
that the gunmen were acting independently, each totally unaware of the
other.
It was the committee's opinion, however, that such a theoretical possibility
is extremely remote. The more logical and probable inference to be drawn
from two gunmen firing at the same person at the same time and in the same
place is that they were acting in concert, that is, as a result of a conspiracy.
The committee found that, to be precise and loyal to the facts it established,
it was compelled to find that President Kennedy was probably killed as a
result of a conspiracy.
The committee's finding that President Kennedy was probably assassinated
(1) Since the Warren Commission's and FBI's investigation into the
possibility of a conspiracy was seriously flawed, their failure to
develop evidence of a conspiracy could not be given independent
weight.
(2) The Warren Commission was, in fact, incorrect in concluding
that Oswald and Ruby had no significant associations, and
therefore its finding of no conspiracy was not reliable.
(3) While it cannot be inferred from the significant associations
of Oswald and Ruby that any of the major groups examined
by the committee were involved in the assassination, a more
limited conspiracy could not be ruled out.
(4) There was a high probability that a second gunman, in fact,
fired at the President. At the same time, the committee candidly
stated, in expressing it finding of conspiracy in the Kennedy
assassination, that it was "unable to identify the other gunman
or the extent of the conspiracy.
The HSCA conclusions weren't any better than the WC conclusions. Ands
in some instances they made false information available to avoid proof
that there was a conspiracy.
Chris
You have to remember that there were two HSCAs. The first was looking
for a conspiracy. The second was trying to cover it up.
Loading...