Tim Gratz

Charles it is no wonder you can label all those who disagree with your POV on the assassination "cognitively impaired". It is clear you have little if any conception of logical reasoning.

You wrote:

Investigations such as that being conducted into the conspiratorial murder of JFK depend for ultimate success upon, among other components, the development of testable hypotheses.

Absent the application of the creative process, or "deductive reasoning" in matters such as these, investigators have zero chance of solving "mysteries" (see below).

From Wikipedia:

In deductive reasoning, the evidence provided must be a set about which everything is known before the conclusion can be drawn. Since it is difficult to know everything before drawing a conclusion, deductive reasoning has little use in the real world.

Deductive reasoning is not even close to the "creative process". Moreover, there is no way to test your "hypothesis". It is not "pure speculation"; it is "rank speculation". And it gets us no place.

Pat, I do not have a FIRM opinion that Veciana made up the Bishop/Oswald meeting but consider these facts:

1. He did have a motive to lie.

2. The story first came out years after the assassination.

3. The story directly contradicts his earlier version of events which was essentially contemporaneous.

4. The story does involve an implausability if not an impossibility (that Bishop would allow Veciana to observe him with another agent in violation of intelligence tradecraft).

Again, I have no horse in this race: I just think there is a need to approach the Veciana story with caution, and I do not see that happening by those who want to use the story to indict Phillips as a conspirator (as I said, I think it does exactly the opposite anyway).

Just heard on tv that Sen Kennedy received an $8,000,000 advance for his memoirs.

Wonder if they will contain any new info re the murder of either of his brothers?

Pat, was not the HSCA dubious of the veracity of Veciana's story?

And re whether Veciana had a MOTIVE to make up the story, was it not clear that Veciana had had a falling out with Bishop and did not like him? If that is the case, then Veciana indeed had a motive to lie to throw Bishop in to the middle of things.

Veciana never expressly identified Phillips as Bishop. So if Phillips was indeed Bishop, how does that add any credence to Veciana's story? Assume that Phillips was Bishop and that Veciana no longer liked him so he made up a story to mix Phillips up with the assassination Again, how does the fact (if indeed it is a fact) that Phillips was Bishop offer any support for the story?

Assume that Bishop was say E Howard Hunt and Veciana came to despise Hunt and wanted to dirty him so he made up his story. How would the fact that Hunt was Bishop offer any support for the allegations of Veciana?

If Bishop (Phillips if you will) wanted Veciana to see him with LHO, well then that certainly is a complete exoneration of Bishop from any role in the assassination--whether Oswald was a guilty participant or simply a patsy.

Also let's consider that Veciana is by his own statements a xxxx. He claims that Diosdado interviewed him a few days after the assassination and asked if he had any relevant information and Veciana (per AV) told Diosdado he did not. So either Veciana lied at the very outset of the investigation (when his truth-telling could have been of great importance) or years later he lied to Fonzi.

Again, I submit that if Veciana's story is true it exonerates Phillips. But I do have doubts that it is true--and so should you.

John started this thread by making a comment in his very first post stating that the members of the Warren Commission were selected because they could be "blackmailed" into doing what the government wanted. I challenged John for any proof that any member of the WC was ever blackmailed.

To which John responded:

Your ignorance about this case never ceases to amaze me. I know you are desperate to put your name at the end of every thread but surely you could have come with a better question.

I then asked John where there was any discussion on the LBJ tapes of blackmail.

He posted 5 tapes of LBJ talking with J. Edgar Hoover (twice); Richard Russell; Charles Halleck and John McCormick.

I reviewed every single one of those tapes. None involve even a hint of blackmail.

In post #12 John stated:

The tapes show that LBJ was constantly working with Hoover in order to blackmail politicians from disclosing important information. Members of the Warren Commission was only a small part of this activity.

I challenged John at least two days ago to present any evidence whatsoever to show a tape in which LBJ and Hoover discussed blackmail. To date, not a peep from John to support that statement. As I pointed out earlier, he must be the first assassination researcher who has read "The Assassination Tapes" to discover blackmail discussion therein.

Of course what bothers me as much as John posted obviously incorrect information on a web-site to which gullible children and Dawn Meredith have access is that he had the audacity to make a snide remark about my "knowledge of the case" and to imply I had an improper motive for asking him the question I did.

"Surely you could have come with a better question. " Obviously what John meant by that was a question he could answer.

I would be interested how many members believe the man with the seizure in front of the TSBD had anything to do with the plot?

If the incident had anything to do with the plot, what was it intended to, or what did it, accomplish?

To summarize (someone can correct me if I am wrong):

1. There is no support for the Veciana story (including any kind of documentary support) other than Veciana's word.

2. If Veciana is telling the truth, then both of the following must be true:

A. Bishop violated a fundamental rule of tradecraft; and

B. Diosdado lied.

I do not necessarily take the position that Veciana invented his tale but I do submit that it is at least a possibility mertiting consideration.

To Dawn:

Obviously there is not a SINGLE FACT posted here by JS that supports his statement that LBJ and Hoover discussed using blackmail tactics against WC members.

Since you claim JS is correct, I must assume you have information that supports what he said since you clearly cannot get it from his posts.

I therefore request, since you voluntarily inserted yourself in to this subject, that YOU post a single tape that includes a discussion of blackmail. If you do not, I will draw the inference that you do not know what you are talking about.

Readers, as a caution, please do not hold your breath waiting for either John or Dawn to come up with an example of blackmail talk. I have read "The Assassination Tapes" cover to cover. Since DW does not agree with its POV, I strongly doubt she has ever read it. She is not in the habit of reading books that do not conform to her POV.

Bill, your post might suggest that Veciana is not telling the truth about seeing Veciana with Bishop.

Obviously it is a violation of tradecraft (well, presumably it is--I do not have intelligence training and I assume you do not either) for a case officer to allow one "asset" or "agent" to see him with another.

I know it is very difficult for anyone who has a POV re the assassination to look with sceptism on any reported fact that supports his or her POV, but I believe serious consideration must be given to the possibility that Veciana is not a teller of the truth.

I also know that Veciana claims that Diosdado interviewed him shortly after the assassination and Diosdado denied that. Obviously, either Veciana or Diosdado was a xxxx.

Now, to your thought: it would obviously be far less dangerous for Bishop to let Veciana observe him with LHO if LHO was on a CIA mission that did not involve the assassination of the president.

Y'all know I doubt that LHO was a shooter and now think he was a patsy.

Y'all also know I believe there was involvement in the assassination by persons supporting Castro.

But obviously I do not think LHO had a face-to-face meeting with Castro.

But is anyone aware of such a document? If it exists I suspect it would be somewhere, e.g. on the MFF website.

Charles, your post #28 has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic under discussion. Nor anything to do with the assassination, for that matter.

To any moderators who may view this post, to keep these threads from meandering, what would you think of moving any totally irrelevant post to a thread where it is relevant? Often a thread develops into a totally different line due to one person making an "off topic" post. It is not always a BAD thing, sometimes the new discussion proves to be most informative, but it does "muck up" the thread as well as making indexing by subject extremely difficult.

Great post, Thomas.

It is clear that changes in Southern opinion were brought about in part because of the courage of journalists to speak the truth no doubt often at a cost to them and their families.

Kathy, IMO the foolishness of many of the posts here does not merit a serious reply.

Dawn, do you read ANY assassination books? Talbot interviewed Veciana just last year and I discussed the interview with Talbot.

Of course, if Phillips was Bishop, and if Veciana was telling the truth about seeing Bishop with Oswald, that IMO totally exculpates Phillips from any role in the assassination.

Dawn, I some times fail to see how you can be a lawyer trained in logic.

How can you say that every other member of the Forum but me believes that the assassination tapes are relete with discussion between LBJ and JEH of using blackmail to keep WC members "in line"? Have you talked to every other Forum member? Although it may not seem like it, I do not protest every post with which I disagree. (That would be a 24 hour a day job!)I know of a very well respected Forum member who believes the thread about "Hammer Man" is just wacko, but he has never gone public with his disgust.

Is it your belief that any Forum member who has chosen not to respond to a post agrees with the content of that post? That is just absurd.

So I have two questions for JS and anyone else who defends his POV about the alleged use of blackmail on WC members:

"The Assassination Tapes" have been out for several years and I assume any SERIOUS assassination researchers have read them (although I would not bet on Dawn M). Is John then the VERY FIRST assassination researcher to discover all of this blackmail talk on the tapes?

Second question: if JEH indeed had enough "dirt" on the WC members to blackmail them, why was the WC so critical of the performance of the FBI--so critical that Hoover never talked to Warren again?

Finally, I am still waiting for John to post an example of the discussion of blackmail of WC members between Johnson and Hoover.

John, I hate to put it this bluntly, but do you actually DENY that MLK, despite his greatness, was a serial adulterer (I guess a "womanizer" might be a euphemism)?

By the way it is of course historical fact that RFK approved the wiretaps on King.

So you have read the book, Stephen?

You certainly are not saying that because you believe the Russkies were above political assassinations, are you?

Gary, with all due respect, JS has offered not a SINGLE example of blackmail--not ONE!

Helping assist the "party line" for purposes of career advancement (Spector, perhaps) is a far cry from blackmail.

Similarly, LBJ's making an appeal to Warren to head the Commission to stave off a possible nuclear war might be considered coercive in nature, but it sure ain't blackmail by anyone's definition.

Look at how LBJ persuaded Russell to join the Commission even though Russell despised Warrren. Why, Russsell even told LBJ he'd serve even if there was a Negro on the commission! OIf course LBJ did not go that far.

LBJ used all his persuasive and sometimes coercive abilities to round up his commissioners but there is no indication whatsoever that he ever used blackmail. JS was simply wrong when he so asserted.

P.S. Spector may have had political ambitions but when he was made a WC assistant counsel he was not at that time a "career politician".

John wrote (in Post 12):

The tapes show that LBJ was constantly working with Hoover in order to blackmail politicians from disclosing important information. Members of the Warren Commission was only a small part of this activity.

My challenge of course remains for John to come up with ANY tape demonstrating any such discussion between LBJ and Hoover.

John, unfortunately, the "evidence" against Martin Luther King, Jr. was not manufactured, but the effort to use it to persuade him to commit suicide was of course beneath contempt.

And that action probably does come close to blackmail!

Regarding Warren's "crying", how do we know that was not just LBJ's efforts to belittle Warren before Russell? Maybe Warren only became "teary-eyed" and LBJ exaggerated it. (In the tapes LBJ refered to Warren's weight problem as a "put down" so LBJ was not above belittling Warren.) Another possible explanation if Warren did indeed cry is if Warren realized he was being ordered by LBJ to let the killers of JFK go free, which would of course rightfully violate his sense of justice.

Why do you say that JFK's civil rights bills were compromised? I am curious about this.

Well, in my opinion, preventing a nuclear holocaust just might be important enough to "cover up". And there certainly was at that date some evidence pointing to an international conspiracy. LBJ certainly proved to be far less adventuresome toward Cuba than JFK & RFK had been.

John wrote:

Hoover gave LBJ information about something that Warren did in Mexico City. This was something that was illegal or immoral

Absolutely incredible! Hoover and LBJ had been discussing Oswald's activities in Mexico City, not Warren's That is why the "incident" in Mexico City was tied to a possible international confrontation.

John, do you seriously suggest that LBJ was talking about telling Khruschev about something Warren had done in Mexico City? Something that might cause a nuclear exchange? You certainly cannot be serious!

Lyndon B. Johnson: Warren told me he wouldn't do it under any circumstances... I called him and ordered him down here and told me no twice and I just pulled out what Hoover told me about a little incident in Mexico City and I say now, I don't want Mr. Khrushchev to be told tomorrow (censored) and be testifying before a camera that he killed this fellow and that Castro killed him... And he started crying and said, well I won't turn you down... I'll do whatever you say.

Charles wrote:

I submit that at least one comrade in arms likely was stationed at Parkland Hospital and charged with a mission directly related to "kill at all costs."

The coup d'grace.

One can subnit just about anything, I suppose, so long as there is no requirement that there be a factual basis for onr's submission.

A great story! One of the funniest true stories I have heard in a long time! I bet you have had some fun making dinner reservations!

Drago:

Anyone with reasonable access to the JFK assassination evidence who does not conclude that the crime was conspiratorial in nature is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

Piereson:

For those who weigh the actual evidence, there can be little doubt that Oswald was the assassin.

Each statement is demonstrably ludicrous.

Piereson is obviously neither cognitively impaired nor complicit in the crime, which destroy's the Drago dogma. On the other hand, Drago has weighed the evidence and has more than a little doubt that Oswald was the assassin, which destroys Piereson's proposition.